The issue we
encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pinchas has already been introduced to
us at the end of last week’s Parashat Balak. Pinchas, A’haron’s grandson and
El’azar’s firstborn, observed the sinful act committed by an Israelite, a
leader of the tribe of Shim’on (Simeon) with a Midianite woman, and slew both
of them. He thus “made atonement” (25:13) for the sons of Yisrael and brought
to an end the plague that stuck them. The word used here for “made atonement”
is none other than “(vay)cha’per,” of the root k.f.r, which we know as
“kippur,” or “covering.” Pinchas’
action, along with the penalty paid for by the two sinners, had propitiated for
Yisrael’s iniquity of “clinging to Ba’al Pe’or” (ref. 25:3). T’hilim (Psalms)
106 also refers to this episode: “They also were joined to
Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead; and provoked Him with their
deeds; and a plague broke out among them. Then Phinehas stood and intervened,
and the plague was stayed” (vv 28-30).
In this latter reference Pinchas’ act is describes as – (vay)fa’lel
(p/f.l.l) – which is interposing, intervening, mediating,
as well as judging and pleading. It is from this root that the word “t’fila,”
prayer, is derived. Pinchas’ action
seems to have been multi-facetted.
The two involved were, Zimri the son of Salu
was one of the leaders of the tribe of Shim’on. The Midianite woman, Cozbi, was
likewise a daughter of a “head of the people of a father's house in Midian” (25:15).
Leading Yisrael astray definitely ranked high on the list of priorities of the
Mo’av-Midian coalition. The protagonists’ names in this Parasha, similarly to
the one who gave his name to last week’s reading (Bil’am), are also of
interest. Thus, Pinchas appears to be an Egyptian name, having typical
characteristics such as the name of the town of Tach’pan ’ches
(Jeremiah 44:1) and that of Tach’peh’nis
As noted
above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian was
a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (Gen. 25:2). The name stems from the verb
“din” (dalet, yod, noon), meaning primarily to “judge or mete
justice,” referring to all aspects of government. It is the root for the
word “medina” – province. However, this
particular form – “Midian” - is related to “mah’don,” which albeit of
the same root (as “judgment”) means “strife or contention” (e.g.
Prov. 15:18; Jer. 15:10; Hab. 1:3 etc.). Thus, far from being a people of
judgment (that is of justice and righteousness), the Midianites’ affairs were
handled by resorting to magic and witchcraft and all forms of deception, as was
so evident in the character of Bil’am. The
fact that they were not wholly unaware of the Elohim of Yisrael and of His ways
(as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law and even by Bil’am himself),
only made the “din” (‘judgment’) pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more
severe. Hence, YHVH says to Moshe: “Vex
the Midianites; and you shall strike them; For they are vexers to you, because
of the wiles with which they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in
the matter of Cozbi the daughter of a ruler of Midian, their sister, who was
struck in the day of the plague because of the matter of Peor” (25:17-18). Highlighted in this passage is the cunning posture
and frame of mind of the Midianites, illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The
order from on High here is “to vex and strike” the Midianites, since they
“vexed you.” “Vexing or harassing” in this case is “tza’ror”
(tz.r.r - tzadi, resh, resh), meaning, “showing hostility,” while
“tzorer” is an “enemy or adversary.” In
Parashat Balak, we heard Bil’am say of Yisrael: “he shall eat up the
nations that are his foes – tza’rav” (24:8 italics added). In next week’s
Parashot Matot and Ma’sa’ey, a condition will be placed before Yisrael: “And if
you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it
shall be, those whom you let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and
as goads in your sides. And they will vex – (ve)tza’ra’ru - you
on the land in which you are living” (33:55 italics added). Haman, the Jews’
cruel adversary, was named in Esther 3:10; 8:1, “tzorer ha-Yehudim,” the “foe
of the Jews.” Haman the Agagite was a descendent of the royal house of Amalek,
about whom it was said, “Amalek threatened the body of the people [of Yisrael],
whilst Midian threatened its soul.” [1]
The opening section of the Parasha presents two words
that are used several times within a few verses. The first one is repeated four
times in 25:11-13, and it is “jealous,” “zealous,” or “jealousy.” The root of “jealousy/zealousness” is kano Israel
Chapter 26 is devoted to the census of the leaders of
the tribes and of all those who were twenty-years old and above; that is, those
eligible for army service. It is
according to their relative number that the land of Yisrael Israel
In chapter 27, we meet Tzlofchad’s daughters who demand
their possession saying: “Our father died in the wilderness… and had no son.
Why is our father's name taken away from the midst of his family because there
is no son to him? Give us an inheritance among our father's brothers”
(vv. 3,
4 emphasis added). Inheritance in
this case is “achuza,” of the verb achoz (root a.ch.z. alef, chet,
zayin), meaning to “grasp or hold” and hence to “possess
and possession.”
