Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Pinchas IS Elijah

<< < (3/4) > >>

muman613:
I found this discussion on Pinchas and Ibn Ezra...

It appears that Ibn Ezra does not interpret the 'Covenant of Peace' to mean that Pinchas was granted the Kohanim status. Instead he interprets it to mean that Pinchas was protected from the wrath of the families of the people he killed in his zealous act.


--- Quote ---http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bemidbar/41-6pinchas.htm
The first part of his reward, however, seems unclear. What does God mean by "My covenant of peace"?

Several different explanations are suggested by the commentators. Many, such as Ibn Ezra, Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni (in his first approach), the Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot, and Abarbanel, explain this as a promise of protection from vengeance on the part of the victims' relatives and supporters. God assured Pinchas that he had nothing to fear from those who vowed to avenge the blood he spilt.

Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel adopts a Midrashic interpretation of this verse, claiming that "My covenant of peace" means that Pinchas will live forever so that he will ultimately announce the final redemption. Targum Yonatan here refers to the famous comment of Chazal (Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 47) identifying the prophet Eliyahu as Pinchas. According to tradition, as mentioned in the final verses of Sefer Malakhi, Eliyahu will come before "the great, awesome day of God" to announce the arrival of the long-awaited redemption. The Targum Yonatan claims that it is to this that "My covenant of peace" refers.

--- End quote ---


I suppose this is one reason we learn the laws of the the pursuer, that Pinchas could have been killed legally by bystanders because Pinchas was pursuing Zimri to kill him...

http://www.torah.org/learning/olas-shabbos/5759/pinchas.html

--- Quote ---We should note that this is not the conventional "death penalty," which can only be carried out by a Beis Din (Jewish Court). Rather it is a licence given to a zealot to kill the transgressor on the spot. The "halacha of the zealots" contains a number of highly interesting anomalies. The Gemara (ibid. 82a) quotes Rav Chisda who rules that if one comes to Beis Din (Jewish Court) while such a transgression is being committed, to take counsel as to whether he should kill the sinner, the judges do not instruct him to do so. Rabbah bar bar Channah says that not only do we not instruct, but moreover, had Zimri ceased sinning momentarily, and Pinchas were to have killed him then, Pinchas would have been brought to trial, and could be given the death penalty for having killed the sinner. Furthermore, taught Rabbah bar bar Channah, had Zimri turned the tables, and succeeded in killing Pinchas before Pinchas killed him, he would not be liable on Pinchas' account, because Pinchas has the halachic status of a "pursuer," who may be killed in self-defense.
--- End quote ---

But, as the first link states, the belief that Pinchas is Eliyahu is held by many of the great sages..

muman613:
This discussion explains in depth why the sages said this:


http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bemidbar/41-6pinchas.htm

Yesterday we made brief reference to the famous notion in Midrashic literature identifying the prophet Eliyahu as Pinchas. As we saw, some commentaries interpret the "covenant of peace" promised to Pinchas (25:12) as referring to long life. This interpretation very well accommodates this concept, that Pinchas was Eliyahu – who was taken the heavens alive, and never died (see Melakhim II, chapter 2). Today we will discuss this topic at further length, making use of some of many sources compiled with remarkable comprehensiveness by Rabbi David Mandelbaum, in his "Pardes Yosef He-chadash" to this parasha.

We begin by reviewing the sources that indeed identify Pinchas as Eliyahu. Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (28) and Yalkut Shimoni (in several places) describe in fuller detail the conversation between G-d and Eliyahu at Mount Chorev (= Sinai) after the prophet's famous, victorious "showdown" against the idolatrous prophets at Mount Carmel. As recorded in the Tanakh (Melakhim I 19:10), Eliyahu tells G-d, "I have acted zealously for the Lord, the G-d of hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken Your covenant… " The Midrash relates G-d's critical response to Eliyahu: "You always act zealously! You were zealous at Shitim… " This zealotry at Shitim is a clear reference to the incident of Ba'al Pe'or, which occurred at Shitim (see Bamidbar 25:1), where Pinchas killed Zimri and Kozbi. Clearly, then, according to these Midrashim, Pinchas and Eliyahu are the same person.

