The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARSHAT PINCHAS

Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Pinchas records the census taken of Benei Yisrael shortly before the nation's entry into the Land of Israel.  A brief review of this census reveals an intriguing irony with regard to the populations of the tribes of Binyamin and Dan.  The tribe of Binyamin numbered at this point 45,600, whereas Dan, whose population is recorded immediately following that of Binyamin, numbered 64,400.  The irony of this contrast – which the Torah perhaps seeks to emphasize by presenting these figures in juxtaposition to one another – stems from the historical background of these two tribes.  As we read in Sefer Bereishit (46:21,23), Binyamin begot ten sons, whereas Dan had but one.  What more, according to a Talmudic tradition (Sota 13a), Chushim was hearing-impaired.  Ironically, the lone, deaf son of Dan produced a tribe significantly larger than that which emerged from the ten sons of Binyamin.  In fact, at this point in Benei Yisrael's history Dan was the largest tribe after Yehuda (which numbered 76,500).

            The Chafetz Chayim remarked that this contrast symbolizes the potential latent within each and every individual, even those from whom people have come to expect little.  Nobody should ever be dismissed or looked upon as insignificant or unimportant.  Regardless of a person's limitations or previous failures, he still has within him enormous potential and the ability to make a meaningful impact upon the world.  Just as Dan's hearing-impaired son produced a larger tribe than Binyamin's ten sons, so can people who seem at first incapable of contributing leave an even greater and longer-lasting legacy than others.

            The Mishna in Masekhet Avot (4:3) exhorts, "Al tehi baz le-khol adam...ki ein lekha adam she-ein lo sha'a" ("Do not belittle any person…for there is no person who does not have a moment…").  The classic commentators (Rashi, Rambam, Rabbenu Yona) explain this to mean that one must never insult somebody else on the assumption that he will never have the means to retaliate, for at some point he will, indeed, be capable of harming his adversaries.  But this Mishna has also been explained to mean that we should never dismiss anybody as unimportant, "for there is no person who does not have a moment" – ultimately, every human being is given the opportunity to shine and make a meaningful impact upon the world.

            Rav Yerucham Lebovitz of Mir noted in this context the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Sanhedrin (99a) concerning the verse earlier in Sefer Bamidbar (15:31), "ki devar Hashem baza" ("for he has belittled the word of the Lord").  According to one view cited in the Gemara, this phrase refers to somebody who was given the opportunity to occupy himself in Torah study but failed to do so.  Rav Yerucham explained that the Talmud understood the word baza to mean failing to recognize the value or importance of a certain item or individual.  Thus, when the Torah employs this term in describing an attitude towards "the word of the Lord," it refers to somebody who does not properly appreciate the immense value of Torah study.  Likewise, when the Sages admonish "al tehi baz le-khol adam," they instruct that we should never question the importance and value of another human being, regardless of his religious, financial or social stature.  Every individual must be treated as something of value and importance, capable of influencing the world in a most meaningful way.

(Based in part on a discourse by Rav Avraham Pam, as recorded in Rav Shalom Smith's The Pleasant Way)

******

            The haftara for the first Shabbat of "the three weeks" (the period from Shiva Asar Be'Tammuz through Tisha B'Av) is taken from the first chapter of Sefer Yirmiyahu, which tells of the inaugural prophecy of Yirmiyahu, the prophet who predicted and witnessed the destruction of the First Temple.  God's first words spoken to Yirmiyahu inform him that he was destined for his prophetic mission already before his conception: "Even before I formed you in the stomach I have selected you, and already before you exited the womb I designated you – I made you a prophet unto the nations" (Yirmiyahu 1:5).  Yirmiyahu then interrupts God's words to protest, insisting that he is just a "lad" (verse 6) and thus incapable of hearing prophecy.  God responds by exhorting the prophet not to consider himself a mere "lad," and then resumes His prophecy: "Do not fear them, for I am with you to save you" (verse 8).

It thus appears that God informs Yirmiyahu of his pre-natal designation for this role in order to offer him reassurance and bolster his self-confidence.  As God had long ago assigned him to this task, he can rest assured that he is fully equipped with everything he needs to succeed.

Rav Mendel Hirsch (son of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch), in his commentary to the haftarot, draws a parallel between God's first words to Yirmiyahu and an earlier prophetic declaration of Yeshayahu (49:1-2): "The Lord summoned me from the stomach; from my mother's belly He mentioned my name.  He made my mouth like a sharp sword; He hid me in the shadow of His hand.  He made me a clear arrow – He concealed me in his quiver."  Here, too, the prophet declares his designation from birth and hence the protection and assistance he has been guaranteed for the successful execution of his mission.  However, whereas most commentators explain those verses in Yeshayahu as a reference to the prophet himself, Rav Mendel Hirsch claims that Yeshayahu speaks of Am Yisrael as a nation.  As it was God who has long ago designated us for our special mission, we can rest assured that we are equipped with the necessary "ammunition" to complete it satisfactorily.  Like Yirmiyahu, we, too, are urged not to feel intimidated by the awesome challenges that confront us as we assert our unique national and religious identity.  Just as a business owner who hires an associate will ensure to provide him with the materials and training he needs to perform his work, so has God given us the necessary means to observe the Torah and become the nation we are destined to be.

In the aforementioned prophecy of Yeshayahu, the prophet declares (49:4), "I had said that I have exerted myself for naught; I have depleted my strength for nothingness and futility.  But indeed my sentence is with the Lord, and my work is with my God."  This verse is somewhat ambiguous and requires in-depth analysis, but according to Rav Mendel Hirsch's approach to this prophecy, it appears that it expresses Am Yisrael's sense of despair in its failure to uphold the mandates of the Torah.  At times we might begin wondering whether we can indeed succeed in bearing the enormous burden of responsibilities assigned to us, whether our efforts and sacrifices are perhaps "for naught."  Yeshayahu therefore reassures us that as it was God who assigned us this task, we can safely presume that He will provide us with the inner strength and other resources we need to carry out our sacred mission and represent Him to the rest of the world.

******

            In the inaugural prophecy to the prophet Yirmiyahu, which is read as the haftara on the first Shabbat of the "three weeks," God shows Yirmiyahu a "steaming pot whose mouth faces northward" (Yirmiyahu 1:13).  The message of this vision, as God explains in the subsequent verse, is that the enemy that will descend upon Benei Yisrael will arrive from the north.  The northward direction of the pot's mouth represented the direction from which Benei Yisrael's travails would originate.

            The question, however, arises, why did God choose specifically a pot as the article with which to reveal the direction from which the enemy would descend upon Jerusalem?

            Metzudat David explains that the pot symbolizes the siege around Jerusalem that would force the people in the surrounding towns and villages to gather in the city.  Just as all the ingredients are collected into a pot and the fire is then set underneath it, so will the entire region assemble in Jerusalem, to which the Babylonians will ultimately set fire.

            Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, extends the symbolic meaning of the pot a bit further.  In his view, this pot is intended as a reference to a proverb that the people of Jerusalem would often repeat in describing their situation, as recorded by the prophet Yechezkel (11:3), "Hi ha-sir va-anachnu ha-basar" – "It [Jerusalem] is the pot, and we are the meat."  The Jerusalemites expressed with this mantra their confidence in the city as a guaranteed means of protection.  The fate of their exiled brethren from the Northern Kingdom of Israel did not leave much of an impression on them, as they assumed that the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem afforded them safety and protection and precluded the possibility of enemy takeover and exile.

            Yirmiyahu's prophecy, then, was given in response to this claim of invincibility. God warns the nation that both the pot and the meat will be set on fire by the powers of the north, that the sanctity of Jerusalem cannot guarantee their safety.  He declares, "I shall speak My judgment of them for all their evils, that they have abandoned Me and sacrificed to other gods and prostrated to their own handiwork" (1:16).  A sinful population cannot take refuge in the holy city; they will have to bear accountability for their wrongdoing regardless of the unique stature of Jerusalem.

            God then declares that while the people delude themselves into thinking that they have found protection in Jerusalem, in truth it is only Yirmiyahu who lives behind fortified, protective walls: "Behold, I have made you this day into a city fortress, an iron pillar and brass walls from the entire land – the kings of Yehuda, its officers, its kohanim and the masses.  They shall battle against but will be unable to defeat you, for I am with you…" (1:18-19).  Throughout Yirmiyahu's career as prophet, the people of Jerusalem reject his calls for repentance and instead stubbornly and confidently insist on their guaranteed safety; they react to him with scorn and even violence.  Ironically, it is the prophet who has been guaranteed the Almighty's protection and has become a "city fortress," while the city of Jerusalem will, tragically enough, fall into the hands of Israel's foes and be unable to guarantee the safety of its iniquitous population.

******

            The haftara for the first Shabbat of the "three weeks," which is taken from the first chapter of Sefer Yirmiyahu, concludes with the famous verses (2:2-3), "I have remembered for you the kindness of your youth; your love as a bride – that you followed Me in the wilderness, in an untilled land.  Israel is sacred to the Lord, the first of His grain; all who consume it shall bear guilt…"  God declares that despite the calamities of which He had just warned in the previous verses, He has nevertheless remembered Benei Yisrael's loyalty to Him centuries earlier, after the Exodus.  The special bond that they forged with the Almighty then in their incipient stages of nationhood will not be forgotten, and they thus remain God's special nation despite their disloyalty.

