Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam/2

Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Hashem's anger at Bilam has been explained in varying ways by commentators.  Not surprisingly, given the choice between suggesting that Hashem's reaction was unjustified or finding a fault of Bilam to attribute it to, most commentators look to blame Bilam. Thus, Rashbam and others suggest that despite Hashem's warning not to curse the nation, Bilam planned to defy Hashem's will, justifiably rousing His ire. A second approach similarly vilifies Bilam, but suggests that he did not simply plan to harm the nation, but actively did so. 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.

A minority approach chooses not to blacken Bilam, but rather to reread the verses describing Hashem's wrath. It suggests that the description of Bilam's leaving, Hashem's anger, and the donkey incident all took place in a prophetic dream prior to Bilam's departure.  As such, this was perhaps not a punitive reaction to sin, but a precautionary warning to ensure that Bilam did not err.

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.  As such, it is expressed prior to Bilam's departure, as part of the prophetic dream in which he is warned to say only that which Hashem tells him.

Sources:Opinion cited by MalbimBemidbar 22:6-40About R. Meir Leibush Weiser¹

Scope of prophecy – RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom 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 fourteen 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  Thus, Hashem's wrath is part of Hashem's original response to Bilam, serving as a precautionary warning before he acts, rather than a rebuke after wrongdoing.

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.
• Talking donkey – 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, that Bilam may 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 RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom 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 never actively planning on defying Hashem.  This might be supported 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?

Name of Hashem – Bilam's consistent use of the proper name of Hashem, (שם הויה) suggests 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.

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 prospect 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,Bemidbar 23:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra¹² 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

Moshe's recounting of the event – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה" are somewhat difficult for this approach, as they assume that Bilam was not totally innocent, but that he was plotting to harm the nation.  This approach might suggest that Moshe refers not to a personal plot of Bilam, but only to Bilam's initial consultations where he relayed to Hashem Balak's request that he curse the nation.  Alternatively, these words are said from the prospective of the Children of Israel¹⁴ who might have known only that Bilam had joined Balak, and assumed that he did so with intent to curse.¹⁵

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.

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.  As such, it is expressed prior to Bilam's departure, as part of the prophetic dream in which he is warned to say only that which Hashem tells him.

Sources:Opinion cited by MalbimBemidbar 22:6-40About R. Meir Leibush Weiser¹⁶

Hashem's response to Bilam – Though most readers assume that Hashem's response to Bilam's second request constitutes but one verse, verse 20, RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom and perhaps RambamShemonah Perakim 7Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1Moreh Nevukhim 2:42About R. Moshe b. Maimon,¹⁷ uniquely posit that all of verses 20-35 were part of this prophetic response.¹⁸  As such, Bilam's departure of verse 21, Hashem's wrath, and the entire donkey incident, all took place in a prophetic dream and not in reality.  Together, they were meant to form a metaphoric visual which expressed a single message,¹⁹ Hashem's warning that Bilam may go but not curse.²⁰

Feigned anger – According to this reading, then, Hashem's anger is only feigned, a way of expressing the consequences that will incur if Bilam veers from Hashem's words. 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 are each meant 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 serves to warn Bilam that if he goes with the wrong intentions, he will unleash Hashem's wrath.
• Angel and sword – The angel's readiness to kill highlights the severity of such a transgression.
• Talking donkey – 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.

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.²¹ Nonetheless, his pestering of Hashem in verse 19 , despite knowing that Hashem had already forbade him from cursing, betrayed that Bilam was enticed by the prospect of a huge fee.²² Recognizing that this was a potential stumbling block, Hashem wanted to counter Bilam's desire for riches with a heavy douse 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 35 ²³ all amount to one message - that Bilam may go but not curse.²⁴

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.²⁷ 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.

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.²⁸

"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,Bemidbar 23:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra²⁹ 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.³⁰

Moshe's recounting of the event – Moshe's words, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה" are somewhat difficult for this approach, as they assume that Bilam had been plotting to harm the nation.  This approach might suggest that these words represent the prospective of the Children of Israel.³¹ The Israelites likely knew only that Bilam had joined Balak, ³² 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 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:RashiBemidbar 22:9-35Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBereshit 32:29Bemidbar 22:22-33Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBemidbar 22:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 22:12-35Bemidbar 23:1Bemidbar 23:13Bemidbar 24:1-2About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniBemidbar 22:12-34Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach,  RambanBemidbar 22:13-35About R. Moshe b. Nachman #2,³³ AbarbanelBemidbar 22:2Bemidbar 22:7Bemidbar 22:22About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoBemidbar 22:12-38Bemidbar 22:41Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Ovadyah Seforno, Or HaChayyimBemidbar 22:13-38Bemidbar 24:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBemidbar 22:12-35About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, R. S.R. HirschBemidbar 22:12-39Bemidbar 23:3Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, MalbimBemidbar 22:6-40Bemidbar 24:1Bemidbar 24:14About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, NetzivBemidbar 22:11-38Bemidbar 23:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin

"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.³⁴ However, they dispute whether Hashem was also consistent with regards to Bilam's accompanying of the officers:

• Consistent – Several sources³⁵ 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.³⁶ Otherwise, though it would appear pointless, he was free to travel.³⁷
• Change of plan – Ibn Ezra,³⁸ in contrast, suggests that though initially Hashem forbade Bilam from joining the Moabites, He later gave in to Bilam's persistent requests³⁹ and allowed him to do so despite His opposition to the idea.⁴⁰  Hashem decided to let Bilam learn his lesson (the futility of his attempt to curse) the hard way.⁴¹ The point was driven home when the expected curse became a blessing.⁴²

According to both readings of the story, though Bilam did journey with Hashem's explicit permission, he should have been aware that that this was limited and did not grant him leave to curse.

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 sacrifices⁴³ or magical practices.⁴⁴  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.
• Alternatively, Bilam believed that his curses or other magical rites had the power to harm even without Hashem's sanction.⁴⁵ If so, though, it is not clear why he bothered to ask for Hashem's permission.⁴⁶ 

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, 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.⁴⁷
• "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.⁴⁸
• No mention of Hashem's conditions - Bilam's omitting to share with the Moabites Hashem's caveat⁴⁹ (that he could go but only say that which Hashem commands) might further suggest that he planned to ignore these instructions.⁵⁰
• Account in Devarim – When Moshe recounts the event in Devarim 23:4-7 he writes, "וְלֹא אָבָה י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ י״י אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה".  This formulation suggests that Bilam had different intentions than Hashem and that he was indeed plotting to curse.⁵¹

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)⁵² for planning to overturn Hashem's will.⁵³ He points to Yaakov,⁵⁴ Moshe,⁵⁵ and Yonah⁵⁶ as examples of others who tried to avoid fulfilling the mission assigned them by Hashem, and who were similarly punished.⁵⁷
• 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.⁵⁸

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:⁵⁹

• 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.⁶⁰
• Hashem is not fickle –  Prof. D. Henshke⁶¹ points out that Bilam had assumed that Hashem's decisions are arbitrary, and that He therefore could be easily influenced to change His mind.⁶² 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.⁶³ 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.

"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, Bilam had continuously tried to influence Hashem and/or inflict harm on the nation through various magical rites.⁶⁴

"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"⁶⁵ 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 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.⁶⁶

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.⁶⁷

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 that the Midianites entice the nation to sin.

Sources:R"A Friedman, as relayed by R"Y Medan⁶⁸

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 25.⁶⁹

"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,⁷⁰ 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.⁷¹  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, 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 Bilam be the tool to inflict it.⁷² 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.⁷³

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.⁷⁴  Thus, the angel tells Bilam to continue on his journey but to say only that which Hashem tells him, a blessing.⁷⁵

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 somewhat difficult for this position.

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 dwindle.

"וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם וַיְבָרֶךְ בָּרוֹךְ אֶתְכֶם וָאַצִּל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדוֹ" – These words 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).⁷⁶

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 Malbim brings this opinion in the name of Ibn EzraBemidbar 22:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, but nowhere in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the chapter is this position explicit. RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom also understands that Hashem's wrath was expressed only in a prophecy that took place before Bilam departed, but he assumes that it is not a pre-emptive warning but rather an expression of disapproval over Bilam's evil intent to curse the nation (which Hashem, in His omniscience, is aware of, even if Bilam has not yet acted upon it).

² Cf. RambamMoreh Nevukhim 2:42About R. Moshe b. Maimon and Ibn KaspiBemidbar 22:22About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi who also posit that the encounter with the angel and donkey took place in a dream.  Ibn Kaspi, however, assumes that the dream begins in verse 22 and took place en route, after Bilam left with the messengers and enraged Hashem. He posits that the dream represented Bilam's own doubts as to whether he should have embarked on the journey. As Rambam speaks only in general terms, it is difficult to know how much of the story he assumes took place in a vision and whether he agrees with Ralbag or Ibn Kaspi. [For a similar dispute regarding the parameters of what some claim to be a prophetic dream, see Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men.]
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.

³ According to this approach, this verse does not mean that Bilam resumed his journey, but that he first departed on it. It is for this reason that the verse utilizes the language of "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).

⁴ In other words, according to this approach, Hashem is not necessarily angry at Bilam at all in reality.  After all, Bilam has of yet not even departed.

⁵ 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.

⁶ 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.

⁷ In verse 12, Hashem says, "לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם" while in verse 20 He says, "קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם".

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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".

¹⁰ Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor and 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.

¹¹ Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.

¹² 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 incite 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 at the battlefield during the war.

¹³ 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 Bilam was targeted, but 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.

¹⁴ This possibility encounters difficulty from the formulation in Yehoshua, which has Hashem Himself say, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם".

¹⁵ See Why Worry About Bilam for various opinions regarding to what extent the Children of Israel were aware of the entire incident.

¹⁶ Malbim brings this opinion in the name of Ibn Ezra, but nowhere in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the chapter is this position explicit.

¹⁷ Rambam is somewhat ambiguous as to the scope 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 this second dream regarding the angel and donkey is a distinct event, coming in reaction to Bilam's departure. Cf. 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. He posits that the dream represented Bilam's own doubts as to whether he should have embarked on the journey.
For a similar dispute regarding the parameters of what some claim to be a prophetic dream, see Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men.

¹⁸ 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, seeAngels – 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. 
It is difficult to know how Rambam reads the story as he only speaks of it in passing. In his commentary on Mishnah Avot, he describes Bilam as wicked and intending to curse the nation, unlike the position developed here.  In Moreh Nevukhim 2:5, however, Rambam implies that Bilam might have begun his career positively and only turned evil later (writing of him, בעת שהיה טוב).  If so, it is possible that in the Moreh, Rambam is assuming that during the Balak episode Bilam was still somewhat obedient.

¹⁹ Normally, each of these events is viewed as an independent reaction to what precedes it.  Hashem's permits Bilam to go in answer to his request, Bilam departs in response to this granting of permission, Hashem is angry in reaction to Bilam's departure etc.Thus, this approach is unique in suggesting that the various events all comprise but one and the same response.

²⁰ 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".‎

²¹ If he were simply planning on defying God, why bother to ask for permission?

²² 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 worth of riches. Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor and 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.

²³ The question of why the angel does not introduce a new directive after expressing Hashem's wrath is not an issue for 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 repeat it verbatim at the end.

²⁴ 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.²⁴ RalbagBemidbar 22:13-33About R. Levi b. Gershom 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.²⁵

²⁴

²⁵

²⁷ 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".

²⁸ Throughout the rest of the story, as well, he consistently repeats this message.

²⁹ 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 at the battlefield during the war.

³⁰ 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 Bilam was targeted, but 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.

³¹ This possibility encounters difficulty from the formulation in Yehoshua, which has Hashem Himself say, "וְלֹא אָבִיתִי לִשְׁמֹעַ לְבִלְעָם".

³² See Why Worry About Bilam for various opinions regarding to what extent the Children of Israel were aware of the entire incident.

³³ 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.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ See R"Y Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni (his first explanation), Ralbag, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, and Netziv.

³⁶ See Chizkuni who writes, "מתחילה לא אמר אלא לא תלך עמהם לקללם". 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. This, then, is no different from Hashem's second response, in which Bilam is again allowed to go, but not to be of one mind with the Moabites (i.e. not allowed to curse). [Cf. Seforno who explains that the phrase "אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים", means "if the officers came to seek your advice", suggesting that Hashem permitted Bilam to go only under these conditions, that he go as an outside consultant, but not if he was planning on cursing as they wished.]
HaKetav VeHakabbalah's linguistic differentiation encounters significant difficulty from the end of episode of the angel and donkey. According to him, when the angel once again permits Bilam to go with the Moabites,  the angel should say "לֵךְ את הָאֲנָשִׁים" (as the angel is only permitting physical travel and not agreement of spirit), yet the angel nonetheless says, "לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים".

³⁷ Rashi, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel suggest that Hashem allowed this so that Bilam could not complain that he lost out on potential profits.

³⁸ See Akeidat YitzchakBemidbar Peirush 22About R. Yitzchak Arama who explains similarly. Cf. Chizkuni (in his third explanation) who 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.

³⁹ Ramban argues against this possibility, claiming that it is inconceivable that Hashem would change His mind only due to the obstinacy of Bilam.

⁴⁰ 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.  [Akeidat Yitzchak brings the similar statement of Resh Lakish in Bavli Shabbat 104a Shabbat 104aAbout the Bavli, "בא ליטמא פותחין לו".]

⁴¹ 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, and the people should have known better, when they nonetheless pressured to 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.]

⁴² According to this reading, initially Hashem had planned only on preventing Bilam from going to curse the nation. It was only in the face of Balak and Bilam's intransigence and insistence on cursing, that He decided to also transform it into a blessing.

⁴³ See 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.

⁴⁴ 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 the curse.

⁴⁵ 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.]

⁴⁶ 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.

⁴⁷ See the discussion regarding the difference between these two formulations in the note above. As mentioned, the angel's later words, "לֵךְ עִם 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".  This might suggest that there really is no difference in meaning between "לך עם" and "לך את".

⁴⁸ See Josephus who has Hashem get angry at Bilam already at this point in the story. Hashem was upset even at the inquiry, as Bilam should have known better. 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.

⁴⁹ Cf. Ralbag who suggests that during the first visit, too, Bilam intentionally only shares 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 return a second time. This, too, betrays how much Bilam was hoping to be able to go and curse the nation.

⁵⁰ 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.

⁵¹ Otherwise, Hashem should have more simply said, "And I did not permit Bilam to curse."

⁵² Rashbam reads the phrase "וילך שפי" in Bemidbar 23:3 to mean lame. When Bilam's leg was pressed against the fence, it caused an injury.

⁵³ R"Y Bekhor Shor reads the angel similarly, but less harshly. He claims that the angel was sent to let Bilam know that Hashem was aware of his intentions and to frighten him into obedience. The angel relayed that if Bilam actualized his plans, then he would be killed by sword. [See also Abarbanel who explains similarly.]

⁵⁴ See Bereshit 32:25-32.

⁵⁵ See Shemot 4:24-25.

⁵⁶ See Yonah 1-2.

⁵⁷ 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.

⁵⁸ 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 Seforno's commentary.  See, for example, his reading of Hashem's hardening of Paroh's heart at Hardened Hearts. See also Seforno.

⁵⁹ 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.

⁶⁰ See R. Yair 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.

⁶¹ See Prof. D. Henshke, "מה ביקשה לומר אתונו של בלעם?".

⁶² See Rashi, R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Hirsch above.

⁶³ 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.

⁶⁴ 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. Seforno 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.

⁶⁵ See Bavli Sanhedrin 106a.

⁶⁶ Alternatively, he was simply paying lip service to Hashem's warning but did not really believe it to be true.

⁶⁷ Otherwise he would not know to which god Bilam was referring.

⁶⁸ See his lecture during the Mikhlelet Herzog Yemei Iyyun BeTanakh 5768.

⁶⁹ 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 each. 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.

⁷⁰ See the sources in the position above who suggests that the word "איעצך"" in Bemidbar 24:14 alludes to this advice.

⁷¹ 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.

⁷² It is not clear how this approach would understand the relationship between Bilam's cursing and the plague which ensued in the aftermath of the Sin of Baal Peor.  If Hashem had already punished the perpetrators via a plague, why would Bilam's cursing be necessary?

⁷³ 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 this is actually a natural reaction.  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.

⁷⁴ This might be compared to a parent, who, after punishing a child, wants to show them that they still love them.

⁷⁵ 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.

⁷⁶ See Targum YerushalmiBemidbar 31:8About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) who presents Pinechas himself as killing Bilam.