Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2

Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

In explaining Hashem's anger at Bilam, most commentators look to find fault with Bilam.  Thus, Rashbam and others suggest that despite Hashem's warning not to curse the nation, Bilam planned to defy Hashem's will, justifiably arousing His ire.  A second approach similarly vilifies Bilam, but by positing an achronology, it suggests that rather than simply intending to harm the Israelites, Bilam even actively did so, already from the beginning.  When Hashem initially refused Bilam permission to curse Israel, Bilam devised an alternative plan, advising the Midianites to incite the nation to sin so they would no longer merit Divine protection.

However, a minority approach opts not to blame Bilam, but instead to reinterpret the verses describing Hashem's wrath.  Building on the Rambam and others, it suggests that the entire story of Hashem's anger followed by the angel blocking Bilam's donkey's path took place only in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's actual beginning his journey.  As such, these were not a punitive response to sin, but rather a precautionary warning to ensure that Bilam did not err.  According to this position, at the beginning of the story, Bilam is still a positive character deserving of prophecy, and only later evolves to become evil.

Preemptive Warning

Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's departure, and it constituted part of Hashem's response to Bilam's request to join the Moabites.  As such, it was not a punitive reaction to wrongdoing, but only part of a preemptive warning to ensure that Bilam proceeded to act according to Hashem's will.

Sources:Perhaps RambamMoreh Nevukhim 2:42Moreh Nevukhim 2:45About R. Moshe b. Maimon,¹ perhaps opinion cited by MalbimBemidbar 22:12-14,18-20Bemidbar 22:21-22,34-35,41Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Meir Leibush Weiser²

Bilam's character – According to Rambam, at this point in Tanakh, Bilam is a positive character, loyal and obedient to Hashem's word, as evidenced by his receiving of prophecy.³  As RambamShemonah Perakim 7Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon claims that one of the requirements for the attainment of prophecy is perfection of moral character, an evil Bilam would be self-contradictory.

The scope of Hashem's response to Bilam – Though it is natural to assume that Hashem's response to Bilam's second request consists of but one sentence, "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה" (v. 20), RalbagBemidbar 22:13-35About R. Levi b. Gershom, perhaps RambamMoreh Nevukhim 2:42Moreh Nevukhim 2:45About R. Moshe b. Maimon,⁴ and the position cited by the Malbim posit that all of verses 20-35 were part of Hashem's response to Bilam in his dream.⁵  As such, Bilam's seeming departure on his journey in verse 21, Hashem's ensuing wrath, and the entire donkey incident, all took place only in this prophetic dream and not in reality.⁶  Together they served as a visual metaphor which mirrored and reinforced Hashem's verbal warning in v. 20, that Bilam relay only that which Hashem commands him.⁷

Allegorical anger – According to this reading, Hashem's anger is only part of a prophetic parable, an allegorical way of expressing the consequences that will incur if Bilam veers from Hashem's instructions. As such, it need not be read as a reaction to any previous wrongdoing, but only as a precautionary warning.

Symbolism of the dream's details – The various details relayed in the dream each serve to reinforce Hashem's initial warning message, "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה":

• Hashem's anger – Hashem's anger in the dream expresses the wrath that will be unleashed on Bilam if he acts against Hashem's will.
• Angel and sword – The angel's readiness to kill Bilam highlights the severity of such a transgression, and its potential punishment.
• Talking donkey – Through the image of a talking donkey, Hashem emphasizes how He controls the speech of all creatures and how Bilam is but a tool in Divine hands, capable of uttering only that which Hashem permits.

Necessity of the warning – According to this approach, Bilam, on the whole, was an obedient servant, with no active intentions of defying Hashem's word, as evidenced by his constant seeking of Divine approval for his actions.⁸ Nonetheless, his pestering of Hashem in verse 19, despite knowing that Hashem had already forbidden him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was attracted by the prospect of a huge fee.⁹ Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter Bilam's desire for riches with a heavy dose of fear.

Does Hashem change His mind? One of the advantages of (and motivations for) this approach is that it presents Hashem as being consistent throughout.  Hashem's permission in verse 20, his wrath of verse 21, and the angel's reiteration of Hashem's permission in verse 35¹⁰ all add up to a single message, that although Bilam may go, he must say only that which Hashem tells him.¹¹

Why relay the message through a miraculous event? This position obviates this question, as it assumes that there was no miracle, but only a vision.¹² 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 not surprising.

