[Avodah] Did Someone Forget Eilu v'eilu?

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:09:27 -0400
"Richard Wolberg" <cantorwolberg at cox.net> wrote:

> Rambam maintains that Avraham's encounter with the three messengers was not
> an
> 
> actual event. It was a prophetic vision. He also maintains the same with
> Yaakov encounter with the adversary. So it is obvious that the Rambam treats
> certain narratives in the Torah that seems to describe an actual event, as a
> prophetic vision. This very well could apply to Bilaam and the donkey.

And Ralbag (Bamidbar 22:21) indeed says that it does:

This narrative has many extremely difficult problems ...

Now the opinion of our Rabbis Z"L is that this affair was according to
the simple reading ...

And what appears to us according to the true fundamental principles
that are apparent from the words of the prophets and from analysis is
that this story was an episode that occurred to Bilam in a prophetic
vision. ...

And it appeared to Bilam in his dream of prophecy that night had fallen
when God's word came to him, in which He said to him "If these men have
come to call you, arise and go with them".  And after that it appeared
to him in his dream that it was morning and that he had arisen and
saddled his donkey and gone with the Moabite nobles, for that would
have been his decision, had he awoken.  For a man is only shown [in his
dreams] that which is in his thoughts, and so you will find that a
man's characteristics in his dream are similar to his waking
characteristics.  And God caused him to experience on his journey that
which would show him that Heaven did not agree with his going there for
his intended purpose, for he still intended to harm Yisrael as
possible.  And it therefore tells of this episode that befell him.  ...

And it appeared in his dream that God opened the ass's mouth and it
spoke to him twice ... 

And he [Bilam] said "if it is evil in your eyes I shall return" because
it appeared to him that he had already embarked on the way ...

And that which it subsequently states "and Bilam went with Balak's
nobles" is what occurred to him while awake, and that is why it needs
to state this, for the first [reference to Bilam's going] was in the
prophetic dream, and if not for this explanation, it would not need to
say this a second time, after it has already said "and he went with the
Moabite nobles".

[My translation; words in brackets are added for clarity]

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat