The Subtle Distinction in Bilam's Journey
Torah Papers | July 11, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

The Subtle Distinction in Bilam's Journey

Torah Papers | December 10, 2025

The cumulative evidence from these references seems to indicate that Bil’am was certainly no angel and maybe even a wicked individual. When one digs below the surface of the outwardly obedient Bil’am in Parshat Balak, one discovers a much more troubling character. As in other instances, the small pieces of evidence, that almost seem to contradict the sense one gets from the primary source, cause Chazal to reinterpret all the actions of this particular individual through the prism of negativity established by the secondary sources.

The question though is whether there is internal evidence within Parshat Balak that corroborates this negative view of Chazal. More pointedly, can it shed light on why God was angry at Bil’am for acquiescing to travel with Balak’s messengers when God had just given him permission to do such. A close look at the story of the second delegation sent by Balak to Bil’am reveals a nuanced, but significant, discrepancy between God’s instructions to Bil’am and that which he does in actuality. God tells Bil’am that if these individuals came to call upon you then “arise and go with them.”

In the subsequent verse, the Torah reports that “Bil’am arose in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the ministers of Mo’av.” Immediately afterwards, God is angered by the fact that Bil’am actually went. Interestingly, the key may lie in the Torah’s deliberate change of preposition. It uses a different word for “with” in each of the verses – Itam in God’s command and Im when Bil’am joins the ministers. The difference is subtle, but significant. While they both can be translated as “with,” they carry different connotations. Itam denotes to go along with them while Im means to join them.

This distinction might be rooted in a seemingly unrelated discussion in the Gemara.

The Talmud recounts that Shimon Ha’Amsuni sought to interpret every instance of Et in the entire Torah. He is successful in his quest to find something to include from each one. Though, when he reached “and you shall fear God, your Lord,” he was flummoxed as to what one could possibly include alongside God. His failure to resolve this issue leads him, out of intellectual honesty, to retract all of his previous inclusions from the word Et because he was unable to consistently apply his method to the entire Torah. Rabbi Akiva in the end salvages Shimon HaAmsuni’s work when he explains that the word Et of “and you shall fear God, your Lord” comes to include Talmidei Chachamim. This is akin to that which the Mishna in Avot says, “the awe of your teacher should be like your awe of heaven.”

In the context of that discussion in the Gemara, it says that the word Et includes something that is secondary (טפל) to the primary object mentioned in the Pasuk. Et or Itam denotes that which is attached or adjacent, but not intrinsically bound. It describes something or someone that tags along; an accessory, not a partner. There is a superficial connection between the objects or the parties, a relationship of proximity, because of some commonality that brings them together, but they nevertheless remain independent. A striking example of this concept can be found with regards to the two lads that join Avraham on his trek to the Akeida. When Avraham sets out for Har HaMoria, the Torah relates that “Avraham took his two lads with him.” While they accompany him on his expedition, they nevertheless were not privy to the reason for their journey nor were they partners in the mission that God had charged Avraham to undertake. They were merely Ito, travel companions with him. By contrast, Im implies a shared identity or a common goal, a deep connection that unifies, an indication of solidarity and shared purpose.

God instructs Bil’am to go along with (Itam) Balak’s emissaries. God’s intent was that they were to travel “together”, but their goals and identity would remain distinct. Bil’am was traveling at the behest of God to convey His message, while the ministers of Mo’av were journeying back to see what harm they could inflict on Bnei Yisrael. They share a common destination (יעד), but not a common purpose (יעוד). This is in consonance with God’s first command not to join them where God is instructing Bil’am not to identify with the mission of the ministers. In the end, however, the Torah says that Bil’am travels with, Im, the delegation of Mo’av. He did not just accompany them for the journey, but he identified with their goals and purpose.

That shift in language substantiates the evil intent of Bil’am identified by the other Pesukim in Tanach and precipitates Chazal’s impression that Bil’am was just as keen as Balak to curse Bnei Yisrael.

After the incident with the donkey, God tells Bil’am to “go with the men.” Rashi commenting on that phrase says that God leads an individual on the path they wish to go. Once Bil’am demonstrated his true colors by identifying with Balak’s mission and revealing where his allegiance lay, God instructs him to go as one with (Im) the delegation because, as Rashi continues, Bil’am now shared a common destiny with them. Continuing to the end of the Pasuk, Rashi, commenting on “and Bil’am went with the ministers of Balak,” states that Bil’am was just as delighted to curse Bnei Yisrael as were the ministers sent to summon him.

Once again, we see here that the word Im connotes a deeper unifying shared purpose.

In life, we often find ourselves doing many things together with other people (or objects). The real question we must always ask ourselves, whether it is with work, family, prayer, learning, or anything else in life, is whether we are merely coming together in a common place or do we truly sharing a common identity.

Sometimes, we need to be Itam to succeed and yet create clear differentiations, distinctions and boundaries, and sometimes, we need to be Imam to become unified and to coalesce around common goals and purpose. Answering that question, will help crystalize not just what our priorities are in life, but also determine the destiny we choose and identify who are our true partners are for that journey.

Shabbat Shalom

שלימה לרפואה ,ישראל בארץ ל"ז הנרצחים נשמת לעילוי ושמירה והצלחה ,ולשבוים לנעדרים קרובה לגאולה ,לפצועים לחיילי ובמיוחד ישראל כלל לכל ונחמות וישועות טובות ובשורות אלקינו וערי ארצנו משמר על העומדים ל"צה

The cumulative evidence from these references seems to indicate that Bil’am was certainly no angel and maybe even a wicked individual. When one digs below the surface of the outwardly obedient Bil’am in Parshat Balak, one discovers a much more troubling character. As in other instances, the small pieces of evidence, that almost seem to contradict the sense one gets from the primary source, cause Chazal to reinterpret all the actions of this particular individual through the prism of negativity established by the secondary sources.

The question though is whether there is internal evidence within Parshat Balak that corroborates this negative view of Chazal. More pointedly, can it shed light on why God was angry at Bil’am for acquiescing to travel with Balak’s messengers when God had just given him permission to do such. A close look at the story of the second delegation sent by Balak to Bil’am reveals a nuanced, but significant, discrepancy between God’s instructions to Bil’am and that which he does in actuality. God tells Bil’am that if these individuals came to call upon you then “arise and go with them.”

In the subsequent verse, the Torah reports that “Bil’am arose in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the ministers of Mo’av.” Immediately afterwards, God is angered by the fact that Bil’am actually went. Interestingly, the key may lie in the Torah’s deliberate change of preposition. It uses a different word for “with” in each of the verses – Itam in God’s command and Im when Bil’am joins the ministers. The difference is subtle, but significant. While they both can be translated as “with,” they carry different connotations. Itam denotes to go along with them while Im means to join them.

This distinction might be rooted in a seemingly unrelated discussion in the Gemara.

The Talmud recounts that Shimon Ha’Amsuni sought to interpret every instance of Et in the entire Torah. He is successful in his quest to find something to include from each one. Though, when he reached “and you shall fear God, your Lord,” he was flummoxed as to what one could possibly include alongside God. His failure to resolve this issue leads him, out of intellectual honesty, to retract all of his previous inclusions from the word Et because he was unable to consistently apply his method to the entire Torah. Rabbi Akiva in the end salvages Shimon HaAmsuni’s work when he explains that the word Et of “and you shall fear God, your Lord” comes to include Talmidei Chachamim. This is akin to that which the Mishna in Avot says, “the awe of your teacher should be like your awe of heaven.”

In the context of that discussion in the Gemara, it says that the word Et includes something that is secondary (טפל) to the primary object mentioned in the Pasuk. Et or Itam denotes that which is attached or adjacent, but not intrinsically bound. It describes something or someone that tags along; an accessory, not a partner. There is a superficial connection between the objects or the parties, a relationship of proximity, because of some commonality that brings them together, but they nevertheless remain independent. A striking example of this concept can be found with regards to the two lads that join Avraham on his trek to the Akeida. When Avraham sets out for Har HaMoria, the Torah relates that “Avraham took his two lads with him.” While they accompany him on his expedition, they nevertheless were not privy to the reason for their journey nor were they partners in the mission that God had charged Avraham to undertake. They were merely Ito, travel companions with him. By contrast, Im implies a shared identity or a common goal, a deep connection that unifies, an indication of solidarity and shared purpose.

God instructs Bil’am to go along with (Itam) Balak’s emissaries. God’s intent was that they were to travel “together”, but their goals and identity would remain distinct. Bil’am was traveling at the behest of God to convey His message, while the ministers of Mo’av were journeying back to see what harm they could inflict on Bnei Yisrael. They share a common destination (יעד), but not a common purpose (יעוד). This is in consonance with God’s first command not to join them where God is instructing Bil’am not to identify with the mission of the ministers. In the end, however, the Torah says that Bil’am travels with, Im, the delegation of Mo’av. He did not just accompany them for the journey, but he identified with their goals and purpose.

That shift in language substantiates the evil intent of Bil’am identified by the other Pesukim in Tanach and precipitates Chazal’s impression that Bil’am was just as keen as Balak to curse Bnei Yisrael.

After the incident with the donkey, God tells Bil’am to “go with the men.” Rashi commenting on that phrase says that God leads an individual on the path they wish to go. Once Bil’am demonstrated his true colors by identifying with Balak’s mission and revealing where his allegiance lay, God instructs him to go as one with (Im) the delegation because, as Rashi continues, Bil’am now shared a common destiny with them. Continuing to the end of the Pasuk, Rashi, commenting on “and Bil’am went with the ministers of Balak,” states that Bil’am was just as delighted to curse Bnei Yisrael as were the ministers sent to summon him.

Once again, we see here that the word Im connotes a deeper unifying shared purpose.

In life, we often find ourselves doing many things together with other people (or objects). The real question we must always ask ourselves, whether it is with work, family, prayer, learning, or anything else in life, is whether we are merely coming together in a common place or do we truly sharing a common identity.

Sometimes, we need to be Itam to succeed and yet create clear differentiations, distinctions and boundaries, and sometimes, we need to be Imam to become unified and to coalesce around common goals and purpose. Answering that question, will help crystalize not just what our priorities are in life, but also determine the destiny we choose and identify who are our true partners are for that journey.

Shabbat Shalom

שלימה לרפואה ,ישראל בארץ ל"ז הנרצחים נשמת לעילוי ושמירה והצלחה ,ולשבוים לנעדרים קרובה לגאולה ,לפצועים לחיילי ובמיוחד ישראל כלל לכל ונחמות וישועות טובות ובשורות אלקינו וערי ארצנו משמר על העומדים ל"צה

PDF Preview