[Avodah] Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)

[Zvi Lampel]

Ramban and Chazal---Bilaam

The Ramban (B'Midbar 22:20) quotes the Ibn Ezra's commentary explaining 
Hashem's original instruction to Bilaam not to go to Balak, and His 
subsequent reversal, telling him to go. The Ibn Ezra says it is akin to 
Hashem's acquiescence when the Bnei Yisroel asked to have men spy the 
Land of Canaan, despite the fact Hashem has already guaranteed their 
success in conquering it. The Ibn Ezra explains that once one refuses to 
follow Hashem's original instruction, Hashem instructs one to act in 
accordance with his choice.

In both cases---that of the spies and that of Bilaam---the Ramban denies 
that the explanation could be "that G-d would reverse His word because 
of a person's stubbornness." And he further objects to the idea that 
Hashem would then punish anyone for following through with what He had 
given him permission to do, as is what happened in both cases. The 
Ramban says "/Challilah/" to this idea.

*At this point, the Ramban inserts: And they say in a Midrash that in 
the way a person wants to go, in it "/moleechin oso/." --which 
apparently supports the Ibn Ezra's thesis: That once a person chooses a 
certain path despite Hashem's disapproval, Hashem accomodates him to 
follow that way.*

* *

*The Ramban, however, does not retract his position. In fact, he goes on 
to expound his explanation opposing the Ibn Ezra's thesis---and 
ostensibly opposing the Chazal he cited, offering no alternate one.*

* *

The apparent opposition alone is a problem, considering the Ramban's 
usual use of Chazal as authoritative, both as support for himself and as 
basis for fierce rejection of other views---repeatedly some of Ibn Ezra's!

But furthermore, Ramban's _placement_ of the Midrashic citation in his 
presentation is incomprehensible. The sequence does not flow: One would 
expect that citation of Chazal to appear either before or after the Ibn 
Ezra's explanation, to show support; or after the Ramban concludes his 
explanation, as a concession to the Ibn Ezra (which is indeed the way 
commentators on the Ramban explain it---although they fail to explain 
why the Ramban then continues to discredit the idea promulgated by the 
Ibn Ezra and ostensibly the Chazal). Instead, after citing the Midrash, 
the Ramban then goes on to expound upon his opposing explanation.

(The Ramban explains that in the matter of the spies, the people's 
innocent and valid intention was to plan the conquest strategy; and he 
explains that Bilaam as well was acting quite appropriately, declaring 
that nothing could absolve him from following G-d's orders, and seeking 
G-d's advice as to how to respond to the second contingent Balak sent 
him. And Hashem's instructions were consistent: From beginning to end, 
He did not want Bilaam to curse the Israelites; but He absolutely did 
want Bilaam to accompany the second contingent---if they would desist 
from the demand that he curse the Israelites---to bless the Israelites. 
Bilaam's sin was that when he reported G-d's message to Balak's men, he 
suppressed the qualification G-d gave him, and created the false 
impression that G-d acquiesced to cursing the Israelites, and the 
blasphemous idea that G-d changes His mind and decides one day to keep 
the Israelites from being cursed, and decides the next to allow it.)

Now, often the Ramban holds that the /peshat/ of a passage does not 
follow the Chazal, and that the Chazal knew this, but were merely using 
this passage as a literary device upon which to peg their teaching---the 
teaching with which the Ramban of course agrees. But here, the Ramban 
has strongly objected to the teaching itself---without offering an 
alternate Chazal in his support!

By my use of the words "apparently" and "ostensibly," you may already 
have an idea where I'm heading.

*The reason we see a disconnect between the /Chazal/ and the Ramban's 
placement of it in his commentary, is that---influenced by Rashi and 
popular usage---we think the /Chazal/ is saying what the Ibn Ezra 
holds*. But the Ramban, I propose, does not understand the /Chazal /that 
way. He understands it the way the Meiri (/Makkos/ 10b) does: simply 
that G-d grants us free will. The fact that G-d did not simply make 
Bilaam unable to get up in the morning, but gave him instructions---to 
refrain from cursing Israel, and to commit to blessing Israel---shows 
that G-d allows people even with the worst of intentions to exercise 
their free will. "/molichin oso/" should not be translated, "they lead 
him," but "they give him the ability to go."

The Ramban's citation of the Chazal is not a support of the Ibn Ezra, 
but an introduction to his own explanation. One can entertain the 
possibility that the Ramban introduced it knowing that the Ibn Ezra took 
it the way he did. But regardless, he cites it as a support for his own 
opposing understanding based, he believes, on a more reasonable 
theology. In effect, he is saying, "Now, there is a Chazal that sheds 
light on how to understand these passages. Do not take it as the Ibn 
Ezra does; the correct understanding of it is as follows..."


Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100726/dad7d8e5/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ramban on Bilaam.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 27136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100726/dad7d8e5/attachment-0002.doc>