At the end of last week’s parasha we learnt that the bnei Yisra’él camped at a place called Shittim, where the brazen Mo’avi and Midyani women offered themselves as the ultimate weapon in Balaq’s arsenal to destroy Israel’s standards of decency and bring them down from their exalted status as the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, the “kingdom of kohanim and holy nation” (Exodus XIX, 6). ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהן ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלהיהן (“And [the women] called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods;” Numbers XXV, 2).
Things went from bad to worse: והנה איש מבני ישראל בא ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית וגו' (“And behold, a man of the bnei Yisra’él came and brought close to his brothers the Midyani women....” ibid., 6), cavorting openly with the woman before Moshe and the rest as his fellow tribesmen jeered and egged him on; whereupon Pinchas, son of El’azar and grandson of Aharon, seized a spear and ran them both through in flagrante, an act which ended a plague which had broken out due to Divine wrath, and which (the last verse in the parasha tells us) had taken the lives of 24,000.
For which he is rewarded at the beginning of our parasha. It is curious, though, that the ish mi-bnei Yisra’él and the Midyanith are not named in the account of the incident, but only in our parasha, after Pinchas’ reward is established: ושם איש ישראל המכה אשר הכה את המדינית זמרי בן סלוא נשיא בית אב לשמעני: ושם האשה המכה המדינית כזבי בת צור ראש אמות בית אב במדין הוא (“And the name of the stricken man of Israel who was struck with the Midyanith woman [was] Zimri ben Salu, nasi (“president”) of the tribe of Shim’on. And the name of the stricken Midyanith woman [was] Kozbi bath Tzur, head of the nations, of the royal house of Midyan;” XXV, 14-15).
Why does the Torah not mention their names at the time of the incident, but takes the trouble now to expend two complete verses in order to tell us who they were?
B.
The holy Zohar tells us concerning the 24,000 dead from the plague: חס ושלום דאפילו חד מישראל מית אלא שבטא דשמעון כד אתו אינון ערב רב אתערבו בנשים דשבטא דשמעון בתר דאתגיירו ואולידו בנין מינהון מיתו בעגל כו' ואחרנין מיתו הכא אינון דאשתארו כו' וכל אינון זרעא קדישא אתמנון כולהו בגין דלא חסר אפילו חד מינהון (“Heaven forfend that even one of Israel died! Rather, when the êrev rav came, they became mixed with the women of the tribe of Shim’on after they converted and sired sons, of whom some died due to the [Golden] Calf... and others died here, those who remained... and all of the holy lineage were counted, since not one of them was missing;” ח"ג קל"ז.).
The êrev rav, of course, was the mixed multitude of foreign slaves who took advantage of the chaos accompanying the Exodus to leave Egypt with Israel (cf. Exodus XII, 38, Rashi ad loc.).
The Zohar is telling us that the âm, the anonymous “people” who found the blandishments of the Mo’avi women irresistible, and the members of Shim’on who egged on Zimri ben Salu with Kozbi bath Tzur, were in fact their immediate descendants. The fact that some of these members of the êrev rav had died in the incident of the Golden Calf (cf. ibid. XXXII, 8, in which the wording of the verse - ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים - “And they said, These are your gods, Israel, who brought you forth from the land of Egypt,” implies that somebody outside of Israel, the êrev rav, pronounced the words), demonstrates that when they had declared נעשה ונשמע, “We shall do it and we shall hear” with Israel, they had no idea what they were agreeing to; hence, their blind reversion to idolatry when panicked by Moshe’s apparent delay in coming down from Mt. Sinai; ibid., v. 1, Rashi ad loc.). Evidently, amongst those who had not perished on that occasion, there were some who were still susceptible to such blandishments at this late date.
But the Zohar asserts that none of “the holy lineage” had perished at the time of the second census (later in our parasha; cf. XXVI, 4-51). What, then, of Zimri ben Salu, chief of the tribe of Shim’on? He could hardly have been one of these “naturalized” members of the êrev rav. How do we account for him?
C.
In Genesis XXI, 23, Avimelech demands an oath from Avraham: ועתה השבעה לי באלקים הנה אם תשקר לי ולניני ולנכדי כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי ועם הארץ אשר גרת בה (“And now, swear to me here by G-d that you will not be false to me or to my grandson or to my great-grandson; according to the knidness which I have done with you shall you do with me and with the country in which you dwelt”). Rashi comments on the word ul’nechdi: עד כאן רחמי האב על הבן (“Thus far [extend] the mercies of a father on a son”).
The term neched (grandchild) is not very precise. For example, in foretelling the downfall of the mighty Babylonian empire, G-d proclaims through the prophet Yisha’ya: והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר ונין ונכד (“And I shall cut off for Babylon name and remnant, great-grandchild and grandchild;” Isaiah XIV, 22). The Talmud (מגילה י:) explains that the term neched here refers to Vashti, the queen of the Persian Empire whom Achashverosh ordered executed in a fit of pique at the beginning of the Book of Esther.
The Sdei Chemed clarifies: שהרי ושתי היתה בתו של בלשצר בנו של אויל מרודך, ואויל מרודך הי' בנו של נבוכדנצר כו' הרי אתה רואה שהגמרא [שם] קאמרה ושתי היא בכלל נכד והיא היתה בת בן בנו של נבוכדנצר, הר שגם בן בן הבן הוא בכלל נכד (“that Vashti was the daughter of Belshatzar son of Evil Merodach, and Evil Merodach was Nevuchadnetzar’s son... So you see that the gmara [op. cit.] says [that] Vashti is in the class of a neched and the daughter of Nevuchadnetzar’s son’s son, so even the son of a son of a son is in the class of neched;” ערך בני בנים, כללים סי' י"ח דה"מ ועל מה, וע"ע ירמי' כ"ז ז', רש"י ורד"ק שם).
