Bemidbar 22:23-35 – Bil'am's amazing donkey

Bemidbar 22:22-35 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. 

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 our discussion on his fourth blessing.)  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 wander 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, 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 seemed bewildering 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, but then after the malakh finished speaking to Bil'am, Bil'am returned to travel with Balak's messengers, apparently pretending that nothing extraordinary had happened, and the incident with the donkey ended, 22:35. 

Most likely, Bil'am was embarrassed by the donkey, which might be the point of the episode, to humble Bil'am, see Numbers Rabbah 20:14, and our discussion on Bil'am character, but this cannot be know definitively. For an additional reason for this miracle and the entire incident, see our discussion on the change in Bil'am before his third blessing.

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.

Bemidbar 24:1 – The change in Bil'am by his third blessing: A duh

Bemidbar 24:1 records that Bil'am realized that G-d wanted him to bless the Jewish people and not curse them. This is quite amazing that only now this understanding dawned on Bil'am. He had experienced a talking donkey, 22:28,30, a vision of a malakh, 22:31-25, and G-d had him state two blessings to the Jewish people, 23:5,16, but only now he realized that G-d did not want the Jewish people to be cursed! (Note, I do not refer to the conversations recorded in 22:12,20 since I think Bil'am made up these conversations, see our discussion on Bemidbar 22:8-35, "The wizard of Petor." https://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/bemidbar-228-35-balak-wizard-of-petor.html)

What made Bil'am suddenly understand in 24:1 that G-d wanted the Jewish people to be blessed? Milgrom (1990, p. 201) writes that Bil'am learned this from his second blessing, 23:23. This cannot be since even after the second blessing Balak took Bil'am to a third place to curse the people, and Bil'am instructed Balak to offer sacrifices as part of his and Balak's efforts to curse the Jewish people, 23:27-30. Instead, it must be something about the place that Balak took Bil'am to offer the sacrifices and curse the Jewish people, 23:28, or the sacrifices themselves that made Bil'am wake up, 23:29,30.

One possibility is that coincidently the place where Balak took Bil'am to curse the Jewish people was exactly the place where the Jewish people had camped prior to their battle with Sihon, 23:28 and 21:20. Thus, maybe at this place Bil'am saw some evidence of the Jewish people's great victory over Sihon and from this he understood that G-d wanted the Jewish people to be blessed. (This seeing could then correspond to Balak's seeing in 22:2.) Or, maybe Bil'am saw some remnants of the camping of the Jewish people that led him to realize that the people were to be blessed.

A different idea is that it was the third set of sacrifices that made Bil'am wake up since it reminded him of his incident with the donkey. Bil'am had struck the donkey three times to get the donkey to go where he wanted, and the donkey and the malakh had questioned Bil'am why he hit the donkey three times, 22:23-33. The sacrifices prior to each attempted blessing (altogether three sets: 23;1-4,14,29,30) were similar to the hitting of the donkey since in both cases Bil'am was trying to force something to happen, either to get the donkey to walk in a certain way or to curse the Jewish people. Thus, maybe as the third set of sacrifices were being offered, Bil'am realized that just as he was wrong to hit the donkey three times since there was a reason the donkey was not going in the correct direction, so too it was wrong both to offer sacrifices to try to curse the Jewish people and to curse the Jewish people. This possibility is supported by the fact that this realization by Bil'am is recorded immediately after the sacrifices were offered, i.e., 24:1 (the realization) is the next verse after 23:30 (the description of the sacrifices being offered).

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bemidbar chapters 22-25 – Bil'am: The bad, the good and the ordinary?

Bil’am has always been an enigmatic figure. Was he an evil sorcerer or a true prophet of G-d?

There are several reasons why Balak would seem to be a true prophet of G-d. First Bil’am consistently says that he will only do what G-d says. When the messengers of Balak came to him, he says that he had to ask G-d for permission and when G-d told him no he did not go, 22:8-13. When the messengers of Balak returned, he said that if he received a house full of silver and gold he could only do what G-d would tell him, 22:18. On this occasion, G-d agreed to let him go, so Bil’am went but when he met Balak again he said he would only speak what G-d put into his mouth, 22:38. He continues to repeat this phrase to Balak, even as Balak gets angrier and angrier at him for blessing the Jewish people, 23:12,26; 24:12-14.

Second, the very fact that G-d would speak to Bil’am would seem to give him significance, as G-d does not speak to everybody. Bil’am could even call on G-d as he told the messengers of Balak that G-d would speak to him in the night, 22:8,19. However, in our discussion on 22:8-35, "The wizard of Petor," (http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/bemidbar-228-35-balak-wizard-of-petor.html) I argue that G-d did not really speak to Bil'am in 22:8-11,19,20 and that initially, Bil'am' s statements that he would only do what G-d said was part of his act to bargain for more money. If this is true, then these first two reasons are not indicative of any goodness on Bil'am's part.

Three, the blessings he gives are not only favorable to the Jewish people but also have been interpreted as signifying some of the most significant future events such as the coming of the Messiah (Bemidbar 24:17-19). The Talmud (Berakhot 12b, also Yerushalmi Berakhot) quotes R. Avihu son of Zutrti in the name of R. Yehuda the son of Zevida that Chazal wanted to include Bil'am's prophecies in the regular prayers but did not do so only because they were too long and would be a burden to the public. Afterwards, the blessing, mah tovu, 24:5, stated by Bil’am was included in the daily prayers. Furthermore, in the last blessings, the Torah records “that he knew the knowledge of the Most High” (24:16) which would be knowledge that only a prophet of G-d could know. The positive view of Bil’am appears in the Midrash (Numbers Rabbah, 14:20, and Sifrei Devarim 357) which compares Bil’am favorably in some ways to Moshe.

On the other hand, there are many reasons to think that Bil’am was really a scoundrel. First, the fact that he would ask G-d to curse the Jewish people shows that he cannot be a prophet since how could a prophet of G-d want to curse the people who made a covenant with G-d?

Second, as indicated in Numbers Rabbah 20:14, the story of the donkey, is a parody of Bil’am, as the Midrash records “this villain was going to curse an entire nation…yet he had to smite a donkey!” A donkey, an animal, was able to see a malakh of G-d while Bil’am this supposedly great prophet did not know what was going on, 22:22-31. Presumably, G-d would not create a miracle of a talking donkey and send a malakh to make fun of a true prophet of G-d.

Third, after Bil’am finished his blessings, the Jewish people sinned with the daughters of Moav, and 31:16 seems to imply that this sin was due to the words of Bil’am. Rashi (on 25:1) quotes from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a), that after Bil’am failed to curse the Jewish people, he told Moav that they should seduce the Jewish people to get them to sin so that G-d would be angry at the Jewish people. How could a prophet of G-d desire to cause the people to sin?

Fourth, 31:8 records that the Jewish people killed Bil’am but as noted by Rambam (on 22:31) the Jewish people would not kill a prophet of G-d.

Fifth, N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 284, 286) notes that Bil’am did not act like other prophets. Prophets usually attempt to refrain from being prophets while Bil’am “hankers after prophecy… to force it down from Heaven through the medium of seven alters, seven bullocks, enchantments and solitude.” Also, she notes that prophets usually state in their prophecy "thus said G-d," while Bil’am said "thus said Bil’am," 24:3,15.

Accordingly, there are many reasons to think he was a prophet and many reasons to think he was a scoundrel, what is one to think of this Jekyll and Hyde?

The overwhelming traditional approach views Bil’am as a scoundrel. For example, in Pirkei Avot 5:22, Bil’am is portrayed as having an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a proud soul. Yet, then all the apparent positive aspects to Bil’am have to be explained.

How could Bil’am offer such great blessings/ prophecies if he was a scoundrel? Sanhedrin 105b quotes Rabbi Yohanon that Bil’am was forced to say the blessings under duress. According to this idea, Bil’am was not a prophet at all, and would have been like a zombie when he said the blessings. Yet, this explanation in the Talmud only refers to 23:5 where the text records that G-d put words into his mouth, while afterwards, by 24:2 Bil’am is referred to as a prophet.

Hirsch (on 22:8) suggests that Bil’am was both a prophet of G-d and a scoundrel. For some reason, Bil’am had a belief in monotheism which enabled him to become a prophet and thus G-d would speak to him, but he happened also to be an avaricious soul. I do not understand this idea since I assume that if a person is a prophet who can speak to G-d, then he would also be a morally upstanding person. Is a belief in monotheism enough to make a person a prophet?

Ramban (on 22:31) understands that Bil’am was a temporary prophet for the sake of the honor of the Jewish people to say the blessings. He became a prophet at the end of incident with the donkey, when the text records “that G-d opened the eyes of Bil’am,” 22:31, to enable him to see the malakh. The idea would be that he was so humiliated by the donkey that he realized the errors of his ways. However, after Bil’am finished the blessings he reverted back to being a sorcerer, and thus he could have advised the daughters of Moav to tempt the Jewish people.

I like this idea of the Ramban that Bil’am was transformed by the incident with donkey, but I am bothered how Bil’am could have reverted backwards so quickly. Hertz (1960, p. 681) explains “that there is nothing improbable in this heathen prophet, when his enthusiasm for Israel and righteousness had died away, sinking back to the old sorcerer.” To me this seems highly improbable.

After Bil'am realized that he could have been killed by the malakh, he admitted that he sinned (22:34), which sounds like a genuine repentant. We see that during the blessings he stopped with his sacrifices and disregarded his enchantment methods, 24:1.

Furthermore, the blessings he uttered, would likely have reinforced his transformation. I doubt that after all the incredible blessings, Bil'am would deliberately sin against G-d by teaching Moav how to incite the Jewish people to sin. After Balak yelled at Bil’am after the third blessing, Bil’am responded by predicting that Moav would be wiped out by the Jewish people, 24:17. This prediction is incongruent with the idea that at that same time he advised Moav to provoke the Jewish people to sin so that Moav could defeat the Jewish people.

Ramban (on 25:1) notes that the simple sense of the Torah is that Bil’am did not advise the women of Moav or Midyan to seduce the Jewish men since this fact is not mentioned in chapter 25.  I believe that 31:16
should be understood to mean that after the people heard Bil'am's great blessings, they became euphoric, and this led them to chase after the women of Moav.

Why was Bil'am with Midyan (31:8) if he was not advising them to cause the Jewish people to sin? My geuss is that Midyan was the agent for arraigning Moav to hire Bil'am. The idea would be that Midyan had good relations with Bil'am, and hence either on the way home, 24:25, or some time after Bil'am returned home after stating the prophecies, he traveled to Midyan. Thus, he was with Midyan when the war with the Jewish people occurred.

Why was Bil'am killed if he did not advise Moav to sin with the Jewish people? Maybe, he was killed because he initially wanted to curse the Jewish people. Instead of the malakh killing Bil’am when he was riding the donkey the Jewish people killed him in the war with Midyan. His initial sin was so heinous that his repentance could not absolve him of punishment.

To return to the question of whether Bil'am was a saint or a sinner. My feeling is that initially Bil’am was a scoundrel, but he was transformed by the incident with the donkey to being a prophet temporarily. Afterwards, he did not revert to being a scoundrel since he did not advise Midyan or Moav to sin with the Jewish people. Yet, he also did not remain a prophet, but he became an ordinary person. This second change occurred already by the forth blessings when he was a big talker that he claimed that "he knew the knowledge of the Most High,", see our discussion on 24:14-25, "The fourth blessing" (http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/bemidbar-2414-25-balak-fourth-blessing.html)

The idea is that after going from one extreme to the other, Bil'am ended up in the middle. (This idea is similar, though in a different context, to the Rambam's idea that by temporarily adopting extreme character traits one is led to the mean character traits, see his Laws of opinions 2:2, and Shemonah Perakim.) Once, Bil'am was no longer a prophet, then he was killed for his initial sin.

 

Bemidbar (Numbers) 25:1-18, 32:2 - The war with Midyan: Kozbi

Bemidbar 25:1-3 records that the Jewish people sinned with the daughters of Moav, and G-d punished the people by sending a plague. The plague ended after Pinhas killed two of the brazen sinners, 25:6-8. 25:11-13 then records the rewards that Pinhas was to receive for his actions, and this apparently was the end of the incident. However, afterwards, 25:14,15 identifies the brazen sinners as Zimri, the son of Salu, a chieftain in the tribe of Shimon, and Kozbi, the daughter of one of the leaders of Midyan. The fact that the Torah identifies the sinners is not so unusual, but one would have thought that if the Torah was going to identify the sinners, then this would have occurred when they were first referred to in 25:6. Why initially did the Torah describe the sinners anonymously, and only after the episode was apparently over, did the Torah reveal their identity? (For some answers, see Ramban on 25:18 and Or ha-Chayyim on 25:14.)

My guess is that the Torah is trying to present the state of mind of Pinhas at the time when he acted. Just as the reader was unaware of the identity of the sinners until the episode was over, so too Pinhas was unaware of the sinner's identities when he acted. Moshe had ordered that the sinners were to be killed, 25:5, and Pinhas obeyed without inquiring who were the people sinning. This idea explain why the Torah initially presented the sinners anonymously, but then why is important for us to know their identity afterwards? The following verses suggest an answer.

25:16-18 record that G-d commanded the Jewish people to attack the Midyanites due to “the matter of Peor and the matter of Kozbi.” Is the “matter of Kozbi” identical with the events of Baal Peor? If yes, then why is it mentioned twice?

Ibn Ezra (on 25:18) suggests that 25:18 is listing two separate reasons why Midyan was to be attacked. One reason was for leading the people astray by Baal Peor and the second reason was that Midyan wanted to harm the people out of revenge for Kozbi's death, their Midyanite princess, because they blamed the Jewish people for her death. I understand this harm to mean that Midyan attacked the people after the events of Baal Peor.

A proof for this is that 25:18 uses the word, tsorerim, which implies ongoing hostility, see Milgrom, 1990, p.218. Furthermore, the Torah uses the same word, tsoror, assail, harass, when commanding the Jewish people to attack Midyan, 25:17. The double use of the same word implies that the attack was tit for tat, Midyan was to be attacked because they were attacking you. 25:18 could then be understood as “for they (Midyan) are attacking you with their craftiness (guerrilla warfare?), with which they were crafty with you in Baal Peor and in the matter of the death of Kozbi (that they blamed the Jewish people for her death).

In addition, when the command to fight Midyan is repeated in 31:2, the Torah records that the Jewish people are to take revenge on Midyan. Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) explains that the revenge is because Midyan caused the Jewish people to worship idolatry. Yet, Midyan did not force the people to commit idolatry. Instead, if Midyan had been attacking the people and were continuing to attack them, then it makes sense that the Jewish people were to seek revenge to stop these attacks.

This idea explains why the people were commanded to attack Midyan and not Moav who were also involved in the sins of Baal Peor. Rashi (on 25:18) explains that Moav was not to be attacked since Ruth was to come from Moav. Ramban (on 25:18) quotes a Midrash that Moav was not attacked since they had acted due to their fears while Midyan got involved in the sin of Baal Peor for no reason. Ramban also writes that Moav was protected due to their forefather Lot, as Devarim 2:9 records that G-d told Moshe the Jewish people could not fight with Moav. The idea that Midyan was attacking the Jewish people suggests another reason. Only Midyan was attacked since they attacked the Jewish people, while Moav was not attacked since they did not attack the Jewish people.

Finally, this idea also explains why Kozbi had to be identified. Midyan would only want to take revenge if the Jewish people had killed an important person, and from the identification of Kozbi we learn that she was a princess of Midyan. Thus, she is mentioned in 25:15 immediately prior to the command to attack Midyan, and the explanation that the command was due to the "matter of Kozbi." Therefore, had Torah not identified her we would not have understood why the Jewish people fought with Midyan.

We are left with the question why did Zimri have to be identified? Possibly once Kozbi was identified, then Zimri, her partner, was also mentioned.

My daughter, Talia, has suggested that Zimri was identified in order that Midyan should realize that Kozbi was not killed because she was a foreigner, but since she sinned, as a "high ranking" Jew, Zimri, was also killed. Thus, Zimri was identified to show that Midyan had no justification for their attacks on the Jewish people, and again the identification was recorded in conjunction with the command to attack Midyan, which was in response to the attacks from Midyan.

A third reason is that with the identification of Zimri we also learn that he was from one of the leading families of the tribe of Shimon, and then his death accorded with G-d's instruction to Moshe in 25:4, to kill the leaders of the people who were sinning. Moshe had not relayed this information to the people, 25:5, and hence when Pinhas acted he was consciously fulfilling Moshe's instructions and unintentionally G-d's instructions.

Bemidbar 24:16 – Was Bil'am prophesying when he said his fourth blessing

Bemidbar 24:14-24 records Bil'am fourth and last blessing. After Bil’am’s third blessing, Balak yelled at Bil’am, 24:10,11. This caused Bil’am to turn on Balak, and he announced that in the future Jewish people would smash (destroy?) Moav, 24:17. Bil’am then continued and spoke about Edom, Amalek, and the Kenites, 24:18-24. Was Bil'am prophesying when he made these statements?

I believe that the basis for thinking that Bil'am was a prophet when he said his fourth blessing is the third introductory verse of the fourth set of blessings, 24:16, where Bil’am states about himself that he, “Utters the hearer of Godly sayings, who knows the knowledge of Most-High envisaging a vision of Shaddai, bowed, but with eyes uncovered,” Fox translation (1995).  

Based on 24:16, Ramban (on 24:16, in other versions end of 24:14) writes that Bil’am’s declaration in 24:17-24 were prophecies from G-d. To support this contention, Chavel (1993, footnotes on Ramban) points out that the phrase “utters the hearer of Godly sayings” also appears in the third blessing, 24:4, and then just as the third blessing was a prophecy so too Bil’am's declarations in 24:17-24 were prophecies. Furthermore, the phrase “knowledge of Most-High,” as noted by the Ibn Ezra (on 24:16) also seems to refer to Bil’am’s prophetic abilities.

I doubt that 24:16 implies that Bil’am was speaking as a prophet of G-d by his fourth blessings since the verse is a statement from Bil’am. The Torah does not state that Bil’am’s fourth blessing were prophecies or from G-d. This is in contrast to Bil’am's first three blessings, where the Torah specifically states that Bil’am was speaking G-d’s word, 23:5,16 or that the spirit of G-d came upon him, 24:2. Furthermore, as we noted in our discussion on Bemidbar 22:23-35, "Bil’am’s amazing donkey," there is a parallelism between the episode with the donkey and Bil'am's prophecies, but the parallelism is only until the third blessing since by the fourth blessing, Bil'am is speaking his own mind.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105b, Berakhot 7a, see Rashi on 24:16) states that it is preposterous that Bil’am could have knowledge of G-d when he was bested by a donkey, and the Talmud concludes that he had a limited ability to know when to curse the people. Yet, even this seems to be giving him too much credit. With regard to Bil’am’s first three blessings, he wanted to curse the Jewish people, so G-d intervened to change the curse to a blessing (see Devarim 23:6), but by Bil’am’s fourth declaration, he never intended to curse the people, so G-d did not have to intervene. Bil’am claimed he was talking as a prophet, but this was just part of his act. As we discuss on Bemidbar 22:8-35, "Bil’am: The wizard of Petor," Bil’am was a big talker. When Balak first sent him messengers, he claimed to speak to G-d, and so too here, by his fourth blessing, he was a big talker that he claimed in 24:16 to know G-d’s knowledge.

Accordingly, my understanding is that as the Torah does not state that Bil’am’s last statements/ blessings were from G-d, then they were not, and 24:17-24 records Bil’am personal thoughts. Bil’am was a temporary prophet from the time of the incident with the donkey until his third blessing, and afterwards he reverted back to his usual personality of pretending to be a prophet.

With this approach, after reciting three blessings, Bil’am was in a good mood thinking a lot of himself since he had become a temporary prophet, and then when Balak got angry at him, he decided to continue the role of being a prophet. He made predictions about Moav’s future (24:17, 19?) since Balak was the king of Moav, and then for good measure he added on predictions about Edom, Amalek and the Kenites. These statements were based on his general knowledge, and after seeing that G-d intervenes in this world he was sure that the Jewish people would prevail with Moav. 

Bibliography:

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 22:8-35 - Bil'am: The wizard of Petor - Did G-d (three times) change His decision to let Bil'am curse the Jewish people?

Bemidbar 22:8 records that when Bil'am first heard Balak's offer to curse the Jewish people, he told Balak's messengers that they should wait the night, and Bil'am would speak to G-d. That night G-d spoke to Bil'am and told him that he should not accompany Balak's messengers since the Jewish people were to be blessed and not cursed, 22:9-12. Bil'am relayed this message to the messengers, but Balak sent additional set of messengers to convince Bil'am to curse the people, 22:15-17. Bil'am told the second set of messengers that he would again speak to G-d, 22:19. This time, surprisingly, G-d allowed Bil'am to travel with Balak's messengers, 22:20. Yet, when Bil'am started to travel, G-d became angry with him and sent a malakh to block his donkey's way, 22:21,22. At the end of the incident with the donkey, G-d again allowed Bil'am to travel with the messengers, 22:34,35. It seems that G-d changed His mind three times within this episode: First G-d did not allow Bil'am to travel, then G-d allowed him to travel, then G-d was angry with Bil'am for accompanying the messengers, and then after the incident with the donkey, G-d allowed Bil'am to go with the messengers. Did G-d want Bil'am to travel with the messengers or not?

Ibn Ezra suggests that G-d did not want Bil'am to go, as G-d said initially, but when Bil'am asked a second time, G-d let him go if he wanted to. (See N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 311-315.) This approach follows the idea in the Midrash that G-d allows people free will to go the way they choose. Yet, as G-d did not want him to go, G-d was angry at him for choosing to go. Ramban rejects Ibn Ezra's view for two reasons. One, just because a person is a nudnik and repeats his question this is no reason for G-d to change his mind. And, two, if G-d allowed Bil'am to go, then how he could have punished him for choosing to go. Furthermore, in the end Bil'am was not free to curse the people, 23:5,16.

Ramban (on 22:20,35) suggests that G-d wanted Bil'am to go with the messengers but this was only after Bil'am had heard that he was not to curse the Jewish people. Thus, on the first occasion, G-d told Bil'am that he could not curse the Jewish people, and on the second occasion, G-d allowed Bil'am to go in order to bless the Jewish people. G-d was angry with Bil'am not because he went but because he did not inform the messengers that he was not going to curse the Jewish people but to listen to G-d. Furthermore, G-d was angry since Bil'am gave the messengers the impression that G-d gave him permission to curse the Jewish people. After G-d sent the malakh, G-d gave permission to Bil'am to continue with the messengers, according to the Ramban since Bil'am understood that he was to tell Balak that he was only going to say what G-d told him, and this is what he did, 22:38. N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 308-311) quotes various commentators who find textual support for this approach, but I wonder that if G-d really wanted Bil'am to bless the people, why did He not tell Bil'am in the first conversation that he could go with the messengers. G-d could have said on the first occasion do not curse the Jewish people but say everything that I want, instead of having two separate conversations.

Isaac Arama (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 311,312) offers a third approach. He argues that Bil'am request to curse the Jewish people was reprehensible, but on the first occasion, G-d answered without getting angry due to G-d's goodness. G-d told him that the people are to be blessed (22:12) and Bil'am was supposed to understand that his request was inappropriate. However, when Bil'am asked a second time, G-d was angry at him for having the nerve to ask again. G-d said he could go but this was to make a fool of him and to punish him. With this approach, G-d never changed His mind, but G-d does not seem to be angry with Bil'am when G-d responded to Bil'am's second request, 22:20.

I agree with Isaac Arama that Bil'am's requests to curse the Jewish people were incomprehensible if Bil'am was really a prophet of G-d. Was Bil'am really a prophet of G-d? Midrash Rabbah (20:1) explains that Bil'am was the exception to the rule, that really there were no non-Jewish prophets, but there had to be one in order that the nations of the world could not make a claim that G-d had not given them a prophet. Thus, Bil'am was the single non-Jewish prophet and he was to teach the non-Jews not to commit idolatry. Yet, we never hear of Bil'am's works in this area, and all we know of him is that a "prophet of G-d" wanted to curse the Jewish people. I doubt that Bil'am was a prophet.

If Bil'am was not a prophet, how can we understand this episode as Bil'am told the messengers that G-d would speak to him that night, and G-d spoke to him? One clue is from S. R. Hirsch's insight who writes, (1989, on 22:9) “it is by no means necessary to assume that Bil’am expected or even asked for this communication from G-d. What Bil’am said “what G-d will say to me” seems entirely just a phrase in the mouth of Bil’am. At least the messengers of Balak and especially Balak himself took G-d’s refusal as having no other meaning than: I will not go with you, my ambitions and interest are not yet satisfied.” S. R. Hirsch understands that Bil'am would always put on a show, but this time G-d really spoke as opposed to his usual acts where Bil'am just pretended that G-d was speaking to him. I think one can extend this idea that Bil'am was pretending to speak to G-d.

The two conversations recorded in 22:9-12 and 22:20 were part of Bil'am’s act as a magician. Could Bil’am really be able say that G-d would speak to him at night (22:8,19)? No. These claims show that he was faking these conversations. It is possible that Bil'am lied to the messengers and told them that G-d had spoken to him and what is recorded in 22:9-12, and 22:20. Or, it is also possible that the first set of messengers heard the whole discussion but thought that G-d was really speaking to Bil'am. Bil'am told them to stay with him that night, as 22:8 ends by recording that "they sat with Bil'am." This is usually understood that they just spent the night with Bil'am, but literally it means that they were seating together, which means that they heard the conversation between G-d and Bil'am. Thus, 22:9 records that when "G-d" spoke to Bil'am, "He" asked, "Who are these people with you?" meaning the people sitting next to you. Bil'am explained what the messengers wanted and "G-d" told Bil'am that he could not curse the people since they were blessed (22:12). With this possibility, the messengers experienced a great performance by the master magician Bil'am.

In the morning, Bil'am told the messengers that he could not go with them, 22:13, which meant to the messengers that he wanted more honor (Rashi on 22:13) or more money (S. R. Hirsch). Even though the messengers might have thought that they heard that "G–d" said not to curse the Jewish people, this was not the end of the story for them since they believed that Bil'am could change G-d's mind. One of the "beliefs" of pagan magic is that magician can change the wishes of the divine. For example, Balak had Bil'am try to curse the Jewish people in different places, even though he had already given a blessing.

The second set of messengers returned with more promises, 22:15-17. Bil'am told them that if they gave him great wealth, he could not do anything contrary to G-d, but he would speak to G-d again, 22:18,19. This statement by Bil’am was part of the bargaining process, and was no sign of Bil'am's virtuousness. If Bil’am had really spoken to G-d by the first set of messengers, then he would have just rejected the second set of messengers without saying that he would speak to G-d that night. Instead, Bil'am now wanted to accept Balak’s offer, and thus, he needed "permission" from G-d. He told the messengers to stay the night, 22:19, but here the Torah does not record that they were "sitting with Bil'am." Bil'am was then told by "G-d" that he could accompany the messengers, 22:20. In this case, the messengers probably did not hear this "conversation" between G-d and Bil'am. This change of G-d was not surprising to them since this was the belief of the pagan magic. Bil'am had no problem arranging these two conversations with G-d since he invented the conversations. G-d did not change His mind, since G-d had never spoken to Bil'am.

(Note, most likely Bil’am told Balak’s messengers the “conversation” recorded in 22:20 since in 24:12,13, Bil’am tells Balak that he had told Balak’s messengers that he would only do what had G-d had told him to do and this message is recorded in reference to 22:20.)

A proof that Bil’am made up these two conversations is that the Torah never refers to them as a dream. If they had been a real conversation between G-d and Bil’am, then the Torah would have recorded that G-d spoke to Bil’am in a dream, as in Bereshit 20:3 by Avimelek and in Bereshit 31:24 by Lavan. In addition, in the first “conversation,” while one can understand 22:9 as G-d making an introductory question, still it should have been Bil’am speaking first to G-d if this was a real conversation.

After these two “conversations,” Bil’am left with Balak’s messengers to curse the Jewish people, and G-d was angry, 22:22. Not only did Bil'am pretend to speak to G-d, but also, he was going to curse the Jewish people! G-d sent the malakh to threaten Bil'am, and Bil'am got the message. Bil'am then sincerely asked G-d whether he should continue with the messengers, 22:34. G-d agreed since Bil'am had been transformed by the donkey and G-d wanted the people to be blessed. This was the only time that G-d had granted permission for Bil'am to go on the mission.

When Bil'am met Balak, he told him that he would only say what G-d would tell him, 22:38. Balak understood this statement as part of Bil'am's act, and hence he wanted Bil'am to attempt to curse the Jewish people. However, Bil'am was speaking sincerely this time (also in 23:12, 23:26, but not in 22:18), but as he was still not a prophet he did not understand what G-d wanted. (In 24:12,13, Bil'am was being disingenuous. He refers to his conversation with the messengers, that he said he would only say, what G-d wanted, but at that time this statement was part of the act.)

After the incident with the donkey, Bil'am no longer claimed with absolute confidence that G-d would speak to him, as he had previously claimed with the first and second set of messengers. Thus, Bil'am told Balak, "Perhaps G-d will grant me a manifestation, and whatever he reveals to me I will tell you," 23:3. After really speaking to G-d after the incident with the donkey, he could only say perhaps G-d will speak to me, and 23:4,16 record that G-d chanced to appear to Bil'am since G-d was not "obligated" to speak to Bil'am (Milgrom, 1990, p. 195).

If Bil'am made up these conversations with the messengers, why are they recorded in the Torah? The answer is that the following story with the donkey makes a mockery of pagan magic and the messengers set the stage for this mockery since they show the belief and respect for pagan magic, see Alter, 1981, pp. 104-107, and our discussion on 22:23-35, "The amazing donkey."

I have been questioned that one cannot maintain that the two conversations recorded in 22:9-12, and 22:20 did not occur. My answer would be that this idea is similar to the Rambam's (Moreh, 2:42) claim that all cases by a malakh, such as by the talking donkey, were visions and did not occur. In this case, it is part of the act of magicians to claim that they speak to G-d, and thus 22:9-12 and 22:20 do not mean that G-d really spoke to Bil'am on these two occasions. In addition, The Torah describes events as the people who are experiencing the events understand them and as the messengers believed that G-d really spoke to Bil'am, the Torah states that G-d spoke to Bil'am. Another example of this phenomenon is by Yaakov when he referred to his adversary in the middle of the night as a malakh, and even though he later learned that it was Esav, the Torah maintained Yaakov's initial perspective when recording the episode, see our commentary on Bereshit 32:25-31 "Who fought with Yaakov?")

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 1981, The art of biblical narrative, New York: Basic Books.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society