Commentary for Numbers 22:22

כי הולך הוא [AND GOD'S ANGER WAS KINDLED] BECAUSE HE WENT — He perceived that the matter was evil in the eyes of the Omni-present and yet he longed to go.

כי הולך הוא, that his purpose in accompanying them was not to lead others as in Kings II 4,30 where Gechazi followed the dead boy’s mother to be shown the way, etc. Bileam, on the other hand, went as if he had his own agenda, attempting to foil the will of the Lord. The delegates had not come to ask for his advice at all.

ויחר אף ה׳…כי הולך הוא, G'd's anger was kindled that he went, etc. The Torah emphasises the word הוא, "he." G'd's anger was caused by the manner in which Bileam rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and did not even tell the delegates of Balak that G'd had given permission for him to go. The words וילך עם שרי מואב speak volumes. They mean that Bileam and the delegates were on the same wavelength, that they shared the same objective. Bileam made it plain that he went along on his own initiative.

כי הולך הוא, willingly; he was desirous of cursing the Jewish people even though he knew that this was not what G’d wanted.

ויחר אף אלוקים כי הולך הוא , “G’d became angry at him that he was going, etc.” Ibn Ezra, (verse 19) quoting Rabbi Saadyah gaon, raises the question: “how could G’d reverse Himself after He had told Bileam once that he must not go and curse that people seeing that they had already been blessed by G’d Himself?” He answers that Hashem did not want Bileam to go until Balak had sent a second and more impressive delegation. Ibn Ezra does not see any need for this explanation, seeing that the consent by G’d to someone undertaking a potentially disastrous enterprise is within the boundaries of his freedom of choice. G’d had told Moses to proceed and to begin the conquest of the land of Canaan (Deut. 1,21) clearly not wanting spies to be sent, and yet when Moses submitted the people’s request to send spies G’d told Moses: שלח לך אנשים, ”send out men on your own behalf.” (13,2) The people at the time were not full of trust in G’d, and claimed to want to investigate the best way to begin the conquest. Here too, the question that could be raised is: what need was there for Bileam to tell the servants of Balak that he would enquire from G’d once more, seeing that G’d had already said “no” once? Clearly, Bileam was ill intentioned, and when G’d saw this, He did not wish to deprive him of his freedom of choice at that point and let him dig a premature grave for himself if that was what he was bent on doing in clearly planning to thwart G’d’s desire. He therefore told Bileam that if he wanted to merely go with these people, He could not stop him, though He would prevent him from saying anything that would not please G’d. (Rabbi Saadya gaon.) Nachmanides (on verse 20) rejects Rabbi Saadya gaon’s explanation out of hand, quoting that G’d had told Bileam the first time not only that he must not go with these men but that he must not curse, and that seeing that these people are blessed already the idea of effectively cursing them would be a non-starter. To Nachmanides it is preposterous to suggest that G’d would permit Bileam to go with higher-ranking dignitaries on a mission that had already been nixed by G’d when it had been requested from Bileam by lower-ranking dignitaries, in the name of the same Balak. As to Ibn Ezra’s describing G’d as having second thoughts and now allowing Bileam to go with the second delegation of Balak, this is not a valid interpretation of what the Torah reports. Bileam’s obstinacy in wanting to go was not what motivated G’d to change His instructions. The assumption that when a person insistently asks G’d to let him do something as being the reason why G’d “changes His mind,” is quite erroneous. In my opinion, writes Nachmanides, originally G’d prevented Bileam from going, in order to ensure that he would not curse a people that was already blessed and therefore immune to such curses. G’d showed Bileam that his journey would be foolish, embarrassing even, seeing that he could not keep the bargain he would make with Balak. Seeing that the dignitaries of Balak were not interested in Bileam for any purpose other than cursing the Israelites, what possible gain could Bileam derive from going with them? In other words, G’d had actually tried to save Bileam a major embarrassment by warning him not to go with these people. The delegation had also reported Bileam’s words faithfully, telling Balak that he had explained his refusal by his being duty bound to obey G’d’s command. Balak, however, had chosen to ignore the report of his emissaries, placing the least flattering interpretation on Bileam’s refusal, namely that he was only interested in upping the ante, and to demand more money before acceding to Balak’s request. Bileam did tell even the second delegation that the subject of his cursing the Jewish people did not depend upon him at all, and was entirely not within his power. Seeing that Bileam had not misled the delegations, G’d no longer had a reason to forbid Bileam’s accompanying the second delegation, as long as Bileam only lent them his presence as a famous prophet, not as an instrument of Balak who, for payment, would countermand his G’d’s orders, appearing to try and manipulate G’d. G’d even warned Bileam that if Balak were to pressure him to curse the people in spite of what Bileam had told him, He would be with him, seeing that what G’d wanted to show the world was that the Jewish people were not only blessed by Him, but even by an outstanding prophet of the nations at large. Had Bileam been honest and upright, he would have told that delegation that his very going with them would most likely result in his being bidden by G’d not only not to curse these people but to bless them instead, thus adding mankind’s blessing to His own. Had Bileam been frank with them, they most certainly would not even have wanted Bileam to come with them. When they saw that Bileam was quite anxious to come with them, even personally saddling his ass, they realized that Bileam’s previous reluctance was only a “diplomatic sickness” he had feigned, in order to command a higher fee, and that even at this point he was maintaining the fiction of being forced to be only G’d’s mouthpiece, no wonder that G’d was angry at him for misleading the Moabites into thinking that his own and their interest coincided. He had made them believe that the very fact that he was accompanying them now was proof that his G’d had approved of that mission. When Balak noticed that after all these twists and turns, in the end Bileam did not curse the people, he gained the impression that Bileam’s G’d had changed His mind once again, or worse that He was deliberately making fun of him.

