(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

Last week we studied the character of Balaam. Moses our Teacher asks us to confront the personality who was appealed to by Balak, the king of Moab. After the military defeats of Sihon, Og and the Amorites, Balak came to the conclusion that something more radical was needed. We discussed the words of Hazal, who see a connection between Balaam the Aramite, Laban the Aramite and Chushan Rishatayim. We recalled that Pharaoh intended to kill all the male children, but Laban went one step further – he wanted to kill everyone. Both Balaam and Laban attempted to overturn everything from within. Laban was, after all, the father of Rachel and Leah, and thus the grandfather of all Jacob's children. Therefore we all have within us the ability to destroy ourselves. On the one hand we are imbued with the strength of Jacob, who sought to return to the home of his father – to Hebron, to Jerusalem, to Bet El and to Elonei Mamre. On the other hand, we have the strength to burst forth, to break out – the strength of Laban the Aramite. This is what is meant by "Go out and learn what Laban the Aramite sought to do…", which we read every Seder night. Learn and be aware that Laban wanted to tear everything up by the roots. This grandfather possessed the inner ability with which we are all familiar, and which is, in essence, a positive force – to spread out, to burst forth, to connect to everything – but without inner truth and content it can become a dangerous force indeed.

We further claimed that Balaam behaved in a manner identical to that of Laban. He, too, encountered the nation at a crucial juncture in their history, as they stood poised to enter Eretz Israel at long last. The people were aglow with the euphoria of victory, prosperity was at hand, they were preparing to settle down – precisely the situation in which Jacob found himself when he began his journey back to his father's house. It was precisely at that moment that Balaam, at the behest of Moab, attempted to use his powers to strike at the root of the people. How? By bringing the daughters of Moab and Midian to tempt and charm the children of Israel.

Was it merely by chance that Balak, king of Moab, appealed to Balaam? In other words, could Sihon, king of Heshbon done just as well? Did Balak hit upon the idea by accident, after witnessing the military failures of other armies? Perhaps he was simply the first to take the initiative of calling on Balaam the Aramite, the magician from the mountains of Kedem? Or is there something deeper at work here? By the way, when he calls for Balaam, the text reads: "… 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." There are two reasons why he did so. The first is purely technical: Moab is the only nation in the region utterly confident that it has nothing to fear from Israel. The Torah specifically debars Israel from provoking a war with Moab. They have ties going back a long way. So what is Balak worried about? According to the text, Balak feared that Israel would behave like "the ox that licks up the grass of the field", destroying everything in its path. The 'Akedat Yitzhak' explains this to mean that 'they will lick up everything around them, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.' In other words, Balak, king of Moab, claims that he is not worried for himself, he is concerned for the rest of the world.

But Moab has a far deeper motive in calling for Balaam, who is Laban the Aramite. Balaam begins his narrative with his personal history: "Balak the king of Moab has brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east…" Terah had three sons: Nahor, Abraham and Haran. The offspring of Nahor included Bethuel and his son, Laban the Aramite, Balaam and later Hushan Rishatayim. Abraham's descendents included Isaac, Jacob, and his sons. Haran didn't quite know which side to choose. When Abraham went to war against Nimrod he elected to watch from the sidelines and pledge his allegiance to the winning side. When he saw that Abraham prevailed, he decided to follow him into the fiery furnace. Lot, the only descendant of Haran, was adopted by Abraham, but he was attracted by life beyond the confines of Abraham's tents, and thus he came to Sodom, whence ultimately he had to be rescued by his uncle. Like Haran, Lot never quite knew which direction to choose. Moab was descended from Lot through his daughter. And now Balak, king of Moab, the grandson of Lot and Haran, is calling on Balaam, son of Laban ben Pe'or, the descendent of Nahor, to curse the children of Jacob, the descendents of Abraham and Isaac. This is an ongoing process – it does not end here, because out of the union with Moab will emerge Ruth the Moabite, David the king, and ultimately the Messiah, the son of David, who will lead us to precisely the opposite of what Balaam is presently attempting to do.

