PARSHAT PINCHAS
Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Pinchas introduces the tamid and musaf offerings – the sacrifices that were
brought in the Beit Ha-mikdash
each day, and those which were
offered on Shabbat and other special occasions.
In reference to the special musaf offering brought on Rosh Chodesh, the
Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (60b) tells a seemingly peculiar story about the
creation of the sun and the moon.
Originally, the two luminaries were made equal in size, until the moon
objected, noting, "Is it possible for two kings to use a single crown?" In response, God diminished the moon's
size. The Gemara concludes,
astonishingly enough, that Benei
Yisrael were commanded to bring
the Rosh Chodesh offering – the sacrifice brought upon the monthly renewal of
the lunar cycle – to "atone," as it were, for God's harsh response to the moon:
"The Almighty said: This goat [offered as part of the Rosh Chodesh musaf sacrifice] shall atone for Me, for My
having diminished the size of the moon."
Many writers and darshanim have struggled to explain the meaning of
this seemingly bizarre account of the moon's complaints, and, more generally,
how it is that God could ever require "atonement."
We might suggest, quite simply, that the diminished size of the moon is
employed by the Gemara as a symbol of the inequality among people that has
always existed, ever since the creation of man. Already from the time of Kayin and
Hevel, there have been people who succeeded and people who have failed, or at
least who have succeeded less. What
Chazal perhaps intend to teach in this passage is
that this phenomenon in fact predated human life. Already since the creation of the
luminaries, God, in His infinite wisdom and for reasons unbeknownst to us,
allowed some beings to rise to prominence, and others to shrink and wither. The nature of the world is such that
"two kings cannot use a single crown," not all creatures will enjoy the same
fate, destiny and success. There
have always been "suns" and "moons," those who rise to power and prominence and
others who remain "small."
The lunar cycle thus reminds us of the basic fact that life is not always
fair, it does not treat all people kindly.
Just as the moon can never rival the sun, and whenever it begins to grow,
it invariably shrinks again, so will there always be people who remain "lower"
and less successful than others.
This is why the
Almighty seeks "atonement," as it were.
He, far more than anybody else, recognizes that the world He created can
be a very difficult place, a place which is much kinder to some than to
others. Each month, when the moon
reaches its smallest point, Benei
Yisrael are enjoined to
commemorate this event by bringing a special offering proclaiming God's
"atonement," so-to-speak. This
offering expresses the belief in God's justice and fairness, even in the face of
the injustice and unfairness that so often seem to prevail. Although we cannot and perhaps never
will fully understand how and why some individuals succeed while others fail,
why some prosper while others suffer, why some are large and glorious like the
sun while others are meek and unstable like the moon, we avow our unwavering
belief that "the Lord is righteous in all His ways" (Tehillim 145:17), that
ultimately He determines each person's fate fairly and equitably, no matter how
cruel and unjust life often seems.
******
Parashat Pinchas tells of Moshe's request that God designate a qualified leader to succeed him after his death: "The Lord, the God of spirits for every flesh, shall appoint a man over the congregation" (27:16). Rashi, citing the Midrash Tanchuma, takes note of Moshe's unusual reference to God as "Elokei ha-ruchot le-khol basar" ("the God of spirits for every flesh"), and explains that Moshe beseeched the Almighty, "You know full well the mind [= personality] of every individual, that they do not resemble each other. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his mind."
Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in his Divrei Shaul, distinguishes between the quality Moshe describes here and political maneuvering. When Moshe speaks of somebody who "tolerates each according to his mind," he does not refer to a person who is capable of garnering the support of different factions by speaking to each one's interests and concerns. Rather, he describes a person who "tolerates each person" in the sense of evaluating him "according to his mind," according to his particular circumstances and ingrained tendencies. An effective leader cannot react with immediate criticism to every mistake made by a constituent. He must learn to recognize and appreciate the unique challenges faced by each individual and thus tolerate people's wrongdoing.
God responds to Moshe by instructing him to appoint Yehoshua for this role, describing him as "ish asher ru'ach bo" ("a man in whom there is the spirit" – 27:18). Rav Yitzchak Eizik Hishovitz (cited in the volume Eitz Ha-da'at) noted that whereas Moshe spoke in the plural form – "God of spirits" – referring to the recognition of each individual's inner makeup and unique circumstances, God speaks in the singular form – "the spirit." God sought to emphasize that the leader's tolerant, sympathetic perspective must be reserved for others, but not used with regard to himself. In his own self-assessment, one must take into account only one "spirit," rather than searching for extenuating factors that mitigate his guilt for his wrongdoing. While in judging others we must be tolerant and understanding, when judging ourselves we are to be exacting and uncompromising, and hold ourselves fully accountable for our mistakes.
******
We read in Parashat Pinchas of God's command to Moshe to appoint his
disciple Yehoshua as his successor (27:18). A famous Midrashic passage (Bamidbar Rabba 21:14) explains why Yehoshua was deemed
most qualified for this position:
The Almighty
said to him [Moshe]: Your sons just sat and did not study Torah. But Yehoshua served you a great deal and
extended to you a good deal of honor, and he would arise early and stay late in
your place of meeting. He would
arrange the benches and spread the mats.
Since he served you with all his might, he is worthy of serving of
Many writers
raised the question of why Yehoshua's work arranging the furniture in the study
hall contributed to his credentials.
The Midrash's earlier description Yehoshua's close relationship with
Moshe and long hours of study emphasizes his scholarship and the unique level of
exposure he had to Moshe, which certainly helped prepare him to assume his
mentor's role. But of what
significance is it that Yehoshua arranged the furniture in the beit midrash each day?
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch suggested that these activities simply
demonstrated the importance Yehoshua afforded to his mentor's instruction. Whenever a person affords something
importance and deems it worthy of interest, he will involve himself in every
aspect of the item in question.
Somebody who affords great importance to his appearance will take note of
every minute detail of his clothing and grooming. Sports enthusiasts follow even the most
inconsequential statistical data relevant to their team. Yehoshua's interest and enthusiasm was
focused upon the knowledge that Moshe imparted, and to that end he became
intensely involved in every aspect of Moshe's teaching. So much so, that he was the first to
arrive in the study hall to prepare it for that day's session. As he looked upon the learning in the
study hall as his primary and most cherished pursuit and area of engagement, he
took part in even what would appear to be trivial aspects of this pursuit,
including the benches and mats. And
it was this passion and enthusiasm that rendered him the most worthy candidate
to fill Moshe Rabbenu's position after his passing.
******
Toward the beginning of Parashat Pinchas, God commands Benei Yisrael to wage a battle against Midyan, the nation
that plotted to lure them to sin during the incident of Ba'al Pe'or.
Many commentators raised the question of why this command applied only to
the nation of Midyan, and not to Moav.
A cursory reading of the Ba'al Pe'or narrative (25:1-9) clearly reveals that
Midyan's role in this incident was secondary to Moav's. The men of Benei Yisrael became involved with the Moavite women, who
then lured them to worship the idol of Ba'al Pe'or.
Midyan's involvement in this affair, it appears, relates only to Kozbi, a
Midyanite princess, who engaged in a public, sinful act with a man from
Benei Yisrael.
The question thus arises as to why God commanded waging a war against
Midyan, but not against Moav.
Rashi, based on the Gemara (Bava Kama 38b), explains that Moav indeed deserved the same kind of military response as Midyan, but the nation was nevertheless spared in the merit of Rut, who would be born in Moav many generations later. Elsewhere, in Parashat Matot (31:2), Rashi presents a different explanation, namely, that Moav's involvement was motivated by fear, not by sheer hostility. Moav was a neighboring country of Emori, whose land Benei Yisrael had just seized, and thus legitimately feared an Israelite cross-border attack. Midyan, however, lived quite a distance from Benei Yisrael, but nevertheless participated in the scheme purely out of hatred.
The Ramban (here in Parashat Pinchas) explains differently, claiming that
God guaranteed Moav's security in reward for the kindness displayed by their
ancestor,
Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch takes an entirely different approach, noting
the present tense employed by God in describing the Midyanites' guilt: "Oppress
the Midyanites…because they are oppressing you with their wiles…"
(25:17-18). Moav, it appears,
discontinued its seductive efforts once it succeeded in causing the deaths of
24,000 men among Benei Yisrael.
Midyan, however, persisted – "because they are oppressing you…" Rav Hirsch adds that Midyan's ongoing
efforts were fueled by the desire to avenge the death of Kozbi, the Midyanite
princess who was killed by Pinchas as she committed a public outrage with an
Israelite man. Indeed, God
emphasizes in this context that Midyan continued to plot against Benei Yisrael "with regard to the matter of Pe'or and
with regard to the matter of Kozbi, the daughter of the Midyanite prince, their
sister, who was slain on the day of the plague…" Rav Hirsch thus explains that Midyan's
efforts persisted both as part of its ongoing desire to lure Benei Yisrael to sin, and in the interest of avenging
their princess' death.
******
Yesterday, we addressed a question raised by several commentaries concerning God's command to Benei Yisrael to wage war against the nation of Midyan, in response to their scheme that led to the tragic incident of Ba'al Pe'or (25:17-18). Midyan's role in this affair appears to have been secondary to Moav's, whose daughters seduced Benei Yisrael to idolatrous worship. Why, then, did God command the nation to initiate hostilities against only Midyan, and not Moav?
Shadal answers this question based on his fundamentally different reading of the entire Ba'al Pe'or narrative. In his view, Moav did not scheme against Benei Yisrael at all. The Torah relates this incident by stating simply that "the nation began straying after the daughters of Moav" (25:1), giving no indication that it was Moav who instigated these illicit relationships. The sin of Ba'al Pe'or, according to Shadal's reading, was entirely the fault of Benei Yisrael, until Midyan entered the scene and sent women from its most prominent families to seduce Benei Yisrael. The arrival of the Midyanite princess Kozbi in the Israelite camp was part of a deliberate attempt on Midyan's part to cause Benei Yisrael's downfall. Moav, however, did not initiate any such scheme, and thus the military response was directed solely against Midyan, and not Moav.
Shadal's reading runs in direct opposition to Chazal's
understanding in Masekhet Sanhedrin (106a), as cited by Rashi, in his commentary
to Parashat Balak (24:14). The
Gemara writes that after Bilam's failed attempt to curse Benei Yisrael as
requested by the Moavite king Balak, Bilam advised Balak to cause Benei
Yisrael to sin through seduction.
The Sages inferred this from Bilam's comment to Balak before leaving
Moav, "Come, I shall advise you of that which this people shall do to your
nation in the end of days" (24:14).
As Rashi explains, the Gemara interpreted this verse as an abbreviated
combination of two separate remarks.
First, Bilam said, "I shall advise you." Though the Torah does not elaborate,
this refers to the suggestion of using Moav's women to bring about Benei Yisrael's downfall. Then, Bilam proceeded to inform Balak of
"that which this people shall do to your nation at the end of days," as
described in the prophecy recorded in the ensuing verses. Thus, according to the Gemara, Bilam
proposed this idea of seduction to Balak, the Moavite king, and hence both the
Moavites and Midyanites conspired to seduce Benei Yisrael.
Shadal, however, explained this verse differently,
claiming that the Hebrew verb e.tz.a. ("advise") can also refer to the foreseeing
of events, and not necessarily to offering specific advice. In his view, then, Bilam did not give
any advice to Balak, and the Moavite women's role in the incident of Ba'al Pe'or was not instigated by
Moav.
It is likely that Chazal did not entertain this explanation because it does not appear to accommodate the linear structure of the Ba'al Pe'or narrative. The Torah records this event as a single incident, making no textual separation between Benei Yisrael's involvement with Moavite women and the illicit union between Zimri (an Israelite tribal leader) and Kozbi. Chazal therefore understood that these are not two separate incidents, but rather a single event which Moav and Midyan collaborated together to precipitate.
******
Parashat Pinchas records the census taken of Benei Yisrael in the
final year of their sojourn through the wilderness. In this context, the Torah makes mention
of Moshe’s parents, Amram and Yokheved: “And the name of Amram’s wife was
Yokheved, daughter of Levi, whom she bore for Levi in
As noted by Ibn Ezra, the Torah here does not identify Yokheved’s mother
by name. It states simply that
“she” – an obvious reference to Levi’s wife – gave birth to Yokheved in
This is, without doubt, the plain reading of the verse. We find, however, a startling
interpretation offered in a number of commentaries of the Tosafists, including
Rav Chayim Paltiel and Panei’ach Raza. This interpretation takes note of the
fact that this verse describes Yokheved as the one “whom she bore for Levi,”
rather than simply stating, “who was born to Levi.” Accordingly, these commentaries suggest
that the word otah (“whom”) in this verse is actually a proper
noun, as it is the name of Yokheved’s mother. When the Torah writes, “asher yaleda otah le-Levi” – which we would normally translate as,
“whom she bore for Levi” – it actually means, “whom Otah bore for Levi,”
identifying Yokheved’s mother as a woman named
Otah.
Leaving aside the seeming unlikelihood of the word otah signifying a woman’s name, one might, at
first glance, reject this reading simply on the basis of the “mapik hei” with which this word ends. The dot inside the letter
hei at the end of otah indicates that it is a direct object
pronoun (“her” or “whom”), rather than a proper noun. Interestingly enough, however, Rav
Yitzchak Katz (son-in-law of the Maharal of Prague), in his notes to Panei’ach Raza, comments that in “the precise texts” of
the Chumash the word otah is written without a mapik hei.
If so, then to the contrary, the punctuation of this word proves that it
should be read as a name, as had it served as a direct object pronoun it would
have received a mapik hei.
Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha’kabbala, offers this interpretation without citing
the aforementioned commentaries, and suggests that the mapik hei at the end of the word otah poses no difficulty to this reading. He notes that occasionally a
mapik is added at the end of a word not for grammatical purposes,
but rather for what Rav Mecklenberg calls “tiferet ha’keri’a,” to enhance
the sound of the reading. Hence,
the presence of the mapik at the end of otah does not preclude the possibility that the
Torah refers to the name of Yokeheved’s mother.
