by Rabbi Avi Billet
The District Attorney of Manhattan dropped the murder charge against Jose Alba, partly due to the public outcry of his being arrested and held in Riker’s Island on $250,000 bond, and partly due to the reality that he was threatened by someone and defended himself through killing the man who attacked him. The surveillance video showed who was the aggressor, and who was the victim. Score one for Self Defense.
Contrast that to the story which concluded Parshat Balak, and whose aftermath opens our parsha, in which Pinchas takes a spear and stabs Zimri and Kozbi, the two of whom were committing a crime, but one which would be argued in our times as a presumably consensual act, which is at most a sin between Man and God if both Zimri and Kozbi are otherwise unattached. Therefore it is no person’s business, and Pinchas should have stayed out of it.
The Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 9:7) notes the halakha that a man who is having relations with an Aramite woman (who can be defined as a woman from any enemy nation) is to have zealots kill him. This is codified in Maimonides, and the Shulchan Arukh writes (Even HaEzer 16:2) that IF the zealots DON’T kill him, only then is he in fact subject to a punishment from heaven (kares). Raavad (on Rambam Issurei Biah 12:4) notes the need for a warning to have taken place, even and especially if the act in question is taking place in public. Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) notes that the perpetrator must be caught in the act (if the act has been completed, the zealot may not take matters into his own hand anymore). And if the zealot asks permission from the court (Bet Din) to act upon this halakhic dictate, the court may not grant permission, and he is not allowed to do what would have otherwise been his responsibility had he simply acted alone.
The fact that all of these use a circuitous argument that the justification for such action is the tale of Pinchas lends itself to remind us of a few things. First, that God’s reaction in the aftermath is what tells us with 20-20 hindsight that Pinchas did what God wanted to be done. Second, the circumstances of vigilantism are dependent on outside, unpredictable factors. Third, while this is (unlike the case of Mr. Alba) not a case of self-defense, there is a place for standing up when a crisis is unfolding and the cause of the crisis is clear (note: it must be absolutely clear), and doing what must be done to stop that crisis. In Pinchas’ defense, there was a plague devastating the people on account of the sins of Baal Pe’or, which included the immorality of the Midianite (and Moabite) women enticing the Israelite men, the Zimri case being the poster-example of this problem.
Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch noted that while the Torah tells us “And the name of the man of Israel who was struck with the Midianite woman was Zimri ben Salu, Prince of Shimon,” it does not tell us that “the name of the man who struck Zimri and Kozbi was Pinchas” because that wasn’t the goal here. Pinchas viewed himself as defending God and the Jewish people (the latter were being struck down by a plague), and the taking of Zimri’s life was of the ilk that caused him (Pinchas) only pain and stress. The Torah doesn’t call him a murderer or killer because he didn’t want to do it! He was trying to honor and sanctify heaven, and it was as if he killed the amorous couple against his own will.
It gave him no pleasure to do what he did.
This approach to this tale helps us understand why God had to award to Pinchas two covenants – the ברית שלום (a Covenant of Peace or Wholeness) and a ברית כהונת עולם (Covenant of Priesthood for Eternity).
On the one hand, Pinchas had been “grandfathered out” of being a Kohen, because he was already born when he grandfather and father became Kohanim, and it was only all males born after that time would automatically become Kohanim. Because Pinhas was already alive, he did not go through the process that would turn him into a Kohen. On another hand, Pinchas was the grandson of Aharon and the son of Elazar. Surely he was brought up in a home in which what was modeled for him were the ways of being אוהב שלום ורודף שלום – a lover and pursuer of peace.
The two covenants, then, put Pinchas in a position in which he can be a Kohen and ALSO put this episode behind him, as he will now focus solely on the spiritual side of his existence, which is to train to one day take over for his father as the Kohen Gadol, and to be a lover and pursuer of peace.
And yet, the passage in the Yerushalmi quoted above tells us that the rabbis of his time wanted to excommunicate Pinchas over the role he played here. תני שלא ברצון חכמים. ופינחס שלא ברצון חכמים א"ר יודה בר פזי ביקשו לנדותו So which one is it – did he do the right thing or the wrong thing?
It seems the “Hakhamim” were in a particular pickle, because from their vantage point, even if Pinchas was proven justified, he still put his life in danger through picking up a weapon. Even to fulfill the rule of “one who has relations with an Aramite is to be killed by a zealot” one is not required to risk one’s life. It was God’s declaration of giving Pinchas these covenants that ultimately vindicated Pinchas and demonstrated to the rabbis not to excommunicate Pinchas.
What were these covenants about?
The Bris Shalom: That he would live a long time (possibly forever) [Targum Yonatan, Seforno]; that he is untouchable, that no one could hurt him – especially the relatives of Zimri and the relatives of Kozbi [Midrash Aggadah, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, B’chor Shor, Chizkuni, Daas Zekenim]; that he is now complete as a Kohen, a status that he didn’t have earlier [Daas Zekenim, R’ Chaim Paltiel]; that he wouldn’t lose his Kehunah on account of killing someone [Chizkuni, Riv”a];
The Bris Kehunas Olam: that he could become a Kohen [Rashi, Rabbenu Bachaye]; that his line would be the Kohanim Gedolim [Targum Yonatan, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni , Netziv].
Under certain conditions, a Kohen who kills someone becomes unfit to serve as a Kohen. While he wasn’t technically a Kohen at the time of this tale, the act of killing Zimri should have nonetheless disqualified him. But it didn’t, because God, who makes the rules, declared upon him these covenants, thereby clearing the path for his ultimate destiny. That he didn’t get any joy or pleasure from killing Zimri and Kozbi certainly goes in his favor as being one who pursues peace, and pursues the sanctification of heaven.
Every time there is a news story of an individual who stops a “bad-guy” (such as what happened in Indiana this week), good people look at it and say “this is what swift justice looks like.” We can argue whether a person should let the police take care of it, but as we are learning about Uvalde (and saw in Parkland a few years ago), sometimes the police are not enough, or show up too late.
While hopefully none of us are ever challenged with the kinds of situations Pinchas faced, or even Mr. Alba faced, what we learn from both stories is the need to protect and sustain lives worth protecting.
For our purposes, we should ask ourselves, especially in this time period leading to Tisha B’Av, where and under what circumstances we would be ready to take the ultimate kind of stand. To defend the defenseless. To call out bad behavior. To stand for God and truth.
If we can recognize that which we value most, we should lift it up and cherish it. And then hopefully we too can feel that we have earned our own Covenant of Shalom – whether it be of peace, of wholeness, or of knowing that we did the right thing. And that Covenant should be one that is everlasting, one that we carry to our graves and hopefully bequeath to whoever is left to carry the torches we bear to illuminate our world with goodness and light.
No comments:
Post a Comment