Parashath Pinëhas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,2) 7/16/11

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.

Parshath Pinhas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,1) 7/2/10

A.

The theme of this week’s parasha is the continuity of the këhunna in Aharon’s line of descent. Originally, it was intended that the first-born male of every family in Israel would serve as a kohén (whence the requirement that a first-born son be redeemed through the ceremony of pidyon ha-bén). When G-d decided instead to entrust the këhunna to Aharon, the formulation used, Aharon u-vanav (“Aharon and his sons”), was ambiguous, in that it could be understood literally, or to refer to all of his descendants. Our parasha’s confirmation of Pinhas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-kohén in the bërith këhunnath ‘olam, the “eternal covenant of the këhunna,” removes all previous ambiguity. Therefore the latter part of our parasha revisits the qorbanoth, whose sacrifice constitutes one of the kohén’s core functions, providing additional details concerning them.

Specifically, our eye is drawn to the sacrificial order of rosh hodesh, the beginning of the month. After detailing the nature and order of sacrifice, the Torah concludes: זאת עלת חדש בחדשו לחדשי השנה (“This is the ‘ola [‘sacrifice burnt completely on the altar’] of the month at its renewal for the months of the year”; XVIII, 14), and then adds in the very next verse, almost as an after-thought, ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לד' על עלת התמיד (“And one male goat as a sin-offering [hattath] for Ha-Shem on top of the ‘ola of the tamid [the sacrifice offered regularly twice daily]”).

For what hét’ (“sin”) does this hattath atone?

B.

The Talmud deals with our question.

In the first mishna in Shavu‘oth, we learn: ועל שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין (“And in [a case of tum’a] concerning which [the person who became tamé’] had knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, the holiday and rosh hodesh goats atone” שם ב.). In short, the hattath atones when someone becomes tamé’ without being aware of it.
Later on, the gëmara takes up this mishna, and Rabbi Yëhuda explains the rationale: אמר קרא "ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לד'" חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ד' יהא שעיר זה מכפר (“Says the verse, ‘and one male goat for a hattath for Ha-Shem,’ [for] a hét which no-one recognizes but Ha-Shem, this goat will atone”; שם ט.).

A bit later in the parasha, we note, e.g., concerning Passover: שעיר חטאת אחד לכפר עליכם (“And one goat, a hattath to atone for you”; ibid., 22; cf. also 30; XXIX, 5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34 and 38), and the difference in the wording between this and rosh hodesh prompts Réysh Laqish to ask: מה נשתנה שעיר של ר"ח שנאמר בו "לד'" אמר הקב"ה שעיר זה יהא כפרה על שמיעטתי את הירח (“How is the goat of rosh hodesh different that about it is said ‘for Ha-Shem’? Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'This goat is an atonement [kappara] because I diminished the moon!'”).

To understand this remark, we must turn elsewhere in the Talmud; כתיב "ויעש אלקים את שני המאורות הגדולים" וכתיב "את המאור הגדול ואת המאור הקטן" ואמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד?! אמר לה לכי מעטי את עצמך. אמרה לפניו רבש"ע אמרתי לפניך דבר הגון אמעיט את עצמי?! כו' חזי' שלא קא מיתבא דעתה, אמר הקב"ה הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח וגו' (“It is written, ‘And G-d made the great luminaries’ [Genesis I, 16], and it is written, ‘the great luminary and the small luminary’ [ibid.]; and the moon said before the Holy One, Blessed is He, Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to use the same crown? He told her, Go and diminish yourself. She said before Him, I said before You a proper thing; I should diminish myself?!...He saw that she was not pacified; said the Holy One, Blessed is He, ‘Bring a kappara for Me because I diminished the moon....”; חולין ס:).

The sun and moon, the “great luminaries”, are of course physical objects; however, their movements and properties are directed by metaphysical sarim, “angels,” as it were, and it is their conversation with the Creator to which we are being made privy. The verse in Genesis implies that at first both were of the same size, and only subsequently did the moon become small.

