Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<li><b>Miraculous speech</b> – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He is control of His creatures' speech and that Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands, capable of saying only that which Hashem allows.</li> | <li><b>Miraculous speech</b> – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He is control of His creatures' speech and that Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands, capable of saying only that which Hashem allows.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Does Hashem change His mind after giving Bilam permission to go?</b> One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.<fn>He does not grant permission to go in verse 20, then get angry at Bilam for acting upon this permit in verse 21, only to once again grant him permission to do the very same deed that incensed him | + | <point><b>Does Hashem change His mind after giving Bilam permission to go?</b> One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.<fn>He does not grant permission to go in verse 20, then get angry at Bilam for acting upon this permit in verse 21, only to once again grant him permission (v. 35) to do the very same deed that incensed him earlier.</fn>  He relays only one message throughout verses 20-35, his limited permission to go but not curse.<fn>According to this approach, then, the question of why, in verse 35, the angel simply reiterates Hashem's earlier words of verse 20 and does not introduce a new directive is not an issue. There is only one message being relayed throughout the verses, so it makes sense that it be consistent.</fn> This approach, however, must still explain why Hashem appears to change His mind between the first and second visits of the Moabites, first forbidding Bilam from going and then permitting him.<fn>In verse 12, Hashem says, "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם" while in verse 20 He says, "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם".</fn> Ralbag explains that there really is no difference between the two responses.  In Hashem's first response, too, He only meant to forbid Bilam from going <i>in order to</i> curse.<fn>When Hashem says "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם", He is not forbidding two distinct actions (both going and cursing). Rather the phrase "לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם" comes to explain what He means by "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - don't go if you plan on cursing.</fn></point> |
| − | <point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.<fn>This, in fact, is one of the main factors motivating commentators to read the story in this manner. See, for example, <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-33</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> who | + | <point><b>Why relay the message through a miraculous event?</b> This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.<fn>This, in fact, is one of the main factors motivating commentators to read the story in this manner. See, for example, <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-13-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-33</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> who questions, "לאי־זה תועלת הוצרך להתחדש אז על דרך המופת שתדבר האתון.... והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".</fn> As it is common for prophetic dreams to utilize symbols and metaphors and not just speech, the fact that Hashem chose to do so here is natural.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Was Bilam planning on cursing?</b> According to this approach, Bilam was not planning on | + | <point><b>Was Bilam planning on cursing?</b> According to this approach, Bilam had not done anything wrong before receiving the dream, and was not actively planning on defying Hashem, as evidenced by the fact that, throughout the story, he never proceeds without first consulting Hashem. If he were simply planning on doing as he pleased, why would he bother to ask for Hashem's approval?</point> |
| − | |||
<point><b>Why such a strong warning?</b> If Bilam had no evil intent and was an obedient servant, why was such a strong warning necessary? Bilam's pestering of Hashem to see what He would respond to the second set of messengers, despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospective of a huge fee.<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel who also suggest that Bilam might have been motivated to go by financial gain.  However, they both assume that Bilam departed with the intention of cursing the nation and that even after Hashem expressed his wrath, he nonetheless attempted to circumvent Hashem's will.</fn> Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter his desire for riches with a heavy douse of fear.</point> | <point><b>Why such a strong warning?</b> If Bilam had no evil intent and was an obedient servant, why was such a strong warning necessary? Bilam's pestering of Hashem to see what He would respond to the second set of messengers, despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospective of a huge fee.<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel who also suggest that Bilam might have been motivated to go by financial gain.  However, they both assume that Bilam departed with the intention of cursing the nation and that even after Hashem expressed his wrath, he nonetheless attempted to circumvent Hashem's will.</fn> Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter his desire for riches with a heavy douse of fear.</point> | ||
<point><b>Did the dream accomplish its goal?</b> Bilam heeded Hashem's warning and did not attempt to defy Hashem's will. Thus, even when Balak hints that he is willing to honor Bilam with a handsome reward (לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ), Bilam is not swayed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power but to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.<fn>Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.</fn></point> | <point><b>Did the dream accomplish its goal?</b> Bilam heeded Hashem's warning and did not attempt to defy Hashem's will. Thus, even when Balak hints that he is willing to honor Bilam with a handsome reward (לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ), Bilam is not swayed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power but to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.<fn>Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים"</b> – This verse does not suggest that Bilam had been attempting to use magic so as to circumvent Hashem's will.  Rather, as was his usual wont, he gave sacrifices and engaged in Divination  in order to seek the Divine word.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים"</b> – This verse does not suggest that Bilam had been attempting to use magic so as to circumvent Hashem's will.  Rather, as was his usual wont, he gave sacrifices and engaged in Divination  in order to seek the Divine word.</point> | ||
