As Bil’am rode on his she-donkey towards his own downfall, the donkey saw what the prophet was unable to see:
וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת מַלְאַךְ ה' נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ
“The donkey saw the angel of Hashem standing resolute on the path, with his sword unsheathed in his hand” (Numbers 22:23).
The term “standing resolute” requires a brief explanation. Most English translations render this simply, “the donkey saw the angel of Hashem standing on the path”. However the translation “standing” hardly does justice to the Hebrew word נִצָּב, a far more powerful verb than simply “stand”.
The verb נִצָּבis from the root יצב, which carries a few connotations:
In the nif’al form נִצַּב, in which it appears in our parashah, it connotes standing erect. In the pi’el form יִצֵּב, it means to strengthen, or to prepare someone or something for a specific task. In the hif’il form הִצִּיב, it means to raise, to erect, or to set up (see for example Genesis 35:14, Joshua 6:26, and Psalms 78:13).
In the hitpa’el form it means approximately to appear before, to rise up in preparation, or to remain present. Unusually, this root has two hitpa’el forms. By far the most common is הִתְיַצֵּב, which occurs 47 times in the Tanach; the other form is הֵתַצַּב, which occurs only once (Exodus 2:4).
Hence our translation here: the angel was נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ, “standing resolute on the path”, unmovable, erect, prepared for his specific task.
This angel was standing erect, prepared for his mission, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ, “with his sword unsheathed in his hand”. The word שְׁלוּפָה (unsheathed) appears four times in the entire Tanach, each time in the same phrase, each time describing a sword unsheathed in an angel’s hand.
-The first time is here in our verse, the angel blocking the donkey’s path.
-The second time is just several verses later, the same angel with the same sword on the same path – and this time, Bil’am saw him:
וַיְגַל ה' אֶת עֵינֵי בִלְעָם וַיַּרְא אֶת מַלְאַךְ ה' נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלֻפָה בְּיָדוֹ
“And Hashem opened Bil’am’s eyes and he saw the angel of Hashem standing resolute on the path, with his sword unsheathed in his hand” (Numbers 22:31).
-The third time was when Joshua was preparing for battle:
וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ עֹמֵד לְנֶגְדּוֹ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ
-“And as Joshua was in Jericho he raised his eyes to see, and behold! – a man was standing opposite him, with his sword unsheathed in his hand” (Joshua 5:13). Joshua beheld a man, who would almost immediately be revealed as an angel and who would lead Joshua and all Israel to victory in the impending battles.
-The fourth and final time was when G-d punished King David for taking a census against His directive:
וַיִּשָּׂא דָוִיד אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת מַלְאַךְ ה' עֹמֵד בֵּין הָאָרֶץ וּבֵין הַשָּׁמַיִם וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ נְטוּיָה עַל יְרוּשָׁלִָם
“David raised his eyes and saw the angel of Hashem standing between the ground and the heavens, with his sword unsheathed in his hand, stretched out over Jerusalem” (1 Chronicles 21:16).
So there were four who saw an angel holding a sword unsheathed in his hand: the donkey, Bil’am, Joshua, and King David.
However, there is a difference – a difference so subtle that not only is it impossible to carry across in English translation, it is not even very noticeable in Hebrew.
The donkey, Joshua, and King David all see the sword שְׁלוּפָה (unsheathed) in the angel’s hand.
Only Bil’am sees the sword שְׁלֻפָה (unsheathed) in the angel’s hand.
The difference between שְׁלוּפָה and שְׁלֻפָה, with or without the ו, the vav, is minuscule. But even the most minuscule difference in the Tanach is significant.
Rabbi Chaim Paltiel (Falaise, France, 13th century) notes this missing vav, and expounds: “It is missing because Israel’s expertise is in the פֶּה, mouth [meaning prayer], and [Bil’am] came to curse them with his mouth – which is the inference of שְׁלֻפָה, denoting שַׁל פֶּה [remove your mouth, or maybe his mouth was removed]”.
The Siftei Kohen (Rabbi Shabbetai ha-Kohen, Lithuania, 1621-1662) expands on this thought:
“It is written ‘his sword drawn [שְׁלֻפָה] in his hand’, denoting שַׁל פֶּה [removal of the mouth], hinting to him that he did not have control over his own mouth and speech…that his mouth was in G-d’s control” (commentary to Numbers 22:30).
Rabbi Yitzchak Karo (Toledo, 1458-1535) notes the irony, the reversing of roles: “Bil’am took the expertise of Israel, whose power is in their mouth [i.e. prayer, and in return] they took his expertise and killed him by the sword” (Toldot Yitzchak, Deuteronomy 33:7).
I offer a very different explanation:
The word וָו (vav) means “hook” and appears in the Tanach 13 times, all in Exodus 26:32 to 38:28, all in the context of constructing the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the wilderness. A hook connects two objects together, hence it connotes connexion; this is why the prefix ו usually means “and”.
Hebrew grammar also uses the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ, or “inversive vav”: this prefix converts future tense to past tense, and past tense to future tense. Thus הָיָה means “it was”, וְהָיָה means “it will be”. Contrariwise, יְדַבֵּר means “he will speak”, וַיְדַבֵּר means “he spoke”. Hence the וָו הַהִפּוּךְ connects past with future and future with past.
Hence the letter ו, vav, connotes a connexion – the connexion, in this case with G-d, that Bil’am lacked.
Bil’am had immense potential: the Torah concludes by telling us that that “there has never arisen another prophet in Israel like Moshe, whom Hashem knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10), on which the Midrash comments: “In Israel no other prophet like Moshe arose, but among the nations of the world he did arise… And which prophet was this? – This was Bil’am the son of Beor” (Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20 and Sifri Devarim, Vezot Ha-Berachah 357).
More than this: Bil’am sprouted from the same sources as Abraham our father himself, both coming from Aram. Aram was a large if loosely-defined region along the Fertile Crescent, stretching from about half-way along the River Euphrates to Damascus; it included Aram Naharayyim (“Aram of the Two Rivers”), lying between the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris; Paddan Aram (“The Field of Aram”), straddling the River Euphrates in the vicinity of Haran; Aram Damesek (“Aram of Damascus”); and Aram Tzova, slightly north-west of Damascus.
Abram’s original name, אַבְרָם (Avram) denotes ,אַב לַאֲרָם “Father of Aram” (Berachot 13a and Yalkut Shimoni, 1 Chronicles 1073), which was where Bil’am hailed from (vide Targum Onkelos, Numbers 22:5 and Deuteronomy 23:5). Indeed Bil’am alluded to this very directly with the very first words of his first curse-turned-into-blessing: “From Aram, Balak king of Moab from the eastern mountains, led me” (Numbers 23:7).
The Ba’al ha-Turim gives a fascinating insight into the inference of Bil’am’s words: “‘From Aram’ – thus saying: How can we come against them from Aram to curse them, when their father Abraham came forth from Aram laden with blessings?!... And Jacob, too, went to Aram, laden with those same blessings!”
Bil’am began with such immense potential…but tragically, he used it for evil instead of good, he misused and abused his G-d-given gifts to [attempt to] curse Israel.
And thus he reached his truly bitter end, when the Children of Israel killed him by the sword (Numbers 31:8). G-d rejected his prayer, “May my soul die the death of the righteous, and may my end be like his” (Numbers 23:10).
As Rabbi Dr Joseph Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire 1913-1946) commented, “that wish was not to be fulfilled. It would have been, had he said ‘Let me live the life of the righteous’. That is the only way to die their deaths” (commentary ad loc.).
Bil’am could have become the greatest of prophets. Instead, he and his disciples “inherit Gehinnom [purgatory, hell] and go down into the pit of destruction” (Pirkei Avot 5:22).
This is the inevitable consequence of a man on such an unimaginably high spiritual level, who deliberately perverted his abilities and destroyed his connexion with the G-d Who gave them.
As Rabbi Dr Joseph Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire 1913-1946) commented, “that wish was not to be fulfilled. It would have been, had he said ‘Let me live the life of the righteous’. That is the only way to die their deaths” (commentary ad loc.).
Significantly, there was one Judge who used the same words as Bil’am: Shimshom (Samson’s) final words before bringing down the idolatrous temple were, “Let my soul die with the Philistines!” (Judges 16:30).
The same words – but with that same subtle difference:
Bil’am’s words “let my soul die” are recorded as תָּמֹת נַפְשִׁי.
Shimshon’s words “let my soul die” are recorded as תָּמוֹת נַפְשִׁי.
The subtle difference between תָּמֹת and תָּמוֹת; Bil’am died as a punishment for his evil, without the ו, the vav, the connexion with G-d.
Shimshon died in Gaza fighting against idolatry, against oppression, defending the nation of Israel in the Land of Israel, sanctifying the Name of G-d. He merited having the ו, the vav, the connexion with G-d, in his death.
Bil’am could have become the greatest of prophets. Instead, he and his disciples “inherit Gehinnom [purgatory, hell] and go down into the pit of destruction” (Pirkei Avot 5:22).
This is the inevitable consequence of a man on such an unimaginably high spiritual level, who deliberately perverted his abilities and destroyed his connexion with the G-d Who gave them.
He may avoid the angel’s sword, as G-d gives him one final opportunity to return to G-d. But having spurned and squandered that opportunity, he wasn’t to avoid Israel’s sword.