Parshas Balak
1. It has already been discussed several times that the purpose of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture (as Rashi says in several places in his commentary)1. And in the places where Rashi brings an "aggadah," it is as Rashi himself says2: "ואני לא באתי אלא (לפשוטו של מקרא ו)לאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו" ("I have come only [for the plain meaning of Scripture and] for the aggadah that settles the words of Scripture, each word in its proper way").
That is to say, Rashi brings an aggadah only a) when there is a difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse that requires resolution, and b) the "aggadah (is one that) settles the words of Scripture";
whereas in places where the verse can be explained entirely according to its plain meaning, without any difficulty, Rashi does not bring any "aggadah" (not even an aggadah that "fits" into the wording of the verse, "each word in its proper way").
Accordingly, there is a great wonder regarding a verse in our parsha, where we find that (most of) the plain-meaning commentators explain it according to its simple meaning, and specifically Rashi explains it (seemingly) according to a derash!
Among the first utterances that Bilam said in praise of the Jewish people is the verse3: "כי מראש צורים אראנו ומגבעות אשורנו הן עם לבדד ישכון גו'" ("For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him; behold, it is a people that will dwell alone..."). The plain-meaning commentators4 (Ibn Ezra5, Rashbam, Ramban, Ralbag and others) explain the words "from the top of the rocks I see him" according to their plain meaning: that Bilam was then standing on a mountain peak ("the top of the rocks"), from where he saw the Jews ("I see him"), and seeing them, he praised them — "behold, it is a people that will dwell alone, etc."
Rashi, however, dwells on the words "For from the top of the rocks I see him" and explains (similar to the Midrash6): "אני מסתכל בראשיתם ובתחלת שרשיהם ואני רואה אותם מיוסדים וחזקים כצורים וגבעות הללו על ידי אבות ואמהות" ("I look at their beginnings and at the origin of their roots, and I see them founded and strong like these rocks and hills, through the forefathers and mothers").
This is entirely not understood: Why does Rashi forsake the plain meaning7 of "from the top of the rocks I see him" and explain the words8 according to a derash9?
2. The commentators10 explain that according to the plain meaning there is a difficulty — what relevance is there in relating where Bilam was standing at the time? Therefore it is said (and the Midrash expounds) that "from the top of the rocks, etc." is also part of the praises that Bilam said about the Jews.
But according to the plain meaning this is no question at all; on the contrary — from the continuation of the verses it is (seemingly) actually necessary to explain it according to its plain meaning:
After Bilam had concluded his first utterances of praise and blessing for the Jews, Balak said to Bilam11: "מה עשית לי לקוב איבי לקחתיך והנה ברכת ברך וגו' ויאמר אליו לכו נא אתי אל מקום אחר אשר תראנו משם אפס קצהו תראה וכולו לא תראה וגו'" ("What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them... And he said to him, 'Come now with me to another place from which you will see them; you will see only their edge, but you will not see all of them...'"). From this it is evident that Balak thought that the reason Bilam had earlier blessed the Jews was that he had seen "all of them."
Where does it say earlier that Bilam saw the Jewish people, "all of them"? (On the contrary: earlier12 it actually says, "ויקח בלק את בלעם ויעלהו במות בעל13 וירא משם קצה14 העם" ("Balak took Bilam and brought him up to Bamos Baal, and from there he saw (only) the edge of the people")15.) — When one explains the words "For from the top of the rocks I see him" according to their plain meaning, this is no question: Bilam himself said it and emphasized it — "from the top of the rocks I see him" — and moreover, he said this as the opening (and an explanation by allusion) to the blessings that follow in the continuation of his utterance16.
It turns out that specifically according to the plain meaning of "For from the top of the rocks I see him," the continuation of the verses is understood.
3. We must also understand Rashi's wording: The source of Rashi's explanation — that the verse speaks of the well-foundedness and strength of the Jews by virtue of the forefathers and mothers — is in the Midrash17. But there the wording is: "כי מראש צורים" אלו אבות ומגבעות אלו אמהות ("'For from the top of the rocks' — these are the forefathers; 'and from the hills' — these are the mothers")18. And the basis of the derash is19 the fact that we find20 that the "forefathers" are called (in several verses21) "mountains" [or "rock"22, as it says in Yeshayahu23: "הביטו אל צור חצבתם גו' הביטו אל אברהם אביכם גו'" ("Look to the rock from which you were hewn... Look to Avraham your father...")].
This is not understood: a) Why does Rashi use the wording "על ידי אבות ואמהות" ("through the forefathers and mothers"), and not the wording of the Midrash — "these are the forefathers... these are the mothers"? b) Why does Rashi not bring any proofs from verses24 that "rocks" is a designation for the "forefathers" — which would have strengthened (at the very least) the point that the derash is consistent (also) with the plain meaning of Scripture?
However, when one examines Rashi's wording carefully, it is evident, on the contrary, that he indeed intends to deviate — to explain not as the Midrash does, that "the top of the rocks — these are the forefathers, and the hills — these are the mothers," but as Rashi is precise in his wording: "I look at their beginnings and at the origin of their roots, and I see them" — the Jews — "founded (in their roots) and strong like these rocks and hills."
That is to say, the Jews are the ones (who are strong like) "rocks and hills," and the forefathers and mothers are the "top (of the rocks)" — the "beginning" and the "roots" of the Jews (which make the Jews rocks, strong). Therefore Rashi is precise to say "through the forefathers and mothers" — not that the rocks and hills are the forefathers and mothers, but that becoming a rock — the strength — the Jews receive through (their "top" and roots,) the forefathers and mothers.
This, however, still remains unexplained — this itself requires a reason: Since in any case Rashi learns (not according to the plain meaning, but) that "from the top of the rocks" denotes strength in connection with the forefathers and mothers — why does he deviate from the Midrash, and instead of learning that "rocks" means the forefathers (and, as mentioned earlier, this is an explicit verse — "Look to the rock from which you were hewn... Avraham your father"25), he explains that the rocks and hills refer to the Jews, and the forefathers and mothers are only the "top of the rocks"?
4. The explanation of this — simply:
As an introduction to Bilam's words, the verse says26: "וישא משלו ויאמר" ("He took up his parable and said"). Rashi does not explain the word "his parable" here27, from which it is understood that according to Rashi its meaning is as it plainly sounds: that Bilam spoke here with a parable, in its simple sense — "משל למה הדבר דומה" ("a parable — to what is the matter comparable").
[And as we see, in each of Bilam's subsequent (three) speeches, where it also says "he took up his parable"28, he praised the Jews using parables — "כתועפות ראם" ("like the towering strength of a wild ox")29, "כלביא גו' וכארי" ("like a lion... and like a young lion")30, "כנחלים . . כגנות גו'" ("like streams... like gardens...")31, "דרך כוכב" ("a star shall go forth")32.]
The question then arises: Which of his utterances were by way of parable33?
The beginning of his words, "מן ארם ינחני בלק גו' לכה גו' מה אקוב גו'" ("From Aram Balak has led me... Come... How shall I curse...")34, is not a parable, but words as they literally are; and the subsequent words of blessing and praise — "הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב" ("Behold, it is a people that will dwell alone and will not be reckoned among the nations") — are also not a parable35.
Seemingly, one could say that "his parable" refers to the (subsequent) words36 "מי מנה עפר יעקב" ("Who has counted the dust of Yaakov"), as commentators37 explain, that this means that because of the immense multitude of the Jews they cannot be counted, just like, by way of parable, "dust," which cannot be counted; and as it says in an earlier verse38: "ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות גו'" ("I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count...").
— However, Rashi himself negates this interpretation:
On "Who has counted the dust of Yaakov," Rashi brings (in his first interpretation): "כתרגומו דעדקיא דבית יעקב וכו'" ("as its Targum: 'the small children of the house of Yaakov,' etc."). That is to say, the word "dust (of Yaakov)" in this verse (is not an expression of parable for the Jews, to denote their multitude, but rather it) simply means — the small children (of Yaakov)39.
[Because "dust" is fine powder, from the term "עפרורית" ("dustiness")40, and therefore "thin children"41 are called by the name "dust"; or because "afar" (in this verse) is from the term42 "עופר האילים" ("the young of the hinds")43, which means youth.]
All the more so according to the second interpretation in Rashi — "אין חשבון במצות שהם מקיימין בעפר" ("there is no counting the mitzvos that they fulfill with the dust") — according to which the meaning of "dust" is in its plain sense, actual dust (only that what is meant is the mitzvos fulfilled with dust)44.
Similarly, the words "ומספר את רובע ישראל" ("and numbered the fourth of Israel") are also not a parable: according to the first interpretation in Rashi (based on the Targum) it means "the four (banners)," and according to the second interpretation — "רביעיותיהן" ("their cohabitations").
The only words among Bilam's words that can be explained by way of parable are "For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him"45, and for this reason Rashi does not want to accept explaining them in their plain sense, but rather by way of parable: "I look at their beginnings, etc., and I see them founded and strong like these rocks and hills, etc."
5. Accordingly — that Rashi's explanation is founded on the necessity to explain "from the top of the rocks" as a parable — it will also be understood why Rashi cannot learn like the Midrash, that "from the top of the rocks — these are the forefathers" (similar to other verses where the forefathers are called "rock," "mountains") —
for since the word "rocks" is (according to the Midrash) a designation (in the Torah) for the forefathers, it is not a parable (whose concept is an illustration of something else), but rather a name46 by which the forefathers are called.
Therefore Rashi must learn that the words "rocks" and "hills" were said by Bilam as a parable for the strength of the Jews — that they are "strong like these rocks and hills," like physical rocks and hills47.
6. According to this, one can explain another puzzling explanation of Rashi in our parsha — at the conclusion of Bilam's prophecy: On "ראשית גוים עמלק" ("Amalek is the first of the nations")48, Rashi explains: "הוא קדם את כולם להלחם בישראל וכן תרגם אונקלוס49 ואחריתו להאבד בידם שנאמר50 תמחה את זכר עמלק" ("He preceded all of them in waging war against Israel, and so Onkelos translated; and his end is to perish by their hand, as it says, 'You shall blot out the memory of Amalek'").
We must understand:
a) What is the necessity, according to the plain meaning, to explain "Amalek is the first of the nations" as "he preceded all of them in waging war against Israel," and not according to its plain sense (as the Ramban explains), that Amalek "בראשי העמים יחשב כי גבורים היו ואנשי חיל למלחמה" ("is reckoned among the foremost of the peoples, for they were mighty men and men of valor for war")51 ("ראשית" being an expression of distinction52, as we find in Rashi above53: "בשמים ראש — חשובים" ("'choice spices' — important ones"))54?
b) Why does Rashi bring the proof for "ואחריתו עדי אובד" ("and his end shall be everlasting destruction") from the later verse "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek," and not55 from the earlier verse56 "מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק" ("I will surely blot out the memory of Amalek")?
Simply, the reason is that Rashi wants to bring a proof that "his end is to perish by their hand" (through the Jews), and therefore he brings the proof from "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek"57.
But this itself is not understood: Why must Rashi add the word "by their hand" and be compelled to bring the proof from the later verse "You shall blot out..."? — After all, the verse says only "and his end shall be everlasting destruction," without mentioning through whom; it could mean through G‑d — "I will surely blot out"58.
The Maharal59 explains that one cannot say that "everlasting destruction" means "by itself," because "if so, what does it have to do with 'Amalek is the first of the nations'?" Therefore Rashi says that this will be "in war with Israel."
But this answer is seemingly not sufficient: From where do we derive the necessity that, just as "the first of the nations" is in connection with (the war with) the Jews, therefore "and his end shall be everlasting destruction" must also be explained this way — through the Jews? One could simply explain that since Amalek was the first to wage war with the Jews, his punishment will be "his end shall be everlasting destruction" — that he will be (entirely) destroyed (similar to what is written further on60 in connection with another nation: "וגם הוא עדי אובד" ("and he too shall be everlasting destruction")).
7. One may say that the explanation of this is along the lines of the above:
The verse prefaces — "וירא את עמלק וישא משלו ויאמר ראשית גו'" ("He saw Amalek, and he took up his parable and said, 'The first...'"). This is difficult for Rashi: Seemingly there is no parable in this verse — the words "Amalek is the first of the nations" are simple and clear: that Amalek is the "first," the foremost in distinction (in strength) of all the nations; "and his end" — and his end will be "everlasting destruction"!
Therefore Rashi explains "Amalek is the first of the nations" as "he preceded all of them in waging war against Israel": that "the first of the nations" here does not mean it in its plain sense, but rather it is a description that brings out, by way of parable, something else about Amalek, which does not lie in the plain sense of the words — "the first of the nations" alludes to the fact that "he preceded all of them in waging war against Israel" — and therefore the wording "he took up his parable and said" fits it61.
And with this the continuation in Rashi is also understood — "and his end is to perish by their hand": Since "Amalek is the first of the nations" is a parable that points to a special matter, namely in connection with the Jews, as mentioned above, it is reasonable that the continuation "and his end" is also to be understood (not (only) according to its plain sense, "his end," but) as a parable alluding to a new matter.
And since the meaning of "the first... and his end" is a parable, it is logical to say that both are a parable in connection with the same matter — it is the "beginning" and "end" of one matter62: the war of Amalek and Israel.
— Therefore Rashi is precise to say "and his end is to perish by their hand": "and his end" is like a consequence of the "first" — since Amalek was the "first" in war, to attack the Jews, his "end" will be "to perish by their hand" in war.
8. From the above explanation — that according to Rashi "from the top of the rocks" is a parable — we arrive at a delightful matter in the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah") within Rashi's commentary:
The need for a parable arises specifically when one speaks about a (very) profound63 matter, which, as it is in itself, cannot be depicted and explained. Therefore one gives a parable for it — one finds a second matter which can be grasped and depicted, whose inner content is similar to and a sample of the thing illustrated, and through it one receives (some) understanding of the thing illustrated.
Similarly in our case: What Bilam said, that the Jews are "strong like these rocks and hills," is only a parable — because the true strength and might of the Jews (which they receive "through the forefathers and mothers") is not at all comparable to the strength of "rocks and hills"; it is a strength of which Bilam can have no conception. But so that he should have some grasp and apprehension of it, he was given a parable of "these rocks and hills."
9. The explanation of this:
The true strength of a Jew is not "הידים ידי עשו" ("the hands — the hands of Esav"), physical power and the might of his hand, but rather his spirituality, the powers of the soul, and primarily his power of mesirus nefesh (self-sacrifice), which overpowers all his powers (including the physical ones, "the hands") — for he gives up all of it.
And in terms of the levels of the soul, this is as the Tzemach Tzedek64 explains: "the top of the rocks" alludes to the level of the soul from which every Jew has the readiness "למסור נפשו על קידוש השם בלי שום טעם ודעת . . ולכן נקרא ראש צורים שהוא בחי' חזקה מאד" ("to give up his life for the sanctification of G‑d's Name without any reason or understanding... and therefore it is called 'the top of the rocks,' for it is a very strong level"). The strength of a Jew is his faith in G‑d, for which a Jew is prepared to go to mesirus nefesh65 for the sanctification of G‑d's Name, "שלא לכפור בה' אחד" ("so as not to deny the One G‑d")66, and in a manner "כאלו הוא דבר שאי אפשר כלל לכפור בה' אחד" ("as though it were a thing in which it is utterly impossible to deny the One G‑d")66.
