Shabbat Parashat Pinchas 5783

Parashat Hashavua: War and Peace

Not only should the righteous receive reward for their actions, but it is proper that the reward fit the actions!

We know that David Hamelech was unable to build the Beit Hamikdash (according to Divrei Hayamim I:28:3) because he shed blood – even though that was in the context of just wars. We also find that metal tools could not be used in the building of the altar (Shemot 20:21) because of the lack of harmony between an altar, which exists to lengthen people’s lives, and metal, which so often shortens people’s lives.

Nevertheless, Pinchas received a surprising reward for his zealotry. He killed Zimri and Kozbi, who had been publicly sinning together, and received the ability to serve as a kohen (according to one opinion, this had eluded him because he failed the chronological requirements of the first generations of kohanim (see Zevachim 111b)). Even if Pinchas’ zealotry was praiseworthy, is receiving the honor that enables him to help bring atonement for others, the appropriate reward?

First, we should notice that the Torah stresses that the direct result of Pinchas’ zealousness was life rather than death. The pasuk says: “He stabbed both of them … and the plague ceased” (Bamidbar 25:8). Likewise, in p’sukim 11 & 13 Pinchas is described as the one who “atoned for Bnei Yisrael,” so that kehuna is an appropriate task for him.

We can still ask whether Pinchas’ zealousness did not have an element of violence to it. The Netziv notes that Pinchas was blessed with a covenant of peace (ibid. 12), whose role it was to protect him from any influence of the negative elements of violence that can be expected even when its context was proper.

But why did Pinchas deserve this unusual type of protection? The Netziv infers from the p’sukim’s description of Pinchas’ zealousness that it was done totally and only for the sake of Heaven. But what does that mean? Would we have expected that Pinchas had some type of old ax to grind with Zimri?!

If a regular righteous person acts forcefully to a desecration of Hashem’s Name, certainly his essential motivation is for Heaven’s sake. However, on some level, part of his reaction is in the inner feeling that an affront to his religion is an affront to him. It is, therefore, difficult to testify about him that he acted like Pinchas – bereft of all personal interest.

Since we are not on the level of Pinchas, we must always recognize the likelihood of the infiltration of personal interest into our reactions and therefore weigh and reweigh whether they are appropriate. Let us always try to strengthen the side of “for Heaven’s sake” over that of personal interest. (In the past, we saw that even under these ideal circumstances, Pinchas’ actions did cause him significant negative results.)

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend