Pinchas answers



Pinchos 5727

Alef.

במדבר פרק כה

(י) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(יא) פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא כִלִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי:

(יב) לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם:

(יג) וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

1. The connotations of שלום in BaMidbar 25:12 –

              a) R. Yosef Albo—the spiritual state attained in the World to Come.

b) Abrabanel—Since Pinchos after having killed Zimri and Kozbi so publicly, ran the risk of their relatives seeking revenge, God Declared His Protection of Pinchos thereby dissuading any would-be avenger from trying to kill Pinchos.

c) HaEmek Davar re Pinchos—as a result of an act of violence such as perpetrated by Pinchos, there was the possibility of some sort of residual aggressive, hostile feelings that would inform his future activities. God’s Covenant of Peace was intended to allay such a long-lasting affect upon Pinchos by emphasizing that since the act was carried out for the Sake of Heaven, there would be no adverse complications.

2. d)  HaEmek Davar on Ihr HaNidachat—a parallel comment regarding those who would carry  out the decree of leveling a city and killing its inhabitants where at least 51% of the residents  were proven to have engaged in idolatry. There might be a fear that once an individual has engaged in executions, his nature would change and he would become something quite alien to what he originally was. Consequently it is emphasize for a second time that as long as the measures were carried out for the Sake of Heaven, as opposed to some personal agenda, a person’s nature would not be negatively affected.

              HaEmek Davar’s comments reminds one of something that Prime Minister Golda Meir once said:

3.  While knowing that HaShem had Made a covenant with Pinchos might have dissuaded Zimri’s relatives from the tribe of Shimon from taking revenge, why should such an idea be influential upon the relatives of Kazbi who was identified as:

(BaMidbar 25:15) “And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers' house in Midian.” The assumption is that the Midianites were idolaters—this was the basis of the tactic involved in the sin of Ba’al Peor—(Ibid. 25:2 “And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.”) So why should they be impressed with something that was a manifestation of Jewish belief?

Beit. 

1. Tora Temima is probably alluding to the danger in encouraging zealotry. By positing that there are situations that call for the actions on the part of zealots who serve as judge and jury for someone whom they perceive as acting improperly, could result in all sorts of miscalcuations and murder under false pretenses.  Furthermore, how pure are the motives of the zealot himself?

2.  Just as there was a “Beit Din” that was adjudging the claims of the person who ultimately blasphemed as well as the claims of the daughters of Tzlofchad, so too there was a “Beit Din”—perhaps the 70 elders who were assisting Moshe in making key decisions or possibly the leaders of the tribes—who judged that Pinchos’ act was not in the best interests of the community for reasons mentioned above in 1.

3.  An individual who wishes to protect and advance the interests of Hashem and the Tora, shold not be faulted for taking the law into his own hands. In the situation in which Pinchos found himself, there was no time for a prolonged judicial procedure. The sin was happening in front of everyone at that particular moment, and either it would be allowed to proceed and be completed, or not. However, someone who might have had it in for either Zimri or Kozbi, or someone who was jealous of them and what they were doing, or someone who was inherently a murderer and found a pretense to justify and act out his violent tendencies could exploit the situation for his own reprehensible thinking, under the rubric of fighting the Wars of God.

Gimel.

1.  The common denominator shared by Tora Temima’s description of Pinchos and R. Kook’s description of Shmuel HaKatan is that both of them were devoid of any personal hatred or resentment towards the objects of their actions/words, and were acting only out of a pure conviction to protect HaShem’s Interests.

2.  שנאה טבעית refers to anger which most people have difficulty controlling. It is a natural instinct that is probably somewhat associated with the fight/flight response as well as a manifestation of frustration when things do not go one’s way. Such an emotion is considered tainted and personal rather than the idealistic sensibility that is reflected in the term קנאה אמיתית.

3.  “Due to the obstacles posed by the evildoers who seek to trip up others due to a lack of self-revelation of the nature of the true purpose of everything, one implores HaShem to suppress them.”

2