ויחר אף אלו-הים, “G’d’s anger was kindled.” G’d was angry because He realized Bileam had gone in order to curse.
ויתיצב מלאך ה' בדרך לשטן לו, ”an angel of Hashem positioned himself on the way in such a manner as to obstruct him.” Bileam had tried to appropriate to himself a vocation which was meant to be exclusively that of the Jewish people, i.e. הקול קול יעקב, “the use of the voice is a use reserved for Yaakov” (Genesis 27,2). In retaliation for this trespass, the angel also made use of a weapon which is not really his own, i.e. the sword, the weapon allocated to Esau, as he was an angel dispatched by the attribute of Mercy. [Had it been an angel dispatched by the attribute of Justice he would have killed Bileam instead of preventing him from carrying out his sinful intent. Ed.]. We find here another demonstration of the principle מדה כנגד מדה, measure for measure.

He saw that the thing was evil in the Omnipresent’s eyes. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “Hashem showed anger…”? Surely He had said to him (v. 20) “arise and go with them.” Rather, he saw that the thing was evil in the Omnipresent’s eyes because he had only allowed him to go for his own benefit, in order to take remuneration from this. But [Bil'am] craved to go in order to curse them, therefore “Hashem showed anger…” Re’m explains that since Hashem had only agreed for him to go because of his remuneration, then he should not have gone. Therefore, “[Hashem] showed anger…”

V. 22. ויחר וגו׳ כי הולך הוא nicht כי הלך, dass er überall mit Balaks Gesandten gegangen. Das Mitgehen war ihm ja gestattet. Allein er hatte sich nicht nur mit ihnen auf die Reise gemacht, הולך הוא er war ein "Gehender", ein seinem Ziele Zustrebender. Er war von dem Dünkel erfüllt, trotz der bestimmten Gotteswarnungen, das von Balak und ihm gewünschte Ziel erreichen zu können, und während schon der Engel, von ihm ungesehen, zu seiner Hinderung in den Weg steht, trabt er noch hochmütig auf "seinem" Saumtier und "zwei" "seiner" Leute zu seiner Bedienung bei ihm! Die königliche Gesandtschaft, die ihn abzuholen gekommen war, hatte gewiss ein Reittier für ihn mitgebracht, und waren dabei gewiss Leute genug zu seiner Bedienung bereit. Aber sein Hochmut gefällt sich darin, auf eigenem Tiere zu reiten — dessen kunstgerechte Sattlung er daher auch am Morgen (V. 21) kavaliermäßig selbst betrieben hatte — und sich nur von "eigenen" Leuten und zwar von "zweien" bedienen zu lassen: Eben dieser Gott und Menschen entgegengewandte Dünkel und Hochmut muss erst auf der Reise gebrochen werden, damit er dann bei Balak sich als gefügiges Organ den Gottesreden darbiete.

ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא , “G–d’s anger was kindled that he was walking (with them in the spirit);” although Bileam had been given permission to accept Balak’s invitation to come to him, he had not been given permission to curse the Israelites. It was obvious that unless he had intended to do just that, (manipulated G–d) he should have stayed at home. Bileam had thought that seeing the first time G–d had told him not to go to Balak, and now He had agreed to let him go, He must have changed His mind due to something having occurred after the first emissaries had returned to Moav. Seeing that Bileam was too anxious to collect his fee, he had not noticed that he had only been allowed to go אתם, with these emissaries, i. e. physically, but that he was still forbidden to go עמהם “with them in spirit,” something that G–d had forbidden already in verse 12. In order to save Bileam from committing a fatal sin, G–d even dispatched the angel as an obstacle, hoping that he would take the hint on his own. He hoped that Bileam would realise that G–d knew what he was up to.

ויחר אף ה' כי הולך הוא, “The Lord was angry that he was going;” G-d’ had not given a “green light,” although Bileam made believe that he had obtained full approval. He should have understood from the first nocturnal conversation with G-d that it was not His intention for him to be going. We find something similar in the story of the spies that Moses sent out to evaluate the land of Canaan. G-d had said: שלח לך אנשים, “send out for your own peace of mind men, etc, (Numbers 13,2)” It had been quite clear to Moses that when G-d had agreed to the people’s demand to send spies, that G-d had entertained reservations from the start about the success of such a mission. An alternate interpretation of the line: “G-d was a angry, etc.” He had told Bileam that he was not able to say what he wished but could say only the words G-d would put in his mouth. Surely this was a clear warning to Bileam to desist, as he was going to make a fool or worse of himself if after having come all the way from Midian to Moav he could not deliver what was expected of him. At least he should have asked G-d what precisely he was allowed to say once he faced Balak in person. He was too hasty due to his hatred of the Jewish people. The paragraph about Balak and Bileam, which did not directly impact on the Israelites, was written to teach us why G-d deprived the nations of the world of any share in holy spirit, as it demonstrates the effect of granting holy spirit to the wrong kind of people, who would use it to try and manipulate G-d for their desires instead of to help them to serve Him better.

לשטן לו [AND THE ANGEL OF THE LORD STOOD IN THE WAY] FOR AN OBSTRUCTION AGAINST HIM — It was an Angel of Mercy מלאך ה׳, an angel of the Lord,( the designation of God as a God of Mercy), and he wished to deter him from sinning — so that he should not sin and perish (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 8).

לשטן לו, to obstruct him. The subject matter known as שטנה, always involves an activity contrary to someone else’s activity. We find an example of this expression in this sense in Genesis 26,21 where the Philistines foiled the attempt of Yitzchak’s servants to use the water from the well they had dug. In this instance the angel had come to oppose Bileam seeing his journey contravened G’d’s will. He was afraid that Bileam would do his usual and not be content to await a propitious moment, so that he would become guilty of death. G’d wanted to spare him such a sin. [if I understand the author correctly, he feels that Bileam’s function as a “prophet”, i.e. pronouncing curses, when exploited at times when doom threatened his potential victims anyway, would not be construed as sinful by G’d. Ed.]

He was an angel of mercy. Rashi is answering the question: If he was Satan [the angel who leads one astray] then he could not have been an “angel of Hashem” [which implies] an angel of mercy. (Nachalas Yaakov) It appears that Rashi inferred this from the word לו ["him"], which implies that he did not thwart anyone else. Rather, he was an angel of mercy, and inevitably here he also behaved with mercy, for Bil’am’s own good.

We may also glean another insight from the remarks of the Zohar Chadash page 168 on the words וילך שפי in 23,3. According to the Zohar this meant that Bileam isolated himself in order to draw down to him the forces of negative spirituality, impurity. When G'd observed that Bileam isolated himself from the emissaries of Balak this was a sign that he prepared himself to do as he pleased. The fact that he had his two lads with him would not interfere with his attempt at solitude as these lads were part of his regular retinue and he would always do "his thing" in their presence. G'd immediately realised Bileam's intention and this is what caused His anger. The words הולך הוא also convey to us that Bileam would have been ready to curse the Jewish people even if Balak had never asked him to do this and offered to pay him for his efforts. He thereby revealed his innate hatred of the Israelites and all this combined to arouse G'd's anger.

