פירוש על במדבר 25:22

בשטים — Thus was its name: SHITTIM.

AND ISRAEL ABODE IN SHITTIM, AND THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO COMMIT HARLOTRY WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB — “because of the advice of Balaam, as is related in [the Chapter of] Cheilek.”²²⁸Literally: “Portion” — “All Israel have ‘a portion’ in the World to Come.” Sanhedrin 106a. The story of the Israelites committing immorality with the Moabite women is related in the following chapter of the Torah, and tradition has it that this plan was suggested by Balaam in his parting words to Balak. This, as Rashi explains, is the reason why he used the phrase “I will ‘counsel thee’ what this people shall do”, meaning: “I will counsel thee how to lead the people astray, and I will tell you what this people shall do …” Ramban explains the phrase “I will counsel thee” differently. This is Rashi’s language. And indeed this [seduction to] immorality was not instigated as a plan of the [Moabite] women, but was done upon the advice of their men and their leaders. [The idea] came to them from the elders of Midian, as it says of the Midianites, for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor,³⁰⁵Further, 25:18. for they beguiled them by means of immorality in order to draw them astray [to worship] Baal-peor. Therefore it is [indeed] possible that Balaam was behind this counsel, since he was considered by them [the Moabites] great in counsel,³⁰⁶Jeremiah 32:19. and his intention was to bring evil upon Israel, and therefore he did everything in his power to this end, as it is said, And the Eternal thy G-d would not hearken unto Balaam,³⁰⁷Deuteronomy 23:6. and therefore they slew him with the sword.³⁰⁸Further, 31:8.
But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, it is not alluding here to the counsel of Balaam, but only [alludes to it] when it says afterwards, Behold, these [women] caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam etc.,³⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 16. just as it does not mention here the counsel of the elders of Midian, and only [mentions it] when it says, for they harass you.³⁰⁵Further, 25:18. Thus [it is only] after the event [had happened], at the time of [describing] their punishment, that He mentions what was the source of the evil that befell them. He is [thus] saying that what happened [to them] as a result of the desire for sexual pleasure which exists naturally in men and women from [the time of] their youth, was only [the result] of an evil plan [whose purpose was] to lead them astray [into worshipping Baal-peor]; therefore [the instigators of this plan] deserve a severe punishment. The interpretation of the verse, Come and I will counsel thee what this people shall do to thy people in the end of days³¹⁰Above, 24:14. is thus indeed as I have explained [there].
It is also possible according to the simple meaning of Scripture that Balak at first wanted to curse them [the Israelites] and to wage war against them, and he did not want to give them permission to enter his borders at all. But when Balaam told him³¹¹See Ramban above, Verse 17. that he would not prevail over them, and informed him that they would only destroy his land and his people in the end of days,³¹⁰Above, 24:14. then he [Balak] brought forth bread and wine³¹²Genesis 14:18. See Ramban to Deuteronomy 23:5, that the Moabites did meet the Israelites with bread and water when they were near their country; only the Ammonites failed to do so. — Ramban introduces here the element of “wine,” as a clear reference to what the Rabbis in the Sifre here have stated: “[The Israelite] entered; a gourd of wine lay near her. Said she to him, ‘Wouldst thou like to drink?’ etc.” in the plains of Moab [i.e., in Shittim], and enticed them [with the daughters of Moab] as if he were their friend. This is [the meaning of the phrase] ‘bidvar’ (through ‘the word’ of) Balaam,³⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 16. for it was because of his words [i.e., his prophecy that the Israelites would not conquer their land now, that the Moabites] did so [i.e., that they did not fight them, but tried to seduce them and lead them astray through their women]. But because it was Balaam’s desire to curse them, and he allowed Balak to hire him [and would indeed have cursed them] were it not for the righteous acts of the Eternal³¹³See Micah 6:5. Who turned the curse into a blessing,³⁰⁷Deuteronomy 23:6. therefore they slew him with the sword,³⁰⁸Further, 31:8. for both the hirer [Moab] and the hired one [Balaam] were punished, just as He said, and because he hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor etc.³¹⁴Deuteronomy 23:5.

ויחל העם לזנות, originally, there had been no intention of committing idolatrous acts at all. All that the males had intended was to indulge their libido with the womenfolk who made themselves available. However, these people fell victim to precisely the warning of the Torah in Exodus 34,15-16 of what would happen if Jews would allow the Canaanites to remain in their country and conclude a covenant with them. They would be invited to their social gatherings resulting in their eating forbidden foods, and eventually intermarriage followed by lip service to their gods.

וישב ישראל בשטים. Israel abode in Shittim, etc. What need was there for the Torah to write this introduction? Tanchuma on our verse explains that the location was a cause for the seduction to succeed. As long as the Israelites had dwelled in the desert instead of in or near populated areas there had not been a single incidence of unchaste behaviour. The Torah may have indicated that this place was singularly apt to arouse the animalistic instincts in man. The immediate cause may have been that the Israelites took strolls in the neighbourhood of their camp and encountered Moabite women. The Torah's emphasis on וישבו may be because instead of merely going for a stroll they made themselves at home there. The root of the word שטים occurs in Numbers 11,8 where the Torah describes the daily stroll to pick up the manna with the words שטו העם ולקטו.

לזנות בבנות מואב, “to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav.” Rashi, basing himself on the Talmud in Sanhedrin 106 where Bileam is reputed to have suggested to the Moabites that they seduce the Israelites adopts that version in the Talmud as fact. Nachmanides writes that the harlotry described here was not a sexually motivated kind of harlotry initiated by the Moabite women at all. These women were encouraged by their husbands to trap the Israelites into committing a capital offence against the moral code of the Torah, as a result of which they would become guilty of the death penalty. The elders of Midian were instrumental in all this, and this is why a Midianite princess had seduced the leader of the tribe of Shimon. (verse 14-15) Seeing that Bileam was one of these, he too was killed subsequently by the sword of the Israelites. However, looking at the unadorned text, the פשט, we must remember that the Torah did not spell out the nature of the advice Bileam offered Balak. All the Torah did spell out was that when the members of the punitive expedition against the Midianites returned from their campaign and among the loot there were female prisoners, Moses became angry at their officers, chiding them for having allowed the very women who had seduced the people at Shittim to live. () He explained that the main reason why the campaign had been fought was to take revenge on the seducers. By explaining that the Midianites had a prominent share of the guilt in that debacle, he had hinted at the source of the plan to seduce the Israelites. (25,17-18) Bileam’s prediction of what the Israelites would do to the Moabites in the distant future had its rationale in what the Moabites were now about to do to this people, a people who had not provoked them but had meticulously respected their borders. It is possible further, that by following the plain meaning of the text, Balak was originally intent on cursing the Jewish people and to wage war against them, but that when Bileam had warned him that he would not succeed, and he had added that at any rate the Israelites would not pose a threat to him even ecologially, at least not until the distant future, Balak decided to welcome them as neighbours, bringing out food to show that he was interested in friendly relations. He seduced them by making believe that he was sincere, and this is the meaning of the words בדבר בלעם, (31,16) i.e. due to the reassurance received from Bileam that he was in no immediate danger. At that time Balak had no evil intentions. However, the fact that he had harboured hostile intentions and had gone to the length of hiring Bileam is enough reason why he should be punished. In the event, the retribution would be long delayed. The Torah spells this out in Deut. 23,5 when Balak is once more referred to as having hired Bileam

This was its name. Meaning: Although there are Midrashic interpretations explaining why it was called שטים ["Shittim"], alluding to the מעשה שטות ["foolish act "] they performed there, these Midrashic interpretations do not come close to the plain meaning of the verse. Therefore, Rashi explains that this was its name. It appears that Rashi’s inference is that since בַשיטים is written with a patach under the [letter] beis, it implies that it is a well known name. This is not so for the Midrashic interpretations. R. Yaakov Triosh.

Kap. 25. V. 1. Nicht fremdes Schwert, nicht fremder Fluch vermag Israel zu verderben. Nur es selber vermag Unglück über sich herbeizuziehen, indem es von Gott und seinem Gesetze abfällt. וישב וגו׳. Es hatte sich, wie מ׳׳ר bemerkt, nach den siegreichen Kämpfen mit Sichon und Og beutereich der behaglichen, genießenden Ruhe hingegeben. בַשִטִים nichtבְשִטִים . Die Gegend heißtהַשִטִים (Micha 6, 5). Es war also eine baumreiche, schattige Gegend, nach langer Wanderung im Sonnenbrand der Wüste eine sehr willkommene Rast. — כל מקום שנאמר העם לשון גנאי :ויחל העם, bemerkt hierzu וכל מקום שנאמר ישראל לשון שבח הוא ,מ׳׳ר, der Ausdruck העם komme nur bei einem tadelnden Bericht vor, während ישראל der Ausdruck bei einem rühmlichen Bericht sei. So: ויהי העם כמתאננים (Kap. 11, 1); וידבר באלקים ובשה (Kap. 21, 5); ויבכו העמ בלילה ההוא (Kap. 14, 1); עד אנה ינאצני העם (Kap. 14, 11) usw. – לזנות אל וגו׳ : sie fingen an von der bisher bewährten sittlichen Pflichttreue abzufallen und sich den Töchtern Moabs hinzugeben. In diesem לא liegt schon, dass die Initiative von den בנות מואב ausgegangen (s. Kap. 25, 18 und 31, 16 und oben zu Kap. 24, 14).

וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “Israel had settled down at a place known as Shittim, when the common people profaned themselves by whoring.” It is well known that whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word: וישב, what follows is some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 37,1 when Yaakov “settled” down and the disaster with Joseph followed and he was sold by his brothers. When in chapter 50,22 of Genesis Joseph is described as having settled down, this is followed by his announcing to his brothers his premature death. (Genesis 50,24) When Israel is described as having settled down in Egypt, (Genesis 47,27) this is followed shortly by the report about Yaakov’s (premature) sickness and death. (verse 29) In Kings I,5,5 we read that the people of Israel including the tribe of Yehudah had settled securely, this is followed by a report in chapter 11,14, by: G–d arranging a revolt by the King of Edom against Solomon’s kingdom. [The Edomites had paid annual tribute to the state of Israel since David’s time. G–d had arranged this as His response to Solomon allowing his wife to erect an altar to the Moabite idol chemosh. Ed.]

לזנות אל בנות מואב TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB — by the advice of Balaam, — as is related in the chapter חלק (Sanhedrin 106a).

ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלוהיהן. This was a classic demonstration of how the evil urge works, first suggesting minor infractions of Torah law and then, gradually, suggesting major sins. (compare Shabbat 108)

As stated in “Chelek.” Meaning that there it explains the advice that Bil’am gave as to how to seduce them, even though they distance themselves from illicit relationships. As is taught there, that the younger one would sit inside and the older one outside… However he does not mean as stated in Chelek that Bil’am gave this advice. For this is evident from the verse, as Rashi explains above (24:14) that [the Torah] writes (31:16): “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice were involved with Bnei Yisroel.”

ויתל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב, The people debased themselves to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav. The word ויחל may be understood as profaning oneself. The word זנות implies the straying after alien deities. The reason the Torah coined the unusual construction אל בנות, instead of עם בנות, or something similar, has been explained by Tanchuma to indicate that the daughters of Moav did not offer themselves to the Israelites without conditions, but demanded that these first commit an act of obeisance to one of their deities. The Torah hints by the word אל that the Israelites who became guilty of this extracurricular sex had first bowed TO something that the daughters of Moav customarily bowed to. The Torah makes a point of describing the Israelites who became guilty of this aberration as only העם. The spiritual elite, who are customarily referred to as Israelites, was not involved.

בשטים, according to Rabbi Elazar this had been the name of that place already previously. Rabbi Yoshua disagrees and says that it was so named after what happened there, i.e. that many Israelites committed the ultimate folly, shtuss, of sleeping around with gentiles and prostrating themselves to idols; [in order to please their partners who considered this as payment for granting them sexual favours. Ed.]

ויחל העם, “the people profaned themselves.” The word ויחל means to profane something which previously was sacred, holy. We encounter the same word in connection with Noach (Genesis 9,2), when Noach planted a vineyard and became drunk. Judaism describes people who are meticulous in their sexual mores as ”holy,” whereas those that are not are considered as “profane.” Whenever the Torah refers to the Israelites simply as העם, this term implies a criticism of their spiritual level (at that time). The Following are some examples of the Torah using this terminology: Numbers 11,1: “the people were looking for something to complain about.” Numbers 20,3: “the people quarrelled.” Numbers 21,5: “the people spoke out against G’d.” On the other hand, whenever the people of Israel are referred to as עמי, this is to be taken as a complimentary term; examples are: Psalms 81,14: “if only My people would listen to Me.” Exodus 7,4: “I will take out the hosts of My people.” Isaiah 40,1: “comfort, comfort My people.”

ויחל העם לזנות. They profaned themselves by falling victim to the advice Bileam had given to Balak to lure them into harlotry, a great sin the eyes of the Jewish G–d. (Compare Talmud tractate Gittin, folio 56)

לזנות את בני מואב, “to whore with the daughters of Moav.” This reminds us of the popular proverb: “When one throws a stick into the air it always lands on its broad side.” The reference is to the fact that the people of Moav had their origin in Lot’s older daughter who had devised the plan that she and her younger sister sleep with their father (Genesis 19,31). The fact that she had had the audacity to call her son מאב, alluding to the fact that he was born “from my father” speaks for itself, although originally, the Torah had not faulted the scheme itself seeing it was based on an innocent assessment of their chances to perpetuate the family or even mankind. Similarly, the daughters (also married women) of Moav lured the Israelites to their tents after having made themselves alluring.

וישתחוו לאלהיהן AND THEY PROSTRATED THEMSELVES BEFORE THEIR GODS — When anyone’s passions overpowered him and he said to her, “Submit to me”, she took out for him an image of Peor from her bosom, saying to him, “First prostrate yourself before this" (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 18).

ותקראן לעם, They called to the people. The reason the Torah had to repeat the word לעם having previously described the people involved as העם is that not all of these people went for strolls so that they encountered the Moabite women. Our verse indicates that the Moabite women went out to seek out Israelites who had not gone strolling in the neighbourhood around their camp. An alternative explanation could be that they wanted to involve the Israelites in a group activity thus breaking down each Israelite's inhibition against committing sinful acts. They were invited to partake of the meals prepared by the Moabite women in honour of their idols.

ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלוהיהן, “the people ate and prostrated themselves in front of their deities.” The mixture of the use of feminine and masculine pronoun endings means that both the Israelites and the Moabites prostrated themselves to these deities.

When he was overcome by lust… Rashi needed to say this, because when one is promiscuous it is because his evil inclination takes control of him. Thus one should not wonder as to how Yisroel stumbled [into promiscuity]. However one might wonder as to how they stumbled into idolatry. Therefore Rashi comes to inform you… (Gur Aryeh). For if not so, it should state, “And they prostrated themselves before the gods of Moav.” Why does it state לאלהיהן ["to their gods" with the word "their" in the feminine form]? This implies that their status as “gods” was connected to the promiscuity [of the women]. It was through promiscuity that they engaged in idolatry.

V. 2. ותקראנה וגו׳. Die von ihnen Verführten luden sie zu ihren Opfermählern und brachten sie endlich dazu, sich ihren Peorgöttern hinzuwerfen, in deren Kult sinnliche Ausschweifung aufhörte Verbrechen zu sein und einer Göttermacht huldigende Hingebung wurde.

