Parshas Balak
This week's Parsha discusses Bilaam's attempts to curse Klal Yisroel, which ultimately resulted in blessings instead. It explores the significance of the terms used for curses and blessings.
The focus of much of this week’s Parsha is Billam’s attempts to curse Klal Yisroel, which we of course unsuccessful, and actually resulted in him giving Brachos instead. As such, it would seem prudent to examine the ideas of Brachos and Klalos, at least as Bilaam understood them.
At the beginning of the Sedra, Balak sends a message to Billam explaining that Bnei Yisroel were approaching Moav, and Balak was afraid that his nation would be destroyed as others had. He therefore made a request of Bilaam: “Lecha Nah Arah Li Es Ha’Am HaZeh.” He asks Billam to curse Klal Yisroel in the hopes that this would weaken them so that they would be vulnerable to an attack by Moav.
Later on, Hashem appears to Billam and asks why the messengers had come to visit him. In response, Billam relates the episode and Balaks request, but with some minor changes—Billam tells Hakadosh Baruch Hu that Balak said “Lecha Kabbah Li Es Ha’Am HaZeh,” interchanging the word “Kabbah” for the word “Arah” used by Billam.
The change in terminology would of course by cause for question, but even more interesting is the way Hakadosh Baruch Hu responds:
The Medrash Rabbah, which is quoted in part by Rashi, tells us that the use of the word Kabbah shows that Billam hated Bnei Yisroel more than Balak, for this term is a more severe form of a curse than the word “Arah”, but we still must understand why Billam made this chanhe. Billam himself had told the messengers of Balak that he would not, and in fact could not, proceed unless Hakadosh Baruch Hu allowed him to, and he surely knew that changing the words would expose his intense hatred for Klal Yisroel. Why would Billam choose to make that change if he was seeking permission from Hashem?
Also, it is important to understand the response that Billam received. Hahsem told him “Lo Selech Imahem, Lo Si’Or Es Ha’Am Ki Baruch Hu.” The Kaviyachol responded using the term Arah, as Balak had, as opposed to the word Kabbah that Billam used. Why was this the case—why did Hashem specifically use this word when giving Billam instructions?
The words “Ki Baruch Hu” require explanation as well: it is certainly understood that Hashem did not want Billam to curse Klal Yisroel, why was there a need to add a reason: “Ki Baruch Hu”. Rashi, again citing the Medrash, explains that Billam offered to give Klal Yisroel a Bracha rather than a Klalla, and Hashem told him that isn’t necessary either, “Ki Baruch Hu”. As we read the Passuk however, the words ““Ki Baruch Hu” seem to be the reason that Billam should not issue a curse. How can we understand the Passuk in this Derech?
It would seem that the first step to explaining these Pessukim is to properly understand the terms “Kabbah” and “Arah”, both in general and in relation to one another.
It is interesting to note that these terms are also used in Sefer Beraishis, when Hashem speaks to Avrom at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. There, Hashem tells Avrom that those who dare curse him or his descendants will be cursed by Hashem, using both the term “Killel” and “Arah”: “Mikalelecha A’Or”. While the word “Killel” is not used by Billam or Balak, R’ Hirsch in this week’s Parsha notes that the word “Kabbah” is in fact a form of the term “Killel”.
If this is the case, however, a question arises: The Medrash tells us that “Kabbah” is a more severe form of curse than “Arah”, wouldn’t it be more of a statement if Hashem had said that those who curse Avrom and his offspring with an “Arah” type of curse will be subject to a Klallah from Hashem? The way it is rendered in the Passuk, it seems that those who issue a egregious form, a Klalah, will be punished with a less severe, Arah, type of curse. Why would this be the case?
In order to answer these questions, it is instructional to understand the difference between a “Klallah” and an “Arah” as R’ Hirsch himself, the master of linguistics and terminology, explains it in Parshas Lech Lecha.
R’ Hirsch explains that a Klallah What is Killel and what is A’Or
R’ Hirsch Killel outward, Aror is eternal…Bilam’s world vs reality—even in your world I’m not letting
Ki Baruch Hu…Mekor Haberacha (lekach tov) Sfas Emes