Difference between revisions of "Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 8: Line 8:
 
<category>Evil Intent
 
<category>Evil Intent
 
<p>Hashem was angry at Bilam since he was acting in bad faith. &#160;Though Bilam knew that Hashem's intentions were that the Children of Israel be blessed, Bilam was nonetheless hoping to curse them.</p>
 
<p>Hashem was angry at Bilam since he was acting in bad faith. &#160;Though Bilam knew that Hashem's intentions were that the Children of Israel be blessed, Bilam was nonetheless hoping to curse them.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:9-35</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit32-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:29</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22-33</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-35</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-34</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-22" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-38</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Or HaChayyim</a><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-38</a><a href="R. Chayyim b. Atar (Or HaChayyim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chayyim b. Atar</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-35</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">R. S.R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-39</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:6-40</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivBemidbar22-11-38" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivBemidbar22-11-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:11-38</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin</a></multilink></mekorot>
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar22-9-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:9-35</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit32-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:29</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar22-22-33" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22-33</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, perhaps <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-35</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBemidbar22-12-34" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-34</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>,<fn></fn> <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-22" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar22-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:22</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoBemidbar22-12-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-38</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Or HaChayyim</a><a href="OrHaChayyimBemidbar22-13-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:13-38</a><a href="R. Chayyim b. Atar (Or HaChayyim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chayyim b. Atar</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBemidbar22-12-35" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-35</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">R. S.R. Hirsch</a><a href="RSRHirschBemidbar22-12-39" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:12-39</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBemidbar22-6-40" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:6-40</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivBemidbar22-11-38" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivBemidbar22-11-38" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:11-38</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin</a></multilink></mekorot>
<point><b>"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind?</b> 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.<fn>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.</fn> However, they dispute whether Hashem was also consistent regarding His permitting / refusing Bilam to accompany Balak's messengers:<br/>
+
<point><b>"קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם" / "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם" - Did Hashem change His mind?</b> 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.<fn>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.</fn> However, they dispute whether Hashem was also consistent regarding His permitting / refusing Bilam to accompany the officers:<br/>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Consistent </b>– HaKetav VeHaKabbalah<fn>Cf. Malbim and Netziv. 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.</fn> suggests that in both cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel but not to curse. He differentiates between the phrases "לֵךְ עִם" and "לֵךְ את" suggesting that while "לֵךְ את"&#160; refers to a physical accompaniment, "לֵךְ עִם" means to be of one mind.<fn>This reading encounters a significant difficulty from the end of episode with the angel and donkey. When the angel once again permits Bilam to go with the Moabites, according to this approach he should say "לֵךְ <b>את</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים" (as the angel clearly is not saying that he wants Bilam to share the Moabite's intent), yet the angel nonetheless says, "לֵךְ <b>עִם</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים".</fn> As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people,<fn>This would be to go "עם" the Moabites, with one mind and intention.</fn> but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers.<fn>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, to curse.&#160; Cf. Seforno who explains that the phrase "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים", means "if the officers came to seek your advice", suggesting that Hashem's permitted Bilam to go only under these conditions, that he go as an outside consultant, but not if he was planning on cursing.</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Consistent </b>– HaKetav VeHaKabbalah<fn>Cf. Malbim and Netziv. Though R"Y Bekhor Shor and Chizkuni do not differentiate between the meaning of the two phrases, they basically reach 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.]</fn> suggests that in both cases, Hashem allowed Bilam to travel but not to curse. He differentiates between the phrases "לֵךְ עִם" and "לֵךְ את" suggesting that while "לֵךְ את"&#160; refers to a physical accompaniment, "לֵךְ עִם" means to be of one mind.<fn>This reading encounters a significant difficulty from the end of episode with the angel and donkey. When the angel once again permits Bilam to go with the Moabites, according to this approach he should say "לֵךְ <b>את</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים" (as the angel clearly is not saying that he wants Bilam to share the Moabite's intent), yet the angel nonetheless says, "לֵךְ <b>עִם</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים".</fn> As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people,<fn>This would be to go "עם" the Moabites, with one mind and intention.</fn> but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers.<fn>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, to curse.&#160; Cf. Seforno who explains that the phrase "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים", means "if the officers came to seek your advice", suggesting that Hashem's permitted Bilam to go only under these conditions, that he go as an outside consultant, but not if he was planning on cursing.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Inconsistent</b> – <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and Chizkuni suggest that though initially Hashem did not allow Biilam to join the Moabites, He did allow him to do so the second time:</li>
 
<li><b>Inconsistent</b> – <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-20" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:20</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and Chizkuni suggest that though initially Hashem did not allow Biilam to join the Moabites, He did allow him to do so the second time:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 22: Line 22:
 
<li><b>"וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב"</b> – 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.<fn>See the discussion above. As mentioned, the angel's later words, "לֵךְ <b>עִם</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים" is difficult for this approach, as it is clear that the angel does not want Bilam to share the Moabite officers' agenda, and he nonetheless uses the words "לֵךְ עִם".&#160; This might suggest that there really is no difference in meaning between "לך עם" and "לך את".</fn></li>
 
<li><b>"וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב"</b> – 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.<fn>See the discussion above. As mentioned, the angel's later words, "לֵךְ <b>עִם</b> הָאֲנָשִׁים" is difficult for this approach, as it is clear that the angel does not want Bilam to share the Moabite officers' agenda, and he nonetheless uses the words "לֵךְ עִם".&#160; This might suggest that there really is no difference in meaning between "לך עם" and "לך את".</fn></li>
 
<li><b>"כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא"</b> – Seforno,&#160;Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch suggest that the somewhat extraneous word "הוּא" implies that Bilam was going to do as <i>he</i> pleased, according to his own agenda, and not Hashem's.</li>
 
<li><b>"כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא"</b> – Seforno,&#160;Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch suggest that the somewhat extraneous word "הוּא" implies that Bilam was going to do as <i>he</i> pleased, according to his own agenda, and not Hashem's.</li>
<li>Omits mention of Hashem's condition -</li>
+
<li><b>"כִּי הוֹלֵךְ"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the very fact that Bilam went with the messengers betrays his intentions. If he had been planning on abiding by God's words (not to curse), what was the point of going?</li>
 +
<li><b>No mention of Hashem's condition</b> - The fact that Bilam did not share Hashem's caveat, that he could go but only say that which Hashem tells him ("אַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה"), might further suggest that he planned to ignore it. <fn>Chizkuni 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&#160; Hashem's words.&#160; This, too, betrays Bilam's great hatred of the nation and&#160; his intense desire to harm them.</fn></li>
 +
</ul></point>
 +
<point><b>Bilam's Motives</b> – Most of these sources imply that Bilam was motivated by his personal hatred of the Children of Israel and the desire that they be harmed.&#160; R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel, in contrast, suggest that Bilam was acting out of financial interest.&#160; He did not harbor ill will against the nation; he simply hoped to earn a good fee from Balak.</point>
 +
<point><b>"לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ" – The angel's intentions</b><ul>
 +
<li>Punishment - Rashbam suggests that the angel was sent to punish Bilam for going to act against Hashem's will.&#160; He points to Yaakov, Moshe, and Yonah as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned to them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.<fn>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, <a href="Wrestling With Angels and Men" data-aht="page">Wrestling With Angels and Men</a> and <a href="Mystery at the Malon" data-aht="page">Mystery at the Malon</a>.</fn></li>
 
</ul></point>
 
</ul></point>
<point><b>"לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ" – The angel's intentions</b></point>
 
 
<point><b>Message of the donkey episode</b></point>
 
<point><b>Message of the donkey episode</b></point>
 
<point><b>חָטָאתִי</b></point>
 
<point><b>חָטָאתִי</b></point>

Version as of 13:16, 3 July 2019

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.

"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.2 However, they dispute whether Hashem was also consistent regarding His permitting / refusing Bilam to accompany the officers:
  • Consistent – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah3 suggests that in both cases, 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.4 As such, when Hashem initially said "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם", He meant only that Bilam not go with the intent to curse the people,5 but not that he could not physically accompany Balak's officers.6
  • InconsistentIbn EzraBemidbar 22:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and Chizkuni suggest that though initially Hashem did not allow Biilam to join the Moabites, He did allow him to do so 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,7 allowing him to learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.8
    • Gave in to Balak - Chizkuni9 explains similarly, but highlights Balak's repeated requests. If Balak was foolish enough to ask Bilam to come and curse Israel a second time, then Hashem was ready to grant the request just so that he would learn how pointless it was.  The point was driven home when the expected curse became a blessing.10
Evidence of Bilam's evil intent – These sources suggest that the text contains various hints to Bilam's evil intent:
  • "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.11
  • "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 suggests that the very fact that Bilam went with the messengers betrays his intentions. If he had been planning on abiding by God's words (not to curse), what was the point of going?
  • No mention of Hashem's condition - The fact that Bilam did not share Hashem's caveat, that he could go but only say that which Hashem tells him ("אַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה"), might further suggest that he planned to ignore it. 12
Bilam's Motives – Most of these sources imply that Bilam was motivated by his personal hatred of the Children of Israel and the desire that they be harmed.  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 for going to act against Hashem's will.  He points to Yaakov, Moshe, and Yonah as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned to them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.13
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.

No Wrongdoing

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

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? 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. 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.