A.
At the end of last week’s parasha, Bil‘am, having failed in his attempts to curse Israel, offered Mo’av some advice on how they might yet succeed in countering Israel’s otherwise unassailable position as the Torah Nation through appeal to the baser physical nature of the lowest elements of the population. The Mo’avi women swung into enthusiastic action, conducting foul, licentious rites to which they beguilingly invited members of the ‘am, the lowest element in Këlal Yisra’él. In further evidence of the Mo’avi-Mid-yani alliance against Israel, the women were led by a Midyani princess, Kozbi bath Tzur.
The rot quickly spread higher and deeper: Kozbi managed to snag Zimri ben Salu’, head of one of the principal families of Shim‘on.
Momentarily, at least, the women succeeded; a Divinely ordained plague broke out, just as Zimri was cavorting with Kozbi לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת בני ישראל והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד: וירא פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רמח בידו: ויבא אחר איש ישראל אל הקבה וידקר את שניהם את איש ישראל ואת האשה אל קבתה ותעצר המגפה מעל בני ישראל: (“before the eyes of Moshe and those of the entire community of bënei Yisra’él, and they were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Assembly. And Pinëhas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-kohén saw, and arose from the midst of the community, and took a spear in his hand. And he came after the man of Israel to the tent, and ran the both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman to her womb; and the plague was abated from the bënei Yisra’él”; XXV, 6-8).
The act of violence was completely out of character for Pinëhas; the Torah is careful to trace his lineage back to his grandfather not once, but twice, precisely because he was a true grandson of Aharon, the famous lover and pursuer of peace (אבות פ"א מי"ב). G-d feels it necessary in our parasha to have Moshe state His specific approval: וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר: פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי: לכן אמר הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום: והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם תחת אשר קנא לאלקיו ויכפר על בני ישראל: (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe to say: Pinëhas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-kohén returned My wrath from upon the bënei Yisra’él when he zealously took up My zeal amongst them, and I did not annihilate the bënei Yisra’él in My zeal. Therefore say: Behold I am giving him My covenant of peace, and he and his descendants after him will have the covenant of eternal këhunna, because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the bënei Yisra’él”; XXV, 10-13).
It is fascinating to note that when King David later sang of Pinëhas, he said: ויעמד פינחס ויפלל ותעצר המגפה (“And Pinëhas stood and prayed [va-yëfallél] and the plague was stopped”; Psalms CVI,30). The verb describing Pinëhas’ action is that underlying the usual term for prayer in the Holy Language, hithpallél, and I have therefore followed the Targum Yonathan ben ‘Uzzi’él in so translating it, but it will be noted that the account in the Torah contains no mention of prayer by Pinëhas; so whence did King David get this?
B.
To begin to approach an answer, it is first necessary to learn a little gëmara. The Talmud begins by asking what, exactly, did Pinëhas see in the incident of Zimri ben Salu’ which evaded everyone else, and concludes that whilst everyone else (including Moshe, momentarily shocked by the brazenness of Zimri’s challenge: “Is this Midyanith permitted to me? If not, who permitted Yithro’s daughter to you?”, completely ignoring the difference which had been wrought by Mattan Torah) had forgotten an applicable halacha, Pinëhas had remembered: ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה אמר לו למשה אחי אבי אבא לא כך למדתנו ברדתך מהר סיני הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו אמר לו קריינא דאגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא (“He saw the incident and was reminded of the halacha; he said to Moshe, Brother of my father’s father, did you not teach us when you came down from Mt Sinai: One who has intercourse with a non-Jewish woman, zealots strike at him? [Moshe] told him, 'The reader of the letter should be the executor'”; סנהדרין פ"ב.). Hence, Pinëhas acted.
The great R’ Pinëhas Koritzer is said to have asked: איך ייתכן שישכחו כולם את ההלכה הזאת ע"כ אמר כו' שהיו יודעין את ההלכה רק ששכחו את פירושה והיו סוברין דפוגעין היא לשון תפלה דהיינו שהקנאין מתפללין עבורו שישוב בתשובה וע"כ היו בוכים ומתפללין שיעשה תשובה, אולם פנחס זכר דפירושה הוא מלשון פגע בו וגו' (“How could it be that they would all forget this halacha? Therefore, he said... that they all knew the halacha, just that they had forgot its meaning, and they all thought that ‘striking’ meant ‘prayer’, i.e. that the zealots should pray for him that he should repent, and therefore they were weeping and praying for him that he should repent; however, Pinëhas remembered that its meaning was to strike at him....’ literally; כמובא בספר חקל יצחק על פרשתנו). Hence, when Pinëhas shared his interpretation of the halacha with Moshe, Moshe told him that, as the author of this unique interpretation, it was up to him to carry out the mitzva as he saw it.
That the word paga‘, “encounter, strike,” can refer to tëfilla is indicated by the Talmud’s explanation of its use in Genesis XXVIII, 11: ויפגע במקום וגו', which the Talmud translates: “And [Ya‘aqov] encountered G-d....’ and understands as referring to tëfilla (עיי' ברכות כ"ו:). Yet, here it is clear from our parasha that Pinëhas was correct, and the others were wrong. But this leads us to another question: Why should it be that the wording of this halacha lë-Moshe mi-Sinai is so vague as to offer the possibility of misinterpretation, as appears to have happened here, on the occasion of its first application? After all, if the halacha were phrased, r.g. הורגין אותו, “they kill him,” there would be no ambiguity and no room for misunderstanding.
C.
The answer, it would appear, is that both interpretations are valid at different stages or conditions. Should Israel be confronted by a culture of utter përitzuth, “immodesty, licentiousness,” the tëfilloth of the tzaddiqei ha-dor are clearly called for, that people remain strong and stalwart in the face of temptation, and that any who cross the line come back before they have gone too far. However, should matters reach the point of the brazen provocation between Zimri and Moshe recorded in the Talmud, open mockery of the gadol ha-dor, then tëfilla is no longer efficacious, and the time for direct action has arrived. From our twin accounts, then, we conclude that Pinëhas was engaged in both.
A careful reëxamination of the wording of our parasha reveals both of Pinëhas’ actions. Pinëhas, G-d tells us, השיב את חמתי (“returned My wrath”) by doing two things: בקנאו את קנאתו בתוכם, “by his zealous action in My cause amongst them,” referring to his summary execution of Zimri and Kozbi, ולא כליתי את בני ישראל (“and I did not annihilate the bënei Yisra’él”), a happy conclusion brought about by Pinëhas’ tëfilloth on behalf of those people not yet so far gone as Zimri.
Because of both these actions, Pinëhas reaps two rewards: First, he is granted בריתי שלום, “My covenant of peace,” made necessary because of the roiling emotions unleashed by his sudden execution of so important a personage in Israel, as the Talmud informs us (סנהדרין שם ע"ב); then, והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם, “and he and his line after him will have the covenant of eternal këhunna,” the first תחת אשר קנא לאלקיו, “because he was zealous for his G-d” in carrying out the execution; ויכפר על בני ישראל, “and [the second because] he atoned for the bënei Yisra’él” through his tëfilloth. Hence, both his direct action in last week’s parasha and his tëfilloth as recorded by King David are reflected in our passage.
D.
Why was Pinëhas not already a kohén? Rashi explains שאף על פי שכבר נתנה כהונה לזרעו של אהרן לא נתנה אלא לאהרן ולבניו שנמשחו עמו ולתולדותיהם שיולידו אחר המשחתן אבל פנחס שנולד קודם לכן ולא נמשח לא בא לכלל כהונה עד כאן (“that even though the këhunna had already been given to Aharon’s line, it was only given to Aharon and his sons who were anointed together with him, and to their descendants whom they would sire after their anointing; but Pinëhas, who was born beforehand and not anointed, did not come to the këhunna ere now”).
Why was Pinëhas not anointed at the same time as the rest of his relatives? asks the Maharal mi-Prag in the Gur Aryé, and answers that he was a minor at the time, and so not fit for office. Pinëhas was thus caught in a sort of donut hole, not old enough to be amongst the original kohanim, nor young enough to have been born after the anointing; the Maharal goes on to explain concerning his younger brothers and cousins born after the original installation of Aharon, El‘azar, and Ithamar in the këhunna ויותר עדיף כשנולד בקדושה ולכן לא נמשח פנחס (“and it more preferable that [the later kohanim] be born into the sanctity, and therefore Pinëhas was not anointed”).
Until now, when Pinëhas was aroused by his zeal for Torah and halacha to contravene his own normally peace-loving character to avenge Zimri’s outrage, an act of surpassing moral courage, and at the same selflessly prayed that the rest of the bënei Yisra’él back away from the yawning brink to which the Mo’avi women beckoned them, and thereby, through sheer personal merit, achieved the same status as that of his father, uncle, brothers and cousins.
An inspiring example to us all that such a thing can be done, that through personal merit and yihus ‘atzmi it is possible to achieve the very same status as one “born into sanctity,” an aspiration heartily encouraged by the written and oral Torah in telling us the story of Pinëhas.
No comments:
Post a Comment