The Great Divide

                      By Rabbi Joshua (dividedly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
                    
                    
   The dramatic act of Pinchos, killing Zimri and Kozbi while they were engaged in their act of debauchery in full view of the Jewish nation, is recorded at the end of parshas Balak, while the reward he received for this act is recorded at the beginning of parshas Pinchos. What is the reason for this split? Rabbi Moshe of Coucy, author of the Sefer HaMitzvos HaGodol, as cited by Rabbi Avrohom Korman in his HaParsha LeDoroseiha, explains that Pinchos engaged in an act of zealotry, and whenever such an act is performed, there is a need to step back and assess the repercussions of the action before assigning any value judgement and reward for it. That is why, when God grants Pinchos his reward in the beginning of this week's parsha, he says, as a prelude to that reward, that he removed His wrath from the children of Israel when he performed his act of zealotry, and thereby brought atonement for the nation.


  This approach to Pinchos' act of zealotry finds an interesting parallel in  the Talmudic account of the miracle of Chanukah (Shabbos 21b). The Talmud relates that when the Greeks took over the Temple, they defiled it  together with the oil stored there for use in the menorah. When the Chashmonaim defeated them in battle and restored their control over the Temple, they found only one jar of pure oil, enough for one night. However, a miracle occurred and it lasted for eight nights, until they were able to procure a new supply of pure oil. The Talmud says that after a year, the days of the miracle were established as a time to give praise and thanks to God. My teacher, Rav Aharon Soloveichik, zt"l, explained that a year had to pass before the effects of the miracle on the nation were noticeable. When the long-term effect of the miracle was discernable, a holiday celebrating it was established. I believe that this waiting period also applied to the military aspect of the Chanukah miracle. Similar to the act of Pinchos, the Chashmonaim acted zealously to maintain the spiritual integrity of the Jewish nation, waging war against the Syrian-Greeks, and retaking the Temple from them. After their victory, there was a need for some time to pass in order to see if that victory led to a religious revival, or was viewed merely as an exhibition of Jewish military prowess. When it was ascertained that the military victory had, in fact, served as the basis of a renewed dedication to God and His Torah, the establishment of a holiday celebrating those events was proclaimed.
         


  The precedent for the period of waiting between the events and the reaction to them, then, was the incident of Pinchos killing Zimri and Kozbi. Interestingly, Pinchos performed his act of zealotry as a Levi, the tribe that is dedicated to the service of God, and was, further, given the kehunah, the priesthood, as a reward for this act, and the Chashmonaim, who waged war with their enemies in the time of the second Temple, were also kohanim. I believe that it is not merely coincidence that these acts of zealotry were performed by a Levite and by kohanim, but, rather, this fact is part of a larger pattern that plays itself out in Jewish history over the course of generations.



Rav A.Y. Kook, in an essay on Chanukah as well as in several other places,  explains the struggle between Yosef and his brothers as a struggle between two different approaches to the Jewish tradition. Moreover, he says that there is place for both approaches, and that, at the time of the future redemption, each approach will find its proper place and the two will live together in harmony. The approach of Yosef was to try to bring spiritual illumination into the mundane aspects of life, and to spread the message of God to other nations, as well. That was his task in Egypt. The other brothers felt that the heritage of their father Yaakov needed to be carefully preserved in an insular environment, and they followed the approach of leading a life that was 'kulo kadosh,' completely dedicated to the promotion of holiness within the nation itself, without getting involved in outside forces. In actuality, both approaches are valid and have their places. We only need to know when and where to apply each one. Unfortunately, over the course of generations, this has been lost sight of, and the struggle between Yosef and Yehudah has not yet ended in reconciliation. Actually, says Rav Kook, these two approaches find their ultimate fulfillment in the  two messiahs that will bring the redemption, Moshiach ben Yosef and Moshiach ben Dovid. Moshiach ben Yosef represents the proper physical upbuilding of the nation as a vehicle for bringing holness into the world, and Moshiach ben Dovid represents the development of the spiritual aspect of the nation. The Jewish nation was charged at Mt. Sinai to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, and, as such, needs to actualize holiness within the context of a fully functioning nation, with all of the political, economic, and social realities that attend to such a country. The problem that recurs over the centuries is the lack of coordination between these two  elements, and the consequent exaggeration of one or the other element. Thus, when the aspect of Yosef was developed, in the second Temple era, there were many who took it to an extreme and began to Hellenize. When this happens, there is a need for the historical pendulum to swing to the other side, and for the kohanim, who are  'kulo kadosh,' totally dedicated to the growth of the spiritual aspect of the nation, to take over. That is why it was the Chashmonaim who arose on the scene at the time of Chanukah. With this understanding of the two forces working over the course of Jewish history, we can also understand why it was Pinchos, the Levite and later kohein, who arose and removed God's wrath from the nation.

         Zimri took the princess of Midian, Kozbi, and brought her before Moshe and asked if it was permissible to marry her. Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld explained that it was because of this brazen question that the act of zealotry performed by Pinchos was appropriate, even though, hundreds of years later, when Pinchos, embodied in Eliyohu, wiped out the worshippers of the Ba'al, God criticized him for it. What was the difference between the two acts ? Rav Yosef Chaim explained that in the time of Eliyohu, the people did in fact worship idols very widely. However, the way to approach sinners is to try to bring them closer to God, rather than to wipe them out. That is why God expressed his displeasure over Eliyohu's act of zealotry at that particular time. In the case of Zimri, however, the situation was different. Zimri challenged Moshe to explain why he couldn't join Kozbi with the Jewish nation. He was, thereby, trying to effect a change in the way the Jewish nation related to other nations, and Pinchos rightfully challenged that attempt at change. Seen from the perspective of the two forces working within Jewish history, perhaps we can explain that after Moshe sent a peace delegation to Moav, some people began to think that it would be fine to further promote friendly relations between the two nations, to the extent that intermarriage would also be permissible. When this happened, it was necessary for Pinchos, the Levite and later a kohein, who was totally dedicated to the spreading of holiness, to take up the mantle and put an end to this   development, just as the Chashmonaim, who were kohanim, would later stem the trend toward Hellenization that occurred in their time.



  It is significant to note the time frame within which the episode of Pinchos occurred. The Jewish nation was about to enter the Holy land, which was to serve as the base on which they were to develop as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. In this context, it was necessary to delineate, from the outset, the parameters of this  relationship that the Jewish nation would have with other nations, to set the balance between the two aspects of the nation that it was to develop as it settled in the land. Perhaps, then, we can view the split between the end of parshas Balak and the beginning of parshas Pinchos as the turning point in the transition between  the generation that left Egypt and the generation that was to enter Eretz Yisroel. In fact, the Netziv, in his commentary Ha'mek Davar, views this parsha, albeit in a different way, as the turning point in the book of Bamidbar, echoing the midrash, which sees the book of Bamidbar, in general, as the point of transition between the two generations, that which left Egypt, and that which entered Eretz Yisroel.
                
       

  Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

  To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.