Parashat Pinchas

The gemara in Kedushin (66b) asks how we know that a Kohein with a mum is Pasul for Avodah. (Rashi notes that although we have a clear pasuk in Emor that pasuls a Kohein Ba’al Mum, a drasha is required to pasul his work even BiDiAvad, after the Kohein has performed the Avodah.) The drasha comes from this week’s parasha. When Hashem offers Pinchas His Bris Kehunas Olam, Hashem introduces it as the “Bris Shalom.” Shmuel, quoted by Rav Yehuda, identifies this as a Bris for those who are ‘Shaleim,’ without blemish, and therefore a Kohein Ba’al Mum is pasul, even BiDiAvad. The gemara asks: but the pasuk says Shalom, not Shaleim? Rav Nachman answers that the Vav in the word Shalom is K’tiya, or ‘broken;’ therefore, the word can be read as ‘Shaleim’ as well, and Rav Yehuda’s drasha stands.

Some have the minhag to write the Vav with a horizontal break in the middle. The Maharsha says that one should not write the letter broken, but rather write the Vav small, so it appears as a Yud almost. The Ritva questions this: “Had the gemara intended a small Vav, it would have called it a Vav Ze’ira.” But this halachic discussion falls outside the scope of this medium, though it is important to note that this gemara is taken very seriously. Many Soferim are accustomed to actually write this letter with a full break across the middle, an act that would render the Sefer Torah pasul if done to any other letter! This Vav is truly unique, as is the storyline of Pinchas’s vengeance.

The drasha itself is also unique, in the sense that it is oxymoronic. After all, we learn out the need for Shleimus, wholeness, from the only letter in the Torah that is not whole! What is the logical basis for this drasha? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to interpret the break as the indication of a lack of Shleimus? Indeed, we find there to be a lack of Shalom within Klal Yisrael immediately after the event.

Pinchas Ben Elazar Ben Aharon HaKohein [why mention his lineage here?]

Since the Shvatim were ridiculing [Pinchas, saying] “Look at this Ben Puti (descendant of Yisro), whose grandfather fattened cows for idol worship, and now he has the gall to kill a Jewish prince?!” Therefore, the pasuk comes to trace his lineage to Aharon instead.

Rashi, BaMidbar 25:11

As Rashi indicates, the Shvatim – and not even just Shevet Shimon – were at Pinchas’s throat for his seemingly brash and heinous act. One can imagine that Hashem’s response, Pinchas Ben Elazar Ben Aharon, could greater justify his actions, but it’s unlikely that a recount of Pinchas’s lineage would sufficiently appease the incensed nation.

This leads us to another question. If Pinchas only achieved a Shalom between Hashem and the nation – namely that Hashem would not destroy them all – then why was he awarded with Kehuna? The Kehuna more strongly reflects the good tidings between 1) the Kohein and the people and 2) Hashem and the Kohein. Since the Kohein must serve as the intermediary between Hashem and the people, there is no Shalom achieved between these two groups without the first two criteria.

Perhaps these questions derive from a much more basic misunderstanding of these pasukim, namely the source of the Shvatim’s dissent for Pinchas. Rashi describes how the Shvatim ridiculed Pinchas because of his dubious lineage. The fact that he came from an idol worshiper weakened his authority to handle others’ iniquities within the realm of Avoda Zara. As the Mizrachi explains, one would normally expect a man’s ancestry to follow a paternal line, but the nation pointed out the shortcomings of his mother’s family, for he was most probably raised by his mother, and she was raised in Yisro’s house. Thus the ideology of Avoda Zara was innate within Pinchas.

The terrible problem with the Mizrachi’s reasoning, however, is that Yisro converted and no longer fattened cows to Avoda Zara. In that case, the house that Pinchas was raised in was one that blatantly rejected Avoda Zara, not one that embraced it! Even Aharon’s family can’t claim such a feat. If anyone’s ideology taught the explicit and adamant rejection of Avoda Zara, it was Yisro’s!

And yet, even Hashem credits Klal Yisrael’s snide, reminding them of Pinchas’s link to Aharon HaKohein. Shouldn’t Hashem simply remind the Shvatim who Yisro was?

But there is one thing we must consider about Yisro’s rejection of Avoda Zara and embrace of Yahadus. Yisro, when he first joins the camp, exclaims “Atta Yadati Ki Gadol Hashem MiKol HaElohim,” now I know that Hashem is greater than all the [other] gods.” Rashi explains that Yisro could compare Hashem to all the other gods because he had tried every form of Avoda Zara there was, and none interested him as much as Judaism. We therefore see that Yisro did not reject Avoda Zara because he felt it was objectively wrong, but rather because it did not interest him. His devotion to Hashem, therefore, was one of subjective value.

When the Shvatim point their fingers at the zealous Ben Puti, they question whether his zeal is truly LiSheim Shamayim, for the family that raised him deplored Avoda Zara on the basis that it was violable and base, not because it was Assur or objectively wrong. If such were the motive behind Pinchas’s actions, the Shvatim would have a strong claim, for what right would Pinchas have to oppose Zimri’s actions? Zimri too is entitled to a subjective stance, and if he likes Avoda Zara more than Avodas Hashem, then he should he be permitted to practice such. By linking Pinchas to his other grandfather, Aharon, the pasuk reveals the Lishma intent behind Pinchas’s action, the very fact that Avoda Zara was objectively wrong in Pinchas’s eyes.

And so with Hashem’s response in the opening of our parasha, the widespread dissent towards Pinchas does not only subside, but is transformed into appreciation. Pinchas proved willing to risk his life for Hashem’s sake, and for the nation’s sake, not for his own sake. Such is the role of the ideal Kohein, the man who establishes a relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu through a life led LiSheim Shamayim, the man who establishes a relationship with his nation through their recognition of his selfless concern for them.

It may be true that the Shalom between Kohein and nation was temporarily broken, but ultimately, peace was restored, and in a much stronger form. The strength of a friendship, the strength of peace, can only be measured after it has been tested. If two sides go to war and yet they resolve their differences without just ignoring or downplaying the problems in their past, true peace is formed. That peace is then lasting, and so Pinchas’s Bris Shalom is a Bris Kehuna that lasts Olam. What better letter than the broken Vav to learn out the halachos of Shleimus!

During these days of mourning, the Three Weeks, the lesson of the broken Vav takes on great meaning. The relationship that Klal Yisroel has shared with Hashem has been tested many a time. In the days of the Shoftim, we went rotten and Hashem enslaved us to our bordering nations. We repented and Hashem came back to us. We went bad again and Hashem ignored us again. And so on the cycle went; the casual tie we shared with our Creator was tested again and again in casual fashion.

After the Churban HaBayis, in these past two thousand years of Galus, we have truly been tested, as has been our commitment to Torah, Mitzvos, and a life LiSheim Shamayim. If there was ever a chance for our relationship to fully slip away, these past millennia have certainly been the time. When the Three Weeks come around, we shouldn’t only reflect on how bitter our past has been, or the present may be. We should understand the great potential in our grueling trials, the reward of everlasting and enduring peace formed through only the most rigorous of tests. May we be Zocheh to this ‘Shaleim’ Shalom, and may the K’tiya that ultimately brings this Shleimus come to its completion BiMiheirah BiYameinu Amein.