Bemidbar 22:22-30
record Bil’am’s interaction with his donkey. (The donkey was a female donkey, a
jenny, but we will refer to it as a donkey and not a jenny since it seems that most
people when discussing this incident use the term donkey and not jenny.)
First,
the donkey veered off the road and Bil’am hit it, then the donkey pushed Bil'am
against a wall and Bil’am hit it a second time, and then the donkey stopped
altogether when it saw a malakh in front of it and Bil’am hit it a third time. These actions by the donkey did not have to be contemporaneous. They night have occurred a few hours apart or even on different days. After the donkey stopped (the donkey’s third unusual action) and Bil'am hit the donkey a third time, the donkey spoke and questioned Bil'am for why he hit her. After their short conversation, a malakh spoke directly to the Bil'am, 22:31-35. (Note, 22:22 and 22:35 function as a bookend to this section based on the phrase “Bil’am went with the messengers.”)
There are two miracles in this incident, the donkey and later Bil'am were able to see the malakh, and the donkey spoke.
There are two miracles in this incident, the donkey and later Bil'am were able to see the malakh, and the donkey spoke.
In reference to the first miracle, Robert Alter (1981, pp. 104-107) notes that the word to see is one of the main words in the entire Bil'am story, as for example, in 22:2,41; 23:3,9,13,21; and 24:1,2,20,24. Alter suggests that the incident between Bil'am and the donkey parallel Bil'am and Balak with Bil'am in reference to Balak being the donkey and Balak being Bil'am in the incident with the donkey. The parallelism is that the donkey sees while Bil'am does not, and then Bil'am sees by each one of the prophecies (22:41, 23:9, 23:13, 23:28?, 24:1,2) while Balak does not. Bil'am went to three different places to curse the Jewish people and in each place he instructed Balak to offer sacrifices to be brought, 23:2,13,14,27-29, but on third occasion, the "spirit of G-d" descended on Bil'am, 24:2. This change in Bil'am on the third occasion parallels the donkey speaking after he had been hit three times, 22:28. After the donkey spoke, then G-d opened Bil'am eyes for him to understand what was going on, 22:31, and similarly after Bil'am's third prophecy, Balak realized it was hopeless to try to curse the Jewish people and he told Bil'am to go home, 24:11. (With regard to Bil'am's fourth prophecy, see https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2010/06/bemidbar-2414-25-balak-fourth-blessing.html) Also, just as Bil'am was angry at the donkey, Balak was angry at Bil'am for blessing the Jewish people, and just like the donkey defended himself to Bil'am so too Bil'am defended himself from Balak's accusations. These literary connections show that the incident with the donkey is integral to the narrative of Balak and Bil’am.
The second miracle that the donkey spoke is considered more unusual, and the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:6) writes that this ability for the donkey to speak was “programmed” into the creation of the world. Evidently, the Mishnah believes that the donkey spoke, but later commentators have argued that it did not.
Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (Kapach, 1984, p. 159, footnote 8, also see Ibn Ezra on 22:28) explains that the donkey did not really speak but rather the malakh spoke, but Bil'am thought that it was the donkey speaking. I am not sure how this changes the great miracle, as even a malakh speaking would seem to be quite extraordinary, and also it not clear why the Torah would relate the speaking to the donkey when this speaking, according to this idea, was really from the malakh.
The Rambam (Moreh 2:42) argues that the entire incident was a dream and did not really occur. Rambam adopts this approach because of his general approach that whenever a malakh is mentioned in the Torah this means that its appearance was in a vision of prophecy or in a dream. Hertz (1960, p. 671) "modernizes" this approach to claim that the dream was “the subconscious plane of the mental and moral conflict in Bil’am’s soul.” I doubt this idea since having the donkey talk in a dream diminishes the effect of the donkey talking. Hertz's variation also seems unlikely because there is no indication of Bil’am having any conflict as he seemed very desirous of cursing the Jewish people.
Luzzatto (on 22:2, introduction to the chapter) offers a fourth approach. His idea is that the donkey did not actually speak but just made sounds which Bil’am interpreted as recorded in the text. Luzzatto suggests that it was likely that Bil’am was considered to have an ability to talk to animals so then his servants would not have been surprised when he spoke to the donkey. He claims that if the donkey had really spoken then Bil’am and his servants would have been scared to death and Bil'am would have been unable to answer the donkey. Also, he wonders why the donkey did not defend himself by saying that the malakh was standing before him instead of just saying that she had never endangered Bil’am in the past, 22:30. This last question is not strong since the donkey was not speaking of its own free mind but just what G-d wanted it to say. Yet, the question how come a talking animal did not scare the servants and Bil'am is compelling.
I think one must say the donkey spoke since this is what 22:28 records, but the Torah does not state that other people besides Bil’am heard the donkey. Just like, only the donkey and later Bil'am saw the malakh, 22:31, so too only Bil’am heard the donkey and the malakh speak. Thus, the servants and the messengers from Balak who were accompanying Bil'am did not hear the donkey or the malakh speak so none of them were frightened by the incident. With regard to Bil'am he was not scared out of his mind by the donkey speaking either because he had to pretend that he was not shocked to keep up the appearance that he was a real magician or because his anger overwhelmed the shock, 22:27.
We can now explain the sequence of events of 22:23-35. 22:23-27 records that the donkey started to wonder due to the malakh, but nobody else, Bil'am, Bil'am's servants and the accompanying messengers from Balak, saw the malakh so they could not understand what was going on. All they could see was that Bil'am was unable to control his donkey. Afterwards the donkey spoke, 22:28, and the other people only heard Bil'am's response, 22:29. From their perspective, they would think that Bil'am was ranting, almost like a crazy person. The donkey then spoke again, and Bil'am just said no, which again the other people would not understand its significance, 22:30. At this point, G-d let Bil'am, and only Bil'am, see the malakh, and Bil'am bowed down to the malakh, 22:31. Again, this action would have been seemed strange to the other people. The malakh then spoke, 22:32,33,35 which the other people did not hear, but they heard Bil'am's response, 22:34. They would have been confused at what Bil'am was saying and Bil'am would have been embarrassed, which might be the point of the episode, to humble Bil'am, see Numbers Rabbah 20:14, and our discussion https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/07/bemidbar-chapters-22-25-balak-bad-good.html.
The second miracle that the donkey spoke is considered more unusual, and the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:6) writes that this ability for the donkey to speak was “programmed” into the creation of the world. Evidently, the Mishnah believes that the donkey spoke, but later commentators have argued that it did not.
Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (Kapach, 1984, p. 159, footnote 8, also see Ibn Ezra on 22:28) explains that the donkey did not really speak but rather the malakh spoke, but Bil'am thought that it was the donkey speaking. I am not sure how this changes the great miracle, as even a malakh speaking would seem to be quite extraordinary, and also it not clear why the Torah would relate the speaking to the donkey when this speaking, according to this idea, was really from the malakh.
The Rambam (Moreh 2:42) argues that the entire incident was a dream and did not really occur. Rambam adopts this approach because of his general approach that whenever a malakh is mentioned in the Torah this means that its appearance was in a vision of prophecy or in a dream. Hertz (1960, p. 671) "modernizes" this approach to claim that the dream was “the subconscious plane of the mental and moral conflict in Bil’am’s soul.” I doubt this idea since having the donkey talk in a dream diminishes the effect of the donkey talking. Hertz's variation also seems unlikely because there is no indication of Bil’am having any conflict as he seemed very desirous of cursing the Jewish people.
Luzzatto (on 22:2, introduction to the chapter) offers a fourth approach. His idea is that the donkey did not actually speak but just made sounds which Bil’am interpreted as recorded in the text. Luzzatto suggests that it was likely that Bil’am was considered to have an ability to talk to animals so then his servants would not have been surprised when he spoke to the donkey. He claims that if the donkey had really spoken then Bil’am and his servants would have been scared to death and Bil'am would have been unable to answer the donkey. Also, he wonders why the donkey did not defend himself by saying that the malakh was standing before him instead of just saying that she had never endangered Bil’am in the past, 22:30. This last question is not strong since the donkey was not speaking of its own free mind but just what G-d wanted it to say. Yet, the question how come a talking animal did not scare the servants and Bil'am is compelling.
I think one must say the donkey spoke since this is what 22:28 records, but the Torah does not state that other people besides Bil’am heard the donkey. Just like, only the donkey and later Bil'am saw the malakh, 22:31, so too only Bil’am heard the donkey and the malakh speak. Thus, the servants and the messengers from Balak who were accompanying Bil'am did not hear the donkey or the malakh speak so none of them were frightened by the incident. With regard to Bil'am he was not scared out of his mind by the donkey speaking either because he had to pretend that he was not shocked to keep up the appearance that he was a real magician or because his anger overwhelmed the shock, 22:27.
We can now explain the sequence of events of 22:23-35. 22:23-27 records that the donkey started to wonder due to the malakh, but nobody else, Bil'am, Bil'am's servants and the accompanying messengers from Balak, saw the malakh so they could not understand what was going on. All they could see was that Bil'am was unable to control his donkey. Afterwards the donkey spoke, 22:28, and the other people only heard Bil'am's response, 22:29. From their perspective, they would think that Bil'am was ranting, almost like a crazy person. The donkey then spoke again, and Bil'am just said no, which again the other people would not understand its significance, 22:30. At this point, G-d let Bil'am, and only Bil'am, see the malakh, and Bil'am bowed down to the malakh, 22:31. Again, this action would have been seemed strange to the other people. The malakh then spoke, 22:32,33,35 which the other people did not hear, but they heard Bil'am's response, 22:34. They would have been confused at what Bil'am was saying and Bil'am would have been embarrassed, which might be the point of the episode, to humble Bil'am, see Numbers Rabbah 20:14, and our discussion https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/07/bemidbar-chapters-22-25-balak-bad-good.html.
For an additional reason for this miracle and the entire incident see our discussion https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2017/06/bemidbar-241-balak-duh.html.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 1981, The art of biblical narrative, New York: Basic Books.
Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.
Kapach, Yosef, 1984, Commentary of Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on the Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.