Comentário sobre Números 22:45

מעבר לירדן יריחו, meaning opposite the Jordan river and Jericho which was on the other bank of the river, i.e. it as neither south of nor north of Jericho. The formulation of מעבר לירדן is justified as it is perceived from the vantage point of those who had in the meantime (before they would read this) crossed the river, so that the river Jordan was on the far side of Jericho from their point of view.

Kap. 22. V. 1. ירדן ירחו ,לירדן ירחו ist der Jericho gegenüber fließende Jordan. So auch לירדנה דיריחא :ת׳׳א.

ויסעו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel resumed journeying;” after the victory of the men over Og and his army they brought their wives and children to encamp on the east bank of the Jordan river in the region between the rivers Arnon and Yabok.

וירא בלק ... את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמרי AND BALAK … SAW ALL THAT ISRAEL HAD DONE TO THE AMORITES — He said to his people: Those two kings (Sihon and Og) on whom we relied (see Rashi on Numbers 21:23) could not resist them; how much less can we do so; on this account (because he said this to his people) ויגר מואב MOAB (the whole people) WAS SORE AFRAID (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 2).

וירא בלק, a man who was famous as well schooled in all the martial arts. We find proof of this in Judges 11,25:הטוב טוב אתה מבלק בן צפור מלך מואב?, “do you imagine yourself to be superior to Balak son of Tzippor? Balak, in spite of his expertise, “saw” what had happened to Sichon who had refused to let the Israelites pass and had paid for this error with the loss of his life and his kingdom.

וירא בלק בן צפור...ויגר מואב, Balak son of Tzippor saw- ..and Moav was afraid, etc. Why does the Torah describe only Balak as "seeing," whereas his countrymen are only described as being afraid of the Israelites? Secondly, why was only Moav afraid and not Midian? After all, Midian had much more reason to be afraid seeing that their horoscope told them they would be lost whereas there was nothing in the horoscope of the Moabites which foretold them disaster at this time?

וירא בלק בן צפור וגו'....ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד כי רב הוא, “Balak son of Tzippor saw, etc…..and Moav was scared on account of The Jewish people because it was very numerous.” Moav was numerically very insignificant among the nations at that time in that region. The reason lay in their relative recent emergence as a nation, not like the Canaanites who dated back practically to 100 years after the deluge. The Israelites far outnumbered the Moabites at that time. The Moabites were well aware that the Israelites had no designs on their country as they had been specifically instructed by the Jewish G’d not to harass the Moabites, and not to provoke a military confrontation with them. They were also aware that even where the Israelites had engaged in war, they had not done so except when their request to pass peacefully through a foreign country had been rebuffed and been met with aggression by the ruler of that country. They merely dreaded the ecological damage the Israelites would leave behind in their wake if they were to be allowed to traverse the land of Moav. This is why they explained the nature of their concern when they sent emissaries to the elders of Midian to whom they explained graphically what their land would look like after the Israelites had trampled all the agricultural areas of their land. They were afraid that if the Israelites caused huge ecological damage to their economy they would wind up as totally dependent economically on the Israelites, almost as their slaves.

He said “Those two kings…” Rashi is answering the question: Was he the [only one] who saw but others did not see? Rather, he took it to heart and therefore the Torah associates the sighting with him. Alternatively, Rashi is answering a [different] question: The Torah should have stated, “And he heard,” given that presumably he did not partake in the war. Rather, “And he saw” is an expression of comprehension, and what was it that he comprehended? “He said…”

V. 2. וירא כלק בן צפור (siehe zu V. 4). — לאמורי: den von Sichon und Og beherrschten Völkerschaften, auch Ogs Gebiet gehörte zu Emori (siehe Dewarim 3, 8).

וירא בלק....לאמורי, “Balak had taken note of all that Israel had done to the Emorite” (foremost Canaanite tribe). The reference is, of course, to Israel having defeated Sichon and his army totally. Balak now reasoned that if that was what they had done to mighty Sichon, they would do the same to him and the Moabites. Therefore, he preferred to have the assistance of someone who was known to have good relations with the supernatural powers.

וירא בלק, “Balak saw,” (realised) Balak heard, as in Exodus 20,15: וכל העם רואים את הקולות, “and the whole nation saw the thunder.”

Certainly we cannot. Rashi is answering the question: How was, “And Moav became terrified” (v. 3) a result of, “And Balak saw…”? For the verse implies that it was because of him seeing that Moav became terrified. Rashi answers: “Those two kings…” referring to Sichon and Og. He means to say that once the general populace heard that the king had said this, as a result “Moav became terrified.” Re’m writes: This is puzzling, because if the word ויגר ["became terrified"] refers to the verse above, what is the meaning of “because of their great numbers” which is written immediately afterwards (v. 3)? For this implies that it was because of their numbers that they were fearful, rather than because of what they did to the two Emorite kings. One cannot answer that there is a vav missing from כי רב הוא ["because of their great numbers"] and it as if it had stated וכי רב הוא ["and because of their great numbers"], which would mean that it was also because of their great numbers; for if so, Rashi should have explained this phrase like he explained “Because Hashem took Yisroel out of Egypt…” (Shemos 18:1). The answer appears to be that the Moavites also knew that Bnei Yisroel were victorious over the two kings, however they thought that the victory had been by natural means. Thus, since their victory in war was only because of their great population, it would be possible to be victorious over them with a greater population, by engaging all the kings of Canaan against them. However, now they had heard from their king that Yisroel’s victory in war was by unnatural means, since they killed the Emorites without standing against them [to cause any casualties]. Consequently, “Moav became terrified of the people because of their great numbers,” meaning that they still had great numbers as before and had not lost a man. This was why they detested their lives. Accordingly Rashi’s explanation is as follows: “These two kings…” meaning that 'we were certain that these two kings would kill at least as many Israelites as the Israelites had killed of them, and then we would come with all the Canaanite kings to kill those Israelites who remained. However now that none of them have been killed, because no man raised his hand against them due to the fear of Yisroel that fell over them, all the more so we will not be able to [overcome them], even with [the help of] all the Canaanite kings.'

We have to remember that according to Bamidbar Rabbah 20,4 Balak used to be one of the princes of Midian, but the Moabites had appointed him as their king out of fear from the Israelites. When the Torah writes that "Balak saw," it reveals that the former prince of Midian who had seen what the Israelites had done a short while previously to the mighty king Sichon of the Emorites was just as much afraid of the Israelites as the Moabites. There was no need for the Torah to spell this out as everybody had taken note of the defeat of the mighty king Sichon. Subsequently, the Torah mentions that even Moav was afraid of Israel. The fact that both Moav and Midian feared Israel brought them closer together and they made peace with one another as is evident from the proposal made by the elders of Moav to the elders of Midian. Our sages also say in that same Midrash that the proof that the Moabites and the Midianites were warring is the verse המכה את מדין בשדה מואב, (Genesis 36,35). There was always hatred between these two peoples. The Midrash describes their relationship as like that of two dogs which always fight each other until threatened by a wolf. The reason that the Moabites humbled themselves and appointed someone from Midian as king over them instead of vice versa was that the Moabites needed the counsel of the Midianites amongst whom Moses had lived for many years.

Another peculiarity in our verse is the use of the word "saw" instead of "heard" for Balak's reaction. What had Balak seen? While it is true that the Mechilta had stated that there are occasions when the Torah uses the word "saw" instead of "heard," such as in Exodus 20,15: "the whole people saw the sounds, etc.," this certainly does not apply here. In fact, we have been told in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 41 that the people at the time of the revelation actually saw the sounds with their eyes, [the soundwaves, I presume, Ed,]. Furthermore, why did the Torah find it necessary to tell us who Balak's father was, i.e. צפור? Why did the Torah use two expressions denoting something additional but indeterminate, i.e. את and כל? Why does the Torah describe two distinct reactions by the Moabites, "they were afraid," and "they detested?" Why are the Israelites referred to as "Israel" and simply as "the people," and then again as "the children of Israel?"

We can understand all this in light of the Zohar on our verse where Balak is described as a greater sorcerer than Bileam. He employed a certain bird, צפור to perform his sorcery with. When the Torah mentions that Balak "saw," it means that whatever he "saw" he saw by means of that bird. His biological father may not have been someone by the name of צפור, at all; his reliance on the magic he could perform with the help of that bird, caused the Torah to describe him as a "son of צפור." He was able to use such a צפור in his pursuit of magic. This צפור had informed him about all that Israel had done to the Emorite. He did not depend on outside sources of information.

It is even possible that he used the צפור as an oracle which foretold him things to come. The extraneous word כל may indicate how Balak came by his knowledge, whereas the word את may be an allusion to the visions he had of the future of what would happen to another nation., i.e. that it too would suffer a fate similar to that of the Emorite at the hands of the people of Israel. The nation which Israel would uproot at that time was Midian. The word את may be a reference to the people of Midian who were next on the list of nations whom the Israelites would destroy. It is possible that Balak "saw" that the Moabites were safe against any attack by the Israelites; he was quite right in this as G'd had forbidden the Israelites to even put pressure on Moav. Balak's magic foretold not only disaster but also pleasant news. The Moabites had to place heavy reliance on the person of Balak who alone was able to "see" by means of his צפור. The Torah alludes to all this as an introduction to why Balak and the Moabites turned to Bileam and the sins committed by Israel as a result of Bileam's visit. The "vision" Balak saw was only one factor as I shall explain later. When the Torah adds ויגר מואב, this is not something which was caused by what Balak had "heard" or "seen," but refers to another event which followed and inspired fear in the heart of the Moabites.

The Torah was careful to describe Moav's reaction as being due to מפני העם, "on account of the people," seeing the people were numerous and tough. The Torah mentions specifically that the people were numerous and by inference that the reason the Moabites detested them was because of their toughness, i.e. that they were בני ישראל, a people with access to a supernatural ally, their G'd in heaven. Had the Jewish people only outnumbered them they could have countered this by hiring armies from surrounding countries to fight together with them against the Israelites. All these factors combined to account for their calling a truce in their fight against the Midianites and appointing the Midianite Balak as their king. They sent for Bileam as a result of which 24.000 Israelites died without the Moabites having to raise a finger.

If even a single one of the causes we have mentioned had not been present, they never would have engaged Bileam and nothing would have happened. If Balak, for instance, had not foreseen with his bird what fate was in store for himself and Midian, the Moabites would never have been willing to make peace with their natural enemies, the Midianites. The idea of sending to Midian for a prophet to curse Israel would not even have been entertained. They most certainly would not have been prepared to let their women sleep with the Israelites. After all, the Midianites had not felt confident about facing Israel in war, only the Moabites were confident because they knew that whatever Israel was going to do to them was in the far distant future (24,14). [You will note that the Moabites did not fear for their lives from verse 4. Ed.] This is why the Moabites could have remained confident about any military encounter with Israel at this time. The Moabites were quite confident about sending their women into the camp of the Israelites, as opposed to the Midianites who allowed only a single woman, Kosbi bat Tzur, to entice the Israelites into immoral behaviour. In fact we have it on the authority of Midrash Hagadol on 25,15 that this Kosbi was a daughter of Balak himself who was also called Tzur. If the Moabites had not been afraid of העם because of their numbers or had detested them because they had divine support they never would have made peace with Midian and accepted a Midianite prince to be king over them. To make all these points clear, the Torah informed us first about Balak seeing, Moav being afraid, and the Moabites detesting Israel. The combined reactions of the Moabites and the Midianite Balak led to the desperate decision to invite a Midianite prophet to curse the Israelites.

ויגר is an expression signifying fear, as in (Job. 19:29): “Be ye afraid (גורו‎)" .

AND MOAB WAS SORE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE. The meaning of this is [that Moab stood in great fear] because they [the Israelites] were many,¹The Hebrew text reads: ki rav hu. This can be interpreted as “although they were many,” in which case the reference would be to the Moabites, [the word ki meaning “although”]. The meaning of the verse would thus be: “And Moab was sore afraid of the Israelites although they [the Moabites] were many, Ramban, wishing to exclude this interpretation, for the reason cited in the text, explains that the word ki here means “because”; hence the pronoun hu — “they” [they were many] refers to the Israelites. for Moab was small among the nations;²See Obadiah 1:2. and it was not an ancient people, like the Canaanites, the Amorites and other [nations of the] sons of Noah. Therefore they [the Moabites] were greatly afraid of the people who outnumbered them exceedingly, for they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and waxed³Exodus 1:7. greater than the Moabites. And they were furthermore overcome with dread because of the children of Israel,⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. for they had heard of the great wonders that had happened to them and their fathers. Now Moab knew that Israel would not take their land from them, since they had sent to them [offering peace]⁵Judges 11:17: And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab … just as they had sent to Sihon, [asking permission only to pass through their land], saying, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us.⁶Deuteronomy 2:29. Or it is also possible that they had heard of G-d’s prohibition, when He said to the Israelites, Be not at enmity with Moab.⁷Ibid., Verse 9. Therefore they said to the elders of Midian: “Even though the Israelites will not capture our land, they will lick up because of their great numbers all that is round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field,⁸Verse 4 here. and they will capture all [the lands] that surround us, just as they did to the two Amorite kings, and they will make us servants to do taskwork.”⁹Joshua 16:10.

ויגר מואב, the leaders of Moav who had not allowed the Israelites to traverse their territory as reported in Judges 11,17 were now afraid,

ויקץ מואב, the expression describes someone becoming fed up with life, similar to when Rivkah had said that she would become fed up with her life if Yaakov were to marry a Canaanite girl as had Esau his brother (Genesis 27,46)

They detested their lives. Meaning that the Moavites detested their [own] lives. It is as if it had said “Moav detested their lives.” The reason for this was their fear of Bnei Yisroel. Rashi’s proof is because it is written מפני העם ["because of the people"].

V. 3. ויגר מואב. Es war im vorigen Verse Balak nur ganz individuell und nicht als König von Moab bezeichnet, es kann daher hier Moab nicht als eine Umschreibung für Balak den König sein, sondern ויגר מואב ist Fortsetzung dessen, was Balak wahrgenommen hatte. Er hatte Sichon und Ogs Niederlage gesehen und auch gesehen, welche Wirkung diese Ereignisse auf Moab gehabt. Diese Wirkung war ויגר מואב und ויגר ,ויקץ מואב: es fasste sie eine solche Angst, dass sie völlig haltlos wurden, den Boden unter ihren Füßen verloren (siehe Bereschit 37, 1-2), wie es treffend im מ ר ausgedrückt ist, sie sahen sich schon als גרים im eigenen Lande an, das Land gehörte ihnen schon nicht mehr, sie sahen es schon in Israels Händen, und diese Angst ergriff sie: מפני העם כי רב הוא vor Israel als einem Volke, das sich so übermächtig erwiesen. רב ist keineswegs nur zahlreich, es ist auch Ausdruck der Macht. קרית מלך רב (Ps. 48, 3) וישלח להם מושיע ורב והצילם (Jes.19, 20 und sonst). Und in der Tat, sie hatten Grund dazu. War doch Sichon, das Moab niedergeworfen hatte, selbst Israel erlegen! ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל (siehe zu Schmot 1, 12), und es ging ihnen eine Ahnung davon auf, dass in diesem Volke, diesen בני ישראל, diesen "Israeliten", ein Moment wirksam sein müsse, dem gegenüber alles andere, was Macht und Größe bedeutet, seine Bedeutung verlor. קוץ, der höchste Grad der Verachtung, sie bekamen Ekel, es ward ihnen alles, was sie bei sich sahen, verächtlich, ja widerwärtig מפני בני ישראל vor dem Dasein der Söhne Israels.

ויגר מואב, “Moav was afraid;” when the Moabites saw that the Israelites after having conquered the land of Sichon, part of which the latter had conquered from Moav, had not restored that part to them, the original owners, they suspected the Israelites of having designs on their land also. Moreover, they realised that seeing that the Israelites had overcome Sichon, who had previously overcome them, they would have no problem overcoming the remaining part of Moav. They did not realise that legally speaking, the lands formerly belonging to Moav had been acquired by the Israelites legally, as they had conquered it from a nation that had made war on them although not provoked. (Compare Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 60)

ויקץ מואב means they (Moab) were sick of their lives (the expression is similar to קצתי בחיי in Genesis 27:46, being an abbreviated form of it).

כי רב הוא, for the Israelites were numerically superior to them, not because they felt inferior in military tactics.

ויגר מואב,”Moav was afraid (of the Israelites) but not the Bney Ammon, as Rashi has explained on Deuteronomy 2,9, where the Israelites were told by G-d not to harass the Moabites.

ויקץ מואב, “the man in the street” considered their lives as not worth living because of the impending invasion by the Israelites.

אל זקני מדין AND MOAB SAID] TO THE ELDERS OF MIDIAN But did not these (Moab and Midian) always hate one another, just as is stated, (Genesis 36:35) “who had smitten Midian in the country of Moab”, from which it is evident that Midian had come against Moab in war? But out of fear of Israel they now made peace between themselves (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3; cf. Sanhedrin 105a). And what induced Moab to take counsel of Midian? When they saw that Israel was victorious in a supernatural manner they said: the leader of these people grew up in Midian; let us ask them what is his chief characteristic. They replied to them; “His power lies only in his mouth (in prayer)”. Whereupon they said: “Then we must come against them with a man whose power lies in his mouth” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).

THE ELDERS OF MIDIAN. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “it is possible that the five kings of Midian¹⁰Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. were the elders.” But if so, [the expression] and the elders of Moab and ‘the elders of Midian’ departed [further on in Verse 7] does not refer to the [same] “elders of Midian” mentioned at the beginning [here in Verse 4: And Moab said unto ‘the elders of Midian’] since kings would not have gone to him [Balaam on such a mission] and [“the elders” mentioned in Verse 7 must perforce have been] princes, as is [expressly] written,¹¹Further, Verse 8: and ‘the princes’ of Moab abode with Balaam. [but not “kings”]. Furthermore, according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹²Tanchuma, Balak 7. who said [that the reason why Moab turned for assistance to Midian, their traditional enemy, was because they said]: “The leader of these people [the Israelites] grew up in Midian; [let us ask them about his characteristics]” — it would have been fitting for the Moabites to send [the delegation] to the elders of Midian, not to the kings or the people, for it was the elders who would know Moses’ nature.
It appears to me that originally there were kings in Midian, but Sihon the king of the Amorites had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto the Arnon.¹³Above, 21:26. He [also] fought against the children of Ammon and took [part] of their land, just as the Ammonite king said to Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt,¹⁴Judges 11:13. and Jephthah replied to him that they had taken it from Sihon.¹⁵Ibid., Verses 15-23. In [the Book of] Joshua it is [also] written, And their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer;¹⁶Joshua 13:25. and Sihon furthermore fought against the kings of Midian and conquered their land, and made them his servants bringing tribute¹⁷II Samuel 8:6. and took the crowns off their heads, depriving them of the splendor of royalty, and he allowed them to remain as judges of the land of Midian under his authority. Therefore [although as Ibn Ezra says, they were indeed once kings of Midian], they are called ‘the elders’ of Midian, similar in expression to [she shall go up] to the gate unto ‘the elders’¹⁸Deuteronomy 25:7. [which means “the judges”]. A proof for this [that the kings of Midian were appointed judges — “elders” — by Sihon] is the verse in [the Book of] Joshua: and all the kingdoms of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the chiefs of Midian, Eri, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, ‘the princes of Sihon,’ that dwelt in the land,¹⁹Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian had now become the princes of Sihon. thus indicating that [the land of Midian arid its chiefs were] under the suzerainty of Sihon. The meaning then, of [the phrase] and the kings of Midian²⁰Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian. is “the former kings of Midian,” just as it says: the chiefs of Midian … the princes of Sihon.¹⁹Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian had now become the princes of Sihon. Similarly it says [of Zur, one of the five people mentioned as a king of Midian],¹⁰Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. he was the head of the people of ‘a fathers’ house in Midian,’²¹Ibid., 25:15. but he was no longer king. Or it may be that the reason [for the use of the phrase] the kings of Midian²⁰Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian. is that they had regained their royal status at that time.
But I do not know a reason for that which Scripture says, and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time,⁸Verse 4 here. when it could have said [concisely] at the beginning, And Balak the son of Zippor, “king of Moab,” saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.²²Verse 2. Perhaps Balak was a mightly man of valor, very famous for the acts of his power and of his might,²³Esther 12:2. and therefore Scripture mentioned that although Moab had a powerful king at that time, who was courageous among the mighty,²⁴Amos 2:16. they nonetheless were afraid and were overcome with dread because of the children of Israel.⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. That is why Jephthah said [to the king of Ammon], And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab?,²⁵Judges 11:25. for one does not frighten a king except by [mentioning the defeat of another] king who was greatly feared.
It is possible that since Moab [at that time] did not have a king, the people stood in great fear because of the children of Israel,⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. therefore they did two things: they sent to the elders of Midian saying, ‘Now will this people lick up etc.,’⁴Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. and they appointed this man [Balak] as their king on the advice of Midian, and afterwards they all sent [a deputation] to Balaam at the command of the king. This is the meaning of [the expression] at that time [and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab ‘at that time’],⁸Verse 4 here. namely [at the time that] they took counsel about the problem of Israel, and sent the messengers to Balaam. The meaning, then, of And Balak saw,²²Verse 2. is that he [Balak] who was one of the princes of Moab, and a mighty man of valor, took action in this matter and said to Moab, “Come, let us deal wisely²⁶Exodus 1:10. with [this] people,” and they thereupon appointed him king on the advice of Midian. In the Midrash Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah I have seen [the following text, corroborating the above interpretation]:²⁷Bamidbar Rabbah 20:4. “And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.⁸Verse 4 here. But was he not originally [merely] ‘a prince,’ as it is said, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba [the princes of Sihon]?²⁸Joshua 13:21. And since, as the Midrash explains, Zur is a synonym for Balak, we see that Balak was merely “a prince” and not “a king”! But [we must say] that when Sihon was killed, at that time they appointed him king over them, the exigencies of the moment causing his [appointment as king, although he was not of the royal family].”

עתה, now that the Israelites had conquered both Sichon and Og and their respective countries.

ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, "the multitude will lick up all that is around us, etc." Perhaps the Moabites did not want to reveal to the elders of Midian the extent of their fear of the Israelites and that is why they described the presence of the Israelites in that part of the world as an ecological disaster. They spoke of "our environment" (pl) to include the Midianites as potential victims of such a disaster. The words ובלק בן צפור are what the Torah reports not part of what the Moabites told the Midianites. It is even possible that these words were also spoken by the Moabite messengers to the elders of the Midianites; they wanted to emphasise to the Midianites that inasmuch as they had appointed one of the Midianite princes as their king, the Midianites had a special interest in cooperating with them. Should anything happen to them, this would reflect negatively on Midian because of their king's origin. The Torah emphasises that Balak was king בעת ההיא, "at that time," i.e. not earlier and not subsequently. Once Bileam told the Moabites that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites in the foreseeable future, they dismissed Balak from his position and sent him home. The best proof of that is the fact that when the Torah enumerates the princes who were slain in the punitive expedition the Israelites launched after Pinchas' famous deed (Numbers 31,8), Tzur was amongst the princes listed as having been killed.

ילחכו, all the existing crops and any other available foodstuffs.

זקני מדין, “the elders of Midian.” Quoting Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that these elders were the five kings of the Midianites, who because of heir advanced ages, are here described as זקנים, elders. If that is so, then the emissaries described in verse six, who included זקני מדין cannot have been the same זקנים mentioned in verse four. Surely, the five kings of Midian did not accompany the far less illustrious emissaries that Balak had sent to Bileam, emissaries, who by their own admission, were not of the highest levels of Moabite diplomats. According to our sages, who claim that the present head of state of the Moabites was of Midianite descent, it seems quite natural that Balak should send emissaries to his homeland in the first instance to investigate if he can forge an anti Israelite alliance with them. He would send the emissaries to the elders, not to the kings, as the elders were the ones who, due to their experience, were able to furnish good advice. It seems likely, that originally the Midianites had been ruled over by kings, and the same Sichon who had made war against Moav and confiscated a major part of their land, had also conducted a similar campaign against Midian, had defeated them and deposed them, and had instead appointed regional heads with far less political power than that wielded by kings. These are now referred to as זקנים, a title similar to that we read about in Judges 20,16 אל השערה meaning: “to the elders, who congregate near the gate of the town.” When we read in Numbers 31,8 ואת מלכי מדין, “and the kings of Midian,” the reference is to the men who had at one time been kings, but had been demoted by Sichon. The description of these people as ראש בית אב במדין is a clear indication that these people occupied subordinate positions, subordinate to the powers of kings.

ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.” The sudden consultation between two peoples whom we know as enemies of one another (Genesis 36,35) is remarkable. Fear of the Israelites drove these two people into each other’s arms. When two dogs which were fighting one another perceive themselves as being threatened by a wolf, they suddenly start to cooperate. Here too the survival instinct drove Midian and Moav to bury their hatchets. Why did the Moabites choose the Midianites to consult with? [There were other nations in the region. Ed.]. They had realized that Moses’ success was due to supernatural forces. Having learned that the leader of the Israelites, Moses, had spent many decades in Midian they wanted to find out more about his personality and abilities. The Midianites explained to their Moabite neighbors that Moses’ power was not of a military nature but lay only in his mouth. Thereupon the Moabites (Balak) decided to fight Moses by means of someone (Bileam) whose power was also in his mouth (Tanchuma Balak 3). They were under the impression that Moses was simply a superior astrologer.

But were they not ancient [enemies] … as it is said “who attacked…” For if it were not so, let it write הכה את מדין ["who attacked Midian"] which would imply once, however המכה את מדין implies that they were continually attacking them.

V. 4. ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין und diese Gesinnung hatte sich bereits betätigt: Moab, das Volk mit Umgehung seines Königs, hatte zu den Ältesten des midjanitischen Volkes, also ebenfalls nicht an dessen Könige, deren sie fünf hatten (Bamidbar 31, 8), geschickt und hatte ihnen seine Befürchtungen mitgeteilt. Da Sichon und Og, die gewaltigsten Könige der Zeit, Israel gegenüber völlig ohnmächtig sich erwiesen hatten, hatte die Königsmacht als Verteidigerin der Selbständigkeit ihres Volkes einen ernsten Stoß in dem Vertrauen der Völker erhalten, und von Volk zu Volk, mit Umgehung der Könige, ergingen die Mitteilungen und die Einladungen zum gemeinschaftlichen Rate und Handeln. Die Botschaft aber lautete: לחך .עתה ילחכו וגו׳ heißt: lecken, auflecken, Wasser oder Staub mit der Zunge auflecken: ילחכו עפר כנחש (Micha 7, 17), המים אשר בתעלה לחכה bildlich vom Feuer (Kön. I. 18, 38). Nun fasst in der Tat der Ochse das Gras zuerst mit der Zunge, die es umschlingt und abrupft. Man kann also ganz eigentlich sagen: der Ochse leckt das Gras auf und לחך ist hier der treffendste Ausdruck. Der Sinn der Botschaft aber war: so natürlich und mühelos wie der Ochse mit der bloßen Zunge das Gras sich zur Nahrung nimmt, so natürlich und mühelos werden wir alle diesem קהל zur Beute werden. Sie nennen Israel absichtlich nicht עם und nicht גוי, es erscheint ihnen ja noch nicht als ein staatlich gebautes Volk, es fehlt ihm ja noch der Boden, nach gewöhnlicher Anschauung die unerlässliche Vorbedingung jedes volkstümlichen Wesens. Gleichwohl war es ihnen קהל, ein durch ein ihnen unbekanntes Moment vereinigtes Gemeinwesen. את כל סביבתנו, nicht nur uns, denen es jetzt gegenüber lagert, und die wir zunächst bedroht sind, sondern auch alle unsere Nachbargebiete. Warum sie gerade nach Midjan diese Botschaft gesandt, die ihnen doch ferner lagen, und nicht nach Edom, jenen nächsten Nachbarn, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Vielleicht eben weil Midjan Ägypten und insbesondere der Wüste, diesem langjährigen Aufenthalte Israels, näher lag und sie daher bei Midjan eine nähere Bekanntschaft mit dem ihnen rätselhaften Volke voraussetzen und um so eher entsprechenden Rat erwarten konnten. Nach מ׳׳ר, weil sie von Mosche Vergangenheit in Midjan wussten und daher dort von seiner Eigentümlichkeit Näheres erfahren zu können hofften.

ועתה ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, “and now this horde of people and livestock will lick up every blade of grass in our vicinity.” They were not worried about their lives, apparently knowing that G–d had forbidden the Israelites to make war upon them, but they faced economic ruin nonetheless. (They must have known about what G–d had said in Deuteronomy 2,9 about not harassing Moav.)

To the elders of Midian. Targum Yonason states: This teaches us that the agreement between the five princes of Midian with Moav was that each of them would take a turn ruling as king over Moav for a set amount of time. When his time came to rule, he and his household would come to Moav until the next one's turn came. From the verse we see that while Balak was in Midian and his time had not yet arrived, he saw the calamity that was about to befall Moav but he was unable to take action in Moav. He could only cause that Moav would speak to the elders of Midian. However, when his time came to rule over Moav, he was free to do whatever he pleased.

ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין, “Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.;” They were their neighbours and they were contractually allied to them. We know this from Genesis 36,35: where Midian is referred to as having made common cause with Moav. Combined, they had defeated Haddad ben B’dad.

כלחך השור AS THE OX LICKETH — they used this comparison because whatever piece of ground the ox licks has no blessing left in it (cf. Shabbat 140b, 141a; Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).

ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, they wanted their leaders to enlarge the area under their control in order to make their borders more secure.

ובלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא, “and Balak son of Tzippor was the king of Moav at this time.” Nachmanides writes that actually the paragraph should have commenced with referring to Balak as the King of Moav as soon as we are told of his name, describing his reaction to what had happened to Sichon and Og and their peoples. Nachmanides speculates that possibly, Balak had been known as a great warrior in his own right, and the Torah wishes to tell us that although the Moabites had a king who was such a warrior he was so afraid of the Israelites. This would also explain part of Yiphtach’s letter to the King of Moav some 300 years later in Judges 11,25 in which he asked that king sarcastically: “do you consider yourself superior to Balak? Did he start a quarrel with Israel or go to war with them?” He was afraid that he could not frighten the King of the Moabites except with a King of great renown, and Yiphtach himself was not even a crowned head of the Jewish people, so that the Moabites saw this as a sign of weakness of the Israelites It is possible that at this time Moav had not been ruled over by a king at all, and that they were terrified by the approaching Israelites. In such a desperate situation they did two things. 1) They appointed a king over themselves, 2) they sent to Midian trying to create a united front of these two peoples against the Israelites. Having come to an agreement with the Midianites, they sent a joint delegation to Bileam to ask him to curse the Jewish people. This would be the reason why the Torah spoke of בעת ההיא, “at that time,” as we would have known without these words that the Torah described current events, not history, in this paragraph. The meaning of the opening lines of our portion then would be: “Balak, a renowned warrior, one of the high ranking dignitaries in Moav, realised that the Israelites had succeeded in frightening his countrymen, and he used this opportunity to persuade them to appoint him as their king. One of the first actions he took was to forge an alliance with Midian, etc.” The Midianites had advised the people of Moav to appoint Balak as their king. According to the Midrash, the Moabites had had a king all along. He had held the rank of “prince,” but after the defeat of Sichon he had been promoted to the position of “King,” and the authority that this entailed. Balak’s promotion was not of a hereditary nature but was dictated by pressing external circumstances.

Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian. Meaning that though they had made peace between themselves due to their fear [of Yisroel], nonetheless the peace was only so that they would no longer be enemies. However, why did they see fit to accept advice? Rashi answers… [Why did Moav see fit to accept advice from Midian.] Since the verse associated the request for advice with Moav, and it is not written, “The elders of Moav and the elders of Midian said,” one sees that Moav accepted advice from Midian. Consequently Rashi questions “why they saw fit…” [Initially] Rashi had no difficulty with the verse, since one could say that Midian was not afraid of Bnei Yisroel, and only Moav was afraid. However now that he explains that because of their fear of Yisroel they made peace between themselves, we see that both of them were afraid. Thus there is the difficulty as to why Moav saw fit to accept advice from Midian, and why Midian did not accept advice from Moav in order to save themselves. Rashi answers, “When they saw…,” meaning that the Midianites knew [the nature of] the leader of Yisroel, meaning Moshe, because he had been raised in Midian. Therefore, Moav accepted advice from Midian.

וכלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא Moabs König, König von Moab heißt entschieden: מלך מואב, nie aber מלך למואב .מלך למואב bedeutet daher die Königsstellung, die jemand für Moab hat oder haben soll, und בלק בן צפור מלך למואב וגו׳ heißt: Balak hatte den Beruf und die Stellung als König für Moab, in dem Zusammenhange mit dem Vorangehenden ובלק וגו׳: und Balak, Sohn Zippors, war doch König für Moab in dieser Zeit! An ihn hätte das moabitische Volk sich zuerst mit seinen Befürchtungen wenden sollen, für eine solche Zeit war ja vor allem der König König! Indem aber die Angst des Volkes ihn völlig als König ignorierte und er in solcher Zeit nichts als Balak, Sohn Zippors war, wie er V. 2 genannt wird, und nicht als Moabs König, מלך מואב, sich sah, darin erkannte er die ganze Gefährlichkeit der Lage und das motivierte sein ganzes folgendes Verfahren. Israels bloße Gegenwart und die wunderbaren Siege, die ihm vorangingen, hatten bereits einen solchen Zauber über sein Volk geübt, dass es alles Vertrauen in gewöhnliche Völker- und Herrschermacht verloren hatte und von seines Königs Heereskunst nichts gegen Israel erwartete. Dieser Zauber oder die Vorstellung von ihm in den Gemütern des Volkes — gleichviel, ob Balak selbst den Glauben an Zaubermacht teilte oder, wie es scheint (V. 7), selbst eingeweiht war in die Täuschungsgeheimnisse der Kunst, — musste erst durch eine höhere oder gleiche geheimnisvolle Macht gebrochen sein, ehe er es wagen konnte, ja ehe es ihm auch nur gelingen würde, sein Volk zum Kampfe gegen Israel hinauszuführen.

כלחוך השור, “just like oxen lick up;” oxen are known not to have teeth in the upper parts of their gums, so that instead of chewing the grass they rub it in their mouths, unlike horses or donkeys. As a result also the roots of the grass are destroyed and will not grow again.

עתה ילחכו, “now they will lick up, etc.” after the Israelites had defeated Sichon and surrounding areas, they were afraid it would be their turn next.

בעת ההוא [BALAK WAS KING OF MOAB] AT THAT TIME — at that time: he was not really entitled to the kingdom; he was actually one of the Midianite princes, but when Sihon died they (the Moabites) appointed him as king over them to meet the needs of the time (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

ובלק בן צפור, who was known as a hero and a military expert.

כלחון השור, “like the ox licks up, etc.;” the ox licks the grass with its tongue, which acts like a comb as it has no upper dentures, like all the beasts that are pure and allowed to be slaughtered by the Israelites.

מלך למואב בעת ההיא, in spite of these factors which should have encouraged the Moabites they did not have the heart to fight the Israelites as is clear from Judges 11,25. As to the remarks by Joshua that Balak son of Tzippor arose and fought Israel (Joshua 24,9), Joshua said this in reference to Balak hiring Bileam to curse the people of Israel as he himself pointed out in the same verse.

Whatever an ox [laps up] is no longer marked by blessing. Because it uproots everything by its roots, similarly with them, they completely uproot everything as it is written, “Leaving no survivors” (Bamidbar 21:35). For if not so, it should have said, “As the animal laps up.”

One of the chieftains. Meaning: “Officers.” The text of Re’m reads: “He was one of the chieftains of Sichon” see there. However one does not have to emend our texts because of this, since Scripture mentions him in connection with both of them, as it is written (Yehoshua 13:21) “the leaders of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Tzor, Chor and Reva, chieftains of Sichon.” [Midrash Rabbah (20:24) identifies Tzor as Balak.]

פתורה HE SENT TO BALAAM פתורה because he was like a money changer before whom everyone lays coins; similarly all the kings used to send him their letters, asking for his advice. However, according to the literal sense of the text, this was the name of the place (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

THE LAND OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS PEOPLE — “[the people] of Balak, for he [Balak] came from there [i.e., from Pethor which is by the river], and this man [Balaam] had prophesied and told him, ‘You are destined to be king.’” This is Rashi’s language, taken from an Agadic explanation.²⁹Tanchuma, Balak 20. But the plain meaning of Scripture is [that the land of the children of ‘his people’ is a reference to] Balaam’s people’s land [and not Balak’s], for there he [Balaam] was born and there was his family background. The reason for [Scripture] mentioning this is [to indicate] that he [Balaam] was a diviner, from the land where all the people were diviners, similar to that which is written, for they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines.³⁰Isaiah 2:6.

וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם, He sent messengers to Bileam, etc. The Torah, or rather Balak, specified the name of Bileam's father and his place of residence in order to expedite the mission. He did not want to leave any doubt as to which Bileam he had in mind; similarly, he stated the location where Bileam was to be found so that his messengers would not lose valuable time tracking down the right person. In the event that there was another place called פתורה, he added that the one he had in mind was situated on a great river,אשר על הנהר. He added further that the land in question was his homeland, ארץ בני עמו, a place where everybody knew who Bileam was and that in the event he was not presently at home, surely the people could tell his messengers where Bileam could be found at this time.

ארץ בני עמו, the people Balak himself belonged to, not Moav.

ארץ בני עמו, “the land of his compatriots.” According to Rashi who holds that Balak was of Midianite descent, the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Balak’s people, i.e. the Midianites. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Bileam, informing us that Balak had been born in the same land as Bileam. The point of the Torah providing this detail was that Balak was a sorcerer, coming from a land full of sorcerers, a land in which Bileam was the High Priest of all the sorcerers. (Compare Isaiah 2,6 where the prophet denigrates the Jewish people for having forsaken their tradition in favour of relying on sorcery etc, something which was the domain of the ancient backward nations)

Like the money changer. Since פתורה ["to Pesor"] has the meaning of שלחן ["table," in Aramaic. The term for a money changer (שולחני) is derived from the table at which he conducts his business].

V. 5. וישלח מלאכים, er sendet daher in die uralte Heimat des gefürchteten Wundervolkes, nach Aram, in die Euphratgegend hin, wo die Wiege der Urväter dieses Volkes gestanden, in das Land des Morgens (Kap. 23, 7), wohin auch aus des Urvaters Haus wieder Sprößlinge versetzt worden waren (Bereschit 25, 6; siehe daselbst), wo daher mit heidnischem Unwesen und Zauberwahn (Jes. 2, 6) gemischt sich auch reinere monotheistische Gedanken erhalten hatten, so dass dort selbst noch ein Hiob und seine Freunde (Hiob 1, 3) ihre Heimat gehabt haben konnten, dorthin, wohin er auch selbst nach Abstammung gehörte, schickte er zu Bileam, um diesen Völkerseher zu sich zu laden.

ארץ בני עמו, “the land of his people,” the people of Bileam.

Behold. The emissaries belittled Bnei Yisroel in the eyes of Bil'am so he would not fear suffering the same fate as Pharaoh; they did not mention Bnei Yisroel by name. Likewise, they belittled the miracles that occurred when they came out of Egypt by saying they “came out of Egypt, as if they came out on their own without a strong hand. In addition, so that Bil'am would not console them that Hashem instructed Bnei Yisroel to pass by Moav and not harm them, the emissaries told him that they are located across from me, permanently.

ארץ בני עמו THE LAND OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS PEOPLE — of Balak's people, for he came from there, and this man (Balaam) had prophesied saying to him, “You are destined to be king”. — And if you ask: Why did the Holy One blessed be He, let his Shechina rest upon so wicked a heathen, I reply that in order that the heathen peoples should have no excuse to say, “If we had prophets, we would have changed for the better”, He raised up prophets for them. Yet they (these prophets) broke down the moral fence of the world, because at first they (the heathens) were fenced in against (they refrained from) immoral living, but this man (Balaam) counselled them to freely offer themselves to prostitution (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 1; cf. Rashi on Numbers 24:14).

Dispatched their correspondence to him. To take advice from him.

לקרא לו, to call him. Balak was astute enough to tell Bileam immediately that what he wanted was something that would be of benefit to Bileam, i.e. לו. He, Balak, wanted to give Bileam a chance to earn a fat fee. He assumed that this would be sufficient incentive to persuade Bileam to come at once.

הנה עם וגו׳ הנה כסה וגו׳. Das wiederholte הנה zeigt, dass mit עם יצא ממצרים ein selbständiger Gedanke zur Erwägung gestellt ist. Dass עם יצא ממצרים, dass eine in Mizrajims Macht und Volkstum politisch und sozial untergegangene Menschenmasse aus Mizrajim als sozialeinheitliches Volk zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit hinausziehen konnte, kennzeichnet dieses Volk als ein Unikum, auf dessen bewirkende Ursache dein Sinn gerichtet sein möge, wenn du der Erreichung meines Zweckes dienen willst! — הנה כסה את עין הארץ (vergl. Schmot 10, 5). Da das folgende והוא ישב ממלי notwendig eine räumliche und somit auch eine Zahlbeschränkung einschließt, so kann das כסה את עין הארץ nicht wohl eine seine Anzahl vergegenwärtigende Hyperbel sein sollen. Vielmehr dürfte es seine bereits bewiesene Machtgröße und somit das veranschaulichen sollen, was von ihm noch in der Zukunft zu erwarten steht. Es hat schon das Auge der Erde bedeckt, d. h. soweit unser Gedankenblick reicht, hat es sich bereits aller uns nahe liegenden Länder bemächtigt. Wohin wir unsere Augen richten, sehen wir nicht mehr die alten Staaten, sondern es: יושב ,והוא יושב ממלי ist keine drohende Stellung. Es dürfte daher wohl sagen sollen: es ist zweifelhaft, ob es mich angreifen wird, allein seine Nähe beängstigt mich, ist mir zuwider, und ich habe jetzt, wenn es mir gelänge, die beste Gelegenheit, im Interesse des Allgemeinen ihm entgegenzutreten.

לקרא לו TO CALL HIM — the call was for him, for his benefit; for he (Balak) fixed for him (agreed to pay him) a large sum.

This was the name of the place. Thus the meaning of פתורה is “to Pesor” like לפתור. For any word that should have a lamed at the beginning [Scripture often] places a hei at the end. According to the Midrashic interpretation the hei was part of the word, given that the translation of “table” is פתורה.

הנה עם יצא ממצרים, Here there is a people who have come out of Egypt, etc. Why did Balak say הנה "here?" Why did he say that the people "left" Egypt? The whole world knew that the only people who had ever left Egypt were the Israelites. Bileam would certainly have been aware of this. Why did Balak say הנה כסה את עין הארץ, instead of the customary ויכס את עין הארץ?

עם יצא ממצרים [THERE IS] A PEOPLE COME OUT FROM EGYPT — and if you ask: What harm does that do you?

Prophesied… “You are destined to be a king.” Meaning that Bil’am prophesied about Balak, for though he was one of the chieftains of Midian, the land of his birth was Pesor.

We may understand this in light of Shemot Rabbah 1,9 that when the Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites and who wanted to "outsmart" the Israelites was on the throne he had three advisors one of whom was Bileam. At that time Bileam had invoked a magic formula which was designed to permanently prevent slaves from escaping from Egypt. Balak now informed Bileam that his magic had been invalidated, that a whole nation of slaves had fled from Egypt. [this was forty years earlier and at least 126 years after Bileam had invoked this magic. Ed.] By saying הנה, Balak suggested that Bileam owed him something seeing it was Bileam's magic the Israelites had managed to invalidate. Perhaps Bileam had previously assured Balak that the Israelites would never leave Egypt. Balak continued with: הנה כסה את עין הארץ to challenge Bileam whose advice had been based on reducing the numbers of the Israelites. By contrast, Balak pointed out, "look at them now!" They cover as much land as the eye can see. Instead of their males having been killed, their fighting men now number so many one cannot even see all of them.

הנה כסה את עין הארץ BEHOLD THEY COVER THE FACE OF THE EARTH — Sihon and Og who used to protect us stood up against them, but they slew them (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

Should you ask, why did the Holy One Blessed is He visit His Divine Presence… [One might ask why] Rashi did not wait to ask this question in its place (Bamidbar 24:2) “the spirit of Hashem was upon him”? The answer is that further on there is no difficulty, because perhaps it was in honor of Yisroel that the Divine Presence rested upon him, in order that he would bless them. However here there is a valid question.

והוא ישב ממולי, "and it resides across from me." Balak meant that Israel's general behaviour indicated it meant to disinherit the Moabites. According to Bamidbar Rabbah 20,7 it was the posture of the Israelites which frightened Balak. They appeared to be vctorious as soon as the opened their mouths. Balak mentioned all this in order to counter Bileam's expected response that he could curse them from his residence without bothering himself to travel all the way to Moav. Balak was also afraid that Bileam would become aware by means of his sorcery that the Israelites actually had no intention to harm or destroy the territory of Moav and that as a result of such knowledge he would refuse to come to him but simply reassure him that this people would not harm him. This is why he prefaced his invitation by describing how the people were spread out all over the area around Moav and that one could not rely on what Bileam's magic would tell him about that nation's intentions. The fact is that according to Bileam's magic sources, this people should never have left Egypt, nor should they have increased in numbers. This was reason enough for Bileam to come personally and convince himself of the true state of affairs.

והוא ישב ממלי AND THEY ARE STATIONED OPPOSITE ME — ממלי is written deficient in the ו (the full form is ממולי, so that it may be connected with מול “to cut off”) — they are near enough to cut me off. The word is the same as in (Psalms 118:10): “that I shall cut them off (אמילם)” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

For his benefit. Since it is written לקרא ["to call"] why is it necessary to say לו ["to him"]? Surely afterwards it is written (v.6) “please come…” meaning that he should go with the messengers. Rather [“to him” must come] for us to expound [that the invitation was for his benefit]. Furthermore, one can say that since his intention was to [have Bil'am] curse [Yisroel], why did Balak call him to come to him? Why not have Bil'am curse them from where he was? Rather it is certain that the calling was for his benefit, and to make a money arrangement. With this we can answer the question of Re’m who writes: I do not know from where Rashi expounds this, for there is apparent superfluous wording here as [there is] in פסל לך ["carve for yourself"] (Shemos 34:1), עשה לך ["make for yourself"] (Bamidbar 10:2) or שלח לך ["send for yourself"] (Bamidbar 13:2). But לו ["to him"] is necessary here for it is in place of אותו ["him"] as in קראן לו ויאכל לחם ["call to him and let him eat bread"] (Shemos 2:20), where the word לו is in place of אותו.

You may ask: Why is this harmful to you. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write הנה ["behold"] twice? For הנה always implies an independent matter. With this comment Rashi answers the reason for the repetition, for now this is the beginning of an independent statement and the word הנה is required.

