According to the Rabbis, Balaam was intimate with his donkey. This is in keeping with the general Rabininc notion that all gentiles were guilty of beastiality, and it is derived specifically from the donkey's speech in Numbers 22:30 where she says: "הלוא אנכי אתנך אשר רכבת עלי מעודך עד היום הזה ההסכן הסכנתי לעשות לך."
In the view of the Rabbis, there are too many words in this sentence. (ie the same idea might have been expressed more concisely) In particular, the beast unnecessarily says "hayom" [=today] suggesting to the Rabbis that something else occurred at night. But what? The words ההסכן הסכנתי provide a clue
In Kings 1:2 we find the word "סֹכֶנֶת" used to describe the role of the virgin who kept old King David warm.
ויאמרו לו עבדיו יבקשו לאדני המלך נערה בתולה ועמדה לפני המלך ותהי־לו סכנת ושכבה בחיקך וחם לאדני המלך
The word is taken to mean something like "companion" (KJV gives "and let her cherish him". Other famous translations render the words as "nurse".)
In the view of the Rabbis, there are too many words in this sentence. (ie the same idea might have been expressed more concisely) In particular, the beast unnecessarily says "hayom" [=today] suggesting to the Rabbis that something else occurred at night. But what? The words ההסכן הסכנתי provide a clue
In Kings 1:2 we find the word "סֹכֶנֶת" used to describe the role of the virgin who kept old King David warm.
ויאמרו לו עבדיו יבקשו לאדני המלך נערה בתולה ועמדה לפני המלך ותהי־לו סכנת ושכבה בחיקך וחם לאדני המלך
The word is taken to mean something like "companion" (KJV gives "and let her cherish him". Other famous translations render the words as "nurse".)
In the view of the Rabbis, (see BT Avodah Zara 4b) the use of the expression ההסכן הסכנתי following the redundant use of the word "hayom" tells us the donkey was confessing to having been Balaam's nighttime "companion".
ASIDE
Words with the root סכנ appear in several places in Tanach.
- In Isaiah 22:15 הַסֹּכֵ֣ן is a treasurer, or someone with intimate and private knowledge of finances.
- In Pslams 139:4 " הסכנתה" is used to suggest that God has very personal knowledge of all our ways
- In five places in Job יִסְכָּן carries the sense of benefit or profit
- Koheles 10:9 is an oddity. We have מַסִּיעַ אֲבָנִים יֵעָצֵב בָּהֶם בֹּוקֵעַ עֵצִים יִסָּכֶן בָּם which every English translation takes to mean something on the order of "he who splits logs is endangered by them." In Jewish tradition, however, the verse means "He who splits logs is warmed by them." (The link is to David's סכנת who is seen not as a nurse or companion but as a "warmer") There is likely a polemic motivation beneath this reading. "Splitting logs" is understood as a metaphor for studying Torah. How can this "endanger" us?
To continue, we're left with an open question: Did the Rabbis actually believe Balaam slept with his donkey, or were they merely trying to defame him, in the way that other Biblical villains are defamed in the Midrash? (e.g. Pharaoh is presented as midget with a huge penis.)
Generally, I'm of the opinion that when the Sages interpreted a verse, they believed that their interpretations yielded the factual, historical truth. In fact, in many cases, its not clear to me that they are "interpreting" and not "reading."
Apologists, on the other hand, think they are protecting the reputation of the Sages by arguing that their interpretations (for example the stretching arm of Bas Paroh) were never intended literally. It may be true that the Sages were speaking figuratively when no Scriptural basis can be discerned. But when an interpretation, --no matter how fanciful -- is clearly linked to a reading, I think it is meant literally. (As I've argued previously, the Sages believed that God mixed fire and ice during the plague of hail because that's what the verse says. If, by their lights, a verse plainly says that Bas Pharoh's arm grew, why wouldn't they also believe that happened?)
My own opinion here is that Chazal believed Balaam was a bad guy. (Accepting the textual evidence that suggested he was evil, over competing textual evidence that presents him more favorably) This perspective (together with their general view that gentiles were incorrigible practitioners of bestiality*) made it easy for them to find and accept interpretations such as the one discussed above.
*Is there a more succinct way to say "practitioners of bestiality?"
Generally, I'm of the opinion that when the Sages interpreted a verse, they believed that their interpretations yielded the factual, historical truth. In fact, in many cases, its not clear to me that they are "interpreting" and not "reading."
Apologists, on the other hand, think they are protecting the reputation of the Sages by arguing that their interpretations (for example the stretching arm of Bas Paroh) were never intended literally. It may be true that the Sages were speaking figuratively when no Scriptural basis can be discerned. But when an interpretation, --no matter how fanciful -- is clearly linked to a reading, I think it is meant literally. (As I've argued previously, the Sages believed that God mixed fire and ice during the plague of hail because that's what the verse says. If, by their lights, a verse plainly says that Bas Pharoh's arm grew, why wouldn't they also believe that happened?)
My own opinion here is that Chazal believed Balaam was a bad guy. (Accepting the textual evidence that suggested he was evil, over competing textual evidence that presents him more favorably) This perspective (together with their general view that gentiles were incorrigible practitioners of bestiality*) made it easy for them to find and accept interpretations such as the one discussed above.
*Is there a more succinct way to say "practitioners of bestiality?"
