THE ZEALOT SHALL STRIKE HIM.... BUT SHHHH DON'T TELL ANYONE
Balak
At the end of the Parsha we read of the immorality of the Jewish men with the Moabite and Midianite women and the resulting plague. The Torah records how Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, had taken the Midianite princess before the eyes of Moshe and Bnei Yisroel for immoral purposes. The Midrash describes how Moshe had forgotten the law concerning how Zimri should be dealt with. Moshe and the Jewish people could only stand by and cry as this public desecration of Hashem’s name took place.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 81b) explains; It is a Halocha L’Moshe MiSinai (a law taught orally to Moshe and passed down through the oral tradition) that the law in this case is that a zealot should strike him. Pinchas, remembering this Halocha reminded Moshe of it. Moshe consented euphemistically that ‘the one who reads the letter be the one to carry it out’. Immediately Pinchas arose, took his spear and slew the two of them as they were having relations. In analysing this Halocha, the Talmud concludes that whilst this is the Halocha, if someone comes to inquire of the law, ‘we do not instruct him thus’.
This is quite problematic. If this is indeed the Halocha, why do we not ‘instruct him’? Further if it is true that we do not ‘instruct him’ why did Moshe authorise Pinchas to take action? More perplexing is the Talmud Yerushalmi which records how the sages of that time were displeased with Pinchas, wishing to excommunicate him. This runs contrary to the Talmud Bavli’s assertion that Pinchas was fulfilling a biblical requirement as passed down via the oral tradition.
In answer to the first question, Pinchas did not come to inquire the Halocha, but merely to remind Moshe of it. As to the reason why we do not ’instruct’ this Halocha to one who asks, the Chiddushei HaRim explains that only a zealot is permitted to execute extra-judicially in this case. One who has the presence to stop to and inquire the Halocha is surely not a zealot. Pinchas on the other hand was just stating the Halocha and acted out of complete zealousness.
Urgency is not enough to be authorised this extra-judicial power. A zealot must act purely and sincerely for Hashem’s sake alone. This can only be evidenced by the individual’s eternal dedication to Torah and Mitzvos. Indeed the Chofetz Chaim writes that a zealot who takes a life must guard himself for the rest of his life from even a hint of sin. If not, his zealousness could be retroactively classified as murder! Being that no man could validate Pinchas’ pure designs, the sages were displeased with him,, requiring a heavenly voice to praise Pinchas’ deed and remove any suspicion.
The Chassidic masters explain that homiletically the word used by the Talmud to describe the zealot’s duty to strike him -‘Pogin’ can also be translated as to entreat or pray. Most of us probably don’t qualify as zealots and would be forbidden to take physical action as Pinchas did. However, we may certainly follow the advice of the Chassidic Masters, to daven to Hashem and raise our voices to protest wrongdoing; be it in matters of Torah and Mitzvos, the safety and sanctity of Eretz Yisroel or indeed any matter which is a desecration of Hashem’s Name and of Torah values. Ironically, Pinchas was rewarded with a covenant of peace for his seemingly violent deed.
May our vocal zealousness for Hashem’s sake similarly elicit a covenant of true and everlasting peace for all mankind when ‘nation will not lift up sword to another nation’, with the coming of Moshiach speedily.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 81b) explains; It is a Halocha L’Moshe MiSinai (a law taught orally to Moshe and passed down through the oral tradition) that the law in this case is that a zealot should strike him. Pinchas, remembering this Halocha reminded Moshe of it. Moshe consented euphemistically that ‘the one who reads the letter be the one to carry it out’. Immediately Pinchas arose, took his spear and slew the two of them as they were having relations. In analysing this Halocha, the Talmud concludes that whilst this is the Halocha, if someone comes to inquire of the law, ‘we do not instruct him thus’.
This is quite problematic. If this is indeed the Halocha, why do we not ‘instruct him’? Further if it is true that we do not ‘instruct him’ why did Moshe authorise Pinchas to take action? More perplexing is the Talmud Yerushalmi which records how the sages of that time were displeased with Pinchas, wishing to excommunicate him. This runs contrary to the Talmud Bavli’s assertion that Pinchas was fulfilling a biblical requirement as passed down via the oral tradition.
In answer to the first question, Pinchas did not come to inquire the Halocha, but merely to remind Moshe of it. As to the reason why we do not ’instruct’ this Halocha to one who asks, the Chiddushei HaRim explains that only a zealot is permitted to execute extra-judicially in this case. One who has the presence to stop to and inquire the Halocha is surely not a zealot. Pinchas on the other hand was just stating the Halocha and acted out of complete zealousness.
Urgency is not enough to be authorised this extra-judicial power. A zealot must act purely and sincerely for Hashem’s sake alone. This can only be evidenced by the individual’s eternal dedication to Torah and Mitzvos. Indeed the Chofetz Chaim writes that a zealot who takes a life must guard himself for the rest of his life from even a hint of sin. If not, his zealousness could be retroactively classified as murder! Being that no man could validate Pinchas’ pure designs, the sages were displeased with him,, requiring a heavenly voice to praise Pinchas’ deed and remove any suspicion.
The Chassidic masters explain that homiletically the word used by the Talmud to describe the zealot’s duty to strike him -‘Pogin’ can also be translated as to entreat or pray. Most of us probably don’t qualify as zealots and would be forbidden to take physical action as Pinchas did. However, we may certainly follow the advice of the Chassidic Masters, to daven to Hashem and raise our voices to protest wrongdoing; be it in matters of Torah and Mitzvos, the safety and sanctity of Eretz Yisroel or indeed any matter which is a desecration of Hashem’s Name and of Torah values. Ironically, Pinchas was rewarded with a covenant of peace for his seemingly violent deed.
May our vocal zealousness for Hashem’s sake similarly elicit a covenant of true and everlasting peace for all mankind when ‘nation will not lift up sword to another nation’, with the coming of Moshiach speedily.