Sichon and Og. (Kitzur Mizrochi) Rashi is answering the question: How could he say “they have covered the face of the earth”? Surely the [breadth] of the Israelite camp was only twelve mil? Therefore, he explains that they killed Sichon and Og whom they were relying upon. Thus the meaning of עין [translated as "face" but literally meaning "eye"] is the same as “you will be our eyes” (Bamidbar 10:31).

This is written incompletely. Meaning that ממולי in the full spelling would mean “across from me,” however since it is written incompletely (ממלי) it is in the sense of “cutting down.”

נכה בו (this may mean, “we may smite them”) I and my people may smite them. — Another explanation is that this is a Mishnaic Hebrew expression as in (Bava Metzia 105b) “he deducts (מנכה) for him something from the price”, so that it means: [perhaps I may be able] to reduce them a little in numbers (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4).

THAT WE MAY SMITE THEM — the meaning [of the plural “we,” although it is only Balaam who is speaking], is “I and Midian my ally.”³¹This is unlike Rashi, who explains the plural “we” as meaning “I and my people.”

אולי אוכל, after you have cursed them.

ועתה לכה נא, "and now please come, etc." Balak used the word ועתה, "and now," to indicate that he did not want Bileam to delay before he would come as he felt himself in danger every moment. He pleaded by using the word נא, "please," adding that Bileam should curse this people לי, "for me." By this he meant that the effectiveness of Bileam's curse should not be delayed until after the Israelites had a chance to revenge themselves on him and Moav for having called in Bileam to curse them. By using the word לי, Balak also hinted that although -according to the Midrash- Bileam had already blessed Balak personally so that he had no reason to fear the Israelites himself, he wanted the Israelites cursed and was not content with being blessed. In the event Bileam were to say that there was no need for this, Balak added כי עצום הוא ממני, "for it is more mighty than I." Balak had two things in mind when he said these words. 1) Israel's natural strength; 2) the matter of the blessing. He felt that Israel had received more powerful blessings than he had received from Bileam. When he went on אולי נכה בו, "perhaps we can smite it," he meant that even after Bileam would do all that he requested him to do he would still not feel confident to take on the Israelites by himself. At best, he might be able to inflict a defeat on them, certainly not to wipe them out. He might also have drawn a line between the righteous Israelites and the average ones. Of the former he expressed the hope that he could expel them from the region, ואגרשנו מן הארץ, whereas concerning the less pious Israelites he entertained hopes of defeating them, נכה בו.

את אשר תבורך, by means of prophetic inspiration. Balak also knew that Bileam was a prophet and practiced foretelling future events by resorting to such tools of his trade as קסמים, charms of different sorts. This is the reason why in Joshua 13,22 Bileam is described as a קוסם, a sorcerer, someone working with charms. Up until now Balak had thought that his prayers and sacrifices would be enough to ward off the danger he thought the Jewish people posed for him and his country.

ארה לי, “curse for me, etc.” In using the superfluous pronoun “לי,” Balak trapped himself as in the end Bileam cursed him. [Predicted the annihilation of the people of Moav. Ed.]

My people and I. Rashi is answering the question: אולי אוכל [lit. "perhaps I will be able"] is in the singular form, while נכה [lit. "we will strike"] is in the plural form.

V. 6. ארה לי וגו׳ .ועתה לכה נא, vernichte den inneren Lebenskeim dieses Volkes, treffe es vernichtend in seinem Innern (siehe Bereschit 12, 3). כי עצום הוא ממני, denn es lediglich durch meine äußere Macht zu besiegen, dazu bin ich zu schwach. נַכֶה könnte Infinitiv vom פיעל sein, wie, נֻכו נֻכָתָה (Schmot 9, 31 u. 32) vom פועל. Allein regelmäßig müsste es dann נַכֶה heißen. נַכֶה ist vielmehr Futur הפעיל, und heißt es daher wohl: vielleicht werde ich es dann vermögen, das wir, ich und mein Volk (Raschi), oder dass wir, ich und du, נכה בו. Einen Feind im Kriege schlagen, besiegen, wird nur mit dem Akkusativ konstruiert, נכה ב־ ,נכה אותו heißt wohl nur, ihm einen Schlag versetzen, ihm eine Niederlage beibringen, ואגרשנו מן הארץ, nicht, dass es durch uns vernichtet, sondern nur in andere Gegenden hin vertrieben werde. Selbst mit Bileams Beihilfe wagt Balak nicht, von einer gänzlichen Vernichtung zu sprechen.

וארגשנו מן הארץ, “so that I will be able to expel them from the land.” He did not mean to exterminate them but merely to chase them away from land which was his. According to Rashi, he referred specifically to that part of Moav which Sichon had many years earlier conquered from Moav.

אולי אוכל נכה בו, “perhaps I can inflict a defeat on it;” the plural mode in the word נכה i.e. “we will inflict a defeat,” is not as surprising as it appears at first glance. We find a parallel in Song of Songs: 1,4: משכני אחריך נרוצה, “draw me after you, let us run.”An alternate interpretation: “Let us inflict a defeat on it, you and me by engaging it in war; “I will wage war, and you will do the cursing.” The use of the word הכאה, “striking” in the sense of cursing is also not unique, as we find it in Jeremiah 18,18: לכו ונכנו בלשון, “come and let us strike him with the tongue.

כי ידעתי וגו׳ FOR I KNOW etc., through the war of Sihon against Moab, because you assisted him to smite Moab (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 4; cf. Rashi on 21:27).

נכה בו, I militarily and you by means of curses.

To diminish them a little. Meaning that this was what the Moavites were saying about Yisroel, that they would diminish them a little (Accordingly נכה is the infinitive and it means "[I will be able] to diminish"). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that one had to ‘emend’ the text to read “my people and I.” Thus Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation, there is the difficulty that it should have said נכה ממנו [lit. "to diminish from him"] like the language of the Mishnah מנכה מן הדמים [lit. "reduce from the price"]. Thus the first reason is also necessary.

There is also a moral/ethical message in Balak's words. His words boomeranged upon himself. When he said ארה לי, "curse for me," this turned out to be "curse me." Had he not used these words his daughter Kosbi would not have been killed by Pinchas. Bileam's coming to Moav and failing to curse the Israelites also became the reason that Balak was forced to return to Midian and be killed by the sword during the punitive expedition involving 12.000 Israelites as described in 31,8. If Bileam had not travelled all the way to Moav and assured these people that they were safe from the Israelites until the distant future, Balak would have remained on the throne in Moav, secure from all the wars the Israelites would be involved in. As it was, he became the personification of Psalms 37,15: "their swords shall pierce their own hearts."

כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מבורך, “for I know that the ones whom you bless will be blessed.” Bileam (one of the people speaking in parables) had prophesied earlier that Moav would become a victim of Sichon, as we know from Numbers 21,27)

ואגרשנו מן הארץ, “so that I may drive them out of the land.” Balak is referring to the land that Sichon had taken from Moav during the rule of Moav’s first king.

אשר תברך מבורך, actually Bileam’s power did not consist in blessing but in cursing people by mentioning their failings at a critical moment in G’d’s timetable, as elaborated on by our sages in B’rachot 7. This is why Balak did not demand a blessing from Bileam to make him victorious in war, or at least to be blessed so that he could fight the Israelites to a standstill. But when he nonetheless added the words ידעתי את אשר תברך מבורך, he did so only as a way of flattering Bileam.

כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך, "for I know that if you bless someone, etc." We may understand this as a reference to another statement in the Midrash we quoted earlier that Bileam had foretold Balak that he would become a king. Balak acknowledged that Bileam's blessing had indeed come true for him. This was something only he was aware of as he had experienced it personally. On the other hand, it was common knowledge that Bileam's curse was effective for when Sichon went to war against Moav he had hired Bileam to curse Moav (compare Tanchuma on this paragraph). As a result, Sichon had captured large parts of Moav. [land which the Israelites had now captured from Sichon. Ed.] We have to mention here that the reason Bileam's curses had seemed effective to people who hired him was 1) he possessed the power of the evil eye; 2) he knew when to exploit the precise moment when G'd was angry and he chose that moment to utter his curse. (compare Berachot 7). He did not have parallel powers to make his blessings effective for any length of time.

As a matter of fact, a blessing by Bileam was about as effective as a blessing by a donkey. Bileam merely pretended to bless after he had observed that the horoscope of the person in question fore-shadowed that he would be successful. All Bileam did was to match his blessing to what he foresaw in that person's horoscope. When the blessing appeared to have been fulfilled, Bileam claimed credit for it as if he had been the cause and not horoscopic forces. This was precisely how he came to bless Balak and predicted that he would become king. He had consulted Balak's horoscope and found that it foretold that Balak would become a king. He had deceived Balak by letting him believe that he, Bileam, had been the cause of his becoming king.

וקסמים בידם AND DIVINATIONS WERE IN THEIR HANDS — all kinds of divination, in order that he should not say, “I have not got my tools with me”. — Another explanation is: this omen (קסם) the elders of Midyan took with them: — they said, “If he comes with us this time, there is something substantial in him, but if he puts us off there is no use of him”. — Consequently when he told them, “Stay here tonight”, they said, There is no hope in him”; they left him and went away, as it is said, (v. 8) And the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam”, but the princes of Midyan went away (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 5).

וקסמים בידם, the instruments by means of which to perform sorcery.. Bileam’s specific expertise in such sorcery was to calculate precisely when certain constellations would be favourable to what he planned to achieve. He is described as a sorcerer when his death his reported in Joshua 13,22.

וקסמים בידו, they brought along charms of their own to forestall Bileam saying that he did not have any of these charms handy. We read in Ezekiel 21, 27-28: “in his right hand the קסם, sorcery, indicated Jerusalem, to appoint commanders to urge on to murder. But it was for them as a vain divination, קסם שוא, etc.”

וקסמים בידו, “with charms in their hands.” According to the interpretation of Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid, the delegation brought with them the money to defray the cost of these charms they expected Bileam to employ, [as they themselves could hardly tell Bileam which kind of charms to employ. Ed.]

וקסמים בידם, “with charms in their hands.” This proves that Bileam was a magician employing charms. The emissaries brought along charms so that Bileam would not be able to stall them by saying that he did not have any charms available at that time. An alternative explanation [seeing it is most unlikely that a man whose trade depends on charms should not have the tools of his trade available. Ed.]: They brought money to pay Bileam for using his own charms on their behalf. (Compare both Rashi, for the former view and Ibn Ezra quoting Rabbi Shmuel Hanaggid for the latter view).

All types of magic charms … another interpretation [the elders of Midian took up] this mystical omen. Meaning that they took up this sign. The other interpretation is necessary, because according to the first reason there was the difficulty as to why he would need any tools for this. Furthermore he was at home and the tools of his work were certainly with him. Therefore Rashi brought the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that קסמים is in the plural form [and means "omens"]. Furthermore, it should have said they went with this “sign” or with this “matter” in their hands. Also the term “in their hands” is not appropriate [form of language] for a sign. Therefore the first reason is also necessary. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did they use this omen? What is the reasoning behind the omen that if he did not come with them on the first occasion then he was useless? It appears to me that they applied their wisdom and chose an opportune moment, according to the mystical omens and the stars, to come to Bil’am in order [to ask him] to come with them. For there is an [opportune] time when the requester can elicit his request from the person being asked. Therefore, they said, “If he does not come with us at this time, it is useless” for if our request does not help at a time which is better according to the omens, all the more so [that it will not work] at another time.

V. 7. זקני מואב וזקני מדין. Balak wählte zu seinen Gesandten nicht königliche, dem Volke fernstehende Diener vom höchsten Range, sondern, dem Zwecke seiner Sendung gemäß, solche Herren, die dem Volke nahe waren und dessen Vertrauen besaßen, die es als seine זקנים, als seine Ratgeber verehrte. Es musste ihm ja daran liegen, dass der ganze Vorgang die möglichste Publizität im Volke erlange. זקני מדין, mit denen das Volk sich bereits in Beratung gesetzt (V. 4.) schlossen sich der Gesandtschaft an.

וילכו זקני מואב, “The elders of Moav went forth, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 105, tells us that there never had been peaceful relations between Moav and Midian before, but now that both felt threatened, they became like dogs when afraid of wolves that threaten them, and they acted in unison.

וקסמים בידם, “with tools of divination in their hands.” The “tools” were books of instruction on that subject, as explained by Rashi. This is also how the Jerusalem Targum understands this phrase. We find a parallel of this when even in our time, sorcerers utter curses by sticking needles into dolls symbolising the party to be cursed. An alternate interpretation: Balak’s emissaries took financial rewards with them to pay Bileam for the use of these instruments used in sorcery. Compare Targum Yonatan on Nachum 3,17, according to Rabbi Chavell.

But the elders of Midian departed. Because they knew that he was useless. This was why Rashi above mentioned that the elders of Midian took this mystical omen in their hands, for [we see that] the elders of Moav remained with Bil’am.

וקסמים בידם. Wir haben bereits Bereschit 11, 6 den wahrscheinlichen Zusammenhang von קסם und גזם bemerkt, wonach קסם eine über das Natürliche und Mögliche hinausgehende Einwirkung bedeutete. In dem Worte selbst läge dann zugleich das Vorgebliche. Es ist eben גוזמא. In bei weitem den meisten Stellen, in welchen קסם vorkommt, hat es nicht die Bewirkung eines Erfolges, sondern die Kunde des Zukünftigen, insbesondere die Entscheidung über das Unternehmen oder Nichtunternehmen eines Vorhabens zur Absicht. So zu Ezech. 21, 26 etc. Die קסמים hier sollen also noch nicht die Bewirkung des Fluches vermitteln. Ohnehin hätte sie dann Bileam nicht in Aram, sondern in Moab gebraucht. Sondern es wurde wohl vorausgesetzt, dass er ihrer bedurfte, um sich überhaupt für oder wider das Unternehmen zu entscheiden. Auffallend ist nur, dass die Boten die Zaubermittel mitnehmen. Sie gingen ja zu einem קוסם (Josua 13, 22) und durften ja voraussetzen, dass der das nötige Zeug zum Handwerk besitze. Vielleicht gehörte es mit zum Handwerk, dass derjenige, in dessen Interesse eine Orakelentscheidung erzielt werden sollte, etwas von dem Seinigen dazu herzugeben hatte.

וקסמים בידם, “and they had brought instruments .of divination with them.” They brought money with them to pay Bileam for employing divinations with which to curse the Israelites. This is the way the Jerusalem Talmud translated our verse. An alternate interpretation is that seeing that Balak himself was no novice in that art, he sent along samples of what he used when practicing divination.

לינו פה הלילה LODGE HERE THIS NIGHT — The Holy Spirit rested upon him only at night time, and similarly in the case of all the prophets of the heathen peoples, and similarly He revealed Himself to Laban in a dream at night, as it is said, (Genesis 31:24) “And God came to Laban in a dream of the night” — as a man who comes to his concubine furtively (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 1 13; Rashi on Job 12:4).

כאשר ידבר ה' אלי, for I am preparing myself to receive a prophetic message.

לינו פה, "stay here overnight." Bileam may have meant that the messengers stay overnight in his own home, and that is what he meant by the word פה, "here." He concluded by saying that he would tell them what G'd was going to say, כאשר ידבר, not what G'd had said. He hinted that by staying overnight at his home he could inform them immediately G'd would give him instructions. When he emphasised הלילה, "this night," he might have inadvertently revealed his miserly nature as he was not willing to play host to them for more than one night.

לינו פה הלילה, “stay here overnight!” Bileam’s great arrogance made him view Balak’s emissaries as people not deserving especial consideration; this is why his invitation was of the grossest variety. Instead of inviting them graciously as he did the second set of emissaries to whom he said: שבו נא בזה, “please stay here,” he said: “spent the night here.” There is no mention of food, making them comfortable, etc. The word שבו by contrast implies a longer stay such as in Deut.1,15 “they stayed in Kadesh, וישבו, for many years.” Also, the word נא, used by Bileam to the second set of emissaries indicates that he urged them to stay, pleaded with them.

Perhaps it is beneath His dignity to allow me to go… You might ask: Perhaps, the meaning is like the plain understanding [that perhaps] Hashem would not want him to go with them? Similarly when it is written shortly (v. 13) “[Hashem refuses to allow me] to go with you” and Rashi explains “but with higher ranking officials,” there is also a difficulty as to what is Rashi’s source. The answer is that since it is written “Balak persisted and sent dignitaries in greater number and of higher rank than these” (v. 15) this implies that he said that it was not dignified for him to go with the first ones. [Alternatively] If “according to what Hashem tells me” means whether he commands me to curse them or not, why did the elders of Midian have depart once he said that he would do the will of Hashem? Rather it means “if He allows me go with lowly people such as you.” Consequently, the Midianites saw that there was certainly no solution here, given that he was so haughty, and as a result they departed. There is a difficulty [according to the first explanation] that Rashi should have said this there (v. 13) rather than here. It appears that Rashi inferred this from the term כאשר “according to” because it should have said אשר ידבר ["what He tells"] meaning that I will relate to you what he says. However, since it states כאשר ידבר ["according to what he tells"] it implies that Bil’am was like one who has dispute with someone and says “this will decide it, according to what He says about this matter [I shall do] whether [He says] to go or not.” Accordingly, there is a difficulty as to how one might think that he would not want go, for surely he despised Yisroel. Rather, [the question] was whether he would go with people like you. R. Yaakov Triosh.

V. 8. ויאמר וגו׳ כאשר ידבר ד׳ אלי. Wie schon zu Abrahams Zeit mitten in einer polytheistischen Welt es noch einen Malki Zedek gab, der Priester des höchsten Gottes war, welcher den Abrahamiden wieder der Einzige ward, wie Hiob und seine Freunde durchaus als reine Verehrer dieses Einzigen erscheinen, so sehen wir auch Bileam nur im Dienste dieses Einzigen sich begreifen und nennen. Bildet doch überhaupt die monotheistische Wahrheit im Gegensatz zum polytheistischen Wahn nicht das Eigentliche, geschweige das Ganze des Charakteristischen des Judentums. Vielmehr ist dies die monotheistische Wahrheit mit ihrer vollen Konsequenz fürs menschliche Leben: die Gotteinheit mit der Lebenseinheit durch Sein Gesetz. Weit ab aber selbst von einem Malki Zedek, weit ab von einem Hiob und seinen Genossen erscheint Bileams monotheistische geistige Höhe sittlich getrübt. Seine hohe, Gott nahe geistige Begabung steht im Dienste seiner Selbstsucht und stellt sich in den Dienst der irdischen Hoheiten und Mächte und ihrer niedrigsten Begehren. Willst du den Unterschied sehen zwischen den Propheten Israels und den Männern prophetischen Geistes der Völker, spricht der Weisen Wort, so vergleiche einen Bileam mit einem Jesaias, einem Jeremias, einem Ezechiel und deren Genossen. Israels Propheten warnen als Gotteswächter die Völker vor Versündigungen, Bileam rät zu sittlicher Verführung, um Menschen ins Verderben zu locken (Kap. 25). Israels Prophetengeist stand im Dienste des Erbarmens über Israel und die Völker, Jesaias Eingeweide zittern wie eine Harfe um Moabs Weh (16, 11), Ezechiel erhebt Klagelied bei Trus Fall (Kap. 27), und Bileam — möchte mit seinem Fluch ein ganzes Volk schuldlos verderben. Du kannst ganz eigentlich sagen, dies ganze Bileamskapitel habe den Zweck, das Motiv zu veranschaulichen, weshalb Gott mit dem Erguss seines heiligen Geistes bei den Völkern aufgehört. Bileam war von ihnen und siehe, wozu er seine Geistesgaben missbraucht (Tanchuma). — וישבו שרי מואב. Die Midjaniten scheinen fortgegangen zu sein. Weil er von Midjan nichts zu erwarten hatte, dürften sie vielleicht bei Bileam nicht mit derselben Rücksicht behandelt worden sein, wie die זקני מואב, in denen er die eigentlichen Gesandten Balaks erblickte und sie daher wie שרי מואב behandelte.

וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, “the emissaries of Moav spent the night with Bileam.” This raises the question of why the elders of Midian did not remain there also? When they heard that Bileam was going to consult with the G–d of the Israelites about how to conduct himself, they reasoned that a father (G–d as Israel’s father-figure) will not display hatred for his son, so what possible answer could Bileam expect from him asking permission to curse G–d’s son? They therefore left.

וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, “the emissaries of Moav stayed overnight with Bileam. They did so as they did not know anyone in Midian who would offer them hospitality. On the other hand, the dignitaries of Midian who had been accompanying them, had where to spend the night, as they were well known there.

כאשר ידבר ה' אלי [AND I WILL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER] AS THE LORD SHALL SPEAK TO ME — If He advises me to go with people such as you I will go with you; but perhaps it is not compatible with His dignity to permit me to go except with princes greater than you.

וישבו — this is an expression for “remaining”, (they remained with Balaam).

מי האנשים האלה עמך WHO ARE THESE MEN WITH THEE? — By putting this question He intended to delude him. And indeed he (Balaam) thereupon said: “It seems, then, that there are times when everything is not manifest to Him; His knowledge is not always alike. I will select a time when I can curse and when He will not observe it” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 5).

?מי האנשים האלה עמך, who are these people with you on account of whom you went to the trouble to receive prophetic messages in order to know what to do for them?Have they really come to you to inquire about matters which will occur in the future and you want to know about the future in order to give them guidance? Or, have they stayed with you to enlist your help to pronounce curses over someone and you are now asking My permission to fulfill their request?

מי חאנשים האלה עמך, "who are these men with you?" Why did G'd bother to ask him? Didn't He know who these men were and why they had come? Also, why did G'd have to say עמך, "with you?" It would have been enough to say האלה "these." We also have to understand Bileam's peculiar reply. To the question who these men are he replies who has sent them. Our sages in Yalkut Shimoni item 765 have noted this oddity and wrote as follows: "Bileam said to G'd: 'I do not know who these people are but Balak the son of Tzippor has sent them to me, etc.'" The Yalkut means that from the way Bileam phrased his answer G'd was supposed to conclude that he was unaware of who precisely these messengers were. He certainly did not say outright: "I do not kow, etc." Why did Bileam have to add that Balak was the king of Moav? Was it not enough that he told G'd the name of the man? I believe that we can best understand G'd's question after remembering what I have written about the words "stay here overnight," that Bileam invited these messengers to sleep with him in the same room. G'd wanted to know what was so special about these people whom Bileam had invited to be present when he expected to be addressed by an angel of G'd. After all, G'd implied, this room is the one you have reserved for when I communicate with you. The word האלה implies that these people are not deserving of such an honour, much as the words מי אנכי, "who am I" in Exodus 3,11 suggest that Moses did not consider himself worthy of the task G'd wanted to entrust to him. From G'd's question it is evident that He was concerned with the honour due to Bileam vis-a-vis the Gentile nations amongst whom he was rated as a prophet. We find a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 20,14 that G'd killed the she-ass Bileam was riding on as she was belittling him. When we look at the next verse (10) we see that Bileam understood what G'd meant and that is why he said that Balak the king of Moav had sent these men, i.e. they deserve to be honoured as they came on an errand from the king. He gave Balak's full name to indicate that Balak had already been an important prince in Midian even before his elevation to become king over Moav.

ויבא אלו-הים אל בלעם, “G’d came to Bileam, etc.” The only reason that Bileam was granted a divine vision at this point was in honour of the Israelites. This situation was similar to G’d revealing Himself in a nocturnal vision to Lavan to prevent him from harming Yaakov (Genesis 34,24). Something similar occurred in Genesis 20,3 where G’d revealed Himself to Avimelech, King of the Philistines, for the sake of Avraham.

He gave him the opportunity for error. See above in Parshas Bereishis (Bereishis 3:9) where Rashi explains, “So as to enter into conversation with him.” Whereas here he explains that He gave him the opportunity for error. Re’m writes, “He gave him the opportunity for error…” Meaning: He entered into conversation with him so that he would not be startled. And why was this? To give him the opportunity for error. Here Rashi explains why he entered into conversation with him but there he does not explain the reason.

V. 9. ויבא אלקי אל־ .ויבא אלקי אל בלעם kommt nur noch bei Abimelech (Bereschit 20, 3) und Laban (daselbst 31, 24) vor, denen beiden eine Mitteilung von Gott unerwartet und von einem Vorhaben zurückhaltend kommt. Auch hier ist es durchaus nicht notwendig, dass Bileam diese Gottesanrede erwartet oder auch nur erbeten habe. Das כאשר ידבר ד׳ אלי des vorigen Verses erscheint ganz nur als eine Phrase in Bileams Mund. Wenigstens haben Balaks Boten und insbesondere auch Balak das מאן ד׳ וגו׳ in Bileams Mund als nichts anderes bedeutend aufgefasst, als: ich will nicht mit euch gehen, mein Ehrgeiz und mein Interesse lässt es noch nicht zu. Sie gehörten sicherlich zu den Wissenden und Täuschenden und nicht zu den Getäuschten und Unwissenden, sie wussten, was die Berufung auf Götterwillen im Munde der im Interesse der Herrscher ihre Kunst übenden Mantik bedeute und dass das מאן ד׳ im Munde eines Bileam gleichbedeutend sei mit מאן בלעם. Geradezu entscheidend aber hierfür scheint uns die fragende Anrede: מי האנשים האלה עמך zu sein. Wenn Bileam in der Tat hätte auf eine höhere Entscheidung rekurrieren wollen, wenn er sich eine solche von Gott erbeten hätte, die Frage: מי האנשים וגו׳ hätte gar nicht mehr stattfinden können, sie kündigt sich vollständig als eine Bileam selbst ganz unerwartete göttliche Intervention an. Womit er bis jetzt sein Lebelang gespielt und was er seinen Zeitgenossen vorgespiegelt, ward ihm hier mit einemmale unerwartet und, wie es scheint, ebenso unerwünscht zur Wahrheit.

By mentioning that Balak was king over Moav he wanted to remind G'd that the Moabites were not one of the nations which would be given to the Israelites to conquer. He was very astute in hinting at this as he wanted G'd's consent to accept the assignment and he did not want G'd to put any obstacle in his way.

בלק בן צפור וגו׳ BALAK THE SON OF ZIPPOR [KING OF MOAB, HAS SENT TO ME] — Although I am of no importance in Your eyes, I am of importance in the eyes of kings (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 5).

I am distinguished in the eyes of kings. For if not so, why was it necessary to say “the King of Moav”?

בלק בן צפור, “Balak, son of Tzippor, etc.” He was one of three people mentioned in the Bible as not having answered G–d appropriately. The other two were Kayin and King Chizkiyah. When G–d had asked Kayin where his brother Hevel was (after Kayin had murdered and buried him Genesis 4,9) he answered: “am I my brother’s keeper?) He should have answered G–d that seeing G–d is omniscient He was well aware where Hevel was. Similarly, when G–d asked Bileam who the men were that had come to visit him that evening, he too should have answered that he was well aware that G–d knew full well who they were. When the prophet Isaiah, in Kings II 20,14 asked King Chizkiyah who his visitors were and what they had requested from him, he said only that they had come from Babylon. When Isaiah persisted in knowing why they had come, and what they had seen in his palace? He replied that he had shown them all the treasures in his palace. Isaiah then told him that as a result of the King’s foolishness, the time would come when the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and take with them all the treasures the king had so foolishly shown them. I am troubled by the fact that the Talmud refers only to these three people, omitting Adam, who when asked by G–d where he was hiding, did not say that he knew that G–d must be well aware of where he was, but pretended that he had thought that he could hide from Him. If he was smart enough to have given all the animals appropriate names, he must have known that their Creator would know where each one was at any given time. We would say that Chizkiyah should be removed from that list and Adam should be substituted, Actually, of the four we have mentioned only three spoke to G–d directly, namely Adam. Chizkiyah had been spoken to by the prophet, and prophets do not know everything.

קבה לי CURSE FOR ME — this is worse than ארה לי, (the expression which Balak had actually used, v. 6), for in the case of this verb it means that one mentions and pronounces in full [the name of God] when cursing (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 24:16) (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 5).

הנה העם היוצא ממצרים, "Here are the people who have come out of Egypt, etc." Why did Bileam not repeat to G'd Balak's message to him verbatim? Balak had spoken about עם, "a people," whereas Bileam speaks about העם, "the people." Balak had described the Israelites' impact on the surrounding areas with the words: הנה כסה את עין הארץ, whereas Bileam changed the words הנה כסה to ויכס. Balak had asked Bileam to curse the people using the expression ארה, whereas Bileam tells G'd that Balak had said קבה. Whereas Balak had said אולי נכה בו, "perhaps we can smite it," Bileam changes Balak's words to read אולי אוכל להלחם בו, "perhaps I will be able to make war against them." We can explain all these changes Bileam made with the help of Bamidbar Rabbah 20,9 that Bileam made the mistake of believing that there are things which are concealed from G'd. He arrived at this conclusion because G'd asked him who these people were. Although we have already explained G'd's question in a different manner, there are 70 ways to interpret the written Torah. As soon as Bileam had been deceived into thinking that G'd' did not know everything, he felt at liberty to meddle with the exact wording of Balak's request. On the one hand, Bileam had always hated the Israelites, on the other hand he knew full well -as did every other nation- that this people was beloved by G'd. The Exodus and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian army had been proof enough of that. Bileam commenced by saying: "here is the people who came out of Egypt," a rhetorical remark, referring to a well known historical fact. Such a wording did not reveal the hostility implied in the formula הנה עם יצא ממצרים which had been implicit in Balak's remark. The difference between הנה כסה and ויכס is similar in that the latter formulation does not reveal any implied animosity towards the people who cover the earth. Bileam also omitted the word הנה because it too suggests the contrast with other nations who do not provocatively "cover" the whole earth surrounding Moav. On the other hand, the word ויכס does reflect the fear in the heart of someone who commences the sentence with these words.

This is harsher than ארה לי. For if not so, why did Bil’am change his language? Surely Balak had said ארה לי ["curse for me"]. Therefore, this means that Bil’am despised Yisroel so much that although Balak originally requested ארה ["a regular curse"], Bil’am sought to replace it with קבה ["a harsh curse"]. Re’m

V. 11. קבה לי. Die Wurzel ”קוב“ oder ”קבב“ in der Bedeutung von fluchen, verwünschen, kommt nur in dieser Geschichte im Munde Bileams und Balaks und zwar in anormaler Form vor. Von ”קבב“ hieße es normal: קֻבָה oder קָבָה wieרָנוּ ליעקב (Jirmija 31, 7). Von קוּבָה :קוב. Für קבה findet sich keine Analogie. Kap. 23, 8 kommt in אֶקֹב in derselben Bedeutung wahrscheinlich die Wurzel נקב vor, die wir bereits Wajikra 24, 11 u. 16 in ähnlicher Anwendung finden. Wie נקב: löchern, ein Loch machen heißt, so heißt wahrscheinlich ”קבב“: aushöhlen, und daher קב ein Hohlmass (Kön. II. 6, 25 und häufig im Talmud). Wenn daher נקב: jemanden mit Worten treffen heißt, so heißt ”קבב“: jemanden mit Worten ganz hohl machen, ihm seinen ganzen Inhalt nehmen, ihn zu einer מץ, zu einer Hülse (Ps. 1. 4), zu einem Schatten machen, und מה אקב לא קבה אל hieße wörtlich: wie kann ich auch nur das kleinste Loch machen, wenn Gott nicht erst eine ganze Höhlung gemacht. Im מ׳׳ר wird קבב als ein höherer Grad von ”ארר“ begriffen.

וגרשתיו AND I WILL DRIVE THEM OUT, meaning from the world; but Balak had said only, (v. 6) “and I will drive them out from the land”: I seek only to make them move away from me. Balaam, however, hated them even more than did Balak (cf.Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 5).

As it is specific and clear. Meaning that קבה is a more specific and clear term of cursing.

When Bileam quoted Balak as saying ועתה לכה קבה לי אותו, "and now curse it for me," he implied that Balak was entitled to ask this as the people in question threatened his existence. He implied that although G'd had destined Ammon and Moav for Israel, the time for handing these nations over to Israel had not come as yet. At this point in time it was permissible to curse and make war against this people in order to expel them from Balak's area. A curse called קבה is quite different from a curse called ארה, the latter being of a general nature, i.e. a nation that has been cursed by ארה is accursed world-wide, whereas the curse called קבה is effective only vis-a-vis the one who did the cursing, i.e. Balak only cursed in self-defence. The words להלחם בו are also much milder than נכה בו, "to smite it." Whereas Balak had demanded that the Israelites be driven from the earth, מן הארץ, Bileam portrayed him as only having asked וגרשתיו, "so that I can drive them away" (locally). Perhaps Balak wanted the Israelites driven away from the lands G'd had promised them. He may have felt that if these people had once been humbled, they would desist from their attempt to invade the land of Canaan. Be that as it may, Bileam rephrased Balak's request in order to enhance the chances that G'd would permit him to go on this errand. He gave G'd to understand that Balak's concern was simply self-preservation, not hostility against Israel per se.

From the world. Not from his land alone, for if so it should have said “From the land” like Balak’s request. Re’m here also explains that it was due to his great hatred that he asked to banish them from the world. I myself say that he said so because perhaps Hashem would compromise with him in this matter, as I explained above.

לא תלך עמהם THOU SHALT NOT GO WITH THEM — He said: If so, I will curse them in my own place. Whereupon God answered: לא תאור את העם THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE PEOPLE. — He said to Him: If so, I will bless them. He replied to him: They do not need your blessing, כי ברוך הוא FOR THEY ARE ALREADY BLESSED. A parable! People say to the hornet: neither any of your honey nor any of your sting! (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

לא תלך עמהם. Even if you were not to curse the people they referred to you are not at liberty to go with them. The reason is that I do not want you to set your evil eye on these people even without uttering any words. (compare the expression נתן עיניו בו in B’rachot 58 In that instance the victim was reduced to a heap of bones.)

ויאמר אלוקים אל בלעם, "G'd said to Bileam, etc." Why did the Torah have to write אל בלעם? Why was it not sufficient for the Torah to write: ויאמר לו, or ויאמר אליו "He said to him?" Why did G'd have to say "do not go and do not curse?" Moreover, why did G"d have to give as the reason כי ברוך הוא, that Israel is already blessed? Our sages in the above-quoted Midrash write as follows: "In the event Bileam would say I will curse them from here, G'd added 'do not curse!' If Bileam were to say that in that event he would bless the Israelites, G'd told him not to bother as they were blessed already."

He said to Him “If so, I will curse them here.” Rashi is answering the question: Why is לא ["not go…not curse"] written twice? Let it write simply “Do not go with them to curse the people.” Furthermore, why did Hashem say to him “for they are blessed”? This might imply [merely] that he should go and curse the people in order to annul the blessings. Rashi answers that each one is a separate statement. Since he wanted to go, Hashem said to him, “Do not go”. And because he wanted to curse them where he was, Hashem said to him, “You shall not curse.” Finally when he asked to bless them, Hashem said, “For they are blessed” and thus they do not need your blessings. (Kitzur Mizrochi) You might ask: Since it says later that [Bil'am] only had the power to curse at the moment when Hashem is angry, and that Hashem was not angry for all of those days, why did He not give him permission to go? Then, even if he had cursed them it would not have been effective. It appears to me that Hashem knew that Yisroel were destined to be smitten on account of [the service of] Pe'or. Thus if he had gone and cursed them, people would have said that they died because of the curses of this evil man. Consequently, Hashem did not give permission for him curse, since it was not his curse that caused their deaths, but rather their sin. He also did not want [Bil'am] to bless them because He had already promised the Patriarchs that He would do good to Yisroel. [Hashem did not want] people to say that it was through Bil’am’s blessings that [Yisroel] were blessed with all this good.

V. 12. לא תאר וגו׳. Gehe nicht mit ihnen, denn du wirst den Zweck deiner Reise nicht ausführen. Du wirst diesem Volke nicht fluchen; selbst wenn du es wolltest, werde ich es verhindern; denn es ist gesegnet, das, was dieses Volk zum Volke macht, ist eben das, dem ich die ganze Förderung meiner Waltung zugesagt. Ihm soll selbst in der Vorstellung der Völker nicht der Fluch, sondern der Gottessegen bestimmt sein. Wäre Bileam ein Prophet der Wahrheit gewesen, hätte er wahrheitsgetreu Balaks Gesandten diesen Gottesausspruch mitgeteilt, es wäre ohne die ganze folgende Veranstaltung die Absicht der göttlichen Intervention erreicht gewesen. Es hätte Balak, es hätte Moab und Midjan Veranlassung gefunden, statt die Eroberungsmacht dieses Volkes zu fürchten, das ihm innewohnende sittliche Moment, dem Gott seinen Segen zugesagt, kennen zu lernen und sich mit ihm zu ihrem Heile zu befreunden. Allein

Do not go with them. For they are traveling on the king's road and Bil'am will be able to set his eyes upon them [Yisroel]. This is the main inference we should understand from Hashem's words, with them. However, He did not completely prevent Bil'am from traveling to Balak.

לא תאור את העם, ”do not curse the people.” G-d was well aware of the plague that would strike many Israelites who would worship Baal Peor, as a result of Bileam’s advice to seduce the Israelites by becoming sexually licentious. G-d did not want that plague to be attributed to Bileam’s curse.

I believe we have to explain the verse in accordance with what I have written about G'd asking why Bileam had honoured these people to let them sleep in the same room with him. Bileam had explained that these people were emissaries of a very exalted personage, Balak, etc. G'd now answered Bileam in the order in which Bileam had answered G'd's first question. As far as Bileam having explained the nature of these emissaries, G'd said: "do not go with them," i.e. they are not of the calibre that you should go with them. G'd informed Bileam that Balak had insulted him by sending such low-ranking emissaries. Bileam had failed to understand at the time when G'd asked him "who are these men?" G'd had meant: "are these people sufficiently high-ranking to bring you on such an errand?" Now Bileam understood G'd's meaning and he told the emissaries that G'd had refused to allow him to go with them, i.e. it was up to Balak to send higher ranking emissaries.

You shall not curse. Abstain from [using] the evil eye.

The reason that G'd related with so much concern for Bileam's dignity may not only have had to do with his standing as a prophet amongst the Gentiles, but may have reflected G'd's desire to reward him for telling the emissaries at the outset that his decision would hinge on whether G'd would permit him to go with them. We know that G'd does not withhold the reward due to any individual, even the reward due to Gentiles. It is illuminating to read how Sanhedrin 96 describes G'd rewarding Nebuchadnezzar who was a scribe of king Merodach of the Babylonians at the time for recalling a letter addressed to King Chiskiyah in which the king Merodach had blessed king Chiskiyah before blessing G'd. When Nebuchadnezzar found out about this error he chased after the courier and recalled the latter to have it changed. Nebuchadnezzar, a servant with no claim to the throne, later on became king. In this instance too, G'd repaid Bileam for honouring Him in the eyes of Balak's emissaries when He said to Bileam: "do not go with them." When we keep this in mind we can also understand why the Torah wrote "G'd said to Bileam," instead of "to him." The Torah meant that G'd honoured Bileam by advising him not to go with such low ranking emissaries. Bileam deserved to be addressed by name. Even if the mission itself would have been approved by G'd, it was below Bileam's dignity to respond to the pleas of such emissaries.

When G'd told Bileam לא תאור "do not curse," using the term for curse used by Balak instead of that which Bileam had pretended to quote, He made it plain to Bileam that He could not be fooled, that He was well aware of exactly what Balak's message to Bileam had been.

When G'd added: "for it is blessed," He wanted Bileam to understand that the reason for telling him "do not go," and "do not curse," were not the same, i.e. that they were both on account of Bileam's dignity. Bileam was not to assume that if only Balak would send higher ranking emissaries he would be allowed to go with them and curse the Jewish people. G'd added that the Jewish people were blessed, i.e. that even if Balak had sent emissaries of much higher rank Bileam would never be allowed to curse this people.

There is another way of explaining our verse; based on the fact that after all G'd knew that Bileam wanted to do evil and that eventually he would accompany Balak's emissaries. Inasmuch as G'd does not prevent man from exercising his choice, He eventually agreed for Bileam to go, allowing him to travel. I will explain the reason for this in due course. To this end G'd first told Bileam לא תלך עםהם, "you must not go with them," i.e. He forbade Bileam to travel. Had G'd only said "you must not go," He would not have left Himself an opportunity to say later on that Bileam could go, albeit subject to certain restrictions.

G'd was careful to add the words אל בלעם, "to Bileam," to hint to him why He forbade him to go. This was because Bileam wanted to do "his own thing," i.e. he wanted to go in order to curse the people. The next time, when G'd allowed Bileam to go, He did so in order for Bileam to do "G'd's thing", i.e. for Bileam to bless the people. The word עמהם suggests that he would make common cause with the emissaries. This is what G'd forbade.

When G'd said לא תאור ..כי ברוך הוא, "do not curse..for it is blessed," He wanted to counter Bileam's argument that inasmuch as the time had not come for Israel to occupy the lands of Ammon and Moav there was no harm in cursing the people at this time. G'd told Bileam not to curse the Jewish people at any time. As to Bileam's argument that the Jewish people were not yet on a spiritual level allowing them to occupy the lands of Ammon and Moav, G'd said that nonetheless ברוך הוא, they are blessed and must not be cursed. The term ברוך is only applied to the righteous seeing that righteousness is at the root of all blessing. G'd warned Bileam not to suspect that the reason why the Israelites had not yet been given the lands of Ammon and Moav was that they were guilty of wickedness. G'd chose to equate a righteous person or nation with a blessed person or nation, respectively.

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.

מאן בלעם הלך עמנו, "Bileam refused to come with us." They suspected him of being a liar, accusing him of desiring more honour than what Balak had shown him thus far. It is also possible that seeing that Bileam had promised to inform the emissaries immediately of G'd's answer but had not done so until morning, this made them assume that he told them what he wanted them to know and not what G'd had told him. Perhaps there was even a traditon that Bileam was a compulsive liar.

הלוך עמנו, for we do not appear as men of substance in his eyes.

V. 14. מאן בלעם, siehe V. 8.

ויוסף עוד בלק שלח שרים, Balak sent additional princes, etc. This means that he sent both the original emissaries as well as additonal higher ranking ones. We deduce this from the word מאלה, "than these." Unless the original emissaries were present with the additional ones the word מאלה makes no sense. The Torah should then have written the word מהם, "than those." The reason that Balak sent the original emissaries along was so as to prevent Bileam from denying what these emissaries had reported in his name.

רבים, more numerous than the previous delegation. ונכבדים, more distinguished and of higher rank than the earlier delegation.

V. 15. ויסף עוד בלק. Balak kannte seinen Mann, er ließ sich durch die erste Weigerung nicht von fernerem Versuche abhalten. ויסף עוד בלק bildet einen selbständigen Satz, daher der satzteilende Akzent auf בלק und daher auch das שלח שרים .עוד diesmal schickte er wirkliche Fürsten und zwar in größerer Anzahl und von höherem Range.

שרים רבים, “more and higher ranking emissaries.” We have a parallel for this in Esther 1,8 where the word רב in the singular is used in the same sense, i.e. על כל רב ביתו, “over the highest ranking officials of his household.” Compare also Jeremiah 39,13: וכל רבי מלך בבל, ”and all the commanders of the King of Babylonia.”

The word ויוסף may also indicate that Balak sent a larger number of emissaries than the first time. We could not have deduced this if the Torah had only written: וישלח עוד שרים רבים. I would then have understood the word רבים to mean that he did not send fewer delegates than the first time.

אל נא תמנע, "please do not be prevented, etc." Inasmuch as the first set of delegates had come to the conclusion that Bileam had declined their invitation for reasons of his own, they expressed the hope that his desire for the appropriate honour had now been satisfied. There was therefore no further obstacle that could prevent him from acceding to their request. Bileam, who was not aware that the first set of emissaries had suspected him of merely inventing G'd's prohibition interpreted the words of the new delegates to mean that he should ignore what G'd had told him and should come against G'd's will. This is why he made a point of saying that his previous refusal had nothing to do with the size of his fee or his personal honour, but that he was unable to contravene G'd's instructions. He explained that he was not free to exercise his free will in this matter.

VV. 16 u. 17. ”מנע“ .ויבאו וגו׳ das Gegenteil von ”מנה“ und ”מנח“ zuteilen, gewähren: versagen. אל נא תמנע: versage du mir nicht, וכל אשר תאמר אלי אעשה sowohl was zur Ausführung meines Vorhabens, als was zur Befriedigung deiner Wünsche dienen mag. ולכה נא nach der Fassung dieser Sätze, dürften hier zwei Bitten geäußert sein, einmal: auf jeden Fall zu kommen. Durfte doch Balak in der schwankenden Stellung, in welcher er sich seinem Volke gegenüber fühlte, Bileams Weigerung nicht eben als einen Beitrag zur Erhöhung seines Ansehens im Volke betrachten. Und zweitens: seinen Wunsch hinsichtlich der Verwünschung Israels zu erfüllen. War doch Balak gar kein Motiv denkbar, weshalb ein Bileam diese ganz im Bereiche seines Metiers liegende Forderung nicht erfüllen sollte.

כי כבד אכבדך מאד FOR I WILL HONOR THEE EXCEEDINGLY — Exceedingly: more than you have ever received as a fee in the past (cf. Rashi Numbers 21:27) will I now give you (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

כי כבד אכבדך, “for I will greatly honour you.” He meant that he would pay him handsomely.

More than you have received in the past. For if not so, how would he know how to honor him? Perhaps the entire honor that he would give him would still not come to half of the honor due to him.

וכל אשר תאמר אעשה, “and everything you will say (to me) I shall do;” Balak referred to anything he could do to facilitate such a curse on the Israelites he would do.

מלא ביתו כסף וזהב [IF BALAK WOULD GIVE ME HIS HOUSE] FULL OF SILVER AND GOLD — This tells us that he was avaricious and covetous of other peoples wealth. He said: He ought to give me all his silver and gold, for, behold, he would otherwise have to hire many armies to fight against them. Even then it is doubtful whether he would conquer or not conquer, but “I” would certainly conquer (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

ויאמר אל עבדי בלק, ”He said to the servants of Balak, etc.” The first delegation was described by the Torah as consisting of שרי בלק, ministers of Balak. The title conferred by the Torah on the members of the second delegation is that they were עבדי בלק, ”servants of Balak.” This sounds strange seeing that they had previously been described as of even higher rank than the first delegation. Perhaps the Torah merely wanted to show us the haughtiness of Bileam who considered even the members of this delegation as merely: “Balak’s servants.” When he spoke to them he related to them as someone’s underlings, not as high-ranking officers in their own right.

