Last post is seen first!
Make several separate posts, label then as #1, #2 etc
Start with the parallels., but post it last, as #1
EDITED 2025 and posted to FB
Contrasting/comparing Bil'am with Moshe Rabenu (Moses): What is the same is that both did not wish to accept God's notion of their mission.
However they were opposites in a perhaps important sense: Moses did not want to go on the mission God wanted him to undertake, whereas Bil'am wanted to go on the mission outlined by Balak which God did NOT want him to undertake.
And they were opposites in an even more important sense: in this 'refusal to go along with God's plan' Moses was motivated by humility, whereas Bil'am was motivated by egotism.
Bilam in contrast does not remark at the fact that his donkey is talking! Instead he treated it as normal, and dives into the conversation itself!
Another interesting contrast: Moshe Rabenu saw the sneh (bush) on fire , and the Torah stresses that he pays attention to the fact of the phenomenon: "vayar... ki sar lir'ot": ". We see the importance from the next passage: "and God saw that he (Moses) turned to see" ie this is God's recognition of Moses' ability to discern significance - ie he doesn't walk on by, take a selfie and leave, nor rush to find water to put out the fire, in other words he was able to see that this tiny but anomalous event involving a firein an anonymous bush in the desert was significant, the shadow of something at a higher-level. And the Torah states re Moshe Rabenu "vayar... ki sar lir'ot": and God saw that he (Moses) turned to see" ie this is God's recognition of the ability we mentioned above of Moses being able to discern the significance.
Bilam in contrast does not remark at the fact that his donkey is talking, instead he treated it as normal and dives into the conversation itself! He is upset at the donkey, and when it opens its mouth and complains he is stilll enmired in his pettiness.
.....
Parallel of Yonah and Bil’am: same message from God to both prophets?
Same for both:
They both defied God’s will regarding whether to prophesy.
A hallmark of both stories, and which makes them instantly unforgettable, is the part played by an animal. An animal which in both cases (the donkey, and the large fish) saves the prophet from death, death by God's hand.
Furthermore, both stories (deliberately) highlight the irony in that the animal is a more faihtful sevant of its Master than is the prophet: not just the beast of burden in the case of Bil'am, but analogously the fish in the story of Jonah(Yonah) was more ready to do God’s will - using its mouth not just to swallow the prophet, but to do the reverse and spit him out - than was the prophet (Jonah) to use his mouth to go prophesy.
Very ironically, the aton was more aware of the divine presence and followed God's will despite threats from its human master in contrast to the prophet (Bil’am) who was there as part of a rebelled against his Master's will. So too the fish did God's Will to swallow and then spit out the prophet (Yonah), whereas the prohet (Yonah) was there because he was trying to evade doing God's Will!
Both prophets were presumably meant to understand the message in this irony, if not immmediately, then upon reflection. And the stories are recorded in the Torah so that we too can learn from them.
..
Some more of similarity/difference:
Same: In both cases the animal "opens its mouth" at God's behest!
Different: in one case to talk to the prophet, in another case to swallow the prophet (and later spit him out).
Opposite: Yona was commanded to go prophecy, but ran away to avoid doing it, whereas Bil’am went to prophecy against God’s wish that he not go.
Same: both were placed by God in a deadly danger. Both were saved from the danger.
Different: Yona invited the situation (and allowed himself to be thrown into the sea) but God’s Will was that a fish save him, whereas Bil’am was not even aware of the situation and was saved by the animal (the donkey) in some sense in contravention of God’s will (ie escaping the angel’s sword).
.....
1/3 : Parallel of two prophets: Yonah and Bil’am:
Same for both: they defied God’s will regarding whether to prophesy;
Opposite: Yona was commanded to go prophecy, but ran away to avoid doing it, whereas Bil’am went to prophecy against God’s wish that he not go.
Same: both were placed by God in a deadly danger. Both were saved from the danger.
A hallmark of both stories, and which makes it instantly unforgettable, is the part played by an animal. An animal which in both cases (the donkey, and the large fish) saves the prophet from death, by God's hand.
Same: In both cases the animal "opens its mouth" at God's behest!
Different: in one case to talk to the prophet, in another case to swallow the prophet (and later spit him out).
Different: Yona invited the situation (and allowed himself to be thrown into the sea) but God’s Will was that a fish save him, whereas Bil’am was not even aware of the situation and was saved by the animal (the donkey) in some sense in contravention of God’s will (ie escaping the angel’s sword).
.
Furthermore, both stories (deliberately) highlight the irony in that the animal is a more faithful servant of its Master than is the prophet: not just the beast of burden in the case of Bil'am, but analogously the fish in the story of Jonah(Yonah) was more ready to do God’s will - using its mouth not just to swallow the prophet, but to do the reverse and spit him out - than was the prophet (Jonah) to use his mouth to go prophesy.
Very ironically, the aton was more aware of the divine presence and followed God's will despite threats from its human master in contrast to the prophet (Bil’am) who was there as part of a rebelled against his Master's will. So too the fish did God's Will to swallow and then spit out the prophet (Yonah), whereas the prohet (Yonah) was there because he was trying to evade doing God's Will!
Both prophets were presumably meant to understand the message in this irony, if not immmediately, then upon reflection. And the stories are recorded in the Torah so that we too can learn from them.
Conclusion: May we be blessed to see the patterns in our lives and attain a sense of Purpose and peace of mind!
What should Bil'am have understood from the event with the donkey?
In the story, he is upset at the donkey, and when it opens its mouth and complains he is still enmired in his petty anger. Bilam does not remark at the fact that his donkey is talking! Instead he treated it as normal, and dives into the conversation itself! As readers we want to tell him: what a fool you are Bil'am! If your donkey starts talking to you, be astonished, realize something deep is happening, listen to what is coming forth from its mouth, don't start arguing with your suddenly-talking donkey! realize something deep is happening (like Moses), listen to what is coming forth from its mouth, don't out of pique start arguing with your suddenly-talking donkey!
Adding in to the above the fact that he was a prophet and God's role: In my opinion, a prophet (especially one who Tradition considers equal to Moses) should have understood IMMEDIATELY that if his donley is talking to him, that it is God speaking , and so he should LISTEN! But Bil'am remained in his angry demanding mode and could not hear. He is being challenged by God to overcome his pettiness and try to understand the DEEPER significance, 'why is God making the donkey talk to me'?! not to start arguing with the donkey about the actual content of the words.
Moral: when we are full of ego like Bilam we connect to an event at the wrong level.
For example: If someone asks you "what's the meaning of life, why is there suffering", and we just respond to the words not the significance, like Bil'am, we answer philosophically religiously showing off our understanding of sources and ideas, instead of listening at a deeper level to realize that there is perhaps a suffering human being in front of us, and then taking action accordingly, realizing that the words might be a smokescreen, and reacting compassionately to the underlying real issue rather than intellectually to the outer level.
May we be blessed with Bil'am's blessing: "ma tovu ohalekha yaakov": 'How goodly are thy tents, Jacob" which as Tradition interprets is a praise re the mutual respect/consideraiton the Jewish People showed each other in the primitve and crowded tent-encampments of the desert. In our context, may we be blessed with the ability to always react at the apropriate egoless level of interaction with each other, with respect, consideration and compassion.
Topics: numbering in the material below is different than this!
1) A message learned via defending two God-defying prophets - Jonah and Bil’am
2) Bil'am & Yonah: parallels
3) what should Bil'am have understood in his exchange with the donkey
4) response of navi to God's words or to events, shapes the next step
5) Altering history via the third way, of deep inner change
....
Events at the earthly level vs higher level
It is odd that a prophet who speaks to and is spoken to by God would actually defy God. In this way, the story of Bil'am is reminiscent of the story of Yonah (Jonah).
Yonah lived long after the story of Bil'am, and of course Yonah knew that story well from the Torah, so what was God's motivation in crafting Yonah's experiences to be so parallel to those of Bil'am. Should Yonah have understood something from this?
Since God arranged that these two accounts would be in the Torah for us to study, were WE meant to notice the parallels and learn something from it?
The similarities we see between the stories of these two defiant prophets perhaps provides us with the license to deduce an additional similarity which can explain this enigma of a rebellious prophet..
.
What was God's motivation in crafting Yonah & Bil'am's experiences to be so parallel? How can we learn from one story about the other?
Perhaps we are meant to be able to deduce Bil’am’s & Yonah's motivations for defying God (by having one story shed light on the other):
Perhaps we are meant to be able to defend Bil'am and judge him a little more favorably (in thanks for his blessing) by deducing Bil’am’s motivation for defying God from that of Yonah: Specifically, what is proposed here is that given the similarities of both stories perhaps we are meant to deduce another similarity - that the prophets in the two stories shared the same motivation for their disobedience, and then both underwent inner change. And maybe to help us deduce 'what should have been' in both cases.
.
From the story of Bil'am we can figure out the non-selfish aspect of Bilam's motives (ie besides the money and honor) - he was concerned for his people and wanted to stop the Jewish People. In other words by telling the whole story the Torah is obliquely pointing out a partial defense of Bil’am, that like Balak he felt the Jews would be unwelcome competition and therefore was only too happy to help Balak in his goal of preventing the Jews from returning to their neighborhood, even though he knew that this was God’s wish, so his defiance of God's clearly-stated preference is understandable even though he is a prophet.
Perhaps the parallels to the story of Yonah are meant to allow us to shed light on his actions many hundreds of years later - his reason for disobeying God is not understood from the story, it is taught by the sages: perhaps the events which God introduced into Yonah's escapade , and which are related to us in God's book, were deliberately parallel to those of Bil'am, to hint to the sages to deduce that Jonah had the same nation-preserving motive as Bil'am - that Yonah was reluctant to prophecy to the people of Ninveh since (he knew prophetically that) it was they who would later destroy the Jewish home (during the Babylonian conquest).
. ,
Judging Bil'am favorably
The Jewish People perhaps owe some hakorat hatov (gratitude) to Bil'am for the blessing of "ma Tovu" "How good are thy tents" . It is a blessing not just his opinion, not just a prayer we adopted.
