Parshat Pinchas

And the daughters of zelophehad son of hepher, son of gilead, son of machir, son of menashe ... And they stood before moshe and before eleazar the priest and before the chieftains and all the community at the entrance of the tent of meeting, saying: our father died in the wilderness ... Why should our father's name be withdrawn from the midst of his clan because he had no son? Give us a holding in the midst of our father's brothers.

(Bemidbar 27:1-3)

 

And the daughters of Zelophehad came forward: In that generation the women would repair that which the men had breached, for we find Aharon telling them (Shemot 32) "Take off the golden rings that are on the ears of your wives", but the women refused and protested against their husbands, as is written "And all the people took off the golden rings, etc.", and the women did not participate with them in the incident of the calf, and also in the case of the spies who disparaged the Land (Bemidbar 14) "And the men [...] who came back and set all the community complaining against him", and against them who said "We cannot go up" was the punishment decreed, but the women were not involved in that mutiny for it is written above (ibid., 26:65) "For the Lord had said of them, "They are doomed to die in the wilderness, and no man was left of them save Caleb son of Jephunneh and Yoshua son of Nun." Note - "no man" and not "no woman". The women approached to request a portion in the Land. This is the reason this parasha appears in proximity to the death sentence of the desert generation, for it was there that the men breached and the women repaired.

(Bemidbar Rabba, 21)

 

There (Bemidbar Rabba 21:10) we read "And the daughters of Zelophehad came close" (Bemidbar 27:1) In that generation the women repaired etc. [The midrash] comes to explain 'And they came close'. It would have sufficed to say "and the daughters of Zelophehad spoke" but it says "they came close". The intention of the Torah was to say that the women brought close that which the men had distanced, meaning Eretz Yisrael that the men had distanced, but the women loved it and came close. (Sefer Agra D'callah, p. 285a)

...This aggadic quote tells of what transpired in the distant past, but it is probable that this situation repeats itself throughout the generations, and we see how, in many instances, the men do damage and the women repair.

(Y. Leibowitz: Seven Years of Discussions of the Weekly Parasha, p. 731)

 

 

Pinchas and hope for a covenant of peace

Hanoch ben Pazi

Blessings of peace and joy

 To our daughter Gayil Ayala

 Upon her becoming a Bat Mitzvah

To discuss the subject of peace in Parashat Pinchas is no small challenge. After all, this parasha begins with words of praise for Pinchas ben Elazar for his act of zealotry and continues with Moshe being ordered to wage war against the Midianites: "Be foes to the Midianites and strike them". From here onwards, Pinchas will serve as the central model of zealotry for zealots of all future generations. Here he receives an omen, a blessing from the Holy One, of "a covenant of perpetual priesthood". The surprise awaiting the Torah reader is the gift granted Pinchas for his act of zealotry, "a covenant of peace". Can this be considered a new/old kind of "medal of valor" awarded warriors for acts of daring? Should this be the case, we must conclude that the omen of the covenant given "from the Almighty's mouth" is not intended as an incentive to further acts of bravery, but, on the contrary as an assurance and blessing for their avoidance in the future.

Is there some method to attain and realize the covenant of peace? The coming parashiyot obligate us to think about this, to forgo naïveté, and to consider the various justifications for war: war on behalf of the nation, war for the land, or war of the Lord. The coming parashiyot also lead us to reflect upon the questions of whether it is at all possible to return from war whole and well? Are there ways to avoid the next war? And if not, can we avoid the war following the next war?

After the First World War, many asked, are wars inevitable? Must "the sword devour forever?" Is it decreed that that humanity must live history and processes of progress only as points of passage from one war to the next? Thinkers and artists pondered the sources of war and militancy, and the possibility of annulling them. Perhaps one of the more renowned was Franz Rosenzweig, who wrote his book "Star of Redemption" while serving on the Balkan front during the War. Rozenzweig, who opens with the words "from death, from the fear of death", expresses sharp criticism of those peoples and nations who define their self-identity with a covenant of death which they make with the land.

Ten years later, Albert Einstein sends a public letter to Sigmund Freud, in which he asks: "Is there a way to free Man from the misfortune of war?" At first glance the answer would seem to be simple and obvious; we know how to establish authorities and institutions for arbitration and judgment in cases of conflict, and we are capable of setting up international judicial bodies as an alternative to war. Can we succeed, however, in achieving the wisdom necessary to direct the development of men so that they develop immunity to psychoses of hate? Freud's long and learned answer was quick in coming: "Perusal of human history records an unending series of conflicts." The attempt to overcome the many small wars led to bigger wars with growing degrees of destruction. It seems that after all the doubts and hesitations there will be no other alternative than to be aware of a new category of drives, drives of death and destruction. "There is, as you can see, a theoretical sublimation of that contrast, known from antiquity, between love and hate, a contrast which may have a kind of primordial tie to the polarity of the power of attraction and the power of repulsion, that which plays a role in your field." Did Freud consider the proximity of Parashat Balak to Parashat Pinchas when he wrote about the connection and contrast between the two drives that ultimately lead to wars? Can this be considered a psychological exegesis to "covenant of peace" awarded as a reaction to an act of zealotry?

In similar fashion, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, quoting the English historian, Edward Gibbon, said that "History is little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind". But, added Leibowitz, even though what Gibbon wrote was true, he did not write all the truth, become history is also "the register of human struggle against the crimes, against the follies and against the misfortunes of mankind". The follies and the militant drives "have their basis in the natural world and in human nature; therefore the struggle against them demands a tremendous attempt by Man - both the individual and the collective - to overcome this nature; in other words - this is a struggle of man with himself." (Leibowitz, Emuna, Historiya V'arachim, P. 165).

May we suggest another horizon of thought, political/messianic, which finds expression in the famous words of HaRav Kook, also written during that World War: "We left the politics of the world out of coercion which contained inner desire" (HaRav Kook, Oroth, p.14). The Jewish people left human history because that history which we knew functioned as a history of war and blood, as a record of corruption and evil. Therefore, we set aside our hope for another era, for when we could return to history as a nation. "It is not worthy of Yaakov to be involved with government as long as its hands must be bloody, as long as it requires the talent of evil." In this vein, Rav Zvi Tau explained these thoughts with the claim that the predisposition of Israel is not to war, but rather the conduct of a long and continuing struggle against the very possibility of war. Most of the wars in the world are the result of "bad character traits, maladies and rancor which have accumulated among people. The predilection for war and war itself facilitate expression of their dark drives towards "much blood and great cruelty". In this human picture, the Jewish nation has a historic and crucial task: "We wage a protracted and difficult war against war itself, against the impurity and the malevolence which debases humanity, forcing it to hold the sword and shed blood. Our war comes to purify the world and to liberate it from the necessity of war" (Rav Tau, Ozer Yisrael Bigevura, 4:13). Perhaps it was in this spirit that the Rav HaNazir cried out his emotional claim that "You shall not kill" includes mass murder, for war is but "murder of man en mass". He wished to address all: "To the nations, to the masses and their representatives, through essays, through books, to arouse the movement for peace, with total opposition to mass killing, to war. And also to the leaders of the nations, the ministers and advisers in the legislatures, to legislate "You shall not kill" ...to ban war, not to wage war. (Harav David HaCohen, Meillat Milchama V'shalom).

The greatest problem, however, is how to accomplish this? In theological terms, how can the Jewish people free itself from the need for war? And how can Israel teach humanity this "Torah of Peace"? And we who study this parasha, strongly influenced by the history of the 20^th century, the establishment of the State of Israel, its wars and acts of zealotry it met - we ask ourselves again, is it possible? How is it possible?

The reading of Parashat Pinchas carries us back to one of the most fascinating options which arose following the First World War, the attempt at "shock treatment". For example, Ernest Freidrich published a picture album named "War Against War!" The album contains approximately 180 photographs taken during the War, preserved in military and medical archives. The pictures were intended to serve as shock therapy, in which the journey traveled by the reader takes him through sights of devastation and degradation, images of destroyed towers and erased villages, ending with the military cemeteries. Needless to say, the volume was condemned by different governments and social organizations. It was hoped that the deep shock which the War produced would make it the last war, "the war to end all wars". Yes, we graduates of the 20^th century know that this is not at all what happened.

Parashat Pinchas asks - as it were - Parashat Balak: How could it happen that the most wonderful blessings Israel had received turned into the terrible nadir of its desert experience? Is it possible to investigate Pinchas's real intention? The central issue of Pinchas' act was the act of zealotry. The subject for discussion in Parashat Pinchas is the hope of "a mitzvah observed by way of a transgression". Could this possibly have been a hope accompanying the heroic act of zealotry--the hope that a single act of extremism, an overt, clear and shocking act, would be enough to change human culture? The parasha, however, teaches us that this act was followed by the 'final' war, and this final war was followed by another final war, and that an act of zealotry alone cannot announce the approach of the geula - the Great Redemp-tion. By identifying Pinchas with Eliyahu, Chazal revealed that the one-time action may sometime turn into a repetitive action -- perhaps until Eliyahu arrives and answers this question too. That which was intended to be a heroic one-time act remains as a wound, perhaps even an open wound. Pinchas' zealotry will continue, as a command to Moshe to attack the Midianites, and only then, to joint his forefathers. The war which began in this parasha will strike with maximum power in the coming parashiyot, and will confront the Jewish people with questions about war and about the results of war.

Approximately a year before the outbreak of the Second World War, Virginia Woolf wrote her novel "Three Guineas" and asked, is it possible to prevent wars. The book begins with an answer to a letter which she received from a very respectable English barrister. She clarifies that a deep gap separates them on the question of war, because he is a man and she is a woman. Men have a certain affection for war because they find glory and fulfillment in war. And most of the women, she claims, do not share these feelings.

