Chasidut do Liczb 25:22
Pri HaAretz
We find in the Talmud “From where do we know that a priest with a physical defect is invalid.? As it says ‘Behold I give him my covenant of peace (/SHaLOM/)’, when is he whole/complete (/SHaLeM/) therefore and not lacking. This is problematic however for SHaloM is written, with a VaV (and therefore does not have the meaning of complete/whole). But the Vav is severed (and therefore it may be read as having the meaning complete/whole). Elsewhere the Talmud explains the verse from Psalms “Pinchas stood in reckoning (VaYiPaLeL). VaYiTPaLeL (prayer) is not written, rather VaYiPaLeL (entreaty), to teach that he made a ׳reckoning׳ )(PeLiLaH) with his Creator.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Me'or Einayim
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Pinhas the son of Eleazar… [has settled my wrath…] Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace” (Num. 25:10-12), and the Sages of Blessed Memory, in the Talmud (Zevachim 101b) interpreted that Pinhas only became a priest after he had killed Zimri. We must understand the phrasing of saying, which must be to Israel since the statement to Pinhas is stated explicitly in the verse, Therefore say (to him), ‘Behold, I give to him’ etc. – but what was the statement to Israel? We must also understand the phrasing of settled rather than saying “removed” my wrath etc.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 25,11. Pinchas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned back My wrath.”
Before elaborating on this verse we need to explain a verse in Lamentations 111,8: חטא חטא ירושלים על כן לנדה היתה, “Jerusalem has become guilty of a sin; this is why she has become a wanderer (homeless).”
We have a rule that if someone commits a transgression of G’d’s law due to his natural urges having proved too strong for him to resist them, he is not subject to the same penalty as someone who has committed the same transgression in order to anger G’d. Concerning this distinction between penalties for the same transgression the prophet Ezekiel 20,38 speaks when he says: וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי מארץ מגוריהם....ואל אדמת ישראל לא יבוא וידעתם כי אני ה' “I will separate from you those who rebel and those who transgress against Me; but to the soil of Israel none shall come. Then shall you know that I am the Lord.” The prophet makes clear that sins committed deliberately in order to anger G’d are not subject to repentance, i.e. the penalty of exile, for example, will not be reversed not even for a single one of such sinners. Not so when the sin was committed merely due to the weakness of the flesh to resist temptation.
Jeremiah, in the above quoted verse from Lamentations, makes it plain that the sin of Jerusalemites which was punished by exile, i.e. נדה, was not due to the arrogance of defying G’d deliberately, but was only the result of weakness of the flesh; hence in due course repentance of the sinners or their descendants, will enable them to return to their ancestral homeland. The prophet chose the word נדה to describe the Jerusalemites’ punishment, as we all know that a woman who is temporarily out of bounds to her husband due to her menses, will in due course, after immersion in a mikveh, ritual cleansing bath, be reunited with her husband. The purification of such a woman is unique amongst cleansing from ritual pollutions, as in all other cases of ritual pollution, -for instance the contact with any of the eight שרצים, “teeming creatures (listed in Leviticus chapter11)- the source of the contamination is not rehabilitated by the ritual bath, only its victim.
In fact there exists blood of a menstruating woman or a woman that has just given birth which is not considered as contaminated at all.
It is axiomatic (in our faith) that when G’d dispenses of His largesse to us this is invariably for our benefit, though sometimes it is not immediately manifest.
[If I understand the author correctly, he means that both these categories of blood come forth from the same part of the woman’s body. When a woman gives birth this indicates that her ovulation resulted in something positive, a new life, this is proof that what turns into something polluted when not resulting in pregnancy, can become the opposite when resulting in pregnancy. Ed.]
The prophet hints at this when describing Israel’s state after the destruction of Jerusalem as that of a נדה, the message being that just as a woman having her menses may become pregnant during her next cycle, so this status of the Israelites is also capable of resulting in redemption in due course.
When we apply this concept to the deed of Pinchas who had spilled Jewish blood, (without legal action having preceded his act), enabled the Israelites to realize that the result of his act was the saving of an untold amount of more Jewish blood. What had at first glance appeared as an act of cruelty, turned out to be a vehicle for thousands of acts of loving kindness.
Before elaborating on this verse we need to explain a verse in Lamentations 111,8: חטא חטא ירושלים על כן לנדה היתה, “Jerusalem has become guilty of a sin; this is why she has become a wanderer (homeless).”
