In Tractate Megilla (9a,b), the Gemara relates the story of how the Septuagint was put together. 70 elders were put in 70 different rooms and Ptolemy told them to write the Torah for him in Greek. So they all did, and with a few changes, so that the Greeks wouldn't misinterpret it. All of them changed the same exact things! The Gemara proceeds to list all of them. One is from Parshas Korach. Korach and his cronies along with Dasan and Aviram accuse Moshe of monopolizing the positions, nepotism, etc. Moshe pleads to God saying, "I didn't take a donkey from them." - "ChamOR echad lo nasasy (Bam. 16:15)." This was changed to, "ChamUD echad lo nasasy." - "I didn't take a desire from them." The difference in Hebrew is only one letter. Rashi explains the reason this was changed is because when Moshe says, "I didn't take a donkey." It implies that he DID take something else! So they changed it. That makes sense, but why in the world did Moshe say this in the first place? Why did he say Chamor?
Bilam and Avraham are contrasted in Pirkei Avos (5:22) and textually, similar phrases are used by both of them (compare Bereishis 12:3 to Bamidbar 22:5), and both have similar geographical roots (compare Br. 24:4,10/Br. 11:27-31 with Bam.23:7/Dev.23:5). So we have a strong basis to compare them. Bilam's donkey is called an Ason, whereas Avraham's is called a Chamor. We also have a tradition that the Mashiach will ride in on the same white donkey as Avraham. Firstly, what is the difference between an Ason and a Chamor, and secondly, what do we need an "x" thousand year old donkey for? Nebuch... that's one old donkey!
So you hear the questions? Three questions: Why does Moshe say Chamor? To understand, we will have to understand the significance of the word, or the concept. We will do this by understanding the difference between a Chamor and an Ason. Then we will try and understand why we have a weird tradition involving a four thousand year old donkey! Are you with me?
Bilam was a Navi, God spoke to him, and Chazal in various places hold him in very high esteem. The Sifri (Midrash on Zos Habracha) says "Lo kam BEYISRAEL KeMoshe od Navi..." There hasn't arisen in ISRAEL a Navi like Moshe Rabeinu, but among the other nations there has. Who was he? Bilam Ben Beor. The Midrash then gives an analogy: Bilam was like the Kings cook, while Moshe was like his servant. The cook knows all the ingredients and how much they cost. The servant does not. So there were areas where Bilam was actually greater then Moshe!
The Rambam says in Mishna Torah (Yesodei HaTorah 7) that prophesy is granted only to a wise sage of strong character, who is never overcome by his natural inclinations in any regard. Yet Bilam was only concerned with his own honor and money (see Rashi on the whole section with the messengers from Balak). God clearly didn't want Bilam to curse the Jews, but Bilam was so blinded by his desires for honor and money, that he had the chutzpah to ask God a second time [rationalizing that because God said the first time not to go with THESE messengers of Balak, maybe THESE more honorable ones he should go with]. Bilam was obviously a slave to his desires for honor and wealth, how could God speak to him?
There are certain things that when we work for them, we acquire them for real, and when we get them without working, we don't really acquire them. For example, elsewhere in Megilla it says that if a person says, I struggled to learn Torah, but wasn't successful, don't believe him. But if he says I struggled and I was successful, believe him. Because the only way to be really successful in learning Torah is to kill yourself trying, because the output is in direct proportion to the input. And the Gemara says, that this only goes for Torah, but making a living is not this way, etc. similarly, we can say that there are two types of prophesy:
1) Avraham's - Where one must advance gradually step by step, mastering his actions and thoughts one by one, working on himself rigorously, to bring on the highest influences and control his natural influences. Rav Blachman explained that when two people converse, the one speaking can only fully express himself to the extent that the other has similar life experiences and thought patterns, etc. The more they have in common, the better the two people will understand each other. It would be difficult for us to express ourselves to a bushman. One puts his thoughts into words, and hopes that the other can translate fairly accurately. Because how well the two communicate is going to depend on how accurately they translate. So too, if God wishes to speak to man, man must be able to translate accurately. The only one who can do this is someone who can see through the masks of nature and be able to translate the prophesy objectively. If one's biases and desires get in the way, he will not translate accurately. If one wishes to "speak" to G-d, he must be able to control his physical nature. He has to be "pure" inside. Then he can grow with every experience and achieve higher levels until he receives true prophesy because God trusts him to translate. This takes a lot of work.
2) Bilam's - Sometimes, God sees fit to grant prophesy to those who haven't worked on themselves. Hashem purifies his body so that he can receive the word of God. But since this is just a gift, and no work was involved, the way the person was before, is the way the person is after. Nothing remains in the "Prophet" once the vision is gone. There is no spiritual growth. Chazal say that when the Jews were crossing the Yam Suf, the lowliest maidservant had prophesy like that of Yechezkel! Does that mean that they were greater than him? Of course not! That revelation was a gift, but nothing remained afterwards. There was no work involved, they didn't conquer their desires, hence there was no spiritual growth. Before the vision they were maidservants, and after the vision they were maidservants once again. As the Ramban points out, this is what happened to Bilam too. He began as nothing more than a magician, and ended nothing more than a magician, for it says in Yehoshuah (13:22) that they killed Bilam the "magician". Chas VeShalom, the Jews would kill a prophet of Hashem.
That is the difference between Avraham and Bilam's Nevuah. And this also demonstrates the difference between a Chamor and an Ason. Chamor is the same word as Chomer, material, and Chomriyus is materialism. And this is what the donkey represents (Like we really care what kind of animal they rode? The Torah is telling us something much more significant). Avraham conquered, or perfected this aspect of himself and in so doing achieved prophesy. He saddled his Chamor and rode on it. The Chamor is the male, which is the Mashpia, the one who gives, the provider, mystically, so we see that it was the donkey which gave material to Avraham - to be used as a means to serve God. Avraham rode his donkey, he controlled those material aspects of himself. This is what it means by Akeidas Yitzchak when Avraham says, "Shvu lachem po im haChamor," He leaves the material aspects of himself behind, so that he and his son Yitzchak can make an Aliyah spiritually, so they can "go up the mountain" which always means a spiritual ascent (Again, we don't care about the geography, the Akeida could have been in a valley! But the Torah tells us that they were going UP to do the Akeida).
Bilam, on the other hand had an Ason, a female donkey. Mystically, the female is the Mekabelles, the receiver. Bilam didn't conquer the material aspects of himself, he married them, quite literally. Various midrashim describe how he and his donkey had a bestial relationship. And this is why when Bilam hits her, the donkey says, "Haven't I been loyal to you, etc.?" She means as a wife! Bilam's Nevuah was a gift, he didn't perfect himself. God desired that a Navi amongst the nations bless Israel (Per Ramban/Abarbanel), so he was given prophesy as a gift, because he was so intelligent.
As for the Midrash, Bilam is the cook, while Moshe is the trusted servant. The King's servant reflects the King, and he has to spread the Kings word to all the people. Since the servant is so visible and relates not only the Kings word, but the King himself, he therefore must be of the highest moral stature and integrity. The cook, on the other hand, has nothing royal about him. His relationship with the King goes only as far as the kitchen. While he may be privy to information that the servant is not, it is only a result of his job, and not in any way a reflection of his innate worth.
Now we can answer all of our questions:
Now we see the depth and understanding in the words of Moshe Rabeinu. "I didn't take a Chamor from them." Moshe was being accused of all sorts of things, so he says to God, what basis do they have to accuse me of these things? Not one physical, material anything did I ever take from them! Moshe doesn't mean that he never stole a donkey... he means I never took a physical, material object. His language could not have been more exact.
And this is of course why Mashiach will ride the same Chamor. The Mashiach will be one who has conquered the material aspects of himself, and he will ride them, and it will be a Chamor, because it will provide him with the material as a means, to do the will of God, not an Ason, who receives the material. May we see him and his donkey Bemeheirah Beyameinu.
________________
Sources:
Rav Akiva Tatz, "Materialism," Jerusalem Echoes Tapes
The Seattle Kollel's Newsletter
Get your own Free Home Page