            Rav Gavriel Zev Margaliyot, in his Ginat Egoz commentary to the haftarot (printed in the back of his Torat Gavriel, Jerusalem, 5682), cites a novel interpretation to this verse in the name of the work Divrei Shelomo.  The term chesed ne'urayikh – "the kindness of your youth" – refers specifically to Benei Yisrael's donation of precious materials towards the construction of the Mishkan.  God emphasizes that this "kindness" was shown during Benei Yisrael's "youth," during their years of "immaturity."  Young people tend to spend money recklessly because they have yet to shoulder the responsibilities of adulthood that demand careful and calculated allocation of resources.  Similarly, before Benei Yisrael's entry into the Land of Israel, they were dependent entirely on God's miraculous care in the wilderness, and thus they had a more liberal attitude towards money.  Donating materials to the Mishkan was therefore less of an expression of love and selfless devotion as it would have been had it taken place later, after Benei Yisrael became "self-sufficient" in their land, when they became more discretionary with regard to material goods.  Nevertheless, God declares that He looks upon Benei Yisrael's donation as an act of "kindness" and sacrifice, and He will reward them accordingly.

            The Divrei Shelomo applies this same approach to the next phrase – ahavat kelulotayikh ("your love as a bride").  The extent of a bride's love and loyalty towards her groom is manifest not under the canopy, but rather years later, when her commitment has withstood the test of time and overcome the natural tendency for those feelings to wane.  Sadly enough, Benei Yisrael's love for God did not withstand the test of time, but the Almighty nevertheless remembers for them "your love as a bride," the love and commitment they displayed in the early years of their relationship with God.

            Finally, God remembers how Benei Yisrael "followed Me in the wilderness, in an untilled land."  In truth, Benei Yisrael had nowhere else to go.  They were fugitives from Egypt traversing an arid, uninhabitable desert, without any means of survival other than following the Almighty.  Once again, God overlooks the circumstances surrounding this gesture; He takes into account all the merit that we have to our credit – including even the mitzvot performed with less than ulterior motives.

            One lesson, perhaps, to draw from this insight into Yirmiyahu's prophecy is applying this model in our interaction with other people.  Our relationships to family members and friends can be significantly enhanced if we remember the "kindness of their youth," past favors and demonstrations of loyalty, even when we may feel slighted.  Just as we expect God to look favorably upon us in the merit of the loyalty of our past, so must we be prepared to overlook whatever grievances we may have and show kindness and favor to those who had been loyal to us in the past.

******

            In Parashat Pinchas the Torah introduces the mitzva of the korban tamid, the ola offering brought twice daily in the Beit Ha-mikdash (28:1-8).  In truth, this is not the first time the Torah makes mention of this obligation: it appears as well in Sefer Shemot, towards the end of Parashat Tetzaveh (29:38-42), amidst the laws concerning the construction of the Mishkan.

            To explain the reason underlying the two presentations of this mitzva, the Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar, claims that the korban tamid served a different role in the Beit Ha-mikdash than it did in the Mishkan during Benei Yisrael's travels through the wilderness.  The function of the daily offering in the Mishkan is stated in the verses that conclude the discussion of the tamid in Sefer Shemot:  "I shall commune there with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My glory…" (29:43).  According to the Netziv, the daily tamid offerings were necessary to allow for the direct communion with God and Moshe in the Mishkan; they somehow facilitated the manifestation of the Divine Presence that was necessary for this kind of direct communication between man and God.

            Upon Benei Yisrael's entry into Canaan, however, the tamid offerings assumed a much different role.  As the direct communion between Moshe and God would not continue in the Land of Israel, the previous function of these sacrifices was no longer necessary.  Instead, the temidim served as the means by which Benei Yisrael would earn their day-to-day sustenance from God.  The Gemara (Ketubot 10b) describes the altar as meizin – "sustaining," which Rashi explains to mean that in the merit of the sacrifices Am Yisrael earns its livelihood and sustenance.  Unlike in the wilderness, where there were sustained supernaturally through the manna, in Eretz Yisrael the nation would till the land and produce food through their own efforts.  Nevertheless, they were still to see themselves as dependent on the Almighty for their basic needs and provisions, and for this reason He demanded that they bring the daily tamid offerings.  These offerings served as a sort of appeal to God to continue feeding them and sustaining them by providing ample rainfall and granting them success in their agricultural and commercial endeavors.

