וירא בלק בן צפור וגו'....ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד כי רב הוא, “Balak son of Tzippor saw, etc…..and Moav was scared on account of The Jewish people because it was very numerous.” Moav was numerically very insignificant among the nations at that time in that region. The reason lay in their relative recent emergence as a nation, not like the Canaanites who dated back practically to 100 years after the deluge. The Israelites far outnumbered the Moabites at that time. The Moabites were well aware that the Israelites had no designs on their country as they had been specifically instructed by the Jewish G’d not to harass the Moabites, and not to provoke a military confrontation with them. They were also aware that even where the Israelites had engaged in war, they had not done so except when their request to pass peacefully through a foreign country had been rebuffed and been met with aggression by the ruler of that country. They merely dreaded the ecological damage the Israelites would leave behind in their wake if they were to be allowed to traverse the land of Moav. This is why they explained the nature of their concern when they sent emissaries to the elders of Midian to whom they explained graphically what their land would look like after the Israelites had trampled all the agricultural areas of their land. They were afraid that if the Israelites caused huge ecological damage to their economy they would wind up as totally dependent economically on the Israelites, almost as their slaves.

זקני מדין, “the elders of Midian.” Quoting Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that these elders were the five kings of the Midianites, who because of heir advanced ages, are here described as זקנים, elders. If that is so, then the emissaries described in verse six, who included זקני מדין cannot have been the same זקנים mentioned in verse four. Surely, the five kings of Midian did not accompany the far less illustrious emissaries that Balak had sent to Bileam, emissaries, who by their own admission, were not of the highest levels of Moabite diplomats. According to our sages, who claim that the present head of state of the Moabites was of Midianite descent, it seems quite natural that Balak should send emissaries to his homeland in the first instance to investigate if he can forge an anti Israelite alliance with them. He would send the emissaries to the elders, not to the kings, as the elders were the ones who, due to their experience, were able to furnish good advice. It seems likely, that originally the Midianites had been ruled over by kings, and the same Sichon who had made war against Moav and confiscated a major part of their land, had also conducted a similar campaign against Midian, had defeated them and deposed them, and had instead appointed regional heads with far less political power than that wielded by kings. These are now referred to as זקנים, a title similar to that we read about in Judges 20,16 אל השערה meaning: “to the elders, who congregate near the gate of the town.” When we read in Numbers 31,8 ואת מלכי מדין, “and the kings of Midian,” the reference is to the men who had at one time been kings, but had been demoted by Sichon. The description of these people as ראש בית אב במדין is a clear indication that these people occupied subordinate positions, subordinate to the powers of kings.

ובלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא, “and Balak son of Tzippor was the king of Moav at this time.” Nachmanides writes that actually the paragraph should have commenced with referring to Balak as the King of Moav as soon as we are told of his name, describing his reaction to what had happened to Sichon and Og and their peoples. Nachmanides speculates that possibly, Balak had been known as a great warrior in his own right, and the Torah wishes to tell us that although the Moabites had a king who was such a warrior he was so afraid of the Israelites. This would also explain part of Yiphtach’s letter to the King of Moav some 300 years later in Judges 11,25 in which he asked that king sarcastically: “do you consider yourself superior to Balak? Did he start a quarrel with Israel or go to war with them?” He was afraid that he could not frighten the King of the Moabites except with a King of great renown, and Yiphtach himself was not even a crowned head of the Jewish people, so that the Moabites saw this as a sign of weakness of the Israelites It is possible that at this time Moav had not been ruled over by a king at all, and that they were terrified by the approaching Israelites. In such a desperate situation they did two things. 1) They appointed a king over themselves, 2) they sent to Midian trying to create a united front of these two peoples against the Israelites. Having come to an agreement with the Midianites, they sent a joint delegation to Bileam to ask him to curse the Jewish people. This would be the reason why the Torah spoke of בעת ההיא, “at that time,” as we would have known without these words that the Torah described current events, not history, in this paragraph. The meaning of the opening lines of our portion then would be: “Balak, a renowned warrior, one of the high ranking dignitaries in Moav, realised that the Israelites had succeeded in frightening his countrymen, and he used this opportunity to persuade them to appoint him as their king. One of the first actions he took was to forge an alliance with Midian, etc.” The Midianites had advised the people of Moav to appoint Balak as their king. According to the Midrash, the Moabites had had a king all along. He had held the rank of “prince,” but after the defeat of Sichon he had been promoted to the position of “King,” and the authority that this entailed. Balak’s promotion was not of a hereditary nature but was dictated by pressing external circumstances.

