What is the meaning of this root שׁתם that is used to describe Bilam? It only appears at Numbers 24:3 and 24:15. There is a term for a word that appears only one time in Tanach: a “hapax legomenon.” (This is Greek for “once said.”) Our word can loosely be described as a “hapax legomenon,” since the second instance sheds no additional light on the word.
The way most rabbinic commentators and scholars make sense of the word is by pointing to the root שׁתם in the Mishnah and Tosefta. (Of course, the Mishnah and Tosefta date many centuries later.) At Mishnah Avodah Zarah 5:3, for example, this root clearly means “to bore/open a hole.”
Accordingly, Rashbam writes: “Patuaḥ ayin [=open eye]. Roeh marot Elokim,” citing the above passage from the Mishnah. (Centuries earlier, Targum Onkelos has: “shapir ḥazi”= sees well.) Many agree with Rashbam and view the phrase as a general description of Bilam’s ability to have visions.
But R. Hirsch puts a different spin on the “open/seeing.” Verse 24:2 had the phrase “va-tehi alav ruaḥ Elokim.” Accordingly, R. Hirsch suggests that only after this did Bilam feel that his eyes were opened. R. Hertz seems to explain verse 24:3 in the same way, focusing on the fact that Bilam was now “overpowered by the inrush of the Divine Spirit.”
There is another way of deriving a meaning from the שׁתם of Mishnaic Hebrew. Rashi cites the same Mishnah as above (“to bore/open a hole”) but believes the meaning is that the eye was removed, and that the socket looks open. (There are two different readings in Rashi when he describes what happened to the eye: “nekuvah” versus “nekurah.” The former means “punctured.” The latter means “put out.”) The ArtScroll edition explains Rashi’s thinking: Had the verse referred to Bilam’s powers of prophecy, it would have read “patuaḥ ha-ayin”; but “shetum ha-ayin” is a more negative term.
Significantly, the term “giluy einayim” is used in reference to Bilam at 24:4. This supports the “open” interpretation of שׁתם, and is evidence against Rashi’s interpretation of the openness. (Rashi had also mentioned the interpretation of Targum Onkelos approvingly.)
***
Aside from the “open” interpretation, it is interesting to see how others have dealt with the unusual word שׁתם:—R. Yonah Ibn Janach suggests that the openness is a way of describing someone who cannot sleep.—Nachmanides suggests interpreting “shetum” as if the root was שׁית, which means “set, place.” (He cites Ex. 10:1). The import is that Bilam had the power to obtain anything he set his eyes on.—Many others interpret the word as if the “shin” was a “samech,” i.e., as if the word was סתם. This word means “closed.” But this is a stretch. (In contrast, interpreting “sins” as if they were “samechs,” and vice versa, is common. Also, sometimes we can interpret “sins” as if they were “shins” and vice versa. E.g., perhaps the pronunciation evolved over time from “shin” to “sin” or vice versa.)
It is noteworthy that at Eichah 3:8, the word “satam,” with the meaning “closed,” is spelled שׂתם (instead of initial ס). So perhaps our word at Numbers 24:3 and 24:15 could have the “close” meaning but was then misdotted. The dot should have been on the left.
If the meaning of our word at verse 3 and verse 15 is “closed,” Or HaChayyim suggests that the import is that Bilam had to make a habit of closing his eye. When it was open, his looking at someone would harm them. Others suggest that prophecy only came to him when his eyes were closed.
Some suggest the vocalization of שׁתם as “shetum” is not correct and that the phrase should be vocalized as “she-tam ha-ayin”=whose vision is complete/perfect (from the root T-M- M).—Finally, most interesting is the interpretation of the Baal Shem Tov. (I saw this quoted in Nachshoni.) Bilam was blind in one eye so that there could at least be one place in his body where holiness could rest and prophecy could reside!
***
I also must mention the passage at Sanhedrin 105a. (See also Niddah 31a.) Here the Talmud has: “Bilam was blind (סומא) in one of his eyes, as it is written העין שׁתום.” At first glance, it looks like the passage is interpreting שׁתום as סתום. But those words are not in the text. Accordingly, Rashi interprets the passage to be teaching that ayin is in the singular and it is from this that we learn that Bilam had only one working eye. The passage is not addressing שׁתום at all.
Just as I was getting used to Rashi’s interpretation, I found that there is a parallel to the passage in the Talmud in the Midrash Tanḥuma manuscript that was published by Solomon Buber. In this passage, there is an additional phrase: “al tikra shatum אלא satum (סתום).” This is what I thought the Talmud was saying initially! Perhaps this source is expressing what was once explicit in the Talmud or what was viewed as the interpretation implicit in the Talmud. We will never know.
(I found this passage through the site alhatorah.org. A special “shout-out” to Rabbi Ezra Frazer and Shulamis Hes for encouraging me to use this wonderful site!)
***
As long as we are on the subject of Bilam, it is interesting to point out that in 1967, at Deir Alla (= probably the Biblical “Sukkot,” about 8 kilometers east of the Jordan River), archaeologists found an inscription describing visions of a “Bilam son of Beor,” who is described as a חזה (seer) of the gods. Its language is a dialect with a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew. The text can be dated to around 800 B.C.E. This date is several hundred years later than the Biblical Bilam. But the text may just be a tradition of a vision of the Biblical Bilam. (Or was this a vision of a descendant several hundred years later? Perhaps being a חזה was in the family genes!)
There were 119 pieces of text recovered. (The text was originally painted in ink on a wall.) Reconstructing the text is difficult, but a main part of the text is a story that one night the gods come to Bilam and tell him that the world will be destroyed. Bilam arises and weeps. He tells his people the details of what the gods told him, using images of birds and other animals. Actions are taken by Bilam and his people and the disaster is averted. (There is much material available online about this inscription from Deir Alla.)
Unfortunately, there was no depiction of Bilam’s face with this inscription. If there was, perhaps our issue of the meaning of שׁתם could have been resolved!
By Mitchell First
