Parshat Pinchas

Pinchas & Zimri

Rabbi Ari Kahn
At the conclusion of last week's Parsha, we read about the act of Zimri 1 and the
response of Pinchas. The episode is described as follows:

And a man from the Children of Israel brought a Midianite woman in front of
his brethren, in sight of Moshe and the entire community, and they engaged
in sexual intercourse in front of the Tent of Meeting. Pinchas the son of
Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen, saw them. He arose from the community,
and took his spear with him. He approached the man of Israel by the Tent
and he pierced them both by the Tent. The plague in Israel was stopped
(25:6-8)

While the story was told last week, in Balak, certain elements of the episode are
held in abeyance until this week's Parsha - Pinchas. This Parsha, named for the
protagonist of the episode, informs us of the lineage of the perpetrators of the
deed:

The name of the man of Israel who was killed - together with the Midianite
woman- was Zimri son of Saluah, a prince from the tribe of Shimon. And the
name of the Midianite woman killed was Kozbi the daughter of Tzur- the
head of the nation of Midian( 25:14,15)

These were not simple people; both were aristocrats, from leading families of their
respective tribes. Rashi points to this fact as an indication of the Midianites’
burning hatred for the Children of Israel: They were willing to send their own
daughters into the fray. The Targum (Yonatan) [Yerushami] identifies Tzur with
none other than Balak himself! His hatred was so profound that he was willing to
prostitute his own daughter for the chance to corrupt the Jews in the process.

Pinchas, upon viewing this scene, acts in what the Torah describes as a "fanatical"
rage, and kills them both in order to put an end to the desecration. The act of
Pinchas is the archtypical fanatical act; others in the future who acted in a similar
manner have been associated with Pinchas. Most notably, Eliyahu the Prophet is
identified by the sages as Pinchas himself, if not literally, then at least in the
mystical sense; these two are said to share a common soul (see Targum Yonatan
Shmot 6:18).2
1
The Midrash cites a number of names for Zimri: Midrash Raba 21:3 – “Because, when Zimri the son of Salua was
stabbed”--the Sages have said: Zimri had six names: Zimri, Ben Salua, Shaul, Ben Hakkena'anith, Shelumiel, Ben
Zurishaddai. He was called Zimri because he became, on account of the Midianitess, like a rotten (muzereth) egg. 'Ben
Salua,’ because he was a son (ben) who outweighed (silla) in sin the rest of his family. 'Shaul,’ because he lent (hish'il)
himself to transgression. ‘Ben Hakkena'anith,’ because he acted in accordance with the practice of Canaan (Kena'an).
And what was his real name? Shelumiel.
2
The source for Pinchas being identified with Eliyahu is somewhat elusive, though it seems to be assumed in a number
of Talmudic and Midrashic sources. See Baba Metziah 114b Rabbah b. Abbuha met Eliyahu standing in a non-Jewish
However, it is possible to view this episode as more than a fanatical outburst by
Pinchas. Let us consider the motivation of the perpetrators, Kozbi and Zimri.
These people were both leaders in their own right, each in their respective
communities. Their "performance" followed the invasion of the idolatry of "Baal
Peor" into the Israelite camp. Once this foreign cultic practice made inroads, what
followed was the orgiastic, public display of behavior, which, in Jewish life, is
private, holy.

As we noted last week, one of the cultic rites in the worship of Baal Peor was
defecating in the presence of the deity, reflecting the exalted, "holy" status of
nature in the philosophy of Baal Peor-worship. Behavior indicating a reverence of
nature and all things natural, were accepted practices. Once this "philosophy" is
understood, the act of Kozbi and Zimri, from their perspective, was not a "crime of
passion" as it were, but the culmination of worship of Baal Peor. Zimri was trying
to make an ideological point; thus, the text stresses that he performed his act in
front of the Tent of Meeting.