We propose to close with this thought, that perhaps this is also the explanation for the placement of the daughters of Zelaphehad case in this parasha. Thus this parasha also includes the alternative option - the female option-- which begins with hesitant steps. Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirza, daughters of Zelphehad, dare to challenge the "taken for granted", to question the 'natural' order, which is (surprise!) the male order. They raise the possibility to turn anew to the Holy One, Blessed Be He, and request tikkun - repair, perhaps even tikkun olam - repair of the world.

Dr. Chanoch ben Pazi teaches in Bar Ilan U. and in the Kibbutz Seminar.

 

 

Zealotry Is A Complex Matter, and the Zealot Needs God's Blessing for Protection

It is written, "And Pinchas, son of El'azar, son of Aharon the priest, saw..."

What did he see? He saw the act and recalled the halacha: "He who cohabits with an Aramean, zealots strike them." A Baraita elaborates: "Not in keeping with the wishes of the Sages, Pinchas acted not in accordance with the will of the Sages." Rabbi Yuda ben Pazi said: They wanted to excommunicate him, but the Holy Spirit descended upon him, declaring: "He and his descendents after him shall have a covenant of everlasting priesthood."

 (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 9:7)

 

Since this must be done in true spirit for the glory of God, who, then, can know whether the zealot has no ulterior motive, saying that he acts in a spirit of zealousness for God; subsequently he kills one who is - according to the law - not actually deserving of death.

(Rabbi Boruch Epstein, "Torah Temima")

 

God of the spirits - Why was this said? He said before Him, 'Master of the Universe, it is open and known to you the nature of every person, and they all different one from the other. Appoint upon them a leader who will be patient with each according to his nature.

(Rashi, Bemidbar 27:16)

 

The Lord said to Moshe, "Take you Yehoshua ben Nun, a man who has spirit within him, and lay your hand upon him" (Bemidbar 27:18)

A man who has spirit within him - Just as you requested, one who will be able

Who will go out before them - Not like the kings of the nations who sit at home and send their soldiers to war, but as I did - I fought against Sihon and Og, as is written (Bemidbar 21:34) "Do not fear him". And as Yehoshua did, as is written "And Yehoshua approached him and said to him are you for us etc." And so is it written about David (I Shmuel 18:16) "For he went out and returned before them, leading as they go out - leading as they return".

(Rashi 27:17)

 

Leadership that is encompassing, moral, and guiding,

"Let the Lord, Source of the breath of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in, so the Lord's community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd." (Bemidbar 27)

"Who shall go out before them" - Not like the kings of the nations who sit in their palaces and send their soldiers to war, but as I did when I fought against Sichon and Og, as is written (Bemidbar 21:34), "Fear him not". And as did Yehoshua, as is written (Yehoshua 5:13), "And Yehoshua went up to him and said, 'Are you one of us or one of our enemies"? And similarly with David (I Samuel 18:17), "For he marched at their head" - at their head when going out, at their head when returning...

"And bring them" - An alternative explanation: "And bring them" Do not to him as you did to me, for I will not bring them into the land.

(Rashi, Bemidbar 27:17)

 

The one lamb you are to sacrifice in the morning,and the second lamb you are to sacrifice between the setting times.

(Bemidbar 28:2-4)

 

The Sacrifices - Slaughtering "Sacred Cows" Within the Framework of the Struggle against Idol Worship

The ancient Egyptians worshiped the constellation Aries (ram). Therefore they forbade the slaughter of sheep and despised shepherds... there were also groups from among the Tzabia who worshiped the demons, and believed that they bore the figure of goats, therefore they called the demons seirim - hairy goats. This belief was very widespread in the times of our teacher, Moshe: "They may slaughter no longer their slaughter-offerings to the hairy goat demons after whom they go whoring." Therefore these cults also forbade the consumption of goats. Almost all of the idol worshippers despised the slaughter of cattle. They all greatly honored that species. Therefore you find that, even until this day, the Hindus do not slaughter cattle at all, even in a land where other animals are slaughtered.

In order to eradicate the traces of these erroneous ideas, we were commanded to offer davka three kinds of domestic animals: "From the herd and from the flock you may bring your near-offering", so that through that very act which they [the idolaters] considered to be the epitome of sin, they (Children of Israel) will come close to God, and with this act will their sins be atoned for. Thus will the evil ideas be cured - these ideas being diseases of the human soul - by means of doing the opposite.

(Rambam, Guide For The Perplexed III, 46)

 

"Then the offerings of Yehuda and Yerushalayim shall be pleasing to the Lord"

...In the future, an abundance of knowledge will spread and will penetrate even animals. "They will not do evil nor will they destroy on the mount of My holiness, because the earth will be full with knowledge of the Lord" and that offering which will then be the mincha offering - from the vegetable - shall be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of yore.

 (Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook, Olat R'iyah p. 282)

 

 

 

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.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il