Rabbi Zweig analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s critique of Balaam, explaining why focusing on someone else's wealth reveals an unhealthy desire even when refusing their offers.
Rabbi Zweig examines a puzzling Rashi (רש"י) on Parshas Balak regarding Balaam's character. When Balaam tells Balak's second delegation that even if Balak gave him his entire house full of silver and gold, he wouldn't go against Hashem (ה׳)'s will, Rashi derives from this that Balaam loved money. This seems counterintuitive - shouldn't refusing money to obey Hashem be praiseworthy? Rabbi Zweig compares this to positive examples like Reb Yosef ben Kisma in Pirkei Avos who said he wouldn't leave a place of Torah (תורה) for all the wealth in the world, and King David's declaration that Torah is better than thousands of pieces of gold and silver. The key insight lies in Rashi's precise language. Rashi doesn't simply say Balaam loved money, but adds the crucial phrase "u'mechamed mamon acheirim" - he desired other people's money. This distinction reveals the fundamental problem with Balaam's statement. When someone says "no matter how much money you give me, I won't compromise," that demonstrates admirable values. However, when someone specifically focuses on "your money" - the wealth that belongs to another person - it reveals an unhealthy fixation on what others possess. Rabbi Zweig explains that Balaam wasn't making an abstract statement about the value of following Hashem versus material wealth. Instead, he was specifically thinking about Balak's treasury, demonstrating that his mind was occupied with calculating and coveting another person's assets. This focus on "melo beiso" (his houseful) shows Balaam had his eye on exactly how much wealth Balak possessed. The problem isn't using money as a measure of value - that can be perfectly legitimate and even praiseworthy when showing one's commitment to higher principles. The issue is when the specific focus becomes someone else's money rather than money in general. This reveals an underlying desire to acquire what belongs to others, which is spiritually unhealthy regardless of whether one acts on that desire. This analysis demonstrates how subtle language in the Torah reveals character traits, and how even apparently virtuous statements can betray problematic underlying attitudes when examined carefully.
Rabbi Zweig challenges Freudian psychology by arguing that the basic human drive is not pleasure-seeking but rather the painful awareness of non-existence, and explains how only a relationship with God can provide the feeling of true existence and simcha.
An exploration of the deeper meaning of 'amirah' (saying) as empowering others by recognizing their uniqueness and building meaningful relationships through authentic, individualized communication.
Parshas Balak 22:18
Sign in to access full transcripts
