In the media we are accustomed to ‘selective reporting’. Some minor events get given great coverage whilst other major event events are conveniently side-lined. As Jews we often feel this injustice, and in particular a common occurrence is the reporting of events in Israel. Well the news is, is that nothing is new. The BBC of yesteryear did exactly the same!
The opening words of this week’s Parshah read, “and Balak …. saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites”. R’ A N Galante wistfully remarked how it would seem from Balak’s perspective as though the Jews had commenced an aggressive war against the Amorites, whereas in actual fact, they had begged their King Sichon to allow them to pass through his land and offered to pay for the food they consumed and the water they drank, as is clear from last weeks Parshah. Sichon not only refused them permission but went out to battle against the Jews, initiating an aggressive campaign which he then proceeded to lose.
Why though did Sichon refuse the Jews to pass peacefully through his land? Was this a case of pure anti-Semitism without rhyme or reason?
Let’s take a look at what Balak King of Moav tried to do to thwart the Jews mission. Seemingly he hires Bil’am in this week’s Parshah to curse the Jews. Why? A preliminary glance at the opening verses of the Parshah reveal that after having seen what happened in his neighbouring country he decided to protect his own country Moav – which incidentally the Jews had deliberately bypassed so as not to aggravate them! His goal was, “and I will drive them away from the land” i.e. keep them off my patch.
The Medresh reveals that the patch he was trying to keep them off was not his land rather, “I will drive them away from the land” – their land, Eretz Yisroel. Perhaps Sichon had the same intent, he didn’t want the Jews to get their promised land, and therefore he attempted to stop them even passing through peacefully.
But the question remains asks the Shem Mi’Shmuel, why was the goal of King Sichon and King Balak to stop the Jews residing in Israel? Why would the Jew’s living in Israel affect them in any way?
We have discussed previously the essence of Eretz Yisroel – a place more conducive to holiness. The holiness that is infused in Israel gains intensity in Yerushalayim and is at its peak in the Holy Temple.
We note that Yerushalayim is referred to as a ‘mountain’, as is the place of the Temple. A mountain has two connotations. Firstly that it is higher than anywhere else and secondly a mountain protrudes from the ground upwards to its peak.
Explains the Maharal [1520-1609]: Yerushalayim is ‘up and above’ the rest of the land because it is a place where the ability for holiness is more apparent. Holiness is the ability to use the mundane for an elevated purpose. The land being referred to as a mountain is symbolic of the fact that the very earthliness is projected heavenly. Eating and drinking in the Temple for example was a rendezvous between heaven and earth.
When my father was contemplating moving to Eretz Yisroel he consulted with Dayan Ehrentreu who said a line that was to become famous in our family; the line that my father constantly reminded us of whilst living in Israel. The Dayan asked him, “is your Aliyah going to be an aliyah?” [Note the stress!] I.e. is your emigration (Aliyah) going to be a spiritual growth (Aliyah)?
Going to live in Eretz Yisroel is called ‘making Aliyah’ because this is what it is – or has the potential to be – not just going up physically on to the mountain, but it should be altogether an uplifting experience. On this land, all physicality is uplifted and elevated. The Jews transition from their miraculous survival in the desert was to the physical running of the land of Israel. This was not a step down but ‘making Aliyah’. What’s more holy than eating the food of angels – the Manna in the desert? Eating regular food and channelling the eating for the correct purposes – eat to live not live to eat.
What Balak and Sichon objected to was this very mindset says the Shem Mi’Shmuel. They were the antithesis of holiness. Take for example Bil’am: R’ Dovid Orlofsky pointed out that Moshe is descried as “riding on a donkey (a Chamor)” whereas his counterpart for evil Bil’am literally had a Chamor as his mate. Moshe used the ‘chomer’ which also means ‘earthliness’ – for good, to get him to the place where Hashem had sent him. He was on top of the ‘Chamor’, i.e. in control of it. But Bil’am let the ‘chomer’ be used as a means in of itself; he was literally with his donkey.
Indeed had we entered the Promised Land and all would have gone to plan – as it will be in the time of Moshiach we would fulfil our objective in bringing holiness to the world. Bil’am, Balak, and Sichon were so anti this concept, that they wanted to stop the Jews entering a terrain that would promote holiness. They knew that they had no role in a world of elevating the mundane.
Good Shabbos,
Yaakov