Shabbos Torah Study Group on the 4th of July 2009

Chazal this, Chazal that… and now Chazal note…

We read that; “HaShem opened the mouth of the she-donkey and it said to Bilaam, ‘What? What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?’” (22:28). And then we find: Chazal note… and this is what they note: the word(s) in Torah do not use the “usual” [meaning either ‘common’ or ‘more grammatically correct’] pe’omim which means “times”. Rather, they say, we find the word(s) regalim which refers to Shalosh Regalim – the Three Festivals.

Nu?

Well, my ethological dictionaries confirm this. Pe’omim means approximately: “three-fold times develop(ed) by agitation”; while Regalim [Regaleem] specifically refers to Pesach, Shavuot & Sukkot! So the first question that comes to (my) mind is: Have we yet been formally introduced to our Obligation to leave our homes and our fields and travel to Yerushalayim? If we have not, then how would we be expected to perceive this differentiation that the donkey makes in her speech? Further, if we have come to understand that once we live in Eretz Israel, we shall have this obligation – can we, at this point in our bamidbar travels understand this distinction? What I am trying to understand is what our ancestors would know and understand – at this point in their desert journey. IS this change of words lost on our people? Or are Chazal, too deep within the forest to see it for the trees?

The point that Chazal makes is that the House of Israel, having such devotion to HaShem as to leave their homes three times a year to travel to Yerushalayim, would hardly be affected or influenced by a curse hurled at them by any heathen – including one as influential as Bilaam. That seems to me to be a rather simplistic approach to explaining an animal speaking Aramaic – or any other human language! It is an interesting concept that has some merit, but we would have to consider the audience that it might be addressed to and their level of understanding, which is exactly what I question.

Of course there are other Rabbis who have other perceptions of this part of our Torah. One such approach is to put additional words into the mouth of this she-donkey, to the effect of this: She (the donkey) is (in effect) saying to her master, “A nation whose allegiance is so steadfast, who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve the integrity and immortality of the Torah, will not fall prey to your curses.” This rabbi adds: ‘If only we would retain that sense of fidelity…” And again, we have a rabbi who is speaking to US – and not to understanding our ancestors. This is obvious. Look at what these people have done so far [afraid of crossing the Sea of Reeds, fearful of not having food, building golden idols, causing dissent, etc. etc. etc.]! And now we are expected to believe that they can and do perceive the difference between pe’omim and regalim? So, If we can accept talking donkeys (as well as other animals with speech) what are we to take, for ourselves, from this Parshat?

Perhaps my Friday evening Erev Shabbat service “drash” holds the answer??