This union of Moab and Israel, resulting in Ruth and Boaz, King David, Messiah and redemption, is an unstoppable process. Balak ben Tzipor, king of Moab, does not seek to promote this union, but its complete antithesis. He introduces the daughters of Midian and the daughters of Moab, hoping to strengthen Moab and weaken Israel, but this union results in Ruth the Moabite and ultimately in King David, who binds all their individual strengths together. If it is the mission of the Messiah to save the entire world, he needs all its roots. Balaam tried to cut down the root.

One problem with Parashat Pinhas, which one senses immediately, is that it should have begun some five verses later, or perhaps five verses earlier. The Parasha actually opens with the end of the Balak episode – Balaam was not successful when he attempted to curse the children of Israel, so he came up with another suggestion (Numbers 25:1-15): "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined itself unto Ba'al Peor; and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said to Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel, Slay every one his men that were joined to Ba'al Peor. And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Pinhas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand." So ends Parashat Balak. Not a pleasant ending. Twenty four thousand people had perished – the greatest plague in all forty years of wandering in the desert. What a terrible catastrophe. Now we begin Parashat Pinhas:

"And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, Pinhas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for My sake among them, that I did not consume the children of Israel in My jealousy. Therefore I say, Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace, and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." Several questions spring to mind: If it was so important to record Pinhas' name, why did it not appear the first time he was mentioned. Furthermore, why was the smooth flow of the narrative interrupted? And most important of all – in Parashat Balak it was apparently not essential to record the names of the sinners. If so, why is it important for us to know their names in Parashat Pinhas. Would it not suffice to relate the incident without these particulars? "Now the name of the Israelite that was slain with the Midianite woman was Zimri, son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Shimeonites. And the name of the Midianite woman was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur, who was head over the people of a chief house in Midian." Once again – if their names were of no consequence, why were they mentioned further on in the narrative? And why is the episode related in two separate stories, thus recalling the previous Parasha and making the narrative longer? All the commentators have remarked on this. Rashi says: "And the name of the Israelite that was slain – wherever it gives the genealogy of a good man in praise of him, it gives the genealogy of a bad man (mentioned in the same story) to disparage him. Another explanation: To tell the praiseworthiness of Pinhas, that although this man was a prince he did not refrain from showing his zeal against the profanation of the Divine Name – on this account, Scripture tells you who it was (a prince!) that was smitten."

If so, why is it necessary for us to know the name of the woman? Rashi explains: "And the name of the woman – this is stated to show you the hatred the Midianites bore to Israel – that they abandoned even a princess to prostitution in order to make Israel sin."

Well and good – but it still doesn't explain why two separate Parashiot are necessary for the narrative. Why, too, must we be told precisely who committed the sin. Would it not be sufficient merely to tell us that he was the scion of a princely house? If he was singled out for praise, it would be easier to understand, but we are told precisely who he is, even though he is denigrated here. The Natziv in his 'Amek Davar' explains as follows: "And the name of the Israelite that was slain – this comes to teach us that Pinhas was concerned for the zeal that was a dangerous thing among the Shimeonites." The tribe of Shimon was fanatic and extreme in their behavior, as we recall from the incident in Shechem. Therefore, this comes to teach us that this man was dangerous. He was guilty of a heinous crime, the worst and most repugnant of transgressions. He consorted publicly with a Midianite woman before the eyes of Moses and the entire congregation of the children of Israel. Would it not be sufficient to record which family and tribe he belonged to? I still don't understand why it was necessary to tell us that he was Zimri ben Salu.

Balaam was summoned by Balak to curse Israel. Things didn't go as planned, and after three attempts, concluding with the magnificent blessing "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob," Balak sent him home. Balaam agreed to go, but not before offering him a word of advice (Numbers 24:14-20): And now, behold, I go unto my people; come therefore, and I will advise you what this people will do to your people in the latter days…" It may seem somewhat presumptuous for Balaam to offer advice after failing in his mission! I would like to introduce a commentary by the Rambam on Hilchot Melachim, where he describes the appearance of Melech Hamashiach. He begins by quoting the Torah source on which he based his assurance that Jerusalem will yet see the Messiah. How do we know, after all, that this will truly come to pass? We all wait impatiently for the advent of the Messiah, but what is the foundation for this belief? Unpleasant as it may be, we must acknowledge that we received a great deal from Balaam the wicked. When a Jew enters the synagogue every morning, his first utterance is copyrighted by Balaam - "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob!" Furthermore, the entire concept of the Messiah is based on Balaam's prophecy, and the Rambam derives his interpretation from the following verses: "I see it, but not now shall it come to pass: I behold it, but it is not nigh; there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all its foundations. And Edom shall be his possession, Seir also, his enemies, shall be his possession; and Israel shall do valiantly. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remains in the city."