            Thus, the Netziv claims, the two different presentations of this mitzva correspond to the two different functions it served.  In Sefer Shemot, the Torah addresses the tamid offering required in the Mishkan, during Benei Yisrael's travels in the wilderness, where this sacrifice served to facilitate the unique encounter between Moshe and the Almighty in the Mishkan.  Here, in the end of Sefer Bamidbar, the nation prepares for its entry into Canaan, at which point they would no longer be sustained by the manna.  God therefore issues this command concerning the korban tamid as it is through this offering that the nation will be sustained and enjoy prosperity in Eretz Yisrael.

            For this reason, the Netziv contends, the Torah here in Parashat Pinchas describes the tamid offering with the word lechem – "bread" ("et korbani lachmi…" – 28:2).  This offering served as "bread" in the sense that it brought Am Yisrael economic prosperity in the Land of Israel.  Here, in Sefer Bamidbar, the Torah speaks of the korban tamid as the means of guaranteeing the nation's economic success, and it therefore emphasizes its function as the lechem of Benei Yisrael.

Furthermore, the Netziv adds, this might explain the reason for the juxtaposition between this section and the previous narrative, which told of the formal appointment of Yehoshua as Moshe's successor.  Moshe had asked God to name a successor to ensure that Benei Yisrael would not become "like a sheep that does not have a shepherd" (27:17).  The primary responsibility of a shepherd, the Netziv explains, is to feed the flocks under his charge.  (Recall the famous verses in the 23^rd chapter of Tehillim, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He has me lie in grassy pastures, He leads me to comforting waters."  Indeed, there is a custom to recite this chapter during one's meal, as it relates to the theme of livelihood; see Mishna Berura 170:1.)  According to Midrashic tradition, the manna fell in the wilderness specifically in Moshe's merit.  He thus wanted to ensure that after his death, Benei Yisrael would have another reliable means whereby their sustenance would be assured.  In response to this request, God issued this command of the daily korbanot, through which Benei Yisrael earned their daily livelihood from God – just as He had sustained them with a daily portion of manna throughout their travels in the wilderness.

*******

            The opening verses of Parashat Pinchas tell of the reward God promises to Pinchas for his zealotry in defending the Almighty's honor during the incident of Ba'al Pe'or, when he slew the Israelite man and Midyanite princess during their public act of sin.  God promises Pinchas "beriti shalom" – "My covenant of peace" (25:12).  Traditionally, the letter vav in the word shalom in this verse is split; rather than appearing as a straight, solid line, the vav is severed in the middle.

            This tradition originates from the Talmud's discussion in Masekhet Kiddushin (66b), where the Gemara establishes that the letter vav is "broken" to indicate that we should read the word shalom without this letter, as if it read shalem, or "complete."  This alternate reading, the Gemara explains, alludes to the halakha disqualifying rituals performed in the Beit Ha-mikdash by a kohen with a physical defect.  Pinchas here is rewarded for his zealotry with the status of priesthood for him and his progeny, and in this context the Torah subtly alludes to the concept of shalem, perfection, referring to the indispensability of physical "perfection" for the Temple rituals to be valid.  Already in Sefer Vayikra (21:17) the Torah introduced a prohibition forbidding a kohen from performing the service if he suffers from a physical blemish.  Here, in Parashat Pinchas, the Torah alludes to the fact that if such a kohen did perform one of the Temple rituals, it is invalid and must be repeated by a qualified kohen.

            Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in his work of responsa (vol. 1, 75), cites a theory from a work entitled Batei Kehuna claiming that the severed vav in the word shalom is actually subject to a dispute among the Amora'im.  Prior to the aforementioned passage concerning the severed vav, the Gemara discusses a different halakha that validates sacrificial rituals performed by the product of a union between a kohen and a divorcee.  Such a union is forbidden by Torah law (Vayikra 21:7), and sons born from such a union are disqualified from the priesthood.  Nevertheless, if a child from this union does perform the avoda, the rituals he performed are valid and need not be repeated by a full-fledged kohen.  The Gemara cites three possible sources for this halakha from three different Amora'im – Shemuel, Avuha D'Shmuel (Shemuel's father) and Rabbi Yannai.  Then, the Gemara proceeds to address the halakha mentioned earlier, disqualifying the avoda performed by a kohen with a physical defect.  With regard to this halakha, the Gemara cites only one source – the severed vav – and it cites this source in the name of Shemuel.

            The Batei Kehuna suggested (in the name of "the sages of Venice") that the Gemara's discussions of these two halakhot are integrally linked to one another.  Shemuel's source for the halakha validating the avoda of a son of a divorcee is a different verse from Parashat Pinchas, where God promises "the eternal covenant of priesthood" to Pinchas "and his offspring after him."  Shemuel interpreted this to mean that all Pinchas' offspring earned the status of priesthood of one kind or another, thus alluding to the extraordinary provision validating Temple rituals performed by a kohen who in other respects does not enjoy priestly status.  Namely, even avoda performed by the product of a kohen's marriage to a divorcee is deemed valid.  The Batei Kehuna contended that Shemuel's reading of this verse would lead us to consider validating as well the avoda performed by a kohen with a physical defect.  Since the Torah here grants acceptance to the service performed by "all his offspring," which includes the son of a divorcee, one might have thought to extend this provision to kohanim with physical blemishes, as well.  Therefore, Shemuel was compelled to qualify his theory by invoking the severed vav in the word shalom, which yields the word shalem and thus alludes to the indispensable condition of "perfection" for the priestly service to gain acceptance.

            It thus emerges that according to the other two Amora'im – Avuha D'Shmuel and Rabbi Yannai – we do not need to derive any halakhic conclusions on the basis of the severed vav of shalom.  It was only Shemuel's theory concerning the phrase "and his offspring after him" that necessitated this inference from the severed vav.  The Batei Kehuna thus contended that the other Amora'im do not require severing the vav in the Torah scroll at all.  This feature was required only by Shemuel, and not by the other Amora'im.

            Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that the Rambam, in codifying the halakha concerning a kohen born to a divorcee, cites the source advocated by Avuha D'Shmuel (Hilkhot Bi'at Mikdash 6:10).  According to the Batei Kehuna's theory, then, the Rambam did not require severing the vav in the word shalom.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger thus rules that although we traditionally do ensure to sever the vav, if this was not done the Torah scroll may nevertheless be used, as we may rely on this position of the Rambam as it emerges from the theory advanced by the Batei Kehuna.  (Other authorities, however, dispute this ruling of Rabbi Akiva Eiger.)

******

            Parashat Pinchas records the census that Moshe conducted prior to Benei Yisrael's entry into Canaan.  This record includes not only the population count of each tribe, but also a list of all the major families of every tribe and the lineage of these families.  In the Torah's listing of the families in the tribe of Reuven, it mentions Palu as one of the sons of Reuven, and then writes, "And the sons of Palu were Eliav" ("U-vnei Falu Eliav" – 26:8).  Somewhat peculiarly, the Torah makes reference to "the sons of Palu," in the plural form, but lists only a single son – Eliav.

            In truth, this is not the only instance in Tanakh where a single child is referred to as "the sons of…"  In Sefer Bereishit (46:23) the Torah refers to Chushim, the lone son of Dan, as "the sons of Dan" ("U-vnei Dan Chushim"), and in Sefer Divrei Hayamim I (2:8), Azarya, a great-grandson of Yehuda, is introduced as "the sons of Eitan" ("U-vnei Eitan Azarya").  One possible explanation for this literary phenomenon, as noted by the work Sha'arei Aharon, emerges from the Rambam's ruling in Hilkhot Zekhiya U-matana (11:1) regarding the declaration of a shekhiv meira (a person on his deathbed).  If a person in his dying moments declares, "Such-and-such property shall be given to my sons," and he has one son and several daughters, the property is given to the son.  Even though he employed the plural term "sons," we nevertheless interpret this declaration as a reference to his only son because, as the Rambam writes, "ha-ben ha-echad nikra banim" ("a single son is called 'sons'").  It is for this reason, perhaps, that the Torah speaks of Eliav as the "sons" of Palu, just as Chushim and Azarya are each called the "sons" of their respective fathers.

            Malbim, however, suggests a different reason for the use of the plural form with regard to Palu, claiming that Palu in fact had other children besides Eliav.  He notes that some commentators identify On ben Pelet, a participant in Korach's revolt against Moshe (Bamidbar 16:1), as the son of Palu; meaning, Palu and Pelet were the same person.  The Torah here in Parashat Pinchas mentions Palu's progeny only for the purpose of recalling the deaths of Datan and Aviram, the two sons of Eliav, who were devoured by the ground when they challenged Moshe's authority (see 26:9).  Therefore, it makes mention only of Eliav, and not the other sons of Palu, since its objective is merely to briefly recount the incident of Datan and Aviram.  According to Malbim, this verse should be read as, "And the sons of Palu were Eliav [and others]."  It alludes to Palu's other sons, while mentioning explicitly only Eliav, by way of recalling the tragedy that befell his two sons.