Thread by @levidmorrow

Some notes on the insufficiency of revelation in Parshat Balak

1. "Don't go with them" "Go with them"
While the story paints Balaam as clearly in the wrong, it doesn't pretend he was violating a clear command. The basic thrust of the narrative insists that the command is not
1/

clear. God's will and revelation are not identical.

2. This leads into the next step of the drama. If revelation does not guarantee access to the divine will, what does? Maybe you should look elsewhere? Maybe *the donkey* knows? This sort of expansive divine will contra
2/

a more narrow but more explicit revelation is a deep underpinning in lots of texts, perhaps most famously in Hasidut.

3. On a meta-level, the whole idea that "a prophet is the bad guy" is just wild. Many medieval pens were broken trying to argue that this is impossible. But
3/

as the story would have it, prophets can be bad. Knowing divine truths is does not mean following the divine will. The narrative holds will and knowledge (both human and divine) apart, and will is more important. Ethics trumps ontology.

4. It would take more time to trace out
4/

all the biblical and rabbinic threads but this lens can be used to resolve issues in the final story, where Moshe gets one command RE the leaders, Pinhas enacts something different RE Zimri, but it still works, etc. Knowing the command vs. an act of will. As political
5/

theologies go, I don't love it. But it's sort of glaring.
6/6

@threadreaderapp unroll please