The Rambam's commentary: "The Messiah will in the future restore the Kingdom of David to its former governance… he will build the Temple and gather in the oppressed ones of Israel. In his day the laws will be restored as they were in previous times – the offering of sacrifices, the observance of the Shemitta and Jubilee years as is commanded in the Torah. All who do not believe in him, or do not await his coming, not only do they deny the other prophets, but they also negate the Torah and Moses our Teacher, for the Torah testified to this, as it is written: 'And the Lord your God will restore you, He will have mercy upon you and gather you from all the nations. Even if you are dispersed to the ends of the heavens, from there will He take you and bring you to the land'."

Where does it say that the Messiah is a person? It merely states that the people will return to the land. From the text I can understand that anyone who does not believe in the ingathering of the exiles is a heretic, a denyer of the Torah, but there is no specific mention of the Messiah. So how does the Rambam deduce from the text that the Messiah will restore the House of David? The Rambam goes on to say: "The things that are stated clearly in the Torah include all the utterances of all the prophets. Even in Parashat Balaam it is written that he prophesied two Messiahs – the first Messiah is David, who saves Israel from their oppressors, and the second Messiah is one of his sons, who will save Israel at the later time (Moshiach ben David – the Messiah, son of David). "I see it, but not now shall it come to pass – this is David; I behold it, but it is not nigh – this is Messiah the King; there shall come a star out of Jacob – this is David; and a scepter shall rise out of Israel – this is Messiah the King; and shall smite the corners of Moab – this is David… and destroy all its (Seir's) foundations – this is Messiah the King, as it is said, he shall rule the waters unto the sea; and Edom shall be his possession – this is David, as it is written 'and Edom shall be slaves to David'; Seir also shall be his possession – this is Messiah the King, as it is written 'and the saviors shall arise to Mt. Zion to judge Mt. Esau, and the dominion shall be the Lord's." This is not a midrash, it is halacha according to the Rambam, and as such it is completely valid and binding. It is clear that this part of the Rambam's legal codex is based on the words of Balaam.

The first task of the Messiah will be to wage war against Amalek. Returning to Parashat Balak, chapter 25 verse 20, we read as follows: "And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever. And he looked on the Kenites and took up his parable and said, Your dwelling place is strong, and you place your nest in a rock. Nevetheless the Kenite shall be wasted; how soon shall Ashur carry you away captive." Beautiful verses indeed. Balaam looks upon Amalek and remarks that he was the first of nations, the first to fight against the children of Israel after they left Egypt. He then turns to the Kenites, of whom Jethro was one. When Agag the Amalekite went to war against Israel, the Kenites were in the hill country of Amalek. It is remarkable that when Balaam speaks of the redemption he refers to people who have converted. In effect he says, 'You converts are extremely fortunate, because when redemption comes, those of you who converted will be linked to this great nation. You may well ask what benefits you reaped from your conversion, given the calamities and difficulties that have befallen the people of Israel. But in fact, when your nations are destroyed, you will be part of the eternity of Israel.'

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when He does these things? Ship shall come from the coast of Hittim, and shall afflict Ashur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever. And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place: and Balak also went his way." The literal Hebrew text which translates as 'Alas' is actually "Oy" - I don't know of any other instance where this particular word appears. The closest approximation would probably be 'gevalt'! The phrase 'who shall live when He does these things' is generally accepted as an allusion to the Messiah and the end of days.

Balaam presented an entire prophecy without being invited to do so. In fact, his prophecy, far from being welcomed or requested, was entirely displeasing to the listener. Without preamble he poured out a torrent of information, culminating in his vision of the end of days. I feel it would be a mistake to view the episode of Balak and Balaam solely as a historical incident. It is the only record in the Torah of a man whose stature equalled that of Moses predicting the end of days. The Rambam teaches us that one who does not believe these things is a heretic and denies the whole Torah. "I see it, but not now shall it come to pass: I behold it, but it is not nigh."

