1. The ba'al korei usually reads the pasuk "eichah esa livadi..." in this week's parsha using the sad Megilas Eichah tune instead of the usual tune for krias ha'Torah. The tune "attunes" us to the fact that 9 Av is coming, and links the complaint voiced by Moshe about his burdens with the mourning cry of Yirmiyahu.
But was Moshe in fact complaining? Was be bemoaning his burdens?
R Meshulam Dovid Solovietchik points out that you get a very different impression from the Midrash. The pesichta to Eichah (#11) uses pesukim in chumash to contrast what should/could have been how we lived in Eretz Yisrael with what became of us during the churban as described in Eichah. For example, the midrash writes that had we been zocheh we would be reading "shalosh pe'amim ba'shana...," the pesukim describing aliya la'regel, but now we are read, "darkei tzion aveilus..." The midrash ends by saying had we been zocheh, we would be reading, "eichah esa livadi," but instead now we read "eichah yashvah badad."
According to the midrash, "eichah esa livadi" is a positive, something to celebrate. It shouldn't be read in a tune of mourning, but rather in a tune of jubilation.
This is not just fanciful derash. Ramban interprets the pasuk "al derech ha'peshat" that Klal Yisrael was not burdening Moshe with trivialities. Moshe's burdens were "torchachem" = teaching Torah, "masa'achem" - davening on behalf of those in need; "rivchem" = paskening dinei Torah. Moshe was overworked because he had to keep giving shiurim, saying tefilos for Klal Yisrael, and involving himself in shaylos. These things demand time and energy and work, but they are great things. Ha'levay every community should keep its Rabbi busy saying shiurim, davening, etc.
2. When one reads the story of the meraglim presented in our parsha one gets a sense that ikar chaseir min ha'sefer. We are told (1:25) that the meraglim brought back fruit and said, "Tovah ha'aretz..." and next thing you know the people are refusing to enter the land. Why? There is nothing mentioned in the meraglim's report as recorded here that would cause the people to have second thoughts. And why indeed is nothing mentioned of the slander of the meraglim, their report that the land was unconquerable and uninhabitable? Finally, why rebuke those present now, in year 40, those who were about to enter the land, with past history of their forefather's mistakes?
Maharasha (Ta'anis 29) highlights one additional difference between the account in our parsha and that of parshas Shlach that is the key to the puzzle. The story in Shlach records that the spies returned and reported, "el Moshe v'el Aharon v'el kol adas Bnei Yisrael" -- it was a public referendum, and the reaction to the report was public outcry. In our parsha, the Torah writes, "va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem," the crying was in private, in the tents of individual families.
Maharasha explains that the two parshiyos are addressing two different sins. The adults in the community heard the negative report of the spies and responded with public protest, as recorded in Shlach. They then went home, and what do you think they said to little Yankel or Sarah when they were tucking them into bed that night? Imagine the scary bed time story about what would happen if Moshe carried out this crazy plan of bringing them to Eretz Yisrael! Imagine the dinner conversation with the older kids listening in and participating. "Va'teiragnu b'ohaleichem" -- our parsha is about the sin of the crying of the families, those who had not heard the spies report directly, those who had no reason to think anything other than "tovah ha'aretz," but who nonetheless, fell into despair based on false news and false reports that they heard. The sin of thinking "b'sinas Hashem osanu," G-d hates us, G-d forbid, is not mentioned in Shlach -- that was not part of the public outcry, but was part of the private reaction based on second hand reports. It was the reaction of the generation that now stood before Moshe, mature, grown up, but still perhaps living in the shadow of that past experience of their youth. You cried "bechiya shel shinam" -- a cry of sinas chinam, hating G-d because of the mistaken impression that he hates you; therefore, this night of 9 Av in the future will be a night of destruction because of sinas chinam that caused the churban ha'bayis.
I'm struggling a bit figuring out how Maharasha fits certain pesukim into this approach, but be that as it may, the takeaway I think is that what was said "b'ohaleichem" is as significant as what is said in public. We have to inculcate in our homes a love of Eretz Yisrael. Hopefully we will be zocheh to get there ourselves one day, but even if not, we want out children to want to be there.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
no place to run
The Midrash opens Parshas Masei by telling us that although many great people -- Ya'akov, Moshe, David -- had to flee from their enemies, throughout our 40 years of travel in the desert not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't even have to run away from the snakes and scorpions.
Earlier this month we discussed yet again the famous Ohr haChaim, based on the Zohar, that says a human being, being a ba'al bechira, poses a greater threat than an animal because a human being can decide to act as he/she pleases irrespective of G-d's plan, but an animal is basically a robot.
Our Midrash seems to contradict that view, as it implies (...not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't have to flee from animals either...) that the snakes and scorpions posed a greater danger than human enemies.
I paraphrased the Midrash in order to convey what I think is its simple meaning, but if you read it carefully, the words suggest a deeper meaning. Sefas Emes points out that it does not say that we did not have to flee from danger, but rather "lo hinachti eschem livro'ach," G-d did not let us flee. It's not that we encountered no danger in the desert. On the contrary, the desert was filled with dangers. G-d, however, did not let us run away from them. We were forced, with his help, to face down the threats.
All of life's challenges are there to being us closer to G-d. Sometimes a person davens that Hashem deliver them from needing a refuah, a shiduch, employment, etc. and Hashem enables them to escape the situation of need -- the person is able to flee from danger. But there is another way to come closer to Hashem when faced with an obstacle. "Min ha'meitzar karasi K-h" -- a person can find Hashem from within the dire straits themselves. Rather than escaping the situation, the person can discover that Hashem is right there with them in their suffering, in their sorrow, in their needs, and that itself gives them the ability to overcome. "Bein ha'metzarim" = "Min ha'meitzar..." We are hedged in with no way out, no place to run. "Lo hinachti eschem livro'ach." But "imo anochi b'tzarah," Hashem is here with us, and an appreciation of that truth is itself a way out.
On a completely different topic... has anyone else noticed the numerous ads for various events, some of which do benefit worthwhile organizations that this post should take nothing way from, that are basically exercises in gluttony? Each one boasts of bigger and better meats prepared by various "master" barbequers (how hard is it to throw some food on a grill? Even I can do it!), hand rolled cigars (I kid you not), scotch tasting, etc. etc.
Maybe I don't like it because my subconscious is bothered by the fact that I never get to go to one of these things, but I just can't square in my mind things like this with concepts like kedusha and tahara. You want to do something like this in your own backyard -- be my guest. But is this what you want associated with yeshivos? With community mosdos? You can't even put a woman's picture in a yeshiva journal because it somehow is beneath our lofty standards of kedusha, but stuff like this goes?
I don't understand it, but there is much in life I don't understand.
Earlier this month we discussed yet again the famous Ohr haChaim, based on the Zohar, that says a human being, being a ba'al bechira, poses a greater threat than an animal because a human being can decide to act as he/she pleases irrespective of G-d's plan, but an animal is basically a robot.
Our Midrash seems to contradict that view, as it implies (...not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't have to flee from animals either...) that the snakes and scorpions posed a greater danger than human enemies.
I paraphrased the Midrash in order to convey what I think is its simple meaning, but if you read it carefully, the words suggest a deeper meaning. Sefas Emes points out that it does not say that we did not have to flee from danger, but rather "lo hinachti eschem livro'ach," G-d did not let us flee. It's not that we encountered no danger in the desert. On the contrary, the desert was filled with dangers. G-d, however, did not let us run away from them. We were forced, with his help, to face down the threats.
All of life's challenges are there to being us closer to G-d. Sometimes a person davens that Hashem deliver them from needing a refuah, a shiduch, employment, etc. and Hashem enables them to escape the situation of need -- the person is able to flee from danger. But there is another way to come closer to Hashem when faced with an obstacle. "Min ha'meitzar karasi K-h" -- a person can find Hashem from within the dire straits themselves. Rather than escaping the situation, the person can discover that Hashem is right there with them in their suffering, in their sorrow, in their needs, and that itself gives them the ability to overcome. "Bein ha'metzarim" = "Min ha'meitzar..." We are hedged in with no way out, no place to run. "Lo hinachti eschem livro'ach." But "imo anochi b'tzarah," Hashem is here with us, and an appreciation of that truth is itself a way out.
On a completely different topic... has anyone else noticed the numerous ads for various events, some of which do benefit worthwhile organizations that this post should take nothing way from, that are basically exercises in gluttony? Each one boasts of bigger and better meats prepared by various "master" barbequers (how hard is it to throw some food on a grill? Even I can do it!), hand rolled cigars (I kid you not), scotch tasting, etc. etc.
Maybe I don't like it because my subconscious is bothered by the fact that I never get to go to one of these things, but I just can't square in my mind things like this with concepts like kedusha and tahara. You want to do something like this in your own backyard -- be my guest. But is this what you want associated with yeshivos? With community mosdos? You can't even put a woman's picture in a yeshiva journal because it somehow is beneath our lofty standards of kedusha, but stuff like this goes?
I don't understand it, but there is much in life I don't understand.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
do we have to ask Hashem to keep his promise?
V'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kinasi... If not for Pinchas taking action, that would have been it -- end of the story, sof pasuk, full stop, G-d forbid. Jewish history would have ended a mere 40 years after we were freed from Egypt. How do you wrap your mind around such a pasuk? Is such a thing even conceivable? Just a few days ago on 17 Tamuz we read Moshe's plea for mercy after the cheit ha'eigel. There too, Hashem threatened to start again with a Bnei Yisrael 2.0, but Moshe davened, "zechor l'avadecha... asher nishbata lahem bach," and reminded Hashem of his promise to make Bnei Yisrael a great nation and give them Eretz Yisrael. Rashi explains "nishbata lahem BACH": G-d did not place his hand on a whatever to take an oath. G-d took an oath on Himself. Just like G-d is eternal and unchanging, so too, his promise is eternal and unchanging. There is no possibility of an end for Bnei Yisrael or a 2.0 So what does our parsha mean?
And what if Moshe had not davened, "zechor... asher nishbata lahem bach?" Would the promise be any less binding? Do you have to pray in order for G-d to fulfill his promise?
There is one circumstance that seems to allow for Hashem to break his promise. In parshas Vayeitzei Hashem promises Ya'akov Avinu that his will protect and sustain him in his travels. Ya'akov responds, "Im y'hiyeh Elokim imadi... v'nasan li lechem le'echol u'beged lilbosh," etc." It sounds like Ya'akov is uncertain whether Hashem will fulfill his promise, and he is davening for it to come true. Why the uncertainty? Chazal answer: shema yigrom ha'cheit. The simple pshat in that answer is that Ya'akov did not doubt G-d -- Ya'akov doubted himself. Ya'akov was worried that perhaps he would prove unworthy of G-d's blessing due to his sins, and if so, G-d would be off the hook and not have to keep his word.
R' Leibele Eiger, however, says a chiddush: G-d's word is a reality; his promise in unbreakable. It is going to come true no matter what. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" doesn't mean that G-d has an out. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" means that instead of the promise coming true m'meila, Hashem will have to intervene and cause the person to have a hisorerus to once again become worthy of the promise being fulfilled.
One of my favorite pieces in the Ishbitzer is his interpretation of "terem nikra'u v'ani e'eneh, od heim m'dabrim v'ani eshma." If G-d responds "terem nikra'u," before we even call out to him, them what's the "od heim m'dabrim...?" He responded already before our dibur!? The Ishbitzer answers that "terem nikra'u" means Hashem responds by giving us the hisorerus to pray and call to him. He gives is the inspiration we need! Then, once we start davening, he listens to our prayers.
R' Leibele Eiger is telling us that either we will be inspired and deserve G-d's promise, or he will inspire us and cause us to have a hisorerus and thereby deserve it. Either way, it will always come true.
Now we understand why sometimes there is a need for tefilah even though Hashem has made a promise. Tefilah is the hisorerus that Hashem awakens in the nation, or even in a single individual speaking up on the nation's behalf, that makes keeping the promise possible, that makes keeping the promise worth doing, even when all seems lost.
We have it all backwards, says R' Leibele Eiger. It's not that Pinchas took action, "heishiv es chamasi," and therefore, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kina'si," and if not for that, all would be lost. Rather, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael," Hashem promised never to destroy us, and therefore, He inspired a Pinchas to take action, "heishiv es chamasi." Pinchas was a tool in Hashem's hands so that the promise could be kept.
(Because Hashem used him as a tool, he gets the reward of shalom. To me it seems a little difficult to get this to fit the Midrash of "b'din hu she'yitol secharo," but you have to say some explanation for that Midrash anyway.)
There will always be a Moshe in every generation, a Pinchas, a Ya'akov Avinu. There will always be someone to bring us back, to plead on our behalf, a tool Hashem uses to bring us inspiration so we are never completely lost.
And what if Moshe had not davened, "zechor... asher nishbata lahem bach?" Would the promise be any less binding? Do you have to pray in order for G-d to fulfill his promise?
