AND MOAB WAS SORE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE. The meaning of this is [that Moab stood in great fear] because they [the Israelites] were many,¹. This can be interpreted as “although they were many,” in which case the reference would be to the Moabites, [the word ki meaning “although”]. The meaning of the verse would thus be: “And Moab was sore afraid of the Israelites although they [the Moabites] were many, Ramban, wishing to exclude this interpretation, for the reason cited in the text, explains that the word ki here means “because”; hence the pronoun hu — “they” [they were many] refers to the Israelites. for Moab was *small among the nations;*² and it was not an ancient people, like the Canaanites, the Amorites and other [nations of the] sons of Noah. Therefore they [the Moabites] were greatly afraid of the people who outnumbered them exceedingly, for they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and waxed³ greater than the Moabites. And they were furthermore overcome with dread because of the children of Israel,⁴ for they had heard of the great wonders that had happened to them and their fathers. Now Moab knew that Israel would not take their land from them, since they had sent to them [offering peace]⁵ just as they had sent to Sihon, [asking permission only to pass through their land], saying, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us.⁶ Or it is also possible that they had heard of G-d’s prohibition, when He said to the Israelites, Be not at enmity with Moab.⁷, Verse 9. Therefore they said to the elders of Midian: “Even though the Israelites will not capture our land, they will lick up because of their great numbers all that is round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field,⁸ and they will capture all [the lands] that surround us, just as they did to the two Amorite kings, and they will make us servants to do taskwork.”⁹

footnotes: ¹ The Hebrew text reads: ki rav hu ² See Obadiah 1:2. ³ Exodus 1:7. ⁴ Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. ⁵ Judges 11:17: And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab … ⁶ Deuteronomy 2:29. ⁷ Ibid. ⁸ Verse 4 here. ⁹ Joshua 16:10.

THE ELDERS OF MIDIAN. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “it is possible that the five kings of Midian¹⁰ (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. were the elders.” But if so, [the expression] and the elders of Moab and ‘the elders of Midian’ departed [further on in Verse 7] does not refer to the [same] “elders of Midian” mentioned at the beginning [here in Verse 4: And Moab said unto ‘the elders of Midian’] since kings would not have gone to him [Balaam on such a mission] and [“the elders” mentioned in Verse 7 must perforce have been] princes, as is [expressly] written,¹¹ [but not “kings”]. Furthermore, according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹² 7. who said [that the reason why Moab turned for assistance to Midian, their traditional enemy, was because they said]: “The leader of these people [the Israelites] grew up in Midian; [let us ask them about his characteristics]” — it would have been fitting for the Moabites to send [the delegation] to the elders of Midian, not to the kings or the people, for it was the elders who would know Moses’ nature. It appears to me that originally there were kings in Midian, but Sihon the king of the Amorites had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto the Arnon.¹³ He [also] fought against the children of Ammon and took [part] of their land, just as the Ammonite king said to Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt,¹⁴ and Jephthah replied to him that they had taken it from Sihon.¹⁵, Verses 15-23. In [the Book of] Joshua it is [also] written, *And their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer;*¹⁶ and Sihon furthermore fought against the kings of Midian and conquered their land, and made them his servants bringing tribute¹⁷ and took the crowns off their heads, depriving them of the splendor of royalty, and he allowed them to remain as judges of the land of Midian under his authority. Therefore [although as Ibn Ezra says, they were indeed once kings of Midian], they are called ‘the elders’ of Midian, similar in expression to [she shall go up] *to the gate unto ‘the elders’*¹⁸ [which means “the judges”]. A proof for this [that the kings of Midian were appointed judges — “elders” — by Sihon] is the verse in [the Book of] Joshua: and all the kingdoms of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses smote with the chiefs of Midian, Eri, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, ‘the princes of Sihon,’ that dwelt in the land,¹⁹ had now become the princes of Sihon. thus indicating that [the land of Midian arid its chiefs were] under the suzerainty of Sihon. The meaning then, of [the phrase] and the kings of Midian²⁰. is “the former kings of Midian,” just as it says: the chiefs of Midian … the princes of Sihon.¹⁹ had now become the princes of Sihon. Similarly it says [of Zur, one of the five people mentioned as a king of Midian],¹⁰ (further, 31:8). It is thus with the five “kings” of Midian [who are here in Verse 4 called “elders”] that Moab took counsel with, but not with the elders of Midian mentioned in Verse 7, who were lords not “kings.” Ramban will refute this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. he was the head of the people of ‘a fathers’ house in Midian,’²¹, 25:15. but he was no longer king. Or it may be that the reason [for the use of the phrase] the kings of Midian²⁰. is that they had regained their royal status at that time. But I do not know a reason for that which Scripture says, and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time,⁸ when it could have said [concisely] at the beginning, And Balak the son of Zippor, “king of Moab,” saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.²² Perhaps Balak was a mightly man of valor, very famous for the acts of his power and of his might,²³ and therefore Scripture mentioned that although Moab had a powerful king at that time, who was courageous among the mighty,²⁴ they nonetheless were afraid and were overcome with dread because of the children of Israel.⁴ That is why Jephthah said [to the king of Ammon], And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab?,²⁵ for one does not frighten a king except by [mentioning the defeat of another] king who was greatly feared. It is possible that since Moab [at that time] did not have a king, the people stood in great fear because of the children of Israel,⁴ therefore they did two things: they sent to the elders of Midian saying, ‘Now will this people lick up etc.,’⁴ and they appointed this man [Balak] as their king on the advice of Midian, and afterwards they all sent [a deputation] to Balaam at the command of the king. This is the meaning of [the expression] at that time [and Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab ‘at that time’],⁸ namely [at the time that] they took counsel about the problem of Israel, and sent the messengers to Balaam. The meaning, then, of And Balak saw,²² is that he [Balak] who was one of the princes of Moab, and a mighty man of valor, took action in this matter and said to Moab, “Come, let us deal wisely²⁶ with [this] people,” and they thereupon appointed him king on the advice of Midian. In the Midrash Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah I have seen [the following text, corroborating the above interpretation]:²⁷ “And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.⁸ But was he not originally [merely] ‘a prince,’ as it is said, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba [the princes of Sihon]?²⁸ But [we must say] that when Sihon was killed, at that time they appointed him king over them, the exigencies of the moment causing his [appointment as king, although he was not of the royal family].”