Hazal tell us דכד ברא קוב"ה לשמשא ולסיהרא גזר לשמשא דאתחזא למיהוי שולטנא דעשו וגזר על סיהרא למיתב בעלמא דין שולטנא דיעקב ומני עליהון רברבין תקיפין כו' וההוא רברבנא דאתמני על סיהרא בגין אומה דיעקב בעא מן קוב"ה דאתיהב שולטנא לסיהרא בעלמא דין כו' אמר קוב"ה וכי מה בעינא אומה דיעקב אלא לעלמא דאתי כו' אבל בעלמא דין לכי מעטי את עצמך ואשתעבידי בגלותא למזכי לעלמא דאתי וגו' (“that when the Holy One, Blessed is He, created the sun and the moon, He decreed upon the sun that it appear to constitute the dominion of ‘Esav, and decreed upon the moon that it establish in this world the dominion of Ya‘aqov, and appointed over them mighty sarim... And the sar which had been appointed over the moon on behalf of the nation of Ya‘aqov asked of the Holy One, Blessed is He, that dominion be given to the moon in this world... Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'Why do I need the nation of Ya‘aqov, save for the world to come... but in this world, go, diminish yourself, and be subjected in the Exile to merit the world to come....”; זוהר חדש י"ד.). Even though this world is not Israel’s natural abode, we are here to “establish dominion,” to infuse sanctity as the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6) and thereby disestablish Edom.

The Maharsha notes that the male goat (sé‘ir) is emblematic of Edom/‘Esav (cf., e.g., Genesis XXXIII, 16, XXXVI, 20), whose power is in and of this world. The sacrifice of the sé‘ir reduces Edom’s strength, ושיהי' גם לישראל לפעמים ממשלה בעוה"ז כירח הזו שפעם שהיא מתגדלת בתחלת החדש ופעם שהיא מתקטנת בסף החדש וכן הוא הענין בכנסת ישראל וגו', (“such that Israel, too, will at times have reign in this world like this moon, which first waxes at the month’s beginning, and wanes at the months’s end; so is it with the assemblage of Israel”; חולין שם ד"ה א"ל ועיי' כל דבריו שכתב באריכות).

Israel can only prosper in this world, in which we are, individually and collectively, exiled, by first breaking the power of ‘Esav/Edom through the power of tëshuva and atonement, as embodied in the sé‘ir of rosh hodesh.

C.

If the above is so, why is this appeasement of the moon’s sar termed a hattath la-Shem? One approach is that of the ‘Aruch, who comments: שעיר זה כפרה לישראל ועלי לקביע שמן כפרה זו וקבעתי ר"ח להפיס דעתה של ירח (“[G-d says] this sé‘ir is a kappara for Israel, and it is for Me to fix the time of this kappara, and I fixed rosh hodesh to appease the moon”; מובא בתוס' לשבועות שם ד"ה שעיר).

Hence, lë-halacha, as noted in the mishna cited supra and codified by Rambam (הל' שגגות פי"א ה"ט), the hattath applies to Israel, whence we read lachem, “for you,” concerning, e.g., Passover. La-Shem, “for Ha-Shem,” shows the Divine timing of the së‘ir rosh hodesh. But as we have seen, G-d says explicitly הביאו עלי כפרה, which certainly seems to mean, “Bring on My behalf a kappara....” Let us enlist the aid of the Maharal mi-Prag to dig a bit deeper.

D.

