Torah of Recovery: Pinchas 5784/2024

Torah of Recovery's Mission: To interrogate Torah deeply so as to create space, connection and safety for people with addictive patterns and behaviors that have led them to a crisis of the spirit to tell and shape their stories for the purpose of healing, growth, and a return to their whole selves.

Every Thursday at 12 Noon Pacific, 3 pm Eastern

REGISTER HERE FOR THE WEEKLY LINK (for security purposes)
(And no, we won't give anyone your email address)
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYldeitqTIoHtI-pkfmXu8UYUUe8EA4FY4o

Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, p 2311

Since this episode begins precisely at the entrance to the Tabernacle (the Tent of Meeting; v. 6), it certainly appears that the qubbh here refers to the inside of the Tabernacle. This is confirmed by what happens next.

---- Parashah begins below ----

Rashi on Numbers 25:11

(1) פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן PHINEAS THE SON OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST — Because the tribes spoke disparagingly of him, saying, “Have you seen this grandson of Puti the father of whose mother used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifices (see Exodus 6:25 that Eleazar his father had married a daughter of Putiel who is identified with Jethro; see Rashi on that verse and Exodus 18:1), and he has dared to slay a prince of one of Israel’s tribes!”

Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bamidbar, p. 329

It sounds strange that such a reward is prescribed for such a deed. The Sages in the Jerusalem Talmud state that Pinhas' deed did not meet with approval of the religious leaders of his time, that is of Moses and the elders. One of them goes so far as to say that they wanted to excommunicate him...The Neziv (Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) expressed this idea [of giving Pinhas a 'covenant of peace' in v. 12]: 'In reward for turning away the wrath of the Holy One blessed be He, He blessed him with the attribute of peace, that he should not be quick-tempered or angry.'

Rabbi Mark Borovitz, Finding Recovery and Yourself in Torah, p. 281

God gives Pinchas a b’rit shalom (a covenant of peace) which gives Pinchas what he needs to be a whole person, to be someone who is now armed and able to deal with all of life’s circumstances in proper measure. Becoming a member of the priesthood causes Pinchas to help people who have erred come back and return to God, decency, and community. God is telling us that to be a priest, to be someone who helps others return, we must ourselves have had the experience of straying from the path.

George Robinson, Essential Torah, p. 481-482

The time has come for Moshe to choose his successor as leader of the Israelites. He and we know that he will not be allowed to enter Kina’an and the people will need a firm leader who can handle himself with violence if necessary. The chosen one is Yehoshua. Why not Pinkhas? Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Pinkhas, who has been rewarded for an act of violence at the outset of the Torah portion, who seems to be a true zealot for Adonai, isn’t considered as the next leader of the Hebrews? What does the choice of someone else tells us about God’s desires and about the nature of leadership for this people God has selected? The incident at the end of the previous parashah in which Pinkhas kills Zimri and Kozbi, the Hebrew and Midianite couple who have sex in what may well be the Tent of Meeting (we’ll come back to this all-important detail in a moment), is one that has provoked some of the most painful self-examination in all of Torah commentary. Commentators are divided on whether Pinkhas’s act of violence was acceptable or not, on whether his zealotry is a good or bad trait, and on whether this act is what disqualifies him from consideration as Moshe’s successor.

Sanhedrin 82a, 12

Zimri said to Moses: Son of Amram, is this woman forbidden or permitted? And if you say that she is forbidden, as for the daughter of Yitro to whom you are married, who permitted her to you? The halakha with regard to the proper course of action when encountering a Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman eluded Moses. All of the members of the Sanhedrin bawled in their weeping, and that is the meaning of that which is written: “And they are crying at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 25:6)

Sanhedrin 82b, 4

The ministering angels sought to push [Pinchas] away because he spoke harshly to God. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Leave him be; he is a zealot, son of a zealot, from the tribe of Levi, who was zealous in avenging the violation of his sister Dinah; he is an alleviator of wrath, son of an alleviator of wrath, a descendant of Aaron, who alleviated the wrath of God during the plague that followed the assembly of Korah.

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 918

The Talmud claims that, had Phinehas asked the rabbinical court if it was permitted to kill Zimri and Cozbi, citing halakhah to justify his request, the court would have told him: 'The law may permit it but we do not follow the law!'

