Commento su Numeri 22:13

להלך עמכם [THE LORD REFUSES TO GIVE ME LEAVE] TO GO WITH YOU, but only with princes greater than you. This tells us that he was of a proud nature and he did not wish to divulge that he was under the control of the Omnipresent except in arrogant terms (“God will not permit me to go with you”). Consequently (v. 15), ויוסף עוד בלק “Balak sent yet again [more princes, and more honorable than these] (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

[AND BALAAM ROSE UP IN THE MORNING, AND SAID] UNTO THE PRINCES OF BALAK. According to the opinion of Rashi³²Above, in Verse 7. the elders of Midian had left [Balaam] when he told them, Lodge here this night³³Verse 8. [and therefore Scripture here only mentions the princes of Balak — i.e., the elders of Moab]. This is [indeed] possible, because when Balaam mentioned to them [and I will bring you back word,] as the Eternal may speak unto me,³³Verse 8. they did not want to wait for Balaam’s [message], for they said: “This G-d has always come to the help of Israel. It is He Who brought them out of Egypt and did signs and wonders for them.” For the elders of Midian were wise men, and they knew about all the words of Moses with Jethro,³⁴Exodus 18:8: And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Eternal had done … the most distinguished of their country, although Scripture does not mention this [that Jethro informed the elders of his land what Moses had told him]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that “[the reason why Scripture here] did not mention them [the elders of Midian] is because Balak was the principal party [in this matter], and it was he who sent the mission.” Similarly, [the verse stating] and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam³³Verse 8. [omits “the elders of Midian”] because the main [impetus of the] mission came from their lord [the king of Moab].
The correct explanation is that the elders of Midian — who were perhaps the first kings thereof — came from their country to Balak to take counsel about the problem of Israel, and they all decided to send [a mission] to Balaam. Therefore Balak sent his princes, his judges and wise men, and they went together with the elders of Midian to the land of Midian, because from there their way led to Balaam’s city; and the elders of Midian remained in their city, while the princes of Balak, who were the delegates, went on their own to Aram [Balaam’s native land].³⁵Further, 23:7: From Aram Balak bringeth me. This is the meaning of [the expression], and the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed,³²Above, in Verse 7. meaning that they all left Balak and went as far as Midian, with the rewards of divination in their hand.³²Above, in Verse 7. And ‘they’ came unto Balaam, [and spoke unto him the words of Balak]³²Above, in Verse 7. — this refers to the elders of Moab, about whom Scripture states, and he sent messengers,³⁶Verse 5. not to the elders of Midian.

ויקם בלעם בבקר, Bileam arose in the morning, etc. Bileam may have waited with relaying what G'd had said to his guests as the news would not please them. There was therefore no point in waking them in the middle of the night. Alternatively, the Torah means to tell us that Bileam himself did not awaken from his deep sleep until morning. When the Torah wrote that he rose in the morning, the implication is that he could not rise sooner. It is also possible that the Torah meant to criticise Bileam who immediately sent back these emissaries in order to ensure that other, higher ranking ones, would take their place to enable him to go with them. The Torah may also have wanted to give us an example of Bileam's tight-fistedness in that he dismissed Balak's emissaries before offering them breakfast. This is in stark contrast to the story of the פלנש בגבעה in Judges chapter 19, where the prophet describes the art of treating guests and making them feel welcome. Bileam may be described as the root of all avarice. He told the emissaries to be on their way as he was afraid that if they were to have a meal at the local inn he would be required to foot the bill.

ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “He said to the dignitaries of Balak, etc.” According to Rashi the elders of Midian abandoned the Moabite delegation as soon as Bileam requested that they stay overnight to wait for what G’d would tell him. They were aware through Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, of how Hashem related to the Israelites and that there was no chance that He would permit Bileam to curse this nation. They had all been briefed by Yitro on the many miracles the Jewish G’d had performed on behalf of His nation. Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the elders of Midian are not mentioned again is simply that the delegation consisted primarily of the dignitaries of Moav and they were the principal spokesmen. This is also why only the return of the dignitaries of Moav is spelled out our portion, (verse 14) It is possible that the people referred to here as the “elders” of Midian had at one time been its kings (before they had been demoted by Sichon), and had traveled to Moav to hold consultations with Balak concerning the danger the Jewish people posed for them, and as a result of these deliberations they had all agreed to turn to Bileam and to invoke his prophetic powers. When Balak sent forth his emissaries their route took them through Midian as Bileam resided there or near its borders. Once the elders of Midian had reached their home town in Midian, they simply remained there and the emissaries of Balak traveled on in the direction of Bileam’s place of residence.

ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “he said to Balak’s princes, etc.” He did not make mention of the elders of Midian at all. The reason was that they were merely secondary as the delegation had been initiated by Balak.

We learn that he was arrogant. You might ask: Perhaps עמכם ["with you"] here has the same meaning as “do not go with them” that Hashem said (v. 12)? The answer is that Rashi’s proof is [because otherwise] why was it necessary to say “with them”? Rather it should have said “Hashem refuses to allow me to go” and no more. When Hashem said, “With them” it was understandable [why this phrase was necessary]; for this meant that he should not go “according to their intentions” to curse them. But why was “with them” here necessary? Re’m explains that Rashi’s inference is from the verse, “Balak persisted and sent dignitaries in greater number and of higher rank than these” (v. 15).

V. 13. ויקם בלעם וגו׳, Bileam verschweigt ihnen den zweiten Teil, den eigentlichen Kern der göttlichen Warnung, spricht überhaupt von einer Weigerung, מאן ד׳ was ja ohne weiteres durchblicken lässt, dass auch sein Wunsch sei, dem Volke zu fluchen, allein: מאן ד׳ לתתי להלוך עמכם, Gott findet es für mich nicht anständig, mit euch zu gehen. Waren sie doch nur, wie bemerkt, זקני מואב, nicht שרי מואב, nur Männer aus dem Volke, nicht eigentliche Fürsten.

ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “he said to Balak’s emissaries, etc.” the emissaries of Midian are no longer mentioned as they were only of secondary interest their land not bordering on the land of Canaan and not under threat by the Israelites.

[FOR THE ETERNAL REFUSETH] TO GIVE ME LEAVE TO GO WITH YOU — “but only with great princes. This teaches us that he was of a haughty spirit, and did not want to tell [them] that he was under the control of G-d. Therefore [he spoke] in arrogant language. It was because of this that Balak sent yet again princes.”³⁷Verse 15. This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for Balaam’s whole honor consisted of boasting and glorifying himself in [the fact that he received] the word of G-d [and so he would not have been ashamed to tell the princes of Moab that he was awaiting G-d’s word, as Rashi wrote, but on the contrary would have boasted of it]! Moreover, he did not [in fact] know that G-d would give him permission to go with other, greater, princes! Rather, the meaning [of Balaam’s words] is that G-d did not want him to go at all. But Balak suspected that he was [only] saying so in order to get a greater reward; therefore he said to him, Why camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honor?³⁸Further, Verse 37. And for this reason too, Balak sent yet again princes, more in number, and more honorable³⁷Verse 15. in order to show him that he wanted him very much [to come], and he promised to give him as much wealth and riches as he would demand from, and fix upon him. But Balaam answered him that even for all his money “I cannot go beyond the word of the Eternal, for He is my G-d, and I cannot do any thing, small or great³⁹Further, Verse 18. if I transgress His command, for [whatever I do] I do in His Name.” Or [it may be that Balaam] is saying, “I cannot go beyond the word of the Eternal³⁹Further, Verse 18. whether [I transgress His word] in a small matter or a great matter, for He is my G-d, and I am His servant.”

מאן ה' לתתי להלוך עמכם, “Hashem has refused to allow me to go with you.” Rashi writes that Bileam presented G’d as having forbidden him only to go with this delegation of dignitaries, leaving open the possibility that he would secure permission to go with dignitaries of higher rank. Nachmanides disagrees, saying this could not be the meaning, seeing Bileam’s boast had always been that he had such close relations with Hashem. If he were to present Hashem as a deity that could be manipulated by him, he would thereby make himself laughable in the eyes of his petitioners. Bileam was convinced that G’d would not let him accompany dignitaries of higher rank either. It was only Balak who suspected Bileam of seeking a higher fee for his services who felt that he would agree to come if the price was right. This is why he sent a second delegation composed of high- ranking dignitaries.

לכו..כי מאן ה׳ לתתי להלך עמכם, "go..for G'd has refused to permit me to go with you." Bileam did not tell his emissaries all that G'd had told him. He neither mentioned the fact that G'd had forbidden him to curse the people, nor that the people were blessed. All that he told them was that G'd had not allowed him to go with them, implying that their rank was inferior. This is the reason that Balak immediately sent higher ranking emissaries. It is possible that Bileam interpreted the words "for it is blessed," to mean that as long as the Jewish people enjoyed G'd's blessing he must not curse them, but that there could be a time when the people would not enjoy that blessing as a result of which they would become subject to his curse. This may have been the reason Bileam did not give Balak's emissaries a final answer at this time. He hoped that by the time higher ranking emissaries would come, the people might be subject to his curse.