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 enticed and immediately emphasizes that he has no power other than to say that which Hashem puts in his mouth.¹³

"וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים" – This verse should not be read as suggesting that Bilam had been attempting to use magic to circumvent Hashem's will.  Rather, as was his usual wont, he had been offering sacrifices and communing with the Divine in order to seek the Divine word.

"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם"

• Rambam in his Commentary on the MishnaCommentary on the Mishna Avot 5:19Moreh Nevukhim 2:45About R. Moshe b. Maimon¹⁴ maintains that, at some point, Bilam turned evil.  As a result, he later played an active role in advising the Midianites.¹⁵ This would then explain why he was killed during the battle.
• Alternatively, this position might suggest that, even after our story, Bilam does not actively attempt to harm Israel.¹⁶ It might explain, as does Ibn Ezra,Bemidbar 23:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra¹⁷ that "בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" 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 virtuous, they are vulnerable when they sin.

Moshe's recounting of the event – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה" are somewhat difficult for this approach, as they imply that Bilam had been plotting to harm the nation.  This approach could suggest that these words represent the perspective of the Children of Israel.¹⁸ The Israelites likely knew only that Bilam had joined Balak,¹⁹ and logically assumed that he did so with intent to curse, even though he had not.

Name of Hashem – Bilam's consistent use of the proper name of Hashem, (שם הויה) suggests that he recognized Hashem's supreme authority. The very fact that he merited prophecy further suggests that he was loyal to Hashem. Together, these points support this position's suggestion that Bilam did not leave with any intent to defy 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 particular significance into this lengthy wording.

Philosophical motivations – There are several philosophical considerations that might motivate this approach:

• Requirements for prophecy - As mentioned, RambamShemonah Perakim 7Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon maintains that to attain prophecy a person must perfect their character and morals.  As such, Rambam must view Bilam as being a positive character during this episode. See Requirements for Prophecy.
• Seeing angels – According to Rambam, since angels are non-corporeal beings, any story in which a human appears to see one in physical form must be understood to have occurred in a dream or prophecy. See Angels – Spiritual or Physical?
• Minimizing miracles – Due to his understanding of Divine providence and the immutability of nature, Rambam tends to minimize miracles, leading him, here too, to suggest that there was no miraculously talking donkey. See Miracles.

Evil Intent

Hashem was angry at Bilam since he was acting in bad faith. Though Bilam knew that Hashem's intentions were that he bless the Children of Israel, Bilam was nonetheless hoping to curse them.

Sources:RashiBemidbar 22:18-26,28-30,32-35Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBereshit 32:29Bemidbar 22:22-25,33Bemidbar 24:1-2Bemidbar 24:14About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBemidbar 22:20Bemidbar 23:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35Bemidbar 23:1Bemidbar 23:13Bemidbar 24:1-2Bemidbar 25:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniBemidbar 22:12-13,15,19-24Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, RambanBemidbar 22:13,20,35Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 25:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman #2,²⁰ AbarbanelBemidbar 22:2Bemidbar 22:7Bemidbar 22:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SfornoBemidbar 22:12,20,22-23,28,30,32-38Bemidbar 22:41Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Ovadyah Sforno, Or HaChayyimBemidbar 22:13,20,22-23Bemidbar 24:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar, Vilna Gaon, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBemidbar 22:12,22,35About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, R. S.R. HirschBemidbar 22:12-15,18,20-22, 27-29, 34-36Bemidbar 23:3Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, MalbimBemidbar 22:12-14,18-20Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Did Hashem change His mind? All these sources assume that Hashem did not fundamentally change His mind throughout our story.  From start to finish, His main objection was to Bilam's cursing the nation, while the question of whether or not he joined the Moabites was secondary.²¹ Thus, when Bilam departed with the intention of cursing, Hashem was justifiably filled with wrath.

Evidence of Bilam's evil intent – As there is no explicit mention in the text that Bilam had any evil intent,²² these sources mine the text for clues to support their contention:

• "וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב" – The Gr"A, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah and Malbim 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.²³
• "כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא" – Sforno, 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.²⁴
• No mention of Hashem's conditions - Bilam's omission of Hashem's caveat²⁵ (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) when relaying the Divine response to the Moabites might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.²⁶
• Account in Devarim – When Moshe recounts the event in Devarim 23:4-7, he says, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה".  This formulation suggests that Bilam had different intentions than Hashem and that he was indeed plotting to curse.

What was Bilam thinking?

• Hashem is fickle – 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 could be swayed to change His mind by sacrifices²⁷ or magical practices.²⁸  This would explain why Bilam continuously seeks the Divine word despite planning on cursing the nation; he recognizes that Divine consent is necessary, but hopes that he can influence it.
• Magic trumps Hashem – Alternatively, Bilam believed that his curses or other magical rites had the power to harm even without Hashem's sanction.²⁹ If so, though, it is not clear why he bothered to ask for Hashem's permission.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 – Rashbam suggests that the angel was sent to punish Bilam³¹ 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

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:³⁷

• All in Hashem's control – Abarbanel, Sforno, 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.³⁸
• Hashem is not fickle –  Prof. D. Henshke³⁹ points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.⁴⁰ 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.⁴¹ 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.

Why does the angel simply reiterate Hashem's earlier command? Since these sources assume that Hashem was not angry about Bilam's physical accompanying of the officers, and that the encounter with the angel was meant only to warn and punish him for his evil intent (but not to have him return home), it is not troubling that the angel repeats Hashem's earlier words. The angel is simply reinforcing Hashem's earlier warning, that Bilam may go, but not curse.

"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.

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,⁴² Bilam had continuously tried to influence Hashem and/or inflict harm on the nation through various magical rites.⁴³

"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" – Many of 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 and is much more explicit in Bemidbar 31:16 which 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 against 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 אֱ-לֹהִים 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. Alternatively, he was simply paying lip service to Hashem's warning but did not really believe it to be true.

Name of Hashem – These sources might suggest that Bilam uses the proper name of Hashem when speaking to Balak only so as to differentiate Hashem from the many gods that the two believed in.⁴⁵

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 continuously 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 the Midianites to entice the nation to sin.

Sources:R"A Friedman, as relayed by R"Y Medan⁴⁶

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, and that the stories must be interwoven to appreciate the full picture.⁴⁷

"הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסׇר מַעַל בַּי״י עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר" – This approach, following Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 106aAbout Bavli Sanhedrin, understands this verse to mean that it was Bilam's idea to induce 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.

"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.⁴⁹  It is this knowledge that leads to the alternative plan of inciting to sin.

Did Hashem change His mind? According to this reading, Hashem did change His mind between the first and second visits of Balak's messengers, but only due to a change in circumstances.. 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, if needed, Bilam would be the tool to inflict it.⁵⁰ 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 again.

Hashem's wrath at Bilam – This position might suggest that Hashem's second about-face is once again the result of changed circumstances. By the time Bilam meets the angel, Pinechas had killed the guilty parties at Baal Peor, appeasing Hashem's anger. As such, the nation was once again deserving of Divine protection.  As such, Hashem's wrath at the nation was transferred to Bilam, who was guilty of causing them to sin to begin with.⁵¹

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.⁵² Thus, the angel tells Bilam to continue on his journey but to say only that which Hashem tells him, a blessing.⁵³

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. It is possible that the angel did in fact explain this, but this is omitted from the text, as it would not have been understandable given that the story of Baal Peor was recorded only afterwards in Chapter 25.
R. Medan suggests that the donkey episode is a metaphor for Bilam.  Bilam got angry and wanted tp punish his donkey whose only "crime" was seeing an angel.  So, too, Bilam was angry at and wanted to curse the nation of Israel  whose only crimes was having received revelation. 

Why relay the message through a miraculous event? It is unclear what purpose was served by miraculously opening the mouth of the donkey.

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, his presence on the side of the Midianites during the battle in Bemidbar 31 implies that his animosity towards Israel did not subside.

Moshe's recounting of the event – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה",   are somewhat difficult for this approach as they imply that Bilam's plan failed and Hashem saved the nation from his machinations. Yet, according to this position, Bilam was successful in his plot to have the nation sin.  As 24,000 people died as a result, it is hard to say that they were saved! 

Bilam's death – The fact that Bilam is killed in the war against the Midianites, together with his partners in crime, is very fitting (Bemidbar 31:8).⁵⁴

Character of Bilam – This position does not merely read the later negative character of Bilam back into this story, but combines the two stories, presenting a wicked Bilam who not only seeks to harm Israel, but also actively causes Israel's downfall from the very beginning.

¹ Rambam's understanding of the story is somewhat uncertain as he speaks of it only in passing. In his Commentary on the Mishna, he describes Bilam as wicked and intending to curse the nation, unlike the position developed here.  However, in Moreh Nevukhim 2:45Moreh Nevukhim 2:45About R. Moshe b. Maimon, Rambam implies that Bilam began his career positively and this is what enabled him to prophesy "בעת שהיה טוב".  [See Requirements for Prophecy that Rambam needs to maintain this because of his general outlook on prophecy.]  Only later did Bilam become evil.  It thus would appear that Rambam also in Moreh Nevukhim 2:42 is assuming that during the initial episode Bilam was still obedient to Hashem's will.

² Malbim cites this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra, but it is not found in Ibn Ezra's commentary.  It is likely that Malbim meant to cite Ralbag.

³ See the above note regarding Rambam's comments in Moreh Nevukhim 2:45.

⁴ RambamMoreh Nevukhim 2:42About R. Moshe b. Maimon is somewhat ambiguous as to the boundaries of the prophecy.  Though he might agree with Ralbag that there is but one dream that extends from verse 20 through verse 35, his words "כן ענין בלעם כולו ׳בדרך׳ ודברי ה׳אתון׳ - הכל ׳במראה הנבואה׳" might suggest that he thinks that only the angel-donkey episode (verses 22b-35) took place in a dream. If so, Hashem's initial response is limited to verse 20, and the subsequent dream regarding the angel and donkey is a distinct event, coming in reaction to Bilam's departure.
Cf. Ibn KaspiBemidbar 22:22About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi who explicitly posits that only the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream and that it occurred en route, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. According to Ibn Kaspi, Hashem's words "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" were said in anger, and Bilam was meant to understand that Hashem did not want him to join the officers. As Bilam nonetheless embarked on his journey, God was justifiably angry.  Ibn Kaspi elaborates that Bilam himself was then plagued by doubts as to whether he had made the right decision, and suggests that as dreams often reflect the dreamers' subconscious, here, too, Bilam's dream betrayed his own personal doubts regarding his actions.
For a parallel controversy regarding Bereshit 18–19 over where to demarcate the boundaries of what some suggest was only a prophetic dream, see Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men.

⁵ Both Ralbag and Rambam are consistent here in reinterpreting stories in which an angel appears to a human in physical form as being a prophetic dream (or by saying that the angel was a Divine human messenger). In our story, the presence of a talking donkey provides further motivation to reread the story as taking place in a dream. For more on their positions, see Angels – Spiritual or Physical, Ralbag and Rambam.
Despite Ralbag's understanding that Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a dream, he differs from this position in assuming that it was a response to Bilam's soon-to-be attempt to curse the nation. As opposed to this approach, which reads Bilam as having no evil intent, Ralbag views Bilam as wickedly intending to harm the Children of Israel.

⁶ Accordingly, it is only at the end of verse 35 that Bilam first actually departs with the Moabites. This might be supported by the fact that the verse uses the language, "Bilam went" rather than "Bilam continued on his way" or the like, as would be expected had this been a continuation rather than the beginning of his journey.

⁷ As such, 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".‎

⁸ Indeed, if Bilam was simply planning on defying Hashem, why bother to ask for His permission to go?

⁹ According to this reading, when Bilam says to the officers, "אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי י״י" he is actually betraying his true desires, a house full of riches. Cf. R"Y Bekhor ShorBemidbar 22:12-18,22,23,35Bemidbar 23:1Bemidbar 23:13Bemidbar 24:1-2Bemidbar 25:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and AbarbanelBemidbar 22:2Bemidbar 22:7Bemidbar 22:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel who also suggest that Bilam might have been motivated to join the Moabites mainly for 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.

¹⁰ The question of why the angel does not introduce a new directive after expressing Hashem's wrath is also readily explained by this approach. There is no new message because nothing has changed. All along the angel had only been elaborating on Hashem's initial warning, so it is appropriate that he simply repeat it verbatim at the end.

¹¹ 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. 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. 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.

¹² This, in fact, is one of the main factors motivating commentators to read the story in this manner. See, for example, RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom who questions, "לאי־זה תועלת הוצרך להתחדש אז על דרך המופת שתדבר האתון.... והוא מבואר שה׳ יתעלה לא יחדש המופתים ללא צורך".  See Miracles and Angels – Spiritual or Physical?.

¹³ Throughout the rest of the story, as well, Bilam consistently repeats this message.

¹⁴ This appears to also be the implication of his language in Moreh Nevukhim 2:45: "בעת שהיה טוב".

¹⁵ As there is no other evidence of Bilam's evil actions in Tanakh, this verse would be the obvious candidate to point to as proof that he had turned wicked. It is not clear, though, what might have occurred between the story of the blessings and the story of Baal Peor to turn him. Perhaps, in the wake of Bilam's failure to curse, Balak refused him payment.  When Bilam thought of an alternative ruse for which he could be handsomely rewarded he fell to his materialistic greed.

¹⁶ However, if one adopts the approach that Bilam never sinned, the mention of his being among those killed in the war against Midyan (Bemidbar 31:8) is somewhat difficult. This position might explain that the verse does not say that Bilam was targeted, but simply that he was among those killed. Nonetheless, if Bilam was blameless, there would seem to be little reason for the Torah to share the notice of his death.

¹⁷ See also R. Yosef Bekhor Shor. Both Ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor Shor, however, assume that even if Bilam was not responsible for the idea to induce Israel to sin, he nonetheless attempted to harm Israel.  For example, R"Y Bekhor Shor 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.  It was for this reason that he was present on the battlefield during the war.

¹⁸ However, this interpretation encounters difficulty from the formulation in Yehoshua, in which he cites Hashem Himself as saying: "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם".

¹⁹ See Why Worry About Bilam for various opinions regarding to what extent the Children of Israel were aware of the entire incident.

²⁰ See Ramban's words, "גם יתכן שהיה חפץ ההולך לקלל את העם, ולא היה חפצו לברכם בשום פנים" in his comments to v. 35.  According to Ramban, though, Hashem's initial anger at Bilam related to his not sharing with the messengers Hashem's caveat, that even though he was permitted to accompany the officers, he would not be able to curse the nation.  This had the potential to cause a desecration of Hashem's name, for when Bilam blessed the nation, the Moabites would assume that Hashem had gone back on His word.

²¹ These sources disagree on the question of whether Hashem was completely consistent in his responses to Bilam's twin queries regarding going with Balak's messengers.  R"Y Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni (his first explanation), Ralbag, and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, 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. The Gr"A (in Divrei Eliyah), HaKetav VeHakabbalah and Malbim attempt to bring linguistic support for this claim. They differentiate between the phrases "לֵךְ עִם" and "לֵךְ את", suggesting that while "לֵךְ את" refers to a physical accompaniment, "לֵךְ עִם" means to be of one mind. As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people, but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers.
In contrast, Ibn Ezra (see also Chizkuni and Akeidat YitzchakBemidbar Peirush 22About R. Yitzchak Arama) suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests. Despite His opposition to Bilam's going, Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way. He compare the episode to the sin of the Spies. There, too, Hashem only reluctantly gave in to the nation's pressure.  Though He knew the Spies' mission was going to end badly, He nonetheless allowed the people to discover this for themselves. Cf. Rav Huna in Bavli Makkot 10bMakkot 10bAbout the Bavli, that this incident teaches that "בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ". Hashem assists a person to follow the path upon which he desires to proceed.

²² To the contrary, the verses imply that he was merely heeding Hashem's words.

²³ See the discussion regarding the difference between these two formulations in the note above. However, the angel's later usage of the phrase, "לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים" is difficult for this approach, as it implies that he is permitting Bilam to not just physically join the Moabites, but also to share their agenda.

²⁴ See Josephus who in his rewritten history portrays Hashem getting angry at Bilam already at this point in the story, as Bilam should have known better than to persist and inquire again. Cf. Akeidat YitzchakBemidbar Peirush 22About R. Yitzchak Arama who goes a step further to suggest that even Bilam's first consultation with Hashem constituted a sin. He should have known on his own that it was wrong to curse Israel and not bothered to ask.

²⁵ Cf. Ralbag who suggests that during the first visit, too, Bilam intentionally shares only half of Hashem's prophecy. Bilam omits the true reason for Hashem's refusal (that the nation is blessed), knowing that if he shared the fact, Balak would not send messengers a second time. This, too, betrays how much Bilam was hoping to be able to go and curse the nation.

²⁶ See Ramban, Abarbanel and R. Hirsch. Ramban further points out that by not being transparent about Hashem's will, Bilam caused a desecration of Hashem's name, leading the Moabites to believe that Hashem was fickle. Chizkuni further suggests that after Hashem had said "אַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", Bilam was meant to wait and hear what it was that he was to transmit, but Bilam being so eager to go, rushed out, not waiting to hear the rest of Hashem's words.  This, too, betrays Bilam's great animosity towards Israel and his intense desire to inflict upon them harm.

²⁷ See R"M Leibtag "Haftarat Parshat Balak", who notes that we see this attitude to sacrifices taken by the Children of Israel as well.  Both Yeshayahu and Mikhah chastise the people for assuming that they can act as they want, for later they can simply appease Hashem by bringing sacrifices. This misunderstanding that God can be "bribed" via sacrifices, shared by both Israel and Balak and Bilam, explains why when rebuking the nation about this issue, Mikhah explicitly references Bilam and Balak.

²⁸ R"Y Bekhor Shor adds that the fact that Hashem appeared to change His mind regarding Bilam's travels (first saying no, then yes) led him to believe that he might also change His mind regarding cursing the nation.

²⁹ See also Abarbanel who suggests that Bilam, being an astrologer, thought that the workings of Hashem's providence and the system of stars and constellations were distinct. He erroneously believed that even if Hashem were to bless the nation, this need not mean that the stars could not foretell a different calamity to befall the people. [For a discussion of whether or not Bilam really could have potentially harmed the nation of Israel had Hashem not intervened, see Why Worry About Bilam.]

³⁰ This approach might suggest that the whole scene is Tanakh's way of mocking Bilam who wants to appear righteous and obedient while doing as he pleased.

³¹ Rashbam reads the phrase "וילך שפי" in Bemidbar 23:3 to mean lame. When the donkey swerved to avoid the angel, Bilam's leg was pressed against the fence resulting in his injury.

³² Rashi and Sforno, in contrast, highlight how this was a merciful act, aimed at preventing Bilam from sinning and at aiding him to repent so as to avoid punishment. The understanding that even Gentiles who are guilty of heinous crimes are given an a opportunity to repent is a major motif that runs throughout Sforno's commentary.  See, for example, his reading of Hashem's hardening of Paroh's heart at Hardened Hearts. See also Sforno.

³³ See Bereshit 32:25-32.

³⁴ See Shemot 4:24-25.

³⁵ See Yonah 1-2.

³⁶ Each is put into a potentially fatal situation, and, like Bilam, each of Moshe and Yaakov are also injured or touched on the thigh. It is possible that in all three cases the leg is specifically chosen as a "measure for measure" punishment for not going to do what Hashem desired. For more on Rashbam's reading of each of these stories, see Wrestling With Angels and Men and Mystery at the Malon.

³⁷ See N. Leibowitz, עיונים בספר במדבר, (Jerusalem, 1996): 300, who suggests that the whole story is meant to mock the belief in the efficacy of magic to force the hand of Hashem. On whether or not Bilam actually had any magical capabilities, see Why Worry About Bilam.

³⁸ See R"Y Kahn, "I Will Bless Those Who Bless You", who suggests that throughout the episode, the donkey is meant to represent Bilam.  Just as the donkey continuously attempts to circumvent the angel, Bilam repeatedly tried to sidestep God's will, but just as the donkey in the end was forced to a standstill, so too Bilam will be forced to comply with Hashem's will.

³⁹ See Prof. D. Henshke, "מה ביקשה לומר אתונו של בלעם?".

⁴⁰ See Rashi, R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Hirsch above.

⁴¹ See Y. Kaufmann, תולדות האמונה הישראלית,‎ 1:2 (Tel Aviv, 1960): 462-463, 497-498, who similarly suggests that one of the problems with the art of magic is that the successful practitioner begins to think of himself as on par with God. Thus, Hashem sent the angel and donkey to dispel such thoughts from Bilam by teaching him that his powers of "sight" were not as good as he thought.

⁴² Rashbam, however, asserts that this third blessing did actually mark a changing point in Bilam. From this moment on he wholeheartedly aimed to bless the nation. It is for this reason that this time, when Bilam receives Hashem's word, the verse writes, "וַתְּהִי עָלָיו רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים" (rather than "וַיִּקָּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם"). Hashem's spirit now rested upon him with love. [Rashbam, though, does not suggest that Bilam fundamentally changed his attitude towards the nation and still presents him as advising Balak how to bring about their downfall. Bilam might have simply recognized that cursing would be futile and no longer attempted to do so.]

⁴³ R"Y Bekhor Shor, R. Hirsch, and Netziv explain that the multiple sacrifices brought by Bilam and Balak were similarly an attempt to bribe Hashem. Sforno and Netziv also suggests that Bilam intentionally went to certain vantage points from which he could view the nation, in the hopes of giving them "the evil eye".  [See their opinion regarding Bilam's magical capabilities in Why Worry About Bilam.]  According to Or HaChayyim and Malbim, even when he recognized that all this was futile, Bilam looked for other ways to inflict harm. They suggest that the phrase "וַיָּשֶׁת אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר פָּנָיו" means that Bilam looked to the nation, hoping to find a sin which made them worthy of a curse.

⁴⁴ See Bavli Sanhedrin 106a.

⁴⁵ Otherwise he would not know to which god Bilam was referring.

⁴⁶ R. Medan mentioned R. Friedman's opinion in his lecture during the Mikhlelet Herzog Yemei Iyyun BeTanakh in 5768. As R. Medan mentioned R. Friedman's position in passing, the approach developed below might differ in some aspects from R. Friedman's reading of the chapter, though the core idea is his.

⁴⁷ Though the stories overlap in time, they are written consecutively, as independent narratives, only so as not to confuse the reader in switching back and forth between them. See Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17 for another instance where some posit simultaneity in order to resolve certain difficulties emerging from a simple reading of the text.  For a larger discussion of the issue and other examples, see Chronological and Thematic Order.

⁴⁸ See the sources in the position above who suggests that the word "איעצך"" in Bemidbar 24:14 alludes to this advice.

⁴⁹ Cf. Ralbag above that Bilam intentionally omitted Hashem's reasoning. This position would explain that since Tanakh is often brief in its formulations, the fact that a certain detail is not mentioned both in a command and also in the relaying thereof need not be significant.

⁵⁰ One might question why Bilam's cursing of the people would be necessary considering that, regardless, a punitive plague ensued in the aftermath of the Sin of Baal Peor. R. Medan suggests that Hashem was on a holding patter, waiting to see how the sin developed.  If the people stopped and repented, then Bilam would be sent to bless,  but if they persisted in their rebellion, in addition to Hashem's plaguing of them, they were to receive punishment by the hand of Bilam.

⁵¹ One might question why Hashem was angry at Bilam only after Pinechas' zealous act, and not right when the nation began to sin.  One might answer that first the people needed to be punished for their actions, regardless of who influenced them. Only afterwards could Hashem move to deal with the outside instigators, both Bilam and the Midianites themselves.

⁵² This might be compared to a parent, who, after punishing a child, wants to show them that they still love them. R. Medan alternatively suggests that even at this stage, Hashem was not totally reconciled with the people was waiting to see how the event unfolded. R. Medan, following Bavli Sanhedrin 82b, suggests that the people had mocked Pinechas and did not back his killing of Zimri an Kozbi. As such, there was still a possibility that the nation would require further punishment and Bilam would be asked to curse them.

⁵³ This in itself was probably perceived as a punishment by Bilam.  The last thing he wanted to do was to bless the nation he so despised.

⁵⁴ See Targum YerushalmiBemidbar 31:8About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) who presents Pinechas himself as killing Bilam.