Parasha Pinchas - The Zealots place in Judaism

[muman613]

Parasha Pinchas presents us with a somewhat difficult thing to understand. I believe that once we can understand this lesson from Pinchas we will be able to remove the wicked from our presence. Hashem grants the covenant of peace to Pinchas who zealously killed the fornicators Zimri and Cozbi, both prince and princess of their tribes.

The following discussion expounds on some of the midrashim which explain how this works..


http://www.shemayisrael.com/Parasha/kahn/archives/pinchas64.htm
NOTE: Stupid filter mangles url of this site... change P*a*r*a*s*h*a to p*a*r*s*h*a and this link works...

Torah Attitude: Parashas Pinchas: Killing for peace

Summary

Bilam devised a plan to lure the Jewish men to commit acts of immorality. Pinchas, a true zealot, speared Zimri and the Moabite woman in his tent. The Torah traces the lineage of Pinchas to Aaron to teach that there were no murderous genes in his blood. No one loved peace more than Aaron the High Priest. There are two ways to pursue peace: one is to run after it; the other is to push away what appears to be peace when necessary. True peace is only possible where the participants all have good intentions. G'd rewarded Pinchas by making him a Kohen and by granting him the covenant of peace. To avoid immorality our Sages instituted "fences" to protect us from future lapses. The Torah commands us to judge people favourably and to give others the benefit of the doubt. An evil person we always judge with suspicion.

Immorality

In last week's Torah portion, we learned about the evil Bilam and his three failed attempts to curse the Jewish people. Despite his failure, Bilam's hatred for the Jewish people was so strong that he stubbornly persisted until he managed to disrupt the holy relationship between G'd and the Jewish people. He looked for a way to entice the Jewish people to act immorally. He knew that no matter how strong the relationship, G'd would never tolerate blatant acts of immorality. So Bilam devised a plan where the Moabites set up a marketplace near the camp of the Jewish people. There were stalls in front of tents where all kinds of goods were offered for sale. They knew that the holiness of the Jewish people would never allow them to come even close to immorality, so on the outside of each stall sat elderly women, respectfully clothed. However, when the Jewish men approached to view the goods for sale, the elderly women told them that better quality goods for lower prices were being sold inside. When the unsuspecting men entered the tents, they were given unlimited samples of wine, and many soon became drunk. All of a sudden, voluptuous women appeared from their hiding places and the defenseless men succumbed and committed acts of immorality. They even were tricked to stoop so low as to serve Moabite idols.

The zealot Pinchas

Like sheep in a flock, one Jewish man after another began to indulge in baseless acts of immorality. The situation became so barbaric that Zimri, son of Salu, one of the leaders of the tribe of Simeon, committed acts of immorality in his tent with one of the Moabite women, within the sight of Moses and the entire assembly of the Jewish people. The only one to stand up against this abomination was Pinchas, son of Eliazar, grandson of Aaron, the High Priest. The Oral Torah provides that if a Jewish man has a sexual relationship with a gentile woman, a zealot should kill them both (Sanhedrin 82b). Everyone had forgotten this law. Pinchas was the only one who reacted. As a true zealot, he grabbed a spear and killed them.

Crowd reaction

Initially, the Jewish people reacted with anger towards Pinchas. They caste aspersions on his motives. They said, "Have you seen this Pinchas, whose grandfather fattened calves for idol worship. How dare he kill one of the leaders of a tribe of Israel, when his own family worshipped idols" (Sanhedrin 82b). But the Talmud vindicates Pinchas and says that the Torah traces his lineage to Aaron. This teaches us that there were no murderous genes in his blood. On the contrary, he had the purest of motives, as befitting a descendant of Aaron.

Aaron, lover of peace

Our Sages tell us that no one loved peace more than Aaron, the High Priest. As they say, "Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and bringing them closer to Torah (Perkei Avot 1:12). Pinchas followed in his grandfather's footsteps. However, there are two ways to pursue something: one can pursue it like ones pursues a friendship, or one can pursue it like one pursues an enemy. The regular way to pursue peace is to run and make peace between people. Our Sages relate how Aaron united estranged spouses and mended friendships that had broken down by telling each of them how much one loved the other and was saddened by the schism that separated them. Sure enough, the next time they met, they embraced each other and peace was restored (Avot d'Rabbi Nathan 12:3).

No peace for the wicked

Another way to pursue real peace is to pursue what may appear to be peace with an enemy and push it away when necessary. Peace cannot be attained at any price. As it says, "There is no peace for the wicked" (Hoshea 48:22). True peace is only possible where the participants in the process all have good intentions. This is the problem in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. A participant who is evil or wicked cannot be trusted to pursue or maintain peace. Prime Minister Chamberlain was foolish to believe that he could pursue peace with the Nazis. Sometimes, like Pinchas, it is necessary to stand up and repel any evil person who threatens the true peace process. It is most difficult to see how peace can be restored in Israel. We must keep praying that G'd will send Mashiach who will be above the pressure of the nations of the world, and will have the Divine assistance to make peace in Israel and in the whole world.

Covenant of peace

Only a true zealot who is totally above having any personal agenda and interest will merit the Divine assistance to restore peace. The Torah leaves no doubt that Pinchas had no personal agenda and only good intentions when he killed Zimri. As proof of this, the Torah expressly states that G'd rewarded Pinchas by making him a Kohen and by granting him the covenant of peace (Bamidbar 25:12-13). From the time that the Moabite women first seduced the unsuspecting Jewish men, a horrible plague inflicted the Jewish people. Thousands upon thousands of Jews died from this plague. But when Pinchas killed Zimri, the plague immediately ceased. Peace was restored after the zealot publicly destroyed the evil.

Fences

To avoid immorality, like this unfortunate part of Jewish history, our Sages instituted "fences" to protect us from future lapses. Jewish people are prohibited from drinking wine that has been touched by gentiles. In addition, there are restrictions on eating bread made by gentiles. To prohibit any interaction with gentiles would be absurd and unenforceable. However, our Sages made these "fences" to remind us not to let our guard down to be lured into acts of immorality and intermarriage in general.

Benefit of the doubt

The Torah commands us to judge people favourably and to give others the benefit of the doubt (Vayikra 19:15). The Jewish people were mistaken to react negatively when Pinchas acted zealously. The Chofetz Chaim explains that if the conduct of a G'd fearing person at first appears to be wrong, we must give that person the benefit of the doubt. We must assume that the righteous know what they are doing, even if appearances are deceiving. On the other hand, we must not give the benefit of the doubt to an evil person. We must assume that the wicked are pursuing a course of conduct for improper motives. In other words, the righteous, such as Moses, we always judge favourably. The wicked, such as Bilam, we always judge with suspicion. Since Pinchas was a G'd fearing person, the Jewish people should have assumed that his motives were proper. They should have given him the benefit of the doubt even though his zealot act of killing two people was startling. To this end, the Torah makes it very clear that Pinchas was right.

Judging the righteous

In our daily lives, we encounter many different people. It is important for us to know how to judge each one. Says the Chofetz Chaim, if we know little or nothing about a person, we are obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt. People who are known to be G'd fearing, we must judge favourably, even in circumstances which might suggest otherwise. With people who are evil, we must be suspicious and judge them negatively. We must not be fooled by their devious methods. In this way, we will be able to associate and have good relationships with the righteous and weed out the wicked.

These words were based on a talk given by Rabbi Avraham Kahn, the Rosh Yeshiva and Founder of Yeshivas Keser Torah in Toronto.

[muman613]

I also find this mention of the story of Pinchas and its relationship to how we daven to Hashem:


http://www.aish.com/sp/pr/48955021.html

DEFUSING RAGE

To insure that we clearly understand this point of 'standing before God,' the Talmud offers us a second passage that nails down the equation of standing = prayer.

This passage tells the story of the events that led Pinchas the zealot to kill Zimri, one of the highest ranking officers of the tribe of Simeon. Some of the children of Israel had begun to stray after the daughters of Moav and to worship their idols. The most prestigious Israelite involved in the incident was Zimri who had relations with Cozbi bat Zur, a Moavite princess. Pinchas killed them both by piercing them with his spear, and brought the incident to a close with a prayer. The Talmud comments on this prayer:

"…and Pinchas stood in prayer" [Psalms 106:30]. Rabbi Elazar noticed a flaw in the syntax of this verse -- the proper spelling of the Hebrew word to pray is "Vayitpalel," instead it is written as "Vayepalel," a word that can also be translated as "judgment." He explains that this change from the proper syntax was deliberate; it teaches us that there was a critical undertone to Pinchas' prayer. He threw the bodies down in front of God (i. e. at the entrance of the Tabernacle) and declared: Master of the world, for the sake of these two, 24,000 Jews had to perish [the number that died in the plague following the incident]? The Angels wanted to push Pinchas away on account of his insolence, but God told them, "Leave him be, for he is a zealot the son of a zealot, and an appeaser of anger the son of an appeaser of anger." [Sanhedrin, 44a]

It is obviously not a coincidence that the Rabbis of the Talmud locate the second textual source of the Morning Prayer in another text that portrays a Jew challenging the merits of Divine justice in the strongest possible terms. Pinchas provides another perfect role model of a human being who presumes to confront God, inspired by his total dedication to the sanctification of the Holy Name and an absolute abhorrence of its sacrilege. There is a clear message here. The Morning Prayer is recited by an independent thinker who stands before God fully prepared to state his own opinions about how God ought to run His world. He may be dust and ashes before the Almighty, but if his prayers are an expression of his sense of mission he is entitled to stand up tall even before God. He does not have to cringe apologetically like a humble beggar; he is entitled to express an opinion as a full partner in God's creation.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "I believe that once we can understand this lesson from Pinchas we will be able to remove the wicked from our presence. Hashem grants the covenant of peace to Pinchas"