So why is this relevant? Well, the midrash (תנחומא, פר' ויצא י"ג) asserts: ובלעם זה לבן (“And Bil’am is Lavan,” Ya’aqov’s father-in-law). Elsewhere, the Talmud informs us that Zimri ben Salu was in fact Sha’ul ben ha-Kna’anith (סנהדרין פ"ב:). This Sha’ul ben ha-Kna’anith is listed amongst the sons of Shim’on in Genesis XLVI, 10, and Rashi ad loc. follows the midrash in telling us that he was בן דינה שנבעלה לכנעני וכשהרגו את שכם לא היתה דינה רוצה לצאת עד שנשבע שמעון שישאנה (“the son of Dina who had been raped by a Canaanite, and when [Shim’on and Levi] killed [the inhabitants of] Shchem, Dina did not wish to come out [from shame] until Shim’on swore that he would marry her”’ עיי' מזרחי וגור ארי' שם בענין היאך אפשר ששמעון ישא את אחותו לאשה).
So now let us think a bit. Bil’am was utterly determined to curse Israel, to destroy the Torah nation before it could begin its mission to spread sanctity in the world, even though most of Israel were in fact his progeny, through his daughters Le’a and Rachel. The natural mercies of a father extend to his nechadim, Rashi informs us, and the Sdei Chemed shows us that this means they encompass three generations. But even Moshe and Aharon were already five generations distant from Bil’am (bnei Amram ben Qehath ben Levi ben Ya’aqov), hence outside of Lavan/Bil’am’s tender mercies, and able to eb cursed.
G-d was unwilling to countenance Bil’am’s inordinate, burning desire to curse Israel, as He told him: לא תאר את העם הזה כי ברוך הוא (“You will not curse this people, for it is blessed;” XXII, 12). Thus, the intended curses became blessings.
Reread the wording of the passage from the Zohar cited supra and note: חס ושלום דאפילו חד מישראל מית it reads: “Heaven forfend that even one of Israel died.” Not “of the bnei Yisraél,” the ethnic stock derived from the patriarchs, but “of Israel,” the new nation forged at Sinai of all who wholeheartedly accepted the Torah, whose members, born in the desert afterward would settle the Holy Land and implement the Torah. This newly forged Torah nation is the זרעא קדישא, the “holy lineage.” לא חסר אפילו חד מינהון; “not even one of them was missing.”
But Sha’ul/Zimri, the ish mi-bnei Yisra’él, was much older; the son of Shim’on and Dina, he was a great-grandson of Lavan/Bil’am, still subject to his tender mercies. Hence, he was exempt from Bil’am’s intended curse, and consequently also from the blessing resulting from its reversal. Instead, the “mercies” of his evil great-grandfather had set up a qitrug, an arraignment in the Béyth Din shel Ma’âla, which was activated when Sha’ul/Zimri succumbed to the temptations of Kozbi bath Tzur.
This, I believe, is a possible explanation of the double usage איש מישראל המכה אשר הכה, the “stricken man of Israel who was struck.” Zimri was first “struck” by the רחמי אב, the “fatherly mercy” of Bil’am/Lavan ha-rasha, prophet of the nations (as we see in Proverbs XIV, 34, וחסד לאומים חטאת, “and the kindness of the nations is sin;” עיי' פי' הגר"א שם ואין כאן מקום להאריך), which enabled, as it were, the strike by Pinchas’ spear.
D.
So why are Zimri and Kozbi not mentioned by name at the time of the incident?
The Or ha-Chayyim offers several suggestions: First, הנה האדון ב"ה אינו חפץ לזלזל אפילו ברשעים לפרסם מי בעלי דברים מתועבים (“The L-rd, blessed is He, does not wish to dengrate even evil-doers by publicising who is responsible for reprehensible things”). Hence, the Torah contents itself with ish mi-bnei Yisra’él and ha-Midyanith whilst describing what they did, mentioning their names only later, in connection with Pinchas’ reward, for באמצעות זה שעשה הקנאה בנשיא נתקדש שמו קידוש גדול (“by means of this that [Pinchas] acted zealously concerning a nasi, [G-d’s] name was very greatly sanctified”). The rank of Zimri and Kozbi emphasizes the courage with which Pinchas acted.
Then, too, עוד נראה טעם שלא הזכיר ד' שמו למעלה לפי שעדיין לא עשה מעשה אלא חשב לעשות וכל עוד שלא עשה לא תבזהו התורה להזכיר שמו ואחר שכבר עשה מעשה פרסם התורה שמו (“It also seems that a reason why Ha-Shem did not mention [Zimri’s] name supra is because he had not yet done anything, but only contemplated acting, and so long as he had not acted, the Torah did not wish to demean him by mentioning his name; but after he acted, the Torah publicized his name”). G-d, in short, does not engage in lashon ha-ra.
Finally, we note that the first reference to Zimri is as an ish mi-bnei Yisra’él (XXV, 6) and the second as an ish mi-Yisra’él (ibid., 14), the first signifying ethnic ancestry, the second membership in the Torah nation. The Or ha-Chayyim, I believe, has something to say about this as well, when he assures us שלא ידח נדח מניצוצי הקדושה וכולן לבסוף יזכו למקום שממנו באו והגם שיריע איש מישראל כי סוף כל סוף יחזור לשורשו והוא אומר "ושם איש ישראל" הרי שאפי' אחר מעשה בשם ישראל יכונה (“that none of the sparks of sanctity will be banished permanently, and all of them will merit the place whence they came, and even if an ish mi-Yisra’él does wrong, for in the end he will return to his root, as it says ‘and the name of the ish mi-Yisra’él’, for even after [such a] deed he is called by the name Israel”).
No comments:
Post a Comment