Pensiero Ebraico su Giosuè 7:11

The term echad, one, is applied to items that are whole, not to parts of any unit. Anything that is incomplete, either through being defective or being surplus, redundant, cannot qualify for the description "one." G'd will be perceived as "One" in the messianic age, even though to our limited intellect He may appear as possessing many facets. "He will be one, and His name will be one." (Zecharyah 14,9) The Jewish people are goy echad, one nation. We have a mission in life, in history, which requires all parts of the nation to be part thereof. "It was evening, it was was night, one day." (Genesis 1,5) A day is not a night plus a day, but the total of the twenty four hour period is one day, one unit. When Joseph told Pharaoh that the repetition of his dream showed that the dream was one, he meant that each dream separately was meaningless, only when viewed together did it form a unit. Anyone who transgresses a single commandment of the Torah, destroys the unity of Torah, and is as if he had transgressed all the laws. The same applies to anyone tampering with Torah by either adding or subtracting a single law from it. (5 species for the lulav for instance) Man without woman is not really man at all, he cannot fulfil his purpose in life. When one person sins, he destroys the unity of the nation, makes the nation unable to achieve its destiny, its purpose in G'ds universe. Our sages view the relationship between Israel and G'd in such a manner that the unity of G'd is impaired when Israel does not enjoy His favour through acting in a manner contrary to His wishes. When Achan sinned by concealing treasure captured at Jericho, the whole nation was considered as having sinned. "Israel sinned." (Joshua 7,11) As a result, the people lost the first battle of Ai. In the case of Korach, when Moses asked "shall one man sin and You will be angry at the whole nation?" Moses reasoned that since Korach's sin had been due to deliberate opting out from being part of the national purpose, such action should not come under the heading of collective responsibility. Moses was taught that he had erred. A few people, trying to collect manna on the Sabbath are considered as if the whole nation had refused G'ds commandments. "How long are you refusing to observe My commandments?" (Exodus 16, 28)

Here too only a few people were guilty in indulging in immoral acts, yet the Torah treats the matter as if there had been a wholesale collapse of morality. However, just as the act of a single individual at the right time and in the right place can redeem a whole nation, so can acts of individuals bring about national misfortune. When David fought Goliath, not for the sake of his own reputation, but to restore glory to the name of G'd, he becomes an "ish chayil," a man of valour. The degree of messirat nefesh, dedication, determines whether the act of an individual can be the catalyst that cancels evil decrees and brings in its wake salvation to a whole nation. (compare Talmud Berachot 20, Taanit 24) Matters in our Parshah that need clarification. 1) The Torah keeps harping on the words "the people." The people started to commit harlotry, the people ate, the people worshipped the Moabite deities. Israel joined itself to Baal Peor. Was all this nationwide? Or are "the people" perhaps only a few individuals? If the former, how could G'ds anger be assuaged by hanging just a few leaders? If the latter, why blame the whole nation? 2) Why did Pinchas "see" something no one else had seen? (25,7) Why did he act without instructions, and if what he did was proper, why had he not been instructed to do it? 3) Why does the Torah in verse thirteen say only that he was jealous on behalf of G'd? He was not only jealous, but he did something about it, he committed an irreversible deed? After all, G'd Himself testifies "he took My revenge." (verse 11) 4) Why does the Torah say "he atoned for Israel?" All he had done was settle the score with one sinner, the others remained sinners. Since when does the execution of one sinner exonerate all the remaining sinners? The answer to all these questions lies in what we have discussed before. The relationship of the individual to the community is the key to the entire matter. When one individual can disturb the equilibrium of the whole community, then another individual can also restore such equilibrium. This is what is meant by the Midrash quoted at the beginning. It does not say "he prayed," but "he did something," a word from the same root but instead of being used in the reflexive, the verb here is used in an active conjugation, almost aggressively, you might say. What Pinchas did, went far beyond what he was obliged to do as a good Jew. The angels who tried to obstruct him, must be understood also. Surely it is not in the nature of angels to hinder people who are trying to do good? We must consider that Pinchas in trying to do what he did, endangered his own life. Supposing that Zimri had desisted from completing his act of copulation with Kosbi before Pinchas had killed him, then halachically, Pinchas could have been guilty of murder. Again, had Zimri chosen to defend himself and Pinchas would have been killed by him in self defence, it would have been considered a legitimate act of self defence, and Pinchas' death would halachically have been considered as self inflicted. Moreover, Pinchas had to consider retributive action by Zimri's relatives. In that case also, his death at the hands of Zimri's relatives would have been laid at his own doorstep and would not have been unlike a suicide. Because of all the reasons cited, the angels considered that they were doing Pinchas a good turn by trying to obstruct him. The angels therefore must be viewed as having acted in Pinchas' own interest. Moses being the beyt din, Court, personified, was not allowed to do what Pinchas could do spontaneously. Perhaps this is the reason that Elijah who had personally killed four hundred priests of the Baal on Mount Carmel, having chosen to act like his predecessor Pinchas rather than like Moses and Aaron, did not reap the reward given to Pinchas. He had to flee for his life, endure extreme discomfort until he asked G'd to let him die. Why did G'd not appear to him at once and instruct him to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha, instead of doing so after Elijah had travelled an exhausting forty days through the desert to Mount Chorev? Why did he not receive G'ds revelation on sacred ground within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael? G'd made him come to the spot where Moses at the time of the sin of the golden calf had not acted like Elijah, because his position as law giver and law teacher was similar to the position of Elijah in the latter's generation. At least that was the position Elijah had attempted to assume among his people. Elijah's repeated statement to G'd "I have been motivated by jealousy on Your behalf," when G'd had asked him what he was doing at Mount Chorev, only elicited the reply from G'd "go up to the Mountain." There he would learn that the spirit of G'd was not to be found in a variety of excesses of nature, but rather in the kol demamah dakkah, the almost inaudibly soft voice that superseded all the terrifying spectacles of nature run amok. The lesson was that the practice of kanna-ut, jealousy, i.e. making it a way of life, did not represent the spirit of the Torah. Not the spirit that moves man, not the fire, the enthusiasm that burns within him, but the yishuv hada-at, the calm considered approach, will have lastingly beneficial effect. When Elijah, apparently, had failed to absorb the lesson by repeating the statement that all his sincere kanna-ut notwithstanding, he had wound up an outcast at Mount Sinai, persecuted, unappreciated, G'd tells him that his work henceforth would have to be carried on by others, such as Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha. (compare Kings I chapter 19) In spite of all the foregoing, our sages seem to blame Moses for a degree of neglect, when they state that the reason Moses' grave remains unknown is due to his conduct during this episode. (see Bamidbar Rabbah 20) The reason is that Moses had failed to instruct Pinchas and others to proceed against Zimri in a judicial manner, i.e. bringing him to trial. Moses was in the habit of acting on G'ds instructions. When an opportunity occurred when he should have acted without waiting for instructions, and he failed to act independently, then our sages consider this "laziness," and teach us that G'd is so demanding of those close to Him that He punishes them even for so minor a sin of omission. (Baba Kama 50) Had Moses been legally required to initiate proceedings, his sin would indeed have been major, seeing that he had not done so. G'd told the angels, who for the purpose of the Midrash may even be synonymous with the chachamim, the sages-, "let him be"; he is descended from Levi who acted in pure spirit, in defiance of personal danger when he killed the people of Shechem on account of their implication in the rape of his sister Dinah. Furthermore, he is descended from Aaron, who by offering incense, without instruction, turned away My wrath. He has purity of motivation through heredity, and therefore is allowed to do what he has set out to do. G'ds assistance manifested itself in several ways. 1) Coitus, normally an act of short duration, continued until Pinchas had a chance to stab Zimri to death. 2) Neither Zimri nor Kosbi had a chance to cry out to alert those nearby. 3) Helping Pinchas's aim through the walls of the tent where the act was taking place. 