Originally posted in June 2013. I'm posting this old dvar Torah blog post early in the week so that I'll be more motivated to write a new dvar Torah for Friday.
Artwork: Spear of Heliod, by Yeong-Hao Han |
Parashas Pinchas: Torah Zealotry
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “zealotry” as “fanatical devotion.” The WordWeb dictionary defines “zealotry” as “excessive intolerance of opposing views.” Dictionary.com defines “zealotry” as “undue or excessive zeal, or fanaticism” and “zealot.” These three definitions reflect the common notion of what “zealotry” means. According to all of these definitions, “zealotry” implies excessiveness, extremism, and a state of heightened emotion.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “zealotry” as “fanatical devotion.” The WordWeb dictionary defines “zealotry” as “excessive intolerance of opposing views.” Dictionary.com defines “zealotry” as “undue or excessive zeal, or fanaticism” and “zealot.” These three definitions reflect the common notion of what “zealotry” means. According to all of these definitions, “zealotry” implies excessiveness, extremism, and a state of heightened emotion.
This week’s parashah opens with Hashem rewarding Pinchas for an act of zealotry. The Torah itself states that Pinchas was rewarded “because he was zealous for his God.” [1] Many divrei Torah have been given about how Pinchas took matters into his own hands and acted based on single-minded devotion to the execution of Hashem’s will, in spite of personal considerations. In this short dvar Torah we will examine whether or not Pinchas’s zealotry is in line with the common notion of "religious zealotry."
We will begin by reviewing the relevant events. At the end of last week’s parashah, Bnei Yisrael are seduced by the daughters of Moav. This leads to a surge of sexual promiscuity and idolatry which results in a plague sent from Hashem. These matters escalate to the point where Zimri ben Salu, prince of the tribe of Shimon, seizes Cozbi bas Tzur, a Moabite princess, and copulates with her in front of Moshe Rabbeinu and the entire nation. It is at this critical moment that Pinchas, grandson of Aharon, stands up and skewers the sinful couple, killing them both on the spot.
It would seem, based on a simple reading of Torah she’bi’Chsav, that Pinchas acted out of spontaneous religious fervor and outrage over the sinful behavior transpiring before his eyes. However, the Torah she’baal Peh sheds a different light on Pinchas’s actions. We have a mesorah that Pinchas was acting based on a halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai [2] which he remembered upon seeing Zimri and Cozbi. This halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai states that if a person sees a Jew and a non-Jew cohabiting in public (i.e. in front of at least ten other Jewish men), then “kanoim pog’im bo techilah” (“zealots may be the first to strike them dead”).
This mesorah is reflected in the Targum Yonasan’s Aramaic translation of the pasuk: “Pinchas … saw this, arose from the congregation, and took a spear in his hand” [3], which he translates as: “Pinchas … saw this and remembered the halacha, etc.”
The Rambam spells out the particulars of this halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai [4]. For our purposes, there are three important details of the halacha that Pinchas remembered:
- The zealot is only permitted to kill the transgressors when they are in the midst of the sexual act. If he kills them even a moment beforehand or immediately afterwards, halacha considers him to be a murderer and he is liable for the death penalty.
- This decision to act zealously must be arrived at independently by the zealot, without any influence from Beis Din. If the zealot asks for permission from Beis Din to kill the transgressors, they do not instruct him to do so. He must act on his own.
- In general, whenever a person is chasing after someone to kill him, the would-be victim has a right to save his own life, even if it is necessary to kill his pursuer. This case is no different: the transgressor is permitted to save himself, even if this means killing the zealot. If this happens, and the zealot is killed before he kills the transgressor, then the transgressor is exempt from any punishment.
Suddenly, Pinchas’s decision no long seems so spontaneous! He knew that he only had a specific window of time within which he could act, and that a second too late would make him a murderer. He knew that he couldn't ask Moshe whether this was the right thing to do; he had to act based on his own conviction in his knowledge. Not only that, but he had to act cautiously and strategically, knowing full well that Zimri had the legal right to fight back and kill him in self-defense.
Now we are in a position to appreciate the difference between the “religious zealot” and the Torah zealot. The religious zealot’s actions are dictated by his emotions, whereas the Torah zealot's actions are dictated by his mind, in spite of any emotions which threaten to prevent him from acting in accordance with halacha.
Pinchas was not acting out of unbridled emotional fervor. He remembered these halachos and carefully (but quickly) decided the proper course of action based on his knowledge of halacha. In spite of the risk to his own life, he leapt into action and did what halacha determined ought to be done – regardless of what other people thought, and in spite of his own emotions to the contrary. This is the type of zealotry valued by the Torah.
[1] Sefer Bamidbar 25:11
[2] Generally speaking, all Torah-level halachos must have a source in the Torah she’bi’Chsav – whether an explicit source or an allusion which is explained by Torah she’baal Peh. The only exception to this is a special category of halachos known as “halacha l’Moshe mi’Sinai.” These halachos are not stated or even alluded to anywhere in the Torah she’bi’Chsav. Some examples are: the structural requirements and color of tefillin, the recipe for the ink used to write a Torah scroll, and the minimum shiurim (halachic measurements).
[3] Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Sefer Bamidbar 21:7
[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Kedushah, Hilchot Bios Assuros 12:4-5
It seems like the emotions are an important factor as well since halacha doesn't dictate acting, and it was Pinchas's 'jealousness" (guided by his mind) which moved him to act within the parameters of halacha. It seems that he also needed to be fueled by his emotions, but that his emotions weren't contrary to knowledge but rather had been brought in line with knowledge such that the chillul Hashem was intolerable to him. The perfected person does not act in spite of emotion, but rather has purified his emotions. I doubt a kovesh yitsro would be able to be a kanai like pinchas.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. When wrote "in spite of his emotions," I was talking about those emotions that would hold back ordinary people, such as ourselves - similar to what I wrote about here.
DeleteI'll change the wording in this post. Thanks.
Didn't he ask Moshe, a"h, about the halacha? How does beis din not instructing him to do it jive with "he remembered the halacha and said to Moshe etc" (Rashi 25:7)? Is clarifying the rule and being told "let he who remembered etc." different from instruction?
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, it is only a problem if the davka the Beis Din gives horaah. Not sure why.
DeleteI could speculate that the kenai has to act on impulse, on a raw desire to exact justice and correct a horrific wrong. By going through the process of horaah, it dilutes the raw passion of the response. Whereas, asking the guy next to you, "isn't there an idea of kenaim" while grabbing your shotgun, is still in the midst of the passion, but one that's tempered by, "am I doing the right thing." I'm not sure this clarifies it or is a valid distinction, but I would think it's something along those lines.
Delete