The Maharal notes that the Torah applies the conventional concepts of hattath and kappara to human beings; the notion that G-d committed an improper act requiring atonement is untenable on its face. Rather, consider what the words really mean, כי כל הסרה וסילוק נקרא כפרה כו' ולפיכך מה שאמר "הביאו קרבן כפרה עלי" הוא סילוק התרעומת במעשה ד' כו' כי זה מדת הש"י שנותן מעלה תחת שפלות שהגיע לו עד שהכל שוה כו' ולא נמצא תרעומות אצל הבורא וזה מה שנתן לה קרבן בראש חודש, שלא תמצא בחמה ובכל שום צבא השמים מדריגה זאת שנגד שנתן לה מיעוט וגו' (“for any removal or dismissal is called kappara... and so what He said, ‘Bring a qorban kappara on My account,’ refers to the removal of any dissatisfaction [tir‘ometh] with Ha-Shem’s act... For it is a measure of Ha-Shem, to grant a heightened status [ma‘ala] to offset any degradation, until everything is in balance... and no tir‘omoth with the Creator are found; hence, that He gave her a qorban on rosh hodesh, not found with the sun or any of the celestial host, this degree being compensation for her diminution....”).

So kappara reëstablishes the Divinely desired balance and harmony between Creation and its Creator; the issue, as always, lies with the creature, not with G-d.

Wherein lies the ma‘ala conferred by the qorban? יש לך לדעת כי הקרבן שנקרא בשם הזה מורה על הקירוב שיש ביום הזה אל הש"י יותר מבשאר הימים והנה המיעוט של הירח גורם להתקרבות אל הש"י אשר מקרב השפלים והקטנים כו' ולכך ראוי שיהי' יום זה שמיעט הירח כו' בהתחדשות הירח ובאותו זמן הירח הוא יותר קטן ולכך הוא מקבל על ידי זה גם כן קירוב וגו' (“It is for you to know that a qorban, because it is called by this name, points to the closeness [qiruv] to Ha-Shem one has on this day more than other days, and the moon’s diminution causes this closeness to Ha-Shem, Who brings close the lowly and small.... And so it is fit that this day when He diminished the moon.... be at the moon’s renewal, and at the same time be at its smallest, through which it receives also qiruv....”; באר הגולה, באר רביעי).

The bottom line of hattath, then is kappara, the removal of tir‘omoth intervening between G-d and man. The primary function of the moon being temporal, allowing Israel to mark the months, sacrifice of the sé‘ir at rosh hodesh breaks the power of ‘Esav, source of tum’a, and enables Israel’s mission to establish dominion in this world, and merit the next.

The sanctity of holidays differs from that of shabbath, in that shabbath is wholly Divinely ordained, but Israel determine the actual days on which the holidays are fixed in any given year by fixing the rashei hodashim. Here, too, the sé‘ir rosh hodesh is symbolic: it is up to us to do tëshuva, bring about kappara, and remove any tir‘ometh preventing the mission’s fulfillment.

Parshath Pinchas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,1) 7/10/09

A.

ובראשי חדשים תקריבו עלה וכו' וכו' ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לד' וגו' (“And at the head of the months [rosh chodesh] you will bring a burnt offering.... And a single male goat for a sin offering [chatta’th] for Ha-Shem....”; XXVIII,11-15).

Rosh chodesh, when the first sliver of the new moon is visible in the sky, is considered a minor holiday; celebrated in the synagogue with the recitation of Hallel (a collection of Psalms), a Torah reading (which includes the above passage), and an additional prayer service (mussaf). When we have the Béyth ha-Miqdash, the above-mentioned extra sacrifices are offered.

Rashi comments on verse 15: אמר הקב"ה הביאו כפרה עלי על שמיעטתי את הירח (“Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, Bring an atonement [kappara] for Me, because I diminished the moon”).

The mind reels; bring a kappara for G-d?! Did Ha-Shem commit a sin requiring a chatta’th or kappara, chas vë-shalom? What is this business about the moon’s diminution?

B.

Rashi’s comment is based on an exchange in the Talmud. It begins: כתיב "ויעש אלקים את המאורות הגדולים" וכתיב "את המאור הגדול ואת המאור הקטן" (”It is written, ‘And G-d made the great luminaries [ha-më’oroth ha-gëdolim]’, and it is written, ‘the large luminary [ha-ma’or ha-gadol]... and the small luminary [ha-ma’or ha-qaton]’”; Genesis I, 16). The sequence of the clauses lead Chazal to conclude that originally sun and moon were of equal size (both were gëdolim) and that subsequently the moon was made small (אבל עיי' ראב"ע עה"פ וע"ע מש"כ המהר"ל בגור ארי' תיובתא לי').

The moon asks: רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד (“Master of the universe, is it possible that two kings will use the same crown?”). Since the above verse (q.v.) tells us that the purpose of the luminaries was “government” (memshala) of the day and night, the moon asks how this is to work. G-d answers: לכי ומעטי את עצמך (“Go and diminish yourself”). This leads the moon to protest: רבש"ע הואיל ואמרתי לפניך דבר הגון אמעיט את עצמי?! (“Master of the universe, since I said something correct before You I should diminish myself?!”). It sounds as though the moon is being punished.

So G-d tries to appease her, first suggesting: לכי ומשול ביום ובלילה (“Go and reign over day and night”). The moon is often visible by day as well as by night, which is not the case with the sun. The moon is not appeased: Does a candle at noon cast much light? The sun is so much brighter that the moon’s daytime role is hardly apparent.

Next, He tells her that Israel’s calendar will be based on her movements. The moon counters: דכתיב והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ולשנים (“That it is written, ‘And they will serve as signs and for seasons, days, and years”). The sun also has a role to play in calendrical calculations.

G-d tries again: ליקרו צדיקי על שמיך, יעקב הקטן, שמואל הקטן, דוד הקטן (“The tzaddiqim will be named after you: Little Ya‘aqov [Amos VII, 2], little Shmu’el, little David [I Samuel XVII, 14]. When G-d saw that this also did not satisfy the moon, אמר הקב"ה הביאו עלי כפרה על שמיעטתי את הירח (“Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, Bring for Me a kappara because I diminished the moon”; חולין ס:, רש"י שם).

Whatever in the world does this little story mean?

C.

What follows is based upon, and condensed from, a long comment by the Maharal mi-Prag in his Gur Aryeh on our verse, as well as his Bë’er ha-Gola (Bë’er ha-Rëvi‘i).

As the language of the verse in Genesis implies, a ma’or has a set of general specifications, according to which the më’oroth were created in a standard, large size. The verse also tells us that the purposes of these më’oroth was memshala, “government” of day and night. The Maharal, explains that it is inherent in malchuth, “kingship,” that only one of them could be the melech, which the Maharal finds implicit the first verse of the Shëma‘, שמע ישראל ד' אלקינו ד' אחד (“Hear, Israel, Ha-Shem our G-d, Ha-Shem is one”; Deuteronomy VI,4), in which we accept on ourselves the עול מלכות שמים, the “yoke of the kingdom of heaven” (עיי' ברכות י"ג.), thus linking unity with malchuth. The moon, having made this observation was then told to diminish itself.

It is clear from the rest of the Talmudic passage that the moon’s diminution was no punishment; to the contrary, through its diminution the moon achieved sovereignty over both the day and the night (since it is at times visible in both periods, unlike the brighter, flashier sun); became the primary sign for the measurement of passing time for Israel (the lunar month and attendant year are primary, the solar year secondary in calendrical calculations); and tzaddiqim are recognised by their possession of this quality of self-abnegation, first demonstrated by the moon.
All of the above being true, wherein, exactly, lies the moon’s complaint?

To answer this, we must first penetrate to the root meanings of the words kappara and chatta’th. The popular mind has it that a kappara is an “atonement” achieved through the penitent sinner’s offering a qorban chatta’th; but is this highly specialised sense the real meaning of the words?