Regarding the question "who shall live when He does these things?" does he have a specific person in mind or is he speaking rhetorically? We know why Balaam presents his vision of the end of days – he is in effect saying to Balak, 'I cannot help myself, I must say what is true. You called me here because you know precisely how much I dislike this nation and how greatly I desire to curse them. You also know that I will gladly provide you with clear suggestions for destroying them. However, you must also know that at the end of days certain things will come about which I must reveal to you – and just by the way, you Jews may as well hear what I'm about to tell Balak'.

Immediately following this episode, we read "And Israel dwelt in Shittim" – and so we return to the historical chronicle, with its shameful incident of the daughters of Moab that ended in calamity.

Incidentally, our sages have a comment to make on the phrase 'Alas, who shall live when He does these things.' They say as follows: 'He begins to proclaim in a loud voice, saying: Alas, who shall live when He does these things. This refers to the sufferings that will precede the arrival of the Messiah and teaches us that they will be more severe than any trouble that has gone before. It is of this travail that the prophet Jeremiah speaks when he says: It is a time of trouble for Jacob, from which he will be saved.'

I now return to the question with which we began – why are the names mentioned? The name of the father – his title – Zimri and Cozbi? Why the separation between the parashiot? Our sages respond to the latter question last. I would like to begin with Zimri, and from there I want us to go into realms that we usually refrain from entering, but I feel that it is nevertheless important for us to go there. I believe that from Parashat Balak to the end of Sefer Bamidbar we are elevated into a new phase, dealing with the root and the source, with the essence, rather than with technical enemies. Our sages put it as follows: "What did Zimri do, that Solomon wrote of him in Proverbs: A wicked man hardens his face – this is Zimri – but as for the upright, he considers his way – this is Pinhas. What did Zimri do? When Cozbi came, he sought to take her." When Israel dwelt in Shittim, the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. Cozbi bat Zur was a woman of prestige. Zimri said to her, 'my importance is equal to yours.' "She said to him, I do not heed you, for my father has instructed me that I heed nobody except Moses." This is an amazing midrash – Cozbi is in fact intent on seducing Moses himself. "He said to her, I am greater than Moses. If you wish to know how it is that I am greater than Moses, see that I take you in his presence, as it is written: And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses. He asked Moses, Is she permitted or prohibited? And all the people wept. And he said: She is forbidden to you. Then Zimri said to him: You are the faithful one of the Torah, in whom the Holy One Blessed Be He takes pride, saying 'Not so is my servant Moses'. Yet you say she is forbidden. In the same way your wife whom you have taken is also forbidden to you. This one is a Midianite and this one is also a Midianite. This one is important, from a noble house, and your wife is the daughter of a priest…" I maintain that all this stemmed from Zimri's importance. Zimri is not a simple person by any means. He is extremely important, otherwise the Torah would not have mentioned him.

At this point I would like to ask your pardon for plunging into concepts of which we know very little – reincarnation. I don't know what this is exactly, but I do know that our sages frequently link up different personalities. Pinhas ben Elazar ben Aharon Hakohen is Elijah. In his writings, the Ari often quotes from the book Hesed Avraham by Rabbi Avraham Azulay. One such quote is: "And the reincarnation of Zimri is Rabbi Akiva, and he is his 'tikkun'. Cozbi is Jezebel, whose 'tikkun' was the wife of Tornosrupos, she who was taken by Rabbi Akiva. Jezebel pursued Elijah, that is, Pinhas, to avenge himself, and Zimri was the son of Dina before she was married to Shimon (I won't go into that). And the twenty four thousand from the tribe of Shimon who died were the twenty four thousand disciples of Rabbi Akiva, who did not behave respectfully to one another… they died a second time." In other words, they were the 'tikkun'.

Much of this is not clear, but one thing stands out plainly – in this world we make amends, we make a 'tikkun', and we merely continue with what went before. Elijah himself did not complete his task. Elijah, that is Pinhas, tells us that he will yet be revealed to us – 'Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet, before the advent of the Day of the Lord.'

