Numbers · Chapter 25

And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to go astray after the daughters of Moab.

בשטים — Thus was its name: SHITTIM. לזנות אל בנות מואב TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB — by the advice of Balaam, — as is related in the chapter חלק (Sanhedrin 106a).

AND ISRAEL ABODE IN SHITTIM, AND THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO COMMIT HARLOTRY WITH THE DAUGHTERS OF MOAB — “because of the advice of Balaam, as is related in [the Chapter of] Cheilek.” This is Rashi’s language. And indeed this [seduction to] immorality was not instigated as a plan of the [Moabite] women, but was done upon the advice of their men and their leaders. [The idea] came to them from the elders of Midian, as it says of the Midianites, for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, for they beguiled them by means of immorality in order to draw them astray [to worship] Baal-peor. Therefore it is [indeed] possible that Balaam was behind this counsel, since he was considered by them [the Moabites] great in counsel, and his intention was to bring evil upon Israel, and therefore he did everything in his power to this end, as it is said, And the Eternal thy G-d would not hearken unto Balaam, and therefore they slew him with the sword. But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, it is not alluding here to the counsel of Balaam, but only [alludes to it] when it says afterwards, Behold, these [women] caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam etc., just as it does not mention here the counsel of the elders of Midian, and only [mentions it] when it says, for they harass you. Thus [it is only] after the event [had happened], at the time of [describing] their punishment, that He mentions what was the source of the evil that befell them. He is [thus] saying that what happened [to them] as a result of the desire for sexual pleasure which exists naturally in men and women from [the time of] their youth, was only [the result] of an evil plan [whose purpose was] to lead them astray [into worshipping Baal-peor]; therefore [the instigators of this plan] deserve a severe punishment. The interpretation of the verse, Come and I will counsel thee what this people shall do to thy people in the end of days is thus indeed as I have explained [there].It is also possible according to the simple meaning of Scripture that Balak at first wanted to curse them [the Israelites] and to wage war against them, and he did not want to give them permission to enter his borders at all. But when Balaam told him that he would not prevail over them, and informed him that they would only destroy his land and his people in the end of days, then he [Balak] brought forth bread and wine in the plains of Moab [i.e., in Shittim], and enticed them [with the daughters of Moab] as if he were their friend. This is [the meaning of the phrase] ‘bidvar’ (through ‘the word’ of) Balaam, for it was because of his words [i.e., his prophecy that the Israelites would not conquer their land now, that the Moabites] did so [i.e., that they did not fight them, but tried to seduce them and lead them astray through their women]. But because it was Balaam’s desire to curse them, and he allowed Balak to hire him [and would indeed have cursed them]...

"In Shittim" — for so it is written: "they camped by the Jordan from Beth-jeshimoth to Shittim" (Num. 33:49), all of it in the plains of Moab; and they did not move from there, for Joshua also sent the spies from there (Josh. 2:1). In my view, "וַיָּחֶל" (va-yachel) is from the heavy-additional binyan (the intensive conjugation).

ויחל העם לזנות, originally, there had been no intention of committing idolatrous acts at all. All that the males had intended was to indulge their libido with the womenfolk who made themselves available. However, these people fell victim to precisely the warning of the Torah in Exodus 34,15-16 of what would happen if Jews would allow the Canaanites to remain in their country and conclude a covenant with them. They would be invited to their social gatherings resulting in their eating forbidden foods, and eventually intermarriage followed by lip service to their gods. ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלוהיהן. This was a classic demonstration of how the evil urge works, first suggesting minor infractions of Torah law and then, gradually, suggesting major sins. (compare Shabbat 108)

וישב ישראל בשטים. Israel abode in Shittim, etc. What need was there for the Torah to write this introduction? Tanchuma on our verse explains that the location was a cause for the seduction to succeed. As long as the Israelites had dwelled in the desert instead of in or near populated areas there had not been a single incidence of unchaste behaviour. The Torah may have indicated that this place was singularly apt to arouse the animalistic instincts in man. The immediate cause may have been that the Israelites took strolls in the neighbourhood of their camp and encountered Moabite women. The Torah's emphasis on וישבו may be because instead of merely going for a stroll they made themselves at home there. The root of the word שטים occurs in Numbers 11,8 where the Torah describes the daily stroll to pick up the manna with the words שטו העם ולקטו. ויתל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב, The people debased themselves to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav. The word ויחל may be understood as profaning oneself. The word זנות implies the straying after alien deities. The reason the Torah coined the unusual construction אל בנות, instead of עם בנות, or something similar, has been explained by Tanchuma to indicate that the daughters of Moav did not offer themselves to the Israelites without conditions, but demanded that these first commit an act of obeisance to one of their deities. The Torah hints by the word אל that the Israelites who became guilty of this extracurricular sex had first bowed TO something that the daughters of Moav customarily bowed to. The Torah makes a point of describing the Israelites who became guilty of this aberration as only העם. The spiritual elite, who are customarily referred to as Israelites, was not involved.

וישב ישראל בשטים, “Israel settled in Shittim.” This is the meaning of the words in Numbers 33,49: “they encamped by the Jordan, from Bet Yeshimot until the plains of Shittim, in the plains of Moav.” All of these events including the dispatch by Joshua of spies occurred during the encampment of the Israelites in the wilderness of Moav. A Midrashic interpretation based on Tanchuma Balak 17: The words “Israel settled in Shittim” indicate that there was a fountain at Shittim which caused people who drank from it to develop into adulterers, just as we know that there are fountains the waters of which cause the people drinking it either to become physically strong or weak, or to influence their characters in various ways. The waters of that well were the ones the people of Sodom had been drinking from (in former times). This is the meaning of Genesis 19,5: “Where are the men who came to you this night, take them out to us so that we can indulge our libido with them.” Seeing that this fountain had such spiritually negative effects on the people drinking from it, G’d cursed it and made it stop flowing. We know from the prophecy in Yoel 4,18 that in the future this fountain will re-emerge: “On that day the mountains shall drip with wine, the hills shall flow with milk; and all the watercourses of Yehudah shall flow with water; a spring shall issue forth from the House of the Lord and shall water the wadi of Shittim.” ויחל העם, “the people profaned themselves.” The word ויחל means to profane something which previously was sacred, holy. We encounter the same word in connection with Noach (Genesis 9,2), when Noach planted a vineyard and became drunk. Judaism describes people who are meticulous in their sexual mores as ”holy,” whereas those that are not are considered as “profane.” Whenever the Torah refers to the Israelites simply as העם, this term implies a criticism of their spiritual level (at that time). The Following are some examples of the Torah using this terminology: Numbers 11,1: “the people were looking for something to complain about.” Numbers 20,3: “the people quarrelled.” Numbers 21,5: “the people spoke out against G’d.” On the other hand, whenever the people of Israel are referred to as עמי, this is to be taken as a complimentary term; examples are: Psalms 81,14: “if only My people would listen to Me.” Exodus 7,4: “I will take out the hosts of My people.” Isaiah 40,1: “comfort, comfort My people.” לזנות את בני מואב, “to whore with the daughters of Moav.” This reminds us of the popular proverb: “When one throws a stick into the air it always lands on its broad side.” The reference is to the fact that the people of Moav had their origin in Lot’s older daughter who had devised the plan that she and her younger sister sleep with their father (Genesis 19,31). The fact that she had had the audacity to call her son מאב, alluding to the fact that he was born “from my father” speaks for itself, although originally, the Torah had not faulted the scheme itself seeing it was based on an innocent assessment of their chances to perpetuate the family or even mankind. Similarly, the daughters (also married women) of Moav lured the Israelites to their tents after having made themselves alluring.

לזנות בבנות מואב, “to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav.” Rashi, basing himself on the Talmud in Sanhedrin 106 where Bileam is reputed to have suggested to the Moabites that they seduce the Israelites adopts that version in the Talmud as fact. Nachmanides writes that the harlotry described here was not a sexually motivated kind of harlotry initiated by the Moabite women at all. These women were encouraged by their husbands to trap the Israelites into committing a capital offence against the moral code of the Torah, as a result of which they would become guilty of the death penalty. The elders of Midian were instrumental in all this, and this is why a Midianite princess had seduced the leader of the tribe of Shimon. (verse 14-15) Seeing that Bileam was one of these, he too was killed subsequently by the sword of the Israelites. However, looking at the unadorned text, the פשט, we must remember that the Torah did not spell out the nature of the advice Bileam offered Balak. All the Torah did spell out was that when the members of the punitive expedition against the Midianites returned from their campaign and among the loot there were female prisoners, Moses became angry at their officers, chiding them for having allowed the very women who had seduced the people at Shittim to live. () He explained that the main reason why the campaign had been fought was to take revenge on the seducers. By explaining that the Midianites had a prominent share of the guilt in that debacle, he had hinted at the source of the plan to seduce the Israelites. (25,17-18) Bileam’s prediction of what the Israelites would do to the Moabites in the distant future had its rationale in what the Moabites were now about to do to this people, a people who had not provoked them but had meticulously respected their borders. It is possible further, that by following the plain meaning of the text, Balak was originally intent on cursing the Jewish people and to wage war against them, but that when Bileam had warned him that he would not succeed, and he had added that at any rate the Israelites would not pose a threat to him even ecologially, at least not until the distant future, Balak decided to welcome them as neighbours, bringing out food to show that he was interested in friendly relations. He seduced them by making believe that he was sincere, and this is the meaning of the words בדבר בלעם, (31,16) i.e. due to the reassurance received from Bileam that he was in no immediate danger. At that time Balak had no evil intentions. However, the fact that he had harboured hostile intentions and had gone to the length of hiring Bileam is enough reason why he should be punished. In the event, the retribution would be long delayed. The Torah spells this out in Deut. 23,5 when Balak is once more referred to as having hired Bileam

וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “Israel had settled down at a place known as Shittim, when the common people profaned themselves by whoring.” It is well known that whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word: וישב, what follows is some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 37,1 when Yaakov “settled” down and the disaster with Joseph followed and he was sold by his brothers. When in chapter 50,22 of Genesis Joseph is described as having settled down, this is followed by his announcing to his brothers his premature death. (Genesis 50,24) When Israel is described as having settled down in Egypt, (Genesis 47,27) this is followed shortly by the report about Yaakov’s (premature) sickness and death. (verse 29) In Kings I,5,5 we read that the people of Israel including the tribe of Yehudah had settled securely, this is followed by a report in chapter 11,14, by: G–d arranging a revolt by the King of Edom against Solomon’s kingdom. [The Edomites had paid annual tribute to the state of Israel since David’s time. G–d had arranged this as His response to Solomon allowing his wife to erect an altar to the Moabite idol chemosh. Ed.] בשטים, according to Rabbi Elazar this had been the name of that place already previously. Rabbi Yoshua disagrees and says that it was so named after what happened there, i.e. that many Israelites committed the ultimate folly, shtuss, of sleeping around with gentiles and prostrating themselves to idols; [in order to please their partners who considered this as payment for granting them sexual favours. Ed.] ויחל העם לזנות. They profaned themselves by falling victim to the advice Bileam had given to Balak to lure them into harlotry, a great sin the eyes of the Jewish G–d. (Compare Talmud tractate Gittin, folio 56)

And they invited the people to the sacrifices of their idols, and the people ate and bowed down to their idols.

וישתחוו לאלהיהן AND THEY PROSTRATED THEMSELVES BEFORE THEIR GODS — When anyone’s passions overpowered him and he said to her, “Submit to me”, she took out for him an image of Peor from her bosom, saying to him, “First prostrate yourself before this" (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 18).

"And they bowed down" — Israel bowed down, together with the daughters of Moab.

ותקראן לעם, They called to the people. The reason the Torah had to repeat the word לעם having previously described the people involved as העם is that not all of these people went for strolls so that they encountered the Moabite women. Our verse indicates that the Moabite women went out to seek out Israelites who had not gone strolling in the neighbourhood around their camp. An alternative explanation could be that they wanted to involve the Israelites in a group activity thus breaking down each Israelite's inhibition against committing sinful acts. They were invited to partake of the meals prepared by the Moabite women in honour of their idols. לזבחי אלוהיהם, to the sacrifices of their gods. Although the Midrash had described the worship of the Baal Pe-Or as consisting of the worshiper excreting and urinating in front of that deity so that slaughtering of meat was certainly not part of this, it is possible that the meat was not really part of the rite but was part of a celebration in their god's honour. On the other hand, eating a lot may have been intended to ultimately result in excreting a lot in front of that idol. ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "and Israel was joined to Baal Pe-Or." The words ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "Israel joined itself to Baal Pe-Or mean that the reason for Israel bowing down to the idol was the peculiar power of this idol exerted over people who worshiped it. [apparently even the elite was now involved. Ed.]

ויאכל העם וישתחוו לאלוהיהן, “the people ate and prostrated themselves in front of their deities.” The mixture of the use of feminine and masculine pronoun endings means that both the Israelites and the Moabites prostrated themselves to these deities.

And Israel became attached to Baal-Peor, and the anger of Hashem grew fierce against Israel.

פעור — It was so named because they bared (פער) their anus and relieved themselves before it: this was its ceremonial rite (Sanhedrin 60b). ויחר אף ה' בישראל AND THE ANGER OF THE LORD WAS KINDLED AGAINST ISRAEL — he sent a plague among them (cf. v. 8).

"And Israel attached itself" (va-yitzmad Yisrael) — from the root of "a yoke of oxen" (tzemed bakar); the meaning is that the women — and behold, they became coupled with them in the religion of Peor.

ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור, “Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor.” The word ויצמד is from the same root as צמד בקר, “a yoke of oxen.” The meaning of the expression is that man and woman coupled together. There is a difference in meaning between the expression הצמדה and דבקות, although both express a state of togetherness, union, almost. הצמדה is a less intimate relationship, a looser coupling than דבקות. If the Torah had written here וידבק ישראל לבעל פעור, G’d forbid, this would have been such a grave sin that it could not have been repaired. This consideration is also reflected in the sages saying in Sanhedrin 64 that whereas the attachment of the Israelites to the deity בעל פעור was comparable to a lid over a pot, the attachment of the Israelites to their G’d (Deut. 4,4) is described as ואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם, “you who cleave to the Lord your G’d,” i.e. a far closer attachment than that of the lid to the pot. The term דבקות when applied to two entities implies that they are so alike and clinging to each other as to be interchangeable. According to a Baraita the term ויצמד is related to צמידים — a bracelet worn by a woman (worn loosely but not attached to the body), while ואתם הדבקים indicates a tight bond.

ויחר אף, the pestilence being proof of G’d’s anger.

And Hashem said to Moses: Take all the heads of the people, and judge them, and put to death those who are guilty of death before Hashem, in the presence of the sun, so that the fierceness of the anger of Hashem may turn away from Israel.

קח את כל ראשי העם TAKE ALL THE HEADS OF THE PEOPLE, to judge those who worshipped Peor (Sanhedrin 35a), והוקע אותם AND HANG THEM — those who worshipped it (not the heads of the people). והוקע — This is “hanging”, just as we find in the case of Saul’s sons, (II Samuel XXL 6) “And we will kill them by הוקעה unto the Lord”, and there (II Samuel vv. 12—13) hanging is distinctly mentioned (Sanhedrin 34b). It is true that idolatry (the sin committed here) is punishable by stoning, but all who were stoned were also hanged (Sanhedrin 45b). נגד השמש AGAINST THE SUN — i.e., in the sight of everyone. A Midrashic statement is: the sun made known who were the sinners, for the cloud rolled itself up from in front of him (the sinner) so that the sun shone upon him (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 19).

"And impale them" (ve-hoka otam) — the meaning refers to those who had attached themselves [to Baal Peor], as evidenced by what is written: "And Moses said to the judges of Israel" [to execute the offenders] (v. 5). "And impale them" — this is like "and he hanged them on the hill" (II Sam. 21:9), in accordance with the Aramaic Targum; and the proof is [the phrase] "before the sun," meaning publicly, as [the phrase] "before the eyes of this sun" (II Sam. 12:12).

נגד השמש, so that the people would observe the execution of the idolaters and by not protesting their punishment achieve atonement. This would help them achieve atonement for having sinned by not protesting the sinners’ conduct beforehand.

וישוב חרון אף השם, so that the fierce anger of G'd may turn away, etc. G'd's anger had to be turned away even after justice had been done because whereas the courts in this world can only convict people who have been warned by accredited witnesses and who have committed their sin in the presence of these witnesses, others, equally guilty, had not been dealt with. If G'd were allowed to remain angry He would give permission to the angel of death to kill all those sinners who had not been warned or whose deed had not been witnessed by their peers. If G'd's anger could be turned away, these people would remain alive at this time.

נגד השמש, “facing the sun;” concerning this apparently irrelevant detail, Rashi quotes a Midrash which states that it is the sun that reveals who are the sinners. The cloud retreats from the sinner exposing him as such. The “cloud” referred to is the protective cloud that enveloped the Jewish people for almost forty years until the death of Aaron.

קח את כל ראשי העם והוקע אותם, “take all the heads of the people and hang them!” This is not to be understood as a command to kill the leaders of the people by hanging. It meant that the leaders of the people should convict the guilty people, those who had worshipped the Baal-peor, of the death penalty. This is what Onkelos meant when he translated ”judge those guilty of death and execute them.” He did not translate: “kill the leaders of the people.” We find that during the episode of the golden calf Moses also told the judges of the people: “kill each his men (Exodus 32,27),” and the judges of the people mentioned there were identical with the people here described as ראשי העם, the leaders of the people. Although the Torah does not report that this command was carried out, the fact that G’d commanded Moses and he in turn commanded the judges makes it plausible to assume that these orders were carried out. Alternatively, they did not have a chance to complete their assignment before Pinchas killed Zimri without the benefit of a trial. Pinchas’s deed arrested the spread of the pestilence. לה', “for G’d;” i.e. for the glorification of His name. נגד השמש, “facing the sun;” this means “in public.” Just as they had desecrated G’d’s name in public, it now had to be sanctified in public. It is also possible to understand the words נגד השמש to mean that since the Israelites had sinned at Baal-peor against Yaakov who had also been known as “sun,” (compare the Midrash: Bereshit Rabbah 84,10 that Yaakov said: “who told this one that my name was שמש”), the Torah now had to write the words נגד השמש as if to say that their punishment also had to correspond to the manner in which they sinned. Another reason for these words may be connected to the commandment that a person who was executed by hanging must be lowered to the ground by evening and buried (Deut. 21,23). G’d meant that as long as the sun is in the sky the guilty have to remain visible, on the gallows; once the sun has set they may be buried, seeing the Torah wrote: “you must not allow his carcass to remain hanging overnight.” A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Balak 19: Moses asked G’d: ”who will tell me who has been guilty of prostrating himself to the Baal-peor“ [seeing that by the nature of this offense it occurred in the bedroom of the Moabite women; Ed.]. G’d answered him: “I will make their sin public.” The cloud would double over and the sun would shine on all those who were guilty. They would then hang such a person immediately.

והוקע אותם, the guilty ones. We find this word in Samuel II 21,6 at Givat Sha-ul, where it refers to hanging and execution.

And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Each of you kill those of his men who became attached to Baal-Peor.

הרגו איש אנשיו KILL EVERYONE HIS MEN — Each one of the judges of Israel killed two men (אנשיו is plural), and the judges of Israel were eighty-eight thousand in number, as it is related in Sanhedrin (cf. Sanhedrin 18a).

[AND MOSES SAID UNTO THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL]: ‘SLAY YE EVERY ONE HIS MEN [THAT HAVE JOINED THEMSELVES UNTO BAAL-PEOR].’ “Each one of the judges of Israel killed two [men, as the word anashav — his ‘men,’ in the plural, indicates], and the judges of Israel were seventy-eight thousand, as is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin.” This is Rashi’s language. But I cannot understand this, that [we should say that] those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor] who were judged [liable to death] were more than a hundred and fifty thousand — a quarter [of the total population] of Israel! Heaven forbid! [Moreover], cases punishable by death [cannot be decided] by [only] one judge, but [require] a court of twenty-three judges. And [even if we were to say that two people were killed by each court of twenty-three judges], they would still be very many people! And the difference between the [two] censuses is not so great, although all those who joined themselves to Baal-peor died, as it is written, for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. But the meaning of every one his men is that the judges should kill all those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], that is to say, each court should judge [the men of] its own tribe and its [groups of] thousands, as it is written, So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds … and officers, ‘tribe by tribe’. And afterwards I found in the Gemara Yerushalmi [the following statement] in the Chapter Cheilek: “And how many were the judges of Israel? Seventy-eight thousand and six hundred. Moses said to them: ‘Each one of you should kill two.’ Thus you find that those killed were one hundred and fifty-seven thousand and two hundred.” If so, we must say that according to their opinion [that of these Rabbis] the Israelites increased very remarkably between the [time of the first] census and the [second] census [in order to make up the loss of the many people killed because of this sin of Baal-peor]!The correct interpretation of the meaning of this section [of the Torah] appears to me to be that at first it says, And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor; and the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Israel, [meaning] that there is wrath gone out from the Eternal; the plague is begun; and G-d in His mercy told Moses that the judges should [first] try and then hang those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], so that the wrath will not indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked. And Moses gave this command to the judges; and when all the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting to do as Moses commanded, and the plague was still raging amongst them, this Simeonite [Zimri the son of Salu] brazenly brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman to rebel against Moses and the judges, and to do so publicly, because he was a prince and a great man and [knew that] m...

"Each of you slay his men" — the meaning is: whatever tribe they may belong to, it is known that they carried out the slaying, even though Scripture does not explicitly say so.

הרגו איש את אנשיו, “slay every man each of the men (that have worshipped the Baal Peor) the bodies to be hanged.!” The leader of each tribe was charged with that task.

הרגו איש את אנשיו, “kill, each one of you, his guilty counterpart.” The Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,2 reports that each of the judges killed two Israelites, as there were a total of 78600 judges, and according to this 157.200 Israelites were executed on that occasion. Nachmanides questions the statement in the Jerusalem Talmud reminding us that a capital crime may not be judged by only one judge. Furthermore, if correct, the tremendous number of missing Israelites should be reflected in the census the Torah reports as having taken place immediately after this event, as per He therefore comes to the conclusion that the words איש את אנשיו refers to the judges who had convicted the active participants and whom G’d had commanded Moses to hang after their execution, would each be executed by the court of his tribe, so that not all judges had to participate in all the executions, but only in the executions of members of their particular tribe. [In other words, the word אנשיו restricts the individual judges’ duties as executioners. Ed.] I believe (Nachmanides’ words) that the correct interpretation of the whole paragraph beginning with the words (verse 3) ויצמד העם, is that initially the debacle began with some of the people worshipping the idol known as בעל פעור. This evoked G’d’s anger at the people of Israel and the plague began to take its toll among the people. G’d simultaneously told Moses to tell the judges to carry out their judicial duties in order to insure that the innocent would not fall victim to the plague, which did not distinguish between the loyal and the disloyal Jews. Once the whole community had been assembled at the entrance to the Tabernacle in order to carry out Moses’ instructions, and it was found that the plague continued to kill Israelites, Zimri came and presented the Midianite princess using her to incite a rebellion against Moses. by, among other things, challenging Moses who had himself slept with a Midianite woman, Tzipporah. This caused both Moses and the elders to commence weeping, seeing that Moses did not have an answer that would have sounded convincing, This was the signal for Pinchas to take the law into his own hands in order to put a stop to the plague. We know that he succeeded as the Torah reports that as an immediate consequence of Zimri and Cosbi being stabbed to death the plague ceased. (verse 8) There had not been enough time to convict a single member of the people by court of law. The proof is that G’d ordered them to be hanged, seeing that they had not been convicted legally. [Hanging after execution is called תליה not הוקעה. Ed.] This is the reason why the Torah does not report that Moses’ instructions to the judges had been carried out. It is possible that the intention of the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud quoted earlier was to inform us that if the order to execute the guilty people had indeed been carried out, each of the judges would have had to execute two Israelites. The vast majority of them were saved by the courageous deed of Pinchas. They survived at this point, but they did not cross the Jordan into the Holy Land as the Torah testifies that G’d destroyed all the persons that had been actively involved in this sorry affair. (Compare Deut.4,3)

And behold, a man of the children of Israel came and brought near to his brethren a Midianite woman, before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of the whole congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

והנה איש וגו׳ AND BEHOLD, ONE [OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CAME] The tribe of Simeon gathered to Zimri who was their prince, saying to him. “We are sentenced to death and you remain quiet!?”, — as it is related in the chapter beginning אלו הן הנשרפין (Sanhedrin 82a). את המדינית THE MIDIANITISH WOMAN — Kozbi the daughter of Zur. לעיני משה BEFORE THE EYES OF MOSES — They said to him: “Moses, is this Midianite woman forbidden or permissible as a wife. If you say she is forbidden, then who made Jethro’s daughter, a Midianite woman, permissible to you, etc.” as is related there (Sanhedrin 82a). והמה בכים AND THEY WERE WEEPING — the law (decision on this matter) escaped him and therefore they all burst out into weeping (Sanhedrin 82a). — In the case of the golden calf Moses successfully resisted six hundred thousand men, as it is said, (Exodus 32:20) “And he ground it to powder [and he made the children of Israel drink of it]”, and here his hands were weak (he did not know what to do)?! But this was intentionally caused by God in order that Phineas might come and receive that which was meant for him (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 20).

"And he brought her near to his kinsmen" — [the woman] was presented to his family. "And they were weeping" — they were praying to Hashem.

ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “and he publicly presented to his brethren the Midianite woman;” the root קרב has been chosen by the chosen by the Torah to describe carnal relations, for instance in Genesis 20,4. Compare also Isaiah 8,3 ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.” והמה בוכים, “while these were weeping;” they wept when they heard Moses’ instructions to kill the guilty persons. In many instances it meant that they had to kill their own relatives.

ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית, “He brought the Midianite woman near to his brethren;” the Torah really should have written: “a man by the name of Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, went and brought the Midianite woman whose name was Cozbi bat Tzur near his brethren.” However, the Torah could not bring itself to reveal name of the wicked person who had become the reason for the raging pestilence until he had been dealt with, i.e. until Pinchas had killed him and until Pinchas had received his reward. Only then does the Torah mention the names of both the man and the woman involved (verses 14-15). All of this is to tell us the praises of Pinchas who displayed fearlessness. Although the people in question were a prince and a king’s daughter respectively, he did not let this stop him from killing them (Rashi). לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת ישראל, “in the presence of Moses and the assembled community of Israel.” He (Zimri) accorded no respect to either heaven or G’d’s creatures. והמה בוכים, “and they were crying.” The Israelites were crying on account of the pestilence which had begun to claim victims amongst them indicating G’d’s anger at the people. Our sages in Tanchuma Balak 20 say that they were crying because a religious decision, הלכה, had apparently escaped Moses and had made this pestilence possible. Zimri had asked Cozbi to sleep with him to which Cozbi had replied: I will not agree to sleep with any one of you unless it is Moses or Eleazar the High Priest seeing I am a king’s daughter. To this Zimri had replied: “I am just as high ranking as they are. I will bring you before them in public.” He took Cozbi by her plait and dragged her before Moses, saying: “Ben Amram, is this woman permitted for me to sleep with or not? If you say that she is not permitted for me to sleep with, who gave you permission to sleep with the daughter of Yitro (a Midianite)?” When Moses heard this he could not remember what should be done to punish Zimri. At that point all the people started crying. This is the meaning of: “they were crying at the entrance to the Tent of Testimony.” Why precisely did the people cry? Did they really think that Moses, a man who had many times been able to stand up to 600,000 fellow Israelites, such as when he burned the golden calf the people had danced around, was now too weak to hold his own against a single Zimri? G’d prevented Moses from remembering the correct procedure at that time in order to enable Pinchas to reap the reward for his initiative. Concerning this incident Solomon says in Proverbs 30,31: “the greyhound, a male goat, and a king who is senile.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 82 apply this verse to Moses (the senile king) and Pinchas the greyhound, the eager beaver. Seeing that Moses forgot the correct response to Zimri he was compared to a senile old king.

ויקרב אל אחיו, in order to seduce her, in violation of Leviticus 18,6 that revealing private parts of members of the opposite sex is also forbidden.

And Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest saw it, and he rose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand.

וירא פנחס AND PHINEAS SAW — He saw what was being done and he was thereby reminded of the law on this subject (Sanhedrin 82a). He said to Moses, “I have received a tradition from you: he who has intercourse with an Aramean (heathen) woman, zealous people may attack him”. He replied to him: “Let him who reads the letter be the agent for executing it”; — straightway, ויקח רמח בידו HE TOOK A JAVELIN IN HIS HAND, etc. (Sanhedrin 82a).

"And Phinehas saw" — when Phinehas saw [this], he rose from the midst of the assembly, which was [gathered] at the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. There is a question here [about how he could act unilaterally], but it is possible to answer that Zimri had [already performed the act] before witnesses.

וירא פינחס, “when Pinchas saw, that no one acted upon Moses’ instructions;”

וירא פינחס, “Pinchas saw, etc.” When he saw a certain deed he remembered the halachah pertaining to it. He said to Moses: “did you not teach us when you descended from Mount Sinai that if someone has sexual intercourse with a pagan woman one may kill such a person in a fit of religious fervor?” To this Moses replied: “he who reads the letter may deliver it to the addressee.” Upon hearing this, ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רומח בידיו, “he arose from amongst the congregation and took a short sword in his hand.” As a reward for this action he was granted the priestly portions (the foreleg, the cheekbones and the stomach of all animals slaughtered by the Israelites as food compare Chulin 134). [The meaning of this line is that he was accorded the status of a priest, a status he had not possessed previously. All the priests are entitled to these parts of the animal.] He was awarded the foreleg for seizing a sword with his hands, the cheekbones corresponding to “Pinchas stepped forth and intervened” (Psalms 106,30), and he was awarded the stomach corresponding to Numbers 25,8 “and the woman into her stomach.” The performance of this commandment helped Pinchas both in this world and in the hereafter (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 47). In this world Pinchas merited the gifts granted to the priests. Moreover, he lived for many hundreds of years on terrestrial earth. We have proof of this in Judges 11,26 when Yiftach told the Ammonites that Israel had dwelled in Hebron and other towns claimed by the Ammonites already for over 300 years. We also find over a hundred years later that Pinchas was still alive in Judges 20,28. The prophet states this explicitly. As to the benefits Pinchas received in his hereafter as a result of his courageous and purely motivated deed in killing Zimri and Cozbi, he was granted the dimension of peace, a wonderful attribute. He was ushered in to eternal life. In the course of his deed, he experienced no fewer than 12 miracles without which he could not have succeeded (based on Tanchuma Balak 21) 1) It is customary for a couple who have engaged in sexual intercourse to separate their bodies from one another afterward. In this instance an angel ensured that Zimri and Cozbi’s bodies were sticking together to enable Pinchas to pierce both with one and the same stroke of the spear. 2) The angel closed their mouths to prevent them from crying out and alerting neighbors who would have attacked Pinchas. 3) The angel directed the spear of Pinchas (who was outside the tent) to aim at precisely the private parts of both Zimri and Cozbi. 4) He miraculously lengthened the metal blade of Pinchas’ spear so that it could reach both the sinners. 5) He raised the lintel of the door to their tent so that the people could all see how these two were strung up on it. 6) He arranged the position of these two in such a way that they were head down and feet up so that everyone could see that they had been killed during the performance of the sexual act. This was to prevent people from arguing that Zimri had entered the tent merely to relieve himself. 7) He lent extra strength to Pinchas’ arm to lift both of them simultaneously so that they would be suspended from the wooden post. 8) He strengthened the wooden post on which they were hung to support the combined weight of the two. 9) He insured that they would not slide off that wooden post. 10) He protected Pinchas so that the blood of his victims did not splash upon him. 11) He enabled Pinchas to hang the two in full view of the people. Halachically speaking, (under normal circumstances), Pinchas, through contact of his spear with the bodies would have become ritually impure. Seeing Pinchas performed his deed with a flat wooden spear, an instrument which is not subject to contracting ritual impurity, he was saved from becoming ritually contaminated in contrast with Numbers 19,22 according to which anyone in contact with a corpse becomes ritually unclean for at least seven days (compare details in Avodah Zarah 37 and Chulin 28). It is also possible, based on Tanchuma Balak 21, that G’d miraculously kept both Zimri and Cozbi alive for the few moments it took for Pinchas to let go of the spear after stabbing them. This then would be the twelfth miracle Pinchas experienced in connection with his deed. If we accept the Tanchuma we need not posit that Pinchas’ spear was a wooden tool or that it was flat. The question of Pinchas becoming ritually unclean would not even have arisen. After all these miracles had happened to Pinchas and he took the two outside to display them hanging, the entire tribe of Shimon surrounded the tent in a threatening posture wanting to kill Pinchas. At that moment the pestilence began which killed twenty-four thousand Israelites, all of them members of the tribe of Shimon (Tanchuma Vayechi 13). It is relatively simple to confirm this when we consider the number of men from the tribe of Shimon counted in Numbers 1,17, i.e. 59,300, and the number of men from that same tribe counted in Numbers 26,14, i.e. 22,000. We note that the tribe had lost over 37,000 men of military age. When we consider that during the episode of the golden calf only 3,000 Israelites were killed whereas here 24,000 lost their lives this teaches that the sin of idolatry alone was far less catastrophic than the combination of idolatry and sexual licentiousness involving pagan partners displayed on this occasion at Shittim. By displaying jealousy on behalf of G’d who had described Himself as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) Pinchas turned away G’d’s wrath and saved untold thousands from being consumed by the pestilence through having put his life on the line. He had simply been unable to witness this public desecration of the Lord’s name. He totally ignored accepted rules of conduct which required showing respect for his superiors, in this case the prince of the tribe of Shimon and a daughter of the King of Midian. He meant to show the world that the only One who is entitled to honor and respect is the Lord. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: “all who are linked to My name, whom I have created, formed and made for My glory.”

And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber and thrust both of them through — the man of Israel and the woman through her belly — and the plague was stayed from upon the children of Israel.

אל הקבה means TO THE TENT. אל קבתה means IN HER STOMACH, similar to (Deut 18:3): “And the two cheeks and the maw (והקיבה)”. He miraculously struck exactly at Zimri’s male and her female parts so that everyone could plainly perceive that he had not killed them without just cause. Many other miracles, too, were wrought for him, as is related there (Sanhedrin 82b).

"Into the chamber" (el ha-kubbah) — meaning into the tent; a similar word exists in the Arabic dialect of Kedar, though there is a slight difference between the form of a tent (ohel) and a chamber (kubbah). "And he pierced" — as in "and he pierced me with it." "Through her belly" (el kovatah) — into the chamber where she was together with the brothers of Zimri. Some say that "kovatah" derives from the same root as "the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw" (ha-keivah, Deut. 18:3). There is also a homiletical interpretation that ten miracles were performed for Phinehas, but Scripture does not mention them.

ותעצר המגפה, for G’d had already decreed previously that all the people who had spurned Him would not see the land of Israel. (Numbers 14,25). [this justifies the letter ה before a מגפה which we had not heard about. Ed,]

וידקר את שניהם, He stabbed them both. We can understand that Pinchas had a legal excuse to kill the Israelite who indulged in sex with a Gentile woman; however, what right did he have to kill the woman? There is no known halachah which excuses such a deed! If Pinchas suspected that Kosbi was married and as such had made herself guilty of adultery, who has ever heard of executing someone on the basis of such an assumption? Perhaps Pinchas applied the law applicable to animals to Kosbi. We have learned in Leviticus 20,15 that when humans and animals indulge in mutual sex even the animal has to be executed. We are also told in Ezekiel 23,20 that the flesh of Gentiles is equated with the flesh of donkeys. If you were to ask that if it is so why didn't the Israelites execute Kosbi seeing she did not belong to a nation whom the Israelites had been forbidden to kill, [such as the Edomites and Moabites? Ed.] the answer may be that they had not yet offered peace to the Midianites. [Jews must extend an offer of peace and surrender to an adversary other than an invader before going to war against such people (Deut. 20,10) Ed.] While it is true that in the event, [at the beginning of the punitive campaign against Midian. Ed.] we do not find that the Midianites were offered a choice of surrender or even "transfer," this was after G'd had given specific instructions (28,17) to harass the Midianites. Alternatively, the Israelites may not have known the identity of the woman in question believing her to be a Moabite; in that event they were under stricture not to harm the Moabites. She may even have worn Moabite style garments in order to hide her true identity. The fact that the Torah describes her as a Midianite does not prove the Israelites were aware of this at the time.

וידקור את שניהם, “and he stabbed both of them to death at the same time.” If in the process he became ritually unclean, there was nothing wrong with this, as our sages have said Pinchas only became a priest after he had killed Zimri, so that he had not been subject to the commandment not to knowingly become ritually unclean. אל קבתה, “through her belly.” The word is used in the sense of piercing a hole in Kings II 12,10: ויקב חור בדלתו, “he bored a hole through its door.”

הקבה, a kind of tent. קבתה, her belly; compare Deuteronomy 18,3.והקבה.

And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

לאמר, to say, etc. To whom was Moses to tell this? He did not have to tell Pinchas as in that case why did the Torah write in verse 12: אמר, "say" if he had already been told all this by Moses? Besides, the sequence of the whole chapter shows that Pinchas had not yet been told of his reward. I suppose that G'd wanted Moses to tell the entire people that not only had Pinchas not acted highhandedly and they had no cause to hate him for having killed one of their princes, but that thanks to Pinchas' deed the whole nation had benefited immediately. Moses also explained to the people that Pinchas had only succeeded in what he did because he had heavenly assists as outlined in Sanhedrin 82. We will get back to this later in greater detail.

Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned back My wrath from upon the children of Israel, in that he was zealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel in My jealousy.

פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן PHINEAS THE SON OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST — Because the tribes spoke disparagingly of him, saying, “Have you seen this grandson of Puti the father of whose mother used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifices (see Exodus 6:25 that Eleazar his father had married a daughter of Putiel who is identified with Jethro; see Rashi on that verse and Exodus 18:1), and he has dared to slay a prince of one of Israel’s tribes!”, therefore Scripture comes and connects his genealogy with Aaron (Sanhedrin 82b). בקנאו את קנאתי means “when he executed my vengeance” (more lit., when he avenged my avenging) — when he displayed the anger that I should have displayed. The expression קנאה always denotes glowing with anger to execute vengeance for a thing; in O. F. emportment (cf. Rashi on 11:29).