Kappara is built from the root kaf-pé’-réysh. The Maharal examines other uses of this root in e.g., Genesis XXXII, 21, in which Ya‘aqov says of his brother ‘Ésav אכפרה פניו במנחה, “I shall clear his face with the gift.” Rashi ad loc. cites other passages (Isaiah XXVIII, 18 and XLVII, 11) and concludes on their basis that Ya‘aqov meant אבטלה רוגזו (“I shall annull his anger”). Thus, says the Maharal, the basic meaning of the root is קנוח, סלוק, “removal, wiping away.” Hence, kappara acquires its secondary meaning of “atonement” in the sense that it removes a block or obstacle in the sinner’s relationship with G-d.

Chatta’th, built on the root cheth-teth-alef, appears in Genesis XXXI, 39: אחטנה מידי תבקשנה (“I shall bear the loss, from my hand you should ask it”); in Judges XX, 16: קלע באבן אל השערה ולא יחטא (“who shoots a stone at the target and does not miss”); and I Kings I, 21: בשכב אדני המלך עם אבותיו והייתי ובני שלמה חטאים (”When my lord the king lay with his fathers, I and my son Shlomo were bereft”), and on that basis the Maharal explains that its root meaning is חסרון “lack,” a gap or gulf, and thus chét’ means sin in the sense that it opens such a gulf between sinner and G-d which must be closed or bridged, by bringing a qorban, a sacrifice, whose root meaning makes clear that it restores the closeness (qurva) between the penitent sinner and G-d.

G-d of course does not act unjustly; hence it cannot be that kappara or chatta’th have their colloquial meanings. However, the alteration of one of the two previously equal më’oroth created a necessary and inevitable gap which increased the degree of alienation of the material nether regions which we inhabit, and whose critical time dimension they were going to govern, from the supernal realm. It is precisely this sort of alienation, this yawning gulf, which we are in the world to correct (the true meaning of תקון עולם, “repairing the world”); this is why the moon’s sar held out for qorban chatta’th to be offered by human beings to bridge the gap (וע"ע רי"ף שם בחולין).

D.

As well as unity, the concept of humility is linked by Chazal to kingship, as we have seen. This is evident in the two most common roots signifying rule and govern, mem-lamed-kaf and mem-shin-lamed. Each root is derived by means of the transitive prefix mem from the fundamental roots lamed-vav-kaf and shin-vav-lamed, respectively.

Lamed-vav-kaf does not occur in its basic form in Tanach, but in its reduplicated form, lichluch, it does occur in Oral Torah literature, meaning dirt or dirtiness, i.e. a debased state. Shin-vav-lamed, however, does occur Biblically, in Exodus XXVIII, 33-34, where the word shul refers to the train or hem (that is, the lowest part) of a robe. With the transitive prefix mem, each of these, then, seems to mean something like applying humility.

In this light, we find that the holy Zohar conveys the same notion, proclaiming מאן עני דא דוד מלבא (“Who is poor [i.e., humble]? That is King David”; ח"א קנ"ז.). A properly constituted king knows that he owns nothing of his own; he has the use of state property to pursue and protect the kingdom’s interests, but he is motivated by the understanding that “state” property belongs to the people of the kingdom; it is not his.

Contrast this with another ancient Semitic language, Akkadian, whose word for king, sharrum, is derived from a very different root, which occurs as sin-réysh-réysh in the Holy Language, in turn derived sin-vav-réysh, to have dominion, be a ruler, make oneself a ruler (in the hithpa‘él), lord it over someone. This, presumably, resulted from the corrupting influence of the non-Semitic Sumerians, whose word for king was lugal, literally, big man, imposing himself on others.

Therein lies the difference between the Torah’s concept of the inherent limits of government, kingship through humility, and that which has all too often prevailed in the world.

Parshath Pinchas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,1)

A.

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 (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation;” Exodus XIX, 6). ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהן ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלהיהן (“And they 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 woman....” ibid., 6), openly cavorting with the woman before Moshe and the rest of Israel. וירא פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רמח בידו: ויבא אחרי איש ישראל אל הקבה וידקר את שניהם וגו' (“And Pinchas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-kohen saw, and he arose from amidst the community and took a spear in his hand. And he came after the man of Israel to the tent, and he ran both of them through....” ibid., 7-8).

At the beginning of our parasha, G-d expresses His approval of Pinchas’ action: פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל וגו' (“Pinchas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-Kohen returned My wrath (chamathi) from upon the bnei Yisra’él....” ibid., 11). So the verse is conventionally translated.

However, perhaps with a bit of research, we can can discern in the Divine choice of words to express His wrath (חמה, rather than one of the possible synonyms, אף, כעס, or רוגז) an allusion to a wider meaning.

B.

If we turn to the Talmud, we find: ת"ר בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לכל העולם כולו כו' (“The Rabbis taught: In a time when the sun (chamma) is afflicted, it is a sign of bad things for the entire world....” סוכה כ"ט.). The gmara goes on to quote a second baraitha which details four things which could bring about such a solar “affliction,” amongst them: נערה מאורסה שצעקה בעיר ואין מושיע לה (“A betrothed girl who cried out [at an assailant] in a city and had no rescuer”). The Maharsha explains that the reason this should lead to the sun’s “affliction” and trouble for everybody is that it indicates a fundamental societal ill; the poor girl’s cry for help, he says, was ברור לכל כשמש, “clear to everyone as the sun”, and yet no-one acted on it.

If we now return to the sad story in our parasha, the gentle reader will be forgiven for considering the comparison, at first glance, inapt: Kozbi bath Tzur was not exctly a blushing maiden defending her virtue from Zimri’s lecherous advances. To the contrary, she had volunteered for this mission, even begged her father to be allowed to go along, and had brazenly aroused and encouraged those advances. If there was a “victim” in the story at all, it was Zimri ben Salu, not Kozbi.

Which brings to mind another Talmudic passage.

C.

ואלו הן שמצילין אותן בנפשן, הרודף אחר חבירו להורגו, ואחר הזכר, ואחר נערה מאורסה וגו' (“And these are the ones whom one may rescue [from sin - Rashi] at the cost of their lives: One who chases after his fellow to kill him, or after a male [for an unnatural purpose], or after a betrothed girl....” סנהדרין ע"ג. במשנה). The subsequent discussion in the gmara makes clear that each of the cases in the above mishna is derivable from that of the na‘ara ha-m’urasa, the “betrothed maiden” (cf. Deuteronomy XXII, 22).

This casts matters in a different light. The mishna’s wording is very precise: The person who is being “rescued” at the cost of his life is the rodéf, the “pursuer,” who has so lost control of himself that he is about to commit a supernally, supremely heinous act, one which will so stain his neshama that he is actually better off dead; hence, one is allowed to save him from himself, at the cost of his life (ועיי' גם פי' הרע"ב וקול הרמ"ז על המשנה).

D.

Now, consider our case. What Zimri ben Salu was about to do, he was advertising in public. His intentions were as clear as a maiden’s cry for help in the city...

And it was Pinchas who responded, and thereby השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל. How was G-d’s wrath about to be made manifest? Aside from the plague which had already claimed the lives of 24,000 people who had succumbed to the blandishments of the Mo’avi and Midyani women and participated in their foul rites, the actions of Zimri, a nasi shévet, head of the tribe of Shim‘on, in public before all of Israel, were about to bring about a siman ra‘, an evil sign for the entire world, as G-d’s cheima led to the positioning of His chamma for affliction.

This, I believe, is the point of the allusion in our verse. This is what Pinchas prevented by his immediate action. Were it to be revealed that the societal character of the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, the holy nation whose very purpose was, and is, to be the standard bearers of Torah in the world, the living embodiment of its values, the very picture of what the Divine intention was in creating humanity, was so depraved as to permit and, tacitly, approve of Zimri’s conduct, there would be no hope for the rest of the world, either.

Such is the potential of a single individual in Israel to influence the course of the world, whether for bad (Zimri), or for good (Pinchas).

Parshath Pinchas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,1) 7/6/07

A.

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”).