ארץ בני עמו, “the land of his compatriots.” According to Rashi who holds that Balak was of Midianite descent, the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Balak’s people, i.e. the Midianites. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Bileam, informing us that Balak had been born in the same land as Bileam. The point of the Torah providing this detail was that Balak was a sorcerer, coming from a land full of sorcerers, a land in which Bileam was the High Priest of all the sorcerers. (Compare Isaiah 2,6 where the prophet denigrates the Jewish people for having forsaken their tradition in favour of relying on sorcery etc, something which was the domain of the ancient backward nations)

ארה לי, “curse for me, etc.” In using the superfluous pronoun “לי,” Balak trapped himself as in the end Bileam cursed him. [Predicted the annihilation of the people of Moav. Ed.]

וקסמים בידו, “with charms in their hands.” According to the interpretation of Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid, the delegation brought with them the money to defray the cost of these charms they expected Bileam to employ, [as they themselves could hardly tell Bileam which kind of charms to employ. Ed.]

ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “He said to the dignitaries of Balak, etc.” According to Rashi the elders of Midian abandoned the Moabite delegation as soon as Bileam requested that they stay overnight to wait for what G’d would tell him. They were aware through Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, of how Hashem related to the Israelites and that there was no chance that He would permit Bileam to curse this nation. They had all been briefed by Yitro on the many miracles the Jewish G’d had performed on behalf of His nation. Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the elders of Midian are not mentioned again is simply that the delegation consisted primarily of the dignitaries of Moav and they were the principal spokesmen. This is also why only the return of the dignitaries of Moav is spelled out our portion, (verse 14) It is possible that the people referred to here as the “elders” of Midian had at one time been its kings (before they had been demoted by Sichon), and had traveled to Moav to hold consultations with Balak concerning the danger the Jewish people posed for them, and as a result of these deliberations they had all agreed to turn to Bileam and to invoke his prophetic powers. When Balak sent forth his emissaries their route took them through Midian as Bileam resided there or near its borders. Once the elders of Midian had reached their home town in Midian, they simply remained there and the emissaries of Balak traveled on in the direction of Bileam’s place of residence.

מאן ה' לתתי להלוך עמכם, “Hashem has refused to allow me to go with you.” Rashi writes that Bileam presented G’d as having forbidden him only to go with this delegation of dignitaries, leaving open the possibility that he would secure permission to go with dignitaries of higher rank. Nachmanides disagrees, saying this could not be the meaning, seeing Bileam’s boast had always been that he had such close relations with Hashem. If he were to present Hashem as a deity that could be manipulated by him, he would thereby make himself laughable in the eyes of his petitioners. Bileam was convinced that G’d would not let him accompany dignitaries of higher rank either. It was only Balak who suspected Bileam of seeking a higher fee for his services who felt that he would agree to come if the price was right. This is why he sent a second delegation composed of high- ranking dignitaries.

כי כבד אכבדך, “for I will greatly honour you.” He meant that he would pay him handsomely.

וכל אשר תאמר אעשה, “and everything you will say (to me) I shall do;” Balak referred to anything he could do to facilitate such a curse on the Israelites he would do.

ויאמר אל עבדי בלק, ”He said to the servants of Balak, etc.” The first delegation was described by the Torah as consisting of שרי בלק, ministers of Balak. The title conferred by the Torah on the members of the second delegation is that they were עבדי בלק, ”servants of Balak.” This sounds strange seeing that they had previously been described as of even higher rank than the first delegation. Perhaps the Torah merely wanted to show us the haughtiness of Bileam who considered even the members of this delegation as merely: “Balak’s servants.” When he spoke to them he related to them as someone’s underlings, not as high-ranking officers in their own right.

