What do we know?

At the beginning of parshat Balak (Bamidbar 22:2 and forward) Balak tries to recruit Bilam. He does this motivated by having seen what “Israel had done to the Emori” two verses earlier. But when he sends messengers to make his case he references (22:5) just that “a nation exited from Egypt.” This is a reference to an event which took place over 38 years earlier! With all their exploits in the desert, wouldn’t their renown be clear based on something beyond the Exodus? Even from that time, the miracle at the Reed Sea would be worthy of note. The battles, the miracles over 38 years would be a useful way to refer to this people. And yet, he references their leaving Egypt. This might have been a political move (Moab was reliant on Emor but maybe Bil’am wasn’t a fan so he would not have been moved by any recent downfall suffered by Emor, but it doesn’t explain the choice of the Exodus) or this might have been motivated by other concerns.

The Ohr Hachayim justifies the reference to the nation’s leaving Egypt by reminding Bilam that he had (when he was an advisor to Paroh, all those years ago) uttered a curse which should have prevented Israel’s departure, and yet they departed. This reference is a reminder of Bilam’s failure to push him to action now. This would explain why no other event would be noted, but would still root any fear or response in a thirty-eight year old grudge.

Other commentators look at the choice of historical reference differently. The Kli Yakar focuses on the verb form of “yatza” (which the Stone chumash renders as “has come out of”) but this doesn’t address why Bilam should be afraid of the people. The Malbim says that it was subterfuge – if Bilam knew that the nation that he was to go against was the same one that, 38 years earlier, had left Egypt, he would have instantly demurred, so the verb made it seem that he was talking about another nation that had more recently left Egypt (which is why he didn’t name the nation).

It appears to me that the choice of the Exodus had to be an intentional and pointed choice, but not just because it was a personal dig at Bilam’s failure – it has to do with crafting a reputation. How people know us now is often, and unexpectedly, based on what ancient history others have decided defines us. The Children of Israel had suffered plagues, fought battles against the Amalekites and received the Torah but who were they in the minds of others? The nation that left Egypt in its relative youth. But like a game of telephone, the details become muddy over time and the conclusions people draw from some other version of the events remain.

Soon after the Exodus, word had spread of the events. In the beginning of parshat Yitro (Ex. 18:1), Yitro hears about the same events but what he heard was “all that God did” and “that God had taken Israel out of Egypt.” Note the difference – Thirty-eight years later, people who talk about the event mention just “the nation that left Egypt.” No mention of God. Balak and Bilam can be frightened because a nation made its way out of Egypt with no help so they must be a formidable enemy, but one that can be countered with any measure of the supernatural because they did everything on their own. Over time and retelling, God was lost. Over time and retelling, a new sense of who Israel was developed, one probably bolstered by their misdeeds in the desert and one which was not complimentary and which exposed them to attack.

The good is oft interred with the bones, but the evil lives on and no one can escape calumny. We must be ever vigilant to protect our good name and know that it is easy, especially over time, to lose that good name, and people often remember bits and pieces, and from this, if we have not worked to remind others of our positive qualities, they decide who we are for us.

What have I learned over the last 3 plus weeks, listening to stories people have told me about my father? I found out that my father knew that a good name was more valuable than anything. He worked at being a professional, a vital member of a community and a mensch. And years after the fact, people remembered not some bare bones version, stripped of its details and best attributes, but involved stories which described, even 38 years after the fact, all the best parts of him. No one decided that he was open to attack because of misinformation, and no one assumed his character was vulnerable because they had to assume things about him.