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation: Numbers, location 4922, Kindle edition

Not by accident did tradition fix the parasha break between Parashat Balak and Parashat Pinĥas at the most counterintuitive point, between Pinhas’ act (Num. 25:6–9) and the divine verdict on the act (Num. 25:10–15). The result is that we are forced to wait a week before hearing whether he did right or wrong. It is as if the sages wanted us to live with that ambiguity so that we would not too readily conclude that Pinhas was a hero. He was, but his act was fraught with moral hazard.

Sanhedrin 106a, 7-11

§ Balaam said to Balak: “Behold, I go to my people; come therefore, and I shall advise you what this people shall do to your people” (Numbers 24:14). Ostensibly, he should have said: What your people shall do to this people. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: Balaam spoke like a person who curses himself but does not wish to utter so awful a matter and instead ascribes his curse to take effect on others. Balaam said to them: The God of these Jewish people despises lewdness, and they desire linen garments, as they have no new garments; come, and I will give you advice. Make for them enclosures using wall hangings and seat prostitutes in them, with an old woman outside the enclosure and a young woman inside, and have the women sell them linen garments. Balak made for them enclosures using wall hangings from the snow mountain, the Ḥermon, until Beit HaYeshimot, and he sat prostitutes in them, with an old woman outside and a young woman on the inside. And at the time when Jewish people were eating and drinking and were glad and going out to stroll in the marketplace, the old woman would say to a Jew: Aren’t you seeking linen garments? He would enter the enclosure and ask the price, the old woman would quote him a price equal to its value, and the young woman would quote him a price less than its value. That scenario would repeat itself two or three times. And thereafter she would say to him: You are like a member of our household, sit and choose for yourself the merchandise that you want. And a jug of Ammonite wine was placed near her, and neither Ammonite wine nor gentile wine had been prohibited yet for Jews. She said to him: Is it your wish to drink a cup of wine? Once he drank the wine, his evil inclination burned within him. He then said to her: Submit to me and engage in intercourse with me. She then removed the idol that she worshipped from her lap and said to him: Worship this. He said to her: Am I not Jewish? I am therefore forbidden from engaging in idol worship. She said to him: And what is your concern? We are asking you to do nothing more than defecate in its presence. But he does not know that its worship is conducted in that manner. Once he did so, she said to him: Moreover, I will not leave you until you deny the Torah of Moses your teacher, as it is stated: “But when they came to Ba’al-Peor they separated themselves to the shameful item; and they became detestable like that which they loved” (Hosea 9:10). They devoted themselves to the disgrace of defecation, and detested the name of God.

Rabbi Mark Borovitz, Finding Recovery and Yourself in Torah, p. 284

I know that most immorality causes more destruction and spiritual death than even idolatry. When we deceive someone, we seduce ourselves into believing that we are stronger than the other person and even stronger than God. When we take advantage of others, through lies and unethical behavior, we are strengthening our false beliefs in our power. When we tidy up unethical business practices by saying, “Everyone does this” or “This is how it is in business,” we are giving a powerful boost to the lies we tell ourselves. When we blame others for our immorality, like our parents or God by saying, “This is the way I am,” we are bastardizing the divine image in which we are created and letting our evil inclination run wild.

Rabbi Shefa Gold, Torah Journeys, p. 161

Just as the archetype of the zealot emerges in our story, God commands that we take a census. Our spiritual challenge is to integrate this powerful archetypal energy in the context of the whole. For when it is split off from the whole, the zealot becomes a dangerous destabilizing force in the personality or in the community. As focused, directed power emerges and is acknowledged, we must respond immediately by taking stock, widening the perspective and integrating that force of zealotry into the whole. As the voice of truth breaks forth, we call forth a memory of the whole, so that truth can be married to kindness, and its force can be turned to healing rather than destruction. When we surround that force with values of compassion, mercy, tolerance and understanding, then the power of zealotry confers vitality and clarity upon those that experience it.

