George Orwell writes that “to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” The reverse of this statement can easily be stated about Bilam. Midrashim (Sifrei and Tanchuma on Balak) teach us that Bilam was a prophet. His conversations with God suggest that such readings are more than just homiletical. However, Bilam is also unable to perceive the angel that even his donkey detects. It stands to reason that a prophet who converses with God should recognize an angel as easily as his own donkey, yet Bilam the prophet cannot realize what is right in front of him. For this reason, Nahmanides argues that Bilam was really just a sorcerer, not a prophet. An alternative reading is that it is possible for Bilam to possess the utmost spiritual talent to perceive God, but at the same time fail to notice what stands against his needs and desires. He misunderstands that God’s messages to him are an invitation to curse the Jewish people. Despite his gifts, Bilam can only selectively see. When the mishnah in Avot attributes many negative character traits to Bilam, it suggests that such flaws lead to his incapacity to see the angel.
This paradox implies that, to some degree, all forms of perception are a function of interpretation. Even when we look across the street, our built in facility for interpretation leads us to notice some items more than others. This tendency is true regarding interpretation of texts as well as all other forms of signs we are confronted with.
We can understand why so many of our classical texts attest to Moses’ character. Were Moses not as humble or righteous, his spiritual aptitude would make him no greater than Bilam; certainly not the greatest prophet or lawgiver who ever lived. While we usually assume that our interpretive capacities come from our eyes and brain, our true doors of perception are our character and heart.
