24x7 protection -- kri'as shema and parshas balak

Rav Shlomo Fisher (Derashos Beis Yishei) points out an interesting remez in the names Balak ben Tzipor and Bilam ben Be'or.  The name Tzipor hints to the morning, like the Aramaic word tzafra.  The name Be'or has the same letters as the word erev, evening.  Bilam's power was limited to the night.  לינו פּה הלילה he tells the messengers who come to ellicit his help.  Balak, on the other hand, took charge in the morning. וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיִּקַּ֤ח בָּלָק֙ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֖הוּ בָּמ֣וֹת בָּ֑עַל וַיַּ֥רְא מִשָּׁ֖ם קְצֵ֥ה הָעָֽם: (22:41).  The Ohr haChaim, whose yahrzeit is this upcoming week, asks why the pasuk specifies the time in which this event happened.  He quotes a Zohar that the sorcery of Balak involved birds, and this is why he was called Tzipor.  Therefore, he was up early in the morning when the birds start chirping (OC gives a few other explanations).  Whether the birds were the sibah of his power or just a siman for the start of the day, either way, we see this link between Balak and the morning.  This is why Bilam and Balak wanted to pair up.  Each one was the missing that half of the day that the other one needed. 

Klal Yisrael fortunately has the antidote to their power.  הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א לֹ֤א יִשְׁכַּב֙ עַד־יֹ֣אכַל טֶ֔רֶף וְדַם־חֲלָלִ֖ים יִשְׁתֶּֽה (24:24).  Rashi comments: הֶן־עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וגו'. כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָם שַׁחֲרִית, הֵן מִתְגַּבְּרִין כְּלָבִיא וְכַאֲרִי לַחֲטֹף אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת — לִלְבֹּשׁ טַלִּית, לִקְרֹא אֶת שְׁמַע וּלְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין:  We start the morning enveloping ourselves in mitzvos, but we don't stop there.  לֹא יִשְׁכַּב. בַּלַּיְלָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְחַבֵּל כָּל מַזִּיק הַבָּא לְטָרְפוֹ, כֵּיצַד? קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ וּמַפְקִיד רוּחוֹ בְּיַד הַמָּקוֹם  We end the day by connecting ourselves with Hashem as well.  Whether it is morning or night, there is not a time that we are separated from Hashem.

 

The gemara in Brachos (12) says that Chazal thought about requiring us to read parshas Balak every day like kri'as shema: אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בֶּן זוּטַרְתִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְבּוֹעַ פָּרָשַׁת בָּלָק בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קְבָעוּהָ — מִשּׁוּם טוֹרַח צִבּוּר.  Our parsha, which shows that special connection to Hashem day and night would be paired with shema read day and night.  The gemara explains:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ הַאי קְרָא: ״כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ״.  

Rashi writes:

כרע שכב – דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא:  

Maharasha, however, quotes a different girsa from the Tanchuma:

ושוב מצאתי בתנחומא דמייתי קרא דלעיל מיניה הן עם כלביא יקום וגו' לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף וגו' והוא נכון טפי בדרש זה לענין ק"ש של שחרית וערבית.  

As we see from Rashi in our parsha, that pasuk speaks about our alacrity in reading shema.  The pasuk our girsa quotes is speaking not about our actions, but rather about Hashem's watchfulness over us.  What does that have to do with our obligation to recite shema?

 

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Balak 3:3) quotes a question from the Besh"T: Why does our pasuk start by referring to a לָבִ֣יא, a female lion, הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם, and only afterwards וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א, but in the other pasuk the order is reversed, first we are called an אֲרִי, a male, stronger lion, ָּכָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, and only afterwards ּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ?

 

R' Tzadok explains that הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א is the normal order of things.  You start slowly and build to a crescendo.  The pasuk of כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ is talking about Klal Yisrael c"v on the decline.  When we fall, all is not lost.  כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, we will rise again like a lion. Even if we fall even further and are no longer like the mighty אֲרִי,  we are still כְלָבִיא, and can bounce back.  And even if we fall further still, all is never lost. מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  R' Tzadok quotes from the Zohar: דכל אורחין דתיובתא פתיחין מיני' והיינו דמי גימ' נ' שערי בינה והוא תשובה וכמו שנאמר ולבבו יבין ושב.  We can never lose our access to the gate of teshuvah.  We say in Tehillim אִם־עֲוֺנ֥וֹת תִּשְׁמׇר ק־הּ ה׳ מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד.  Even if Hashem counts all our sins against us, מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד, there is still the 50th gate of teshuvah which allows our return. 

 

Bilam wanted to use this against us.  Eat, drink, be merry, because no matter what you do, it won't count against you.  That's obviously not the take away lesson.  The takeaway lesson is that when it comes time to read shema, to do mitzvos, and a person thinks, "What's the point?  I'm a nothing; there is no way for me to fix all the wrong I have done; there is no way my avodah has any value," the answer is מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  Don't give up.  No matter how far you have fallen, ther door is always open for your return and there is value to your mitzvos. That, explains R' Tzadok, is why the gemara in Brachos quoted davka this pasuk:

 

ופן יפול לב האדם היודע נגעי לבבו כמה קלקל ובאיזו פנים יקבל עול תורה ועול מצות ע"ז רצו לקבוע פ' בלק בק"ש שיהיה להתחזקות שלא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח ויתברר לבסוף ועמך כולם צדיקים

The three weeks are almost upon us.  We remember the churban of the past, but we also think about 10/7 and all that followed.  History constantly tries to do away with us, but we rise again every time.  לא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח

 

Hein Am k'Lavi Yakum -- having a self-image of greatness

Thanks to current events everyone now knows the pasuk  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא... (23:24).  HaKsav v'haKabbalah points out that Chazal in a number of places darshan the word הֶן to mean one, e.g. Shabbos 31b

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ אֶלָּא יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ שׁוֹאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָאָדָם הֵן יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא חׇכְמָה וְגוֹ׳״ — שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי קוֹרִין לְאַחַת ״הֵן״

He suggests this is the basis of Targum Yonasan's explanation of הֶן עָם as a standalone phrase: יחידאה הוא עמא הדין, we are one people, a single entity.  The strengh of our nation כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא has its roots in our coming together as one.

 

The Aruch in his explanation of the word הֶן says the same vort and adds that if we pair up the letter of aleph-beis, matching bottom of a unit with the top, e.g. aleph/1 pairs with tes/9, beis/2 pairs with cheis/8, etc. the letter hey has nothing to pair with other than itself.  If you do the same with letters in the units of ten, e.g. yud/10 pairs of tzadi/90, etc. the nun with have nothing to pair with other than itself.  Hey-nun הֶן עָם we stand alone; we do not rely on outsiders for support. 

 

The rest of the pasuk speaks about the strength of Am Yisrael being like that of a lion.  Netziv suggests that כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא is not just repetition common in poetry, but reflects two different ideas. כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם refers to the might of the lion.   וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא means rhat aside from that physical might, the lion also knows it is the king of the jungle, and therefore pushes itself to live up to that image of greatness:

 

אריה יש לו טבע התנשאות הנפש, שעל כן מכונה בשם ׳מלך החיות׳, וזה מועיל לו הרבה להפיק רצונו יותר מכפי כוחו גם כן, באשר אינו רוצה שיגרע כבודו אם לא ימצא ידו לעשות מה שהחל או מה שראוי לפניו שיחוש לכבודו.

 

The Yerushalmi in the first halacha in Brachos describes how David haMelech would get up in the morning:

 

הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אָמַר עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִינּוֹר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אִיתְעִיר יְקָרִי מִן קוֹמֵי אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי. אִיקָרִי לָא חָשִׁיב כְּלוּם מִן קֳדָם אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי.

 

Meaning, he would say to himself that he must awaken his kavod (יְקָרִי) to stand before the kavod of Hashem, and then he would add that his kavod is nothing compared to kavod Shamayim.

 

My esteemed cousin R' Avraham Wagner recently put out a sefer on Ylmi and he comments on this gemara that there are two steps in the process here: David started with a recognition of his own kavod - וַיִּגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ בְּדַרְכֵי ה׳ - and only then moved onto the next step of acknowledging that compared to kavod Shamayim, his honor was worth nothing.  This is a common theme among baalei mussar.  A person has to have a sense of self worth and value.  If a person thinks they are worthless and can't accomplish anything, they would never get out of bed in the morning.  The Shulchan Aruch in the first halacha where it talks about starting the day tells us יתגבּר כּארי.  The halacha is not about how strong you are, but like the Netziv explains on our pasuk, it's about your self image.  You have to view yourself as a lion, as the king.  The king has great things to accomplish and doesn't have time to linger in his pajamas.  That's how David haMelech pushed himself out of bed.  You can then move on to step 2 and take that greatness and surrender it to Hashem.  However, if you skip step 2 and think you are a worthless nobody, then what are you surrendering?  What's the big deal of saying Hashem is even greater than you are if you don't think you are anything special anyway?  

 

Part of emerging from galus is to not only become a nation with great ability, but to learn to think of ourselves as a great nation, to develop the self-image of being great.  Ibn Ezra writes that at Yam Suf there were 600,000 Jews  against only 600 of Pharoah's chariots but they couldn't fight.  The people still had the mentality of slaves and could not stand up for themselves.   Baruch Hashem, as we emerge from galus, we will develop not only our abilities, but וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, a mindet of greatness as well.

tzaar baalei chaim

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim learns from the fact that the malach admoninished Bilaam for striking his donley that there is an issur d'oraysa of causing tzaar baalei chaim.  Achronim ask why the Rambam quotes this as the source for tzaar baalei chaim instead of the mitzvah of perikah, of unloading a donkey, which seems to be the gemara's source.  Furthermore, the Rambam (hil rotzeiach ch 13) paskens that there is no chiyuv to help a nochri unload his donkey.  If we are concerned about the suffering of the animal, what difference does it make if the owner of the animal is a jew or a nochri?  It seems that the Rambam does not hold that tzaar baalei chaim is a d'oraysa.

The Ohr Sameiach (hil shabbos ch 25) answers that when the gemara speaks about tzaar baalei chaim it is a case where the animal's suffering happens m'meila; it is a result of something else the animal is doing, like carrying a burden.  In that circumstance the sugya debates whether tzaar baalei chaim is d'oraysa or not, and whether/when a person has to do something about it.  The Rambam in Moreh is talking about something else entirely.  The Rambam is speaking about a person directly, deliberately causing pain to an animal, like Bilam did when he hit the donkey.  That, says the Rambam, is for sure an issur d'oraysa. 

 

The meforshei Rashi bring up the topic of tzaar baalei chaim in last week's parsha.  When Bn"Y complained about the lack of water, Hashem promised  וְהוֹצֵאתָ֨ לָהֶ֥ם מַ֙יִם֙ מִן־הַסֶּ֔לַע וְהִשְׁקִיתָ֥ אֶת־הָעֵדָ֖ה וְאֶת־בְּעִירָֽם׃ (20:8)   Rashi there comments: ואת בעירם – מכאן שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  The Taz in his Divrei David asks what the proof is from here that שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  Maybe the reason Hashem promised water to the animals is because of tzaar baalei chaim?  Why doesn't Rashi say that Hashem promised water because of tzaar baalei chaim?