Rashi on Numbers 26:54

1) לרב תרבה נחלתו TO THE NUMEROUS THOU SHALT GIVE MORE INHERITANCE — To the tribe that had a numerous population they gave a large portion of land. Although the portions were not of equal area because, as we have now said, in all cases they assigned the portions according to the size of the tribe, yet they did so only by aid of the lot, but the lot fell by the utterance of the Holy Spirit, as is explained in Baba Batra 122a: Eleazar the Priest was clothed with the Urim and Thummim, and spake by the Holy Spirit, “If such-and-such a tribe comes up, such-and-such a territory shall come up with him”. The names of the tribes were written on twelve tablets, and those of twelve districts on twelve tablets. They mixed them in an urn, and the prince of a tribe inserted his hand in it and took out two tablets. There came up in his hand the tablet bearing the name of his tribe and the tablet relating to the district that had been declared by the Urim and Tummim to be intended for it. The lot, itself cried out, saying, “I, the lot, have come up for such-and-such a district for such-and-such a tribe”, as it is said, (v. 56) על פי הגורל by the mouth (utterance) of the lot [shall the possession thereof be divided]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 6).

Bamidbar Rabbah 21:10

(10) 10 (Numb. 27:1) “Then came forward the daughters of Zelophehad”: In that generation the women were fencing that which the men were breaching. Accordingly you find that Aaron said to them (i.e., the men in Exod. 32:2), “Take off the gold rings that are in the ears of your wives”; but the women were unwilling and protested against their husbands. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3), “So all the people took off the gold rings that were in their ears.” Thus the women did not take part in making the [golden] calf. So also in the case of the spies who had spread slander (according to Numb. 14:36), “when they returned, they made [the whole congregation] murmur against him.” A decree was issued against them, because they had said (in Numb. 13:31), “We are unable to go up [against this people for they are stronger than us].” The women, however, were not with them in their counsel. What is written above the matter (in Numb. 26:65)? “Because the Lord had said to them, ‘They shall surely die in the wilderness,’ not a man of them remained […].” [Note that Scripture speaks of] “a man,” and not of "a woman.” Because they (i.e., the men) did not want to enter the land, but the women came forward to ask for an inheritance in the land. Therefore the parashah [about the death of that generation] was written next to this parashah, because what the men broke down the women fenced in.

Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, Bewilderments, p. 263

The most striking moment in this legal drama is the moment when God approves their plea: Ken bnot Tzelofchad dovrot: “They speak ken [rightly, justly].” Before instructing Moses to give the women the family land, God speaks about their act of speech. This unprecedented divine compliment resonates powerfully toward the end of a book in which so many unhappy acts of speech have been recorded. A cacophony of language rises up from the text of this book: after all the complaints of the people, the verbal fury and distrust, after Moses’ complex failure to speak to the rock, after the Balaam narrative, with its murky projections of the problem of language as benediction and malediction, after forty years of misspeaking—five sisters achieve an act of dibbur that gains a gratified response from God, all the more intense for the misfires of the past. (Ken, God says—Yes! At last!)

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 927

God honored the daughters of Zelophehad for their faith in the Land by arranging for them to cause a law to be added to the Torah; that is why this law was not included in the original revelation at Sinai. In the same way, God honored those Israelites who did not want to miss the Pesah celebration (Num 9:6-14), by letting them be the cause of a new law.

Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, p. 2347

We can praise the Bible for how far it went, or we can be critical that it did not go farther. But we would do better to examine how far it went in its age, and how much this contributed to the transformation in the balance between men and women in the millennia that followed. The larger point is the same that I made with regard to slavery: The Torah does not forbid it and attempt to bring it to an end overnight. It rather gives laws of treatment of slaves—which involved granting respect, rights, and compassion for slaves. And this eventually undermined slavery as an institution. The diminution of slavery and the increase of women’s rights are two of the major developments of the past century. The Torah’s laws played an early and determinative part in birthing and nurturing both of these revolutions.

