Implied Question: One cannot ask that in Nedarim (32a) the Gemara implies that Moshe killed this anger. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that there are two types of anger, as the Gemara there answers as well.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is referring to the earlier statement (3a) that Hash-m does not come with unreasonable complaints against his creations.

Implied Question: This explanation does not appear correct, as our statement is said quite awhile after the statement quoted by Rashi.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam understands that this is referring to the difference made between the anger of Hash-m regarding Jews and His anger regarding idolaters. The Gemara just stated that Hash-m is called "An owner of anger" regarding the idolaters.

Opinion(cont.): This is like Rebbi Aleksandri's statement that when the Pasuk says, "And on that day I will seek out" it means that if Hash-m will not find they have merit on that day, he will destroy them. This is also relative to Rava's statement that there is a difference between a Jew and an idolater.

Explanation: This means "in their action."

Proof: This is apparent from the Pasuk, "How awesome are Your actions" (Tehilim 66:3) which is translated in the Tarum as, "How awesome are they, Your Manig'naya."

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Bava Basra (60b) that it is better that they should do so accidentally and not on purpose. (Why, then, should they have protested and made their sin more serious?)

Answer: This (the statement in Bava Basra) is only stated regarding rebuke that it is known will not be accepted.

Explanation: This implies that he knew what Hash-m thought on his own, and did not require prophecy. This is why the Gemara asks, how can this be if he did not even know what his animal was thinking?

Question: What could he have said in such a small amount of time?

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that he would say, "Kalem" -- "destroy them." Hash-m turned this around to read "Melech" -- "king." This is as the Pasuk says (that Bilam was forced to say), "And the shofar blast of the king was in it."

Answer#2: Rebbi Eliyahu explained that he only had to start his curse at this instant.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that he clearly wanted to curse them for a long time. This is as stated in Sanhedrin (105b) that from the blessings of this evildoer we can see what he had in his heart (to curse).

Text: We do not have the text, "How do we know that an instant is enough time to say a word." (The Maharsha explains that this is as Tosfos stated above, that it is enough time to say "Kalem.")

Proof: Otherwise, what would be the proof from this Pasuk that it is enough time to say a word?

Explanation: This means specifically the third hour of the day. This is as stated later that at the time when the sun shines, the kings of the east and west put on their crowns (and bow down to the sun). [This is why Hash-m is upset at this time, see Rashi in Sanhedrin (105b, DH "b'Tlas").] It is common for kings to rise at the third hour into the day, as stated in Berachos (9b).

Explanation: This is understandable according to the Sefarim that have the text "There was an idolater."

Explanation(cont.): This is because an idolater is not brought up nor lowered into a pit, as the Gemara states later (26a). When he wanted to curse him, he intended to damage him with his curse, not to kill him. This is why it is not similar to lowering him into a pit.

Explanation(cont.): Even according to the Sefarim that have the text, "There was a heretic," even though we do lower such people into a pit, this is understandable. According to this text, he did want to kill the heretic through his curse.

Explanation(cont.): Even so, he said afterwards that we see from here that this is not the normal way to do things. This is because he should not have pushed the hands of Heaven to punish someone who Hash-m apparently did not want to punish. This is despite the fact that it would have been permitted to physically kill the heretic during the time of the Beis Hamikdash.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that the implication that this helps even when the public is Davening in another place is specifically regarding the Tefilah not being cast aside. However, the Tefilah is only heard in a place where the public is Davening. This is as stated in Berachos (6a) that a person's Tefilah is only heard together with the public.