Possibly, to activate the blessing on ourselves, to make it apply even more strongly, we can:
1. give hakorat hatov, especially by seeing his motives a little more positively ("dan lekaf zchut") [without losing sight of the fact that he continued his adversarial activities, participated in a war against the People of Israel and was eventually killed by the Pinchas-led army];
2. we can be "dan lekaf zchut" our fellows even when we see them doing actions that seem to make them seem bad; just as seeing bil'am as acting badly but with partially-good motives rather than as a purely-wicked person, may we be blessed that when we try to see our fellows in a positive light, we will have the merit of the applicaiton of Bil'ams blessing of 'ma tovu'.
May we all merit in this way that just as Bil'am's urge to curse was transformed into a fount of blessing, so too perhaps eventually we can help turn all negativity in our lives into blessing.
Conclusion: May we be blessed to learn from the stories of our own lives, to become progressively wiser, to see each additional event in the context of the whole so that one sheds light on the other, granitng us not just wisdom and insight but acceptance, and a sense of accomplishment and advance, growth, a sense of Purpose and Meaning, and peace of mind,
...
Here are the sources re Jonah knowing they would repent and eventually survive to destroy Israel.: פרקי דרבי אליעזר פרק י :למה ברח? אלא פעם ראשון שלחו להשיב את גבול ישראל ועמדו דבריו, שנאמר (מלכים ב יד, כה): "הוּא הֵשִׁיב אֶת גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִלְּבוֹא חֲמָת" וגו'.
פעם שניה שלחו לירושלים להחריבה, כיון שעשו תשובה הקב"ה עשה כרוב חסדיו ונחם על הרעה ולא חרבה, והיו ישראל קוראין אותו "נביא שקר".
פעם ג' שלחו לנינוה, דן יונה דין בינו לבין עצמו, אמר: אני יודע שזה הגוי קרובי התשובה הם, עכשיו עושין תשובה והקב"ה שולח רוגזו על ישראל,..... אברבנאל על יונה א׳ מפני שהיה גזור לפניו להחריב את מלכות ישראל שומרון ובנותיה מפני עוונותיהם על ידי אשור, ולכן היה משתדל יתברך להציל את אשור מהרעה המעותדת לבוא עליהם בעבור החמס אשר בכפיהם כדי שינצל אשור מהכליה ויהיה כלי זעמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא להחריב בו את ישראל וכמו שאמר הוי אשור שבט אפי וגומר, ומפני זה רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לישר את נינוה ראש מלכות אשור וזה טעם שליחות יונה אל נינוה ......והנה יונה הבין אמתת הענין הזה ולכן גמר בלבו שלא ללכת בנינוה כדי שלא ינצלו אנשי אשור מהכלייה על ידו כי איך תהיה הליכתו סבה להציל את בני אשור ולהכרית את בני ישראל ואיככה יוכל ויראה ברעה אשר ימצא את עמו על ידי האשורים, ומפני זה ברח
מלבי"ם על יונה
א׳:ג׳
ולא היה השליחות בשביל נינוה כי לא מצאנו שישלח ה' נביא מישראל להשיב את העכו"ם בתשובה, כי לא דבקה השגחת ה' לשלוח נביא רק בישראל, רק כי היתה ההשגחה על נינוה בשביל ישראל אחר שאשור הוכן להיות שבט אפו של ה' לרדות בו את ישראל שנתחייבו למקום, רצה ה' להשיבם בתשובה כדי שיהיו מוכנים למלאת גזרתו על ישראל, וגם כדי שלא יאמר המתלונן למה התביט בוגדים תחריש כבלע רשע צדיק ממנו, רצה ה' להראות שאשור יש לו זכות יותר מישראל שהם שמעו לדברי הנביא ועשו תשובה וישראל הקשו ערפם משמוע, וכאשר ידע יונה כי משליחות זה תצמח רעה לישראל, לכן חשב מחשבות בל ילך בשליחות זה, ובחר יותר לאבד את עצמו בים משיהיה הוא המסבב רעה לישראל. וכבר כתב הרי"א שמטעם זה אמרו חז"ל שיונה תבע כבוד הבן ולא תבע כבוד האב ושנתן נפשו עבור ישראל, (כמ"ש במכילתא פ' בא), כי בזה היה תלוי הצלת ישראל וכבודם בשני הטעמים הנזכרים
4/5 Altering history via the third way, of deep inner change
Another possible deduction from the similarities of the stories of Yonah and of Bil'am:
What SHOULD have been: One can sense that perhaps Yonah should have concluded from his experience in Ninveh that if the Jewish People would do teshuvah (repent), they too would be saved from their fate, so the perceived threat as seen by Yonah - destruction of the homeland of the Jewish People by the people of Ninveh - how the future would unfold was up to the Jewish People - their actions would decide future events, it was not "Fated".
