(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

Today I wish to focus on the character of Balaam, as he is portrayed in our Parasha and as he appears in the writings of later prophets. It seems to me that Balaam plays a central role among all the Biblical enemies of Israel. We will also attempt to understand the various characteristics attributed to him by our sages, who claim that he was as great a prophet to the other nations as Moses was to Israel.

In Masechet Baba Batra our sages list the names of those who compiled our Scriptures. Samuel wrote, in addition to his own books, the book of Judges and the book of Ruth. Moses compiled the Five Books of the Torah, Joshua wrote… and so on. When they come to Moses, they record as follows: Moses wrote his books and Parashat Balaam. This is strange because, of course, the section on Balaam is part of the Torah.

In the haftarot of both Parashat Hukat and Parashat Balak we find references to Balaam. In the haftara of Hukat, Jephthah addresses the king of Ammon as follows, (Judges 11:25): “And now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them?” Jephthah is referring to an incident that had occurred three hundred years previously, using the argument that it is fruitless to go to battle against Israel, and that Balak is the best example of one who grasped the futility of this enterprise.

But who, really, is Balaam? In the haftara of Balak, the prophet Micah, like so many other prophets, exhorts the people to be charitable, do deal justly, and to walk humbly. And then, surprisingly, he refers to Balaam, the antithesis of all these things
(Micah 6:4-5): “For I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of servants, and I sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam before you. O my people, remember what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Peor answered him; from Shittim to Gilgal; that you may know the righteousness of the Lord.” Is this what the Jewish people need to remember from the entire history of their enemies? Why is there no reference to Pharaoh, who sought to destroy the Jewish nation? The prophet then goes on to ask: “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?” What, after all, does the Lord require of you, other than dealing justly and loving righteousness. In contraposition we find Balaam son of Peor, whose sole concern was to curse, uproot and destroy the people. What of the other enemies of Israel? Were they less dangerous and harmful? Sihon, Pharaoh, Amalek – what of them? “And what Balaam the son of Peor answered him” – what, precisely, is meant here? Why is Balaam the antithesis of morality and justice, more than any other foe?

Hazal bring a parable here that is disconnected from the biblical text. They relate a famous story that the Almighty is angry every day. How long does his anger endure? For one moment only, as it is written – “…one moment until the anger passes.” There is a very precise definition of a second, couched in terms that we cannot understand. There was only one man who had the magical power to grasp that moment of God's anger – a wicked man who was capable of grasping the root of evil. That man was Balaam, who was called upon by Balak to do so, to grasp that moment and curse Israel. The Almighty dealt mercifully with us, and on the day of Balaam's utterances He was not angry. Excellent! As I said, this is not textual, it is derived by our sages. Neither is it connected to the next verses, regarding sacrifices and rivers of oil. We will return to these verses, meanwhile I want to refer to the sources, to the judge and the prophet – Jephthah the judge from Gilead and Micah the prophet from Morashta. Clearly, Balaam is a character that requires examination and clarification.

Now let's see what the sages have to say. As mentioned previously, they regard Balaam as the antithesis of Moses, of whom it is written 'there arose not in Israel another prophet and seer like Moses.' But among the nations of the world such a one did arise - so in a manner of speaking, Moses wrote about himself and his antithesis – the episode of Balaam. If Moses was the prophet who sought the root of goodness, Balaam was the prophet who sought to swallow up the nation in a moment of rage and anger. But Hazal also compare Balaam to another model. The Mishna in Masechet Avot has this to say: “He who has these three things is a disciple of Abraham our father, but if he has three other things he is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam.” It needs an extremely high level of wickedness to be compared to the equivalent goodness of Moses and Abraham. We have before us, perpetually, these two personalities, each of whom embodies one of the cardinal virtues: Abraham, the father of our nation, the father of charity; and Moses our teacher, the prophet, receiver of the Torah. Now we are told that the wicked Balaam ben Pe'or, whose nature has not yet been revealed to us, is the equivalent of them both. Hazal do not denigrate him, they do not belittle his magnitude, but in place of greatness, he is imbued with wickedness. It now remains to understand the root of this evil, to define his motivation.

