📋 Shiur Overview
Parashat Balak: A Study on the Path of Service and the Secret of the Cup of Blessing
Every Parasha and Its Mitzvot: The Practical Difference
Our parasha is Parashat Balak. We have already said more than once that every parasha, and every deed mentioned in the Torah, and especially those deeds from the days in the wilderness, are arranged in such a way that they contain narratives, events that occurred, stories of righteous people, stories of the Children of Israel in the wilderness, and alongside all these there is also a mitzvah. That is to say, from the action, from the deed, from the tikkun (rectification) that was made or broken, from everything that occurred there remains a remembrance, there remains a kind of practical difference or a kind of memorial to that thing that happened in the world. These are the mitzvot that we learn. For example, from “And Korach took and his congregation” (Numbers 16:1) comes the mitzvah of Parashat Korach, one of the mitzvot, and there are other mitzvot and the like.
And we have already learned once that the same is true with the Exodus from Egypt. There is the deed that we left Egypt, that the Holy One, blessed be He, took us out from there, and there is also a mitzvah not to return, as it is written explicitly “You shall not continue to return on this path again” (Deuteronomy 17:16), where the verse explains explicitly that it is a mitzvah. The “you shall not continue” is a prohibition to return to Egypt, and opposite it there is a mitzvah to leave Egypt. Besides the fact that the deed was that we left Egypt, that the Holy One, blessed be He, took us out, there is a mitzvah for the Children of Israel to leave Egypt, and it is fulfilled by not going to Egypt to buy horses there and the like.
Two Paths: God’s Deeds and Human Deeds
Thus every deed can be depicted with the aspect that is God’s deed that the Holy One, blessed be He, does, that the Holy One, blessed be He, cast Korach into the earth and the like, and the aspect that people do, that they do afterward that same thing itself. And it is possible to express this in another way, and these are two paths that one must examine whether they align: that the deed itself is while the doubt still stands. That is to say, on one hand perhaps Korach is right and on the other hand perhaps Moses is right, on one hand perhaps one should strike the rock and on the other hand one should speak to the rock, and from this emerges something actually, a real deed, the Song of the Well. This we already say from the resolution of the doubt, like a conclusion of the matter. It is possible that both things align and it is possible that it is something else, and I do not know. But either way, we always want to learn from this to that.
And in other words, whenever we learn the deed we should understand that a mitzvah is hidden within it. And this is what is called in other language learning “on the path of service.” Everything that occurred, or we can even say this—what is the meaning of “path of service”? This is one of the words that we seek in recent lessons to clarify its meaning. For there is learning on the path of truth, or on the path of theory, and there is learning on the path of service. It is a somewhat difficult thing, and very common. This is one of the words very commonly used in Hasidic language, that they learned Kabbalah and the like on the path of service, but it is not at all clear what its meaning is.
What is the Path of Service: The Path of Deed versus Human Deeds
One of the possible explanations is this. The path of deed in its simple sense is things as they are, as the Holy One, blessed be He, made them, and included in it—and this is somewhat the opposite of the second path—that this is more in the category of the general, it is simple, it is so and not otherwise. Whereas the path of service is always to find what people do with it, and in other words what we do with it. And in truth, even when we learn a deed that occurred, even when we learn in the teaching of deed, we still learn on the path of service, for the establishment of Torah and the study of Torah is also service, is also a mitzvah, is also something we do. And in other words, it is also something that is not complete.
Clarified and Unclarified: What Does “Already Occurred” Mean
The language of the Kabbalists sometimes uses this language: there are things that are complete, which are called clarified and rectified, and there are things that are not complete. The complete things—we essentially have nothing in them, the Holy One, blessed be He, already completed them, already did them, they already were. “Which God created to do” (Genesis 2:3) already was, according to the simple meaning, “And the heavens and the earth were finished” (Genesis 2:1) already finished, and in what is finished you have nothing to do.
But when we learn even the six days of creation on the path of service, we say that the thing is not complete. What is written that it is complete—that there was tohu vavohu (chaos and void), and afterward light and darkness were made and the entire order of creation—is partial, a part was made. And the language of the Rashash is that the aspect of the six days of creation was already made, but the aspect of the gar (the three upper sefirot), the aspect of the mochin (intellects), the aspect of the three bound lights has not yet been made, and it is still being made when we make it.
And what does it mean at all when we say it already occurred, and what is its relevance to us? For if we say it already occurred, a difficulty arises. What do you prefer: if it has not yet occurred, if it still depends on choice and service, what benefit is there in your telling me a story? And it is even possible to say, what benefit is there in having a mitzvah here that seemingly says do this and do not do that, or at least one can say the mitzvah in a more general way, do what is proper and do not do what is improper—what benefit is this to me? The principle of the matter: on the part that is already known, on the part that is already clarified, service is not relevant, and service is only on the part that is not clarified, on the part that has not yet arrived, that Mashiach has not yet come. And on that part we do not know. So what benefit is it to me?
The Answer: We Learn from the Rectified about the Unrectified
The answer is that the order of tikkun depends on learning from the part that is already rectified. In other words, if it were indeed so, the thing would not begin at all; if the entire world were tohu vavohu one hundred percent, we would not even have with what to begin, we would not even know how to ask the question, we would not even know in what we are sick, in what we are broken, in what we are shattered, so that we could find a tikkun. And certainly we would not know, and secondly, we would not have a path—we would not know how to begin to do, and what at all to begin to do.
The fact that the Holy One, blessed be He, made the world, or that one can say in the Torah that already exists, the deeds that already occurred, and we already have a result, and we already learned from them that here is good and here is bad, that on the seventh day we rest and on the six days we work—the order of things is already clear to us. For if not, we would not know at every moment whether to rest or to work, whether to rest or to work, and we would not know. This has already become a fixed rule, “Six days you shall work and on the seventh day you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21). And now we know from this, and from this we learn, and this is like learning something from something, or from asking a sage half an answer. And the entire world, in the sense that it still has no answer—that the world has not yet done teshuva (repentance), that it is not yet, that we still stand in “today if you will hear His voice” (Psalms 95:7), that we do not yet stand in what has already been completed, in the complete tikkun, in Mashiach, in the future to come, in the end of days, we are not yet there.
The Connection Between the Rectified and the Unrectified
But even the part where we do not yet stand has, one can say, a certain structure, and is not completely lost, for the part that is already rectified is connected. The simple meaning is not that there is a part that is completely unrectified and a part that is rectified, and there is nothing between them. It is not so, but they are connected to each other. The part that is unrectified goes in the same order, or is connected in the same world, in the same structure, in the same form as the rectified part. And therefore, from what is already rectified we can learn toward the parts that are not rectified. And not that it is possible to copy and paste; for if it were possible to copy and paste simply, then the simple meaning is that it is already rectified, and one can say that what is lacking is literally like the completion of work, and we do not speak of this. We speak of the fact that one still needs to use knowledge, still to bring mochin in order to rectify the new parts, but this we learn from the parts that already were.
Learning Ma’aseh Bereishit and Ma’aseh Merkavah on the Path of Service
And this is the meaning of learning the comprehension, learning ma’aseh bereishit (the work of creation)—which is Kabbalah—ma’aseh bereishit and ma’aseh merkavah (the work of the chariot) on the path of service. Path of service means just as we learn Parashat Balak, Parashat Chukat, Parashat Korach, every parasha in the Torah on the path of service. On the path of service—people might think it means on the path of remez (hint), that everywhere they say this hints at the evil inclination and this at the good inclination. This is not worth money. But the depth of the matter is the recognition that all that we know that Balak and Bilam were wicked, and all those details of Bilam’s deed, and for example, in a simpler matter, all that we know that Pharaoh was wicked and we are the good ones—in this Mashiach has already come, that Mashiach already came, that thing was already resolved, that thing already finished, already was, and we have nothing to do with it.
That is to say, one who wants to learn as if not on the path of service, his intention is that it already occurred, and since it already occurred we have nothing to do with it. But on the other hand, if a person will say everything is on the path of service, and will say there is nothing here, perhaps Pharaoh is the righteous one and Moses the wicked, perhaps specifically Korach is the righteous one and Moses the wicked, if he says this completely—the thing teaches us nothing, and there is nowhere to begin, and therefore what shall we say, we remain in the world of doubt, in the world of complete doubt. And it is possible that in a certain sense there we all begin, every day and every moment, and all life begins, and indeed we know nothing.