Indeed, this might be the reasoning of the the Rabbis in decreeing that the book of Yonah be read in synagogue on Yom Kippur - not just to teach that just as the people of Ninveh were spared by teshuvah (return = repentance) so to can we, but rather even moreso the desire of the Rabbis to teach that the Jewish People could indeed have avoided the destruction at the hands of Ninveh later on, by doing tshuva (repentance) as Ninveh had.
And so this book of Jonah is meant as a message to all about the power of teshuva, particularly apt on the day that is dedicated to forgiveness as a result of teshuva - Yom Kippur - the countries of Ninveh and Israel were slated for destruction due to their actions, but since Israel did not do teshuva and Ninveh did, it ended up that only Israel's destruction took place, and at the hands of Ninve
....
Conclusion: Altering history via deep inner change: It would seem at first that there were two options, to refuse God's order and savethe Jewish People or to carry it out and have the Jewish People destroyed. However perhaps we are meant to conclude that there is a third option: had Jonah changed himself and undertaken to devote himself to teaching in his own homeland the message of repentance he had learned via the people of Ninveh, perhaps the Jewish People would have undertaken to change, and would have merited to remain in their Land rather than being exiled by those people of Ninveh. Perhaps this is why God chose to send a Jewish prophet to prophecy to a distant land - to learn this vital message!
As to Bil'am: After many failed attempts to curse the Jewish People, he finally was able to become a vessel for God to bless the Jewish People instead. In fact, the Jewish People weren't really a threat to the nations of Moav and Midyan, so the enmity was uneccesary, and Bil'am should instead have used his prophetic abilities from the outset to convince the other nations - who came to him seeking that he curse the Jews - to accede to God's wish, and help the Jewish People back into the Land that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had lived in.
.
Conclusion: Two stories in Tanach about an error of judgement of a prophet, where each story sheds light on the other. Two prophets who did the opposite of what God wanted them to do. In both cases, God arranges for them to die, but to be saved by an animal, which opens its mouth at God's behest. [Note also the similarity between this and the case of Moses hitting the rock to protect the Jewsih People from God's potential unflattering comparison between the People and the rock, which did God's bidding with only words as opposed to the People's disobedience, as I explained in last week's post.]
.
In both cases, the prophet eventually realizes and accepts responsibility but still does not perform wholeheartedly what God wants..... and the reason for this: the prophet feels that what God wants seems to be hastening the destruction of his own people - but he is wrong, his people can avoid destruction if they follow the correct path, and it is exactly this that should have been the prophet's focus, helping his people change in the right way, rather than obstructing God's plans.
.
The message to us is that what God wills for us is better than what we think should happen, and that when faced with what seems like two options - acquiese and bring about national destruction (like Noah did), or disobey and face God's wrath (like Bil'am & Jonah), there is perhaps a third option (like Abraham and Moses understood, and 'argued' with God [but not the hitting the stone incident]), which brings a much better result, and which is actually what God really wants, but requires us to undertake deep inner change.
Conclusion: May we be blessed to be able to always find the God-preferred path, and have the resolve to change ourselves accordingly.
5/5 Speculation: How a person's response to God's initial action shapes the unfolding of the next step:
In my opinion, a prophet (especially one who Tradition considers equal to Moses) should have understood IMMEDIATELY that if his donley is talking to him, that it is God speaking , and so he should LISTEN! But Bil'am remained in his angry demanding mode and oculd not hear, see my contrasting comparison to Moses at the burning bush. And he is being challenged by God to try to understand the DEEPER significiance, why is God making the donkey talk to me?! not start arguing with the donkey about the actual content of the words.
Then the aton (she-donkey) asks Bil'am "did I ever not serve you faithfully.. have I ever done this,"? Obviously all this is a challenge from God, not from the donkey! And indeed at this point Bil'am answers a simple 'no', and thereby shows remarkable ego-lowering, to admit that the aton has NEVER disobeyed him.He is taking responsibility instead of arguing. He has moved out of his anger and resentment and superiority. Bil'am is being also 'dan lekaf zechus' judging favorably, and willing to see the aton's actions in this greater context. He is thinking, 'the donkey must be doing it for a good reason, so what is that reason'? And in merit of Bil'am's ego-lowering reaction and judging favorably, and being open to hearing the other side of the seeming confrontation against him he gets to hear the aton's answer, and thus he merits seeing the angel (which also clarifies to him that what he saw as confrontation on the part of the donkey was actually the opposite) and thus he is spared the angel's sword.
.
In my opinion, a prophet (especially one who Tradition considers equal to Moses) should have understood IMMEDIATELY that if his donley is talking to him, that it is God speaking , and so he should LISTEN! And try to understand the DEEPER significiance, why is God making the donkey talk to me?! not start arguing wiht the donkey about the actual content of the words. But you are entitiled to your interpretations.
So we posit that it is his ego-lowering and dan lekaf zchut open-ness which led him to revelation, makes him deserve to hear the aton's answer, and thus be spared the angel's sword. In other words, the interpretation I offer is that it is not that God made a decision beforehand to not kill Bil'am! It was instead Bil'am who acted in a way that at the last moment made him deserving of having his life spared!
.
