We must always remember that nothing evil descends upon Israel from the Celestial Regions, since Israel remains at all times in the category of בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, "you are children of the Lord your G–d" (Deut. 14,1). Even when G–d is angry at Israel, such as when He allows the destruction of the Temple and Israel's dispersion among the nations of the earth, this is only for Israel's good. Just as the discipline a father administers to his son is due to his love for him, so the Lord disciplines us, and it is all for our own good. Such discipline aims to refine us who are His first born among all the nations. He aims to cleanse us of the stains of sins and iniquity, and thereby cause us to return to Him in penitence, so that ultimately we will be totally pure, without any blemish. We will explain this when we discuss the portions that are usually read in public during the period between the 17th day of Tammuz and the 9th day of Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the Holy Temple. When that objective will have been reached, the prophecy contained in Psalms 30,2: "I will extol You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up and not let my enemies rejoice over me, "will be fulfilled. The word דליתנו can mean one of two things. It could be explained as coming from the root דל, "poor," or it could be an expression denoting "elevation." Poverty and troubles may be the causes that bring us a surfeit of light, over and beyond the light we enjoyed prior to our having been plunged into darkness (through exile, etc.). This great light emanates from the very darkness into which G–d has plunged us, so that thereby great enlightenment may emerge, a process similar to blood which eventually is converted into milk that is pure white. In a similar fashion, G–d turned the curse (of Bileam) into a blessing. The curse was not replaced by a blessing, but eventually became a blessing. Thus the destruction of the Temple is actually the beginning of its restoration. It was the catalyst that alone would lead to the condition of תם עונך בת ציון, "Your iniquity is expiated, Fair Zion; He will exile you no longer" (Lamentations 4,22). At that time, the great Temple, the everlasting one will be built. Because חורבן is the commencement of rebuilding, we conduct ourselves with dignity just as we did when the Temple was still standing; destruction is the true cause of an enduring Temple, i.e. the true ישוב. Halachah recognizes this phenomenon. We are culpable for certain kinds of destructive activities on the Sabbath despite the rule of כל המקלקלים פטורים, "all who ruin something on the Sabbath are not culpable" (Shabbat 106). The exceptions are destructive activities which are a necessary precondition to constructive activities, such as the tearing down of a structure in order to enable a new structure to rise in its place (compare Shabbat 31b). Our prophets have assured us that the fast-days we observe nowadays on the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av respectively will become great holidays on the reconstruction of the Temple (Zecharyah 8,19).

There is an allusion to this in the Torah: When Aaron said (concerning the next day which was the 17th of Tammuz) חג לה' מחר "tomorrow there will be a holiday to G–d" (Exodus 32,5). The term מחר, need not always refer to the day immediately following it. It may, on occasion, refer to a time in the distant future. Aaron hinted that the time would come when even a day that is a fast-day today, such as the day that Moses had occasion to smash the tablets with the Ten Commandments G–d had given him, i.e. the day after Aaron's pronouncement, would be turned into a happy occasion. It is no accident then that our calendar is arranged in such a way that the ninth day of Av always occurs on the same day of the week as the first day of Passover, the day we commemorate the Exodus from Egypt. That redemption had been the real beginning of the eventual and enduring redemption of the Jewish people. This is why the prophet Michah (7,15) says כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים "just as during the days when you came out of Egypt." The prophet introduces a vision of the redemption of the future by speaking of great miracles yet to be performed.

This statement resolves a major problem that arises from Deut. 28,63: "And as G–d once delighted in making you prosperous and many, so will He now delight in causing you to perish and in wiping you out." Our sages wonder: How can one describe G–d as actually enjoying our misery? Do we not have repeated statements describing G–d's pain and discomfiture whenever the Jewish people undergo afflictions (Megillah 10b)? Rabbi Eliezer answers that it is not G–d Himself who delights in our misfortunes, but rather He causes others to. This answer is supported by the grammatical meaning of the word "Yassis," used by the Torah. If the Torah were to describe G–d's personal delight, it would have written “Yassos” instead. Rabbi Eliezer's answer is difficult, seeing the Torah states explicitly כן ישיש עליך ה' אלוקיך, which clearly means that He Himself derives pleasure from what is happening! Why then the strange combination of ישיש with עליך? We also find the wording שוש אשיש, meaning: "I will personally rejoice" (Isaiah 61,10). Hence we cannot explain the expression ישיש as meaning something other than deriving personal joy. We also have Deut. 30,9, in which after describing the penitence of the Jewish people, the Torah says of G–d: "He will once again delight in your well-being, etc," and the expression used is “La-ssus”. We must conclude that the construction Yassis, therefore can have two meanings. On occasion it is a Hiphil, transitive, and would mean making others rejoice, whereas on other occasions it is used intransitively and means to derive personal joy.

Having said all this, we still need to explain why in Deut. 28,63 this expression is used transitively. Why should this word have different meanings? According to what we have written previously, we can understand this quite well, seeing that both meanings are really part of the same derivation. When G–d causes the other nations to delight in our sufferings, He causes us to turn back to Him so that in the end He can personally delight in our spiritual and physical rehabilitation. The curse then develops into a blessing.

As a confirmation we need only look at Lamentations 3,31/32: כי אם הוגה ורחם. It should really have said וירחם, "He will pardon. "The plain meaning of the full verse is: "For the Lord does not reject forever, but first afflicts, then pardons (displays mercy) in His abundant kindness, for He does not willfully bring grief." The homiletical meaning is that the very הוגה is the cause of the רחמים.

By following this approach we can also understand the Midrash in Eichah Rabbati, 2,6, on Lamentations 2,3: "He has cut down in blazing anger כל קרן ישראל, all the might of Israel." The Midrash comments that there are ten קרנות, i.e. "strongholds" termed Keren. Abraham is one such קרן; he is referred to in Isaiah 5,1, as כרם היה לידידי בקרן בן שמן, "My beloved had a vineyard on a fruitful hill." Isaac is also known as a קרן, in Genesis 22,13 נאחז בסבך בקרניו, "caught in the thicket by its horns." We find a reference to Joseph as קרן in Deut. 33,17 where his קרן is described as וקרני ראם קרניו וכו' "He has horns like the horns of a wild ox." Moses is referred to as קרן in Exodus 34,29: כי קרן עור פניו, "for the skin of his face emitted rays (like a horn)." The Torah is also described as קרן, since we read in Chabakuk 3,4: קרנים מידו לו, "it gives off rays of light in every direction." Priesthood is referred to as קרן, in Psalms 112,9, קרנו תרום בכבוד, "his horn is exalted in honor." (Possibly the word כבוד, used here which is also used in connection with the garments of the High Priest, is the reason the Midrash interprets this verse as alluding to the priesthood.) The Levites collectively are referred to as קרן in Chronicles 1 25,5: כל אלה בנים להימן חוזה המלך בדברי האלוקים להרים קרן. [The chapter traces the genealogy of the tribe of Levi Ed.] Prophecy is called קרן, in Samuel I 2,6: רמה קרני בה'. (Hannah prophesies about Samuel's future). The Holy Temple is also described as קרן, as in Psalms 22,22: מקרני רמים עניתני. Israel itself is also described as קרן in Psalms 148,14: וירם קרן לעמו. Some people add that the קרן of the Messiah should also be included, per Samuel I 2,10: ויתן עוז למלכו, וירם קרן משיחו. The Midrash continues that all of these "horns" were placed on the heads of the Jewish people, but they forfeited them due to their sins. This is alluded to in the verse we quoted earlier from Lamentations 2,3 that in His blazing anger G–d cut down every קרן of Israel. These "horns" subsequently were given to the Gentile nations, as is written in Daniel 7,20: ועל קרניא עשר די בראשה ואחרי די סלקת ונפלו מן קדמיה. "About the ten horns which were on its head, and the other one which came and fell." In verse 24 of the same chapter Daniel speaks about ten kings and kingdoms arising from the fallen horns. Provided Israel repents, G–d will restore these horns to their rightful place viz. Psalms 75,11: "And I will cut off all the horns of the wicked, but the horns of the righteous will be lifted up." This refers to the horns that the “Righteous One of the world,” i.e. G–d, had cut off. When is the time that He will restore them to their righful position? It is when G–d will raise the horn of His anointed: "He will raise the horn of His anointed" (Samuel I 2,10). Thus far the Midrash in Eychah Rabbati.

According to this Midrash G–d would hand over the Priesthood, the Holy Temple, and the institution of the Levites to the nations of the world after Israel had forfeited those "horns!" Do those nations then possess a Holy Temple? Are there among them people who perform the duties of the Priesthood, etc.? The Midrash means that our attainment of these "horns" will a consequence of our prior dispersal in exile among the nations. Only through experiencing the humbling and refining experience of exile can we eventually experience the great light in store for us in our future. This is similar to what Rabbi Joshua in Sanhedrin 97 said to Rabbi Eliezer, that if Israel will not do penitence (of their own volition) they will not experience redemption, but G–d will allow a ruler to rule them whose decrees will match those of Haman in cruelty, and who will lead them back to being loyal to G–d.

In interpreting the verse in Lamentations 4,22: תם עונך בת ציון, "your iniquity is expiated, daughter of Zion," Rabbi Chelbo quoting Rabbi Yochanan said that Pharaoh's withdrawing his "ring" (protection) from the people of Israel while the latter were in Egypt, was better for them than the forty years Moses kept prophesying for them in the desert, since only the former resulted in redemption whereas the latter did not. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that the withdrawal of Ahasverus' ring was better than the six hundred thousand prophets who prophesied in the days of Elijah, because the former resulted in repentance and subsequent redemption. The Rabbis also said that the scroll of Lamentations was better for Israel than the forty years the prophet Jeremiah spent predicting the destruction of the Temple, since the former resulted in repentance. This is the meaning of the above mentioned verse in Lamentations that Israel's sins have been expiated (Eichah Rabbah, end of fourth chapter). All of the foregoing is an example of Judges 14,14: ומעז יצא מתוק, "out of the strong came something sweet." I have elaborated on the meaning of this elsewhere.

Concerning the above mentioned matters, the Torah wrote in Deut. 30,1: "It will be when all these things befall you, the blessing and the curse that I have set before you, and you take them to heart amidst the various nations to which the Lord your G–d has banished you, and you return to the Lord your G–d, etc." Why did the Torah see fit to mention הברכה, "the blessing," in that verse? All that needed to be mentioned is the curse which eventually would lead to repentance! We therefore see, that the Torah wanted to make the point that the curse itself is really a dimension of the blessing. This is parallel to the verse in Nechemiah 13,2: ויהפוך אלוקינו הקללה לברכה"" Our G–d turned the curse into a blessing." Bileam, who had come prepared to curse, was forced to bless instead. The angel who delights in evil was forced to give his consent to the blessings; the accuser was turned into an advocate for the defense.

There was a cosmic necessity for Bileam to become the instrument of G–d in this case. He, after all, was the prophet of the Gentile nations, and he was the spiritual head of all the nations.

When our sages commented on Deut. 34,10 "that there never did arise in Israel a prophet like Moses etc.," they said that among the other nations there did arise someone comparable to Moses, i.e. Bileam (compare Sifri on that verse). It is totally absurd to believe that a money-grabbing magician such as Bileam should have been equated by our sages with Moses! Surely they did not mean to compare Moses to Bileam as being equal or similar in holiness, character qualities, relationship with G–d, etc!

The Zohar (Sullam edition Balak page 64), is very explicit in describing Bileam's low character, giving many examples of his appearing to credit himself with great insights and thereby misleading those who considered him a great Seer. Here are a few quotes from that passage in the Zohar "This wicked man took great pride in claiming to know everything. By doing so he misled people into believing that he had attained a very high stature. He blew up every little achievement of his. Whatever he said concerned the domain of the forces of impurity. He spoke the truth, literally speaking. Anyone listening to him would form the impression that he was the most outstanding of the prophets of the world. When he described himself as שומע אמרי קל, ויודע דעת עליון, "privy to the words of G–d, aware of the knowledge of the Supreme One," the impression is formed that he spoke about the G–d in Heaven, whereas in fact he was privy only to אמרי קל, as distinct from אמרי הקל. Had the Torah added the letter ה, we would have credited Bileam with being addressed directly by G–d. As it is, he communicated with the forces of טומאה, forces considered by the nations as deities, though they really were אל אחר, forces of nature that are no better than idols. When he speaks about knowing the דעת עלין, the listener forms the impression that Bileam claimed to be privy to G–d's range of knowledge, whereas in fact he was privy only to the עליון "the highest" of the forces of impurity that G–d has allowed to govern part of nature. Bileam, technically speaking, spoke truthfully, since he was privy to a power which in its field was considered supreme. However, the listener did not know that this power had no independent authority at all but was only an agent of G–d. When Bileam described himself in 24,4 as אשר מחזה שדי יחזה "someone who has visions of G–d, a reader would assume that this was really so, that Bileam could see what no one else could see. However the term מחזה שדי refers to a branch of the three branches that originate in the name Shaddai, corresponding to the three letters in that word. He would have some access to the domains of חסד, גבורה, תפארת. The Zohar continues that עמלק employed these three spiritual domains in his attack against Israel, and that Balak, whose name contained the last two letters of עמלק, felt encouraged that it would help him in his confrontation with the Patron of Israel.

Thus Bileam is not perceived by the Zohar as having even come close to "prophetic parity" with Moses, as suggested by the statement in the Sifri.

I am nonetheless inclined to go more deeply into the meaning of that statement in the Sifri and to take it literally. We will find that it is quite possible to understand it. In this connection we need to consider a statement that we find in Baba Batra 14b, that "Moses wrote his book and that of Bileam and Job." How are we to understand this? Is there a single letter in the Torah that is not "Torah," not of Divine origin? If so, what could the Talmud have had in mind with that statement? Rashi comments on this: "His prophecies and parables, even though Moses did not need to, and the Torah would have been complete without them." I have not understood this comment of Rashi. All the stories in the Torah e.g. the slaying of Abel by Cain, are all at first glance not "necessary" parts of the Torah, and yet they are all part of the fabric of תורת השם תמימה, "that the Torah of G–d is complete, perfect", i.e. there is nothing in it that is redundant. Our sages usually point to Genesis 36,12: "and Timnah was the concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz" as an example that there is no word in the Torah that is not of enduring and meaningful significance. Sanhedrin 99, even concludes that we are to learn from this that it is better to be a lowly maidservant to a nation that has blood ties with Israel than to be a Lady in a family that has no ties with the Jewish people. Timnah the daughter of a nobleman, had chosen to demote herself in order to be associated with Abraham's descendants in some way. This verse in the Torah is equal in importance to the "Hear O Israel the Lord our G–d the Lord is One."

In order to understand this passage in the Talmud, let us begin with a short introduction: We know that there are two paths that emanate from the עולם הבריאה. One is called the סטרא אחרא, the path that contains everything that is impure as distinct from the "right" path. When tracing both paths upwards (in the direction of the ultimate spiritual source), we note that they merge. In the last analysis they both originate from קדושה, holiness. We normally refer to the "correct path" as the סטרא דימינא, the "right" path, whereas the other path is known as סטרא דשמאלא, the "left" path. Moses proceeded along the "right" path, seeing he possessed all the virtues a prophet is capable of possessing. Bileam however, pursued the path of impurity, employing charms and other oracles. He managed to spiritually wrestle his way upwards close to the Holy Source, "higher" than any other prophets. However, he thereupon descended and defiled himself by resorting to all kinds of magic. Therefore it is fair to say of him that just as Moses, he קם, "arose," though once he had come close to the source, he failed to become suffused with its sanctity. Whereas the holiness that Moses "touched," permeated him, Bileam defiled himself. Moses had achieved what Bileam had achieved, whereas Bileam had not achieved what Moses had achieved.. He kept distancing himself further away from that Holy Source.

Now we understand what is meant by the Talmud that "Moses wrote his own book and the book of Bileam." Do not err to think that only because G–d taught him did Moses reach levels Bileam had reached, and that his learning was vicarious, second hand. Rather, Moses had attained the levels Bileam had attained by his own independent intellectual and spiritual efforts. The Talmud tells us that Moses learned all this as an experience, not like we learn history, i.e. from books describing what happened once to someone else.. Whatever Bileam had been able to work out by himself concerning Israel's future, Moses had been able to work out without special assists from G–d. What the Talmud means is that actually the whole portion of Bileam could just as easily have been recorded by Moses without instruction from G–d. There would have been no need for Bileam to pronounce blessings to enable us to learn all the lessons that our sages derive from them. The only "novelty" in the whole phenomenon is the fact that the קטיגור, "counselor for the prosecution," turned into a סניגור, "attorney for the defense." This is something that could only have occurred through Bileam, since he was Moses' counterpart among the nations. We have now illustrated the statement we set out from. The סטרא אחרא is bound to become a source of blessing if one only traces it far enough towards its holy source. We have described this earlier as "blood turning into milk." It follows (again as we have tried to describe earlier) that it is the Gentile nations who are in reality the source of Israel's refinement and consequently of its redemption.

Now we understand the meaning of Proverbs 27,6: "Wounds inflicted by a loved one are long lasting; the kisses of an enemy are profuse." Taanit 20a explains this verse by saying that the curse that Achiyah Hashiloni cursed Israel with (Kings I 14,15), was better (more beneficial) than all the blessings that Bileam conferred upon it. Achiyah cursed Israel by referring to it as a "reed in water." Just as such a reed can stand in water, its stem can grow back and develop many roots, so that all the winds of the world will not uproot it, but it will bend in the direction the wind blows until the wind has stopped blowing and resume its original posture, so Israel will recover from such storms. Not so the blessings of Bileam the wicked. He compares Israel to the cedar (24,6). A cedar cannot survive in water, its roots are few, its trunk does not grow back once it has been cut. Even though it is strong enough to resist all the storms in the world, a South wind will dislocate it immediately. Comparing Israel to a cedar was not really a blessing. Not only this, but if need be, one can make a quill from the reed to write a ספר תורה, which cannot be done with the remains of a cedar. So far the Talmud on our subject.

We must ask why Rashi comments on the comparison of Israel to the cedars by saying that these are not Bileam's words at all, but that the שכינה inserted those words! Moreover, all the comparisons drawn by Bileam in these blessings such as the rivulets etc. in 24,6, are all viewed by the Aggadah as having been said by the שכינה! For instance, when Bileam described Israel as similar to גנות, "like gardens," the שכינה is supposed to have added עלי נהר, "along the river." The reason the שכינה added these variations was to rob the previous term of its possible negative connotation. This is a wonderful explanation and enables us to solve a different difficulty, namely the comment of Rashi that neither the honey nor the sting of the hornet is welcome, (based on Bamidbar Rabbah 20,10: לא מדובשך ולא מעוקצך, "spare me your honey and your sting!") How is this an appropriate comparison seeing that in the Midrash the positive, i.e. the honey is mentioned first, whereas Bileam mentioned the negative aspects first? The answer must be that the whole comment is addressed to Bileam's blessings. The Midrash draws our attention to the fact that each blessing contained a deliberate, though not obvious, negative side. This is why the Midrash said that G–d told Bileam, who had offered to bless Israel, seeing that he had not been allowed to curse them, that just as one does not want to have anything to do with the hornet, preferring to forego its honey, so Bileam should not trouble himself to bless Israel.

If that is so, however, how did Bileam dare transgress what G–d had forbidden him? Did not G–d say to him that he could only say what He would put in his mouth (22,35)? Why did Bileam not add the words עלי מים, "by the waters," himself? Why did the שכינה have to add these words? Another difficulty is that if Bileam thought of the damaging effect of a South wind on cedars, why did the Midrash emphasize the positive aspects first, namely that the cedars can withstand all other winds? Another problem is why the Midrash mentions that one can make quills to write a ספר תורה with the remains of the stem of a reed?

Altogether, the impression one forms from the Midrash is that the blessings of Bileam were altogether no blessings unless amended! Yalkut Shimoni claims on the other hand, that the blessings of Bileam were greater than the ones Jacob bestowed on his children on his death bed, and even greater than the blessing Moses blessed the children of Israel with before he died! It is quite true that Bileam's blessings surpassed all the other blessings. This is simply because not only were his blessings fulfilled, but also his curses were converted into blessings as explained earlier. The very fact that Bileam's "blessings" had been phrased so that they could be curses in disguise, i.e. that he himself had pronounced curses in an oblique fashion, enabled these curses to be converted into blessings for Israel, thus giving each blessing an extra dimension not contained in the blessings of either Jacob or Moses. All of this occurred according to G–d's will.

It may well be that this is what Rashi meant when he described the שכינה as supplying extra attributes to each of these blessings. When Rashi comments in Sanhedrin 106, that a בת קול, a "heavenly echo," added the words נטע השם in 24,6, this need not be meant literally, but refers to a prophetic insight granted Bileam by G–d at the time, which he was forced to express. Since it had been his original intention to employ the formula of blessing as a curse, the term בת קול used by Rashi is quite appropriate. Just as an echo is a follow-up to the original sound, so these words were "follow-ups" to the first part of the blessing. In the discussion of the Talmud of Bileam's blessings on folio 105, Rabbi Eleazar says that the words וישם השם דבר בפי בלעם, refers to an angel who instructed Bileam, whereas Rabbi Yonathan says that G–d put a fishhook in Bileam's mouth, i.e. He had to pronounce this prophecy whether he liked it or not.

G–d wanted him to wait a little after saying the word כארזים, "like cedars," so that it would be noticed that it was meant as a curse, not a pious wish. [The tone sign Tipcha, which is a tone sign that separates from what follows, is somewhat unexpectedly under the word ארזים, supports the thesis of the author. Ed.] It also hints at the "separation" of Israel from its roots, i.e. exile, and that is why the Talmud in Taanit says that Achiyah's curse, which did not envisage separation of the Jewish people from its homeland was more beneficial than Bileam's blessing. The South wind, which is capable of "dislocating" the cedar is a reference to Israel in exile, i.e. the cedar that has been "dislocated." The dislocation is for Israel's good however, enabling it to become refined, cleansed from sin. We see the curse as a coin with two sides, one of which contains a great blessing. All of this is predicted in the Torah's "reproofs," in Leviticus 26,44: "Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or spurn them, etc." This is the blessing in disguise that we have talked about.

Now Bileam concludes the blessing with the words עלי מים, words of which G–d fully approves, and he grants Him Divine insight, so that he can say that nothing will actually destroy such a cedar. A cedar planted on the waters is superior to a reed that stands in the water, since it is far stronger. It is impervious to all winds, whereas the reed is bent over by most winds. This is a clear allusion to the fact that something that was once subjected to a curse emerges much stronger than before it had been cursed. Even while the curse, i.e. exile, was the fate of the Jewish people, only the South wind, could affect it; other winds did not prove harmful.

The "winds" mentioned in the Midrash are references to the dispersal of Israel among the nations. We know this from Zecharyah 2,10: "For I have scattered you like the four winds." Rashi on Genesis 25,21, explains the word ויעתר to mean repeating, multiplying; he cites Proverbs 27,26: "the kisses of the enemy are profuse," in support of this. We already said that this verse in Proverbs alludes to the curses turning into blessings, i.e. the "enemy" showers you with kisses. Another thoroughly treacherous aspect of Bileam comparing Israel to cedars prior to adding the words עלי מים, is that the ארזים are always a symbol for the Patriarchs. The merit of the Patriarchs has always stood by Israel and saved it from destruction. Bileam wanted them to rely on that merit, thus make them feel they did not have to repent while in exile. This is why he emphasizes "there is no harm in sight for Jacob, no woe in view for Israel" (23,21). By lulling Israel into complacency with these flattering comments he hoped to prevent Israel from returning to G–d in penitence. If someone truly loves a person, has his real interests at heart, he will reprove him rather than flatter him, and will draw attention to any blemish such a person may suffer from. The word ארזים, cedars, also has a connotation of stubbornness as we know from Taanit 20b, that "a person should strive to be soft as a reed and not hard like a cedar. The remedy to such hardness lies in one's humbling oneself." Words of Torah are compared to water, since just as water starts in a high place and flows downwards, i.e. water is content to "lower" itself, so words of Torah which originate in high places cannot be fulfilled except by people who are first prepared to humble themselves (Taanit 7a). In light of the foregoing, the comparison to "cedars" is a great blessing indeed. It means that we ourselves are now comparable to the Patriarchs who in turn had been compared to the "cedars of Lebanon."

To return to the subject that it was a cosmic necessity that the cursed Bileam pronounce these blessings rather than anyone else. In order to be converted into a blessing they first had to be intended as a curse. When Bileam claimed that he wished himself an end like that of the Jewish people, ותהי אחריתי כמוהו, he indicated awareness that though his "beginnings" had been similar to that of the Jewish people, namely holy, his end was not likely to be. Hence he prayed that in spite of everything he had done he should be rehabilitated after death (23,10).

There is another mystical dimension namely that only Bileam was the one who could turn curse into blessing. Just as he was the head of the nations who suffer from being accursed, so he was simultaneously the head of the tribes of the Jewish people who are blessed. This is why only his curse could become the source of the most effective blessings the Jewish people ever received.

The Tziyoni explains it thus: Numbers 22,24, describes the she-ass of Bileam being hemmed in through גדר מזה וגדר מזה, "a fence on one side and a fence on the other side." Rashi describes these fences as ordinary fences. The Kabbalists, however, believe that the wicked also experience migration of their souls, re-incarnations, etc. They base this on both Jacob and Laban building a גל, stone heap, when they part from one another the last time in Genesis 31,52. The word עד used there is an allusion to עדות השם נאמנה, that the testimony of G–d is true, and that יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה that "the witnesses have to be the first to carry out the judgment by their own hands" (Deut. 17,7). We have the example of the weasel and the pit in Taanit 8.[The story about the weasel and the pit: A young man had rescued a maiden from a pit, and they had promised to be married to each other, and had selected witnesses to confirm their agreement, namely the pit, and a weasel which happened to be passing at that moment. After a while, the young man forgot about his promise and married another woman and had children by her. His oldest son died by falling into a pit, whereas the second one was torn to shreds by a weasel. At that point the young man realized why this tragedy had befallen him and he returned to the girl whom he had promised to wed.] So far the Tziyoni. He means to say that Jacob and Laban concluded a covenant not to cross that pile of stones with hostile intentions towards the other, and that they would consider that pile of stones as witness to their covenant. The stone fence that the she-ass became aware of, was that very יגר שהדותא, as Laban had called that stone-heap in Genesis 31,47. The she-ass squeezed the leg of Bileam, the re-incarnation of Laban, since the "hands of the witnesses have to be the first ones to execute the judgment" if someone violated the covenant. According to Sanhedrin 105a, בעור, Bileam's father is not really Bileam's father but "בן" in that context means that he was also identical with כושן רשעתיים, who in turn is identical with לבן הארמי. Incidentally, the first letters of these names spell כלב, dog. בעור, is supposed to allude to the fact that that man בא על הבעיר, had sexual relations with a beast. He was also called כושן רשעתיים, to indicate he had committed two wrongs against Israel; one in the time of Jacob, the other during the reign of the Judges. What was his real name? לבן הארמי. So far the quote from Sanhedrin 105a. The Talmud then considers Bileam identical with (or rather a re-incarnation of) Laban. The other comments all pertain to the characteristics of Bileam, who had been accused on the same folio of having used his she-ass as his sexual outlet. When Rashi writes on that folio that the word בעור refers to Bileam's father, this is clearly some printer's error, since the same line of Rashi concludes by calling כושן רשעתיים as identical with Laban. The Targum Yonathan also hints in Deut.26,5: ארמי אובד אבי וירד מצרימה, "my father was a wandering Arami who descended to Egypt," that the meaning is that Bileam and Laban were identical, i.e. one was the re-incarnation of the other. It means that because of two wrongs committed by Laban, Jacob, i.e. the Jewish people, wound up in exile in Egypt. The two wrongs were that at first Laban tried to destroy Jacob and his family; later, having moved to Egypt, he became an advisor to Pharaoh advising him on how to harm the Jewish people. Sanhedrin there explains that Pharaoh had three such advisors, namely Yitro, Bileam and Job. Bileam was the one who advised killing Moses outright as a baby, since one could not be sure he would not be the saviour of the Jews. The Targum Yonathan spells this out on Numbers 22,5. From all the foregoing, we see that the entire family of Jacob originated with Bileam (the latter having been Laban the father of all of Jacob's wives). This lineage was reinforced further through Balak who as king of Moab was also the ancestor of Ruth who became the great grandmother of King David, who embodies everything that Israel is proud of and looks up to including the Messiah.

The Zohar (Sullam edition page 92), puts it as follows: When Balak in 22,6 referred to Israel as כי עצום הוא ממני, "for it is mightier than I;" how did Balak know this? Had he ever fought a battle with Israel? – The answer is that the wicked Balak was also very wise and foresaw the distant future. He realized that David who would be descended through Ruth the Moabite would be a mighty and heroic king, and would perform many deeds of valor on the battlefield. He would also defeat Moab and vanquish it. This is why he used the expression עצום הוא, "he, (singular) is mighty." He referred to the one king who would be descended from Ruth who would be mighty. His whole point was that David as his descendant, would derive power directly from him, Balak – ממני.

Since several fine points in this portion have become clearer through what I have written so far, I will add a few more points:

When we look at the first two verses, 20 and 21, we wonder why Balak referred to Israel by three expressions, i.e. ישראל, העם, בני ישראל. A little while later, in verse 4, he uses yet another description of Israel – קהל.

Another difficulty is the whole question of Bileam cursing the people. What possible difference could it make to G–d if Bileam did or did not curse Israel, seeing that G–d Himself had blessed the nation with peace? – Let us look at the way the Talmud in Berachot 7a, and in Sanhedrin 105b, treats the statement by the prophet Michah 6,5: "My people, remember what Balak king of Moab plotted against you; and how Bileam son of Be'or responded to him. Recall your passage from Shittim to Gilgal, and you will become aware of the gracious acts of the Lord." In response to the question of what is meant by the "gracious acts of the Lord," Rabbi Eliezer said that Israel should recognize how kindly G–d had dealt with them by not being angry at Israel during the period Bileam had been called to curse them. Had G–d at that time allowed Himself to be angry at Israel, not a shred of it would have been left. This is why Bileam begins by saying: "How can I curse where G–d has not seen fit to curse, how can I damn whom G–d has not damned" (23,8)! According to Berachot 7a Bileam knew the exact moment when G–d was angry. He had wanted to capitalize on the precise moment of the presence of the attribute of Justice within the greater presence of the attribute of Mercy. During that period however, G–d did not allow the attribute of Justice to accompany any part of the attribute of Mercy. Hence Bileam felt stymied This is his lament, "how can I curse when G–d failed to allow for such a possibility?" According to Tosaphot on that folio, Bileam would have been able to condense all his curses by uttering the word כלם "destroy them," into the "רגע," moment, that G–d's anger would have lasted. If however, we say that G–d converted the curses into blessings, the situation becomes quite different. He re-arranged the letters in that word to read “מלך,” and that would have been the reversal of what Tosaphot suggested he could have done. This is the deeper meaning of 23,21: ותרועת מלך בו, "and their king's acclaim is in its midst." As a result, there is no need to say that G–d reversed His usual method of allowing a minor presence of the opposite attribute when another attribute was in the ascendancy. The reason that we do not accept the premise of Ibn Ezra that once G–d's זעם, anger, is active there is no trace of mercy, is that the Torah itself describes G–d as practicing justice and mercy at one and the same time in Exodus 15,6: "Your right hand O Lord, glorious in power, Your right hand O G–d, shatters the foe." While G–d metes out justice to Israel's enemies, He practices mercy with His people. Rashi says specifically that the same right hand, i.e. the same attribute which saves Israel, annihilates its enemies.

Why does Bileam keep changing the terms he uses for curses such as קבה, ארה, זעם, and does not conform to the request made of him by Balak his employer? Furthermore, what do קסמים, charms, have to do with prophecy? Once Bileam boasts of employing his prophetic powers, why does he consult קסמים?

Why did Bileam say: "I cannot contravene the word of G–d to do little or a lot? If he could not do a "little" against the command of G–d, surely he would not be able to do "a lot?"

When Bileam repeats to Balak that he had told his messengers: "if Balak were to give me a house full of silver and gold, I could not transgress the word of G–d to do good or evil," why the change from "little" and "a lot", to "good" and "evil" (compare 24,13, and 22,18)?

Another question is why the second set of Balak's messengers, the ones who were supposedly of higher rank than the first, are called עבדים, servants, whereas the first delegation is called שרים, princes, though they were of inferior rank to the subsequent delegation (compare 22,13 with 22,18)?

Most difficult of all is the problem how G–d could become angry at Bileam for accompanying the messengers of Balak, seeing He Himself had authorized him to go in 22,20? Our sages in Sanhedrin 105a conclude חוצפא אפילו כלפי שמיא מהניא, "insolence pays even if it is directed against Heaven."

We must also be perplexed by G–d's enquiry of Bileam in 22,20: "If these men came to call you, you may go with them." Surely G–d knew full well why these men had come; why pretend that He did not? Rashi comments that G–d had intended to deceive Bileam. However, we fail to see how this comment is relevant to the words.