…in front of the Tent of Meeting. Pinchas the son of Elazar, son of Aharon
the Kohen, saw them. He arose from the community, and took his spear
with him. He approached the man of Israel by the Tent and he pierced them
both by the Tent. (26:6)

Had this been an act of passion, surely the two of them could have slipped away,
out of sight. But this was a public display, an act of rebellion, an act dictated by
ideology--an act of fanaticism. They therefore chose the Tent of Meeting as the
location for their tryst. The act of Zimri and Kozbi was premeditated. As leaders,
they apparently had a well- thought-out plan of how to deliver the children of
Israel from the holiness of the teachings of Moshe, into the depravity of Baal Peor.

AND THE NAME OF THE MIDIANITE WOMAN THAT WAS SLAIN WAS COZBI,
THE DAUGHTER OF ZUR; HE WAS THE HEAD OF A HOUSE IN MIDIAN (XXV,
15). This serves to inform you to what extent the Midianites had sacrificed
themselves! They had actually abandoned a king's daughter to harlotry; as
it says, ‘And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi,

cemetery. …Said he [Rabbah] to him: ‘Are you not a priest? Why, then, do you stand in a cemetery? Only the
assumption that Eliyahu is Pinchas the Kohen could lie at the basis of this and other similar discussions.
Medieval scholars treat the tradition as one which is subject to debate, and the question of Eliyahu being a kohen as the
practical difference which would decide this debate. See Rashbam, Ramban, Rosh, Rashba in Baba Batra 121b, Tosfot
Harosh Kiddushin 70a. For the specific identification see: Zohar Shmot 190a, Zohar Chadash Ruth, Maamar “Mi Hu
Eliyahu”. Batei Midrashot chelek aleph, Midrash Shocher Tov manuscript on Mizmor 63.
But see the following Midrash, where Eliyahu himself settles the issue! Midrash Rabbah – Bereishit LXXI: 9: The
Rabbis debated: To which tribe did Eliyahu belong? R. Eleazar said: To Binyamin, for it is written, ‘And Jaareshiah,
and Eliyahu, and Zichri, were the sons of Jerovam... All these were the sons of Benjamin.’ (I Chron. VIII, 27, 40). … On
one occasion our Rabbis were debating about him [Eliyahu], some maintaining that he belonged to the tribe of Gad,
others, to the tribe of Binyamin. Whereupon he came and stood before them and said, ' Sirs, why do you debate about
me? I am a descendant of Rachel (from Binyamin).’
Perhaps, just as Pinchas was not born a kohen, and achieves the kehuna at a later stage, Eliyahu has the soul of Pinchas,
and therefore he too “achieves” the status of kohen.
 and Rekem, Zur, etc.’ (Num. XXXI, 8). Now if Zur, the greatest of them all,
though a king, abandoned his daughter, who would not abandon his also? In
consequence of his having degraded himself and made his daughter
disgrace herself in public, Scripture reduced him to an inferior position and
mentioned him third. In truth, however, he was king over them all; HE WAS
HEAD OF A HOUSE IN MIDIAN. (Midrash Rabbah 21:3)

In a sense, Zimri is no less a fanatic than Pinchas, although they reflect different
sides, very different directions. The fanaticism of Pinchas, and of Zimri, should
come as no surprise, as it has it's antecedent in Bereishit. In order to appreciate
this connection we should recall the teachings at the beginning of this week's
Parsha: Pinchas was the "the son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Kohen". He was
from the tribe of Levi. Zimri was "son of Saluah, a prince from the tribe of
Shimon". “Shimon and Levy", together again, as in the past:

Shimon and Levy are brothers (Bereishit 49:5)

They are united, joined by their rage and fanaticism. Ya'akov, on his deathbed,
curses this rage:

Let their rage be cursed for it is powerful, and their wrath for it is harsh...
(Bereishit 49:7)

What was it that Shimon and Levi did to evoke this response from their aged
father? What was it that caused Ya'akov to leave his sons with this legacy? To
answer these questions we must return to their youth.

