Torah Portion: Balak (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of the Balak portion, 5760

Between Moab and Israel: Is There a 'Future'?

The previous issue of 'Atid' stirred in me several somber reflections, which I shall present here through this week's

Torah portion. Our portion deals with Balaam, the greatest of the gentile prophets, being invited by Balak king of Moab,

who sought his help in the war against Israel. Balaam is a fascinating and altogether unique figure.

The Sages describe him as a great prophet like Moses our teacher, possessed of singular abilities such as no person in the world

ever had. In the course of his prophecy Balaam reveals several profound insights regarding the nature and future of the

people of Israel, and the Sages even learn some of them from him.

One of the outstanding things Balaam reveals to us is: 'He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen trouble

in Israel' (Numbers 23:21); that is, when there are no transgressions in Israel, then the continuation of the verse applies to them: 'The Lord their God

is with them, and the acclaim of the King is among them' (Numbers 23:21). Balaam further adds: 'How goodly are your tents, O Jacob' (Numbers 24:5), and Rashi explains:

that their entrances are not aligned opposite one another.

Balaam's insight regarding the centrality of modesty in Israel is learned with even greater force from the continuation of the portion.

Immediately after Balaam and Balak return to their places bitterly disappointed, the Torah tells us: 'The people began to commit harlotry with the

daughters of Moab' (Numbers 25:1). Following this came idolatry as well, to which the daughters of Moab entice Israel,

and the rest of the attendant evils.

The situation appears puzzling. Israel is in a pre-war state with Moab, and the latter are gripped by

hysterical fear of them, calling Balaam to curse Israel in order to help them overcome them.

And yet, immediately after all this, wondrous relations of 'friendship' develop, romances that reach the point of

'self-sacrifice' (Zimri and Cozbi), between the daughters of Moab and the men of Israel. In light of this, it is easy to understand

where the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin (106a) gets the idea that this was Balaam's counsel to Moab

to make Israel stumble through sexual immorality as a means of overcoming them. Balaam understands that modesty is what strengthens

Israel, and that by making them stumble in sexual immorality one can prevail over them.

The portion concludes with the deed of Phinehas the zealot, who pierces Zimri, who was fornicating with his Moabite consort,

Cozbi daughter of Zur, relying on the legal rule: 'One who has intercourse with a gentile woman may be attacked by zealots' (Sanhedrin 82a). One should note

that the transgression of intercourse with a gentile woman is not so severe in formal Jewish law, and yet zealots

are permitted to kill those who commit it. There is here a fundamental problem whose gravity lies far beyond

formal Jewish law. One may say that this is a security problem: as stated, the existence of Israel is conditioned

on modesty. Beyond that, we have a tradition that sexual immorality and immodesty bring blindness of the eyes and distortion

of judgment (chiefly moral judgment, though not only that).

In modern society modesty is perceived as a trait that is perhaps good, but certainly not as a moral demand

made of every person. For example, this week a case was publicized involving two employees (one of them married) who had

intimate relations at their workplace and were accidentally filmed by a video camera. What troubles the entire

Israeli public, and especially the media and the Meretz party (which handles their 'rights'), is the fact

that the manager of the place does not preserve their 'privacy' and does not hand over to them the videotape.

The act itself troubles no one.[1]

The bond between a husband and his wife can nowadays be violated with great moral and practical ease. Beyond matters of

modesty, it is not clear to me why someone who violates an agreement with his or her spouse,

is treated differently from other violators of agreements. In addition to the breach of agreement, there is here a betrayal of trust

between people who agreed to a shared life, as well as damage to modesty and to the most basic social unit

of all, which is today being grievously undermined, a phenomenon from which society as a whole suffers greatly. Despite all this

society passes over it as though nothing happened. At most it is an act of 'mischief,' material for jokes, or

for gossip, and our society does not see in it any moral problem whatsoever.

From Balaam we learn that modesty, expressed chiefly in relations between man and woman, though not only there,

is what stands at the foundation of our national resilience. When we fail in it, we are at a low point, and it is almost

certain that, because of the loss of our moral backbone, we shall also fail in the various struggles that stand

before us. I know this preaching sounds outdated and irrelevant, but one cannot ignore

facts, and it is worth learning from history.

Even someone whose moral sensibility has grown so dull that modesty no longer speaks to him should ask

himself what he thinks about failure to honor agreements, betrayal of trust, and the disintegration of the fundamental

social unit. And one final point: if someone does in fact discover that these aspects warrant renewed reflection

for him, let him ask himself why he has not thought about them this way until now. And perhaps he should continue asking himself

also regarding the 'outdated' values of modesty: is there no room to reexamine the positions that we

adopt with respect to them as well?

And in conclusion, a protest: the previous issue of 'Atid' was a difficult experience for me. I assume that some of

the readers, as well as the editors, saw nothing wrong in it, and that is precisely the problem. I wish to protest

the character of the issue, and the world reflected through it, whose roots find expression in a foam cannon imported

for the sake of a pool party, and in the complex relationship between the bathing suit and the female breast, along with a few jokes

that were insipid (and pictures of bathers in a mixed swimming pool). It should be emphasized that my protest is not over an offense

to the religious, but over an offense to our humanity, and over the creation of a society that may be described as 'likened to the beasts

that perish' (Psalms 49:13, 21). There is more insult here to the secular than injury to the religious.

'And the one whom He loves, He reproves' (cf. Proverbs 3:12).

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be deposited for respectful disposal in any synagogue or religious academy. Comments and responses are welcome.

———————–

[1] In a previous essay we saw modesty as a moral principle that is not of the interpersonal sort, a notion

somewhat strange to the modern ear.

Biton46.doc