And this is what Rashi says: "I look at their beginnings, etc., I see them founded and strong... through the forefathers and mothers" — because the "strength" of mesirus nefesh for the sanctification of G‑d's Name is received as an inheritance from the forefathers67 (and mothers).
This strength of mesirus nefesh is precisely the opposite of the concept of "strength" in relation to worldly matters: The definition of the world is existence and being, and a strong thing in the world means that the existence of that thing is firm; but the nature of mesirus nefesh is the reverse — one completely nullifies oneself, one gives oneself over entirely to G‑d.
And therefore the Alter Rebbe explains66 that the power for mesirus nefesh comes from the fact that "the One G‑d" shines in every Jew (in the soul, which is "חלק אלקה ממעל ממש" ("truly a part of G‑d above")68), from which there comes, in Jews, the matter of faith and mesirus nefesh. For mesirus nefesh is the opposite of the nature of a created being — a created being does not do something through which he (his existence) ceases to be — rather, it is a G‑dly power and strength.
And this is the continuation in the verse: "For from the top of the rocks I see him... behold, it is a people that will dwell alone and will not be reckoned among the nations" — the strength of the Jews ("rocks") is of a kind that makes them entirely "alone" (above — to the point of being completely) outside the category of all the nations: "and will not be reckoned among the nations"69.
10. And this is the explanation of Rashi's words, "I look at their beginnings, etc., and I see them (the Jews) founded and strong... through the forefathers and mothers": that the strength of the forefathers and mothers is transmitted to the Jews (until the end of all generations) without changes.
If we were speaking about a strength of a created being, it would not be possible for the strength to be transmitted from generation to generation in the same manner: according to nature, a thing becomes weaker and weaker with the passage of time.
But since the strength of the forefathers and mothers derives from the fact that "in them there shone the One G‑d" — and this is passed on "בירושה לבניהם אחריהם עד עולם" ("as an inheritance to their children after them forever")70 — there are no changes in it; it is transmitted with the same strength to every Jew until the end of all generations, in the manner of "לא שניתי" ("I have not changed").
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Chukas 5732)
Notes
1) Bereishis 3:8; ibid. 24; and in many places.
2) Bereishis 3:8.
3) Our parsha, 23:9.
4) And so it is in Targum Onkelos.
5) In his first interpretation. See below, note 45.
6) Tanchuma, our parsha, 12; Bamidbar Rabbah 20:19; Zohar, our parsha, 210b. See below, section 3, and the notes there.
7) Note Rashi's introduction to Shir HaShirim: "אין לך מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו ומשמעו ואע"פ שדברו הנביאים דבריהם בדוגמא צריך ליישב הדוגמא על אופניה ועל סדרה" ("No verse departs from its plain meaning and sense; and although the prophets spoke their words in metaphor, one must settle the metaphor in its proper way and its proper order").
8) It is a strain to say that it is in order to resolve the repetition "from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him" — for Bilam spoke in lyrical and poetic style, in which praise customarily repeats the matter in different words. But see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 78, note 4; vol. 31, p. 79ff.
9) See also Bachya here: "על דרך הפשט הוא המקום הגבוה . . ועל דרך הדרש צורים אלו האבות כו'" ("According to the plain meaning, it is the high place...; and according to the derash, 'rocks' are the forefathers, etc.").
10) Commentary of Maharzu on Bamidbar Rabbah there.
11) 23:11, 13.
12) 22:41.
13) And if one were to say that Balak offered his sacrifices there — seemingly Bilam's words were also said from there (see above, 23:6).
14) Note Rashi, Behaalosecha 11:1.
15) And what is written in Midrash Lekach Tov there, "כלומר כל העם מקצה" ("that is to say, all the people, from the edge") — is seemingly not according to the plain meaning.
16) See Rashbam here; Ramban here and above, 22:41; and elsewhere.
17) See the Midrashim cited in note 6, the parable of "אדם שבא לקוץ את אילן . . הריני הולך לשרשו . . מצאו קשיש" ("a person who came to cut down a tree... 'I will go to its root'... he found it hard"). From Rashi here it is implied that the words "Another explanation" in the Midrash there are superfluous (and in the Yalkut they are absent, as Etz Yosef on Bamidbar Rabbah there writes), because the derash "these are the forefathers... the mothers" is the continuation and conclusion of the parable that precedes it.
18) In Midrash Rabbah with all the commentaries (Re'em edition and its photo-offset reprint) this word ("rocks") is absent. See Pesikta deRav Kahana and Pesikta Rabbasi, Parshas Zachor, which expound "על ראש . . זכות אבות הגבעה . . אמהות" ("'on the top' ... the merit of the forefathers; 'the hill' ... the mothers") (and similarly in Mechilta, Beshalach 17:16), and cite the verse "from the top of the rocks..." (and see the publisher's notes in Pesikta deRav Kahana (Buber) there). But in Tanchuma (and Tanchuma Buber 19) it is as in the text above. And so it is in several printings of Midrash Rabbah (and so the glosses of the Radal and the Rashash (in the additions) there). — And in Targum Yonasan on the verse it states explicitly: "דמתילין לטוריא" ("who are likened to mountains"). See also Shemos Rabbah 16:7 (cited in Matnos Kehunah and the commentary of Maharzu on Bamidbar Rabbah there); and elsewhere.
19) See Etz Yosef on Tanchuma (and Bamidbar Rabbah) there.
20) Rosh Hashanah 11a; Shemos Rabbah 15:4; ibid. 7; and elsewhere.
21) And in the haftorah of our parsha (Michah 6:1–2, and Rashi there).
22) The Zohar cited in note 6; Midrash Lekach Tov and Yalkut Shimoni, our parsha, here.
23) 51:1–2, and Rashi (and others) there.
24) Similar to Rashi, Chukas 21:20, s.v. "Bimechokek," and in many places.
25) And also regarding "and from the hills — these are the mothers," see Rashi above (Vayechi 49:26, at the end, "and Onkelos translated").
26) 23:7.
27) Nor earlier, Chukas 21:27, "יאמרו המושלים" ("the speakers of parables say") (and in Rashi there: "בלעם שנאמר בו וישא משלו" ("Bilam, of whom it is said, 'he took up his parable'")). See Rashi, Savo 28:37: "למשל . . יאמרו זו דומה כו'" ("for a byword... they will say, 'this resembles...'").
28) 23:18; 24:3; ibid. 15. — And see below, [OCR unclear] ff. Regarding his prophecy afterwards concerning the other nations (where it is also said (24:20–23) "he took up his parable"), see below, section 7 and note 61.
29) 23:22; and so 24:8.
30) 23:24; and so 24:9.
31) 24:6.
32) 24:17. — But what is said afterwards, "וקם שבט" ("and a scepter shall rise") — "a king who rules and governs" (Rashi) — is not a parable, for "shevet" is a term for a king and ruler; see Vayechi 49:10 and Rashi there.
33) For from the wording "he took up his parable and said" it is proven that he spoke in a parable (and not only that his prophecy from G‑d was in a parable — see Behaalosecha 12:8 and Rashi there). In Sforno (23:7): the Torah does not relate "המשל שראה בנבואתו" ("the parable that he saw in his prophecy"), but only that "after he related the parable, he interpreted its matter and said that the meaning of the parable was how 'from Aram,' etc." But from the plain continuation of the verse's wording — "he took up his parable and said, 'From Aram...'" — it seemingly implies that in these words (in the verse) there is a parable. And as stated above in the text, in each of Bilam's words (below) there is (at least one) parable about the Jewish people, etc.
34) 23:7–8.
35) In Rashi, s.v. "Hen am": "as its Targum," and [OCR unclear]: "בלחודייהו עתידין דיחסנון עלמא" ("they alone are destined to inherit the world"). But even according to this it is not a parable (for "levadad" is meant in its plain sense — "they alone"), only that he spoke briefly, etc., and thereby alluded to the future inheritance.
36) 23:10.
37) Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Bachya (by way of the plain meaning), Ralbag, Abarbanel and others.
38) Lech Lecha 13:16; and so Vayetzei 28:14; and in other places.
39) [OCR unclear] there continues: "דאמיר עליהון יסגון כעפרא דארעא" ("of whom it was said, 'they will multiply like the dust of the earth'"). Some explain (Nachalas Yaakov here) that the Targum does not intend to explain "dust" as "the small children," but rather "the meaning of the verse is thus: who has counted those of whom it was said, 'they will multiply like the dust of the earth,'" only that the Targum holds that this was fulfilled only in the small ones (for adults from age twenty pass among the counted, under the census; see Rashbam ([OCR unclear]), Gur Aryeh and others here), and therefore the Targum adds "the small children." But from the fact that Rashi copies (from the Targum) only the words "the small children of the house of Yaakov," and merely alludes to the continuation of that wording with "etc.," it is evident that Rashi holds that according to the Targum, "the dust of Yaakov" means "the small children of the house of Yaakov." [And the Targum's addition, "of whom it was said, etc.," is an additional matter in the explanation of "the dust of Yaakov," and is not necessary for understanding the plain meaning of the verse (which is why Rashi only alluded to it with "etc."), as explained at length in Likkutei Sichos, Balak 5750 (section 2). See there also the necessity, in the plain meaning of the verse, that "the dust of Yaakov" is not a parable but means "the small children of the house of Yaakov" (and see Gur Aryeh here).]
*) And in the Kuntres HaSagos on the Re'em (by R. Vidal HaTzarfati), printed at the end of the book Nimukei Shmuel, and elsewhere, [it is written] that these are two interpretations in the Targum, "for it is the way of Onkelos sometimes to translate the verse in two ways" (and he brings proof from Rashi, Vayechi 49:12).
40) Chizkuni here. And even if we say that the Targum's intent is not that "dust" is a term for small children, but that small children are compared to dust because they are small (and thin) like dust (Gur Aryeh here; and so it is implied in the Re'em) — one cannot explain that "he took up his parable" refers to this, because plainly Bilam's "parable" refers to the praise and blessing itself, i.e., that within the parable itself there is a matter of praise and blessing for the Jewish people.
41) That this is the meaning of "dedakya" ("dak," thin) — see Or HaTorah, our parsha, p. 930 (and the sources cited there); and elsewhere.
42) Baal HaTurim here. See Or HaTorah, our parsha, there (and the sources cited there). And so writes the Kuntres HaSagos on the Re'em mentioned above (note 37 [OCR unclear], in the marginal gloss).
43) Shir HaShirim 2:9 (and Rashi there); ibid. 17; and elsewhere.
44) "And this is not a parable, but only a transposed verse... as if he said, 'Who has counted what Yaakov does with the dust'" (Re'em here).
45) See also Ibn Ezra above, 23:7: "המשל הוא כי מראש צורים אראנו" ("The parable is 'for from the top of the rocks I see him'") (and this accords with his second interpretation here). But plainly his intent is that the parable begins from here, since he also explained "Who has counted the dust of Yaakov" as "that he will be as numerous as the dust of the earth."
46) And although the reason the forefathers are called "mountains" in the Torah is because they are likened to mountains, by way of resemblance and comparison to a "mountain" (something high and strong, etc.) — nevertheless, once this became their designation, it is no longer in the category of a parable, and especially to say about it "he took up his parable" (of Bilam).
47) And "through the forefathers and mothers," which Rashi adds, is learned from the word "from the top," as above, section 3. Note Rashi above, verse 4: "אבותיהם של אלו כו' ואני ערכתי כנגד כולן" ("The forefathers of these, etc., and I have arranged [altars] corresponding to all of them"); and see Rashi there, verse 8 (and also what Bachya, verse 7, cites in Rashi's name).
48) 24:20.
49) And so explain Chizkuni, [OCR unclear], Ibn Ezra, Rashbam and others.
