Reflecting the view of Chazal, Bil’am is commonly referred to as Bil’am HaRasha (Bil’am the Wicked). That title is bestowed upon him by the Mishna in Avot where it teaches that anyone who possesses these three character traits: an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a greedy and an insatiable soul (גבוהה רוח ,רעה עין ונפש רחבה) is a student of the wicked Bil’am.
Rashi on the Parsha reinforces this negative characterization of Bil’am when he highlights where each one of these traits of Bil’am appears in the Pesukim. Furthermore, the Mishna in Sanhedrin enumerates Bil’am among its list of lay people that do not have a share in the World to Come (הבא לעולם חלק להם אין).
Given this unequivocally harsh depiction by Chazal, it is striking that Parshat Balak itself does not seem to portray Bil’am in such a negative light. This raises the serious question as to how did Chazal arrive at such a damning assessment of Bil’am’s character.
After soundly defeating Sichon, king of the Emori, and Og, king of Bashan, Bnei Yisrael are now encamped at the doorstep of Mo’av. Balak, king of Mo’av, understandably concludes that he is likely facing a formidable threat on his border from this ferocious enemy that has just trounced two of his powerful neighbors. In order to shift the odds in his favor, Balak sends a delegation to Bila’m in order to engage his services in the cursing of Bnei Yisrael. Bil’am responds to the overture by stating, “stay here for the night and I will let you know whatever God tells me” regarding your request. That night, God inquires of Bil’am as to the nature of the guests that he is hosting. Bil’am responds that the mission, at the behest of Balak, has come to recruit his aid in their efforts to stave off “the people who have left Egypt” by having him curse these invaders. God responds firmly, “do not go with them (לךְֵלת א֥לֹםהָמִּע), do not curse this nation because they are blessed.”
Bil’am faithfully conveys God’s response to the delegation by telling them that God refuses to allow him to join their efforts (ךְ֥לֲֹהל יִתִּתְל קָ֔וֹקְי ןֵאמ יִכּםכָמִּע). Based on a linguistic inference, Rashi, following the lead of Chazal, sees in Bil’am’s wording a subtle arrogance and therefore incriminates Bil’am with being haughty (גבוהה רוח). This is because his phrasing of the response (“with you םכָמִּע”) implied that he considered it beneath his dignity to accompany the ministers that Balak had sent, but left open the possibility that he might be swayed to join their cause with a more distinguished delegation. Balak next move confirms this suspicion. He responds to Bil’am’s demurral by sending a larger and more prestigious mission to convince Bil’am to assist Mo’av. This only serves to reinforce Chazal’s claim that Bil’am’s refusal was never principled, and that this was his intent all along.
The Ramban summarily dismisses Rashi’s interpretation, arguing that there was no reason for Bil’am to believe that God would change His mind simply because Balak sent more prestigious envoys. Instead, the Ramban explains that it was Balak who mistakenly suspected Bil’am of rejecting his overtures for monetary or honor-related considerations. That is why when Bil’am finally arrives, Balak greets him with the rhetorical question “did I not have the means by which to honor you (ךָדְבַּכּ לַאוּכ א֥לֹ םנְמֻאַה)?” Balak interprets Bil’am’s hesitation as a negotiating tactic, which is why he sends emissaries to assure Bil’am that he has the resources to compensate him handsomely for his services. Bil’am immediately informs the delegation, “even if Balak were to give me his entire house full of silver and gold, I cannot do anything, big or small, contrary to the will of God, my Lord.”
Rashi, once again, sees this exaggerated sample compensation level as evidence of Bil’am’s unbridled greed (רחבה נפש). Whereas, the Ramban views his prompt and unequivocal dismissal of the new delegation as strong evidence that Bil’am had no expectation that God would alter his position with regards to his participation in Balak’s diabolic plan.
Bil’am tells Balak’s entourage to stay overnight so he can seek God’s counsel as to what He would like him to do. Shockingly, God appears to Bil’am that night and tells him that if the delegation is seeking his assistance, he should accompany them, but with the recurring caveat that he must comply with whatever God tells him to do.
Bila’am complies with God’s directive, and in the morning, he saddles his donkey and sets out with the ministers to meet Balak. Yet, then almost inexplicably, the Torah indicates that God was angry with Bil’am for traveling with Balak’s delegation. In order to convey this to Bil’am, God sends a Malach to obstruct his path, which only the donkey perceives. The donkey repeatedly swerves and stops to avoid the Malach, frustrating Bil’am. After a number of exasperating incidents with his recalcitrant donkey, Bil’am strikes his donkey so hard that it collapses from the blow. God then reveals to Bil’am the Malach that was halting his progress and that had caused the donkey to veer from the path to spare Bil’am’s life. After being rebuked by the angel of God, Bil’am immediately admits his error, “I have sinned, for I did not know you were standing before me on the road (י אתָרְקִל בָצִּנ הָתַּא יִכּ יִתְּעַדָי א֣לֹ יִכּ יִאתָטָח ךְֶרָדַּבּ).” He immediately offers to head back home if God is displeased with his continuing on this journey. The Malach instructs him to resume his trip to Balak, but once again qualifies that Bil’am will only be able to say that which God prompts him to convey. Upon meeting Balak, Bil’am compliantly makes this disclaimer, which becomes a constant refrain for the remainder of the Parsha, that I cannot act of my own volition because I am beholden to whatever God wants me to say (לֱֹא יםִשָׂי רֶשֲׁא רָבָדַּהִקרֵבַּדֲא וֹתֹא יִפְבּ ים). This leads to much frustration and disappointment for Balak when time after time God compels Bil’am, much to his chagrin, to bless, rather than curse, Bnei Yisrael.