There is one circumstance that seems to allow for Hashem to break his promise. In parshas Vayeitzei Hashem promises Ya'akov Avinu that his will protect and sustain him in his travels. Ya'akov responds, "Im y'hiyeh Elokim imadi... v'nasan li lechem le'echol u'beged lilbosh," etc." It sounds like Ya'akov is uncertain whether Hashem will fulfill his promise, and he is davening for it to come true. Why the uncertainty? Chazal answer: shema yigrom ha'cheit. The simple pshat in that answer is that Ya'akov did not doubt G-d -- Ya'akov doubted himself. Ya'akov was worried that perhaps he would prove unworthy of G-d's blessing due to his sins, and if so, G-d would be off the hook and not have to keep his word.
R' Leibele Eiger, however, says a chiddush: G-d's word is a reality; his promise in unbreakable. It is going to come true no matter what. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" doesn't mean that G-d has an out. "Shema yigrom ha'cheit" means that instead of the promise coming true m'meila, Hashem will have to intervene and cause the person to have a hisorerus to once again become worthy of the promise being fulfilled.
One of my favorite pieces in the Ishbitzer is his interpretation of "terem nikra'u v'ani e'eneh, od heim m'dabrim v'ani eshma." If G-d responds "terem nikra'u," before we even call out to him, them what's the "od heim m'dabrim...?" He responded already before our dibur!? The Ishbitzer answers that "terem nikra'u" means Hashem responds by giving us the hisorerus to pray and call to him. He gives is the inspiration we need! Then, once we start davening, he listens to our prayers.
R' Leibele Eiger is telling us that either we will be inspired and deserve G-d's promise, or he will inspire us and cause us to have a hisorerus and thereby deserve it. Either way, it will always come true.
Now we understand why sometimes there is a need for tefilah even though Hashem has made a promise. Tefilah is the hisorerus that Hashem awakens in the nation, or even in a single individual speaking up on the nation's behalf, that makes keeping the promise possible, that makes keeping the promise worth doing, even when all seems lost.
We have it all backwards, says R' Leibele Eiger. It's not that Pinchas took action, "heishiv es chamasi," and therefore, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael b'kina'si," and if not for that, all would be lost. Rather, "v'lo chilisi es Bnei Yisrael," Hashem promised never to destroy us, and therefore, He inspired a Pinchas to take action, "heishiv es chamasi." Pinchas was a tool in Hashem's hands so that the promise could be kept.
(Because Hashem used him as a tool, he gets the reward of shalom. To me it seems a little difficult to get this to fit the Midrash of "b'din hu she'yitol secharo," but you have to say some explanation for that Midrash anyway.)
There will always be a Moshe in every generation, a Pinchas, a Ya'akov Avinu. There will always be someone to bring us back, to plead on our behalf, a tool Hashem uses to bring us inspiration so we are never completely lost.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
what the three weeks really are about
1) R' Zalman Melamed writes here:
"Yizal mayim m'dalav..." Bilam said. The Megaleh Amukos writes that the shem Hashem of adnus has 4 letters, and if you spell out each letter, e.g. aleph = aleph, lamed, pei... you end up with 12 letters. These 12 letters correspond to the months of the year, i.e. aleph will be Nisan, lamed = Iyar, etc. It comes out that Tamuz and Av are the letters daled and lamed. This, says the Igra d'Kallah is what Bilam's blessing hints at: the bitter tears of "dalav," our daled-lamed of Tamuz and Av, should be transformed into sweet flowing waters of rachamim.
Every year, as the Three Weeks (of mourning over the Temple’s destruction) approach, people ask me all sorts of questions relating to the nature of mourning: What is and is not permissible in kindergartens? Can movies be watched? Fieldtrips? Swimming?2) For those who like remazim:
All such questions pertain to mourning practices, but nobody ever asks about what sort of paths should be followed to achieve repentance during these days!
"Yizal mayim m'dalav..." Bilam said. The Megaleh Amukos writes that the shem Hashem of adnus has 4 letters, and if you spell out each letter, e.g. aleph = aleph, lamed, pei... you end up with 12 letters. These 12 letters correspond to the months of the year, i.e. aleph will be Nisan, lamed = Iyar, etc. It comes out that Tamuz and Av are the letters daled and lamed. This, says the Igra d'Kallah is what Bilam's blessing hints at: the bitter tears of "dalav," our daled-lamed of Tamuz and Av, should be transformed into sweet flowing waters of rachamim.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
v'lo ra'ah amal b'yisrael -- whose suitcases are we schlepping?
1) If someone is lost in the desert and doesn't know when Shabbos is he/she has to make kiddush and havdalah one day a week as if that day was Shabbos, and on any given day no melacha except for what is needed for pikuach nefesh may be done lest that day is Shabbos. The MG"A asks why this should be so. Shabbos is only one day out of seven. Whatever day is Shabbos should be bateil b'rov to the six days of chol.