PHINEHAS, THE SON OF ELEAZAR. The Holy One, blessed be He, [here] informed Moses that He would give Phinehas a good reward for his zeal, because he was zealous for his G-d, and for the righteousness which he did for Israel by bringing about atonement for them, so that they did not all die in the plague. He [also] commanded Moses to tell Israel that he [Phinehas] would be a priest forever, and this is the sense of the phrase, Therefore say, that Moses was to tell this to Israel. Now Scripture does not say: “and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him ‘an everlasting priesthood, ’” as He said about Aaron, but instead it says: ‘the covenant’ of an everlasting priesthood, and it [also] says, I give unto him ‘My covenant’ of peace, meaning that He will give him a covenant with peace cleaving to it, whereas in the case of Aaron it says for splendor and for beauty. Therefore it says [here concerning Phinehas]: because he was zealous for his G-d. The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand. Scripture mentions, Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain; And the name of the Midianite woman that was slain, in order to indicate that [Phinehas] deserved this great reward because he killed a prince of Israel, and the daughter of a heathen king and [nonetheless] he feared them not in his zeal for his G-d. And after He had requited His good reward to the righteous one [Phinehas], He commanded Moses to punish the wicked ones, and He told him, Harass the Midianites, but first He commanded him to count the people. This is the intent of [the phrase] And it came to pass after the plague [that the Eternal spoke unto Moses … ‘Take the sum etc.’], meaning that the taking of the census should be done first [before the punishment of the Midianites].

"In his jealousy for Me" (be-kan'o) — the nun is lightened [voweled lightly] to ease pronunciation; the meaning is that he was zealous like his Maker/Creator, and it is written of Hashem in another passage that "He is a jealous God" (El kana, Ex. 20:5). [Hashem says:] Had Phinehas not acted with this jealousy, I would have consumed all Israel in this matter with My jealousy.

בקנאו את קנאתו בתוכם, for having taken G’d’s vengeance in the presence of all the people, so that by their watching what he did and not protesting his deed they would qualify for atonement of their sin for not having protested the sinners at the time when they were about to commit their evil deeds. [compare author on verse 4 in this chapter where he made a similar point explaining the unusual command by G’d to Moses. Ed.]

פנחס בן אלעזר, Pinchas son of Eleazar, etc. Why did the Torah have to give us Pinchas' full genealogy here? [the same genealogy has been recorded only 4 verses previously. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah wanted to give his ancestors an honorable mention in this way. Moreover, it is likely that G'd wanted to heal the residual bad feeling that might have existed against Aaron who at the time when he made the golden calf had inadvertently become the cause of many Israelites dying prematurely (compare Exodus 32,35 "G'd smote the people who had made the calf which Aaron had constructed). Now a grandson of Aaron had come and saved many more Israelites' lives than Aaron had ever even indirectly caused to be lost. This is why G'd Himself goes on record saying: "I have not consumed the children of Israel in My jealousy." In order to make all this clear, Aaron had to be mentioned by name. We have been told in Tanna de bey Eliyahu chapter 13 that Aaron rehabilitated himself through teaching the Israelites Torah and performing good deeds. From this you see that in the eyes of the Israelites Aaron had been considered as responsible for the death of those Jews at the time of the episode of the golden calf. The Torah therefore tells us here that Aaron's grandson completed this task of Aaron's rehabilitation posthumously. השיב את חמתי, "has turned away My wrath, etc." The Torah may have mentioned this to teach us that once G'd's wrath has been aroused it requires a new merit on the part of His creatures to assuage the attribute of Justice. At the very least, we can assume that this is what Moses thought. G'd explained to Moses that in this instance it had been Pinchas' deed which had succeeded in turning away His wrath. The very word השיב in the causative form teaches that G'd's anger did not abate on its own. מעל בני ישראל, "from the children of Israel, etc." This means that once G'd's anger had descended upon them Pinchas succeeded in removing it from the children of Israel. This is a great compliment to Pinchas. In addition the Torah defines the act which Pinchas had performed as one that caused G'd personally a sense of wellbeing seeing that as long as He was angry and jealous it had caused Him sadness and distress. בקנאו את קנאתי בתכם, "when he displayed jealousy on My behalf amongst them." Both the apparently superfluous words קנאתי, "My jealousy," and בתכם, "amongst them," are very deliberate. These factors each contributed to giving Pinchas the power to turn away G'd's wrath. 1) Pinchas displayed his personal jealousy on behalf of G'd by endangering his life on account of G'd's honour. This idea is expressed by the suffix ו at the end of the word בקנאו. 2) His jealousy was purely on G'd's behalf, he had no ulterior motive. When man performs a מצוה for absolutely pure motives without the slightest consideration of how the performance of such a good deed might benefit him personally, this is the most beloved מצוה- performance that exists in G'd's eyes. This is w...

השיב את חמתי, “he turned away My wrath;” this has been spelled out when the Torah wrote on Numbers 25,8: ותעצר המגפה, “the plague stopped.” This being so, no Israelite had any reason to hate Pinchas for having killed Zimri, as it had resulted in a blessing for the other Israelites. The leader of the tribe of Shimon had certainly proved to be unworthy of that position.

מגדל עוז שם ה' בו ירוץ צדיק ונשגב, “The name of the Lord is a tower of strength, the righteous runs towards it and is elevated” (Proverbs 18,10). In this verse Solomon is teaching us a lesson in faith. The plain meaning of the verse is: “a person who puts his trust in the Lord may be compared to someone who is within a formidable tower, serene, unafraid of any potential aggressor.” It is similar to Psalms 118,6: “when the Lord is with me what can a mortal human being possibly do to me. The words: “the righteous runs towards it and is elevated,” refer to his being rescued from troubles. (Compare Rabbeinu Yonah’s understanding of the word נשגב as being equivalent to נושע). We find that word used in that context in Proverbs 29,25: ובוטח בה' ישוגב, “and he who puts his trust in the Lord will be safeguarded.” In that verse too Solomon refers to man being safeguarded from threatening troubles and enemies. The word בו in the verse above does not refer to the word מגדל, “tower,” but to שם ה' i.e. he who puts his trust not in the tower but in the name of the Lord. Clearly, a man does not run inside a strong tower, but he runs around proclaiming the name of the Lord and his trust in Him. He who does this will be saved as if he were inside a fortress although he does not appear to be protected by visible man-made shields. Whereas human beings who run are liable to stumble and fall, not so he who runs proclaiming his faith in the Lord. We find this idea expressed in Proverbs 4,12: “when you run you will not stumble.” The reason Solomon chose “a tower of strength” as his simile in our heading instead of a high mountain or something similarly impregnable, is because fortified towers are an essential need for people in trouble, being pursued, etc. We have an example of this in Judges 9,51 “there was a tower of strength inside the city to which they fled.” This is why Solomon chose an example of the kind of man-made structure that ordinary people put their trust in. This is also why David writes in Psalms 20,2: “may the Lord answer you in time of trouble, the name of Yaakov’s G’d keep you safe.” In other words: “G’d is the Tower of strength who will elevate people when they are in trouble and distress.” David used the same verb when he prayed to G’d to save him from the pursuit of king Shaul (Psalms 59,2) where he said ממתקוממי תשגבני. He also employed this verb when he faced the giant Goliath. In Samuel I 17,45 David says to Goliath: “you come against me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come against you in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the G’d of the ranks of Israel, etc.” Clearly, the words: “the name of the Lord” are of the essence in that verse. Whereas Solomon used the simile of a fortified tower to describe a feeling of security and therefore applied this simile to the name of the Lord, Isaiah used the simile of a room where a person when he closes the door feels relatively secure. Compare Isaiah 26,20: “Go, My people enter your chambers, and lock your doors behind you.” We find in many verses throughout the Bible that G’d Himself is being compared to a “refuge” (Psalms 90,1) or to a “rock,” (Samuel II 22,2). Our sages have described G’d or “the name of G’d” as מקום, “place,” seeing He comprises all “places” and He is the “place” or “site” of the universe. There is no “place” without Him. No human being is called righteous unless he has faith in the Lord (compare Proverbs 28,1: ‘the righteous are confident like a lion’). Our author lists many more verses from Scripture, all reflecting the same theme that faith in the Lord (and in the righteousness of one’s actions) are the source of confidence of the righteous. Pinchas personified such faith. If he merited to have so many miracles performed for him to help him succeed it was because of the faith he had displayed. פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי, “Pinchas, son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, deflected My wrath, etc.” Some commentators understand the word השיב here as meaning the same as בשובה ונחת, in Isaiah 30,15: “through calm and serenity.” While G’d displayed His jealousy He had allowed the attribute of Justice free reign, such as Exodus 33,14, והניחותי לך, “I will provide you rest.” I feel, however, that the more likely meaning of the word השיב is simply that the wrath of G’d which was about to advance against the people of Israel was “turned back” by Pinchas completely. One may question this statement seeing that 24,000 Israelites died during the pestilence, so how could Pinchas be credited with having totally prevented G’d’s wrath claiming victims amongst the people? In fact, the very fact that only people from the tribe of Shimon died is the proof that Pinchas succeeded in halting G’d’s wrath claiming victims from the בני ישראל, i.e. the attribute of Justice was active only among that single tribe. This is the meaning of the words: “and I did not completely wipe out the Children of Israel during My jealousy.” Clearly, turning back G’d’s wrath resulted in the continued existence of the Jewish nation. It follows that Pinchas was the source of the Jewish people as a nation enjoying long life, i.e. continued existence from then on until the end of time. As a reward commensurate with his deed he was granted continuous life in that he became in due course Elijah the prophet as we know from Zohar 215 based on Maleachi 2,5: “My covenant was with him, Life (ongoing) and peace.” When the Torah speaks here about Pinchas being granted בריתי, “My covenant,” the meaning is the same as in Maleachi. בקנאו את קנאתי, “when he displayed My jealousy.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that Pinchas acted in G’d’s place when he displayed religious fervour. A Midrashic approach: the fact that the word קנאה appears twice in succession proves that the Torah refers to two separate jealousies. The first display of Pinchas being jealous occurred here, the second in the days of Achav when the prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel gave a repeat performance and killed 400 priests of the idol Baal, and he fled to Mount Chorev after that occurrence to escape the wrath of Achav and Izzevel. When he arrived there and G’d asked him why he had come there (Kings I 19,9-10) he answered: “I have worked with zeal for the Lord, the G’d of Hosts for they have abandoned Your covenant with the Children of Israel.” Pinchas was also involved in another act of religious zeal on behalf of G’d during the period known as Pilegesh beGivah in Judges 20,28 and Chronicles I 9,20. According to the view of the sages in Baba Metzia 114 Pinchas and Elijah were identical. The Talmud relates that a scholar by the name of Rabbah bar Avuhah met Elijah in a cemetery where idolaters were buried. He was surprised at this and asked him: “are you not a priest?” (priests are not allowed in cemeteries) Elijah answered that the bodies of Gentiles do not confer ritual impurity if one merely is under the same roof with them without physical contact. He quoted Numbers 19,14 אדם כי ימות באהל וגו', “when someone qualifying for the description אדם dies in a tent, etc., plus Ezekiel 34,31: ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, “and you My flock, flock that I tend, are אדם", as proof that only Jews qualify for the complimentary description אדם. This also explains why he was allowed to lie down in the form of a tent over the son of the woman from Tzorfat as her son was a Gentile (compare Kings I 17,21). [The text there appears to imply close bodily contact between Elijah and the boy. Rabbi Chavell quotes some halachic sources that even such contact with the body of a dead Gentile is permitted. Ed.].

Pinchas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, etc. All of this elaborate genealogy is noted to add something. For despite being the son of Eleazar, who took a wife from the daughters of Putiel from the lineage of Jethro, who fattened calves for idolatry, [we would have thought that] he should have refrained from this zealous act, lest the mockers of the generation say to him: “Who permitted your father to marry a daughter of Jethro, and how can you be zealous against a Midianite woman?” Similarly, “Your grandfather fattened calves for idolatry, so how can you be zealous against idolatry?” And he was the grandson of Aaron the priest, and they might say to him: “This grandfather of yours fattened calves for idolatry, and that one made the golden calf.” Nevertheless, he did not concern himself with his own honor. Rashi explained that the tribes were disparaging him, etc. It is possible that this was his intent — that because the tribes were disparaging him, the verse traced his lineage to tell us: See that he was a pious man. Even though, being the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, gave them grounds to disparage him, nevertheless he put himself in harm’s way and did not worry about his honor. Furthermore, the verse tells us that he was one who turned away wrath, the son of one who turned away wrath (Sanhedrin 82b); therefore he seized upon the deeds of his forefathers. “In his jealousy for My jealousy among them.” It does not say “My jealousy for them” but rather among them teaching that all sanctification of God’s name must specifically take place within the midst of the children of Israel, as it is written, And I shall be sanctified within the children of Israel (Leviticus 22:32). This is why it says, And Phineas rose up from the midst of the congregation (Numbers 25:7). This informs us of Phineas’s virtue: that he was willing to sacrifice his life for the sanctification of God’s name. And even though he was within the assembly — a place of danger because of Zimri’s relatives — nevertheless, he placed his life in his palm [he risked his life]. And by way of allusion, he took a spear [romach] in his hand, for in this act he put all of his 248 [ramach in Hebrew numerology] limbs in his palm [on the line], and he was zealous with two zealotries: one against idolatry and one against fornication. Therefore it says, in his zealotry for My zealotry; or one for the honor of the Blessed Name and one for the honor of Moses. For anyone who desecrates the Name does not give honor to their teacher, applying the logic of a fortiori: If the Divine Presence is not important to him, then certainly not his teacher. And thus he [Zimri] acted insolently against him [Moses] and said to him, “Who permitted you [to marry] the daughter of Jethro?”On this, Pinchas relied when he ruled practically [the law] in the presence of his teacher Moses, for he said that his teacher was affected by the matter, lest they say to him, “Who permitted you [to marry] the daughter of Jethro?” Therefore it says therefore say: Behold, I give him My covenant of peace. It should have said “therefore say to him,” but rather the explanation is that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “Therefore, say to all Israel on your own behalf, ’Behold, I give him My covenant of peace,’” so that Israel would not say that you are not at peace with Pinchas for having ruled [the law] in Your presence. Therefore, make it known to the public and say from Your side, Behold, I give him, etc. And Behold refers to Moses. (See Sanhedrin 82b: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Precede him with peace.”)And corresponding to his zealotry for his God, it says and it shall be for him and his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous for his God. And this reason does not refer to what was said Behold, I give him, etc., because that was his reward for being zealous for Moses, as mentioned. And it says and he made atonement for the children of Israel, for he brought this wicked one as an atonement for all Israel, and it was considered for him as if he had offered bulls and sheep. Therefore, God swore, “You are a priest forever,” as you have begun your priestly service.

פינחס בן אלעזר...בקנאו את קנאתי, “Pinchas son of Eleazar. when he displayed his jealousy on My behalf.” Seeing that Hashem is also known as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) meaning that He acts as such vis-à-vis people who worship idols, Pinchas’ act of taking the law into his own hands, religious intolerance, need not be interpreted as an act of jealousy on behalf of his own agenda. G’d tells Moses that but for Pinchas’ action and motivation He would have continued killing the Israelites by the plague.

'פינחס בן אלעזר הכהן וגו, “Pinchas son of the High Priest Eleazar, etc.” although this was not news to anyone, the Torah had to repeat his genealogy so that the reader would not think that he could be hated for having taken the law into his own hands by killing Zimri. On the contrary, by doing so he had succeeded in arresting the vengeance G–d was in the process of taking from the sinners. Had he not done so, the people criticising him might themselves have been killed by the plague G–d had sent.

Therefore say: Behold, I hereby decree for him My covenant of peace.

את בריתי שלום [I GIVE TO HIM] MY COVENANT — PEACE — This means: I give him my covenant that it should be to him as a covenant of peace; just like a man who shows gratitude and friendliness to one who has done him a kindness. So here, too, the Holy One, blessed be He, expressed to him His peaceful feelings towards him.

"My covenant of peace" (et briti shalom) — its meaning is: My covenant, a covenant of peace, just as "Your throne, O God" (Ps. 45:7) [means "Your throne, a throne of God"]; and many [phrases] follow this pattern. The meaning is that he need not fear the kinsmen of Zimri, for he [Zimri] was a chieftain of a patriarchal house; and his reward is that the covenant of eternal priesthood shall belong to him and his descendants after him forever, for the High Priests descended from Phinehas — though it is possible that Elazar had other sons as well.

את בריתי שלום. Peace with the angel of death. We have a similar meaning of this word שלום in Job 25,20 עושה שלום במרומיו, “He makes peace in His lofty regions.” [I assume that the reference is to the fact that the angel of death has no authority in the celestial regions. Ed.] Losses occur only as a result of confrontations by opposites. We find that as a result of this שלום, “peace, or armistice” with the angel of death Pinchas enjoyed an exceedingly long life on earth, more so than any other member of his generation. In fact, he was still serving as priest in the Tabernacle at Shiloh during the civil war between Binyamin and the other tribes. This occurred many years after the death of Joshua and the elders who were Joshua’s assistants. (Judges 20,28) Joshua 24,26 reports these elders as surviving Joshua for many years. If, as is indicated by the Talmud, Pinchas was still alive in the days of Yiphtach (Judges 11,26) he must have been 300 years old by that time. (compare either Bereshit Rabbah 60,3 or Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 47 on the subject of Pinchas)

לכן אמור, "Therefore, 'say,'" etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word לכן, "Therefore," seeing it goes on to explain in verse 13 "because he was jealous for his G'd?" We are forced to understand the word as an oath. We have learned in Shemot Rabbah 6,4 on Exodus 6,6 that this word is always to be understood as a form of oath. The Midrash uses as its source Samuel I 3,14, ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, "And this is why I have sworn an oath concerning the house of Eli, etc." This still leaves us with the question why an oath was required in this instance. Presumably, the oath was needed to reinforce the covenant of peace in the event that Pinchas' children should turn out not to be deserving of the covenant G'd had concluded with their father. We may also be able to explain this verse on the basis of what we learned in Zevachim 101 that prior to the incident with Zimri Pinchas had not yet been appointed to the priesthood, as, although he was around at the time Aaron and his sons were anointed, he himself had not bothered to be anointed. After he performed his deed of jealousy on behalf of G'd he was appointed to the priesthood. Pinchas could have acquired the priesthood either as an act of forgiveness or as a gift from G'd. In the former event, his deed prompted G'd to forgive him for having failed at the time to have himself anointed. If we see in his appointment now a gift from G'd, we may view it as something entirely new. Just as Aaron and his sons were appointed to be priests, though Amram Aaron's father and his brothers had not been priests, so Pinchas' appointment was something quite new. There is a halachic difference between priesthood acquired as an act of forgiveness and priesthood acquired as a gift. In the fomer case, the priest need not perform an act of קנין, a symbolic act of acquisition of the priesthood; however, someone who had not had a previous claim to the priesthood and was awarded same as a gift must perform such an act of קנין. Receiving the priesthood as a gift carries with it two disadvantages which the person who receives the priesthood as an act of forgiveness need not worry about. If the priesthood was attained via G'd forgiving Pinchas for an act of negligence in the past, then, if Pinchas were to be appointed High Priest at a future date he would not have to face any challengers. Any challenge would be dealt with as had the challenges against Aaron becoming High Priest. If the priesthood were to be granted only as a gift, the priest in question could face challenges to his promotion just as did Aaron before G'd had intervened. Such a challenge would be reinforced by the fact that Pinchas had killed. A priest who has killed is supposedly unfit to perform his priestly duties. People would claim that inasmuch as the status of the priesthood granted as a gift is limited to the recipient of that gift becoming an ordinary priest, such a priest does not qualify to compete for the office of High Priest. This is not so when a...

את בריתי שלום, “My covenant of peace.” He has no reason to fear the vengeance of either the relatives of Zimri or of Cosbi, the Midianite princess. The expression: את בריתי שלום, is to be understood as if the Torah had written: את בריתי, ברית שלום, “My covenant, the covenant of peace.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 45,7: כסאך אלוקים, “Your throne, G-d,” which is to be understood as if the author had written: כסאך כסא אלוקים, Your throne, the throne of G-d. We also find such a construction in Joshua 3,14: הארון הברית, which is to be understood as if the author had written: ,הארון ארון הברית, “the Ark, the Ark of the covenant.” The author states that he could cite numerous such examples. An alternate interpretation of the expression: בריתי שלום: Pinchas had been worried that as a result of his having killed a human being, something forbidden to do for a priest, he might have to forego his status as a priest. G-d therefore assured him that seeing that his intention was to glorify the name of the Lord, he need not fear such consequences. This will be spelled out forthwith.

לכן אמור, “therefore say:” this wording serves as an allusion to the blessing of the priests which is introduced by a call to them from a congregant to begin to chant the blessing. [The meaning could be that whereas a priest guilty of killing a human being is prevented thereby from performing this blessing (Berachot 32), Pinchas was allowed to be an exception to this rule.] הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I herewith grant him My covenant ‘peace.’” According to the plain meaning of the text G’d meant that he need not fear the vengeance of members of Zimri’s family who would want to avenge his death. Pinchas’ reward would be that both he and his descendants would be priests. A Midrashic approach: the letter ו in the word שלום is broken to teach us that the covenant with the priests is contingent upon the priests being whole in body and mind. A blemished priest may not perform priestly functions in the Temple (Kidushin 66). I have heard that the word שלום may be understood as an acrostic of the words: שלא למות, ‘not to die;” this would reinforce the tradition of our sages that Pinchas became immortal, i.e. that he was identical with the prophet Elijah. In fact, we find Elijah as saying to G’d: (Kings I 19,4) “please take my soul from me for I am no better than my forefathers;” he referred to the forefathers who had died as opposed to him who had remained alive all these many hundreds of years. Seeing that Pinchas (Elijah) had expressed his disgust with life on terrestrial earth he was granted eternal life in the celestial regions and he departed this earth in a storm riding heavenwards (Kings II 2,11). A kabbalistic approach to the words: “Herewith I grant you My covenant peace.” G’d assured him of the attribute known as ברית which is identical with the concept of כנסת ישראל. This is a variation of the attribute of Justice. We find this attribute mentioned by our sages who stated that Avraham had a daughter (in explaining the words וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “the Lord had blessed Avraham in all respects,” (Genesis 24,2) see Baba Batra 16). This is why in our verse the wording is והיתה לו ...ברית, meaning that the covenant with this attribute of Justice will be his. G’d assured Pinchas that the peace He promised would be an adjunct to this covenant. It is similar to Leviticus 26,6 where G’d promises that as a consequence of observance of His commandments ונתתי שלום בארץ, “I will grant peace in the land” [as opposed to peace merely between people. Maybe the author means that the very fact that man has to die, the body to return to earth, is symbolic of a constant state of war between the living and the dead. Ed.]. All of this implies that Pinchas deserved to be granted eternal life. This is the justification of the verse in Maleachi 25, we quoted earlier that “My covenant was with him, the life and the peace.” “Life” is an outgrowth of the attribute of Mercy. This is reflected in the Torah describing Pinchas as קנא לאלו-היו “he was jealous for the sake of his G’d (in the sense of the attribute of Justice). If I understand our author correctly, when Pinchas observed a joining together of bodies which represented opposing philosophies which had no business to be joined together he tried to restore the state of affairs in which matters which belong together are joined together. In the celestial regions צדק ושלום נשקו, “righteousness and peace kissed” (Psalms 85,11), i.e. the emanations of מלכות and the adjoining one ofיסוד are perceived as a natural fit. When they are close together the universe can continue to exist. In our terrestrial part of the universe the continued existence of this world is also dependent on matters that belong together being joined together, not matters or people who have no business to indulge in physical union. Basically, Pinchas tried to restore the world’s (Jewish) equilibrium by his deed. If he was granted “peace” as the reward for his deed this was precisely a case of the reward fitting the merit attained. “Peace”, after all, is joining together, creating harmony. It may be appropriate to understand the very name of אליהו as combining elements of both the attribute of Justice, i.e. א-ל, and the attribute of Mercy i.e. י-ה-ו. The attribute of Mercy and the attribute peace can be viewed as being interchangeable, whereas the attribute of Justice and the attribute ברית, covenant may also be viewed as interchangeable. When we keep these facts in mind we can understand some of Elijah’s actions reported in the Book of Kings. When he called down fire from heaven to kill the captain of fifty soldiers and his men who had been dispatched by King Achaziah to capture him, he activated the part of his personality which represented the attribute of Justice (Kings II 1,8-12); when he resurrected the dead he activated the part of his personality which represented the attribute of Mercy (Kings I 17,22). Interestingly, the numerical value of the name אליהו is 52, i.e. twice the numerical value of the name י-ה-ו-ה. Also Pinchas was the seventh generation after Yaakov the founder of the Jewish nation, just as Chanoch (who left earth heavenward alive) was the seventh generation counting from Adam, the first human being. The number seven symbolises the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, a day of rest, of harmony, serenity and therefore devoted to life.

לכן אמור, “Therefore, say! etc.” the words “to the Children of Israel,” are implied here. Moses was to announce to the Israelites that Pinchas had acquired hereditary rank as a priest. הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I herewith grant him My covenant of peace.” According to the plain meaning of the text family members who might act as גואל הדם, having the license to kill him by reason of being blood relations. Seeing that Zimri was a high-ranking member of the Israelite society there might have been numerous people who would have welcomed a chance to do just this. Apart from this assurance, his real reward would be that both he and his descendants would be priests.

לכן, because (he had performed this deed of valour) on My behalf; הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I am forthwith giving him My covenant “peace.” G–d assures Pinchas that even if either relatives of Zimri and Cosbi will hate Pinchas, He will protect him against any act of overt or covert hostility. In the Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 66, attention is drawn to the fact that the letter ו in the word שלום is written with a break in the stem of that letter, to indicate that when a priest is not totally whole in all of his limbs, he is not fit to perform the service in the Temple. His service would be rendered invalid retroactively.

