Komentaryo sa Mga Bilang 24:3: Rashi, Kli Yakar, Ramban & Or HaChaim

בנו בער — The grammatical form בנו is exactly like that in (Psalms 114:8) “To a spring of (מעינו) water” (see Rashi on Numbers 23:18). But a Midrashic statement is: Both of them (Balak and Balaam) were superior to their fathers, for it states (Numbers 23:18): “Balak — his son was Zippor”, i.e. that his father (Zippor) was his son (his inferior) in respect to royalty, and Balaam was greater than his father in prophecy (because it states here, בלעם בנו בעור i.e. Balaam — his son was Beor): he was, so to speak, a Maneh, son of a Half-Maneh (Sanhedrin 105a, Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 13, cf. Taanit 28b).

And Balaam saw that it was good in the eyes of the Lord to bless Israel. Because they were good in the eyes of the Lord, and he did not go, as at other times, to seek divinations, that is, to search after their transgressions and all their sins which were done through the instigation of the primordial serpent. And he set his face toward the wilderness, as he concludes (in Shemot Rabbah 2:4), Who is this coming up from the wilderness? All the merits of Israel come from the wilderness, etc. The intent of the midrash is that in the merit of the humility found among Israel, who make themselves like this wilderness which all tread upon, Israel merited all the virtues, as our Sages interpreted (in Eruvin 54a) on the verse and from the wilderness, Matanah [which can also mean a gift] (Numbers 21:18). And immediately, when he set his eyes to recount all the virtues which they merited from the wilderness, in order to cast an evil eye upon them, his eye was immediately blinded. Therefore, he called himself whose eye is closed specifically on this occasion. But according to Rashi, who explained that he was blinded because he said and count the fourth part of Israel, it is difficult to understand why he did not call himself thus in the second prophecy.

SHETHUM HA’AYIN.’ The commentators have not found the root of this word [shethum] anywhere else in Scripture. Onkelos translated it: “who sees well,” as [if to say] “open-eyed,” and in the language of the Sages we find:²⁰⁶Abodah Zarah 69a. “sufficient time sheyishtom and to close it up” — meaning to say: [enough time to open a hole in the barrel of wine] — and to stop it up again. Perhaps the word [shethum] is a composite one [consisting of the two words shethui mah — “whatever is put” before the eye], from the root ‘shithi’ (My setting) these My signs,²⁰⁷Exodus 10:1. Thus, unlike Rashi and R’dak who explain the word shethum on the basis of the root shatham found in the Mishnah, Ramban explains it on the basis of Biblical language. [and here it means] that Balaam is a person [of whom one can use the phrase] “whatever is put” [before him] — because he understands everything that he puts his eye upon.

שתום העין WITH THE PENETRATING EYE — his eye was bored out and had been extracted and its eye socket could be seen to be open. The word שתום used in the sense of “boring a hole” is a Mishnaic usage: sufficient time that we can bore a hole (ישתום) in the cask and stop it up, and it (the clay of which the stopper is made) can dry (Avodah Zarah 69a). And our Rabbis said, Because he had said, (Numbers 23:10) ומספר את רבע ישראל, meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, occupies Himself with counting the issue of the marital life of the Israelites, awaiting the time when a righteous man will be born, he therefore said to himself, “Does He who is holy and whose ministers are holy direct his mind to matters such as these?” On this account Balaam’s eye was blinded (Niddah 31a). But some explain that שתום העין means “open-eyed”, just as Onkelos translated (“who can see well”). And since it says, שתום העין "with an open eye” and it does not say, “with open eyes”, we may learn that in one of his eyes he was blind (Sanhedrin 105a).