But when we learn, and learn the deeds that are as if already holy and rectified, what we learn is that the thing is not yet complete, that we have not yet completely defeated Bilam, for if not we would not learn the deed. A great principle: an enemy we have already completely defeated does not stand in the Torah, but one we have not yet completely defeated stands in the Torah. But what we have already defeated to some extent—that we do not tell just failures, but we tell at least half a success or a certain success—that certain success teaches us how, in what manner, with what tactics, in what ways to deal with such a type of problem, and one can say literally with such a nation, or with such a problem more in spirituality, this is the simple meaning.
Thus learning on the path of service means also to understand that the deed that was was not predetermined, was not necessary to be so, but there was doubt in it and the doubt was resolved; and also that there is still today a certain doubt, that the doubt has not yet been completely resolved, but the part, the way in which we will resolve today’s doubt, we hope and try to use the forms and distinctions that already were, that the Holy One, blessed be He, already made. This is generally the process as I understand it. It is possible to explain it further more broadly and to bring more examples, but this is generally the process as I understand what learning on the path of service is.
The Deed of Parashat Balak
A Simple Summary of the Parasha
Now, then, let us try with this to approach the deed of our parasha. Here the truth should be said: the foundation I am about to say now is literally like a summary of a machine, and it is almost a blessing in vain. But this is a summary that the verse itself makes in a certain sense. However, the true learning is not this. The summary is: Bilam wanted to curse Israel, Balak wanted to hire Bilam to curse Israel, he hired him and wanted to pay. In practice he did not succeed, and instead of cursing Israel he blessed Israel, and said how good Israel is and how well it will be for them. These are more or less Bilam’s blessings.
And now we see literally as they say, that he read a long novel and it is about one war, one began and one finished. The Torah lengthens, there is great length here, the entire parasha: how he sent messengers twice to Bilam that he should come, and three times the angel stopped him on the way, and three times they took him to other places, and he offered sacrifices and said prophecies, and four times he said prophecies, and said three prophecies the fourth time, and said “Come, I will advise you what this people will do” (Numbers 24:14). All these details, I say, that we will not arrive at anything if we do not learn all these details. This is the sugya (Talmudic topic), and this is the way to truly enter the subject.
But it is still important, and presumably after we enter the subject in detail—which I have not done here and cannot do now—we will understand that the subject is something completely different. In other words, even though one can say the same title—and many times when learning a book, the same title and the same category I say—in truth its meaning is something else after learning than before learning.
The Summary of the Verse in Deuteronomy
The title is as written in the book of Deuteronomy, “Who hired against you Bilam son of Beor from Pethor of Aram Naharayim to curse you, and Hashem your God was not willing to listen to Bilam, and Hashem your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because Hashem your God loves you” (Deuteronomy 23:5-6). This is the summary verse of Parashat Balak. And there are even early commentators who learn such ways in the parasha, like the Rashbam, and one can even say that the reason the entire deed was written is to explain the verse. For it is written “An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem… because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way when you left Egypt and because he hired against you Bilam son of Beor” (Deuteronomy 23:4-5), and there is only one line there, “who hired against you.” And that same thing is mentioned in the book of Joshua, and Micah in the haftarah we read mentions it, and it is mentioned two or three times, and Yiftach mentioned it in last week’s haftarah. It turns out this is something mentioned, from the foundations of the mitzvah, and there is a message in it, and therefore we want to know what was. This is the deed.
Before Entering the Deed: The Questions
But in truth the deed is much more detailed, and before entering the deed it is proper simply to enter the service in it, the questions. What are the questions here mainly: why did he want to go, why did he want not to go, why did he want to bless, why did he want not to bless. There is doubt here, and one must understand what it is. But in the most general way this is the deed: he wanted to curse, he wanted to hire someone to curse, and in the end he blessed. This is the deed.
The Mitzvah: An Ammonite and Moabite Shall Not Enter
The Law of An Ammonite and Moabite Shall Not Enter
And from the deed comes a mitzvah, and there is a practical halachic difference, “An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even the tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4). It is forbidden to marry an Ammonite and Moabite. “You shall not seek their peace and their good all your days forever” (Deuteronomy 23:7)—not only not to marry, but even not to seek their peace and good. And he learns that there is a law, that if we make war with Ammon and Moab we do not make a call for peace. There is a special law not to arrange their peace and good. And why? Because he is so wicked, because he did what he did—even though he did not succeed.
And this is an interesting thing. One can say that we discover that he is evil. Balak was hidden, Moab was hidden, and seemingly it would have been enough that we not go to him. And it was not enough, but we need to tell that he did not succeed. For if he had succeeded these would be good news, a problem.
However, what is relevant here to the matter? What enters into the law of “an Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter”? If he had succeeded, certainly we would forbid him with “an Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem.” And the addition here, “and Hashem your God was not willing,” seemingly has no connection with “an Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem.” It seems like something incidental, “and Hashem your God turned,” that it is mentioned that the Holy One, blessed be He, loves us. And it is possible. For in the book of Deuteronomy many times Moses our teacher seeks to remind Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, helped them and that He loves them, and inserts this even in a place where it has no connection there. But it seems that here this also has a connection with the mitzvah, with the mitzvah of “an Ammonite shall not enter,” with the mitzvah of relating to Moab, with the mitzvah of “you shall not seek.” And one can say in the language “My people, remember now what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Bilam son of Beor answered him” (Micah 6:5), the verses in the haftarah, which is also in the category of remember something from this, understand something from this.
The Mitzvah as a Test and as Doubt
This sounds like a very simple mitzvah, like a black-and-white thing. Ammonite and Moabite, and nothing more. But it is simple and certain that in spirituality this is how we understand it, and I believe that even in this world, the depth of spirituality and also the practical side, earthliness, completely cynical materialism, are similar. So simple, that if we need to speak about this so much, and there is such a sharp verse, the meaning is that we have business here. We need to know to learn from him what his intention is, if he can convert, or perhaps the verse still does not know of the concept of conversion, and does not speak from the teaching of a convert—and it is possible that a female convert indeed helps, and it is even possible that if he converts he will not marry a Jew. We see that the Sages made from this a kind of law, and even though from the time of the Sages it is no longer practiced, in any case “an Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem.”
But it is certain that if there is a verse, and we also see in the book of Nehemiah that he brings the verse and says that this was actually a question, the meaning is that there is a test here. And a test, in truth is very similar to doubt. For a test, when a person knows what he must do, this is not a test. A test means there is such an aspect, there is such a hava amina (initial assumption), there is such a case. In other words, there is a ruling that has not yet been decided. There is still an Ammonite and Moabite that we need to know if they belong to the congregation of Hashem or not. And what does this mean inwardly: what is the quality of Ammonite and Moabite, and if he belongs to the congregation of Hashem, and what is he doing wrong, and what is the thing that must be done or not done.
The Two Sins of Moab
And if we need to know what is Ammonite and Moabite, what he must do and what is forbidden to him, the verse says “because they did not greet you”—two things: “they did not greet you with bread and water,” and “who hired against you Bilam.” That is to say, if we want to fulfill, if we want to know how to fulfill the parasha, we need to greet Israel with bread and water, and also to hire for the blessing of Israel and not to hire for the curse of Israel, and to understand something better, the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for Israel, the “because He loves you,” the “and He turned.”
The Secret of the Cup of Blessing
A Cup is the Quality of the Receiver
Behold we learned in the introductions to the Zohar about the “cup of blessing.” The “cup of blessing” is a word for the Shechinah (Divine Presence). And the “cup of blessing” we lift with two hands, we take it in the right hand so that the left will not grasp it. What we take in the right hand is “the cup of salvations I will lift,” the rose that is found among five mighty oaks.
And we must understand two things: first, why is it called a cup, and second, what is the cup of blessing. Cup means—and this is also written explicitly in other places—that cup in gematria is Elokim (God), and cup indicates the quality of the receiver. That is to say, the last quality. The last quality is when there already is, when there is already abundance, when there is already the reality that we call in this world, the last level, the end, the end of days, the last day, that Malchut (Kingship) is called the end of days, the last of the days called in the seven sefirot Shabbat, it already exists.
“She Has Nothing of Her Own”: The Shechinah Has No Choice
And now, from the aspect that it is a cup, from the aspect that it is like the moon, we say about it “she has nothing of her own.” What does it mean that she has nothing of her own? It means essentially that as if she has no choice. In other words, as we said, one who only receives the Torah, one who is only among those about whom it is written that a convert is called “under the wings of the Shechinah,” who only receives the Torah, he knows what is already good and what is already not good, and fulfills it. But he adds nothing of his own, he cannot add anything of his own, he does not have the ability, he is not that type of person. This is a cup, this is the last, this is the end.