When YHVH reminds
Moshe that his day of departure is close at hand, the latter expresses his
concern regarding the future: “Let YHVH, the Elohim of the spirits of all
flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who may go out before them, and who
may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in, so
that the congregation of YHVH may not be as sheep to whom there is no shepherd”
(27:16,17). Evidently, Moshe understands the integrated composition of man,
being both flesh and spirit while at the same time also recognizing that YHVH
knows his creatures through and through. In describing the need for a leader,
Moshe underscores “going out before (the people)… going in before (them)…
leading out… and bringing in…” Is Moshe subtly making reference to the possible
fate of the next leader, lest it be similar to his own (that is, staying behind
and not entering the land with the rest of the people)? Whether that is the case or not, Moshe
displays no bitterness when told to “take Joshua, a man in whom is the spirit”
(v. 18), echoing the “spirits” mentioned in verse 16 above. YHVH instructs
Moshe how to ordain his successor, which Moshe follows implicitly; “as YHVH
commanded” (v. 23), in spite of what was no doubt a grave disappointment to him.
However, since Moshe had not been deceived or embittered, his disappointment is
not like the description found in Ee’yov (Job) 41:9: “Behold, your expectation
is false [nich’zeva, of the root k.z.v examined above].” Neither/was Moshe’s experience like that of the faithless
ones from among the people of Yisrael who sought gratification in the wrong
places and from that which was not able to satisfy.
In Parashat Balak (and Pinchas) we
encountered the Israelites’ harlotry and idolatry instigated by the daughters
of Moab Israel Israel
Moshe, however, did not obey this very
specific order accurately. Instead, He spoke to the nation’s judges, telling them
to kill (not specifying how): “each man his men who were joined to Baal of
Peor" (25:5). This time Moshe’s
delegation of power to his subordinates was not according to YHVH’s judicial
order. That being the case, the plague continued and additionally a leader from
the tribe of Simeon, as we noted, dared to defy and blatantly rebel against
YHVH by fornicating in the sight of all the congregation of Israel
It was said about Pinchas that, in his
jealousness and zeal for YHVH he atoned for the Sons of Israel,
resulting in a covenant of peace, as well as in a covenant of an everlasting
priesthood for him and for his seed (25:12, 13). As we know, Psalm 106:30-31 adds
a couple more terms regarding the scene at hand: “Then Phinehas stood up and intervened/
mediated/interjected, and the plague was stopped. And that was accounted to him for righteousness
to all generations forevermore” (italics added).
Thus, in order to appease YHVH, according to
His specifications, in the case of this most horrendous act of sin and
transgression there were several requirements and legalities. First, the
leaders had to be held accountable with the consequential requirement of being hanged
in broad daylight. When that order was not followed implicitly, and another
brazen act of defilement was performed in public, it took the piercing unto
death of the offenders to restore righteousness, interpose, atone, and
propitiate for all Israel, who without that would have all perished (by the
plague).
Moreover, in the act of the fornication of
the masses, as well as the single act of the Simeonite leader Zimri, there was
not only a clinging/joining/adhering to the idol of Baal Peor, but also a
joining and becoming one with the enticing harlots. Thus, Israel Israel , because he was zealous with My zeal
among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel
The above facts and especially the responses
to the sin so flagrantly displayed, help shed light on the judicial aspects of
Yeshua’s atoning act on His execution stake. YHVH, as the jealous
husband, had to see to it that His bride’s inherent sinful condition by which she
had been enticed to betray Him would be propitiated and atoned for. In the Baal
Peor incident, it was also YHVH’s house that was defiled in the process. We see
Yeshua’s response to the peddling that took place in the Temple
“…Elohim set forth as a propitiation by
His [Yeshua’s] blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because
in His forbearance Elohim had passed over the sins that were previously
committed…” (Romans 3:25). With
the requirement of blood in order to propitiate for the sins committed by the
Israelites, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews
9:22), Pinchas’ action fulfilled YHVH’s righteousness, or at least foreshadowed
the ultimate act of righteousness that was to come.
Pinchas’ reward was a covenant of peace, and
of everlasting priesthood (ref. Number 25:12,13). Later on, Israel
Numbers 25, therefore, presents YHVH’s legal
requirements for atonement in a most detailed and graphic way, both in what
preceded Pinchas’ interposing act, and afterwards. We thus see that Yeshua’s
action and position met every requirement to the full and complete satisfaction
of His Father.
[1] New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans.
Aryeh Newman. Eliner
Library, Department for Torah Education and
Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc.,
2 The New Brown,
Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody ,
Mass.
3 Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press,
No comments:
Post a Comment