4) Lengthening the blade so that it could penetrate both Zimri and Kosbi. (The Midrash lists eight other "assists") The point of these Midrashim is to show that Pinchas merely commenced the laudable deed, i.e. kinneh, was jealous. Heavenly assistance helped him complete the deed without his becoming defiled by contact with a corpse. (As a priest who has killed is halachically forbidden to perform the traditional duties of the priesthood) He himself needed only to express "kinnah" jealousy; the rest of the action could then be ascribed to Heaven. When Midrash Rabbah Numbers 21, tells us that this shalom, peace is especially precious, it is because it represents the true wholeness of the saintly personality. Such people preserve the "Divine image" with which they have been equipped in the perfect manner. (see our comments in chapter 15) Pinchas argued a point of law with G'd, (use of the word pelillim in the judicial sense). Vayefallel, he argued and prevailed. Pinchas' two outstanding accomplishments were 1) kanna-ut, totally dedicated personality. 2) His merit devolved on his people as a whole so that with his deed he was able to atone for their disgrace. Confirmation of this view is found in the nature of his reward. The "peace" that G'd granted him extends not only horizontally, i.e. to people of his own generation, but also vertically, lezaro acharov, to his future seed and generations. For this reason he was to take part in the punitive expedition against Midian. This is why his descendant the prophet Elijah will close the generation gap between fathers and sons and sons and fathers before the advent of the Messiah. (Maleachi chapter 3) In chapter two verses 4-7, the prophet describes the virtues and accomplishments of Pinchas/Eliyahu. The Talmud, Berachot 19, states clearly that whenever a question of chilul hashem, desecration of G'ds name is involved, one does not stand on ceremony, according honour or rank to one's leaders. When the prophet refers to Pinchas first as a Levite and subsequently as a kohen, a priest, the reference is to the upgrading of Pinchas' status subsequent to the affair with Zimri. At the end, the prophet refers to Pinchas as malach hashem tzeva-ot, an angel of the Lord of Hosts. This is a reference to Elijah's ascent to Heaven, there to await the proper time for his return to earth to complete his mission. This is the meaning of the prophet's statement "here I will send you My angel." It is most interesting to note that the law of lo tossifu velo tigre-u, do not add or detract from the laws of the Torah, (Deut 4,2 is coupled with a reference to the events of Baal Peor, our Parshah. From the text it is clear that those who had been guilty only by association had survived. Pinchas succeeded in restoring the unity of the people and the unity between the people, its Torah and its G'd. The fact that we do not find the instruction to hang all the leaders of the people as having been carried out, shows the effect of Pinchas' deed. Maimonides points out that had the hangings indeed taken place, the Torah would have had to confirm this by such statements as "they did so," or something along those lines.

Some difficulties in the text we have not yet dealt with. 1) Why did Moses announce the timing of the test, before he had even replied to the challenge? 2) If the group who had joined Korach were fit for the priesthood, how would the fact that some of them had already served as Levites, disqualify them from becoming priests? 3) Why did Moses feel it necessary to announce not only the time but also the site of the contest? Why is the argument that Moses had failed to bring the Jewish people to the holy land, repeated twice in the accusations levelled against his leadership? What did Datan and Aviram mean when they asked "are you going to put out the eyes of these people?" 4) When Moses asks G'd not to heed the arguments of the rebels, why does he add that he had not taken an ass or anything from anyone of them? How was that relevant to their accusation? 5) Why did Moses ask Korach and companions twice to appear before G'd armed with incense? Why did Korach agree to such a confrontation from which only one side would emerge alive? 6) When G'd told Moses and Aaron to stand aside from this "congregation," why did G'd threaten the entire nation? What had they done? On the other hand, if the entire nation had become guilty by indicating approval of Korach's challenge, how could Moses say to G'd " because of the sin of one man You will be angry at the whole congregation?" 7) Moses' surprise that one man's sin could trigger national disaster, is hard to understand. We have many instances of collective responsibility (golden calf, Achan ben Karmi, Zimri etc.) (see discussion in chapter 24) 8) When pointing to the miracle about to happen, why does Moses describe this as proof that Korach had angered G'd? It would have been reasonable to expect Moses to have pointed out that such an occurrence proved that he was the authentic leader? 9) Why were the pans in which the rejected incense had been offered up used as a covering for the altar? This looks as if they had been hallowed by the very abuse they had been put to?