Shabbat Parshat Pinchas, 5769

Rav Granatstein Parashat Pinchas 7/09 (5769)

The sin that led up to the story of Pinchas had two components to it. One – the worship of ba’al peor and two – orgiastic rites associated with it. [The Gemara adds that it also involved defecation – adding another layer of degradation to the act.] God's response to Moshe is frightening, effectively telling him to gather up the leaders of the people and to hang them – a pre-emptive act. Moshe – the great lawgiver – transmits this order to the people by gathering the judges, directing them to attempt to discern between the good and the bad; the tone of God’s Command is one of pre-emptive/non-discerning while the details of Moshe’s command are not so.

At the same time as this is going on, a plague hits the camp. A plague, by its nature, is pre-emptive. Once unleashed – it does not discern between good and bad. [See Rashi commenting on the need for protection during the plague of the first born in Egypt.]

The camp is in a state of mourning over their state and sin. They regret their act; the Torah says the people were crying. They see the plague killing and Moshe’s responding with the judges. And in this context, Zimri does his brazen act. Pinchas enters the Kubah and pierces Zimri and the woman ‘kubatah.’

[‘Kubah’ has a connotation of a place of rite/ritual – in this case, the place where the pagan worship was being done. There are two readings on the word ‘kubatah,’ whether it means again, in the Kubah / tent of worship or if it means ‘her means of worship’ meaning the sexual organs used by the woman for her worship. Onkelos, cited by Rashi and like the Medrash, learns it means her sexual organs. Shadal { the greatest master of ta’amim since the Minchat Shai } brings a proof to this reading from the trup in the pasuk.

Ibn Ezra believes the simple meaning is that it is the tent. Rav Granatstein likes the Rashi / Onkelos interpretation better. In this case, the verse with its ta’amim is fitting / teaching a halachic principle about kanaut (zealotry). The halacha is that one can act out of zealotry only while the act is going on. Had Zimri done his action and finished it and then Pinchas had killed him, Pinchas would have been punishable by death. Onkelos’s reading emphasizes that only because they were in the middle of the act was Pinchas allowed to do this.]

After Pinchas kills them, the plague ends and presumably so does the judging being done by Moshe and the judges. There is peace once again in the camp.

Our parasha, Parashat Pinchas, opens with God giving Pinchas his Brit Shalom and then his Brit Kehunat Olam. The Brit Shalom follows the peace brought by Pinchas to the camp.

Regarding the Brit Kehunat Olam, there are differing opinions between the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi. Why wasn’t Pinchas a kohen already; he was a grandson of Aharon? The Bavli, cited by Rashi, explains that the priesthood was given only to Aharon and his sons. Pinchas, who had already been born, was not to be a kohen; now, under these special circumstances, he was given the priesthood as well. The Yerushalmi, on a completely different matter, clearly argues with this. When Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, there is a famous dialogue between Moshe and Aharon when Aharon does not eat from a sacrifice that is brought. The Yerushalmi asks,”why couldn’t Pinchas have eaten from it?” This event pre-dates that of Zimri and has the Yerushalmi taking the stand that Pinchas was already a Cohen.

According to the Yerushalmi, why does God need to give Pinchas the Kehunat Olam – again? The Zohar elaborates on this, explaining that the Halacha prohibits a kohen who has killed – even by accident – from serving in the Sanctuary. He is considered a chalal and cannot serve. Here, God is affirming the fact that Pinchas could and should still serve.

We can ask the question ‘Why?’ What was it about Pinchas’s act of murder that still allowed him to serve? Rav Granatstein cited a modern day question: kohanim in the Israeli army who served on the battlefield and killed people, as they were supposed to, who then return home – can they still duchan in shul? The answer given many Poskim is yes and the reason is these Kohanim soldiers are considered to be ‘Oness’ – where it was beyond their control. They had no choice but to do what was necessary during their tour of duty.

Rav Granatstein applied the same concept to Pinchas. He had no alternative; while Zimri’s act was going on, he had an inner compulsion to act in response. God is affirming that Pinchas was indeed in the category of Oness. Rav Granatstein further noted that the impact of Pinchas’s act of murder was one fitting for a kohen – it was Mechaper for the people and stopped the punishment. [After the drasha, Rav Granatstein added that in the next parasha, we will see that murderers in arei miklat – cities of refuge – are tied there until the death of the high priest. The association is one where the high priest’s role is to extend life and not shorten it; here, Pinchas has this impact of saving lives by his action.]

And we see that after we enter the land, Pinchas’s lineage becomes the lineage – beginning with Tzadok – for all high priests. This is in Pinchas’ merit, through his action – albeit a violent one - resulted in kaparah and the saving of lives.