<point><b>"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"</b> – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.  It might explain, as does <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra,</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>See also R"Y Bekhor Shor Bemidbar 25:1. Both Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, assume that Bilam was nonetheless out to harm Israel.  R"Y Bekhor even suggests that after the Sin at Baal Peor the Midianites once again hired Bilam to curse, assuming that this time, when the nation no longer deserved protection, he would be successful.</fn> that this verse does not mean that Bilam actively counseled the Midianites to entice Israel into sin, but rather that they learned to do so through his speech. In the middle of Bilam's second blessing, he says, "לֹא הִבִּיט אָוֶן בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא רָאָה עָמָל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  The Midianites understood from this that though the Children of Israel are untouchable when innocent, they are vulnerable when they sin.<fn>According to this reading, the mention of Bilam among the dead in the war against Midyan is somewhat difficult, as he did nothing to deserve death.  This position might answer that the verse does not say that he was targeted, simply that he was among those killed.  Nonetheless, there would seem to be no reason for the Torah to share such a fact.  Moreover, it is not clear why Bilam would be at the battle at all, let alone why he would be on the Midianite side.</fn></point> | <point><b>"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"</b> – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.  It might explain, as does <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra,</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar23-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 23:21</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>See also R"Y Bekhor Shor Bemidbar 25:1. Both Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, assume that Bilam was nonetheless out to harm Israel.  R"Y Bekhor even suggests that after the Sin at Baal Peor the Midianites once again hired Bilam to curse, assuming that this time, when the nation no longer deserved protection, he would be successful.</fn> that this verse does not mean that Bilam actively counseled the Midianites to entice Israel into sin, but rather that they learned to do so through his speech. In the middle of Bilam's second blessing, he says, "לֹא הִבִּיט אָוֶן בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא רָאָה עָמָל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  The Midianites understood from this that though the Children of Israel are untouchable when innocent, they are vulnerable when they sin.<fn>According to this reading, the mention of Bilam among the dead in the war against Midyan is somewhat difficult, as he did nothing to deserve death.  This position might answer that the verse does not say that he was targeted, simply that he was among those killed.  Nonetheless, there would seem to be no reason for the Torah to share such a fact.  Moreover, it is not clear why Bilam would be at the battle at all, let alone why he would be on the Midianite side.</fn></point> | ||
| + | <point><b>Name of Hashem</b> – Throughout the story, whenever Bilam speaks, he uses the proper name of Hashem, (the tetragrammaton or שם הויה) suggesting that he recognized Hashem's authority and did not view Him as simply another god. The very fact that he merited prophecy, further suggests that he was loyal to Hashem.</point> | ||
<point><b>Disappearance of Balak's messengers</b> – The fact that Balak's messengers are absent from the donkey incident is expected according to this approach.  As the whole incident took place in a vision before Bilam set off with them, there is no reason for them to be present.</point> | <point><b>Disappearance of Balak's messengers</b> – The fact that Balak's messengers are absent from the donkey incident is expected according to this approach.  As the whole incident took place in a vision before Bilam set off with them, there is no reason for them to be present.</point> | ||
<point><b>"אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים"</b> – This approach does not read any significance into this lengthy wording.</point> | <point><b>"אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים"</b> – This approach does not read any significance into this lengthy wording.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Bilam's character</b> – According to this position, Bilam is not an evil character, but rather an obedient servant of Hashem. Though he might be faulted for materialistic greed, in the end he does not succumb to it | + | <point><b>Bilam's character</b> – According to this position, Bilam is not an evil character, but rather an obedient servant of Hashem. Though he might be faulted for materialistic greed, in the end he does not succumb to it, but continues to heed Hashem's words.</point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Evil Intent | <category>Evil Intent | ||
Version as of 21:56, 7 July 2019
Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?
Exegetical Approaches
Preemptive Warning
Hashem's wrath was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing but only a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded according to Hashem's will. It is expressed in a dream before Bilam departs, not afterwards.
Scope of prophecy – Ralbag asserts that all of verses 20-35, and not only verse 20, constitute Hashem's prophetic response to Bilam in the wake of Balak's second request.2 Verse 20 introduces the prophecy: "וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה" and the following 14 verses relay its content. As such, Bilam's leaving, Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, all took place only in a dream and not in reality. It is only at the end of verse 35 that Bilam first actually departs with the Moabites, "וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק".3
An envelope structure –
Hashem's response has an envelope structure. The prophetic dream opens with the main message expressed in words, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", while the rest of the dream relays the same exact message, but through visuals and a story. At the end of the story, the angel once again echoes the opening speech, "לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר".
Symbolism of the dream's details – The various details relayed in the dream are each meant to reinforce Hashem's initial warning message, that Bilam may go, but that he will only be able to say that which Hashem tells him:
- Hashem's anger – Hashem's anger in the dream serves to warn Bilam that if he goes with the wrong intentions, he will unleash Hashem's wrath.4
- Angel and sword – The angel's readiness to kill highlights the severity of such a transgression.
- Miraculous speech – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He is control of His creatures' speech and that Bilam is only a tool in Hashem's hands, capable of saying only that which Hashem allows.
Does Hashem change His mind after giving Bilam permission to go? One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.5 He relays only one message throughout verses 20-35, his limited permission to go but not curse.6 This approach, however, must still explain why Hashem appears to change His mind between the first and second visits of the Moabites, first forbidding Bilam from going and then permitting him.7 Ralbag explains that there really is no difference between the two responses. In Hashem's first response, too, He only meant to forbid Bilam from going in order to curse.8
Why relay the message through a miraculous event? This position obviates the question, as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.9 As it is common for prophetic dreams to utilize symbols and metaphors and not just speech, the fact that Hashem chose to do so here is natural.
Was Bilam planning on cursing? According to this approach, Bilam had not done anything wrong before receiving the dream, and was not actively planning on defying Hashem, as evidenced by the fact that, throughout the story, he never proceeds without first consulting Hashem. If he were simply planning on doing as he pleased, why would he bother to ask for Hashem's approval?
Why such a strong warning? If Bilam had no evil intent and was an obedient servant, why was such a strong warning necessary? Bilam's pestering of Hashem to see what He would respond to the second set of messengers, despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospective of a huge fee.10 Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter his desire for riches with a heavy douse of fear.
Did the dream accomplish its goal? Bilam heeded Hashem's warning and did not attempt to defy Hashem's will. Thus, even when Balak hints that he is willing to honor Bilam with a handsome reward (לָמָּה לֹא הָלַכְתָּ אֵלָי הַאֻמְנָם לֹא אוּכַל כַּבְּדֶךָ), Bilam is not swayed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power but to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.11
"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים" – This verse does not suggest that Bilam had been attempting to use magic so as to circumvent Hashem's will. Rather, as was his usual wont, he gave sacrifices and engaged in Divination in order to seek the Divine word.
"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" – This position might suggest that even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel. It might explain, as does Ibn Ezra,12 that this verse does not mean that Bilam actively counseled the Midianites to entice Israel into sin, but rather that they learned to do so through his speech. In the middle of Bilam's second blessing, he says, "לֹא הִבִּיט אָוֶן בְּיַעֲקֹב וְלֹא רָאָה עָמָל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל". The Midianites understood from this that though the Children of Israel are untouchable when innocent, they are vulnerable when they sin.13
Name of Hashem – Throughout the story, whenever Bilam speaks, he uses the proper name of Hashem, (the tetragrammaton or שם הויה) suggesting that he recognized Hashem's authority and did not view Him as simply another god. The very fact that he merited prophecy, further suggests that he was loyal to Hashem.
Disappearance of Balak's messengers – The fact that Balak's messengers are absent from the donkey incident is expected according to this approach. As the whole incident took place in a vision before Bilam set off with them, there is no reason for them to be present.
"אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים" – This approach does not read any significance into this lengthy wording.
Bilam's character – According to this position, Bilam is not an evil character, but rather an obedient servant of Hashem. Though he might be faulted for materialistic greed, in the end he does not succumb to it, but continues to heed Hashem's words.
Evil Intent
Hashem was angry at Bilam since he was acting in bad faith. Though Bilam knew that Hashem's intentions were that the Children of Israel be blessed, Bilam was nonetheless hoping to curse them.
Sources:Rashi, Rashbam, perhaps Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni, Ramban #2, Abarbanel, Seforno, Or HaChayyim, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, R. S.R. Hirsch, Malbim, Netziv
"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind? All these sources assume that Hashem did not fundamentally change His mind between the first and second visit of Balak's messengers, and that throughout He was opposed to Bilam's cursing.14 However, they dispute whether Hashem was also consistent with regards to Bilam's accompanying of the officers:
- Consistent – Several sources15 suggest that, despite initial impressions, in both cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel (but not to curse). When Hashem said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only to forbid Bilam from going if he was planning on cursing.16 Otherwise, though it would appear pointless, he was free to travel.17
- Change of plan – Ibn Ezra,18 in contrast, suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests19 and allowed him to do so despite His opposition to the idea.20 Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.21 The point was driven home when the expected curse became a blessing.22
What was Bilam thinking?
- Rashi and R. Hirsch point out that though Bilam was fully aware of Hashem's opposition to his cursing, his pagan view of gods led him to believe that Hashem was like a human, who might be swayed to change His mind by sacrifices23 or magical practices.24 This would explain why he continuously seeks the Divine word; he recognizes that it is necssary, but hopes that he can influence it.
- Alternatively, he believed that his curses or other magical rites had the power to harm even without Hashem's sanction.25 If so, the description o
Evidence of Bilam's evil intent – These sources find various clues in the text that imply that Bilam was not innocently heeding Hashem's words to go,26 but that he had evil intent and wished to curse:
- "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב" – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Malbim, and Netziv assert that the phrase "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם" (rather than "וילך את") implies that Bilam not only physically joined the officers, but that he was also of one mind with their intentions to curse Israel.27
- "כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא" – Seforno, Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch suggest that the somewhat extraneous word "הוּא" implies that Bilam was going to do as he pleased, according to his own agenda and not Hashem's.
- "כִּי הוֹלֵךְ" – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that the very fact that Bilam went with the messengers betrays his intentions. If he had been planning on abiding by God's words, what was the point of going?
- Asking a second time – The fact that Bilam does not just refuse the second set of messengers, but asks Hashem for permission again, betrays his hopes that Hashem changed His mind.28
- No mention of Hashem's conditions - Bilam's omitting to share with the Moabites Hashem's caveat29 (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.30
Bilam's motives – Most of these sources imply that Bilam was motivated by his personal hatred of the Children of Israel and a desire to harm them. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel, in contrast, suggest that Bilam was acting out of financial interest. He did not harbor ill will against the nation; he simply hoped to earn a good fee from Balak.
"לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ" – The angel's intentions
- Punishment - Rashbam suggests that the angel was sent to punish Bilam (who emerges from the encounter lame)31 for planning to overturn Hashem's will.32 He points to Yaakov,33 Moshe,34 and Yonah35 as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.36
- Warning – Rashi and Seforno similarly assert that the angel was sent as a warning, expressing Hashem's disapproval of Bilam. However, they highlight how this was a merciful act, aimed at preventing Bilam from sinning and at aiding him to repent so as to avoid punishment.37
Why relay the message through a miraculous event? The donkey episode was intended to both teach Bilam of the futility of his efforts to curse the nation and to humble his pride in his magical capabilities:38
- All in Hashem's control – Abarbanel, Seforno, and R. Hirsch all point out how the miraculous speech of the donkey taught Bilam that just as the donkey was forced to speak against its nature, so, too, Bilam would have no choice but to say that which Hashem put in his mouth.39
- Hashem is not fickle – Prof. D. Henshke40 points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.41 Hashem, thus, created a scenario in which initially Bilam assumed that his donkey was acting in an arbitrary manner, only to find out that there was a reason for his actions. Bilam was meant to learn that, despite Bilam's impressions, Hashem is never fickle.
- Humbling experience – R. Hirsch asserts that the episode was a lesson in humility. Though Bilam thought of himself as a "seer," he was proven more blind than his donkey.42 Though he assumed he could overcome Hashem's opposition and force Hashem's hand, he found that he could not even control his own donkey.
"לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר" - what is new? Since these sources assume that Hashem always intended for Bilam to go to Balak, and that the donkey episode was meant only to warn him that Hashem was privy to his evil intent (but not to persuade him to return home), it is not troubling that the angel repeats Hashem's earlier words. The angel is simply reinforcing the earlier message.
Did Bilam change? Most of these sources maintain that the angel's words had no lasting effect on Bilam. They point to the verse "וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים" as proof that, at least until the third blessing, Bilam had continuously tried to influence Hashem and/or inflict harm on the nation through various magical rites.43
"חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ" – This position might suggest that this is not a sincere confession. After all, Bilam does not apologize for intending to harm Israel, only for "not noticing the angel in his path". He offers to return home, only because he feels he has no choice.
"אִיעָצְךָ" and "הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" – These sources assume that after recognizing the futility of his attempts to curse the Children of Israel, Bilam instead advised Balak to incite the nation to sin. This is alluded to in Bemidbar 24:14 when Bilam tells Balak, "אִיעָצְךָ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה הָעָם הַזֶּה.44 This is also what is meant when Bemidbar 31:16 states that the Midianite women lured the nation "בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם".
Bilam's death – The fact that the Torah goes out of its way to share that Bilam was among those killed in the war of Midyan (Bemidbar 31:8) supports the fact that Bilam did something wrong for which he deserved to be killed.
"הֲיָכֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים אֱלֹהִים בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר" – According to this approach, in this and all of Bilam's similar statements, Bilam might have recognized the truth, that he had no choice but to say what Hashem wished, yet he nonetheless still hoped that he could influence Hashem to change His mind and say something negative.45
Name of Hashem – These sources might suggest that Bilam only uses the proper name of Hashem when speaking to Balak so as to differentiate Hashem from the many gods that the two believed in.46 Use of the tetragrammaton does not connote an acceptance or special recognition of Hashem. Alternatively, Bilam did recgnize Hashem, but simply thoughtthat Hashem coul be bribed.
The blessings: a message for whom? According to this position, it is possible that several of the messages in Bilam's blessings were actually aimed at himself:
- מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל – Bilam is told once again that he has no power to curse if Hashem does not desire it.
- לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב... הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה – Contrary to Bilam's thoughts, Hashem cannot be swayed to change His mind like humans are.
- כִּי לֹא נַחַשׁ בְּיַעֲקֹב – Despite all his efforts, all of Bilam's sorcery will be ineffective against Israel.
Character of Bilam – This approach views Bilam negatively, as someone who has great animosity towards Israel and conitnuously tries to circumvent or change Hashem's will.
Evil Action
Hashem's anger at Bilam stemmed from Bilam's active attempts to harm Israel, his advising that the Midianites entice the nation to sin.
Sources:R"A Friedman, as relayed by R"Y Medan
Chronology – This approach assumes that the interactions between Bilam and Balak in Bemidbar 22 take place at the same time as the story of the Sin of Baal Peor in Bemidbar 25.47
"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר" – This approach, following Bavli Sanhedrin, understands this verse to mean that it was Bilam's idea to incite the Israelites to sin with the Midianites at Baal Peor. However, it uniquely suggests that this advice was given, not after Bilam's attempt to curse the nation failed,48 but at the very outset of the story. Already when Hashem initially forbade Bilam from going to curse the nation because "they are blessed" (22:12), Bilam suggested to Balak that he instead cause the nation to stumble and sin so that they would no longer be deserving of blessing.49
"לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא" – Though the text does not share that Bilam relayed this part of Hashem's words to the officers, this position assumes that he did.50 It is this knowledge that leads to the alternative plan of inciting to sin.
"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind? According to this approach, Hashem did change His mind between the first and second visits of Balak's messengers. During the first visit, Israel was free of sin and worthy of Hashem's protection, and so Bilam was prevented from cursing the nation. By the second visit, however, the nation had sinned at Baal Peor (in the wake of Bilam's advice) and were deserving of punishment. As such, Hashem acquiesced that Bilam be the tool to inflict it.51 Hashem, however, added a caveat: "וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", leaving room for the nation to repent and Hashem to change His mind.
Hashem's wrath at Bilam – By morning, Pinechas had killed the guilty parties, appeasing Hashem's anger, so that the nation was once again deserving of Divine protection. Hashem's wrath at the nation was, thus, transferred to Bilam, who was guilty of causing the nation to sin to begin with.52
The encounter with the angel – This approach might suggest that the angel was sent to punish Bilam for his deed. However, we would have expected that at some point during the encounter, he would explain as much to Bilam. The fact that throughout the episode the angel never tells Bilam that Hashem now feels differently, and moreover, that he instead reiterates Hashem's earlier message almost verbatim, not indicating that there has been a change, is very difficult for this position.
Why doesn't Hashem have Bilam return home? It is possible that after Hashem's anger at the Children of Israel was appeased, and His love restored, He desired not only that the nation not be cursed, but that they be blessed instead.53 Thus, the angel tells Bilam to continue on his journey but to say only that which Hashem tells him - a blessing.54
חָטָאתִי - a sincere confession? This position might read Bilam's statement as an admission of defeat more than a confession.
Did Bilam change? According to this position, though Bilam might have recognized that it was futile to curse Israel at this point, presence on the side of the Midianites during the battle in Bemidbar 31 implies that his animosity towards Israel did not dwindle.
Bilam's death – The fact that Bilam is killed in the war against the Midianites, together with his partners in crime, is very fitting according to this position (Bemidbar 31:8).
