‘The Words of Torah Are Poor in One Place and Rich in Another’
Proof By Omission
Rabbi Shalom Rosner
Rav Kehilla, Nofei HaShemesh
Maggid Shiur, Daf Yomi, OU.org
5779
Moshe said to them, “Did you allow all the females to live? They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Bilam’s advice to betray Hashem over the incident of Pe’or, resulting in a plague among the congregation of Hashem. (Bamidbar 31:15-16)
Bnei Yisrael go to war with Midyan and kill all the men, but they refrain from killing the Midyanite women. Moshe turns to Bnei Yisrael and asks them why they did not kill the women who caused them to transgress. Moshe stresses, these women were part of Bilam’s plot to seduce the men to betray G-d and commit acts of idolatry.
Nechama Lebowitz in her commentary on the Torah highlights an interesting phenomenon. This is the first instance in the Torah where we are informed that Bilam was behind the acts of the Moavite and Midyanite women at Ba’al Pe’or. At the end of Parshat Balak we are told only that the Moavite women seduced the men to engage in idolatry, but there is no specific mention of Bilam having instigated the incident.
Israel settled in Shitim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites. They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and prostrated themselves to their gods. Israel became attached to Baal Pe’or, and the anger of Hashem flared against Israel (Bamidbar 25:1-3). Bnei Yisrael were seduced by the Moavite women and engaged in idolatry. Hashem was angry with them and Pinchas took the law into his own hands to put an end to the Chilul Hashem. Not a word about Bilam’s involvement in this episode. Due to the proximity of the story of Bilam and Ba’al Peor, Rashi cites the gemara in Sanhedrin that claims that it was Bilam who instigated the acts of the Moavite (and Midyanite) women.
Why does the Torah not disclose that Bilam is behind the scheme of Ba’al Pe’or? Why did the Torah wait to disclose this detail only now?
In fact, there are two other examples in Tanach, where a detail is seemingly omitted, only to be filled in at a later date.
One example is when Yaakov discloses to us the extent of Lavan’s trickery. We are only informed of the details of how Lavan exploited Yaakov at a much later juncture. After Yaakov leaves Lavan’s home, Lavan chases after him claiming that he stole his terafim (idols). Lavan was not able to locate his idols and Yaakov states: “This is twenty years that I have spent in your house. I served you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your animals, and you changed my wages ten times” (B’reishit 31:41). We know that Lavan was a charlatan, but we are only privy to the graphic details at the very end.
Why do we only find out about this when Yaakov argues angrily with Lavan? Why didn’t the Torah disclose these important details when they transpired – that Lavan tricked Yaakov and every day he changed the deal? This is a second example where the Torah waits to provide a detail of a story which seemingly should have been written when it happened.
There is a third example. Towards the end of Shmuel Alef when Shaul HaMelech is uncertain as to whether he should engage in war or not, he goes to one of the witches to attempt to bring Shmuel up from the dead. Shaul goes to the witch of Ein Dor who succeeds in contacting Shmuel. Only at that point in the story do we learn that this was one of the witches that Shaul was not successful in killing, even though he wiped out all the rest of the witches. We weren’t informed that he removed all witchcraft practitioners until this moment, at the time that
ironically, he seeks the services of a witch. Why is the fact that Shaul kills all the other witches not mentioned earlier in Tanach?
Nechama Lebowitz utilizes a phrase from the Gemara to explain this phenomenon. It is poor in one place and rich in another place. You have to read Tanach in its totality.
Why in these three instances, did the Torah omit a detail only to disclose it at a later juncture? Nechama Lebowitz suggests that this is to emphasize certain details at a time when they would have a greater impression upon us. Certain details we feel more deeply if their revelation is delayed until an opportune moment. The narrative is silent so long as Yaakov himself was silent and controlled his outrage while he worked for Lavan. But after twenty years of exploitation, Yaakov finally exploded and let out the bitter feelings he had hid for so long. Had these details been coldly reported to us in their strict chronological order, would they have touched the deepest chords of our feelings the same way? At that moment, we begin to understand – really, is that how Lavan acted to Yaakov? The true impact is much stronger.
Similarly, is the case of Shaul HaMelech. Had we known much earlier that Shaul tried to wipe out the witches, we would accept the fact that he is going to find the witch. Because the Navi did not tell us until now that Shaul is struggling to find a witch because he has wiped out all the other ones, it makes his action more ironic and it highlights his sin. When Shaul himself consults a witch, the point is driven home how deeply he had been humiliated.
That is why the Torah leaves out certain details and only tells us them later on. This explains Lavan and Yaakov and this explains Shaul. What about Bilam and Ba’al Peor?
Nechama Lebowitz suggests that perhaps it is left out to teach us that no matter who causes a person to sin, ultimately the sinner bears responsibility. Yes, the mach’tee and the meisit will be brought to justice by HaKadosh Baruch Hu, but ultimately it is the chotei, Bnei Yisrael, who were at fault.
At the end of Balak, there is not a word about Bilam, because Bnei Yisrael were responsible for their actions and they were punished for it.
Though it was Bilam who instigated the daughters of Moav (and Midyan) to strike a blow at the purity of Jewish family life, though he was the evil genius who thought out the plan, the moral responsibility ultimately rested on the Jews themselves.
As Chazal tell us: The word of the teacher vs. the word of the student, to whom does one obey? A man must be loyal to Hashem. That does not imply that the provoker to immorality, the misleader, is free from responsibility.
We know now that Bilam instigated the matter and he was punished for it. Yet, it does not relieve Bnei Yisrael of their responsibility for their actions. We cannot blame others for causing us to make mistakes. We must take responsibility for our actions and do what we can to prevent acting improperly.
Sometimes we can learn tremendous lessons not just from what is explicitly written in the Torah, but from what is explicitly omitted from the Torah as well.
[From Torah Tidbits.]