Shabbat Bulletin - July 11, 2020

In Parshat Pinchas, we find ourselves resolving the suspense of last week’s story regarding the actions of Pinchas, son of Elazar, grandson of Aaron. Previously, we witnessed Pinchas killing an Israelite man and Midianite woman who had been seen running off to “kanoodle”. This week we get the rest of the story, including the names of the couple- Zimiri son of Salu, of the tribe of Shimon and Cozbi, daughter of Zur, a Midianite tribal leader.

The conclusion of our text is that Pinchas’s actions are not only justified, but laudable. Pinchas’s Kanah (passion) matches God’s Kanah (passion), and as reward the plague that has visited the Israelites for engaging with Midianite women is lifted and Pinchas’s family is affirmed in its role as priests in perpetuity.

Yet, I admit, I am hesitant to accept on its face that Pinchas acted in a laudable way. To my modern ear, I find it concerning that the reaction to “forbidden love” is to kill the parties involved. The manner in which justice is executed seems out of line with the crime, and praise for Pinchas’s act dissonant with our values of fair punishment for the crime. That is not to say the act committed by Zimri and Cozbi was acceptable either- the text of our Torah is clear that the impact of a Midianite presence on the cultural and moral fabric of Israelite society was devastating to the community’s body, mind, and spirit. Perhaps even killing them was justified in some way to point out the severity of the crimes Zimri and Cozbi were committing. But again, to praise someone for doing something as extreme as killing people who were not an immediate threat, without trial and carried out by Pinchas alone, leaves me seeking another way to understand this story.

Another approach comes from the Homat Esh ( Rabbi Eleazar ben Solomon Lisser), a Polish scholar of the 18th and 19th centuries, reads the word Kanah as zealousness, not just passion. In addition, Rabbi Lisser focuses on the personal, possessive reference to God in Numbers 25:13- “his God”. We can learn from this that Pnichas’s zealousness came from a personal ownership of God’s mitzvot- that he felt he was personally accountable to fulfill God’s laws, not just that someone was.

Rabbi Lisser is especially concerned here with the possible excuse, often heard on playgrounds, “well he did it too”. More specifically, he frames Pinchas’s behavior as modeling leadership who does not look to others to excuse inaction. We can agree, without reservation, that Pinchas’s choice to kill Zimri and Cozbi offers room for him to abdicate his responsibility for his actions, or show any hesitation in his willingness to uphold the instructions laid out before the community leaders in the previous parsha relating to the specific issue of what to do about the Israelite-Midianite mixing problem. Pinchas’s choice defy any leader to justify inaction on the basis of communal inaction- each person is responsible for fulfilling the Law individually, not just communally.

Even with this insight, I remain uncomfortable with Pinchas’s actions. But I cannot fault him, or anyone else, for acting on the principles or values that drive them. There is no question that Aaron’s grandson was fulfilling the commands of God in that moment, nor can we argue that the community as a whole did not regard Pinchas’s choices favorably. Holding tension between personal obligation and social cohesion, clear personal moral imperatives and the needs of the group, is a valid tension to hold and remain aware of at all times. And so I leave you all with this- when is the right time to follow in Pinchas’s footsteps, and how do we know such a time is upon us?

May we all remain safe, healthy, and connected in these interesting times.

Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Brodie

For full instructions