At first Bil'am is full of ego, desiting to go despite knowing it is against God's will, and God shows him his arrogance by making it clear that the aton (she-donkey) he is riding sees spiritual phenomena (an angel) that he, the great prophet, cannot!
However Bil'am is only momentarilly chastened, his ego was lowered only temporarily, and he did not follow through ..... he was meant to understand that he should NOT go - after all he was a prophet, and should at least try to interpret the events as best he could (as in "makel shaked ani ro'eh').
But we see even after all this, whereas the aton is loyal to its master(Bil'am), Bil'am is too stubborn to be loyal to his Master, God.
The aton sees the mal'ach (angel), due to its faithfulness, lack of ego (as in their conversation), so its eyes are open, whereas Bila'am sees only his own self; not only did Bilam not see the angel, he didn't even remark on the very fact that the the aton was talking to him. And he didn't realize he had to 'apologize to the aton' for his hitting it, and instead apologizes to the mal'ach, self-justifying in that he didn't see it, as if that wasn't obvious to the malach and part of the exercise. So he doesn't really get it, and he simply continues on his way! (asking permission to continue and getting it from God is like the Bney Yisrael asking for meat and receiving it, the 'slav' [which killed them]).
Conclusion: May we be blessed to lower our ego and judge favorably, and merit life and revelation, and blessing!
.................
...This method can be used in many accounts of interactions between God and prophet (see my commentaries on other such accounts).
....
Balak: the donkey talks, and Bil'am argues with it! He should have been shocked, Bil'am is also stone-headed for not wondering why the aton is talking to him! and like M"R said "asura na ...mar'eh hagadol hazeh'!
Bil'm and lehavdil M"R: both see somehting remarkable (enflamed bush that doesn't get consumed, and a talking animal) and argue with god, or countermand G's order; but M"R is openly astonished at the remarkable, whereas B seems obtuse, at least at first. M"R is humble, doesn;t want anyhting for self, B is greedy, even if only for kavod, that;s the difference.
...
ReRmabam re machazeh vs Ramban:
Of course Bil'am is also stone-headed for not wondering why the aton is talking to him!
Maybe this is a clue that Rambam is corect (vs Ramban), it was a machazeh, and like in a dream where we don't ask quesiotns why some strang eevent is taking place, ie the best way for H to engineer a strange event is to have it be a dream-like state for a navi
Additional details-analysis
[Note: Even if the aton was not a target initially, the aton may have feared the angel could killed him for trying to evade what God willed, so this was an act of great self-sacrifice on its part, unless it didn't know it was an angel, just saw it as a danger, and also maybe the aton didn't realize that it would be spared the sword.]
[Bil'am would presumably stop when seeing an angel in front of him, even without a sword, so the sword was either for the benefit of the aton who didn;t know it was an angel, just recognized the sword as a danger, or it was to later impress Bil'am that he would have been killed had the aton not stopped.
In any case, Bilam does not thank the aton.]
[The aton could have simply stopped at the angel, but instead it trie dto go around. Probably the aton did not realize that its master (Bilam) didnt see the angel, and that Bilam did not tell it to stop simply becuse he wasn;t aware of the angel, and so the aton just assumed its master wanted it to continue.]
And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said unto Balaam:
וַיִּפְתַּח ה', אֶת-פִּי הָאָתוֹן; וַתֹּאמֶר לְבִלְעָם
וַיֹּאמֶר ה', לַדָּג; וַיָּקֵא אֶת-יוֹנָה, אֶל-הַיַּבָּשָׁה.
Why Yonah ran away:
הסיפור המקראי מתאר את בריחת יונה ללא תוספת הסברים באשר למניעיו של הנביא; אך בהמשך הספר קורא יונה, ”עַל כֵּן קִדַּמְתִּי לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה, כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה אֵל חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וְנִחָם עַל הָרָעָה.“ מדברים אלו משתמע כי יונה חשש מכך שבעקבות נבואתו על פורענות אנשי נינוה יתעוררו תושבי נינוה לשוב בתשובה; אך לא מוסבר במקרא מדוע חשש מכך יונה.
חז"ל מסבירים, שיונה חשש כי אם ישובו בני אשור בתשובה יתעורר בכך קטרוג על ישראל, אשר על אף כל נביאיהם שהוכיחום השכם והערב לא שבו בתשובה, ומרוב אהבתו לישראל לא הסכים ללכת להתנבא על נינוה[8]. עוד כתוב במדרש שם, ”שפעם ראשונה שלחוֹ [ה'] להשיב את ערי ישראל ועמדו דבריו, שנאמר: 'והוא השיב את גבול ישראל מלבוא חמת עד ים הערבה כדבר יי אלקי ישראל אשר דבר ביד עבדו יונה בן אמיתי הנביא אשר מגת החפר'. פעם שניה שלחוֹ לירושלים, כיון שעשו תשובה עשה הקב"ה ברוב רחמיו ונחם על הרעה ולא החריבה, והיו ישראל קורין אותו נביא שקר. פעם שלישית שלחוֹ לנינוה להחריבה, דן יונה דין בינו לבין עצמו ואמר: יודע אני שהגוים קרובי תשובה הם [שבים מחטאתם מהר, וכן שבים לסורם מהר], עכשיו עושים תשובה - והקדוש ברוך הוא שולח רוגזו על ישראל [כי יתעורר בזה קטרוג עליהם]; ולא די שישראל קורין אותי נביא שקר, אלא אף עובדי אלילים קורין אותי נביא השקר? הריני בורח לי למקום שאין כבודו שם.“.