Another interesting source relevant to this discussion is the Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel to Shemot 4:13. Moshe Rabbenu, in his insistent refusal to accept the task of going to Pharaoh to demand Benei Yisrael's release from bondage, pleads with G-d, "Send whomever you will send." Targum Yonatan explains this to mean, "Send the one whom you will eventually send" – meaning, send Pinchas, the one whom you will send in the end of days. Like the passage from Targum Yonatan in Parashat Pinchas that we saw yesterday, this refers to Eliyahu's mission to herald the coming of the final redemption (see final verses of Sefer Malakhi). Clearly, then, Targum Yonatan identifies Pinchas, Moshe's great-nephew, as the prophet Eliyahu. Targum Yonatan makes this point even more explicitly a bit later in Sefer Shemot (6:18), where he writes that Amram, Moshe's father, lived to see his great-grandson, Pinchas, "he is Eliyahu, the high priest, who in the future will be sent to the Israelite exile, in the end of days."

The Yalkut Shimoni in Parashat Balak (771) likewise mentions explicitly that Pinchas is Eliyahu. It records G-d telling Pinchas, "You brought peace between Me and My children – in the future, as well, you are the one who will bring peace between Me and My children." The Midrash proceeds by citing the verse from the end of Sefer Malakhi that indicates that Eliyahu will come to lead Benei Yisrael towards teshuva in anticipation of the final day of judgment.

This identification of Eliyahu as Pinchas may have a basis in the Talmud, as well. The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (114a-b) tells the story of Rabba Bar Avuha, who once met Eliyahu in a graveyard. The rabbi asked him, "Are you not a kohen?!" He wondered why Eliyahu was permitted in the cemetery if he was a kohen, given the prohibition against kohanim contracting tum'a. Eliyahu replied that the graves wthose of gentiles, and according to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the remains of gentiles render tum'a only upon direct contact; their graves, however, do not generate tum'a. In any event, it emerges from this Gemara that Eliyahu was a kohen, which would obviously accommodate the theory that he was Pinchas. Indeed, Rashi, in his commentary to this Gemara, writes that the Gemara works under this very assumption.

Rabbi Mandelbaum draws further Talmudic evidence from a brief passage in Masekhet Ta'anit. The mishnayot towards the beginning of the second chapter of that Masekhet describe the prayer service conducted during public fast days. One prayer, which has been incorporated into our Selichot service, as well, goes through the Bible and cites examples of where G-d answered the prayers of our ancestors. In this appeal to G-d, we ask that He answer us the way He answered them. The Gemara notes a chronological inconsistency in this prayer, that we mention G-d's favorable response to the prophet Yona before we speak of His having answered the prayers of David and Shelomo. Why would we discuss Yona before we mention David and Shelomo, whom lived many years earlier? Leaving aside the Gemara's response to this question, the Gemara, oddly enough, does not ask why this prayer mentions G-d's answer to Eliyahu's prayer before it talks of David and Shelomo, despite the fact that Eliyahu, too, lived a good deal later than David and Shelomo! Rabbi Mandelbaum suggests that perhaps the Gemara assumed that Eliyahu was Pinchas, who indeed lived before David and Shelomo.

Tomorrow we will iy"H discuss this topic further.

*******

Yesterday, we looked at several sources in Midrashic and Talmudic literature that either state explicitly or imply that Pinchas, the man after whom this week's parasha is named, is the same man as the prophet Eliyahu. Tosefot, in Masekhet Bava Metzia (114b), raise a very simple difficulty on this theory. A famous story is told in Sefer Melakhim I (chapter 17) of how Eliyahu brought back to life the deceased child of the "isha ha-tzarfatit," the woman who had supported Eliyahu during the famine that ravaged the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Eliyahu revived the child by "stretching out over him three times" (verse 21), which seemingly involved direct, physical contact. But if we identify Eliyahu as Pinchas, who, at the beginning of Parashat Pinchas, is blessed with priesthood, how could he come in contact with a dead body? Does this not violate the code of the kohanim, which forbids them from contracting tum'a by touching a dead body? (In truth, the question applies even if Eliyahu did not actually touch the child, since he did enter the same room as the child's body, from which a kohen is likewise forbidden.)

