Pinchas

Parshat Pinchas Pinchas & Zimri Rabbi Ari Kahn At the conclusion of last week's Parsha, we read about the act of Zimri 1 and the response of Pinchas. The episode is described as follows: And a man from the Children of Israel brought a Midianite woman in front of his brethren, in sight of Moshe and the entire community, and they engaged in sexual intercourse in front of the Tent of Meeting. Pinchas the son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen, saw them. He arose from the community, and took his spear with him. He approached the man of Israel by the Tent and he pierced them both by the Tent. The plague in Israel was stopped (25:6-8) While the story was told last week, in Balak, certain elements of the episode are held in abeyance until this week's Parsha - Pinchas. This Parsha, named for the protagonist of the episode, informs us of the lineage of the perpetrators of the deed: The name of the man of Israel who was killed - together with the Midianite woman- was Zimri son of Saluah, a prince from the tribe of Shimon. And the name of the Midianite woman killed was Kozbi the daughter of Tzur- the head of the nation of Midian( 25:14,15) These were not simple people; both were aristocrats, from leading families of their respective tribes. Rashi points to this fact as an indication of the Midianites’ burning hatred for the Children of Israel: They were willing to send their own daughters into the fray. The Targum (Yonatan) [Yerushami] identifies Tzur with none other than Balak himself! His hatred was so profound that he was willing to prostitute his own daughter for the chance to corrupt the Jews in the process. Pinchas, upon viewing this scene, acts in what the Torah describes as a "fanatical" rage, and kills them both in order to put an end to the desecration. The act of Pinchas is the archtypical fanatical act; others in the future who acted in a similar manner have been associated with Pinchas. Most notably, Eliyahu the Prophet is identified by the sages as Pinchas himself, if not literally, then at least in the mystical sense; these two are said to share a common soul (see Targum Yonatan Shmot 6:18).2 1

2

The Midrash cites a number of names for Zimri: Midrash Raba 21:3 – “Because, when Zimri the son of Salua was stabbed”--the Sages have said: Zimri had six names: Zimri, Ben Salua, Shaul, Ben Hakkena'anith, Shelumiel, Ben Zurishaddai. He was called Zimri because he became, on account of the Midianitess, like a rotten (muzereth) egg. 'Ben Salua,’ because he was a son (ben) who outweighed (silla) in sin the rest of his family. 'Shaul,’ because he lent (hish'il) himself to transgression. ‘Ben Hakkena'anith,’ because he acted in accordance with the practice of Canaan (Kena'an). And what was his real name? Shelumiel. The source for Pinchas being identified with Eliyahu is somewhat elusive, though it seems to be assumed in a number of Talmudic and Midrashic sources. See Baba Metziah 114b Rabbah b. Abbuha met Eliyahu standing in a non-Jewish