footnotes: ¹⁰ Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian ¹¹ Further, Verse 8: and ‘the princes’ of Moab abode with Balaam. ¹² Tanchuma, Balak ¹³ Above, 21:26. ¹⁴ Judges 11:13. ¹⁵ Ibid. ¹⁶ Joshua 13:25. ¹⁷ II Samuel 8:6. ¹⁸ Deuteronomy 25:7. ¹⁹ Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian ²⁰ Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian ¹⁹ Joshua 13:21. This verse clearly shows that the former chiefs of Midian ¹⁰ Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian ²¹ Ibid. ²⁰ Further, 31:8: and they slew the kings of Midian ⁸ Verse 4 here. ²² Verse 2. ²³ Esther 10:2. ²⁴ Amos 2:16. ⁴ Verse 4 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. ²⁵ Judges 11:25. ⁴ Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. ⁴ Verse 3 here. — Hence the double expression of the verse: And Moab was sore afraid … and Moab was overcome with dread. ⁸ Verse 4 here. ²² Verse 2. ²⁶ Exodus 1:10. ²⁷ Bamidbar Rabbah 20:4. ⁸ Verse 4 here. ²⁸ Joshua 13:21. And since, as the Midrash explains, Zur is a synonym for Balak, we see that Balak was merely “a prince” and not “a king”!

THE LAND OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS PEOPLE — “[the people] of Balak, for he [Balak] came from there [i.e., from Pethor which is by the river], and this man [Balaam] had prophesied and told him, ‘You are destined to be king.’” This is Rashi’s language, taken from an Agadic explanation.²⁹ 20. But the plain meaning of Scripture is [that the land of the children of ‘his people’ is a reference to] Balaam’s people’s land [and not Balak’s], for there he [Balaam] was born and there was his family background. The reason for [Scripture] mentioning this is [to indicate] that he [Balaam] was a diviner, from the land where all the people were diviners, similar to that which is written, for they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines.³⁰

footnotes: ²⁹ Tanchuma, Balak ³⁰ Isaiah 2:6.

THAT WE MAY SMITE THEM — the meaning [of the plural “we,” although it is only Balaam who is speaking], is “I and Midian my ally.”³¹

footnotes: ³¹ This is unlike Rashi, who explains the plural “we” as meaning “I and my people.”

[AND BALAAM ROSE UP IN THE MORNING, AND SAID] UNTO THE PRINCES OF BALAK. According to the opinion of Rashi³² the elders of Midian had left [Balaam] when he told them, Lodge here this night³³ [and therefore Scripture here only mentions the princes of Balak — i.e., the elders of Moab]. This is [indeed] possible, because when Balaam mentioned to them [and I will bring you back word,] as the Eternal may speak unto me,³³ they did not want to wait for Balaam’s [message], for they said: “This G-d has always come to the help of Israel. It is He Who brought them out of Egypt and did signs and wonders for them.” For the elders of Midian were wise men, and they knew about all the words of Moses with Jethro,³⁴ the most distinguished of their country, although Scripture does not mention this [that Jethro informed the elders of his land what Moses had told him]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that “[the reason why Scripture here] did not mention them [the elders of Midian] is because Balak was the principal party [in this matter], and it was he who sent the mission.” Similarly, [the verse stating] and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam³³ [omits “the elders of Midian”] because the main [impetus of the] mission came from their lord [the king of Moab]. The correct explanation is that the elders of Midian — who were perhaps the first kings thereof — came from their country to Balak to take counsel about the problem of Israel, and they all decided to send [a mission] to Balaam. Therefore Balak sent his princes, his judges and wise men, and they went together with the elders of Midian to the land of Midian, because from there their way led to Balaam’s city; and the elders of Midian remained in their city, while the princes of Balak, who were the delegates, went on their own to Aram [Balaam’s native land].³⁵. This is the meaning of [the expression], and the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed,³² meaning that they all left Balak and went as far as Midian, with the rewards of divination in their hand.³² And ‘they’ came unto Balaam, [and spoke unto him the words of Balak]³² — this refers to the elders of Moab, about whom Scripture states, and he sent messengers,³⁶ not to the elders of Midian.

footnotes: ³² Above, in Verse 7. ³³ Verse 8. ³³ Verse 8. ³⁴ Exodus 18:8: And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Eternal had done … ³³ Verse 8. ³⁵ Further, 23:7: From Aram Balak bringeth me ³² Above, in Verse 7. ³² Above, in Verse 7. ³² Above, in Verse 7. ³⁶ Verse 5.