I am somewhat 'troubled' by the 'lesson' presented in these words.
It would seem to have no pertinent value to our present day and age.
As for Pinchas being granted "the covenant of peace", a 'covenant' is a 'contract', so does this mean that he made a contract to be innocent of murder in the eyes of Ha'Shem in exchange for thousands of Jewish plague deaths? --
Or...Does it mean that Ha'Shem granted him "a pass" by his community because he killed the fornicators for a good cause?
And, "If a Jew is required by law to kill any other Jew fornicating with a non-Jew, wouldn't that leave only Pinchas and one or two other Jews remaining on Earth if they lived today?
And if that is true, wouldn't they be not only the only Jews left on Earth, but also sitting on Death Row in prison as well?
As for the lesson that "someone known to be righteous must be given the benefit of the doubt" --
Nowhere on Earth today but in Muslim countries are zealots who commit violent acts given the benefit of the doubt and then found innocent and released by the courts.
Does not every single Mohammedan Nazi use the same "logic" of this 'lesson' to justify when they throw acid in their wives' face, strangle their own daughters for 'honor', and commit atrocities and massacres against any and all "infidels"?
After all, their civilization claims that such actions are just when perpetrated as jihad in the name of allah.
Further --
If one replies with:
"Yes! - Jewish zealots are righteous when they kill evildoers, but Mohammedan zealots who commit the same corresponding types of acts; following the law as they understand it, are evil !" -
Then isn't this essentially saying "Anyone perceived by their community as "righteous" is entitled to a free pass, but only our rules count!"? 
It seems to me that such a lesson as this could only be considered applicable in the ancient Middle East, because the only people in the world today who accept and follow such a system of legal justice are Muslims whose mindset and world view is that of Arabia circa the 6th Century C.E.  .
How can we as Jews denounce Islam as being murderous maniacs and worse, while adhering to and teaching a Torah lesson such as this one?

[muman613]

What is taught is that there is a time for zealous action.

That what appears as violent at the time may have a reason which can not be seen on the surface.

It is foolish, IMO, to think this is a lesson for the past. The Torah is like water ( see http://www.torah.org/learning/dvartorah/5770/bamidbar.html ) , it is alive and flowing and the lessons speak to us today.

The lesson of Pinchas has nothing to do with Muslims and forcing non-believers to convert. Everyone involved in the events of the story of Pinchas was aware that idolatry was wrong, and so too with illicit relations. Hashem had provided very clear miracles during the 40 years in the desert, he sustained them with Manna from heaven and a miraculous well. The people should have been able to know that it was wrong to do what they did...

Pinchas was wise to do what he did... But we don't necessarily understand when it is correct to act zealously and when not to act in this way. This is what we need to learn.

Hashem commands the Jewish people to obey the commandments. We should act zealously to defend the honor of Hashem, our G-d, and make sure that his name is not desecrated.

Do I suggest we run a spear through all those who engage in illicit relations? I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that we must zealously act to keep Jews Jewish and show them the reason we are proud to be Jewish.

PS: Your question has been asked before and it has been answered.

[muman613]

Massah,

Read this article for more understanding:

http://www.meaningfullife.com/oped/2005/07.21.05$PinchasCOLON_Religious_Violence_Part_I.php

In an unprecedented act of sanctioned zealotry, we read in this week’s Torah portion about Pinchas being commended for taking a stand against a public atrocity and killing the perpetrators, consequently saving thousands of lives. Pinchas is subsequently rewarded with the “covenant of peace.”

What does this teach us about modern day zealotry and its dangers? Haven’t we learned our lessons over history of the grave destruction perpetrated in the name of G-d by religious extremists?!

...

Therein lies the powerful message of Pinchas. The Torah clearly and consistently abhors zealotry. When Abraham hears about the impending destruction of the infidel city of Sodom – criminals by all accounts – he doesn’t celebrate or join the attack, even though it was led by G-d Himself. Instead, He argues and implores G-d to not destroy the city. The same with Moses after the Jews built the Golden Calf, openly defying the commandment against idolatry they had just heard and accepted at Sinai. Moses insists that G-d forgive them, and after 80 days he ultimately prevails, evoking the powerful thirteen Divine attributes of compassion, thereby opening the door of teshuvah (return) to all souls – the ultimate power of the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur.

The Torah is filled with the message of love and compassion. Indeed, this is the entire undercurrent of Torah “Love you neighbor as yourself – is the fundamental principle of Torah,” said Rabbi Akiva. “This is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary” (in Hillel’s words). Indeed, the Torah warns of the dangers of being “more religious” that G-d, acutely sensitive to the fact that people can create “Torah sanctioned” outlets for their own personal aggression.  “Erase My Holy Name,” G-d declares, “to preserve peace between husband and wife.” Never, ever use religion as a weapon. No one ever was commanded by G-d to form a “lynch mob” and kill the infidels. When the Egyptians were drowning in the sea for their obstinate crimes against mankind, G-d rebuked the angels for singing praise: “My creatures are drowning and you sing?!”

Even when King David fought justifiable wars, he was not allowed to build the Holy Temple because of the blood on his hands. His son, Solomon, the man of peace, built the Temple. The Talmud tells us that a Sanhedrin (Rabbinical supreme court) was labeled a “murderous” court if under their tenure one verdict of capital punishment was issued even once in 70 years! Not because they are accused of being biased or corrupt, but to emphasize how abhorrent death is, even when it may be justified.

The only exception of sanctioned zealotry is Pinchas. Why would the Torah allow for the celebration of this one instance of zealous behavior when it knows the risks of how it can be interpreted?

The answer lies in the opening verse of this week’s chapter: G-d says “Pinchas, the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the Priest, turned away My anger from the Children of Israel by zealously taking up My cause and thus preventing me from destroying them.”

...

[muman613]

Another insight into Pinchas concerning the need to go to war against evil... Sometimes by going to war we actually save more lives than if we acted as pacifists...

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/ky/48957056.html


Give War a Chance
by Rabbi Boruch Leff

"War is a crime against humanity."
"There is no such thing as a justified war."

These are statements from pacifists. "Pacifism: Opposition to the use of force under any circumstances; refusal for reasons of conscience to participate in war or military action."(Webster's New World Dictionary)

What is the Jewish view of pacifism? What does peace really mean? This week's Torah portion, Pinchas, instructs us concerning all of these issues.

Since Parshat Pinchas begins in the middle of a story, let's re-cap events from last week's portion, Balak. Many Jewish men were seduced by Moabite women and acted promiscuously with them. These women also influenced their victims to worship idols. One of the leaders of the men who were seduced, Zimri, of the tribe of Shimon, desired to publicly declare his support for involvement with the Moabite women. He brazenly committed his lewd, sexual acts in full view of Moshe and the Jewish people. God sent a plague, and 24,000 Jewish men, who were seduced, died. Pinchas could not tolerate Zimri's brazenness and promptly killed Zimri and his partner in sin, Kozbi, a Moabite princess. After Pinchas' zealous act, the plague ceased.

God begins this week's portion saying to Moshe, "Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Ahron, the Priest, turned back my fury from the Jewish nation when he zealously avenged my vengeance among them. This is why I did not consume the Jewish nation in My vengeance. Therefore, say: Behold, I give him (Pinchas) My covenant of peace." (Bamidbar 25:10-12)

We know that God administers reward and punishment with the device called 'measure for measure.' The punishment or reward must fit the crime or good deed. In this case, Pinchas' act of zealousness is rewarded with peace. Is that measure for measure? Do we usually associate a peaceful person with being a zealot?

God is teaching us a fundamental lesson about war and peace. Wars are necessary at times. There is such a thing as a justified war. As Kohelet 3:8 states, "There is a time for war."

God is saying to Moshe, "Tell Pinchas that his zealousness is peace." Peace does not mean a passive lack of war. If peace is a passive lack of war there is no way that through Pinchas' violent act of killing he achieves peace. Peace is a state of being in which there is a closeness, a relationship, a way of dealing with each other. It isn't just that I don't bother you and you don't bother me; that's not peace. It's that we live together and work together and have a unity, a commonality that all of us are part of a whole.

In Hebrew, the word for peace, shalom, is derived from the root shalem, which means whole or complete. Peace is a cooperative, symbiotic relationship, where both parties care for each other, help each other, and ultimately perfect each other. Two people who hate each other and never speak to each other, but never fight either, cannot be said to be at peace with each other. Marital harmony and domestic tranquility does not mean the simple lack of screaming and yelling in the house. It is a state of being in which your spouse genuinely shares in your triumphs, strengthens you when you are down, loves, adores, and cherishes you. (This is why it is a misnomer to refer to the 1979 Camp David agreement with Egypt as a 'peace' treaty. At most, it is a ceasefire. The rhetoric of hatred and contempt by Egypt for Israel, and anti-Semitism in the Egyptian press has never ceased. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has never even visited Israel, except to attend Yitzchak Rabin's funeral.)