ויחר אף אלוקים כי הולך הוא , “G’d became angry at him that he was going, etc.” Ibn Ezra, (verse 19) quoting Rabbi Saadyah gaon, raises the question: “how could G’d reverse Himself after He had told Bileam once that he must not go and curse that people seeing that they had already been blessed by G’d Himself?” He answers that Hashem did not want Bileam to go until Balak had sent a second and more impressive delegation. Ibn Ezra does not see any need for this explanation, seeing that the consent by G’d to someone undertaking a potentially disastrous enterprise is within the boundaries of his freedom of choice. G’d had told Moses to proceed and to begin the conquest of the land of Canaan (Deut. 1,21) clearly not wanting spies to be sent, and yet when Moses submitted the people’s request to send spies G’d told Moses: שלח לך אנשים, ”send out men on your own behalf.” (13,2) The people at the time were not full of trust in G’d, and claimed to want to investigate the best way to begin the conquest. Here too, the question that could be raised is: what need was there for Bileam to tell the servants of Balak that he would enquire from G’d once more, seeing that G’d had already said “no” once? Clearly, Bileam was ill intentioned, and when G’d saw this, He did not wish to deprive him of his freedom of choice at that point and let him dig a premature grave for himself if that was what he was bent on doing in clearly planning to thwart G’d’s desire. He therefore told Bileam that if he wanted to merely go with these people, He could not stop him, though He would prevent him from saying anything that would not please G’d. (Rabbi Saadya gaon.) Nachmanides (on verse 20) rejects Rabbi Saadya gaon’s explanation out of hand, quoting that G’d had told Bileam the first time not only that he must not go with these men but that he must not curse, and that seeing that these people are blessed already the idea of effectively cursing them would be a non-starter. To Nachmanides it is preposterous to suggest that G’d would permit Bileam to go with higher-ranking dignitaries on a mission that had already been nixed by G’d when it had been requested from Bileam by lower-ranking dignitaries, in the name of the same Balak. As to Ibn Ezra’s describing G’d as having second thoughts and now allowing Bileam to go with the second delegation of Balak, this is not a valid interpretation of what the Torah reports. Bileam’s obstinacy in wanting to go was not what motivated G’d to change His instructions. The assumption that when a person insistently asks G’d to let him do something as being the reason why G’d “changes His mind,” is quite erroneous. In my opinion, writes Nachmanides, originally G’d prevented Bileam from going, in order to ensure that he would not curse a people that was already blessed and therefore immune to such curses. G’d showed Bileam that his journey would be foolish, embarrassing even, seeing that he could not keep the bargain he would make with Balak. Seeing that the dignitaries of Balak were not interested in Bileam for any purpose other than cursing the Israelites, what possible gain could Bileam derive from going with them? In other words, G’d had actually tried to save Bileam a major embarrassment by warning him not to go with these people. The delegation had also reported Bileam’s words faithfully, telling Balak that he had explained his refusal by his being duty bound to obey G’d’s command. Balak, however, had chosen to ignore the report of his emissaries, placing the least flattering interpretation on Bileam’s refusal, namely that he was only interested in upping the ante, and to demand more money before acceding to Balak’s request. Bileam did tell even the second delegation that the subject of his cursing the Jewish people did not depend upon him at all, and was entirely not within his power. Seeing that Bileam had not misled the delegations, G’d no longer had a reason to forbid Bileam’s accompanying the second delegation, as long as Bileam only lent them his presence as a famous prophet, not as an instrument of Balak who, for payment, would countermand his G’d’s orders, appearing to try and manipulate G’d. G’d even warned Bileam that if Balak were to pressure him to curse the people in spite of what Bileam had told him, He would be with him, seeing that what G’d wanted to show the world was that the Jewish people were not only blessed by Him, but even by an outstanding prophet of the nations at large. Had Bileam been honest and upright, he would have told that delegation that his very going with them would most likely result in his being bidden by G’d not only not to curse these people but to bless them instead, thus adding mankind’s blessing to His own. Had Bileam been frank with them, they most certainly would not even have wanted Bileam to come with them. When they saw that Bileam was quite anxious to come with them, even personally saddling his ass, they realized that Bileam’s previous reluctance was only a “diplomatic sickness” he had feigned, in order to command a higher fee, and that even at this point he was maintaining the fiction of being forced to be only G’d’s mouthpiece, no wonder that G’d was angry at him for misleading the Moabites into thinking that his own and their interest coincided. He had made them believe that the very fact that he was accompanying them now was proof that his G’d had approved of that mission. When Balak noticed that after all these twists and turns, in the end Bileam did not curse the people, he gained the impression that Bileam’s G’d had changed His mind once again, or worse that He was deliberately making fun of him.

