
Editor’s Note: While Rabbi Address enjoys a well-earned vacation, the weekly d’var Torah is being provided by some of our regular JewishSacredAging.com contributors. This week, the d’var is by Rabbinic Pastor Reb Carl Viniar.
In last week’s portion, the Israelites were ready to enter the Promised Land. But the men had been seduced by Midianite women into committing idolatry, and as a result, a plague was raging. Zimri, leader of the Tribe of Shimon “approached” (read: was having public sex) with a Midianite princess. Pinchas stepped up, stabbed them through with a spear, killing them. This week’s portion starts with God praising Pinchas for his impassioned act of murder, which halted the plague.
Many of us have spent years marching for peace and fighting for every individual to have the right to choose any partner. So, I hope Pinchas’ act was shocking if not horrifying. Yet so many commentators, old and new, justify his actions. A few examples:
Eitan Cooper of the Schechter Institutes says, “I admire Pinchas, a leader who did the right thing at the right moment, against serious opposition. Some commentators have viewed him as a vigilante, who took the law into his own hands. I find him to be nothing short of extraordinary.” His extreme act stopped the idolatry and the plague, and God rewarded him.
Rashi quotes a Midrash saying that this was a challenge to Moses’ authority. Moses is married to Tzipporah, a Midianite woman, and is paralyzed to act. Hillel says in Pirkei Avot: “Where there is no man around, endeavor to be the man.” Pinchas, by inference from Hillel and Rashi was “the man.”
Rabbi Ari Kahn says on Aish.com: Sometimes, biblical stories are complex, other times, straightforward, morally unequivocal: right and wrong, good and bad. The killing of Zimri by Pinchas is an open and shut case. In this case, a moral outrage was spreading in the camp. Pinchas had to step in to end the disgrace. The reward he is given leaves little room for doubt: Pinchas is good, Zimri is bad. Pinchas is right, Zimri is wrong.
There is an explanation that is not a justification. We recognize the points from discussions we have all had with our children and grandchildren. According to some, Zimri’s behavior was not the result of sexual urge. Zimri’s behavior was based on his belief that all religious and spiritual practices were equally valid. He believed Israelite religion (let’s call it Judaism) should accept other types of spiritual and religious expression. He saw the exclusionary attitude of Jewish tradition, but believed that non-Jews, and non-Jewish forms of worship, should be brought into the Israelite camp. In case you have not noticed, this is still a divisive issue in the Jewish community.
Pinchas killed for the exclusivity and supremacy of his God. Too many people have been killed for this reason. We who have been around long enough to see the dangers of zealotry need to be on the lookout for people who think inclusion of the other is a sin, and then want to deliver punishment. We need to use our remaining time to teach the compassion and empathy we have learned over the years. We need to teach the acceptance of people who are different from us, even if their shadow is purple (google it!). Pinchas committed what today should be seen as a violent, horrible unjustifiable act. We must take action. We must use all of our accumulated wisdom and experience to teach the next generations how to fight for justice and inclusion, and to prevent circumstances that give rise to the Pinchas’s of the world.
I thought when I single-handedly ended the Viet Nam war in 1975, I had done my job. Yet our world is now facing so many dangers. I cannot yet rest.
A couple of observations:
The Israelites were willingly seduced by the Midianite women, possibly prostitutes. If so, the women were just plying the world’s oldest profession. Didn’t Judah casually partake of the services of who appeared to him as a prostitute (not knowing that she was his daughter in law Tamar)? Killing them because the boys were being boys makes as much sense as for a patron of McDonalds to burn down the restaurant after he became obese from over consumption of junk food.
As a reward, Pinchas, son of Eleazar (the elder surviving son of Aaron the priest) is to inherit the priesthood, an honor that will be accorded to his descendants for all time. Isn’t this nepotism? We see here that the title of high priest is to be inherited, not based on moral fortitude or capability. Could it be that Gd considered the impetuous Pinchas to be a “loose cannon”, and by granting him the title of High Priest, he would assume a ceremonial position without leadership duties and so the chances of misadventure were minimized, and he may have been effectively neutralized.