Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Awit 110:4

והעלהו שם לעולה, “and offer him up there as burnt offering.” When Avraham is supposed to have asked G-d: “how can I offer a burnt offering in the absence of the priest whose duty it is to perform such rites? G-d answered that Avraham had been appointed as a priest by Him already. (Bereshit Rabbah 55,7) This is how the sages explained Psalms 110,4: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not retract that you are a priest forever as per My word to Malki Tzedek.” (compare Genesis 14,20 where the latter was deprived of that priesthood as he had blessed mortal Avraham before blessing the immortal Lord)

פרעה קצף על עבדיו, the word Pharaoh in Egyptian means “king.” All the Egyptian kings are known as “Pharaoh,” whereas the kings of the Philistines are known as “Avimelech” even as late as the time of King David when the latter pretended to be mentally disturbed (Psalms 34,1) The city of Jerusalem used to be known as “Tzedek,” as we know from Genesis 14,18 as well as Joshua 10,1) During the reign of David, compare Psalms 110,4, G’d refers to Jerusalem as such, seeing that Malki Tzedek is described as “King of Jerusalem. The kings of the nation Amalek were known as “Agag,” [not only the one mentioned in the Book of Samuel. Ed.] (Numbers 24,7, Samuel I 15,8) In our verse here Pharaoh is not the name of an individual but that of the title accorded the Egyptian head of state. The proof for this is simple. Who would dare to address the King by his first name or even by his family name instead of by his title? Certainly not a cup bearer or a recently released prisoner such as Joseph at the time! This is also why Joseph was renamed אברך, meaning אב למלך, “father of the king,” provider. The author of the book לקח טוב has also written in this vein.

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 106:31: 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].

ומלכי צדק AND MELCHIZEDEK — A Midrashic explanation is that he is identical with Shem, son of Noah (Nedarim 32b).