Tosefot give a very simple answer: "This was permitted because of piku'ach nefesh [the interest in saving human life], for he was certain that he would live." In other words, the prohibition forbidding kohanim from coming in contact with a corpse was suspended in this instance in the interest of saving a life.

Many writers, however, have asked why Tosefot added, "for he was certain that he would live." This obviously implies that had Eliyahu entertained any doubts about his power to bring the boy back to life, halakha would have forbade him from making such an attempt by coming in contact with him. Why should this be the case? A well-established halakhic principle allows for the violation of Torah prohibitions (with the well known exception of the three grave prohibitions of adultery, idolatry and murder) for even a reasonable possibility of saving life. For example, in a case of an avalanche or toppled building, Shabbat may violated to continue searching for survivors so long as the possibility remains that dangerously injured people are still alive in the rubble – even if this cannot be ascertained. Why, then, would Tosefot require total confidence on Eliyahu's part in his ability to bring the boy back to life to permit him to violate Torah law for this purpose?

Some have explained Tosefot's position in light of the Rambam's ruling in his commentary to the mishna (Yoma, chapter 8) forbidding violations of halakha to save a life through mystical means ("be-ofen seguli"). Tosefot perhaps concurred with this position, and therefore justified Eliyahu's touching the dead child's body on the basis of the prophet's certitude in the effectiveness of his efforts. Given his assurance in the successful outcome of his attempt to revive the boy, this supernatural means of saving life was, for purposes of halakha, equivalent to a natural means of lifesaving, and was hence permitted even at the expense of the violation of a Torah prohibition.

Other answers are offered, as well, to explain how Eliyahu could come in contact with a dead body. The Shita Mekubetzet (there in Bava Metzia) claims that the child was not, in fact, dead, but rather a "goseis" – on the verge of death, a theory advanced by the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 1:42) and cited in the Radak's commentary to Sefer Melakhim. Tosefot did not accept this answer for one of two reasons. They may have felt that, as the Abarbanel argues, the verses there in Melakhim strongly indicate that the child had actually died and was brought back to life by Eliyahu. Alternatively, as Rav David Mandelbaum suggests in his "Pardeis Yoseif He-chadash" to Parashat Pinchas, Tosefot here may follow the position of Tosefot in Masekhet Nazir (4b), that a nazir, who is likewise forbidden from coming in contact with dead bodies, may not touch a "goseis," either, a halakha that may very well apply to a kohen, as well. (Although, as Rabbi Mandelbaum notes, Tosefot later in Nazir – 43a – rule explicitly that a kohen is permitted to come in contact with a "goseis.") For this reason, perhaps, Tosefot could not answer their question regarding the prophet Eliyahu by adopting this assumption, that the child had not died but was rather a "goseis."

Rabbi Mandelbaum cites possible Talmudic proof for the Shita Mekubetzet's claim that the child Eliyahu treated had not actually died, from a brief passage in Masekhet Nida (70b). The Gemara there records three "divrei borut," or foolish questions, posed by the Jews of Alexandria, one of them being, "Does the son of the Shunamite convey tum'a?" They refer here to a famous incident recorded in Melakhim II (chapter 4) where Elisha, the disciple and successor of Eliyahu, brings to life the son of the Shunamite woman – much like Eliyahu had resuscitated the son of the "tzarfatit." The Alexandrians wondered whether the Shunamite's son, who had died and been brought back to life, conveyed tum'a after having come back to life, or if his return to life terminated the ritual impurity he generated as a corpse. Leaving aside the Gemara's response, it is perhaps noteworthy that the people of Alexandria asked specifically about the boy revived by Elisha – but never questioned the status of the child treated by Eliyahu. The explanation, Rabbi Mandelbaum suggests, might be that, as the Shita Mekubetzet claimed, the child of the "tzarfatit" did not actually die, and thus the Alexandrians' question was not relevant to him. (Of course, it is highly questionable whether we can reach definitive conclusions based on a question the Gemara itself terms "foolish.")

We conclude our discussion by briefly mentioning two other explanations suggested to justify Eliyahu's actions. The Tosefot Ha-Rosh (in Bava Metzia) and the Radbaz (teshuvot, 6:301) answer very simply that this incident constituted a "hora'at sha'a," an extraordinary situation that allowed for a one-time breach of the Torah for the sake of "kiddush Hashem." The Radbaz suggests a different explanation, as well, citing Kabbalistic sources who explain that Pinchas and Eliyahu were not, in fact, the same person. When Chazal inform us that "Pinchas is Eliyahu," they meant that on some mystical level, their souls emanated from the same root, but not that there was a single person named Pinchas and subsequently Eliyahu. This will serve as our introduction to tomorrow's topic – the view in Chazal that Piis not Eliyahu. Here we will simply comment that this answer of the Radbaz does not explain the Gemara in Bava Metzia, which, as we saw yesterday, clearly assumed that Eliyahu was a kohen and thus bound by all the laws applicable to kohanim.

edu:
Yalkut Shimoni brings several opinions what is the tribe of Eliyahu
ילקוט שמעוני מלכים א רמז רח
One of them is that he is from Binyamin and in the end Eliyahu himself testifies that this is true.
Radak to shoftim/judges chapter 20 also brings the two major opinions regarding the lineage of Eliyahu and he ends up saying that the side that holds he is from Binyamin, has a support for their view in Divrei Hayamim/Chronicles.
Malbim on Hoshea chapter 6 verses 7,8 holds that Eliyahu was from Binyamin
Rashi in his commentary to Braishit/Genesis 35:11 which talks about the birth of Binyamin, also says that the prophecy contains a hint to Eliyahu's sacrifice on Mount Carmel
The Midrash Agada spells it out, that Eliyahu was a descendant of Binyamin and the Torah provides a hint to his future actions on Mount Carmel in the way that it describes the birth of Binyamin.
מדרש אגדה (בובר) דברים פרק יב

[יג] השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך. אין אתה רשאי לעשות לאחר שיבנה, אבל יכול לעשות מזבח כמו שעשה אליהו בהר הכרמל, ומנין למד אליהו לעשות כן בהר הכרמל, ממה שאמר לו הקב"ה ליעקב נוי וקהל גוים יהיה ממך (בראשית לה יא), עתיד לצאת מבנימין בן שיעשה בקהל גוים שיבנה מזבח באיסור הבמות ואני מקבלו, ואליהו משבט בנימן היה, שכן כתיב בספר יחוסין בשבט בנימן (ערשיה) [ויערשיה] ואליה וזכרי בני ירוחם (דה"א ח כז). ערשיה בשעה שהקב"ה מרעיש את העולם על ישראל זוכר ברית אבות והקב"ה מרחם עליהם ולכך נאמר (ואליהו) אשר היה דבר ה' אליו [לאמר] ישראל יהיה שמך (מ"א יח לא), באותה שעה ששם לו הקב"ה זה השם ואמר לו גוי וקהל גוים:

Kahane-Was-Right BT:

--- Quote from: muman613 on April 17, 2011, 01:33:10 AM ---But most Rabbis I talk to acknowledge that there is the belief that Pinchas is Eliyahu... I asked two Rabbis about it today and they both knew about it, and even before I asked about it one said "Pinchas is Eliyahu"...
--- End quote ---

Ok.

I also acknowledge that there is such a belief.  But not everyone believes that, nor has to.  Where did I ever say "that belief doesn't exist?"  Since you yourself stated it in this thread that you believe it obviously then it does exist.


--- Quote ---
Do you know why Ibn Ezra has a divergent opinion?



--- End quote ---

As in many cases with the Ibn Ezra, he holds that such a tremendous miracle if it really did happen, would be said explicitly by the Torah.  He has a basic view that we cannot read impossible/improbable miracles into the text if they are not stated there.

muman613:

--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on April 24, 2011, 10:55:50 AM ---Ok.

I also acknowledge that there is such a belief.  But not everyone believes that, nor has to.  Where did I ever say "that belief doesn't exist?"  Since you yourself stated it in this thread that you believe it obviously then it does exist.

As in many cases with the Ibn Ezra, he holds that such a tremendous miracle if it really did happen, would be said explicitly by the Torah.  He has a basic view that we cannot read impossible/improbable miracles into the text if they are not stated there.

--- End quote ---

Interesting, but I find it hard to believe that :


--- Quote --- He has a basic view that we cannot read impossible/improbable miracles into the text if they are not stated there.
--- End quote ---

I can think of three very good examples that we learned over Pesach which demonstrate miracles which are not explicitly stated in the written Torah.

1) During the reading of the Passover Haggadah we talk about how many plagues Hashem smote Egypt with. Some sages say 50, others 200... Each of the plagues was a miracle in its own right.

2) When we celebrate Shabbat HaGadol we learn that a great miracle happened on that day, yet the Torah says nothing about it...

3) Many of the great Commentators explain how a great miracle happened during the plague of darkness. We have discussed it here at JTF many times, that 4/5 of the Jews in Egypt perished in the plague of darkness. According to some sages as many as 8 MILLION, maybe 12 MILLION Jews died in this plague. That is more Jews than died in the Holocaust... But the Torah does not mention their deaths... The miracle was that the 3 million Jews were able to bury the 8-12 million dead Jews before the plague was done, so the Egyptians did not know what happened...

Each of these miracles is not explicitly stated in the Torah, and I can think of many more which are brought out by Midrash and Gemora.

http://www.aish.com/h/pes/h/48959306.html


--- Quote ---Rabbi Yossi the Galilean said: "How do you know that the Egyptians were struck by 10 plagues in Egypt and 50 plagues at the sea? Because regarding the plagues of Egypt it says: 'The magicians said to Pharaoh, this is the finger of God' (Exodus 8:15). While at the sea it says: 'And the Jewish people saw the great hand which God had used in Egypt, and the people feared God, and they believed in God and in Moses His servant' (Exodus 14:31). How many plagues did they receive with the finger? Ten. Therefore if in Egypt they received 10 plagues then at the sea (when smitten by God's hand) they must have had 50 plagues.'"

Rabbi Yossi the Galilean said there were 50 plagues.

Rabbi Elazar says that the number of plagues was four-fold. This is an allusion to the four-letter Name of God -- Yud, Heh, Vav, Heh -- which represents God's attributes of kindness and mercy. Because in Rabbi Elazar's opinion, the purpose of the plagues was to sensitize the Jewish people to the love and care shown to them by God.

Rabbi Akiva, meanwhile, says that the plagues were primarily for sake of punishing the Egyptians. The number of plagues was therefore five-fold, corresponding to the five letters of Elokim -- the Name of God which represents strict justice.

Multiple Plagues
Rabbi Tom Meyer

Rabbi Yossi the Galilean said: "How do you know that the Egyptians were struck by 10 plagues in Egypt and 50 plagues at the sea? Because regarding the plagues of Egypt it says: ‘The magicians said to Pharaoh, this is the finger of God' (Exodus 8:15). While at the sea it says: ‘And the Jewish people saw the great hand which God had used in Egypt, and the people feared God, and they believed in God and in Moses His servant' (Exodus 14:31). How many plagues did they receive with the finger? Ten. Therefore if in Egypt they received 10 plagues then at the sea (when smitten by God's hand) they must have had 50 plagues."

Many people find this part of the Haggadah confusing. Basically, the idea is that each plague in Egypt was "by the finger of God," and the miracle at the Sea was "the hand of God." So there must have been five times more miracles at the Sea than there were original plagues. It's all rabbinical mathematics – multiply 10 times five.

So what? The Haggadah spoke earlier about the Sages staying up all night talking about the Exodus. What took them so long? They were trying to identify each aspect of how God interacts with us. They were examining details of how choosing spirituality brings a reward, and choosing unnecessary physicality brings a punishment. In Judaism, "reward" doesn't only mean a relief from pain, depression, suffering, anti-Semitism, etc. (although that's part of it). You also get innumerable positive things. And that's why it's so great to be Jewish.

We don't hate the body. Judaism uses the body. It's not the enemy. Just don't get swallowed by it. If God didn't want us to have a body, He wouldn't have put us in this world. But He also doesn't want you to totally surrender to the body. He shows you the consequences -- all the plagues and punishments and suffering. Each plague can damage yourself, damage interpersonal relationships, damage you with God, damage your possessions, damage the ecology and the environment.

Each plague had all these different parts.
--- End quote ---

The miracle of Shabbat HaGadol:


--- Quote ---http://www.torah.org/learning/olas-shabbos/5758/shabbos-hagadol.html

Shabbos HaGadol
Rabbi Eliyahu Hoffmann

The Great Shabbos

Many reasons are given for the unique name of this week's Shabbos - Shabbos haGadol, the Great Shabbos. After all, aren't all Shabboses great?

The Tur (chapter 430) explains: We find in the Torah (Shemos 12:3) that on the 10th day of Nisan the Jews were commanded to take a sheep and set it aside for the Korban Pesach (Pesach offering). They did so - the head of each family took a sheep and tied it to the foot of his bed. When the Egyptians saw what they were doing, they were mystified. "What are you doing with these sheep?" they asked. "We are putting them aside in order to slaughter them as an offering for Hashem (G-d)," they replied. Now the sheep was the god of the Egyptians, and thus the Egyptians were extremely agitated by the Jews telling them this. Under normal circumstances, they would have incited riots and pogroms against the Jews. Yet, for reasons unknown even to them, they found themselves unable to react. ("For fear [of the Jews] had fallen upon them," (Tehillim/Psalms 105:38).) Now we know that the day Bnei Yisrael (the Jews) left Mitzrayim (Egypt), the 15th day of Nisan, was on a Thursday (Seder Olam). Thus, the miracle of the Egyptians' non-reaction occurred on Shabbos, five days earlier. This is why it is called Shabbos haGadol - because of the Great Miracle which occurred on this Shabbos.

Some question this: If so, why was Shabbos chosen to commemorate this miracle? True, the miracle occurred on Shabbos that year, but wouldn't it have been more appropriate to designate the 10th day of Nisan, no matter when it falls, as the day of commemoration?

They answer that the neis (miracle) only transpired because it was Shabbos. Normally, there would have been nothing so unusual about the Jews putting sheep aside. What caught the Egyptians' eyes was that it was Shabbos, and they knew that the Jews were forbidden to handle live animals on Shabbos. Their interest was piqued, and they asked, and that's how the whole miracle came about. Thus the neis is attributed to Shabbos.
--- End quote ---



--- Quote ---http://www.torah.org/learning/parsha-insights/5759/bo.html
.
.

That is what was meant by the 'darkness of above'. The heavens are filled with the pure, clear light of clarity and truth. But that brilliant light, for the eye that is not prepared for it, is blinding. It is seen as darkness. Not an absence of light but a tangible darkness that obliterates all.

With this we can understand that the Jews who didn't want to leave Mitzrayim died during this plague of darkness. For those with the potential to see this pure light who instead chose impurity, for them it wasn't simply darkness, it was death.

Rashi adds that they died during the days of darkness in order that the Egyptians wouldn't see them dying and say the Jews were also getting hit like them.

What a glaring example of having clarity before you and choosing to deny it. Choosing darkness. To date, eight plagues had been brought upon them, precisely as Moshe had foretold each time. Mitzrayim was in ruins. The ninth plague is now upon them. They are entrapped in darkness while there is light for the Jews. However, some Jews died! How would that be interpreted by their desperate minds? You see! There really is no G-d! All that has happened so far has not been Hashem punishing us for torturing His nation. It hasn't been His Hand smacking us until we'll finally release His children. The past nine months will be ignored because Jews also died during this ninth plague. Incredible. The darkness that a person can see in the midst of such blinding light.
--- End quote ---

I am just saying that just because the written Torah doesn't explicitly spell out miracles doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have ample sources to learn that miracles did occur...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page