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 who is his son’s 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 stayed” (vs 28-30). In this latter
reference Pinchas’
act is describes as – (vay)fa’lel (p/f.l.l, pey/fey, lamed, lamed) –
which is interposing, intervening, mediating, as well as judging
and pleading. It is from this
root that the word “t’fila” – prayer - originates. In fact, as we will find
out, Pinchas’ action was multi-facetted. In the second half of this article, his
atoning act and its judicial aspects and parallelism to Yeshua’s will be elaborated
on.
The two persons involved
in the said episode were, Zimri the son of Salu, one of the leaders of the
tribe of Shim’on, and Cozbi a Midianite woman, who, likewise was 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 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,
the Egyptian wife of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more intriguing
is the name of the Midianite princess Cozbi, which is made up of the
letters kaf, zayin, bet, yod. The first three of these, that is c.z.b,
constitute the root for the word “cazav” (or, phonetically, “kazav”),
which means to “lie, deceive, lying, deception”. Last
week we read in Bamidbar 23:19: “Elohim is not a man that He should lie...” The verb rendered there as “lie” is
“(vay)cha’zev”, which refers particularly to “being unfaithful or untrue to
one’s commitment or promise”. In a land
thirsty for water as Yisrael is, riverbeds hold a promise of being filled
during the winter. However, in the dry
season such riverbeds become waterless. Hence
a stream of water which dries up after the rainy season may be used as imagery
for that which lets one down: “You surely are to me like deceitful – ach’zav - waters which cannot
be trusted”, complains Yirmiyahu to his Creator in a moment of dark despair
(Jer. 15:18). Cozbi, too, was nothing but a bait of deception and enticement to
the people of Yisrael (cf. Prov. 5), and especially to leaders like Zimri.
Walking in the paths of temptation, away from He Who is the Way the Truth and
the Life, leads not only to disappointment but far worse… and in the case
before us, to destruction and death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls in
Yisrael’s camp (ref. Num. 25:9).
As
noted above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian
was a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (see 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” – may also be 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), only made
the “din” (‘judgment’) pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more severe. Hence,
YHVH says to Moshe: "Harass the Midianites, and attack them; for they harassed you with their schemes by
which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the
daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the
plague because of Peor” ( Num. 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 harass
and attack” the Midianites, since they “harassed you”. “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” (Num. 24:8 italics added). In Bamidbar (Numbers)
33:55 a condition will be placed before Yisrael: “But if you do not drive out the
inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you
let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in
your sides, and they shall harass – (ve)tza’ra’ru - you in the
land where you dwell”. 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
(root k.n.a. kof, noon, alef), originating in the “color produced in the face
by deep emotion” [2]. It is especially used in situations pertaining to
marriage relationship, and as “God is depicted as Israel’s husband; he is [therefore]
a jealous God… Phinehas [too] played the faithful lover by killing a man and
his foreign wife, and thus stayed the wrath of divine jealousy”. [3] The other
word that occurs five times in verses 14-18 is “smite or smitten”
and “strike” (in other translations “slay and slain”). In all
these instances the verb “nako” (n.k.h, noon, kaf, hey) is used in a
variety of conjugations. N.k.h (or its derivation “hakot”) is a very common root and may be used in many different ways,
describing fall and defeat, punishment, being beaten, smitten or hurt for a
variety of reasons. In our case, it relates to the punishment of death. But additionally...
Because/of/the/emphatic/repetition/of “jealousy/zealousness” - kano - just before
the reiteration of “nako”, it would appear that our text is underscoring
a situation in which YHVH’s “jealousy” has been provoked, resulting in a “smiting
unto death”. Clearly, a cause-and-effect ‘word picture’ is being conveyed here
by a (subtle) play on words.
Chapter 26 is devoted to the
census of the leaders of the tribes and of all those who were twenty-year-old
and above; that is, those eligible for army service. It is according to their relative number that
the land of Yisrael is to be apportioned to them: “To the many you shall
increase their inheritance, and to the few, you shall diminish their inheritance”
(v. 54 emphases added). On the other hand, in verse 62 we read that the census
of the Levites applied to “all males from a month old and upward”, but it goes
on to say that “they were not counted among the sons of Israel, because
there was no inheritance given them among the sons of Israel” (emphasis
added). “Inheritance” here (in both cases) is “nachala”, the root
of n.ch.l (noon, chet, lamed) is also a stream (“nachal”), and therefore connotes
a downward flow, meaning “a permanent possession inherited by succession”
(the Levites were told by YHVH that He was their portion – “nachala,”
Num. 18:20). A different conjugation transforms n.ch.l to “manchil”, which is
“to cause to possess” such as is seen in Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 32:8: “When the
Most High gave – “hinchil” - each nation its heritage, when he set apart the
sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the
people of Israel”.
And just as the Land of Yisrael was divvied out according to the size of each
household, so was the rest of the world divided up by YHVH, who knew that His
people would be scattered among the nations, according to the ‘quota’ of
Israelites in their midst.
In chapter 27 of our Parasha, 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” (vs. 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”. The stronger word for “possession”,
used here by these daughters certainly underscores their claim.
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 italics added). 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 highlights “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 is
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 “Elohim of the spirits” mentioned in
verse 16 above. YHVH instructs Moshe on how to ordain his successor, which
Moshe follows implicitly; “as YHVH commanded” (v. 23), in spite of what was no
doubt a grave disappointment for 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 typically sought gratification in the wrong places and from sources that were
not able to satisfy.
In
Parashat Balak (and Pinchas) we encounter the Israelites’ harlotry and idolatry
instigated by the daughters of Moab
and Midian (ref. 25:1-6). This act included sacrifices with the worshippers prostrating
before?idols,?as?well?as?sexual?immorality./It/is/no/ wonder, therefore/that/scripture/terms/it?clinging/
adhering/sticking
to Baal Pe’or” (v. 3), who was the local deity. YHVH’s anger burned against Yisrael,
and so a little later a plague broke out among them (25:8-9). YHVH addressed
Moshe in no uncertain terms, commanding him to “take all the leaders of the
people and hang them before YHVH, out in the sun, that the fierce anger
of YHVH may turn away from Israel” (25:4 literal translation, emphasis added.
Or alternately, commanding the leader to hang the ones who committed the sin).
YHVH held all the leaders responsible for these abominable acts, and His
response was to have them hung (or have them hang the sinners) in broad
daylight and in view of all of Yisrael in order to appease His righteous
indignation.
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 Shim’on, as
we noted last week and above, dared to defy and blatantly rebel against YHVH by
fornicating in the sight of all the congregation of Israel with a Midianite
princess in front of the Mishkan. It was only after the two offenders were
pierced to death that the plague (which took a substantial toll on the people –
24,000 persons died) came to a halt.
As we noted
above, it was said about Pinchas that, in his jealousness and zeal for YHVH he atoned
for the Sons of YIsrael, 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 have already seen, Psalm 106:30-31 adds a few 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
act of being hung in broad daylight (or hanging the offenders themselves). When
that order was not followed implicitly, and another brazen act of defilement
was performed in public, it took the piercing to death of the wrongdoers in
order to restore righteousness, interpose, atone, and propitiate for all YIsrael,
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, Yisrael as YHVH’s bride was joined to another, becoming one with
Baal and its priestesses. Hence the Jealous Husband (see Numbers 5:11-31) had
every right to activate the “law of jealousy” against His bride. Pinchas,
however, appeased that too, and so we read in Bamidbar 25:11 that he “has
turned back My wrath from the children of Israel,
because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the
children of Israel
in My zeal”.
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 household
that was defiled. Similarly, Yeshua responded to the peddling that took place
in the Temple
compound (see John 2:17), while the disciples associated His action with T’hilim
(Psalms) 69:9, which says: “…zeal for Your house has eaten me up…”
Above we
referred to the reoccurrence of the verb n.k.h (smite, smitten, strike,
stricken) at the beginning of the Parasha, which in Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) 53:4
in adverb form, is used to portray the One who was “smitten by Elohim” (mu’keh
Elohim). Both Matthew (27:30) and Mark (15:19) give an account of how Yeshua
was stuck/beaten/smitten on His head before being hung on the tree.
YHVH’s desired
form of reckoning with the leaders of Yisrael, who had failed miserably, was to
have them executed by hanging (or have them execute the sinners by that method)
so that the curse could be removed from the rest of the people, as it is
written: “He who is hanged is accursed of Elohim” (Deuteronomy
21:23). This was fulfilled in Yeshua, who redeemed us from the curse of sin and
of betraying Elohim, by hanging on a tree (ref. Gal. 3:13). 1st Peter
2:24 says: “Who Himself bore our sins in His own
body on the tree…” When the hanging did
not take place in the Numbers 25 episode, and when further offense was
committed, as we saw, Pinchas resorted to piercing the offenders with a
javelin. Yeshua too was pierced, in that case during His crucifixion (ref. John
19:34). In regards to the piercing, John adds, quoting Zechariah 12:10:
"They shall look on Him whom they pierced" (John 19:37).
“…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 an everlasting priesthood (ref. Number
25:12,13). Later on, Yisrael too would be receiving the promise of a “covenant
of peace” (Is. 54:10, Ez. 34:25, 37:26). Moreover, this covenant of peace was
to be eternal. It is no wonder, therefore, that the agent of propitiation,
interposing, and atoning (namely Pinchas) was also the recipient of this
covenant. The greater covenant of peace comes into effect by the Prince of
Peace (ref. Is. 9:6) who promised, over and again, peace to His followers, has brought
the Gospel of peace (ref. Eph. 2:17), and made peace through His blood (ref. Col.
1:20). And as to the everlasting priesthood… that same “agent” of righteousness
(Yeshua) was eligible for this kind of priesthood, as it says about Him:
“…where the forerunner has entered for us, even Yeshua, having become High Priest forever according to the
order of Melchizedek… But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable
priesthood” (Hebrews 6:2; 7:24).
Bamidbar (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
afterward Hence when we gaze, from this vantage point in Bamidbar, further into
the historical account it is clear that Yeshua’s action and position met every
requirement to the full and complete satisfaction of His Father.
New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans.
Aryeh Newman. Eliner
Library, Department for Torah Education and
Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed
Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.