לזבחי אלוהיהם, to the sacrifices of their gods. Although the Midrash had described the worship of the Baal Pe-Or as consisting of the worshiper excreting and urinating in front of that deity so that slaughtering of meat was certainly not part of this, it is possible that the meat was not really part of the rite but was part of a celebration in their god's honour. On the other hand, eating a lot may have been intended to ultimately result in excreting a lot in front of that idol.

ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "and Israel was joined to Baal Pe-Or." The words ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "Israel joined itself to Baal Pe-Or mean that the reason for Israel bowing down to the idol was the peculiar power of this idol exerted over people who worshiped it. [apparently even the elite was now involved. Ed.]

פעור — It was so named because they bared (פער) their anus and relieved themselves before it: this was its ceremonial rite (Sanhedrin 60b).

ויחר אף, the pestilence being proof of G’d’s anger.

ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור, “Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor.” The word ויצמד is from the same root as צמד בקר, “a yoke of oxen.” The meaning of the expression is that man and woman coupled together. There is a difference in meaning between the expression הצמדה and דבקות, although both express a state of togetherness, union, almost. הצמדה is a less intimate relationship, a looser coupling than דבקות. If the Torah had written here וידבק ישראל לבעל פעור, G’d forbid, this would have been such a grave sin that it could not have been repaired. This consideration is also reflected in the sages saying in Sanhedrin 64 that whereas the attachment of the Israelites to the deity בעל פעור was comparable to a lid over a pot, the attachment of the Israelites to their G’d (Deut. 4,4) is described as ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם, “you who cleave to the Lord your G’d,” i.e. a far closer attachment than that of the lid to the pot. The term דבקות when applied to two entities implies that they are so alike and clinging to each other as to be interchangeable. According to a Baraita the term ויצמד is related to צמידים — a bracelet worn by a woman (worn loosely but not attached to the body), while ואתם הדבקים indicates a tight bond.

Because they bared [their buttocks] before it. Meaning that פעור ["Pe’or"] is an expression of opening and revealing; for they would reveal their anus and relieve themselves.

V. 3. ויצמד וגו׳. Es gab verschiedene בעלים, vergötterte Gewalten. So einen בעל צפון, einen Mitternachtgott der Wüste (Schmot 14, 1). Dem gegenüber einen בעל מעון (32, 38) einen Gott der Wohnstätten und einen בעל ברית (Richter 8, 33) des Zusammenhaltens der Menschen. Es gab auch einen בעל זבוב (Kön. II, 1) einen Fliegengott, wahrscheinlich einen Gott der Fäulnis, vergl. זבובי מות (Pred. 10, 1), den man in Krankheiten über Leben und Tod interpellierte, und es gab auch einen בעל פעור, einen Gott der Schamlosigkeit, dem durch scheulose Hervorkehrung des Viehischsten gehuldigt wurde. Daher Hosea 9, 10 באו בעל פעור וינזרו לבשת, sie kommen nach Baalpeor und "weihten sich der Schande." — ”צמד“ siehe Kap. 19, 15. Der Peorkult ist eine Illustration jenes Darwinismus, der seinen Triumph darin feiert, dass der Mensch zum Tier hinabsteigt und sich seines göttlichen Adels entkleidet, sich nur als ein höheres "Vieh" begreifen lernt. ויחר אף וגו׳. Damit war aber die allererste Vorbedingung in Israel vernichtet, auf welcher seine Zukunft vor Gott beruht. Es war damit Gottes Zorn wider Israel hervorgerufen, der das Leben der unwürdig Gewordenen mit Vernichtung "trifft" und מגפה (vergl. Kap. 17, 11 u. 12).

ויחר אף ה' בישראל AND THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST ISRAEL — he sent a plague among them (cf. v. 8).

He sent a plague on them. As it is written shortly (v. 8), “And the plague stopped,” implying that He had sent a plague upon them.

קח את כל ראשי העם TAKE ALL THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE, to judge those who worshipped Peor (Sanhedrin 35a),

נגד השמש, so that the people would observe the execution of the idolaters and by not protesting their punishment achieve atonement. This would help them achieve atonement for having sinned by not protesting the sinners’ conduct beforehand.

וישוב חרון אף השם, so that the fierce anger of G'd may turn away, etc. G'd's anger had to be turned away even after justice had been done because whereas the courts in this world can only convict people who have been warned by accredited witnesses and who have committed their sin in the presence of these witnesses, others, equally guilty, had not been dealt with. If G'd were allowed to remain angry He would give permission to the angel of death to kill all those sinners who had not been warned or whose deed had not been witnessed by their peers. If G'd's anger could be turned away, these people would remain alive at this time.

והוקע אותם, the guilty ones. We find this word in Samuel II 21,6 at Givat Sha-ul, where it refers to hanging and execution.

קח את כל ראשי העם והוקע אותם, “take all the heads of the people and hang them!” This is not to be understood as a command to kill the leaders of the people by hanging. It meant that the leaders of the people should convict the guilty people, those who had worshipped the Baal-peor, of the death penalty. This is what Onkelos meant when he translated ”judge those guilty of death and execute them.” He did not translate: “kill the leaders of the people.” We find that during the episode of the golden calf Moses also told the judges of the people: “kill each his men (Exodus 32,27),” and the judges of the people mentioned there were identical with the people here described as ראשי העם, the leaders of the people. Although the Torah does not report that this command was carried out, the fact that G’d commanded Moses and he in turn commanded the judges makes it plausible to assume that these orders were carried out. Alternatively, they did not have a chance to complete their assignment before Pinchas killed Zimri without the benefit of a trial. Pinchas’s deed arrested the spread of the pestilence.

To pass judgment on those who worshiped Pe’or. Rashi is answering the question: Though the people had sinned, what was the sin of the leaders of the people? He answers that, “And hang [them]” does not refer to the leaders of the people. Rather [it means] that they judged the people and they would hang whoever was sentenced to death.

V. 4. ויאמר וגו׳. Das Kriminalgericht des göttlichen Gesetzes beruht rein auf dem Anklageprozess. Es hat das jüdische Gericht kein Recht zur Intervention, so lange die Anklage fehlt. Zu dieser Anklage ist aber kein öffentlicher Ankläger bestellt, sondern die ganze Nation in allen ihren selbständigen Männern ist die Staatsanwaltschaft des jüdischen Gesetzes. Je zwei Männer aus dem Volke haben dem Verbrecher im Momente des Verbrechens das Gesetz und die gesetzliche Strafe vorzuhalten, und wenn gleichwohl das Verbrechen verübt worden, den von ihnen gewarnten Verbrecher vor die Richter zu führen und namens des Gesetzes dessen Bestrafung zu fordern, wie das ganze Verhältnis in der trefflichen Arbeit des Dr. Naftali Hirsch (Jeschurun, Jahrgang XII, S. 30 ff.) dargelegt ist. Wenn also bei diesem Vorgange nicht Zeugen die Schuldigen vor die Gerichte geführt, so hatten diese als Richter keine gesetzliche Befugnis zur Ausübung ihres Richteramtes. Allein, dass eben bei einem so weit greifenden offenen Abfall vom Gesetze keine Männer aus dem Volke den Verbrechern warnend mit der Autorität des Gesetzes entgegengetreten und nach verübter Untat die Schuldigen ergriffen und vor ihre gesetzlichen Richter geführt und damit dem Umsichgreifen des Unwesens Einhalt getan, das eben machte jeden untätig Zuschauenden zum Mitverbrecher, riss das ganze Volk mit hinein, und darum hieß es: ויחר אף ד׳ בישראל, und darum erteilte Gott hier an Mosche die Befugnis und damit die Verpflichtung zum ausnahmsweisen richterlichen Einschreiten — הוראת שעה — der Gerichte. קח את כל ראשי העם, es sind dies die im folgenden Verse genannten שופטי ישראל. Dieses קח וגו׳ entspricht ganz dem ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים וגו׳ des Kap. 1, 17 wo bezeichnete Männer von Mosche und Aharon zur mitwirkenden Assistenz bei Ausführung einer aufgetragenen Amtshandlung genommen werden. So sollte Mosche hier als höchste Gesetzesautorität, als das verkörperte Sanhedrin — משה במקום שבעים וחד קאי alle die — (Sanhedrin 16b) ראשי העם, die שרי אלפים usw. die zu Richtern eingesetzt waren (Dewarim 1, 15 u. 16), zu seiner Assistenz nehmen und an allen, die dem פעור gedient, die vom Gesetze dem עובד ע׳׳ז diktierte סקילה-Strafe vollziehen, die für מגדף ועובד ע׳׳ז mit momentaner תליה nach dem Tode verbunden war (Sanhedrin 46b; — siehe zu Wajikra Kap. 20, 2).

נגד השמש, “facing the sun;” concerning this apparently irrelevant detail, Rashi quotes a Midrash which states that it is the sun that reveals who are the sinners. The cloud retreats from the sinner exposing him as such. The “cloud” referred to is the protective cloud that enveloped the Jewish people for almost forty years until the death of Aaron.

והוקע אותם AND HANG THEM — those who worshipped it (not the heads of the people).

All those stoned are hung. Rashi is answering the question: Surely idolatry is punished by stoning, so why were they hung?

והוקע אותם לד׳. Dass in einem solchen Momente, wo in sinnlicher Ausschweifung ein großer Teil des Volkes dem Götzenkult verfallen war, das Gotteswort an Mosche g nur אותם ohne nähere Angabe spricht, dürfte tief bezeichnend sein. Es sind eben die, von denen allein Mosche Sinn in einem solchen Momente erfüllt war, erfüllt sein konnte, die Schuldigen, die sein Volk in einen solchen Abgrund stürzen.

In view of everyone, and not outside of the encampment in the manner that other hangings are conducted (Gur Aryeh).

והוקע — This is “hanging”, just as we find in the case of Saul’s sons, (II Samuel XXL 6) “And we will kill them by הוקעה unto the Lord”, and there (II Samuel vv. 12—13) hanging is distinctly mentioned (Sanhedrin 34b). It is true that idolatry (the sin committed here) is punishable by stoning, but all who were stoned were also hanged (Sanhedrin 45b).

In full public view. Since the sun is seen by all, anything that is in public view is termed as “facing the sun.” However it does not mean literally facing the sun.

Wir haben bereits Wajikra (daselbst) die Bedeutung der mit der סקילה-Strafe der Verbrechen von מגדף und עובר ע׳׳ז verbundenen תליה על העץ als eine prägnante Hervorhebung des Sinnes dieser Strafe begriffen. Wenn, glaubten wir, schon סקילה an sich, ja eigentlich ein Töten durch den Erdboden, das damit bestrafte Verbrechen als ein solches bezeichnete, gegen welches sich gleichsam die Erde empört und dem Verbrecher keine Stätte gewährt, so wird diese Verworfenheit des Verbrechers bei dem Gipfel aller Verworfenheit noch durch תליה zwischen Himmel und Erde einen Augenblick veranschaulicht, damit zu sagen, dass den מגדף und עובד ע׳׳ז Himmel und Erde von sich weisen und ihm keine Stätte gewähren. Gerade diesen Begriff drückt aber der Ausdruck הוקע in treffendster Weise aus. יקע erscheint nämlich als das verstärkte יגע .יגע heißt aber ruhelos sein, und ist somit הוקע, das momentane Aufhängen der Verbrecherleiche, der sprechendste Ausdruck für die absolute Stättelosigkeit, welcher das Verbrechen den Verbrecher verfallen sein lassen würde, wenn nicht eben die an ihm vollzogene Strafe ihm Sühne gewährte (siehe Sanhedrin 47b).

נגד השמש AGAINST THE SUN — i.e., in the sight of everyone. A Midrashic statement is: the sun made known who were the sinners, for the cloud rolled itself up from in front of him (the sinner) so that the sun shone upon him (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 19).

The clouds roll back from the area above him. There are those who ask: Surely when Aharon died the clouds departed, as Rashi explains above in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 21:1). However, we do not find that the [clouds] returned as did the well [of Miriam] which departed but then came back. Chizkuni also asks this question. It appears to me that though the clouds had departed, [nonetheless this refers to] the cloud which protected them against the wind and the heat. This was particularly [important] in the desert where the heat was intense. It also prevented the winds from blowing, for this was why they had not circumcised themselves, because the northern wind [which provides healing] did not blow. [Rashi refers to] this cloud, which had not departed from their midst. Another answer is that although the clouds had departed, this cloud [which came] was temporary, in order to reveal the identity of the sinners.

לד׳ ;והוקע אותם לד׳ נגד השמש damit wird der Forderung Gottes, der nur auf Reinheit des Sittenprinzips und des Gottesgedankens Israels Zukunft basiert, genügt, indem durch Ausscheidung der Verbrecher aus der Reihe irdischer Existenzen und tatsächliche Proklamierung des hohen Grades solcher Verworfenheit die Idee der Heiligkeit des Prinzips wieder aufgerichtet ist und " ד" Sein Verhältnis zu Israel wieder fortwalten lassen kann. נגד השמש: das ganze kriminalrechtliche Verfahren der jüdischen Gesetzgebung, גמר דין ,תחלת הדין und auch die Strafvollziehung ist ביום, gehört in das helle, aufrechte, freie, sozialmenschliche Tagesleben. Es ist nicht Ausfluss eines nächtlich dunklen Rachegeistes. Es ist eine von der ihrer Selbst und ihrer Bestimmung sich bewussten Nation zu vollziehende, dem Gesetze und dem Verbrecher selbst Sühne bringende Handlung der Pflicht, darum לד׳ und וישב .נגד השמש, die Cholemform, statt des gewöhnlichen ישוב, spricht durchgreifend eine Rückkehr in ein früheres Verhältnis aus, das man nur ungern verlassen. So: ילך וישב לביתו (Dewarim 20, 5 f.); וישב למקומו (Sam. I. 5, 11) וישב אל מקומו (das. 29, 4) וישב העפר על הארץ (Pred. 12, 7) und sonst.

And the sun shines on him. A thick cloud was spread over them like a succah, but for those who sinned the cloud rolled back from the area above him and the sun…

הרגו איש אנשיו KILL EVERYONE HIS MEN — Each one of the judges of Israel killed two men (אנשיו is plural), and the judges of Israel were eighty-eight thousand in number, as it is related in Sanhedrin (cf. Sanhedrin 18a).

[AND MOSES SAID UNTO THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL]: ‘SLAY YE EVERY ONE HIS MEN [THAT HAVE JOINED THEMSELVES UNTO BAAL-PEOR].’ “Each one of the judges of Israel killed two [men, as the word anashav — his ‘men,’ in the plural, indicates], and the judges of Israel were seventy-eight thousand,³¹⁵Our texts of Rashi have the figure 88,000, but 78,000 [the number found in a Ramban manuscript] is correct [to the nearest thousand] — and this is also the figure quoted in Tractate Sanhedrin. The exact figure for the 600,000 Israelites is 78,600 judges, as follows: Captains of thousands, 600; captains of hundreds, 6,000; captains of fifties, 12,000; captains of tens, 60,000 — which total 78,600. It should be noted that in the first edition of Rashi (Reggio 1475) this whole text is missing. as is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin.”³¹⁶Sanhedrin 18a. This is Rashi’s language. But I cannot understand this, that [we should say that] those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor] who were judged [liable to death] were more than a hundred and fifty thousand — a quarter [of the total population] of Israel!³¹⁷For if the judges of Israel who numbered 78,600, each killed two men, a total of 157,200 men is reached! This is more than a quarter of the total population of the people! Heaven forbid! [Moreover], cases punishable by death [cannot be decided] by [only] one judge, but [require] a court of twenty-three judges. And [even if we were to say that two people were killed by each court of twenty-three judges], they would still be very many people! And the difference between the [two] censuses is not so great,³¹⁸In the census taken in the second year after the exodus, the people totalled 603,550 (above 1:46) and now after the incident of Baal-peor, they totalled 601,730 (further 26:51), the decrease being only 1,820! That figure is nowhere near the total number of people killed according to Rashi, for even if two people were killed by each court of twenty-three judges, over 7,000 people were killed. Ramban further on, explains that in actual fact none of the people were put to death. although all those who joined themselves to Baal-peor died, as it is written, for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee.³¹⁹Deuteronomy 4:3.
But the meaning of every one his men is that the judges should kill all those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], that is to say, each court should judge [the men of] its own tribe and its [groups of] thousands, as it is written, So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds … and officers, ‘tribe by tribe’.³²⁰Ibid., 1:15. The phrase tribe by tribe indicates that each tribe had its own judges who dealt with offenses committed by men of this tribe. And afterwards I found in the Gemara Yerushalmi [the following statement] in the Chapter Cheilek:³²¹Yerushalmi Sanhedrin X, 2. For the term Cheilek, see above, Note 228. “And how many were the judges of Israel? Seventy-eight thousand and six hundred. Moses said to them: ‘Each one of you should kill two.’ Thus you find that those killed were one hundred and fifty-seven thousand and two hundred.”³¹⁷For if the judges of Israel who numbered 78,600, each killed two men, a total of 157,200 men is reached! This is more than a quarter of the total population of the people! If so, we must say that according to their opinion [that of these Rabbis] the Israelites increased very remarkably between the [time of the first] census and the [second] census [in order to make up the loss of the many people killed because of this sin of Baal-peor]!
The correct interpretation of the meaning of this section [of the Torah] appears to me to be that at first it says, And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor; and the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Israel,³²²Verse 3. [meaning] that there is wrath gone out from the Eternal; the plague is begun;³²³Above, 17:11. and G-d in His mercy told Moses that the judges should [first] try and then hang those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], so that the wrath will not indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked.³²⁴See Genesis 18:23. And Moses gave this command to the judges; and when all the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting³²⁵Verse 6. to do as Moses commanded, and the plague was still raging amongst them, this Simeonite [Zimri the son of Salu]³²⁶Further, Verse 14. brazenly brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman³²⁵Verse 6. to rebel against Moses and the judges, and to do so publicly, because he was a prince³²⁶Further, Verse 14. and a great man and [knew that] many would come to his help. Or it may be [that he dared to do this publicly] because, as our Rabbis have said,³²⁷Sanhedrin 82a. [the people of] his tribe complained to him: “We are being sentenced to death, and you keep quiet!” Then [when Zimri came forth] Moses and the judges began weeping,³²⁵Verse 6. and Phinehas stood up, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.³²⁸Psalms 106:30. Thus none of the people was [actually] sentenced by the judges, for G-d had said, and hang them up unto the Eternal in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the Eternal may turn away from Israel,³²⁹Verse 4. and His anger had already turned away [by the action of Phinehas, so that the judges no longer had to proceed with the execution of the judgment]. It is for this reason that Scripture does not say: “and the judges of Israel did so [as they had been commanded].”
It is possible that the intention of the text mentioned [above as to the number of men slain in this episode is not that they were actually killed, but means, as explained above], that according to [the strict] command [of G-d] there ought to have been more than one hundred and fifty thousand killed, meaning to say that there were many sinners, but the act of Phinehas protected them. Thus there remained [many of those] who had joined themselves [to Baal-peor], and the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed them later on before they crossed over the [river] Jordan. This is [the meaning of] the verse which says, for all the men that followed after Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. But ye that did cleave unto the Eternal your G-d are alive every one of you this day.³³⁰Deuteronomy 4:3-4.
Pinchas

הרגו איש את אנשיו, “kill, each one of you, his guilty counterpart.” The Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,2 reports that each of the judges killed two Israelites, as there were a total of 78600 judges, and according to this 157.200 Israelites were executed on that occasion. Nachmanides questions the statement in the Jerusalem Talmud reminding us that a capital crime may not be judged by only one judge. Furthermore, if correct, the tremendous number of missing Israelites should be reflected in the census the Torah reports as having taken place immediately after this event, as per He therefore comes to the conclusion that the words איש את אנשיו refers to the judges who had convicted the active participants and whom G’d had commanded Moses to hang after their execution, would each be executed by the court of his tribe, so that not all judges had to participate in all the executions, but only in the executions of members of their particular tribe. [In other words, the word אנשיו restricts the individual judges’ duties as executioners. Ed.] I believe (Nachmanides’ words) that the correct interpretation of the whole paragraph beginning with the words (verse 3) ויצמד העם, is that initially the debacle began with some of the people worshipping the idol known as בעל פעור. This evoked G’d’s anger at the people of Israel and the plague began to take its toll among the people. G’d simultaneously told Moses to tell the judges to carry out their judicial duties in order to insure that the innocent would not fall victim to the plague, which did not distinguish between the loyal and the disloyal Jews. Once the whole community had been assembled at the entrance to the Tabernacle in order to carry out Moses’ instructions, and it was found that the plague continued to kill Israelites, Zimri came and presented the Midianite princess using her to incite a rebellion against Moses. by, among other things, challenging Moses who had himself slept with a Midianite woman, Tzipporah. This caused both Moses and the elders to commence weeping, seeing that Moses did not have an answer that would have sounded convincing, This was the signal for Pinchas to take the law into his own hands in order to put a stop to the plague. We know that he succeeded as the Torah reports that as an immediate consequence of Zimri and Cosbi being stabbed to death the plague ceased. (verse 8) There had not been enough time to convict a single member of the people by court of law. The proof is that G’d ordered them to be hanged, seeing that they had not been convicted legally. [Hanging after execution is called תליה not הוקעה. Ed.] This is the reason why the Torah does not report that Moses’ instructions to the judges had been carried out. It is possible that the intention of the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud quoted earlier was to inform us that if the order to execute the guilty people had indeed been carried out, each of the judges would have had to execute two Israelites. The vast majority of them were saved by the courageous deed of Pinchas. They survived at this point, but they did not cross the Jordan into the Holy Land as the Torah testifies that G’d destroyed all the persons that had been actively involved in this sorry affair. (Compare Deut.4,3)

V. 5. אל שופטי ישראל ויאמר וגו׳ (siehe V. 4). אנשיו: wie später außer dem höchsten Tribunal von einundsiebzig jede größere Stadt ihr Kriminalgericht von dreiundzwanzig hatte, so waren auch während Israels Wanderung bestimmte Volksgruppen bestimmten Gerichten überwiesen (siehe Schmot Kap. 18, 21), oder, nach Sanhedrin 35a חלק להם בתי דינין, wurde hier ad hoc eine Verteilung des Volkes unter eine entsprechende Anzahl Gerichte vorgenommen. אנשיו וגו׳ sind daher hier wohl diejenigen unter den einem jeden als Richter Überwiesenen. Es sollte also jedes Gericht aus der ihm als solchem untergeordneten Volkszahl die des Peorverbrechens Überwiesenen hinrichten. איש ist wohl nicht Einzelrichter, sondern der Gerichtspräses, אב בית דין, mit Zuziehung seines Kollegiums.

הרגו איש את אנשיו, “slay every man each of the men (that have worshipped the Baal Peor) the bodies to be hanged.!” The leader of each tribe was charged with that task.

והנה איש וגו׳ AND BEHOLD, ONE [OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CAME] The tribe of Simeon gathered to Zimri who was their prince, saying to him. “We are sentenced to death and you remain quiet!?”, — as it is related in the chapter beginning אלו הן הנשרפין (Sanhedrin 82a).

ויקרב אל אחיו, in order to seduce her, in violation of Leviticus 18,6 that revealing private parts of members of the opposite sex is also forbidden.

ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “He brought the Midianite woman near to his brethren;” the Torah really should have written: “a man by the name of Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, went and brought the Midianite woman whose name was Cozbi bat Tzur near his brethren.” However, the Torah could not bring itself to reveal name of the wicked person who had become the reason for the raging pestilence until he had been dealt with, i.e. until Pinchas had killed him and until Pinchas had received his reward. Only then does the Torah mention the names of both the man and the woman involved (verses 14-15). All of this is to tell us the praises of Pinchas who displayed fearlessness. Although the people in question were a prince and a king’s daughter respectively, he did not let this stop him from killing them (Rashi).

The tribe of Shimon gathered… Rashi is answering the following question: Surely all of Yisroel saw that Moshe had commanded them to kill all who united themselves with Ba’al Pe’or and those who had laid with the Moavites. Thus, why was he not afraid to approach her? Re’m explains that if he had done this on his own volition, why did he wait until Moshe said “Each of you must execute his men who were united…” (v. 5).

V. 6. והנה: bevor noch diese Anordnung zum Vollzug kam und während noch die Richter der Nation um Mosche versammelt waren. איש מבני ישראל: wir erfahren aus V. 14, dass es ein Stammfürst war. Er wird hier jedoch nur als "ein Mann aus Israel" bezeichnet, wohl nur, um das Folgende rein nur vom Standpunkt des "jüdischen Mannes" auffassen zu lassen. So gewiss sein Verbrechen durch seinen Charakter als Fürst, der als Muster edler Sittenreinheit voranleuchten sollte, nur um so gravierender erscheinen muss, und so gewiss die Pinchastat um so größer erscheint, je höher im Range über ihm der Mann stand, an welchem er zum Rächer des Gesetzes wurde, und daher auch Verse 14 u. 15 sehr wohl der Rang des Mannes und des Weibes gemeldet wird: so gewiss beginnt das Verbrecherische des Verbrechens, das hier geübt und gerächt wurde, nicht erst mit dem Fürsten. Es ist der "jüdische Mann" der "איש מבני ישראל", der mit der "מדינית" Gott und sein Gesetz und Israel gehöhnt, und damit in flagranti den קנאין, den Eiferern für Gott und sein Gesetz und ישראל verfällt. הבועל את הארמית קנאין פוגעין בו (Sanhedrin 82a).

ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “and he publicly presented to his brethren the Midianite woman;” the root קרב has been chosen by the chosen by the Torah to describe carnal relations, for instance in Genesis 20,4. Compare also Isaiah 8,3 ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.”

את המדינית THE MIDIANITISH WOMAN — Kozbi the daughter of Zur.

לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת ישראל, “in the presence of Moses and the assembled community of Israel.” He (Zimri) accorded no respect to either heaven or G’d’s creatures.

Who permitted the daughter of Yisro to you? However they erred, because Moshe had married before the giving of the Torah. Alternatively she was a convert.

ויקרב: er brachte sie ganz eigentlich hin, um sie damit zu höhnen. עדת בני ישראל, und so auch V. 7 מתוך העדה, ist wohl die Versammlung der zu Mosche berufenen Richter (siehe Sanhedrin 82a). — והמה בוכים der Anblick hatte sie so schmerzlich überwältigt, dass sie Kraft und Besinnung zur Mannestat nicht hatten.

והמה בוכים, “while these were weeping;” they wept when they heard Moses’ instructions to kill the guilty persons. In many instances it meant that they had to kill their own relatives.

לעיני משה BEFORE THE EYES OF MOSES — They said to him: “Moses, is this Midianite woman forbidden or permissible as a wife. If you say she is forbidden, then who made Jethro’s daughter, a Midianite woman, permissible to you, etc.” as is related there (Sanhedrin 82a).

והמה בוכים, “and they were crying.” The Israelites were crying on account of the pestilence which had begun to claim victims amongst them indicating G’d’s anger at the people. Our sages in Tanchuma Balak 20 say that they were crying because a religious decision, הלכה, had apparently escaped Moses and had made this pestilence possible. Zimri had asked Cozbi to sleep with him to which Cozbi had replied: I will not agree to sleep with any one of you unless it is Moses or Eleazar the High Priest seeing I am a king’s daughter. To this Zimri had replied: “I am just as high ranking as they are. I will bring you before them in public.” He took Cozbi by her plait and dragged her before Moses, saying: “Ben Amram, is this woman permitted for me to sleep with or not? If you say that she is not permitted for me to sleep with, who gave you permission to sleep with the daughter of Yitro (a Midianite)?” When Moses heard this he could not remember what should be done to punish Zimri. At that point all the people started crying. This is the meaning of: “they were crying at the entrance to the Tent of Testimony.”
Why precisely did the people cry? Did they really think that Moses, a man who had many times been able to stand up to 600,000 fellow Israelites, such as when he burned the golden calf the people had danced around, was now too weak to hold his own against a single Zimri? G’d prevented Moses from remembering the correct procedure at that time in order to enable Pinchas to reap the reward for his initiative. Concerning this incident Solomon says in Proverbs 30,31: “the greyhound, a male goat, and a king who is senile.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 82 apply this verse to Moses (the senile king) and Pinchas the greyhound, the eager beaver. Seeing that Moses forgot the correct response to Zimri he was compared to a senile old king.

The halachah was concealed from them. For if not so, why would they have wept here more than during the sin of the [Golden] Calf, or during other sins.

והמה בכים AND THEY WERE WEEPING — the law (decision on this matter) escaped him and therefore they all burst out into weeping (Sanhedrin 82a). — In the case of the golden calf Moses successfully resisted six hundred thousand men, as it is said, (Exodus 32:20) “And he ground it to powder [and he made the children of Israel drink of it]”, and here his hands were weak (he did not know what to do)?! But this was intentionally caused by God in order that Phineas might come and receive that which was meant for him (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 20).

וירא פנחס AND PHINEAS SAW — He saw what was being done and he was thereby reminded of the law on this subject (Sanhedrin 82a). He said to Moses, “I have received a tradition from you: he who has intercourse with an Aramean (heathen) woman, zealous people may attack him”. He replied to him: “Let him who reads the letter be the agent for executing it”; — straightway, ויקח רמח בידו HE TOOK A JAVELIN IN HIS HAND, etc. (Sanhedrin 82a).

וירא פינחס, “Pinchas saw, etc.” When he saw a certain deed he remembered the halachah pertaining to it. He said to Moses: “did you not teach us when you descended from Mount Sinai that if someone has sexual intercourse with a pagan woman one may kill such a person in a fit of religious fervor?” To this Moses replied: “he who reads the letter may deliver it to the addressee.” Upon hearing this, ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רומח בידיו, “he arose from amongst the congregation and took a short sword in his hand.” As a reward for this action he was granted the priestly portions (the foreleg, the cheekbones and the stomach of all animals slaughtered by the Israelites as food compare Chulin 134). [The meaning of this line is that he was accorded the status of a priest, a status he had not possessed previously. All the priests are entitled to these parts of the animal.] He was awarded the foreleg for seizing a sword with his hands, the cheekbones corresponding to “Pinchas stepped forth and intervened” (Psalms 106,30), and he was awarded the stomach corresponding to Numbers 25,8 “and the woman into her stomach.” The performance of this commandment helped Pinchas both in this world and in the hereafter (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 47). In this world Pinchas merited the gifts granted to the priests. Moreover, he lived for many hundreds of years on terrestrial earth. We have proof of this in Judges 11,26 when Yiftach told the Ammonites that Israel had dwelled in Hebron and other towns claimed by the Ammonites already for over 300 years. We also find over a hundred years later that Pinchas was still alive in Judges 20,28. The prophet states this explicitly.
As to the benefits Pinchas received in his hereafter as a result of his courageous and purely motivated deed in killing Zimri and Cozbi, he was granted the dimension of peace, a wonderful attribute. He was ushered in to eternal life.
In the course of his deed, he experienced no fewer than 12 miracles without which he could not have succeeded (based on Tanchuma Balak 21) 1) It is customary for a couple who have engaged in sexual intercourse to separate their bodies from one another afterward. In this instance an angel ensured that Zimri and Cozbi’s bodies were sticking together to enable Pinchas to pierce both with one and the same stroke of the spear. 2) The angel closed their mouths to prevent them from crying out and alerting neighbors who would have attacked Pinchas. 3) The angel directed the spear of Pinchas (who was outside the tent) to aim at precisely the private parts of both Zimri and Cozbi. 4) He miraculously lengthened the metal blade of Pinchas’ spear so that it could reach both the sinners. 5) He raised the lintel of the door to their tent so that the people could all see how these two were strung up on it. 6) He arranged the position of these two in such a way that they were head down and feet up so that everyone could see that they had been killed during the performance of the sexual act. This was to prevent people from arguing that Zimri had entered the tent merely to relieve himself. 7) He lent extra strength to Pinchas’ arm to lift both of them simultaneously so that they would be suspended from the wooden post. 8) He strengthened the wooden post on which they were hung to support the combined weight of the two. 9) He insured that they would not slide off that wooden post. 10) He protected Pinchas so that the blood of his victims did not splash upon him. 11) He enabled Pinchas to hang the two in full view of the people. Halachically speaking, (under normal circumstances), Pinchas, through contact of his spear with the bodies would have become ritually impure. Seeing Pinchas performed his deed with a flat wooden spear, an instrument which is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, he was saved from becoming ritually contaminated in contrast with Numbers 19,22 according to which anyone in contact with a corpse becomes ritually unclean for at least seven days (compare details in Avodah Zarah 37 and Chulin 28).
It is also possible, based on Tanchuma Balak 21, that G’d miraculously kept both Zimri and Cozbi alive for the few moments it took for Pinchas to let go of the spear after stabbing them. This then would be the twelfth miracle Pinchas experienced in connection with his deed. If we accept the Tanchuma we need not posit that Pinchas’ spear was a wooden tool or that it was flat. The question of Pinchas becoming ritually unclean would not even have arisen.
After all these miracles had happened to Pinchas and he took the two outside to display them hanging, the entire tribe of Shimon surrounded the tent in a threatening posture wanting to kill Pinchas. At that moment the pestilence began which killed twenty-four thousand Israelites, all of them members of the tribe of Shimon (Tanchuma Vayechi 13). It is relatively simple to confirm this when we consider the number of men from the tribe of Shimon counted in Numbers 1,17, i.e. 59,300, and the number of men from that same tribe counted in Numbers 26,14, i.e. 22,000. We note that the tribe had lost over 37,000 men of military age.
When we consider that during the episode of the golden calf only 3,000 Israelites were killed whereas here 24,000 lost their lives this teaches that the sin of idolatry alone was far less catastrophic than the combination of idolatry and sexual licentiousness involving pagan partners displayed on this occasion at Shittim.
By displaying jealousy on behalf of G’d who had described Himself as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) Pinchas turned away G’d’s wrath and saved untold thousands from being consumed by the pestilence through having put his life on the line. He had simply been unable to witness this public desecration of the Lord’s name. He totally ignored accepted rules of conduct which required showing respect for his superiors, in this case the prince of the tribe of Shimon and a daughter of the King of Midian. He meant to show the world that the only One who is entitled to honor and respect is the Lord. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: “all who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory.”

And he remembered the halachah. For if this were not so, why does it state, “He saw”? It should have [merely] said “Pinchas rose up from the midst of the community…”

V. 7. מתוך העדה: er war wohl mit einer der um Mosche versammelten Richter. — רמח verwandt mit רמה, Pfeil werfen, נושקי רומי קשת (Ps.18, 9), רמח: Wurfspieß.

וירא פינחס, “when Pinchas saw, that no one acted upon Moses’ instructions;”

Executed by the zealous. It means to say that those who wish to be zealous for Hashem are to kill him. The meaning of קנאין פוגעין בו ["executed by the zealous"] is that they must do so of their own initiative, and specifically at the time of the act. However if the one having relations separates then one cannot kill him. Also, if the zealous one comes to ask permission from Beis Din, they do not instruct him to do so, even if it is during the act. Consequently, Pinchas had to rise up of his own accord and take action.

אל הקבה means TO THE TENT.

ותעצר המגפה, for G’d had already decreed previously that all the people who had spurned Him would not see the land of Israel. (Numbers 14,25). [this justifies the letter ה before a מגפה which we had not heard about. Ed,]

וידקר את שניהם, He stabbed them both. We can understand that Pinchas had a legal excuse to kill the Israelite who indulged in sex with a Gentile woman; however, what right did he have to kill the woman? There is no known halachah which excuses such a deed! If Pinchas suspected that Kosbi was married and as such had made herself guilty of adultery, who has ever heard of executing someone on the basis of such an assumption? Perhaps Pinchas applied the law applicable to animals to Kosbi. We have learned in Leviticus 20,15 that when humans and animals indulge in mutual sex even the animal has to be executed. We are also told in Ezekiel 23,20 that the flesh of Gentiles is equated with the flesh of donkeys.

הקבה, a kind of tent.

Many miracles were performed for him. [The miracles are as follows:] Zimri should have separated [from her], in which case Pinchas would not have been permitted to kill him, however he did not separate. Zimri should have called the members of his tribe to help him. Since [he struck] through the male organ of the man and the female organ of the woman, everyone knew why he had killed them. They did not become separated by the spear. An angel came and raised the lintel [of the tent] so that he could bring them out. An angel came and caused a plague among the people in order that the tribe of Shimon would be unsettled. The blade of the spear became elongated such that it entered them and came out on the other side. Pinchas’s arm was strengthened, and the spear did not break. Their blood did not fall onto Pinchas. They did not die [immediately, which would have] made Pinchas impure. Also, [when spearing something] that which is above becomes below, and that which is below becomes above, but here what was above remained above and was below remained below.

V. 8. קבה von קבב: höhlen (siehe Kap. 22, 11), davon קבה, ein kleines Zeltgemach, nach Menachot 31b oben enger als unten, noch in unserem "Alkoven" vorhanden. קבתה , von der damit verwandten Wurzel ”קוב“, wovon קבה, der Magen, die Bauchhöhle. — תעצר המגפה und bedurfte es auch nicht weiter der Ausführung der exzeptionellen Vers 4 angeordneten Intervention der Gerichte. רמב׳׳ן weist auf Dewarim 4, 3 hin: כי כל האיש אשר הלך אחרי בעל פעור השמידו ד׳ אלהיך מקרבך, wonach alle die dem Peorkult Verfallenen durch Gottes Hand ihren Untergang gefunden.

וידקור את שניהם, “and he stabbed both of them to death at the same time.” If in the process he became ritually unclean, there was nothing wrong with this, as our sages have said Pinchas only became a priest after he had killed Zimri, so that he had not been subject to the commandment not to knowingly become ritually unclean.

אל קבתה means IN HER STOMACH, similar to (Deut 18:3): “And the two cheeks and the maw (והקיבה)”. He miraculously struck exactly at Zimri’s male and her female parts so that everyone could plainly perceive that he had not killed them without just cause. Many other miracles, too, were wrought for him, as is related there (Sanhedrin 82b).

קבתה, her belly; compare Deuteronomy 18,3.והקבה.

If you were to ask that if it is so why didn't the Israelites execute Kosbi seeing she did not belong to a nation whom the Israelites had been forbidden to kill, [such as the Edomites and Moabites? Ed.] the answer may be that they had not yet offered peace to the Midianites. [Jews must extend an offer of peace and surrender to an adversary other than an invader before going to war against such people (Deut. 20,10) Ed.] While it is true that in the event, [at the beginning of the punitive campaign against Midian. Ed.] we do not find that the Midianites were offered a choice of surrender or even "transfer," this was after G'd had given specific instructions (28,17) to harass the Midianites. Alternatively, the Israelites may not have known the identity of the woman in question believing her to be a Moabite; in that event they were under stricture not to harm the Moabites. She may even have worn Moabite style garments in order to hide her true identity. The fact that the Torah describes her as a Midianite does not prove the Israelites were aware of this at the time.

אל קבתה, “through her belly.” The word is used in the sense of piercing a hole in Kings II 12,10: ויקב חור בדלתו, “he bored a hole through its door.”

V. 9. ארבעה ועשרים אלף. Bei Egel fielen nur dreitausend, und wenngleich außerdem auch dort noch Schuldige durch plötzlichen Tod starben, so scheint doch hier die Zahl der Gefallenen bedeutend größer gewesen zu sein. So greift ein Götzenkult ausschweifender Sinnlichkeit unendlich weiter, als bloß metaphysische Götterverirrung.

לאמר, to say, etc. To whom was Moses to tell this? He did not have to tell Pinchas as in that case why did the Torah write in verse 12: אמר, "say" if he had already been told all this by Moses? Besides, the sequence of the whole chapter shows that Pinchas had not yet been told of his reward.

I suppose that G'd wanted Moses to tell the entire people that not only had Pinchas not acted highhandedly and they had no cause to hate him for having killed one of their princes, but that thanks to Pinchas' deed the whole nation had benefited immediately. Moses also explained to the people that Pinchas had only succeeded in what he did because he had heavenly assists as outlined in Sanhedrin 82. We will get back to this later in greater detail.

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.

את בריתי שלום [I GIVE TO HIM] MY COVENANT — PEACE — This means: I give him my covenant that it should be to him as a covenant of peace; just like a man who shows gratitude and friendliness to one who has done him a kindness. So here, too, the Holy One, blessed be He, expressed to him His peaceful feelings towards him.

את בריתי שלום. Peace with the angel of death. We have a similar meaning of this word שלום in Job 25,20 עושה שלום במרומיו, “He makes peace in His lofty regions.” [I assume that the reference is to the fact that the angel of death has no authority in the celestial regions. Ed.] Losses occur only as a result of confrontations by opposites. We find that as a result of this שלום, “peace, or armistice” with the angel of death Pinchas enjoyed an exceedingly long life on earth, more so than any other member of his generation. In fact, he was still serving as priest in the Tabernacle at Shiloh during the civil war between Binyamin and the other tribes. This occurred many years after the death of Joshua and the elders who were Joshua’s assistants. (Judges 20,28) Joshua 24,26 reports these elders as surviving Joshua for many years. If, as is indicated by the Talmud, Pinchas was still alive in the days of Yiphtach (Judges 11,26) he must have been 300 years old by that time. (compare either Bereshit Rabbah 60,3 or Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 47 on the subject of Pinchas)

לכן אמור, "Therefore, 'say,'" etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word לכן, "Therefore," seeing it goes on to explain in verse 13 "because he was jealous for his G'd?" We are forced to understand the word as an oath. We have learned in Shemot Rabbah 6,4 on Exodus 6,6 that this word is always to be understood as a form of oath. The Midrash uses as its source Samuel I 3,14, ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, "And this is why I have sworn an oath concerning the house of Eli, etc." This still leaves us with the question why an oath was required in this instance. Presumably, the oath was needed to reinforce the covenant of peace in the event that Pinchas' children should turn out not to be deserving of the covenant G'd had concluded with their father.

לכן אמור, “Therefore, say! etc.” the words “to the Children of Israel,” are implied here. Moses was to announce to the Israelites that Pinchas had acquired hereditary rank as a priest.

לכן אמור, “therefore say:” this wording serves as an allusion to the blessing of the priests which is introduced by a call to them from a congregant to begin to chant the blessing. [The meaning could be that whereas a priest guilty of killing a human being is prevented thereby from performing this blessing (Berachot 32), Pinchas was allowed to be an exception to this rule.]

To be a covenant of peace for him. Rashi is answering the question: Why it is written “My covenant”? Instead it should have written, “A covenant of peace.” He answers that [it was termed] “My covenant” because I am giving it to him to be a covenant of peace for him. Therefore, the verse did not write “a covenant of peace” so that the word “peace” would not be considered the content of the covenant [describing the covenant as one of peace], rather it is as if the verse is abbreviated, as Rashi explains [that “I give him My covenant to be a covenant of peace”]. Re’m explains that Rashi added the words, “To be a covenant of peace for him” rather than settling for the words “I give him” which were written in the verse, because afterwards it is written (v. 13), “It shall be for him … a covenant of eternal kehunah.” There the words “give him” and “My covenant” from our verse are insufficient [meaning that the “covenant of eternal kehunah” was in addition to the covenant already mentioned]. Thus, the same is true regarding the word “peace” and the verse means “I give him My covenant to be a covenant of peace for him and as a covenant of eternal kehunah.” Rashi adds the letter lamed to the word שלום [saying לברית שלום, lit. "as a covenant of peace"] to show the connotation of being for [something], indicating that this covenant was for peace and for an eternal kehunah. However, once Rashi had explained this regarding “peace” there was no need to do so for “eternal kehunah.”

V. 12. לכן אמר וגו׳, nicht אמר לו oder אליו, sondern allgemein: bringe es zu allgemeinem Verständnis und zur Beherzigung aller: הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום! Wie Wajikra 26, 42 ein יעקב :ברית, ein יצחק :ברית, ein אברהם :ברית heißt, und damit jedes unter den Begriff "אברהם" ,"יצחק" ,"יעקב" gefasste Verhältnis als ein ברית, als eine von absoluter Gottesbestimmung getragene Verheißung bezeichnet wird: so heißt hier ein שלום" :ברית" und ist damit "שלום", die Gestaltung der vollendetsten Harmonie aller Weltverhältnisse unter einander und mit Gott, als ein "ברית", als eine von absoluter Gottesbestimmung getragene Verheißung ausgesprochen, deren endliche Realisierung das absolute Augenmerk Gottes und daher der Welt unabänderlich sicher ist (siehe Bereschit 6, 18). Die Realisierung dieser höchsten Friedensharmonie überantwortet Gott hier gerade derjenigen Gesinnung und demjenigen Tatenwirken, welche eine gedankenlose, ihre pflichtvergessene Untätigkeit so gerne in den Mantel der "Friedensliebe" hüllende Welt, eben als "Friedensstörer" zu bezeichnen und zu verdammen sich gefällt. "Friede" ist ein hohes Gut, dem alles, alle eigenen Rechte und Güter, nimmer aber die Rechte anderer, nimmer aber das Recht des göttlich Guten und Wahren zum Opfer gebracht werden darf. Der wahre Friede der Menschen unter einander beruht auf dem Frieden aller mit Gott. Wer den Kampf mit dem dem göttlich Guten und Wahren im Kreise der Menschen Feindlichen wagt, der ist mitten im Kampf und durch denselben ein Streiter für den ברית שלום auf Erden. Wer um des vermeintlichen Friedens willen mit Menschen deren wirklichem Zwiespalt mit Gott schweigend das Terrain lässt, dessen Friedensliebe gesellt sich selber zu den Feinden des ברית שלום auf Erden. Nicht die Teilnahmlosigkeit der Massen, selbst nicht die am Eingang zum Heiligtum in Untätigkeit geweinte Träne des Schmerzes um den Verrat, die wackere Pinchastat hat das Volk gerettet und ihm den Frieden mit Gott und seinem Gesetze und damit die Basis des eigenen wahrhaftigen Friedens wieder gebracht. So nennt Gott (Maleachi 2, 5) seinen dem Levitengeist überhaupt übergebenen ברית: das Leben und den Frieden. בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום ואתנם לו מורא וייראני ומפני שמי נחת הוא. Mein ברית war bei ihm: das Leben und der Friede. Die übergab Ich ihm in der Furcht, da er nur mich fürchtete und zu allererst vor meinem Namen sich selber beugte.

לכן, because (he had performed this deed of valour) on My behalf; הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I am forthwith giving him My covenant “peace.” G–d assures Pinchas that even if either relatives of Zimri and Cosbi will hate Pinchas, He will protect him against any act of overt or covert hostility. In the Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 66, attention is drawn to the fact that the letter ו in the word שלום is written with a break in the stem of that letter, to indicate that when a priest is not totally whole in all of his limbs, he is not fit to perform the service in the Temple. His service would be rendered invalid retroactively.

את בריתי שלום, “My covenant of peace.” He has no reason to fear the vengeance of either the relatives of Zimri or of Cosbi, the Midianite princess.

הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I herewith grant him My covenant of peace.” According to the plain meaning of the text family members who might act as גואל הדם, having the license to kill him by reason of being blood relations. Seeing that Zimri was a high-ranking member of the Israelite society there might have been numerous people who would have welcomed a chance to do just this. Apart from this assurance, his real reward would be that both he and his descendants would be priests.

Gratitude and favor towards someone who benefitted him. Meaning: He expresses favor towards him for the assistance that he provided. Re’m writes: There is reason to be puzzled, for it is understandable according to Ibn Ezra who explains that the peace which He gave him was that he should not be fearful of Zimri’s brothers. For this is an assurance, and for which an oath [in the form of a covenant] would be appropriate, [confirming] that He would uphold His assurance. However, according to Rashi who says that He expressed his peace to him like a man who harbors gratitude, for this there is no assurance, so an oath is not appropriate and it would not say that My oath (covenant) shall be an oath (covenant) of peace for him. One can answer that the main covenant was for the eternal kehunah, for the main Kohanim Gedolim were descended from Pinchas. And by way of this covenant, Hashem informed him that He harbored gratitude and favor towards him because of his assistance, and this was the peace [mentioned].

We may also be able to explain this verse on the basis of what we learned in Zevachim 101 that prior to the incident with Zimri Pinchas had not yet been appointed to the priesthood, as, although he was around at the time Aaron and his sons were anointed, he himself had not bothered to be anointed. After he performed his deed of jealousy on behalf of G'd he was appointed to the priesthood. Pinchas could have acquired the priesthood either as an act of forgiveness or as a gift from G'd. In the former event, his deed prompted G'd to forgive him for having failed at the time to have himself anointed. If we see in his appointment now a gift from G'd, we may view it as something entirely new. Just as Aaron and his sons were appointed to be priests, though Amram Aaron's father and his brothers had not been priests, so Pinchas' appointment was something quite new. There is a halachic difference between priesthood acquired as an act of forgiveness and priesthood acquired as a gift. In the fomer case, the priest need not perform an act of קנין, a symbolic act of acquisition of the priesthood; however, someone who had not had a previous claim to the priesthood and was awarded same as a gift must perform such an act of קנין.

Es ist aber das "ו" in שלום ein ויו קטיעא, nach allgemeinster Auffassung ein gebrochenes Waw. Der Pinchasbund heißt eben der "wiederzusammengefügte" שלום. Wo der Pinchaseifer von nöten ist, da ist eben der Friede "gebrochen". Und der Pinchaskampf gilt eben der Wiederherstellung des Friedens, er will den שלום wieder שלם machen. Daran knüpft dann (Kiduschin 86b) die Halacha den Satz, dass בעל מום שעבד עבודתו פסולה, dass der מום des ministrierenden כהן die עבודה nichtig mache. Es heiße hier von dem in das Priestertum eintretenden Pinchas: הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום כשהוא שלם ולא כשהוא חסר הא שלום כתיב אמר רבי נחמן וי׳׳ו דשלום קטיעה היא, wer die Wiederherstellung des mit Gott gebrochenen Friedens vermitteln will, und das soll symbolisch jede עבודה — der muss selber שלם sein. —

My covenant [of] peace. Pinchas was promised he would not become an agitated and angry person, for the nature of the act he did — killing a person with his hands — leaves a strong impression. However, since he did it for the sake of Heaven he received the blessing that he would always be in peace and serenity.

The expression: את בריתי שלום, is to be understood as if the Torah had written: את בריתי, ברית שלום, “My covenant, the covenant of peace.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 45,7: כסאך אלוקים, “Your throne, G-d,” which is to be understood as if the author had written: כסאך כסא אלוקים, Your throne, the throne of G-d. We also find such a construction in Joshua 3,14: הארון הברית, which is to be understood as if the author had written: ,הארון ארון הברית, “the Ark, the Ark of the covenant.” The author states that he could cite numerous such examples. An alternate interpretation of the expression: בריתי שלום: Pinchas had been worried that as a result of his having killed a human being, something forbidden to do for a priest, he might have to forego his status as a priest. G-d therefore assured him that seeing that his intention was to glorify the name of the Lord, he need not fear such consequences. This will be spelled out forthwith.

Receiving the priesthood as a gift carries with it two disadvantages which the person who receives the priesthood as an act of forgiveness need not worry about. If the priesthood was attained via G'd forgiving Pinchas for an act of negligence in the past, then, if Pinchas were to be appointed High Priest at a future date he would not have to face any challengers. Any challenge would be dealt with as had the challenges against Aaron becoming High Priest. If the priesthood were to be granted only as a gift, the priest in question could face challenges to his promotion just as did Aaron before G'd had intervened. Such a challenge would be reinforced by the fact that Pinchas had killed. A priest who has killed is supposedly unfit to perform his priestly duties. People would claim that inasmuch as the status of the priesthood granted as a gift is limited to the recipient of that gift becoming an ordinary priest, such a priest does not qualify to compete for the office of High Priest. This is not so when a potential priest regains his former status through the act of G'd's forgiveness. Seeing that he had been in line for the office of High Priest before he had forfeited it through negligence, G'd's forgiveness reinstates such a potential priest in his former status. As a result of these considerations, obtaining the priesthood by way of an act of forgiveness from G'd is superior in three ways to obtaining it as a mere gift. 1) No formal act of acquisition is needed. 2) One need not worry about potential challengers to one's promotion. 3) It is an enduring status transferable to one's children and grandchildren as something hereditary.

In His wisdom, G'd decided to accord Pinchas the priesthood as a gift in order to demonstrate that he did not become a priest merely through a hereditary claim to the priesthood instead of a claim based on moral excellence. By appointing Pinchas as priest directly, G'd elevated the meaning of Pinchas' priesthood, made it into something which he could point to as a mark of personal distinction. This is why the Torah describes G'd as saying: "Here I give to him My covenant, peace." In view of our having pointed out that such a gift by definition may not be transferable to one's children, G'd had to reinforce the gift by an oath, i.e. the word אכן, in order to make the appointment as enduring as if it had been acquired through an act of forgiveness. This is why G'd had to add לו ולזרעו אחריו "to him and his descendants after him." The "peace" included that no one would challenge Pinchas' claim to the priesthood and the office of High Priest when the time came. I have pointed out on a previous occasion that the word כהונה is the name of a certain category of souls known as such in the region where the souls are at home. G'd assured Pinchas that his descendants would always receive souls drawn from the pool of souls known as כהונה. This is the mystical dimension of the expression כהונת עולם.

והיתה לו AND IT SHALL BE UNTO HIM — this covenant of Mine shall be unto him —

תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו, seeing he had had the courage to fight My fight, I have ennobled him, granting him “peace” [a fitting reward for a noble fight. Ed.]

תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו, because he displayed jealousy on behalf of His G'd. This verse provides the reason why G'd decided to give the priesthood to Pinchas as a gift rather than in his capacity of being the son of a priest. By pointing out that what Pinchas had done, he did on account of his G'd, G'd repaid him by elevating him to the priesthood as an act of honouring him personally. He did this by demonstrating that Pinchas did not have to rely on his ancestry, i.e his father and grandfather the High Priests in order to become a priest himself. ויכפר על בני ישראל, he atoned on behalf of the children of Israel. This means that he re-established peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven that G'd in turn called off the angel of death. Inasmuch as Pinchas had caused G'd to call off the angel of death from his people, his people made a pact of peace with him. Inasmuch as the benefits the Israelites derived from Pinchas' calling off the angel of death from them, in other words a benefit extending from generation to generation, Pinchas' elevation to the priesthood was also one that extended from generation to generation, i.e. כהונת עולם.

This covenant of Mine. Meaning that “והיתה” ["it shall be"] is in the feminine form, and it refers to the covenant that was mentioned above, for the word “covenant” is a feminine form. Re’m explains that the word והיתה is not associated with the words “My covenant of peace” because “My covenant of peace” would not become “a covenant of kehunah.” Rather, it is connected with the word “My covenant” [teaching] that this covenant shall be a covenant of eternal kehunah, just as it shall be a covenant of peace.

V. 13. והיתה לו וגו׳. Als Pinchas erzeugt wurde, war Elasar noch זר, daher trug Pinchas bis jetzt nicht den Priestercharakter. Allein wie der Stamm Levi durch sein Auftreten beim Egel sich tatsächlich den Levitenrang errungen, dessen ihn sodann die ausdrückliche Erwählung würdigte, so hatte Pinchas durch seine rettende Tat wahrhaft "den Weg weisend", wahrhaft als "כהן" sich im Volke betätigt und in Tathandlung die sühnende Hingebung vollbracht, die symbolisch die עבודה des Priesters im Heiligtum vollbringt. Darum ward er nach solcher Tat zum Priester erhoben, und bewährte sich der ihm hier für ihn und seine ihm nachfolgenden Nachkommen erteilte ewige Priesterbund darin, dass alle Hohenpriester aus Pinchas Geschlecht waren (siehe Chron. I. 5, 39-41) und auch die Hohenpriester des zweiten Tempels waren nach dem ספרי seine Nachkommen (siehe תוספו׳ Joma 9a). Pinchas war übrigens auch selbst ein sehr langes Leben beschieden. Noch zu den Zeiten des Attentats zu Gibea (Richter 20, 28) finden wir פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן als Hohenpriester bei der Bundeslade Gottes. Ja, nach einer Auffassung wäre Pinchas identisch mit Elijahu, in dessen Auftreten für Gottes Sache in Israel ja ebenfalls der Pinchasgeist waltet, und der ja auch einst kommen wird, um durch Heilung des Bruches der Zeiten der Verwirklichung des ברית שלום auf Erden die Bahn zu ebnen, wenn die Zukunft von der Vergangenheit geklüftet ist und in der Gegenwart das junge Geschlecht und das alte Geschlecht einander den Rücken kehren, und es gelten wird, durch Wiederbringung des Horebgeistes des göttlichen Gesetzes den Bruch der Zeiten zu heilen. Lautet doch das letzte Wort des Propheten: זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחרב על כל ישראל חקים ומשפטים הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליהו הנביא לפני בא יום ד׳ הגדול והנורא והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על אבותם פן אבוא והביתי את הארץ חרם (Maleachi 3, 22-24).

והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “and both he and his descendants will enjoy the status of being priests.” This is the case with the descendants of all priests, but what is meant here is that the special priest assigned to soldiers before setting out on a war of conquest will always be one descended from Pinchas. (Compare both Numbers 31,6 and Talmud Zevachim, folio 101)It also follows that prior to Pinchas’ having killed Zimri in an act of zealousness he had not been a priest although he was the son of a priest.This also explains how Pinchas could have permitted himself to kill Zimri as by doing so he would defile himself, something forbidden for a priest to do? We would have been able to answer that up until now only Aaron himself and his sons had been forbidden to defile themselves through contact with a corpse.We find that also during the description of the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests the Torah had emphasised the anointment of him and his sons, (not any grandsons. Compare Exodus 28,40-41.)It is also possible to answer that when Pinchas withdrew his dagger from Zimri and Cosbi, they had not yet been quite dead. [These speculations are necessary as there is a debate between the sages as to when Pinchas had become a priest. His priesthood might not have been hereditary to his descendants prior to here. Ed.] Concerning this interpretation, Rabbi Sh’muel raises the point that Pinchas must have been a priest in the full sense of the meaning of the word no later than on the eighth day of the consecrations rites, [38 years earlier. Ed.] or the Midrash could not have included him in the seven joyful events that Aaron’s wife Elisheva was supposed to have enjoyed on that day. It is possible that Moses appointed him to that position although he did not permit him to perform service in the Tabernacle until after he had earned that right by being zealous on G–d’s behalf at the right time at the right place. Only now had all the privileges of the priesthood been bestowed upon him and his descendants after him.

Eternal kehunah. This refers to a Kohein Gadol. A regular kohein only serves before Hashem during the watch of his father’s house or on festivals, whereas A Kohein Gadol, serves continuously.

ברית כהונת עולם, “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood;” All the High Priests following the High Priest Pinchas, who succeeded his father Elazar, who functioned during the period of the first Temple, and even beyond, during the early period of the second Temple were direct descendants of Pinchas as spelled out in Chronicles I 5,30.

‎ברית כהנת עולם A COVENANT OF AN EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD — for although the priesthood had already been given to Aaron’s descendants (cf. Exodus 28:40-41), it was given only to Aaron and his sons who had been anointed together with him and to their offspring whom they might beget after they had been anointed. But Phineas who had been born prior to that and had not been anointed, had not as yet attained the status of priesthood until now. So, too, do we read in Zevachim 101b: Phineas did not become a priest until he had slain Zimri.

ויכפר על בני ישראל, seeing that he did what he did in full view of his peers so that they would obtain expiation for not having protested Zimri’s behaviour, he proved himself fit to become a priest whose primary function it is to secure expiation for the sins of their Jewish brethren. As a priest he could continue in the role he had first adopted on this occasion.

Solely to Aharon and his sons who were anointed with him… (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why was Pinchas not anointed like Aharon and his sons? The answer is that at the time he was a minor, and minors were not anointed. However once he became an adult it was no longer appropriate to anoint him [since the time for anointing had passed]. Kitzur Mizrochi answers: However, it appears more likely that because [Hashem] knew he would merit the kehunah through his own merit, by this great act, he did not want to anoint him at that time. For then it would have appeared as if he only merited the kehunah because he descended from Aharon.

A moral/ethical approach to our verse could be based on the statement in Baba Metzia 114, that the prophet Elijah who would usher in the messianic age would be none other than Pinchas (his re-incarnation). Our verse would provide the reason why it would be Pinchas who would perform this task in the future. We are told that the principal function of the prophet Elijah at the time preceding the arrival of the Messiah will be to bridge the generation gap between fathers and sons and vice-versa, harmonising their mutual relationships (compare Maleachi 3,24). In addition to that we have learned in Edioth 8,7 that Elijah would increase שלום, harmony in the world. You will observe that in our paragraph the Torah describes Pinchas twice as being jealous, once in verse 11 and once more in our verse here. The Torah alludes to the jealousy the original Pinchas displayed on G'd's behalf during the time the Israelites were at Shittim, whereas the second reference is to the jealousy the prophet Elijah (Pinchas) displayed during the reign of King Achav when he described himself before G'd as a Kannai, a fanatic on G'd's behalf (Kings I 19,14). There too we find that he repeated the word קנא, "was jealous." At that time, Elijah alluded to the fact that this was already the second time he had played this role of being jealous on behalf of G'd. The Torah therefore mentions here that G'd granted him G'd's covenant of peace.

ויכפר על בני ישראל, “now that he had achieved atonement on behalf of the whole Jewish nation, he would henceforth be an instrument gaining atonement on other occasions.”

לאלהיו means [HE WAS ZEALOUS] FOR THE SAKE OF HIS GOD, just as, (Numbers 11:29) “Are you zealous for My sake (לי)?” and (Zechariah 8:2) “I am zealous לציון", i.e., for Zion’s sake.

ברית כהונת עולם, “a covenant of everlasting priesthood.” In this instance the word מלח, “salt,” normally associated with the wordברית is absent although it appears in 18,19 when Aaron and all his offspring are mentioned seeing they have been assured of two worlds, the terrestrial world when the covenant is effective to provide the priests with their sustenance from “G’d’s” table, i.e. the gifts listed as being given to the priests in Parshat Korach. Secondly, as recorded in 18,20, G’d uses two separate terms describing Himself as bothחלקך and נחלתך. The former word refers to the priests being G’d’s share in the terrestrial world, the latter word to His being the priest’s share in the hereafter. Seeing that in Korach the subject is both worlds, the word מלח symbolizing something enduring is used whereas in connection with Pinchas and his covenant there is no need to reinforce the promise of G’d that he is assured of an eternal future by adding the word מלח. Pinchas merited his promotion from the attribute of Mercy which, as opposed to the attribute of Justice, does not envisage death, i.e. impermanence. The priesthood and what it stands for is an emanation of the attribute of חסד, an attribute over which death has no control.

What is the meaning of that covenant? The word שלום is to be understood as "complete, whole." The first covenant G'd concluded with the first Jew Abraham in Genesis 15, 1-21 contained the promise that Abraham's descendants would take possession of the lands of 10 nations all of which are named in that chapter. Even at the time when the prophet Elijah was active on earth for the first time, the lands of no more than seven of these nations had been given to the Jewish people. When G'd said in our verse הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, He hinted that Pinchas/Elijah would preside over the completion of the part of G'd's promise to Abraham which was still outstanding. The vision of Maleachi includes the vision of Isaiah 11,7 and 9 concerning a period when the lion will lie down with the lamb without harming it, etc. In the latter verse Isaiah predicts that from that time onwards "nothing evil or vile shall be done, for the land will be filled with devotion to the Lord, etc. etc."The reason that in our verse G'd does no longer speak of Pinchas' descendants is that when Elijah will return at that time it will be Pinchas' final appearance on earth, his task will not have to be completed by his offspring. The Torah mentions that the covenant G'd concludes with Pinchas also comprises the priesthood, giving a reason for this second covenant which is an everlasting one. By using the introductory word תחת, the Torah refers to Pinchas as also qualifying for this latter covenant on account of two things he had done or was still going to do, i.e. the jealousy he would display on behalf of G'd during the reign of Achav when the Israelites worshiped the Baal and abandoned their G'd. The reason that the Torah added the word לאלקיו here is that it alludes to the sin of idol worship. We know from Deut. 6,15 that the sin of idol worship arouses G'd's jealousy. When Elijah demonstrated the miracles of G'd on Mount Carmel in Kings I 18,39, he did not conclude until the people had exclaimed that the Lord G'd is the true G'd. This is the reason why when Elijah will appear once more prior to the coming of the Messiah it will be during a period which the prophet Maleachi described as a time when "G'd and His name will be one," the mystical dimension of "the Lord G'd is the true G'd."

And made atonement for Bnei Yisroel. Since Pinchas made atonement for Bnei Yisroel he deserves to continue to make atonement for them, for someone who shows self-sacrifice for a mitzvah is helped by Heaven afterwards.

ויכפר על בני ישראל, “he obtained atonement for the Children of Israel.” This verse teaches that he who spills the blood of the wicked is considered as if he had offered a sacrifice. The idea is reflected in Exodus 21,14: “from My altar you shall remove him to die.” The meaning of the verse is that even if the party concerned is a priest involved in performing his priestly duties on the altar, he must be removed and executed (Yuma 85).

The word ויכפר, etc. also refers both to the future and to the past. The Torah means that just as Pinchas had atoned for the Jewish people in Shittim, so Elijah would atone for the Jewish people in the future. Basically, this is the function of the priest, as we know from Leviticus 4,20 et al.

ושם איש ישראל וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE ISRAELITE [WHO WAS SMITTEN] — Wherever it gives the genealogy of a good man in praise of him, it gives the genealogy of a bad man mentioned in the same story to disparage him (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

ושם איש ישראל המוכה, Pinchas had endangered his own life by what he did in view of the high rank of his victim, one of the 12 princes of the people, as well as a princess from a neighbouring country. [if not for this, the Torah might not have bothered to name the individuals concerned just as it did not name such sinners as the man gathering wood (Numbers 15,33, or the blasphemer Leviticus 24,10. Ed.]

ושם איש ישראל, And the name of the Israelite man, etc. If G'd was so interested in our knowing the names of the people Pinchas slew why did the Torah not report this at the time it reported Pinchas' deed in the last Parshah? If the Torah had mentioned these names at that time it could have saved at least a half a sentence here!

ושם איש ישראל המוכה, “and the name of the slain Israelite man, etc.” Just as the Torah mentioned the name of the righteous person in order to bestow compliments on him, it now mentions the name of the wicked party to teach that if one brings disgrace upon oneself one simultaneously disgraces one’s family (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

Where he mentions the relationship of the righteous for praise, he mentions the relationship of the wicked for shame. Rashi is answering the question: Above where it is written, “Behold an Israelite man came…” (25:6), the Torah should have mentioned there his name. He answers that “when…” He mentions the relationship of the wicked for disparagement, because the greater one is, so too is his sin greater. Re’m

V. 14. ושם איש ישראל (siehe zu V. 8). Die hochgestellte Persönlichkeit des Mannes, gegen welchen Pinchas aufgetreten, erhöht noch die Bedeutung seiner hingebungsvollen Tat, die, unbeirrt durch die etwaigen nachteiligen Folgen für das eigene Interesse, nur die Gottessache im Auge hatte. אשר הוכה את המדינית: nur את המדינית, nur im Vollzug des Verbrechens war die Pinchastat eine ihn adelnde Großtat. Wäre sie nach vollzogenem Verbrechen geschehen, sie wäre ein gerichtlich zu bestrafender Mord gewesen (siehe Sanhedrin 82a). — בית אב ist hier gleichbedeutend mit משפחה, einer der Stammesfamilien, in welchen der Stamm sich abzweigte (siehe Kap. 26, 12).

אשר הכה את המדינית, “who had been slain with the Midianite woman;” the word: את, here means the same as עם, “with.” Our sages state that if Zimri had separated his body from Cosbi in time, he would not have been killed by Pinchas’ lance. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 82.)

נשיא בית אב לשמעני A PRINCE OF A FATHER’S HOUSE AMONGST THE SIMEONITES — of one of the five 'father’s houses' which were of the tribe of Simeon. — Another explanation: This is stated to tell the praiseworthiness of Phineas: that although this man was a prince he did not refrain from showing his zeal against the profanation of the Divine Name — on this account Scripture tells you who it was (a prince!) that was smitten by him.

נשיא בית אב לשמעוני, “prince of a father’s house of the Shimonites.” He was one of five such princes of the tribe of Shimon (Ibn Ezra). Concerning him Solomon said in Kohelet 10,8: “he who breaks down a wall will be bitten by a snake.” The ancestral father, Shimon, had killed the people of Shechem for treating his sister like a whore (Genesis 34,31) and now one of his descendants had himself become guilty of tearing down the wall of chaste sexual mores established and defended by his forebear (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

Of one of the five paternal houses of the tribe of Shimon. It appears that when Rashi explains, “Leader of a paternal house” as “Of one of [the five]…” it refers to his comment above that Scripture also mentions the relationship of the wicked for disparagement. Meaning: You should not say that since we see that Zimri was a leader, he was a leader of the entire tribe of Shimon. Rather, he was only a leader of one of the five [paternal houses] and this was his disparagement.

G'd has made it a rule not to belittle even the wicked unless there is a compelling reason. We know that in the case of the person who collected wood on the Sabbath and who was subsequently executed the Torah did not reveal his name at all (Numbers 15,32-36). In our instance the Torah revealed the names well after the occurrence because there was a compelling reason but not until after G'd had praised Pinchas for what he did and we have learned of the beneficial effects of his deed. Having recorded that G'd not only approved of what Pinchas had done but rewarded him publicly, the Torah explained that Pinchas had taken very great personal risks as the two victims involved were very highly placed individuals. When the persons for whose sake one displays just jealousy on behalf of G'd are aristocrats, higly placed, this makes the act of sanctifying G'd's name even more meritorious. Although in the process of mentioning their names, the Torah publicly displayed its contempt for the sinner, it only followed approved practice as we know from Proverbs 10,7 "the memory of the just is a source of blessing whereas the name of the wicked will rot." Perhaps the positioning of the names of the victims at this point was meant to hint that if these two individuals had not been so highly placed, Pinchas' deed would not have sufficed to turn away G'd's wrath and bring about atonement for the entire people. When Samael saw to what extent a man like Pinchas despised someone guilty of sleeping with a Midianite, his own power was weakened. Had the individuals in question been ordinary people Pinchas could not have accomplished as much through his display of jealousy on behalf of G'd as the personal danger to which he exposed himself at the hands of the victims' surviving relatives would have been much less.

Another interpretation: To proclaim the merit of Pinchas. According to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have only written “and the man who sinned with the Midianite woman was Zimri…” Why does the verse write, “Who was killed”? Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty that Scripture should have mentioned this above, therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.

Perhaps the reason the Torah did not mention the name of the victims in 25,6 where we would have expected it was that at that point Pinchas had not yet carried out his deed but had only planned it. As long as he had not carried out his plan it would not have been seemly for the Torah to reveal the names of prospective victims. Once Pinchas had completed his deed the names of the wicked had to be mentioned in order to publicise them.

המכה אשר הכה, that was slain, who was slain, etc. why was the verb "was slain" repeated here twice? Besides, why did the verse commence by mentioning the nationality of the Jewish victim before mentioning the occasion, whereas when the Midianite woman is named the occasion is mentioned before her nationality is mentioned?

All this can best be explained by reference to Berachot 18 where we are told that the wicked are referred to as dead even while they are still physically alive. The reason for this is that the power of evil, which is another word for the power of death already clings to the wicked. I have mentioned repeatedly that the name people are known by is the name of their soul. G'd placed a variety of "names" on earth as the Talmud in Berachot 7 says about Psalms 46,9: ראו מפעלות ה׳ אשר שם שמות בארץ, "come and see what the Lord has done, He has wrought desolation on earth." The Talmud suggests that we do not read the word shamot in that verse with the vowel patach but with the vowel tzeyreh so that the meaning of the word desolation is changed to "names." When a human being sins his soul becomes tarnished or injured in that the evil he did clings to it. This is the real meaning of Proverbs 10,8 that the "name" of the wicked will rot, i.e. his soul will rot. This explains an enigmatic story in the Talmud Yuma 83 where Rabbi Meir is described as examining people's names and thereby arriving at conclusions about their character. When he and his colleagues arrived at a certain inn they asked the innkeeper his name. Rabbi Meir concluded after hearing the man's name that he was a wicked person. In our situation, a Jew who sleeps with a Midianite woman causes his soul to become tarnished; this is what the Torah means when it describes the name of the Israelite as being מכה, struck by a fatal blemish even before Pinchas had a chance to inflict bodily death upon him. The words אשר הכה, teach that for all practical purposes the man had already been fatally injured prior to Pinchas stabbing him. When the Torah wanted to tell us about what happened to Zimri's soul, it wrote: "and the name of the man who had been struck etc." The idea is that from the moment he committed his abominable act his soul had already sustained a fatal injury. The reason the Torah emphasises: "Israelite," is to tell us that a Jewish soul could not survive an act of such a wilfully committed abomination. As to the physical killing of Zimri's body, the Torah refers to this by the words אשר הכה, "who was struck." The reason the Torah wrote אשר הכה את המדינית, "he who was struck down with the Midianite woman," was to inform us that the soul of the Jewish man was struck down because of his intimate association with the Midianite woman." The act of sleeping with her constituted a fatal blow to his soul.

The Torah also alludes to another point when writing את המדינית. When the Torah describes how the wife of Potiphar tried to seduce Joseph (Genesis 39,10), we read that Joseph refused לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה "to sleep beside her and to be with her." Our sages in Yuma 35 comment that the words לשכב אצלה refer to Joseph sharing her life in this world, whereas the words להיות עמה refer to Joseph's refusal to be her companion in the world to come. If we take this comment as our cue, we can understand the words הכה את המדינית as telling us that the Israelite's being smitten meant that he would not be with that woman in the hereafter. We must assume that Zimri died before becoming a penitent as Pinchas stabbed him while he was engaged in the act. This answers the question why the word: "he was struck" was repeated in the Torah's description of events. It also explains why the word איש ישראל had to precede the report of his being struck to teach us that the name, i.e. the soul had been struck before the body was killed. When the Torah got around to mentioning the name of the Midianite woman, the fact that she was struck is mentioned only once, as she did not have a soul rooted in holy domains that she could be deprived of. She was also not especially mentioned prior to what happened to her as she was considered as dead already while she was fully alive; essentially what happened to her was nothing new, except that her death became manifest. We have mentioned on repeated occasions that the names of the various cults which the pagans practice are the names of spiritually negative forces, קליפות.

There is yet another way of approaching our verse, based on a kabbalistic approach. It is based on the principle that "sparks" of sanctity which have become exiled for one reason or another to one region or another, are not to be perceived as lost forever. Eventually, somehow they will find their way back to their holy origin. When the Torah speaks of the "name of the Israelite man," this is a hint that even after such a self-debasing encounter as he had indulged in with the Midianite woman the Torah still refers to Zimri as איש ישראל, "an Israelite man." This teaches that he had not been totally uprooted from his holy origin. The word המכה refers to what Pinchas had done to him. By adding the words את המדינית, "with the Midianite woman," the Torah indicates that rather than having been smitten with perdition of his soul he had only been smitten with losing his Midianite partner, i.e. that particular evil partner he had acquired. As a result of their physical union her characteristics had clung to his soul. This act of clinging to his soul is described by the term הכאה, a fatal blow. This teaches that by becoming Pinchas' victim Zimri's soul was released from the negative spiritual force his soul had absorbed from Kosbi. His death acted as his atonement, converted the damage into something transient rather than enduring. As soon as he and she parted company physically, Zimri's soul no longer bore the imprint of that fateful association.. His death purified his soul. This explains why the Torah could refer to him as "an Israelite man" only after he had been killed. If this approach is correct in terms of our השקפה, please accept this as my interpretation of this verse.

ושם האשה המכה וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE [MIDIANITISH] WOMAN WHO WAS SMITTEN etc. — This is stated to show you the hatred the Midianites bore to Israel — that they abandoned even a princess to prostitution in order to make Israel sin (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

המדינית, The Midianite, etc. The reason the Torah describes Kosbi with the letter ה for a definitive article is proof that she must have been the only Midianite woman who sacrificed her self-respect in order to seduce an Israelite. This may also account for the fact that in 25,6 the word המדינית is written with the letter ה at the beginning although we had not heard of that woman previously. In fact, if the Midianite women had participated in mass seduction there can be no doubt that G'd would have commanded that they be killed during the punitive campaign against Midian. The Torah only reported the people as debasing themselves by sleeping with the Moabite women (25,1). There was a good reason why the Midianite women did not do what the Moabite women did. It was not that they were morally superior, but the Moabites had been given an assurance that the Israelites would not touch them. No such assurance had been given to the people of Midian. The reason that Kosbi was different was that she was Balak's daughter and as such had a personal interest to do what she could to help her father achieve the downfall of the Israelites.

כזבי בת צור, “Cozbi daughter of Tzur.” She was the daughter of a king, seeing that Tzur was one of the five Midianite kings killed by the Israelites in the punitive expedition (Numbers 31,8). The Midianites harbored so much hatred against the Israelites that one of their kings demeaned his own daughter to the status of a whore in order to lure the Israelites into sin (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

To inform you of the hatred of the Midianites, who abandoned a princess to promiscuous behavior. A question is widely asked: How does Rashi know that it was because of their hatred? Perhaps they intended to cause them to sin in order that the Divine Presence would depart from Yisroel, [merely] because they feared Yisroel. The answer is that once the elders of Midian departed, thinking that Bil’am was of no use (Rashi to 22:7), why would they have acted in this manner on his advice? Rather, [we see that] they acted out of hatred. You might ask: Why did Rashi not answer, as he did above that it was, “To proclaim the merit of Pinchas…”? For here he could have also said that even though she was a princess, “He did not refrain…” The answer is that when Rashi explained, “He did not refrain…” it meant that he was not afraid that he would be punished for killing him since he was a leader, as Rashi explained.

V. 15. ושם האשה וגו׳, auch die Rücksicht auf die etwaige Feindschaft, die seine Tat für die Nation herbeiziehen konnte, durfte Pinchas nicht zurückhalten, wo es die Rettung der Lebensseele seiner Nation, deren Treue gegen Gott und sein Gesetz galt. — ראש אמות בית אב, hier ist בית אב einer der Stämme, in welchen die midjanitische Nation sich verzweigte. Er war Oberhaupt eines dieser Stämme, zugleich aber ראש אמות, ein bei den vereinigten Stämmen einflussreiches Haupt.

ושם האשה המוכה, “and the name of the woman who had been slain, etc,” the reason that the Torah bothered to name the woman in question was only in order to tell us that she was of the elite of the women in Midian, and although Pinchas was aware of this, and the possible political implication of killing her, this did not stop him from acting zealously on behalf of Hashem, as he remembered that G–d said to Avraham, after he had killed four prominent kings in order to free his nephew Lot, that he should not be afraid of the relatives of those kings seeking revenge. (Genesis 15,1).

ראש אמות [HE WAS] THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE — He was one of the five kings of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zur etc. (31:8). He, however, was the most important of all of them, as it is said, “the head of the people”, but because he made himself despicable by abandoning his daughter to prostitution it enumerates him not first but only third (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

I have found support for my theory in Tanchuma Mattot 4 where it is claimed that Tzur, one of the kings slain in the punitive expedition against Midian was Balak; he had been demoted because he had allowed his daughter to cheapen herself by sleeping with an Israelite. According to our theory that Kosbi was Balak's daughter this all makes sense seeing that there had been only a single Midianite woman who had been described as a seductress. It is more than likely that the one Midianite woman who had reason enough to do this was a daughter of Balak. She followed Bileam's wicked advice. It is possible that Kosbi was the very first woman to follow Bileam's advice and that the Moabite women were not willing to demean themselves until they had seen the king's daughter do this. It is quite true that I have written that Balak was demoted by the Moabites seeing that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites, Bileam having told them that any confrontation between them and Israel would occur far into the future. Nonetheless, Balak immediately followed Bileam's advice before he returned home to Midian. When the Moabites saw this they followed suit and slept with the Israelites. Were it not for this fact it is hard to understand why king Tzur's daughter should have been so different from all the other Midianite women.

בית אב — Midian had five fathers’ houses: Ephah and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida and Eldoah (Genesis 25:4) — and this man was king of one of them.

One of the five kings of Midian. That is to say, that when it is written, “The national leader” this implies that Tzur was the head of [all of] them. However, afterwards it is written, “Of a paternal house” which implies that he was only the head of a paternal house. Rashi answers that he was certainly only the head of one of the five paternal houses of Midian, however he was the most prominent of all of them and this is why it is written, “The national leader.”

I have found a Midrash in Yalkut Shimoni on Mattot in which the words הן הנה in Numbers 31,16 are translated as "these are the well known ones, etc." This means that Moses and Eleazar knew the women who had been taken captive so well that they were able to pinpoint which one of them had seduced which Israelite. If so, there must have been numerous Midianite women who participated in the seduction of the Israelites. We would then have to say that whereas all the Moabite women cheapened themselves, only the ordinary Midianite women participated in this wholesale seduction; the aristocrats amongst the Midianite women did not demean themselves in this fashion. Seeing that Balak was the only one who allowed his daughter to demean herself by sleeping with an Israelite, they demoted Balak as a punishment. If we follow this approach the letter ה at the beginning of the word המדינית means that she was the only aristocratic Midianite lady who had demeaned herself. According to the aforesaid there is proof for what we wrote at the end of Parshat Balak that the Israelites did not know these women as there were many Midianite women amongst the Moabites and they did not dress according to their local custom but tried to misrepresent themselves by wearing clothes belonging to the other nation. This was the reason the Torah in 25,1 mentioned the Israelites as fraternising only with the Moabites. They did not realise that Midianite women were masquerading as Moabites. Had they known this, the soldiers staging the punitive expedition would not have taken the women captive but would have killed them at once.

But because he debased himself by abandoning his daughter, he is counted third. There are those who raise the difficulty: Why was he counted third rather than second? It would have been sufficiently degrading not to have counted him first, given that he was the national leader. The answer is that if he was counted second, one might have thought that it was not to degrade him, but it was because he was younger than all of them. Accordingly, even though he was the most prominent of all of them, he was still not counted first. However, now that he was counted third, one must say that it was to degrade him.

במדין הוא, her father was a head in Midian. This description is somewhat difficult. If the Torah meant to tell us that Tzur was the head of the whole nation of Midian it should have written ראש בית אב למדין instead of במדין. The prefix ב only tells us something about location not about stature and position. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Tzur lived in Midian? Where else would he live? Perhaps the intention is to counteract an impression created when the Torah described Balak as a king, whereas Tzur was described as head of a nation within Midian. The Torah wanted to tell us that Balak did not remain king of Moav but had already been expelled and had returned to his homeland by the time the Israelites were commanded to harass the Midianites. Moreover, the words במדין הוא may be a subtle hint that at the time that his daughter slept with Zimri, Balak had already returned to his home in Midian. Compare my commentary on 24,25.

צרור — This grammatical form is similar to זכור and שמור: it expresses the idea of continuous present action — You must [constantly] show enmity toward them.

צרור את המדינים, "harass the Midianites!" Why did the Torah write both: "harass, and smite them?" Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 21 were aware of this and said that although normally the Israelites are bound by the injunction in Deut. 20,10-19 to offer people whom they planned to attack peace, and offer them a chance to emigrate or surrender before actually attacking them, not to destroy their fruit-bearing trees, etc., in this instance these injunctions were lifted. The nation had shown itself to be so debased that no special consideration had to be shown to it. We must also understand what the Torah meant when speaking of "revenge" in 31,2 where the details about the punitive campaign are introduced. We would have expected the reverse, i.e. that the Israelites would consume the booty of their enemies as described in Deut. 20,14. Surely, this would have been more in the nature of revenge and the Midianites would have experienced more distress when they saw themselves losing all their possessions. Does not the Torah describe a people who has been cursed as being consumed by its enemies (Leviticus 26,16)?

צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” On the one hand, the word צרור is in the singular mode, whereas the word following i.e. והכיתם is in the plural mode. This is a hint to Moses that seeing he will give the necessary orders and select the soldiers that campaign will be credited to him, although, naturally it would require quite a few people to wage the actual war. The reason why Moses, personally, should not go with those soldiers is the fact that he had been raised and given refuge in Midian and the hand that had been fed by the Midianites should not now turn and bite that hand.

V. 17. צרור וגו׳, eigentlich zusammendrängen, zusammendrücken, jemandes Kraft beschränken. Den Midjaniten gebührt צרור, dass ihr ihre Macht brechet, und והכיתם אותם: und es wird euch noch die Aufgabe werden, einen Kriegsschlag gegen sie auszuführen (siehe Kap. 31).

צרור את המזינים, “the commandment to harass the Midianites and not the Moabites, was because whatever the Moabites had done, they had done because they had believed that they had a legitimate reason to fear for their lives from the Israelites. Furthermore, the Israelites had already taken possession of lands which used to be theirs before Sichon had conquered it from them in war.

Another difficulty is the justification offered by the Torah in verse 18: "for they have been harassing you, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out the reason? According to those of our sages who stated that the injunction not to destroy the fruit-bearing trees had been lifted, the Torah felt compelled to justify this. According to Tanchuma the words כי צררים are to be understood as a reference to what the Midianites were about to do to the Israelites and the command to wage war against them first was an illustration of the halachic principle that if someone intends to kill you, don't wait, but kill him first. I believe this is a homiletical explanation.

צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” The use of the infinitive mode tzaror, indicates that this was not a command to be carried out immediately. We know this from the fact that the details for the preparations of the punitive expedition against Midian have only been spelled out in Numbers 31,2. It has been mentioned here in order to put at ease the mind of the Israelites who had lost 24000 men of military age due to the involvement of Midianite women at the instigation of their husbands in a quarrel that had not concerned them at all, and they appeared to have gotten away with that.

I believe that the key to the correct interpretation of this episode is the fact that G'd gave the command to harass the Midianites not at the time it was to be implemented but sometime before it. The implementation was commanded only in 31,2. In other words the command we deal with in our verse does not address itself to the time of the act of revenge.

We must therefore assume that what G'd had in mind with this command was the rehabilitation of the Israelites. We have already written at length on Leviticus 18,3 that the urge to engage in illicit sex is a natural urge, difficult to combat especially when fantasy is supported by visual contact with the object of one's desire. It is extremely difficult to control one's fantasies. If someone has indulged his fantasy and has actually had forbidden sex, he cannot expect the atonement process to begin until he has rid himself of his desire, and has banished his fantasies. I have commented on this already in connection with Genesis 4,7 where the Torah told us that sin couches at the door and man displays a hankering after it. At the same time the Torah assured Cain that he could master these impulses. In the situation of which the Torah speaks, the Israelites who had not actually indulged in sex with the Moabites had certainly fantasized about doing so. Many of the elite even had become צמוד, attached, to Baal Pe-or as the Torah told us, i.e that they suffered from this powerful desire to commit the sin (compare 25,3). G'd intended to cure the Israelites of the pull exerted on them by this sin in order to remove the plague from them. We know from Deut. 4,3 that the plague did not come to an end until all the people who had worshiped the Baal Pe-or had died. It is quite clear that in that verse in Deuteronomy the Torah did not speak about the 24.000 who were reported as having died in Numbers 25,9. The 24.000 people mentioned there were all from the tribe of Shimon. According to Bamidbar Rabbah 20 [I have not found this. Ed.], these people died because they wanted to kill Pinchas. The text says that they were killed because they worshiped the Baal Pe-or. This proves that not only the 24.000 people mentioned in 25,9 died. Verse 18 in our chapter proves the same point when relating the pestilence to Baal Pe- or.

It seems dear that the principal issue that caused Pinchas to kill Zimri was not the fact that he had committed idol worship of the Baal-Pe-or, but his sleeping with a Midianite woman. Moreover, the plague occurred because of the people who indulged in sexual intercourse with the Moabites, and the Torah says that Pinchas atoned for the children of Israel, i.e. that his deed led to the arrest of the plague so that it did not kill the entire nation. Some of the people who were saved by Pinchas' deed had entertained idolatrous thoughts, others had engaged in illicit sex, something that G'd does not overlook. G'd now advised the Israelites to harass the Midianites, etc. The idea was to implant in the Israelites a hatred against the people who had caused them to commit their respective sins. They were also to develop a revulsion against anything that appeared good and permissible which these people had to offer to the Israelites such as the fruit of their orchards, etc. They had to realise that anything which originated with people such as the Midianites was disaster in disguise. Psalms 139,21 teaches us that David taught himself to hate people who hated G'd. The word משנאיך, "those who hate You," in that verse may be read as משניאיך, "those who cause You to be hated." People who cause us to hate G'd's statutes and who cause us to violate them are no different from people who tell us outright to hate G'd. Shabbat 114 elaborates on this theme. G'd's stratagem was to create within the Israelites a positive revulsion towards the thought of committing the sins which had caused the debacle at Shittim. Once the Israelites had trained themselves to hate sin, their affinity to G'd would become something natural and the process of atonement could commence.

This is basically what the word צרר in our verse is all about. The Israelites were to develop a feeling of צר ואויב against the Midianites. They were to perceive them as oppressors and enemies. As a result, they would develop feelings of hatred against them and anything which emanated from them. This is one path of repentance and it paved the way for ignoring the general injunction of not destroying the adversary's fruit-bearing trees or his water supply. The reason the Torah phrases this commandment in the present tense, tzaror instead of as an imperative tzeror! is to ensure that the feeling engendered amongst the Israelites towards the Midianites would be an ongoing one. The Torah goes on instructing "you shall smite them," i.e. in the future, not immediately. The Torah continues with כי צררים הם לכם, "for they continue to harass you," to make certain that the Israelites' hatred against the Midianites not be based on the casualties the Israelites had suffered already through the Midianites. If that were all, how could the campaign contribute to the rehabilitation of the sinners who were the victims and who had already died? The enmity had to be based on the ongoing machinations of the Midianites to entrap the Israelites into worshiping Baal Pe-or and in indulging in acts such as had been performed by Kosbi. The Israelites had to hate the cause of the sin not merely the sin itself. The reason the Torah singled out Kosbi was because she represented the additional allure of aristocracy plus the fact that she had engaged in her seduction publicly.

It is quite possible that the reason the Torah repeats the fact which we all know already namely that Kosbi was the daughter of the most important Prince of Midian, was to stress that when the Moabite women would observe their princess they would follow her lead in seducing the Israelites by demeaning themselves just as their princess had done. The Torah adds the nuance אחותם, "their sister," meaning that though they themselves were of Moabite origin whereas Kosbi was a Midianite, they considered her as their "sister" ideologically if not biologically. The Torah continues המכה, "who had been slain," to allude to her martyrdom for the cause. She had sacrificed her life for the advancement of the cause of the Moabites as if she had been a biological sister of the Moabites. ביום המגפה, on the day of the plague. This is a reference to the plague which occurred on account of the sin of Baal Pe-or. This teaches that the plague occurred immediately after the sin was committed; the plague was in addition to the 24.000 of whom the Torah reported that they died because they were all members of the tribe of Shimon on account of their threatening Pinchas. At any rate, the thrust of the whole paragraph is to instil the hatred against the Midianites based on purely moral grounds which alone could guarantee that the campaign against them would not only succeed but would not involve casualties by the Israelites.

כי צררים הם לכם וגו׳ על דבר פעור FOR THEY SHOWED THEMSELVES YOUR ENEMIES etc. IN THE MATTER OF PEOR — i.e., in that they abandoned their daughters to prostitution in order to lead you astray after Peor; but He did not command them to destroy the Moabites — on account of Ruth who would later on issue from them, just as we state in Bava Kamma 38b.

FOR THEY [the Midianites] HARASS YOU BY THEIR WILES. The meaning [of the expression by their wiles] is, as I have explained,¹¹Above, 25:1. that this evil plan [to lead the Israelites astray through their seduction by the Moabite women] was contrived by the elders of Midian, as it is said, And Moab said unto the elders of Midian,¹²Ibid., 22:4. [thus showing] that it was with them [the elders of Midian] that the Moabites originally took counsel. And they gave this advice [later on] to Moab, to encourage their daughters to prostitute themselves with them [the Israelites], and thereby cause them to join Baal-peor, and to draw them away from G-d, even though this advice is not [explicitly] mentioned there. Moreover, [a proof that the Midianites gave this idea to the Moabites is] that they even sent them their own king’s daughter to commit harlotry with them, this being the meaning of the expression, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister.¹³Verse 18 here. For were this not done with the knowledge [and encouragement] of the counsellors of the [Midianite] kingdom, what was the distinguished Midianite princess seeking in Shittim, in the plains of Moab, that she should come to the camp of a foreign people, for Israel was in the plains of Moab, in Shittim, and how did this [important] Midianite woman come to be there? But [the only reasonable explanation of this is that] she was very beautiful, and therefore the elders of Midian sent her there, because they said: “Through the figure of a beautiful woman many people become corrupted.”¹⁴This saying is quoted in Tractate Yebamoth 63b, from the book Ben Sira. It is probable that Balaam was also involved in [giving] this counsel, for on his return from the land of Moab [after he departed from Balak]¹⁵Above, 24:25. he passed through Midian, from where he had come, and he deliberated with the counsellors of the kingdom. Perhaps Balaam stayed there a while in order to know what would [ultimately] happen to them [i.e., the Israelites], and that is why the Israelites found him in Midian and killed him.¹⁶Further, 31:8. In that case the meaning [of the verse], And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place¹⁵Above, 24:25. is that Balaam “went on his way [with the intention] of returning to his land” [but he did not actually get there, since he stayed on the way in Midian]. And it indeed appears so [that Balaam participated in giving this evil advice], for the Israelites would not have killed one who had prophesied except after [receiving a special] permission of the Torah [to do so, and we do not find any mention of such permission]. But after they had been told [that they were to punish the Midianites because] they harass you by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you etc.,¹⁷Verse 18 here. [it is self-understood] that all those who took part in this beguilment were liable to the death penalty, and therefore they killed Balaam as well, since they knew that he was the one who had proposed this evil design.
Now the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded [the Israelites] to avenge themselves of them [the Midianites], but as for the Moabites, He had already warned them, Be not at enmity with Moab.¹⁸Deuteronomy 2:9. For Israel had at first come to the border of Edom, and He had warned them [against fighting] them, [as it is said], and take ye good heed unto yourselves;¹⁹Ibid., Verse 4. and afterwards they arrived at the border of Moab, and He told Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab.¹⁸Deuteronomy 2:9. He said furthermore, Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar; and when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, harass them not,²⁰Ibid., Verses 18-19. and He [further] stated, Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the valley of Arnon; behold, I have given into thy hand Sihon.²¹Ibid., Verse 24. And after all this Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites,²²Above, 22:2. that is, to the two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, and then this whole episode [of the blessings of Balaam, and the seduction at Shittim by the Moabite women] took place. If so, [we must perforce say] that the warning Be not at enmity with Moab¹⁸Deuteronomy 2:9. was declared before the command Harass the Midianites.⁹Verse 17. And therefore I am astonished at the expression of the Agadah [homiletic exposition], where the Rabbis say in Tractate Baba Kamma:²³Baba Kamma 38 a-b. “Be not at enmity with Moab, [neither contend with them in battle].¹⁸Deuteronomy 2:9. But would it have entered Moses’ mind to wage war [against Moab] without the permission [of G-d, so that he had to be especially told to refrain from doing so]! But Moses of his own accord reasoned by [the syllogism of] a kal vachomer,²⁴“Minor and major.” See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208 for a full explanation of this term. saying: ‘If, in the case of the Midianites, who only came to assist the Moabites, the Torah said, Harass the Midianites, and smite them,⁹Verse 17. surely [this duty applies] even more so to the Moabites!’ But the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘It is not so as it has entered your mind! I have two [good] doves who are to come forth from them — Ruth the Moabitess, and Naamah the Ammonitess.’”²⁵See Ruth 1:4; Kings 14:21. Naamah was the mother of Rehoboam, who was one of the righteous kings of the kingdom of Judah. But He had already warned Moses [against waging war on Moab] long before the kal vachomer [could have occurred to Moses, since He had, as explained above, given the command not to harass Moab before the incident with the women, and thus before the command to punish Midian for their share in that incident]! Moreover, if [it was only to negate] Moses’ kal vachomer [that he had to be warned against fighting Moab], why did He have to warn him [also] not to fight the children of Ammon²⁰Ibid., Verses 18-19. [since they played no part at all in the incident at Shittim]! Perhaps the Rabbis were not so particular in their language in the Agadah [about the actual chronological order of events]; since their main [intention] was to say that it was known [beforehand] to Him, blessed be He, that when He would command Moses, Harass the Midianites,⁹Verse 17. Moses would have [an opportunity to argue by the syllogism of] a kal vachomer²⁴“Minor and major.” See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208 for a full explanation of this term. that he ought to wage war against Moab, without any other [special] permission, therefore He warned him in advance not to do so. And because He warned him about Moab, therefore He also admonished him with respect to the children of Ammon, so that Moses should not think that [the fact that] He only forbade him [not to fight] Moab was [tantamount to an implied] permission to [wage war] against the children of Ammon who had also dealt evil to the Israelites because they met them not with bread and with water.²⁶Deuteronomy 23:5. Ramban there explains that it was only the Ammonites mentioned in Verse 4 ibid., who were guilty of this, whereas the Moabites [also mentioned there] did meet the Israelites with bread and water. They are excluded, however, from the assembly of the Eternal because they hired Balaam to curse the Israelites. According to another Midrash²⁷Also quoted by the Rabbis in Baba Kamma 38b. [the reason why Israel was commanded to punish Midian but not to attack Moab], was because the Moabites acted out of fear that they [the Israelites] would plunder them, but the Midianites meddled with a strife not their own,²⁸See Proverbs 26:17. as Rashi wrote in the section of Eileh Mas’ei.²⁹In our text of Rashi this explanation is found in the section of Matoth — further, 31:2.
According to the plain meaning of Scripture, a further reason [for the different treatment that G-d commanded with respect to the Midianites and with respect to the Moabites] is that the lands of Ammon and Moab G-d had given unto the children of Lot for a possession,³⁰Deuteronomy 2:19. because of Lot their father who ministered to the righteous one [Abraham] and went into exile with him to that Land; therefore He did not allow [anyone] to do them evil in their countries. However, because of their sin in showing hostility to Israel and not treating them in a friendly manner, He punished them by excluding them from [the possibility of joining] His people, by commanding, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Eternal,³¹Ibid., 23:4. measure for measure.

בנכליהם, “with their conspiracies,” according to Nachmanides the Midianites were the ones who originated the plot to seduce the Israelites by even supplying their own socially high ranking women for the purpose. They also conspired to make sleeping with their women dependent on at least a superficial show of respect for their deity the Baal Pe-or. According to tradition, the manner in which that deity was worshipped was so revolting, i.e. one excreted in front of that idol, that no one in their right minds could have believed that this was a form of worship rather than an insult to their deity. Having dispatched Cosbi, whose rank the Torah describes here, to seduce the highest-ranking Israelite she could find, is an indication of the Midianites’ hatred for the Israelites. It is most likely that even if he did not think up this devious plot himself, Bileam was at least aware of it. This Cosbi, no doubt, was a woman of great physical allure, and she was sent on her ill-fated mission precisely because she was so attractive. It is quite possible that the reason why Bileam detoured on his way home via the land of Midian was in order to find out how the plot to seduce the Israelites had worked out. As a result, the army of the Israelites found him there and killed him. The officers were well aware that he must have had a hand in that plot. Israelites do not kill people who prophesy something negative concerning them unless specifically ordered to do so by the Torah or its authorized representatives. Incitement is a different story, however. In this instance, G’d had ordered all those that had been part of that incitement actively or by not protesting it, to be killed. The campaign was aimed only at the Midianites, as G’d had already forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites in any way. I am somewhat at a loss how to understand the wording of the aggadah according to which (Baba Kamma 38) it had never occurred to the Israelites to either harass or invade Moav so that G’d had to specifically for bid this? Where had there ever been a precedent that Moses would initiate warfare without express permission by G’d? The Talmud there answers that Moses used his logic, reasoning that if G’d had told him to launch a punitive expedition against the Midianites who had only been involved in the plot at arm’s length, so to speak, and G’d ordered us to punish them, how much more must we launch a similar expedition against the Moabites who were the instigators of all of this? The Talmud appears to have put the cart before the horse seeing that the warning not to harass Moav or wage war against it had been issued by G’d before the incident at Shittim or Bileam’s being hired to curse the Israelites! We may have to answer that it was clear to Hashem that once Israel had defeated and occupied the lands of Sichon and Og, with G’d’s permission, of course, Moses would reason that it was natural that the next step would be to cross into Moabite territory by crossing the river Arnon. G’d pre-empted such reasoning by Moses by forbidding the Israelites to provoke any confrontation with the Moabites. [The Talmud there has G’d explain to Moses why He forbade this, also in light of future events. Ed.] The matter was especially hard for Moses to understand because the very people who were not to be harassed were the people that because of hostility to the Israelites in the past, had been forbidden forever to convert to Judaism and become part of our nation. (Compare Deut. 23,4-8) Looking at the plain text, the reason why at this stage at least, no confrontation with either Moav or Bney Ammon was permitted, is the fact that G’d had allocated their lands to them in recognition of the years when their founding father Lot had faithfully served Avraham and had kept his secret and not reveled that Sarah was not only a blood-relation to him but was also his wife. Lot had joined Avraham at the time when the former moved to the land of Canaan, and this was akin to voluntary exile, all in order to keep company with his uncle whom he admired. The eventual commandment not to accept proselytes from either of those two nations, was explained as an act of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as the Torah explained in Deut.

בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם, “by their trickery they practiced against you.” This verse is proof that it was the elders of Midian who advised their Moabite partners to trick the Israelites into committing sexual promiscuity with their daughters. The allure of the Moabite women was to be the tool by which to get the Israelites to commit idolatry by prostrating themselves before the Baal-peor.

In order to cause you to stray… Rashi is obliged to explain so because a person only antagonizes others in response to the evil that they had caused him, however we do not find that Yisroel did anything malicious to them. Therefore he explains, “Since they abandoned…” because according to their reasoning they were compelled to abandon their daughters to promiscuity in order to cause Yisroel to stray after Pe’or. Re’m.

V. 18. כי צררים וגו׳, denn sie bedrohen euch noch mit feindlichem Verderben. So Haman: צורר היהודים (Esther 8, 1). Sie setzen ihre Verführungskünste, die sie nur mit zu vielem Erfolg bereits geübt, noch gegen euch fort und unterscheiden sich da von den Moabitern, die, nachdem sie einmal das Verderben über euch gebracht, von weiteren Versuchen abstehen. Die Midjaniter verharren aber noch in dieser eurer Gottestreue und eurer Sittlichkeit drohenden Feindseligkeit, und diese ihre euch bereits bewiesene Feindseligkeit wird bei ihnen noch durch das besondere Rachegefühl genährt, da ihre Fürstentochter nicht in dem allgemeinen Sterben der Seuche, sondern durch jüdische Menschenhand gefallen ist, und sie "Blutrache" für ihre "Schwester" nehmen zu müssen glauben. Der Charakter ראש אמות des Vaters lässt die gefallene Kosbi als ihrer aller Schwester betrachten.

כי צוררים הם לכם, “for they have initiated hostilities with you by their wiles. The Israelites therefore would now be instructed to carry out the principle that if someone has demonstrated that he means to kill you, it is up to you to preempt him before he can carry out his evil plan. The Midianites’ sin was to try and seduce the Israelites into committing sexually forbidden carnal activities with their wives. Therefore the Israelites, instead of avenging themselves on Pinchas, were to avenge themselves on the Midianites who had even sacrificed a princess as part of that scheme. [The Land of Midian was hundreds of kilometers south of the land of Canaan on the Arabian peninsula. Ed.]

ועל דבר כזבי בת נשיא מדין, “and because of the affair of Cozbi daughter of a Midianite prince.” The Torah could have written: “daughter of Tzur” as it had done in verse 15. In this verse the Torah wanted to place the emphasis on the word “Midianite,” seeing that it was the advice of the elders of Midian to send one of their princesses to lure the Israelites to commit harlotry with her.

However, He did not order [the destruction] of Moav because of Rus. You might ask: Why did Rashi only bring one reason, while in Parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31:2) he brought two reasons why they merited [to be saved]? The reason is that Rashi was answering the question: Here the Torah writes, “Antagonize the Midianites and kill them” (v. 17). Thus [one may ask] why was the word “antagonize” necessary given that it is written “kill [them]? Rather, one must say that it said “antagonize” because you must always treat them as enemies. This is [also] why it was said in the present tense. This raises the difficulty: Why were the Moavites not treated as enemies, at least so far as not marrying them and prohibiting the females [from converting]? Rashi answers that it was “because of Rus…” With this it is understandable why Rashi’s view is different from that of all the grammarians, who hold that [צרור, "antagonize,"] is a verb root that is used to denote a command, as Re’m writes.

Although Cosbi was not literally the daughter of the highest ranking Midianite, “their sister,” as stated in our verse, seeing that three verses previously she had been described as of lower rank, i.e. the daughter of Tzor, one of the princes of Midian, but not the highest one, the fact that she sacrificed her life for what she perceived as her highest patriotic duty, was the reason that she was accorded a higher rank here, as equivalent to being a leader of her nation.