NUMBERS XXV,10 – XXX,1

After Bileam’s failed attempt to curse the people, Balak decides to send Moav’s daughters to seduce and lure the Jews into the cult of B’aal Pe’or. Sex appeal will be the instrument to distract them from their permanent encounter with the one God and to divert them from their newly achieved spirituality on Mount Sinai. Divine wrath did not wait and everyone who participated is to be executed. Suddenly, a Hebrew (according to some commentators it is a certain Zimri) with his Midianita wife approach Moshe in defiance.

Our Chachamim consider that this represented a personal challenge for Moshe, because his wife was not born into the same people. Tsiporah, Moshe´s wife, was the daughter of Yitro, the priest of Midyan. According to the commentators of our text, Zimri is one of the leaders of the people and, therefore, the challenge to Moshe’s authority probably had support. In addition, there were many who were captivated by the charms of the women of Mo’av and would probably follow the one who now defied the established authority.

This was a time that required staying away and carefully watching events unfold. Prudence dictates that it is wise to refrain from taking positions when the conflict results are unclear. For Moshe, however, this was the occasion when he needed the loyal support of his comrades. At the height of power, the leader is surrounded by sycophants and admirers. But when circumstances produce questioning, the driver’s ability to direct the people’s destiny begins to be doubted. Only genuine friends and sincere followers demonstrate their true fidelity and commitment.

The Torah tells that when the command of Moshe is questioned and challenged, the young Kohen Pinchas, without any hesitation, crosses with a spear the Hebrew and his Midianite wife. The Torah describes this action as a demonstration of kana’ut, zeal for the authority of Moshe, and as an example of a timely task executed with efficiency and sincerity. The moment was historic and crucial, and it could not be postponed and submit the couple to a formal trial. A climate of rebellion reigned within the people, and an imminent uprising was looming.  Pinchas makes a firm decision at the right time. Centuries later, the Talmud will pose the question, “Avid Inish Dinei Lenafshei,” “can a man take the law into his own hands?” This is an issue that deserves a separate analysis.

According to rabbi Barpazi’s opinion in the Yerushalmi Talmud, the Chachamim were to excommunicate Pinchas had it not been for the Divine voice announced by “Kehunat Olam,” that the “eternal priesthood” was assigned to Pinchas and his descendants. In the Bavli Talmud, we find different opinions. Rav suggests that Pinchas acted with the knowledge of Moshe. Shemuel believes that Pinchas decided in the presence of his teacher Moshe (the difficulty lies in the fact that a disciple must refrain from taking initiatives in the presence of his mentor if he had not been consulted beforehand) because he considered that the honor and prestige of moral and religious authority were at stake. According to Rabbi Yitschak, Pinchas sensed that Divine punishment against all the people was imminent unless he acted immediately and forcefully.

The Prophet Eliyahu also manifests himself in the same line of thought as a sentinel of the dignity of the people and a Kaua’i, a zealous guardian of the faith. (The tribe of Ephrayim had abandoned the practice of Brit Milah, which is circumcision, and Eliyahu reacted with indignation, invoking the heavens to cease the rains indispensable for agriculture. This zeal to ensure the continuous practice of Brit Milah was recognized by the placement of a special chair designated that of Eliyahu as part of the ritual of circumcision). 

According to our tradition, Pinchas hu Eliyahu, the Prophet Eliyahu and the Pinchas of our text, are the same person. (This equation is made with reference to the role of Eliyahu in the process of messianic redemption). It follows from the different biblical examples that a behavior of Kana’ut requires the existence of a condition of urgency, of emergency. When an act does not need to be carried out immediately, competent authorities must be consulted first.

In our text, God grants Pinchas His Beriti Shalom, His covenant of peace. How can we understand that violence is recognized as peace? After all, Pinchas’ performance is abrupt and belligerent, and, on the face of it, incongruous with our concept of peace that includes harmony and especially the absence of violence. There are those who suggest that the Brit Shalom was a counterweight to violence, a covenant with Pinchas, for his part, for the effort to overcome his latent fury even if it was aimed at doing good.

Perhaps the lesson of this episode of our Parasha Pinchas is that there is no possibility of compromise, or of reaching an agreement with evil. Half-hearted arrangements and solutions should not be considered when there is direct confrontation in a pressing situation. In the words of the psalmist, Ohavei HaShem, “sine’u ra”, “those who love God, must detest evil.”

History contains many examples of temporary covenants that brought society to ruin. The name of Foreign Minister Chamberlain, (World War II), has become a generic term to designate both the undecided and palliative measures that do not lead to the solution of a problem. By conveying a false sense of security, these unfinished agreements lead to tragedies of greater proportions. The enemies of democracy take advantage of these periods of partial understanding to consolidate and prepare for future and certain aggression.

Some of the reformist movements of Judaism sought, in their beginnings, a circumstantial compromise to face the new realities that the nascent European nationalism caused. Initially, these new forms of Judaism provided a kind of avenue for those who wished to partially maintain their Jewish identity while participating fully in society. But over time it became amply clear that the reforms were not transitory and that they could not be passed on as inheritance.

The reforms, in their intention to differentiate themselves as little as possible from the other religious denominations, indirectly encouraged intermarriage and contributed to the loss of our individuality and uniqueness. It happened then that the subsequent generations, chose to abandon Judaism. At the main entrance of Temple Emanuel in New York are inscribed the names of its founders. Today, none of their descendants (with some rare exceptions) are part of the ranks of our people.

We conclude our weekly reflection by pointing out that a genuine and lasting peace does not allow essential and basic principles to be compromised. It is clear that coexistence among humans requires giving and receiving, and it requires mutual concessions. But when, in our quest for harmony and tranquility, we make concessions in relation to what is basic and substantial, we are opening the door to a certain possibility for further confrontations.

Therefore, the peace process between Israel and the Arab world, for example, must be based on principles that are acceptable (and as far as possible satisfactory) to both sides. Half-baked solutions and patches to cover deep cracks can only bring precarious and temporary relief.

MITSVAH: ORDINANCE OF THE TORAH IN THIS PARASHA

CONTAINS 6 POSITIVE MITSVOT

1. Numbers 27:8 Laws on Inheritance
2. Numbers 28:2 The Daily Cremated Offering
3. Numbers 28:9 The Additional Offering of Shabbat
4. Numbers 28:11-15 The additional offering Rosh Chodesh
5. Numbers 28:26 Shavuot’s Additional Offering
6. Numbers 29:1 Sounding the Shofar on Rosh HaShanah