|
|
Parashat
Pinhas
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with commentaries by
Nehama Leibovitz, za"l
The beginning of our sidra concludes the story
of Balaam’s malicious efforts to discredit Israel in the eyes of the Almighty,
by seducing them to commit immorality. The background to this story is
filled in by the following excerpt from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a) which
discusses the subject:
Balaam said to them: Their God detests immorality
. The Israelites hanker after linen garments. Let me give you some advice.
Set up stalls and install in them harlots to sell them linen wares…When
the Israelites were eating and drinking and rejoicing and strolling in
the market place, she would say to him: Thou art like one of the family,
sit down and choose for thyself! Gourds of Ammonite wine stood by her…Said
she to him: Wouldst thou drink a cup of wine? As soon as he had drunk
it, the evil inclination burned within him and he said to her: Yield to
me! She then took her idol out of her bosom and said to him: Worship this!
He said to her: Am I not a Jew? Said she to him: What carest thou…moreover
I shall not yield top thee till thou has repudiated the Law of Moses thy
Teacher, as iot is stated (Hosea 9, 10): “They went to Baal Peor, and
separated themselvese onto that shame; and their abominations were according
as they loved”.
At the end of the foregoing sidra, it is related
how Pinhas stepped into the breach to turn away the wrath of God. In his
zeal for his God, he slew a man on the spur of the moment, without trial,
or offering previous warning, without legal testimony being heard, and
in defiance of all the procedures of judicial examination prescribed by
the Torah, which in practice render a conviction well nigh impossible.
His deed of summary justice, taking the law into his hands, constituted
a dangerous precedent, from the social, moral and educational angle. Yet
what has the Torah to comment on his action?
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying:
Pinhas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the
priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, while that
I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy. (25, 10-11)
It sounds strange that such a reward is prescribed
for such a deed.
The Sages in the Jerusalem Talmud state that Pinhas’
deed did not meet with approval of the religious leaders of his time,
that is of Moses and the elders. One of them goes so far as to say that
they wanted to excommunicate him, had not the Holy Spirit leapt forth
and declared:
And he shall have it, and his seed after him,
even the covenant Of an everlasting priesthood; &9;Because he was zealous
for his God, and made an atonement For the children of Israel.
Rabbi Baruch Epstien, the author of the Pentateuch
commentary Torah Temimah interprets the attitude of the Sages in the following
manner:
Such a deed must be animated by a genuine, unadulterated
spirit of zeal to advance the glory of God. In the case, who can tell
whether the perpetrator is not really prompted by some selfish motive,
maintaining that he is doing it for the sake of God, when he has actually
committed murder? That was why the Sages wished to excommunicate Pinhas,
had not the Holy Spirit testified that his zeal for God was genuine.
Rabbi Kook makes a similar point in his commentary
to the Prayer Book on the Birkat haminim (Blessing against the Heretics)
which occurs in the weekday amida. This prayer beginning “For the slanderers
let there be no hope…” breathes vengeance on those traitorous to their
people. Curiously enough, this unusually bitter prayer was formulated
in its present form by the Talmudic sage known as Samuel Ha-katan distinguished
for his love of his fello creatures and whose motto, according to Pirke
Avot, was enshrined in the verse (Proverbs 24,17):
“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad
when he stumbleth”.
Rabbi Kook explains:
Any sage distinguished for his piety and learning
is capable of formulating prayers breathing sentiments of mercy and
love. But such a prayer as this one , so full of hate and condemnation
Is bound to arouse the private feelings of
animosity and spite, on the part of the author, against the enemies
and persecutors of his people. Such a prayer must therefore originate
with one noted for the holiness and purity of character and entire
lack of the passion of hatred. Such a man was Samuel Ha-katan. One
could be sure that he was dominated by completely unselfish considerations
and inspired by the purest of motives, and had removed from his heart
all private feelings of hatred for the persecutors of his people.
Now, perhaps, it is easier to understand the connecting
link between Pinhas’ deed, terrible in itself, and the reward prescribed
byGod:
Behold I give unto him my covenant of peace.
(25,12)
We do not need to accept Abarvanel’s suggestion
that it implied Divine protection against the next-of kin of the victim,
Zimri, who was of a distinguished family, and who would, no doubt, wish
to avenge his death. The covenant of peace need not be interpreted As
a Divine guarantee of personal safety from molestation, but rather in
the sense understood by rabbi Zvi Yehuda Berlin, the renowned principal
of Volozhin Yeshiva in his commentary Ha’amek Davar: The Divine promise
of a covenant of peace constitutes rather a guarantee of protection against
the inner enemy, lurking inside the zealous perpetrator of thje sudden
deed, against the inner demoralization that such an act as the killing
of ahuman being, without due process of law is liavble to cause.
The Neziv (Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) expressed
this idea in the following manner:
In reward for running away the wrath of the
Holy One blessed be He, He blessed him with the attribute of peace,
that he should not be quiock-tempered or angry. Since, it is only natural
that such a deed as Pinhas’ should leave in his heart an intense emotional
unrest afterwrd, the Divine blessing was designed to cope with this
situation and promised peace and tranquility of soul.
Questions for Further Study:
|
|
- “And the name of the Israelite that was slain was Zimri, a prince
of the chief house among the Simeonites” (Numbers 25,14)
To make known the praiseworthiness of Oinhas,
that although a prince was involved, this did not prevent Pinhas from
being zealous for the profanation of the name of God. That is why
the verse reveals to these the name of the victim.
(Rashi)
“And the name of the Midianitish woman that
was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur: he was head over a people,
and of a chief house in Midian”. (Numbers 25,15).
To let thee know the extent of the hatred
of the Midianites who went so far as to prostitute a king’s daughter
in order to bring Israel into sin.
(Rashi)
The Maharal of Prague (18th Century),
author of the work Gur Aryeh, asks why Rashi did not make the same
comment on the second as on the first verse, to the effect that it
was intended to reflect credit on Pinhas, who did not stop slaying
a princess, in order to sustain the honour of God’s name? Find in
Rashi’s own words an answer to this question.
- On the same two verses, the author of the Pentateuch commentary,
Or Ha-hayyim, asks if the Torah intended, in the last resort, to divulge
the names of the victims and not leave them under a veil of anonymity
as in the case of the man “who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day”
(Numbers 15,32), then why did it not immediately insert their names
in Chapter 35,6 at the beginning, instead of waiting trill now and
having to repeat the phrases: “And the name of the man”, “and the
name of the woman?”
Suggest why the names of the victims of Pinhas’
zealous deed wewre inserted in our sidra and not in the previous, at
the beginning of the story.
Insights on the Parasha: The
Companion Web site to the Parasha Gilyonot
|
|