Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/1/en

Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?

Introduction

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

A Change of Heart

Bemidbar 22 describes how Balak, the King of Moav, requests from Bilam that he curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who refuses permission, telling Bilam:

EN/HEע/E

 לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא.

God said to Balaam, “You shall not go with them. You shall not curse the people; for they are blessed.”

Upon hearing the message, Balak tries his luck again, sending a second set of officers to  attempt to convince Bilam to curse the nation. Despite Hashem's earlier refusal, Bilam again seeks Hashem's consent, and somewhat surprisingly, receives a different answer:

EN/HEע/E

וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה.

God came to Balaam at night, and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak to you, that you shall do.”

What makes Hashem change His mind? Why, this time around, does Hashem allow Bilam to accompany the messengers? Did something occur in the interim to affect His decision?

A Second Change of Heart

More perplexing than Hashem's initial reversing of his position, though, is Hashem's reaction when Bilam acts upon Hashem's permit. Right after Bilam departs with the Moabites, we are told that Hashem is filled with wrath. How is this reaction to be understood? Why is Hashem angry if Bilam is simply doing what he was told? As Abarbanel asks in his eighth question on the chapter:

השאלה הח׳: אם הוא יתברך הרשה את בלעם ללכת ואמר לו אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם איך אחרי שהלך נאמר ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך י״י בדרך לשטן לו והוא לא הלך אלא ברשותו ובמאמרו?!

An Angel and Talking Donkey

Bilam's miraculous talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of the most perplexing:

• Why does Hashem decide to relay His message to Bilam in this manner rather than straightforwardly expressing His anger?¹  Was making a miracle (enabling the donkey to both see the angel and to speak) really necessary in order to communicate His point?²
• Given Hashem's anger at Bilam, the reader expects that at the end of the encounter there will be some change in Hashem's instructions or in Bilam's actions. Yet, the angel reiterates Hashem's earlier message almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was gained through the entire episode?

EN/HEע/E

פסוקים כ'-כ"א (לפני הפגישה)	פסוק ל"ה (בסוף הפגישה)
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה.	וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ י״י אֶל בִּלְעָם לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר.
וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק	וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב

Obedient Servant or Devious Plotter

When reading our story in isolation, Bilam appears to be a fairly positive character.³ He is the epitome of the obedient servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem⁴ and always following Hashem's directions.⁵  He merits prophecy⁶ and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that he recognized Hashem's sole authority. However, two tangential comments at the end of Sefer Bemidbar question this portrait. Bemidbar 31:8 states that Bilam was killed together with the Midianite kings in the war waged against them by Israel, and Bemidbar 31:16 provides an explanation and justification for his death:

EN/HEע/E

הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה בַּעֲדַת י״י.

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Hashem in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Hashem.

This verse implies that it was at Bilam's advice that the Midianites incited the nation to sin at Baal Peor.  As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel. How might the two portraits be reconciled?  Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions, or reinterpret the later story in light of his earlier obedience? Alternatively, might something have occurred between the two episodes that led Bilam to change his attitude?⁷

Additional Questions

Several smaller questions might shed light on the above issues:

• "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא" – When Bilam tells the first set of messengers of Hashem's refusal, he relays only part of Hashem's message, sharing that he may not join the officers, but omitting the reason, that he may not curse the nation since they are blessed. Is this omission significant? Why might Bilam have kept this fact to himself? Alternatively, is it possible that, despite the text's silence, Bilam relayed this point as well?
• "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים" ‎‎ (22:20) – This language appears extraneous. Why does Hashem add this condition, "if the men have come to call you"? Is it not obvious that they came to call Bilam?
• Disappearing officers – Though Bilam departs with Moabite officers, there is no mention of them throughout the donkey episode. To where did they disappear? Is it possible that though they are absent from the text that they, too, witnessed the incident?
• "חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ" – Bilam's words suggest that he thought that he had what to apologize for, yet, he mentions only that he has sinned in not noticing the angel and nothing about his journey for Balak.  Did Bilam, too, agree that his actions were problematic? 
• Later accounts – OUr story is recounted again in both  and Yehoshua

¹ This is especially difficult considering that Bilam receives prophecy and communicates with Hashem directly throughout the story.

² See RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom and Abarbanel Bemidbar 22:2Bemidbar 22:7Bemidbar 22:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel(in his eleventh question on the chapter) who point out that Hashem does not bring miracles for no reason. Since the angel could have communicated directly with Bilam, there seems to be little gained by having the donkey miraculously see an angel and speak. [Ralbag writes, "ואם אמרנו שה׳ יתעלה עשה זה על דרך המופת, הנה ישאל שואל אי־זה תועלת היה בזה המופת...  והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".]  This question is consistent with Ralbag's general tendency to minimize miracles. Abarbanel, too, is consistent with his repeated emphasis on the fact that miracles are related to necessity.  For elaboration, see Miracles and Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders.

³ Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.

⁴ The same cannot necessarily be said of all Israelite prophets, who often appear to act on their own, without first seeking Hashem's consent.  For examples and differing opinions as to whether prophetic autonomy is a positive or negative phenomenon, see Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction and Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

⁵ Even when told that he is in the wrong, he immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds exactly as commanded.

⁶ According to RambamShemonah Perakim 7Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon and others, one of the requirements for the attainment of prophecy is moral perfection. [See Requirements for Prophecy.]  If so, one would expect Bilam to have an impeccable character. [Interestingly, Rambam himself portrays Bilam as evil and materialistic.  It is not clear how he reconciles this with Bilam's having received prophecy.]

⁷ Despite the ambiguous portrait that emerges from the Biblical text, Bilam is almost universally vilified by both Midrashic and later sources. For some examples, see Mishna Avot 5:19Avot 5:19About the Mishna, Bavli Sotah 11a, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)Bemidbar 31:8About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) and Yalkut Shimoni Shemot 2:11.This fits with the Midrashic tendency to view characters as black or white, portraying rejected or questionable characters as totally wicked, and whitening apparent sins of otherwise righteous figures. For other examples, where a seemingly neutral figure in Tanakh is painted black, see A Portrait of Esav and A Portrait of Yishmael.