Moving the Dot

Then he took up his discourse and said, “The declaration of Balaam the son of Beor, and the declaration of the man whose eye is opened; the declaration of him who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of [^f]the Almighty, falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered,  Numbers 24:3-4  NASB

Is opened – Rabbi Shraga Freedman makes an interesting claim in his book Living Kiddush Hashem.  He writes, “Thus, we find that after being blinded in one eye by Hashem, the wicked Bilam proclaimed, ‘The words of the man whose eye is closed; the words of he who hears the sayings of G-d.’  Bilam linked his ability to ‘hear’ the words of Hashem with his inability to see . . .”[1]  But how can he write this?  The verse says that Bilam’s eye is opened, not blind.  What’s happening here?  Did he just make a mistake?

As it turns out, the Hebrew text in this verse offers a few options.  The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Sematic Domains notes: “9280 שָׁתַם (šā·ṯǎm): v.; ≡ Str 8365; TWOT 2481—LN 24.1–24.51 (qal pass.) see clearly, formally, be opened, i.e., pertaining to being able to see and perceive through the eye-gate (Nu 24:3, 15+), note: some repoint text to a qal pass. of 8608; note: this likely refers to the obtaining of accurate revelation from God as a seer, see also domain LN 28.28–28.56.” 

Notice the editor’s remark that this word occurs only in Numbers 24 verses 3 and 15, both verses using exactly the same phrasing.  Also notice that repointing the word, that is, changing the pronunciation, produces an entirely different idea—the eye is closed.  Strong’s notes that the two occurrences are “dubious.”  The Vulgate renders the verse homo cuius obturatus oculus; ^[2] “eye obscured.”  The LXX offers little help with ὁ ἀληθινῶς ὁρῶν^[3] “truly sees.”  The DBL comment notes that repointing renders the word a Qal passive of:

8608 שָׂתַם (śā·ṯǎm): v.; ≡ Strong 5640; TWOT 1550—1. LN 68.34–68.57 (qal) shut in, obstruct, i.e., to cause to cease, and so stop an activity from being effective, as a figurative extension of an object being stopped from leaving a space (La 3:8+); 2. LN 79.114–79.117 (qal pass.) be closed, i.e., pertaining to an eye having the lids over it (Nu 24:3 cj,15 cj+), note: for MT text, see 9280^[4]

9281 שְׁתֻם (š^eṯǔm): adj. [others qal pass. ptcp. masc. sing.} see 9280 (Nu 24:3, 15+), note: bhs ftn, KB, Holladay read text as 8608, “closed” eyes^[5]

From the above references, you can see that the same combination of consonants can be read as “open” or “closed” depending on the way we read the first consonant, either “sh” or “s” (שׁ or שׂ).  All you have to do is move the dot.  This means that Freedman has not made a mistake.  He just chooses one of the two possible readings; one that fits his point about seeing without open eyes.  A “seer” doesn’t use his physical eyes to see God’s work.  He uses a spiritual sensitivity.  Of course, where you place the dot over the consonant is entirely a matter of tradition.  You will read the Hebrew verse the way you were taught to read the Hebrew verse.  The choice has nothing to do with the actual spelling of the word.

There is perhaps another hint in this verse.  Balaam (Bilam) has only one good eye.  Where we would expect to read the plural (“eyes open”), we find the singular.  So Balaam always has one eye open and one eye closed, another contextual reference to prophetic insight.  The problem with all of this is that your English Bible doesn’t mention all the oddities of this word, and so you don’t know the Jewish perspective nor the deeper levels of meaning in the verse.  You’ll have to read rabbinic commentary in order to see how the verse might be read a different way.  That book on your shelf called the Bible needs a few companion volumes, right?

In cases like this you might need to consult with the local rabbi, which I did.  Here’s what he had to say:

The word in question here, שתם, is a very difficult word.
The commentaries, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, etc etc, all point out that this word has nothing like it in Tanach. In Mishna, it’s used once. BUT Mishna is not Tanach. It’s Hebrew, but not Biblical, so the word could mean the same in Mishna and Tanach, but not necessarily.  So, it’s very difficult to know the root for that word, and therefore there are many different (and even contradictory) meanings. Also, Bilaam says that he is ” ‘Shasum’ of the eye”. ONE EYE. So whatever “shasum” means, it applies to one eye, and possibly not the other. With all due respect to Rabbi Freidman, whatever “shasum” means, his statement of Bilaam “linking……..” is completely unwarranted. First of all, there is absolutely no obvious connection between those 2 statements of Bilaam, that because of that, this is the case. And second, more importantly, while there are commentaries who do translate “shasum” as closed, most don’t.  Unkelos, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ralbag and others all translate it to mean open, and that’s what it means in the Mishna.

What does “open” mean? That’s another question.
It can mean
1. Open – seeing. Even if one eye is blinded the other is open.
2. Open hole – from the eye being taken out. So, here it would actually mean, NOT seeing, from that eye. (But the other eye is open)
3. Open, meaning understanding. What is before him, he understands, like an open book.
AND even the Malbim, who seems to say that Shasum means closed, it means closed from completely receiving the proper message from Gd.
I hope this helps.  [end of comment]

So now what do you think?

Topical Index: šā·ṯǎm, open, śā·ṯǎm, closed,  Numbers 24:3-4

[1] Rabbi Shraga Freedman,  Living Kiddush Hashem, pp. 114-115.

+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.

^[2] Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 1670). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

^[3] Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 1670). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

LN Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon

+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.

LN Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon

cj conjecture

cj conjecture

+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.

^[4] Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

+ I have cited every reference in regard to this lexeme discussed under this definition.

bhs Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (i.e., an edition of the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible)

KB Koehler/Baumgartner Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros (1958)

Holladay Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Greek Lexicon of the Old Testament

^[5] Ibid.