Parsha # 41: “Pinchas” / (Phinehas)
(B’Midbar / Numbers *25:10 through 30:1 (29:40)*
(With a Review of 25:1-10))
Edition: 15g11
“Righteous Killing”
Greetings Sojourners, Friends, Guests and Other Readers! Welcome!
Is there such a thing as “Righteous Killing”?
I was very fortunate to attend one of the best Theological Colleges in Canada, which was part of a larger ‘School of Theology’ which in turn, was under the auspices of a large and well known Canadian University. One of the alluring features of the ‘School of Theology’ aspect, was that I (along with all the other students of course) was able to attend the colleges of all the mainline denominations so as to ‘pick’ the best courses (and the best professors) based on that denomination’s way of looking at various ‘themes’.
Is there such a thing as “Righteous Killing”?
I was very fortunate to attend one of the best Theological Colleges in Canada, which was part of a larger ‘School of Theology’ which in turn, was under the auspices of a large and well known Canadian University. One of the alluring features of the ‘School of Theology’ aspect, was that I (along with all the other students of course) was able to attend the colleges of all the mainline denominations so as to ‘pick’ the best courses (and the best professors) based on that denomination’s way of looking at various ‘themes’.
I know many will respond to this question about war by going to the sixth Commandment and expressing that killing can never be righteous because the sixth commandment says “Thou Shalt Not Kill” – but this would be incorrect on at least 2 levels – First, that is not what the commandment says, and secondly – because the misquoting of the commandment fogs the issue, there may actually be a time when killing is permissible. Ecclesiastes 3:3 for instance states clearly: "[There is] A time to kill, and a time to heal;" In point of fact, what the commandment says is “Do No Murder”. Murder – that is, ‘pre-planned killing, usually involving vengeance or another personal motive’ – this is not the same as killing. Killing can be accidental, or under orders – as during warfare, or even innocent, that is without malice, forethought or prejudice. Killing is not the equivalent of Murder. All the same, it may be “one giant leap for mankind” to move from killing being innocent all the way to it being “Righteous”
In the opening chapters of Exodus, for instance, we see that Moshé, who has just learned of his Hebrew ancestry, is out walking among ‘his people’, “visiting his kinsmen”, when he witnesses an Egyptian mistreating one of his “kinsmen”. We are told that “He looked this way and that; and when he saw that no one was around, he killed the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand.” (CJB- Ex 2:12) At first reading, it sounds like a case could be made for this killing to be considered murder, based on the phrase “He looked about, and seeing no one…”. It sounds as though he is trying to be sure his plan is not witnessed by anyone. What adds to this view, is that the next day, he is surprised when a fellow Hebrew brings up the situation as if to accuse Moshé of murder. But maybe there is another way of seeing exactly the same string of events. First of all, there had to be at least one witness – the person who was under the attack of the Egyptian assailant, so it is not necessarily that he desired “no witnesses” Secondly, the so-called surprise the next day could be because he is being accused of murder by the people he was trying to help, trying to save from the physical assault of Egypt. Remember also that these people did not know that Moshé was ‘one of them’ – they saw him as the enemy.
So why, then, did Moshé “look around”? A plausible explanation is that he was looking for someone, perhaps someone in authority, to step in to stop the attack. (See End Note #1) As Moshé glanced around, he realized that he was the only person available to come to the rescue of the victim of the beating. The man’s future, and that of the Jewish people, suddenly became his responsibility. Moshé did not intend to kill the man, but only to save the victim. It was, thus, a crime of passion. Would such a defense stand up in today’s worldly courts? Maybe! But it did stand up in the courts of Elohim, for His courts are different from ours. [Thankfully]. In the same way, for this week’s Parsha reading, it is the Heavenly court which is important.
Our present passage, Parsha Pinchas, is about just such a case. What does one do, when one looks around and sees no other assistance available, to stop a case of flagrant abuse of privilege and favour? A point at which those in authority seem powerless to stop outright evil, a point at which the very future of the plans of Elohim seem to be ‘heading for the rocks’? When one man, feeling alone, must act to stop the annihilation of his people? Is there a case for ‘Righteous Killing’ in this situation?
Some Necessary Background to the Issue:
Our last edition told the story of Balak, king of Mo’av, and his attempt to stop the progress of B'nei Yisra'el by hiring a sorcerer (Bil’am) to come and place a curse on the encroaching nation which Balak, King of Mo’av, saw as ‘invaders’. After three attempts, Balak realizes his plan is failing and he ‘fires’ Bil’am. But the wicked sorcerer gets one last chance to help the distraught king, through the things which Bil’am had learned about the nation camped in the plains of Mo’av awaiting the direction of Elohim to pass through the land into that area which had been promised to them. What no one realized at the time, was that the land they were presently occupying was also part of the promise, destined to go to the descendants of Re’uven, Gad and M’nasheh. (But that’s another story).
We need to review, first of all, what it was that Bil’am had ‘picked up’ during his placing of the curses, and secondly, we need to learn what he did about it. Then we need to see how that played out in the history of Israel, finally, we will be ready to look into the present Parsha to see how the Courts of Elohim deal with the outcome.
