רפואה מן התורה
Healing from the Torah
Parashat Pinchas
Numbers 25:10-30:1
By Rabbi Adam Ruditsky
Mourning the Power of Peace
Thursday of this week is the 17th of Tammuz, a day that commemorates the start of a three week annual mourning period. A date that is not really observed, let alone remembered, mourns the destruction of the Holy Temple and the Jewish launch into exile. The period begins with a dawn to dusk fast that marks the day when the walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Romans in 69 CE. We learn in the Talmud, Yoma 9, that a reason why the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and was followed by exile is because of שנאת חינם, sinat chinam or gratuitous hatred between one Jew and another. Well, while it was between one Jew and another regarding the Temple, in the bigger picture this is a hatred that causes a variety of societal ills between all people regardless of race, color, religion, sex, politics, economic status, of what have you. In this week’s reading, Parashat Pinchas, we meet the first real direct violence between members of Israel’s wilderness community. Like the sinat chinam that contributed to the Temple's demise, do we, can we, or should we understand Pinchas’ behavior in the same light?
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes about the two Zealots in the Tanakh, Pinchas and Elijah, who were considered “religious heroes.” In the case of Elijah there is a dialog between he and God in the Midrash regarding what happened on the mountain with the prophets of Ba’al. Here, God asks Elijah, “Is it your covenant,” a response to Elijah who justifies his actions because of the “Israelite's (who) have broken your (God) covenant” (Songs of Songs Rabbah 1:6). In 1 Kings 19 we read how Elijah is gently corrected because he misunderstood the power of God that informed his zeal. R’Sacks identifies this rebuke by saying “that God expects his prophets to be defenders, not accusers.” In other words, Elijah getting the people to stop following Ba’al was not to be done, per R’Sacks “through violent protest.” Regarding Pinchas, the zealot of this parsha, he killed an Israelite brother and a Midianite woman to stop a plague that enveloped Israel because of Idolatry (Num. 25:11), but was it out of hatred or just misguided? In response to this act God affirmed the motivation but could not condone the deed itself, something that for R’Sacks is embedded in the “Covenant of Peace” (בריתי שלום, b’ree’tee shalom; lit “My covenant of peace”). God wants peace in Israel, not violence in the camp, and while Pinchas and Elijah are considered heroes in the “spiritual life,” R’Sacks goes on to say that from God’s point of view their actions were “enough.” In conclusion, Elijah’s role as a prophet changed by delivering words of God’s mercy (see 1 Kings 21) whereas Pinchas’ role as a Priest would yield to his role as a diplomat years later by averting civil war in Israel (see Josh. 22). After Pinchas killed the Israelite man and Midianite woman, as already said, God made a “Covenant of Peace” with Pinchas. For Rashi, “My covenant of Peace” is not a covenant of peace per se, but that God’s covenant "expresses peace." Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin suggests that this “Covenant of Peace” is really a blessing for the “attribute for peace” and that Pinchas should have not been so “quick tempered or angry” when he acted in a perceived justification of God’s righteous wrath. We must remember that Pinchas had an important role in the community, and although he did want to make peace between God and mankind, it was not how God wanted it from a Priest. Here, the covenant was conferred upon Pinchas regarding his role to be an arbiter of peace even while standing up for justice. We have to remember that Pinchas and Elijah are from another word with different standards that eyes of modernity cannot comprehend. Murder as a tactic of negotiation or to establish a person’s rights is never okay, not even then.
I think this is exactly why the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (ze’lopf’chad) are in this same parsha. Dr. Judith Baskin, the Director of the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Organ, presents these daughters as “canny and competent women who trusted that divine mercy would translate the mutable norms of a human society which women were subordinate beings.” In the narrative itself the daughters stood up for their rights as their fathers only children, he had no boys, pertaining to the rights to his land. Moses heard their request, a request that was made by women who according to the Midrash opposed the Golden Calf, rejected the doubt of the fearful spies and in this case knew about the divine promise regarding the land (see Numbers Rabbah, 21). In the Talmud, Bava Batra 119b, the Sages praise the daughters of Zelophehad as women who spoke with intelligence about Torah while showing comprehension of Jewish Law, women who in the end were rewarded as exalted women in Jewish history, something that for Dr. Baskin is because they ultimately impelled Moses to seek divine help to clarify the “succession of the land.” Perhaps this is why the writers of Torah were inspired to put the story of Pinchas and the story of the daughters of Zelophehad next to each other. Both were compelled by a sense of justice and both we going to act out from deep seated convictions. While their stories cannot be compared I think the difference lay in how they acted upon their sense of right. For us moderns Pinchas’ actions are unacceptable, but from the view of Torah he carried out this one time righteous act wrongly that demanded a rebuke from God. The daughters of Zelophehad were lawyers and diplomats, they stood their ground and peacefully persuaded beyond the protest, for them the “Covenant of Peace” reaped the rewards/results of their efforts. Let’s recall the words of Martin Luther King who wrote,
“But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.”
I think this is exactly why the story of the daughters of Zelophehad (ze’lopf’chad) are in this same parsha. Dr. Judith Baskin, the Director of the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Organ, presents these daughters as “canny and competent women who trusted that divine mercy would translate the mutable norms of a human society which women were subordinate beings.” In the narrative itself the daughters stood up for their rights as their fathers only children, he had no boys, pertaining to the rights to his land. Moses heard their request, a request that was made by women who according to the Midrash opposed the Golden Calf, rejected the doubt of the fearful spies and in this case knew about the divine promise regarding the land (see Numbers Rabbah, 21). In the Talmud, Bava Batra 119b, the Sages praise the daughters of Zelophehad as women who spoke with intelligence about Torah while showing comprehension of Jewish Law, women who in the end were rewarded as exalted women in Jewish history, something that for Dr. Baskin is because they ultimately impelled Moses to seek divine help to clarify the “succession of the land.” Perhaps this is why the writers of Torah were inspired to put the story of Pinchas and the story of the daughters of Zelophehad next to each other. Both were compelled by a sense of justice and both we going to act out from deep seated convictions. While their stories cannot be compared I think the difference lay in how they acted upon their sense of right. For us moderns Pinchas’ actions are unacceptable, but from the view of Torah he carried out this one time righteous act wrongly that demanded a rebuke from God. The daughters of Zelophehad were lawyers and diplomats, they stood their ground and peacefully persuaded beyond the protest, for them the “Covenant of Peace” reaped the rewards/results of their efforts. Let’s recall the words of Martin Luther King who wrote,
“But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.”
Think beyond the protests and violence that we have been watching, or the political agenda that suffocates our country right now, but think of how we as people go about the business of seeking change in both small and large ways. We mourn because the “Covenant of Peace” is often hidden, but it is there for the taking.
Shabbat Shalom!
Shabbat Shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment