Commentary for Numbers 25:11

פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן PHINEAS THE SON OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST — Because the tribes spoke disparagingly of him, saying, “Have you seen this grandson of Puti the father of whose mother used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifices (see Exodus 6:25 that Eleazar his father had married a daughter of Putiel who is identified with Jethro; see Rashi on that verse and Exodus 18:1), and he has dared to slay a prince of one of Israel’s tribes!”, therefore Scripture comes and connects his genealogy with Aaron (Sanhedrin 82b).

PHINEHAS, THE SON OF ELEAZAR. The Holy One, blessed be He, [here] informed Moses that He would give Phinehas a good reward for his zeal, because he was zealous for his G-d,¹Verse 13. and for the righteousness²Psalms 107:31: And that was accounted to him [Phinehas] for righteousness. which he did for Israel by bringing about atonement for them, so that they did not all die in the plague. He [also] commanded Moses to tell Israel that he [Phinehas] would be a priest forever,³The promise is expressed here in Verse 13; Ramban’s language though is taken from Psalms 110:4. and this is the sense of the phrase, Therefore say,⁴Ramban’s intent is that Verse 11 [Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron …] was G-d’s communication exclusively to Moses, telling him that He is desirous of rewarding Phinehas for the reasons stated in that verse, but He did not tell him what was to constitute the reward. Verse 12 then continues with the thought: “Since it is My desire to reward Phinehas, Therefore say to the children of Israel … ” Thus the contents of Verse 11 was not to be told to Israel (Aboab). This interpretation of Ramban is unlike that of Rashi from whose words it may be implied that even the contents of Verse 11 was to be told to the people, the object being that they were not to speak disparagingly of Phinehas for having killed a prince of Israel, for G-d testified that he is a descendant of Aaron, who was a lover of peace, and what Phinehas did was to save the honor of Israel. that Moses was to tell this to Israel. Now Scripture does not say: “and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him ‘an everlasting priesthood, ’” as He said about Aaron,⁵Exodus 29:9: and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute. but instead it says: ‘the covenant’ of an everlasting priesthood,¹Verse 13. and it [also] says, I give unto him ‘My covenant’ of peace, meaning that He will give him a covenant with peace cleaving to it, whereas in the case of Aaron it says for splendor and for beauty.⁶Exodus 28:2. Since this indicates the very high spiritual status achieved by Aaron [as alluded to in the words of kavod and tiphereth, which represent certain Emanations], it was not necessary to mention ‘the covenant of’ an everlasting priesthood, indicating the perfect Unity. But in the case of Phinehas it does not say that his priesthood was for splendor and for beauty; therefore the verse had to mention ‘the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, indicating that Phinehas’ priesthood was also in the perfect Unity, because he was zealous for his G-d (Abusaula). See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 305. Therefore it says [here concerning Phinehas]: because he was zealous for his G-d. The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.
Scripture mentions, Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain;⁷Verse 14. And the name of the Midianite woman that was slain,⁸Verse 15. in order to indicate that [Phinehas] deserved this great reward because he killed a prince of Israel, and the daughter of a heathen king and [nonetheless] he feared them not in his zeal for his G-d. And after He had requited His good reward to the righteous one [Phinehas], He commanded Moses to punish the wicked ones, and He told him, Harass the Midianites,⁹Verse 17. but first He commanded him to count the people. This is the intent of [the phrase] And it came to pass after the plague [that the Eternal spoke unto Moses … ‘Take the sum etc.’],¹⁰Verse 19 of this chapter, and Verses 1-2 of Chapter 26. meaning that the taking of the census should be done first [before the punishment of the Midianites].

בקנאו את קנאתו בתוכם, for having taken G’d’s vengeance in the presence of all the people, so that by their watching what he did and not protesting his deed they would qualify for atonement of their sin for not having protested the sinners at the time when they were about to commit their evil deeds. [compare author on verse 4 in this chapter where he made a similar point explaining the unusual command by G’d to Moses. Ed.]

פנחס בן אלעזר, Pinchas son of Eleazar, etc. Why did the Torah have to give us Pinchas' full genealogy here? [the same genealogy has been recorded only 4 verses previously. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah wanted to give his ancestors an honorable mention in this way. Moreover, it is likely that G'd wanted to heal the residual bad feeling that might have existed against Aaron who at the time when he made the golden calf had inadvertently become the cause of many Israelites dying prematurely (compare Exodus 32,35 "G'd smote the people who had made the calf which Aaron had constructed). Now a grandson of Aaron had come and saved many more Israelites' lives than Aaron had ever even indirectly caused to be lost. This is why G'd Himself goes on record saying: "I have not consumed the children of Israel in My jealousy." In order to make all this clear, Aaron had to be mentioned by name. We have been told in Tanna de bey Eliyahu chapter 13 that Aaron rehabilitated himself through teaching the Israelites Torah and performing good deeds. From this you see that in the eyes of the Israelites Aaron had been considered as responsible for the death of those Jews at the time of the episode of the golden calf. The Torah therefore tells us here that Aaron's grandson completed this task of Aaron's rehabilitation posthumously.

פינחס בן אלעזר...בקנאו את קנאתי, “Pinchas son of Eleazar. when he displayed his jealousy on My behalf.” Seeing that Hashem is also known as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) meaning that He acts as such vis-à-vis people who worship idols, Pinchas’ act of taking the law into his own hands, religious intolerance, need not be interpreted as an act of jealousy on behalf of his own agenda. G’d tells Moses that but for Pinchas’ action and motivation He would have continued killing the Israelites by the plague.

Because the tribes disparaged him. For if not so, surely the Torah had previously written (25:7) “Pinchas the son of Elozor [and grand-] son of Aharon the kohein,” so why is it written [again] here. Rather, one must say that it was in order to trace his lineage. And if so, one can ask: Why does the Torah trace his lineage [again], given that it had already traced his lineage to Aharon the kohein above, at the end of Parshas Balak regarding this very action? For it is written (ibid.), “When he saw this, Pinchas the son of Elozor [and grand]son of Aharon the kohein, he rose up…”! Rashi answers that it was because the tribes disparaged him that Scripture needed to trace his lineage again, stating that he was the grandson of Aharon. Another answer as to why his lineage was traced to Aharon is as follows: Just as Aharon stopped a plague from among Yisroel when he took the firepans (Bamidbar 17:13), so too Pinchas stopped a plague from among Yisroel by killing a man from Yisroel. Therefore his lineage is traced to Aharon. Consequently, Rashi raises the difficulty that this answer is not relevant here [and answers as he does].

V. 11. פינחם, das "י" ist klein, זעירא, geschrieben. Es ist nicht unmöglich, dass sein ursprünglicher Name פנחס gewesen, seit diesem seinem Hervortreten jedoch seinem Namen das י eingefügt worden, um פי נחס zu lauten, נחס, gleichbedeutend mit נחץ, um damit zu sagen: "mein Mund, der Mund Gottes, hat ihn getrieben", der reine Eifer für Gottes Wort war das Motiv seiner Tat, קנא .בקנאו את קנאתי (siehe Bereschit 26, 14 und Schmot 20, 5). Bedeutsam ist בקנאו, der Form nach Piel, ohne Dagesch im Nun, also Kal-artig geschrieben. Während קנֵא im Piel, die Äußerung, die Betätigung der Rechtsforderung, deren man sich "annimmt", bedeutet, würde קנא im Kal mehr die Gesinnung ausdrücken, die die Sache eines andern sich aneignet, sie zu "der seinigen" macht, sie als die seinige beherzigt, und sagte eben diese Kalschreibweise hier, dass Pinchas Tat nicht ein bloß äußeres Hervortun gewesen, sondern tief aus seiner innern Gesinnung entsprungen war, mit welcher er einen Verrat an Gottes Sache als einen Verrat an der eigenen fühlte.

Pinchas. All the names cited here include something. Pinchas was the son of Elozor who took one of the daughters of Putiel (Yisro) who fattened calves for idol worship. Thus, Pinchas should have held himself back from such an act of vengeance, lest the scoffers of the generation say, “Who permitted your father to marry the daughter of Yisro?” The son of Aharon the kohein. Furthermore, they could say, “Your father’s father also fattened calves for idol worship, in the Sin of the Golden Calf, so how can you be zealous?” Despite all this, Pinchas was not concerned about his honor.

'פינחס בן אלעזר הכהן וגו, “Pinchas son of the High Priest Eleazar, etc.” although this was not news to anyone, the Torah had to repeat his genealogy so that the reader would not think that he could be hated for having taken the law into his own hands by killing Zimri. On the contrary, by doing so he had succeeded in arresting the vengeance G–d was in the process of taking from the sinners. Had he not done so, the people criticising him might themselves have been killed by the plague G–d had sent.

השיב את חמתי, “he turned away My wrath;” this has been spelled out when the Torah wrote on Numbers 25,8: ותעצר המגפה, “the plague stopped.” This being so, no Israelite had any reason to hate Pinchas for having killed Zimri, as it had resulted in a blessing for the other Israelites. The leader of the tribe of Shimon had certainly proved to be unworthy of that position.

בקנאו את קנאתי means “when he executed my vengeance” (more lit., when he avenged my avenging) — when he displayed the anger that I should have displayed. The expression קנאה always denotes glowing with anger to execute vengeance for a thing; in O. F. emportment (cf. Rashi on 11:29).

Who murdered the chieftain of a tribe of Yisroel. Meaning: There are two matters here. Firstly, he was the son of Puti meaning that the wife of Elozor was from the family of Yisro, and her father had fattened calves for idolatry, as Rashi explained above in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 6:25). Secondly, he had murdered a chieftain of Yisroel. When Rashi states that his mother’s father fattened calves for idolatry, this was not to say that Rashi was certain that his mother’s father was descended from Yisro, rather he was being [intentionally] vague. Rashi chose one [possibility] given that he was uncertain as to whether it was his mother who descended from Yisro, or if it was his mother’s father. (Nachalas Yaakov). (Kitzur Mizrochi) You might ask: By tracing his lineage [to Aharon] how did the Torah remove the grievance and the charges that they raised against him [by saying], “Have you seen that son of Puti”? For ultimately the disparagement would remain, given that his mother’s father did fatten calves for idolatry. The answer is that when they maligned and disparaged him for murdering a chieftain of Yisroel, this was because they suspected him of doing so out of zealousness for the honor of Moshe, his grandfather’s brother whom Zimri had challenged. Thus, the Torah comes to trace his lineage to Aharon to say that with this action he turned away [Hashem’s] anger due to his great merit, just as Aharon turned back the anger of Hashem with the incense (Bamidbar 17:13). Consequently, they should have praised him for this. Similarly in Perek HaNisrafin (Sanhedrin 82b) [Rashi states] he was the son of Aharon [in explaining the Gemara’s statement that] he was one who turned back anger, son of one who turned back anger. [When it states that] he was the son of one who avenges, [Rashi explains] he was a son of Levi who avenged [the kidnapping of] his sister Dinah. [One could ask:] Why does the Torah trace his lineage only up to Aharon and not until Yaakov? [The answer is because] the main point of the verse is to say that in this act he was similar to Aharon, and he did this to avenge for the sake of Hashem. This attribute was in his nature, passed on from his fathers. It was not to avenge on Moshe’s behalf.

השיב את חמתי, "has turned away My wrath, etc." The Torah may have mentioned this to teach us that once G'd's wrath has been aroused it requires a new merit on the part of His creatures to assuage the attribute of Justice. At the very least, we can assume that this is what Moses thought. G'd explained to Moses that in this instance it had been Pinchas' deed which had succeeded in turning away His wrath. The very word השיב in the causative form teaches that G'd's anger did not abate on its own.

בקנאו וגו׳ בתוכם ולא כליתי וגו׳. Er hat mein Recht in der Mitte der Nation zur Geltung gebracht und damit die ganze Nation von dem Verderben gerettet, in welches sie unabweisbar verfallen wäre, wenn Ich mein Recht hätte zur Geltung bringen müssen. Wenn Gottes Sache keinen Annehmer in einem Menschenkreise hat, und so diesem Menschenkreise das Bewusstsein von dem Rechte verschwindet, welches Gott an ihn hat, so ist dieser Kreis Gott, und damit auch sich, seiner eigenen Zukunft verloren. Zumal nun der jüdische Menschenkreis, Israel, dessen ganze menschengeschichtliche Existenz auf dem Worte "לי" beruht, mit welchem Gott Israel "sein" genannt und damit es in allen seinen Gliedern und in allen seinen Beziehungen Sich zu seinem Eigentum geheiligt hat und in alle Ewigkeit hin dieses Eigentumsrecht geltend macht. Israel ist entweder "Gottes", oder es hört auf zu sein.

By his vengeance for Me among them. It says “among them (בתוכם)” and not “on them (בהם)” because a sanctification of Hashem’s Name needs to be specifically among Bnei Yisroel. This informs us of Pinchas’ praise: He was self-sacrificing to sanctify Hashem’s Name although he was among the congregation, which was a dangerous situation due to Zimri’s relatives, nevertheless, he risked his life.

By avenging. Rashi is answering the question: קנאה [lit. "revenge" or "raging anger"] normally refers to one who bears hatred in his heart; however Pinchas bore no hatred in his heart for Zimri. He answers, "By avenging My vengeance” meaning that קנאה is in the sense of vengeance. This leads Rashi to an additional question: How was it appropriate to write “by avenging My vengeance” in reference to Hashem? He answers, “By his avenging…” meaning that vengeance comes through rage and this was why the Torah used the term קנאה. Similarly, wherever the term “vengeance” is used in reference to Hashem, it is in the sense of rage. Rashi then has a further question: Since קנאה refers to vengeance, why did the Torah not write “by avenging My vengeance” explicitly? He answers that “קנאה always denotes…” meaning that before he enacted out his vengeance he did not decide in his heart that he was enraged to take vengeance. Thus, [we see that] the initiation of vengeance is through rage, and this was why the term קנאה was used.

מעל בני ישראל, "from the children of Israel, etc." This means that once G'd's anger had descended upon them Pinchas succeeded in removing it from the children of Israel. This is a great compliment to Pinchas. In addition the Torah defines the act which Pinchas had performed as one that caused G'd personally a sense of wellbeing seeing that as long as He was angry and jealous it had caused Him sadness and distress.

Ein einziger solcher Mann, ein Pinchas, und eine einzige solche Mannestat im Volke wird zum Retter der Gesamtnation.

Enflamed to avenge something. המתחרה is in the sense of חרה ["burning"].

בקנאו את קנאתי בתכם, "when he displayed jealousy on My behalf amongst them." Both the apparently superfluous words קנאתי, "My jealousy," and בתכם, "amongst them," are very deliberate. These factors each contributed to giving Pinchas the power to turn away G'd's wrath. 1) Pinchas displayed his personal jealousy on behalf of G'd by endangering his life on account of G'd's honour. This idea is expressed by the suffix ו at the end of the word בקנאו. 2) His jealousy was purely on G'd's behalf, he had no ulterior motive. When man performs a מצוה for absolutely pure motives without the slightest consideration of how the performance of such a good deed might benefit him personally, this is the most beloved מצוה- performance that exists in G'd's eyes. This is why the Torah defines Pinchas' jealousy as "MY jealousy." 3) Pinchas did not do what he did in the confines of his house with no witnesses, but he performed the deed publicly in full view of his whole nation. Sanhedrin 82 describes that Pinchas was surrounded at the time by the whole tribe of Shimon who had surrounded the tent in which Zimri cohabited with Kosbi. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote: "in their midst."

ולא כליתי, "and I did not consume totally, etc." Why did the Torah not abbreviate this report by writing thus: "בקנאו את קנאתי השיב את חמתי ולא כליתי, "when he was jealous on My behalf he turned away My wrath so that I did not totally wipe out, etc.?

The Torah wanted to demonstrate that once G'd's anger had been aroused at בני ישראל, the elite of the Israelites, it could not be turned away without the presence of the three factors in Pinchas' deed we just enumerated. As far as saving the Jewish people from total annihilation, it is possible that G'd would have allowed a small portion of the Israelites to survive even if Pinchas' deed had not comprised all the three elements we described. The prayer of a righteous man such a Moses might have sufficed to accomplish this. However, if the Torah had only mentioned that Pinchas turned away G'd's wrath, without adding that G'd did not annihilate the whole people, I would have concluded that all that the action of Pinchas accomplished was the prevention of the complete annihilation of the people.