בלק

The Chutzpah of Pinchas

The final section of the parasha deals with the incident of the daughters of Mo'av and the apostasy of Ba’al Pe’or. After describing the sinful breakout, God calls on Moshe to take action:

וַיֹּאמֶר הי אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת־כָּל־רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַהי נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף־הי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל (במדבר כה:ד)

The plain sense is that Moshe was required to publicly impale the leaders. However, it seems to have been self-evident, to Moshe at least, that this was not to be taken literally. We see no evidence of Moshe having undertaken such drastic action nor any direct criticism of him for not having done so. Moshe's reasoning to not carry out this command was obvious. Though the leaders may have been indirectly responsible by virtue of inaction, this hardly makes them deserving of a barbaric public execution.

Rashi adopts the position of Rav Nechemia in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:23) that God was instructing Moshe to direct (‘take’) the leaders to identify the sinners through a judicial process i.e. the pronoun 'them' in the phrase והוקע אותם is a reference to the idolaters, not the leaders. The difficulty with this explanation is clear.[1] The idolaters are not mentioned in the verse and even in the previous verse there is no reference to the individual sinners, only Israel in the collective.

The Midrash is perhaps compelled by this reading in light of the action Moshe takes to implement the command just given, which is indeed to direct the judges to execute the idolaters:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר (במדבר כה:ה)

However, one senses a vast gap between the decisive action alluded to in the verse and the slow judicial process instigated by Moshe. If Moshe considered this to be the fulfilment of the word of God, then it seems to have failed to make any impact. Indeed, the 'receding of God's anger' does not materialise and it failed to deter the sinners as the Zimri episode demonstrates.

Impalement of the leaders – literal or figurative?

When we read the next episode, we do come across very decisive action, not from Moshe but on the part of Pinchas. The actions of Pinchas involve 'impalement' of a 'leader' who was involved in the transgression. Furthermore, Pinchas seems to have succeeded in stopping the plague and retracting God's anger exactly as promised to Moshe:

פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי (במדבר כה:א)

The implication is that Pinchas was the one to fully implement the word of God whereas Moshe fell short. This is a little ironic, as Pinchas was not privy to the word of God yet was the one to implement them in the most literal sense. Remarkably, the ambiguity in the verse reflects the different reactions of Moshe and Pinchas. Moshe’s interpretation was presumably informed by the general requirements for due process and indicting a party only after they had transgressed (which was not the case with Zimri). Nevertheless, it was the actions of Pinchas which received God’s endorsement and brought an end to the plague. This represented the true fulfilment of the word of God as hinted to Moses. At this exceptional time, it was the zealotry of Pinchas that was necessary to restore order in the camp.

Interestingly, we hear in retrospect of a plague which had spread through the camp which had now ceased as a result of the action of Pinchas.

וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף׃ (במדבר כה:ח-ט)

The fact that no physical plague is previously mentioned creates an impression that the plague was a natural reflection of the equally contagious spiritual malady which had swept through the camp. Such is its nature that no one realises at the time how deep it has penetrated. Only after Pinchas executes Zimri in mid-act do the people snap out of their trance and, consequently, the plague (both physical and spiritual) suddenly ends.

Pinchas's source of inspiration 

The discrepancy in reactions of Moshe and Pinchas are brought into sharp focus in the following Midrash:

וירא פנחס בן אלעזר מה ראה אמר רב ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה אמר לו אחי אבי אבא לא כך לימדתני ברדתך מהר סיני הבועל את כותית קנאין פוגעין בו אמר לו קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא (סנהדרין פב:א)

This seems to be more than a recollection about when Moshe taught the technical law of קנאין פוגעין בו. Rather, it is a comment on Moshe’s inaction now as compared to forty years previously. When Moshe came down the mountain and saw the golden calf he didn’t hesitate. Without consulting God, he smashed the tablets and executed the perpetrators, very much akin to the decisive action later taken by Pinchas against Zimri. It is this lesson taught by personal example rather than in the study hall which the Midrash is referring to.

The comparison to the golden calf episode is supported by several textual commonalities:

1.        Revelation followed by sudden downfall involving mixture of idolatry and immorality
2.         God's anger flaring up and the outbreak of a plague
3.        Moshe calling for action against the sinners with the same words (הירגו איש...)
4.        Representatives of the tribe of Levi taking up arms to execute the sinners / idolaters
5.        Reward of sanctuary service / priesthood (see Shemot 32:29 and Bamidbar 22:13)

These similarities also highlight the key differences. In the golden calf episode, Moshe takes the decisive action whereas here he needs to be instructed by God. In the golden calf episode, Moshe's act has immediate impact whereas here it is weak and ineffective. In the golden calf episode, the transgression is committed as a consequence of Moshe's absence on top of the mountain, whereas here it takes place right ‘in front of his eyes'. In the golden calf episode, the tribe of Levi acts under the orders of Moshe whereas here Pinchas acts without instruction from Moses.

In summary, forty years previously Moshe was the dynamic and incontrovertible leader. There was a point where no one could even look at him in the face (see Shemot 26:30-35). Forty years on, the people are the main actors in the story; they carry out their actions in front of Moshe (both good and bad), and Moshe is by and large, a mere spectator.

Criticism of Moshe's leadership?

Over the course of forty years it is indeed natural that Moshe's leadership should have lost some of its original fire and power. At the grand age of 120, Moshe acknowledges this himself:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן־מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא (דברים לא:ב)

That said, to suggest that the main issue here is leadership fatigue would be to miss the wood for the trees. The focus should instead be on the change which had occurred on the part of the people being that, over a forty-year maturing process the people had successfully freed themselves from their slave mentality and gained independence of spirit. This was a prerequisite for entering the land and establishing a sovereign nation. As discussed last week, in both their personal and national lives they would be required to stand on their own feet. This is true in both physical and spiritual terms. No longer would they all be camped around the Mishkan under the glory of God, subject to daily providence. Such independence comes with positive and negative effects both of which are on display here through the respective actions of Zimri and Pinchas.

Though this episode reflects Moshe’s inability to continue to lead the new generation, contained within it is also his crowning achievement. Pinchas derives precedent for his action from Moshe’s personal example at the golden calf episode forty years earlier. If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery then Moshe’s success as a leader is evidenced through Pinchas’ actions. From this perspective, the Midrash presents a tragic image of Moshe’s ineffective action, but at the same time, provides testimony of his lasting legacy to the new generation and beyond.

בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגיא

The above discussion lends a fascinating insight to Chazal's statement (Sotah 9:15) - בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגיא. This is typically thought of in a negative vein, but there are indications that this attribute of chutzpah can be seen in a positive light:

אָמַר רַב יָקִים שְׁלשָׁה חֲצוּפִים הֵם: חָצוּף בַּחַיָּה כֶּלֶב בָּעוֹף תַּרְנְגוֹל וּבָאֻמּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רַדִּיפָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַמֵּי אַתָּה סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא לִגְנַאי וְאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְשִׁבְחָן, אוֹ יְהוּדִי אוֹ צָלוּב (שמות רבה מב:ט)

This Midrash observes how chutzpah is the driving force of Jewish identity and lies behind the historic phenomena of Jewish martyrdom. This is equally applicable on the national level. Integral to national redemption is the restoration of independence which demands no small measure of chutzpah. When one looks to the current era too, it is clear that the State of Israel was established by virtue of such chutzpah; Jews who were not necessarily 'religious' but refused to discard their Jewish identity and fought with their life for independence. No doubt this attribute of chutzpah has been critical to Israel’s formation, survival, and success. It is true in today's age as it was when the nation first entered the land. Personal autonomy is a prerequisite to national autonomy. The actions of Pinchas represented the best evidence possible that the Jewish people were now ready to enter the land to complete the process of national redemption.[2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] In the Midrash there is in fact a view (Rav Yudan) that the leaders were executed for not protesting:

 וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל משֶׁה קַח אֶת כָּל רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אֹתָם, רַבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר רָאשֵׁי הָעָם תָּלָה עַל שֶׁלֹא מִיחוּ בִּבְנֵי אָדָם. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר לֹא תָּלָה רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה הוֹשֵׁב לָהֶן רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת וְיִהְיוּ דָּנִים כָּל מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִפְעוֹר.

[2] R. Tzadok HaKohen made a similar point in relation to the Ma'apilim:

ולא לחנם כתבה תורה עניין המעפילים, שכבר האמינו בדברי משה, ולמה לא שמעו בזה שאמר: אל תעלו? אלא שהם חשבו שזה בכלל "חוץ מצא". ועל זה העפילו לעלות אף נגד רצון השם יתברך, כמו שאמרו רז"ל: "החוצפה - מלכות בלי כתר". ואף על פי כן לא הצליחו בזה, מפני שאכלוה פגה בטרם זמנה, כמו שאמרו רז"ל: "בעקבתא דמשיחא חוצפא יסגי", שרק אז תהיה העת לכך, ובכך אמר להם משה: "והיא לא תצלח", נראה שעצה היא זו, אלא שלא תצלח. ודייק "והיא", שבכל מקום דרשו רז"ל: היא, ולא אחרת. שיש זמן אחר שמצליח, והוא זמננו זה שהוא עקבתא דמשיחא (צדקת הצדיק מו')