We have a rule that if someone commits a transgression of G’d’s law due to his natural urges having proved too strong for him to resist them, he is not subject to the same penalty as someone who has committed the same transgression in order to anger G’d. Concerning this distinction between penalties for the same transgression the prophet Ezekiel 20,38 speaks when he says: וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי מארץ מגוריהם....ואל אדמת ישראל לא יבוא וידעתם כי אני ה' “I will separate from you those who rebel and those who transgress against Me; but to the soil of Israel none shall come. Then shall you know that I am the Lord.” The prophet makes clear that sins committed deliberately in order to anger G’d are not subject to repentance, i.e. the penalty of exile, for example, will not be reversed not even for a single one of such sinners. Not so when the sin was committed merely due to the weakness of the flesh to resist temptation.
Jeremiah, in the above quoted verse from Lamentations, makes it plain that the sin of Jerusalemites which was punished by exile, i.e. נדה, was not due to the arrogance of defying G’d deliberately, but was only the result of weakness of the flesh; hence in due course repentance of the sinners or their descendants, will enable them to return to their ancestral homeland. The prophet chose the word נדה to describe the Jerusalemites’ punishment, as we all know that a woman who is temporarily out of bounds to her husband due to her menses, will in due course, after immersion in a mikveh, ritual cleansing bath, be reunited with her husband. The purification of such a woman is unique amongst cleansing from ritual pollutions, as in all other cases of ritual pollution, -for instance the contact with any of the eight שרצים, “teeming creatures (listed in Leviticus chapter11)- the source of the contamination is not rehabilitated by the ritual bath, only its victim.
In fact there exists blood of a menstruating woman or a woman that has just given birth which is not considered as contaminated at all.
It is axiomatic (in our faith) that when G’d dispenses of His largesse to us this is invariably for our benefit, though sometimes it is not immediately manifest.
[If I understand the author correctly, he means that both these categories of blood come forth from the same part of the woman’s body. When a woman gives birth this indicates that her ovulation resulted in something positive, a new life, this is proof that what turns into something polluted when not resulting in pregnancy, can become the opposite when resulting in pregnancy. Ed.]
The prophet hints at this when describing Israel’s state after the destruction of Jerusalem as that of a נדה, the message being that just as a woman having her menses may become pregnant during her next cycle, so this status of the Israelites is also capable of resulting in redemption in due course.
When we apply this concept to the deed of Pinchas who had spilled Jewish blood, (without legal action having preceded his act), enabled the Israelites to realize that the result of his act was the saving of an untold amount of more Jewish blood. What had at first glance appeared as an act of cruelty, turned out to be a vehicle for thousands of acts of loving kindness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 16,1 “after the death of two of Aaron’s son when they came (too) near to the Presence of Hashem and died (as a result).”
There is a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua concerning the precise meaning of our verse. Rabbi Eliezer holds that these two sons of Aaron were guilty of giving halachic rulings in the presence of their teachers, i.e. pre-empting them. Rabbi Joshua holds that their sin consisted in entering sacred precincts in a state of drunkenness. (Compare Vayikra Rabbah 20,7 and 9 respectively) We need to understand how Rabbi Eliezer deduced that the sons of Aaron issued a halachic ruling without consulting their teachers from the words: בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו. If the reason they died was that they had not asked permission from Moses or Aaron to enter the sacred grounds, why did the Torah omit mentioning the most important reason for their death? Rabbi Joshua’s claim that they were drunk is also apparently unsupported by the text.
In order to better understand the opinion that these sons of Aaron were guilty of bypassing their teachers in not asking permission to enter the holy precincts of the Tabernacle, we must first understand why a sin described as failing to ask permission from their teachers should carry the death penalty at the hands of G’d. After all, they had not given an erroneous ruling, so that their sin would seem to have been only “bad manners.”
We must understand that when G’d created the world He also created boundaries between different domains both on earth and in the celestial regions. Any angel that enters a domain that is not his without express permission to do so, is immediately burned up. The chain of the domains in the universe begins (top) with the domain of the angels known as Seraphim, the domain containing G’d’s throne. The next lower domain is the domain of the angels known as chayot. The next lower level in the celestial domains is that known as ophanim. Starting with the next “lower” domain we enter the world of tzimtzum, described in the Kabbalistic texts as the 10 emanations, ספירות. If any angel enters a domain above the level he has been assigned, he simply disappears into nothingness.