ותרא האתון את מלאך ה', “The ass saw the angel of Hashem, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is impossible to understand these words literally, i.e. that the ass had a vision of an angel that held a sword, etc. Angels are disembodied beings not visible to the eyes of mortal creatures. Whenever prophets did have visions of angels, this was not a perception with their physical eyes, but they had been given supernaturally charged “eyesight” which enabled them to “see” these disembodies beings. There can be no question that beasts, that do not even possess a נשמה, divine soul, should be so endowed, even for such an occasion. We may therefore explain the words ותרא האתון את ה' as “the ass noticed something that frightened her very much,” the Torah explaining to us what it was that frightened her so much, i.e. the angel. Concerning the graphic description of the angel having a drawn sword in his hand,

וחרבו שלופה בידו, the ass neither saw the angel nor the sword. The Torah tells us that the ass felt it was about to be struck, and therefore the Torah describes its fear in these terms. The ass had the impression that someone or something was about to slaughter it. This is why when the ass was suddenly miraculously enabled to speak, it asked Bileam if it had ever been in the habit of conducting itself in the manner displayed most recently. The ass itself was not clear why it had acted as it did all of a sudden. Had the ass seen an angel with her physical eyes, seeing that it had been granted the ability to speak, it would certainly have told Bileam that it had seen an angel with drawn sword, a most frightening spectacle, and that this was why it had acted so strangely. If we were to say that angels appeared to beasts as visible to their physical eyes, how are we to explain that Bileam, who was a prophet to boot, did not see this apparition? It is, of course, possible that G’d lent special powers of perception to the ass at that time, just as He enabled it to suddenly speak coherently. The reason why G’d bothered to perform this miracle was to demonstrate to Bileam Who it was that endowed man (or beast) with the power of speech, or Who may therefore prevent him from speaking if He so pleases. It was an oblique warning not to resort to sorcery to enable him to curse the Jewish people seeing that Hashem had already pre-empted him. At any rate, our sages, when discussing this whole episode, mention only one miracle, i.e. the sudden ability of the ass to speak intelligently and coherently. This was so that Bileam should realize that the same G’d Who enabled the ass to speak could certainly make man say what He wanted Him to say.

אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל, “where there was no room to turn right or left.” This needs to be understood allegorically, [I suppose because both the words “right” and “left” are superfluous. Ed.] The words are understood as referring to people who veer theologically to the ‘right’ or ‘left, i.e. Avraham and Yitzchok each had a son who did not follow in his father’s footsteps. By the time Yaakov appeared on the scene of history all his children followed in his footsteps. The descriptions of the ability of the ass to pass the angel in the first two instances, though with difficulty, and not without discomfort to its owner, were to be a message to Bileam that by now there was no loophole in the conduct of the descendants of Avraham that would allow him room for his curse to be effective.

אשר אין דרך, ”where there was no path.” Seeing that he had come to a narrow place where Bileam was deprived of the protection of the two lads he had taken along with him, we find here confirmation that when a threesome walks together, or even a twosome such as when Avraham and Yitzchok went to the way to the Akeydah, Satan was unable to frustrate their holy mission. Now when circumstances had arisen that forced Bileam to be on his own, Satan had a chance to target him. [This appears to be a departure from Tanchuma’s approach on that verse. Ed.]

ויגל ה' את עיני בלעם, “Hashem uncovered the eyes of Bileam.” Nachmanides writes that the principal message of our verse is that there was a need to remove the spiritual blinkers from Bileam’s eyes, the blinkers that had prevented him from becoming aware of the angel. All this teaches that Bileam was not a prophet in the true sense of the word else G’d did not need to remove these “blinkers” from his eyes. We find something parallel in Kings II 6,17, when Elisha’s disciple needed to have similar “blinkers” removed with the help of Hashem. Hagar, the Egyptian maid of Sarah, also underwent such removal of blinkers that enabled her to “find” a well that had been nearby all the time. (Genesis 21,19) Such expressions never occur in connection with true prophets. Bileam is correctly referred to as a קוסם “a sorcerer,” When the Torah quotes him as revealing what “Hashem had said to him” regarding future events, this reflects only knowledge he had acquired by resorting to magic. When G’d did appear to him at night, this was not because he was a prophet, but this was in honour of Israel. Similarly, when he describes himself as מחזה שדי, someone accorded visions of the Divine, this too was only in honour of Israel, where he prophesied Israel’s feats in the future. When he returned to his home he is again referred not as a seer, or prophet but either without title or as the sorcerer when his death by the sword during the punitive expedition against the Midianites is reported in the Torah (Numbers 31,8 and Joshua 13,22 respectively)

כי ירט הדרך, “for the path (you had taken) was obnoxious to me.” Nachmanides understands these words as “the person taking that path behaves in a manner irritating me extremely.” The root of the word when it appears in Job 16,11 ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, means: “He thrust me in the clutches of the wicked.” Basically, the meaning may be that although Bileam started out going with this delegation having secured permission for the journey, he corrupted it into a journey intended to defy and thwart G’d’s wishes by seeking devious means of cursing the Jewish people.