[FOR THE ETERNAL REFUSETH] TO GIVE ME LEAVE TO GO WITH YOU — “but only with great princes. This teaches us that he was of a haughty spirit, and did not want to tell [them] that he was under the control of G-d. Therefore [he spoke] in arrogant language. It was because of this that Balak sent yet again princes.”³⁷ This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct, for Balaam’s whole honor consisted of boasting and glorifying himself in [the fact that he received] the word of G-d [and so he would not have been ashamed to tell the princes of Moab that he was awaiting G-d’s word, as Rashi wrote, but on the contrary would have boasted of it]! Moreover, he did not [in fact] know that G-d would give him permission to go with other, greater, princes! Rather, the meaning [of Balaam’s words] is that G-d did not want him to go at all. But Balak suspected that he was [only] saying so in order to get a greater reward; therefore he said to him, *Why camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honor?*³⁸ And for this reason too, Balak sent yet again princes, more in number, and more honorable³⁷ in order to show him that he wanted him very much [to come], and he promised to give him as much wealth and riches as he would demand from, and fix upon him. But Balaam answered him that even for all his money “I cannot go beyond the word of the Eternal, for He is my G-d, and I cannot do any thing, small or great³⁹ if I transgress His command, for [whatever I do] I do in His Name.” Or [it may be that Balaam] is saying, “I cannot go beyond the word of the Eternal³⁹ whether [I transgress His word] in a small matter or a great matter, for He is my G-d, and I am His servant.”

footnotes: ³⁷ Verse 15. ³⁸ Further, Verse 37. ³⁷ Verse 15. ³⁹ Further, Verse 18. ³⁹ Further, Verse 18.

[AND G-D CAME UNTO BALAAM AT NIGHT, AND SAID UNTO HIM]: ‘IF THE MEN ARE COME TO CALL THEE.’” ‘If the call be ‘for you’ [for your benefit] and you think you will receive a reward for it, then rise up, go with them. But [you should realize that even] against your will, the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do’.⁴⁰ And nevertheless Balaam went [as stated in the following verse], for he said: ‘Perhaps I may persuade Him to agree [that I should curse’].” This is Rashi’s language. “And G-d’s anger was kindled because he went.⁴¹ [This was because] Balaam realized that the matter was not pleasing⁴² in the sight of the Eternal, and [yet] he longed to go.” This too, is the Rabbi’s language. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “The Gaon [Rav Saadia]⁴³ said: If someone wishes to argue, saying: ‘Since He had told Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them,⁴⁴ how is it that He told him [afterwards], Rise up, go with them?’ one may answer that G-d [indeed] did not want him to go with the first [emissaries], until more honorable princes than they would come.⁴⁵ but with others, more honorable than they, you may go.” The reason for this may be that since Balaam, speaking against his intention and desire, was later on to confirm G-d’s love of Israel, it was fitting that this be done in the presence of more distinguished men than the former ones. But in my opinion [continues Ibn Ezra] there is no need for this [interpretation of the Gaon], for the meaning [of Rise up, go with them is not that this was a command, but] is like Send thou men⁴⁶ [which is not a Divine command, but permission in the nature of a concession to Israel’s demand]. For G-d had said to Israel, Go up, take possession,⁴⁷ but they did not believe [that they would conquer it], and said instead, Let us send men⁴⁸, Verse 22. — so Moses asked G-d [and He told him, Send thou men,⁴⁶ meaning: ‘I do not command you, but if you wish to do so, send them’]. And this case [here too] is similar, for why did Balaam have to tell [Balak’s servants], tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Eternal will speak unto me more,⁴⁹ [since G-d had already told him not to go with them]? It was because he harbored an evil intention in his heart [persisting in the hope that G-d would agree that he should go to Balak], and so G-d told him: ‘[You may] go with them, but be careful only to speak that which I will say to you.’ And the proof for my interpretation [that G-d was angry with Balaam for his evil intention in persisting in his request to go to Balak, and that go with them is a concession, not a command], is the following verse, And G-d’s anger was kindled because he went.” These are the words [of Abraham ibn Ezra]. Yet all this availeth me nothing.⁵⁰ For the explanation of the Gaon [Rav Saadia, that G-d wanted him to go with more honorable men] is not correct, for G-d told Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed,⁴⁴ [thus clearly indicating] that He forbade him to go in order that he should not curse the people, and he did not prohibit him from going because these princes were not sufficiently important, so how could it be permissible for him to go with other princes! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s explanation [that G-d was angry with him because of his persistence in his evil desire to go] is also not correct, [for it would mean] that G-d changed His mind and withdrew His word [in finally allowing Balaam to go], because of the persistence of the person making the request! And the matter of Send thou men⁴⁶ is not so [as Ibn Ezra explained it]; and I have already explained its [correct] meaning [there]. Furthermore, far be it from G-d to punish [a person for doing] something for which He had [previously] given permission! And in the Midrash the Rabbis have said:⁵¹ 8; Bamidbar Rabbah 20:11. — From this Midrash too, it is obvious that there was no Divine concession here at all to Balaam, but that he was merely led on the path that he desired to tread. “From here you learn that on whichever path a person desires to tread, he is led.” The correct interpretation of this matter appears to me to be that at first G-d forbade him to curse the people, for they are blessed,⁴⁴ and so there was no purpose in Balaam going with them [the elders], since he could not curse them [Israel], and they did not require him for any other reason. Therefore He said [to Balaam], “Thou shalt not go with them,⁴⁴ and do not curse the people, for they are blessed.” Now it is self-understood that Balaam informed them of G-d’s words [although Scripture does not expressly say so], but [nonetheless] Balak sent him [messengers] a second time, because he did not believe him [that G-d did not allow him to go, but thought that he merely wanted a greater reward], and so he showed him greater honor by sending princes, more in number, and more honorable than³⁷ the first, and promised to increase his reward and honor. But Balaam answered them that the matter did not depend upon money, nor upon his [own] will; but it was entirely in the hand of G-d, and he would again ask Him what He commands him [to do].⁵² This [answer of Balaam] was properly given, for what could he know of the knowledge of the Most High⁵³ — and the counsel of the Eternal is good forever,⁵⁴ and He doth instruct sinners in the way,⁵⁵, 25:8. G-d is hereby described as giving instructions even to sinners [such as Balaam] in the path they should follow. and He would inform him what he shall answer the messengers of the nation,⁵⁶ or He would tell him what would happen to them [the Moabites] in the future. And G-d told him: “I have already informed you that the people are blessed and that you will not be able to curse them.⁴⁴ But now that they [the messengers] have come back to you, if the men are come merely to call thee, meaning that they will agree to your going with them [although it is] on condition that you shall not curse the people, as I informed you at the beginning, then rise up, go with them; but only the word which I speak unto thee, that shalt thou do, for even if I command you to bless them, you shall [do so and] not be afraid of Balak.” This then is the meaning of [the expression], if the men are come ‘to call thee’ [i.e., if they merely ask you to go with them, despite being fully aware that you may not curse Israel — then go with them]. And this was the wish of the Glorious Name⁵⁷ from the [very] beginning — that he [Balaam] should go with them after telling them that he would not curse them [Israel], and that he would conduct himself towards them [entirely] as G-d would command him — because it was the Will of G-d, blessed be He, to bless Israel through the mouth of the prophet of the nations. Thus Balaam ought to have disclosed this to the princes of Balak and to say to them: “Now G-d has only permitted me to be invited by you [i.e., to accompany you], and [only] on the express condition that I do not curse the people, and that if He commands me to bless them, that I shall do so, and if they are not agreeable to these [conditions], they should leave me alone.” But even on this second occasion Balak said, come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people,⁵⁸ [thus indicating that] he did not want Balaam for the purpose of fortelling future events or for any other purpose, except that of cursing the people. And Balaam, because of his overriding desire to go, did not inform them of this [Divine message with the conditions mentioned above], and did not tell them anything at all; [instead], Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with them,⁵⁹ like someone who is eager to fulfill their wish. Therefore G-d’s anger was kindled because he went,⁴¹ for had he informed them [of the conditions], he would not [necessarily] have gone [because they might have refused to let him come under such conditions]. Furthermore a profanation of G-d’s Name was involved in this [behavior of Balaam], for since he went with them without explanation, whereas he was in fact under the control of G-d, they thought that He had given him permission to curse the people for them. Therefore [they thought that] G-d had reneged on that which He had said originally, thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed⁴⁴ — according to what Balaam had told them — and when they saw later on that he did not curse them, they said that He changed [His word] yet again, or that He is mocking them as one mocketh a man.⁶⁰ Far be it from G-d to do after this manner,⁶¹ for *the Eternal One of Israel will not … repent!*⁶²

footnotes: ⁴⁰ Verse 20. ⁴¹ Verse 22. ⁴² In our texts of Rashi: “that the matter was evil.” ⁴³ See Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ⁴⁵ According to this explanation of Rav Saadia Gaon there was Divine consent in general terms for Balaam to go on the mission, and the meaning of G-d’s words to him is: “thou shalt not go ‘with them,’ ⁴⁶ Above, 13:2. ⁴⁷ Deuteronomy 1:21. ⁴⁸ Ibid. ⁴⁶ Above, 13:2. ⁴⁹ Above, Verse 19. ⁵⁰ Esther 5:13. ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ⁴⁶ Above, 13:2. ⁵¹ Tanchuma, Balak ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ³⁷ Verse 15. ⁵² Verses 18-19. ⁵³ Further, 24:16. ⁵⁴ See Psalms 33:11. In other words, it is always good to seek G-d’s advice. ⁵⁵ Ibid. ⁵⁶ Isaiah 14:32. ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ⁵⁷ Deuteronomy 28:58. ⁵⁸ Verse 17. ⁵⁹ Verse 21. ⁴¹ Verse 22. ⁴⁴ Above, Verse 12. ⁶⁰ Job 13:9. ⁶¹ Genesis 18:25. ⁶² I Samuel 15:29.

