Comentario citado sobre Génesis 30:28

Rather, it is certain that “curse” [arah] is stronger than “execrate ” [kabah], and the term strike [nakah] is stronger than the term fight [lehilachem], and the phrase I will drive him out of the land [va-agareshenu min ha-aretz] is stronger than I will drive him away [ve-gerashtiyu]. For the term kabah is not a term of cursing, as it says Specify [nekov] your wages to me (Genesis 30:28), but rather it means to pierce and explain, or to make a small hole in them, from the phrase and he bored a hole [vayikov] in its door (Second Kings 12:10). But curse [arah] is worse because it contains curse and excommunication (Shevuot 36a). Similarly, to fight is not so absolutely bad because one might fight merely to save oneself, but to strike means to actually smite. Likewise, I will drive him away implies driving him away only from oneself, but I will drive him out of the land implies from the entire world.
With this, everything is resolved, because Balak did not know that their God loves them so much, so he opened his mouth beyond measure and asked, Curse for me this people. Perhaps I can strike it and drive it out of the land, meaning to completely destroy them all and drive them from the world. But Balaam knew that their God loves them, and it is obvious that Heaven would stop him and he would not succeed in either goal. Therefore, he said before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that Balak was only asking to push them away from him, because if they came to fight him, they would violate the command do not harass Moab, and it would be justified for some curse to take effect — to bore a hole in their door to diminish them a little. That is why he said that Balak sent to him, Execrate them for me; perhaps I can fight them and drive them away.

V. 11. ויקב וגו׳ את השם. Wir haben bereits Bereschit 30, 28 den Begriff נקב nennen, bestimmen, aus dessen Zusammenhang mit נקב, löchern, zu ermitteln versucht. Wir glaubten, daß נקב das völlige Herausheben eines Gegenstandes aus seiner Gattungsmasse durch Nennung seines besonderen Namens bedeute. Es ist dies somit die speziellste Individualisierung eines Gegenstandes durch einen Namen. Dieser Name kann folgerichtig nur ein Nomen proprium sein. In der Tat ist auch nach Sanhedrin 56a מברך את השם nur חייב מיתה על שם המיוחד, wenn er bei der Lästerung Gott durch den שם הוי׳ oder den stellvertretenden שם אדנות bezeichnet, der eben שם המיוחד oder שם המפורש heißt, weil er ein individualisierendes, spezialisierendes Nomen proprium ist. על הכנויים באזהרה, mit Nennung eines attributiven oder Gattungsnamens, wie רחום ,אלקים usw. ist er nur עובר בלאו וכרת, wie dies auch deutlich aus Versen 15 und 16 erhellt. Wir finden nun נקוב בשם und אשר נקבו בשמות :נקב שם. (Bamidbar 1, 16) und וקרא לך שם חדש אשר פי ד׳ יקבנו. Ersteres heißt: jemanden mit seinem Eigennamen nennen, letzteres: einen Eigennamen aussprechen. את השם, den Namen ohne weitere Bezeichnung, stillschweigend der höchste im menschlichen Gedankenbereiche. So auch noch heute "Haschem" die Bezeichnung für "Gott" im Munde der jüdischen Volkssprache. – ושם אמו וגו׳, es war zur Zeit das einzige Weib in Israel, das sich vergangen, darum gelangte sie zu dieser traurigen Auszeichnung, auf einem Blatt der ewigen Gottesschrift gedacht zu werden. Erst aber nach dem Verbrechen ihres Sohnes wird ihr Name genannt. Denn eben in diesem Verbrechen zeigt sich warnend die traurige Folge ihres sittlichen Vergehens. Ohne dies hätte dieser höchste Ausbruch unjüdischer Verworfenheit nie eine faktische Wirklichkeit in Israel gefunden. Nur ihr Vergehen mit dem nichtjüdischen Manne konnte den Keim zu einem solchen Verbrechen in Israel pflanzen. Das Entsetzen über das Verbrechen des Sohnes erkannte die Mutter, die Schelomit, als die eigentliche Urheberin der Tat. – Nach allen V. 15 über die Veranlassung dieses Verbrechens gegebenen Andeutungen, hat wohl dieser Sohn des mizrischen Vaters den speziellen Gott Israels gelästert, weil er eben in dessen auf Sittenreinheit seine Nation und deren nationales Recht bauenden Institutionen – abweichend von dem Verderbnis ägyptischen Herkommens – die Schranke für sein Verlangen gewahrte.

And the proof of this is that with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan. I was completely empty-handed, having nothing but my staff. And now I have become two camps. By saying and now, it indicates that it was as if he accumulated all this wealth just now, in the blink of an eye. For he worked 14 years for [Laban’s] two daughters and six years for his flocks, and when Laban said to him Name your wages and I will give them, in a short time he amassed great wealth and possessions, which naturally would have been impossible to acquire such enormous wealth in such a brief period, if not for the hand of God doing this. Even though Jacob sent the exact opposite message to Esau, as explained above in the verse I have acquired ox and donkey, he denied [the truth] out of fear, uttering falsehood by telling him that he had labored with his flocks for the full 20 years, but the truth is not so. For heaven forbid to say that Jacob would claim that his own strength and might made him this wealth. This is what is meant by and now I have become two camps — in the blink of an eye. For if he had already possessed flocks and cattle when he crossed the Jordan, I would say that his wealth increased through natural means. But now that he admitted that he crossed the Jordan with only his staff, when then did all this glory come into being from nothing? Surely this was from God. Therefore, he requested: Just as You fulfilled this second promise, so too fulfill the first promise that You made to me regarding protection. Save me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him. The word him [oto] is superfluous, but it alludes to that sin he committed by flattering the wicked and treating the sacred as mundane, and him refers to the sin. Some say that he was not afraid for himself since he was already promised protection, rather he feared lest [Esau] come and strike mothers with children, for they were not promised protection.