 

The question is really a double problem.  First there is the textual question: what in the text motivated Rashi to ascribe the motive for giving water to חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל and not to tzaar baalei chaim?  Taz answers by noting that the pasuk uses the word בְּעִירָֽם -- THEIR animals.  If tzaar baalei chaim was the issue, then the ownership of the animal is irrelevant.  The stress on it being THEIR animal at risk puts the emphasis on the loss incurred by the owner.  (One could argue that Hashem's response is simply a reflection back of the complaint וְלָמָה הֲבֵאתֶם אֶת קְהַל יְהֹוָה אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה לָמוּת שָׁם אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעִירֵנוּ where the people spoke about the suffering of THEIR animals, which in context makes perfect sense.)  But there is second question lurking behind the scenes.  Granted that the words of the pasuk suggest the concern here was חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל, but why was the pasuk not concerned with the issue of tzaar baalei chaim?  Shouldn't the animal's pain be at least as much a cause for concern as what its loss might mean to the owner? 

 

This is not just hypothetical quibbling, but perhaps makes a nafka mina l'halacha.  Is one obligated to try to alleviate an animal's pain that one did not cause?  If the source for tzaar baalei chaim stems from the Torah's obligation to assist in unloading an animal, then perhaps the chiyuv only applies in similar such cases where a person was the cause of the suffering in the first place, e.g. by burdening the animal.  However, if our pasuk can serve as a source for tzaar baalei chaim, the concern extends even to cases where the suffering, in this case the thirst, was not caused by human intervention (see Shabbos 128b בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם)

 

R' Moshe in Derash Moshe suggests that the reason tzaar baalei chaim is not an issue here is because the parsha is speaking about the miracle of producing  water from a rock.  It is only humans that merit the level of hashgacha pratis that gives rise to Hashem performing miracles on their behalf.  Animals do not warrant the same.

jump out of bed to face the day

The very first din in Shulchan Aruch, יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו, is based, according to GR"A on our parsha.  The Midrash writes on (23:24)  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא that  אֵין אֻמָּה בָּעוֹלָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם, הֲרֵי הֵן יְשֵׁנִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַמִּצְווֹת וְעוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָן כַּאֲרָיוֹת וְחוֹטְפִין קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמַמְלִיכִין לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְנַעֲשִׂין כַּאֲרָיוֹת וּמַפְלִיגִין לְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, לְמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, אִם נִתְקַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בְּכֻלָּם אוֹ אִם מְחַבְּלִין בָּאִין לִגַּע בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, מַמְלִיךְ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.  R' Berel Povarski in Bad Kodesh asks why it is that jumping out of bed in the morning is such a big deal.  If you do the same mitzvah without jumping out of bed, is it any worse? 

Before getting to his answer, I want to offer my wife's grandfather's (R' Dov Yehudah Shochet) explanation of what exactly Bilam did wrong.  After all, Hashem in the end did grant Bilam permission to go to meet Balak.  How then can the very next pasuk (22:22) tell us וַיִּחַר⁠ אַף אֱלֹקים כִּי⁠ הוֹלֵךְ הוּא?  Rishonim and Achronim alike have struggled with this issue.

The gemara Brachos (5a) provides us with advice on how to deal with the yetzer ha'ra:

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רִגְזוּ וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ״ אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ  מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדֹמּוּ סֶלָה״.

The question everyone asks is if we have an ace in the whole, namely יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה, what's the point of going step by step through this whole exercise?

My grandfather-in-law asked a more basic question. If the point is וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ, not to sin, then what do we need רִגְזוּ for?  Just tell me not to sin, period, full stop!  Why add לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע?  

He explained (see this post that relates to the end of our parsha as well) that not sinning is not enough.  What Chazal are telling us is that our goal should be not to desire to sin. לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע means you have to work so as to not have a ratzon for sin  If you fail and you have the desire to do wrong, then וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ, but ideally a person should try to not get to that point.

That's why Chazal did not advise a person יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה from the get-go.  True, that will stop a person cold in their tracks and prevent them from succumbing to temptation, but וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ is not the real goal -- the real goal is to avoid having the temptation to begin with.  That you accomplish by learning Torah and growing your desire for spiritual things, or by reading shema and increasing your love of Hashem so it supplants the love of physical things.  It's only when those prior steps fail, when the רִגְזוּ hasn't accomplished what it should, then you have no choice but to think about yom ha'misa to prevent wrong from being done.

What Bilam is blamed for is not the fact that he went with the messengers of Balak.  He did indeed have permission for that.  He succeeded in passing the test of וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ.  What he failed at was the test of לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע, of avoiding the desire to do wrong.  Chazal tell us that the permission to go with Balak's messengers came about because Bilam, so to speak, twisted Hashem's arm until he got it.  Chazal tell us that chutzpah works even when it comes to getting things from Heaven, and "b'derech she'adam rotzeh lei'lech molichin oso."  Bilam knew that what he desired was contrary to the ratzon Hashem, but that did not stop him from wanting it.  His ratzon, he felt, trumped G-d's ratzon.  That desire to do wrong is itself a sin.  

Now to flip from the negative to the positive.  R' Berel Povarski writes that a person has a capacity for ratzon, for desire, which can either be turned to good and used for torah and mitzvos, or it will lead a person stray to desiring things that should not be desired.  Ain hachi nami, if you roll out of bed late and put on tefillin you have fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin just as well as the person who got up early to do so.  What you failed to do, however, is to demonstrate the ratzon to do good.  To achieve that, you have to jump out of bed like a lion, like going to davening or learning torah is your greatest desire from the moment you open your eyes,

And now for the icing on the cake.  The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu comments on  הֶן⁠ עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם:

על ד׳ מלחמו׳ שהיו במדבר כי זאת הפרש׳ הראשונה על מצרים. והשני׳ על המדב׳ כמ״ש כלביא יקום נגד מלחמ׳ עמלק כמ״ש מחר אנכי נצב על ראש הגבע׳ והוא תחיל׳ יציאתן וזהו יקום. וכארי יתנשא במלחמ׳ כנען שהיה בסוף מ׳ לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף. במלחמת סיחון ועוג. ודם חללים ישתה. הוא מלחמת מדין שהרגו על חלליהם שמלחמת סיחון ועוג היה העיקר על הארץ ועל השלל וכאן היה העיקר לנקום בדמם כמ״ש לתת נקמת ה׳ במדין ואמר כי צררים הם לכם וגו׳

Each phrase in the pasuk corresponds to a battle that Bn"Y fought, and  עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם corresponds to the war against Amalek.  Amalek is "asher karcha ba'derech" -- they wanted to afflict us with k'rirus, with coldness, apathy, with lack of desire when it comes to mitzvos.   וַיַּרְא אֶת⁠ עֲמָלֵק וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר רֵאשִׁית גּוֹיִם עֲמָלֵק Amalek was the first to jump in and attack us when no other nation would.  They exemplify using ratzon, desire, to provide motivation toward nefarious ends, while cooling off any positivity and desire for good.  We, on the other hand, are  הֶן⁠ עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם, not only doing mitzvos, but doing them with zeal and alacrity and desire.

Amazing Kozhiglover on Mah Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov

Fantastic Eretz Tzvi from the Kozhiglover:

מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

Rashi explains:

על שראה פתחיהם שאין מכוונין זה מול זה

How did Rashi get that from the pasuk?

The Shem m'Shmuel writes in many places that if a person strives to do good and therefore be zocheh to Torah, they are bound to come up short and fail because the goodness of Torah is so beyond anything we can achieve or merit.  The way to be zocheh is through sur mei'ra, through avoiding the negatives, avoiding that which is harmful and wrong, because that we are able to achieve.

This is the meaning of Moshe's answer to the malachim when they challenged him as to why the Torah should be given to mankind and not them.  "Do you have a yetzer ha'ra as man does?" Moshe asked.  Meaning, without a yetzer ha'ra you do not face the challenge of evil and wrongdoing.  Your only means to be zocheh to Torah is through positive action that would merit such a reward.  To earn Torah in that way is impossible.  It can only be earned by the negation of evil.

Yaakov is called "ish tam yosheiv ohalim" in the plural, two tents.  There is the tent that closes a person in so that they avoid the temptations of the outside world, and then there is the tent the hides a person's achievements and actions so that they should be a oveid Hashem b'tzeniyus.

Mah tovu ohalecha, also in the plural, because we have inherited these two "tents" from Yaakov Avinu.

Bilam saw that "ain pischeihem michuvanim."  "Pischu li pesach k'chudo shel machat, v'eftach lachem k'pischo shel ulam." (Shir haShirim Rabbah 2)  Hashem opens gates for us far in excess of what we could do on our own.  Bilam could not understand how even that is enough, as the hasagos that one can achieve in Torah are beyond even the "pischo shel ulam."  It was only when he saw  מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב, the tzeniyus, the sur mei'ra, the avoidance of impropriety and wrongdoing that the olahlei Yaakov represented, that he was able to fathom "ain pischeihem michuvanim" on the largest scale.

leadership

 וְדִבַּרְתֶּ֧ם אֶל־הַסֶּ֛לַע לְעֵינֵיהֶ֖ם וְנָתַ֣ן מֵימָ֑יו  What did Hashem mean by  מֵימָ֑יו, "it's water?"  Netziv comments  לא יהיה בזה חדשות, אלא ״מימיו״ הרגילים ונעשים לטבע,, which sounds almost like a contradiction in terms, because טבע and water coming from a rock do not seem to go together.

The Be'er Mayim Chaim (sort of appropriate to quote in this parsha) quotes a remez.  If you spell out the letters that make up the word סלע you get the following: samech = סמך, lamed=למד, ayin=עין.  Take the middle letter of each word and you have the letters מים for water.  Now we understand why Moshe hit the rock, the סלע, two times -- he wanted to knock off the first letter and the last letter so that just the middle סלע was left.  The problem is that he could have accomplished the same thing by just speaking to the rock.

The larger point here is obvious: what on the surface looks like a rock can contain mayim chaim inside.  It's up to us to draw it out properly.

Whatever Moshe's sin was, the parsha continues (14:20)  וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח מֹשֶׁ֧ה מַלְאָכִ֛ים מִקָּדֵ֖שׁ אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ אֱד֑וֹם... נַעְבְּרָה־נָּ֣א בְאַרְצֶ֗ךָ.  Moshe knew that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael, so the faster Bnei Yisrael got there, the faster the end of the line would come for him.  Rather than enjoy the opportunity to make an extended detour around the land of Edom and prolong the journey, Moshe immediately sent messengers to ask permission to the shorter route and cut through their territory.  Moshe was not commanded by Hashem to do so; he took the initiative on his own.  That's leadership -- putting the needs of the people above concern for oneself.  

Parshas Balak starts with Balak's observation, וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק בֶּן־צִפּ֑וֹר, that Bnei Yisrael were on his border, and he was afraid that they would wipe him out.   וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מוֹאָ֜ב אֶל־זִקְנֵ֣י מִדְיָ֗ן עַתָּ֞ה יְלַחֲכ֤וּ הַקָּהָל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־סְבִ֣יבֹתֵ֔ינוּ כִּלְחֹ֣ךְ הַשּׁ֔וֹר אֵ֖ת יֶ֣רֶק הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה  Only then does the Torah tell us that וּבָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִֽוא׃.  Why stick that in almost as an afterthought instead of telling us up front something like וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק בֶּן־צִפּ֑וֹר מלך מואב?  Maharil Diskin explains that the expression וּבָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִֽוא׃ is part of what Moav was bemoaning.  Not only is there the danger from Bnei Yisrael, but, nebach, look at who we have as leader to get us through the crisis -- בָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב.  (Apply to current events as you like.)  R' Shaul Alter quotes from the Sefas Emes that the Torah could not introduce Balak as "melech Moav" in that first pasuk because the whole thrust of the opening of the parsha is the fear that engulfed Moav.  Someone who is a melech, a leader, does not succumb to fear.  

changing klala to bracha

  וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛ אֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה (Devarim 23:6)

Why the extra לְּךָ֛ in the pasuk?  I saw suggested as follows: all of the klalos of Bilam were flipped to become brachos.  Yesh lachkor do we therefore view Bilam as a m'vareich, or is Bilam a m'kalel, but Hashem fixed the outcome for us?  Nafka minah -- Hashem promised Avraham וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר.  Does Bilam get credit for giving bracha and deserve bracha in return, or does Bilam deserve condemnation for being a m'kalel, and it's only Hashem's intervention that changed his words?  The pasuk answers וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛ אֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה, that for us and us alone the k'lala counts as a bracha, but viz a viz Bilam, he is still considered a m'kalel.

I would like to suggest a different answer based on the comment of the Kli Yakar to that pasuk.  Kli Yakar raises three questions. 

1) It's understandable to say that Bilam gave a bracha INSTEAD of a klala, but what does it mean to say that the klala BECAME a bracha?

 2) The gemara darshens that all of the brachos given by Bilam ultimately, later in history, were fulfilled as klalos, as he originally intended.  The one exception is  מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל, which remained a bracha for all eternity.  That's why the pasuk says  וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה in the singular -- because only one of the klalos was forever after really transformed.  Why is this bracha different than all the others?  

3) And how did Chazal derive from the pasuk pasuk that it was davka that bracha which never changed?

Kli Yakar says a yesod: G-d does not wantonly change the rules of nature.  For Hashem to do so requires great zechuyos.  If a klala points to something bad happening, if the stars are aligned against a person, if the normal course of events point to a certain bad outcome, the ideal is to find a way within derech ha'teva to arrive at a different outcome, not to suspend the rules entirely.  For example, the gemara says that a person born at the time of a certain mazal may be bloodthirsty.  Derech ha'teva compels him in a certain direction, but that doesn't mean his becoming a murderer is fixed short of uprooting the rules.  He can choose to be a shochet and do good with that talent.  It's possible to work within the system and get a different result.

With respect to the intended klalos of Bilam, Hashem could find no way to redirect Bilam's intentions and his words short of uprooting them, changing the rules of the game.  When Klal Yisrael has great zechuyos, this works, but over our long history, unfortunately that's isn't always the case, and so the klalos came back to bite us.

However, when it came to the klala Bilam wanted to give of destroying our mikdashot, here Hashem did not need to uproot the rules to change the outcome.  

מזמור לאסף וגוּ קינה לאסף מיבעי ליה ודרש כך שאמר אסף שירה על שכילה הקב"ה חמתו בעצים ואבנים שבביתו ומתוך כך הותיר פליטה בישראל שאלמלא כך לא נשתייר משונאי ישראל שריד וכן הוא אומר כלה הּ את חמתו ויצת אש בציון 

The destruction of the Mikdash spared us from destruction.  Because Hashem was able vent his anger on stones, on a building, we were saved.  In this case, and in this case alone, the klala itself, even when fulfilled, led to a positive outcome.

Therefore, davka in this case, the Torah is justified in using the word יַּהֲפֹךְ֩ .  Davka here, the klala itself as Bilam intended was not uprooted, but rather was transformed into something positive.

Getting back to the original question of why the extra word  לְּךָ֛, Chazal tell us that had the nochrim appreciated what the Mikdash did for them, for the world, they would have put up guards to protect it and not destroyed it.  Churban ha'bayis was for them a SELF destructive act, as it cut off a source of bracha that they also derived benefit from.  However, for us, as difficult and painful as the churban was, it was מזמור לאסף.  It ensured the continuity and preservation of Jewish life.    וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛, the benefit was davka only for us, but for the nochrim, for the world that allowed the destruction to take place, there was no upside.

b'derech she'adam rotzeh leilech

 Makos 10b:

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב הונא ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא א"ר אלעזר מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו מן התורה דכתיב לא תלך עמהם וכתיב קום לך אתם

The gemara learns b'derech she'adam rotzeh leilech molichin oso from the fact that Hashem first told Bilam not to go with Balak's messengers, but then in the end he did allow him to go.

Yet that's not where Rashi on our parsha quotes the limud from.  It's only later in the parsha, after Bilam's donkey is stopped by the malach and Bilam offers to turn back and is told that he doesn't have to that Rashi comments  (22:35) לך עם האנשים – בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו

Why does Rashi change the context of the limud from that of the gemara?

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi in his mussar shiurim writes that the gemara and Rashi are addressing two different points.  The gemara is speaking k'lapei shemaya and telling us that a person's ratzon can somehow change things upstairs.

Rashi is speaking about what's in a person's heart.  You might have thought that once Bilam had been told by Hashem that he would not be able to say what he wanted, that he might have reconsidered what he was doing.  Kah mashma lan Rashi, or I should say kah mashma lan the malach, that Bilam was still a rotzeh as much as before!  So long as there is still a "rotzeh,"  there is still "...molichin oso" and therefore no need to turn back.

Bilam's response to the malacha, "חָטָ֔אתִי כִּ֚י לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֥י אַתָּ֛ה נִצָּ֥ב לִקְרָאתִ֖י בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ," is strange -- if indeed he was unaware of the malach, לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי, then why is it חָטָ֔אתִי, that he is guilty of any wrongdoing?  

