Trying desperately to circumvent G-d’s command not to curse the Jewish people and not to go with the ambassadors of King Balak of Moav, Bilaam mounts his donkey and goes with them anyway. When the donkey perceives that an armed angel of G-d is blocking their way, she veers from the road three different times – and three times Bilaam uncharacteristically strikes her to bring her back onto the desired path. Then, G-d miraculously “opens the mouth of the donkey” and she complains to her master, “Why have you struck me these three times?”

Anyone at all familiar with Hebrew will note the unique usage of the phrase shalosh r’galim for the striking of the donkey three “times”. It seems it would have been sufficient and even more grammatically ‘correct’ to use the more common phrase shalosh p’a’mim.

Gur Aryeh zt”l notes that the term p’a’mim (and its singular form pa’am) are used in Scripture more than a hundred times – while the term r’galim appears in Scripture only four times: Three times in our Parshah [Numbers 22:28, 22:32 and 22:33] and once in Exodus 23:14 - “Shalosh r’galim ta’chog li ba’shannah • Three pilgrimage festivals shall you celebrate for Me during the year” [from the Artscroll Saperstein Edition of Rashi’s commentary].

Rashi zt”l writes in his commentary that the donkey was actually giving Bilaam mussar (ethical chastisement), hinting to her master that his attempts to curse the Jewish people would nevertheless be fruitless. Rashi (quoting from Tanchuma 9) tells us that this is what the donkey said to Bilaam, “You seek to uproot a nation which celebrates three festivals [shalosh r’galim] a year?”

Rabbi Moshe M. Leiber shlit”a [Artscroll Torah Treasury] brings three more vortloch which expand on Rashi’s concept that draw a connection between the reference to the shalosh r’galim here in our parshah and to the Shalosh R’galim which the Jews will celebrate in the future:

(1)   Although the nations of the world also seek to have a close relationship with G-d, they want to “have their cake and eat it too”. Unwilling to sacrifice their obsession with wealth, property and physical pleasure, bottom line is that they are unable to seriously connect with G-d. In contrast to this, the Jews leave their property behind – unprotected – to ascend to Jerusalem and commune with G-d three times a year on the Pilgrim Festivals. The donkey told Bilaam, “How can you invoke G-d’s wrath on this, His People, when you and your cohorts are so removed from this degree of commitment to serving Him?” [Shem MiShmuel].

(2)  In Pirkei Avos [5:7] we are taught that although Jerusalem was packed with visitors during the Three Festivals, no one ever complained that it was too crowded to sleep in the Holy City. The visitors bore the congestion gracefully as they were thrilled to be in such close proximity to the Divine Presence in the Temple environs. The donkey said to Bilaam, “When your foot was pressed against the stone wall [Numbers 22:25] you screamed out in pain; do you really think you can uproot a nation that is ready to bear the overcrowded conditions of the Pilgrim Festivals in order to achieve closeness to G-d?” [R’ Yisrael of Pilov].

(3)  Our Sages teach us that when the Jews came to the Temple during the Shalosh R’galim, they merited to see the Shechinah (Divine Presence) in direct correlation to the manner in which they would present themselves to be seen by G-d [Chagigah 2a]. The donkey (who saw the angel blocking the way, while Bilaam did not) said to Bilaam, “You, who fail to see even an angel, certainly will not be able to vanquish a nation that is equipped to see – and be seen – by the Shechinah itself!” [Meshech Chochmah].

Three Ways to Understand Bilaam’s Plea of Ignorance

“Va’yomer Bilaam el malach Hashem, ‘Cha’ta’see ki lo ya’da’tee ki atah nee’tzav lee’kra’see ba’derech…’  v And Bilaam said to the angel of G-d, ‘I have sinned for I did not know that You were standing opposite me on the road…’’"  Numbers 22:34

Rabbi Moshe M., Leiber shlit”a writes that many commentators pose the obvious question: If Bilaam was unaware of the presence of the angel, then how can it be considered a sin!? Can’t it be argued: If I didn’t know, then how can I be held liable for any infraction in light of my ignorance?

(1)   Ignorance is not always a legitimate excuse; everyone must be aware and thus assume some responsibility for certain evident truths. A powerful prophet like Bilaam (according to our Sages, he was on the same level of prophecy as Moshe Rabbeinu) really should have known that there was an angel in front of him, blocking the way. The sad fact that Bilaam did not know that the angel was in front of him was, in essence, a sin in itself. The strange behavior of the donkey alone should have alarmed Bilaam that something was amiss; his non-reaction to both the donkey’s strange behavior (not to mention the donkey’s opening her mouth and speaking to him!) was itself the sin for which he was liable [Shelah].

(2)  Bilaam never admits that going to curse the Jews was a sin; rather, he thinks that his sin was that the angel witnessed what he was going to do. This is akin to a thief who doesn’t actually regret the act of stealing, but is chagrined that he got caught stealing! [R’ Chaim Kanievsky].

This is like the story of the three wayward yeshiva students in Volozhin who were unfortunately moving away from Torah and mitzvos due to the haskalah. The Rosh Yeshiva found them smoking on Shabbos afternoon in their lodgings. The first young man said, “Rebbe, I forgot that it’s Shabbos.” The second young man said, “Rebbe, I forgot that smoking is forbidden on Shabbos.” And the third young man said, “Rebbe, I also forgot – to close the door before we lit up.” Oi, nebach.

(3)  Sin has the power to blind us to the reality that we are answerable to G-d. We have learned [in Pirkei Avos 4:2] that one sin leads to another, for the spiritual blindness caused by the first sin makes the second one that much easier to do. A critical reading of Bilaam’s words reflects this reality: “I have sinned [in the past, therefore] I did not know [now] that you were standing opposite me blocking the road [Akeidas Yitzchak].

Three Answers to the Difference Between Bilaam and R’ Yosi ben Kisma

“…Im yee’ten li Balak m’lo vai’so kesef v’zahav lo oo’chal la’a’vor es pi Hashem Elokai la’a’sos k’tanah oh g’dolah  v …If Balak would give to me his houseful of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of Hashem, my G-d, to do anything small or great"  Numbers 22:28

Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma said: “Once I was walking on the road when a certain man met me. He greeted me and I returned his greeting. He said to me, ‘Rabbi, from what place are you?’ I said to him, ‘I am from a great city of scholars and sages.’ He said to me, ‘Rabbi, would you be willing to live with us in our place? I would give you thousands upon thousands of golden dinars, precious stones and pearls.’ I replied, ‘Even if you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and pearls in the world, I would dwell nowhere but in a place of Torah.'” [Avot 6:9]"  Pirkei Avos 6:9

What’s the difference between the statements of Bilaam ha’rasha and R’ Yosi ben Kisman ha’tzaddik? Regarding Bilaam’s statement, Rashi zt”l says that Bilaam was greedy and he coveted the property of others. Why don’t we say the same thing about the apparently similar statement by Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma?

R’ Yissocher Frand shlit”a offers three different answers to this question:

(1)   In the case of Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma, someone already brought up the subject of an exorbitant salary; in that case, it was proper for the rabbi to answer as he did. The officers of Balak, on the other hand, only offered to give Bilaam “honor”; Bilaam raised the issue of money and said, “even if you give me a million dollars, I am not going to transgress G-d’s Word.” This, Rashi says, proves he had his eye on the money the whole time. [Torah Temima].

(2)  Bilaam’s words are “I am unable to transgress the Word of my G-d.” This implies that “between you and me, I would love to do it, but my hands are tied — I am not able to violate Hashem’s command.” Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma made a blanket statement of principle: “I will only live in a place of Torah.” That statement represented his personal inner desire, rather than a coerced course of action. [Chidah - Sefer Roshei Avos].

(3)  Bilaam’s problem was that he wanted other people’s money. He does not state “If Balak will give me a house full of money…” He states “If Balak will give me his house full of money…” This indicates that beyond just wanting the money, he really wanted that someone else should not have it. Rav Yosi ben Kisma merely refers to “all the money in the world.” He does not hint that he wants other people’s money.