There cannot be a question of G–d intentionally misleading anyone. What is frequently the case is that someone deceives himself. Hosea 14,10, writes: כי ישרים דרכי השם, וצדיקים ילכו בם, ופושעים יכשלו בם, "For the ways of the Lord are upright, and the just walk on them, whereas the sinners will stumble on them." The prophet is quite explicit in placing the blame on the sinners, not on G–d or His ways. Here too G–d intended to enter into dialogue with Bileam when He asked him about "these men." Bileam the wicked, jumped to the conclusion that G–d did not know everything, else He would not have asked, and used this to try and deceive G–d. Rashi's comment here that G–d wanted to deceive Bileam seems to contradict his comment on Genesis 3,9, when G–d asks Adam: "Where are you?," and Rashi says that G–d knew full well where Adam was, but wanted to enter into dialogue with him without frightening him by punishing him without preamble. One must understand therefore, that when Rashi wrote on our verse: "in order to mislead him," the subject of "him" is not G–d but the invitation of these men to curse Israel. The invitation of Balak was the מכשול, the stumbling block which caused Bileam's sins to deceive him into thinking he could deceive G–d. He did not understand the truth of G–d's intentions when He asked him rhetorically: "who are these men?" This whole incident is similar to one recorded in the Talmud Yuma 87a, when the great scholar Rav went to the house of a butcher on the eve of the Day of Atonement in order to give that butcher a chance to apologise for something that had occurred between them. This was unusual, since the butcher should have come to Rav to beg his forgiveness for the wrong he had committed. On the way he met Rabbi Hunna his disciple who asked Rav where the latter was going. When told that he was on his way to reconciliation with a certain butcher, Rabbi Hunna said "Rav went to kill a person," for he could not imagine that a butcher who had insulted Rav should not be punished. When Rav arrived at that butcher's he found him busy cutting off the head of an animal. The butcher raised his eyes and exclaimed in wonderment "you are Abba! Go away! I do not want to have anything to do with you!" At that moment a bone from that animal hit the butcher in his neck causing his death. Therefore, if the butcher died, it was his obstinacy in refusing to accept Rav's offer at reconciliation that made him a candidate for death, since in such circumstances the Day of Atonement would not protect him from the judgment due him. Rabbi Hunna's having said that his teacher was on his way to kill someone certainly was not the cause of this butcher's death. The same explanation applies to Rashi's comment in Parshat Korach, 16,6 that the incense contained a lethal poison. Mistaking the function of incense would lead to the death of the person who willfully abused that instrument of service to G–d. G–d's intent in asking Bileam was fair.

Balak and Bileam were both very clever and learned people who used their knowledge to evil purpose. They were both well aware of the close relationship that existed between Israel and its G–d. Balak was even wiser than Bileam. He was privy to the great chain of the dynasty of David and how it would eventually result in the Messiah's descent from David. He knew that this very strength of Israel was rooted in himself, i.e. עצום ממני, as we have outlined. The reason he was afraid was that he realized that purity can emerge from an impure source, that the good can have an evil source, in order that the מלאך רע would have to say אמן, as we have explained above. This is why his mind worked overtime to devise a plan to sever this close relationship between Israel and its G–d. He wanted to reverse the relationship. He thought that if he were to succeed all the deeds of valour that would be performed by David in the future would accrue to his own people instead of to Israel. This is why the paragraph starts by telling us "Balak son of Tzippor saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite." The three names by which Balak refers to Israel represent three distinct merits or advantages of Israel. He called them עם, because they were very numerous, since G–d had blessed them to become as "numerous as the stars in the sky" (Genesis 22,17). The description בני ישראל, implies an even closer relationship with G–d. When Balak referred to Israel as ישראל he described their highest level, the level that we hope to attain when we all qualify to be the elite. The word בני, "sons of," implies that we are only branches of something just as children are branches, offshoots of their parents. ישראל on the other hand is the trunk that these offshoots come from, the place in which the image of the original Israel, the fighter for G–d, our patriarch, is engraved, the throne of G–d Himself. That is the source from which all souls are "hewn" as from a quarry. As mentioned, Balak was well aware of the cosmic forces and the role Israel played in that constellation. In order to loosen the bond between Israel and G–d he wanted Bileam to curse them at the precise moment in time when G–d is "angry." The significance of a curse is to reinforce the voice of the accuser who brings Israel's iniquities to G–d's attention at that moment when G–d allows Himself to become angry, i.e. the רגע של זעם. Since Bileam was a יודע דעת עליון, privy to G–d's mind, he knew the right time and he also knew how to present an unfavorable picture of someone. He was the ideal man for this task. Balak had a vision of an imminent sin Israel would commit, as proved indeed the case when they sinned shortly thereafter by becoming seduced by the daughters of Moab. This is why he urged Bileam ועתה לך ארה לי, "curse them for me now," seeing that their punishment by G–d would follow almost immediately. Balak had seen the expression of G–d's closeness to Israel by the many miracles G–d had performed for that people. All this is reflected in the Torah's stating וירא בלק את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי, "Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite." He realised that only a people who enjoyed such a lofty spiritual status as indicated by the name ישראל, could have accomplished that feat. Although Balak had witnessed the defeat of the Emorite, seeing that he had been one of the princes of the Emorite, his people had not seen it, had only heard about it. Hence when describing the feelings of his people, the term used for Israel is simply "העם." Nonetheless, even the people of Moab were aware that there existed a special relationship between Israel and its G–d; hence ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל. When the Moabites discussed what to do with the elders of Midian who were not aware of the special relationship between G–d and Israel, they emphasized the numerical strength of the Jewish people by referring to them as קהל, meaning that every individual tribe qualified for the description עם, and that they were as described in Genesis 35,11, גוי וקהל גוים ממך יצאו, "a nation as well as a community of nations will come out of you." The expression קהל then emphasizes the twelve tribes that between them made up this nation.

This explains why the Midianites brought their קסמים, enchantments, with them before setting out on their mission to Bileam (22,7). The purpose of these enchantments is to call down to earth the influence that various horoscopic constellations exert on our fates. Balak was superior to Bileam in that field. The significance of נחשים, on the other hand is, that they are instruments which deny that G–d has an entourage who act as His agents. Neither of these devices would prove harmful to Israel as long as the latter carried out the will of their Father in Heaven. The Jewish people's fate is not governed by the forces of nature, i.e. מזל. Horoscopes are something that G–d granted the nations in lieu of השגחה פרטית, G–d's personal supervision and intervention in our affairs. All other magic devices are quite ineffective against Israel as long as Israel are on the level of דביקות לה', "cleaving to G–d." The Talmud in Chullin 7, relates that a woman tried to remove some earth from under the feet of Rabbi Chaninah. Rabbi Chaninah told her to go ahead, that it would not help her to perform her magic since it is written in Deut. 4,35: "there is no one beside Him." How can this be? Do we not have a statement by Rabbi Yochanan who said that the reason sorcery is called כשפים, is because it is a denial of the forces of G–d! The Talmud answers that the case of Rabbi Chaninah is special, because he had so many personal merits that protected him. So far the Talmud on the subject. Concerning the above, Bileam said: "There is no נחש in Jacob, i.e. it is powerless against Jacob, and there is no a קסם that prevails against Israel (Numbers 23,23). Bileam was well versed in all these disciplines including his remarkable awareness of how G–d operates. He knew when to make a curse effective and draw forth G–ds wrath on someone. This is why he commenced by employing instruments of sanctity such as the building of seven altars, offering sacrifices on them, etc. He built as many altars in one single day as the patriarchs had built in their combined life times, as Rashi points out on 23,4. When he realized that G–d had not become angry at Israel and that his accusations had proved futile, he resorted to magic: הוא הלך לקראת נחשים, he forsook the approach via the sacred and turned to the profane. His attitude was that he would mention Israel's shortcomings regardless of whether G–d would react to this negatively or not. He hoped that the curse would attach itself to the mention of their sins (Rashi). Bileam abandoned recourse to the נחשים only from 24,1 onwards. He had become afraid that the merits of Israel were too great, hence he turned his attention towards the "desert," i.e. he recalled the sin of the golden calf which Israel had made in the desert and from the consequences of which G–d had saved it. When the Torah writes “ותהי עליו רוח אלוקים,” this refers to the Divine spirit resting on Israel, not on Bileam, see Zohar on 24,2.

