בס”ד
A THOUGHT ABOUT PARSHAT PINCHAS 5784
LEADERSHIP, ETHICS, AND RESPONSIBILITY
Pinchas and the Covenant of Priesthood
The Jewish priesthood (kehunah) was initially established through Aaron and his four sons—Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. This is detailed in the Book of Exodus (Exodus 28:1), where G-d commands Moses to set apart Aaron and his sons for the priestly service. Aaron and his sons were consecrated and installed into their priestly roles through a special ceremony involving anointing, sacrifices, and specific garments (Leviticus 8-9).
But Pinchas (Phinehas in English) the son of Eleazar, was not included in the priesthood that was established through the consecration of Aaron and his sons. This is because Pinchas at that time was a son of Eleazar, and G-d had commanded that the priesthood would consist only of Aaron and his sons, and any subsequent sons and patrilineal Jewish male descendants of sons that would be born to them after they were consecrated. Therefore, Pinchas, who had already been born to Eleazar, had the status of a regular Levite.[1]
However, G-d made a covenant with him that he would become a priest after all, as we read in Numbers 25:13. The reason why G-d did this is described in verse 11: he turned away the wrath of
G-d from the children of Israel. What had happened?
| 11 ‘Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy. | יא פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, הֵשִׁיב אֶת-חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת-קִנְאָתִי, בְּתוֹכָם; וְלֹא-כִלִּיתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקִנְאָתִי. |
| 12 Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace; | יב לָכֵן, אֱמֹר: הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, שָׁלוֹם. |
| 13 and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his G-d, and made atonement for the children of Israel.’ | יג וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו, בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם–תַּחַת, אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹקיו, וַיְכַפֵּר, עַל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. |
To understand why Pinchas received the covenant of priesthood, we need to revisit the previous Parsha, Parsha Balak. In this Parsha, Balaam tries to curse the people of Israel, but he fails because
G-d forced him to bless the Jews instead of cursing them. However, Balaam did not abandon his wicked plans so easily, and he devised a new strategy to harm the Jewish people. According to Rashi, Balaam advised the Midianites and Moabites to coerce the Jews to commit idolatry, through first seducing them into immoral behavior at Baal Peor.[2] So the Midianites sent their women into the camp of the Jewish people to arouse the men and then refuse to have relations with them unless they would first worship the idol Peor. This plan seemed to work because God became angry with the Jewish men who gave in, and a plague broke out among those who sinned but were not executed by the courts due to lack of witnesses. In all, 24,000 men died through execution or the plague.[3] One of the leaders of the people, Zimri the son of Salu, a prince of a paternal house of the tribe of Simeon, attempted to stops the deaths by discrediting Moses, who had married a Midianite woman before the Torah was given. Zimri confronted Moses and publicly engaged in illicit relations with Cozbi, daughter of a Midianite king named Zur.
The distraught Jewish leaders who should have intervened to stop Zimri had forgotten what to do. But according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 82a), when Pinchas saw what was happening he was reminded of the ruling that “a zealous Jew can take the law into his own hands and strike down a Jewish man who has relations publicly with a gentile woman.” With Moshe’s blessing (see Rashi on Numbers 25:7), Phinehas killed both the prince Zimri and the princess Cozbi with one thrust of a spear, and the plague came to an end.[4]
If Phinehas had not done this, then G-d in His anger would have wiped out the entire Israelite tribe of Simeon.2
Parallels to Modern Ethical Challenges
When I read the story of Pinchas, it reminded me of an incident at my work several years ago.** A toddler hadn’t shown up at the nursery school, and the reason given by the father sounded concerning. Eventually, through indirect means, the school leadership found out that this toddler was staying at a holiday resort due to complex issues at home. If we knew which holiday resort they were at, we could contact them and possibly offer our help.
Unfortunately, we often hear in the media about what people can do under extreme stress and how a parent’s actions sometimes lead to tragedies affecting entire families. In this context, I felt a compelling need to do something. But what was the wisest course of action in this situation?
I considered calling the holiday resorts to inquire about the family. However, due to privacy laws, the resorts would not provide information about their guests. Still, I thought it might be morally justified to express my concern, hoping the resort would keep an eye on the family and possibly prevent a family tragedy.
All of this was discussed with my supervisor. After all, supervisors ultimately decide what needs to be done in such situations. I felt calling was necessary, but my supervisor believed we should wait. I accepted this decision, recognizing she was ultimately responsible, even in this situation, and it would not have been appropriate for me to go against her advice and make the call.
Thankfully, this family did not make irreversible decisions. But the situation stayed on my mind for a long time. What if a family tragedy had occurred? How guilty would I have felt for following my supervisor’s advice with which I disagreed?
In the story of Pinchas, he acted with the “blessing of Moses,” but that was only an affirmation from Moses that Pinchas had remembered the Torah law correctly. In fact, in the Torah law of a zealot (which applies in only two cases *), if a person asks permission to execute the offender on the spot, he must be told that it’s forbidden to do so. By asking for permission, he has revealed that he is not a true zealot. This dilemma remains a difficult question for me: should we ask our supervisors for permission when something requires an urgent action, or follow our own moral compass? What was the right moral choice in this case?
This incident underscores the importance of having a personal rabbi or trusted advisor, and studying the halacha as it applies for you, so you will know how to act when a situation arises. Discussing such dilemmas with a spiritual leader can help in making the right decisions conscientiously in difficult situations.[5]
Learning Points
Moral Fortitude: Pinchas showed extraordinary fortitude by intervening from a deep sense of moral obligation. This raises questions about when to act according to authority versus personal convictions in leadership roles.
Ethical Dilemmas: Pinchas’ actions resonate with modern ethical challenges, such as navigating privacy laws while intervening in potential crises. This underscores the importance of consulting ethical guidelines and trusted advisors.
Guidance and Reflection: Access to spiritual leaders and mentors offers invaluable insights for making ethically sound decisions in complex situations, emphasizing the need for ethical reflection and guidance.
These insights from Pinchas’ narrative shed light on timeless principles of leadership, ethics, and responsibility, applicable in both historical contexts and contemporary dilemmas.
By Angelique Sijbolts
With Thanks to Rabbi Tani Burton and Dr. Michael Schulman for the input and feedback
Footnotes/ sources
[1] Rashi on Numbers 25:13
[2] Ramban on Numbers 25:1 and Rashi on Numbers 26:13.
[3] Sefaria
[4] The Covenant of Peace
Rabbi Frand On the Weekly Torah Portion
by Rabbi Yissocher Frand
[5] The Torah law of a zealot as it applies for Gentiles, in the case of a Gentile blashemer, is included in The Divine Code, Part V (The Prohibition of Murder).
* Only in this case and the case one who curses G-d’s Tetragrammaton Name.
** All personal data have been changed for privacy reasons. The example is only about the moral dilemma.
© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further.
Our blogs may contain text/quotes/references/links that include copyright material of Mechon-Mamre.org, Aish.com, Sefaria.org, Chabad.org, and/or AskNoah.org, which we use in accordance with their policies.
