The Rise of Pinchas
Parshat HaShavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion
This parasha
series is dedicated
in memory of Michael Jotkowitz, z"l.
********************************************************
PARASHAT PINCHAS
*********************************************************
NEW WEBSITE: www.TanakhProfiles.org
Composed by Rav Jonathan Mishkin, an author
of the VBM Introduction to Parashat Ha-Shavua series, this site contains cross-referenced and
searchable entries on every person mentioned in Tanakh.
The website provides a literal presentation of the stories and lives of the
many people who populate the Bible. The material on this website can also
be ordered in book form. We invite you to visit the website to see for
yourself what a useful tool it is for the study of Tanakh.
*********************************************************
NEW BOOK BY RAV
YOSEF DOV SOLOVEITCHIK ZT"L
For more than a
decade, Rabbi Soloveitchik
spent virtually the entire day of Tish'ah be-Av
expounding upon its major themes and reading and closely analyzing the Kinot, drawing upon on a whole range of sources
including the Bible, rabbinic literature (Talmud and Midrash),
medieval halakhic and philosophical works, Hebrew
poetry, and Jewish history. The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways
features the Rav's teachings on this day. Editor:
Rabbi Jacob J. Schacter.
Regular
price: $29.50. 20% discount for VBM subscribers: $23.60. For more information,
go to http://www.ktav.com/product_info.php?products_id=2066&aff=ral
*********************************************************
In memory of Nathaniel H. Leiderman, Naftali Hertzke ben Mayer Eliezer v'Gitel whose seventh yahrtzeit was on 11 Tammuz. Dedicated by Ira Leiderman and Mindy Smith and their children Eric and Cara.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
Mazal Tov to Avigayil Leibtag upon her Bat-Mitzva; may
she have only sweet dreams!
*********************************************************
The Rise
of Pinchas
Rav Chanoch Waxman
I
Parashat
Pinchas opens with God declaring the reward of Pinchas. In a systematic fashion, God delineates both the
rationale for the reward and the contents of the reward. The text of the Torah
reads as follows:
Pinchas the son of Elazar, the
son of Aharon the Priest, has turned my wrath away
from the Children of Israel, in that he was vengeful for my sake (be-kano et kinati)
amongst them, and I did not consume completely the Children of Israel with my
vengeance (be-kinati). Therefore say, Behold,
I give to him my covenant of peace. And he shall have it, and his descendants
after him, the covenant of priesthood everlasting, because he was vengeful (kinai) for his God, and made atonement for the
Children of Israel. (25:10-13)
Upon witnessing the
brazen actions of the Israelite man, later identified as Zimri,
a prince of the Shimonite tribe (25:14) and the Midyanite women Kazbi, later
identified as a princess of the Midyanites (25:15), Pinchas took action. In response to Zimri's
"bringing close" of the Midianite women in
front of the "eyes of Moshe" and "eyes of the entire
congregation of Israel" (22:6), Pinchas arose
from amidst the congregation, spear in hand. Following them into the tent they
had entered, he impaled them both and the plague that had broken out amongst
the people ceased (25:8). For his valor, and in merit
having turned God's wrath from the people (25:11), God grants Pinchas his "covenant of peace" (25:12). Pinchas, a descendant of Aharon
not previously numbered amongst the designated priests, is elevated to the
priesthood (25:13).
As sketched here, the actions of Pinchas are heroic. By simple logic if a particular action
is rewarded by God, it constitutes the right and just action. If such were not
the case, God would not reward the action. Moreover, God himself describes the
action of Pinchas as "turning his wrath"
(25:11) away from the people and "achieving atonement" (25:13).
Twenty-four thousand members of the Children of Israel had already died in the
plague that resulted from the people engaging in harlotry with the daughters of
Moav and Midyan (25:1,9,15). If not for the initiative of Pinchas,
and the atonement achieved by his actions, even more would have fallen.
Finally, the Torah describes Pinchas as being "vengeful" for his God (25:13). Pinchas acts on behalf of God. Again,
certainly a good thing. In addition, the Torah depicts Pinchas as be-kano et kinati, translated above as
no more than "being vengeful for my sake." Yet this is not precisely
correct. The original language carries the connotation of "carrying out my
vengeance." In a certain sense, Pinchas carries
out the role of God. As such, there is no need for God to continue to consume
the people with his vengeance, the ongoing plague. Pinchas
plays the God-like role, the plague is rendered unnecessary, and the people are
saved. In this light, Pinchas's bold action of
vengeance constitutes a full-fledged act of imitatio
dei, of emulating the ways of the divine, of
walking in his ways. In point of fact, the second commandment refers to God as
"a vengeful God (el kana)" (Shemot
20:5, Devarim 5:9). Shemot
34:14 even goes so far as to claim that "the Lord's name is vengeance, he
is a vengeful God." As such Pinchas's actions
are not just heroic, just and for the sake of heaven. They even border on the
divine.
This reading may generate a sense of
discomfort. After all, is it not theologically problematic to attribute
vengefulness to God? Likewise, is vengefulness a desirable trait and action, an
integral part of the value matrix that comprises the ethical personality
mandated by the Torah? Perhaps we should translate the stem k.n.a.
used by the Torah in these varied contexts (Shemot
20:5, 34:14, Bamidbar 25:13) in a more
moderate fashion. Perhaps it only carries connotations of jealousy, rage,
zealousness and passion. Pinchas is passionate,
zealous and jealous for God's sake. But does this really help matters?
Needless to say, in the time honored tradition of philosophical exegesis of the Torah,
we can engage in a bit of fancy footwork and claim that "the Torah speaks
in the language of men," that the Torah's attribution of vengefulness,
zealousness etc. to God does not really describe God himself or any emotional
state of God. Rather these attributions simply describe his actions, in a
language intelligible to the reader. While this may ease the theological
difficulty, the issue of vengefulness as a desirable character trait remains in
place. Pinchas is vengeful, Pinchas
is zealous and Pinchas is violent. The Torah
describes Pinchas as taking on a quasi-divine
function, and for this action he is rewarded. Apparently, vengeance,
zealousness and passion for God's sake are recommended traits and activities.
II
In commenting on the story of Pinchas, Talmud Yerushalmi
Sanhedrin 9:7 makes the following striking claim:
Pinchas acted against the will of the wise men. Rabbi Yuda…said: They desired to excommunicate him. If not for
the divine spirit that sprung upon him and said: And he shall have it, and his
descendants after him, the covenant of priesthood everlasting…
According to the
Jerusalem Talmud, the action of Pinchas was perceived
by the wise men, a Talmudic term for the Rabbinic
establishment, as inappropriate. As punishment for his brazenness, Pinchas was threatened with a form of excommunication. Only
divine intervention and divine sanctioning of Pinchas's
initiative prevented his punishment. On the simple level, this opinion of the
Talmud may be seen as concerned with the proper functioning of the judicial
system. The piece appears in Massekhet
Sanhedrin, a tractate whose overriding concern is with courts, the court
system and proper modes of justice. Pinchas had just
engaged in what we term in modern terminology an extrajudicial killing. While the
Torah and Talmudic law specifies the requirement of witnesses and other
judicial apparatus (see Devarim 17:6 and Ibn Ezra 25:7), Pinchas acted as
judge, jury and executioner.
Returning to the text provides some
surprising support for R. Yuda's interpretation and
helps reveal another dimension of meaning. Right before the "bringing
forth" of the Midyanite women by the Israelite
man "in front of the eyes of the entire congregation (25:6), Moshe had
commanded the "Judges of Israel" to "kill, each one his
men," all those who had "attached themselves to Ba'al
Peor" (25:5). In other words, Moshe had
commanded the execution of justice by the judicial system upon those who had
strayed after the foreign women and foreign god. It is in this context that Pinchas bypasses the slowly turning wheels of justice and
performs his zealous elimination of Zimri and Kazbi. Moreover, the text specifies that the entire event
occurs in a public context, in the language of the text "in front of the
eyes of Moshe and the eyes of the entire congregation" (25:6). From this
perspective, the actions of Pinchas comprise not just
a bypassing of the judicial system, an extrajudicial killing, but the very
serious violation known in the Talmud as "teaching Halakha
in front of one's teacher" (Bavli Berakhot 31b, Sanhedrin 17a). Proper rabbinic
doctrine requires not just procedure, but also respect for hierarchy and
authority. Pinchas rises in front of Moshe his
teacher, the ultimate religious and legal authority of the Children of Israel, and without waiting for word or approval from Moshe
carries out a different punishment than that mandated by Moshe. While Moshe,
upon God's word, had commanded the judges to hang the sinners (see Rashi, Ibn Ezra 25:4, Ramban 25:5), Pinchas impales
them (25:6-7). While this may seem a minor matter, Pinchas
is not a judge, he does not receive the go ahead from the proper authority and
his revolutionary action occurs in front of the entire community. In a certain
sense, Pinchas's act is an act of subversion, a
charismatic act that threatens the social structure, legal hierarchy and
leadership structure of the Children of Israel. No wonder the Jerusalem Talmud
states that "they desired to excommunicate him." No self respecting
court could do otherwise. While Pinchas's actions had
clearly saved the day, no structure can tolerate subversion and revolution.
III
Reading the story of the straying at
Shittim (25:1) and the rise of Pinchas
as involving a tension between the leadership of Moshe and the almost rebellious
yet heroic action of Pinchas, brings us back to the
issue of kina, the question of zealousness, passion and vengeance that
we began with. In point of fact, Moshe does not act with zealousness and
passion at Shittim. He does not carry out God's
vengeance. He simply operates the wheels of justice. As pointed out above, and
highlighted by the Jerusalem Talmud, this is in marked contrast to Pinchas, the passionate avenging agent of the Lord.
But this is not the first time we
have encountered a disconnect between Moshe and kina
or even an outright rejection of kina by Moshe. Thirty-eight years
previously, back in Midbar Par'an,
Moshe had censured Yehoshua, another of the future
leaders of
IV
This possible tension between Moshe
and the leadership of Moshe on the one hand and the attribute of kina on
the other is further strengthened by and an interesting overlap between the story of Eliyahu recounted in the Melakhim and the life of Moshe.
When Izevel,
the wife of Achav became aware of Eliyahu's
slaughtering of 450 prophets of Ba'al after the
showdown at
The central part of the narrative of
Eliyahu and Chorev begins
with a conversation between God and Eliyahu.
Upon being asked by God, "What
are you doing here Eliyahu?,"
Eliyahu responds as follows:
I have
been vengeful (
At this point, God
conducts a little demonstration for Eliyahu. After commanding him to stand on the mountain "in front of the
Lord," God informs Eliyahu that he will
"pass by" (19:11). A great and mighty wind ensues, and then an
awful noise, and then a fire. But God was not found in the wind, the noise or
the fire. Rather, God was present only in the still small voice that followed
the wind, noise and fire (19:12). Upon
hearing the voice, Eliyahu exits the cave he was in
and covers his face (19:13). Strangely enough, at this point God reiterates his
original question. Once again, God questions Eliyahu
with the exact same words. "What are you doing here Eliyahu?"
whispers the divine voice (19:14). And once again Eliyahu
knows why he has come to Sinai, why he has spent forty days and forty nights
without food and water and even why God has passed by his face. Eliyahu repeats his previous response word for word.
I have
been vengeful (
All that has
happened to Eliyau has happened because of who he is.
He is the righteous and zealous prophet of the Lord. He has acted with kina as
he should and has been persecuted for his just and correct actions.
By repeating the identical words
after the theophany in response to God's repeated
question, Eliyahu telegraphs that from his
perspective nothing has changed. God's sign, the sign of the still small voice,
has had no effect on Eliyahu. His words after are the
same as his words before. For we the readers, this indicates that Eliyahu has missed the point of the revelation. Whatever
the point of bringing him to Sinai, whatever the point of the sign of the still
small voice, Eliyahu has not gotten the point.
Something else should have been heard. We may argue, that by no accident,
following Eliyahu's response, God informs Eliyahu that he should anoint Elisha in his stead (19:16).
God has no patience for prophets who fail to perceive. But what was it that
Elisha missed? What was the sign of the still small voice?
The Moshe imagery provides the key.
In addition to the Moshe symbolism that comprises the setting of the "sign
of the still small voice," the entire story is peppered with thematic and
linguistic elements drawn from Moshe's experience on Sinai in the aftermath of
the Sin of the Golden Calf. As pointed out previously, Eliyahu
is instructed to stand on the mountain in front of the Lord (19:11). This
constitutes a thematic, if not an exact linguistic parallel to the positioning
of Moshe. God tells him to "ascend the mountain" and stand/present
himself in front of God on the mountain (Shemot
33:21, 34:2). Similarly, throughout the narratives, Moshe and Eliyahu are both portrayed as located in protected rocky
spaces, shielded from the brunt of the divine revelation. While Moshe is in a
niche in the rock (31:22), Eliyahu is in a cave
(19:13). Finally, and most importantly, in both stories the revelation of God
consists of Gods "passing by" or "passing over" the
"face" of both Moshe and Eliyahu (34:6,
19:13).
This brings us to the crucial point
of contrast. Unlike Eliyahu, in his experience of the
"passing by" of God, Moshe perceives something new. He does not
remain entrenched in previous paradigms or patterns. In fact, he perceives the
famed attributes of mercy. Upon God's passing over, Moshe proclaimed:
The Lord,
the Lord, a merciful God and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in kindness and
truth. He stores up kindness for thousands of generations, and bears sin,
iniquity and transgression and yet will not forgive completely. He visits the
sins of the fathers upon the sons, the second, third and fourth generations. (34:6-7)
In his experience of
the "passing by" of God, Moshe perceives mercy, kindness, patience,
slowness to anger and the like. In short, he perceives the attributes of God by
which God now promises to lead the Children of Israel (see Shemot
33:12-13).
These merciful attributes, revealed
as part of the process of the making of the second set of tablets and
reconstitution of the covenant in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf (Shemot 34:1-10), constitute a radical change from
the previous revelation of God's attributes found in the Torah. Previously, in
the second commandment, God had described himself as:
a vengeful God (el kana), visiting the sins
of the fathers upon the sons, the second, third and fourth generations of those
who hate me. Doing kindness for thousands of generations for
those that love me and keep my commandments. (Shemot
20:5)
God identifies
himself as primarily a vengeful God (el kana). After placing this
terrifying attribute in the first position, the second commandment places the
punishment of the children and future generations for the sins of the
forefathers in the second position on the hierarchy of God's attributes. Both
of these attributes correlate strongly with the notion of divine justice, or
perhaps even something stricter. While the attribute of kindness and the
consequent doing of kindness for future generations finally do make their
appearance, this complex appears only at the end, in the third position of this
three-part description. Moreover, the doing of kindness to future generations
is limited by a very specific modifier. Apparently, God's kindness is confined
to those who "love him" and keep his commandments. Justice,
punishment and divine vengeance constitute the fates of sinners.
Let us return to the revelation to
Moshe in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf, or to adopt the
terminology utilized previously, the perception of Moshe in his experience of
God's "passing by." The contrasts between the attributes of God
listed in God's self-identification in the second commandment and the list of
attributes revealed to Moshe in the "passing by" revelation should be
obvious. For starters, while the notion of God's visiting the sins of
forefathers upon future generations also appears in the "passing by
revelation," it has been bumped down to third position (34:7). In its
place, the Torah places the previously third, and last, attribute of kindness,
the doing of kindness for thousands of generations. To put this slightly
differently, the second and third positions on the two lists have switched.
While beforehand, in the second commandment (20:5), punishment was second and
kindness was last, now, in Moshe's revelation, kindness is second and
punishment is last (34:7). Moreover, the kindness to future generations is no
longer confined to those who love God and keep his commandments. It is
unbounded and seems to encompass even the less deserving.
But this is only the minor part of
the story. The true dramatic change occurs in the pole position of the
hierarchy of God's attributes. While the second commandment had defined God as
"a vengeful God" and placed this definition front and center, in the opening line of the list, this term is
completely absent from the thirteen attributes. In its place, in "Moshe's
revelation," the aspects of God that Moshe perceived when God "passed
by," the Torah lists the primary attributes of mercy. As we should well
remember, the text specifies in great detail what Moshe calls out, what he
perceives, upon God's passing by:
The Lord,
the Lord, a merciful God and gracious, slow to anger,
abundant in kindness and truth… (34:6)
The difference
between these attributes and the previous definition of "a vengeful
God" could not be greater.
This brings us full circle to Eliyahu, Moshe, and the intended revelatory and prophetic
content of God's passing by. What was Eliyahu
supposed to perceive in the sign of the still small voice? Why did God bring
him to Sinai and place in him the position and place of Moshe? Simply put, Eliyahu should have perceived what Moshe perceived. Just as
Moshe perceived mercy, kindness and a complete absence of kina, the
attribute of vengeance and zealousness in God's "passing by," so too Eliyahu should have perceived the same or similar divine
attributes.
