You shall apportion the Land among these as an

inheritance, in accordance with the number of names. To the large [tribe] you

the few, according to lot. (Bamidbar 26:53-56)

Considerations for the apportionment of the Land

And to avoid quarrels regarding the locations of the hereditary

lands, since one location is better than another, he said: Only through

lot shall the Land be apportioned. That means to say, that the location of

each tribe's portion will be determined by drawing lots. That is: they shall

inherit it according to the names of their fathers' tribes, that such and

such a tribe [will settle] in such and such a region.

He further said: The inheritance shall be

apportioned between the numerous and the few, according to lot. Its

meaning is: they should not think of giving land in a region that is very good to

part of a well-populated tribe and land in a region which is not good to

another part of that same tribe. Each tribe will be given its proper

contiguous parcel of land – whether it has a large population or a small

one – [its members shall all dwell] in the [one] same region that fell to it by

lot, so that each tribe will dwell together and not be divided.

(Abarbanel 26:55)

Pinchas Remembered,

Moses Forgot…

Pinchas Leiser

Lovingly dedicated to

our first grand-daughter

Eliana Sarah

And to her parents,

Yael and Omri

She was born the night

of 15 Sivan 5769

May she live in a

world of peace!

Chapter 25 describes what happened to the

Israelites at Shittim, the provocative act of an Israelite man – Zimri

ben Salu, and Pinchas's spontaneous reaction to it. Given the fact that

Pinchas's deed stopped the plague, a plain reading of the text hardly allows

for it to be seen in anything but a positive light.

According to this reading, the covenant of

peace granted to Pinchas is understood to have been a reward for his courageous

deed. Pinchas took action at a time of spiritual eclipse, thus saving Israel.

The Sages and later commentators, however,

sometimes take a more nuanced attitude towards Pinchas's zealous deed.

On the one hand, the Sages transform a

spontaneous act of religious zeal into the application of a law which Pinchas

recalled upon witnessing Zimri's sin. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 9:7) we read:

It is written: When Pinchas, son of

Elazar, son of Aaron the Priest saw this. What did he see? He saw the

incident and recalled the halakhah: "One who has sexual intercourse with

an Aramite woman – the zealous kill him." We learned: [This is so even

when it is] against the wishes of the Sages and Pinchas [who acted]

against the wishes of the Sages. Rabbi Yuda bar Pazi said: They wanted to place

a ban on him, but the Holy Spirit jumped up on his behalf and said, It shall

be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time (25:13).

On the other hand, however, a halahkic

analysis of the case reveals that things are not so simple. Pinhas's action is

quite problematic, and only after the fact does it elicit a kind of

justification or empathy, as we find in the Babylonian Talmud:

Rava bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

If one comes for advice [regarding zealous killing] – he is not to be

instructed. Not only that; if Zimri had desisted and Pinchas killed him anyway

– he [Pinchas] would incur the death penalty for it. If Zimri had turned around

and killed Pinchas, he [Zimri] would not incur the death penalty, since he [Pinchas]

was about to kill him. (Sanhedrin 82a)

This dictum, brought in the name of R.

Yohanan, emphasizes a clear and unambiguous halakhic principle: The law cannot

be served through zealous deeds. It was only the uniqueness of the situation

and the spontaneity of Pinhas's action that decriminalized his zealous act.

And Pinchas, the son of Eleazar, the son

of Aaron the priest, saw it. Now, what did he see? – Rav said: He saw what

was happening and remembered the halakhah, and said to him, "O

great-uncle! Did you not teach us this on thy descent from Mount Sinai: He who

cohabits with a heathen woman is punished by zealots?" He replied. "He

who reads the letter, let him be the agent [to carry out its

instructions]." Shmuel said: He saw that There is no wisdom nor

understanding nor counsel against the Lord (Proverbs

21): whenever the Divine Name is being profaned, honor must not be paid

to one's teacher.

Moses, who had taught Pinchas this halakhah, forgot

it and was also unwilling to apply it.

This forgetfulness is reminiscent of the

Talmudic story of how Shmuel HaKatan composed the benediction against the minim

Our Rabbis taught: Shimon ha-Pakuli arranged

the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh. Rabban Gamliel

said to the Sages: Can any one among you frame a benediction relating to the

Minim? Shmuel HaKatan arose and composed it. The next year he forgot it. (Berakhot 28b, based on Soncino translation)

Shmuel HaKatan's philosophy is summarized in

Pirkei Avot 4:19: "Do not rejoice at your enemy's downfall." Thus, it

is not surprising that it was difficult for him to remember the benediction

against minim a year after he composed it, and perhaps it is not

coincidental that he volunteered to compose it a year earlier, knowing that his

lack of hatred for others made him the best person for the job.

Furthermore, the expression "the next

year" – lashana ha'aheret – literally "to the other year"

– points to another perspective, another way of looking at things. We know that

the Hanukkah holiday was not founded hastily, but rather lashanah ha'aheret.

The tractate Avodah Zara tells us of Adam's anxiety when he saw the days were

shortening. When he discovered the yearly cycle he marked the days of his

anxiety and thanksgiving beshanah ha'aheret.

If so, perhaps after waiting a year, Shmuel

HaKatan reconsidered the relevance and justification of reciting his

benediction.

Perhaps Moses forgot the halakhah not only

because of his weakness and Zimri ben Salu's subversive question, but perhaps

also because he thought that there was no "halakhic" possibility of

meting out human punishment to Zimri. Perhaps Moses feared that if he did

punish Zimri it would come as a response to personal insult, or at least it

would be seen as such.

Later commentators were also aware of

zealotry's problematic nature. R. Barukh Epstein, author of the Torah Temimah

commentary, wrote:

This must be performed in an authentic spirit

of giving honor to God. If so, who knows? Perhaps the zealot claims to be

motivated by zealousness for God, but is in fact pursuing some external

interest, killing someone whose death is not really demanded by the law.

Rabbi Epstein postulates that we can never be

sure of the purity of a zealot's motives; thus proper legal procedure is set at

risk.

The NeTziV views the pact of peace given

to Pinchas not as a reward, but rather as a blessing that every zealot (Pinchas

included) is in need of. The killing of a person injures the soul of the

perpetrator. Even though Pinchas's intentions were pure, there is no guarantee

that the zealot's soul will emerge unscathed by zealous killing, even if that

killing appears to be justified. The NeTziV writes:

As reward for pacifying God's wrath and

anger, He blessed him with the quality of peacefulness, i.e., that he not be

strict or upset. This was necessary because the act committed by Pinchas, of

killing someone, naturally leaves a strong emotional impression, but since it

was performed for the sake of Heaven, he received the blessing that he always

be calm and peaceful, and that this matter [of having killed] should not affect

his heart. (He'amek Davar

25:12)

May we conclude that zealousness should be

rejected altogether?

I think that conclusion is too sweeping. Examination

of a further example of zealousness may help us distinguish between its different

varieties.

As opposed to Pinchas's zealotry, which

involved extra-judicial bloodshed, Moses' breaking of the original, divinely-crafted

Tablets in response to the sin of the golden calf is viewed by the Sages and

later exegetes as an act of supreme courage. For example, Rashi writes in his

comments on the Torah's closing verse:

Before the eyes of all

Israel – This refers to the fact that his heart inspired him to shatter the

Tablets before their eyes, as it is said And I broke them before your eyes

(Devarim 9:17), and the opinion of the

Holy One blessed be He, regarding this action agreed with his opinion, as it is

stated that God said of the Tablets, asher shavarta [which you broke] (Shemot 34:1) yiyshar kohakha [may your

strength be fitting] because you broke them.

(Rashi Devarim 34:12, based on Silberman translation)

Both Pinchas and Moses see something and react

with shock. In Bamidbar 25:7, we read: Pinchas the son of Eleazar the son of

hand.

In the story of the calf (Shemot 32:19) we read: Now it came to pass

the foot of the mountain.

While the Sages justify Moses' deed, their

attitude towards Pinchas's act is more complex. Perhaps the difference between

the two stories does not hinge upon degrees of religious fervor or the need to

send a strong message in order to stop spiritual degeneration. Perhaps the relevant

difference is between breaking (divinely crafted) Tablets and killing a human

being (the divine image). Objects, even if fashioned by God, cannot possess

holiness; only human beings can aspire to holiness. R. Meir MiDvinsk wrote of

this in his Torah commentary, Meshekh Hokhma:

All of the types of holiness, [that of] the

Land of Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple, they are but details and branches of

the Torah, and they are sanctified through the Torah's holiness… Do not

imagine, God forbid, that the Temple and the Tabernacle are intrinsically holy

objects! God dwells among His sons, and if they, to a man, have transgressed

the Covenant (Hosea 6:7), all

holiness is removed from them, and they become like profane vessels

"intruders came and desecrated it." Titus entered the Holy of Holies

with a prostitute and was not harmed (Gittin

56b) because its holiness had been removed. More than that – the Tablets

– the writing of God – are not Holy in themselves, but only for you.

When the bride [Israel] went a whoring in her bridal canopy [the sin of the

golden calf] they became like earthen shards lacking any intrinsic holiness,

but only [holy] for you, when you observe them. At the end of the day, there is

nothing in the world worthy of worship and submission. Only God is holy in His necessary

existence, and to Him praise and worship is fitting…

…None of the holy places are founded in

religion, but rather from the nation and the roots, such as Mount Moriah from

which man was created (Sanhedrin 38b),

and there Abraham offered up Isaac, and it was chosen by a prophet. Religion

only spoke of a place which God shall choose (Devarim 12:5, etc.). [As for] Mount Sinai, the place of

religion, as soon as the Divine Presence left it – the sheep and cattle climbed

up it (Shemot 19:13)!

The midrash in Eikhah Rabbah (4) also expresses the difference between the

destruction of stones (even those of the Temple) and the killing of human

beings:

It is written, A psalm of Assaf. O

God, the heathen are come into your inheritance (Psalms 79:1) The text should have used a phrase like, Weeping

of Assaf, Lament of Assaf, Dirge of Assaf; why does it say, A

psalm of Assaf? It may be likened to a king who erected a bridal-chamber

for his son which he plastered, cemented, and decorated; but his son entered

upon an evil course of living. The king forthwith ascended to the chamber, tore

the curtains and broke the rods; the [the son's] tutor took a piece of rod

which he used as a flute and played upon it. People said to him, "The king

has overthrown his son's chamber and you sit playing a tune!" He replied

to them, "I play a tune because the king overturned his son's chamber but

did not pour out his anger upon his son." Similarly, people said to Assaf,

"The Holy One, blessed be He, has caused Temple and Sanctuary to be

destroyed, and you sit singing a Psalm!" He replied to them, "I sing

a Psalm because the Holy One, blessed be He, poured out His wrath upon wood and

stone and not upon Israel." That is what is written, and He has kindled

a fire in Zion, which has devoured the foundations thereof. (Soncino translation)

There may be room to consider the zealot's

motivation, since as the NeTzIV and the author of Torah Temimah suggest,

violent zealotry can be destructive of the human soul and hatred overturns

acceptable behavior. But could it not also be true that sometimes moderation

can turn into shallowness or insufficient devotion to ideals?

There may be no clear and unambiguous

solution to this dilemma, leaving every individual to take responsibility for

his or her own decisions. Nonetheless, the difference between the way our Sages

relate to Moses and their more complicated take on Pinchas may teach us that we

must also take on board the important principle that human life is more

important than stones and soil and that objects posses no inherent holiness;

holiness depends only on the deeds of human beings who aspire to becoming a

kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

Pinchas Leiser, the editor of Shabbat

Shalom, is a psychologist.

Women took no Part in the Sins of the Golden Calf and of the Spies

Then drew near the

daughters of Zelofhad (Bamidbar 27:1): In that generation

the women built up the fences which the men broke down. Thus you will find that

Aaron told them: Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your

wives (Shemot

32:2), but the women refused and checked their husbands; as is proved by

the fact that it says, And all the people broke off the golden rings

which were in their ears (32:3), the

women not participating with them in making the calf. It was the same in the

case of the spies, who uttered an evil report: And the men… when

against him (Bamidbar

14:36), and against this congregation the decree [not to enter the Land]

was issued, because they had said: We are not able to go up (13:31). The women, however, were not with them

in their counsel, as may be inferred from the fact that it is written in an

earlier passage of our section, For the Lord

left a man of them, save Kalev the son of Yefuneh (26:65).

Thus the text speaks of a man but not of a woman. This was

because the men had been unwilling to enter the Land. The women, however, drew

near to ask for an inheritance in the Land. Consequently, the present section

was written down next to that dealing with the death of the generation of the

wilderness, for it was there that the men broke down the fences and the women built

them up.

(Bamidbar Rabbah 21, Slotki translation)

…this haggadic

statement tells us about the distant past, but it may be so in every

generation, and we are witnesses to many situations in which the men spoil

things and the women repair them.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat

ha'Shavua, pg. 731)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc.

Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in

advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz

VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD,

Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite

607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as

donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations

to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

About

us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of

a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of

tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to

Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of

Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes

that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the

pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a

fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an

option but an imperative.

4,500 copies

of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written

and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over

350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is

www.netivot-shalom.org.il.