AND THE ASS SAW THE ANGEL OF THE ETERNAL. Angels of G-d — which are Separate Intelligences⁶³, pp. 228-231, where Ramban discusses at length the subject of angels in relation to prophecy. — cannot be perceived by the [human] sense of sight, for they are not physical beings which can be apprehended by sight. And when they become visible to prophets or to men possessed of Ruach Hakodesh,⁶⁴, Note 71 and Ramban ibid. such as Daniel,⁶⁵ worthy of receiving Ruach Hakodesh. they are apprehended by them through the perception of the rational soul which reaches the degree of prophecy or some lower degree, but that they [the angels] should be perceived by the eyes of an animal — that is impossible! Therefore you could explain [the phrase] and the ass saw [the angel of the Eternal] to mean that she felt the presence of something which frightened her off from passing on, namely the angel that had gone forth for an adversary.⁴¹ This is a similar expression [to that which says]: yea, my heart ‘ra’ah’ [literally: “had seen”] much wisdom and knowledge,⁶⁶ [the term “seeing” here] being used [in the sense of] perception, and not [in the sense of] physical sight [since the heart does not “see”]. Now when this miracle occurred to the ass, and the Creator gave her [the power of] speech, she said to Balaam, Was I ever wont to do so unto thee?,⁶⁷ but [nonetheless] she did not know why she did so now, because she was forced to do so. Therefore she did not say to him: “Behold the angel of G-d stands over against me with his sword drawn in his hand,”⁶⁸ since her perception did not reach this knowledge at all. [Our verse] saying: And the ass saw the angel of the Eternal standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand does not mean that she [actually] saw the sword, let alone the angel; but the verse is hinting that since the angel was ready to strike them, she trembled very exceedingly,⁶⁹ because she felt as if people were coming to slaughter her. [We must explain that the ass merely felt the angel’s presence, but did not actually see him, because] if we were to say that those angels that appear in human form — as I have mentioned in the section of Vayeira⁷⁰ — can be seen even by the eyes of an animal, then how was it that Balaam did not see him, since he was not smitten with blindness! It is, however, possible that He Who gave the ass the power of speech, also bestowed upon her an additional power of vision, so that she saw the likeness of a human being, although Scripture does not mention it. Thus G-d opened the eyes of the ass [and she indeed saw the angel], just as Scripture mentions [later] in regard to her master, [And the Eternal opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Eternal].⁷¹ For the whole matter of the ass was a great miracle, being a “new creation” like those that were created at twilight [on the eve of the first Sabbath],⁷² matter of the ass — beginning with her seeing the angel, and culminating in her speech — were like “a new creation” similar to those things created “at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.” — Various interpretations have been suggested on the necessity for these special creations. Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah explains it as follows: Since the law of nature was established by G-d, it was His wish that it be not interfered with under any circumstance. But since He foresaw certain emergencies in the history of His people that would require special intervention in the normal operation of nature He made provision for them at the final completion of creation before the nightfall which ushered in the first Sabbath. and it is not merely called “an opening of eyes.” However, our Rabbis have only mentioned⁷² matter of the ass — beginning with her seeing the angel, and culminating in her speech — were like “a new creation” similar to those things created “at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath.” — Various interpretations have been suggested on the necessity for these special creations. Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah explains it as follows: Since the law of nature was established by G-d, it was His wish that it be not interfered with under any circumstance. But since He foresaw certain emergencies in the history of His people that would require special intervention in the normal operation of nature He made provision for them at the final completion of creation before the nightfall which ushered in the first Sabbath. amongst the miracles the opening of the mouth [of the ass, although the whole matter — and especially her seeing the angel — was miraculous in nature]. The reason for this miracle was to show Balaam *Who hath made man’s mouth, or Who maketh a man dumb?*⁷³ and to make him realize that it is G-d Who opens the mouth for the dumb,⁷⁴ and [since He can make the dumb speak], how much more so can He make dumb at His Will the mouth of those who can speak, and can also put words into their mouths, so that they speak in accordance with His Will, for everything is in His power. It was [thus] a warning to him [Balaam] not to follow enchantments and soothsaying, and [not] to curse Israel thereby, because he was [primarily] an enchanter and soothsayer.⁷⁵

footnotes: ⁶³ See Vol. I, p. 59, Note 237. See also ibid. ⁶⁴ Literally, “The Holy Spirit.” See Rambam in Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, at the paragraph beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also above, Seder Korach ⁶⁵ Daniel 10:5. The Talmud in Megillah 3a states that Daniel did not attain the status of a prophet, but was ⁴¹ Verse 22. ⁶⁶ Ecclesiastes 1:16. ⁶⁷ Further, Verse 30. ⁶⁸ See Joshua 5:13 where this expression is used of the angel who appeared to Joshua. ⁶⁹ Genesis 27:33. ⁷⁰ Genesis 18:1 (Vol. I, p. 231). ⁷¹ Further, Verse 31. ⁷² Aboth 5:9. Ten things are listed there, one of them being the “the mouth of the ass [of Balaam which opened and spoke].” But as Ramban clearly indicates, the whole ⁷² Aboth 5:9. Ten things are listed there, one of them being the “the mouth of the ass [of Balaam which opened and spoke].” But as Ramban clearly indicates, the whole ⁷³ Exodus 4:11. ⁷⁴ See Proverbs 31:8. ⁷⁵ Ramban emphasizes this point [that Balaam was primarily an enchanter and soothsayer — see above in Verse 5] in order that his tribute to Israel’s character and future should be viewed entirely as the true word of G-d which came to him in honor of Israel (see Ramban further, Verse 23:16), for on his own merit he could not possibly have risen to such heights, since he was but a mere soothsayer and enchanter.

