What are the implications of the (otherwise superfluous) word ?ki Holech Hu??
Rashi, Rashbam and Targum Yonasan: It implies that he went willingly in order to curse Yisrael ? and not for financial gain as Hashem had instructed him. 1
Seforno: It implies that he went independently, and not in a secondary capacity ? in order to advise Balak, as Hashem had instructed him.
Having permitted Bil?am to go, why was Hashem angry with him?
Rashi: Because he wanted to go, in spite of the fact that it was evil in the Eyes of Hashem. 1
Ramban: Refer to 22:20:1:3. Because he failed to tell the emissaries what Hashem had said. By wordlessly saddling his donkey and accompanying them, 2 he created a Chilul Hashem, conveying the impression that Hashem had changed His mind and now agreed to curse Yisrael. Moreover, when later, they would see that he would not curse Yisrael, they would accuse Hashem of poking fun at them.
Seforno: Because he went independently, 3 and not in a secondary capacity 4 as Hashem had instructed him. 5
Da'as Zekenim, Hadar Zekenim and Targum Yonasan: Because he went with the intention of cursing Yisrael - even though Hashem had only permitted him to go on condition that he says whatever He tells him to (Da'as Zekenim - for the sake of financial gain).
Riva #1 and Moshav Zekenim #1: Because Hashem only permitted him to go together with the emissaries, but not alone, in case he engages in divining (bringing upon himself the powers of Tum'ah - Or ha'Chayim); and Bil'am disobeyed and went alone in the path of the vineyards - amidst vegetables, a place that was ideal for divining. 6
Riva #2 (citing the Tanchuma): Hashem was already angry when He told him to go. 'I do not want the death of Resha'im. If you want to destroy yourself from the world, go with them!'
Moshav Zekenim #2: Because Hashem told him not to go until He told him what to say, but Bil'am did not wait.
Rosh: Because he did not tell the messengers Hashem's full answer. Had they known that Hashem said that he is not permitted to curse, they would not have brought him to Balak.
Or ha'Chayim #1: Because "Ki Holech Hu' ? implies that he did not tell the nobles that Hashem permitted him to go, conveying the implresion that he went of his own accord.
Or ha'Chayim #2: Because "Ki Holech Hu" implies that he would have gone even if Balak had not called him, due to his hatred of Hashem's nation.
Kol Eliyahu and Divrei Eliyahu: Hashem forbade him to go 'Imahem' (Pasuk 12) - with the same intention as them - in order to curse Yisrael. He permitted him to go only 'Itam' (Pasuk 20), which denotes passive or secondary intent. And Hashem was angry because he went "Im Sarei Mo'av" (Pasuk 21) ? as Rashi explains there 'Libo ke'Libam Shaveh'. 7
Moshav Zekenim: And Hashem permitted him to go, due to the principle 'be'Derech she'Adam Rotzeh Leilech, Molichin oso' (Makos 10b).
Ramban: A sign that he was keen to go and curse Yisrael in keeping with Balak's request.
Refer to 22:22:0.1:2. This answer is similar to that of the G'ra - See answer #11, only it is learned from a different source.
Seforno: As in Melachim 2, 4:30.
But Hashem was angry with him (in Pasuk 22) before he entered the path of the vineyards (in Pasuk 24)? (PF)
And it is only later (in Pasuk 35), that Rashi comments that Hashem leads a person along the path that he wants to go, because there Hashem said "Lech im ha'Anashim" allowing Bil'am to go with the intention of cursing.
What are the implications of the term "Mal'ach Hashem"?
What is the significance of "the two servants (Yeinis and Yembris - Targum Yonasan) who were accompanying him"?
Rashi: An important person does not travel without two servants to serve him, and they serve each other. 1
Seforno: Based on the Gemara in B'rachos, 43b, 'Three people cannot see the demons but are not harmed by them', it explains why Bil'am did not see the destructive angel and was not harmed by it.
If one needs to relieve himself, the master will not be left alone ? Rashi in ayeira Bereishis, 22:3. See Sifsei Chachamim, who elaborates.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that an important person travels with two servants to serve him, and they serve each other. Since he needs two to serve him, what is the source that they serve each other? In Bereishis (22:3), Rashi explained that he needs two, so when one servant needs to relieve himself, the master will not be left alone!
Bartenura: There, Rashi could not explain that the servants serve each other, for they were Yishmael and Eliezer. Surely R. Yishmael would not serve his father's slave!
Gur Aryeh: Here, there was no concern lest Bil'am be left alone when one servant needs to relieve himself, for they were going with many others. There, Rashi gave a reason why it is forbidden to go with less than two, due to danger, and he said 'one may not go with less than two.' 1
Sifsei Chachamim #1: Regarding Avraham, a Chacham, it is forbidden to go with less than two, due to suspicion when he is alone at night. Here, Rashi teaches why an important person who is not a Chacham should take two.
Sifsei Chachamim #2: Avraham rose early (before dawn), so it was forbidden to take less than two, due to danger, lest be left alone at night. Bil'am did not rise early, so there was no danger. It is proper to take two, so they can serve each other.
Emes l'Yakov (Bereishis 22:3): At the Akeidah, service did not apply, for Avraham did not conduct with authority on the way to a Mitzvah (he saddled the donkey himself. However, also Bil'am did so! ? PF)