Our forefather Ya'akov had a difficult life. He had a brother who was pining to kill
him, a father-in law who abused him, and children who sold their brother into
slavery. Ya'akov also had a daughter, Dina, who ventured out of the neighborhood,
to see how the other half lived. There she was ensnared in a "relationship" with
Sh'chem the son of Chamor, who was smitten by her and took her against her will.
His father approached Ya'akov, in an attempt to work things out. The children of
Ya'akov surreptitiously approached Chamor and advised him to circumcise his
entire tribe, which he did. When they were at the apex of their pain, Shimon and
Levi entered the town and annihilated it. Ya'akov was upset with his children, and
rebuked them for putting him in such a precarious situation. By attacking such a
large tribe, when Ya'akov and his children were so small in number, Shimon and
Levi had placed the entire Jewish Nation in danger of the vengeance of other
neighboring tribes who might seek retribution. Shimon and Levi answer: "Will our
sister be made into a prostitute?" (Bereishit 34:31) Ya'akov leaves that question
hanging, without response, until his deathbed, when he curses their rage.

The episode of Dina and Sh'chem serves as an interesting parallel to the story of
Zimri and Kozbi3. Sh'chem is the son of the head of a tribe, Dina is the daughter of
3
According to the Ariza”l Zimri and Kozbi are reincarnations of Sh’chem and Dina respectively. Cited by Rav Tzadduk
Hacohen in Pri Tzaddik Parshat Pinchas, Machshevet Charutz chapter 7, Dover Tzedek section 2, Divrei Sofrim section
34.
Ya'akov, also the leader of a people4. There, Shimon and Levi interpret the
violation in national terms, and attack the perpetrator of this atrocity. Their attack
is ideological, yet motivated by anger, and may therefore be labeled an act of
fanaticism. Ya'akov, for his part, is far more pragmatic, and sees the situation in
practical terms. Consequently, Ya'akov curses their anger, but he doesn't stop
there:

Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are their swords. O my
soul, do not come into their council; to their assembly, let my honor not be
united; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their wanton will they
lamed an ox. Let their rage be cursed for it is powerful, and their wrath for it
is harsh; they shall be divided in Ya'akov and dispersed in Israel (Bereishit
49:5-7).

Ya'akov pleads that these two sons, and their descendants, be divided, for when
they are united, their rage becomes obsessive and debilitating. The conspiracy
against Yosef is instigated by Shimon and Levi (Rashi Bereishit 49:6). Ya'akov
therefore prays for their division, for the danger lies in their unification.

The Midrash identifies this theme when it notes the inappropriateness of Zimri’s
behavior.

ZIMRI, THE SON OF SALU (ib.). Scripture states this about him with
astonishment. It says, Whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite
him (Eccl. X, 8)! Now his ancestor was the first to display jealousy in regard
to harlotry, as it says, ‘Two of the sons of Ya’akov, Shimon and Levi... took
each man his sword... and slew all the males (Gen. XXXIV, 25). Yet this man
broke through the fence which his father had made! (Midrash Rabbah 21:3)

Over the years, the descendants of Shimon and Levi take different directions. On
a personal level, when Moshe sees an Egyptian beating a Jewish slave, he rises up
to defend the Jew, killing the Egyptian in the process, acting in a manner akin to
his ancestor Levi.

When the people worship the Golden Calf, Moshe calls out:

‘Whoever sides with G-d join me!’ - and the entire tribe of Levi gathered
about (Sh’mot 32:25)

Here we see a "fanaticism" on the part of Levi, but directed toward G-d, against
those who had rebelled. In this instance, Shimon is silent. Later on in history,
other descendants of Levi, the Maccabbes, lead a rebellion against the Greek
Empire. We can trace the strain of fanaticism in the tribe of Levi, but we must
notice how differently this fanaticism manifests itself in the tribe of Shimon.

