Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2

Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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:RashiBemidbar 22:9-35About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBereshit 32:29Bemidbar 22:22-33About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 22:12-35About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniBemidbar 22:12-34About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, AbarbanelBemidbar 22:2Bemidbar 22:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoBemidbar 22:12-38About R. Ovadyah Seforno, Or HaChayyimBemidbar 22:13-38About R. Chayyim b. Atar, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBemidbar 22:12-35About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, R. S.R. HirschBemidbar 22:12-39About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, MalbimBemidbar 22:6-40About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, NetzivBemidbar 22:11-38About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin

"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind? Though all these sources assume that Hashem did not fundamentally change His mind between the first and second visit, and that throughout He was opposed to Bilam's cursing,¹ they vary in how they explain the difference between the two responses:

• No difference – Both HaKetav VeHaKabbalah and Ibn Kaspi suggest that Hashem's two responses were essentially identical, and each reinterprets a different one of Hashem's statements so that it matches the other:
• Permission to travel both times – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah asserts that in both statements Hashem allowed Bilam to travel but not to curse. He differentiates 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.² As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He was telling Bilam only that יק may not agree to curse the people, but not that he could not physically travel.³ This, then is no different from the second response, in which Bilam is again allowed to go, but not to be of one mind with the Moabites (i.e. not to curse Israel).⁴
• No permission either time – Ibn KaspiBemidbar 22:22About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, in contrast, suggests that, even the second time, Hashem did not grant Bilam permission to go anywhere. His words "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" were said in anger, and Bilam was supposed to understand from the tone that this was a refusal.
• Slight change of plan – Ibn EzraBemidbar 22:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and Chizkuni suggest that though initially Hashem did not allow Biilam to travel, he did allow him to do the second time:
• Gave in to Bilam – Ibn Ezra explains that though Hashem opposed Bilam's going, he gave in to Bilam's persistent requests,⁵ allowing him to learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.⁶ 
• Gave in to Balak  - Chizkuni⁷explains similarly, but highlights Balak's desires. If Balak was foolish enough to ask Bilam to curse a second time, then Hashem was ready to grant the request just so that he would learn how pointless it was. According to both explanations, it is possible that Balk and Bilam's continuous requests to curse Israel, which reflected a lack of recognition of Hashem's providence, made Hashem decide that it did not suffice to prevent the curse, but that He would also turn it into a blessing. 

Evidence of Bilam's evil intent – These sources suggest that the text contains various hints to Bilam's evil intent:

"לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ" – The angel's intentions

Message of the donkey episode

חָטָאתִי

Did Bilam change?

Ability to curse

Character of Bilam

Lack of Transparency

Bilam was not upfront with Balak's messengers, leading them to believe that he was coming to curse as they requested, when he, in fact, was not given permission to do so.

Sources:RambanBemidbar 22:13-35About R. Moshe b. Nachman #1

No Wrongdoing

Bilam had not yet committed any problematic deed. Hashem was simply issuing a warning to emphasize that he do as told.

Sources:perhaps RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom

Changing Circumstances

Hashem's varying responses relate to the changing deeds of Israel and whether or not they merited protection from Bilam's curses.

Chronology – This approach assumes that the interactions between Bilam and Balak take place at the same time as the story of the Sin of Baal Peor.  Though the stories overlap in time, they are written consecutively, as independent narratives, so as not to confuse the reader in switching back and forth between each.

"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 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, but at the very outset of the story. When Hashem forbade Bilam from going to curse the nation because "they are blessed", Bilam suggested to Balak that he cause the nation to stumble and sin so that they would no longer be deserving of blessing.

"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind? 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. 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.

The angel and donkey – By morning, Pinechas had killed the guilty parties and the nation was once again deserving of Divine protection.

¹ This is why Hashem stipulates, "אַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה", warning Bilam that he will not be able to say whatever he pleases, but only what Hashem tells him to say.

² Cf. Malbim and Netziv.

³ Though Chizkuni does not differentiate between the meaning  of the two phrases, he basically reaches the same conclusion, suggesting that in Hashem's first response He only refused to let Bilam go if he was to curse; otherwise he would have been free to travel. Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor suggest that Hashem allowed this so that Bilam could not complain that he lost out on potential profits.

⁴ Cf. Seforno who suggests that the phrase "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים", means "if the officers came to seek your advice".  In other words, Hashem's permitted Bilam to go only under these conditions, that he go as a consultant who would attempt to keep the others from error, but not if he was planning on cursing.

⁵ undefined

⁶ Cf. Rav Huna in Bavli Makkot 10bMakkot 10bAbout the Bavli, that this incident teaches that Hashem assists a person to follow the path upon which they desire to proceed (בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ).
Ibn Ezra compares this to Hashem's agreeing to the sending of the spies. Though Hashem had let it be known that no spies were needed, when the people pressured to nonetheless send scouts (Devarim 1:22), He reluctantly agreed (Bemidbar 13:1). Though Hashem knew it was a mistake and was to end badly, He allowed the people to discover this for themselves.  This can be compared to a parent who refuses a child's request so as to guard them from harm, but after persistent pestering, might give in and let the child learn the consequences on their own. [For other approaches to the discrepancy regarding who initiated the spying mission, Hashem or the nation, see The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim.]

⁷ See his third explanation.