AND THE ETERNAL OPENED THE EYES OF BALAAM. From this verse we learn that Balaam was not a prophet [who habitually received Divine messages], because had he been a prophet, how could it be that he required “opening of the eyes” to see the angel, which is the term used by Scripture about someone who has not reached the degree of prophecy, such as Elisha’s young man,⁷⁶. or Hagar the Egyptian,⁷⁷. and Scripture does not speak in this manner about the prophets! And indeed Scripture calls him, Balaam the son of Beor, the soothsayer.⁷⁸ And when Balaam said, as the Eternal may speak unto me,⁷⁹ he called his [ability] to know future events by means of his soothsaying “the word of G-d,” [and it does not refer to the gift of prophecy]. But for the sake of the honor of Israel G-d [indeed] came to him that night⁸⁰, Verse 9. [in a prophet-like vision], and afterwards he was favored with “opening of the eyes” in seeing the angel, and speaking to him, and finally he attained the degree of [seeing] the vision of the Almighty⁸¹ — all this being for the sake of Israel and in their honor. But after he returned to his land, however, he [reverted to the status of a mere] soothsayer, for that is how Scripture describes him at [the time of] his death, [saying]: And Balaam the son of Beor, the soothsayer, did the children of Israel slay with the sword,⁷⁸ and G-d forbid that they should stretch forth a hand against a prophet of G-d! And so did the Rabbis say in the Midrash Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah:⁸² “Balaam partook of the Ruach Hakodesh,⁶⁴, Note 71 and Ramban ibid. but after he associated himself with Balak, the Ruach Hakodesh departed from him and he became again a [mere] soothsayer, as he had been originally. Therefore he complained: ‘I was elevated [in prophecy], but Balak brought about my descent.’”

footnotes: ⁷⁶ II Kings 6:17: And the Eternal opened the eyes of the young man ⁷⁷ Genesis 21:19: And G-d opened her eyes ⁷⁸ Joshua 13:22. ⁷⁹ Above, Verse 8. ⁸⁰ Ibid. ⁸¹ Further, 24:4. ⁷⁸ Joshua 13:22. ⁸² Bamidbar Rabbah 20:16. ⁶⁴ Literally, “The Holy Spirit.” See Rambam in Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, at the paragraph beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also above, Seder Korach

FOR THE WAY ‘YARAT L’NEGDI’ — for he who is going [on this journey, i.e., Balaam], has distorted his way and perverted it in front of my eyes, for I am He that knoweth, and am witness.⁸³ Or [the word] l’negdi [may not mean “in My presence”, but] that he perverted the way [i.e., the journey] to act “against My Will,” as Onkelos rendered it, [“because you wanted to go on the journey against My Will”], as in [the verse]: for they have vexed ‘l’neged’ (before) the builders.⁸⁴ does not mean “in the presence of,” but means that they have vexed the builders by speaking “against” them. The word yarat is an expression of “perverting.” Similarly, *through the hands of the wicked ‘yirteini’*⁸⁵ which means “He warps me.” And the meaning of our verse is as I have explained,⁸⁶ namely that the [actual] journey had the permission of the Glorious Name,⁵⁷ but Balaam perverted it by going with them and apparently having them believe that he would curse the people [since he had not informed them of the conditions under which G-d had allowed him to go].

footnotes: ⁸³ Jeremiah 29:23. In our verse the angel is speaking, of course, on behalf of G-d, Whose messenger he is. ⁸⁴ Nehemiah 3:37. Here too, the word l’neged ⁸⁵ Job 16:11. ⁸⁶ Above, in Verse 20. ⁵⁷ Deuteronomy 28:58.

AND SHE TURNED ASIDE ‘L’PHANAI’ (BEFORE ME). Commentators⁸⁷ (‘from’ before me) and not l’phanai (‘before’ me). have explained this [word ‘l’phanai’ as meaning]: “and she turned aside into the field when she was before me.” But there is no need [for this interpretation and addition], for the meaning [of the word l’phanai] is like mipanai (“from” before me), for such is the usage of the letter lamed, as in [the verses]; and they left off ‘livnoth’ (to build) the city⁸⁸ [which is like mivnoth — literally: “from building” the city]; he hath left off ‘l’haskil’ (to be wise), to do good⁸⁹ [which is like meihaskil — literally: “from being wise”]. There are also many other cases [like this]. Similarly: And Joab and the captains of the host went out ‘liphnei’ [literally: “before,” but really meaning mipnei — “from before,” i.e. “from the presence of”] the king, to number the people of Israel.⁹⁰

footnotes: ⁸⁷ I have not identified these sources. — The difficulty in the verse is that it should have said and she turned aside ‘mipanai’ ⁸⁸ Genesis 11:8. ⁸⁹ Psalms 36:4. ⁹⁰ II Samuel 24:4.

ULAI’⁹¹ normally means “perhaps,” which is inappropriate in the context of this verse, since there was no doubt as to whether the ass had turned aside. Hence the commentators explained it as meaning lulei — “unless,” and the angel is thus saying, in defense of the animal, that “had she not turned aside from me, I would have killed you [Balaam].” Ramban later on offers his own interpretation of the verse and the word ulai actually used by Scripture. SHE HAD TURNED ASIDE FROM ME. In the opinion of the commentators⁹² [the word ‘ulai’ here] is like lulei — “‘unless’ she had turned aside from me [surely now also I had slain thee.” The word ulai] in this context is thus used [with a meaning] different than that of all the other occasions where it is found. But in my opinion it is used here in its literal meaning [“perhaps:” — implying a doubt]; for the ass felt the presence of — or saw⁹³ — the angel, but did not know what it meant, and [the reason why she turned aside] was because of the drawn sword, as animals are wont to do [when they see a drawn sword]. Therefore the angel said to Balaam: “And the ass saw me and turned aside from me, [although it was only] because of a doubt that she turned aside from before me [not knowing my intentions], for I came to slay you, but I would have saved her life, since the sin is in you and not in the ass.”

footnotes: ⁹¹ The word ulai ⁹² Rashi and Ibn Ezra. ⁹³ See Ramban above, Verse 23.

GAM OTHCHAH HARAGTI’ (“ALSO” THEE I HAD SURELY SLAIN). Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “the word gam [meaning “also”] is a proof that the ass died after it had spoken. And the meaning of [the phrase] and saved her alive [which implies that she should have died, were it not for the angel that kept her alive] is that when [even] a human being sees an angel, he dies [straightaway, whereas the ass lived on for a while until after she had spoken to Balaam] — proof being [Jacob’s statement]: and my life is preserved⁹⁴ — and how much more so [does it follow that] an animal, which has no common factor with an angel, as a human being has [ought to die immediately upon seeing an angel].”⁹⁵ she saw me! But I saved her alive for some time after she had seen me, in order that she should speak to you.” Nonetheless, after she had spoken to Balaam she did die, as implied by the angel’s words: “had the ass not turned aside, ‘also’ you I would have killed,” meaning: “The ass will now have to die, because I [only] saved her life so that she should speak to you. But had she not turned aside, I would have ‘also’ killed you.” Ramban disagrees with this interpretation, and explains that the ass did not die, as explained further on. But the word gam cannot be interpreted as Ibn Ezra explains it, for [if so, we do not find any circumstances under which] both of them [Balaam and the ass] would die; because now when she did turn aside, the ass died and Balaam was saved alive, and had she not turned aside, he [the angel] would have killed Balaam and saved the ass alive!⁹⁶ the ass would have been killed by the angel. To this Ramban replies that this cannot be so, because Scripture states explicitly here that had the ass not turned aside, the angel would have killed Balaam but saved her [the ass] alive; and now that she did turn aside, he saved Balaam, but killed the ass [according to Ibn Ezra]! Hence Ibn Ezra’s statement that both Balaam and the ass would have been killed is not possible under any circumstances! Therefore the word gam must be interpreted differently. [See my Hebrew commentary p. 292, for sources in Hebrew commentaries on the elucidation of this difficult text of Ramban]. However, the word gam is [to be interpreted] as Rashi explains it, its meaning being as if [the word-order of the verse were] inverted, namely: gam haragti othchah [“also would I slay thee,” meaning to say: “not only would I have held you up on your journey, but I would also have killed you”]. And the meaning of the expression and saved her alive is [not that “I would have kept her alive temporarily, but later on killed her,” as Ibn Ezra explained, but that the angel was stressing that] “the entire [burden of] sin is upon you [Balaam], and [therefore] I would have killed you because of it, [but would have kept her alive even had she not turned aside], for she has done no sin for which she ought to die. Thus her act of turning aside, which she did on account of me, was for your good [only] and not for her sake at all, [because she would anyhow not have been killed], and you have therefore smitten her for no reason, and have repaid her evil for good.” Now Scripture does not say whether Balak’s princes were present with Balaam at these events, or [it may be] that they were riding ahead of him and there was a [considerable] distance between them and him [so that they did not notice any of these events]. The most likely [interpretation, however] is that they were together with him, because they did not become separated from him, and they saw the ass turning aside and Balaam smiting her, but thought that she was merely behaving as bad animals do, because they did not hear her speak; and they certainly [did not hear] the words of the angel, who was [visible only] to the opened eyes⁹⁷ of Balaam. But our Rabbis have said⁹⁸ that the princes of Moab were astonished, because they saw a miracle the like of which had never occurred in the world. And they [also] said⁹⁸ that as soon as the ass had finished speaking; she died, in order that the nations should not say [about her]: “This is [the ass] that spoke,” and should not make her [an object of] idol-worship. Moreover, the Holy One, blessed be He, was concerned [even] about the honor of the wicked, [and therefore killed the ass so that] people should not say: “This is [the ass] that caused Balaam’s downfall.” All this is possible, [but is] in accordance with a tradition, for Scripture [itself] does not speak about her dying at all, as I have explained.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Genesis 32:31. Since Jacob gave thanks to G-d for preserving his life after seeing the angel, one can deduce that it is usual for a person to die after having seen an angel. See this also clearly in Judges 13:22. ⁹⁵ Thus according to Ibn Ezra the angel was saying: “Since even a human being, who shares with an angel the spirit of G-d, dies upon seeing an angel, how much more so the ass should have died immediately ⁹⁶ Ramban’s meaning is as follows. According to Ibn Ezra’s explanation, now that the ass turned aside, she alone was killed [since she had fulfilled her purpose of arousing Balaam], but had she not turned aside, both Balaam and ⁹⁷ Further, 24:4. ⁹⁸ Bamidbar Rabbah 20:12. ⁹⁸ Bamidbar Rabbah 20:12.

GO WITH THE MEN; BUT ONLY THE WORD THAT I SHALL SPEAK UNTO THEE, THAT THOU SHALT SPEAK. It is possible that He means to say: “Go with the men; but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak, and you should inform them [of this limitation of your powers].” Or it may mean that after Balaam had confessed [his evil intention, and said]: if it displease thee, I will get me back,⁹⁹ He said to him, “Go with them, for I have forgiven you your sin, but only [on condition] that you remember My warning which I have given you [only to speak that which I tell you to say].” He had to say this [again] to him, in order that Balaam should not think that He was telling him: “Go with them to do what they have asked you to do.” It is also possible that since he who went [on the journey, i.e., Balaam] wanted to curse the people and did not want to bless them under any circumstances, therefore G-d warns him on every occasion that He speaks to him. It is for this reason that Balaam informed Balak at the very start of his speaking to him, [saying]: Lo, I am ‘come’ unto thee,¹⁰⁰ [meaning to say that] “I have only been permitted to come, but as far as [cursing] the people [of Israel] is concerned, have I now any power at all to speak any thing¹⁰⁰ in accordance with your wish? The word that G-d putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak — whether it be a curse or a blessing. Decide therefore if you [Balak] want me to speak about them [despite this risk], and if you do not want it, I will already now get me back.”

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Verse 34. ¹⁰⁰ Verse 38. ¹⁰⁰ Verse 38.

[AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MORNING AND BALAK TOOK BALAAM] AND BROUGHT HIM UP INTO BAMOTH-BAAL, AND HE SAW FROM THENCE THE UTMOST PART OF THE PEOPLE. Balak took him up to a [high] place from which he could see them [the people of Israel], in order that he could concentrate his curse upon them, and his mind would not separate itself from them, for it is one of the attributes of the soul’s powers that it attaches itself at the time of seeing a certain object as is known from that which the Sages tell¹⁰¹ [of Rabbi Yochanan, that he said to his disciples]: “‘Lift up my eye-lids for me, because I want to see [this scholar].’ They [accordingly] lifted up his eye-lids. He set his eyes upon him, and [as a result] that person died.” Now Scripture relates that Balaam did not see the whole camp [of Israel] because they were encamped in four standards [positioned in all] four directions of the heaven. On the second occasion Balak said to him, thou shalt see but the utmost part of them, and shalt not see them all,¹⁰² meaning: “this time also you will not [be able to] see them all, if that is what prevents you from cursing them, but [nonetheless] curse me them from thence¹⁰² if you can, for I do not have any place from where I can show you all of them.” Balak thought that perhaps there was a standard in one of the sections [of the camp of the Israelites] consisting of righteous and good people whom it pleased not the Eternal to crush,¹⁰³ [and therefore Balak took Balaam to other places from which Balaam could see other parts of the camp, in order to curse them effectively]. It is also possible to explain that on the first occasion [referred to in this verse] Balaam did see the whole camp, for Bamoth-baal is a high place, and from there both of them [Balak and Balaam] saw part of the people, and built the altars there;¹⁰⁴ then Balaam ascended to the peak of the hill on that mountain, and saw the whole people, this being the meaning of [the expression] and he [Balaam] *went ‘shephi,’*¹⁰⁵, Verse 3. which means he went to “the height” thereof, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has explained.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Baba Kamma 117a. The story is told there of a certain Babylonian scholar [Rav Kahana] who arrived at the academy of Rabbi Yochanan in the Land of Israel and Rabbi Yochanan was informed that “a lion had come up from Babylon.” When Rabbi Yochanan presented his teachings, Rav Kahana out of respect first remained silent. But when Rabbi Yochanan remarked his astonishment at his silence, Rav Kahana then successfully refuted Rabbi Yochanan’s teachings. Rabbi Yochanan, who could not see properly because of his heavy eye-lids [or eyelashes] asked his disciples to lift up his eye-lids so that he could see the new great scholar. Upon doing so, Rabbi Yochanan received the impression that the scholar [owing to a malformation of his lips] was laughing for having refuted him. Thereupon he gazed at him, and Rav Kahana died as a result. Ramban quotes this story in order to illustrate the “power of the soul” which can be transferred by a concentrated look. ¹⁰² Further, 23:13. ¹⁰² Further, 23:13. ¹⁰³ Isaiah 53:10. ¹⁰⁴ Further, Verses 1-2. ¹⁰⁵ Ibid.