There is a similar system of varying domains among the Jewish people. G’d had first condensed His brilliance so that Moses could bear it. Moses in turn had to condense it further for the protection of his brother Aaron when he spoke to him. This process continued with Aaron’s sons followed by the elders, followed again by the prophets, and thence eventually comprised all the Israelites. We know this on the authority of the Talmud in Eyruvin 54 in the paragraph commencing with the words: כיצד סדר משנה?, “what was the order in which the Torah was taught to the Israelite people originally?” The problem with Aaron’s sons was that they wanted to skip a rank to a higher level than that which had been assigned to them. They had not bothered to ask either Moses or Aaron who belonged to a higher domain permission to do so. They simply “presented themselves” before G’d without having obtained the credentials that would have made them welcome. As a result they were removed from earth. What happened to them could equally have happened to any other Israelite on a lower level who had presumed to “promote” himself without the blessing of his spiritual mentors. The principle known in the Talmud as המורה הלכה בפני רבו, “teaching halachic rulings in the presence of one’s teachers” i.e. trying to jumpstart closer relations to Hashem without their mentors’ approval is a severe enough sin to warrant the death penalty at the hands of G’d.
[When Pinchas, almost 40 years later did something, which on the face of it appeared as similar, this was not only not punishable but deserved reward as he was fully aware that he risked his life by doing so, but he did not do so from a feeling of superiority to his mentors but to save the lives of many thousands of Israelites who were already becoming victims of a plague that raged in the camp. (Numbers 25,6-8) Ed.]
After this tragic occurrence, the Torah, in order to make this point clear once and for all, legislates that even the High Priest Aaron, an intimate of G’d, allowed to pronounce the holy name of G’d, should know that even he could not arbitrarily choose when to invoke this intimacy and that he could enter the holy of Holies in the Tabernacle only when invited to do so, or when the ritual prescribed by the Torah for certain days in the calendar made this an annual event. (Compare 15,2)
There is a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua concerning the precise meaning of our verse. Rabbi Eliezer holds that these two sons of Aaron were guilty of giving halachic rulings in the presence of their teachers, i.e. pre-empting them. Rabbi Joshua holds that their sin consisted in entering sacred precincts in a state of drunkenness. (Compare Vayikra Rabbah 20,7 and 9 respectively) We need to understand how Rabbi Eliezer deduced that the sons of Aaron issued a halachic ruling without consulting their teachers from the words: בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו. If the reason they died was that they had not asked permission from Moses or Aaron to enter the sacred grounds, why did the Torah omit mentioning the most important reason for their death? Rabbi Joshua’s claim that they were drunk is also apparently unsupported by the text.
In order to better understand the opinion that these sons of Aaron were guilty of bypassing their teachers in not asking permission to enter the holy precincts of the Tabernacle, we must first understand why a sin described as failing to ask permission from their teachers should carry the death penalty at the hands of G’d. After all, they had not given an erroneous ruling, so that their sin would seem to have been only “bad manners.”
We must understand that when G’d created the world He also created boundaries between different domains both on earth and in the celestial regions. Any angel that enters a domain that is not his without express permission to do so, is immediately burned up. The chain of the domains in the universe begins (top) with the domain of the angels known as Seraphim, the domain containing G’d’s throne. The next lower domain is the domain of the angels known as chayot. The next lower level in the celestial domains is that known as ophanim. Starting with the next “lower” domain we enter the world of tzimtzum, described in the Kabbalistic texts as the 10 emanations, ספירות. If any angel enters a domain above the level he has been assigned, he simply disappears into nothingness.
There is a similar system of varying domains among the Jewish people. G’d had first condensed His brilliance so that Moses could bear it. Moses in turn had to condense it further for the protection of his brother Aaron when he spoke to him. This process continued with Aaron’s sons followed by the elders, followed again by the prophets, and thence eventually comprised all the Israelites. We know this on the authority of the Talmud in Eyruvin 54 in the paragraph commencing with the words: כיצד סדר משנה?, “what was the order in which the Torah was taught to the Israelite people originally?” The problem with Aaron’s sons was that they wanted to skip a rank to a higher level than that which had been assigned to them. They had not bothered to ask either Moses or Aaron who belonged to a higher domain permission to do so. They simply “presented themselves” before G’d without having obtained the credentials that would have made them welcome. As a result they were removed from earth. What happened to them could equally have happened to any other Israelite on a lower level who had presumed to “promote” himself without the blessing of his spiritual mentors. The principle known in the Talmud as המורה הלכה בפני רבו, “teaching halachic rulings in the presence of one’s teachers” i.e. trying to jumpstart closer relations to Hashem without their mentors’ approval is a severe enough sin to warrant the death penalty at the hands of G’d.
[When Pinchas, almost 40 years later did something, which on the face of it appeared as similar, this was not only not punishable but deserved reward as he was fully aware that he risked his life by doing so, but he did not do so from a feeling of superiority to his mentors but to save the lives of many thousands of Israelites who were already becoming victims of a plague that raged in the camp. (Numbers 25,6-8) Ed.]