ואמר אל עבדי בלק, אם יתן לי בלק, “He said to Balak’s servants: even if Balak were to give me, etc.” Earlier the first group of emissaries had been described as שרי בלק; the new delegation is described by Bileam as עבדי בלק. The first delegation who had behaved towards Bileam with deference had been rewarded by him in that he considered them as שרי בלק, Balak’s princes. The second group who related to Bileam in a peremptory manner, saying: “Balak said not to refuse to come to me,” he treated with disdain seeing they had been arrogant towards him. Hence he treated them as merely עבדי בלק “Balak’s servants.” He also wanted to allude to the fact that they who were merely the servants of a mortal king and not allowed to disobey their ruler, must surely understand that he as a servant of an immortal King, G’d, could most certainly not disobey His instructions.

We learn that he was avaricious and he coveted the money of others. Since Bil’am did not say, “If Balak would cut off my head” or do something else to me “I cannot transgress…” Rather he said “if Balak would give me silver and gold enough to fill his house.” [From here] we learn that he was avaricious…

V. 18. ויען וגו׳ אל עבדי כלק. Die זקני מואב hatte er den זקני מדין gegenüber als שרים behandelt (V. 8) und sich auch ferner (Verse 13 u. 14) also gegen sie benommen, damit vergab er sich nichts. Im Gegenteil, seine Leutseligkeit durfte ihm das Volk gewinnen, in dessen Mitte er noch aufzutreten hoffte. Die wirklichen שרים von hohem und höchstem Range behandelt er wie עבדים, das zeichnet den ganzen Mann: herablassend gegen Niedere, hochmütig gegen Hohe. אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו וגו׳. Auch darin zeichnet sich sein Charakter. So sehr er Ehre sucht, so gilt ihm doch Geld mehr als Ehre. Balak hatte in seiner Sendung in keiner Weise auf eine Belohnung in Geld hingedeutet, hatte nur von ungemeiner Ehre und im übrigen von Bereitwilligkeit für alle seine Wünsche gesprochen. Bileam übersetzt aber sogleich die Ehre in Geld, oder meint, wenn ihm selbst die größte Geldesbelohnung würde, so usw. Es ist ihm somit jedenfalls Geld das Höchste. So stellt auch die Charakterschilderung des Bileam in den Worten der Weisen (Abot 5) dessen Habsucht, נפש רחבה, parallel seinem Hochmut, רוח גבוהה, zur Seite.

לא אוכל לעבר I CANNOT GO BEYOND [THE WORD OF THE LORD] — Against his own will he divulged to them that he was under the control of others, and he prophesied here that he would be unable to annul those blessings with which the patriarchs had been blessed by the mouth of God (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

And he prophesied here… Meaning that he prophesied but he did not know what he had prophesied. For it came forth from his mouth that he could not transgress the word of Hashem and “the word of Hashem” includes both of these matters. Re’m. Alternatively Rashi is answering the question: Why did he say “I cannot [transgress]”? Instead he should have said “I will not transgress,” which would imply that it was dependent upon his own choice. However, “I cannot” implies that he was not permitted [to do so] since he was under the authority of Hashem. Also, since he should have said “I cannot curse them.” What is meant when he said “[I cannot transgress] the word of Hashem”? Rather, he meant I cannot change the blessings which [the Patriarchs] received by the word of Hashem.

גם אתם [ABIDE] ALSO YE [HERE] — His mouth tripped him up (unwittingly he spoke the truth): you also in the end will go away disappointed as the former princes (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם, "And now, you stay here also, etc." Bileam pleaded as he was afraid that these dignitaries would do what the Midianite delegates had done when they heard that Bileam was waiting to get G'd's instructions. The Midianite delegates at the time had gone home immediately without staying overnight as they anticipated Bileam's refusal (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 20,8). Now that the delegation was large and consisted of highly placed people, Bileam was afraid that they would not be willing to wait.

ועתה שבו נא בזה, “and now, please stay here, etc.” The word בזה refers to “this place.”
גם אתם הלילה, “also you, for the night.” [According to the cantillation there is a comma between “also you” and “night.” Ed.] Our sages claim that G’d punished Moav for this “night” which its emissaries spent with Bileam. They derive this from Isaiah 15,1 in which the prophet deals with G’d’s judgment of Moav. The prophet writes: “Ah, in the night Ar was sacked (a capital of Moav), Moav was ruined; Ah, in the night Kir was sacked, Moav was ruined.” The two nights which two delegations of Moav spent with Bileam attempting to get him to curse the Jewish people proved ultimately to boomerang on them. [This writer believes that the dropping of an atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans also boomeranged, i.e. the men the U.S. lost in Korea and in Vietnam. Ed.].

In frustration. [Meaning:] In disillusionment.

ואדעה מה יוסף ה' דבר עמי, “and I will know what G-d will say to me in addition.” Even though G-d had told him already: “do not go with them!” Bileam was so anxious to find a way to go and curse the Israelites that he was convinced that his curse would be effective. He said to himself: “if G-d considered my curses as ineffective, why did He bother to try and stop me?”

מה יסף WHAT MORE [THE LORD WILL SAY TO ME] — He certainly will not change His words from a blessing to a curse: I only hope that he will not add a further blessing. — He here prophesied that He would in the end give them a further blessing by his agency (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 6).

He will not alter his words from a blessing to a curse… Rashi is answering the [following] question: Should he not have merely said, “[What] Hashem will tell to me”? Rather this is what he was saying, “I know that He will not alter… would it be that He does not add a blessing.” Re’m also explains here that he prophesied but did not know what he had prophesied.

אם לקרא לך IF [THE MEN COME] TO CALL THEE — If the call be for you, for your benefit, and you think to take a fee for it.

[AND G-D CAME UNTO BALAAM AT NIGHT, AND SAID UNTO HIM]: ‘IF THE MEN ARE COME TO CALL THEE.’” ‘If the call be ‘for you’ [for your benefit] and you think you will receive a reward for it, then rise up, go with them. But [you should realize that even] against your will, the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do’.⁴⁰Verse 20. And nevertheless Balaam went [as stated in the following verse], for he said: ‘Perhaps I may persuade Him to agree [that I should curse’].” This is Rashi’s language. “And G-d’s anger was kindled because he went.⁴¹Verse 22. [This was because] Balaam realized that the matter was not pleasing⁴²In our texts of Rashi: “that the matter was evil.” in the sight of the Eternal, and [yet] he longed to go.” This too, is the Rabbi’s language.
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “The Gaon [Rav Saadia]⁴³See Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. said: If someone wishes to argue, saying: ‘Since He had told Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them,⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. how is it that He told him [afterwards], Rise up, go with them?’ one may answer that G-d [indeed] did not want him to go with the first [emissaries], until more honorable princes than they would come.⁴⁵According to this explanation of Rav Saadia Gaon there was Divine consent in general terms for Balaam to go on the mission, and the meaning of G-d’s words to him is: “thou shalt not go ‘with them,’ but with others, more honorable than they, you may go.” The reason for this may be that since Balaam, speaking against his intention and desire, was later on to confirm G-d’s love of Israel, it was fitting that this be done in the presence of more distinguished men than the former ones. But in my opinion [continues Ibn Ezra] there is no need for this [interpretation of the Gaon], for the meaning [of Rise up, go with them is not that this was a command, but] is like Send thou men⁴⁶Above, 13:2. [which is not a Divine command, but permission in the nature of a concession to Israel’s demand]. For G-d had said to Israel, Go up, take possession,⁴⁷Deuteronomy 1:21. but they did not believe [that they would conquer it], and said instead, Let us send men⁴⁸Ibid., Verse 22. — so Moses asked G-d [and He told him, Send thou men,⁴⁶Above, 13:2. meaning: ‘I do not command you, but if you wish to do so, send them’]. And this case [here too] is similar, for why did Balaam have to tell [Balak’s servants], tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Eternal will speak unto me more,⁴⁹Above, Verse 19. [since G-d had already told him not to go with them]? It was because he harbored an evil intention in his heart [persisting in the hope that G-d would agree that he should go to Balak], and so G-d told him: ‘[You may] go with them, but be careful only to speak that which I will say to you.’ And the proof for my interpretation [that G-d was angry with Balaam for his evil intention in persisting in his request to go to Balak, and that go with them is a concession, not a command], is the following verse, And G-d’s anger was kindled because he went.” These are the words [of Abraham ibn Ezra].
Yet all this availeth me nothing.⁵⁰Esther 5:13. For the explanation of the Gaon [Rav Saadia, that G-d wanted him to go with more honorable men] is not correct, for G-d told Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed,⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. [thus clearly indicating] that He forbade him to go in order that he should not curse the people, and he did not prohibit him from going because these princes were not sufficiently important, so how could it be permissible for him to go with other princes! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s explanation [that G-d was angry with him because of his persistence in his evil desire to go] is also not correct, [for it would mean] that G-d changed His mind and withdrew His word [in finally allowing Balaam to go], because of the persistence of the person making the request! And the matter of Send thou men⁴⁶Above, 13:2. is not so [as Ibn Ezra explained it]; and I have already explained its [correct] meaning [there]. Furthermore, far be it from G-d to punish [a person for doing] something for which He had [previously] given permission! And in the Midrash the Rabbis have said:⁵¹Tanchuma, Balak 8; Bamidbar Rabbah 20:11. — From this Midrash too, it is obvious that there was no Divine concession here at all to Balaam, but that he was merely led on the path that he desired to tread. “From here you learn that on whichever path a person desires to tread, he is led.”
The correct interpretation of this matter appears to me to be that at first G-d forbade him to curse the people, for they are blessed,⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. and so there was no purpose in Balaam going with them [the elders], since he could not curse them [Israel], and they did not require him for any other reason. Therefore He said [to Balaam], “Thou shalt not go with them,⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. and do not curse the people, for they are blessed.” Now it is self-understood that Balaam informed them of G-d’s words [although Scripture does not expressly say so], but [nonetheless] Balak sent him [messengers] a second time, because he did not believe him [that G-d did not allow him to go, but thought that he merely wanted a greater reward], and so he showed him greater honor by sending princes, more in number, and more honorable than³⁷Verse 15. the first, and promised to increase his reward and honor. But Balaam answered them that the matter did not depend upon money, nor upon his [own] will; but it was entirely in the hand of G-d, and he would again ask Him what He commands him [to do].⁵²Verses 18-19. This [answer of Balaam] was properly given, for what could he know of the knowledge of the Most High⁵³Further, 24:16. — and the counsel of the Eternal is good forever,⁵⁴See Psalms 33:11. In other words, it is always good to seek G-d’s advice. and He doth instruct sinners in the way,⁵⁵Ibid., 25:8. G-d is hereby described as giving instructions even to sinners [such as Balaam] in the path they should follow. and He would inform him what he shall answer the messengers of the nation,⁵⁶Isaiah 14:32. or He would tell him what would happen to them [the Moabites] in the future. And G-d told him: “I have already informed you that the people are blessed and that you will not be able to curse them.⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. But now that they [the messengers] have come back to you, if the men are come merely to call thee, meaning that they will agree to your going with them [although it is] on condition that you shall not curse the people, as I informed you at the beginning, then rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do, for even if I command you to bless them, you shall [do so and] not be afraid of Balak.” This then is the meaning of [the expression], if the men are come ‘to call thee’ [i.e., if they merely ask you to go with them, despite being fully aware that you may not curse Israel — then go with them]. And this was the wish of the Glorious Name⁵⁷Deuteronomy 28:58. from the [very] beginning — that he [Balaam] should go with them after telling them that he would not curse them [Israel], and that he would conduct himself towards them [entirely] as G-d would command him — because it was the Will of G-d, blessed be He, to bless Israel through the mouth of the prophet of the nations. Thus Balaam ought to have disclosed this to the princes of Balak and to say to them: “Now G-d has only permitted me to be invited by you [i.e., to accompany you], and [only] on the express condition that I do not curse the people, and that if He commands me to bless them, that I shall do so, and if they are not agreeable to these [conditions], they should leave me alone.” But even on this second occasion Balak said, come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people,⁵⁸Verse 17. [thus indicating that] he did not want Balaam for the purpose of fortelling future events or for any other purpose, except that of cursing the people. And Balaam, because of his overriding desire to go, did not inform them of this [Divine message with the conditions mentioned above], and did not tell them anything at all; [instead], Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with them,⁵⁹Verse 21. like someone who is eager to fulfill their wish. Therefore G-d’s anger was kindled because he went,⁴¹Verse 22. for had he informed them [of the conditions], he would not [necessarily] have gone [because they might have refused to let him come under such conditions]. Furthermore a profanation of G-d’s Name was involved in this [behavior of Balaam], for since he went with them without explanation, whereas he was in fact under the control of G-d, they thought that He had given him permission to curse the people for them. Therefore [they thought that] G-d had reneged on that which He had said originally, thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed⁴⁴Above, Verse 12. — according to what Balaam had told them — and when they saw later on that he did not curse them, they said that He changed [His word] yet again, or that He is mocking them as one mocketh a man.⁶⁰Job 13:9. Far be it from G-d to do after this manner,⁶¹Genesis 18:25. for the Eternal One of Israel will not … repent!⁶²I Samuel 15:29.

אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים, if they only came in order to get your advice, as in Numbers 1,16 where such people who give advice are described as קרואי העדה, or in Samuel I 28,15 where a similar expression is used for advisors;

אם לקרא לך באו האנשים, "if the men simply came to call you, etc." Why did G'd describe the purpose of this delegation as in doubt, i.e. "if?" After all, G'd knew full well what was in the minds of these delegates? A more difficult question is why G'd consented that Bileam go on an errand the purpose of which was for him to curse Israel? Why, in the process, did G'd appear to reverse Himself seeing He had told Bileam previously not to go with Balak's delegates nor to curse that people? How had conditions changed since the arrival of the first set of emissaries so that G'd's decision now would not be viewed as a reversal of His previous decision?

V. 20. ויבא וגו׳. Wir haben schon zu Verse 16 u. 17 bemerkt, dass Balaks Bitte zwei Punkte betraf: das Kommen auf seine Einladung und den Fluch. Die Erfüllung des ersten Teiles wird ihm gestattet, der zweite Teil, der eigentlich vom Balak beabsichtigte Zweck, war ihm bereits V. 12 bei der ersten Sendung peremtorisch versagt: לא תאור את העם בי ברוך הוא und ward ihm hier nur noch angedeutet, dass, wenn er gehen werde, er vielmehr Herold des göttlichen Wortes werde sein müssen, das nach der ihm bereits gewordenen Eröffnung, כי ברוך הוא, nichts anderes als Segen sein konnte. Er war somit vollständig darauf vorbereitet, dass, wenn er ginge, sein Gang das gerade Gegenteil von Bakaks Absicht herbeiführen werde. Gleichwohl

אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים, “if these men who have visited you came to invite you (in your professional capacity) etc.” I would not want you to accuse Me of having been instrumental in your forfeiting a substantial fee for your services.” However, I want you to say only words which have been approved by Me.” (You are not free to use your power of speech freely)

אם לקרא לך, “if these men simply extended an invitation to you to visit Balak, etc.” G-d referred to a social visit, involving food and drink. If you were to ask what happened in the interval so that G-d appeared to give Bileam an opening now that He did not know about previously, whereas previously He had spoken to him in absolute terms: “do not go with them!?”We must interpret G-d’s previous instruction as having meant only: “do not go with them to curse the people,” but not as an absolute refusal to let Bileam make the journey. A different interpretation: there was no change in G-d’s attitude at all; this time G-d related to a new delegation of officials, and whatever G-d permitted now was not relevant to what He had forbidden to an invitation issued by lower ranking emissaries. A third possible interpretation: “if these people are so foolish as to believe that I will change My basic attitude whichI already expressed to Bileam the first time, go ahead and travel with them, and you will see soon how useless this journey will be.”

קום לך אתם ARISE, GO WITH THEM, ואך BUT, in spite of yourself, את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך אתו תעשה THE WORD WHICH I SHALL SPEAK TO THEE, THAT SHALL YOU DO, and, nevertheless, Balaam went (as it is stated in the next verse), for he said: perhaps I may persuade Him and He will agree that I should curse.

go ahead and accompany them in order to prevent them from sinning.

It appears from what the Torah reports that G'd could have dealt with this request in one of two ways. Each one of these ways contained the appearance of His being unfair in some way. If G'd were to agree to Bileam going on such a mission, the nations of the world would conclude that Bileam was totally free to make his own decisions in the matter, and they would not appreciate that just as the master controls the line by which his dog is tied so G'd pulled the strings limiting Bileam's freedom of action. It was important to G'd to demonstrate to the world at large that Bileam was unable to cause harm to anyone whom G'd did not want to be harmed. On the other hand, if G'd refused to let Bileam go altogether Bileam would conclude that G'd Himself was afraid of what Bileam would be able to do once he got to Moav, i.e. that G'd was afraid of Bileam! As a result of these two considerations G'd was very clever in resolving both possible misunderstandings. He first told Bileam לא תלך, "you must not go." In this way He had shown the world that the wicked dog Bileam was not at liberty to cause havoc wherever and whenever he wanted to. He also paid Bileam the reward due to him for having explained to Balak's emissaries that he was not at liberty to disobey G'd. The reward that G'd gave Bileam was related to G'd's foreknowledge that in the end Bileam would go to Moav with the next set of delegates. This was something that would not be to his advantage, as we know from Balak's own remarks in 24,11 that G'd had prevented Bileam from receiving the honour Balak had intended to bestow upon him. However, his very trip would lead to his being killed by the sword as we know from 31,8. Bileam was caught in Midian at the time, as he had gone there to collect his reward for the 24.000 Israelites whom G'd had killed because they had allowed themselves to be enticed by Moabite women at the suggestion of Bileam. Originally, G'd had not stopped Bileam from going because He does hold back people who are bent on their own destruction by telling them not to go. This was an additional form of reward to the one we mentioned earlier that Balak was to send higher ranking delegates.

ואך את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך, “but only the word which I will speak to you, etc.” G’d meant that that even if G’d would tell him to bless the Jewish people Bileam would agree to do so (as the price for being allowed to go). He was not to be afraid of Balak’s anger, etc.

When Balak now sent a second delegation, G'd had to address His second fear, namely that if He forbade Bileam to go this would be interpreted as His inability to stop Bileam from wreaking havoc once he was near the Jewish people. Bileam would arrive at the conclusion that once he arrived in Moav G'd would not be able to stop him from doing what he wanted. This is why G'd said to Bileam קום לך אתם, "arise and accompany them;" G'd implied that "if" Bileam really thought that going with these delegates would be to his advantage, He, G'd did not want to stop him. The conditional "if" was a warning to Bileam that He, G'd, did not think that this journey would be to Bileam's advantage. G'd may even have hinted that Bileam should consult his charms to find out for himself if his trip augured well for him. Even this warning was part of G'd's reward to Bileam for having pointed out that he was bound by G'd's decisions. It would work to his advantage if Bileam's mind had not been made up to commit evil. However, under the circumstances, Bileam did plan to to commit evil, and he was bent on ignoring G'd's warnings. This may have been the reason G'd became angry when he went with the delegates. The fact that Bileam went with the delegates proves that he expected to profit from his trip; this was only possible if he did indeed curse the Jewish people, something G'd had forbidden him to do. We will still provide another reason which caused G'd to become angry at Bileam at this stage.

ויחבש את אתנו AND HE SADDLED HIS SHE-ASS — From here we may learn that the hatred one bears for a person makes one disregard the rule imposed upon him by his exalted position, for he, himself, not a servant, did the saddling. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You wicked man! Their ancestor Abraham has already anticipated you in this, as it is said, (Genesis 22:3) “And Abraham rose up early in the morning and saddled his ass”) (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 8; cf. Sanhedrin 105b).

He saddled it himself. He arose before his attendants in order to act quickly and depart, rather than waiting until his attendants had saddled his donkey. This raises the difficulty that if so, why is it not written וישכם בלעם ["Bil’am arose early," as it does with Avrohom]. Rashi answers that this was to hint to the response of the Omnipresent, for Hashem said…

V. 21. ויקם וגו׳, gleichwohl erhebt sich Bileam am Morgen, sattelt sein Saumtier und geht — stillschweigend — mit Moabs Fürsten. Ohne sie im geringsten aufzuklären, ja stillschweigend auf ihre doppelte Sendung eingehend, geht er mit ihnen. Wie der Verfolg zeigt, Kap. 23, 3 u. 15 und 24, 1 war Bileam selbst nach allem, was er inzwischen erfahren, geschweige denn jetzt, beim Antritt seiner Reise, noch trotz allem der Meinung, es könne ihm doch noch gelingen, den Fluch auszusprechen. So wenig war er selbst bereits von der Wahrheit erfüllt, die er nachher auszusprechen genötigt war, dass לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם (Kap. 23, 19), so sehr war ihm selbst die Reinheit des Gottesgedankens, das Bewusstsein von ד׳, dem einen Einzigen, den er doch so demütig stolz "ד׳ אלקי" nennt, getrübt, so sehr wär ihm selbst dieser halb untergegangen in heidnische Göttervorstellung, dass er selbst "Ihn" durch נחשים, durch mantische Magie umstimmend dem eigenen niederen Gelüste gefügig machen, oder in einem Seinem Einfluss sich entziehenden Momente Ihm entschlüpfen zu können vermeinte.

וילך עם שרי מואב, “he went with the emissaries from Moav.” He did not literally go with them, i.e. keep pace with them, but he followed them. Had the Torah written: וילך אתם, this would have meant that he literally accompanied them.

עם שרי מואב [HE WENT] WITH THE PRINCES OF MOAB — his heart alike with their hearts (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 8).

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.

ותרא האתון AND THE SHE-ASS SAW [THE ANGEL] — but he did not see him, for the Holy One, blessed be He, gave an animal power to see more than the man, for just because he possesses sense his mind would become perturbed if he sees noxious beings.

AND THE ASS SAW THE ANGEL OF THE ETERNAL. Angels of G-d — which are Separate Intelligences⁶³See Vol. I, p. 59, Note 237. See also ibid., pp. 228-231, where Ramban discusses at length the subject of angels in relation to prophecy. — cannot be perceived by the [human] sense of sight, for they are not physical beings which can be apprehended by sight. And when they become visible to prophets or to men possessed of Ruach Hakodesh,⁶⁴Literally, “The Holy Spirit.” See Rambam in Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, at the paragraph beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also above, Seder Korach, Note 71 and Ramban ibid. such as Daniel,⁶⁵Daniel 10:5. The Talmud in Megillah 3a states that Daniel did not attain the status of a prophet, but was worthy of receiving Ruach Hakodesh. they are apprehended by them through the perception of the rational soul which reaches the degree of prophecy or some lower degree, but that they [the angels] should be perceived by the eyes of an animal — that is impossible! Therefore you could explain [the phrase] and the ass saw [the angel of the Eternal] to mean that she felt the presence of something which frightened her off from passing on, namely the angel that had gone forth for an adversary.⁴¹Verse 22. This is a similar expression [to that which says]: yea, my heart ‘ra’ah’ [literally: “had seen”] much wisdom and knowledge,⁶⁶Ecclesiastes 1:16. [the term “seeing” here] being used [in the sense of] perception, and not [in the sense of] physical sight [since the heart does not “see”]. Now when this miracle occurred to the ass, and the Creator gave her [the power of] speech, she said to Balaam, Was I ever wont to do so unto thee?,⁶⁷Further, Verse 30. but [nonetheless] she did not know why she did so now, because she was forced to do so. Therefore she did not say to him: “Behold the angel of G-d stands over against me with his sword drawn in his hand,”⁶⁸See Joshua 5:13 where this expression is used of the angel who appeared to Joshua. since her perception did not reach this knowledge at all. [Our verse] saying: And the ass saw the angel of the Eternal standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand does not mean that she [actually] saw the sword, let alone the angel; but the verse is hinting that since the angel was ready to strike them, she trembled very exceedingly,⁶⁹Genesis 27:33. because she felt as if people were coming to slaughter her. [We must explain that the ass merely felt the angel’s presence, but did not actually see him, because] if we were to say that those angels that appear in human form — as I have mentioned in the section of Vayeira⁷⁰Genesis 18:1 (Vol. I, p. 231). — can be seen even by the eyes of an animal, then how was it that Balaam did not see him, since he was not smitten with blindness! It is, however, possible that He Who gave the ass the power of speech, also bestowed upon her an additional power of vision, so that she saw the likeness of a human being, although Scripture does not mention it. Thus G-d opened the eyes of the ass [and she indeed saw the angel], just as Scripture mentions [later] in regard to her master, [And the Eternal opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Eternal].⁷¹Further, Verse 31. For the whole matter of the ass was a great miracle, being a “new creation” like those that were created at twilight [on the eve of the first Sabbath],⁷²Aboth 5:9. Ten things are listed there, one of them being the “the mouth of the ass [of Balaam which opened and spoke].” But as Ramban clearly indicates, the whole matter of the ass — beginning with her seeing the angel, and culminating in her speech — were like “a new creation” similar to those things created “at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.” — Various interpretations have been suggested on the necessity for these special creations. Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah explains it as follows: Since the law of nature was established by G-d, it was His wish that it be not interfered with under any circumstance. But since He foresaw certain emergencies in the history of His people that would require special intervention in the normal operation of nature He made provision for them at the final completion of creation before the nightfall which ushered in the first Sabbath. and it is not merely called “an opening of eyes.” However, our Rabbis have only mentioned⁷²Aboth 5:9. Ten things are listed there, one of them being the “the mouth of the ass [of Balaam which opened and spoke].” But as Ramban clearly indicates, the whole matter of the ass — beginning with her seeing the angel, and culminating in her speech — were like “a new creation” similar to those things created “at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.” — Various interpretations have been suggested on the necessity for these special creations. Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah explains it as follows: Since the law of nature was established by G-d, it was His wish that it be not interfered with under any circumstance. But since He foresaw certain emergencies in the history of His people that would require special intervention in the normal operation of nature He made provision for them at the final completion of creation before the nightfall which ushered in the first Sabbath. amongst the miracles the opening of the mouth [of the ass, although the whole matter — and especially her seeing the angel — was miraculous in nature]. The reason for this miracle was to show Balaam Who hath made man’s mouth, or Who maketh a man dumb?⁷³Exodus 4:11. and to make him realize that it is G-d Who opens the mouth for the dumb,⁷⁴See Proverbs 31:8. and [since He can make the dumb speak], how much more so can He make dumb at His Will the mouth of those who can speak, and can also put words into their mouths, so that they speak in accordance with His Will, for everything is in His power. It was [thus] a warning to him [Balaam] not to follow enchantments and soothsaying, and [not] to curse Israel thereby, because he was [primarily] an enchanter and soothsayer.⁷⁵Ramban emphasizes this point [that Balaam was primarily an enchanter and soothsayer — see above in Verse 5] in order that his tribute to Israel’s character and future should be viewed entirely as the true word of G-d which came to him in honor of Israel (see Ramban further, Verse 23:16), for on his own merit he could not possibly have risen to such heights, since he was but a mere soothsayer and enchanter.

ותלך בשדה, this is when he abandoned his two attendants and the dignitaries of Moav. [the ass on its own took a path of her own enabling what followed to become possible. Ed.] Naturally, neither the lads nor the dignitaries of Moav had any idea of what transpired now.

ותרא האתון את מלאך ה', “The ass saw the angel of Hashem, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is impossible to understand these words literally, i.e. that the ass had a vision of an angel that held a sword, etc. Angels are disembodied beings not visible to the eyes of mortal creatures. Whenever prophets did have visions of angels, this was not a perception with their physical eyes, but they had been given supernaturally charged “eyesight” which enabled them to “see” these disembodies beings. There can be no question that beasts, that do not even possess a נשמה, divine soul, should be so endowed, even for such an occasion. We may therefore explain the words ותרא האתון את ה' as “the ass noticed something that frightened her very much,” the Torah explaining to us what it was that frightened her so much, i.e. the angel. Concerning the graphic description of the angel having a drawn sword in his hand,

ותרא האתון את מלאך ה' נצב בדרך, “When the she-ass saw the angel of Hashem standing in the way, etc.” The word “saw” in this instance does not mean “saw with its eyes,” but “she realised, she had a distinct feeling of a dangerous obstruction in front of her.” Seeing that as a rule angels do not appear in such guise in front of human beings, the likelihood for them to reveal themselves in such a fashion to animals is nil. We do not have to stress that this was not a mental vision, something originating in the brain seeing that animals do not possess such a brain, i.e. intelligence. All the ass knew was that if faced a frightening phenomenon and therefore she tried to dodge the obstacle she perceived. Had the ass had a clearer perception of precisely who it was that blocked her way, she would have said to Bileam: “an angel of G’d with drawn sword is facing me and therefore I had to deviate from the path.” This is Nachmanides’ view of the incident (page 290 Chavell edition).

This evil one abandoned the tools of his trade. Rashi is answering the question: Even without a sword the angel could still have killed him! In response he explains that the angel said “this evil one…” This is why it is written that it was שלופה ["drawn"], as if to say שלו פה ["the mouth is his"], that the mouth belongs to Yisroel who pray to Hashem, but not to you.

ותרא האתון, The ass saw, etc. Why did G'd allow the angel to become visible to the ass? Why was the angel allowed to take up a threatening position three times? What was the point of squeezing Bileam's legs? Why did he strike the ass? Why did G'd open the mouth of the ass? Everything which happened here appears quite mysterious.

V. 23. שלף ,וחרבו שלופה siehe Schmot 23, 8.

ותלך בשדה, “she (the ass) walked in the field (instead of on the path).” Rashi’s comment on verse 26 based on Tanchuma that the angel showed Bileam a hint of the three founding fathers of the Jewish people, needs a super commentary. It appears to mean the following: the first time the angel positioned himself as an obstacle on the path, he did so that the ass could pass either to the right or to the left of him but could not proceed without making a detour, the choice that Avraham had given Lot (Genesis, 13,9). The sons of Avraham by Keturah and Hagar are viewed as partially his descendants, as they had a different mother than Sarah. In other words, Bileam would not be permitted to curse Yitzchak who was a descendant of both Avraham and Sarah. The second time the angel tried to obstruct the ass in a narrow passage in the vineyard, he did so in a manner that allowed the ass to squeeze by but painfully, this was a hint that even cursing Yitzchok’s descendants would be allowed only if he cursed Esau, not Yaakov and his descendants. The third obstruction, which forced the ass to lie down, as passage was blocked completely, was a hint to Bileam that on no account would he be permitted to curse any of the descendants of Yaakov and his twelve sons. This is what the angel showed Bileam, using the patriarchs as his symbol.

וחרבו שלופה בידו, “with his sword drawn in his sword.” This is a case of the punishment fitting the crime, i.e. Bileam had said that he would kill his ass for its rebellious behaviour; (verse 29) now the angel makes Bileam realise that the one who deserved to be killed for rebelling against G-d was not the ass but Bileam himself.

וחרבו שלופה בידו AND HIS SWORD DRAWN IN HIS HAND — He (God) said: This wicked man has abandoned the tools of his own craft, — for the offensive weapons of the heathen peoples consist in the sword, — and he is attacking them with his mouth which is their metier; I will take his implement and come against him with his own metier. Thus, indeed, was his end (Numbers 31:8): “And Balaam the son of Beor they slew by the sword” (Midrash Tanchuma 4:7:23).

וחרבו שלופה בידו, the ass neither saw the angel nor the sword. The Torah tells us that the ass felt it was about to be struck, and therefore the Torah describes its fear in these terms. The ass had the impression that someone or something was about to slaughter it. This is why when the ass was suddenly miraculously enabled to speak, it asked Bileam if it had ever been in the habit of conducting itself in the manner displayed most recently. The ass itself was not clear why it had acted as it did all of a sudden. Had the ass seen an angel with her physical eyes, seeing that it had been granted the ability to speak, it would certainly have told Bileam that it had seen an angel with drawn sword, a most frightening spectacle, and that this was why it had acted so strangely. If we were to say that angels appeared to beasts as visible to their physical eyes, how are we to explain that Bileam, who was a prophet to boot, did not see this apparition? It is, of course, possible that G’d lent special powers of perception to the ass at that time, just as He enabled it to suddenly speak coherently. The reason why G’d bothered to perform this miracle was to demonstrate to Bileam Who it was that endowed man (or beast) with the power of speech, or Who may therefore prevent him from speaking if He so pleases. It was an oblique warning not to resort to sorcery to enable him to curse the Jewish people seeing that Hashem had already pre-empted him. At any rate, our sages, when discussing this whole episode, mention only one miracle, i.e. the sudden ability of the ass to speak intelligently and coherently. This was so that Bileam should realize that the same G’d Who enabled the ass to speak could certainly make man say what He wanted Him to say.

ותט האתון מן הדרך ותלך בשדה, “the she-ass turned from the path and walked in the field.” Bileam’s desire to curse the Israelites was so strong that he was blind to any indications which were designed to deflect him from his purpose. Anyone else in his place would have noticed if not the first sign then the second sign or at least the third sign. Bileam, the “seer” was so blind on this occasion that he ignored even the clearest indications that his mission was not to be crowned with success. It is almost inconceivable that an individual whose profession was the interpretation of all unusual phenomena, who interpreted every inconsistency in nature, should not have realized that he was being given the grossest possible hints of G’d’s displeasure. Even the power of speech which the she-ass suddenly displayed did not stun him into realising the error of his ways. He should have realized what Moses was told in Exodus 4,11 when he used his speech impediment as an excuse not to accept the position of leader of the people that G’d can grant the power of speech to whomsoever He wants to just as He can withhold it from those who possessed it. The fact that Bileam did not display the slightest amazement at the ass talking is his greatest indictment. This is why eventually the angel had to reveal his presence to him and had to address him directly telling him that as of this time, he had to continue on his way but could only say what he was told to say. The reason Bileam had offered to abandon his journey and to return home was that once he had seen that even his ass could talk, he realized that his so-called power of speech was quite meaningless. He could no longer boast of his power of speech.

We may assume that the entire paragraph was designed to show us how G'd humbled Bileam seeing he had given Balak's delegates the impression that he was free to curse and that his curse against the Israelites would be effective. If Bileam had revealed to the emissaries of Balak before he set out on the way that G'd had severely restricted his freedom to curse the Israelites he would not now have been humbled. G'd paid him back by humbling him in front of the delegates and in front of the ass in a most degrading fashion. We are all aware that the composition of animals which have not been equipped with the power of speech is radically different from the composition of human beings who enjoy the power of speech. In order to suitably humble Bileam by means of an animal, G'd had to effect a transformation in the physical composition of the body of the animal in question. G'd accomplished this by means of stationing the angel in three different locations on three different occasions and by enabling the ass to see the angel in each location. In order for a creature to possess the power of speech its components must be endowed with three prerequisites. A) Since it possesses the ability to grow, something every living organism does, this component of it must be altered so that it can function even after it has been equipped with the ability to speak. B) A similar transformation must be effected in the animal's ability to move freely. C) It must be endowed with the power to verbalise its thoughts and emotions. When the angel took up position opposite the ass for the first time, the ass's basic components were altered so that they could function if equipped with the power to speak. It was enabled to see spiritual beings. When the ass saw the angel the second time its ability to move freely was altered so that it would also be able to move once it would be equipped with the power to verbalise its thoughts and emotions. After the ass had seen the angel for a third time it became equipped with the power to speak similar to a human being. As soon as this had occurred it opened its mouth, spoke intelligently and put Bileam to shame as a result. It actually put down Bileam in the presence of his assistants. The shame resulting from this occurrence was twofold and left a deep impression. 1) The ability of the animal to speak. 2) The revelation that Bileam the great prophet had been in the habit of using his she-ass as one uses a wife, i.e. as his sexual mate.

We still have to explain why the angel had to take up position in three different locations instead of appearing three times in the same location. Perhaps the three locations in which the angel took up position corresponded to three acts of evil Bileam had committed. 1) G'd' had told him once: "do not go and do not curse;" Bileam had failed to tell Balak's emissaries that he had been forbidden to curse. This had become the cause for Balak sending a second set of delegates. This became the reason why G'd told the angel to take up position on the way. The ass was forced to turn aside, parallel to Bileam having "turned aside" part of G'd's response to him. 2) Bileam's second sin was that G'd had told him that he was to go only if לקרא לך, if it had become certain that the mission would be of advantage to him. Seeing Bileam had failed to ascertain this he should not have gone at all. He had ignored G'd's implied warning. This is why the angel took up position in the narrow passage between the vineyards and squeezed his legs as if to remind him that G'd had tried to squeeze him to the correct path by the wording of His reply. 3) Bileam's third sin concerned the fact that G'd had made His permission conditional on Bileam saying only words G'd would put into his mouth (verse 20), meaning that he would have no latitude to even slightly alter what G'd would inspire him to say. We have already demonstrated how Bileam schemed to deviate from this restriction when we mentioned the significance of the words הולך הוא, i.e. that he did not view himself as G'd's instrument but planned to have things his own way. This impression was further reinforced by the Torah describing Bileam as riding on his ass with his two attendants. The angel stationed himself in a place so narrow that the ass -and therefore Bileam- could not even squeeze by to remind him that he had sinned intentionally. G'd employed these three incidents to show Bileam that He was displeased by what he had set out to do.

במשעול — Understand this as the Targum does: IN A PATH. And similar is, (1 Kings 20:10) “If the dust of Samaria shall suffice לשעלים” — the dust that attaches itself to the soles of peoples’ feet when they walk. And similarly, (Isaiah 40:12) “Who hath measured the water בשעלו” — with his feet and through his walking (as one measures by pacing).

Unless specified otherwise גדר refers to a barrier of stone. Since below it is written (v. 25), “And pressed him against הקיר ["the wall"]” with a hei denoting the definite article, this implies that it was the same barrier that had been mentioned previously. Re’m explains similarly. [We see that] a קיר ["wall"] is always made of stone because in Parshas Metzora it is written, “Behold the affliction is in the walls of the house” (Vayikra 14:37) and afterwards it is written, “Remove the stones” (v. 40) which implies that the wall was made from stone. Consequently, קיר ["wall"] here, which refers to the barrier mentioned above, was made from stones (see Bava Kamma 29a).

V. 24. במשעול הכרמים. Die Bedeutung der Wurzel ”שעל“ ist nicht ganz sicher. Nach unserer Stelle verglichen mit: אם ישפק עפר שמרון לשעלים לכל העם (Kön. I. 20. 16) und מי מדד בשעלו מים (Jes. 40, 12) scheint שעל einen Fuß oder Schritt als Maß zu bedeuten, und משעול ist ein enger Pfad, welchen man nur schrittweise durchgehen kann. Dunkel jedoch bleibt dabei בשעלי שעורים (Jechesk. 13, 19). Vielleicht heißt שועל Fuchs, als Pfadschleicher zwischen Weinbergen, denen eben Füchse so verderblich werden. גדר, umgrenzen, ist verwandt mit כתר: dem umgrenzenden, von allen andern abschließenden Reif: die Krone (vergl. זֵר von ”זור“).

גדר מזה וגדר מזה, “with a fence being on either side.” There are some commentators who claim that this “fence” was the same as the stone piles erected by Yaakov and Lavan, at the time they parted company; the same commentators also identify Bileam as being the reincarnation of Lavan, as he displayed the same attitude towards the Jewish people as had Lavan towards the first Jewish family. They go further and identify Bileam as Kushan Rishatayim, Judges 3,8 (compare Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 105), where they describe all three characters as basically the same, each a reincarnation of the former. At this point Bileam/Lavan is perceived as having violated the pact concluded at that stone pile between Yaakov and Lavan (Genesis 31, 4454) It was logical therefore that this stone pile would now threaten Bileam for violating the oath sworn by Lavan to Yaakov at the time. The קיר, wall, mentioned in our story is a clear reference to the stones erected by both Lavan and Yaakov at that time. If Bileam is described a little while later as being lame, this is attributed to the ass having pressed him against that wall as punishment for his violating the original oath of peace between Yaakov and Lavan. (Compare 23,3, וילך שפי, “he walked with a limp.”)

גדר מזה וגדר מזה A FENCE BEING ON THIS SIDE AND A FENCE ON THAT SIDE — The term גדר without further definition is one of stone (and that is why in the next verse it is called a קיר which is a term for a stone wall; cf. Leviticus 14:37—40).

וַתִּלָּחֵץ — the Niphal form denotes that SHE PRESSED HERSELF.

ותלחץ את רגל בלעם, which resulted in Bileam becoming partially lame as we know from 23,3 וילך שפי, he walked with a limp.

וַתִּלְחַץ — the Kal denotes that SHE PRESSED something else — viz., את רגל בלעם BALAAM’S FOOT.

ויוסף מלאך ה' עובר AND THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT FURTHER — went further in front of him — it went on so as to be before him in another spot. It is similar to, (Genesis 33:3) “And he passed in front of them”. — And there is a Midrashic explanation in Tanchuma: What reason had he to stand in three places? He (the Angel) showed him (Balaam) symbols referring to the three patriarchs (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 8).

אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל, “where there was no room to turn right or left.” This needs to be understood allegorically, [I suppose because both the words “right” and “left” are superfluous. Ed.] The words are understood as referring to people who veer theologically to the ‘right’ or ‘left, i.e. Avraham and Yitzchok each had a son who did not follow in his father’s footsteps. By the time Yaakov appeared on the scene of history all his children followed in his footsteps. The descriptions of the ability of the ass to pass the angel in the first two instances, though with difficulty, and not without discomfort to its owner, were to be a message to Bileam that by now there was no loophole in the conduct of the descendants of Avraham that would allow him room for his curse to be effective.

To place himself before him in a different place. Rashi is answering the question: The word עבור ["passed"] is only appropriate where one crosses a river or between two objects, but here we do not find that [Bil'am] passed through anything. Therefore he explains that עבור here means “[passed] before him” as if to say that he went to another place to stand before him. The reason why Rashi stated לעבור ["to pass"] instead of עבור ["passed"] is that this is the rule of the root עבר that it comes with a lamed. Re’m.

V. 26. עבר ,ויוסף וגו׳ עבור eigentlich an jemandem vorübergehen, daher auch: an ihm vorbei in die Richtung gehen, der er selbst zu folgen hat.

ויוסף מלאך ה עבור, “and the angel of the Lord went further;” according to Rashi he hinted to him that a people founded on the merits of three patriarchs such as Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, would hardly be intimidated by the curses of the likes of a moneyoriented Bileam. In Lavan’s time Yaakov had not yet been able to draw on the merits of three patriarchs as could the Israelites in the meantime. When Bileam thought that the fact that Yishmael and the sons of Keturah, all of whom Avraham expelled, were asign of spiritual weakness in that house, the merit acquired by Yitzchok at the binding of him at Mount Moriah, offset any such notion. When Bileam thought that the fact that Yitzchok had also sired Esau showed spiritual weakness in the family of that patriarch, the fact that all of Yaakov’s children had remained true to the Abrahamitic tradition blocked his attempts in that direction to harm the Israelites by cursing them. This is the implied meaning of the words: אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל, “where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left.”

אשר אין דרך, ”where there was no path.” Seeing that he had come to a narrow place where Bileam was deprived of the protection of the two lads he had taken along with him, we find here confirmation that when a threesome walks together, or even a twosome such as when Avraham and Yitzchok went to the way to the Akeydah, Satan was unable to frustrate their holy mission. Now when circumstances had arisen that forced Bileam to be on his own, Satan had a chance to target him. [This appears to be a departure from Tanchuma’s approach on that verse. Ed.]

He showed him the signs of the Patriarchs. It appears to me that the meaning is as follows: At the first stop he had space at either side, therefore it is written, “The donkey turned aside from the way” (v. 23) implying that it only had to turn aside a little. At the second stop it could only move to one side, as it is written, “She was pressed against the wall” (v. 25) implying that it pressed itself against that side of the wall in order for the angel to pass by. At the third stop there was no room to turn to the right or to the left, as it is written in the verse. What were the sign? That if he wanted to curse the sons of Avrohom he would find a space at either side where the curse could fall, for the sons of Yishmoel and the sons of Keturah were descended from him. And if he wanted to curse the sons of Yitzchak, he would find a space at one side, for Eisav was descended from him. And if he wanted to curse the sons of Yaakov then he would not find a blemish in them, thus he could not touch them. This is what was meant when the Torah writes at the third stop that it was “במקום צר ["in a narrow place"]” which alludes to Yaakov as it says [about him], “ויצר לו ["he was distressed"].”

V. 27. ויחר אף וגו׳. Wäre Bileam nicht so ganz und gar von dem Zwecke seiner Reise und von dem ihm unbezweifelten Gelingen derselben dünkelhaft erfüllt gewesen, es hätte ihm, dem ja sonst auf נחש Horchenden, dieses dreimalige Stocken seiner Wanderung ominös erscheinen und ihn stutzig machen müssen. — במקל. Bis dahin schlug er sie nur mit der Reitgerte, um sie in den rechten Weg zu lenken, jetzt aber mit seinem Stocke in strafendem Zorn.

ותרבץ תחת בלעם ויחר אף בלעם, “when she lay down beneath Bileam, Bileam became very angry.” His anger was prompted by the fact that his ass had chosen to deny him her services at the very moment when her master had been injured and was in need of her more than ever before.

ויך את האתון במקל, “he struck the ass; the first time with the palm of his hand, the second time with a kind of riding whip, and the third time with his walking staff, as one does to obstinate domestic beasts.

זה שלש רגלים THESE THREE TIMES — By these words he suggested to him: You seek to root out a nation that celebrates three festivals (שלש רגלים) annually?! (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 9).

ויפתח ה' את פי האתון, He provided her with the ability to speak; we are familiar with the verse in Psalms 51,17 which we recite daily before our prayers, asking G’d ה' שפתי תפתח, O Lord please open my lips.” G’d went to all these lengths in order to provide Bileam with yet another incentive to become a penitent. Solomon in Proverbs 16,1 points out מה' מענה לשון, “the answer of the tongue comes from G’d.” Even when man is not prepared to change his way for the better, G’d, on occasion, initiates a step in this direction; how much more so will He extend a helping hand to sinners who seek to mend their ways! All of this in order to save the sinner from perdition.

Which celebrates three pilgrimages a year. [You might ask why] He alluded to this mitzvah and not to any other mitzvah? The answer is that regarding the pilgrimages it is written three times, “All of your males shall see” (Shemos 34:23). The Rabbis expound the word “see” to teach that just as you come to see, [so you come to be seen by Hashem] (Chagigah 2a). Thus the angel said to him, “You are coming to uproot a people from the world whom Hashem wishes to see three times [a year]. How can this take place if you obliterate them from the world?”

V. 28. ויפתח וגו׳. In dem Momente, in welchem der Mann gehobenen Geisteswortes, von Leidenschaft und niederer Begierde umnachtet, dieser geistigen Begabung unwürdig erscheint, gewährt Gott der Tierintelligenz und dem Drange berechtigter Tierempfindung die Gabe menschlichen Wortes — und bereitet eben damit zugleich den Mann gehobener Menschenrede, wie unwürdig er derselben sich auch gezeigt und wie missbräuchlich er sie auch bis jetzt verwendet, auf den Moment vor, wo sein Menschenwort in den Dienst der Gottesrede treten soll und er — widerstrebend — seinen Mund zum Herold göttlicher Wahrheitsverkündigung wird leihen müssen. Der dem Tiere Sprache verleiht, kann auch eines Bileams Mund zum Verkünder Seines Wortes gebrauchen. — רגלים (siehe Schmot zu Kap. 23, 14).

Adonoy opened the mouth of the donkey. Apparently this, too, was a necessity for that specific time. It was intended to show Bil'am that he is comparable to this donkey which does not naturally speak but, only to honor Israel, Hashem opened its mouth. Bil'am was identical — it was only a necessity for that specific time that Hashem opened his mouth with prophecy to honor Israel. Additionally, it was to prevent the nations of the world from claiming that if they were given prophets, they would have improved their ways.

מה עשיתי לך , “what have I done to you?” [It did not dawn on the ass that her master had not seen the angel barring the path. Ed.] The letter ל in the word לך, has a semivowel sheva.

התעללת — Understand this as the Targum does: an expression denoting scorn and disdain — [THOU HAST MADE SPORT OF ME].

כי התעללת בי, “because you mocked me!” As we pointed out already Bileam should have expressed his amazement at the ass’s sudden ability to speak to him. However, Bileam was so intent on reaching his destination and accomplishing his evil intent that he related to the ass’s speaking with utter naivity, taking the phenomenon for granted, and conversing with the ass as if with an equal. If the Torah does not report any reaction by the Moabite members of the delegation or of Bileam’s personal valet, perhaps they had not been privy to this conversation having walked some distance ahead (compare Nachmanides). This great miracle may have occurred when Bileam remained alone with the ass. Alternately, no one else had become privy to the miracle just as the prophets who were disciples of Elijah had not seen him ascend to heaven except for Elisha, or just as Daniel’s companions had not experienced Daniel’s visions even while walking alongside him, (Daniel 10,7).

This matter was extremely disparaging from him. There are those who raise the difficulty: Why was this disparaging? Surely Bil’am himself said that he had no power, only that he knew how to discern the time at which Hashem is angry, as Rashi explains later on the verse (23:8) “What Divine wrath can I evoke if Hashem has not been angry.” If so why was it disparaging, given that now was not a time of anger. The answer is that Balak and the dignitaries did not know this initially, for Balak had said, “For I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed” (v. 6). Surely [one could challenge and say that] he was only able to curse when Hashem was angry, and perhaps He would not be angry. Rather, one must say that Bil’am had not revealed this secret, and that later against his will and to his detriment the matter was revealed.

V. 29. כי התעללת בי (siehe Schmot 10, 2).

לו יש חרב בידי I WOULD THERE WERE A SWORD IN MY HAND — This utterance was a great shame for him in the sight of the princes: this man was going for the purpose of slaying a whole nation by his mouth, and for this animal he required a weapon! (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 9).

ההסכן הסכנתי — Understand this as the Targum does — HAVE I EVER LEARNT? Similar is, (Job 22:2) “Does a man learn (יסכן) for God’s benefit” (see Rashi on this verse). And our Rabbis have explained this verse in the Talmud: They said to him, “What is the reason you are not riding on a horse?” He replied to them: “I have left it in the meadow grass” (i.e., I have put it out to graze). Whereupon the ass exclaimed: Am I not your ass upon whom thou hast ridden from my very youth unto this day?!” (so you see, you have never possessed a horse) — as it is related in Treatise Avodah Zarah 4b.

?ההסכן הסכנתי, you should have reflected on the meaning of my behaviour knowing that it is so totally out of character for me to act in this manner unless there was an urgent reason. You should have realised that all this only happened to you in order to teach you that your plan will not succeed, for even though you did not have an overt sign there have been hints.

I sent it out to pasture. [ברטיבא שדאי] means, “They are grazing in the dirt” as if to say the horses are grazing in the field, but she said to him “I am your donkey.” He said, “Yes for [carrying a] burden but not for riding.” But she said to him, “That you have been riding on me.” He said, “Sometimes, on a temporary basis.” But she said to him, “All of your life until this very day, and not just this but you have also lain with me” as it says, "ההסכן הסכנתי ["was it ever my habit"]?" For concerning Avishag the Shunamite it is written (Melachim I 1:4) “to be a סוכנת ["covering"] for the king” which means to warm him [by lying with him].

V. 30. הלא אנכי וגו׳. In מ׳׳ר wird hieran die Bemerkung geknüpft, dass wir uns in Bileam keinen bejahrten Mann vorzustellen haben. Sein Tier war älter als er. Dieses jüngere Alter passt ganz zu der Leidenschaftlichkeit, die seine Handlungsweise verrät. — ההסכן וגו׳. Wir haben schon zu Bereschit 19, 4 bemerkt, wie הסכן auf etwas dauernd seine Achtsamkeit richten bedeutet. Es liegt in diesem Begriff ganz dieselbe Anschauung wie in unserem deutschen Worte "pflegen", dass auch die einem Gegenstande zugewandte dauernde Fürsorge, z. B. Krankenpflege und zugleich auch die der Ausübung einer Tätigkeit dauernd zugewandte Gedanken- und Willensrichtung, die Gewohnheit bedeutet.

אשר רכבת עלי, “the one upon which you have ridden.” There are several interruptions in the cantillation signs in this verse, indicating that the ass did not immediately add the words: “all your life.”

מעודך עד היום הזה, “from the time you have learned how to ride.” These words complement the ass’ question if it had ever been in the habit of acting so strangely. You should have asked yourself what could possibly be the reason for my having acted so strangely and out of character. Surely I must have had a valid reason for acting as I did.

AND THE ETERNAL OPENED THE EYES OF BALAAM. From this verse we learn that Balaam was not a prophet [who habitually received Divine messages], because had he been a prophet, how could it be that he required “opening of the eyes” to see the angel, which is the term used by Scripture about someone who has not reached the degree of prophecy, such as Elisha’s young man,⁷⁶II Kings 6:17: And the Eternal opened the eyes of the young man. or Hagar the Egyptian,⁷⁷Genesis 21:19: And G-d opened her eyes. and Scripture does not speak in this manner about the prophets! And indeed Scripture calls him, Balaam the son of Beor, the soothsayer.⁷⁸Joshua 13:22. And when Balaam said, as the Eternal may speak unto me,⁷⁹Above, Verse 8. he called his [ability] to know future events by means of his soothsaying “the word of G-d,” [and it does not refer to the gift of prophecy]. But for the sake of the honor of Israel G-d [indeed] came to him that night⁸⁰Ibid., Verse 9. [in a prophet-like vision], and afterwards he was favored with “opening of the eyes” in seeing the angel, and speaking to him, and finally he attained the degree of [seeing] the vision of the Almighty⁸¹Further, 24:4. — all this being for the sake of Israel and in their honor. But after he returned to his land, however, he [reverted to the status of a mere] soothsayer, for that is how Scripture describes him at [the time of] his death, [saying]: And Balaam the son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword,⁷⁸Joshua 13:22. and G-d forbid that they should stretch forth a hand against a prophet of G-d! And so did the Rabbis say in the Midrash Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah:⁸²Bamidbar Rabbah 20:16. “Balaam partook of the Ruach Hakodesh,⁶⁴Literally, “The Holy Spirit.” See Rambam in Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, at the paragraph beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also above, Seder Korach, Note 71 and Ramban ibid. but after he associated himself with Balak, the Ruach Hakodesh departed from him and he became again a [mere] soothsayer, as he had been originally. Therefore he complained: “I was elevated [in prophecy], but Balak brought about my descent.’”

ויגל ה' את עיני בלעם, “Hashem uncovered the eyes of Bileam.” Nachmanides writes that the principal message of our verse is that there was a need to remove the spiritual blinkers from Bileam’s eyes, the blinkers that had prevented him from becoming aware of the angel. All this teaches that Bileam was not a prophet in the true sense of the word else G’d did not need to remove these “blinkers” from his eyes. We find something parallel in Kings II 6,17, when Elisha’s disciple needed to have similar “blinkers” removed with the help of Hashem. Hagar, the Egyptian maid of Sarah, also underwent such removal of blinkers that enabled her to “find” a well that had been nearby all the time. (Genesis 21,19) Such expressions never occur in connection with true prophets. Bileam is correctly referred to as a קוסם “a sorcerer,” When the Torah quotes him as revealing what “Hashem had said to him” regarding future events, this reflects only knowledge he had acquired by resorting to magic. When G’d did appear to him at night, this was not because he was a prophet, but this was in honour of Israel. Similarly, when he describes himself as מחזה שדי, someone accorded visions of the Divine, this too was only in honour of Israel, where he prophesied Israel’s feats in the future. When he returned to his home he is again referred not as a seer, or prophet but either without title or as the sorcerer when his death by the sword during the punitive expedition against the Midianites is reported in the Torah (Numbers 31,8 and Joshua 13,22 respectively)

וחרבו שלופה בידו, “with a drawn sword in his hand.” This was a hint to Bileam that he would ultimately die by the sword. It presages Joshua 13,22: “and Bileam the magician they killed by the sword.”

כי ירט הדרך לנגדי BECAUSE THY WAY IS PERVERSE BEFORE ME — Our Rabbis, the Mishnaic Sages, explain it as an acrostic, יראה she feared when ראתה, she saw, and נטתה she turned aside (Shabbat 105a), because that the journey (הדרך) is לנגדי, is against me, that is to say, to anger me, to affront me. — But according to its literal meaning, it is equivalent to חרד הדרך לנגדי, the word ירט being associated in meaning with רטט, “rapid movement” (cf. 49:24). The phrase therefore signifies: for I have seen the man who is taking the journey (Balaam) that he hastened and hurried on the journey, which was taken to my anger and to my despite. It is an elliptical verse (the words בעל הדרך being omitted after ירט), just as (II Samuel 13:39) “And the soul of David longed” (the word נפש being omitted). Another explanation is: ירט is an expression denoting “being pleased”. Similar is, (Job 16:11) “Through the wicked ירטני” — i.e., He appeases and comforts me through the wicked, whilst indeed they do nought but annoy me (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 9).

FOR THE WAY ‘YARAT L’NEGDI’ — for he who is going [on this journey, i.e., Balaam], has distorted his way and perverted it in front of my eyes, for I am He that knoweth, and am witness.⁸³Jeremiah 29:23. In our verse the angel is speaking, of course, on behalf of G-d, Whose messenger he is. Or [the word] l’negdi [may not mean “in My presence”, but] that he perverted the way [i.e., the journey] to act “against My Will,” as Onkelos rendered it, [“because you wanted to go on the journey against My Will”], as in [the verse]: for they have vexed ‘l’neged’ (before) the builders.⁸⁴Nehemiah 3:37. Here too, the word l’neged does not mean “in the presence of,” but means that they have vexed the builders by speaking “against” them. The word yarat is an expression of “perverting.” Similarly, through the hands of the wicked ‘yirteini’⁸⁵Job 16:11. which means “He warps me.” And the meaning of our verse is as I have explained,⁸⁶Above, in Verse 20. namely that the [actual] journey had the permission of the Glorious Name,⁵⁷Deuteronomy 28:58. but Balaam perverted it by going with them and apparently having them believe that he would curse the people [since he had not informed them of the conditions under which G-d had allowed him to go].

על מה הכית את אתונך?; When you saw these various signs you should have been astute enough to guess that your journey is unwelcome and will not succeed.

ויאמר אליו מלאך השם, The angel of the Lord said to Bileam, etc. We need to understand the angel's argument "why did you strike the ass three times?" It seems pretty obvious that Bileam struck the ass each time he perceived her to act disrespectfully towards him. Why did the angel have to ask? Besides, seeing that the angel said that he himself had been the cause that Bileam had been inconvenienced, why did he have to ask Bileam this question? The angel knew full well that Bileam had not been aware that the primary obstacle to his progress had been the angel and not the ass! The Torah itself testified that G'd had to open Bileam's eyes indicating that up until that moment they had been shut! Perhaps it was the angel's intention to humble Bileam so much that he would acknowledge by word that whereas his ass had seen an angel three times, he, the Seer who had claimed to be G'd's intimate, had not even seen the angel once. This would also demonstrate how insignificant had been Bileam's achievements in trying to penetrate the mysteries of how and when G'd does what He does. The words (verse 33) ותראני האתון, "the ass has seen me," were the ultimate degradation the angel inflicted when he contrasted Bileam's spiritual blindness with the ass's sensitivity to the presence of spiritual beings. These words had the effect of an arrow having been shot at Bileam's heart. This then was the whole purpose of G'd having despatched the angel.

כי ירט הדרך, “for the path (you had taken) was obnoxious to me.” Nachmanides understands these words as “the person taking that path behaves in a manner irritating me extremely.” The root of the word when it appears in Job 16,11 ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, means: “He thrust me in the clutches of the wicked.” Basically, the meaning may be that although Bileam started out going with this delegation having secured permission for the journey, he corrupted it into a journey intended to defy and thwart G’d’s wishes by seeking devious means of cursing the Jewish people.

An acronym: “She was afraid…” As if to say that she turned because she saw me [and she was afraid].

V. 32. ירט ,כי ירט הדרך לנגדי kommt nicht wieder vor. ועל ידי רשעים יִ ְד ֵטנִי (Job 16. 11) ist der Form nach von ירט .רטה dürfte das verstärkte ירד sein und das Jähe, Abschüssige eines Weges bedeuten. לנגדי wie אין הכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ד׳ (Prov. 21, 30). Nicht weil du überhaupt gegangen, — dazu ward dir ja die Erlaubnis — sondern weil du in einer der meinigen entgegengesetzten Absicht den Weg unternommen und du so völlig unbesorgt und sicher zu deinem Ziele zu gelangen gedenkst, wie man auf einem jäh abschüssigen Wege zweifellos nach unten gelangt.

כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, “because your way is contrary to me.” The word כי is used here in the sense of “although,” just as in Genesis 48,14: “כי נמשה הבכור, “although Menashe is the firstborn.” The same meaning for the word כי is true inPsalms 41,5: כי חטאתי לך, which correctly translated means: “although I have sinned against You.” It would not make sense to translate this as “for I have sinned against you,” although most translated editions of Psalms translate it this way. One does not ask for mercy because one has sinned, but in spite of having sinned. The angel explains to Bileam that although the latter had undertaken a mission against G-d’s will, G-d gives him this opportunity to desist from his evil intent and the resulting punishment. [This is also why the angel is associated with G-d’s attribute of Mercy, Hashem, instead of with His attribute of Justice, i.e. elokim. Ed.]

זה שלוש רגלים, how could you remain obstinate in light of three successive warnings! How could you persist in trying to hasten events?

As if to say, “To arouse my vengeance, and to anger me.” Rashi is answering the question: Since ירט is an acronym, what does “your way is against me” refer to? He answers that it refers back to "behold, I came out to obstruct you” and this is what the angel was saying: I came out to obstruct you because the way that you have followed is contrary to me, to arouse my vengeance and to anger me. With this the difficulty of Re’m is somewhat resolved, for he writes that he does not know how to explain the word כי ["because"] here.

The angel had also wanted to demonstrate the immediate negative effects Bileam's decision to go with Balak's delegates had on his standing as a prophet. We have been told in Sanhedrin 106 that originally Bileam enjoyed Holy Spirit. As soon as he befriended Balak this Holy Spirit departed from him and the Bible refers to him as a קסם, sorcerer, (Joshua 13,22). The proof of this is the fact that he did not recognise that the angel was blocking his way. Previously he would have immediately recognised the angel as such. The angel had been despatched against him to apprise him of the fact that he had forfeited the Holy Spirit he once possessed. The operative words of the angels are כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, i.e. because he had decided to walk along that way against the wishes of G'd he lost his Holy Spirit (compare Nachmanides' comment on this verse).

הנה אנכי יצאתי לשטן, When I went out of my way to oppose you I did so for your eventual benefit!

The word ירט denotes hurrying. [רטט] means hurrying.

כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, the root of the word ירט is רטט, it occurs in a sense similar to here in Jeremiah 49,24 ורטט החזיקה “and a quaking has seized her.” The construction is parallel to that of the root רצץ, to crush, which we find meaning “it crushed his skull,” ותרץ את גוגלתו, in Judges 9,53. The angel when saying הנה יצאתי לשטן, explained that his purpose in opposing Bileam had been to frighten him into turning back Sometimes the presence of a hostile or superior force is felt although not seen, as in the case of Daniel’s companions who trembled although they did not see the visions Daniel had seen and which were the cause of this trembling. (Daniel 10,7). The angel chides Bileam for all his efforts apparently having been in vain. He accuses Bileam of having been stiff-necked, else he could not have failed to notice the signs.

Because I saw that the traveler along the course hastened and hurried on the course to anger and defy me. This is what the verse is saying: That "the traveler along the course", referring to Bil’am, "hurried contrary to Me", meaning to anger Me and to defy Me. Thus this is a shortened passage, because there are two nouns missing, the [name of the] traveler and the course [he was travelling]; for it would have been correct to write, “Because the traveler along the course hurried on the course that was contrary to me.” Accordingly, it is understandable why Rashi brought the simple interpretation after he brought the Midrashic interpretation, because according to the Midrashic interpretation one does not have to say that this is a shortened passage.

This is a shortened passage, similar to “Dovid longed.” For it was also missing [something], since ותכל ["longed"] is in the feminine form and cannot refer to Dovid. Thus it must mean “Dovid’s soul longed.”

Another interpretation ירט denotes desire. The structure of the verse is as before, [but here it means] that the traveler along the course wanted to go along a course that was contrary to me. However, according to the first interpretation ירט is an expression of hurrying, while according to this interpretation it is an expression of desire.

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.”

כי לא ידעתי FOR I KNEW NOT — This statement, too, (cf. v. 29), was a disgrace for him, for in spite of himself he had to admit it — because he used to boast that he knew the will of of the Most High (24:16) and now his own mouth bore testimony: “I knew not” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 10).

ויאמר בלעם…חטאתי, Bileam said…"I have sinned, etc." The word "I have sinned" referred to the angel having hinted that he had sinned by his having set out on the way. Regarding the angel's question of why he had beaten his ass, Bileam said: "I did not know." The word ועתה means that Bileam had now become a penitent. He no longer wanted to curse the Jewish people Concerrning the fact that he had set out on the way, Bileam offered that if this displeased the angel he was willing to turn back. The word לי meant that he now saw that it would be beneficial for him to go back home.

ויאמר בלעם אל מלאך ה' חטאתי, ”Bileam said to the angel of the Lord: ‘I sinned;’” our sages in Tanchuma Balak 10 state that this verse is proof that if someone confesses his guilt by saying “I have sinned,” the angel no longer has permission to touch him.

An attack against the Omnipresent. Rashi is answering the question: It was certainly wicked in his eyes given that he was angry with him! An additional difficulty is why does it say “in your eyes” which implies in your eyes but not in anyone else’s eyes? A further difficulty is why it says לי (lit. [I will return] "for myself"). In response Rashi explains that it was “an attack against the Omnipresent…” and with this all the questions are answered.

V. 34. חטאתי: ich habe aus Unwissenheit gefehlt. ועתה אם רע וגו׳: damit war er endlich in die demütig bescheidene Gesinnung gelangt, die ihm von Anfang an Gott gegenüber gebührt hätte und die Aufgabe, die er nun lösen soll, bedingt.

חטאתי כי לא ידעתי, “I have sinned for I did not know;” the word כי here is to be understood in the sense of אשר, “in that,” i.e. Bileam explains that he had not known previously why his journey would not be successful.”

אם רע בעיניך אשובה לי IF IT BE EVIL IN THINE EYES, I WILL RETURN — To set himself in opposition to the Omnipresent was the purpose of this reply. He said, in effect, “He Himself commanded me to go, and you, angel, annul His words. He is accustomed to this — that He says something and an angel recalls it. He said to Abraham, (Genesis 22:2) Take now thy son, etc.’ and by an angel annulled His words. I, too: "If it be evil in thine eyes, then I must return” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 10).

כי לא ידעתי, “for I had been unaware, etc.” He, who had boasted that he was יודע מחשבות עליון, “aware of the thoughts of the Supreme One,” now had to humble himself by admitting that he did not know anything.

לך עם האנשים GO WITH THE MEN — On that road which a man is resolved to go, he is allowed to go (Makkot 10b).

GO WITH THE MEN; BUT ONLY THE WORD THAT I SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEE, THAT THOU SHALT SPEAK. It is possible that He means to say: “Go with the men; but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak, and you should inform them [of this limitation of your powers].” Or it may mean that after Balaam had confessed [his evil intention, and said]: if it displease thee, I will get me back,⁹⁹Verse 34. He said to him, “Go with them, for I have forgiven you your sin, but only [on condition] that you remember My warning which I have given you [only to speak that which I tell you to say].” He had to say this [again] to him, in order that Balaam should not think that He was telling him: “Go with them to do what they have asked you to do.” It is also possible that since he who went [on the journey, i.e., Balaam] wanted to curse the people and did not want to bless them under any circumstances, therefore G-d warns him on every occasion that He speaks to him. It is for this reason that Balaam informed Balak at the very start of his speaking to him, [saying]: Lo, I am ‘come’ unto thee,¹⁰⁰Verse 38. [meaning to say that] “I have only been permitted to come, but as far as [cursing] the people [of Israel] is concerned, have I now any power at all to speak any thing¹⁰⁰Verse 38. in accordance with your wish? The word that G-d putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak — whether it be a curse or a blessing. Decide therefore if you [Balak] want me to speak about them [despite this risk], and if you do not want it, I will already now get me back.”

לך עם האנשים, do not go following your own agenda, but go with them as if you are there only at their request, so that they will not kill you for reneging.

ויאמר מלאך…לך עם האנשים, The angel said: "go with the men, etc." Why did the angel say: "with the men?" Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 20,15 say that the angel told him that the die had been cast, that from now on Bileam belonged to the same team as these men, and that ultimately he would be deprived of any future in the world to come. I believe that this is pure homiletics; we need to understand the plain meaning of the angel's words. We need to understand further why the angel did not tell Bileam to go home as the latter had offered to do and as we would have expected. However, the angel wanted to explain to Bileam the reason he agreed that Bileam continue to travel with the emissaries. It all had to do with what these emissaries would think if Bileam suddenly went home. They would conclude that G'd was afraid of what Bileam would be able to do once he was in Moav and that on that account G'd had forbidden him to come along. Allowing the emissaries of Balak to arrive at such a conclusion would be a desecration of the name of G'd, i.e. would lower G'd's image in their estimation as I have already explained on the words הולך הוא. Perhaps the angel's instructions have to be understood thus: "go with them and do not isolate yourself in solitude." In this way Bileam would not have an opportunity to prepare himself to contravene G'd's instructions by consulting his charms. Bileam complied, as we know from the words וילך בלעם עם שרי בלק, "Bileam went together with the ministers of Balak."

לך עם האנשים אפס את הדבר, “go with the men, but only, etc.” According to Nachmanides it is quite possible that the meaning of the line is: “go with the men but inform them that you may only speak what I allow you to say.” Alternatively, after Bileam had confessed his sin and said to the angel that he would return home if it displeased the angel that he would continue on this mission, the angel meant “go with them for I have forgiven your sin, but be careful not to say anything other than what I shall tell you to say.” The angel had to add this latter remark so that Bileam would not have an excuse to think that he had now become a free agent. This is why Bileam informed Balak of this condition he was subject to as soon as he met him.

אותו תדבר, “it you shall say.” Previously (verse 20) G’d had said to him in the dream: “it you shall do.” Clearly, the angel warned Bileam specifically about what to say. G’d’s permission for Bileam to accompany the delegation extended precisely to that, not one iota more.

A man is lead along the path he wishes to follow. For if this were not so, since Bil’am had said that he would return, the angel should have told him to return. Rather, it was because “a man [is led along] the path that he wishes…” that he told him to go. (Nachalas Yaakov) There is a difficulty as to why Rashi did not explain this above on the verse, “Arise and go with them” (v. 20). It is apparent that Rashi holds one cannot prove anything from the verse above, for there Hashem did not lead him along the path that he wished to follow. He wanted to curse them, while Hashem only led him on this path for his monetary benefit, having already warned him against cursing them. However here the angel said, “Because your way is contrary to Me” (v. 32), meaning even going for monetary benefit [is contrary to Me]. This caused him to retort saying, “If it is evil in your eyes to go for money, I shall return.” Even so the angel permitted him, by saying to go with the men for money. Perforce, “A man [is led along] the path that he wishes…”

ואפס את הדבר, “however, only the word, etc.;” (Bileam is warned that he will have to utter words against his will to do so). If these words refer to an earlier part of this chapter, as according to a different commentator, then we must assume that the angel had been sent as a warning, in order to frighten him.

לך עם האנשים GO WITH THE MEN — for thy lot is with them, for in the end you will perish from the world.

ואך את הדבר, In spite of all that has transpired I am not afraid that you will actually act against My interest as the fact is that you will not be able to do anything other than what I will command you.

הנה באתי אליך, “here I have come to you;” with these words, unnecessary words, Blieam meant to convey that although he had followed the invitation of Balak to come to him, this, and only this, is what he could do. He could not curse the Jewish people.

In spite of your wishes “the word that I will speak”… For if not so, what did the angel gain by chasing after Bil’am in response to Hashem’s anger over him going? If it was in order to say to him, “But the word that I will speak…” surely Hashem had already told him, “However, whatever [I will say]…” (v. 20) Re’m. It appears to me that Rashi learned this from the term אפס [lit. "naught"] because it is known that the term אפס refers to the disappearance of something or some matter, as also (Meir Nesiv) explains on the word אפס. Thus the words of the angel to Bil’am were that you can go, however the [purpose of the] journey which was in your mind is gone, because you are obliged to say “the word that I will speak…”

ואפס את הדבר…אותו תדבר. "However, the word which I put in your mouth, it you shall utter!" Here the angel made a new condition, something that G'd had not told Bileam outright in his dream. When G'd had spoken to Bileam previously (verse 20) He had said: "the word I shall tell you that is what you shall do!" G'd's wording at that time had allowed Bileam to plot how to get around what G'd had obviously had in mind. His own strength lay both in deed and in speech. The deeds would be the practice of magic. He also exercised his power by means of his evil eye. Zohar volume 3 page 202 draws attention to this in connection with 24,2: "Bileam raised his eyes and saw Israel, etc." This is a hint that Bileam tried to employ his evil eye against the Jewish people at that moment but that G'd covered the Israelites with His protective "shadow" so that Bileam could no longer see them. When the Torah said in 24,2 ותהי עליו רוח השם, the subject is the Jewish people, not Bileam. G'd protected Israel against the evil eye (Zohar volume 3, page 211.) The power Bileam exercised by mouth was his ability to curse. When G'd had said to him during the night: "it you shall do," He had meant to forbid him also to speak against the Jewish people if such words as he would say would result in deeds. Bileam had not understood this correctly as his mind was bent on finding a loophole in G'd's instructions. This is why at this point the angel told him unmistakably that he must not even utter a word against the Jewish people. This included the giving of advice designed to harm the Jewish people. Bileam did not comply with this part of the warning. Bamidbar Rabbah 20,18 writes on 23,5 "The Lord put a word in Bileam's mouth," that G'd placed an iron bar in Bileam's mouth and that every time Bileam tried to utter something evil the bar threatened to choke him. In this way G'd frustrated Bileam's evil intent. We also know that Bileam gave the advice to Balak which eventually caused the death of 24.000 Israelite males. He even endeavoured to violate G'd's instructions by putting his evil eye on the people until G'd intervened. All of these things combined provided sufficient excuse for the Israelites to kill Bileam by the sword in the course of their punitive expedition against Midian. According to Sanhedrin 97 Gentiles are culpable both for sins committed by deed and for sins committed by word of mouth. Bileam had been warned by G'd on both counts so that he only received his due when the Israelites killed him.

ואפס BUT — in spite of yourself, את הדבר אשר אדבר וגו׳ THE WORD THAT I SHALL SPEAK [TO THEE, THAT THOU SHALT SPEAK].

Since your portion is with them. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “with the men”? [He answers that] it was to hint that “your portion is with them.” [One might ask the reason why] Rashi reverses the order of the verse and comments on it [so that they are] out of sequence. The answer is that Rashi [first] comes to teach that “but…” refers [back] to the word “go” so that one can learn that “a man [is lead along] the path that he wishes…” For according to the teaching, “Go with the men — since your portion…” the words “but…” would not be relevant. Also, one cannot say that it is a new subject and the beginning of a [new] statement, because why would the vav conjunction (‘and’ indicating a continuation of the previous topic) be necessary? Rather, one must say as explained.

עם שרי בלק [SO BALAAM WENT] WITH THE PRINCES OF BALAK — he was glad to curse them, even as they were (see Rashi v. 21) (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 10).

וישמע בלק AND BALAK HEARD [THAT BALAAM WAS COMING] — He sent messengers to announce this to him.

ויצא לקראתו, in order to honour him, for Balak knew that Bileam was a very vain person, as our sages have made clear in Avot 5,18.

ויצא לקראתו אל עיר מואב, He came to welcome him to the city of Moav. Why did the Torah have to bother to tell us where the meeting between Bileam and Balak took place? Perhaps the Torah wanted to show us that Balak did not hold Bileam in high esteem. Although Balak had heard that Bileam was on his way, he did not leave his city to prepare a welcome such as one does for highly placed visitors. He was content to await Bileam's arrival before welcoming him.

To his metropolis. For if not so, why does it say “the city of Moav”? If it was to inform of the honor that they accorded him by coming out to greet him at the edge of the boundary, it should have said, “He went out to meet him at the city on the edge of the boundary.” Why does it need to say, “To the city of Moav which is on the boundary of Arnon.” In a similar fashion [the verse] regarding Kiryas Chutzos (v. 39) is expounded, as Rashi explains below; for [there too] why does it say, “And they came to Kiryas Chutzos”?

V. 36. אשר בקצה הגבול: er ging ihm soweit als nur immer möglich entgegen. Er empfing ihn an dem allerersten Orte, der auf seinem Gebiete lag.

אל עיר מואב [AND HE WENT TOWARDS HIM] UNTO THE CITY OF MOAB — to his metropolis, the most important city he had, as much as to say: See what these Israelites wish to exterminate (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 10).

ויצא לקראתו אל עיר מואב אשר על גבול ארנון אשר בקצה הגבול. Why all these details about the location of the border? Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that if Balak did trouble himself to go to the border of Moav which was close to his capital, he did not do so in order to honour Bileam but that he had a different reason. Bamidbar Rabbah 20,16 explains that the reason Balak went to this border was to tell Bileam that this border had been established already in times of Noach [not literally speaking as Moav was not founded till after Abraham's time. Ed.] He wanted to show Bileam how both Og and Sichon had been guilty of violating these longstanding borders. At any rate, if not for these political considerations, Balak would not have troubled himself to come out towards Bileam even this little distance.

האמנם לא אוכל כבדך AM I NOT ABLE INDEED TO HONOUR YOU — He prophesied unwittingly that he (Balaam) would eventually leave him in disgrace (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 10).

He prophesied that he would in the end depart from him in disgrace. (Gur Aryeh) For if not so, it should say האמנם אמרת לא אוכל כבדך ["Really, do you say that I am not capable of honoring you"] but what is meant by האמנם לא אוכל כבדך [lit. "Really, I am not capable of honoring you"]. Rather this was the truth, that he would not honor him.

V. 37. הלא שלח שלחתי kann nicht das wiederholte Schicken bezeichnen sollen, er macht ja den Vorwurf darüber, dass Bileam nicht gleich der ersten Sendung Folge geleistet habe. Es kann sich daher nur auf das Nachdrückliche und Gebührende dieser ersten Sendung beziehen.

הנה באתי אליך, even though I would have come to you at the time as you requested, what good would it have done you? Even now the situation is the same.

עתה היכול אוכל דבר מאומה? "Am I now able to say anything?" The reason the Torah quoted Bileam as saying עתה, "now," was to show us that this was his reaction to what the angel had told him when he had been expressly forbidden to be anything but G'd's mouthpiece. When Bileam repeated the words היכול אוכל he revealed the depth of his wickedness as he told Balak that he had tried 2 different ways to speak evil, but that G'd had blocked him in both instances. If only he had retained his freedom of action he would surely have cursed the Jewish people.

היכול אוכל דבר מאומה, ”am I empowered to say anything?” He referred to anything that Balak wanted him to say.

?היכול אוכל דבר מאומה; I am totally unable to speak in the manner normal people speak when they express their own will. הדבר אשר ישים אלוקים בפי אותו אדבר, similar to Samuel II 23,2 where David said that the spirit of the Lord spoke through him, i.e. רוח ה' דיבר בי. When uttering words in this fashion I am truly not the speaker.

הדבר אשר ישים ה' בפי אותו אדבר, ”whatever words Hashem will put in my mouth are the ones that I will utter.” He meant that it did not matter whether these words would be a curse or a blessing, as he was there only in his capacity as Hashem’s mouthpiece.

קרית חצות — a city (קריה) full of streets (חצות), — men and women and children thronging the streets, as much as to say: Look and have pity that these should not be exterminated (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 11).

וילך בלעם, Bileam went, etc. The fact that the Torah does not describe Bileam and Balak as walking together in the plural, i.e. וילכו, shows that Balak did not even show his guest the honour of letting him precede him. Balak marched ahead and Bileam caught up with him, or something similar. It is even possible that in this instance the word עמו means that he was forced to walk behind.

V. 39. קרית חצות. Es kommt, wenngleich selten, חוצות auch in der Bedeutung von Heerstraßen, Landstraßen vor. So wahrscheinlich: ושלח מים על פני חוצות (Job 5, 10), וחוצות תשים לך בדמשק (Kön. I. 20, 34). Es kann daher קרית חצות eine feste Stadt bezeichnen, welche einen Zentralpunkt bildet, von dem aus nach allen Richtungen Landstraßen ausgehen. Allein bei weitem entschiedener ist die Bedeutung von חוצות als Verkehrsstraßen einer Stadt, und in diesem Sinne wird es hier in מ׳׳ר verstanden; eine gassenreiche Stadt, שעשה שווקים של מקח וממכר ועשה לו אטליז להראות לו אוכלוסין לומר ראה מה אלו באין להרוג בני אדם ותינוקות שלא חטאו להן, in eine Stadt voller Straßen, Märkte, Geschäftsverkehr und Bevölkerung, ihm Moab in der ganzen Blüte seines nationalen Gedeihens zu zeigen, damit ihm die Bedeutung der Volkesgröße gegenwärtig sei, um deren Fortbestand es sich handle.

בקר וצאן THE HERD AND FLOCK — a small matter (one ox and one sheep, nothing in comparison with what he had promised him) (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 11).

וישלח לבלעם, as a gift offering in addition to his regular meal, in order to satisfy Bileam’s quest for honour.

ויזבח בלק, Balak slaughtered, etc. The Torah reveals another aspect of the low esteem Balak held Bileam in that he did not even serve him a meal before proceeding with the task for which he had been commissioned. It is possible that the Torah writes ולשרים אשר אתו, to indicate that Balak did not even send enough meat for Bileam's lads, only for the ministers of his entourage. All of this shows how little respect Balak displayed vis-a-vis Bileam. The reason for this apparent display of being a miser may have been either that Balak was afraid that Bileam would take everything for himself without sharing with the ministers as Bileam enjoyed a reputation of being avaricious. This is why Balak gave specific instructions that what he sent over was not to be Bileam's alone but was also intended for the ministers who accompanied him. This may be the reason why our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 20,16 claim that when Bileam saw how little meat Balak had allocated to him he threatened to send a curse against Balak's possessions on the morrow. As a reaction to this display of being cheap on the part of Balak, Bileam demanded on the morrow that Balak build an altar on which he would have to slaughter seven bulls and seven rams (23,1).

A small amount — only one of the cattle and one of the sheep. [Rashi derives this] because it is written, “For I will honor you greatly” (v. 17). [This leads one to ask] why it was necessary to write “cattle and sheep”? He would certainly have honored him as promised. Furthermore, it is the general custom to send food and drink to dignitaries who come to visit, and all the more so for Bil’am and the dignitaries who were with him who came at his behest. Rather, it is written “cattle and sheep” to teach you that he did not honor him as he had promised, but rather [only] with a small amount, and he only sent him one of the cattle and one of the sheep. This teaches the wickedness of Balak, that he said much but did little.

V. 40. ויזבח וגו׳ וישלח וגו׳, nicht ויעש משתה, er lud sie nicht zur Tafel, auch schon die פיעל-Form וישלח drückt nicht gerade eine ehrenvolle Sendung aus; Balak scheint nicht gerade sehr erbaut gewesen zu sein von Bileams Äußerung.

במות בעל BAMOTH-BAAL — Understand this as the Targum does: to the heights of his god (more lit., of that which he reverenced); Baal is the name of a god.

[AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MORNING AND BALAK TOOK BALAAM] AND BROUGHT HIM UP INTO BAMOTH-BAAL, AND HE SAW FROM THENCE THE UTMOST PART OF THE PEOPLE. Balak took him up to a [high] place from which he could see them [the people of Israel], in order that he could concentrate his curse upon them, and his mind would not separate itself from them, for it is one of the attributes of the soul’s powers that it attaches itself at the time of seeing a certain object as is known from that which the Sages tell¹⁰¹Baba Kamma 117a. The story is told there of a certain Babylonian scholar [Rav Kahana] who arrived at the academy of Rabbi Yochanan in the Land of Israel and Rabbi Yochanan was informed that “a lion had come up from Babylon.” When Rabbi Yochanan presented his teachings, Rav Kahana out of respect first remained silent. But when Rabbi Yochanan remarked his astonishment at his silence, Rav Kahana then successfully refuted Rabbi Yochanan’s teachings. Rabbi Yochanan, who could not see properly because of his heavy eye-lids [or eyelashes] asked his disciples to lift up his eye-lids so that he could see the new great scholar. Upon doing so, Rabbi Yochanan received the impression that the scholar [owing to a malformation of his lips] was laughing for having refuted him. Thereupon he gazed at him, and Rav Kahana died as a result. Ramban quotes this story in order to illustrate the “power of the soul” which can be transferred by a concentrated look. [of Rabbi Yochanan, that he said to his disciples]: “‘Lift up my eye-lids for me, because I want to see [this scholar].’ They [accordingly] lifted up his eye-lids. He set his eyes upon him, and [as a result] that person died.”
Now Scripture relates that Balaam did not see the whole camp [of Israel] because they were encamped in four standards [positioned in all] four directions of the heaven. On the second occasion Balak said to him, thou shalt see but the utmost part of them, and shalt not see them all,¹⁰²Further, 23:13. meaning: “this time also you will not [be able to] see them all, if that is what prevents you from cursing them, but [nonetheless] curse me them from thence¹⁰²Further, 23:13. if you can, for I do not have any place from where I can show you all of them.” Balak thought that perhaps there was a standard in one of the sections [of the camp of the Israelites] consisting of righteous and good people whom it pleased not the Eternal to crush,¹⁰³Isaiah 53:10. [and therefore Balak took Balaam to other places from which Balaam could see other parts of the camp, in order to curse them effectively].
It is also possible to explain that on the first occasion [referred to in this verse] Balaam did see the whole camp, for Bamoth-baal is a high place, and from there both of them [Balak and Balaam] saw part of the people, and built the altars there;¹⁰⁴Further, Verses 1-2. then Balaam ascended to the peak of the hill on that mountain, and saw the whole people, this being the meaning of [the expression] and he [Balaam] went ‘shephi,’¹⁰⁵Ibid., Verse 3. which means he went to “the height” thereof, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has explained.

וירא משם קצה העם, in order to harm them by focusing his evil eye on them. Compare kings II 2,24 ויפן אחריו ויראם ויקללם, “He turned around and cursed them in the name of the Lord.” (the prophet Elisha cursed the lads who had insulted him) Deuteronomy 34,1 is an example of the very reverse, i.e. bestowing a blessing. Moses looked at the people with a benevolent eye, i.e. he blessed them.

ויהי בבקר ויקח בלק…וירא משם קצה העם. On the following morning Balak took Bileam…and he saw a small part of the people. The word ויהי, as usual, also connotes something sad. The word may refer to the disagreement between Bileam and Balak over the measly portion of meat the latter had sent over on the previous day. The words ויקח בלק accordingly would refer to Balak trying to assuage Bileam's hurt feelings on the subject.

ויעלהו במות בעל וירא משם קצה העם, “he brought him up to the heights of Baal, and from there he could view the edge of the people.” Balak had brought him to an elevated piece of land from where it was possible to see some of the people of Israel. The Torah makes a point of telling us that Bileam could not see the whole people, seeing that the pattern in which they were encamped spread out in the four directions of the globe. This made it impossible to see more than some of them at one time. It was commonly believed that for a curse or a blessing to be effective, there had to be at least visual contact between the parties concerned. On the second occasion Balak informed Bileam in advance that he would only be able to see part of the people. Nonetheless he asked Bileam to at least curse the part of the people who were within his field of vision (23,13) He made it plain that he was unable to provide Bileam with a site from which he could see the entire encampment of the Israelites in all directions. Balak thought that possibly among the various sections of the people there could be a group of righteous people whom G’d did not want to be harmed in any way.

וירא משם קצה העם, “from that point he was able to see part of the people.” Our author understands these words as meaning that he saw the entire nation from one end (קצה) of the camp to the other.

ויעלהו במות בעל, “he brought him up to the heights of Baal;” the word בעל as a description of a plain, also occurs in Numbers 21,28: when it describes a similar plain in the region of the river Arnon. Our author draws the reader’s attention to what he had written on that verse. It also occurs in this sense in Joshua 11,17 בעל גד.

Another meaning of these words may be a reference to Bileam's partial lameness. As a rule people suffering from such lameness have difficulty in walking in the morning and especially if they have to climb hills. The word ויהי may hint at the discomfort Bileam experienced on that morning when he had to undertake physical exertions which were most difficult for him. Balak assisted him, and this may be the meaning of the words ויקח בלק את בלעם Balak helped Bileam climb the במות, the hills.

וירא משם את קצה העם, “He could see from there a portion of the people.” He could not see all of them. The reason was that their encampment extended in all four directions of the globe. Balak was very eager to lead Bileam to heights from which he could see them and focus his eye on them as he believed Bileam’s power to curse to repose in his evil eye. The eye, or the manner in which it sees, reflects the inner soul. Our sages in Baba Kama 117 comment on this: (in connection with a story involving Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Kahane where a stare from Rabbi Yochanan who mistakenly thought that Rabbi Kahane had made fun of him killed Rabbi Kahane). Rabbi Yochanan had used his eyes as conveying a curse. The reason that such stares from great Torah scholars can have such lethal effect is that these scholars cannot stand being deflected from thoughts of Torah even momentarily. When they encounter persons who cause them to be deflected from Torah thoughts they resent this strongly and when they look at the person causing this their look reflects their anger. They view the person having caused them to become deflected from pure Torah thoughts as if guilty of heresy, deserving to be cursed. This may be the meaning of Kohelet 10,9 ”He who splits logs, עצים, will be endangered by them.” If someone becomes the cause of the עץ החיים, i.e. Torah, to be “split,” to be interrupted, he endangers his life by doing so.
It is true, of course, that we find many times that the words or stares of great Torah scholars, pious individuals, do not appear to have any harmful effects at all; the matter is something which is subject to the individual. The makeup of the personality of the individual scholar determines if his stare can be potentially lethal. One requires this particular gift in addition to great Torah knowledge in order for one’s stare prompted by one’s anger to have such harmful effects as reported in the Talmud of certain outstanding personalities.

The word בבקר, "in the morning," may also indicate that Balak did not sleep well during the preceding night. We have a rule that kings do not normally rise till 3 hours after daybreak (Berachot 9). In this instance, Balak broke the rule and rose much earlier than usual.

Still another reason why the Torah mentioned the detail בבקר, may be connected with what we learned in A vodah Zarah 4. The Talmud questions what precise time is called רתח, a moment when G'd's anger is hot and Abbaye says it is three hours after daybreak. [In order to understand the significance of this let me quote from the text of the Talmud prior to this statement. The Talmud discusses Bileam's ability to divine what G'd thinks about and asks how this is possible in view of Bileam's demonstrated inability to know even what his ass was thinking about. After explaining that there was a special reason why on that day Bileam did not know what went on in his ass's mind, the Talmud even reconstructs the dialogue carried on between Bileam and his ass in addition to that reported in the Torah. At any rate, it is presumed that he was an expert at divining the precise moment when G'd is angry, something important because G'd's anger is so brief. Ed.] When the Torah speaks about בבקר, it hints that Balak and Bileam picked that moment in time when G'd might be angry at His world and a curse might be effective. Bamidbar Rabbah 20,18 also claims that the במות בעל mentioned in our verse refer to the cult of the בעל פעור and that Bileam foresaw that the Israelites would die there [as they did in due course as a result of Bileam's advice to Balak to have the Israelites seduced. Ed.] It is well known that this cult consisted of the worshiper excreting before that idol. Sanhedrin 64 describes what happened in these words: "how did one serve this particular deity? One ate beets and drank beer and then excreted and urinated in front of the idol." In other words, the very worship consisted in the worshiper behaving in the most primitive and revolting fashion. In view of this, Balak wanted to take Bileam up to the hills on which this cult was practiced and at the time it would be performed. This is the meaning of the words ויעלהו במות בעל, he took him up to the hills dedicated to the "Baal Pe-or." Perhaps this was not one of the cults which Bileam worshiped and Balak tried to talk him into performing such worship.

Still another reason for the Torah writing בבקר, "in the morning," may be related to what the Zohar wrote at the beginning of this portion when it described Balak's particular brand of magic and sorcery involving a bird, צפור. Balak took Bileam up to the hill at the time when this bird was known to be chirping. At such times Bileam could perform his tricks successfully.

Let us now turn to the reason that Bileam was only able to see a small part of the Jewish people from where Balak had taken him. We have already explained that Taanit 9 tells us that during all the preceding 39 years protective clouds had hovered over the encampment of the Jewish people so that outsiders could not even peek at the Israelites. When Aaron died these clouds disappeared and the camp of the Israelites became visible to outsiders for the first time. This is why the Canaanite (read Amalekite dressed as Canaanites) had been able to locate them and they made war against the Israelites. Subsequently, the protective clouds returned thanks to the merit of Moses. As a result, the camp of the Israelites was once more concealed from outsiders. In view of this how is it possible that Balak showed Bileam even part of the people? Should not G'd have made doubly certain that Bileam could not see them as his evil eye was potentially dangerous to them? We must conclude therefore that the קצה העם, the small part of the people whom Bileam did see, he saw only as a result of invoking Balak's magic by means of the bird we have mentioned earlier. Sanhedrin 67 asks why the witches are called מכשפות in the Torah? The answer is that witches by definition reveal matters which normally are hidden. [not in my text of the Talmud. Ed.] In this instance the witchcraft consisted of revealing what the cloud had hidden. The Torah therefore tells us that even with the help of his witchcraft Bileam managed to glimpse only a small part of the nation.