50) End of Parshas Teitzei.
51) Wording of the Ramban. — The Ibn Ezra writes on this interpretation, "ולא הי' כן" ("and it was not so"), but he brings no proof for his words. And in the Ramban: "ולולי כן לא עלה בלבו לבוא להלחם בישראל ולא הוצרך משה לבחור אנשים כו'" ("Were it not so [that they were mighty], it would not have entered his heart to come and wage war against Israel, and Moshe would not have needed to choose men, etc.").
52) Ramban there.
53) Tisa 30:23 (cited in the Ramban, who brings further verses there as proof; see there).
54) But one may say that, according to its plain meaning, it is reasonable that these words of Bilam have some connection with the Jewish people (see Rashi, verse 22), and therefore Rashi explains "he preceded, etc., in waging war against Israel."
55) As [OCR unclear] and Bachya.
56) Beshalach 17:14.
57) See Re'em and Sifsei Chachamim here.
58) And indeed in Targum Onkelos as well (and so in Rashbam, Bachya and others, who explained the beginning of the verse like the Targum) this emphasis ("by their hand") is absent; but in Abarbanel: "שעל ידי ישראל כו'" ("that through Israel, etc."). See Ibn Ezra on the verse.
59) Gur Aryeh here.
60) 24:24.
61) See also Ibn Ezra on the verse: "דמשל ראשית גוים יפרשנו כי היא הגוי הנלחם עם ישראל בראשונה" ("for the parable 'the first of the nations' — he explains it to mean that it is the nation that fought with Israel first"). And further study is needed regarding what is said (verse 23), "he took up his parable," for seemingly according to [OCR unclear] there is no parable in its plain sense, as in our case. (And in Ibn Ezra there, that the parable is "וצים מיד כתים" ("and ships from the coast of Kittim"). And seemingly this is like [OCR unclear]... "for He likened them to ships, etc." But in what is said there, "tzim" is explained as "large ships": "and Kittim will cross... in large ships against Ashur" (Rashi there), as above.)
62) And according to this, it is all the more understandable why Rashi writes "and his end is to perish by their hand" within the heading "the first of the nations" (and not in a separate heading).
63) See Sefer HaLikkutim Dach of the Tzemach Tzedek, entry "Mashal," and the sources cited there.
64) Or HaTorah, our parsha, p. 907.
65) See Toras Admur HaZaken (Kuntres Limud HaChassidus, ch. 3; and see the sources cited there), that "Eisan" is the strength of the soul that is revealed through the power of mesirus nefesh; and see also Or HaTorah there, p. 866.
66) Tanya, end of ch. 18.
67) See Tanya ch. 18 (and onward), on the explanation that the hidden love in the heart of all Jews is an inheritance to us from our forefathers (and see there its connection to faith and mesirus nefesh). See Hayom Yom, 21 Elul; 3 Marcheshvan; and elsewhere. Note also what is explained, that Avraham our father opened the channel of mesirus nefesh (Sefer HaMaamarim 5698, p. 283; see Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 747, and the sources cited there).
68) Tanya, beginning of ch. 2. More specifically, the level of Chochmah in the soul — Tanya ch. 18; Or HaTorah there, p. 917; and elsewhere.
69) See Ralbag here: "להורות שאין יחס בין ישראל ובין שאר האומות" ("to teach that there is no relation between Israel and the other nations"). And see Bachya and others (on the verse). This may be connected with Rashi on the verse: "alone" — "as its Targum" ([OCR unclear]); "and will not be reckoned among the nations... they will not be annihilated together with the other nations" — for because the Jews are "rocks" (since "the One G‑d" shines in them), they possess the quality of eternity.
70) Wording of Tanya, beginning of ch. 8.
Key Lesson
A Jew's true strength is not physical might but the power of mesirus nefesh, which comes from the One G‑d shining in every Jewish soul. Because this strength is G‑dly and inherited from the forefathers and mothers, it does not weaken over the generations, and it sets the Jewish people apart as "a people that will dwell alone."