Now let us explain the difference between the terms קבה, and ארה respectively, though both are forms of curses. The word קבה means to possess the power to curse with one's mouth at the moment G–d is angry. The word ארה has two meanings. One meaning is also a form of curse, the other is derived from כמלא אורה וסלו, "like the space required by the collector (of figs) to fill his basket" (Mishnah Shvi-it 1,2). In other words, it means "collection." The Zohar (Sullam edition Balak, page 92) explains that this expression alludes to Balak asking Bileam to gather different herbs used by the most competent sorcerers, put them in a witches' brew, etc. Once he realised that Bileam's power was greater when he employed his mouth, he reverted to ask Bileam “קבה לי” (22,17)! On the first mission Balak sent the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian, seeing they were the experts on sorcery. He commanded them to ask Bileam to employ ארה, seeing that the dual meaning of that expression would include the curse by mouth and the curse by means of sorcery. He made sure the Midianites had their charms and the Moabites their respective instruments of magic. Since the Midianites had no knowledge of the closeness that existed between Israel and G–d, he did not want to affront them and therefore he sent the tools necessary for sorcery. Balak's principal intention was that Bileam curse the people by mouth. Bileam understood Balak's intention thoroughly, and that is why he mentioned קבה when G–d asked him what these men had wanted from him (22,11). The second mission, which did not include a delegation of Midianites, as Rashi has explained, comprised שרים רבים ונכבדים מאלה, "more princes of higher rank than the previous ones." The word נכבדים, refers to Moabite theologians who were aware of the close relationship that existed between G–d and Israel. This is why the emphasis is on קבה, curse by mouth, the only thing which might loosen this closeness between G–d and Israel. Whereas the first delegation consisted of politically more distinguished people, who are therefore referred to by Bileam as "princes," the second delegation did not contain such politically highly placed individuals, though those people were far more learned in the ways of magic and sorcery. Bileam referred to them as עבדי בלק, their political standing in the Moabite hierarchy. Bileam quoted the words of the Moabite man on the street who knew only that Israel had resided many hundreds of years in Egypt, the center of witchcraft and sorcery. They were therefore concerned with fighting Israel by more powerful witchcraft. Balak, who knew better, was aware that Israel did not operate witchcraft and sorcery, referred to them as גוי, an allusion to G–d having orchestrated the whole Exodus by separating גוי מקרב גוי, "one nation from the midst of another nation," as we know from Deut. 4,34. He knew that at that time Israel had discarded all their former relationship to sorcery, and assumed a close relationship with G–d instead.

The word קבה refers to an effort to separate this relationship between G–d and Israel by securing G–d's goodwill for this process. The word ארה, on the other hand, also contains nuances of sorcery, the forces which deny G–d's agents in this world. Now we understand why once Bileam referred to his inability to perform "a little thing" or "a big thing" against the will of G–d. The "little" thing refers to the sorcery element at his disposal; the "big thing," means to accomplish something by means of קבה, seeing the latter is a procedure that requires G–d's approval. Bileam means that he can do neither. Not only can he not do something "big" of his own initiative, but he cannot even initiate something "small," insignificant. Not only can he not do something that is against the will of G–d, i.e. ארה, by employing ניחוש, he cannot even prevail upon G–d to change His attitude towards this people by cursing them as form of punishment for any misdeeds they might have committed. Bileam made these statements while the Holy Spirit still rested upon him. When he noticed subsequently that the Holy Spirit had departed from him, and he had been reduced to being like any ordinary person, he resorted to consulting sorcery, i.e. הלך לקראת נחשים.

This also explains why in 22,18 he spoke about "doing something small or big," whereas in 24,13 he said that he cannot contravene G–d's command to do either "good or evil." "Good and evil" respectively, are equivalent to "small and big" in 22,18 i.e. the ניחושים. Bileam knew how to time his remarks precisely at those moments when they would have their greatest effect. Since Balak's main concern was to tear asunder the דבקות, attachment that existed between Israel and G–d by choosing the right moment to do so, Bileam would also resort to sorcery in order to achieve this aim in order to accomplish what Balak had hired him to do. When Balak had complimented Bileam by saying "I know that whosoever you bless is blessed (retains his blessing), and whosoever you curse will be cursed" (22,6), this is what he had had in mind.

He therefore appropriately used the expression מבורך, which is past tense, instead of saying that such a person יבורך, would become blessed as a result, i.e. future tense. The term used by Balak for someone suffering a curse at the hands of Bileam is יואר, "he will be cursed." Balak referred to himself, seeing he had already been blessed, by achieving the status of King in Moab, though he himself was a Midianite. He begged Bileam to employ sorcery to assure himself of retaining this blessing. He hoped that Israel's present state of blessing would be transformed into a state of being accursed through the proper timing of such a curse. Balak did not wish sorcery to be the means by which Israel would be cursed. He wanted these means to be employed only to ensure his own continued success. As far as Israel was concerned, he wanted to sever the attachment between Israel and G-d. Bileam, who hated Israel far more than Balak did, used all the pretexts available to him when he saw that the holy spirit had departed from him. This is why he also resorted to נחשים against Israel. He was frustrated however, in that "ותהי עליו רוח אלוקים," that the spirit of G–d remained on it, i.e. on Israel (24,2). Balak had not requested the use of sorcery except for his own benefit. Against Israel he had requested the curse called קבה. This proves that the word קטנה is equivalent to טובה, whereas גדולה is equivalent to רעה.

Concerning 22,20, where G–d says to Bileam: "אם לקרא לך באו האנשים, קום לך אתם," "if the men have come to call you, arise and go with them," we can accept Rashi who renders this as "if the call is yours," i.e. "if this is a chance for you to earn a fee," but we must re-phrase this a little. We know that everything is in the hands of Heaven, except certain things such as the contracting of the common cold, etc" (Berachot 33b). This means that though man has been given freedom of choice concerning an endeavor he sets out on, there is no guarantee that he will achieve the objective he has set his heart on. G–d asked Bileam concerning his objectives, stating that if his objectives in the matter were honorable, then he was certainly welcome to pursue them. Honorable objectives as referred to by Rashi meant that the enterprise was one that concerned Bileam himself, not some political machination of a third party such as Balak. It was Bileam's attribute to be gifted with prophetic insight. If he planned to employ his prophetic insight in the service of G–d who had granted it to him, he was indeed encouraged by G–d to do so – "קום לך אתם." If, however, he chose to operate in a manner not specifically his province, namely to employ sorcery to bless or confirm Balak's blessing and would make common cause with the people who came with their charms in their hands, as outlined in 22,7, this would not be part of his calling, especially, since Balak had more expertise in the use of קסמים than Bileam himself. Balak also had more expertise in the consulting of charms. All these methods of divining, manipulating nature, etc., were not within Bileam's G–d-granted province, and therefore were not included in the statement by G–d that he was welcome to go with these men. Bileam's province, i.e. his G–d-given function was, as he says himself, bp שומע אמרי קל, "someone who was used to hear the words of the Lord (24,4)." G–d's words meant that if the men had come to use those services of Bileam that G–d had endowed him with, and that only he could render, he was welcome to go. He was warned however, to do only what G–d would tell him to, as we read in 22,20. This was a reminder of what G–d told Bileam when he had consulted him when Balak's first messengers had arrived and Bileam had been told not to curse that nation (22,12). He had never been forbidden to go, he had only been forbidden to go. After this, Bileam went with Balak's messengers intent on employing both his prophetic insights and his powers of manipulating natural processes in order to cause harm to the Jewish people. He felt that in the event G–d would not let him use his prophetic powers to curse the people, he would at least be able to employ his other powers. He would make use of powers that existed in the universe as forces opposing the Creator and His entourage. The proof that he did so was that he rode the she-ass, i.e. he defiled himself, as described in the Talmud Sanhedrin 105a.

All this caused G–d to become angry at him. Rashi quotes a Midrash Tanchumah on 22,24: "The angel of G–d stood, etc." The Midrash explains the reason why the angel positioned himself in the three locations mentioned in the Torah, as being a warning to conduct himself as the patriarchs had done, and not in any other way. None of the patriarchs had ever relied on charms and similar sorcery-like manipulations. This is why Bileam himself acknowledges that neither Jacob nor Israel had ever employed such means in order to advance their fortunes (23,23). The reason that Bileam quoted Jacob/Israel as the example for not employing sorcery is that Jacob was the only patriarch who succeeded in training all his children to remain loyal to his teachings. The words משעל הכרמים (22,24), is a veiled reference to Abraham of whom it is said כרם היה לידידי, "My beloved had a vineyard etc." (Isaiah 5,1). The words והיה גדר מזה וגדר מזה, are a reference to the two unfit sons produced by Abraham and Isaac respectively (ibid). The purpose of the fences was to prevent attacks by the "serpent." Ishmael is understood to have emanated from Abraham's "right" whereas Esau emanated from Isaac's "left". The latter is referred to by the line describing the she-ass as ותלחץ אל הקיר, "she pressed herself against the wall." When the angel is described as "standing" in a narrow place (22,26), this is a reference to Jacob who did not deviate to the left or to the right, and who therefore represents the "central pillar" of the Patriarchs.

Afterwards, as a result of Bileam "walking" i.e. setting out on an errand that was meant to harm the Jewish people, G–d transformed the intended curses into blessings in inverse ratio to the wickedness intended by him. As Solomon says in Proverbs 10,24: "The fear of the wicked will come upon him; the desire of the righteous will be granted." When Bileam next announces "ואדעה מה יוסף ה' דבר עמי," "I will know what else G–d will speak to me" (22,19), he is already inadvertently hinting that he will become the instrument by means of which G–d will bless Israel. An example of this additional blessing can be seen in the words "how goodly are your tents O Jacob, your dwellings O Israel." Whereas, originally the blessing was valid only while Israel was secure in its land, the additional words referring to temporary abodes of Israel, i.e. משכנותיך, include periods during which Israel will be exiled (24,5). The very exile is a source of blessing, since it produces repentance and subsequently a rejuvenation of the Jewish people. This is why the name Jacob, and the temporary nature of the dwellings called "huts," is associated with the former temporary residence of the Jewish people, on their own land, whereas "Israel," the choicest of names for this people, as well as "dwellings," is employed when it describes-paradoxically,-its state of exile. The Talmud in Baba Metzia 68a, in trying to define a mortgage which is called in Aramaic mashkanta, a word resembling the Hebrew Mishkan, dwelling, describes it as something that constantly “dwells” with the owner of the field against which a loan has been made. The constant awareness of one's dependence acts as a spur to rid oneself of such an obligation. The exile experience of the Jewish people is meant to do the same, to imbue us with the urgent desire to do all in our power to become worthy of redemption. At that time G–d's promise (Leviticus 26,11) ונתתי משכני בתוככם "I will give My dwelling to be in your midst," will be fulfilled. The destruction of the Temple and the Jewish state was a necessary prelude to building a better Jewish nation. This is the meaning of the prophecy וירד מיעקב והאביד שריד מעיר, "A victor will issue forth from Jacob to wipe out what is left of ‘lr’" (24,19). Bileam saw a vision of the greatness of the Messiah, someone greater than himself. What he did not appreciate was that purity could be rooted in impurity, just as Abraham came forth out of a Terach. When the Messiah arrives, the last vestiges of the dross remaining from former efforts at distilling the pure out of the impure will vanish. The מלאך רע, "evil angel," who is personified by Bileam, had to acknowledge this, i.e. say Amen" to this concept. Bileam expanded on this theme of redemption when he said: "What I see for them is not yet, what I behold will not be soon" (24,17). He seems to be repeating himself. Another difficulty in Bileam's words is the fact that they seem to be contradictory. First he says: "I can see it," suggesting a clear vision, whereas immediately afterwards he describes this as in the distant future, i.e. not being so clear. What is meant is that every single day that passes contains elements of the eventual total Redemption. This is what Bileam realises clearly. What he does not see so clearly is the date on which this process will be complete. Our Rabbis have described this process as "a single sheep resides amongst seventy wolves. These wolves attempt daily to devour the sheep, but the Almighty saves it from their clutches," as in Pessikta Rabbah 9,2. The very fact that the Jewish nation continues to exist is part of the proof that the Redemption is an ongoing process. G–d is busy performing such miracles without the person for whom such miracles are being performed even becoming aware of them. This is why Bileam says "I see it," i.e. as an ongoing process, "but not now," i.e. the true Redemption, the arrival of the Messiah, has not yet come to pass. Subsequently, Bileam turns to the vision of the Redemption, of which he says: "I see it, but not in the near future." He reveals that there is a date that G–d has fixed for it, though if the people were deserving that date could be advanced. This is parallel to the explanation of the sages on the apparent paradox in Isaiah 60,22, "at its appointed time, I will hasten it." The meaning is that though there is an appointed time beyond which the Redemption will not be delayed, it may occur sooner if Israel deserves it (Sanhedrin 98a). אשורנו, means "I can see it if Israel does penitence," whereas ולא קרוב, means that if they were not worthy then that Redemption would not be in the near future. It is at that time that all previous curses will turn into blessings, for the Redemption was brought about sooner as a result of Israel responding positively to the curses it has had to suffer. We read in Deuteronomy 23,6: "G–d transformed the curse (Bileam's) into a blessing for you, for the Lord your G–d loves you." The last words seem superfluous, since no one would assume that someone who hates you turns your curses into blessings. The meaning, however, may be that repentance is "great," since it has the power to convert former misdeeds into merits. Such repentance indeed has such power when it is the result of love of G–d and not the fear of punishment. Curses may be a hidden display of G–d's love, for once they have fulfilled their purpose, they eventually enable Him to turn them into blessings. Love for G–d by the repentant sinner is reciprocated by Him so that what used to be demerits are accounted as merits retroactively.