English translation — פנחס א

A.

At the beginning of the portion, Rashi quotes from the verse: "Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon the priest" and comments on it¹

: "Because the tribes were disparaging him: 'Have you seen this son of Puti, whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry, and he killed²

a prince of a tribe of Israel,

therefore the verse came and traced his lineage after Aharon."

What is difficult in these words "Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon the priest" that Rashi corrects with his commentary on them?

In plain sense, the explanation in this is: a few verses earlier³,

it says "And Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon the priest saw" — why does the verse need to repeat his lineage again here⁴?

To this Rashi answers,

that the tribes were disparaging him with a matter of the <b>opposite</b> of lineage,

therefore the verse comes and emphasizes his elevated lineage by recounting it again.

One must however understand:

a)

From that which "the text came and traced his lineage etc." one can only derive,

that someone disgraced him; but from this there is no indication <b>who</b> disgraced him.

And if so, one would seemingly have to assume better,

that only the tribe of Shimon disgraced him⁵

(since they had a grievance against him because he killed <b>their</b> prince)

; but regarding the other tribes,

it stands to reason,

that since they too had great distress from the incident of Zimri

(as is recounted in the previous parshah⁶,

that when Zimri came with the Midianite woman "they were <b>all</b> weeping"),

they were certainly in agreement with what Pinchas did — and especially after this action brought them the result of "and the plague ceased from upon the children of Israel"⁷.

From where does Rashi take "that <b>the tribes</b> were disgracing him",

that also other tribes disgraced him⁸?

b)

Jethro did not only fatten calves for idolatry,

but he also served <b>all</b> the idolatries of the world⁹

(and according to the Midrash — he was a priest for idolatry¹⁰)

— so if the tribes wanted to disgrace Pinchas,

they could have shamed him with a greater disgrace,

that his mother's father was an idol worshipper of all the idolatries in the world

(and even a priest for idolatry),

and not only "he fattened calves etc."?

c)

In the disgrace itself,

that the grandfather fattened calves for idolatry,

there is seemingly no difference whether he is his mother's father or his father's father.

Rashi could have then abbreviated his language and said: "his grandfather" — why does he need to come to two words*¹⁰

and

(and mainly)

enter into details which are not relevant here and say "his mother's father"

(and especially since there can be no doubt here whom is meant — because his father's father is Aaron)?

d)

If Rashi intended here only to explain <b>why</b> the verse enumerates the lineage of Pinchas

(a second time),

it would have been sufficient when Rashi states "therefore the text came and traced his lineage."

What does Rashi add to explain <b>to whom</b> the verse intends to trace his lineage — "

(and he traced his lineage)

<b>after</b> <b>Aaron</b>"?

An even stronger question: It is true that by what the verse adds "son of Aaron the priest",

that Pinchas is not only a son of Elazar,

but also a grandson of Aaron the priest,

his lineage is further increased — but it is nevertheless clear,

that also "son of Elazar" alone is a great lineage

(because Elazar was the Segan of the High Priest¹¹.

Moreover: here in the incident of the tribes,

which was after the passing of Aaron,

Elazar was the High Priest¹²)

— but from that which Rashi says "and he traced his lineage <b>after</b> <b>Aaron</b>",

it implies¹³

that the lineage of Pinchas is only that he is the son of the son of Aaron?

5)

If Rashi already writes the words "after Aharon",

he seemingly should have written it in the verse's language: "

(after)

Aharon &lt;b&gt;the kohen&lt;/b&gt;"?

Therefore one must say,

that by omitting the word "the kohen" Rashi intends to let it be heard,

that this quality of "Aharon" because of which the verse here connects the lineage of Pinchas with Aharon,

consists &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; in his &lt;b&gt;kehunah&lt;/b&gt;,

but in other matters of Aharon&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;.

But according to this it is not understood: In the verse it explicitly states "Pinchas etc. son of Aharon &lt;b&gt;the kohen&lt;/b&gt;",

then from where does Rashi take that in this "the verse came to trace his lineage" it does not pertain that Aharon was a kohen&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;?