In the case of Zimri, why should the entire tribe of Shimon be attacked for the
indiscretion of one of it's members? Clearly, the rebellion led by Zimri was not the
4
See my Notes to Vayetze, where this issue is discussed in depth.
act of one man. Parshat Balak concludes with the plague that took 24,000 lives.5
In this week's Parsha, the census numbers the tribe of Shimon at 22,200
(Bamidbar 26:14). At the previous census, they numbered 59,300 (Bamidbar
1:23). We see that the largest negative differential in any tribe was in the tribe of
Shimon; apparently, most or all of the dead were from that tribe. Likewise, Rashi
concludes:

From the number of people missing from the tribe compared to the previous
counting in the Sinai Desert, it seems that all 24,000 died from the tribe of
Shimon (Rashi 26:13)

We may thus conclude that Zimri had supporters among the rank and file of his
tribe. In other words, this was a rebellion against Moshe and G-d, spearheaded by
Zimri but followed by great numbers of the tribe of Shimon. A stark and powerful
contrast may be drawn: The entire tribe of Levi stands by Moshe's side in the
aftermath of the Golden Calf, ready to do all for G-d, while the entire tribe of
Shimon stands at the side of Zimri. The Talmud describes how the tribe of Shimon
supported Zimri:

And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, ‘Slay every one of his men that
were joined unto Baal Peor. Thereupon the tribe of Shimon went to Zimri
ben Salu and said to him, ‘Behold, capital punishment is being meted out,
yet you sit silent [i.e., inactive].’ What did he do? He arose and assembled
twenty-four thousand Israelites and went to Cozbi, and said unto her,
‘Surrender yourself unto me.’ She replied, ‘I am a king's daughter, and thus
has my father instructed me, "You shall yield only to their greatest man". ‘I
too,’ he replied, ‘am the prince of a tribe; moreover, my tribe is greater than
his [Moshe’s], for mine is second in birth, whilst his is third.’ He then seized
her by her coiffure and brought her before Moshe. ‘Son of Amram,’
exclaimed he, ‘is this woman forbidden or permitted? And should you say.
"She is forbidden", who permitted Yitro’s daughter to you?’ At that moment
Moshe forgot the halachah [concerning intimacy with a heathen woman],
and all the people burst into tears; hence it is written, ‘and they were
weeping before the door of the Tent of Meeting.’ And it is also written, ‘And
Pinhas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it.’ Now, what
did he see? — Rav said: He saw what was happening and remembered the
halachah, and said to him, ‘O great-uncle! did you not teach us this on thy
descent from Mount Sinai: He who cohabits with a heathen woman is
punished by zealots?’ He replied. ‘He who reads the letter, let him be the
agent [to carry out its instructions]’. Shmuel said: He saw that ‘There is no
wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord’: whenever the
Divine Name is being profaned, honor must not be paid to one's teacher. R.
Isaac said in R. Eleazar's name: He saw the angel wreaking destruction
amongst the people. And he rose up out of the midst of the congregation,
and took a spear in his hand; hence one may not enter the house of
learning with weapons. He removed its point and placed it in his
undergarment, and went along leaning upon the stock [of the spear, into
5
Mystical sources connect these 24,000 with the deaths of Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students.
 which the pointed blade is inserted]. And as soon as he reached the tribe of
Shimon, he exclaimed, ‘Where do we find that the tribe of Levi is greater
than that of Shimon? [i.e., I too wish to indulge]. Thereupon they said, ‘Let
him pass too. He enters to satisfy his lust. These abstainers have now
declared the matter permissible.’
Talmud - Sanhedrin 82a

The description of the Talmud, is of a broad based rebellion, not the act of one
man.

When Pinchas took action against the fanaticism of Zimri, there were those who
attacked him, calling his behavior unacceptable, "un-Jewish". They claimed that
Pinchas must have inherited some foreign traits from his maternal grandfather
Yitro. The Midrash explains that our Parsha introduces Pinchas as a descendant of
Aharon, as if to attribute Pinchas' response to Aharon's behavior, and not to an
alien, pagan source.

What reason had the Holy One, blessed be He, for stating the
pedigree of Pinchas after this particular incident? …You find that when
Zimri was stabbed the tribe rose up against Pinchas and said: ‘Have
you ever seen such a thing? This son of Putiel whose maternal
grandfather fattened (pittem) calves for idol-worship, has slain a
prince in Israel!’ Consequently Scripture comes and declares his
pedigree, by stating: ‘PINCHAS, THE SON OF ELIEZER, THE SON OF
AARON THE PRIEST.’ WHEREFORE SAY: I GIVE UNTO HIM Midrash
Rabbah - Numbers XXI:3

Aharon, too, was from the tribe of Levi. Perhaps the masses saw Aharon only as a
lover of peace, and not as a passionate defender of truth. Aharon was a very
sympathetic figure, and the people must have seen Pinchas's behavior as a
radical departure from Aharon's. Moreover, the people must have reasoned that if
Moshe did not respond as Pinchas did, surely Pinchas' behavior must have been
off the mark: How could someone be more "religious" than Moshe?

On his deathbed, Ya'akov attacked Shimon and Levi's anger; arguably, there is
place for the behavior, but not when it is motivated by anger. So, too, there is an
appropriate time and place for action of the sort that Pinchas took. Ya'akov
warned specifically against the merger of the two problematic tribes. While there
may be a place for an individual’s extra-legal response, when such action
becomes the fusing point of two tribes, the danger of anger for its own sake, and
the resultant fanaticism, is too great. Once divided, the descendants of Levi
become the prototypical servants of G-d, the Kohanim and Leviim, who would
between them perform the Temple service. Shimon, on the other hand, never
succeeds in using anger in a positive manner.

Anger is a particularly dangerous trait. The sages compare it to idolatry, for when
a person feels anger they lose control and are no longer serving G-d. Levi was
able to control the anger, retaining a single-minded, extreme relationship with G-
d. This complete dedication to the Divine is what allowed them to be Kohnaim. At
times this intensity of purpose manifested itself in the Temple, and at times it
manifested itself on the battlefield, as with the Maccabees6. The crucial point is
the single-minded dedication to G-d. This trait, while being the domain of Levi,
can be adopted by any Jew. The Rambam, in a celebrated passage, comments:

Not only the tribe of Levi, rather any man of the entire world whose spirit
moves him, and causes him to separate and stand in front of G-d to
serve Him and worship Him, in order to know G-d, and walks along a
straight path as G-d has made him, and he rejects the numerous
calculations which occupy most men, this person becomes sanctified - (he
becomes) a Holy of Holies, and G-d will be his lot, his portion forever and
ever... (Rambam Mishna Torah Laws of Shmita and Yovel 13:12)

Any Jew can become the "Holy of Holies". What is needed is single-minded
dedication to G-d, as was manifested by Pinchas. His love of G-d required his
extreme response. The fanatical behavior of Zimri, which was followed by his tribe
of Shimon, had to be stopped. But to be holy one can not have a personal agenda,
as Zimri did. Perhaps Zimri deluded himself into believing that he was following
the example of his great-grandfather Shimon. Pinchas, on the other hand, stood to
gain nothing personally. Quite the contrary, his action was ridiculed by the other
leaders7.

Pinchas was motivated by a profound love of G-d, which would not give in to
public opinion or political expediency. For this reason he was rewarded with the
Covenant of Peace. The mandate of the kohanim is to bring peace to the world;
sometimes this is accomplished by speaking words of peace, but at other times it
is accomplished by force.8 The reward which Pinchas receives gives us insight
into his motivation: He desperately wanted peace, but the obscenity unfolding
before his eyes left him no choice.

We are reminded of Hillel's teaching in the Mishna in Avot:

6
The main protagonists of the Maccabbes were the Hellinists, who were also predominantly Kohenim. In the following
generation, the Saducees were also from the tribe of Levi. The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna, Avot attempts
to draw a connection between the Hellinists and the Saducees. Likewise, the rebellion of Korach was lead by a member
of Levi.
7
Rashi 25:11 based on Sanhedrin 82b
Thereupon the ministering angels wished to repulse him, but He said to them, ‘Let him be, for he is a zealot and the
descendant of a zealot; a turner away of wrath and the son of a turner away of wrath.’ The tribes now began abusing
him: ‘See ye this son of Puti [= Putiel] whose maternal grandfather fattened [pittem] cattle for idols, and who has now
slain the prince of a tribe of Israel!’ Therefore Scripture detailed his ancestry: Pinchas, the son of Eleazar, the son of
Aaron the Priest. [Moreover,] the Holy One, blessed be He said to Moses, ‘Be the first to extend a greeting of peace to
him’, as it is written, Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace; and this atonement, [that Pinchas
has made] is worthy of being an everlasting atonement.
8
The law is a Kohen that kills is disqualified, ironically by killing Pinchas becomes worthy to be a Kohen. Zohar 214a -
Now it is a rule that a priest who kills a human being becomes disqualified for the priesthood, and therefore by rights
Pinchas should have been disqualified. But because he was jealous for the Holy One, blessed be He, the priesthood was
assigned to him and to his descendants in perpetuity.’ The Sfat Emet explains that this is why Pinchas was not a Kohen
until this point. Had been a Kohen he would have been unfit, now by virtue of his action he becomes fit to serve.
 You shall be like the students of Aharon: love peace and pursue peace.
(Avot I:12)

Occasionally the pursuit requires an unconventional display of love. The kohanim

were imbued with love - love for G-d and their fellow man. The anger which
Ya'akov cursed had been replaced by love. Therefore the tribe of Levi excelled. On
the other hand, the tribe of Shimon represented the greatest failure during the
years spent in the desert. Witness to this is borne by Moshe's final blessings to the
tribes at the conclusion of D'varim. The conceptual and linguistic similarities to
Ya'akov's blessings are numerous, but the most striking difference between the
blessings lies in Moshe's final words to Shimon and Levi. Whereas Ya'akov
attacked them, Levi now receives a beautiful blessing:

And of Levi he said, Let your Thummim and your Urim be with your pious
one, whom you did test at Massah, and with whom you fought at the waters
of Meribah. Who said to his father and to his mother, I have not seen him;
nor did he acknowledge his brothers, nor knew his own children; for they
have observed your word, and kept your covenant. They shall teach Jacob
your judgments, and Israel your Torah; they shall put incense before you,
and whole burnt sacrifice upon your altar. Bless, Lord, his substance, and
accept the work of his hands; strike through the loins of those who rise
against him, and of those who hate him, that they rise not again. (D'varim
33:8-11)

Levi is now called the "pious ones". They will be the intellectual and spiritual
vanguard entrusted with the role of teaching Torah to the other tribes. Shimon, on
the other hand, stands out as the only tribe to receive no blessing, no comment,
from Moshe- only silence. And it is a silence which speaks volumes. This tribe's
potential for greatness was not realized. Ya'akov's clairvoyance called for the
separation of the tribes, and, indeed, they were separated, following two different
paths to two different destinies.

The conflict of Zimri and Pinchas serves as a microcosm of this larger issue, of two
tribes traveling in two different directions, one toward greatness, and the other
toward infamy. Long ago, Ya'akov prayed for these two to be separated, in order
for each to find their unique path to G-d. Levi found theirs; Shimon did not. We
see in this week's Parsha that two people, and indeed two tribes, can have the
same make-up, the same characteristics, but achieving greatness is less a
function of inborn traits than the use we make of those traits.