Sometimes being unaware is itself a crime.  Ha'levai that Hashem should send us a malach to stop us when we are going to do something wrong.   Here Bilam is zoche to something special, yet he is so caught up in what he wants to do that he is oblivious misses all the signs and marches onward. (See Meshech Chochma on why there was this miracle of the donkey speaking.) 

a kahal, not an am

Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov, mishkinosecha Yisrael.  Bilam's words contain a lesson that too many of us have forgotten.  Ohel is tent, a temporary dwelling; mishkan/mishkinoshecha is a permanent home.  Things were great in the midbar, in the tents we lived in during our stay there.  But that existence is only on the level of Yaakov.  It is when we are in mishkinosecha, when we are in our permanent home in Eretz Yisrael, and only in Eretz Yisrael, that we reach the higher level of Yisrael (see Malbim).  

Preventing Klal Yisrael from achieving that goal was the real aim of Balak.  וְעַתָּה֩ לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה כִּֽי־עָצ֥וּם הוּא֙ מִמֶּ֔נִּי אוּלַ֤י אוּכַל֙ נַכֶּה־בּ֔וֹ וַאֲגָרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ.  Simple pshat in the pasuk is that Balak wanted to drive Bnei Yisrael out of his territory, but the Midrash reads the it differently: וַאֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ – לֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ אֶלָּא לְגָרְשָׁם שֶׁלֹא יִכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ.  (see post here)

I know that when Trump said, "Jewish people who live in the United States don’t love Israel enough," he qualified it and said except for Orthodox Jews.  But we should look good and hard at ourselves and make sure that noted exception is deserved.  

Rashi comments on "Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov" that Bilam saw  על שראה פתחיהם שאין מכוונין זה מול זה, the pesach, the doorway of each tent, did not face the doorway of another tent in the camp.  Everyone minded their own business; no one was looking into another person's home, into their neighbor's goings-on.  Midah k'neged midah of our keeping our eye's to ourselves, Hashem prevented Bilam from casting an ayin ha'ra.  

Derech remez, there is more to it than that.  “Pischu li pesach kchudo shel machat v’ani eftach lachem pesach k’pischo shel ulam.”  Hashem asks us to make an opening, a pesach, for him, even if only the size of the eye of a needle, and he will help with the rest. 

על שראה פתחיהם שאין מכוונין זה מול זה means that every individual's "pesach" is different, explains the Maor va'Shemesh.  What turns one person on may be a brilliant R' Chaim; what turns another person on may be the singing at a Carlebach minyan.  When everyone marches in lockstep and does the same thing, the yetzer hara has an easy job because he has a single, easy target to strike.  But when there are so many different "pesachim" going in so many different directions, Bilam has no chance at success.  

I would add another point.  שאין מכוונין זה מול זה means that each pesach is not opposite another pesach.  Some people operate with a win-lose mentality.  It's not enough that I have my pesach -- I have to also be opposite and opposed to your pesach.  Bilam saw that it didn't work that way in the midbar.  There were no opposites -- there were only complementary pesachim.  

At the beginning of the parsha we have the word "am" again and again: וַיָּ֨גׇר מוֹאָ֜ב מִפְּנֵ֥י הָעָ֛ם , לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה,  הִ֠נֵּ֠ה עַ֣ם יָצָ֤א מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙  But when the messengers of Balak spell out the danger they think they face, that's not the term they use.  What they say is עַתָּ֞ה יְלַחֲכ֤וּ הַקָּהָל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־סְבִ֣יבֹתֵ֔ינוּ.  An am is when people hang out together for convenience; a kahal is when something deeper than utilitarian need unites them.  An am is where opposites join forces for a purpose -- just like Midyan and Moav did to fight their shared enemy, Klal Yisrael.  A kahal is where opposites don't exist.  

misplaced derech eretz

Despite knowing that it was not what Hashem wanted, Bilam still saddled his donkey and went to curse Bnei Yisrael.  The pasuk (22:22) tells us that he did not travel alone:

 וְהוּא֙ רֹכֵ֣ב עַל־אֲתֹנ֔וֹ וּשְׁנֵ֥י נְעָרָ֖יו עִמּֽוֹ

The Midrash Rabbah (Rashi quotes a similar derash) comments on why this detail is mentioned:

 זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא לַדֶּרֶךְ צָרִיךְ שְׁנַיִם לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ וְחוֹזְרִים וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁין זֶה לָזֶה.

Derech eretz -- for a chashuv person to go out without two others to escort him would be like an important person going out without his tie on, or without his shoes shined.  (I don't know whether to be happy or sad that these these days no matter who you are you can go outside in your pajamas and no one will give you a second glance.)

It would be a peleh if we had not seen similar things not so long ago in our history.  Here we have someone going to commit genocide and he is worried about the niceties of derech eretz, that he should not be seen as not comporting himself properly on the trip!

A lack of hisbonenus

Despite being given the opportunity to receive nevuah and despite seeing the spiritual greatness of Klal Yisrael -- "mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov" -- Bilam remains unchanged as a person from the start of the parsha through its end.  When the plan to curse fails, it does lead to a change of heart, a re-evaluation and reconsideration, but rather it leads to a new wicked plan and the episode of bnos Moav.  The kabbalists link Bilam with Lavan; some claim they were one and the same person.  Much like Lavan, who despite years of exposure to Yaakov Avinu simply goes back to being his old self, "Vayelech vayashav Lavan lmkomo," (32:1) after Yaakov's departure, so too Bilam, who, after experiencing prophecy simply goes back to being his old self, "Vayakam Bilam vayelech vayashav limkomo," (24:25) with no change in attitude or character.

The Chofetz Chaim noted the interesting fact that the entire story of Bilam's prophecy appears as one long parsha stuma in the Torah with no breaks -- something not too common.  Rashi writes at the beginning of parshas Vayikra that the breaks between parshiyos served to allow Moshe time to reflect on what he was learning, to be misbonein.  Even if a person is given the gift of nevuah, without hisbonenus, without taking time for  contemplation to internalize the message and its meaning,  the person will remain unchanged like Bilam and never grow like Moshe.