6)

In addition to all these aforementioned diyukim,

one must also understand: In what did the claim of the tribes consist at all, "Did you see this son of Puti etc."?

If they held that Pinchas should not have killed Zimri — whether because they did not know the halacha "One who cohabits with a gentile woman, zealots may strike him,"

or because they held that Pinchas is not a "kanai"

(i.e.,

that is,

he does not do it out of zeal for Hashem,

but due to other reasons)

— they should have disgraced him primarily with that which <b>he</b> <b>himself</b> transgressed the prohibition of murder,

and not only with that which <b>his</b> <b>grandfather</b> fattened calves for idolatry; and if they held that he indeed was permitted

(and obligated)

to kill Zimri¹⁶,

knowing the law of "one who cohabits with a gentile woman etc.,"

then is there no place at all for their disgracing him with that which he is "son of Puti etc."?

B.

Now, the explanation in this,

is that with that which the tribes disgraced Pinchas,

they intended to stand up for the honor of all other Jews and for the honor of Moshe Rabbeinu:

Zimri indeed brought the Midianite woman "before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of the entire assembly of the children of Israel"¹⁷

and from among all the Jews, only Pinchas was the sole one who was zealous with the zeal of Hashem —

; and certainly Moses knew it,

as Pinchas himself said to Moses: "I have a tradition from <b>you</b> etc."¹⁹]

— it is indeed a great degradation of the honor of Israel and of the honor of Moses!

And this was the reason that the tribes disgraced Pinchas and claimed that what he did, killing Zimri, did not come to him exclusively out of zeal for G-d,

but in this there was also mixed in²⁰

something else:

"Her father's father" used to fatten calves for idolatry — and such a conduct,

to fatten a calf with an explicit purpose,

in order to slaughter it afterwards,

lies in it a great cruelty indeed²¹

(And as one can understand it simply²²,

that when killing someone,

there is not present such a measure of cruelty as in the case,

when one does with him, so to speak, good,

one is "fattening" him,

and thereby one has in mind to prepare him <b>through</b> <b>this</b> for killing)

— and since that the father of his mother had in himself such a nature of cruelty,

it is presumably also passed down as an inheritance to his grandson²³

Pinchas²⁴.

And therefore

(they argued)

specifically Pinchas was aroused with this zeal to kill Zimri — while all Jews and even Moshe Rabbeinu did not do it — because

(also)

his nature of cruelty helped him in this²⁵.

And therefore Rashi says "that the &lt;b&gt;tribes&lt;/b&gt; were degrading him" — and not "that the &lt;b&gt;sons&lt;/b&gt; of &lt;b&gt;Shimon&lt;/b&gt; were degrading him" — because since the "degrading him" was because of inserting themselves

(not for Zimri,

but)

for the honor of Moshe Rabbeinu and the community of Israel,

it is therefore reasonable to say,

that this was done by all the tribes.

3.

At first glance one can ask on this: If they had intended simply to degrade him,

humiliate,

it would be understandable why Rashi emphasizes "and he killed a &lt;b&gt;prince&lt;/b&gt; of a tribe in Israel",

because killing a prince,

and especially that the killer is of a lowly descent,

is a greater degradation

(although regarding the prohibition of murder itself there is no difference who kills whom)

; but since with this — they were degrading him "Have you seen the son of Puti etc." they intended to hint at his cruel nature — then what does it add

(in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; degradation)

their throwing up that he killed a prince,

is then the killing of a prince a greater cruelty than [killing] an ordinary Jew?

In truth, however, it is no question,

because also <b>the</b> disgrace that intended to emphasize the "cruelty" of Pinchas,

was increased by their emphasizing that he killed a prince:

A prince means to provide his entire tribe with all necessities²⁶.

— And so it was also in the incident of Zimri,

that he did this in order to save his tribe.

As Rashi says earlier¹⁷,

that when the tribe of Shimon gathered by Zimri who was <b>the prince</b> of them and said to him, "We are sentenced to death, etc.",

then specifically — "and he brought the Midianite woman"

(and it could be that also he knew the law of "zealots strike him" and thus endangered his life),

in order to save his tribe.

