They learned from us

 

We - Jews - look askance at some of the things "orthodox" Muslims do.

Don't sell or rent a home to Jews.

Don't let a non-Muslim testify in a religious court.

Surprise.

They got that from us.

Non-Jews are limited in what they can present in a Jewish (religious) court.

Something new?

Hardly.

It dates back to Talmudic times. It's d'rabanan - the rabbis ruled thus.

The Torah of course repeatedly tells us to treat all people equally.

The rabbi of the congregation where I can be found every day has been telling us as part of the morning mini-lesson that Jews should never rent a house to a non-Jew who might commit "avodah zarah," idol worship. Likewise we should not sell a house to a potential idle worshipper.

That includes almost everyone except - another surprise ? - Muslims who only worship Allah, another name for God. (And on the topic of "names of God," is the English "god" a real "name of God" and if it is, may it be spelled out or must it be modified as "G-d?" There are authorities on both sides of this god issue.)

We have a house that's been on the market for three-plus years.

It is within walking distance to an Ashkenazi Orthodox shul, a Conservative temple, and a Chabad house. It's aggressively priced-to- sell. Are there any prospective buyers from the Jewish community? None. (Yes, Virginia, the availability is well-known within the Jewish communities.)

A non-Jewish family is interested in the property. Shall we refuse to sell it to this prospective buyer because the rabbis of Talmudic times ruled, in Israel, that a Jew should not rent of sell a home to a non-Jew/non-Muslim? The neighborhood is a mix of observant Jews (a few), less-observant Jews (more) and non-Jews (majority). There is nothing to stop one of our neighbors - mostly really nice folk who respect others' religions - from placing a statue to their god on their front lawn.

Even in Temple (with a capital "T") times there was avodah zerah on the outskirts - if not actually within the walls - of Jerusalem. Someone, in Israel, must have been providing property for these activities. (This, of course, may have been what promoted the rabbis to make their ruling about selling/renting property to people who might commit avodah zerah. Should I suggest that some of these people who were committing avodah zerah were Jews?)

Meanwhile, Islam also prohibits selling property to a non-Muslim, particularly a Jew. The penalty - enforced as recently as 2012 CE - is death to the seller.

Islam's penalty for taking God's name in vain is death.

Israel used to have the same penalty.

When we left Egypt we had capital punishment for many crimes. Sometimes HaShem levied the punishment, other times a Jewish court. The death penalties were not pretty - stoning, burning, slaying (by the sword), and garroting (strangling). (See http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Death_and_Mourning/About_Death_and_Mourning/Death_Penalty.shtml.)

The death penalty was cited in the Torah for the following activities, among others:

• Adultery
  
• A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped in a city
  
• A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding
  
• Bestiality
  
• Cursing a parent
  
• Kidnapping
  
• Premeditated Murder
  
• Rape
  
• Sodomy
  
• Taking God's name in vain or cursing his name
  
• Witchcraft
  
• Worshiping other gods

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible

The difference between Judaism and Islam is that Judaism "outgrew" capital punishment (by mitigating it away) while Islam applies it even today for a multitude of crimes and non-crimes (e.g., killing a rape victim).

My point is that when we look at Islam's punishments today we really are looking at Judaism's punishments of well over 2,000 years ago, back to a time when Israel (and Judea) was independent, when the Temple(s) stood.

I know of no Israeli law that prohibits renting or selling a house to a person who is neither Jewish or Muslim - where would all the Filipinos live if that were the case? Certainly visitors to Israel may rent without anyone other than the haridim objecting. (I can understand the objection since some of these people will bring in "art" and books that are objectionable, but we can kasher a house after the tenants depart.)

For all that, it's interesting to see where Islam gets its much of its jurisprudence.

As for my house, I'll sell it to whomever is willing to buy it, the rabbis not withstanding.

9th of Av - תשעה באב

 

The following are North African (ממרוקו עד לוב) customs (מנהגים) for the 9th of Av (תשעה באב).

From דברי שלום ואמת

According to Maran (R. Yosef Karo and the Shulhan Aruk) tefillin are NOT worn during 9th of Av morning (שחרית) service; instead tefillin are worn during the afternoon (מנחה) service. Hakham Shalom Messas, a"h, wrote that the worldwide custom is to pray שחרית sans tefillin; putting them on only at מנחה. The kabalists (מקובלים) who put tefillin in the morning should do it before coming to synagogue. R. Ovadia Yosef, however, in ילקות יוסף states that the Jerusalem custom is to wear tefillin during the morning service.

Follow the custom of the synagogue in which you are making minyan.

It is the custom to recite שירת האזינו during שחרית rather than שירת הים.

Kadish תתקבל is omitted from both evening (ערבית) and morning (שחרית) minyans.

Nahum (נחם) is recited only at minhah (מנחה) although this goes against Maran.

The cohanim do not bless the kahal on the 9th of Av. The hazan recites the ברכת כהנים at minhah (מנחה) and the kahal responds ברוך הוא וברוך שמו.

From חוד יוסף חי

A mourner, even in the 7 days, may be called to the Torah on the 9th of Av and may even read the haftarah.

It is proper to raise (להגביה) the Torah on the 9th of Av as normally is done. However, ילקות שמ''ש disagrees and states the Torah should not be raised during שחרית.

From ילקות שמ''ש

Meat is omitted from the diet until the evening of the 10th of Av (not just until half of the day).

It is not the custom to visit grave sites on the 9th of Av.

"Shall your brethren go to the war, and shall you sit here?"

 

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel
Used with permission

One of the burning issues in contemporary Israeli political/religious life relates to widespread exemptions from military service granted to Hareidim (“ultra” Orthodox Jews). The Hareidi leadership insists that all men who study Torah in their yeshivot are thereby serving the nation, and must not be asked to do anything more. While other young Israeli men and women are required to serve in the military or national social services, Hareidi young men and women have generally been allowed to be exempted by dint of their religious commitments.

It must be pointed out that many religious Israelis serve conscientiously and valiantly in the Israel Defense Forces. Indeed, religious Zionists have proven to be among Israel’s most dedicated and most effective soldiers, officers and community workers.

The dilemma in Israel relates specifically to the Hareidi community. The increasing hostility toward the Hareidim is palpable among the wide spectrum of Israeli society including many in the religious Zionist camp. Why, they ask, should their sons and daughters sacrifice so much for the nation while the Hareidi sons and daughters are asked to sacrifice nothing? Why should Israeli society/government provide so much financial support and welfare to a community that refuses to share in the responsibility of defending the nation? Echoing Moses’ question to the tribes of Gad and Reuven, which we read in this week’s Torah portion: “Shall your brethren go to the war, and shall you sit here?” (Bemidbar 32:6)

The Hareidim reply: we serve the nation by studying Torah! We are the spiritual soldiers of Israel without whom the nation of Israel cannot survive.

Surely, the study of Torah is meritorious. It can be legitimately argued that gifted young men who wish to devote themselves to high level Torah study should be granted this opportunity, as long as they recognize their responsibility to the total Israeli society—not just to their Hareidi enclaves. The problem arises, though, in that the Hareidi leadership demands exemptions for all their many thousands of students, not just for the elite few very promising students.

The public stance of Hareidi leadership has been uncompromising and strident. One Hareidi rabbinic leader was quoted in the Israeli press as having stated that if the Israel Defense Forces were to draft 50,000 Hareidim, they will need to prepare 50,000 prison cells—since not one of the Hareidim will agree to serve!

How different is this approach from the normative religious view expressed by Moses himself. In this week’s Torah portion, Moses made it clear to the tribes of Gad and Reuven—and to the Israelites in general—that all are obligated to fight for the nation. Any tribe which shirks responsibility is thereby undermining the strength and the morale of the entire people.

When Israel’s War of Independence broke out in 1948, a group of yeshiva students came to the office of Rabbi Benzion Uziel, Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. They asked Rabbi Uziel to write letters exempting them from military service. Rabbi Uziel expressed his unequivocal displeasure with these students. He told them that it was their religious duty to fight in defense of Israel. When the nation comes under attack, even brides and grooms must hasten from the wedding canopy in order to defend the people of Israel. Not only is there a religious obligation to fight in defense of the nation, but yeshiva students who claim exemptions inevitably bring disgrace to the religious community and to the Torah.

Rabbi Haim David Halevy, a devoted disciple of Rabbi Uziel, demonstrated by personal example that Torah students and scholars were an integral part of the nation’s defense. During the War of Independence in 1948, he served in an army unit comprised of yeshiva students and graduates. This military experience did not detract from his Torah scholarship—he went on to become one of the greatest rabbinic scholars of his generation!

The State of Israel is seeking ways to include many more of the Hareidim in the Israel Defense Forces and in the related National Service programs. There is much political in-fighting and negotiating among the various parties. It is clear, though, that the overwhelming majority of Israelis are fed up with the status quo that offers sweeping exemptions and benefits to Hareidim.

Religious leadership should not be resisting the impending changes, but should be at the vanguard of suggesting ways in which all Israelis can share in the responsibilities and privileges of serving in defense of the nation. In the long run, this is not only better for the State of Israel; it is better for the Hareidi community itself—and is better for the status of religion and Torah in the Jewish State.

It is well past time to reclaim the religious vision of such sages as Rabbi Uziel and Rabbi Halevy.

________________________________________

The Angel for Shabbat column is presented as a service of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. Please visit our website jewishideas.org for a wide array of articles of special interest to those who wish to foster an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodox Judaism.

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals
8 West 70th Street
New York, NY 10023

Whose country is it?

 

"Florida finally got Federal permission - read "Obama finally allowed it" - to access Federal data regarding illegal immigrants.

Why does Florida want the information?

To purge illegal immigrants from its voter registration lists.

According to tv "news" talking heads, the majority of names on the illegals list are Hispanic, and purging illegals will upset the state's Hispanic population.

Oh my.

I have serious doubts that South Florida's Hispanic population will be much up in arms, protesting this politically incorrect action. A goodly portion of them at least claim to be strong conservatives who should want to assure only legal residents can vote.

I'd like to lay the illegal immigrants problem on Obama's door. It DOES belong at a door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and Obama has played his role in increasing illegal immigration and illegal voting registration.

It occurs to me, however, that it was Republicans who promoted "motor voter registration" with minimal proof of citizenship requirements.

It was Republican administrations - including the Conservative's model, Ronald Reagan - that gave blanket citizenship to some illegals and put other illegals on a "fast track" to citizenship, ahead of people who legally hope to immigrate to the United States.

It is easier to register to vote than it now is to get a Florida driver's license. When I next renew my Florida license I'm informed I will have to show my birth certificate. My U.S. passport won't do. (Excuse me, we have a man in the White House who stonewalled the country for years - years - before producing what some believe is a phony birth certificate. )

My U.S. passport, combined with my DD214 showing I served my country, is not enough. That is more than the incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania can do and it's more than many, perhaps most, of today's elected officials can do. A local Congressman, Rep. Allen West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West) is an exception.

Trouble is, purging the roles of illegal immigrants is not politically correct.

These people broke the law - several times - so they deserve the right to influence how the country is run.

They broke the law by their illegal entry.

They broke the law by lying when they registered to vote.

I don't care if the illegals are Hispanic or British or Israeli - and we have far too many illegals from Israel - of Vietnamese or ... pick a nationality.

Having lived overseas, I know things are better in the U.S. I know the economies of many Latin American countries are worse than in the U.S. And I know that if the quota system still is in place - this is the system that sent many Jews, Roma, and others to their deaths at the hands of the nazis - it needs to be scrapped or at least revisited in light of 2012. Why should Brits, whose country has as high a standard of living as the U.S., be given preference to immigrate?

I've no complaint about immigrants; my great-grandparents were immigrants; my wife is an immigrant. I DO have a problem with ILlegal immigrants.

Not only do they take up space in our citizen-paid schools and fill our charity hospital beds, many also help fill our jails since the "American way" is not their way. Muslims, for example, seem to have no problem with honor killings - a daughter is raped and her family kills her - not the rapists who in the end go free - but the victim!

It's nice that some of the illegals otherwise behave as good citizens, and I have a little empathy for the children of illegals who were brought here in infancy and know no other home.

But illegal still is illegal.

Purging the voter registration roles is a good first step.

The Feds - INS, FBI, Homeland Security - need to follow up and arrest the people purged from the roles not just for illegally entering the U.S., but for lying about their citizenship status to voter registrars. I suspect that, given the way the Feds protect their rights, local law enforcement would be prevented from making the arrests.

It happened before Obama's watch. It continues under Obama's watch. They only difference is that Obama's administration made serious efforts to protect the illegals voting "rights," rights to which they were not, are not, entitled.

It's time America's citizens, native and naturalized, take their country back.

We should welcome LEGAL immigrants.

We should welcome - and control - everyone who enters the country on any limited-duration visa - students, visitors, temporary workers.

For a Jewish perspective on immigration, legal and illegal, I recommend A Torah Perspective on National Borders and Illegal Immigration at
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1898474/jewish/A-Torah-Perspective-on-National-Borders-and-Illegal-Immigration.htm. The authors carefully cite their authorities.

No candidate worth my vote

 
I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
That is not an oxymoron.
I am not a fan of the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
BUT
Let's think about "Obamacare."
I am against "Obamacare" for one reason and one reason only: it was rammed down our throats before anyone KNEW what was in the bill. The president and his toadies were sneaky, and that's the nicest thing I can say about him and his groupies.
As a nation we are one of the least taxed on earth.
As a nation we still are one of the richest, most productive on earth. Granted China owns too much of our wealth, but that can be changed.
We NEED social welfare programs.
Social welfare programs cost money.
Education is a "social welfare program."
Indigent care is a "social welfare program."
Libraries are a "social welfare program."
Ditto Head Start, VISTA, and a wealth of other programs.
Yes, Social Security and Medicare also are "social welfare programs," but these programs were supposed to be funded by the people receiving benefits from those programs. I paid Social Security taxes my entire working life - and that started at age 14. I paid into Medicare since its inception.
My local taxes have gone to fund libraries, schools, medical facilities, police and fire services, and too many boards and committees to name.
I have received a return on my investment, an "ROI."
Now "Obamacare" has been declared to be a "tax."The Supremes said so.
Fair enough. Let it be a tax.
I'm willing to help fund not only health care for those who cannot fund it for themselves, I also am willing to help retrain people to find jobs to get them off the dole; to provide suitable work clothes - perhaps not Armani suits, but an off-the-rack suit from J.C. Penny or Sears - pity S&K Men's Ware went out of business.
If I am a small businessman - I have friends who fall into that category - I would be hard pressed to provide my few employees with health insurance. I would expect my employees to fund their own coverage. If I have to pay for it, I may as well close up shop. End result: Several more people on the dole.
So if I am asked to pay a bit more in taxes - say from 28 percent to 30 percent - I don't think I would complain.
At the same time, I want everyone who can kick a little into the kitty to contribute to that kitty. If the person is a hamburger flipper making minimum wage - a long way from the $1-an-hour when I got out of the Flyin' Corps - let that person kick in at least few bucks from every paycheck ; again, raise the flipper's taxes by 2 percent.
At the same time, let's end the inequality of the wealthy.
I'm a life-long Republican, but the GOP's protection of the rich - in this case we're talking about incomes of $250,000 a year and more - need to pay a fair share of the tax burden - getting a legal tax break, as Mitt Romney does, needs to be revisited and the fairer across-the-board tax needs to replace it.
I don't want to DISCOURAGE anyone from making "Big Bucks," and if someone is making an honest million a year, good for that person. But TAX ALL INCOME; no exemptions carved out by the people who already have all the exemptions.
I am getting Vote-for-Me mail (and email) from GOP candidates all promising to work to defeat Obamacare, to balance the budget, to make the world right.
I WANT a healthcare program.
If the GOP wants to balance the budget, beside cutting out the pork and perks, it should work to revise the tax laws.
Unfortunately, there is no party for a fiscal conservative who also is a social liberal.
Right now it seems we are locked in a political war of extremists. If this continues, it will destroy the country.
Parts of "Obamacare" certainly are good for the country - call it a tax or call it what you will.
The problem is the way a sneaky executive - let's start with the birth certificate that didn't show up until way after the election; who apparently thinks, perhaps knows, that his bills won't withstand scrutiny - goes about the business of his office.
Will Mitt Romney be better? Given his reluctance to share his tax information, one has little hope of an improvement if he is elected.
I have no candidates worthy of my vote in November.
That's sad.