After this tragic occurrence, the Torah, in order to make this point clear once and for all, legislates that even the High Priest Aaron, an intimate of G’d, allowed to pronounce the holy name of G’d, should know that even he could not arbitrarily choose when to invoke this intimacy and that he could enter the holy of Holies in the Tabernacle only when invited to do so, or when the ritual prescribed by the Torah for certain days in the calendar made this an annual event. (Compare 15,2)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Our author suggests slightly different answer by reminding us that major sins have a detrimental effect on our holy souls so that even already when planned they send the perpetrator’s divine soul into exile. This is alluded to broadly by the most unusual language in verses 14 and 15 of our chapter. Our author therefore suggests that Zimri’s deed had already sealed his fate of death by execution so that when Pinchas entered the picture he “killed” someone already legally dead. This also explains why the word “killing”, הרג is not mentioned in the Torah in connection with this episode even once, the Torah mentions only “stabbing,” (Numbers ) and having been struck, (Numbers 25,14) Seeing that Pinchas had not “killed” in the accepted sense of the word there was no reason to disqualify him for the priesthood.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mei HaShiloach
In the Book of Numbers, it is hinted that no living being will be exculpated before Him, that even precious souls, "there is no righteous in the land who does good and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20), as in this portion it is written "consuming at the edge [katze] of the camp"(Numbers 11:1)—the elite [ketzinim] of the camp (see Sifri Numbers 85), and in parashat Shelah is written the sin of the scouts "all of the men being heads of the Children of Israel,"(Numbers 13:3) who were "mistaken hearted... and not knowing the ways [of God]" (Psalms 95:10), and so, in the section of the gatherer [of sticks of Shabbat], and in parashat Korach, "who was clever... and his eyes misled him” (Bamidbar Rabba 18:8, Midrash Tanhuma Korach 5, Rashi on Numbers 16:7), and in prashat Hukat is written “the waters of conflict” (Numbers 20:13) about Moses and Aaron, and in parashat Balak about Zimri ben Salu [who was killed for improper relations with a Midianite woman] that he was a chieftain (see Numbers 25:14). This hints to what was said “Remember, do not forget how you angered God your God in the wilderness”(Deuteronomy 9:7) because ‘wilderness’ indicates the destruction and the desolation that is in every individual, as how there were worlds that were destroyed before the world of building (see Kohellet Rabba 3:11:1, Zohar 3 292b:2). And this hints to the strength of humans over the demonic and wild forces within them that want to mislead them in youthful sins, and thus also in all lofty matters, are found deriving from the force of the wilderness, as the wilderness indicates the whole world, because before the creation of the form of humanity the whole world was a wilderness, because settlement [the alternative to wilderness] is only from people, and anything before the complete finishing of the formation of humanity is called wilderness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Me'or Einayim
Now, through the act of Zimri at Shittim, Israel began to whore after the daughters of Moab; and they seized the Blessed Creator’s characteristic, the characteristic of love, and through this distanced themselves from Blessed [God] – whereas on the contrary, through this they could have drawn themselves closer. But they remained in contraction, a place where the Upper Love was contracted, and they drew it down to a place of the judgments and the contraction; and therefore the punishment, God save us, came upon them, wherein twenty-four thousand Israelites died. But Pinhas, on account of his holding onto the Omnipresent’s zealousness, upheld and established the characteristic of mercy [hesed], which the wicked had cast down; and therefore he deserved to be a priest. And that is [the meaning of] settled my wrath – from the idiom of settling the soul (Psalm 19:8), [meaning] that Pinhas settled [God’s] spirit, as if it were possible, as we have stated above, through the beloved child at whose hands the judgments are sweetened and absorbed into mercy. And therefore it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood (Num 25:13), and therefore Pinhas only became a priest after he killed Zimri, for then he held onto and established the characteristic of mercy; and understand this, blessed is God forever, amen and amen.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Flames of Faith
A harmonious home is not just a place where there is an absence of friction. The ideal home contains an atmosphere in which each individual is true to himself and herself. The blend of the differences creates a feeling of transcendent beauty and harmony.388The word shalom, “peace,” shares a connection with the word shalem, “com-plete,” and “whole.” Furthermore Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Num. 25:11-13 explains that Pinchas’s act of violence was in fact peaceful since it restored the harmony of forces. Rabbi Wolfson in Emunas Etecha on Parashas Pinchas has a differ-ent explanation for why Pinchas’s violence merited a reward of Divine peace.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy