Parshas Pinchas
A Dove Amongst Eagles
By Rabbi Yochanan Zweig
“Attack the Midianites and kill them” (25:17)
Rashi points out that Hashem commanded Moshe to decimate the Midianites
and not the Moabites,
although they were more instrumental than the Midianites in enticing Bnei
Yisroel to sin.1 The Midrash explains
that since Ruth, the great grandmother of King David, was destined to
descend from Moav, Hashem refrained from
destroying them. If, in fact, Moav deserved to be destroyed, why could
Hashem not have orchestrated a scenario by
which the majority of the nation is killed, but Ruth’s existence is
assured from the few who survive?
Since Ruth was the progenitor of the Davidic dynasty, it was imperative
that
she herself descend from aristocracy and nobility; Ruth was the daughter
of Eglon,
King of Moav.2 In order for this to occur, the nation had to be preserved.
If the nation
had been decimated, Ruth would have stemmed from surviving refugees,
making it
impossible for her to be born into a family of nobility.
The benefits gained by Ruth stemming from aristocracy are twofold: From the
perspective of the Jewish nation, the genetic base of monarchy has already
been
established through her own personal standing. From a universal
perspective, the
Moshiach who will stem from the Davidic dynasty, will influence and teach
all of
mankind; having the infusion of a non-Jewish monarchy into the Davidic
dynasty will
allow for a greater universal impact.
1.25:17
2.Rashi Megillas Rus 1:2
ALL’S WELL THAT ENDS WELL
“...so I did not consume the Children of Israel…” (25:11)
The final verse in last week’s parsha records that twenty-four thousand
Jews perished from the plague that was
wrought upon Bnei Yisroel.1 Recording the verse at this juncture would
appear to violate a requirement in the laws of
“reading from the Torah” which states that an aliya should not begin nor
end with a verse containing tragedy that befell
Bnei Yisroel.2
The solution to this problem is found in this week’s parsha. The Torah
states that due to the actions of Pinchas,
Hashem did not destroy the entire nation of Israel – “velo chilisi es Bnei
Yisroel”. The implication is that were it not for
Pinchas’ actions, all of Bnei Yisroel would have been destroyed by the
plague. Therefore, stating that only twenty-four
thousand were killed is, in essence, proclaiming that the decree to kill
all of Bnei Yisroel had been rescinded.
1.24:9
2.Shulchan Aruch 38:1, See the glosses of the Rama
IN CONTROL
“On the seventeenth of Tammuz the Tablets were broken” (Ta’anis 26a)
Five calamities occurred on the seventeenth of Tammuz. The first of these
calamities is recorded in the
Torah. Upon descending the mountain after having received the Decalogue,
Moshe witnessed Bnei Yisroel
celebrating the creation of the golden calf and he shattered the Tablets.1
The
verse describes the Tablets as “charus” - “engraved”.2 The Mishna states
that
the word “charus” can also be read as “cheirus” - “freedom”, for only the
study of Torah brings true freedom.3 Therefore, the breaking of the Tablets
reflects a loss of freedom for the Jewish people.4 What is the difference
between the secular definition of freedom and that of the Torah? How do we
reconcile the “pshat”, the straightforward reading of the text
as “charus” –
“engraved”, with the “derush”, the homiletic interpretation as “cheirus” –
“freedom”?
Freedom is often defined as our right or privilege to act or express
ourselves without coercion in whichever manner we desire. The Torah’s
definition of freedom is cognizant of the fact that very often we behave
in a
manner which hides under the guise of freedom of expression, yet in reality
we are submitting to coercive forces. Whether our actions are influenced by
societal pressures or by our physical or emotional desires, these actions
cannot be described as completely free from coercion. We ourselves are
aware of the destructive nature of our actions but are helpless to
overcome the
deceptions of societal acceptance and self-gratification. The pursuit of
Torah
not only empowers the individual with the ability to overcome any coercive
forces, but also removes the conflict that exists in the decision making
process, synthesizing the individual’s visceral sense to behave
appropriately
with his desires. Being bound by restrictions does not imply a lack of
freedom; restrictions are not only ultimately for our benefit, but they
prevent us from taking actions which we
truly wish to avoid.
The words of the Decalogue symbolize spirituality and the Tablets
themselves, that which is physical.
Had the Decalogue been described as ink which is scripted upon parchment,
this would imply imposition of the
words upon the Tablets. Chazal teach us that Hashem miraculously caused
the letters of the Decalogue to
suspend themselves within the Tablets. The Tablets wrapped themselves
around the words, conforming to
them.5 This reflects the complimentary nature of the physical and the
spiritual which can coexist without any
conflict.
We all have a natural proclivity to behave in an appropriate manner. The
Torah removes the
impediments that mask our true feelings, breaking through the
misconceptions and misguided value system
which society creates for us.
Consequently, this too can be viewed as a positive statement.
1.1.Taanis 26a
2.Shemos 32:16
3.Avos 6:2
4.Eiruvin 54a
5.Megilla 2b