However, it is possible to view this episode as more than a fanatical outburst by Pinchas. Let us consider the motivation of the perpetrators, Kozbi and Zimri. These people were both leaders in their own right, each in their respective communities. Their "performance" followed the invasion of the idolatry of "Baal Peor" into the Israelite camp. Once this foreign cultic practice made inroads, what followed was the orgiastic, public display of behavior, which, in Jewish life, is private, holy. As we noted last week, one of the cultic rites in the worship of Baal Peor was defecating in the presence of the deity, reflecting the exalted, "holy" status of nature in the philosophy of Baal Peor-worship. Behavior indicating a reverence of nature and all things natural, were accepted practices. Once this "philosophy" is understood, the act of Kozbi and Zimri, from their perspective, was not a "crime of passion" as it were, but the culmination of worship of Baal Peor. Zimri was trying to make an ideological point; thus, the text stresses that he performed his act in front of the Tent of Meeting. …in front of the Tent of Meeting. Pinchas the son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen, saw them. He arose from the community, and took his spear with him. He approached the man of Israel by the Tent and he pierced them both by the Tent. (26:6) Had this been an act of passion, surely the two of them could have slipped away, out of sight. But this was a public display, an act of rebellion, an act dictated by ideology--an act of fanaticism. They therefore chose the Tent of Meeting as the location for their tryst. The act of Zimri and Kozbi was premeditated. As leaders, they apparently had a well- thought-out plan of how to deliver the children of Israel from the holiness of the teachings of Moshe, into the depravity of Baal Peor. AND THE NAME OF THE MIDIANITE WOMAN THAT WAS SLAIN WAS COZBI, THE DAUGHTER OF ZUR; HE WAS THE HEAD OF A HOUSE IN MIDIAN (XXV, 15). This serves to inform you to what extent the Midianites had sacrificed themselves! They had actually abandoned a king's daughter to harlotry; as it says, ‘And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, cemetery. …Said he [Rabbah] to him: ‘Are you not a priest? Why, then, do you stand in a cemetery? Only the assumption that Eliyahu is Pinchas the Kohen could lie at the basis of this and other similar discussions. Medieval scholars treat the tradition as one which is subject to debate, and the question of Eliyahu being a kohen as the practical difference which would decide this debate. See Rashbam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba in Baba Batra 121b, Tosfot Harosh Kiddushin 70a. For the specific identification see: Zohar Shmot 190a, Zohar Chadash Ruth, Maamar “Mi Hu Eliyahu”. Batei Midrashot chelek aleph, Midrash Shocher Tov manuscript on Mizmor 63. But see the following Midrash, where Eliyahu himself settles the issue! Midrash Rabbah – Bereishit LXXI: 9: The Rabbis debated: To which tribe did Eliyahu belong? R. Eleazar said: To Binyamin, for it is written, ‘And Jaareshiah, and Eliyahu, and Zichri, were the sons of Jerovam... All these were the sons of Benjamin.’ (I Chron. VIII, 27, 40). … On one occasion our Rabbis were debating about him [Eliyahu], some maintaining that he belonged to the tribe of Gad, others, to the tribe of Binyamin. Whereupon he came and stood before them and said, ' Sirs, why do you debate about me? I am a descendant of Rachel (from Binyamin).’ Perhaps, just as Pinchas was not born a kohen, and achieves the kehuna at a later stage, Eliyahu has the soul of Pinchas, and therefore he too “achieves” the status of kohen.

and Rekem, Zur, etc.’ (Num. XXXI, 8). Now if Zur, the greatest of them all, though a king, abandoned his daughter, who would not abandon his also? In consequence of his having degraded himself and made his daughter disgrace herself in public, Scripture reduced him to an inferior position and mentioned him third. In truth, however, he was king over them all; HE WAS HEAD OF A HOUSE IN MIDIAN. (Midrash Rabbah 21:3) In a sense, Zimri is no less a fanatic than Pinchas, although they reflect different sides, very different directions. The fanaticism of Pinchas, and of Zimri, should come as no surprise, as it has it's antecedent in Bereishit. In order to appreciate this connection we should recall the teachings at the beginning of this week's Parsha: Pinchas was the "the son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen". He was from the tribe of Levi. Zimri was "son of Saluah, a prince from the tribe of Shimon". “Shimon and Levy", together again, as in the past: Shimon and Levy are brothers (Bereishit 49:5) They are united, joined by their rage and fanaticism. Ya'akov, on his deathbed, curses this rage: Let their rage be cursed for it is powerful, and their wrath for it is harsh... (Bereishit 49:7) What was it that Shimon and Levi did to evoke this response from their aged father? What was it that caused Ya'akov to leave his sons with this legacy? To answer these questions we must return to their youth. Our forefather Ya'akov had a difficult life. He had a brother who was pining to kill him, a father-in law who abused him, and children who sold their brother into slavery. Ya'akov also had a daughter, Dina, who ventured out of the neighborhood, to see how the other half lived. There she was ensnared in a "relationship" with Sh'chem the son of Chamor, who was smitten by her and took her against her will. His father approached Ya'akov, in an attempt to work things out. The children of Ya'akov surreptitiously approached Chamor and advised him to circumcise his entire tribe, which he did. When they were at the apex of their pain, Shimon and Levi entered the town and annihilated it. Ya'akov was upset with his children, and rebuked them for putting him in such a precarious situation. By attacking such a large tribe, when Ya'akov and his children were so small in number, Shimon and Levi had placed the entire Jewish Nation in danger of the vengeance of other neighboring tribes who might seek retribution. Shimon and Levi answer: "Will our sister be made into a prostitute?" (Bereishit 34:31) Ya'akov leaves that question hanging, without response, until his deathbed, when he curses their rage. The episode of Dina and Sh'chem serves as an interesting parallel to the story of Zimri and Kozbi3. Sh'chem is the son of the head of a tribe, Dina is the daughter of 3

According to the Ariza”l Zimri and Kozbi are reincarnations of Sh’chem and Dina respectively. Cited by Rav Tzadduk Hacohen in Pri Tzaddik Parshat Pinchas, Machshevet Charutz chapter 7, Dover Tzedek section 2, Divrei Sofrim section 34.