עוד סיבה לבריחת יונה הייתה חששו שכאשר ימחל ה' לאנשי נינוה, ולא תהפך עירם, יתחלל בזה שם ה' ולא יאמינו עוד בכוחו, כמו שמסביר המדרש[9]: "אמר לו הקב"ה [ליונה]: אתה חסת על כבודי וברחת מלפני לים, אף אני חסתי על כבודך והצלתיך מבטן שאול".
סיבה נוספת מצויה בפירוש האברבנאל לספר יונה, ולפיה ידע יונה שבעתיד יבוא סנחריב מלך אשור ויגלה את ישראל מארצם, ולכן לא רצה שיחוס עליהם ה'. חיזוק אפשרי להבנה זו מצוי בספר מלכים, שם נזכר יונה כנביא שליווה ותמך בהתעצמותה של ממלכת ישראל בימי ירבעם השני. התעצמות זו אכן הגיעה לקיצה לאחר שהאימפריה האשורית שבה למעורבותה באזור בימי תגלת פלאסר השלישי.
AR: Timing: The tribes were captured by Tiglat Pileser III as part of his large conquests, and that took place after the expansion of the size of the Kingdom of israel starting at the time a little after Jonah 2. (?)
Tiglath-Pileser III[b] (Neo-Assyrian cuneiform: Tukultī-apil-Ešarra,[4] meaning "my trust belongs to the son of Ešarra"),[2][c] was the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from 745 BC to his death in 727. One of the most prominent and historically significant Assyrian kings, Tiglath-Pileser ended a period of Assyrian stagnation, introduced numerous political and military reforms and more than doubled the lands under Assyrian control. Because of the massive expansion and centralization of Assyrian territory and establishment of a standing army, some researchers consider Tiglath-Pileser's reign to mark the true transition of Assyria into an empire.
After defeating Sarduri, Tiglath-Pileser turned his attention to the Levant. Over the course of several years, Tiglath-Pileser conquered most of the Levant, defeating and then either annexing or subjugating previously influential kingdoms, notably ending the kingdom of Aram-Damascus. Tiglath-Pileser's activities in the Levant were recorded in the Hebrew Bible. After a few years of conflict, Tiglath-Pileser conquered Babylonia in 729, becoming the first king to rule as both king of Assyria and king of Babylon.
Tiglath-Pileser marched on the Levant for the fifth time in 734, reaching as far south as the border of Egypt.[38][47] This campaign resulted in the conquest of Gaza and the submission of numerous states, effectively bringing the entire Levant under direct or indirect Assyrian rule;[51] Assyria and Egypt also shared a border for the first time in history.[52] Ashkelon, Judah, Edom, Moab and Ammon, and the Mu’na Arab tribe, all began paying tribute to Tiglath-Pileser.[38][47] By extending his control throughout the Levant, Tiglath-Pileser formed a semi-circle of control around Israel and Aram-Damascus and cut them off from Egypt, which had at times offered support to the Levantine states. The Assyrian efforts resulted in Aram-Damascus becoming both geopolitically isolated and without a large enough food supply to feed its people.[53]
In 733, Tiglath-Pileser resolved to cement his conquest. In this year, he again campaigned against Aram-Damascus, still the strongest remaining native state in the region, which was supported by the Assyrian tributaries Tyre and Ashkelon, as well as Israel. In 732, Damascus fell and Tiglath-Pileser annexed the lands of Aram-Damascus.[38][47] In the same conflict, Tiglath-Pileser also captured Tyre[54] and defeated Israel, which he divided in half, annexing the northern portion of the kingdom as the province Megiddo and subjugating the southern portion as a vassal kingdom.[2] The weakening and enormous reduction in size of Israel was seen by the Israelites as vindicating predictions of impending doom made by the prophet Amos a few decades prior.[38]
נביא בשם זהה מופיע בספר מלכים[4] כנביא בימי המלך ירבעם בן יואש (המכונה ירבעם השני), ואשר מוצאו בגת חפר. לפי הכתוב בסדר עולם רבה[5], נביא זה המוזכר בספר מלכים, משח את יהוא למלך[
יְהוֹאָשׁ (או יוֹאָשׁ) הוא דמות מקראית, לפי הכרונולוגיה המסורתית מלך על ממלכת ישראל בשנים 800 עד 784 לפנה"ס
יָרָבְעָם בֶּן יוֹאָשׁ, נודע גם כירבעם השני, הוא דמות מקראית, מלך ישראל. לפי הכרונולוגיה המסורתית שלט על ממלכת ישראל בשנים 789 עד 784 לפנה"ס כעוצר, ובשנים 784 עד 748 לפנה"ס כמלך.
