Yocheved was counted among the original seventy souls that accompanied Yaakov Avinu as he went down to Egypt. Horav Eli Munk, zl, in his commentary Kol Ha’torah, notes that Yocheved was placed at the core of this genealogy. He attributes this honor to her exceptional destiny. She married her nephew, Amram, a union that was legitimate only because the Torah had not yet been given. When Pharaoh decreed that all new-born Jewish boys be put to death, her husband divorced her. At the time, she was three months pregnant with Moshe. Her daughter Miriam, inspired by Ruach Ha’kodesh, convinced her…
Back to Home -> Pinchas -> 5757
What is the significance of the fact that Pinchas performed his act of zealousness “in their midst”? Sforno comments that Pinchas avenged Hashem’s honor in the sight of all. Although they had originally seen Zimri’s despicable act, and they did not protest, they could find atonement for not protesting against Pinchas. What Sforno is saying is that the masses were guilty of apathy. They witnessed blatant acts of harlotry and idolatry, yet they failed to object or to intervene. Their atonement would now be attained by permitting Pinchas to publicly carry out his act of zealousness. Sforno teaches us that…
Pinchas receives the ultimate reward–Kehunas olam–eternal priesthood. This blessing of everlasting priesthood was not bestowed upon anyone else. It was not bestowed neither upon Moshe the lawgiver, nor Aharon the Kohen, who was the paradigmatic peacemaker. Horav Moshe Swift, zl, notes that the blessing of continuity, the concept of uninterrupted service to Hashem, was neither a product of the service in the Mikdash nor the teaching in the Bais Ha’midrash. While these contribute to future development, they do not actually forge the links in the chain of continuity. They do not create a “lo ul’zaro acharav” for him and his…
Upon consideration, did Pinchas really have to act in such a drastic manner? He is lauded for avenging the honor of Hashem. Was there no other way to prevent Zimri from performing his reprehensible act of rebellion against Hashem? Could Pinchas not have chosen a less “final” — and perhaps more conciliatory — solution for the “Zimri” problem? This is the type of question that plagues those who do not quite understand the meaning of the term “kanai,” zealot. Pinchas was not a reactionary who unleashed his uncontrollable anger, killing innocent people. He was not a religious maniac whose lack…