Therefore they emphasized "and he killed the prince",

because by making prominent the difference between the murderer and the slain — that the murderer is a cruel one and the slain is a man of kindness

(and in particular,

when also the action for which they killed him was done with an intention of kindness)

— it increases even more the disgrace.

D.

Another matter in this: although the man who is cruel by nature relates to <b>everyone</b> with cruelty*²⁶,

but his cruelty expresses itself especially specifically towards a man of kindness.

Because due to the very fact that the man of kindness is the very <b>opposite</b> of him,

therefore he cannot tolerate him,

and he is more cruel to him than to other people.

And therefore the tribes emphasized "and the <b>prince</b> etc. shall be killed",

because this was

(in their opinion)

an additional explanation why this cruelty was aroused in Pinchas: that Zimri was a prince — a man of kindness who had dedicated his life

(according to their view²⁷)

for his tribe — <b>this</b> Pinchas could not

(according to their reasoning)

tolerate,

and <b>this</b> aroused his attribute of cruelty.

5.

But a question arises: also Aharon,

the man of kindness

(as below section 6),

is the grandfather of Pinchas — now how could the tribes argue that Pinchas had in him so much cruelty,

more than all other Jews,

specifically from the side of the second grandfather,

Yitro²⁸?

And this Rashi explains,

that in their tracing his lineage to Yitro they said

(not "his grandfather" simply,

"the father of his mother"²⁹

: according to nature it must turn out

(they argued),

that he has by inheritance the traits from the father of his mother more than from the father of his father,

because — "a woman who emits seed first gives birth to a male"³⁰

and he is therefore by his nature more inclined and similar to his mother than to his father; and regarding his mother, again,

by virtue of "a man who emits seed first gives birth to a female"³⁰

there are expressed in her to a greater degree the traits of her <b>father</b> Yitro — "the father of her mother" than of her mother and also than the similarity of Pinchas' father to his father — Aharon³¹.

6.

To this the Almighty answered: "Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon

(the priest)

that the zealotry of Pinchas comes

(<b>not</b> from the fact that he is a "son of Puti",

but)

but)

specifically from the fact that he is "son of Aharon": only because he has within him the traits of Aharon — "pursuer of peace and one who casts love between quarreling parties"³²,

was he therefore aroused to make peace between Jews and the Almighty — "He turned back My wrath from upon the children of Israel".

And therefore Rashi concludes "The verse came and traced his lineage after &lt;b&gt;Aharon&lt;/b&gt;" — because with this he teaches us two things:

a)

The words "ben Elazar" come only as an introduction to "ben Aharon" — but not with the intention to trace his lineage

(also)

to Elazar himself — because for the answer to the claim "Did you see the son of Puti etc." it is relevant only to bring out his descent from Aharon who was a "pursuer of peace and one who casts love etc."

2)

Although the verse does not state "son of Aharon the Kohen",

but regarding the "the text came and traced his lineage"

(which comes as an answer to the claim "Did you see the son of Poti etc.")

it pertains only to the nature of &lt;b&gt;Aharon&lt;/b&gt; in himself,

his attribute of a pursuer of peace etc. and not&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

that which he was a kohen&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

Seemingly one can ask: Since in the verse it states "son of Elazar son of Aharon &lt;b&gt;the kohen",&lt;/b&gt;

from where does Rashi take the proof to learn that the tribes with their demeaning him as "son of Poti" meant the nature of cruelty of Yisro

(who fattened calves for idolatry),

so according to this the word "the kohen" from the verse is not so smooth — one can indeed learn that they meant that which Yisro served &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;idols&lt;/b&gt;

it is not logical that the prohibition of one who cohabits with a gentile woman should apply to him

(that the reason of "Do not intermarry with them"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

is "for he will turn away &lt;b&gt;and they will serve&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;other&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;gods"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

and especially — more than all Jews who are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from both sides],

And based on this it would have been understandable why the verse emphasizes regarding his lineage "son of Aharon &lt;b&gt;the priest&lt;/b&gt;",

that on the contrary: by him are

(not the qualities of Yisro,

but)

the qualities of Aharon who is not merely a servant of G-d,

but a &lt;b&gt;priest&lt;/b&gt; to the Most High.

And further: According to this explanation, also "son of Elazar" would have been an answer to the claim of the tribes.

Why does Rashi learn "he slaughtered calves etc." that according to this the word "the priest" is not smooth etc.?

There are two answers to this³⁷

a)

Since idolatry has to do with "opinions"

(not like cruelty which is related to the attributes and nature of the character traits),

it is therefore a thing that is not transmitted by inheritance from parents to children; and if Yitro himself came to the recognition "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods",

and with him himself it did not remain³⁸

any trace of idolatry — then certainly there is no reason to say that this was transmitted to his children¹¹.

b)

If with the "the verse came and traced his lineage" the verse intended to exclude from him the connection to idolatry,

it would have said only "ben Elazar"

(who was indeed a deputy High Priest and afterwards High Priest)

and not added "ben Aharon",

because on the contrary: since Aharon had some connection to the [Golden] Calf,

it follows automatically,

that in this matter of negating idolatry, Elazar is more "attributed" than Aharon&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

Ch.

In Rashi there is indeed "the wine of Torah" — the lesson that one can

(and must)

learn from our Rashi,

is understood very simply:

When one sees someone doing a good thing,

then even when one has several proofs that seemingly demonstrate with much conviction,

that that person does it from an ulterior motive — one may nevertheless not nullify him,

because —

a)

Let us assume even that that person does it with an ulterior motive — there is nevertheless a ruling⁴¹

“<b>Always</b> <b>should</b> a person engage in Torah and mitzvot even if not for their own sake, for from not for their own sake he comes to for their own sake” —

(And in particular according to the inner explanation of "from within lo lishmah one comes to lishmah",

then that which he will later come to "lishmah",

is this because also now the "lo lishmah" is only externally so,

but the "within" and inwardness of it is lishmah

; and therefore "mitoch shelo lishmah" — from his inward "within"

(lishmah)

which his Torah and mitzvos "lo lishmah" con- tains within itself,

he comes "to lishmah" — that the hidden inwardness,

comes later also into revelation).

b)

Since the Shulchan Aruch calls him to learn and fulfill mitzvos,

one may not nullify him,

because through this he is liable to cease learning etc.

One needs only to arouse him that he should begin to learn lishmah,

that by him should as quickly as possible be opened the "coming to lishmah".

3)

And the main point: one can never know what is going on in another's heart — and as we see clearly in our matter,

that even the tribes,

despite the fact that they had such strong proofs prima facie that Pinchas did it

(also)

not for its own sake,

did the Almighty — Who "the Lord sees into the heart"⁴³

— testify about him that this came to him <b>only</b> from zeal for <b>the L-rd</b>.

9.

Another matter in this:

Those who nullify another who does a good thing,

with the claim that the other does it from a [superficial] aspect,

can persuade themselves that their nullifying the other comes to them from the side of holiness: just as I am naturally self-nullifying

(he thinks to himself),

I cannot bear the movement of pride,

and therefore,

when I see that the other learns Torah with a storm or performs commandments with adornment which could appear as haughtiness — I cannot tolerate it and keep silent.

For this there is a directive from our Rashi,

which explains the disgrace of the tribes regarding the zealotry of Pinchas,

that their disgracing stemmed from their desire to align themselves for the honor of Moses,

the Most High "attributed him to Aharon" and testified that he had been zealous with the zeal of the Lord and not they —

And this teaches us regarding nullifying the other's learning with a storm,

a conduct with splendor and action etc. as an expression of arrogance and the like,

meaning that this comes from him because of his humility and self-nullification

(he imagines himself for the honor of Moses who was "very humble, more than any man"⁴⁴)

— that in truth the learner etc. is correct and not the nullifier.

Even more — it is possible that the nullifier should specifically come,

on the contrary,

specifically from his

(the nullifier's)

selfhood⁴⁵

He cannot bear that the other has a virtue relative to him⁴⁶,

and therefore envies the other.

But if he were as he should be,

then with him the envy would awaken a desire to do as the other — envy of scribes increases wisdom⁴⁷

; but since together with his trait of pride he also has the trait of laziness,

he nullifies the other's learning etc.

From a holy feeling cannot come forth a conclusion that is contrary to the truth — and since both his own not learning with a storm and as our Sages said: just as there [it is] with awe and fear and trembling and sweat, so too here etc.⁴⁸

(Even though it seems that doing so for its own sake truly — he still has not reached that level),

is against the ruling of the Torah "a person should always <b>engage</b> in Torah and commandments not for their own sake etc.",

his nullifying the other is contrary to the instruction in the true Torah "and judge every person to the side of merit"⁴⁹,

it is nevertheless a clear proof,

that the feeling that brings to this is not a holy feeling,

but rather the opposite⁵⁰.

10.

After a teaching from our parshah:

Several verses further⁵¹

Rashi says "In the place*⁵¹

he attributed the righteous one to praise,

he attributed the wicked one to disgrace."

At first glance,

what kind of disgrace is it for Zimri that he is "a leader of a father's house of the Shimoni"?⁵²

But the explanation of this is: The tribes indeed held that Zimri did a matter of kindness,

and Pinchas — a matter of cruelty as above,

and these two assumptions the Torah negates: "In the place he attributed the righteous one to praise",

that Pinchas is "the son of Aharon",

and this means that with him the nature of Aharon is "pursuer of peace and promoter of love",

in the same place and in the same way there is also the "he attributed the wicked one to disgrace",

that that which "he brought near etc. the Midianite woman",

was with him not because of his attribute of kindness,

but on the contrary,

because he is "a leader of a father's house <b>of Shimoni</b>" about whom the Torah says⁵³

"vessels of violence are their habitations."

4.

5.

That in the action of Zimri was expressed the opposite of kindness,

the attribute of cruelty⁵⁴

Because if at the time when "the people began to commit harlotry etc." — and at the time the sin led to "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel,

He sent a plague upon them"&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

— then Zimri takes "before the eyes of all the congregation of the children of Israel"

(instead of arousing to repentance,

he does the opposite)

and calls out that an Aramean woman is &lt;b&gt;permitted&lt;/b&gt; to Israel&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

(by which he prevents them from repentance,

having a "permission" for it from a "prince of a tribe in Israel")

— this is indeed the greatest cruelty.

It means then,

that the difference between Zimri and Pinchas is an opposite from one extreme to the other: Zimri truly did the greatest cruelty and covered it with a "cloak" of kindness — in contrast, Pinchas performed an action that looks like "cruelty",

and specifically in this was enveloped the greatest kindness*&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

11.

The lesson from this in every generation — also for us,

is understood simply:

In the time of a spiritual plague, may G‑d spare us,

and one sees a zealot for the sake of G‑d — one may not nullify it, etc.,

Even though he is not the Moses of his generation and not even a kohen — as mentioned above.

And the Torah relates and says,

that zeal for G‑d will not only effect the “and the plague was stayed from the children of Israel”⁷,

but it will also bring to the <b>true</b> <b>peace</b> — “Behold I give him My covenant of peace”⁵⁶,

And through the true peace,

the opposite of division and baseless hatred,

will also be nullified the exile that came because of this⁵⁷.

And this is also the connection of Pinchas with Elijah the herald of the redemption⁵⁸,

as the saying of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed⁵⁹

"Pinchas is Elijah",

because through the conduct of Pinchas one will merit the true and complete redemption,

which will be announced by Elijah the prophet

(this is Pinchas)

— the one who will bring about closeness of hearts "And he shall turn⁶⁰

the heart of fathers to children and the heart of children to their fathers"⁶¹,

speedily, literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5725)