Shabbat 96b, 19-20

On the topic of the wood gatherer, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The wood gatherer mentioned in the Torah was Zelophehad, and it says: “And the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man gathering wood on the day of Shabbat” (Numbers 15:32), and below, in the appeal of the daughters of Zelophehad, it is stated: “Our father died in the desert and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons” (Numbers 27:3). Just as below the man in the desert is Zelophehad, so too, here, in the case of the wood gatherer, the unnamed man in the desert is Zelophehad; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, Bewilderments, p. 283

God tells Moses, “Ascend this Mountain of Avarim—of Transitions” (Num. 27:12). Transitions haunt this section of the Torah. Joshua is initiated into his new role as substitute for Moses. Moses lays (ve-samachta) hands on him in the presence of the whole community and invests him with some of his own authority (27:18–20). This laying on of hands—semichah—will in later generations characterize the conferral of rabbinic authority. At this moment, however, semichah means the transmission, the transfer of some of Moses’ power, his hod—his radiance of authorship—to Joshua.

Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bamidbar, p. 340

Moses' children did not inherit their father's exalted position, nor were they, indeed, granted any appointment. Their names are not even referred to n the passage concerned where it is stated that a man be appointed over the congregation...Nowhere in Moses' prayer regarding his successor is there any echo of the faithful shepherd's grievance that he had brought his flock thus far, and was not even granted to lead them the longed-for, final goal. Neither do we find any trace of a suggestion by Moses to nominate his sons to succeed him. All that finds expression is his concern for the welfare of his flock Israel.

Midrash Tanhuma Pinchas, 10

Moses asked from the Holy One, blessed be He, at the time of his death, when he said to him, “Master of the world, the temperament of each and every person is revealed to You; and the temperament of one person is unlike the temperament of another. Now that I am departing from them, would You please, if You so desire to appoint a leader over them, appoint over them a person who will bear with each and every one of them according to his temperament.”

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 929

God commands Moses to 'lay your hand upon' Joshua (v. 18) but Moses lays both hands on him (v. 23), transferring power without reservation or ambivalence, a rare gesture for s man who has been accustomed to authority for so long. What must have been going through Moses' mind as he reflected on achievements and frustrations of the past, and the awareness of all that he yearned to do and would never be able to do?

Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, p. 2350

27:15. Moses spoke to YHWH. This is the last time that Moses is quoted as saying anything to God. In Deuteronomy Moses will report to the people his past conversations with God, but these are the last words of Moses to God in the Torah. And his last concern is: the people—that they should have a leader. And note that all of this draws us back to Moses’ first meeting with God, at the burning bush. God begins the charge to Moses there by expressing concern for the people: “I’ve seen the degradation of my people” (Exod 3:7). So God’s first charge to Moses and Moses’ last request of God are both about the good of the people.

Rambam on Numbers 28:7

(1) AND THE DRINK-OFFERING THEREOF — “of wine. IN THE HOLY PLACE THOU SHALT POUR — upon the altar they shall be poured out. A POURING FORTH OF STRONG DRINK — wine which has an intoxicating power. This excludes wine straight from the [wine-]press.” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, for the Rabbis have already said: “Wine straight from the wine-press one may not bring [for the drink-offering, since it is non-intoxicating], but if one did bring [such wine], it is valid” [and there is no need to bring other wine]. Thus [we see that] wine straight from the wine-press is not excluded on the basis of a [Scriptural] verse [for in that case, he would have to bring other wine instead of it], but it is merely a prohibition of the Rabbis to be observed as a rule directly [but if not observed, it does not invalidate the drink-offering]. However, [the correct interpretation is]: “Strong drink, to exclude wine which is diluted [with water],” which is invalid even if already brought [so that one must bring other wine which is undiluted]. And this is how it is interpreted in the Sifre. And there they [furthermore] said: “In the holy place thou shalt pour — it was to be poured in the holy place, and in the holy place it was absorbed.”

Rashi on Numbers 28:15:1

(1) ושעיר עזים וגו׳ AND ONE KID OF THE GOATS [FOR A SIN OFFERING] — All goats brought as additional offerings are intended to atone for those sins committed by causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary or its holy things, — all as is set forth in Treatise Shevuot 9a. The goat of the New Moon differs from other goats brought as additional offerings in the fact that the word לה׳ is stated of it: that it is a sin offering to the Lord... its Aggadic explanation is as follows: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Bring an atonement offering for My sake, because I diminished the size of the Moon" (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:16; Shevuot 9a, Chullin 60b).