Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah
Ramban on Numbers 22:33/רמב"ן על במדבר כ״ב:ל״ג
אוַתֵּט לְפָנַי – פֵּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ וַתֵּט אֶל הַשָּׂדֶה כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה לְפָנַי. וְאֵין צֹרֶךְ, רַק טַעְמוֹ כְּמוֹ מִפָּנַי, כִּי כֵן תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ הַלָּמֶ״ד, כְּמוֹ ״וַיַּחְדְּלוּ לִבְנוֹת הָעִיר״ (בראשית יא ח), ״חָדַל לְהַשְׂכִּיל לְהֵיטִיב״ (תהלים לו ד), וְכֵן רַבִּים. וְכָמוֹהוּ: ״וַיֵּצֵא יוֹאָב וְשָׂרֵי הַחַיִל לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ לִפְקֹד אֶת הָעָם אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל״ (כד ד):
1AND 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
בוְטַעַם אוּלַי נָטְתָה מִפָּנַי - עַל דַּעַת הַמְפָרְשִׁים כְּמוֹ לוּלֵא שֶׁנָּטְתָה מִפָּנַי, יְשַׁמֵּשׁ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ חֲבֵרָיו כֻּלָּם. וְעַל דַּעְתִּי הוּא כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, כִּי הָאָתוֹן הִרְגִּישָׁה בַמַּלְאָךְ אוֹ רָאֲתָה בּוֹ וְלֹא יָדְעָה מָה הָעִנְיָן, אֲבָל נָטְתָה מִפְּנֵי חֶרֶב שְׁלוּפָה כְּמִנְהַג הַבְּהֵמוֹת. עַל כֵּן אָמַר הַמַּלְאָךְ לְבִלְעָם: וַתִּרְאַנִי הָאָתוֹן וְנָטְתָה מִפָּנַי, וּבְשֶׁמָּא נָטְתָה מִפָּנַי, כִּי אֲנִי לַהֲרֹג אוֹתְךָ בָּאתִי, אֲבָל אוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי כִּי הַחֵטְא בְּךָ וְלֹא בָּאָתוֹן:
2ULAI’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.”
גגַּם אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי – אָמַר ר״א (אבן עזרא על במדבר כ״ב:ל״ג) מִלַּת "גַּם" לְעֵד שֶׁמֵּתָה הָאָתוֹן אַחֲרֵי שֶׁדִּבְּרָה, וְטַעַם "הֶחֱיֵיתִי" כִּי בֶּן אָדָם בִּרְאוֹתוֹ אֶת הַמַּלְאָךְ יָמוּת, וְהָעֵד "וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁי" (בראשית לב לא), אַף כִּי הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שׁוּם שׁוּתָּפוּת עִם הַמַּלְאָךְ כְּבֶן אָדָם. וְאֵין מִלַּת "גַּם" נִדְרָשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר, כִּי שְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא יָמוּתוּ, כִּי עַתָּה שֶׁנָּטְתָה מֵתָה הָאָתוֹן וְהֶחֱיָה אֶת בִּלְעָם, וְאִם לֹא נָטְתָה הָיָה הוֹרֵג אֶת בִּלְעָם וּמְחַיֶּה הָאָתוֹן. אֲבָל מִלַּת "גַּם" כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י שֶׁהוּא כִּמְסֹרָס, גַּם הָרַגְתִּי אוֹתְךָ, וְטַעַם ״וְאוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי״ לוֹמַר כִּי הַחֵטְא כֻּלּוֹ עָלֶיךָ וְהָרַגְתִּי אוֹתְךָ בּוֹ, אֲבָל הִיא אֵין עָלֶיהָ חֵטְא שֶׁתָּמוּת בּוֹ. וְהִנֵּה הַנְּטִיָּה שֶׁנָּטְתָה מִפָּנַי לְטוֹבָתְךָ, לֹא לְצָרְכָּהּ כְּלָל, וְהִכִּיתָ אוֹתָהּ חִנָּם וְגָמַלְתָּ לָהּ רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה. וְלֹא הִגִּיד הַכָּתוּב אִם הָיוּ שָׂרֵי בָלָק עִם בִּלְעָם בַּמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ רוֹכְבִים לְפָנָיו וְרָחוֹק הָיָה בֵּינֵיהֶם וּבֵינוֹ. וְהַקָּרוֹב שֶׁהָיוּ עִמּוֹ, לֹא יִתְפָּרְדוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְרָאוּ בִּנְטוֹת הָאָתוֹן וְהַכּוֹת בִּלְעָם אוֹתָהּ, כִּסְבוּרִים הָיוּ שֶׁהָיָה כְּמִנְהַג הַבְּהֵמָה הָרָעָה, וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ דִּבּוּרָהּ, אַף כִּי דְּבַר הַמַּלְאָךְ שֶׁהוּא גִּלּוּי עֵינֵי בִלְעָם. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ (במדב״ר כ יד) שֶׁהָיוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב תְּמֵהִים שֶׁרָאוּ נֵס שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה כָּמוֹהוּ בָּעוֹלָם, וְאָמְרוּ (שם) שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁדִּבְּרָה מֵתָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָאֻמּוֹת אוֹמְרִים: ״זוֹ הִיא שֶׁדִּבְּרָה״ וְעוֹשִׂין אוֹתָהּ יִרְאָה. וְעוֹד שֶׁחָס הַקב״ה עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל רָשָׁע, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״זוֹ הִיא שֶׁסִּלְּקָה אֶת בִּלְעָם״. וְכָל זֶה אֶפְשָׁר מִדֶּרֶךְ הַקַּבָּלָה, לֹא שֶׁדִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בְּמִיתָתָהּ כְּלָל כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי:
3GAM 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.