אולי נטתה מפני, “had it not turned away to avoid me,” Nachmanides, quoting other commentators, writes that the word אולי here has the same meaning as the word לולי elsewhere, i.e. “if not.” He adds, that in his personal opinion the word is completely in place as is, and can be understood at face value. The ass, not knowing what exactly it was that threatened her, took evasive action as a possible means of saving itself and its rider. [The word אולי, identical to שמא in later Hebrew, i.e. in Nachmanides’ manuscript, means “perhaps, possibly.” Ed.] The angel tells Bileam that whereas he would have killed him he would have allowed the ass to survive.

גם אותך הרגתי, “I would also have killed you, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the words גם אותך are conclusive proof that the angel did kill the ass as soon as it had concluded what it had been programmed to say. Nachmanides writes that he word גם in our verse need not be interpreted in the usual manner, i.e. as meaning: “also”, seeing that it is inappropriate, for when used with Bileam who had not been killed by the angel, it would not make sense. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the angel killed the ass, as Ibn Ezra would have us believe. Had the ass not evaded the sword, the angel would have killed the ass but would have allowed Bileam to live, [as clearly it had been instructed to do so by Hashem its boss. Ed.] We therefore would have to interpret what the angel said as meaning that if the ass had not taken evasive action the angel would have killed both Bileam and the ass. The word גם therefore must be understood in accordance with Rashi, as if the word גם had been written in front of the word הרגתי, meaning that the angel told Bileam he would not only have been prevented him from proceeding or have obstructed his journey, but he would even have been killed by him. In light of the ass’s evasive action, Bileam’s life had been saved and he had only experienced an obstruction. Seeing that your ass has made a detour for your sake and not for its own sake, you have struck it without provocation and you have repaid a kindness with malice instead of with gratitude. The Torah has not taken us into its confidence by revealing if the members of the Moabite delegation had observed what had occurred or not, or even if they had thought that the ass had behaved in an unpredictable manner, as donkeys and other beasts of burden are apt to do from time to time. Possibly, they had been riding well ahead of Bileam and had not noticed what went on behind them. If so, they probably had not overheard the conversation between the ass and Bileam either. Our sages said that the members of that delegation did observe and hear what had been going on, adding that the ass died immediately after having had its say. They most likely derived their information from an oral tradition seeing that there is no indication in the written text about all this at all.

לך עם האנשים אפס את הדבר, “go with the men, but only, etc.” According to Nachmanides it is quite possible that the meaning of the line is: “go with the men but inform them that you may only speak what I allow you to say.” Alternatively, after Bileam had confessed his sin and said to the angel that he would return home if it displeased the angel that he would continue on this mission, the angel meant “go with them for I have forgiven your sin, but be careful not to say anything other than what I shall tell you to say.” The angel had to add this latter remark so that Bileam would not have an excuse to think that he had now become a free agent. This is why Bileam informed Balak of this condition he was subject to as soon as he met him.

הנה באתי אליך, “here I have come to you;” with these words, unnecessary words, Blieam meant to convey that although he had followed the invitation of Balak to come to him, this, and only this, is what he could do. He could not curse the Jewish people.

היכול אוכל דבר מאומה, ”am I empowered to say anything?” He referred to anything that Balak wanted him to say.

הדבר אשר ישים ה' בפי אותו אדבר, ”whatever words Hashem will put in my mouth are the ones that I will utter.” He meant that it did not matter whether these words would be a curse or a blessing, as he was there only in his capacity as Hashem’s mouthpiece.

ויעלהו במות בעל וירא משם קצה העם, “he brought him up to the heights of Baal, and from there he could view the edge of the people.” Balak had brought him to an elevated piece of land from where it was possible to see some of the people of Israel. The Torah makes a point of telling us that Bileam could not see the whole people, seeing that the pattern in which they were encamped spread out in the four directions of the globe. This made it impossible to see more than some of them at one time. It was commonly believed that for a curse or a blessing to be effective, there had to be at least visual contact between the parties concerned. On the second occasion Balak informed Bileam in advance that he would only be able to see part of the people. Nonetheless he asked Bileam to at least curse the part of the people who were within his field of vision (23,13) He made it plain that he was unable to provide Bileam with a site from which he could see the entire encampment of the Israelites in all directions. Balak thought that possibly among the various sections of the people there could be a group of righteous people whom G’d did not want to be harmed in any way.