“What do the disciples of our father Abraham and those of the wicked Balaam have in common?” – the idea that they both have disciples is an interesting one. Of Abraham it is written that he “armed his trained men, born in his own house”, and with their aid he saved Lot in Sodom. Abraham is the only man in the Tanach who is described as having 'trained men'. From this we deduce that he was a teacher and educator. We read of Balaam that 'his young men were with him'. Our sages infer from this that both Abraham and Balaam had their own disciples. Let us continue: He who has “…a good eye, an unassuming spirit and a humble soul is of the disciples of our father Abraham. A bad eye, a lofty spirit and a large soul is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam.” The mishna goes on but I will stop here. Our sages view Balaam as arrogant and malevolent. Note that there is no mention of the fact that Balaam hated Israel. In themselves, arrogance and malevolence are not such grievous sins – we have all, at some time, battled our tendency to boastfulness or arrogance. We could have assumed that Balaam's sins would be far greater than this! So on the one hand, Balaam is the root of all evil, he knows the wrath of the Almighty, he is the antithesis of Moses, and he is evil incarnate. But on the other hand, he's not really so bad after all! It's just a simple matter of removing his character defects and improving his middot. When the prophet Micah describes the ideal – 'to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God', the character he describes is the diametric opposite of the 'bad eye, lofty spirit and large soul' attributed to Balaam. And yet, while it is true that Balaam doesn't display excessive humility, he seeks to fill his house with silver and gold, and he wants to curse Israel – but I've known others who don't object to a houseful of gold and silver, and who spend an inordinate amount of time pursuing their dream. What's the point that Hazal are making here? I still don't have a clear picture of Balaam's character.

Let's look at more midrashim. In more than one instance, our sages, when referring to a wicked person, attribute more negative characteristics to him. “And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites” (Numbers 22:2) – and not only to the Amorites, but also to Sichon and to Og. The people of Israel crossed the Jordan River from the east, and without much strategic planning they embarked on a policy of conquering everything in their path, from the brook of Arnon in the south, proceeding northwards to Og king of Bashan. Not only did they achieve military conquests, they also settled the regions they had conquered. Balak was not a particularly mighty king and he realized he needed a different solution. So he hastily called for Balaam. “He sent messengers therefore to Balaam the son of Pe'or to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me.” The phrase “he sent messengers” is a familiar one. Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom. They came in peace, seeking permission for the nation to pass through his lands. Israel sent messengers to Sihon. Balak, too, sent messengers to Balaam. Let's take another look at this seemingly prosaic verse. I will focus on the first half, which deals with Balaam's location (as a rule, the description of a place is very significant). Before I do so, however, permit me to make a small observation about the second half of the verse. Balak has sent messengers to Balaam with a message: 'Behold there is a people…' What is he trying to do here? His reference to Israel is somewhat derogatory – this nation departed from Egypt forty years ago, yet he makes it sound as if they have just this moment appeared. And surely there is no need to tell Balaam about Israel? In a very short while he will praise them with the words “From the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him” so, in common parlance, who does Balak think he's fooling? The continuous refrain of “the people come out of Egypt” makes one suspect that Balak is really saying, “let's shorten this nation's history, let's make sure they don't last very long. They came out of Egypt forty years ago, now they cover the face of the earth. This nation whose origins are none too clear, apparently they don't quite know their destination either!”

In contrast to this nation which only recently emerged from Egypt, this nation without any history whatsoever, Balaam is a man of impeccable credentials, with a fine resume and an impressive background. The son of Pe'or, living in Pethor…. and so on. “Come now, therefore, I pray you, curse this people for me; for they are too mighty for me. Perhaps I shall prevail and smite them, that I may drive them out of the land.” Yonatan ben Uziel's translation of the Risha's commentary on this verse reads as follows: “And he sent messengers to Laban the Aramite, he is Balam, who sought to swallow up the people of the house of Israel, the son of Pe'or.” How does Laban fit in here?

In Masechet Sanhedrin, our sages expressed the same idea in slightly different terms: “Balaam belo am – this can be understood as Balaam without a nation. It can also be understood as Balaam who caused the nation to become old.” Hazal also derived many associations from the connection between Balaam and the ass, which they considered to be somewhat peculiar. “Am I not your ass, upon whom you have ridden ever since I was yours unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto you?” In addition to Yonatan ben Uziel's translation that claims Balaam is in reality Laban, Hazal add: “He is Pe'or, he is Chushan Rishatayim, he is Laban the Aramite.” So not only is he the reincarnation of Laban the Aramite in the book of Genesis, he is also the reincarnation of Chushan Rishatayim. Chushan Rishatayim is an extremely important figure. He is to be found at the junction between the days of valor at the end of the book of Joshua and the dark days at the beginning of the book of Judges. Incidentally, this is markedly similar to the situation during the time of Balaam – the great victories that marked the fortieth year. In other words, we must bear in mind that these victories created a situation where for the first time in history since the days of Jacob and his sons, the people of Israel dwelt in their own land. It's true that were not yet in all of the land, but they had begun to settle down. This was not the result of some strategic plan – they had not planned to go to war against Sihon and Og, rather, they were attacked. Now they were settled in one place – and that's when Balam came along. The advent of Chushan Rishatayim followed remarkably similar lines. In the book of Judges we read: “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord… Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He sold them into the hand of Chushan Rishatayim: and the children of Israel served Chushan Rishatayim eight years. And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them – Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.” Laban the Aramite, Balaam the Aramite, and now Chushan Rishatayim the Aramite. So what? It's no great disgrace – after all, Terach and Nahor were also Aramites. For now, all we need to remember is that they were all Aramites. The next foe of Israel will be Eglon, King of Moab, and the Judge who contends with him is Ehud ben Gerar – the next generation. Othniel, however, still belongs to the generation of Caleb. The troublemaker, Chushan Rishatayim, emerges at the time when the heroic deeds of Israel, culminating in settling and inheriting the land under the leadership of Joshua, deteriorate into moral and political decline in the book of Judges.

To return to the gemara with which we opened – what is meant by: “He is Pe'or, he is Chushan Rishatayim, he is Laban the Aramite?” Why does Balaam have so many names? “Chushan Rishatayim was two evils in Israel, one in the time of Jacob and one in the time when the Judges judged. And what was his name? His name was Laban the Aramite, written Balaam ben Pe'or.”

I would like to begin with Laban the Aramite. Our sages precede the episode with Laban the Aramite and Chushan Rishatayim. On the one hand, they tell us that Balaam is not 'one of us', because 'a bad eye, a lofty spirit and a large soul denotes the disciples of the wicked Balaam.' On the other hand he is the embodiment of evil, he is the owner of the ass, he is Laban and he is Chushan. There's no help for it – we must start at the beginning – the essence of the matter is overlooked. When Hazal tell us that Balaam is Laban, we immediately ask why they felt it necessary to connect these two figures. This really doesn't interest me in the least. I am interested in something entirely different: if Laban and Balaam are one and the same, then Balaam, who sought to curse Israel, is in fact the grandfather of us all. Laban the Aramite was the grandfather of at least eight tribes, always assuming that Bilhah and Zilpah were not the younger sisters of Rachel and Leah. Jacob was the father, and he was the grandfather. He has a share in Moshiah ben David, in Shimon, Levi, the High Priest, and the king of Israel. It's not a pleasant thought, but we must bear it in mind. Our sages were telling us that this great enemy of Israel, Balaam ben Pe'or, transmitted to us half our genetic makeup. We are all made up of half Jacob and half Laban, and there's nothing to be done about it. If you want to understand why he succeeded, while Sihon, Og, and all the others failed, you don't have far to look – no further than your family tree, in fact. If you want to know Balaam's character traits, they are very close at hand. The question is which gene is dominant, that of grandfather Isaac or of grandfather Laban? Our sages want us to know that Balaam is relevant, he is dominant, and above all, we have something of him in us. We must study it, so that we can recognize it and deal with it. Most importantly, we must remember not too seek it outside – it is within. So on one hand he is evil incarnate, but at the same time he is at the closest possible proximity to us.

What did Laban want? Let's start at the beginning. We are mistaken if we look to Jacob in order to verify the identity of Laban the Aramite. We first meet him in Parashat Chayei Sarah, when Rebecca is betrothed to Isaac. Laban is an extremely important man. It was Laban who said: “This thing comes from the Lord,” when Eliezer related the circumstances of his meeting Rebecca at the well, and later he said to her, “You are our sister, be the mother of thousands of millions.” The phrase “this thing comes from the Lord,” is the kind of utterance we would have expected from the Ba'al Shem Tov, perhaps, or R' Shimon bar Yochai – but Laban? As for his blessing to his sister, this blessing is traditionally bestowed on a bride as she sets out to establish a Jewish home – the same Jewish home that he is determined to destroy!

When Laban the Aramite meets Eliezer, he is greatly impressed with the gold, silver, bracelets and other fine jewelry bestowed on his sister, yet when Eliezer relates the story of his meeting with Rebecca, Laban's behavior is unseemly and disrespectful. When Eliezer ends his narrative and turns to Laban, awaiting his reply, we read: “Then Laban and Bethuel answered.” Bethuel was Laban's father, surely he deserved to speak before his son. We learn from this that Laban was disrespectful to his father.

“Then Laban and Bethuel answered” – they immediately get down to business. The match is arranged, and it is quite clear that they intend to profit from it. The entire transaction is arranged by Laban, Bethuel isn't mentioned at all. Moreover, Laban never refers to himself as 'the son of Bethuel.' Many years later, when Jacob departs in stealth, taking his wives and children, Laban pursues him, and when he catches up, the two of them come to an agreement. Laban then utters the words: “May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor judge between us” – Nahor is his grandfather, the father of Bethuel. Why is there no mention of his father? When Jacob flees the wrath of Esau, his father Isaac instructs him to “go to Laban, your mother's brother, to the house of Bethuel.” But when Jacob enters into a pact with Laban, it is written that “Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac.” Do you know the main reason for Laban's anger when Jacob fled? He was angry because Jacob “longed for his father's house.” I imagine Laban had the following discussion with Jacob, more or less: 'See here, we all know that Isaac is a fairly pale and colorless personality compared to you, Jacob. You are a far more dominant character, just like your grandfather Abraham. You know, I too suffered from this situation at home. Are you a child, that you long for your father's house?' Two things disturbed Laban – the fact that Jacob was returning home to his father, and the fact that his household idols had been stolen, but it was Jacob's familial connection that bothered him the most.

From the outset, Laban knew exactly what he wanted – to prevent Jacob from going to Eretz Israel. He attempted to do so in two ways: First of all he tried to weaken his family connection, to persuade him not to go to his father, because this bond was not acceptable to him. When his arguments were unavailing he said something very revealing: “the daughters are my daughters, the sons are my sons, the flocks are my flocks and everything you see is mine” – other than that, whatever you see belongs to you and you may take it and depart! Laban is their grandfather, but by these words his is negating Jacob's claim as their father!

Laban understood precisely what Balaam understood – that Jacob was going to his land laden with property and possessions. Jacob was going to establish his state from a position of strength. The function of Laban the Aramite is to halt this process. He is very pleasant to Jacob as long as there is no mention of returning to his land. Once Jacob's thoughts turn in that direction, he changes his tune. If the children are not quite certain who their father is, they won't be quite certain how to continue and in which direction to go. Let's confuse the issue. You yearn for your father's house, but you also have a strong inclination to remain outside, testing your mettle, seeking your strength. These two characteristics exist side by side in our genetic blueprint.

They made a pact – Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. This is unusual. We might have expected him to take an oath in the name of his grandfathers Abraham and Nahor, who were both dead, but it was important for him to state who his father was. Laban did not want Jacob to return to his family, and it was equally important for him that Jacob should not return to Eretz Israel. Laban tried to break the connection between this generation and the preceding one, and to prevent the return of the nation to its land. The people of Israel went down to Egypt, spent time in Egypt, departed from Egypt to the desert, and forty years later they were finally preparing to establish their own country – the identical situation.

Laban has many persuasive arguments to convince Jacob not to go back to Shechem: 'Why would you want to go back? Esau is waiting for you. Don't tell me you want to take the children back because there they can be educated as Israelis, rather than Diaspora Jews. Your daughters will become like the daughters of Shechem, how do you think that will make you feel? Your children, who were so well-behaved in the Haran community, will become extreme in their views, fanatics, and they will fight amongst themselves. Joseph will have his dreams, Shimon and Levi will kill the inhabitants of Shechem, Judah will go here, Reuben will go there – everyone in a different direction… Why are you going?' But Jacob is not persuaded, and eventually we read “…and Jacob dwelt in the land of his father, the land of Canaan.” From that time until the fortieth year in the wilderness the people of Israel do not dwell peacefully in their land. And then, when they are finally about to re-enter their land, the character of Laban-Balaam reappears, with the sole intention of once again destroying the family tie and ruining the dream of the land. We know precisely what Balaam wanted. He praised the people but he intended to curse them.

“And when Balaam saw that it pleased the Lord to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel biding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him… and the man whose eyes are open said: He has said, who heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your tabernacles, O Israel! As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees which the Lord planted, as the cedar trees beside the waters. He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters. His king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. God brought him forth out of Egypt; his strength is as the strength of the unicorn, he shall eat up the nations of his enemies, and shall break their bones and pierce them through with him arrows. He crouched and lay down as a lion, as a great lion; who shall stir him up?” (Number 24: 1-9).

“According to their tribes” – this can be an indication that everyone knows which tribe he belongs to, everyone knows who his parents are. We must bear in mind, however, that as the forty years drew to a close there was a blurring of the lines, a movement towards 'togetherness'. The second possibility is that “according to their tribes” refers to Balaam's prophetic vision of the nation already settled in their land, each tribe according to its inheritance. There can hardly be a more poetic and beautiful description of the land than that which follows, with its valleys, rivers and trees.

Onkelos translates “your tents” as “your land.” How did the prophet express it (Jeremiah 30:18)? “Thus says the Lord; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob's tents, and have mercy on his dwelling places; and he city shall be built on its own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.”

“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your tabernacles, O Israel.” Your tents, your families, the tent of Sarah and Abraham, Isaac and Rebecca, the places where you were raised. That which Laban the Aramite sought to do on the eve of the first Jewish settlement of the land, Balaam the Aramite now sought to do, on the eve of the second Jewish settlement of Eretz Israel. So you dream of returning to the land, do you? There are two ways to combat your aspirations: the unsuccessful method attempted by Sihon and Og, and the second method, which is far more successful. Settle the land by all means – I will bring you the daughters of Midian and the true battle will be waged. I will activate our dominant gene, the side of us that yearns to assimilate, to conform. That's fine as long as grandfather Jacob's dominant gene is ascendant, but I intend to make you forget your antecedents – Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt – no parents, no history! This is a nation with a new history, a nation which has suddenly emerged from nowhere, and can swiftly be consigned back again if only we succeed in developing the 'Laban' side of its character. “Go out and learn what Laban the Aramite sought to do to. Pharaoh's decree was intended for the males, but Laban sought to uproot the whole.” The injunction to 'go out' says it all. Laban the Aramite is more dangerous than Pharaoh because he encourages the Jews to leave, to go out, to emerge from the shtetl.

Balaam attempts to sever the people from their historical, spiritual, ethical and religious roots, by disconnecting them from their fathers and mothers, from their families and the preceding generations, but how can he uproot the great national sense of reawakening that is sweeping through them as they stand poised to enter Eretz Israel? No problem at all! This national awakening has been engendered by their inner sense of belonging to the eternal people of Israel – if this feeling can be dulled and blunted, the sense of national awakening will be dulled and blunted likewise. Israel is too secure, too well-ensconced in its tribes. Bring the daughters of Midian and let's have many, many children who don't know their fathers and their fathers' fathers.

Your enemy's strength stems from your grandfather. It's a Jewish trait. Don't minimize it, don't ignore it, and don't ever forget that when it prevails over Jacob's dominant gene it can cause a great deal more damage than Sihon and Og are capable of. This trait of Laban and Balaam exists in us all, if we give it free rein. This is the reality, and it is understood by each generation – our generation perhaps better than most. The tension arises when the dominant side – the Isaac/Jacob side – is prevalent, and the Laban/Balaam side strives to overcome it. That's when the great dreams and aspirations vanish, to be replaced by a new one. The dream of going forward, of continuing, somehow loses momentum. We ask ourselves what happened to that might and strength of two days ago, when we overcame Sihon and Og? We will not know the answer until we realize that the “Laban side” of our nature has prevailed.

Balaam ben Pe'or has not yet fulfilled his mission. When the five kings of Midian go to battle against the children of Israel, led by Moses, the episode ends with the words “and Balaam ben Pe'or was killed by the sword”. Balaam hails from Aram, and at the end of Parashat Balak he returns to his home in Aram – Mesopotamia. Why is he in Midian? It's not his region. The conventional answer is that he returned to receive his wages, but this answer in itself is insufficient. Balaam came to see how things were working out – perhaps some daughters of Midian yet remained? According to the Aggada, when Pinhas ben Elazar ben Aharon Hacohen saw Balaam he pursued him. Balaam, whose powers were as great as those of Moses, was the reverse of Abraham, and now we understand why - because he was Laban, from whom we originate. According to the legend, when Pinhas saw Balaam, he uttered the Ineffable Name and began to ascend to heaven. Pinhas exerted his own powers and he, too, began to ascend to heaven. This wonderful Aggada comes to illustrate the warring sides of the same genetic makeup. The two personalities ascend higher and higher, until Pinhas pursues Balaam with his sword, catches him, and prepares to run him through. Then Balaam says: If you don't kill me, I promise to follow your ways. But Pinhas bursts out: You are Laban the Aramite, you are Chushan Rishatayim, you are Balaam the Aramite – and he kills him. The priest must remember at all times that he, himself, has a “Laban side”.

I will conclude with a missive which does not mention either Laban or Jacob. In this missive Rabbi Kook addresses himself to Torah Jews living outside of Eretz Israel, and exhorts them to join the Zionist enterprise. He is angry with them, for he feels that if they don't join, not only will the Torah aspect of Zionism fail, but the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. And he writes as follows: “Let us not leave it too late, lest the infants be trampled - the roots of the Almighty's plant, that are growing up in the holy land. If we do not seize the hour, the first beginnings of the Yishuv settlement, then physical and spiritual weakness and lack of weapons will prevail upon those who keep the faith in Eretz Israel. The mighty armed fist will dispense without care, after the manner of the nations, without consideration for the true holiness of Israel. It covers its broken clay with the base metal of false nationhood, with grains of history and love of the language. It is garbed in Israeli fashion from without instead of from within, while within it is not Jewish. It will become a snare and a monster, and its end will be hatred of Israel and the land of Israel, as we have already witnessed – this defiled hand will prevail, and the catastrophe will be very great and indescribable.”

He is talking here of two powers. He claims that we must channel the strength of Jacob, we must emphasize the correct dominant characteristics and separate them from the dross, not by severing ourselves but by working together. But Jacob must return to Isaac, we cannot permit Laban to say that it's not necessary to return to his father's house. If he does not return to Isaac, then his sons and daughters are Laban's. if Jacob has no parents then he has no children either. He must find his way back, he must not allow Laban to distract him, neither should he fight him. He must know how to deal with his 'Laban' aspect, his Balaam side. The roots of this 'Balaam-ness' begin with Laban the Aramite, they are the source of his great prophetic power. We must be aware of it, but at the same time we must know how to educate it, to channel it, to direct it, because if it prevails on the 'Isaac' aspect that will be most dangerous of all.

He continues: “But my faith is in the Lord, who will not let our footsteps falter.” This is the essence, the knowledge that we are strong. If we have made mistakes here and there in our efforts to emphasize the dominance of this aspect, we must remain firm in our belief, the faith with which the Rabbi ends his epistle. One hundred years ago he wrote that the Almighty did not bring us here to make our footsteps falter, but to continue, to go forward. There will be moments of weakness. There have been harsher times of weakness, but the depth of Rav Kook's vision is astounding. “Let all God-fearing people address the Lord, and all those who desire the salvation of his people and his holy land stand fast. In Zion we will begin to lay the foundations, to bring the new Yishuv to life, based on the purity of faith, that is linked to the joy of life and their righteous aspirations. God will be with us, as we raise up the ruins of our people for their generations.”