Of course, the question remains why the Torah would find it necessary to
specify the name of Yokheved’s mother in this verse. One possibility emerges from the
Gemara’s discussion in Masekhet Sanhedrin (58a-b) concerning the status of
marriages between a nephew and an aunt before Matan Torah.
According to Rabbi Eliezer, one is forbidden to marry his aunt not merely
by force of Torah law, but even by force of the Noachide sexual code that
applies to Jew and gentile alike.
The Gemara initially questions this position in light of the fact that
Amram married his aunt, Yokheved.
(Amram was the son of Levi’s son Kehat, and Yokheved was Levi’s
daughter.) Seemingly, this marriage
was legitimate only because marrying an aunt became forbidden only at Sinai, and
not earlier. The Gemara refutes
this challenge, suggesting that perhaps Yokheved was Kehat’s half-sister: they
were both the children of Levi, but from different wives. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that the Noachide
code permits marrying the half-sister of one’s father, and hence Amram’s
marriage to Yokheved was valid in the pre-Matan Torah era.
One might suggest that according to Panei’ach Raza, the Torah identified Yokheved’s mother as
Otah specifically in order to clarify that she – Yokheved – was born to a
different mother than Kehat, and thus it was permissible for Amram to marry
her. The Torah introduces Otah as
Yokheved’s mother in order to emphasize that she bore only Yokheved, and not
Levi’s other children, and hence Amram was allowed to marry
Yokheved.
******
In the opening verses of Parashat Pinchas, we read of the reward God promised to Pinchas for his act of zealotry that brought an end to the tragic events of Ba’al Pe’or, as related at the end of the previous parasha. God’s first promise is to bestow upon Pinchas “My covenant of peace” (25:12), a phrase that has been interpreted in different ways by various commentators. Chizkuni explains that God here offers Pinchas protection from the relatives of Zimri, the slain tribal leader of Shimon, who might seek to avenge their kin’s blood. Seforno understands this verse to mean that Pinchas would live a very long life.
Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, explains much differently, claiming
that God promises to bless Pinchas with the quality of peace. Pinchas’ act of zealotry, though
warranted and sanctioned under the circumstances, had the potential of leaving
behind a tinge of violence and aggression in Pinchas’ character. God therefore proclaimed that He would
bless Pinchas with His “covenant of peace,” the ability to continue nurturing
within himself the qualities of compassion and loving kindness, despite the
violent act that he was compelled to commit. Netziv offers a very similar
interpretation to God’s promise to grant Benei Yisrael compassion
(“ve-natan lekha rachamim” – Devarim 13:18) in reward for their strict
compliance with the laws of ir
nidachat, the idolatrous
city. In a situation of ir nidachat (which, as the Sages famously comment,
never actually occurred), Benei
Yisrael are committed to execute
all the city’s inhabitants. Such a
response posed the risk of undermining the people’s sense of compassion and
concern for human life. Benei Yisrael are therefore guaranteed that if they
comply with all the Torah’s guidelines, including the prohibition against
looting the city, then they will be rewarded with protection from the moral
degeneration that could result from this situation.
Netziv’s comments perhaps demonstrate that even mitzva acts could, in certain situations, potentially pose a spiritual risk. Even when one conducts himself in accordance with the Torah’s commands, he is not necessarily or always immune to spiritual harm. That God had to issue special promises to Pinchas and to the people who eliminate an ir nidachat might suggest that generally speaking, the mitzva status of a certain act does not preclude the possibility of adverse spiritual effects. Even while involving oneself in a mitzva, he must stand guard and not mistake the context of the mitzva for a utopian, struggle-free spiritual paradise.
A famous passage in Masekhet Kiddushin (30b) exhorts, “If this despicable one [the evil inclination] confronts you, drag him to the study hall.” Once the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination) is brought to the study hall, the Gemara asserts, it will be eliminated. On the simplest level, the Gemara here teaches that Torah study is the most effective means of combating one’s sinful instincts. However, the Rebbe of Kotzk added an entirely new dimension to this Talmudic proverb by noting the unusual reference to the yetzer ha-ra as “this despicable one,” implying that there are numerous “despicable ones.” Indeed, the Rebbe explained, the Sages here instruct that this particular yetzer ha-ra can be eliminated in the beit midrash (study hall) – but in the beit midrash looms another “despicable one.” Certain spiritual ills can be cured by enrolling in a yeshiva, but others surface specifically when one arrives in the yeshiva. In other words, the Rebbe teaches, one can never fancy himself immune from spiritual challenges. Even in the most sublime religious setting and while involving oneself in the greatest mitzvot, he is compelled to struggle against the various manifestations of the yetzer ha-ra and make a concerted effort to overcome spiritual hurdles.