The wife of Tornosrupos is not a familiar character – why does she appear here? Rabbenu Nissim speaks of her in the Gemara, Masechet Nedarim. The Gemara here speaks of several factors that increased Rabbi Akiva's wealth. We know that he was a very wealthy man, yet he started off with nothing. One of the causes of his wealth was is marriage to the wife of Tornosrupos. This is not the place to ask exactly when this marriage took place – we know this woman was not the daughter of Kalba Savua. Tornosrupos and Rabbi Akiva frequently appear together. He always tries to provoke Rabbi Akiva, asking him deep philosophical questions, such as: If the Almighty wants each male child to be circumcised, why are they not born that way? By way of replying, Rabbi Akiva called for wheat and cakes, saying 'If the Almighty wants the wheat to become cakes, why does it not grow that way? Because the Almighty wants us to complete that which he has begun.' We know that one of the sources of Rabbi Akiva's wealth was the wife of Tornosrupos. "From the wife of Tornosrupos – Rabbi Akiva would argue with him over the text before Caesar. One day Tornosrupos came to his house, with an angry face. His wife said to him, Why are you angry? He said to her, Because of Rabbi Akiva, who daily vexes me with his speech. She said to him, Their God hates lechery. Give me leave to place an obstacle in his path – I will cause him to transgress. He gave her leave, and she adorned herself and went to Rabbi Akiva. When he saw her he spat, laughed and wept. She said to him: Why did you do these three things? He said to her, Two I will explain, the third I will not explain. I spat because you originate from a stinking drop. I wept because your beauty is destined for the grave. He laughed because he beheld through the Spirit of Holiness that she would in the future convert and marry him, and he did not wish to impart this to her. She said to him, Is there no answer? He told her, Yes. She went from him and converted and then she married Rabbi Akiva."

Now I return to our topic – Zimri is reincarnated in Rabbi Akiva, who is his 'tikkun.' Cozbi is reincarnated in Jezebel, where she continues to pursue Elijah, and the wife of Turnosropus is the incarnation of Elijah. So finally, Zimri and Cozbi are reincarnated as Rabbi Akiva and the wife of Turnosropus. Zimri has very great aspirations indeed. He heads an entirely new world view, but he errs in one respect. In his book 'Yearot Dvash' Rabbi Yonatan Eibishitz writes that Zimri aspired to great redemption, to unity, but he forfeited everything when he took Cozbi bat Tzur. This desire to unity arose from the attitude of Cozbi, who told him that she did not want him but Moses, because her father so instructed her. In other words, her father did not merely encourage her to go whoring, he told her to aim very high, to totally destroy the homes, the families, the 'how goodly are your tents.' Then Zimri, together with Cozbi, challenged Moses, asking how their union differed from the marriage of Moses and Tzippora. If Moses uttered the simple phrase – 'she converted' – then Zimri would have presented his argument: 'You're regressing, going back a thousand years. Aren't you ashamed? Why do you cling to that pathetic text? Can't you look into her soul? Can't you see her true inner self? She is the daughter of Tzur. Don't tell me that it's only my evil inclination that sends me in this direction. It's not that at all. It's my ideology, part of my Jewishness, that seeks to unite with Cozbi. You claim that there is a difference between Tzippora and Cozbi, but by so doing you are hampering this progress.' Cozbi was reincarnated as Jezebel, the daughter of Baal, king of Sidon. She married Ahab but she didn't convert to Judaism. Nevertheless she succeeded in becoming the wife of a king and she proceeded to persecute Elijah, and nobody sought to kill her.

We once discussed the phrase; 'behaving like Zimri and seeking the wages of Pinhas.' Without examining it in depth, I always assumed that the reference to Zimri was to someone of little consequence, who nevertheless sought the wages of Pinhas, the High Priest. This is a very superficial reading of the phrase, however. In fact, Zimri and Pinhas both desired one and the same thing. "Therefore I say, Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace" – to whom? If the reference is to Pinhas, why doesn't it say so? Who is deserving of the covenant of peace, Pinhas or Zimri? Who disrupted the process of appeasement between enemy nations? Zimri was striving to forge wonderful relations between the two, and Pinhas was, in fact, the one who ensured that they would remain enemies. If so, the prize should really be awarded to Zimri.

