...אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב לא אוכל לעבור את פי ד' (במשבר כב יח), If Balak will give me his houseful of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem..

In Bilaam raising the prospect of receiving financial rewards for his services, he discloses what he truly thirsts for, but is frustratedly prevented by Hashem in obtaining his heart’s desire.

But if all he truly desires is wealth why does he mention silver in addition to gold, isn’t gold alone the most valuable and inclusive of all alloys? Secondly, there seems to an emphasis on his getting hold of ‘his houseful’, Balak’s specific holdings. If Bilaam’s intent was meant merely to emphasize that no matter what volume of wealth he was offered  he could not defy Hashem, why then did he need to allude to Balak’s personal belongings particularly?

I believe that in this very first utterance of Bilaam, he displayed the three character flaws endemic to him and his students.

Silver and gold aren’t simply valuable metals; they serve as the metaphor for a much deeper existential need.

The word for gold, זהב, is a contraction of the two words: זה הב, literally translating as ‘this give’. This represents wealth and the stature that is often associated with it. Man innately desires recognition and when observing the ‘luster’ of gold instinctively cries out ‘please give me that!’

Silver and its Hebrew counterpart, כסף, is rooted in the notion of ‘longing’, as in the verse, נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי, yearn and indeed pine does my soul. This reflects on man’s want to get one’s desires, both needs and luxuries.

Gold, the Talmud relates, is characterized as, חשיבי, most prominent and coveted. Silver on the other hand is termed, חריפי, more circulated and accepted as barter, intimating its ability to obtain all the objects of one’s cravings.

These two drives parallel the Mishna in Avos (5 22) description of Bilaam and his disciples as possessing a רוח גבוהה, an arrogant spirit, the constant need for adulation, recognition and honor, and נפש רחבה, a broad soul, one who seeks to placate his every want and pleasure.

Bilaam’s Freudian emphasis on specifically the riches from the ‘house’ of Balak, display his third defect, that of עין רעה, an evil eye, the greedy outlook that pines for a uniqueness to the exclusion of others, incapable of feeling fulfilled if other’s share that same wealth and glory.

The Mishna goes on to contrast these blemishes with the qualities of our forefather Avraham and his followers: עין טובה, a good eye, רוח נמוכה, a humble spirit, and finally, נפש שפלה, a meek soul.

The traits of generosity, humility and self-control were the legacy of Avraham for all generations.

The Mishna then strangely goes on to posit a question: How are the disciples of our forefather Avraham different than the disciples of Bilaam? Didn’t we just starkly juxtapose the obvious distinction between them?

In truth, the Holy Baal Shem taught, both sets of students possess the identical attributes. The difference is where they implement them.

In the realm of the material, the cohorts of Bilaam in their quest for temporal respect, honor, and enjoyment, utilize these negative qualities to achieve their unsavory goals. It is in the domain of spirituality, however, they suddenly discover a generous ‘good eye’ in being satisfied with their meager accomplishments, happy to see others excel. They convince themselves with ‘absolute humility’ that they are unworthy and undeserving of rising to heights of spiritual elevation, which is the lot of others. Finally they ‘accept their meek lot’, and pine not for the pleasure of spiritual excitement.

The converse is true of the adherents of Avraham, who enact a stingy ‘evil eye’ towards all that is spiritual, pining for a role in life that is  uniquely theirs, as each one of us were brought onto this earth to make our special contribution, like no other, in promoting the honor of Hashem. They ‘proudly’ view themselves as privileged to achieve ever greater closeness to Hashem. Lastly, they have a ‘robust soul’, an unquenchable thirst for the pleasures that await those who devote themselves in service of Hashem.

That is precisely what the Mishna answers to its original query. The students of Avraham ‘enjoy in this world and inherit the World to Come’, whereas the disciples of Bilaam ‘inherit Gehinnom and descend into the well of destruction’.

The traits are identical it all depends in which arena they are applied.

We must ask ourselves in all honesty, whose disciple are we?

Where do our ambitions, that define ourselves, lay? Are we driven towards success in our spiritual lives as much as we are in our professional lives? Might we be too complacent about our standing in, and contribution to, our community? Do we hunger to grow in matters of the spirit or are we just ‘happy with our lot’? Does our quest to experience new indulgences of the body match our thirst for knowledge in Torah and joy in mitzvos?

Tough questions… Tough life… Tough choices... The way we respond will determine who our teacher is and how much we will enjoy both worlds. It is only the disciples of our forefather Avraham who will ‘enjoy in this world and inherit the World to Come’!

באהבה,

צבי יהודה טייכמאן