Chukath- Korach: interpretation of motives. 

The double parsha today transitions from the Exodus to the entry into the Promised Land.  The second of the two chapters, Balak, deals with the attempt by the then-king of Moab to use the secret weapon of the day, the Curse, to give his army an advantage over the powerful Israelites.  He summons the world's greatest prophet: Billam the Midianite.  Only after a second, more noble delegation summons him does he, after a dream consulation with his sources, agree to consult. 

On the way to Moab, his donkey behaves strangely. Billam presumes these acts of straying from the road, sometimes with painful consequences,  are acts of rebellion.  Billam ascribes malice to his dumb animal's behaviors. As one of the last acts of creation , Gd created Billam's talking donkey ( Avoth 5;6), who explains her actions  - she was protecting him from the sword of Satan.  The angel  then appears to Billam and confirms. 

Billam and the talking donkey unlocks an important theme in these parshioth: the attribution of negative motives to the actions of others.  Balak, king of Moab behaves as if it is entirely up to Billam . Billam  has told him that he can only speak what he is told by the divine. but these limitations are not understood by Balak. Is clear that when Balak hired Billam, Balak did not comprehend the limitations. He believed that Billam  controls his output. It looks like Billam  is surprised  but how little control he has. thus, the attribution of motive is entirely misplaced. It is clear that Billam wants to do the will of Balak , he wants to curse the Israelites. This is is outside of his capability/

Going back to the first Parsha, three national confrontations are described. In the first, Moshe ask permission from Edom to traverse their land. He guarantees that the people will stay on the straight and narrow. Ironically, he is guaranteeing what's Billam 's donkey found impossible because of circumstances;he is guaranteeing the actions for which the donkey is smitten.  When his request is rejected, the nation turns away and find another route.

The next confrontation involve Amolek. Amolek undertakes a straightforward attack in which hostages are taken. There is a straightforward counter attack destroying the cities of the enemy. This may be a case where the attribution of motives and limitations do not matter

The third confrontation is with Sihon, king of the Amorites. In this case, the request to traverse the area in peace is greeted with an attack. The Amorites attack Israel. In the ensuing battle, the Amorites are destroyed and their territory taken. it is only after the Amorites attack that the Israelites wage their war of conquest upon a prior aggressor. In this story, one could attribute provocation to the Israelites, but that is not a necessity. It is a story of escalating animosity and an opportunity for misinterpreted motives.

The drama of Moses hitting the rock, a fateful act, contains this complexity of the interpretation of motive. The people have a valid problem. There is no water for them or for their beasts. Why are they concerned about their beasts when they will die of thirst? It could be because they have already been told that their fate is to die in the desert and they are concerned about passing their wealth to their heirs.  Thus, when Moses called them Rebels,he fails to take into account their acceptance of their fate. Moses doesn't realize that their concerns have passed on  from themselves to the Next Generation. 

We can sense the death of that generation, including Moses', is coming since the chapter is introduced by the instructions for the red heifer, the method for purification of survivors from death. the instructions are given to Elazar, not Aaron;  they're given to the son because the father will die. We do not question the motives of the life and death cycle

The aphorism, Hanlon's Razor is :

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", 

Goethe wrote:

Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At least the latter two are certainly rarer.

 Motives are always a mystery