And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous before his God and made atonement for the children of Israel.

והיתה לו AND IT SHALL BE UNTO HIM — this covenant of Mine shall be unto him — ברית כהנת עולם A COVENANT OF AN EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD — for although the priesthood had already been given to Aaron’s descendants (cf. Exodus 28:40-41), it was given only to Aaron and his sons who had been anointed together with him and to their offspring whom they might beget after they had been anointed. But Phineas who had been born prior to that and had not been anointed, had not as yet attained the status of priesthood until now. So, too, do we read in Zevachim 101b: Phineas did not become a priest until he had slain Zimri. לאלהיו means [HE WAS ZEALOUS] FOR THE SAKE OF HIS GOD, just as, (Numbers 11:29) “Are you zealous for My sake (לי)?” and (Zechariah 8:2) “I am zealous לציון", i.e., for Zion’s sake.

The word "after him" (acharav) is a sign that [Phinehas] died and is not Elijah at all; I have already explained this, for he was a leader over them, and he also lived in the days of the concubine of Gibeah (Judg. 20:28). "Who was zealous for his God" — out of his love for Hashem, and he also did good for Israel. By way of homiletical interpretation: the father atoned, and his sons will make atonement.

תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו, seeing he had had the courage to fight My fight, I have ennobled him, granting him “peace” [a fitting reward for a noble fight. Ed.] ויכפר על בני ישראל, seeing that he did what he did in full view of his peers so that they would obtain expiation for not having protested Zimri’s behaviour, he proved himself fit to become a priest whose primary function it is to secure expiation for the sins of their Jewish brethren. As a priest he could continue in the role he had first adopted on this occasion.

תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו, because he displayed jealousy on behalf of His G'd. This verse provides the reason why G'd decided to give the priesthood to Pinchas as a gift rather than in his capacity of being the son of a priest. By pointing out that what Pinchas had done, he did on account of his G'd, G'd repaid him by elevating him to the priesthood as an act of honouring him personally. He did this by demonstrating that Pinchas did not have to rely on his ancestry, i.e his father and grandfather the High Priests in order to become a priest himself. ויכפר על בני ישראל, he atoned on behalf of the children of Israel. This means that he re-established peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven that G'd in turn called off the angel of death. Inasmuch as Pinchas had caused G'd to call off the angel of death from his people, his people made a pact of peace with him. Inasmuch as the benefits the Israelites derived from Pinchas' calling off the angel of death from them, in other words a benefit extending from generation to generation, Pinchas' elevation to the priesthood was also one that extended from generation to generation, i.e. כהונת עולם. A moral/ethical approach to our verse could be based on the statement in Baba Metzia 114, that the prophet Elijah who would usher in the messianic age would be none other than Pinchas (his re-incarnation). Our verse would provide the reason why it would be Pinchas who would perform this task in the future. We are told that the principal function of the prophet Elijah at the time preceding the arrival of the Messiah will be to bridge the generation gap between fathers and sons and vice-versa, harmonising their mutual relationships (compare Maleachi 3,24). In addition to that we have learned in Edioth 8,7 that Elijah would increase שלום, harmony in the world. You will observe that in our paragraph the Torah describes Pinchas twice as being jealous, once in verse 11 and once more in our verse here. The Torah alludes to the jealousy the original Pinchas displayed on G'd's behalf during the time the Israelites were at Shittim, whereas the second reference is to the jealousy the prophet Elijah (Pinchas) displayed during the reign of King Achav when he described himself before G'd as a Kannai, a fanatic on G'd's behalf (Kings I 19,14). There too we find that he repeated the word קנא, "was jealous." At that time, Elijah alluded to the fact that this was already the second time he had played this role of being jealous on behalf of G'd. The Torah therefore mentions here that G'd granted him G'd's covenant of peace. What is the meaning of that covenant? The word שלום is to be understood as "complete, whole." The first covenant G'd concluded with the first Jew Abraham in Genesis 15, 1-21 contained the promise that Abraham's descendants would take possession of the lands of 10 nations all of which are named in that chapter. Even at the time when the prophet Elijah was active on earth for the first time, the lands of no more ...

ברית כהונת עולם, “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood;” All the High Priests following the High Priest Pinchas, who succeeded his father Elazar, who functioned during the period of the first Temple, and even beyond, during the early period of the second Temple were direct descendants of Pinchas as spelled out in Chronicles I 5,30.

והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “it will be for both him and his descendants after him, etc.” From this wording it appears as if but for Pinchas’ deed his priesthood would not have been permanent and hereditary. However, this seems extremely implausible, seeing that the priesthood was granted to Aaron and his sons on an ongoing hereditary basis. All of Aaron’s sons had already been anointed with the holy oil of anointing so that all their offspring would automatically have been priests. However, the fact is that Pinchas had been born prior to the anointing of Aaron and his sons as priests, so that as a grandson he did not automatically qualify under the heading under which Aaron and his sons (exclusive of existing grandsons if any) had been appointed as priests. As of that point only sons born to Aaron’s children after their being anointed qualified for automatic priesthood status at birth. In view of all this, had Pinchas not performed the deed of killing Zimri under the circumstances described, he would never have become a priest, to say nothing of retaining such status in perpetuity. This is why the Torah had to stress that his elevation to the priesthood was לעולם. This is also why our sages (Zevachim 101) said that Pinchas was not made a priest until after he killed Zimri. [This disposes of the need for special legislation to allow Pinchas to perform the blessing of the people. Ed.]. According to Ibn Ezra the words ולזרעו אחריו “and for his descendants after him” indicate that Pinchas's descendants succeeded him as High Priest and he himself eventually died, and is therefore not the same person as Elijah. But the author feels that the view of our Sages identifying Pinchas with Elijah is correct, and the word אחריו in our verse may refer to Pinchas/Elijah’s disappearance from earth, i.e. his “departure.” ברית כהונת עולם, “a covenant of everlasting priesthood.” In this instance the word מלח, “salt,” normally associated with the wordברית is absent although it appears in 18,19 when Aaron and all his offspring are mentioned seeing they have been assured of two worlds, the terrestrial world when the covenant is effective to provide the priests with their sustenance from “G’d’s” table, i.e. the gifts listed as being given to the priests in Parshat Korach. Secondly, as recorded in 18,20, G’d uses two separate terms describing Himself as bothחלקך and נחלתך. The former word refers to the priests being G’d’s share in the terrestrial world, the latter word to His being the priest’s share in the hereafter. Seeing that in Korach the subject is both worlds, the word מלח symbolizing something enduring is used whereas in connection with Pinchas and his covenant there is no need to reinforce the promise of G’d that he is assured of an eternal future by adding the word מלח. Pinchas merited his promotion from the attribute of Mercy which, as opposed to the attribute of Justice, does not envisage death, i.e. impermanence. The priesthood and what it stands for is an emanation of the attribute of חסד, an attribute over which death has no control. ויכפר על בני ישראל, “he obtained atonement for the Children of Israel.” This verse teaches that he who spills the blood of the wicked is considered as if he had offered a sacrifice. The idea is reflected in Exodus 21,14: “from My altar you shall remove him to die.” The meaning of the verse is that even if the party concerned is a priest involved in performing his priestly duties on the altar, he must be removed and executed (Yuma 85).

והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “and both he and his descendants will enjoy the status of being priests.” This is the case with the descendants of all priests, but what is meant here is that the special priest assigned to soldiers before setting out on a war of conquest will always be one descended from Pinchas. (Compare both Numbers 31,6 and Talmud Zevachim, folio 101)It also follows that prior to Pinchas’ having killed Zimri in an act of zealousness he had not been a priest although he was the son of a priest. This also explains how Pinchas could have permitted himself to kill Zimri as by doing so he would defile himself, something forbidden for a priest to do? We would have been able to answer that up until now only Aaron himself and his sons had been forbidden to defile themselves through contact with a corpse. We find that also during the description of the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests the Torah had emphasised the anointment of him and his sons, (not any grandsons. Compare Exodus 28,40-41.)It is also possible to answer that when Pinchas withdrew his dagger from Zimri and Cosbi, they had not yet been quite dead. [These speculations are necessary as there is a debate between the sages as to when Pinchas had become a priest. His priesthood might not have been hereditary to his descendants prior to here. Ed.] Concerning this interpretation, Rabbi Sh’muel raises the point that Pinchas must have been a priest in the full sense of the meaning of the word no later than on the eighth day of the consecrations rites, [38 years earlier. Ed.] or the Midrash could not have included him in the seven joyful events that Aaron’s wife Elisheva was supposed to have enjoyed on that day. It is possible that Moses appointed him to that position although he did not permit him to perform service in the Tabernacle until after he had earned that right by being zealous on G–d’s behalf at the right time at the right place. Only now had all the privileges of the priesthood been bestowed upon him and his descendants after him. ויכפר על בני ישראל, “now that he had achieved atonement on behalf of the whole Jewish nation, he would henceforth be an instrument gaining atonement on other occasions.”

And the name of the man of Israel who was slain, who was killed together with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, a chieftain of a father's house of the tribe of Simeon.

ושם איש ישראל וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE ISRAELITE [WHO WAS SMITTEN] — Wherever it gives the genealogy of a good man in praise of him, it gives the genealogy of a bad man mentioned in the same story to disparage him (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2). נשיא בית אב לשמעני A PRINCE OF A FATHER’S HOUSE AMONGST THE SIMEONITES — of one of the five 'father’s houses' which were of the tribe of Simeon. — Another explanation: This is stated to tell the praiseworthiness of Phineas: that although this man was a prince he did not refrain from showing his zeal against the profanation of the Divine Name — on this account Scripture tells you who it was (a prince!) that was smitten by him.

"Who was slain with the Midianite woman" — "with," and many [constructions] follow this pattern. "A chieftain of a patriarchal house" — one of the five fathers [i.e., clans] of the sons of Simeon; and he was the head of his patriarchal house — [a position of] great importance.

ושם איש ישראל המוכה, Pinchas had endangered his own life by what he did in view of the high rank of his victim, one of the 12 princes of the people, as well as a princess from a neighbouring country. [if not for this, the Torah might not have bothered to name the individuals concerned just as it did not name such sinners as the man gathering wood (Numbers 15,33, or the blasphemer Leviticus 24,10. Ed.]

ושם איש ישראל, And the name of the Israelite man, etc. If G'd was so interested in our knowing the names of the people Pinchas slew why did the Torah not report this at the time it reported Pinchas' deed in the last Parshah? If the Torah had mentioned these names at that time it could have saved at least a half a sentence here! G'd has made it a rule not to belittle even the wicked unless there is a compelling reason. We know that in the case of the person who collected wood on the Sabbath and who was subsequently executed the Torah did not reveal his name at all (Numbers 15,32-36). In our instance the Torah revealed the names well after the occurrence because there was a compelling reason but not until after G'd had praised Pinchas for what he did and we have learned of the beneficial effects of his deed. Having recorded that G'd not only approved of what Pinchas had done but rewarded him publicly, the Torah explained that Pinchas had taken very great personal risks as the two victims involved were very highly placed individuals. When the persons for whose sake one displays just jealousy on behalf of G'd are aristocrats, higly placed, this makes the act of sanctifying G'd's name even more meritorious. Although in the process of mentioning their names, the Torah publicly displayed its contempt for the sinner, it only followed approved practice as we know from Proverbs 10,7 "the memory of the just is a source of blessing whereas the name of the wicked will rot." Perhaps the positioning of the names of the victims at this point was meant to hint that if these two individuals had not been so highly placed, Pinchas' deed would not have sufficed to turn away G'd's wrath and bring about atonement for the entire people. When Samael saw to what extent a man like Pinchas despised someone guilty of sleeping with a Midianite, his own power was weakened. Had the individuals in question been ordinary people Pinchas could not have accomplished as much through his display of jealousy on behalf of G'd as the personal danger to which he exposed himself at the hands of the victims' surviving relatives would have been much less. Perhaps the reason the Torah did not mention the name of the victims in 25,6 where we would have expected it was that at that point Pinchas had not yet carried out his deed but had only planned it. As long as he had not carried out his plan it would not have been seemly for the Torah to reveal the names of prospective victims. Once Pinchas had completed his deed the names of the wicked had to be mentioned in order to publicise them. המכה אשר הכה, that was slain, who was slain, etc. why was the verb "was slain" repeated here twice? Besides, why did the verse commence by mentioning the nationality of the Jewish victim before mentioning the occasion, whereas when the Midianite woman is named the occasion is mentioned before her nationality is mentioned? All this can best be explained by reference to Berachot 18 where we are told that the wi...

אשר הכה את המדינית, “who had been slain with the Midianite woman;” the word: את, here means the same as עם, “with.” Our sages state that if Zimri had separated his body from Cosbi in time, he would not have been killed by Pinchas’ lance. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 82.)