Er will Gottes Weltenplan korrigieren und ist blinder als sein eigenes Tier, er will Gottes Widerstand obsiegen und muss dem eigenen Tiere sich fügen, er will ein ganzes Volk mit seinem Worte verderben und muss die Ohnmacht seines Zornes einem Tiere gegenüber gestehen, er will vor Herren und Fürsten stolzieren und wird vor seinen eigenen Leuten zum Gelächter. —

ושני נעריו עמו “accompanied by his two loyal servants.” He took only two. G-d arranged it so in order that the strangebehaviour of Bileam’s ass could not be attributed to the ass having become confused in the presence of so many people.

ושני נעריו עמו AND HIS TWO LADS WERE WITH HIM — From here we have a rule for a distinguished personage who is going on a journey, that he should take with him two men to serve him, so that these in turn may serve one another (i.e., act for one another by taking over the other’s duties if he must leave his master for a short time) (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 8). (See Rashi Genesis 22:3).

והוא רוכב על אתונו ושני נעריו עמו. This is why he did not see the angel; as our sages explain when three people travel together they do not see potential dangers but they will not be harmed by what they do not see either.

He should bring along two people. For if not so, why does it say “two”? It should have merely written “accompanied by his attendants.”

ושני נעריו עמו, and his two lads with him. Why did the Torah have to tell us this insignificant detail? Tanchuma on our verse says that the Torah taught us rules of proper conduct by mentioning the fact that Bileam as befits a man of his stature did not travel without his own assistants. Even if we accept this, why didn't the Torah mention this detail before telling us that G'd's anger was aroused at Bileam, and that the ass had already been made G'd's emissary to be his adversary? We may understand this in light of Berachot 43 that when one travels in a threesome one will not become aware of destructive forces in one's path nor will one be attacked by such forces. In this instance, seeing that Bileam had become aware of the destructive force arraigned against him, we must understand why he did not become its victim. Our verses explain why Bileam had not recognised the danger himself as well as why he was not harmed by it. The answer is that Bileam together with his two lads formed such a threesome as is mentioned in the Talmud.

שטן .לשטן לו steht hier in seiner eigentlichen Bedeutung: hindern, in den Weg treten. Es scheint verwandt mit dem rabbinischen סדנא ,סדן: Block, das (Pesachim 28a) auch als den Gang der Gefangenen hindernder Fußblock vorkommt.

Attend to one another. Meaning: If one [of them] needs to relieve himself, the other will attend to his own duties and those of [the first]. Rashi explains so explicitly in Parshas Vayera, on the verse “He took his two attendants with him” (Bereishis 22:3). For if it was not so [and Rashi was not alluding to his comment there], one could ask: Why did Rashi not explain here like he did there concerning Avrohom? We need not ask that we had already learned this from Avrohom. For the answer is that if it had not been for this verse, one would have said that it is specifically a Torah scholar who is forbidden [to embark on a journey…] As it is taught: “A Torah scholar is forbidden to travel alone at night because of suspicion” (Berachos 43b), and Avrohom was a Torah scholar. However [one would say that] other people, even if they are distinguished, are not [forbidden from doing so]. Therefore the Torah writes this here. But if it was not for the verse there, one would have thought that this was merely proper conduct, but that there was no prohibition [to travel alone], therefore it was also necessary to write the verse regarding Avrohom. One may give another answer as to why Rashi did not explain here as he did regarding Avrohom. For concerning Avrohom it is written “Avrohom arose early in the morning” (ibid.) where the term וישכם ["arose early"] implies that it was before daybreak, meaning at nighttime before it was daylight. Thus Rashi explained that if one needed to relieve himself, he would be left alone, and it is forbidden for one to travel alone at night. This was why Rashi mentioned that a distinguished person is not permitted to travel without two attendants because of danger, and [the laws pertaining to] danger are stricter than for transgressions. But regarding Bil’am it is not written וישכם ["he arose early"], only ויקם בבוקר ["he arose in the morning"]. This implies that it was already daylight and there was no danger even if he were to remain alone. Consequently, [here] Rashi explains that this is proper conduct. (Gur Aryeh) In Parshas Vayera Rashi writes that if one [of the attendants] became distanced, then the second one would be with him. However this does not pose a difficulty. For here one could not explain that if one attendant became distanced, the second one would be with him, because even without this Bil’am would have been protected given that there were many people with him. Therefore, Rashi wrote that the reason was so they could in turn attend to one another.