Since peace is an active force rather than a passive lack of war, ultimately anything that disturbs and destroys this state of true peace must be removed in order for true shalom -- peace -- to exist. That is why Pinchas, through his zealous act, actually creates peace. Pinchas stops the plague against the Jewish people and through a violent act of war brings peace.

It is very often necessary to create peace only through what seems to be an act of violence. One must remove those things that disturb the harmony and that create tensions between peoples in order for peace to exist. And it is not always possible to remove the items that block peace through non-violent means.

Does anyone seriously think that the Nazis could have been dealt with non-violently? Can Osama bin Laden be dealt with non-violently? Ariel Sharon has always said that the path to peace in the Middle East must begin with decisive military action against the terrorist infrastructure. Only once violence, as an option, is rooted out can peace be achieved. One can even argue similarly for Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which brought peace in ending WWII. We have seen the famous picture of the mushroom cloud which killed approximately 400,000 people. Was Truman's act of war justified? Consider the following:

    "In a meeting on 18 June the Joint War Plans Committee gave Truman projected death rates ranging from a low of 31,000 to a high of 50,000, and a projected American causality rate (deaths, injuries and missing) of 132,500. During fighting in the Pacific, from 1 March 1944 to 1 May 1945, the Japanese were killed at a ratio of 22 to 1. Thus, if we use an estimate of 40,00 American deaths, we can extrapolate 880,000 Japanese deaths -- for a combined total of 920,000 deaths. Although death rates for Hiroshima and Nagasaki vary widely, none are even half this high. Thus we can conclude that if an invasion of Kyushu had been necessary, and the Japanese were killed at a rate comparable to previous fighting, then the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually SAVED lives."

    (Barton J. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory," Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996], p.45)

If all people in the world were committed to achieving a real peace, one which involves a cooperative, symbiotic relationship, perhaps pacifism could be a viable movement. Since this is not the case, we must often destroy violently those things that create tensions between peoples in order for peace to exist.

In the real world, wars usually bring ultimate peace, not pacifists.

[muman613]

Ok, One last thought on this parasha. I hope that someone finds this as interesting as I do. This analysis of the Parasha comes from the Sfas Emes (aka the Gerre Rebbe), a well known Rabbi of the 19th century who was famous for his insights into Torah thought.

This discussion concerns the complimentary {possibly opposite} traits of Chessed and Din, known as Kindness and Justice. The idea is that the Kohen, the descendants of Aaron, are supposed to be people of peace because they are the priestsly class. Moses, who is Aarons brother, yet is still considered of the tribe of Levi is supposed to represent the concept of din.

Sfas Emes looks at the traits of Pinchas, the zealot in our parasha, and doesnt see a violent person. Being a grandson of Aaron he has inherited the trait of Chessed. This is a complex issue which the Sfas Emes attempts to explain.


http://www.torah.org/advanced/sfas-emes/5770/pinchas.html?print=1

Parshas Pinchas
Sfas Emes, Zechuso Tagein Aleinu, Parshas Pinchos, 5631

It helps to see this ma'amar in its historical context. Pinchos had stopped the ouburst of aveira (sin), and the ensuing plague. Accordingly, HaShem had promoted Pinchos to the status of full-fledged kohein. The parsha's first Medrash Rabba -- which is the Sfas Emes's starting point -- elaborates on this account.

The Medrash tells us of HaShem's statement that Pinchos was receiving his reward "be'din" -- with "din". What is "din"? Din is strict justice, in contrast to the opposite attribute of chessed (loving kindness, compassion, a willingness to forgo strict justice.) In the present context, the word "be'din" is open to two possible interpretations. One possibility is: Pinchos earned, and therefore, deserved this reward as a matter of justice. Another possible interpretation is that Pinchos earned his reward by exercising the attribute of din -- by meting out well-deserved, just punishment to the sinning couple.

Applied to Pinchos -- who was biologically a kohein -- use of the word "be'din" in either sense comes as a surprise. Aharon was the prototype of the kohein's persona. And Aharon was known for his outstanding quality of chessed, not for din.

(Parenthetically, the Sfas Emes notes that the chessed-din dichotomy may also express itself in one's relationship with HaShem. A person with a proclivity toward chessed is likely to relate to HaShem via ahava (love). By contrast, a person who goes through life with a perspective of din is more likely to relate to HaShem with yir'ah (awe and/or fear).)

The notion that Pinchas earned the status and role of kohein also comes as a surprise. For, quoting the Sefer Tanya (!), the Sfas Emes observes that HaShem gave the kehuna -- the priesthood -- to Aharon as a mahtahna (a gift). Thus, HaShem tells Aharon (Bemidbar, 8:7) that his kehuna is "avodas mahtahna" (ArtScroll: "a service that is a gift"). And by definition, a gift is conveyed gratuitously, not as a quid pro quo. A mahtana is not "earned".

The Sfas Emes has brought to our attention two questions that lurk behind the seemingly innocuous word: "be'din". He now leaves us with these unanswered questions, and moves to a new line of thought.

When the Torah tells us of Pinchos's act of kana'us (zealotry), it states (Bemidbar, 25:7): "Va'yakam mi'toch ha'eda," Pinchos "arose from amidst the people." Likewise, when HaShem recounts Pinchos's deed (Bemidbar 25:11), He specifies "bekan'o es kina'asi be'socham." That is, Pinchos did what he did "in the midst of Bnei Yisroel." We may not understand initially why this feature of Pinchos's action was important. B'H', the Sfas Emes now explains.

A person who does an act of zealotry may do so as a loner, an outsider, a marginal person. Similarly, a zealot may be trying to fill a well-defined social role -- the role of zealot -- and thus to stand out from the hamon am (the masses). Or, he may act zealously in an effort to "steig" -- to grow in his avoda (service of HaShem).

The Sfas Emes tells us that such self-regarding behavior is not genuine kana'us for HaShem. That is why the Torah emphasizes that Pinchos did what he did "be'socham" -- in the midst of Bnei Yisroel. The Torah -- and the Sfas Emes -- are trying to help us recognize the nature of true zealotry. In this particular act of kana'us, it was especially important that "one of the people" -- a regular, ordinary person -- rather than a "designated zealot" (either self-designated or socially designated) perform the kana'us.

When the Mishkan was inaugurated, Aharon and his sons were appointed kohanim, the priests who, together with their progeny for all generations, were to perform the avoda, the Divine service. However, Aharon's then-living grandchildren -- e.g., Pinchos -- were not included in the kehuna. It was only 39 years later, after Pinchos did what he did, that he was named a full-fledged kohein.

Why was Pinchos excluded for so long? The Sfas Emes proposes an answer. He suggests that this exclusion-inclusion feature was mandated so that when Pinchos "arose" to perform his act of kana'us, he do so "be'socham" -- in their midst -- as a regular, ordinary citizen (rather than one of the self-regarding "zealots" mentioned above). Imagine Pinchos's puzzlement and self-doubt during those 39 years! Eventually, Pinchos learned the reason for his exclusion . But during this excruciatingly long period, he had no clue for his exclusion; nor did he have any assurance that ultimately he would ascend to the kehuna.

At this point, the Sfas Emes circles back to the two unanswered questions that he brought to our attention earlier. As you may recall, one question involved the apparent inconsistency between statements that speak of the kehuna as being earned or as being awarded as a gift. The second question focused on the apparent inconsistency concerning the attributes that a kohein should strive to personify. Should it be chessed/ahava or din-yir'ah?

How does the Sfas Emes deal wth these issues? He notes that, in point of fact, the kehuna could be conferred either as an unmerited gift or earned. He cites No'ach's son, Shem, as an illustration of the kehuna's having been granted as a gift. Thus, we find Shem -- a person not noted for his exemplary acts of chessed -- being named a kohein. (Note: Chazal -- -and the Sfas Emes -- are working with the tradition that the person named Malki -Tzedek -- mentioned in Bereishis 14, 18 as a kohein -- was Shem, the son of No'ach.) Continuing, the Sfas Emes cites Avraham Avinu as a case in which the kehuna was earned. Viewed in broader terms, the Sfas Emes is telling us that the kehuna could be awarded either as an unmerited gift or it could be earned. In other words,in ancient times HaShem did not run (this aspect of) the world in an "either or" framework.

More generally, the Sfas Emes tells us that at a higher level of abstraction, the dichotomy between ahava/ chessed and yir'ah/din is a false dichotomy. Thus, Pinchos was motivated by ahava for HaShem; and that love enabled him to mete out din to the people who deserved it. Likewise, the Sfas Emes tells us that Avraham Avinu -- who is usually viewed as the prototype of ahava -- reached that attribute by starting with yir'ah.

The name of our holiest city, Yerushalayim, shows the fusion of chessed/ahava and din/yir'ah fusion in its full glory. Avraham Avinu gave that city a name derived from the word yir'ah (Bereishis, 22, 4). And to complete the role reversal, Shem gave the city (Bereishis, 14, 18) a name, Shalem, that evokes HaShem's chessed in making the world whole, without blemish.

A take-home lesson? The Sfas Emes is telling us something that we knew already: that we live in a complex, confusing world,. What he is adding is a focus on the paradoxes and apparent inconsistencies that litter this world. Apparently, he feels that we should be aware of unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions; and, nevertheless, continue living Torah and learning Torah. After all, that is how he -- the Sfas Emes -- handled the situation.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Does not every single Mohammedan Nazi use the same "logic" of this 'lesson' to justify when they throw acid in their wives' face, strangle their own daughters for 'honor', and commit atrocities and massacres against any and all "infidels"? 

I have yet to see Muslims quote Pinchas or the Torah for their acts.  That would be quite a surprise and noteworthy event.  Until that time (which perhaps might give us cause to consider that question), let us cease the comparisons of Judaism to lehavdil Islam which do not belong in the same sentence.

How can we as Jews denounce Islam as being murderous maniacs and worse, while adhering to and teaching a Torah lesson such as this one?

Seems there's a misunderstanding here.   Pinchas committed a heroic act to save the Jewish people on a national level.   Firstly, this entire story shows the grave danger and terrible treason inherent to the act of intermarriage or relations with a non-Jew.    These were not common folks, this was a leader of a tribe committing this evil act setting the example for the rest of the people.  This is not a "psak halacha" ie here is what you do when faced with the situation of Pinchas, or even more, what you are suggesting, here is what you do when faced with ANY PARALLEL situation to that of Pinchas, chas veshalom.   That is not how Jews read the Torah, and that shows the bankruptcy of trying to learn out halacha from verses without the Oral Torah.   However, this story does impress upon us the message that Jews stay with Jews to continue the Jewish nation.  (also remember that the "immoral behavior" at that time with the foreign women was also intertwined with idol worship and the women lured them into serving false gods).   It also expresses how dire the circumstances were at that time, and how astray the people could have gone had Pinchas not acted to stem the tide and put a stop to the evildoing by establishing boundaries with his zealous act.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this was one of those times.  By making an example, Pinchas set the tone that would keep the Jewish nation alive, whereas on that course they would have surely perished and never made it to the land of Israel and we'd have nothing to talk about right now.

Today when something like 70% of Jews already intermarry, we are in such a fallen state that an act such as Pinchas' (aside from not being the halachic advice) would not achieve anything.  At that time, the Jewish people could be set right in that regard.

There are certain times when vigilante justice is needed.   That does not mean ALL times or EVERY situation or as the norm, like you seem to be suggesting, and like you seem to characterize lehavdil, the muslims.

I have no doubt that certain people who do now or will in the future sit in jail for supposedly "extremist" acts but who help achieve a shifting of the national consciousness with their acts, will come to be seen later in a different light after the paradigm shift is complete and people look back in retrospect at their "illegal" vigilante act.  Of course, this does not mean that any old act achieves such a thing.  And it definitely does not mean it is called for in every situation.  But there will be heroes in every generation, it's the natural order of the world.  The traitors who give away our national heritage to our homicidal enemies are not safe, and they will be defeated eventually.   Indeed a true covenant of peace for such heroes who defeat the traitors because there can be no peace if there is no people/nation to have peace among.   The death of a nation precludes peace.

If Baruch Goldstein ZT"L had not been murdered and mutilated by arab muslim nazi animals, don't you think he would be sitting in jail today for his "illegal" vigilante act of self-defense?    And the Kahanists would be looking forward to the day to free him and make a parade in his honor.

[muman613]

On last thought about Parasha Pinchas before Shabbat today.... From Torah.org...

http://torah.org/learning/rabbizweig/5770/pinchas.html


Parashat Pinchas

A Dove Amongst Eagles

"Attack the Midianites and kill them" (25:17)

Rashi points out that Hashem commanded Moshe to decimate the Midianites and not the Moabites, although they were more instrumental than the Midianites in enticing Bnei Yisroel to sin.[1] The Midrash explains that since Ruth, the great grandmother of King David, was destined to descend from Moav, Hashem refrained from destroying them. If, in fact, Moav deserved to be destroyed, why could Hashem not have orchestrated a scenario by which the majority of the nation is killed, but Ruth's existence is assured from the few who survive?

Since Ruth was the progenitor of the Davidic dynasty, it was imperative that she herself descend from aristocracy and nobility; Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, King of Moav.[2] In order for this to occur, the nation had to be preserved. If the nation had been decimated, Ruth would have stemmed from surviving refugees, making it impossible for her to be born into a family of nobility. The benefits gained by Ruth stemming from aristocracy are twofold: From the perspective of the Jewish nation, the genetic base of monarchy has already been established through her own personal standing. From a universal perspective, the Moshiach who will stem from the Davidic dynasty, will influence and teach all of mankind; having the infusion of a non-Jewish monarchy into the Davidic dynasty will allow for a greater universal impact.

1.25:17
2.Rashi Megillas Rus 1:2

All's Well That Ends Well

"...so I did not consume the Children of Israel..." (25:11)

The final verse in last week's Parasha records that twenty-four thousand Jews perished from the plague that was wrought upon Bnei Yisroel.[1] Recording the verse at this juncture would appear to violate a requirement in the laws of "reading from the Torah" which states that an aliya should not begin nor end with a verse containing tragedy that befell Bnei Yisroel.[2] The solution to this problem is found in this week's Parasha. The Torah states that due to the actions of Pinchas, Hashem did not destroy the entire nation of Israel - "velo chilisi es Bnei Yisroel". The implication is that were it not for Pinchas' actions, all of Bnei Yisroel would have been destroyed by the plague. Therefore, stating that only twenty-four thousand were killed is, in essence, proclaiming that the decree to kill all of Bnei Yisroel had been rescinded. Consequently, this too can be viewed as a positive statement.

1.24:9
2.Shulchan Aruch 38:1, See the glosses of the Rama

In Search of Motive

"Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon the Kohein..." (25:11)

Although Pinchas' genealogy was mentioned at the end of last week's Parasha, the Torah repeats the fact that he was a descendant of Aharon the Kohein. Rashi explains that after Pinchas had killed Zimri ben Salu, a prince from the tribe of Shimon, Bnei Yisroel scorned him, accusing him of murder. They protested that Pinchas, the grandson of Yisro (Pinchas' father married Yisro's daughter) who fattened livestock for idol worshipping purposes, had no right to wantonly kill a prince of Israel. Regarding this accusation, the Torah responds that on the contrary, Pinchas' zealous act saved Bnei Yisroel, and although he was descended from an idol worshipper on his mother's side, he descended on his father's side from Aharon Hakohein, an exemplary lover of peace and pursuer of harmony.[1] What does the fact that Pinchas descended from idol worshippers have to do with his actions, and if, in fact, his actions were impacted by his genealogy, how were they counteracted by the fact that he descended from Aharon Hakohein?

The rationale for Bnei Yisroel's criticism of Pinchas is based upon what is known as the "reformed smoker syndrome"; very often, the most rabid anti-smoker is a reformed smoker. In an attempt to rid himself of some negative habit or trait, a person may react very negatively to others who exhibit the same trait. This person's reaction is fueled by the fear that seeing others exhibiting the same negative trait which he once exhibited, will rekindle his own connection to it.

In order to kill Zimri without due process, Pinchas had to invoke the law known as "kana'im pogim bo" - "the zealous may kill him". This law allows for a person who witnesses Hashem's name being desecrated by certain public transgressions to kill the perpetrator without due process.[2] Invoking this law requires that a person's motivations be completely for the sake of heaven. If a person has any bias or proclivity which spurs his action, it is considered murder.

The Talmud states that the most intimate form of idol worship is cohabiting with an idolater, the transgression for which Pinchas killed Zimri.[3] Since Pinchas was connected to idol worship through his grandfather, Bnei Yisroel maintained that it was this sensitivity which brought on his outrage and prompted him to kill Zimri. However, the Torah is attesting to the fact that Pinchas' motives were pure; he had within him the outstanding trait of Aharon Hakohein, "oheiv verodeif shalom" - "lover and pursuer of harmony". True harmony can only be achieved by a person who has no agenda of his own, but sees everything from the other person's perspective. Similarly, Pinchas' action was not prompted by his own need to eradicate negative feelings within himself, rather his complete, unabashed sensitivity to the desecration of Hashem's honor.

1.Rashi 25:11
2.Sanhedrin 81b
3.ibid 82a

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "This law allows for a person who witnesses Hashem's name being desecrated by certain public transgressions to kill the perpetrator without due process.[2] Invoking this law requires that a person's motivations be completely for the sake of heaven. If a person has any bias or proclivity which spurs his action, it is considered murder."

So...for this law to be carried out it would mean that no person or persons could testify as to the killer having any ulterior or personal motive whatsoever for their actions?

Which would men that by our legal understanding the act was unpremeditated?

Would the same law apply to a woman were she to be the killer, or did women usually not get involved back then?

[muman613]

Re:  "This law allows for a person who witnesses Hashem's name being desecrated by certain public transgressions to kill the perpetrator without due process.[2] Invoking this law requires that a person's motivations be completely for the sake of heaven. If a person has any bias or proclivity which spurs his action, it is considered murder."

So...for this law to be carried out it would mean that no person or persons could testify as to the killer having any ulterior or personal motive whatsoever for their actions?

Which would men that by our legal understanding the act was unpremeditated?

Would the same law apply to a woman were she to be the killer, or did women usually not get involved back then?

Massah,

As KWRBT has explained that this Halacha is not to be enforced in this time because it would not achieve the desired results. The lesson of the story is not that we should take the law into our hands when we witness people desecrating the name, because as several of these articles discussed, we are not on the level that Pinchas was.

Let us discuss this further after Shabbat...

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

This is one of the most difficult parshas for me to understand.  I appreciate you guys explaining it out as you have, and while I do not completely understand this parsha I feel a little bit more understanding of it.