Balak (Rambam)

Bilaam and Human Decency

A rather puzzling passage in Pirkei Avot (5.23) contrasts the Midianite prophet-soothsayer Balaam, who is the central figure in this week’s parsha, with the Patriarch Abraham:

Whoever has these three traits is among the disciples of Our Father Abraham, and whoever does not have these three things is of the students of Balaam the evil one. The disciples of Abraham have a generous eye, a lowly spirit, and a humble soul. But the students of Balaam have an evil eye, a broad spirit, and a haughty soul.

What is the difference between the disciples of Balaam and those of Abraham? The disciples of Balaam descend to Gehinnom and inherit the deepest pit, as is said, “And you, O Lord, shall bring them down to the deepest pit, men of bloodshed and deceit…” [Ps 55:24].

Balaam is thus presented as the archetypal antithesis of what it means to be a mensch—a decent human being. Evildoers, in all times, are seen as somehow emulating Balaam’s example. Interestingly, the precise definition of these three negative characteristics is not altogether clear. Rambam, in his Mishnah Commentary, identifies these traits with, respectively, greed for money, lustfulness, and arrogance, whereas Abraham, and by extension the ideal Jew who follows in his path, is characterized by modesty in his material demands of life and generosity towards other, chastity, and personal humility.

In any event, I would like to continue our presentation of Rambam’s ideal of what might be called menshlichkeit—the ideal human type. Since Balaam’s power lay in his tongue—the instrument with which he was believed to have the power to bless and to curse—I shall focus here, and comment very briefly, upon a few passages dealing with speech. First, Hilkhot De’ot 2.4-5:

4. A person should always augment silence, and should not speak [at all] except, either for words of wisdom, or for those things that are necessary for the life of the body. It was said of Rav, the disciple of Our Holy Rabbi [i.e., R. Judah the Prince], that he never engaged in idle talk his entire life—and such is the talk of most people. Even regarding bodily needs, a person ought not to speak unnecessarily. Concerning this our Sages said, Whoever speaks to excess brings sin. And they said, I have found nothing as good for the body as silence. Even in words of Torah and words of wisdom, a person’s words should be but little but full of contents. Concerning this our Sages commanded, saying that a person should always teach his disciples in a concise manner. But if his words are many and their contents little, this is foolishness. Concerning this they said, “For a dream comes with much fuss, and the voice of the fool with many words” [Eccles 5:2].

5. Silence is a fence for wisdom. Therefore a person should not make haste to answer, and not speak excessively, and he should teach his students with calm and tranquility, not with shouting or with protracted speech. Concerning this Solomon said in his wisdom, “The words of the wise are heard in quiet” [Eccles 9:17]

We know that Judaism is much concerned about sins that may be committed through speech—e.g., gossip, tale-bearing, malicious slander, obscene and vulgar speech, etc. But here Maimonides is concerned with something quite different: unnecessary speech per se, innocuous as it may be, is seen as a bad thing. Silence is a virtue; idle words, the “talk of most people,” is seen, if not exactly as a sin, as something reprehensible—at very least, as a waste of time. What is the philosophy underlying this view?

Man is by nature a gregarious animal. Most of us enjoy sociability, having a good chat with an old friend, hearing an amusing or enjoyable story even if it has no particular moral point (some even get a special pleasure out of the exercise in pointlessness known as the “shaggy-dog story”), etc. What is so wrong in all this? Maimonides was consistent—some would say, inhumanly so—in having his sights constantly set on the one truly worthwhile goal in life: the knowledge and love of God, attained by ever deeper wisdom and clarity of thought. Anything that was superfluous to that end, or that was outside the rubric of the mitzvot—such as idle talk or, for that matter, romantic/sexual love as an end in itself—was seen as unnecessary, a distraction, and as such negative. His ideal type—the prophet, as described in Yesodei ha-Torah 7—is a loner, a person who withdraws from society insofar as possible (i.e., except as necessary to participate in public prayer, to teach Torah and wisdom to others, or to perform acts of hesed), and who spends much of his time in contemplation of “those distant, profound matters.” Like, lehavdil, the Trappist monks, or Thoreau in his cottage by Walden Lake, Rambam found the profoundest depths of life in silence.

We now turn to Chapter 5 of this treatise. Here Rambam presents an overall picture of the “wise man” whom, as we mentioned in our introduction to Hilkhot De’ot (HY V: Tazria-Metzora), embodies the ideal of this treatise, in whom the intellectual trait of wisdom is implemented in his character and in his everyday life. The opening passage describes the aim of this chapter:

1. Just as the wise man is recognized through his wisdom and his character and he is separated by them from the rest of the people, so must he be recognizable in his acts: in his eating and drinking, in his sexual life, in his performing his physical needs, in his speech and in his manner of walking and in his dress and in his measuring his words and in his business; all these acts should be pleasant and correct.

We shall return to his treatment of such matters as eating and drinking, his bearing and “presentation of self,” and his overall dealings with other people, on another occasion. For now, we shall suffice with the paragraph dealing with speech, which we present without commentary, in the hopes that it is largely self-explanatory. De’ot 5.7:

7. A wise man does not shout or yell in his speech like wild animals, nor does he raise his voice excessively, but he speaks calmly with all people. But in speaking softly, he should take care that he not go to the extreme until it appears affected or ostentatious. And he should greet every person, so that people be pleased with him, and he should judge every person favorably, speaking the praises of his fellowman and never speaking of them in negative terms; loving peace and pursuing peace. And if he sees that his words are helpful and accepted, he speaks, and if not, he keeps his peace.

How so? He does not pacify his friend when he is angry, and he does not ask him about his vow while he is making a vow, but waits until his mind has cooled down and come to rest. And he does not comfort him while his dead lies before him, because his mind is confused until he buries him, and so on for the like. And he does not go to see his friend at the time of his disgrace, but keeps his eyes away from him. And he should not change his word, nor add or detract from it except for matters of peace and the like. In sum: he should not speak except for words of wisdom or to do acts of kindness to others and the like. And he should not speak with a woman in a public place, even if she is his wife or his daughter or his sister.