Bnos Moav

Rashi writes (25:1) that it was Bilam who advised Moav that the Jewish people would be susceptible to the temptation of znus and instigated this form of attack. 

What elicited this comment of Rashi?

Mizrachi explains that we find in general that Bnei Yisrael were careful not to engage in znus.  Rashi in parshas Emor (24:11) writes that the Torah reveals the identity of the mekalel's mother because she was the only one in Mitzrayim who was mizaneh.  Rashi in next week's parsha (26:5) again writes that while the Egyptians were able to enslave us and force us to work, they were unable to force our women into having any relationship with them.  So how suddenly did things fall apart in this episode with Bnos Moav? It must be that there was some outside influence that pushed Moav at us -- namely, the plot of Bilam.

Gur Aryeh adds that Rashi's comment may have been prompted by a textual issue.  The Torah specifies that it was the "bnos Moav" who were mizaneh.  If this was a case of simple lust, then any / all women should have been involved -- not only the bnos.  It must be that what happened was not the result of normal temptation alone, but rather was a deliberate plot -- the bnos alone were directed to purposefully go out to Bnei Yisrael and instigate trouble.

The two approaches may reflect a larger methodological question.  Does Rashi comment only when there is a particular textual point that needs explanation, or is Rashi interested in larger issues like motivation, morals, etc. that have to do with the story as a whole?

Be that as it may, al pi pashtus perhaps one might say that in Mitzrayim the relationship of master to slave that existed between the Egyptians and Bnei Yisrael served as a deterrent to znus, at least any that might have been initiated by a Jew.  For a lowly slave to dream of having a relationship with beyond their social station would have been unthinkable.  However, fast forward 40 years and in our parsha we are speaking about a Bnei Yisrael that is a free nation, a people that has flexed it's muscles against Sichon and Og and can compete with anyone.  Under those circumstances, the temptation to become involved in illicit relationships with members of other nations, now seen as peers on the world stage, is far more dangerous.

The lesson for our times is obvious.

a nation, not a religion

Balak sent messengers to Bilam saying that he should come and help, "Va'agarshenu min ha'aretz."  The Midrash comments, "Lo haya mivakesh elah l'garsham she'lo yikansu la'aretz."  All Balak wanted was to keep the Jews out of Eretz Yisrael.

Balak would fit right in today with the progressives, the EU, the Reform.  "I'm not anti-Semitic," he would say.  "I'm just anti-Zionist."  

Balak made the fundamental error of thinking that Judaism is a religion and not a nationality.  A religion stakes no claim to a country.  You can practice whatever avodah zarah you like any place in the world and its all the same.  Not so Judaism.  Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is an incomplete Judaism (see Ramban in parshas Acharei Mos.  See also the first Shem m'Shmuel on the parsha re: this Midrash).

Rashi writes that Bilam's donkey banging Bilam's leg into the wall three times is an allusion to the three regalim.  Hashem was telling Bilam that he cannot beat a people that celebrates the three Yamim Tovim of the year.

Everyone asks (and we've discussed it before): why does the celebration of the shalosh regalim in particular signify that Bilam's efforts were doomed?  Why is it more significant than any other mitzvah that we do?

Sefas Emes (5648 -- you really want to see this one inside) answers that on the shalosh regalim we make aliya la'regel and come together "ba'makom asher yivchar Hashem."  We demonstrate the centrality of Yerushalayim, the centrality of the makom mikdash, to who we are as a people.

"Ki me'rosh tzurim er'enu u'migeva'os ashurenu…"  Rashi explains that Bilam looked back and saw our roots, the Avos.  The Sefas Emes reads the pasuk k'peshuto: Bilam looked out over the mountains and valleys of Eretz Yisrael, and when he looked out at the land, at its character, at its soul, what he saw was the character and soul of the Jewish people.  He saw that we are one with the land.  

v'lo ra'ah amal b'yisrael -- whose suitcases are we schlepping?

1) If someone is lost in the desert and doesn't know when Shabbos is he/she has to make kiddush and havdalah one day a week as if that day was Shabbos, and on any given day no melacha except for what is needed for pikuach nefesh may be done lest that day is Shabbos.  The MG"A asks why this should be so.  Shabbos is only one day out of seven.  Whatever day is Shabbos should be bateil b'rov to the six days of chol. 

Question: how can you speak of bitul brov (or kavua) with respect to days?  The chiyuv to keeps Shabbos is a chovas ha'gavra (see R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa re: whether time bound chiyuvim are issurei gavra or issurei cheftza) on the person, not a chiyuv of the day.  The person lost in the desert, the gavra, is not bateil to anything?

When I saw this question I first thought it was great and now I'm not sure it makes sense.  True, keeping Shabbos may be an issur gavra, but you have to define the day before you can say the chovas ha'gavra gets off the ground.  It's an intrinsic condition to the chiyuv.

2) Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov.  Rashi explains that Bilam saw that ain pischeihem mechuvanim. 

Chazal teach us that if we just open a pesach k'chudo shel machat, an opening the size of the hole in a needle, to let Hashem into our hearts, he will open for us a pesach as wide as the door of the heichal.  R' Meir Shapiro explained that this is what Bilam saw.  Ain pischeihem mechuvanim: the door Hashem opens for us is completely out of proportion to the door we opened for him -- the two are not aligned.  But Hashem loves us, so that's the way it is.

3) The gemara (A"Z 4) writes that Bilam's success was due to the fact that he was able to figure out when the one moment of the day that Hashem gets angry.  Hashem did a miracle and withheld his anger the entire time that Bilam tried to curse us.

The gemara continues that R' Yehoshua ben Levi had an obnoxious neighbor who was a min and drove him crazy, so he decided to wait for that moment of Hashem's anger and then ask Hashem to do away with this neighbor.  The moment came, but just then RYb"L fell asleep.  He took this as a sign that v'rachamav al kol ma'asav, Hashem has mercy even on the wicked and did not like his plan.

