“Because he was zealous for his G-d and he atoned for Bnai Yisrael, he and his descendants after him will have a permanent covenant of priesthood.” (BeMidbar 25:13)
Parshat Balak ends with an account of Moav’s attempt
to corrupt Bnai Yisrael. The nation of
Moav recruits the young women of the nation.
They are sent into the camp of Bnai Yisrael with orders to seduce the
men. Once the seduction is
accomplished, the women entice the men to participate in idolatry.
This plan almost succeeds. The young women are successful in seducing some of the men. A princess of Midyan – Kazbi, the daughter
of Tzur – actually succeeds in seducing one of the leaders of the shevet of
Shimon – Zimri, the son of Salu.
Pinchas, the grandson of Ahron, intervenes. He executes Zimri and Kazbi while they are
in the act of fornication.
Our parasha
begins with an account of the rewards received by Pinchas. Among these rewards, Hashem promises Pinchas
a permanent covenant of priesthood.
What is the meaning of this blessing?
Superficially, it seems that this covenant endowed
Pinchas and his descendants with the priesthood. They were made Kohanim. However, Pinchas was that grandson of
Ahron. The descendants of Ahron were
already chosen to serve as the Kohanim! What is Hashem giving to Pinchas that he
does not already possess?
In fact, it is not at all clear that Pinchas and his
descendants were already appointed as Kohanim. How is this possible? The Talmud in Tractate Zevachim discusses
this issue. The Talmud explains that
there are two opinions regarding the identity of the original Kohanim. The opinions differ on a simple question. Who were the original Kohanim? Were the only
first Kohanim the sons of Ahron? Alternatively, did this group include all of
Ahron’s descendants alive at that time?
What is the difference between these two possibilities? Pinchas was a grandson of Ahron. He was Ahron’s descendant. However, he was not Ahron’s son. According to the first opinion, only the sons
of Ahron were the original Kohanimn. Their descendants who were born subsequently
also became Kohanim. However, descendants already born were not
included in the Kehunah – the
Priesthood. This means that Pinchas was
not one of the original Kohanim. Neither could his descendants serve as Kohanim. He was not a son of Ahron.
His descendants could not claim descent from a Kohen.
According to the second opinion, all the descendants
of Ahron were included in the original group of Kohanim. Pinchas was a
grandson of Ahron. He was a
descendant. Therefore, he and his
children were already included in the Kehunah.[1]
Rashi adopts the first opinion. He indicates that Pinchas was not one of the
original Kohanim.[2] Maimonides sides with the second
opinion. He maintains that Pinchas was
included among the original Kohanim.[3]
Our pasuk
must be interpreted according to each of these opinions. According to the first opinion, our passage
is easily understood. Pinchas and his
children were not originally included in the Kehunah. At this point, he
and his descendants are granted Kehunah. This was part of his reward for acting
zealously on behalf of Hashem. In our pasuk, the Almighty creates a permanent
change in the status of Pinchas and his descendants. They will now be Kohanim
and have the same status as Ahron’s sons and their progeny.[4]
However, according to the second opinion, our pasuk is not as easily understood. According to this opinion, Pinchas and his
descendants already possessed the status of Kehunah. What new office is given to Pinchas in our
passage?
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra proposes an answer to this
question. He explains that the passage
does not represent a promise of Kehunah. Pinchas and his descendants already had this
status. Instead, in our pasuk, Hashem awards Pinchas the office Kohen Gadol. Pinchas and his
descendants will hold this office.[5]
Gershonides observes that most of those who held the
office of Kohen Gadol were descendants of Pinchas.
However, there were exceptions.
Some of those who served as Kohen
Gadol were descendants of
Itamar. How can these exceptions be
reconciled with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the pasuk?
Gershonides responds that Hashem did not tell
Pinchas that every Kohen Gadol would be one of his descendants. Instead, Hashem promised that this office
would always be associated with the descendants of Pinchas. The office would never be transferred to a
different family. At times, there would
not be a fitting descendant of Pinchas to hold the office. Under such circumstances, the Kohen Gadol would come from the family of Itamar. Nonetheless, this interruption will only be
temporary. The office will always
return to the descendants of Pinchas.
Geshonides maintains that this is an example of a
general principle. Hashem’s blessings
often involve some element of permanency.
For example, kingship is awarded to the shevet of Yehudah. This does not mean that there will never be
a king who is not from the shevet of Yehudah.
Geshonides points out that such an interpretation is untenable. At times, there may not be an appropriate
candidate for kingship from the shevet.
Alternatively, sometimes the shevet will deserve to be punished. Under these circumstances, the kingship must
temporarily be transferred to another shevet.
This is not an abrogation of the blessing. This kingship always returns to Yehudah. Any interruption is temporary. The blessing does not promise that there
will never be an interruption. It
promises that the kingship will never be permanently removed from the shevet.[6]
“Be an enemy unto the people of Midyan and strike them. For they acted as enemies towards you through their plotting. They plotted against you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Kazbi the daughter of Tzur their sister who was killed on the day of the plague for the matter of Peor.” (BeMidbar 25:17-18)
Hashem commands Moshe to treat the people of Midyan
as enemies. Bnai Yisrael are commanded
to make war with them. This is because
Midyan allied with Moav. They joined in
the plot to corrupt Bnai Yisrael.
The pasuk
explains that Midyan shared responsibility for the “matter of Peor.” This phrase is not difficult to
interpret. The women of Midyan and Moav
attempted to induce the men of Bnai Yisrael to engage in idolatry. The idolatrous entity they introduced to
Bnai Yisrael was Peor. The pasuk admonishes the people to strike
Midyan in response to this nation’s efforts to introduce the worship of Peor
among Bnai Yisrael. However, the pasuk adds that the people of Midyan
should also be treated as enemies because of the “matter of Kazbi the daughter
of Tzur.”
This phrase is difficult to understand. Kazbi was one of the women recruited to
participate in the seduction of the men of Bnai Yisrael. She was one of the specific women who were
involved in the matter of Peor. It
seems that the “matter of Peor” and the “matter of Kazbi” are two references to
the same incident and evil. Why does
the pasuk refer to the incident with
both of these descriptions? Why is the
incident described as the matter of Peor and as the matter of Kazbi?
The commentaries offer various answers to this
question. According to Rashi, the pasuk is not only an admonishment to
strike against Midyan. The pasuk is also a warning. Hashem commands Bnai Yisrael to wage war
with Midyan and explains the urgency of this mission. Midyan is a dangerous adversary.
This nation is completely committed to the destruction of Bnai
Yisrael. What is the indication of this
commitment? The nation sent Kazbi, the
daughter of Tzur, into the camp of Bnai Yisrael. They assigned her the role of seductress and harlot. This is remarkable! Kazbi was the daughter of Tzur. Tzur was one of the kings of Midyan. The people of Midyan were willing to defile
a princess in order to destroy Bnai Yisrael.
This is indicative of extreme, self-destructive hatred.[7] Bnai Yisrael must protect itself from this
desperate enemy.
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra offers a different explanation of the passage. He explains that the pasuk is providing an enumeration of reasons for the war Bnai Yisrael is to wage. The first reason is that Bnai Yisrael must respond to the actions already taken by Midyan. Midyan plotted against Bnai Yisrael. Midyan attempted to corrupt Bnai Yisrael. Second, Bnai Yisrael should be mindful of the future. Pinchas had killed Kazbi, the daughter of Tzur. Tzur was a king. His daughter was a princess. Surely, the people of Midyan would wish to avenge the death of their princess! In short, Midyan had attempted to destroy Bnai Yisrael without provocation. Now, Midyan had an additional motivation – the death of their princess.[8] Bnai Yisrael must protect themselves from Midyan. They must strike their enemy before Midyan can again plot against them.
[1] Mesechet
Zevachim 101b.
[2] Rabbaynu
Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 25:13.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:12.
[4] Rabbaynu
Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 25:13.
[5] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 25:13.
[6] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1998), p 141.
[7] Rabbaynu
Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 25:18.
[8] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar
25:18.