"Therefore I say, Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace" – to whom do I say this? Not to the children of Israel, because they are the ones who are listening at that particular moment. Therefore I say – to all of history, to all the generations, continuously, for all time. There will always be arguments and disputes between conflicting methods, between Laban on the one hand and Isaac and Jacob on the other; between Pinhas ben Elazar ben Aaron on the one hand and Zimri on the other. There will always be tension in this conflict. It is dangerous to underestimate Zimri, we must understand him well. The Holy Ari claims that Rabbi Akiva was the reincarnation of Zimri – Rabbi Akiva, who taught the importance of peace in the world, the importance of love between people, between man and woman, between a person and his nation, the same Rabbi Akiva who took up the cause of Bar Kochba, and whose disciples perished in the ensuing war. Rabbi Akiva had twenty four thousand disciples, but this is not quite accurate. It is actually written of him that he had twelve thousand pairs of disciples. There are many aspects to Rabbi Akiva – the man of Torah and God, the man of love, of humanity, the man who held discourse with Turnostropus, the man who waited for so many years for his wife, whose students could not understand this. This was the man whose entire life was devoted to teaching the importance of respecting one another. His disciples never grasped the importance of this credo, and they behaved disrespectfully to one another. While displaying the greatest respect for the Almighty, they neglected to visit those of their number who were ill.

Zimri and Cosbi were the attempt of two different elements to connect by embracing one another. Rabbi Akiva and the wife of Turnostropus were the attempt of two different elements to connect by virtue of the fact that the Almighty united them – thus they were the 'tikkun' of Zimri and Cozbi. This is what Balaam attempted to impart. When he spoke of the end of days, he was reminded that that was not part of the agreement, it wasn't in the contract, not on the agenda. He maintained that they simply don't understand that it's really all part of one and the same thing. So instead he speaks of Amalek, of Moab, of the Messiah. And suddenly he says, 'Alas, who shall live when He does these things? – I see at the end of days a nation who will understand clearly, a nation who will defeat all those who take the name of God in vain. I see plainly what will be, and it is for this that I cry out. A nation will appear that has no need of sorcerers, who will not walk in the path of Sihon and Og, but will cleave to the God of their understanding, and they will achieve that which I have not succeeded in doing. There will come a nation who will understand that all depends upon the root. I am speaking to the king Moab, I am attempting to reassure him, to advise him how best to destroy you. If you want to know how best to counteract this, I say to you that it is impossible to defeat Ishmael if you are not Israel. You cannot turn Israel into something dull and weak, thinking that in this way you will solve the problem. You cannot revert to Zimri and Cozbi and hope in this way to contend with Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva could strive with Ishmael and triumph. "Rabbi Ishmael said: there are fifteen things that the children of Ishmael are destined to do in the land at the end of days. These are they: they will measure the land with ropes, and they will turn the graveyards into grazing land for sheep and into rubbish heaps…. falsehood will increase; the law will become distant in Israel; iniquity will multiply in Israel… and they will build the destroyed cities, and the roads will be cleared, gardens and orchards will be planted, the breaches in the walls of the Holy Temple will be repaired…" All of this is to be found in Pirke D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 30. "And they will erect a building in the temple – the reference is to Ishmael, not us. "Why is he called Ishmael? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, will in the end hearken unto the sound of the wailing of the nation (Israel), from that which the children of Ishmael are destined to do to them in the land at the end of days."

It is not easy to deal with strategy and topography – Sihon, Og and Midian. What happened to Israel in Moab is sure to further the success of Zimri, it is sure to bring us down – tiredness, surrender, in effect becoming transformed somehow into a partner in some kind of Zimri-Cozbi reality – an overall weariness.

Do you know why that list of fifteen points ends so harshly? The breaches in the walls will be repaired and they will erect a building in the Temple – because the Temple cannot exist in a vacuum. If Israel loses the will and the desire to build there, Ishmael will automatically build there in their stead. If there is a 'tikkun' here, it is precisely that 'tikkun' effected by Pinhas and Rabbi Akiva to Zimri. If there is a 'tikkun' it is a return to those twenty four thousand disciples who remember to treat one another with respect, who remember the source that binds different people together. It is a 'tikkun' of those influences that began with Balak, with Balaam, with Zimri, with Moab, and with 'Alas, who shall live when He does these things?'