What Bil’am learns is simple and straightforward. His approach had been to provide a curse which would cause Elohim to be angry with B'nei Yisra'el. As a result of his first failure, Bil’am realizes that Adonai simply is not angry with His people, and no “curse” is going to bring that about. The second realization is that, now that Isra’el seems to be united – not just with each other but with Adonai (after almost 40 years in the wilderness, and the death of at least one full generation, as well as the culling of all those who were not grasping the plan which Adonai had for Isra’el) – there was no perversity among B'nei Yisra'el to cause Elohim to rise to anger. But Bil’am develops a plan to bring the required immorality among the developing nation.
To see how that plan is put into action, we need to take a sneak peak into the next Parsha, (for the Scriptural connection, not relying simply on the sages, or the Talmud). In Chapter 31, verse 16 of B’Midbar, we read the summary words of Moshé on the topic. (Warning: Don’t read any other verses, so as not to spoil the mystery of what comes in the next chapter of the story.) Moshé speaks of the Midyani women, saying: “These are the ones who – BECAUSE OF BIL’AM’S ADVICE – caused the people of Isra’el to rebel, breaking faith with Adonai in ‘The P’or Incident’…” That “advice” had been ‘whispered’ to Balak, King of Mo’av as Bil’am parted company with the disappointed monarch, much as the side comment was made by Dr. Who as he passed by the PM’s aid (see Parsha Balak 15g11 pg 1). Furthermore, with a little common sense, we can reason out that it was also shared with the leadership of the Midyani army still in the area – for when Bil’am parted company with Balak, he did not go home as he was ordered, but appears to have joined the Midyani allies of Mo’av.
The advice was taken to heart by the leadership of both Mo’av and Midyan who, stepped back from thoughts of attacking B'nei Yisra'el, and began plotting how to bring disgrace upon them instead. The closing words of Parsha Balak, [which I have always felt should have been included in the present Parsha instead of left dangling on the end of the last, (but then who am I to question the sages?)] tells the rest of the story.
The men of Mo’av and Midyan connived with their women-folk to seduce the men of Isra’el.
While it appears the men of the two nations made themselves scarce for a time, the women invited the men of B'nei Yisra'el to great feasts with lavishly set tables, and delicious Middle-Eastern fare. There must have been copious amounts of wine as well. This was not just a single event either, for the SEASC text refers to feasts, the CJB and NASB refer to ‘sacrifices’ (all in the plural) inferring that it was a plan to be played out over the ‘long-run’. [Someone once said that if you wish to cook a frog you can’t simply throw him into boiling water for he will jump out. If, however, you put him into a pot of water at room temperature and gradually raise the temperature, you will have a feast of frog’s legs for supper.]
In the opening chapters of Exodus, for instance, we see that Moshé, who has just learned of his Hebrew ancestry, is out walking among ‘his people’, “visiting his kinsmen”, when he witnesses an Egyptian mistreating one of his “kinsmen”. We are told that “He looked this way and that; and when he saw that no one was around, he killed the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand.” (CJB- Ex 2:12) At first reading, it sounds like a case could be made for this killing to be considered murder, based on the phrase “He looked about, and seeing no one…”. It sounds as though he is trying to be sure his plan is not witnessed by anyone. What adds to this view, is that the next day, he is surprised when a fellow Hebrew brings up the situation as if to accuse Moshé of murder. But maybe there is another way of seeing exactly the same string of events. First of all, there had to be at least one witness – the person who was under the attack of the Egyptian assailant, so it is not necessarily that he desired “no witnesses” Secondly, the so-called surprise the next day could be because he is being accused of murder by the people he was trying to help, trying to save from the physical assault of Egypt. Remember also that these people did not know that Moshé was ‘one of them’ – they saw him as the enemy.
So why, then, did Moshé “look around”? A plausible explanation is that he was looking for someone, perhaps someone in authority, to step in to stop the attack. (See End Note #1) As Moshé glanced around, he realized that he was the only person available to come to the rescue of the victim of the beating. The man’s future, and that of the Jewish people, suddenly became his responsibility. Moshé did not intend to kill the man, but only to save the victim. It was, thus, a crime of passion. Would such a defense stand up in today’s worldly courts? Maybe! But it did stand up in the courts of Elohim, for His courts are different from ours. [Thankfully]. In the same way, for this week’s Parsha reading, it is the Heavenly court which is important.
Our present passage, Parsha Pinchas, is about just such a case. What does one do, when one looks around and sees no other assistance available, to stop a case of flagrant abuse of privilege and favour? A point at which those in authority seem powerless to stop outright evil, a point at which the very future of the plans of Elohim seem to be ‘heading for the rocks’? When one man, feeling alone, must act to stop the annihilation of his people? Is there a case for ‘Righteous Killing’ in this situation?
Some Necessary Background to the Issue:
Our last edition told the story of Balak, king of Mo’av, and his attempt to stop the progress of B'nei Yisra'el by hiring a sorcerer (Bil’am) to come and place a curse on the encroaching nation which Balak, King of Mo’av, saw as ‘invaders’. After three attempts, Balak realizes his plan is failing and he ‘fires’ Bil’am. But the wicked sorcerer gets one last chance to help the distraught king, through the things which Bil’am had learned about the nation camped in the plains of Mo’av awaiting the direction of Elohim to pass through the land into that area which had been promised to them. What no one realized at the time, was that the land they were presently occupying was also part of the promise, destined to go to the descendants of Re’uven, Gad and M’nasheh. (But that’s another story).