And into this cup, since he cannot decide and cannot do anything, enters what enters. And therefore we say that the Shechinah has two qualities, and we said here white and red, like a rose whose root is in two colors. And in truth it is somewhat ridiculous to say she has two qualities in this sense. The simple meaning is that she has nothing. Chesed (kindness) and Gevurah (severity) are only, what comes, “I will praise from this and from this,” what comes—this she receives. She has no definition of her own. She has no definition of her own.
Therefore we say that the Shechinah has two qualities, and they said there is white and red, like “a rose among thorns” (Song of Songs 2:2), “a rose that has two colors.” And in truth it is somewhat ridiculous to say she has two qualities in this sense. The simple meaning is that she has nothing. Chesed and Gevurah are only, what comes, “In Him I will praise the word, in God I will praise the word” (Psalms 56:11). What comes—this she receives. She has no definition of her own. And if she has no definition of her own, then she is both this and that.
The Dispute of the Chazon Ish with the Chassidim About Bitachon
Now we need to understand if this thing is reconcilable. I mean: if the quality that we call to receive both chesed and gevurah—let us say, to each person according to his path to truth—is the quality neutral, or is the quality both chesed and gevurah, or is it neither of them. For it is possible to think—and in my opinion this is not correct, but initially one can think—that this is like the dispute that the Chazon Ish has with the Chassidim about the quality of bitachon (trust). The Chazon Ish says there are people, Chassidim, who think that bitachon means to believe that it will always be good, or that it is already good, to see that it is good, to believe and hope that it will be good, to trust that it will be good. This is the simple Chassidic meaning. And the Chazon Ish explains that it is not so. Who told you it will be good? Bitachon means that what occurred occurred, and what occurred the Holy One, blessed be He, does, and to accept what occurred. A person cannot know if it is good or not. This is the approach of the Chazon Ish.
According to the simple meaning of the Chazon Ish, as if the quality of Malchut is neutral. It has no color. It receives what it is. And the Chassidim say no, but it is essentially good. And one can understand that the Chassidic books always hold that if a person nullifies himself, if he goes to receive, “nullify your will”—and this is a Mishnah, “Nullify your will before His will so that He will make your will like His will” (Avot 2:4)—if he does that it does not concern him, it becomes good. And one must understand this: why will it become good?
Petor: The Secret of the Table
The Two Sins are One Sin
The truth is that the matter is more complex. I do not have enough to say this clearly today, but the truth is that the matter is more complex, and it is possible to understand it thus. We said there are two things, and this is somewhat a drash (homiletical interpretation), but it is more or less the drash of the Zohar. Let us say there are two things that Moab did not do properly: one, that they did not bring bread and water, and two, “because he hired against you Bilam son of Beor.” And it seems, and everyone asks the difficulty, that it is somewhat like something they say: murder, arson, and crossing the street not at a crosswalk. Indeed he wanted to kill them, and also did not bring bread and did not bring salt, and dipped the motzi without salt. The thing has no sense.
But the Zohar expounds thus, it is possible to expound according to the Zohar inwardly, and the Zohar says that it is written “Bilam son of Beor from Petor.” “Petor” son of Haran is from the language of table. Like a table that is written “who set a table for Gad” (Isaiah 65:11), and it is written “And you shall make a table… and you shall set upon the table showbread before Me continually” (Exodus 25:23-30). There is a table that we set before Hashem. And that table, as we see that they make the table similar to the altar, and the Shabbat table of ours, a Shabbat table, or they make the altar itself as a table, or the table that they would place there. And there is “who set a table for Gad,” that they would set a table for the constellation, a kind of sorcery like this.
The Lights That a Person Makes, Thus He Receives
The Zohar says that the truth is that this is how the thing works. The truth is that as we set, so we receive. And this is the foundation that the Zohar calls it, that the lights that a person makes, thus he receives. This is a very difficult foundation—and not that it is difficult, but that we say it and do not understand what its meaning is. We need to understand, for example, one practical difference, that is written explicitly in the Zohar, in last week’s parasha, regarding Elijah on Mount Carmel with those people who fought there, the prophets of the Baal.
We are accustomed, that they will say thus—and I am not speaking just the simple Lithuanian meaning—to think that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the master, and this is the faith. The faith is that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the master of ability over everything. And all kinds of Bilam, he can curse from today until tomorrow, it will not harm us, he has no power.
And one who understands a bit, and one who learns Parashat Balak, sees that this is not the simple meaning. If the Holy One, blessed be He, loved them so much, He should have nullified Bilam’s curses. One can say rationalistic simple meanings, that Balak thought, and one can say all kinds of answers, but it is very clear from the deed itself that we take Bilam’s curses seriously. Bilam is not just—even though the Holy One, blessed be He, indeed wants, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not want, and this is a very complex sugya to understand, but it is certain that Bilam indeed can do something. As it is written in all the early commentators who argue, for example if the Rambam, and all the Rambam—and this is not our discussion now—that there is power to sorcery, for example, and they ask what its meaning is.
The Table Does Nothing: It Only Takes What is Set Upon It
And the Zohar explains that there is an order. That is to say, in other words, this that we say that the world is a receiver, the table—what kind of receiver is it? A table is a tish (table) upon which we place things. The table is not something that does things. The earth sprouts things, “who brings forth bread from the earth,” the earth does something as if; even the earth is a kind of receiver that does things. But the table does nothing, we place prepared food upon it, we place upon it, and it takes what we place upon it. As they say “the paper suffers everything,” the paper suffers everything. A table is something that suffers everything. We place stuffed fish upon it—behold it is stuffed fish; we place lettuce upon it—behold it is lettuce; we place sweets upon it—there is no difference, it is a table.
Setting the Table: What We Prepare, Thus It Comes
And now, this table it is possible to set, as it is written “You set before me a table opposite my enemies” (Psalms 23:5). A table, as if a guest comes and we set a table for him, we prepare a table in honor of a guest, in honor of Shabbat, in honor of something. And that type of table that we are about to prepare, that type of thing it is about to bring. The simple meaning is not that he will bring a gift and think what table. We will speak of the mood of the guests, of the mood of the person sitting at the table. When a person prepares a table, this is such a preparation, such a preparation of preparing a table for Shabbat, great work.
And afterward, an interesting thing, a person is likely to think—and we do not deal enough with returning the heart to a broader matter, what is called circular causality, things that work a bit less than the simple simple meaning, a bit more complex. One says: ‘Indeed I made the table, so what does it matter to me that the table is set nicely?’ Thus one is likely to say, a great Litvak like this, a rationalist: ‘What does it matter to me? Indeed I myself made the table, it should be nice. Why should I be impressed that it is nice?’ But it is not so. After a person sets the table, and it is set nicely—and indeed a table is only preparation—he places the cup there, and a cup is part of the preparation, it is a table as we spoke, he places a cup, places a bowl, chair, plate, all these things, the fork, everything vessels, he prepares the vessels. And afterward he sits, and with this a meal is appropriate.
And suddenly, we will speak of the spirituality, of the feeling. We spoke at a meal, and we did not think this week—a wedding, and they even detailed, ‘one who enjoys a wedding meal does not bring joy.’ For one who enjoys is one who thinks that a meal is a place where we eat. No, but simply the joy of the groom.
One Who Toiled on Erev Shabbat: The Union of Person and Table
And here, according to what he prepared himself, like “one who toiled on Erev Shabbat will eat on Shabbat” (Avodah
One Who Toiled on Erev Shabbat: The Union of Person and Table
And here, according to what he prepared himself, like “one who toiled on Erev Shabbat will eat on Shabbat” (Avodah Zarah 3a). There is also the simple simple meaning, that he will not have what to be ashamed of. And there is also, that he prepared for himself such a beautiful golden plate. Now, the food that we place upon it is not the same food as food that we place on a paper plate. This is the fact. And I am not speaking now—even the taste tastes different, for a person tastes with his mind, a person does not taste only with his senses, but tastes with his mind, tastes with his soul, with what he is as a person. It is certain that he feels differently, that he is different.
Thus one who prepares the table—even if a person sits alone by himself, even if a person sits alone, he prepared the table and afterward sits at it, as it is written that one must sit by the table, for it is a yichud (unification). A person with a table is a yichud. A table is Malchut. A person is Tiferet (Beauty). “Like the beauty of a person to dwell in a house” (Isaiah 44:13). A person sits by a table—this is a yichud. And one must eat from the fish. These are already hints how a person should conduct himself literally in his sitting.
But the very preparation of the table makes the thing occur—not the simple meaning that one does not need to cook separately, one needs to cook separately, but the preparation, like the preparation of the vessels, makes the abundance come in this way. If a person prepares a table thus, neither here nor there, the meal will be neither here nor there. And when he sets it nicely and prepares it, the meal is to the point, it has taste. He places a zemirot (song booklet), places his silver goblet, what a person has—these are mitzvot of kavod Shabbat (honoring the Shabbat).
Kavod Shabbat versus Oneg Shabbat: The Question of the Chazon Ish
He distinguishes between kavod (honor) and oneg (delight). And I saw an interesting thing—and I do not disagree with the Chazon Ish, I believe everything is the approach of the Chazon Ish, and I am not saying there are no things that are difficult to decide—I saw in one of the books of the Chazon Ish a question, that there is a contradiction between kavod Shabbat and oneg Shabbat. And what is the contradiction? That for example, kavod Shabbat is to sit in a bekitche (robe) at the meal, but oneg Shabbat is to sit without the bekitche, if it is hot, in the climate of Bnei Brak. And he asked, what prevails, kavod or oneg? And presumably it depends. But I believe that if one will say that oneg always prevails over kavod, he does not understand even the oneg. For kavod Shabbat means this, that he sets a table, prepares the table. As we learn, “A person should always set his table on Motza’ei Shabbat even though he only needs a kezayit (olive’s volume)” (Shabbat 119b). And Motza’ei Shabbat, I believe its simple meaning is seudah shlishit (the third meal), there is no difference. When we prepare the meal, even though he does not need to eat—meaning that the eating is a side matter. But in other words, the spiritual abundance, a table is not the simple meaning that it is oneg. The truth is that the oneg is according to the kavod, according to how much he prepares the candles, places flowers, places all kinds of things that are beauty.
The Flowers Make the Fish Taste Better
And it is not as the rationalists often think—it is not rational, by the way. I just call this rational all the time, and in truth it is something else: a person who has no taste, a person who has no vitality in his life, is a dry person. What does it matter to you that you have flowers? It is not written in the Gemara that one must buy flowers for Shabbat—I am not saying. What will rebuke you about the flowers? The flowers make the fish taste better. This is how it is. The flowers, in other words, according to Kabbalah, this is what is written in the Zohar.
This is how the Zohar understands, and the Zohar places this at much higher levels of reality, but one must know to understand at one level, and afterward it is possible to place it at greater levels. That we place flowers on the table, this is the rose, “a rose among thorns” (Song of Songs 2:2), and this makes that to the table will come better challah, better wine. A nicer cup makes the wine become better. This is the fact. And one can even say thus: a person has a nice cup, he has a good goblet for kavod Shabbat, it is not appropriate that he place cheap Kedem wine in it, he pours, it has no taste. He has a cup, he buys a golden goblet, and in the golden goblet—if it is expensive wine, if there is taste. And this also awakens in the person his desire. But even let us say he has what he has, it will still be a different type of wine, it will still be a different type of abundance. The preparation of the receiver makes the abundance.
Backward Causality: The Returning Light
Even though the receiver initially receives only what it is, the matter is much more complex than this. There is also backward causality here, even something I did myself returns afterward to me. It returns in a cycle, like returning light. I do something myself and it returns to me. This is how the world works, the entire world. The Holy One, blessed be He, made the world, everything He made very good, and afterward as if this returns to Him, He receives pleasure from the world, He receives—meaning from where. And afterward, how do we understand this, with the Holy One, blessed be He, with all the theological problems there are—we express in a small way the idea, that there can be such a thing, that it can be that a person did something and afterward enjoys from it, becomes a receiver from the thing he did. A wonder. I am the master of the house, I made the table—what is my enjoyment from the table? But thus, it passes, and thus the enjoyment is written: if we prepare the table before he comes home, and he comes home from the synagogue and the table is set—he himself prepared, or his wife prepared, it is set—and now he enjoys, he receives from this inspiration, he receives from this orchin (guests), because it is set. This is how the world works.
Bilam and Setting the Table for Evil
Moab Cannot Curse: He Must Set a Table
And this is the meaning of the cup of blessing. And now we need to understand, seemingly we should teach that here is the subject of Bilam, and first of all we need to understand that the two of Moab—and I believe this is even in the Zohar, even though I did not examine the language now, but I saw that it speaks of the matter—that the two sins of Moab are one sin. The “they did not greet you with bread and water” is the same thing itself as “he hired against you Bilam son of Beor to curse you.” And why? Because Israel comes, “Behold a people has come out of Egypt” (Numbers 22:5). Moab says: I am passive, I am Moab, I am the part certainly connected to the quality of Malchut, the honor of the king. Necessarily Moab is a subject of malchut, malchut of holiness or malchut that is not proper, I understand.
And when they come, I cannot do anything. What can I do? I need to find one who understands, he has power in the mouth, one who understands the quality of Malchut, who understands how to deal with a problem in which I cannot do anything, that I cannot curse. I can ask that Bilam curse, and even this I cannot do, but I can pay him.
The Torah says: Who told you that you cannot do anything? Set a table for this. Israel leaving Egypt, prepare them, set yourself—instead of the daughters of Moab that you sent, set yourself with bread and water. This is the problem. And this is the reality. They say, for example, literally according to the simple meaning, that a person—sometimes a person comes and he is dangerous, and the first thing they remove you.
The Zohar’s Question: Why Did They Not First Honor Bilam
I saw that the Zohar asks a very beautiful question, very beautiful because it expresses how the Zohar understood what should have been done, and it answers without moving from the basic assumption. The Zohar asks thus: We see that Bilam toiled with Balak, and Balak toiled with Bilam, he does not want to come, he does not want to come, he does not honor him enough, he honors him enough. The Zohar says: I do not understand, Balak is foolish, you know it is not so, that when we want something from a person, first we honor him and afterward we ask from him what we need. Why, says the Zohar, should Balak have sent first to Bilam words of peace, words of honor, you are a great prophet, you are a great blessed one, and to give him gifts and all kinds of things, and afterward he should have said: You know what, perhaps you will curse Israel for me? This would have been proper. Why the first thing, “And he sent messengers to Bilam,” the first thing “Behold a people has come out of Egypt… Come now, curse for me” (Numbers 22:5-6)? This is foolishness.
The Zohar answers and says: From this we see that Bilam’s greatest pleasure was to curse Israel. This was for him the gift. Not that they did not bring afterward kesomim (divination fees) and kesamim (sorcery fees), they brought something, kesomim are gifts. But this very thing was setting the table for Bilam. And we see clearly—and this everyone understands—that when we want to ask something from a person, first we honor him with bread and water, even if he is your enemy, “from much hatred I fed him bread.” We see many times that this works on everything.
Setting a Table Works: Even with Enemies
First, I once saw an Israeli who spoke—a long time ago—how to speak with the enemies, whether to make peace or not. He said: I do not know if they will make peace, I do not know. One thing: if we speak, we already stand better. And why? That if I speak with another, even if we sit in the same room, first of all I know that he does not eat glass, he is a person, he eats, we drink coffee together, and already—I am not speaking of this, they think it is bribery, an action. But this is setting a table, this works.
And that same thing itself is with the Holy One, blessed be He. Now, there is an obligation “we should greet Moab with bread and water,” meaning before Shabbat we receive him, but every morning, “Modeh Ani” (I give thanks). And I am not saying God forbid that what he does is good; you are not acknowledging something new, you are not grasping that if we make a l’chaim, if we make a lechacha (toast) and a drink, the countenance looks different. This truly changes the abundance, and I am not speaking of the fact that the Zohar further lengthens on this that indeed this is how the thing works, it changes, and it truly works thus. This is the foundation of “we should greet with bread and water,” which is the same secret.
Sorcerers Understand Setting a Table for Evil
Now, then we understand, and the Zohar says that Bilam and all the sorcerers understand this very well. The sorcerers are not crazy, the sorcerers do this. The sorcerers are people who know how to arouse the impurity, how to set a table so that it will be evil, so that he can kill Israel with it. This is what he does, this is Bilam’s work, and it is great work, there was great toil, he had to find, to make a miracle, to find advice how to turn a curse into a blessing.