Digging up Arafat

 

There is pressure from the widow of Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini to exhume the body of her late husband, commonly known as Yasser Arafat.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, known in terrorist circles as Abu Mazen, authorized the disentombing of Arafat's remains Monday (9 July 2012).

According to some sources, Arafat was murdered. Exactly how he met his demise is not clear; some say he was poisoned by "a lethal radioactive isotope," specifically polonium, the same isotope that allegedly was used by the Russian KGB to assassinate a former agent in London in 2006.

Other sources, primarily French medical practitioners - Arafat died at France's Percy Military Hospital - suggest that Arafat died due to AIDS or to a massive brain hemorrhage.

How Arafat died really is no concern of Jews or Israel; we KNOW that no matter what is discovered, if anything, Israel will be blamed.

Perhaps Arafat's widow, Suha, really does suddenly want to know what killed her husband eight years ago, She apparently didn't care at the time or perhaps she was not allowed to ask about her husband's cause of death.

More likely, someone or some group wants to point yet another finger at Israel.

According to the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) at http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=7066, "To give credence to the poisoning story, the PA has reported on an international intrigue in which Israel initiated the murder plan, the US approved it with certain conditions, and the French doctors who treated Arafat concealed the truth in order to salvage the peace process."

Unlike those who contend that JFK's murder was ordered by a US government agency - you pick the agency - or that man never made it to the moon - the cause of Arafat's death will become a UN issue and the UN will do, as it almost always does, condemn Israel.

Proof of Israel's involvement won't be necessary and proof of Israel's NON-involvement, if any, will be ignored.

No argument, but . . .

 

The mouthpiece of the Lithuanian haredi sect, Yated Ne'eman, published a statement by a leader of the Lithuanian sect, Rabbi Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman (who effectively replaced the recently hospitalized Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv) saying that "everybody knows that it is only thanks to the Torah and its students that the world exists. It is a holy duty to allow anyone who is able to study Torah to do so — we must not exclude a single yeshiva student. There can be no compromise on this."

Rabbi Shteinman is correct, "It is a holy duty to allow anyone who is able to study Torah to do so."

HOWEVER

Studying Torah, in Rabbi Shteinman's world that means Torah ba'al pei, a/k/a Talmud, need NOT be a full-time occupation. Rabbis greater than Rabbi Shteinman spent time supporting their families with - dare I write it - work. Granted, in some cases the hakhamim were business owners who had others to do the menial work, but they still had - and performed - business responsibilities. According to "Masters of the Talmud" by Alfred J. Kolatch *, many of the luminaries of the Talmudic period worked. A small sampling includes:

ABBA SAUL: grave digger (Niddah 24b)

ABBA UMANA: blood cupper (once a common practice reflected today by barber poles' red and white stripes)

ABBAHU (AVAHU): clothing manufacturer, orchard owner (in partnership with Yosi ben Chanina II and Shimon ben Lakish)

ASHI'AN (HA-NAGGARA): Carpenter

YOHANAN BAR NAPPACHA: Blacksmith, landowner and farmer

It might be noted that Abba of Sidon suggested to parents that there are certain professions their sons should avoid, including being camel drivers, barbers, sailors and tavern keeper. Camel drivers and sailors - which kept husbands from their wives for extended periods, are obvious, but barbers and tavern keepers?

Many of the luminaries were teachers or judges.

Not every yeshiva student is destined to be a talmud hakham and those that lack the skills should be sent away. That should not imply that even a "am ha'aretz" should not study Torah; it simply means that the person's study time should be limited to time available after providing for the person's family. There are thousands of people involved in Daf Yomi groups and thousands more who study one aliyah-a-day with a study partner. It might be for an hour or it might be for several hours. It might be before the day's work begins or it might be after the evening prayers.

In Israel, the yeshiva "boys," some with beards as grey as mine, would serve in special "datee" units or do national service. In both instances, there would be lots of time for study.

As an aside, there ARE "datee" men - and women - who serve in the IDF as regular soldiers.

Israel needs Torah study; no one will argue that point.

But Israel does also needs men and women - datee men and women - to participate in the life of the nation. These haredim need to remember that they have an obligation to set an example for all Jews. Hiding within a yeshiva, doing nothing for the country that provides them the right - and finances - to sit in yeshiva, is NOT an acceptable example.

R. Shteinman's comment - at least in the given translation, I did not see the original Hebrew - also is telling as it includes the worlds "allow anyone who is able to study Torah to do so." (My emphasis.) In the most basic terms, that could be almost anyone, but in truth it ought to mean men - women within haredi circiles are prohibited from learning Torah - with the capabilities of learning and teaching Torah; applying the Torah to today's world; men who will be able to interpret the Torah as it applies to 2012 (vs. 1700 in Poland). How many gaonim can be found in Israel's yeshivot? A handful at most. How many will become a Messas, a Pinto, a Rambam, a Kaduri, a Soloveitchik, a Feinstein, or an Abuhatzeira?

Unless the yeshiva "boys" start taking part in Israel's day-to-day life, the non-yeshiva Jews will pressure the government to reduce or cancel stipends to yeshivot and yeshiva students.

It's time to compromise. The State is offering the haredim a break on the length of military or national service.

As for Mea Sharim - give it back to Jordan.

 

* Masters of the Talmud, Alfred J. Koltach, Jon. David Publishers, ISBN 0-8246-0434-2 © 2003

Poor Balaam

 

It won't make The Rabbis happy; they have been railing about Balaam for lo these many generations, but save for mistreating an animal, he wasn't a bad guy. Really.

The Rabbis berate Balaam for doing what any logical person would do. (Does that mean The Rabbis lack logic?)

From the source - Numbers, Chapter 22:2 through 25:9, inclusive במדבר בלק כ''כ - כ''ה (Hertz Soncino translation and spellings).

Verse 5: And he (Balak) sent messengers to Balaam וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם . It wasn't Balaam's idea to do anything to any one. If there is a "bad guy" that person is Balak, the instigator.

OK, Balak's messengers travel from Moab to find Balaam in Pethor. We don't know if that's home for Balaam or if it was a job site.

The messengers, speaking Balak's words in Verse 6, implore Balaam to "Come, ... curse these (Israelite) people for they are too mighty for me" ועתה לכל-נא ארה-לי העם הזה כי-עצום הוא ממני Balak is diplomatically begging Balaam to curse the Israelites. A quick read of the 7th aliyah of Parasha Chukkat will explain why Balak and his fellows were concerned.

Balaam tells the messengers (Verse 8) to spend the night while he confers with G-d ; he will give the messengers an answer on the morrow לנו פה הלילה והשתה אתכם דבר כאשר ידבר '' אלי .

Balaam is up front with Balak's messengers and tells them he only does what HaShem allows.

Obviously Balaam had a close and long-time relationship with G-d to confidently tell the messengers they could expect an answer in the morning. Granted, the relationship was not face-to-face as it was with Moses, but then who but Moses had such a relationship?

The Torah records a conversation between HaShem and Balaam, but I suspect the exchange is for our benefit, not HaShem's nor Balaam's. In the end, Balaam is told (Verse 12) "You shall not go with them (Balak's messengers); you will not curse the people." לא תלך עמהם לא תאר את-העם.

Balaam relates G-d's decision and sends Balak's messengers on their way.

They report to Balak, with I suspect more than a little trepidation, that Balaam refuses to do Balak's bidding. Balak, being a "man of the world," apparently feels Balaam is just holding out for a bigger payday. He tells his messengers to return to Balaam with Balak's promises of great honor and whatever the seer might desire.

Back at Pethor, the messengers relay Balak's message to Balaam.

At this point, The Rabbis and I part company.

The Rabbis castigate Balaam for even considering Balak's second offer. This and only this marks Balaam as an evil person.

But consider what might have been Balaam's through process.

If HaShem didn't want me (Balaam) to consider Balak's second proposal, he could have done a number of things, including "but not limited to," striking down Balak or his messengers. HaShem could easily have prevented the messengers from reaching Balaam using any method that pleased Him.

But the messengers arrived, and according to the Torah, there is no mention of any incident along the way.

Once again, Balaam welcomes the messengers - just as Abram welcomed messengers to his tent.

Once again, the messengers deliver their spiel.

Once again, Balaam tells his guests to spend the night while he asks HaShem for directions. The Torah does not state that Balaam was asking for permission - he was asking G-d "What should I do?"

This going back to the Boss really aggravates the rabbis. How DARE Balaam ask G-d if he should go to Balak when G-d already told him "No" once.

Balaam tells Balak's messengers (Verse 18) that he only does what G-d allows; even if Balak were to offer Balaam "his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the L-rd, my G-d to do any thing." אם יתן-לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב לא אוכל לעבור את פי '' אלוהי.

The Torah does not state that Balaam was asking for permission - he was asking G-d "What should I do?" In Verse 19, he tells his guests to stay the night while he "may know what the L-rd will speak unto me" ואדעה מה-יסף '' דבר עמי

During the night, HaShem visits Balaam and tells him (Verse 20) "If the men are come to call you, rise up and go with them."

There is never any question that Balaam will say anything on his own. He told the messengers and he will soon tell Balak.

When he meets with Balak, he repeats to the king of Moab what he told the king's messengers.

There is no suggestion in Torah biktav that Balaam did anything but what HaShem directed him to do.

True, there is the story of Balaam's ass, but that story suggests that HASHEM was unable to make up His mind - send Balaam to bless the Israelite masses or go back home. That should give The Rabbis pause; HaShem tells Balaam to go with the messengers and THEN sends an angel to stop Balaam and "remind" him of this duties. Would the Hakham Bakshi need to be reminded to put on tefillin in the morning? There is never any reason to think Balaam would do anything other than what HaShem directs him to do. The fact that the ass talks - one of only two occasions of talking animals in Torah biktav - is another matter for The Rabbis to discuss.

Balak, not Balaam was the bad guy. But even then, he was doing a kingly thing.

He realized that the Israelites had defeated other peoples and he early on admitted he lacked the resources to do battle with the refugees from Egypt. He was trying to protect his lands and his people (probably in that order).

HaShem had other plans, and Balaam was a tool of HaShem, not Balak.

How can Balaam be so bad if HaShem regularly communicated with him.

In modern vernacular, "It doesn't compute."