Interestingly, in the previous parsha, when the Torah narrates the actual episode and Zimri’s flagrant act of licentiousness, it does not mention the identity of the perpetrators. Only now — after Pinchas acted and Zimri has been executed — is the identity of Zimri publicized. Why is this? Why is it that after Zimri has been slain, and Pinchas has received his reward, the Torah reveals who Pinchas killed? Rashi seems to address this question by saying that when the Torah records the name of the tzaddik, Pinchas, for praise, it also mentions the name of the evil perpetrator —…
Back to Home -> Pinchas ->
The Targum Yonasan says that Hashem granted Pinchas transcendence over death. He was transformed into Eliyahu Ha’navi, who will be the harbinger of the Final Redemption. Indeed, the Zohar Hakadosh writes that the Angel of Death has no dominion over he who is for the Name of Hashem, as he does over the average human being. Obviously, this statement has a deeper meaning than meets the eye. Why was Pinchas selected for this unique position? Horav Eliyahu Schlesinger, Shlita, cites a pasuk in this parsha (27:16) in which Moshe asks Hashem to appoint his successor, “May Hashem, G-d of spirits…
Pinchas received his reward from Hashem – the covenant of peace. He represents peace. Chazal tell us that Pinchas is Eliyahu Ha’navi, the harbinger of Moshiach Tzidkeinu. Pinchas’ bold action on behalf of Hashem earned him the privilege of becoming the bearer of the Divinely inspired peace on earth. We are taught that the “vav” in the word shalom is broken in half, so that it must be written in two parts. Horav Shlomo Breuer, zl, interprets this as a characterization of the lofty task of every Jewish leader, whose goal in life is to bring about the peace for…
Pinchas acted on behalf of the Almighty. He reacted with jealousy and with vengeance, as he witnessed Zimri publicly desecrating Hashem’s Name. Rashi emphasizes the word, “kinaasi,” “My jealousy/wrath”. Pinchas reacted in the same manner that Hashem would have. He became angry as Hashem would. Hashem’s anger was his anger; he accepted Hashem’s “hurt” as his own hurt. Horav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi, Shlita, delves into the concept of “kinaasi” in an attempt to explain its significance. We find that Rashi previously had mentioned that the tribes, especially Shevet Shimon, were criticizing and demeaning Pinchas for his descent from a Midyanite…
Rashi notes that the word “medaber,” “speaking,” is similar to “misdaber,” in the hispa’el, reflexive form of the verb, implying that Moshe heard the voice of Hashem speaking to Itself. Sforno expands on this idea, suggesting that actually Hashem “makes it known to Himself.” Thus, the voice that Moshe heard was actually an “overflow” of Hashem’s words. In other words, the concept of Hashem “speaking” to Moshe is not of the same nature as that of conversation as between two people. Hashem Yisborach “speaks” to Himself, so to speak, and Moshe “overhears” what is said. Horav Moshe Feinstein, zl, states…
The Torah devotes the end of the parsha to detailing the korbanos and gifts brought by the Nesiim for the Chanukas Ha’Mizbayach, dedication of the Altar. Each of the twelve Nesiim brought an identical set of presents. The Midrash addresses the connotations of each of the gifts. Chazal make an intriguing statement concerning the gift of Elishama, the Nasi of Shevet Efraim. They cite the pasuk in Tehillim 60:9, in which it is stated, “Efraim is the strength of my head.” This is considered a reference to the Nasi of Shevet Efraim who brought his offering on Shabbos. The Shem…
The Nazir is described as one who is “kadosh hu l’Hashem,” “holy to Hashem.” He has the diadem of Hashem upon his head. Why? What did he do that is considered so significant that he warrants such exceptional praise? True; he has prohibited himself from the pleasure of wine, but is that sufficient basis to elevate him to such a lofty level? It is not as if he has accepted any sort of self-affliction upon himself, such as fasting, etc., just abstaining from wine. Is that so impressive? Horav Mordechai Gifter, Shlita, offers a profound response which we would do…
The laws of Nazir are juxtaposed upon the previous chapter that dealt with the sotah, wayward wife. Chazal derive from here that he who witnesses a sotah in her degradation should prohibit wine to himself by becoming a Nazir. The sotah had given in to her sensual passions and let her pursuit of physical pleasure overwhelm her responsibility as a wife, her obligation as a Jewess and her mandate as a human being. Her experience indicates that when one is under the influence of the yetzer hora, evil inclination, he becomes easy prey to all forms of degeneracy. Wine intoxicates…
In the Talmud Makos 11b, Chazal tell us that the unintentional murderer is not permitted to leave the City of Refuge. Indeed, he is confined there until the death of the Kohen Gadol. Nothing – regardless of its critical need – can change this. Even if he is a great general who is needed by Klal Yisrael, he may not leave. There he lives; there he will die; there he will be buried. This halachah is perplexing. We are taught that pikuach nefesh, issues concerning life or death, are of overriding concern. Thus, they have the power to push aside…
The Torah instructs us to designate Cities of Refuge to protect the inadvertent killer from the relatives of the deceased. Horav Mordechai Gifter, Shlita, notes that the Torah does not use the term “zimun,” to prepare, but rather uses “hikrisem,” a word related to “mikreh,” which alludes to an event occurring by chance, without forethought or preparation. Horav Gifter feels that the Torah is conveying a profound message to us. Violence is foreign to the Jew. If we hear that a Jew has committed a violent act, we must realize that this act represents the antithesis of the Torah’s perspective…