ושם איש ישראל המוכה, “and the name of the slain Israelite man, etc.” Just as the Torah mentioned the name of the righteous person in order to bestow compliments on him, it now mentions the name of the wicked party to teach that if one brings disgrace upon oneself one simultaneously disgraces one’s family (Tanchuma Pinchas 2). נשיא בית אב לשמעוני, “prince of a father’s house of the Shimonites.” He was one of five such princes of the tribe of Shimon (Ibn Ezra). Concerning him Solomon said in Kohelet 10,8: “he who breaks down a wall will be bitten by a snake.” The ancestral father, Shimon, had killed the people of Shechem for treating his sister like a whore (Genesis 34,31) and now one of his descendants had himself become guilty of tearing down the wall of chaste sexual mores established and defended by his forebear (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

“And the name of the Israelite man who was struck, who was smitten.” Rashi explains that in the place where the righteous person is praised, the wicked person is denigrated. But what disgrace is it when it says Zimri son of Salu? Granted, for praise it makes sense, since Eleazar and Aaron were known in the gates for praise and glory, but who is this Salu and what is his name that you should know it is for disgrace? What hint of fault is heard about him? Furthermore, why does it say who was struck, who was smitten — repeating his blows twice? It should have said, “And the name of the man who was struck with the Midianite woman, etc.” Also, it should have said, “And the Israelite man who was struck, his name was Zimri.” From the fact that it says, And the name of the Israelite man who was struck, who was smitten, this implies that who was smitten refers to the man himself, while who was struck refers to his name, suggesting that his name itself was afflicted. It seems that due to the necessity of these questions, Rabbi Yochanan expounded, in Tractate Sanhedrin (82b), that Zimri had five names: Zimri, because he became like a scrambled egg [muzeret]; Salu, because he made his family’s sin extraordinary [hisli]. Certainly, it is extraordinary what Rabbi Yochanan saw to expound these names in a derogatory way, but surely he also interpreted the name of the man who was smitten such that the word smitten refers to the name itself. For although [he and his fathers] were not initially named after the deed, still his sins caused his name and his fathers’ names to be scrutinized and interpreted according to the event, to tell you that the name of the wicked shall rot. And his proof is from the Torah, where it says, And the name of the Israelite man who was smitten, meaning the name was smitten. And who was smitten with the Midianite woman refers to the man himself. And similarly, the name of the woman who was smitten, Cozbi, as it concludes in the Gemara, “Cozbi” because she lied [kizbah] to her father, for also her name was smitten to be expounded derogatorily. And if you wish to say that who was smitten refers to the man, and who was smitten with the Midianite woman refers to the name, we can say that this is why it says with the Midianite woman, because he was with the Midianite woman and had many sexual encounters until he became like a scrambled egg. Therefore, he became estranged [muzar] from his brothers like a scrambled egg, and they interpreted the name Zimri according to the event. And some say that this is why it says “with the Midianite woman,” because he was literally with her [engaged in sexual relations], for if Zimri had separated [from her], it would not have been permissible to kill him. And some say that even though he was struck down in this world, nevertheless he was not exempted from being with the Midianite woman in the World to Come, similar to what is said to lie beside her (Genesis 39:10) in this world [means] to be with her in the World to Come (Yoma 35b). In addition to what our Sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 82b) interpreted these names derogatorily, do not interpretations belong to God? [So] I will also offer my interpretation in a different way. For we find that our Sages of blessed memory (Sotah 22b) said regarding hypocrites that they “perform the deed of Zimri but seek the reward of Pinchas.” But was Zimri among the hypocrites? Was he not a well-known wicked person? Rather, certainly since he asked Moses, “Is this [Midianite woman] forbidden or permitted?” we can learn that he was acting like the pretenders who seek to justify their actions, claiming that what they do is legally permitted. Since our Sages established him as a hypocrite, we can therefore interpret all his names according to this characteristic, for every hypocrite and pretender constantly praises himself verbally. The name “Zimri” is a term of praise, as in My strength and song [zimrat] is God (Exodus 15:2), which is translated [in Aramaic] as “my strength and my praise.” Similarly, the name “Salu” is also a term of praise, derived from Extol [Salu] Him who rides on the clouds (Psalms 68:5). Likewise, “Cozbi” [comes from the root meaning falsehood], as every hypocrite is a liar because his mouth and heart are not aligned. And daughter of Tzur because hypocrites elevate themselves to sit on a high rock [tzur]. The text mentions for both of them chief and leader, as this is what the souls of hypocrites seek. Therefore it says, who was slain with the Midianite woman, because the names of both of them, when interpreted equally, point to the same matter.

And the name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi daughter of Zur, who was head of the peoples of a father's house in Midian.

ושם האשה המכה וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE [MIDIANITISH] WOMAN WHO WAS SMITTEN etc. — This is stated to show you the hatred the Midianites bore to Israel — that they abandoned even a princess to prostitution in order to make Israel sin (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2). ראש אמות [HE WAS] THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE — He was one of the five kings of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zur etc. (31:8). He, however, was the most important of all of them, as it is said, “the head of the people”, but because he made himself despicable by abandoning his daughter to prostitution it enumerates him not first but only third (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2). בית אב — Midian had five fathers’ houses: Ephah and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida and Eldoah (Genesis 25:4) — and this man was king of one of them.

"Zur" — one of the kings of Midian; thus the kings of Midian also [numbered] five patriarchs.

המדינית, The Midianite, etc. The reason the Torah describes Kosbi with the letter ה for a definitive article is proof that she must have been the only Midianite woman who sacrificed her self-respect in order to seduce an Israelite. This may also account for the fact that in 25,6 the word המדינית is written with the letter ה at the beginning although we had not heard of that woman previously. In fact, if the Midianite women had participated in mass seduction there can be no doubt that G'd would have commanded that they be killed during the punitive campaign against Midian. The Torah only reported the people as debasing themselves by sleeping with the Moabite women (25,1). There was a good reason why the Midianite women did not do what the Moabite women did. It was not that they were morally superior, but the Moabites had been given an assurance that the Israelites would not touch them. No such assurance had been given to the people of Midian. The reason that Kosbi was different was that she was Balak's daughter and as such had a personal interest to do what she could to help her father achieve the downfall of the Israelites. I have found support for my theory in Tanchuma Mattot 4 where it is claimed that Tzur, one of the kings slain in the punitive expedition against Midian was Balak; he had been demoted because he had allowed his daughter to cheapen herself by sleeping with an Israelite. According to our theory that Kosbi was Balak's daughter this all makes sense seeing that there had been only a single Midianite woman who had been described as a seductress. It is more than likely that the one Midianite woman who had reason enough to do this was a daughter of Balak. She followed Bileam's wicked advice. It is possible that Kosbi was the very first woman to follow Bileam's advice and that the Moabite women were not willing to demean themselves until they had seen the king's daughter do this. It is quite true that I have written that Balak was demoted by the Moabites seeing that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites, Bileam having told them that any confrontation between them and Israel would occur far into the future. Nonetheless, Balak immediately followed Bileam's advice before he returned home to Midian. When the Moabites saw this they followed suit and slept with the Israelites. Were it not for this fact it is hard to understand why king Tzur's daughter should have been so different from all the other Midianite women. I have found a Midrash in Yalkut Shimoni on Mattot in which the words הן הנה in Numbers 31,16 are translated as "these are the well known ones, etc." This means that Moses and Eleazar knew the women who had been taken captive so well that they were able to pinpoint which one of them had seduced which Israelite. If so, there must have been numerous Midianite women who participated in the seduction of the Israelites. We would then have to say that whereas all the Moabite women cheapened themselves, only the ordinary Midian...

כזבי בת צור, “Cozbi daughter of Tzur.” She was the daughter of a king, seeing that Tzur was one of the five Midianite kings killed by the Israelites in the punitive expedition (Numbers 31,8). The Midianites harbored so much hatred against the Israelites that one of their kings demeaned his own daughter to the status of a whore in order to lure the Israelites into sin (Tanchuma Pinchas 2).

ושם האשה המוכה, “and the name of the woman who had been slain, etc,” the reason that the Torah bothered to name the woman in question was only in order to tell us that she was of the elite of the women in Midian, and although Pinchas was aware of this, and the possible political implication of killing her, this did not stop him from acting zealously on behalf of Hashem, as he remembered that G–d said to Avraham, after he had killed four prominent kings in order to free his nephew Lot, that he should not be afraid of the relatives of those kings seeking revenge. (Genesis 15,1).

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Harass the Midianites and kill them.

צרור — This grammatical form is similar to זכור and שמור: it expresses the idea of continuous present action — You must [constantly] show enmity toward them.

"Harass" (tzaror) — this is an infinitive [used as a command], like "Remember (zachor) the Sabbath day" (Ex. 20:8).

צרור את המדינים, "harass the Midianites!" Why did the Torah write both: "harass, and smite them?" Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 21 were aware of this and said that although normally the Israelites are bound by the injunction in Deut. 20,10-19 to offer people whom they planned to attack peace, and offer them a chance to emigrate or surrender before actually attacking them, not to destroy their fruit-bearing trees, etc., in this instance these injunctions were lifted. The nation had shown itself to be so debased that no special consideration had to be shown to it. We must also understand what the Torah meant when speaking of "revenge" in 31,2 where the details about the punitive campaign are introduced. We would have expected the reverse, i.e. that the Israelites would consume the booty of their enemies as described in Deut. 20,14. Surely, this would have been more in the nature of revenge and the Midianites would have experienced more distress when they saw themselves losing all their possessions. Does not the Torah describe a people who has been cursed as being consumed by its enemies (Leviticus 26,16)? Another difficulty is the justification offered by the Torah in verse 18: "for they have been harassing you, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out the reason? According to those of our sages who stated that the injunction not to destroy the fruit-bearing trees had been lifted, the Torah felt compelled to justify this. According to Tanchuma the words כי צררים are to be understood as a reference to what the Midianites were about to do to the Israelites and the command to wage war against them first was an illustration of the halachic principle that if someone intends to kill you, don't wait, but kill him first. I believe this is a homiletical explanation. I believe that the key to the correct interpretation of this episode is the fact that G'd gave the command to harass the Midianites not at the time it was to be implemented but sometime before it. The implementation was commanded only in 31,2. In other words the command we deal with in our verse does not address itself to the time of the act of revenge. We must therefore assume that what G'd had in mind with this command was the rehabilitation of the Israelites. We have already written at length on Leviticus 18,3 that the urge to engage in illicit sex is a natural urge, difficult to combat especially when fantasy is supported by visual contact with the object of one's desire. It is extremely difficult to control one's fantasies. If someone has indulged his fantasy and has actually had forbidden sex, he cannot expect the atonement process to begin until he has rid himself of his desire, and has banished his fantasies. I have commented on this already in connection with Genesis 4,7 where the Torah told us that sin couches at the door and man displays a hankering after it. At the same time the Torah assured Cain that he could master these impulses. In the situation of which the Torah speaks, the...

צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” The use of the infinitive mode tzaror, indicates that this was not a command to be carried out immediately. We know this from the fact that the details for the preparations of the punitive expedition against Midian have only been spelled out in Numbers 31,2. It has been mentioned here in order to put at ease the mind of the Israelites who had lost 24000 men of military age due to the involvement of Midianite women at the instigation of their husbands in a quarrel that had not concerned them at all, and they appeared to have gotten away with that. צרור את המזינים, “the commandment to harass the Midianites and not the Moabites, was because whatever the Moabites had done, they had done because they had believed that they had a legitimate reason to fear for their lives from the Israelites. Furthermore, the Israelites had already taken possession of lands which used to be theirs before Sichon had conquered it from them in war.

צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites.” After the Torah had administered the reward for the righteous, G’d commanded the people to punish the guilty. The reason the punitive campaign was directed only against the Midianites and not against the Moabites was in order to enable Ruth the Moabite, ancestral great-grandmother of David to be born in due course. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Pinchas 2: the meaning of “harass the Midianites for they (are preparing to) harass you,” is that when you know that someone harbours aggressive hostile intentions against you pre-empt him and kill him before he can carry out his intention.

Harass the Midianites etc. And He did not command to harass the Moabites because it is said (Numbers 25:1): And the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab. What is the meaning of began? It means that the Israelites were the initiators and sought out the daughters of Moab, going to their tents and soliciting the women, enticing them. Therefore it says the people began, because the people were the initiators, not the daughters of Moab. That is why it says to the daughters of Moab and not with the daughters of Moab, to indicate that the Israelites went to them, but Moab did not send their wives and daughters to the Israelites. Therefore, the Moabites were not held accountable, because the one who initiates the corruption is the primary culprit and the sin depends on him. But with the Midianites, it was the opposite, for indeed the Midianites abandoned their daughters who solicited the Israelites to commit harlotry. Logic dictates: How could Zimri have had the audacity to solicit a king’s daughter? Rather, it is certain that she solicited him. And even if they [the Midianites] did not explicitly say so, they nonetheless made the effort with a flask of wine to give them a cup of poison in order to ignite in them the fire of desire, as explained (in Sanhedrin 106a). Therefore it is stated, Harass the Midianites. And why? For they harass you — meaning, they came to you to bring you to habitually commit this sin, to harass you by exposing your nakedness, unlike the daughters of Moab whom the Israelites came to. The text means: These known harassers are known to you — they initiated the corruption with you. This explains the term harassers [tzorerim] in the present tense. According to our approach, harassers is a descriptive noun, and they to you means that they came to you with deceitful schemes by giving them a flask of wine that habituates one to sexual immorality. And this is what is meant by with their schemes which they schemed against you concerning the matter of Peor, for the harlots intended to cause them distress so that they would be forced to regress to their [the Midianites’] religion. Another explanation of “the people began” [in Hebrew: “vayachel”] is that it is related to the term “chulin” [mundane/profane], which is the opposite of holiness, because wherever you find a fence against immorality, there you find holiness (Vayikra Rabbah 24:6). And here they were engaging in sexual immorality and profaned their holiness, becoming mundane/profane, therefore it says “vayachel” [they began/became profane]. And we learn from vayachel Noah, man of the earth, and planted a vineyard (Genesis 9:20) that the term “vayachel” mentioned here was also related to the intoxication of wine, which habituated them to immorality. And some say that [the following] is why it says “vayachel”: because the beginning [of the sin] was with the daughters of Moab and the conclusion was with the daughters of Ammon, but Scripture did not publicize this, just as it spared [the dignity of] the younger [daughter of Lot] who was later in committing harlotry and called her son Ben-Ammi, similarly it did not publicize [the involvement of the Ammonite women] here. And this follows the opinion of the Midrash (Sifrei, Ki Teitzei 117) which states that Ammon and Moab, because they caused Israel to sin, were distanced [from the congregation of Israel] permanently. However, the simple meaning of the verse stands against this midrashic interpretation to refute it, since it is stated because they did not greet you with bread and water (Deuteronomy 23:5). Most commentators have gone out to gather [explanations] but have not found a sufficient resolution for this. And I say that the matter is according to its plain meaning, and one depends on the other, as it is not logical to distance two nations solely because they did not greet [the Israelites] with bread and water, but rather it’s about their intentions. For God knew that the reason they did not greet them was so that [the Israelites] would be hungry and thirsty from the hardship of the journey, and would be compelled to eat from their sacrifices to their gods and drink their libation wine which leads to immoral behavior. For this is the way of anyone who comes from a journey, tired and weary from the hardship of the road, hungry and thirsty — he yearns to eat and drink whatever is at hand, not distinguishing between what is forbidden and what is permitted. All their intention was to cause [the Israelites] to stumble into promiscuity and thereby bring them to the worship of Peor. Therefore, they did not greet them with bread in order to starve them and feed them sacrifices to their gods, and they did not greet them with water in order to give them the ‘cup of poison’ and their libation wine. All this was ‘cunning of religions’ and trickery. This explanation is precious, and I do not know for what reason our Torah commentators, whose small finger is thicker than my loins, did not find it in their wisdom.

צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” On the one hand, the word צרור is in the singular mode, whereas the word following i.e. והכיתם is in the plural mode. This is a hint to Moses that seeing he will give the necessary orders and select the soldiers that campaign will be credited to him, although, naturally it would require quite a few people to wage the actual war. The reason why Moses, personally, should not go with those soldiers is the fact that he had been raised and given refuge in Midian and the hand that had been fed by the Midianites should not now turn and bite that hand.

For they are adversaries to you with their schemes by which they schemed against you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi daughter of the chieftain of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.

כי צררים הם לכם וגו׳ על דבר פעור FOR THEY SHOWED THEMSELVES YOUR ENEMIES etc. IN THE MATTER OF PEOR — i.e., in that they abandoned their daughters to prostitution in order to lead you astray after Peor; but He did not command them to destroy the Moabites — on account of Ruth who would later on issue from them, just as we state in Bava Kamma 38b.

FOR THEY [the Midianites] HARASS YOU BY THEIR WILES. The meaning [of the expression by their wiles] is, as I have explained, that this evil plan [to lead the Israelites astray through their seduction by the Moabite women] was contrived by the elders of Midian, as it is said, And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, [thus showing] that it was with them [the elders of Midian] that the Moabites originally took counsel. And they gave this advice [later on] to Moab, to encourage their daughters to prostitute themselves with them [the Israelites], and thereby cause them to join Baal-peor, and to draw them away from G-d, even though this advice is not [explicitly] mentioned there. Moreover, [a proof that the Midianites gave this idea to the Moabites is] that they even sent them their own king’s daughter to commit harlotry with them, this being the meaning of the expression, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister. For were this not done with the knowledge [and encouragement] of the counsellors of the [Midianite] kingdom, what was the distinguished Midianite princess seeking in Shittim, in the plains of Moab, that she should come to the camp of a foreign people, for Israel was in the plains of Moab, in Shittim, and how did this [important] Midianite woman come to be there? But [the only reasonable explanation of this is that] she was very beautiful, and therefore the elders of Midian sent her there, because they said: “Through the figure of a beautiful woman many people become corrupted.” It is probable that Balaam was also involved in [giving] this counsel, for on his return from the land of Moab [after he departed from Balak] he passed through Midian, from where he had come, and he deliberated with the counsellors of the kingdom. Perhaps Balaam stayed there a while in order to know what would [ultimately] happen to them [i.e., the Israelites], and that is why the Israelites found him in Midian and killed him. In that case the meaning [of the verse], And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place is that Balaam “went on his way [with the intention] of returning to his land” [but he did not actually get there, since he stayed on the way in Midian]. And it indeed appears so [that Balaam participated in giving this evil advice], for the Israelites would not have killed one who had prophesied except after [receiving a special] permission of the Torah [to do so, and we do not find any mention of such permission]. But after they had been told [that they were to punish the Midianites because] they harass you by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you etc., [it is self-understood] that all those who took part in this beguilment were liable to the death penalty, and therefore they killed Balaam as well, since they knew that he was the one who had proposed this evil design. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded [the Israelites] to avenge themselves of them [the Midianites], but as for the Moabites, He ha...

"For they have harassed you" (ki tzorerim hem lachem) — for they made things difficult for you. "In their schemes" (be-nikh'leihem) — in their evil designs, from the root of "and they plotted against him" (va-yitnakkelu, Gen. 37:18). "And concerning the matter of Cozbi" — and furthermore, because they intend to do you harm on account of Cozbi their sister.

כי צוררים הם לכם, “for they have initiated hostilities with you by their wiles. The Israelites therefore would now be instructed to carry out the principle that if someone has demonstrated that he means to kill you, it is up to you to preempt him before he can carry out his evil plan. The Midianites’ sin was to try and seduce the Israelites into committing sexually forbidden carnal activities with their wives. Therefore the Israelites, instead of avenging themselves on Pinchas, were to avenge themselves on the Midianites who had even sacrificed a princess as part of that scheme. [The Land of Midian was hundreds of kilometers south of the land of Canaan on the Arabian peninsula. Ed.] Although Cosbi was not literally the daughter of the highest ranking Midianite, “their sister,” as stated in our verse, seeing that three verses previously she had been described as of lower rank, i.e. the daughter of Tzor, one of the princes of Midian, but not the highest one, the fact that she sacrificed her life for what she perceived as her highest patriotic duty, was the reason that she was accorded a higher rank here, as equivalent to being a leader of her nation.

בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם, “by their trickery they practiced against you.” This verse is proof that it was the elders of Midian who advised their Moabite partners to trick the Israelites into committing sexual promiscuity with their daughters. The allure of the Moabite women was to be the tool by which to get the Israelites to commit idolatry by prostrating themselves before the Baal-peor. ועל דבר כזבי בת נשיא מדין, “and because of the affair of Cozbi daughter of a Midianite prince.” The Torah could have written: “daughter of Tzur” as it had done in verse 15. In this verse the Torah wanted to place the emphasis on the word “Midianite,” seeing that it was the advice of the elders of Midian to send one of their princesses to lure the Israelites to commit harlotry with her.

For they are harass you, etc. In the previous verse, there appears to be a repetition of language: Harass the Midianites and smite them. What is the difference between harass and smite? Our Sages said (Tanchuma Pinchas 3) from here we learn that “if someone comes to kill you, rise early in the morning to kill him.” It should have said “rise in the evening to kill him,” since the Midianites were the ones who initiated the transgression. And the language of harassers [tzorerim] needs explanation, as it implies that they are still enemies to you. Perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, knew what was in the hearts of the Midianites, that their anger had not yet subsided and they were still adversaries plotting evil schemes, perhaps even more than before, because the fire of [avenging] their sister was burning in their hearts to take revenge. Therefore, rise early to harass them. But according to its simple meaning, tzorerim [harassers] is a noun, saying that they have always been your enemies, for initially the Midianites sold [Joseph] to Potiphar (Genesis 37:36), afterwards Midian made peace with Moab against Israel, and later they prostituted their daughters to cause Israel to stumble. Thus, the Midianites have always been a scourge of rebellion against Israel, therefore it says that they are your enemies. In order to resolve the repetition, I say that God commanded about two things. First, harass the Midianites to cause them suffering for many days, and afterward you shall strike them. And why all this? Because they harass you — which gives the reason for “harass them,” since they also caused you suffering by having the prostitutes give them wine, and when he [an Israelite] would say “listen to me,” she would say “worship idolatry first.” This is what it means by for they harass you with their plots which they plotted concerning Peor — for the main purpose of the suffering they caused you was to force you to worship Peor. And for what it says you shall strike them, it gives the reason saying because of the matter of Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite prince, their sister who was struck on the day of the plague concerning Peor. Since their sister was struck, they too would consider taking revenge and striking you, therefore rise early to strike them, for “if someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.”And perhaps this is why it says And it was after the plague at the end of the [paragraph], yet with an etnachta [cantillation mark designating a pause], to interpret it as referring both to what follows and what precedes it. What follows is according to its simple meaning, and what precedes is to say that even after the plague, they want to strike you because of their sister who was struck, therefore you should rise early to strike them.

בנכליהם, “with their conspiracies,” according to Nachmanides the Midianites were the ones who originated the plot to seduce the Israelites by even supplying their own socially high ranking women for the purpose. They also conspired to make sleeping with their women dependent on at least a superficial show of respect for their deity the Baal Pe-or. According to tradition, the manner in which that deity was worshipped was so revolting, i.e. one excreted in front of that idol, that no one in their right minds could have believed that this was a form of worship rather than an insult to their deity. Having dispatched Cosbi, whose rank the Torah describes here, to seduce the highest-ranking Israelite she could find, is an indication of the Midianites’ hatred for the Israelites. It is most likely that even if he did not think up this devious plot himself, Bileam was at least aware of it. This Cosbi, no doubt, was a woman of great physical allure, and she was sent on her ill-fated mission precisely because she was so attractive. It is quite possible that the reason why Bileam detoured on his way home via the land of Midian was in order to find out how the plot to seduce the Israelites had worked out. As a result, the army of the Israelites found him there and killed him. The officers were well aware that he must have had a hand in that plot. Israelites do not kill people who prophesy something negative concerning them unless specifically ordered to do so by the Torah or its authorized representatives. Incitement is a different story, however. In this instance, G’d had ordered all those that had been part of that incitement actively or by not protesting it, to be killed. The campaign was aimed only at the Midianites, as G’d had already forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites in any way. I am somewhat at a loss how to understand the wording of the aggadah according to which (Baba Kamma 38) it had never occurred to the Israelites to either harass or invade Moav so that G’d had to specifically for bid this? Where had there ever been a precedent that Moses would initiate warfare without express permission by G’d? The Talmud there answers that Moses used his logic, reasoning that if G’d had told him to launch a punitive expedition against the Midianites who had only been involved in the plot at arm’s length, so to speak, and G’d ordered us to punish them, how much more must we launch a similar expedition against the Moabites who were the instigators of all of this? The Talmud appears to have put the cart before the horse seeing that the warning not to harass Moav or wage war against it had been issued by G’d before the incident at Shittim or Bileam’s being hired to curse the Israelites! We may have to answer that it was clear to Hashem that once Israel had defeated and occupied the lands of Sichon and Og, with G’d’s permission, of course, Moses would reason that it was natural that the next step would be to cross into Moabite territory by crossing the river Arnon. G’d pre-empted such reasoning by Moses by forbidding the Israelites to provoke any confrontation with the Moabites. [The Talmud there has G’d explain to Moses why He forbade this, also in light of future events. Ed.] The matter was especially hard for Moses to understand because the very people who were not to be harassed were the people that because of hostility to the Israelites in the past, had been forbidden forever to convert to Judaism and become part of our nation. (Compare Deut. 23,4-8) Looking at the plain text, the reason why at this stage at least, no confrontation with either Moav or Bney Ammon was permitted, is the fact that G’d had allocated their lands to them in recognition of the years when their founding father Lot had faithfully served Avraham and had kept his secret and not reveled that Sarah was not only a blood-relation to him but was also his wife. Lot had joined Avraham at the time when the former moved to the land of Canaan, and this was akin to voluntary exile, all in order to keep company with his uncle whom he admired. The eventual commandment not to accept proselytes from either of those two nations, was explained as an act of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as the Torah explained in Deut.