Q&A: Balaam the Wicked, the Donkey of Pinchas ben Yair, and the Concept of the Soul
Balaam the Wicked, the Donkey of Pinchas ben Yair, and the Concept of the Soul
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi.
This is not a question about faith or Jewish law, but just about aggadic teachings. It was mentioned here once in one of the posts that you had studied Kabbalistic thought a bit, and this is more of a conceptual question—that is, a question about your knowledge of the topic, not your opinion (which I assume, as with other topics connected to these issues, you leave as “requires further analysis”).
When I read a bit of the commentary of the holy Or HaChaim, and his teaching, in the section of his commentary on the portion of Balak, if I am not mistaken on the verse “Let my soul die the death of the upright” said by Balaam the wicked, he writes that there is no kelipah in the world (and I assume that in the language of the Kabbalists kelipah means an evil negative force) that does not contain a holy, soul-like spark that gives it life; and that Balaam actually prophesied that his holy spark would pass through reincarnations and be repaired, and would then become like him—like the holy soul of the Israelite who killed him—and when it was reincarnated into the donkey of Pinchas ben Yair, Balaam’s spark returned to its purity. In one of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh’s analytical books as well, it is written that the Ari expounds regarding Balaam the wicked and evil figures of his kind the verse “so that none of him be banished,” meaning, he claims that even among the worst wicked gentiles there exists a good kernel that can ultimately be repaired. That reminded me somewhat of the expression “an imprint of holiness,” which I first encountered in Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen, who argued that even in the greatest wicked person among Israel—even if, from his own standpoint, he has no share in the World to Come—the imprint of holiness within him, the aspect of Israel within him, from that side he does have a share in the World to Come.
I also heard that same aggadah about the reincarnation of the soul into the donkey of Pinchas ben Yair from one of the Kabbalists, who remarked that the evil part within Esau was reincarnated into that donkey and was repaired.
I’m not coming here for mockery or to waste time, so in short my question is:
In general, according to your knowledge of the writings of the Kabbalists, is there among them a regular concept of a “divine spark” and/or a holy spark that exists in every person? And according to their view, is that spark separate from the personality of the wicked person himself? (A bit like Aristotle’s theoretical intellect, which is eternal and separate from the person himself? It reminded me of that a lot.)
- Is there a parallel between the concepts of “a spark within the kelipah” and “the unique quality of Israel”?
And on another plane: what do the Kabbalists, for the most part, think—according to your knowledge—about the whole issue of free choice? From a quick look at their writings, I often find a somewhat deterministic outlook.
If you have lectures on these topics, I’d be happy to get a link.
Thank you and good evening
Answer
The question is far too general. There are many Kabbalists and many Kabbalistic doctrines (most of which I do not know), and each of them can have quite a few interpretations. Your questions, too, are not well defined. So I’ll just say a few things briefly.
Questions like these tend to focus on the lexical dimension. Those are not interesting questions. Essential questions should not ask what the definition of a concept is, but should start from defined concepts and then ask what the relation between them is. On a question like whether there is a parallel between “a spark within the kelipah” and “the unique quality of Israel,” one can give many answers, all of them correct (even within the same Kabbalistic doctrine). There are parallels and there are differences. You need to define those concepts, and then you can ask about the connection between them. The problem is that definitions for such concepts are as numerous as the people you ask.
Even so, I would say that in the simple sense these are different concepts. “The unique quality of Israel” is usually used to describe the unique dimension that exists in Israel as opposed to the nations—a concept which, in my opinion, is not defined at all, empty of content. Perhaps there is room to say that Israel among the nations is like a spark within a kelipah. But “the unique quality of Israel” refers to traits of Israel, and that is not parallel to sparks in kelipot. Of course there is a certain parallel if you look at those traits within the framework of the total set of traits. But all this is just unimportant wordplay.
As far as I know, most Kabbalists believed in free choice. Some of them speak alongside that about divine knowledge and even divine determination (like the Leshem in his doctrine of “the Awesome Plotter”), which in my view is logically contradictory.
What this spark is, translated into human language, is also a question that can be answered in various ways, and in the end it’s a matter of vocabulary. In its simple sense, it is what you understand on your own. There is something internal, positive/spiritual, even within a negative/material reality. Like light in vessels.
In short, in my opinion these kinds of general questions are neither useful nor interesting. If one wants to get something out of them, one has to be much more concrete.
Discussion on Answer
The question is completely understandable, and it is a good question.
My assessment is that you will not find in Kabbalah answers to philosophical questions, but at most a Kabbalistic formulation of answers that can be translated into philosophy. In addition, there are claims there about the existence of metaphysical entities (assuming one sees Kabbalah as a description of reality and not a metaphor). But that too is only a description of part of reality, and as such it is evaluated as true or false. If it is true, then it is true for all human beings; and if not, then not even for Jews. Exactly as it makes no difference whether a Jew makes claims in physics or sociology.
In my understanding, most of Kabbalah is a collection of mystical intuitions, and they can be found in one form or another in other mysticisms as well.
But I do think that with regard to Kabbalah, there is value in studying it, just as there is value in studying philosophy. That is unlike Jewish thought, the Hebrew Bible, and Hasidism. There it is usually a waste of time.
I didn’t really understand why studying the Hebrew Bible is a waste of time. In what sense?
A great many columns and responses and arguments have been written here about this. Search.
Since we’re already dealing with Kabbalah, does Kabbalah actually answer your criticism of Jewish thought?
I’ll explain my argument. You say there is no such field as Jewish thought, because it is a kind of philosophy that has no connection to Torah at all; rather, it is simply what people already think beforehand, and then they insert it into the Torah. Meaning, it is just general thought and not Torah as an object in itself.
Seemingly, when one speaks about Kabbalah, your criticism disappears. After all, Kabbalah does not speak in secular concepts and topics, but has its own language and ideas that come only from the world of Torah. Is that also not considered Torah?
The question didn’t come out all that clearly; I hope it’s understandable.