Rashi suggests that God offers Bil’am the opportunity to join the second delegation, if he truly desires and feels it will be lucrative for him, on the condition that he faithfully abides by God’s instructions. Obviously, Bil’am’s personal ambition to profit from this excursion and God’s unwillingness to curse Bnei Yisrael were incongruous. As such, Rashi comes to the inescapable conclusion that Bil’am must have believed that he could persuade God to change his mind. In keeping with his negative portrayal of Bil’am, Rashi sees God’s anger as a response to the alacrity and enthusiasm Bil’am demonstrates when granted permission by God to join Balak’s attempt to impair Bnei Yisrael. It was an affront to God that Bil’am was so zealous and eager to engage in an activity that God had clearly rejected. Ultimately, the Malach tells Bil’am to proceed with aiding Balak because divine justice dictates “in the way that an individual wishes to go, he is led (לילך רוצה שאדם בדרך אותו מוליכין בה).” Even when it is to their detriment or self-destructive, if a person is determined, God allows and sometimes even enables an individual to pursue their chosen course.
Once again, the Ramban is critical of Rashi’s interpretation of the incident. According to the Ramban, God did not change his mind between the two delegations, rather He was responding to two distinct questions. In the first instance, God forbids Bil’am from joining Balak’s envoys with the intent to curse Bnei Yisrael. When the second mission arrives and requests Bil’am’s assistance, God permits Bil’am to accompany them as long as they are willing to abide by the condition that God had stipulated at the outset – that he may not curse Bnei Yisrael. God’s anger is sparked not by Bil’am’s decision to go, but when he joins the second delegation without communicating this important caveat. Had he divulged upfront that he was forbidden to curse Bnei Yisrael, it is clear that the emissaries would have had no interest in his services and it would have scuttled his plan to join them and reap the reward. By omitting this critical information, Bil’am deceives them into believing that he now has divine permission to curse Bnei Yisrael. Worse, it also causes a profaning of God’s name by implying that God was vacillating on whether to curse Bnei Yisrael, and was either playing games with them or could be manipulated.
Therefore, Bil’am’s lack of disclosure makes him complicit in their plan and that is what angers God. After the incident with the donkey, God accepts Bil’am’s apology for suppressing this information and then instructs Bil’am to continue on to Balak with the provision that he is fully transparent and discloses this stipulation to Balak upfront. Upon encountering Balak, Bil’am immediately complies, informing Balak that he is bound to speak solely that which God desires.
Looking unbiasedly at the story as it unfolds in Parshat Balak, Bil’am appears to be a sheepishly compliant emissary of God. He repeatedly consults with God, speaks with reverence and then seemingly complies with the divine instructions he receives. While not without it challenges, the Ramban’s explanation of the story seems far more plausible and aligns more naturally with the narrative than the scathing critique of Bil’am leveled by Chazal as cited by Rashi. Given that, how then did Bil’am come to be regarded as Bil’am HaRasha, the quintessential wicked man? It almost seems as if Chazal’s description of Bil’am amounts to a harsh and sweeping indictment and a far-reaching condemnation of a character who, in the narrative, seems to be portrayed as being neutral, if not piously obedient – what did Chazal see that precipitated this negative bias?
There is compelling evidence elsewhere in Tanach that Bil’am was far from a submissive servant of God. Firstly, in Parshat Matot, Bil’am is enumerated among the high-ranking casualties of the war with Midyan. A similar verse in Yehoshua adds that Bil’am was a soothsayer (םֵקּוֹסַה וֹר֖עְן־בֶּבּ םָעְלִבּ), a term with clearly negative connotations. Most telling, Moshe chastises the military officers for taking the Midyanite women captive because, “they were the ones, at the coaxing of Bil’am, to seduce Bnei Yisrael to violate God in the matter of Pe’or which caused a plague in God’s congregation.” Perhaps the most damning evidence is found in Parshat Ki Teitzei, where the Torah explains why nationals of Mo’av and Amon are precluded from joining Bnei Yisrael. It cites two reasons. Firstly, because they failed to provide Bnei Yisrael with provisions when they left Egypt and secondly, since they hired Bil’am to curse Bnei Yisrael. The Torah notes, almost in passing, that “God, your Lord, refused to heed Bil’am (קָוֹקְי הָא־אָבלְֹו...)
This verse is very puzzling since it implies that Bil’am actually cursed Bnei Yisrael and God intervened to convert it into a blessing, but we find no evidence of this in Parshat Balak. However, the Gemara...