Question: how can you speak of bitul brov (or kavua) with respect to days? The chiyuv to keeps Shabbos is a chovas ha'gavra (see R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa re: whether time bound chiyuvim are issurei gavra or issurei cheftza) on the person, not a chiyuv of the day. The person lost in the desert, the gavra, is not bateil to anything?
When I saw this question I first thought it was great and now I'm not sure it makes sense. True, keeping Shabbos may be an issur gavra, but you have to define the day before you can say the chovas ha'gavra gets off the ground. It's an intrinsic condition to the chiyuv.
2) Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov. Rashi explains that Bilam saw that ain pischeihem mechuvanim.
Chazal teach us that if we just open a pesach k'chudo shel machat, an opening the size of the hole in a needle, to let Hashem into our hearts, he will open for us a pesach as wide as the door of the heichal. R' Meir Shapiro explained that this is what Bilam saw. Ain pischeihem mechuvanim: the door Hashem opens for us is completely out of proportion to the door we opened for him -- the two are not aligned. But Hashem loves us, so that's the way it is.
3) The gemara (A"Z 4) writes that Bilam's success was due to the fact that he was able to figure out when the one moment of the day that Hashem gets angry. Hashem did a miracle and withheld his anger the entire time that Bilam tried to curse us.
The gemara continues that R' Yehoshua ben Levi had an obnoxious neighbor who was a min and drove him crazy, so he decided to wait for that moment of Hashem's anger and then ask Hashem to do away with this neighbor. The moment came, but just then RYb"L fell asleep. He took this as a sign that v'rachamav al kol ma'asav, Hashem has mercy even on the wicked and did not like his plan.
If Hashem gets angry for this one moment every single day, there must be some need in the seder of the world for such a thing to happen. So why withhold that anger just to thwart Bilam? Hashem, for example, does not stop the sun from rising just because idolaters worship it. Why didn't Hashem just make Bilam fall asleep like he did to RYb"L instead of interrupting the course of nature?
We've discussed lots of times (e.g. here, here, and other places ) the famous view of the Ohr haChaim (and others) that while Hashem can force animals and inanimate objects to conform to his plan, a ba'al bechira, a human being that has free choice, has far more latitude and can do an end run around Hashem's designs. What that (probably) means is not that Hashem does not have control over people -- what it means is that it takes for more zechuyos to cause/ask for Hashem to interfere with a ba'al bechira.
Of course if Bilam just fell asleep his plan would have been thwarted. Our parsha is telling us a bigger chiddush, explains R' Yerucham Lebovitz. Even though Bilam was awake and had free choice as a ba'al bechira to act against Klal Yisrael, he still did not succeed.
4) V'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael... A beautiful Ohr haChaim here
גם נתכוון לומר שהצדיקים הגם שעושים מצות וכל עסקם בתורה אינם מרגישים שיש להם עמל, על דרך אומרו (תהלים עג) עמל הוא בעיני אלא אדרבא כאדם המרויח וכאדם המשתעשע בשעשועים לרוב חשקם בתורה
Mitzvos should not been seen as a burden or bother -- amal -- but rather as a pleasure to do.
R' Ya'akov Neiman in his Darkei Musar quotes a famous mashal (I'll write it over anyway : )of the Dubno Magid which the Kotzker said must have been given b'ruach hakodesh. V'lo oso karasa Ya'akov, ki yagata bi Yisrael (Yeshaya 43:22). Hashem criticizes Klal Yisrael for not calling to him, for being weary of him. The mashal: the was a royal officer who was travelling through some town, and when he got off the train he went ahead to his hotel and left his bags to be brought later. Later that day the bellhop, huffing and puffing and sweating from the exertion, knocked on the hotel door and told him that he had brought the suitcases. Without even looking, the officer replied that he was confused and had brought someone else's bags. "How do you know?" the bellhop asked. "You didn't even look at them!' "Because," answered the officer, "My bags were light -- you obviously have been struggling with whatever you brought, and so I know they are not mine."
Hashem tells Klal Yisrael, "OSI lo karasa," whatever frumkeit you have been killing yourself over and struggling with, it's not MY frumkeit, that's not MY Torah and mitzvos, "ki yagata bi Yisrael," because whatever it is you think you are doing is an unbearable and painful burden. Those suitcases you've been struggling with, says Hashem, are not my suitcases. When you are schlepping my suitcases, "v'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael," they are no bother at all.
Question: how can you speak of bitul brov (or kavua) with respect to days? The chiyuv to keeps Shabbos is a chovas ha'gavra (see R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa re: whether time bound chiyuvim are issurei gavra or issurei cheftza) on the person, not a chiyuv of the day. The person lost in the desert, the gavra, is not bateil to anything?
When I saw this question I first thought it was great and now I'm not sure it makes sense. True, keeping Shabbos may be an issur gavra, but you have to define the day before you can say the chovas ha'gavra gets off the ground. It's an intrinsic condition to the chiyuv.
2) Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov. Rashi explains that Bilam saw that ain pischeihem mechuvanim.
Chazal teach us that if we just open a pesach k'chudo shel machat, an opening the size of the hole in a needle, to let Hashem into our hearts, he will open for us a pesach as wide as the door of the heichal. R' Meir Shapiro explained that this is what Bilam saw. Ain pischeihem mechuvanim: the door Hashem opens for us is completely out of proportion to the door we opened for him -- the two are not aligned. But Hashem loves us, so that's the way it is.
3) The gemara (A"Z 4) writes that Bilam's success was due to the fact that he was able to figure out when the one moment of the day that Hashem gets angry. Hashem did a miracle and withheld his anger the entire time that Bilam tried to curse us.
The gemara continues that R' Yehoshua ben Levi had an obnoxious neighbor who was a min and drove him crazy, so he decided to wait for that moment of Hashem's anger and then ask Hashem to do away with this neighbor. The moment came, but just then RYb"L fell asleep. He took this as a sign that v'rachamav al kol ma'asav, Hashem has mercy even on the wicked and did not like his plan.
If Hashem gets angry for this one moment every single day, there must be some need in the seder of the world for such a thing to happen. So why withhold that anger just to thwart Bilam? Hashem, for example, does not stop the sun from rising just because idolaters worship it. Why didn't Hashem just make Bilam fall asleep like he did to RYb"L instead of interrupting the course of nature?
We've discussed lots of times (e.g. here, here, and other places ) the famous view of the Ohr haChaim (and others) that while Hashem can force animals and inanimate objects to conform to his plan, a ba'al bechira, a human being that has free choice, has far more latitude and can do an end run around Hashem's designs. What that (probably) means is not that Hashem does not have control over people -- what it means is that it takes for more zechuyos to cause/ask for Hashem to interfere with a ba'al bechira.
Of course if Bilam just fell asleep his plan would have been thwarted. Our parsha is telling us a bigger chiddush, explains R' Yerucham Lebovitz. Even though Bilam was awake and had free choice as a ba'al bechira to act against Klal Yisrael, he still did not succeed.
4) V'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael... A beautiful Ohr haChaim here
גם נתכוון לומר שהצדיקים הגם שעושים מצות וכל עסקם בתורה אינם מרגישים שיש להם עמל, על דרך אומרו (תהלים עג) עמל הוא בעיני אלא אדרבא כאדם המרויח וכאדם המשתעשע בשעשועים לרוב חשקם בתורה
Mitzvos should not been seen as a burden or bother -- amal -- but rather as a pleasure to do.
R' Ya'akov Neiman in his Darkei Musar quotes a famous mashal (I'll write it over anyway : )of the Dubno Magid which the Kotzker said must have been given b'ruach hakodesh. V'lo oso karasa Ya'akov, ki yagata bi Yisrael (Yeshaya 43:22). Hashem criticizes Klal Yisrael for not calling to him, for being weary of him. The mashal: the was a royal officer who was travelling through some town, and when he got off the train he went ahead to his hotel and left his bags to be brought later. Later that day the bellhop, huffing and puffing and sweating from the exertion, knocked on the hotel door and told him that he had brought the suitcases. Without even looking, the officer replied that he was confused and had brought someone else's bags. "How do you know?" the bellhop asked. "You didn't even look at them!' "Because," answered the officer, "My bags were light -- you obviously have been struggling with whatever you brought, and so I know they are not mine."
Hashem tells Klal Yisrael, "OSI lo karasa," whatever frumkeit you have been killing yourself over and struggling with, it's not MY frumkeit, that's not MY Torah and mitzvos, "ki yagata bi Yisrael," because whatever it is you think you are doing is an unbearable and painful burden. Those suitcases you've been struggling with, says Hashem, are not my suitcases. When you are schlepping my suitcases, "v'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael," they are no bother at all.