Komentarz do Liczb 22:33

אולי נטתה — This is the same as לולא: UNLESS SHE HAD [TURNED ASIDE]. Sometimes אולי is used in the sense of לולא “unless”.

AND SHE TURNED ASIDE ‘L’PHANAI’ (BEFORE ME). Commentators⁸⁷I have not identified these sources. — The difficulty in the verse is that it should have said and she turned aside ‘mipanai’ (‘from’ before me) and not l’phanai (‘before’ me). have explained this [word ‘l’phanai’ as meaning]: “and she turned aside into the field when she was before me.” But there is no need [for this interpretation and addition], for the meaning [of the word l’phanai] is like mipanai (“from” before me), for such is the usage of the letter lamed, as in [the verses]; and they left off ‘livnoth’ (to build) the city⁸⁸Genesis 11:8. [which is like mivnoth — literally: “from building” the city]; he hath left off ‘l’haskil’ (to be wise), to do good⁸⁹Psalms 36:4. [which is like meihaskil — literally: “from being wise”]. There are also many other cases [like this]. Similarly: And Joab and the captains of the host went out ‘liphnei’ [literally: “before,” but really meaning mipnei — “from before,” i.e. “from the presence of”] the king, to number the people of Israel.⁹⁰II Samuel 24:4.

ותראני האתון ותט לפני, in spite of your own oblivion to these signs your ass did see me and tried to avoid a frontal contact with me. She did so three times and yet you did not pay any attention to these strange symptoms.

כי עתה גם אתכה הרגתי ואותה החייתי. "surely NOW I would have slain you whereas I would have allowed the ass to remain alive." What is the significance of the word "now" in this verse? Bamidbar Rabbah 20,14 on our verse claims that this verse is proof that the ass was killed. We deduce this from the sequence of the words גם אותכה, "you as well," instead of גם הרגתי אותכה. The word NOW indicates that the ass had been killed immediately before this interchange. When the angel said: "I would have let her live," he referred to what had taken place. He had not killed the first time she spoke up which would have resulted in Bileam being killed also, but had waited until the ass had revealed Bileam's spiritual blindness. The word החייתי actually refers to a new activity, i.e. "I have let her live until now." The angel pointed out that he had done something extraordinary. He had been dispatched to hurt both the rider and and the animal he rode. In this instance the rider had been saved by the action of the animal he rode. In this way the word החייתי is justified.

אולי נטתה מפני; whenever the word אולי occurs in the Bible its meaning is similar to the words אם and אילו. (‘if’) Commentators who explain the word as meaning לולי as in Genesis 43,10 לולי התמהמנו, ”if not for the fact that we procrastinated,” or as in Genesis 31,42, לולי אלוקי אבי, “if not for the G’d of my father, etc.,” are in error. We have to understand the word as in Lamentations 3,29 אולי יש תקוה, “maybe there is hope,” or as in Amos 5,15 אולי יחנן ה', “maybe G’d will be gracious,” or as in Genesis 43,12 אולי משגה הוא,”maybe it was an oversight.”

אולי נטתה מפני, “had it not turned away to avoid me,” Nachmanides, quoting other commentators, writes that the word אולי here has the same meaning as the word לולי elsewhere, i.e. “if not.” He adds, that in his personal opinion the word is completely in place as is, and can be understood at face value. The ass, not knowing what exactly it was that threatened her, took evasive action as a possible means of saving itself and its rider. [The word אולי, identical to שמא in later Hebrew, i.e. in Nachmanides’ manuscript, means “perhaps, possibly.” Ed.] The angel tells Bileam that whereas he would have killed him he would have allowed the ass to survive.

אולי נטתה מפני, “if she had not turned aside on my account, etc.” The word אולי which often means: “maybe, perchance,” here means “if not.” The words “instead of killing her” clearly demonstrate that after the she-ass spoke the angel killed her. He now told her that the she-ass’s very speaking had been the reason he had spared her master, Bileam.
The Midrash cites another possible reason for the ass being killed, namely to prevent the Emorites deifying an ass that was able to speak like a human being (Tanchuma Balak 9). A third reason is simply that the ass had performed the function it had been created for and kept in limbo since dusk on the sixth day of creation (Avot 5,8). We observe a similar phenomenon with the fish whose purpose on earth (in water) had been to swallow and subsequently spit out Jonah. We read in the Book of Jonah 2,2: “G’d appointed a large fish, דג גדול, to swallow Jonah.” The reason that fish was described as גדול “large,” is “great in years,” i.e.very old. Although there were many fish in the sea with bodies larger than that which swallowed Jonah, there was none that was as old, i.e. which had been assigned this particular task since the days of creation.The intention of the author of the Book of Jonah in writing the word וימן is to tell us that this fish and none other had been appointed for this specific task already during the dawn of history. This thought is also reflected in the word לבלוע, “in order to swallow,” instead of the simple ויבלע, “it swallowed,” when the Book of Jonah describes this fish. The peculiar wording alerts us to the fact that the sole purpose of G’d creating this fish when He did was to swallow Jonah. It is also peculiar that initially the fish is described as דג, fish (masculine) whereas in the course of the narrative the author changes to describe it as דגה, fish (feminine). Jonah is described as praying from the entrails of the דגה (Jonah 2,2) after he had first spent three days inside the דג. The term דגה repeatedly occurs as describing dead fish such as in Exodus 7,21 when the fish of the river Nile which had died due to the plague of blood are described as והדגה אשר ביאור מתו. [Perhaps the fact that the fish had died was the catalyst which caused Jonah to pray. Ed.]. When he said: מבטן שאול שועתי, “I have cried out from the belly of Sheol,” he meant that the fish had become his grave (Jonah 2,3).

Like לולי “if not.” Rashi is answering the question: אולי implies that perhaps she had turned aside, but here she had certainly turned aside.

V. 33. אולי נטתה מפני. Es ist uns keine Stelle bekannt, in welcher אולי die Bedeutung von: לולי, wenn nicht, hätte. Es heißt entschieden überall: vielleicht. Es dürfte jedoch zwischen נטה לפני und נטה מפני zu unterscheiden sein. נטה מפני heißt offenbar ein Ausweichen aus Furcht. So: ויסב דוד מפניו פעמים (Sam. I. 18, 11). נטה לפני kann aber auch einfach: aus dem Wege gehen aus Ehrerbietung bedeuten. Der Engel sagt: Warum hast du dein Tier geschlagen? Ich bin schuld, dass es dreimal aus dem Wege abgelenkt. Es hat dies aus Achtung vor mir getan: ותט לפני. Vielleicht sogar hat es aus Furcht vor mir getan: אולי נטתה מפני, denn ich hätte dich erschlagen, es freilich hätte ich leben lassen, גם אותכה הרגתי, dieses גם bezieht sich wohl auf Bileams Äußerung: לו יש חרב בידי כי עתה הרגתיך. Du hast deiner Eselin gesagt, dass durch ihr Verfahren ihr der Tod aus deinen Händen gedroht. Daher auch die nachdrückliche hervorhebende Form: אותכה.

גם אותך הרגתי, “I would also have killed you.” Rashi considers this verse as having been truncated, as no reference was made to who would have been the angel’s first victim. I believe Rashi must be understood as follows: if we were to assume that he meant that the angel would have killed the ass first, this line would make perfect sense at this point. But, how are we then understand his adding in the same breath: “and her (the ass) I would have allowed to remain alive?” When we turn the verse around, as implied by Rashi, the meaning would be “not only would I have blocked your progress on this path, but if you had not taken the hint to turn around, I would have been forced to not only delay you but to also kill you in order to prevent you from getting to Balak.” In that event, I would not have needed to kill your ass. Once you had been dead, there would not have arisen the embarrassment of Bileam’s ass having been treated with more concern than its owner, as the dead cannot be embarrassed. However, thanks to the fact that even your ass talked to you and criticised you, this has saved your life as I did not want you to be considered as inferior to your beasts.

.ותראני האתון ותט לפני, “and the ass saw me andturned aside.” It was facing me all the time but attempted to detour either to the right or to the left so as to pass me. If it had turned backwards on account of your having struck it, I would have killed you as you had abused it.

גם אתכה הרגתי SURELY NOW ALSO THEE HAD I SLAIN — This is an inverted sentence, and it is the same as גם הרגתי אותך — I would also have slain thee, as much as to say: not only would this delay have happened to you through me, but death also.

ULAI’⁹¹The word ulai normally means “perhaps,” which is inappropriate in the context of this verse, since there was no doubt as to whether the ass had turned aside. Hence the commentators explained it as meaning lulei — “unless,” and the angel is thus saying, in defense of the animal, that “had she not turned aside from me, I would have killed you [Balaam].” Ramban later on offers his own interpretation of the verse and the word ulai actually used by Scripture. SHE HAD TURNED ASIDE FROM ME. In the opinion of the commentators⁹²Rashi and Ibn Ezra. [the word ‘ulai’ here] is like lulei — “‘unless’ she had turned aside from me [surely now also I had slain thee.” The word ulai] in this context is thus used [with a meaning] different than that of all the other occasions where it is found. But in my opinion it is used here in its literal meaning [“perhaps:” — implying a doubt]; for the ass felt the presence of — or saw⁹³See Ramban above, Verse 23. — the angel, but did not know what it meant, and [the reason why she turned aside] was because of the drawn sword, as animals are wont to do [when they see a drawn sword]. Therefore the angel said to Balaam: “And the ass saw me and turned aside from me, [although it was only] because of a doubt that she turned aside from before me [not knowing my intentions], for I came to slay you, but I would have saved her life, since the sin is in you and not in the ass.”

אולי נטתה מפני, you should have considered that maybe she had swerved so on my account You were aware that the Jewish people have advocates at G’d’s throne so that it is not far fetched to assume that such an advocate had been commissioned to hinder your mission against these people. G’d has given me permission to act in the manner in which I did.

Here too the angel challenged Bileam asking: “why did you strike your ass three times, implying that Bileam had been wrong to do this, explaining that the ass had tried to avoid him, the angel, לפני, “in front of me,” as opposed to מפני. He meant that if the ass had actually passed the angel instead of halting before him, he, the angel, would have been forced also to kill Bileam as he was not supposed to get past him. As matters stood, thanks to the ass’ behaviour Bileam had suffered only minor injury. In the alternate scenario the ass would not have been harmed at all for the angel would allowed her to live just as she was alive now. After all, it was not the ass who had sinned but her owner.

גם אותך הרגתי, “I would also have killed you, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the words גם אותך are conclusive proof that the angel did kill the ass as soon as it had concluded what it had been programmed to say. Nachmanides writes that he word גם in our verse need not be interpreted in the usual manner, i.e. as meaning: “also”, seeing that it is inappropriate, for when used with Bileam who had not been killed by the angel, it would not make sense. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the angel killed the ass, as Ibn Ezra would have us believe. Had the ass not evaded the sword, the angel would have killed the ass but would have allowed Bileam to live, [as clearly it had been instructed to do so by Hashem its boss. Ed.] We therefore would have to interpret what the angel said as meaning that if the ass had not taken evasive action the angel would have killed both Bileam and the ass. The word גם therefore must be understood in accordance with Rashi, as if the word גם had been written in front of the word הרגתי, meaning that the angel told Bileam he would not only have been prevented him from proceeding or have obstructed his journey, but he would even have been killed by him. In light of the ass’s evasive action, Bileam’s life had been saved and he had only experienced an obstruction. Seeing that your ass has made a detour for your sake and not for its own sake, you have struck it without provocation and you have repaid a kindness with malice instead of with gratitude. The Torah has not taken us into its confidence by revealing if the members of the Moabite delegation had observed what had occurred or not, or even if they had thought that the ass had behaved in an unpredictable manner, as donkeys and other beasts of burden are apt to do from time to time. Possibly, they had been riding well ahead of Bileam and had not noticed what went on behind them. If so, they probably had not overheard the conversation between the ass and Bileam either. Our sages said that the members of that delegation did observe and hear what had been going on, adding that the ass died immediately after having had its say. They most likely derived their information from an oral tradition seeing that there is no indication in the written text about all this at all.

This verse should be rearranged. Rashi is answering the question: גם אותכה הרגתי [lit. "I would also have killed you"] implies that initially the angel had killed someone else, however this is not so. For one cannot say [that it killed] the dignitaries of Balak since they were the agents for this sin, because it is written, “Go with the men.” And one cannot say that it refers to the attendants, for what was their sin? Also, one cannot say that גם ["also"] refers to the donkey, as if to say, “As I killed the donkey, I would have killed you” for it is written, “And she, I would let live.”

Had she not turned aside before me. From fear of me, which was a fear of death. The angel was speaking as one who speculates about a matter because, in truth, angels do not know the thoughts of any creature besides Hashem. Therefore, the angel was speaking as one who speculates when he [first] said the donkey turned aside [when she saw me, which implies] out of respect for me, [but he said afterwards before me etc., which implies] or perhaps for fear of death.

ואותה החייתי, “but I allowed her to remain alive.” From this wording it appears that Bileam’s two man servants had been killed by the angel as they have not been mentioned anymore.

מפני, “only on my account;” only on account of her having seen me. She was totally innocent, as her behaviour was due to my not having given her any other choice.

ואותה החייתי AND IT WOULD I HAVE KEPT ALIVE — but now because it spoke and rebuked you andyou could not stand against its rebuke, — just as it is written, "and he said, No!" — I have killed it in order that people should not be able to say: This is the animal that silenced Balaam by its rebuke, so that he could not reply. For God has regard for human dignity. Similar is (Leviticus 20:16): “And thou shalt slay the woman and the animal (with which sin was committed)”, and similarly Leviticus 20:15): “And the animal shalt thou slay” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 9).

GAM OTHCHAH HARAGTI’ (“ALSO” THEE I HAD SURELY SLAIN). Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “the word gam [meaning “also”] is a proof that the ass died after it had spoken. And the meaning of [the phrase] and saved her alive [which implies that she should have died, were it not for the angel that kept her alive] is that when [even] a human being sees an angel, he dies [straightaway, whereas the ass lived on for a while until after she had spoken to Balaam] — proof being [Jacob’s statement]: and my life is preserved⁹⁴Genesis 32:31. Since Jacob gave thanks to G-d for preserving his life after seeing the angel, one can deduce that it is usual for a person to die after having seen an angel. See this also clearly in Judges 13:22. — and how much more so [does it follow that] an animal, which has no common factor with an angel, as a human being has [ought to die immediately upon seeing an angel].”⁹⁵Thus according to Ibn Ezra the angel was saying: “Since even a human being, who shares with an angel the spirit of G-d, dies upon seeing an angel, how much more so the ass should have died immediately she saw me! But I saved her alive for some time after she had seen me, in order that she should speak to you.” Nonetheless, after she had spoken to Balaam she did die, as implied by the angel’s words: “had the ass not turned aside, ‘also’ you I would have killed,” meaning: The ass will now have to die, because I [only] saved her life so that she should speak to you. But had she not turned aside, I would have ‘also’ killed you.” Ramban disagrees with this interpretation, and explains that the ass did not die, as explained further on.
But the word gam cannot be interpreted as Ibn Ezra explains it, for [if so, we do not find any circumstances under which] both of them [Balaam and the ass] would die; because now when she did turn aside, the ass died and Balaam was saved alive, and had she not turned aside, he [the angel] would have killed Balaam and saved the ass alive!⁹⁶Ramban’s meaning is as follows. According to Ibn Ezra’s explanation, now that the ass turned aside, she alone was killed [since she had fulfilled her purpose of arousing Balaam], but had she not turned aside, both Balaam and the ass would have been killed by the angel. To this Ramban replies that this cannot be so, because Scripture states explicitly here that had the ass not turned aside, the angel would have killed Balaam but saved her [the ass] alive; and now that she did turn aside, he saved Balaam, but killed the ass [according to Ibn Ezra]! Hence Ibn Ezra’s statement that both Balaam and the ass would have been killed is not possible under any circumstances! Therefore the word gam must be interpreted differently. [See my Hebrew commentary p. 292, for sources in Hebrew commentaries on the elucidation of this difficult text of Ramban]. However, the word gam is [to be interpreted] as Rashi explains it, its meaning being as if [the word-order of the verse were] inverted, namely: gam haragti othchah [“also would I slay thee,” meaning to say: “not only would I have held you up on your journey, but I would also have killed you”]. And the meaning of the expression and saved her alive is [not that “I would have kept her alive temporarily, but later on killed her,” as Ibn Ezra explained, but that the angel was stressing that] “the entire [burden of] sin is upon you [Balaam], and [therefore] I would have killed you because of it, [but would have kept her alive even had she not turned aside], for she has done no sin for which she ought to die. Thus her act of turning aside, which she did on account of me, was for your good [only] and not for her sake at all, [because she would anyhow not have been killed], and you have therefore smitten her for no reason, and have repaid her evil for good.”
Now Scripture does not say whether Balak’s princes were present with Balaam at these events, or [it may be] that they were riding ahead of him and there was a [considerable] distance between them and him [so that they did not notice any of these events]. The most likely [interpretation, however] is that they were together with him, because they did not become separated from him, and they saw the ass turning aside and Balaam smiting her, but thought that she was merely behaving as bad animals do, because they did not hear her speak; and they certainly [did not hear] the words of the angel, who was [visible only] to the opened eyes⁹⁷Further, 24:4. of Balaam. But our Rabbis have said⁹⁸Bamidbar Rabbah 20:12. that the princes of Moab were astonished, because they saw a miracle the like of which had never occurred in the world. And they [also] said⁹⁸Bamidbar Rabbah 20:12. that as soon as the ass had finished speaking; she died, in order that the nations should not say [about her]: “This is [the ass] that spoke,” and should not make her [an object of] idol-worship. Moreover, the Holy One, blessed be He, was concerned [even] about the honor of the wicked, [and therefore killed the ass so that] people should not say: “This is [the ass] that caused Balaam’s downfall.” All this is possible, [but is] in accordance with a tradition, for Scripture [itself] does not speak about her dying at all, as I have explained.

גם אותך הרגתי, the word גם here is used in the same sense as in Exodus 12,32 וברכתם גם אותי, “also bestow a blessing upon me!” [be on your way and bless me, i.e. the word גם is not a continuation of something conceptually identical with what preceded it. Ed.]

Not only would you have been restrained… Meaning: Not only would I have restrained you from going, but I would also have killed you. The meaning of קראתך is “would have befallen you.”

... All this was intended to teach Bil'am that Hashem does not prevent a person from committing a sin, but rather He brings chastisement to the ears [of a person who attempts to sin] and He makes a remedy available to such a person. If Bil'am is obstinate despite all this and hardens his heart, Hashem takes no responsibility for him.

ואותה החייתי, “but I would have let her live,” as she acted under duress, as opposed to you. There is a difference between the words: לפני, and מפני. as in Deuteronomy 7,22: The latter means “out of your sight; ונשל הגוים האלה מפניך, “He will fling out these nations before you (so that you will no longer see them;)” or Deuteronomy 9,4: “He will dispossess them so that you will no longer see them.)

Because she spoke and admonished you, and you were unable to withstand… Rashi is answering the question: It is written אולי נטתה וגו' ["had she not turned aside…"] meaning that “if she had not turned aside before me as [she did] now, I would surely have killed you, and she I would let live.” This implies that now that she had turned aside, he would not let her live. But why was this so? On the contrary, now he should have had more reason to let her live since she had turned aside before him; so why would he kill her? Rashi answers that he killed her “because she spoke…” He explains the word הרגתי [lit. "I killed you"] as meaning “I would have killed you” and consequently החייתי [lit. "I let her live"] also means “I would have let her live.” We learn from here that he killed her.

גם אותך הרגתי “but I would have killed you also;” according to Rashi, this is a truncated phrase, and we have to translate it as if the word גם had been written before the word הרגתי so that the meaning is: “not only would I have impeded the ass’ progress, but I would even have also killed you in order to prevent your progress any further.” Now that the phrase has been truncated, taking into consideration that your own ass has already remonstrated with you, I have only “killed” the ass but have let you live. An alternate interpretation: If I had interpreted this verse strictly in accordance with how it appears here, I would have placed you on the same level as your ass, and the meaning of the phrase would have been: “I also would have killed your two loyal servants.”