לפי המקרא, בתקופת מלכותו של ירבעם השני הגיעה מלכות ישראל לשיא מבחינת גודלה. המלך ירבעם המשיך במלחמות עם ארם, שהתחיל בהן יואש אביו, ומגמתן הייתה לשחרר את חבל עבר הירדן מהשלטון הארמי.
.....
What is the significance of the exchange between the aton and Bil'am?
Why is Bil'am subjected to this game of cat-and-mouse :) by the angel? (And of course why can the aton see the angel and Bil'am cannot),and what is this meant to tell Bil'am, and us?
Two levels of operation, higher, and earthly:
Moshe Rabenu saw sneh on fire and was able to see that it was the shadow of a higher-level event. Bil'am's donkey spoke to him and he treated it as normal!
Bil'am's actions were up on a mountain invisible to the JewishPeople he was affecting, and they didn;t realize the plague was because of it, but Pinchas was able to see that it was related, he saw the higher level, and acted.
Torah is teaching us about these dual-levels via the stories, and by then providing the behind-the-scenes aspect of the stories.
Even we can encounter situaiotns with two levels, eg someone asks why there is suffering and we treat it as a philosophical quesiotn whereas we should have iopen eyes and see a human who is suffering, and give them not a philosophical reply but a hug (of one sort or another)!
What opens our eyes?
Lowering our ego, being able to feel the other's pain or situation - as Bil'am at first was not able to.
....
But then the donkey remonstrates, and asks Bilaam if he (donkey) had ever done this, and Bil'am then answers a simple 'no'. By this he is taking responsibility instead of arguing. Also, Bil'am is now thinking "yeah, that's true, so why is the donkey doing this NOW'? And so he is thinking, 'the donkey must be doing it for a good reason, so what is that reason'? And in merit of being dan lekaf zchut, and being open to hearing the other side of the seeming confrontation against him, he merits seeing the angel (which also clarifies that what he saw as confrontation was actually the opposite). So it is ego-lowering and dan lekaf zchut openenss which led to revelation.
.....
The malach was not visible to Bilam, whose level had sunk due to his ego-driven behavior in going on the mission when it should have been clear that he should not, whereas it WAS visible to the aton due to its ego-less behavior of serving Bil'am faithfully all those years - this is deliberately made a point of, and the aton is consistent here too in faithfully trying to prevent harm to Bilaam by keeping him from the angel's sword, which was meant for Bil'am and did not directly endanger the aton (אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי.),
....................... ......
the aton sees the malach, due to its faithfulness, lack of ego (as in their conversation), so its eyes are open, whereas Bila'am sees only his own self; not only did Bilam not see the angel, he didn't even remark on the very fact that the the aton was talking to him.
And Bil'am didn't realize he had to 'apologize to the aton' for his lack of understanding and instead apologizes ot the malach, self-justifying, saying he didn't see the malach, as if that wasn't obvious to the malach and part of the exercise.
So Bil'am doesn't really 'get it', and he simply continues; he asks permission, but getting this permission from God to violate what he knows is God's will, is similar to when the Bney Yisrael ask for meat and receive the 'slav' bird-meat ,which killed them.
Similarly:
Aton sees angel, Bilam the great prohet does NOT. Until H opens his eyes (due to his eventual humility in answering the aton honestly).
B thought he knew what was happening, based on what his eyes showed him, but it was seeing only at earthly level - the access to the actuality the upper leve, came about only due to a change inside him, humility, honesty about himself.
..
contrast MR and Bilam:
both argued with H', about mission etc,
but opposites re going/not going ego/humility
......
Said at machlis 2021, people complimented me, and R Machls gave thumbs up and said he really liked it never heard it before
.......................................................
.
Said at machlis 202, people complimente,d and R Machls gave thinbs up and said he rally liked it never heard it before
----...
M = B, but M overcame yetzer for kavod and became anav, B opposite.
Our parshas: Events at the earthly level vs higher level
The jews didnt see bil'm, he was high up, unbeknowst to jews, (point made by someone else recently), but his curses caused bnos moav incident; or he wasn't able to curse, only bless, but later he taught the Moabites the secret, how to get H' angry at the Jews and H would kill them , doing the work for them. ie B knew how to cause actions on this level (Zimri etc) which would cause the above level to cause plague at this level, but most people would be oblivious to all these level-interacitons.
Pinchas takes action, but earthly view didnt notice plague nor see pinchas's action as related to it. P knew they could kill him, bec they didnt see what he did, but he was ready to die fror this and so H saved him, but the REASON he could see this was that that he was not thinking of himself, only of saving others.P saw the level-interactions that B brought about
The war against midian seemed natural and part of it was killing bilam, but can't kill navi like him naturally. so there was the klei hakodesh & chatzozerot etc, and also: B's sentence was given to be killed by the malach etc, and instead P carried it out, but earthly view didnt see the angel with sword against bilam etc. P was the correct aversary to B bec he was able to see the level that B activated, and P himself was also operating at that level.
Conclusion: P acted with spirit of higher events bec he overcame his yetzer and did the act (he was man of peace), whereas Bilam succumbed to his yetzer for kavod (opposite of M"R) and so P was moving with the heavenly level and B moving against.and therefore was defeted by P.
I bless me and if anyone else wants, to overcome ego and to see the higher level, so as to be able to flow with the heavenly-level of events.
According to chazal, Balak receives reward because he built 7 mizbechos to God. Why a reward if he wanted to destroy the Bney Yisrael?
Maybe because he understood that one could not kill M"R and the bney yisrael in a natural manner, one needed it to be God's will. One needed to operate at the spiritual cosmic level. And so he hires Bil'am, and makes sacrifices - and this is ok, it is the role/destiny of his nation, they are not bney yisrael, they follow their own path. And since he did so, asking God for help, realizing that all is governed at that level, he was rewarded.
...........
Like with M"R up on mtn in war with amalek, down below didnt see, seemed like natural ebbing of this and that side winning then losing.
...
Spies: and then tzitzis: what you preceive vs the reality etc:
וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.
: it was a problem of 'seeing' [וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם]: וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.
....
Bil'am: The worshipping of ba'al pe'or by B"Y immediately after the story of Bilam, Moav and Midyan is obscure since Bil'am's nationality is not stated, he is not mentioned as being related to Midyan nor to Moav, nor is he said to be related to the worship of Ba'al Pe'or. However in the region of Eretz Yisrael it is known that the non-Jewish inhabitants pronounce the letter "peh" as "beh". The relationship of the actions of Bil'am ben Be'or immediately-following worshipping of ba'al pe'or is made clearer if we identify " be'or" with "pe'or".
Bil'am was an important prophet, and his religion was 'pe'or'. Their worship was related to private actions, excretions of private parts of the body, but performed en masse, in public, and so the way to get he B"Y to engage in this was via enticing them with similar private acts of excretions from private parts of the body, performed en masse in public. That is why Kozbi the daughter of King Tzur of Midian, made sure that she and Zimri were together in public - in the presence even of M"R and the zkenim.
…………......
AR ideas re chanukah etc:
· Sneh burned but was not consumed, like chanukah oil.
· tie it to oil of noah, and ner tamid, and mon, and the flame symbolizes that , when light flame one from the other it is not dimished, M"R to yehoshua, Tradition not change the torah even if it is transmitted over thousasds of years.
· zohar on sneh puts it in context of Bil'am vs M"R: Bilaam as great as MR but his power from darakness, MR from light (and he was chesed): and the sneh was to reassure BY that they will not be consumed:
AR: maybe because bilam was advisor of pharoah when M"R was there? Maybe that is relate to midrash of MR choosing glowing coal, light that burns rather than light that doesnt, deliberately to confuse Bilaam to think he was not dangeorus to the Bilam/Paraoh plan. MR was cas tinto the river bec it is water which is not afraid of fire. And water is from ealrier creation. MR expmelified chesed (maybe idea of flock of sheep, good shepherd?). So sneh is fire is feraful but MR could approach nevertheless, conquered his fear bec he is from water, earlier-creaiton-inspired, so he wasnt made tomeh by the 49 levels of tumah in mtzrayim. And the flood aftermath was to reassure humanity it would continue and oil of yonah was the carrier of the continuity like Tradition, but it was divide dinto different naitons three sons of noah, MR from Shem but Greeks form Yafet, fighting over that oil, bilaam fighting MR and MR gets the light at the sneh, and sheh symbolizes not being consumed by the fire. So we see fire and realize if it doesnt consume the sneh then it means we also can be not consumed by any earthly fire, the oil will last even though it is feeding the menorah-flame, that is ner tamid, ie the traidotn continues, the Jewish people continue after any cataclysm (Flood). And descnedants of Avraham chesed, and Tradition via MR chesed is the idea that the Values are chesed etc, not those of the Yafet Greeks like beauty and truthc(Ahron teaches that Truth is not a value, but rather shalom is). So MR and Ahron are chesed, anovoh & sholom (brisi sholom was to Ahron's descnedant Pinchas), and together thet represent overcoming jealousy.
· sneh = heh on both sides of sin nun = nes.
.............Unfinished
Theme of חֶרֶב is stressed:
נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ
לוּ יֶשׁ-חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי, כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ.
; וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב.
..........
.............Unfnished
Theme of חֶרֶב is stressed:
נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ
לוּ יֶשׁ-חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי, כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ.
; וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב.
..........Unfnished
Note that Hashem opens the aton's mouth and opens Bil'am's eyes (though not the same expression for 'open', but does not need to open the aton;s eyes. But it stresses three times that the aton saw the angel:
וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת-מַלְאַךְ (says this 3 times)
וַיִּפְתַּח
אֶת-פִּי הָאָתוֹן; לא וַיְגַל אֶת-עֵינֵי בִלְעָם, וַיַּרְא אֶת-מַלְאַךְ
...
2018, 2019: Said at Machlis Fri night), shabbos: 'Higher level' and re Yonah:2017: I said re Yonah at Brodt S Shlishis, and added most of re "hakarat hatov"