Arguably, the imagery of the sign
may support this interpretation. As the text specifies, God was not present in
the power of the wind, the noise, or the heat and flame of the fire. Rather, he
was only present in the still small voice. But Eliyahu
can only think, apprehend and speak about one thing. Upon being asked by God
why he has come to Sinai, Eliyahu speaks again only
of kina (I Melakhim 19:13-14), the opposite of
what Moshe perceived, the opposite of the intended content and message of the
revelation of God's "passing by."
To put this all together, God had
attempted to educate Eliyahu in his ways, the ways of
God revealed to Moshe in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf. These are
the modes by which God had promised to lead the people and the modes which a
prophet and leader needs to apprehend, understand, emulate and bring to
fruition. But Eliyahu only knows kina, the way
of passion, zealousness, and fiery vengeance. He can no longer serve as prophet
and leader and God informs him so.
But these ways, the mode of mercy,
graciousness, and slowness to anger, the textual opposite of kina in Sefer Shemot are
also the ways of Moshe. After all, they are the attributes that Moshe
apprehended, in his experience of God's "passing by." They are the
way in which God has promised to lead his people, the mode of providence a
prophet and leader needs to apprehend, understand, emulate and bring to
fruition. They are the attributes of Moshe and Mosaic leadership. Once again,
Moshe and the attribute of kina do not mix.
V
Until this point, our analysis has
focused on building a dual tension between Moshe on the one hand and Pinchas on the other. While Moshe operates the
institutional leadership, Pinchas violates the normal
judicial structure. While Moshe, in his character and mode of leadership
eschews the attribute of kina, the passion of zealotry
and vengeance, Pinchas embodies these very
attributes. But where does this leave us with our reading of the story of Shittim and the rise of Pinchas
to prominence? Let us not lose sight of the point we began with. God heartily
endorses Pinchas's actions at Arvot
Moav. He rewards Pinchas
with membership in the priesthood and describes Pinchas
as acting for the sake of heaven and achieving atonement for the people of
Most probably, the parasha should be interpreted as endorsing kina
in a limited fashion. In short, extraordinary circumstances demand
extraordinary measures. While Pinchas does act in
violation of the system and the normal mode of communal leadership, he acts in
a context of an ongoing plague. Twenty four thousand of the Children of Israel
have already died. In front of the entire community of
Alternatively, or perhaps even in
parallel, the story can be interpreted in a slightly more radical fashion, as a
story about violation of norms, the occasional need for revolutionary action
and transition. Immediately after noting the action of Zimri
in "bringing forth" the Midyanite women in
front of Moshe and the entire community, the text states that "they were
crying at the door of the Tent of Meeting." While some commentaries interpret
the crying as referring to prayer (Ibn Ezra 25:6),
most probably the crying reflects despair and even paralysis of Moshe and the
judges of Israel. (Ramban 25:5, Rashi
25:6). While the system has been put into play and may in fact be churning
away, it does not really function. It cannot deal with the radical and
revolutionary act of Zimri. Only a radical act, a
revolutionary breaking of norms for the sake of heaven, can balance the radical
and revolutionary act of Zimri. Only Pinchas and his kina for the sake of God can save
the day. In this vein, Bamidbar Rabba 20:24 states that Moshe's "hands
trembled" at Shittim so that Pinchas
could come and take "that which was suited for him." Apparently,
every leadership structure needs to be renewed upon occasion. Things need to be
shaken up, and entrenched structures need to be shattered. They need to be
built again with new blood, energy, verve and passion. Elevating Pinchas to the role of priest serves exactly this purpose.
He becomes part of the system. In this light, the story of Shittim
constitutes part of the theme of leadership transition prominent in the latter
part of Sefer Bamidbar.
While both these readings are
attractive, the Halakha seems to eschew them both.
Instead, the Halakha seeks to limit the charismatic
and revolutionary quality of Pinchas's actions. In
doing so, it dissolves the tension between Moshe and Pinchas
we have carefully structured. Mishna Sanhedrin
9:6 teaches regarding one who has intercourse with a non-Jewish woman –
"the zealous (kanai'n) attack him." Pinchas's actions are in fact in perfect accord with the Halakha, i.e. the teachings of Moshe. Rather than a
revolutionary and extra-Halakhic act, Pinchas engages in no more than the letter of the law. He
simply carries out the law. He is a kanai, a
zealot, and the law demands that he stand up and kill Zimri.
The numerous midrashim paralleling this Mishna,
further emphasize this point. While Moshe and his judges had forgotten the
particular law in question and were busy debating whether Zimri
was liable to the death penalty (Tanchuma Balak 21), Pinchas remembered
the appropriate principle. In another version, Pinchas,
upon remembering the appropriate law, reminds Moshe of the rule that "our
master has taught us" (Midrash Aggada Bamidbar 25:2) before
rising against Zimri. In other words, there is no
tension between Moshe and Pinchas. Pinchas is ever the loyal student, acting upon, and putting
into place the rules of Torat Moshe,
the Torah of Moshe.
VI
Before closing, let us try to bridge
the gap between these variant interpretations. Quite possibly, Pinchas does act according to some given, previously
existent criteria. At the same time, Pinchas's
actions still possess a radical, and even anti-Moshe
quality. This requires some explanation. Once again, the story of Moshe in the
aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf should provide the key.
While not highlighted earlier, God
does not completely retract his self-identification as "a vengeful
God" in the revelation narrative that contains the thirteen attributes.
Immediately after "passing by" Moshe and revealing the attributes of
mercy in all their contrast to the attributes of the second commandment, God
informs Moshe that he consents to renew his covenant with the Children of
Israel (Shemot 34:10). As part of the list of
commandments that comprises the contents of the renewed covenant, the Torah
follows God's consent with the prohibition of contracting a counter covenant
with the inhabitants of the land. This may lead to idol worship, and "you
shall worship no other god, for the Lord's name is vengeance/jealousy (kana shemo), he is a vengeful/jealous God (el kana)"
(34:14).
The context here is crucial. In elaborating
upon the possible counter covenant that would arouse God's attribute of
vengeance/jealousy, the Torah states the following:
Lest you contract a covenant with the inhabitants/dwellers in the land
and go astray (zanu) after their gods. And you
will sacrifice to their gods, they will call to you, and you will eat from
their sacrifices. And you will take of their daughters (banot)
for your sons and their daughters will play the harlot (ve'zanu)
for their gods. And your sons will stray/commit harlotry
after their gods. (34:15-16)
The Torah here
outlines a complex that might be termed double harlotry. Matters begin to go
astray through involvement with the prior inhabitants of the land. The complex
involves sacrifices to a foreign god, being called, eating, zenut,
or harlotry, with foreign women and finally, zenut,
a different form of harlotry, with foreign gods.
In this context, God stands in the
role of the betrayed and consequently, jealous or vengeful husband. The people
abandon their covenantal relationship with God for a foreign, and other, god.
Realizing this point, should go a long way to explaining the use of the term kina
as one of God's attributes. Parashat Sota, the story of the women who has either committed
adultery or whose husband possesses reason to think that she has betrayed him
utilizes the stem k.n.a., the root of the term
variously translated as "vengeful," "zealous" or
"jealous," a full ten times (Bamidbar
5:14,15,18,25,29,30). The Torah describes the betrayed husband as filled with
"the spirit of vengeance/jealousy" (5:14,30)
and as "kinai et ishto,"
jealous of his wife, or vengeful against his wife (5:14,30). It is God's love
and passion for
What we should realize is, that at Shittim, the Children of Israel engage in exactly the behavior predicted by God in the aftermath of the Sin of
the Golden Calf. The narrative begins by specifying that the Children of Israel
"dwelt" in Shittim and that the people
began to stray/commit harlotry (liznot)
after/with the daughters of Moav (25:1). This triple parallel of "dwellers/dwelt,"
"daughters" of a foreign people and "straying/harlotry (zenut), is immediately followed by all of the other
elements of the story in Shemot. The
people are "called." There are "sacrifices" and the people
"eat" (25:2). And of course, the double straying/harlotry paradigm
reaches its culmination with the people worshipping foreign gods, the people
"bow to their gods" and "attach themselves" to Ba'al Peor (25:2). Not
surprisingly, having been betrayed, and in response to the double harlotry of
the people, God becomes angry (25:2), and is vengeful (25:11); a plague rages
among the people (25:9).