Ya'akov, also the leader of a people4. There, Shimon and Levi interpret the violation in national terms, and attack the perpetrator of this atrocity. Their attack is ideological, yet motivated by anger, and may therefore be labeled an act of fanaticism. Ya'akov, for his part, is far more pragmatic, and sees the situation in practical terms. Consequently, Ya'akov curses their anger, but he doesn't stop there: Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are their swords. O my soul, do not come into their council; to their assembly, let my honor not be united; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their wanton will they lamed an ox. Let their rage be cursed for it is powerful, and their wrath for it is harsh; they shall be divided in Ya'akov and dispersed in Israel (Bereishit 49:5-7). Ya'akov pleads that these two sons, and their descendants, be divided, for when they are united, their rage becomes obsessive and debilitating. The conspiracy against Yosef is instigated by Shimon and Levi (Rashi Bereishit 49:6). Ya'akov therefore prays for their division, for the danger lies in their unification. The Midrash identifies this theme when it notes the inappropriateness of Zimri’s behavior. ZIMRI, THE SON OF SALU (ib.). Scripture states this about him with astonishment. It says, Whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him (Eccl. X, 8)! Now his ancestor was the first to display jealousy in regard to harlotry, as it says, ‘Two of the sons of Ya’akov, Shimon and Levi... took each man his sword... and slew all the males (Gen. XXXIV, 25). Yet this man broke through the fence which his father had made! (Midrash Rabbah 21:3) Over the years, the descendants of Shimon and Levi take different directions. On a personal level, when Moshe sees an Egyptian beating a Jewish slave, he rises up to defend the Jew, killing the Egyptian in the process, acting in a manner akin to his ancestor Levi. When the people worship the Golden Calf, Moshe calls out: ‘Whoever sides with G-d join me!’ - and the entire tribe of Levi gathered about (Sh’mot 32:25) Here we see a "fanaticism" on the part of Levi, but directed toward G-d, against those who had rebelled. In this instance, Shimon is silent. Later on in history, other descendants of Levi, the Maccabbes, lead a rebellion against the Greek Empire. We can trace the strain of fanaticism in the tribe of Levi, but we must notice how differently this fanaticism manifests itself in the tribe of Shimon. In the case of Zimri, why should the entire tribe of Shimon be attacked for the indiscretion of one of it's members? Clearly, the rebellion led by Zimri was not the 4

See my Notes to Vayetze, where this issue is discussed in depth.

act of one man. Parshat Balak concludes with the plague that took 24,000 lives.5 In this week's Parsha, the census numbers the tribe of Shimon at 22,200 (Bamidbar 26:14). At the previous census, they numbered 59,300 (Bamidbar 1:23). We see that the largest negative differential in any tribe was in the tribe of Shimon; apparently, most or all of the dead were from that tribe. Likewise, Rashi concludes: From the number of people missing from the tribe compared to the previous counting in the Sinai Desert, it seems that all 24,000 died from the tribe of Shimon (Rashi 26:13) We may thus conclude that Zimri had supporters among the rank and file of his tribe. In other words, this was a rebellion against Moshe and G-d, spearheaded by Zimri but followed by great numbers of the tribe of Shimon. A stark and powerful contrast may be drawn: The entire tribe of Levi stands by Moshe's side in the aftermath of the Golden Calf, ready to do all for G-d, while the entire tribe of Shimon stands at the side of Zimri. The Talmud describes how the tribe of Shimon supported Zimri: And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, ‘Slay every one of his men that were joined unto Baal Peor. Thereupon the tribe of Shimon went to Zimri ben Salu and said to him, ‘Behold, capital punishment is being meted out, yet you sit silent [i.e., inactive].’ What did he do? He arose and assembled twenty-four thousand Israelites and went to Cozbi, and said unto her, ‘Surrender yourself unto me.’ She replied, ‘I am a king's daughter, and thus has my father instructed me, "You shall yield only to their greatest man". ‘I too,’ he replied, ‘am the prince of a tribe; moreover, my tribe is greater than his [Moshe’s], for mine is second in birth, whilst his is third.’ He then seized her by her coiffure and brought her before Moshe. ‘Son of Amram,’ exclaimed he, ‘is this woman forbidden or permitted? And should you say. "She is forbidden", who permitted Yitro’s daughter to you?’ At that moment Moshe forgot the halachah [concerning intimacy with a heathen woman], and all the people burst into tears; hence it is written, ‘and they were weeping before the door of the Tent of Meeting.’ And it is also written, ‘And Pinhas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it.’ Now, what did he see? — Rav said: He saw what was happening and remembered the halachah, and said to him, ‘O great-uncle! did you not teach us this on thy descent from Mount Sinai: He who cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots?’ He replied. ‘He who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its instructions]’. Shmuel said: He saw that ‘There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord’: whenever the Divine Name is being profaned, honor must not be paid to one's teacher. R. Isaac said in R. Eleazar's name: He saw the angel wreaking destruction amongst the people. And he rose up out of the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand; hence one may not enter the house of learning with weapons. He removed its point and placed it in his undergarment, and went along leaning upon the stock [of the spear, into 5

Mystical sources connect these 24,000 with the deaths of Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students.

which the pointed blade is inserted]. And as soon as he reached the tribe of Shimon, he exclaimed, ‘Where do we find that the tribe of Levi is greater than that of Shimon? [i.e., I too wish to indulge]. Thereupon they said, ‘Let him pass too. He enters to satisfy his lust. These abstainers have now declared the matter permissible.’ Talmud - Sanhedrin 82a The description of the Talmud, is of a broad based rebellion, not the act of one man. When Pinchas took action against the fanaticism of Zimri, there were those who attacked him, calling his behavior unacceptable, "un-Jewish". They claimed that Pinchas must have inherited some foreign traits from his maternal grandfather Yitro. The Midrash explains that our Parsha introduces Pinchas as a descendant of Aharon, as if to attribute Pinchas' response to Aharon's behavior, and not to an alien, pagan source. What reason had the Holy One, blessed be He, for stating the pedigree of Pinchas after this particular incident? …You find that when Zimri was stabbed the tribe rose up against Pinchas and said: ‘Have you ever seen such a thing? This son of Putiel whose maternal grandfather fattened (pittem) calves for idol-worship, has slain a prince in Israel!’ Consequently Scripture comes and declares his pedigree, by stating: ‘PINCHAS, THE SON OF ELIEZER, THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST.’ WHEREFORE SAY: I GIVE UNTO HIM Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XXI:3 Aharon, too, was from the tribe of Levi. Perhaps the masses saw Aharon only as a lover of peace, and not as a passionate defender of truth. Aharon was a very sympathetic figure, and the people must have seen Pinchas's behavior as a radical departure from Aharon's. Moreover, the people must have reasoned that if Moshe did not respond as Pinchas did, surely Pinchas' behavior must have been off the mark: How could someone be more "religious" than Moshe? On his deathbed, Ya'akov attacked Shimon and Levi's anger; arguably, there is place for the behavior, but not when it is motivated by anger. So, too, there is an appropriate time and place for action of the sort that Pinchas took. Ya'akov warned specifically against the merger of the two problematic tribes. While there may be a place for an individual’s extra-legal response, when such action becomes the fusing point of two tribes, the danger of anger for its own sake, and the resultant fanaticism, is too great. Once divided, the descendants of Levi become the prototypical servants of G-d, the Kohanim and Leviim, who would between them perform the Temple service. Shimon, on the other hand, never succeeds in using anger in a positive manner. Anger is a particularly dangerous trait. The sages compare it to idolatry, for when a person feels anger they lose control and are no longer serving G-d. Levi was able to control the anger, retaining a single-minded, extreme relationship with G-

d. This complete dedication to the Divine is what allowed them to be Kohnaim. At times this intensity of purpose manifested itself in the Temple, and at times it manifested itself on the battlefield, as with the Maccabees6. The crucial point is the single-minded dedication to G-d. This trait, while being the domain of Levi, can be adopted by any Jew. The Rambam, in a celebrated passage, comments: Not only the tribe of Levi, rather any man of the entire world whose spirit moves him, and causes him to separate and stand in front of G-d to serve Him and worship Him, in order to know G-d, and walks along a straight path as G-d has made him, and he rejects the numerous calculations which occupy most men, this person becomes sanctified - (he becomes) a Holy of Holies, and G-d will be his lot, his portion forever and ever... (Rambam Mishna Torah Laws of Shmita and Yovel 13:12) Any Jew can become the "Holy of Holies". What is needed is single-minded dedication to G-d, as was manifested by Pinchas. His love of G-d required his extreme response. The fanatical behavior of Zimri, which was followed by his tribe of Shimon, had to be stopped. But to be holy one can not have a personal agenda, as Zimri did. Perhaps Zimri deluded himself into believing that he was following the example of his great-grandfather Shimon. Pinchas, on the other hand, stood to gain nothing personally. Quite the contrary, his action was ridiculed by the other leaders7. Pinchas was motivated by a profound love of G-d, which would not give in to public opinion or political expediency. For this reason he was rewarded with the Covenant of Peace. The mandate of the kohanim is to bring peace to the world; sometimes this is accomplished by speaking words of peace, but at other times it is accomplished by force.8 The reward which Pinchas receives gives us insight into his motivation: He desperately wanted peace, but the obscenity unfolding before his eyes left him no choice. We are reminded of Hillel's teaching in the Mishna in Avot:

6

The main protagonists of the Maccabbes were the Hellinists, who were also predominantly Kohenim. In the following generation, the Saducees were also from the tribe of Levi. The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna, Avot attempts to draw a connection between the Hellinists and the Saducees. Likewise, the rebellion of Korach was lead by a member of Levi. 7 Rashi 25:11 based on Sanhedrin 82b Thereupon the ministering angels wished to repulse him, but He said to them, ‘Let him be, for he is a zealot and the descendant of a zealot; a turner away of wrath and the son of a turner away of wrath.’ The tribes now began abusing him: ‘See ye this son of Puti [= Putiel] whose maternal grandfather fattened [pittem] cattle for idols, and who has now slain the prince of a tribe of Israel!’ Therefore Scripture detailed his ancestry: Pinchas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the Priest. [Moreover,] the Holy One, blessed be He said to Moses, ‘Be the first to extend a greeting of peace to him’, as it is written, Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace; and this atonement, [that Pinchas has made] is worthy of being an everlasting atonement. 8 The law is a Kohen that kills is disqualified, ironically by killing Pinchas becomes worthy to be a Kohen. Zohar 214a Now it is a rule that a priest who kills a human being becomes disqualified for the priesthood, and therefore by rights Pinchas should have been disqualified. But because he was jealous for the Holy One, blessed be He, the priesthood was assigned to him and to his descendants in perpetuity.’ The Sfat Emet explains that this is why Pinchas was not a Kohen until this point. Had been a Kohen he would have been unfit, now by virtue of his action he becomes fit to serve.

You shall be like the students of Aharon: love peace and pursue peace. (Avot I:12) Occasionally the pursuit requires an unconventional display of love. The kohanim were imbued with love - love for G-d and their fellow man. The anger which Ya'akov cursed had been replaced by love. Therefore the tribe of Levi excelled. On the other hand, the tribe of Shimon represented the greatest failure during the years spent in the desert. Witness to this is borne by Moshe's final blessings to the tribes at the conclusion of D'varim. The conceptual and linguistic similarities to Ya'akov's blessings are numerous, but the most striking difference between the blessings lies in Moshe's final words to Shimon and Levi. Whereas Ya'akov attacked them, Levi now receives a beautiful blessing: And of Levi he said, Let your Thummim and your Urim be with your pious one, whom you did test at Massah, and with whom you fought at the waters of Meribah. Who said to his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; nor did he acknowledge his brothers, nor knew his own children; for they have observed your word, and kept your covenant. They shall teach Jacob your judgments, and Israel your Torah; they shall put incense before you, and whole burnt sacrifice upon your altar. Bless, Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; strike through the loins of those who rise against him, and of those who hate him, that they rise not again. (D'varim 33:8-11) Levi is now called the "pious ones". They will be the intellectual and spiritual vanguard entrusted with the role of teaching Torah to the other tribes. Shimon, on the other hand, stands out as the only tribe to receive no blessing, no comment, from Moshe- only silence. And it is a silence which speaks volumes. This tribe's potential for greatness was not realized. Ya'akov's clairvoyance called for the separation of the tribes, and, indeed, they were separated, following two different paths to two different destinies. The conflict of Zimri and Pinchas serves as a microcosm of this larger issue, of two tribes traveling in two different directions, one toward greatness, and the other toward infamy. Long ago, Ya'akov prayed for these two to be separated, in order for each to find their unique path to G-d. Levi found theirs; Shimon did not. We see in this week's Parsha that two people, and indeed two tribes, can have the same make-up, the same characteristics, but achieving greatness is less a function of inborn traits than the use we make of those traits.