because some of the Shabbat Parshiot are not published online until erev erev Shabbat, i cannot post them until yom rishon. As they think they are for chu’l, but we in Eretz Yisrael enjoy reading them, but NOT on Shabbat. [BTW the website machos put ‘stumblingblocs’ in the text to cause the text to misbehave! but i have the patience to counter this]
Zealotry - for Hashem
Zealotry, like every other aspect of a Jew's life, has halakhic boundaries and limitations..
We read in last week’s Parasha, that Pinchas, on seeing that Zimri brought a Midianite woman into the camp, remembered that Moshe Rabbeinu had taught them a halakha, that:’If someone cohabits with an Amonite woman, zealots have a right to strike them both dead’, he took a spear in his hand, ‘and pierced tham both’, whereupon the plague which had begun to rage amongst Bnei Israel, ‘was halted’. Our Parasha then relates, that Hashem said to Moshe:
’Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aaron the Kohen, turned back My wrath from upon the Children of Israel, when he zealously avenged My vengeance among them, so that I did not consume the Children of Israel in My vengeance. Therefore..I give him My covenant of peace..a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he took vengrance for his G-d, and he atoned for the Children of Israel.’
Comments Rav Chaim Friedlander:’Rashi brings the exposition of our Sages, that the Torah here saw the need to relate that Pinchas was the grand-son of Aaron, because the tribes belittled his deeds, on the basis that he was also the descendant of Yitro, who served as a priest of idol worshippers.’ Explains the Rav:’We need to understand: the tribes saw that Pinchas’ actions stopped the plague, which threatened to wipe out the whole nation, AND, he performed the Mitzvah that Moshe had taught them, so what then was their complaint against Pinchas?
‘The answer’ expounds the Rav ‘lies at the heart of this halakha: it was not given to the Batei Din, but given solely to ‘the zealots’, to those in whom the fire of zealotry for Hashem compelled them to act, at the sight of such an occurrence. ‘This can be seen from the psukim: because Pinchas took vengeance for his G-d’ ‘he atoned for the Children of Israel’: Why was he able to atone for the Children of Israel?
Because his zealotry was solely for his G-d.‘This was the complaint of the tribes: because of his ancestry, surely his action was not solely for the sake of Heaven, but partially also to prove to the people that he had no attachment to idolatory - which is closely intertwined with immorality - or to uproot from himself any inherited trace of the ways of his ancestors - any of which concerns - laudable as they might be in themselves - would preclude his zealotry from being solely for Hashem, and would have rendered his deeds impermissible, as the halacha under which he presumed to act, required this singularity of purpose.
‘This is why the Torah related his descent from Aaron, to certify that his motives were solely out of his love of Hashem and His people - in the footsteps of Aaron - and this was sealed by the blessing of Shalom that Hashem gave him, to signify the shleimut: the completeness, of his deeds.’
Rav Yosef Salant similarly notes the unique nature of the halacha that prompted Pinchas’ actions:’It, in effect, made the individual the sole arbiter of when to act, without seeking pernission from any one else - and this, in turn, requires us to ask why is this halakha different from any other halacka?
‘To understand this, we need to ask: what is the special severity of the offence of ‘cohabitation with an Amonite’?
‘The answer was given at Har Sinai, when Hashem said:’You shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples.,And you shall be to Me a kingdom of princes and a holy nation’, and this transgressor goes and does this lowly act, thereby saying, in effect, that we are no different than the other peoples - and does so publicly. Then, if one one who sees this, and is filled with holy abhorrence for the affront to the sanctity and purity of G-d’s people, and feels compelled to risk his life, to take vengeance for Hashem’s sake, HE is the one - and only he - to whom this halacha is directed.
‘This was in fact the ‘scorn’ of the tribes, that saw the action of Pinchas: someone like him, whose ancestors were from the other nations, and, more so, who served as a priest for idol worship, could not possibly be motivated by the purity required, because the nature of the ancestors is inevitably passed down, in some measure, to their descendants.
‘Therefore, they derided, ‘look at who took it upon himself to kill a prince of a tribe in Israel’ in supposed vengeance for Hashem’s Name’! ‘To this, Hashem - before Whom alone what is in a person’s heart is known - testified in the Torah:’Pinchas..zealously avenged My vengeance among them’.
’The Netivot Shalom sweetens our understanding, by noting that Hashem’s wrath flared only when the people began to engage in harlotry; and the plague only stopped, as a result of Pinchas’s deed.
‘This’ says the Rav, ‘teaches that nothing is more hateful, in Hashem’s Eyes, than the cohabitation with gentile women - and this is the reason for the singular nature of this halakha, as the determinant is not the severity of the punishment for a transgression, but the ‘sorrow’ a particular transgression causes Above - what is most hateful to Hashem.’
Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch provides a beautiful encapsulation of the true zealot for Hashem:’Zealotry’ relates principally to the spirit and the thoughts of the heart; the true zealot adopts the affairs of another, and sees them as if they were his own.
‘The deed of Pinchas was not merely an external act, but derived from the depths of his heart, the treason against Hashem’s Will was, in his eyes, a treason against him.’A parting insight from Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl:’The first instance of zealotry recorded in the Torah, is the incident of Shimon and Levi against Shechem, over the taking of Dinah.
To their father’s concerns over the danger their acts have brought upon the entire family, their response is:’Should our sister be treated like a harlot?
‘As this concludes the discussion between them, one might think that Yaakov had no answer to his sons’ argument; but from his death-bed words to them, when he ‘curses’ their action, we learn that this was not the case.
‘Why, then, did Yaakov not openly rebuke his sons? Because he saw no need to do so, as their own words showed that their zealotry was tainted by a side - a personal - aspect; by saying ‘should OUR SISTER be treated as a harlot’, they made it clear that their own honor was a major factor - what if it had been any other girl?
‘This’ says the Rav, ‘distinguishes it from the deeds of Pinchas, which, as the Torah testifies, was solely ‘vengeance for his G-d.’
No comments:
Post a Comment