From this perspective, Zimri's bringing forth of the Midyanite
women "to his brothers" in front of the eyes of Moshe and the
congregation comprises far more than just a brazen act of adultery. It is
probably the predicted counter covenant of Shemot
34:15. In pointed contrast to God's already raging anger, Zimri
proposes a treaty with the inhabitants of the land. It is in this context that Pinchas acts. He acts to sabotage the counter-covenant of Zimri. He acts on the basis of God's covenantal and
covenant enforcing plague. His kina is in accord with God's kina.
It is the passionate, zealous and jealous anger of the betrayed whose beloved
has strayed. In other words, Pinchas acts in accord
with a clear set of criteria, already set down by God in the aftermath of the
Sin of the Golden Calf. He acts in accord with the divine wish already
telegraphed in the plague and confirmed in its aftermath. While kina may
have been limited by the revelation of the attributes of mercy, it still has
its time and place.
To close the circle, we must return
to Moshe. Did Moshe not remember the warning of God given in the aftermath of
the Sin of the Golden Calf? Did he not recall the paradigm of double harlotry?
Does Moshe not realize that a leader is sometimes called to emulate the harsher
side of God's leadership?
In fact, Moshe himself had once
acted the Pinchas/betrayed husband role. By no
accident, God's definition of the double harlotry model is immediately followed
by a warning against the fashioning of "molten gods" (34:16). This of
course, is the term utilized by God to describe the Golden Calf (32:8). From
God's perspective, the Sin of the Golden Calf constituted yet another example
of "straying" and betrayal, another occasion for kina. Yet at
that time, it was Moshe who stood in the Pinchas/betrayed
husband role. Upon receiving the go ahead from God (32:7) and after smashing
the tablets, Moshe grinds up the golden calf, places the powder in water and
forces the Children of Israel to drink of the waters (32:20). This clearly
parallels the drinking of "the bitter waters" forced upon the
unfaithful wife by the betrayed and vengeful husband that comprises the centerpiece of the Sota
story (Bamidbar 5:17-24). Similarly,
shortly after conducting this "ceremony," Moshe summoned the Levites
to battle and bid them pass through the camp "slaying each man his
brother" (Shemot 32:27-28). Moshe commanded
a spontaneous act of violence. In sum, in the Sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe
plays the Pinchas/betrayed husband role. He is full
of vengeance and violence for God's sake.
To conclude, regarding the question
of Moshe's lack of kina and perhaps even inaction at Shittim,
regarding the difference between Moshe of Sefer
Shemot and Moshe of Sefer
Bamidbar, we can never know or discern the
exact dynamics that Moshe has undergone. Much has passed between the second and
fortieth years in the desert. We have not been with God for forty days and
forty nights on the mountain, nor had God "pass by" while we stood
upon the rock. We have not descended from the mountain our faces aglow with
divine luminescence, or been subjected to forty years of leading the fractious
and ever complaining Children of Israel. Suffice it to say that by the fortieth
year of the desert journey, Moshe's attachment to the people is not what it
once was. They are rebels and in their constant rebellion doomed him to never
entering the land (Devarim 4:21). He is no
longer their eternal leader, and a new generation of leaders is destined to
lead the people over the
Further Study
1. The shiur
above attempts to develop a theory of the divine attribute of kina and
the appropriateness or inappropriateness of human emulation of this divine
attribute. The theory draws heavily on a particular reading of Chapter 34 of Shemot. Read Shemot
33:12-34:16. Explain how 33:12-13 supports one of the central theses of the shiur above. Now look at Shemot
20:3-5. Explain how these verses pose a question to one of the central theses
of the shiur.
2. Scan I Melakhim 18:1-46. Now review 19:9-16. Try to note a
contradiction between two central points made in the shiur
above. Reexamine 19:10 and 19:14 carefully. Compare
to Bamidbar 25:11. For whom does Eliyahu have kina? Does this resolve the problem?
3. See Rashi
25:6 s.v. ve-haima
and 25:7. Does Rashi support or conflict with the
final conclusion of the shiur? See 25:4-5 and Rashi, Ibn Ezra 25:4 and Ramban 25:5. Can you think of another explanation for 25:4
and the term "otam"? Reconsider the
notion of revolution and entrenched leadership in light of this issue. Review
20:9-11. Try to formulate a possible relation between these verses and 25:4-5.
4. Review 25:1-8 and Shemot
34:12-16. Now see Bereishit 34:1-36. Pay
special attention to 34:1, 2, 8-10, 25. Also see 35:1-4 and Seforno
35:2 and Devarim 31:16. Can you discern a
connection?