The Role of the Tzaddik: Not to Let the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Sit
Rabbi Nachman: Why Do We Let the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Sit
But the truth is that the turning of curse into blessing, I believe it is possible to understand—it sounds a bit laughable, I do not know if so, one needs to go into more complex depth also in this—but I believe it is possible to understand that what Bilam says all the time, “What Hashem puts in my mouth, that I will speak” (Numbers 22:38), this is not a Chassidic way of speaking.
There is in the name of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov that he said he does not understand why we let the Holy One, blessed be He, sit. He spoke a difficulty on the tzaddikim. Then they spoke, when the decrees of the Cantonists of the Czar began, that there were great troubles for Israel. Rabbi Nachman said: It seems to him that all the tzaddikim are too calm, too satisfied with what the Holy One, blessed be He, does. Why do they sit and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do what He wants? And is this the role of a tzaddik, to let the Holy One, blessed be He, do what He wants? “What Hashem puts in my mouth, that I will speak”? To be nullified?
And what is written, what is the role of a Jew? The role of a Jew, certainly one cannot tell the Holy One, blessed be He, what to do—but how do we do Him good? Set a table for Him. The Holy One, blessed be He—and the truth is so, and I am not now saying the theology in the matter, I am saying the practical side—the truth is that only good comes, but how is it done, how did Bilam think he would do evil, that he would make sacrifices, a kind of sacrifices that cause to arouse judgments, he will arouse judgments on Israel.
But in a somewhat deeper sense, he sought to find all the problems, and this indeed exists in truth, it is objective, objectively there are always problems, objectively there are parts of destruction in the world, this is the objective. But who told you to be so passive? Who told you to let the Holy One, blessed be He, do what He wants? Set a table!
The Principle Works for Good and for Evil
And this is the truth, and the truth is that we did this, we defeated Bilam, and we also brought into Bilam that he should do so, and one must examine—this is the version, one must examine in the verses, in the entire order, and I believe this can only be at the end, and perhaps we will be able to learn the parasha on Shabbat with this finally—but we need to find how Bilam, this very thing was something that the Holy One, blessed be He, aroused him to do so that a blessing would be made.
And the truth is that Balak was right, that you do not want, you want, he makes himself as if. A person receives what he gives, the truth, and one must remember. This is a principle that works for good and for evil. If a person wants evil, he receives evil; if a person wants good, he will set such a table that such a cup will come. He will prepare such a goblet that such wine will come. This is how the thing works. Bilam prepared such a goblet. And the truth is that it seems he had to change also his will, that he should prepare a goblet that the blessing will come in it. It is impossible that he truly wants to say curses and a blessing will come out. There is no such thing. This is against the laws of prophecy, against wisdom.
Elijah on Mount Carmel: The Prophets of Baal Forgot
The Zohar says this with Elijah on Mount Carmel last week, and then the thing became so clear to me. It is written “And they called in a loud voice” as if they did not hear. Elijah repeated and said “And they made cuts according to their custom.” They made their meal, and fire did not come from heaven. The prophets of Baal were not crazy, they knew well that it should have come. And therefore the Gemara says “Answer us Hashem, answer us”—the opposite simple meaning, but in any case, it was a miracle that they forgot, they forgot their intentions, they forgot how to do this, and therefore the fire did not come. If they had succeeded, if they had remembered, it would have come.
And that same thing itself with Bilam. If Balak’s plan had succeeded in his hand, if he had brought his kesomim and his gifts, it would have succeeded in his hand. The fact that Bilam did not take Balak’s gifts seems to be part of the miracle. But we need to understand that this is the way the world works.
Return to the Halachah: An Ammonite and Moabite Shall Not Enter
Moab: One Who Does Not Prepare Himself
In other words—and we will return and derive a practical halachah—the service of “an Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem.” Ammonite and Moabite mean, I will say thus: Moab is “me’av” (from father), as it is written, that Lot’s daughter called her son Moab, “me’av.” And Moabite means one who says that everything is from the Father, from Wisdom, from the Holy One, blessed be He, and he does not prepare himself even for this. This is Ammonite and Moabite. Ammonite and Moabite is the quality of “what will come will come.” And there is no such quality. This is “shall not enter the congregation of Hashem.” We must greet with bread and water. That we should greet with bread and water, and through this we will turn the curse into a blessing. The curse is from the side of judgment, the curse is that in reality there are curses. But when we greet with bread and water, then we turn the curse into a blessing.
The Tzaddik Places the Cup in the Right Hand
This is all the service of the sacrifices. How do we do the opposite? A sacrifice comes, we appease with it, we turn the quality of judgment into the quality of mercy. Tzaddikim who are indeed complete tzaddikim—and this is what I say—take the cup and place it in the right hand. This is the work of a tzaddik, to place the cup in the right hand. In other words, to make such a cup that only blessing will be appropriate in it. This is the role of a person in the world.
And what we must do is not a simple thing to do, and many times our mind is confused from reality.
This reversal is a double blessing. This is all the service of the sacrifices. Even if you do the opposite, a sacrifice appeases, turns in secrets and with mercy. Tzaddikim when the decree went out—the Holy One, blessed be He, sweetens in secrets, as they say, he takes the cup and places it in the right hand. This is the work of the tzaddik, to place the cup in the right hand. In other words, you make such a cup that only blessing will be appropriate in it. This is the role of a person in the world.
An Invitation of Settling the Mind
And what we must do is not a simple thing to do. Many times our mind is confused from reality, many times our mind is confused from the Holy One, blessed be He. But for this there is an invitation of settling the mind, for this there is bread and water. We need to settle and make an invitation of settling the mind for Shabbat, a few minutes. This is a simple thing. Then I prepare the bread and water, I prepare a cup, and I lift a cup, and in this cup I want blessing to enter and not curse.
📝 Full Transcript
Parshas Balak: Learning Through the Path of Avodah and the Secret of the Cup of Blessing
Every Parsha Has a Mitzvah: Learning Through the Path of Avodah
The Practical Nafka Minah
Today is Parshas Balak. We have learned that every parsha, every story that appears, particularly in the time of the desert, is actually presented this way: there are sipurei devarim, stories that happened, stories of tzaddikim, stories of Bnei Yisrael in the desert, and within them is a mitzvah. That is to say, from the action, from the deed, from the act that was done or the tikkun that was made, there remains a zecher, there remains a practical nafka minah in the world. These are the mitzvos that we learn. For example, from “vayikach Korach va’adaso” (Bamidbar 16:1) is the mitzvah of Parshas Korach, one of the mitzvos.
As we have already learned, there is even by Yetzias Mitzrayim a mitzvah not to return, “lo sosifu lashuv baderech hazeh od” (Devarim 17:16). The “lo sosifu” is a prohibition to return to Egypt, and a mitzvah to leave Egypt. Besides the fact that the deed was that the Ribbono Shel Olam took us out of Egypt, there is a mitzvah for the Jews to leave Egypt, and this is fulfilled through not going to Egypt to buy horses.
Two Ways: Maaseh Hashem and What People Do
This way one can understand every story: there are events that are maaseh Hashem that the Ribbono Shel Olam does—the Ribbono Shel Olam made Korach fall into the earth—and there is what people do, what they do after the same thing. Another way to say it, and one must think whether they align with each other, is that the story is when there is still a safek: on one hand perhaps Korach is right, on the other hand perhaps Moshe is right; on one hand perhaps one must strike the rock, on the other hand one must speak to the rock; and from this comes out something actual, a shiras habe’er. This is said already as the maskanah, without the safek. It could be that the two things go together, it could be that it’s something else. But either way we want to constantly learn from one to the other.
What Does Derech Avodah Mean
When we learn the story, we should understand that within it there is a mitzvah. This is called learning al derech avodah. Derech avodah is one of the words that is very commonly used in Chassidic language—one learned Kabbalah al derech avodah—but it’s not clear what it means.
One of the things it can mean is this: derech hamaaseh, the simple meaning, is things as they are, as the Ribbono Shel Olam made them; it’s simple, it’s this way and not otherwise. And derech avodah is always to find what people do in this, what we do in this. True, even when we learn a maaseh shehayah as a story, we still learn it bederech avodah, because the kevius haTorah, the limud haTorah, is also an avodah, also a mitzvah, also something that is not finished.
Mevorur and Not Mevorur
The mekubalim sometimes use the expression that there are things that are finished, which is called mevorur, mesukan, and things that are not finished. The things that are finished, the Ribbono Shel Olam has already done. “Asher bara Elokim laasos” (Bereishis 2:3) already was, according to the simple meaning; “vayechulu hashamayim veha’aretz” (Bereishis 2:1) is already finished, and you have nothing to do with it.
But when we learn even sheshes yemei bereishis al derech avodah, we say it’s not finished. That which it says it’s finished—there was tohu vavohu, and later there became light and darkness and the entire order of creation—this is partial. According to the language of the Rashash, the aspect of sheshes yemei bereishis already happened, but the aspect of the Gar, the aspect of the mochin, the aspect of the three connected lights, has not yet happened. And then it happens when we do it.
But a question arises: mah nafshach, if it hasn’t yet happened, is still dependent on bechirah, still dependent on avodah, what does it help me that you tell me a story? Or what does it help me that you have here a mitzvah that says “do this and don’t do that”? On the part that is already mevorur there is no avodah; the avodah is only on the part she’eino mevorur, the part where Mashiach has not yet come. On that part you don’t know—so what does it help me?
The Answer: We Learn from the Mesukan to the Not Mesukan
The answer is that the seder hatikkun has to do with what we learn from the part that is already mesukan. If the world were completely tohu vavohu one hundred percent, we wouldn’t even have how to begin; we wouldn’t know how we are sick, how we are broken and need a tikkun, and we wouldn’t have any way, wouldn’t know how to begin to do.
That which the Ribbono Shel Olam made the world, and the stories that already happened, that we already have a result, that we have already learned that here is good and here is bad—the seventh day we rest and the six days we work—this has already become a rule, “sheshes yamim ta’avod uvayom hashevi’i tishbos” (Shemos 34:21). If not, we wouldn’t know every minute to rest or to work. Now one learns from this, like lomed davar mitoch davar, or mitoch she’eilas chacham chatzi teshuvah. The entire world has not yet done teshuvah; we still hold by “hayom im bekolo tishma’u” (Tehillim 95:7), not yet by the tikkun hashalem, by Mashiach, by le’asid lavo.
The Connection Between Mesukan and Not Mesukan
But even that which we still don’t hold has a certain structure, it’s not completely lost, because the part that is already mesukan is connected to what is not yet mesukan. The part she’eino mesukan goes on the same order, with the same structure, with the same form, as the part hamesukan. Therefore we can learn from what is already mesukan to the parts she’einam mesukanim. Not that one can copy-paste—if one can simply copy-paste then obviously it’s already mesukan. One must still use the daas, still bring mochin to be mesaken the new parts, but this is learned from the parts that already were.
Learning Maaseh Bereishis and Maaseh Merkavah Al Derech Avodah
And this is the meaning of learning maaseh bereishis and maaseh merkavah—Kabbalah—al derech avodah, just as we learn every parsha of the Torah al derech avodah. One might think that al derech avodah means al derech remez: every time one says that this one means the yetzer hara and that one the yetzer hatov, that’s okay, doesn’t cost anything. But deeper it means the recognition: as much as we know that Balak and Bilam were resha’im, as much as we know that Pharaoh was a rasha and we are the good ones—that is already Mashiach came, that thing is already solved, already finished, we have nothing to do.
That is, if one wants to learn al derech shelo avodah, it means it already happened and we have nothing to do with it. But on the other hand, if someone says completely al derech avodah—there is nothing at all, perhaps Pharaoh is the tzaddik and Moshe the rasha, perhaps Korach is the tzaddik—it teaches me nothing at all, and there is nowhere to begin; one remains in olam hasafek hagamur. In a certain sense we all begin there, every day, every minute.
But when we learn the stories that are as it were already holy and mesukan, that which we learn every year the story is the simple meaning that it’s not yet completely, we haven’t yet completely been menatzei’ach Bilam. Because an enemy that we have completely been menatzei’ach doesn’t stand in the Torah; only those that we haven’t yet completely been menatzei’ach stand in the Torah. And we don’t tell just failures, but a partial success or a certain success. The certain success teaches us how, in what manner, in what tactics and ways we must deal with such a type of nation or such a type of problem, also in ruchniyus.
So, learning al derech avodah means both to understand that the maaseh shehayah was not determined, there was a safek and the safek was decided, and also that today there is still a certain safek that we haven’t yet completely decided. But the way how we will decide today’s safek is through trying to use the forms and distinctions that the Ribbono Shel Olam has already made. This is in a general way the approach that I understand what it means to learn al derech avodah.
The Story of Parshas Balak
The Simple Summary
Let’s now try to apply it to our parsha. The foundation that I’m going to say is just like a ChatGPT summary, a berachah levatala almost, but this is a summary that the pesukim themselves make in a certain sense. The summary is: Balak wanted to hire Bilam to curse the Jews, he hired him and wanted to pay. In practice it didn’t succeed—instead of cursing he blessed the Jews, said how good they are and how good it will be for them. These are more or less the berachos of Bilam.
The Torah is lengthy about this: how he sent messengers twice for Bilam that he should come, three times that the angel stopped him on the way, three times that he took Bilam to other places, he made sacrifices and said prophecies, and the fourth time said three prophecies, and “lechah eitzach asher ya’aseh ha’am hazeh” (Bamidbar 24:14). All these details—one won’t arrive at anything if one doesn’t learn them. This is how one really enters.
The Pasuk Summary in Sefer Devarim
The header, as it says in Sefer Devarim: “asher sachar alecha es Bilam ben Be’or miPesor Aram Naharayim lekallecha, velo avah Hashem Elokecha lishmoa el Bilam, vayahafoch Hashem Elokecha lecha es haklalah livrachah, ki ahavcha Hashem Elokecha” (Devarim 23:5-6). This is the pasuk summary of Parshas Balak. There are Rishonim, like the Rashbam, who learn that the reason for the entire story is to explain the pasuk “lo yavo Ammoni uMo’avi bikehal Hashem al devar asher lo kidmu eschem balechem uvamayim baderech betzeschem miMitzrayim, ve’al devar asher sachar alecha es Bilam ben Be’or” (Devarim 23:4-5). The same thing is mentioned in Sefer Nechemiah, by Michah in the haftarah, and by Yiftach in last week’s haftarah. We see that it’s one of the foundations of the mitzvah, there is a message, and one wants to know what happened.
The Questions in the Story
In truth the story is much more detailed, and to enter into it is to enter into the avodah within it, into the questions: why he wanted to go yes, why not go, why he wanted to bless, why not bless. There is a safek that one must understand. But in the most general way this is the story: wanted to curse, hired to curse, and in the end blessed.
The Mitzvah: Lo Yavo Ammoni UMo’avi
The Halachah
From the story there is a practical nafka minah halachah lemaaseh: “lo yavo Ammoni uMo’avi bikehal Hashem gam dor asiri lo yavo lahem bikehal Hashem ad olam” (Devarim 23:4)—one may not marry an Ammoni or Mo’avi. “Lo sidrosh shelomam vetovasam kol yamecha le’olam” (Devarim 23:7)—not only marry, but one doesn’t seek their peace and good. He learns that if one goes to make war with Ammon and Moav, one may not make a call for peace. Why? Because he is such a rasha, because he did this—but he didn’t succeed.
This is an interesting thing. One discovers that he is bad; the Balak, the Mo’avi, was hidden. But it’s not enough to say “we won’t go to him”—one must tell that it didn’t succeed. But what does it come into the halachah? The Tosafos “velo avah Hashem Elokecha” seemingly has nothing to do with “lo yavo Ammoni uMo’avi bikehal Hashem.” One can say that it’s just by the way, that one should remember that the Ribbono Shel Olam loves us—as Moshe Rabbeinu wants many times in Sefer Devarim to remind the Jews that the Ribbono Shel Olam helped them. But it seems that here it does have a connection to the mitzvah, to the relationship to Moav, to “lo sidrosh.” As it says “ami zechar na mah ya’atz Balak melech Moav umah anah oso Bilam ben Be’or” (Michah 6:5) in the haftarah—remember something from this, understand something from this.
The Mitzvah as Nisayon and Safek
This sounds like a very black-and-white mitzvah: Ammoni and Mo’avi, out. It’s certain that in ruchniyus one understands this way, and also in olam hazeh—the depth of ruchniyus and the actual political, physical, are similar. But if one must speak about this so much, and such a sharp pasuk stands, the meaning is that here we do have a matter. One must be able to learn from him what he means—whether he can convert, or he should not marry a Jew. We see how the Chachamim made such a halachah from this, although from the time of Chachamim it’s no longer practiced.
If there is a pasuk, and we also see in Sefer Nechemiah that there was actually this question, the simple meaning is that there is such a nisayon. Nisayon is very much the same thing as a safek: when a person knows what he must do, there is no nisayon. Nisayon means that there is such a side, such a hava amina, a psak din that is not yet decided. There is still Ammoni and Mo’avi, which one must know whether they belong in kehal Hashem or not, what this means internally, and what is the thing that one must do or not do.
The Two Sins of Moav
If one must know what he must do and not do, the pasuk says two things: “asher lo kidmu eschem balechem uvamayim,” and “va’asher sachar alecha es Bilam.” That is, if one wants to know how to fulfill the parsha, one must yes be mekadeim the Jews with bread and water, and yes hire for the blessing of Israel—not for the curse of Israel. And something better to understand the “ki ahavcha,” the “vayahafoch.”
The Secret of the Cup of Blessing
Cup is the Midas HaMekabel
We have learned in the Hakdamos HaZohar that there is a “kos shel berachah,” a term for the Shechinah. The kos shel berachah is magbiah bishtei yadayim, notelah leyamin shelo yis’achazo bah semol. What notelah beyamin, this is the kos yeshuos esa, the rose that is found among five strong thorns.
One must understand two things: why is it called a cup, and what is the kos shel berachah? Kos is the gematria Elokim, and points to the midas hamekabel, to the last middah. That is, when there is already the shefa, there is already the reality that we call olam hazeh, the last level, the acharis hayamim—the last of the days which is called in the seven sefiros Shabbos. It already exists.
Leis Lah Migarmah Kelum
From the side that it’s a cup, like the moon, they call this leis lah migarmah kelum—she doesn’t have her own, she has as it were no bechirah. As we said: one who only receives the Torah, like a ger who is called tachas kanfei haShechinah—he knows what is already good and what not, and he carries it out, but he doesn’t add anything from himself, he doesn’t have the ability. This is a cup, an acharis, the last.
In this cup, if it cannot decide, comes in what comes in. About this we say that the Shechinah has two middos, white and red, like “keshoshanah bein hachochim” (Shir HaShirim 2:2), “shoshanah shesh bishtei guvanin.” Actually it’s a bit funny to say that she has two middos in this sense; the simple meaning is that she has nothing at all. Chesed and gevurah means simply whatever comes, “baHashem ahalel davar beElokim ahalel davar” (Tehillim 56:11). Whatever comes, she receives. She has no definition of herself, therefore she is both this and that.
The Dispute of Chazon Ish with the Chassidim About Bitachon
One must understand if this makes sense. If the middah that we call to be mekabel both chesed and gevurah is neutral, or she is both chesed and gevurah, or she is neither one. It’s more or less like the dispute that the Chazon Ish has with the Chassidim about midas habitachon. The Chazon Ish says that Chassidim mean that bitachon means to believe that it will always be good, to hope and trust that it will be good. This is the Chassidic simple meaning. The Chazon Ish explains that it’s not so: who told you it will be good? Bitachon means that what happened, happened; what happened the Ribbono Shel Olam does, and one accepts what happened. A person cannot know whether it’s good or not good.
According to the Chazon Ish it’s as if the midas hamalchus is neutral; she has no color at all, she receives what she is. And the Chassidim say no, it’s essentially good. The Chassidic sefarim always hold that if one is mevatel and goes to be mekabel, “batel retzoncha mipnei retzono kedei she’ya’aseh retzoncha kirtzono” (Avos 2:4)—if one makes that it doesn’t concern me, it becomes good. One must understand this: why should it become good?
Pesurah: The Secret of the Table
The Two Sins Are One Sin
The truth is that the matter is more complicated, and one can understand it this way. We said that there are two things that Moav didn’t do right: first, they didn’t bring any bread and water, and second, “al asher sachar alecha es Bilam ben Be’or.” Everyone asks this question—it’s a bit like “murder, arson, and jaywalking”: he wanted to kill them, and together with that he didn’t bring bread and salt? It doesn’t make sense.
The Zohar interprets this in a deeper sense. The Zohar says that it states “Bilam ben Beor from Petor,” and “Petor” is the language of table, as in “ha’orchim l’gad shulchan” (Isaiah 65:11), and “v’asita shulchan… v’natata al hashulchan lechem panim l’fanai tamid” (Exodus 25:23-30). There is a table that one sets up before Hashem. One makes a table similar to an altar, like our Shabbos table, or the altar itself like a table. “Ha’orchim l’gad shulchan” — they used to set up a table for the mazal, such sorcery.
The Lights That a Person Makes, So Does He Receive
The Zohar says that the truth is: what one puts out, so does one receive. This is the principle that the Zohar calls that the lights that a person makes, so does he receive. It’s a difficult principle — one says it over and doesn’t understand what it means. One practical application is stated explicitly in the Zohar in the previous week’s parsha, regarding Eliyahu on Mount Carmel with the prophets of Baal who fought there.
We are accustomed to think, the Lithuanian simple understanding, that the Almighty is the Master of all power, and all these types of Bilam can curse from today until tomorrow, it won’t affect us, he has no power. But one who learns Parshas Balak sees that this is not the simple meaning. If the Almighty loved them so much, He had to nullify Bilam’s curses. One can say rationalistic explanations, but it’s very clear from the very story that one takes Bilam’s curses seriously. It’s a very complicated topic, but this is certain that Bilam can indeed do something, as it states in all the Rishonim who debate, for example the Rambam, that there is a power for sorcery.
The Table Does Nothing: It Only Takes What Is Placed Upon It
The Zohar explains that there is an order. What kind of receiver is the table? A table is a table, upon which one places things; it’s not something that does things. On the earth things grow, “hamotzi lechem min ha’aretz” — the earth is a type of receiver that does something. But the table does nothing at all; one places prepared food upon it, and it takes what one places upon it. As one says “haneyar soveil es hakol” — a table bears everything. One places gefilte fish upon it, it becomes gefilte fish; one places horseradish upon it, it becomes horseradish.
Arichas HaShulchan: What One Prepares, So It Comes
The table can be set, as it states “ta’aroch l’fanai shulchan neged tzor’rai” (Psalms 23:5). When a guest comes in, one prepares a table in honor of the guest, in honor of Shabbos. The type of table that one prepares, that is also the type of thing that it will bring — not that it will calculate which gift according to the table. When a person prepares a table for Shabbos, this is such a preparation, a great service.
Interestingly, it’s called circular causality — things that work a bit more complicated than the simple understanding. A great Litvak, a rationalist, can say: “What does it matter to me that the table is beautifully set? I myself made the table, why should I be impressed by it?” But it doesn’t work that way. After a person sets down the table, arranged beautifully — the cup, the candles, the benches, the plates, the forks, all the vessels — he sits down, and into this fits a meal. This is not simply that it’s a place where one eats, rather it’s the joy of a groom, as in “one who enjoys from a groom’s feast.”
Mi Shetarach B’erev Shabbos: The Unity of Person and Table
According to what he prepared, as in “mi shetarach b’erev Shabbos yochal b’Shabbos” (Avodah Zarah 3a). Besides the simple meaning that he shouldn’t have any debt, he also prepared for himself a beautiful golden plate. The food that one places upon this is not the same food as what one places on a paper plate. It even tastes different, because a person tastes with his mind, with his soul, with what makes him a person, not just with his senses.
Even a person sits alone: he set up the table, afterwards he sits at the table, because it’s a union. A person with a table is a union — the table is Malchus, a person is Tiferes, “k’tiferes adam lasheves bayis” (Isaiah 44:13). These are already hints on how one should conduct oneself in a person’s posture.
The fact that one prepares a table makes it happen — not that one doesn’t need to cook additionally, one does need to cook, but the preparation of the vessels makes the abundance come in this way. If someone prepares a table haphazardly, the meal will be haphazard. When he makes it beautifully prepared, the meal has taste.
Kavod Shabbos Versus Oneg Shabbos
He speaks of a distinction between kavod and oneg. I think everything is the approach of the Chazon Ish. I saw in the Chazon Ish a question about a contradiction between kavod Shabbos and oneg Shabbos: kavod Shabbos is to sit with a bekishe at the meal, but oneg Shabbos is to sit without the bekishe when it’s hot. What prevails, kavod or oneg? If someone says that oneg always prevails over kavod, he doesn’t understand oneg either. Because kavod Shabbos means that he sets up a table, as in “l’olam y’sader adam shulchano b’motzaei Shabbos af al pi she’eino tzarich ela k’zayis” (Shabbos 119b). When one prepares the meal even though he doesn’t need to eat — the eating is a side matter. The truth is that the oneg is according to the kavod, according to how much he prepares the lights, he places flowers and all kinds of things that are beauty.
The Flowers Make the Fish Taste Better
It’s not rational. A person who has no taste, no vitality in his life, is a dried-up person. It doesn’t say in the Gemara that one must buy flowers for Shabbos — what should the flowers teach you? The flowers make the fish taste better. According to Kabbalah, as it states in the Zohar: when one places flowers on the table, this is the rose, “k’shoshana bein hachochim” (Song of Songs 2:2), and this makes that to the table should come more beautiful challah, more beautiful wine. A beautiful cup makes the wine become more beautiful. A person has a good cup in honor of Shabbos, it’s not fitting to put in it cheap Kedem wine; if it’s a golden cup, expensive wine comes in. It also awakens in the person his will. The preparation of the receiver makes the abundance.
Backward Causality: The Ohr Chozer
Although he is a receiver initially to receive what he is, it’s much more complicated. There is also backward causality: even something that I myself made, afterwards it goes back to me, like an ohr chozer. This is how the entire world works: the Almighty made the world, everything “tov me’od,” and afterwards, so to speak, it goes back to Him, He receives pleasure from the world. With all the theological problems that exist, we bring out the idea that there can be such a thing that a person made something and afterwards he becomes a receiver from the thing that he made. A wonder: I am the master of the house, I made the table, and from what do I have pleasure? Only when one comes home from shul and the table is already set, he receives from this an inspiration. This is how the world works.
Bilam and the Setting of the Table for Evil
Moav Cannot Curse: He Must Prepare a Table
And this is the interpretation of the cup of blessing. The two sins of Moav — I think this is even in the Zohar — are the same sin. The “lo kidmu eschem b’lechem u’vamayim” is the same thing as “sachar alecha es Bilam ben Beor l’kallelcha.” Why? Because when the Jews come, “hinei am yatza mi’Mitzrayim” (Numbers 22:5), Moav says: I am passive, I am the part that is connected to the attribute of Malchus, to the honor of the King — it must be that Moav is somehow a subject of kingship, kingship of holiness or kingship that is not proper. And when they come, what can I do? I cannot curse. I must find someone who understands the attribute of Malchus, a power of speech, how to deal with this problem. Even to seek that Bilam should curse I cannot; I can only pay him.
The Torah says: who told you that you can’t do anything? Prepare a table for it! The Jews who come out of Egypt — prepare for them, present yourself with bread and water instead of with the daughters of Moav that they sent. This is the problem.
The Question of the Zohar: Why Wasn’t Bilam First Honored
The Zohar asks a beautiful question, because it brings out how he understood how one should have acted. We see that Balak struggled with Bilam — he doesn’t want to come, he doesn’t honor him enough. The Zohar says: Balak is a fool. When one wants something from someone, one first honors him, and afterwards asks him what one needs. Balak should have first sent to Bilam words of peace, words of honor — “you are such a great prophet, such a great blessed one” — give him gifts, and only afterwards say “perhaps you’ll curse the Jews for me.” Why the first thing “vayishlach mal’achim el Bilam… hinei am yatza mi’Mitzrayim l’cha alai” (Numbers 22:5)? It’s foolishness.
The Zohar answers that from this we see that Bilam’s greatest pleasure was to curse the Jews; this itself was the setting of the table for Bilam. But we see clearly that when one wants to ask someone for something, first honor him with bread and water, even if he is your enemy, “me’rov sin’ah achilehu lechem.”
Setting a Table Works: Even With Enemies
I once saw an Israeli who spoke about how one should speak with enemies to make peace. He says: I don’t know if we’ll make peace, but if we speak we already stand better. Because if I sit in the same room with that person and we drink coffee together, I already know that the other doesn’t eat glass, he’s a person. This is setting a table, this works.
The same thing is with the Almighty. There is an obligation “nakdim b’lechem u’vamayim” — before Shabbos, and every morning Modeh Ani. You don’t grasp that if one brings out a l’chaim, a cookie and brandy, the reception looks different. This truly changes the abundance, and it actually works this way. This is the principle of “nakdim b’lechem u’vamayim,” which is the same secret.
Sorcerers Understand Setting the Table for Evil
The Zohar says that Bilam and all the sorcerers understand this very well. Sorcerers are not crazy; they know very well how to awaken the impurity, how to prepare a table so that it should be bad, in order to kill the Jews with this. This is the work of Bilam, and it was a great effort. A miracle had to be made, to find a way how to transform it from a curse to a blessing.
The Tzaddik’s Role: Not Letting the Almighty Do It
Rebbe Nachman: Why Do We Let the Almighty Sit
What Bilam says the whole time, “asher yasim Hashem b’fi oso adabeir” (Numbers 22:38), is not a Chassidic way of speaking. There is something in the name of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov that he said that he doesn’t understand why one lets the Almighty sit. He spoke a question about the tzaddikim when the decrees of the Cantonists of the Czar began: it seems to him that all the tzaddikim are too calm, too happy with what the Almighty does. Why does one sit and let the Almighty do what He wants? Is this the job of a tzaddik, to be passive?
The job of a Jew is: certainly one cannot tell the Almighty what to do, but how does one do Him a favor? Prepare Him a table! How did Bilam intend to do evil? He will make some sacrifices that cause awakening of judgments upon Israel. He wanted to find all the problems, and it’s truly there — objectively there are always problems, parts of destruction in the world. But who tells you to be so passive, to let the Almighty do what He wants? Prepare a table!
The Principle Works for Good and for Evil
This is the truth, and we succeeded with Bilam, that he should indeed make a blessing. This itself was something that the Almighty awakened in him. This is a principle that works for good and for evil: a person wants bad, he receives bad; a person wants good, he will prepare such a table that such a glass should come, such a cup that such wine should come. Bilam prepared such a cup. It seems that his will had to be changed so that he should prepare a cup into which the blessing comes. It cannot be that he should want to say curses and blessings should come out — this is against the laws of prophecy, against wisdom.
Eliyahu on Mount Carmel: The Prophets of Baal Forgot
The Zohar says this regarding Eliyahu on Mount Carmel. It states “vayikr’u b’kol gadol” as if they do not sleep. Eliyahu made them repeat “vaya’asu g’dayim k’shpudim” — they made their meal and no fire came from heaven. The prophets of Baal were not crazy, they knew very well that it would have come. It was a miracle that they forgot their intentions, forgot how to do this, therefore it didn’t come. If they had succeeded, it would have come.
The same thing with Bilam: if Balak’s plan had succeeded — he would have brought his blemishes with his gifts — it would have succeeded. The fact that Bilam didn’t take Balak’s gifts, it seems that it’s part of the miracle. But one must understand that this is the way how the world works.
Back to the Halacha: Lo Yavo Amoni U’Moavi
Moav: One Who Doesn’t Prepare Himself
Let’s carry out the practical law. Moav is “me’av,” as the daughter of Lot called her son Moav. Moavi means one who says that everything is from the father, from wisdom, from the Almighty, and he doesn’t even prepare himself for it. Amoni u’Moavi is the measure of “what will come will come” — there is no such measure. This is “lo yavo b’kahal Hashem.” One must be first with bread and water, and through this one will transform the curse to a blessing. The curse is from the side of judgment, there are curses in reality; but when one is first with bread and water, one transforms the curse to a blessing.
The Tzaddik Places the Cup in the Right Hand
This is the entire service of sacrifices: when a sacrifice comes, one appeases, one transforms the attribute of judgment to the attribute of mercy. Complete tzaddikim take the cup and place it in the right hand. This is the work of a tzaddik — to make such a cup that into it fits only a blessing. This is the role of a person in the world.
Invitation of Settled Mind
What we need to do is not a simple thing, and we are many times overpowered by reality. But for this there is an invitation of settled mind, for this there is bread and water. One must sit down and make an invitation of settled mind for a few minutes. Then I am preparing the bread and water, I prepare a cup, I lift the cup, and in this cup I want that there should come in blessing and not curse.