We need to review, first of all, what it was that Bil’am had ‘picked up’ during his placing of the curses, and secondly, we need to learn what he did about it. Then we need to see how that played out in the history of Israel, finally, we will be ready to look into the present Parsha to see how the Courts of Elohim deal with the outcome.
What Bil’am learns is simple and straightforward. His approach had been to provide a curse which would cause Elohim to be angry with B'nei Yisra'el. As a result of his first failure, Bil’am realizes that Adonai simply is not angry with His people, and no “curse” is going to bring that about. The second realization is that, now that Isra’el seems to be united – not just with each other but with Adonai (after almost 40 years in the wilderness, and the death of at least one full generation, as well as the culling of all those who were not grasping the plan which Adonai had for Isra’el) – there was no perversity among B'nei Yisra'el to cause Elohim to rise to anger. But Bil’am develops a plan to bring the required immorality among the developing nation.
To see how that plan is put into action, we need to take a sneak peak into the next Parsha, (for the Scriptural connection, not relying simply on the sages, or the Talmud). In Chapter 31, verse 16 of B’Midbar, we read the summary words of Moshé on the topic. (Warning: Don’t read any other verses, so as not to spoil the mystery of what comes in the next chapter of the story.) Moshé speaks of the Midyani women, saying: “These are the ones who – BECAUSE OF BIL’AM’S ADVICE – caused the people of Isra’el to rebel, breaking faith with Adonai in ‘The P’or Incident’…” That “advice” had been ‘whispered’ to Balak, King of Mo’av as Bil’am parted company with the disappointed monarch, much as the side comment was made by Dr. Who as he passed by the PM’s aid (see Parsha Balak 15g11 pg 1). Furthermore, with a little common sense, we can reason out that it was also shared with the leadership of the Midyani army still in the area – for when Bil’am parted company with Balak, he did not go home as he was ordered, but appears to have joined the Midyani allies of Mo’av.
The advice was taken to heart by the leadership of both Mo’av and Midyan who, stepped back from thoughts of attacking B'nei Yisra'el, and began plotting how to bring disgrace upon them instead. The closing words of Parsha Balak, [which I have always felt should have been included in the present Parsha instead of left dangling on the end of the last, (but then who am I to question the sages?)] tells the rest of the story.
The men of Mo’av and Midyan connived with their women-folk to seduce the men of Isra’el.
While it appears the men of the two nations made themselves scarce for a time, the women invited the men of B'nei Yisra'el to great feasts with lavishly set tables, and delicious Middle-Eastern fare. There must have been copious amounts of wine as well. This was not just a single event either, for the SEASC text refers to feasts, the CJB and NASB refer to ‘sacrifices’ (all in the plural) inferring that it was a plan to be played out over the ‘long-run’. [Someone once said that if you wish to cook a frog you can’t simply throw him into boiling water for he will jump out. If, however, you put him into a pot of water at room temperature and gradually raise the temperature, you will have a feast of frog’s legs for supper.]
The plan was that the women of Mo’av would approach the men of lower rank – the middle class or “the masses”, so to speak, while the Midyani women – many of whom appear to have been members of the upper ranks of society, even royalty, themselves – would go after the leadership of Isra’el. [This is an important distinction as we will soon come to understand.] One Midyani woman, the sages report, even made a run at Moshé, unsuccessfully of course. Eventually, once the men were made to feel comfortable, they let down their guard. Their libido kicked in and they wished to “cohabit” with the women. Once alone with the targetted men, each woman would draw out her idol of Ba’al P’or [see End Note #2] from beneath her robes and make the victim bow down before it, thus deserting his obedience to Elohim and swearing allegiance to Ba’al P’or, a foreign god. Thus the “wrath” of Elohim would be aroused against the men of Isra’el.
Having been targetted himself (reportedly), Moshé realized what was going on [though he clearly did not make the connection with the greater plan of Balak et al]. Moshé turns to God for advice. Now it is important for us to know something which the sages of Isra’el have deduced about the nature of Elohim. They have pointed out that the only time Elohim is aroused to “wrath”, [In Hebrew (@a) pronounced something like “af” as in ‘af-ter’] is through the immorality of His people.(Moreh Nevuchim 1:36) (SEASC pg 875) Elohim has taught that “sexual morality is a foundation of Jewish holiness”, for it is the only thing which ensures the genetic purity of B'nei Yisra'el [see End Note # 3].
As the men of Israel became ever-increasingly attached to the women of Mo’av and Midyan, and thus to Ba’al P’or, God’s wrath increases as well. When Moshé goes to Elohim for guidance, he is told to hang the leaders of this “quiet insurrection” “against the sun”. Moshé gathers the judges of Israel together and issues the order to hang the leaders, each tribal judge or leader being responsible for the execution of those in his tribe who are participating in the debauchery.
In verse 9, the last line of Parsha Balak, we read: “Those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.” Although there may be some discrepancy around “the plague”, I take the term to refer to the deaths of those guilty men who were hanged for their sinful “wandering”. Rashi has claimed that the hangings were carried out, and his view and mine would seem to correspond. In fairness, Ramban claims that Pinchas comes along and saves the day before any hangings take place – but I am not sure how he counters with an explanation of the deaths caused by the “plague”. It is possible from the sense of the story that the hangings were limited to the ring leaders (as in the case of Korach and his cohorts), while the “plague” was aimed at the masses who also took part in the “Orgy of Immorality”.
At what I would consider must have been the height of the “plague” (whether of hangings or of Divinely visited culling by disease), Moshé seems overwhelmed by the sadness and stress of the whole affair. His despair seems to have brought about great weeping for Isra’el. As Moshé stood, seemingly paralyzed, a leader of Isra’el, identified as Shelumiel, son of Zurushaddai, commonly known as “Zimri”, a prince of the tribe of Shim’on, defied all the warnings. He stood up from the midst of the people, and taking his Midyani woman by the arm, brazenly marched her forward, past Moshé and the other leaders at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and into his own tent where he began to “have his way” with her. We later learn that the woman was named “Cozbi”. She was a princess, the daughter of a Midyani prince named “Zur”.
Having been targetted himself (reportedly), Moshé realized what was going on [though he clearly did not make the connection with the greater plan of Balak et al]. Moshé turns to God for advice. Now it is important for us to know something which the sages of Isra’el have deduced about the nature of Elohim. They have pointed out that the only time Elohim is aroused to “wrath”, [In Hebrew (@a) pronounced something like “af” as in ‘af-ter’] is through the immorality of His people.(Moreh Nevuchim 1:36) (SEASC pg 875) Elohim has taught that “sexual morality is a foundation of Jewish holiness”, for it is the only thing which ensures the genetic purity of B'nei Yisra'el [see End Note # 3].
As the men of Israel became ever-increasingly attached to the women of Mo’av and Midyan, and thus to Ba’al P’or, God’s wrath increases as well. When Moshé goes to Elohim for guidance, he is told to hang the leaders of this “quiet insurrection” “against the sun”. Moshé gathers the judges of Israel together and issues the order to hang the leaders, each tribal judge or leader being responsible for the execution of those in his tribe who are participating in the debauchery.
In verse 9, the last line of Parsha Balak, we read: “Those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.” Although there may be some discrepancy around “the plague”, I take the term to refer to the deaths of those guilty men who were hanged for their sinful “wandering”. Rashi has claimed that the hangings were carried out, and his view and mine would seem to correspond. In fairness, Ramban claims that Pinchas comes along and saves the day before any hangings take place – but I am not sure how he counters with an explanation of the deaths caused by the “plague”. It is possible from the sense of the story that the hangings were limited to the ring leaders (as in the case of Korach and his cohorts), while the “plague” was aimed at the masses who also took part in the “Orgy of Immorality”.
At what I would consider must have been the height of the “plague” (whether of hangings or of Divinely visited culling by disease), Moshé seems overwhelmed by the sadness and stress of the whole affair. His despair seems to have brought about great weeping for Isra’el. As Moshé stood, seemingly paralyzed, a leader of Isra’el, identified as Shelumiel, son of Zurushaddai, commonly known as “Zimri”, a prince of the tribe of Shim’on, defied all the warnings. He stood up from the midst of the people, and taking his Midyani woman by the arm, brazenly marched her forward, past Moshé and the other leaders at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and into his own tent where he began to “have his way” with her. We later learn that the woman was named “Cozbi”. She was a princess, the daughter of a Midyani prince named “Zur”.
In his distress, Moshé had forgotten, or had been caused to forget by Elohim, the law which declared “one who publicly violates the Torah’s prohibition against cohabiting with a gentile may be slain.” Pinchas was however, reminded of this law, and was stirred into action. Taking a spear, “he followed the Israelite man into the tent and pierced them both, the Israelite man and the [Midyani] woman” through his back and into her stomach. Instantly, we are told, the “plague” stopped.
The killing in this case was not unlike that in which Moshé himself slew the Egyptian bully decades earlier. I can imagine the frustration felt by Pinchas as “he turned this way and that, and saw that there was no man” available to step in, no one to correct the situation, and so – feeling appointed to the task – he rose and obeyed his calling.
Now we come into the opening verses of our present Parsha. In these few words, we learn something about Pinchas’ motivation, we learn something about Elohim and we learn something about “Righteous Killing”.
Who Was Pinchas?
If nothing else, Pinchas had a strong family tree! He was a direct descendant of Levi (and Adinah). Their son K’hat (one of three) married and had a son named Amram, who married Yocheved, (who was born just as the Israelites were entering Egypt in the emigration brought about by the invitation of Yosef). Amram and Yocheved had a family of three – Miriam, the oldest, Aharon, the middle child and Moshé, the youngest. Aharon married Elisheva, his aunt (a daughter of Levi) and together they produced four sons: Nadav and Avihu (those who died without families – see V’Yikra 10:1-7) and El’azar and Ithamar, who were the two Cohenim in the Temple, working alongside Aharon. El’azar, who by the time of our Parsha was the Cohen Gadol replacing his father Aharon) married a daughter of Puti’el (who many believe was actually Yitro, the Midyani father-in-law of Moshé). Finally, El’azar and his un-named wife gave birth to Pinchas.
The problem was that Pinchas was ‘untimely born’. From the outset, the only Cohenim appointed by Adonai were Aharon and his four sons (as named above). Because of their actions with the “unholy fire”, Nadav and Avihu died at the hand of Elohim, leaving just El’azar and Ithamar. Now one would suppose that the son of El’azar would certainly be included in the ranks of the Cohenim, but the wording of the covenant, or at least its interpretation, created some difficulty here. The promise stated that “any future offspring born to El’azar or Ithamar would be Cohenim… from birth.” Pinchas, however, was already born at the time of the promise, and so ‘technically’ was not part of the promise. He had been fulfilling his duties as a member of the Levite workers within the Tabernacle – assisting with the liturgical duties, but not involved in the service which only the Cohenim could perform. But this unfortunate condition was about to change.
Following the action taken by Pinchas, [which was legal by the law, though admittedly by a law rarely applied] one would presume that the Israelite people would be grateful. After all, Pinchas had caused Elohim to put a stop to the ‘plague’ which was killing off the men of Isra’el in the thousands. “Instead of applauding him, however, the people accused him of wanton murder, and protested that ‘this grandson of someone who ‘had fattened calves to be sacrificed to idols’ [a reference to Puti’el / Yitro, it is the meaning of “Puti’el”] had the gall to kill a prince in Isra’el”
The killing in this case was not unlike that in which Moshé himself slew the Egyptian bully decades earlier. I can imagine the frustration felt by Pinchas as “he turned this way and that, and saw that there was no man” available to step in, no one to correct the situation, and so – feeling appointed to the task – he rose and obeyed his calling.
Now we come into the opening verses of our present Parsha. In these few words, we learn something about Pinchas’ motivation, we learn something about Elohim and we learn something about “Righteous Killing”.
Who Was Pinchas?
If nothing else, Pinchas had a strong family tree! He was a direct descendant of Levi (and Adinah). Their son K’hat (one of three) married and had a son named Amram, who married Yocheved, (who was born just as the Israelites were entering Egypt in the emigration brought about by the invitation of Yosef). Amram and Yocheved had a family of three – Miriam, the oldest, Aharon, the middle child and Moshé, the youngest. Aharon married Elisheva, his aunt (a daughter of Levi) and together they produced four sons: Nadav and Avihu (those who died without families – see V’Yikra 10:1-7) and El’azar and Ithamar, who were the two Cohenim in the Temple, working alongside Aharon. El’azar, who by the time of our Parsha was the Cohen Gadol replacing his father Aharon) married a daughter of Puti’el (who many believe was actually Yitro, the Midyani father-in-law of Moshé). Finally, El’azar and his un-named wife gave birth to Pinchas.
The problem was that Pinchas was ‘untimely born’. From the outset, the only Cohenim appointed by Adonai were Aharon and his four sons (as named above). Because of their actions with the “unholy fire”, Nadav and Avihu died at the hand of Elohim, leaving just El’azar and Ithamar. Now one would suppose that the son of El’azar would certainly be included in the ranks of the Cohenim, but the wording of the covenant, or at least its interpretation, created some difficulty here. The promise stated that “any future offspring born to El’azar or Ithamar would be Cohenim… from birth.” Pinchas, however, was already born at the time of the promise, and so ‘technically’ was not part of the promise. He had been fulfilling his duties as a member of the Levite workers within the Tabernacle – assisting with the liturgical duties, but not involved in the service which only the Cohenim could perform. But this unfortunate condition was about to change.
Following the action taken by Pinchas, [which was legal by the law, though admittedly by a law rarely applied] one would presume that the Israelite people would be grateful. After all, Pinchas had caused Elohim to put a stop to the ‘plague’ which was killing off the men of Isra’el in the thousands. “Instead of applauding him, however, the people accused him of wanton murder, and protested that ‘this grandson of someone who ‘had fattened calves to be sacrificed to idols’ [a reference to Puti’el / Yitro, it is the meaning of “Puti’el”] had the gall to kill a prince in Isra’el”
What the reactionaries failed to see was that the actions taken by Pinchas were not only within at least the letter of the law, but they were executed through the motivation of a pure heart. Pinchas had not ‘murdered’ the couple in the tent for there was no personal motive, no prejudice, no malice. In essence there was no forethought either – it was a spur of the moment response to a very delicate situation. Moshé himself would quite likely have acted in a similar manner, but he was held back from acting perhaps through some Divine power. Of course in all of this ‘reasoning through’, like the shocked and disgruntled people who rose up to accuse Pinchas of murder, we are thinking in terms of an ‘earthly court room’. So what thinking do we see coming forth from the ‘heavenly courts’ of Elohim?
Adonai reaches out with a compassionate approach. He begins by referring to Pinchas, in essence, as a “son of Aharon”. This terminology immediately changes his heritage, as we will see. Elohim also states that Pinchas was zealous for his people, and yet at the same time, understood – and was governed by – the vengeance of Elohim in this situation. He was also held up before the people as an example of one who was “zealous for peace”. As a reward for his zealousness in maintaining the purity of Isra’el, Adonai speaks to Moshé, “saying”: “Pinchas, son of El’azar, son of Aharon the Cohen, turned back my wrath….Therefore… I give him my Covenant of Peace. It shall be for him, and [for] his offspring after him, a covenant of eternal priesthood.” [See End Note #4 regarding “saying”] The effect of these words are, to say the least, HUGE! Pinchas is given a new birthright, along with all his offspring, through time – that through him will come all future Cohenim (by Rashi’s interpretation) or even all future Cohen Gadolim (according to the understanding of Ibn Ezra). Furthermore, the covenant indicates that Pinchas enjoys the protective covering of Elohim which will guard against any retaliation which the people of Zimri’s tribe might mount against him.
Was Pinchas innocent of murder? Were the Midyani people guilty? “The proof,” as someone once said, “lies in the pudding”. We have read so far, only about the “main course”. Pinchas’ name will come up several times in the future – beginning with next week. The pudding will be seen in how the Divine attitude toward Midyan undergoes a re-vamping, which will prove their guilt in the whole matter of “The P’or Incident”. I can tell you also, that in the times of Joshua and the Judges, the name of Pinchas will arise again, first as a major negotiator with the tribes of Re’uven, Gad and M’nasheh, once again saving Isra’el from war and division; and later, as he accompanies the armies of Isra’el against the troops of Binyamin in a valiant effort to set right, once again, a dispute amongst the people of God. It seems that, once God calls His servants into ministry, there is no end as to how He can use our talents, skills and insights.
The court of Elohim, and the one and only truly unbiased Judge, declares that Pinchas is not just free of guilt, but that the purity of his motives are to be rewarded. Only Elohim has the ability, and therefore the privilege, of looking into a man’s mind and his heart, to discover what lies at the root of his motivation. To be certain, at least in the courts of Elohim, there is definitely a place for “Righteous Killing”.
The lesson for us, is that in all things we must constantly guard against taking revenge when we feel wronged. We must not respond in haste to another’s actions based on our own hurt feelings, or anger, hatred, or any other motive which comes from trying to protect ourselves. The actions which Pinchas took were for the good of the community and the nation and for its future.. He was stirred to action on behalf of Elohim – to set right a wrong which was affecting the welfare of B'nei Yisra'el and Elohim Himself. When we can limit our responses to such altruistic motives, perhaps a future Psalmist will write of us, as the Psalmist wrote of Pinchas:
“Now they [B'nei Yisra'el] joined themselves to Ba’al P’or
And ate meat sacrificed to dead things.
Thus they provoked Him[Adonai] to anger with their deeds,
So that a plague broke out among them.
Then Pinchas stood up and executed judgment;
So the plague was checked.
That was credited to him as righteousness,
Through all generations forever.” (106:28-31)
Shavua Tov!! - Have a Great Week!!
= = = ================================================= = = =
Adonai reaches out with a compassionate approach. He begins by referring to Pinchas, in essence, as a “son of Aharon”. This terminology immediately changes his heritage, as we will see. Elohim also states that Pinchas was zealous for his people, and yet at the same time, understood – and was governed by – the vengeance of Elohim in this situation. He was also held up before the people as an example of one who was “zealous for peace”. As a reward for his zealousness in maintaining the purity of Isra’el, Adonai speaks to Moshé, “saying”: “Pinchas, son of El’azar, son of Aharon the Cohen, turned back my wrath….Therefore… I give him my Covenant of Peace. It shall be for him, and [for] his offspring after him, a covenant of eternal priesthood.” [See End Note #4 regarding “saying”] The effect of these words are, to say the least, HUGE! Pinchas is given a new birthright, along with all his offspring, through time – that through him will come all future Cohenim (by Rashi’s interpretation) or even all future Cohen Gadolim (according to the understanding of Ibn Ezra). Furthermore, the covenant indicates that Pinchas enjoys the protective covering of Elohim which will guard against any retaliation which the people of Zimri’s tribe might mount against him.
Was Pinchas innocent of murder? Were the Midyani people guilty? “The proof,” as someone once said, “lies in the pudding”. We have read so far, only about the “main course”. Pinchas’ name will come up several times in the future – beginning with next week. The pudding will be seen in how the Divine attitude toward Midyan undergoes a re-vamping, which will prove their guilt in the whole matter of “The P’or Incident”. I can tell you also, that in the times of Joshua and the Judges, the name of Pinchas will arise again, first as a major negotiator with the tribes of Re’uven, Gad and M’nasheh, once again saving Isra’el from war and division; and later, as he accompanies the armies of Isra’el against the troops of Binyamin in a valiant effort to set right, once again, a dispute amongst the people of God. It seems that, once God calls His servants into ministry, there is no end as to how He can use our talents, skills and insights.
The court of Elohim, and the one and only truly unbiased Judge, declares that Pinchas is not just free of guilt, but that the purity of his motives are to be rewarded. Only Elohim has the ability, and therefore the privilege, of looking into a man’s mind and his heart, to discover what lies at the root of his motivation. To be certain, at least in the courts of Elohim, there is definitely a place for “Righteous Killing”.
The lesson for us, is that in all things we must constantly guard against taking revenge when we feel wronged. We must not respond in haste to another’s actions based on our own hurt feelings, or anger, hatred, or any other motive which comes from trying to protect ourselves. The actions which Pinchas took were for the good of the community and the nation and for its future.. He was stirred to action on behalf of Elohim – to set right a wrong which was affecting the welfare of B'nei Yisra'el and Elohim Himself. When we can limit our responses to such altruistic motives, perhaps a future Psalmist will write of us, as the Psalmist wrote of Pinchas:
“Now they [B'nei Yisra'el] joined themselves to Ba’al P’or
And ate meat sacrificed to dead things.
Thus they provoked Him[Adonai] to anger with their deeds,
So that a plague broke out among them.
Then Pinchas stood up and executed judgment;
So the plague was checked.
That was credited to him as righteousness,
Through all generations forever.” (106:28-31)
Shavua Tov!! - Have a Great Week!!
= = = ================================================= = = =
End Notes
1 The sages indicate that Moshé was standing in to ensure the future of his people – that to lose any one Jewish person would mean the loss also of all his (or her) offspring – offspring badly needed for the people to survive. During my tour of Yad Vashem, the holocaust museum in Yerushalayim, I was overwhelmingly moved by one of the last ‘rooms’. It was completely dark. On the dome-shaped ceiling and the walls all around were pin-points of light. A sign noted that each point of light represented a child who was never born because the prospective but unfortunate ‘parent’ had been killed in the death camps. This was something I had never considered – concern not just for those who had been brutally killed in the camps, but for those who would never be born. This, of course, is true of any untimely death – something regularly considered by the Jewish people still today – but it is something that we non-Jews never seem to mourn… or perhaps we do, but only sub-consciously – when we mourn the tragedy of ‘needlessly’ losing a young person. Perhaps, below the surface of our bereavement, that is why their deaths are mourned so much more. At any rate, this, the sages claim, is what Moshé took into account when dealing with the wicked Egyptian.
2 We encountered Ba’al in last week’s Parsha where I provided some background to the ‘name’ itself. By the time the Israelites were ready to enter the Promised Land, the concept of Ba’al was well enough developed to consider him a pagan god, worshipped by the Kena’ani and other tribes of Kena’an. Ba’al was also known among the Hyksos people of Egypt. He was considered a god of fertility, especially in relation to agriculture, and a storm god similar to one “Hadad” referenced in the ancient Ugaritic literature. He also had tremendous ‘staying power’ for he lasts into the times of Eliyahu, who does battle against him on Carmel, and he is the god of choice of everyone’s favourite queen, Jezebel. When used in compound forms, such as Ba’al P’or, the added word denotes the place where this particular Ba’al is worshipped. P’or was a ‘peak’ of the Abarim range located in Mo’av. Ba’al P’or was, thus, a Mo’avi divinity worshipped by the people of Mo’av as well as, it would seem, the Midyani tribes.
3 This claim seemed a little strong in its intent and so I did some extra investigating. It is true that in this instance it was the sexual immorality of the men of Isra’el which led to God’s wrath (af) rearing up. However, I found other cases where similar immorality is met with only Elohim’s ‘anger’. On the other hand, I also found cases where wrath is mentioned in relation to the abuse of the Tabernacle – for instance when un-holy fire is brought into the Tabernacle by Nadav and Avihu, and similarly, the wrath of Elohim is waylaid by having the tribe of Levi camp around the Tabernacle so as to guard against any abuse of the holy place. This use of the term “wrath” in these cases however, arise from a different Hebrew word, though the root is very similar. It caused me to wonder, as I was searching, “Is there a connection between the sexual immorality of mankind and the outright abuse of the Holy Place, or to go a little further, between such immorality as found at the root of “The P’or Incident” and Idolatry itself? I believe this is exactly the case – and that this is the very thing which lies at the foundation of the seventh Commandment: “Lo Tnaf”, which translates as “No Adultery” or “You Shall Not Commit Adultery”. Notice the last two letters of the second word (reading from the right, of course), namely - exactly the word for “wrath”. Adultery is outlawed because it is, in being affected, similar to idolatry. In other words, to take another sex partner is akin to tying oneself to another god, it is the same immoral impurity which brings decay into the community of faith, and thus gives rise to the wrath of God. (my apologies - this websight will not allow actual Hebrew letters to be used, so I can only use transliteration)
4 “Saying”: As in “HaShem spoke to Moshé, saying…” When used in a manner such as this, the word ‘saying’ usually indicates that what is spoken by Elohim to another individual is meant to be repeated to others – in this case, Elohim wants the entire nation to know his decision regarding Pinchas, and eventually his directions regarding Midyan will be shared as well. Clearly Pinchas had averted a great disaster which would have effect all humanity. The people needed to know that Pinchas had saved them, and furthermore that he was being rewarded for his zealous actions.
= = = ======================================================== = = =
1 The sages indicate that Moshé was standing in to ensure the future of his people – that to lose any one Jewish person would mean the loss also of all his (or her) offspring – offspring badly needed for the people to survive. During my tour of Yad Vashem, the holocaust museum in Yerushalayim, I was overwhelmingly moved by one of the last ‘rooms’. It was completely dark. On the dome-shaped ceiling and the walls all around were pin-points of light. A sign noted that each point of light represented a child who was never born because the prospective but unfortunate ‘parent’ had been killed in the death camps. This was something I had never considered – concern not just for those who had been brutally killed in the camps, but for those who would never be born. This, of course, is true of any untimely death – something regularly considered by the Jewish people still today – but it is something that we non-Jews never seem to mourn… or perhaps we do, but only sub-consciously – when we mourn the tragedy of ‘needlessly’ losing a young person. Perhaps, below the surface of our bereavement, that is why their deaths are mourned so much more. At any rate, this, the sages claim, is what Moshé took into account when dealing with the wicked Egyptian.
2 We encountered Ba’al in last week’s Parsha where I provided some background to the ‘name’ itself. By the time the Israelites were ready to enter the Promised Land, the concept of Ba’al was well enough developed to consider him a pagan god, worshipped by the Kena’ani and other tribes of Kena’an. Ba’al was also known among the Hyksos people of Egypt. He was considered a god of fertility, especially in relation to agriculture, and a storm god similar to one “Hadad” referenced in the ancient Ugaritic literature. He also had tremendous ‘staying power’ for he lasts into the times of Eliyahu, who does battle against him on Carmel, and he is the god of choice of everyone’s favourite queen, Jezebel. When used in compound forms, such as Ba’al P’or, the added word denotes the place where this particular Ba’al is worshipped. P’or was a ‘peak’ of the Abarim range located in Mo’av. Ba’al P’or was, thus, a Mo’avi divinity worshipped by the people of Mo’av as well as, it would seem, the Midyani tribes.
3 This claim seemed a little strong in its intent and so I did some extra investigating. It is true that in this instance it was the sexual immorality of the men of Isra’el which led to God’s wrath (af) rearing up. However, I found other cases where similar immorality is met with only Elohim’s ‘anger’. On the other hand, I also found cases where wrath is mentioned in relation to the abuse of the Tabernacle – for instance when un-holy fire is brought into the Tabernacle by Nadav and Avihu, and similarly, the wrath of Elohim is waylaid by having the tribe of Levi camp around the Tabernacle so as to guard against any abuse of the holy place. This use of the term “wrath” in these cases however, arise from a different Hebrew word, though the root is very similar. It caused me to wonder, as I was searching, “Is there a connection between the sexual immorality of mankind and the outright abuse of the Holy Place, or to go a little further, between such immorality as found at the root of “The P’or Incident” and Idolatry itself? I believe this is exactly the case – and that this is the very thing which lies at the foundation of the seventh Commandment: “Lo Tnaf”, which translates as “No Adultery” or “You Shall Not Commit Adultery”. Notice the last two letters of the second word (reading from the right, of course), namely - exactly the word for “wrath”. Adultery is outlawed because it is, in being affected, similar to idolatry. In other words, to take another sex partner is akin to tying oneself to another god, it is the same immoral impurity which brings decay into the community of faith, and thus gives rise to the wrath of God. (my apologies - this websight will not allow actual Hebrew letters to be used, so I can only use transliteration)
4 “Saying”: As in “HaShem spoke to Moshé, saying…” When used in a manner such as this, the word ‘saying’ usually indicates that what is spoken by Elohim to another individual is meant to be repeated to others – in this case, Elohim wants the entire nation to know his decision regarding Pinchas, and eventually his directions regarding Midyan will be shared as well. Clearly Pinchas had averted a great disaster which would have effect all humanity. The people needed to know that Pinchas had saved them, and furthermore that he was being rewarded for his zealous actions.
= = = ======================================================== = = =
Acknowledgements – A General List
For these weekly reflections at least some of the following sources are used to resource basic and foundational information which augment’s the reflections offered.
Alexander, D and P, et al, The Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible, William H. Eerdman Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI 1983
Ausubel, Nathan, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, Crown Publishers, New York, NY, 1970
Gehman, H. S. The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA 1970
Barker, Kenneth, General Editor, The New International Study Bible, (NIV) Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985
Scherman, R. Nosson; and Zlotowitz, R. Meir; Editors, Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash, (SEASC) Mesorah Heritage Foundation / Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, New York, 2008
Stern, David, The Complete Jewish Bible, (CJB) Jewish New Testament Publications Inc, Clarkville, Maryland. 1998
Zodiates, Spiros, Exec Editor, The Hebrew Greek Key Word Bible (New American Version Bible) (NASV) AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN 1977
Wikipedia and other Internet sources for background information and some images. Other images are from personal files.
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
For these weekly reflections at least some of the following sources are used to resource basic and foundational information which augment’s the reflections offered.
Alexander, D and P, et al, The Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible, William H. Eerdman Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI 1983
Ausubel, Nathan, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, Crown Publishers, New York, NY, 1970
Gehman, H. S. The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA 1970
Barker, Kenneth, General Editor, The New International Study Bible, (NIV) Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985
Scherman, R. Nosson; and Zlotowitz, R. Meir; Editors, Stone Edition Art Scroll Chumash, (SEASC) Mesorah Heritage Foundation / Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, New York, 2008
Stern, David, The Complete Jewish Bible, (CJB) Jewish New Testament Publications Inc, Clarkville, Maryland. 1998
Zodiates, Spiros, Exec Editor, The Hebrew Greek Key Word Bible (New American Version Bible) (NASV) AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN 1977
Wikipedia and other Internet sources for background information and some images. Other images are from personal files.
==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ===== ===== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====