If Hashem gets angry for this one moment every single day, there must be some need in the seder of the world for such a thing to happen.  So why withhold that anger just to thwart Bilam?  Hashem, for example, does not stop the sun from rising just because idolaters worship it.  Why didn't Hashem just make Bilam fall asleep like he did to RYb"L instead of interrupting the course of nature?

We've discussed lots of times (e.g. here, here, and other places ) the famous view of the Ohr haChaim (and others) that while Hashem can force animals and inanimate objects to conform to his plan, a ba'al bechira, a human being that has free choice, has far more latitude and can do an end run around Hashem's designs.  What that (probably) means is not that Hashem does not have control over people -- what it means is that it takes for more zechuyos to cause/ask for Hashem to interfere with a ba'al bechira.

Of course if Bilam just fell asleep his plan would have been thwarted.  Our parsha is telling us a bigger chiddush, explains R' Yerucham Lebovitz.  Even though Bilam was awake and had free choice as a ba'al bechira to act against Klal Yisrael, he still did not succeed.

4) V'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael...  A beautiful Ohr haChaim here

גם נתכוון לומר שהצדיקים הגם שעושים מצות וכל עסקם בתורה אינם מרגישים שיש להם עמל, על דרך אומרו (תהלים עג) עמל הוא בעיני אלא אדרבא כאדם המרויח וכאדם המשתעשע בשעשועים לרוב חשקם בתורה

Mitzvos should not been seen as a burden or bother -- amal -- but rather as a pleasure to do.

R' Ya'akov Neiman in his Darkei Musar quotes a famous mashal (I'll write it over anyway : )of the Dubno Magid which the Kotzker said must have been given b'ruach hakodesh.  V'lo oso karasa Ya'akov, ki yagata bi Yisrael (Yeshaya 43:22).  Hashem criticizes Klal Yisrael for not calling to him, for being weary of him.  The mashal: the was a royal officer who was travelling through some town, and when he got off the train he went ahead to his hotel and left his bags to be brought later.  Later that day the bellhop, huffing and puffing and sweating from the exertion, knocked on the hotel door and told him that he had brought the suitcases.  Without even looking, the officer replied that he was confused and had brought someone else's bags.  "How do you know?" the bellhop asked.  "You didn't even look at them!'  "Because," answered the officer, "My bags were light -- you obviously have been struggling with whatever you brought, and so I know they are not mine."   

Hashem tells Klal Yisrael, "OSI lo karasa," whatever frumkeit you have been killing yourself over and struggling with, it's not MY frumkeit, that's not MY Torah and mitzvos, "ki yagata bi Yisrael," because whatever it is you think you are doing is an unbearable and painful burden.   Those suitcases you've been struggling with, says Hashem, are not my suitcases.  When you are schlepping my suitcases, "v'lo ra'ah amal b'Yisrael," they are  no bother at all. 

"l'hatoso ba" -- did G-d want to cause Bilam to go astray?!

Commenting on Hashem’s question to Bilam, “Mi ha’anashim ha’eileh imach?” Rashi writes, “l’hatoso ba,” Hashem caused Bilam to err. By asking such a question, G-d gave Bilam the impression that He is not all knowing. Bilam therefore thought that he could curse Bnei Yisrael without Hashem being aware and get away with it.

It sounds like Rashi is telling us that Hashem stacked the deck and set Bilam up for failure. “L’hatoso ba” doesn’t mean G-d was ambiguous and allowed Bilam to err. It means G-d deliberately wanted to cause Bilam to err. How could G-d do that? How is that fair? Since when does G-d want people to fail?

Secondly, Rashi’s comment here seems at odds with an earlier comment of his. Rashi (Braishis 3:9) comments that when G-d asked Adam, “Ayeka?” he did so in order to initiate conversation. It’s terrifying to be addressed by G-d, so G-d made it a little easier by opening the dialogue with some innocuous question. Why didn’t Rashi offer the same explanation for Hashem’s question here? (See Mizrachi)

R’ Chaim Hirschensohn in his Nimukei Rashi answers as follows: just as a chacham derives whatever he knows about G-d through his own thought process, the navi derives his perception of G-d through his neshoma. Knowledge of G-d is by definition subjective, as no human being can ever apprehend the objective reality of what G-d is. The brains or personality/neshoma of the individual becomes the prism through which everything is filtered. That’s why Chazal tell us that nevuah is given over only to someone who is wise, rich, happy, etc. -- in other words, a complete and fulfilled person, one who is not likely to distort or skew the message because of his own failures or biases.

That being said, sometimes an exception to the rule is called for. If there is a message that G-d wants to get out, even though the conduit does not measure up, he/she experiences nevuah. When Hashem “spoke” to Kayin right after he murdered Hevel, it’s not because Kayim was worthy of nevuah – it’s because Hashem needed to get a message to him. When Hashem gave nevuah to Bilam, it was not because Bilam met all the qualifications needed to deserve nevuah, but rather because at that time and place Hashem needed a navi la’goyim.

The downside to that happening is that just as the perfect navi interprets the experience of nevuah through the prism of his holy personality, the Bilams of the world interpret nevuah through the prism of their twisted personality.   To Adam haRishon, "Ayeka?" was an innocent question.  To Bilam, there was no such thing as an innocent question.  Since his own speech was filled with hidden meanings designed to deceive and conceal, he interpreted other's words -- even G-d's -- in the same way, and therefore assumed there was a message that was not there.

Of course, writes R' Hirschensohn, G-d did not come to trip up Bilam.  The subject of the verb "l'hatoso ba" is not G-d, but rather G-d's question, the words of nevuah.  What Rashi is telling us is that the simple question experienced prophetically that could have been understood differently was the cause of Bilam's downfall, as, when filtered through his debased heart, they led him astray.