JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Balak

PARSHAT BALAK – VINDCTIVE REBUKE

Parshat Balak deals entirely with the story of Balak, Bilam and the Jews.

The Jews were approaching the land of Israel after their 40 year sojourn in the dessert. Balak the king of Moav grew fearful that he and his people would be destroyed, for his country adjoined Israel. Having just witnessed the military defeat of the great kingdoms of Sichon and Og, Balak sensed that he too would never prevail against the Jews in a conventional war.

At that time, there lived a Gentile prophet named Bilam from the nation of Midyan. The Talmud writes that Bilam’s capacity for prophesy rivaled that of Moshe (Moses). Balak devised a plan. He would destroy the Jews by hiring Bilam to utilize his Heavenly ‘access’ to curse them. The Almighty, however, prevented the curses from ever being pronounced. Despite his best efforts to harm the Jewish nation, every time Bilam attempted to pronounce curses, blessings emanated from his mouth instead. (One of those blessings, “Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov...” is recited at the beginning of the daily morning prayers.)

Balak soon grew impatient with Bilam’s inability to deliver, and he began to mock him. They then went to a certain location from where Balak reasoned it might be more feasible to curse the Jews. After they arrived at that spot, Hashem (G-d) appeared to Bilam. Balak then asked, “What did G-d say” (Parshat Balak, 23,17)? Before conveying Hashem’s message, Bilam first addressed Balak saying, “Arise Balak” (ibid. 23,18)!

The commentary of Rashi explains that this command of Bilam was prompted by the fact that Balak was mocking him. Bilam therefore responded this way in order to cause Balak pain. Rashi continues that what Bilam actually said was, “Arise Balak! You are not permitted to sit when I am the emissary of Hashem.” These words, however, were not meant to help Balak by advising him on how to act properly. Rather, they were spoken out of hatred with no intention to instruct Balak whatsoever.

Standing in respect when something important is being said is a well established practice. For this reason, many stand in the synagogue when Hashem’s Torah is being read. Reputedly, the great Torah scholar, R. Akiva Eiger (1761-1838) would first don Shabbat clothing and then rise out of respect before allowing anyone to repeat anything in the name of the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797). An elderly Polish Jew from a scholarly rabbinic family recounted something similar. He related that as a child growing up in pre-war Poland, whenever someone at their Shabbat table was about to repeat a thought attributed to the Chassidic rebbe, Rabbi Chaim Halberstam (AKA the Tzanzer Rav, 1793–1876), the entire family would first rise, and only then would the person be asked to continue.

Bilam was about to convey the direct message that he had just personally received from Hashem. It would therefore appear that it was correct for him to demand that Balak first rise out of respect. Why was this considered an act of paining Balak?
Evidently, although it was indeed proper to demand that Balak rise, Bilam made that demand for an unacceptable reason. His intention was solely to pain Balak. Evidently a person can accurately target problematic behavior and wisely criticize another person. Yet, at the same time he may be exclusively motivated by malevolence.

It is extremely difficult for people in positions of authority such as parents, teachers and bosses to criticize deficient conduct and achieve a constructive result. Numerous criteria must be ‘just right’ for there to be any chance of success. For example, the message must be tailored to the temperament of the person being spoken to. How much of the message is said and how much is left unsaid matters a great deal. The tone of voice is critical. It is also important to know when it is best not to speak at all.

The text of this dvar reveals yet a different aspect to the difficulties inherent in these situations. Despite saying exactly the right words exactly the right way at exactly the right time, one inner motives might consist of nothing but hatred and revenge. Even parents who truly love their children might nonetheless speak critically to their child for no other reason other than the fact that they are engaged in an ego-driven power struggle.

Do these inner motives matter?

In Mishlei (Proverbs) 27:19 it is written: “As the water of one face is to the other, so too is the heart of one person to another.” The Commentary of Metsudat Dovid explains the verse’s meaning. When one looks at a body of very smooth water, he sees his own reflection. If he is smiling at the time, he sees his smiling face. When his face expresses a different mood, that is what the water will mirror. So too, the way one person thinks internally about another person will be reflected back. In return, the person addressed will ‘reflect’ the attitude of the first one and feel the same way toward the first person. In other words, one’s inner feelings towards others are often communicated and ‘counter transferred.’

Thus, when a stylistically appropriate rebuke emanates from an inwardly malicious heart, that malice will somehow be recognized, possibly subliminally. The person being spoken to will then never harken to the words of criticism, even if they are absolutely correct. Rather, he will inwardly respond with comparable feelings of vindictiveness.

Successful criticism does not just entail a script that appears to be exactly right. It also requires sterling and well-meaning inner motives.