Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/1/he

למה כעס ה' על בלעם?

הקדמה

בלעם ואתונו באמנות

(בלעם ואתונו באמנות)

A Change of Heart

במדבר כ״ב describes how Balak, the King of Moav, asks Bilam to curse the Children of Israel. Bilam consults with Hashem who flatly refuses him permission and commands him:

 לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא.

Upon hearing Bilam's reply, Balak tries his luck again, sending a second entourage to  persuade Bilam to curse the nation. Despite Hashem's earlier refusal, Bilam again seeks Hashem's approval, and somewhat surprisingly, this time he receives the opposite response:

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

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

A Second Change of Heart

More perplexing than Hashem's initial position reversal, though, is Hashem's reaction when Bilam acts on Hashem's permission. Immediately after Bilam departs with the Moabites, we are told that Hashem is filled with wrath ("וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא"). How is this reaction to be understood? Why is Hashem angry if Bilam is simply following His orders?  As Abarbanel asks in his eighth question on the chapter:

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?!

Angel and Talking Donkey

Bilam's miraculously talking donkey and his encounter with the angel are, for many, the most memorable part of the story, but also one of its 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 simply reiterates Hashem's earlier command almost verbatim, and Bilam proceeds exactly as before (see table below). If so, what was achieved by this entire episode?³

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

From reading our story alone, one might get the impression that Bilam is a positive character.⁴ He is the epitome of the obsequious servant, never acting without first consulting Hashem⁵ and always following Hashem's directions.⁶  He merits prophecy⁷ and consistently refers to Hashem using His proper name (the Tetragrammaton or שם הויה), suggesting that Bilam recognized Hashem's supreme authority.

However, several subsequent verses pose challenges to this portrait. When recounting the story in דברים כ״ג,⁸ Moshe writes:

וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

Contrary to the obedient profile of Bilam found in our story, this verse implies that Bilam had headed to Moav with a plot of his own to curse the Children of Israel and that Hashem needed to overturn this nefarious plan. At the end of Bemidbar, Bilam makes another cameo appearance, and it, too, makes one question his innocence. במדבר ל״א:ח׳ states that Bilam was killed together with the Midianite kings in the war waged against them by Israel, and במדבר ל״א:ט״ז may provide a justification for his death:

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

This verse implies that it was due to Bilam's counsel that the Midianites induced the nation to sin with Baal Peor.  As such, Bilam emerges here, not as a faithful servant, but as a devious schemer, plotting the downfall of Israel.

How might these stories and verses be reconciled?  Which story portrays the "real" Bilam? Should one re-read the original narrative in light of Bilam's later actions and Moshe's account, or reinterpret the later verses in light of his earlier ostensible obedience?⁹

Additional Questions

Several smaller questions might shed light on the above issues:

• "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא"‎ (כ"ב:י"ב) – When Bilam conveys to the first set of messengers Hashem's initial refusal to let him go, he relays only part of Hashem's response, omitting 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" ‎‎ (כ"ב:כ') – This language appears extraneous. Why does Hashem add the condition, "if the men have come to summon you"?  Is it not obvious that they came to summon Bilam?
• Disappearing officers‎ (כ"ב:כ"ב-ל"ד) – Though Bilam departs with Moabite officers (כ"ב:א'), there is no mention of them throughout the angel-donkey episode. To where did they disappear?  Is it possible that though they are absent from the text, they, too, witnessed the incident?

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

² See רלב״גבמדבר כ״ב:י״ג-ל״האודות ר' לוי בן גרשום and אברבנאלבמדבר כ״ב:ב׳במדבר כ״ב:ז׳במדבר כ״ב:כ״באודות ר' יצחק אברבנאל(in his eleventh question on the chapter) who point out that Hashem does not bring unnecessary miracles. 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. [As 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 ניסים and האותות והמופתים של משה.

³ See עקדת יצחקבמדבר פירוש כ״באודות ר' יצחק עראמה, who writes, "מה נתחדש ביציאת המלאך אחריו, אחר שפטרו באותן הדברים עצמן, שא״ל האל יתעלה מתחלה באומרו: קום לך אתם ואפס את הדבר וגו׳."

⁴ Of course, Hashem's wrath must still be explained.

⁵ 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 prophets have some autonomy, see מעשי נביאים בלי צו מפורש מאת ה' and Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

⁶ Even in the episode of the angel, upon being admonished, Bilam immediately confesses, "I have sinned," and thereafter proceeds exactly as commanded.

⁷ According to רמב״םשמונה פרקים ז'רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה ז׳:א׳אודות ר' משה בן מיימון 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.  See גישות פרשניות for more on Rambam's view of Bilam.

⁸ See also the similar formulation in יהושע כ״ד, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם וַיְבָרֶךְ בָּרוֹךְ אֶתְכֶם וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדוֹ", and see נחמיה י״ג which speaks of Hashem's changing Bilam's curse into a blessing. Both of these verses imply that Bilam's intentions were indeed to curse the nation.

⁹ 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 משנה אבות ה':י"טאבות ה׳:י״טאודות משנה אבות, בבלי סוטה י״א., תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן)במדבר ל״א:ח׳אודות תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן) and ילקוט שמעוני שמות ב׳:י״א.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 דמותו של נמרוד, דמותו של ישמעאל, and דמותו של עשו.