בלק א

Okay, let's break down this Sicha (a talk or discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's line of reasoning, the questions he raises, and the profound answers he provides, making it accessible even if you're new to these concepts. **The Core Problem: Why Name a Torah Portion After a Wicked Man?** 1. **Background - The Significance of Parsha Names:** * The Rebbe starts by reminding us of a fundamental principle discussed many times: the names given to the weekly Torah portions (called *Parshiot*, singular *Parsha*) are not arbitrary. * These names weren't handed down directly by G-d in the Torah itself, but they became established through Jewish custom (*Minhag Yisrael*). * There's a crucial concept in Jewish law: "*Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi*" – a universally accepted Jewish custom has the force and significance of Torah law. * Therefore, the names of the Parshiot are considered "Torah-true" names, imbued with meaning and reflecting the essence of that section. 2. **The Question Regarding Parshat Balak:** * This week's Parsha is named "Balak." Balak was a king of Moab who famously hired the prophet Bilaam to curse the Jewish people. He was undeniably a *rasha* – a wicked person. Our Sages (*Chazal*) even state he hated the Jewish people "more than all [other] enemies." * This immediately creates a conflict. The Talmud (a central text of Rabbinic Judaism) teaches that a person should *not* name their child after a wicked person. The verse cited is "The name of the wicked shall rot" (*Shem reshaim yirkav*), and the Sages explain this means "we do not mention them by their names" (i.e., we don't perpetuate their names, especially for our children). * **The Rebbe's Question:** If Jewish custom, which is Torah, established the Parsha names, and we are explicitly told not to perpetuate the names of the wicked, how could the custom possibly have settled on naming a Parsha after Balak, one of the arch-enemies of the Jewish people? 3. **Anticipating and Refuting a Simple Answer:** * Someone might suggest: "Well, maybe they had no choice. The Parsha name usually comes from one of the first significant words." * The Rebbe immediately dismisses this. *Firstly*, he asks, why not name it after the *very first* word, "Vayera" ("And he saw...")? We have other Parshiot named after the first word, like *Vayera* (with a different vowelization, referring to Abraham) or *Vayetzei* (Jacob). Why skip "Vayera" here to get to "Balak"? This shows there *was* a choice. * *Secondly*, and more importantly, the Rebbe reiterates that a Parsha's name reflects its *content* and *essence*. Think about the content of Parshat Balak: * Most of it deals with the prophecies and actions of *Bilaam*, not Balak. * The most significant parts, in terms of their inherent value, are the incredible *blessings* Bilaam ended up giving the Jewish people. * Even more profound is Bilaam's prophecy about the "End of Days" (*Acharit HaYamim*), which includes prophecies about the two Messiahs – King David (the first redeemer) and the ultimate Mashiach. The great sage Maimonides (the Rambam) discusses this prophecy at length in his legal code, the *Mishneh Torah*. * **The Refined Question:** Given that the core and most valuable content revolves around Bilaam's blessings and the Messianic prophecies, what connection does this have to *Balak*? Balak just acted as the external trigger, the one who hired Bilaam out of hatred, wanting to harm Israel. Why name the Parsha, which contains such lofty blessings and prophecies, after the person whose intention was the exact opposite? **Exploring Potential Solutions and Deeper Problems** 1. **A Possible Legalistic Answer (and why it's insufficient):** * Perhaps we can borrow a rule from a different area of Jewish law. There's a prohibition against mentioning the name of an idol ("And the name of other gods you shall not mention..." - Exodus 23:13). * However, the Talmud clarifies that "Any idolatry whose name is written in the Torah, it is permitted to mention its name." * **Applying this:** Maybe the rule against using the names of the wicked ("we do not mention them by their names") *also* doesn't apply if the wicked person's name is mentioned *in the Torah* itself, like Balak's is. * **The Rebbe's Counter-Argument:** This only explains why it might be *permitted* (שלילת האיסור – negation of the prohibition) to use the name Balak because it's in the Torah. It doesn't explain why we would *actively choose* (טעם לחיוב – a reason for obligation/choice) this specific name out of all possibilities, especially when it belongs to a wicked person. Why *select* the name of a *rasha* to be the eternal name of a Torah portion? 2. **Introducing a Complication: The Tosafot on Idol Names:** * To make things even more complex, the Rebbe brings in a discussion from the *Tosafot* (medieval commentators on the Talmud). * The Torah describes G-d telling the Israelites where to camp before crossing the Red Sea: "...before Baal Tzafon" (Exodus 14:2). Baal Tzafon was a known idol. * The Tosafot ask: How could G-d tell them to camp near an idol? Isn't there a rule that one shouldn't even say to a friend, "Wait for me next to such-and-such an idol"? This seems like giving the idol significance or making practical use of its location marker. * The Tosafot answer: The prohibition applies only "to a person" (לאדם), but not "to the Holy One, Blessed be He" (להקב"ה). G-d can refer to the idol's location, but a person shouldn't. * **The Problem with Tosafot's Logic (as pointed out by later commentators, *Acharonim*):** This answer seems strange! Didn't we just establish that it's permitted for *anyone* (even a regular person) to mention the name of an idol if it's written in the Torah? Baal Tzafon *is* mentioned in the Torah. So why would the Tosafot need to say the permission applies *only* to G-d? * **Reconciling Tosafot:** The Rebbe explains that we must understand Tosafot differently. According to their view, the permission to mention an idol's name from the Torah applies only to *casual mention* (סתם הזכרה). However, mentioning it *for a specific purpose* (הזכרה לצורך), like saying "Wait for me there," gives the idol a sense of "reality" or importance (*נותן בה ממשות*). *This* kind of purposeful mention, Tosafot holds, *is* forbidden even for an idol named in the Torah, *except* when G-d Himself does it. * **Connecting back to Balak (Making the Original Question Stronger):** If Tosafot is right that even mentioning an idol from the Torah *for a purpose* is forbidden for humans because it gives it importance, then how could we possibly name an entire Parsha "Balak"? Naming a Parsha is undoubtedly a matter of great *importance* and *purpose*. Furthermore, it makes the name eternal, as the Torah is eternal! This seems much more significant than just saying "Wait for me by..." So, based on Tosafot's logic, naming the Parsha "Balak" should be even more problematic! **Towards a Deeper Understanding: Nullification and Transformation** 1. **Analyzing Tosafot's Distinction (G-d vs. Human):** * Why *would* G-d be permitted to mention an idol purposefully, while humans are not (according to Tosafot)? * One might initially think G-d isn't bound by the commandments given to humans. The Tosafot themselves give an example: G-d judges the world even on Shabbat, though judging is forbidden for Jews. * The Rebbe finds this unsatisfactory. There's a principle from the Sages: "What He [G-d] does, He tells Israel to do and observe." G-d's actions often serve as a model for us. So, simply saying "G-d is exempt" isn't a deep enough explanation here. * **The Rebbe's Insight:** The real difference lies in the *reason* for the prohibition. The prohibition exists to avoid giving *false reality* or *importance* to the idol. This concern simply doesn't apply to G-d. * When G-d, Who is Absolute Truth (*Elokim Emet*), mentions the name of an idol (which represents falsehood), His very utterance, coming from the source of Truth, automatically *nullifies* the falsehood. It exposes the idol as unreal. G-d's speech doesn't give the idol reality; it *takes away* any perceived reality. In fact, the Rebbe suggests this might be *why* G-d specifically chose the landmark "Baal Tzafon" – to actively use His word to demonstrate its utter nullity right at the moment of the Exodus. 2. **Understanding the Permission to Mention Idols from the Torah (The *Sefer Yereim*):** * The Rebbe now brings in the explanation of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (author of the *Sefer Yereim*) for *why* idols mentioned in the Torah can be named. The *Yereim* says: "Since the Torah mentioned it, it is certainly nullified (*nitbatla*)." Therefore, there's no reason not to mention its name. * **Initial Difficulty with the *Yereim*:** This sounds simple, but how is it "certain" that just because the Torah mentions an idol, it's physically nullified and gone? We know some idols mentioned in the Torah, like Baal Peor (mentioned in Parshat Balak itself!), continued to be worshipped later. * **The Rebbe's Interpretation of the *Yereim*:** The *Yereim* doesn't mean the idol physically ceases to exist. He means it becomes "certainly nullified" *in the consciousness of the Jew* who encounters it *through the Torah*. How? * The Torah never mentions idols to validate them. It mentions them to show their *powerlessness*, their *falsehood*, the *foolishness* of worshipping them, or the *negative consequences* that befell those who did (e.g., the plague after the sin of Baal Peor). * When the Torah mentions an idol, it's always in a context that *undermines* its significance and demonstrates its vanity ("they are nothingness and vanity, there is no use in them"). * Therefore, when a Jew mentions the name of an idol *as it appears in the Torah*, they are invoking that context of nullification. They are essentially saying the name in a way that highlights its worthlessness. The *Yereim* continues: "For the same reason the Torah mentions it (– to show its falsehood), we are permitted to mention it." * **Connection to Mocking Idols:** The Rebbe notes this is similar to the principle that it's permitted (even meritorious) to *mock* idols. Mentioning an idol's name within the Torah's framework is a form of demonstrating its absurdity, thereby undermining, not validating, it. 3. **Explaining the Amora Story:** * The Rebbe briefly refers back to the Talmudic passage (cited earlier as source 10) which tells a story about an Amora (a Sage from the Talmudic era) who mentioned an idol's name and justified it by saying it was written in the Torah. * Why would the Sage go out of his way to mention the idol's name, even if permitted? * The Rebbe explains: The Sage, whose whole being was Torah, likely perceived a situation in the world (*"baka metza"* – he found a valley, a metaphor for finding a spiritual problem or vacuum) where the influence of that particular idol needed to be counteracted. By mentioning its name *in the context of Torah*, he wasn't just doing something permissible; he was actively using the Torah's power to *nullify* the idol's negative energy and influence in that specific situation. It was a purposeful act of spiritual rectification. **Resolving the Original Question about Balak** Now, armed with this understanding of nullification through Torah mention, the Rebbe returns to the main question: Why name the Parsha "Balak"? 1. **Answer Level 1: Nullification of Evil:** * Just like the Torah mentions idols to show their downfall, the Torah tells the story of Balak to show how his evil intentions were utterly foiled. His elaborate plan to curse Israel ("Come now, curse for me this people... perhaps I will be able to strike them...") was completely overturned. * Therefore, mentioning Balak's name in the context of this Parsha doesn't violate "The name of the wicked shall rot." On the contrary, it *fulfills* it in a deeper sense! Remembering Balak *through the Torah's narrative* is remembering his *failure*, his *disgrace*, and how his evil plot came to nothing. * When Jews call the Parsha "Balak," they inherently refer to "Balak *as depicted in the Torah*" – the wicked king whose plans were thwarted by G-d. This mention emphasizes his downfall and serves as a testament to G-d's protection of Israel. It highlights the *rot* associated with his wicked name and intentions. 2. **Answer Level 2: Transformation of Evil into Good (A Deeper Point):** * The Rebbe takes it a step further. With Balak, something even more profound happened than just the nullification of evil (like with idols). * Nullifying an idol, which represents a denial of G-d's unity, means reducing it to absolute nothingness. It has to be completely erased. * But Balak's story is different. His wickedness, his hatred for Israel, the very actions he took by hiring Bilaam to curse – these didn't just get nullified. They were *transformed* into the *opposite*: immense blessings for the Jewish people ("blessings of the highest order"). * This is a greater achievement than mere nullification. It's taking the negative energy itself and converting it into positive energy. Balak's actions, driven by hatred, became the direct *cause* and *catalyst* for revealing extraordinary blessings and prophecies for Israel. * **Therefore, naming the Parsha "Balak" highlights this incredible dynamic:** It teaches us that not only does G-d frustrate the plans of the wicked, but He can even harness their opposition and transform it into a source of advantage (*yitron*) and blessing for His people. **Connecting to the Messianic Era** 1. **Bilaam's Prophecy and the Theme of Transformation:** * Why is Bilaam's prophecy about the End of Days, including Mashiach, found specifically here, emerging from Balak's hostile initiative? * The Rebbe explains that one of the key features of the Messianic era (*Acharit HaYamim*) is precisely this theme of transformation applied to the nations of the world. * Currently, the nations often use their power (*tokef*) to dominate or oppose Israel. In the future, this power will be rectified and transformed. The nations will use their strength and resources to *assist* and *serve* the Jewish people, recognizing their spiritual role. This is alluded to in verses like, "And kings shall be your guardians, and their princesses your nurses..." (Isaiah 49:23). * Bilaam's prophecy, stemming from Balak's plan, perfectly embodies this future dynamic *in miniature*. Balak intended to use Bilaam's prophetic power (*koach ha'nevua*) to harm Israel ("Come, curse..."). Instead, G-d forced Bilaam to use that *exact same power* to bless Israel and foretell their ultimate redemption. The enemy's weapon was turned into a tool for Israel's benefit. 2. **The Name "Balak" as a Pointer to the Future:** * Therefore, the prophecy of the ultimate transformation fits perfectly within the narrative initiated by Balak, as it exemplifies the very theme the story demonstrates. * Naming the Parsha "Balak" eternally links the story of immediate transformation (curses to blessings) with the ultimate prophecy of future transformation contained within it. It reminds us that the challenges and opposition we face can ultimately become the catalysts for the greatest revelations and blessings, culminating in the final redemption. **Conclusion:** The Rebbe concludes by emphasizing that the ultimate fulfillment of this transformation – where "strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks, and foreigners shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers," allowing the Jewish people to fully dedicate themselves to their spiritual role as "Priests of the L-rd" (*Kohanei Hashem*) – will occur in the true and complete Redemption through Mashiach Tzidkeinu (our righteous Mashiach), speedily and truly in our days. **In essence, the Rebbe shows that the name "Balak," far from being problematic, is deeply instructive. It teaches us not only about the nullification of evil when confronted by Torah's truth but also about the profound potential for transforming darkness itself into light, opposition into assistance – a theme central both to the Parsha's narrative and to the ultimate Messianic destiny it foretells.**