top of page
Single Post: Blog_Single_Post_Widget

Parsha Pinchas


This weeks Parsha has the Mysterious and interesting covenant of Peace with Pinchas, and he becomes a Cohen in a very interesting way. I always like to start these blogs with the P'shat of Rashi, so lets jump right in. Rashi states on verse 11-13"By his zealously avenging Me: Heb. אֶתקִנְavenging My vengeance, by his releasing the wrath that I should have released. The term קִנְאָהalways denotes someone motivated to take vengeance for some matter, in old French, enprenemant.

My covenant of peace: That it should be a covenant of peace for him. Just as a man owes gratitude and favor to someone who did him a favor, so here G-d expressed to him His feelings of peace. It shall be: This covenant of Mine [mentioned in the previous verse] shall be for him. An eternal covenant of kehunah: Although the kehunah had already been given to Aaron’s descendants, it had been given only to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their children whom they would beget after their anointment. Phinehas, however, who was born before that and had never been anointed, had not been included in the kehunah until now. And so, we learn in [Tractate] Zevachim [101b], “Phinehas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.” The guf (body) of the Daf (page) follows :דבר אחר והלא פינחס היה עמהן שפיר קאמרי ליה סבר לה כרבי אלעזר דאר"א א"ר חנינא לא נתכהן פינחס עד שהרגו לזמרי דכתיב(במדבר כה, יג) והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also stated: Alternatively, wasn’t Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, with them? He was not an acute mourner. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say well to Rabbi Neḥemya. The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Pinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri, who had engaged in intercourse with a Midianite woman (see Numbers 25:6–8). As it is written only after that incident concerning Pinehas: “And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13). Before that incident, at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the only priests were Aaron and his sons.

רב אשי אמר עד ששם שלום בין השבטים שנאמר (יהושע כב, ל) וישמע פינחס הכהן ונשיאי העדה וראשי אלפי ישראל וגו'

Rav Ashi said: Pinehas did not become a priest until he made peace among the tribes at the time of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, when the tribes east of the Jordan River built their own altar and nearly provoked a civil war. Before this, Pinehas was always referred to as: Son of Elazar the priest, but during this incident he is himself referred to as a priest for the first time, as it is stated: “And Pinehas the priest, and the princes of the congregation, and the heads of the thousands of Israel that were with him, heard the words that the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the children of Manasseh spoke, and it pleased them well” (Joshua 22:30).

ואידך נמי והכתיב והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו כי כתיב ההוא בברכה הוא דכתיב

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sage, Rav Ashi, as well, isn’t it written: “And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood”? Apparently, Pinehas became a priest after he killed Zimri. The Gemara responds: When that verse is written, it is with regard tothe blessing that it is written, that his descendants would always be priests. It did not indicate that Pinehas became a priest immediately.

ואידך נמי הא כתיב וישמע פינחס הכהן ההוא ליחס זרעו אחריו

The Gemara asks: And for the other Sages as well, who hold that Pinehas became a priest immediately after he killed Zimri, isn’t it written: “And Pinehas the priest…heard”? Apparently he became a priest only after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara answers: That verse serves to entitle his descendants after him, that they would continue as High Priests through his merit.

אמר רב משה רבינו כהן גדול וחולק בקדשי שמים היה שנאמר (ויקרא ח, כט) מאיל המלואים למשה היה למנה

§ Rav says: Moses, our teacher, was a High Priest and would receive a share of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as it is stated: “And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the Lord; it was Moses’ portion of the ram of inauguration, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 8:29).

מיתיבי והלא פינחס היה עמהן ואם איתא לימא והלא משה רבינו היה עמהן דילמא שאני משה דטריד בשכינה דאמר מר משה בהשכמה עלה ובהשכמה ירד

The Gemara raises an objection: In the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon claim that acute mourning was not the reason the sin offering was burned by asking: Wasn’t Pinehas with them? And if it is so that Moses could partake of sacrificial meat, let them say: Wasn’t Moses, our teacher, with them? The Gemara responds: Perhaps Moses is different, since as a prophet, he was preoccupied with the Divine Presence, and was not available. As the Master says: Moses ascended Mount Sinai early in the morning, and he descended early in the morning.

מיתיבי (ויקרא כא, כב) לחם אלהיו מקדשי הקדשים ומן הקדשים יאכל אם נאמרו קדשי קדשים למה נאמר קדשים קלים ואם נאמרו קדשים קלים למה נאמר קדשי קדשים

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s statement from another baraita: The verse states with regard to a blemished priest: “He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most sacred, and of the sacred” (Leviticus 21:22). If offerings of the most sacred order are stated, that a blemished priest may eat them, then why are offerings of lesser sanctity also stated? And if offerings of lesser sanctity are stated, why are offerings of the most sacred order stated?

אילו לא נאמר קדשים קלים הייתי אומר קדשי קדשים הוא דאוכל . שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן קדשים קלים לא יאכל ואילו לא נאמרו קדשי קדשים הייתי אומר בקדשים קלים יהא אוכל שהן קלים בקדשי קדשים לא יהא אוכל לכך נאמרו קדשי קדשים ולכך נאמר קדשים קלים

The baraita answers: Had offerings of lesser sanctity not been stated, I would have said: It is only offerings of the most sacred order that a blemished priest may eat, as they were permitted both to a non-priest and tothe priests, but a blemished priest may not eat offerings of lesser sanctity,which were not permitted to non-priests. And had offerings of the most sacred order not been stated, I would have said: A blemished priest may eat offerings of lesser sanctity, as they are of lesser sanctity, but he may not eat of offerings of the most sacred order, as they are of higher sanctity. Therefore, offerings of the most sacred order are stated, and therefore, offerings of lesser sanctity are stated.

קתני מיהא שהרי הותרו לזר ולהן לאו משה אמר רב ששת לא בבמה לזר וכדברי האומר יש מנחה בבמה

The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, the baraita teaches: As they were permitted both to a non-priest and to the priests. What non-priest is permitted to eat offerings of the most sacred order? Is this not referring to Moses? This indicates that Moses was not considered a High Priest, contrary to Rav’s statement. Rav Sheshet said: No, this is referring to a non-priestsacrificing on a private altar. Once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, it was permitted for a time for them to build private altars, on which even non-priests could serve. And although only offerings of lesser sanctity were offered on private altars, this baraita is in accordance with the statement of the Sage who says: There is a meal offering that may be offered on a private altar.Meal offerings are of the most sacred order. For his God: Heb. לֵאלֹהָיו, for the sake of his God, as in (11:29),“Are you zealous for my sake (לִי) ?” and (Zech. 8:2),“I am zealous for Zion (לְצִיּוֹן) ”--for the sake of Zion."

The Baal Haturim brings down an interesting Remez to help us understand the ramifications of the Passuk as well. He states "My covenant of peace. The world Shalom is spelled Shalim for the vov of that word is a cut off vov. This is explained in the third chapter of tractate kiddushin as the source of the law that only a complete. e.i unblemished Cohen is valid. (Kiddushin 66B the Talmud there states: How do we know that if the Temple service is performed by a physically blemished Cohen it is invalid? That is, the Torah states that a blemished Cohen may not perform the service. But it does not tell us whether such service if performed unintentionally, e.i when a Cohen does not realize that he had a disqualifying blemish is valid or invalid. For the verse states Therefore say....Behold I give him my covenant of Peace. This means only when he is whole. is a Cohen's service in the Mishkan Valid. but not when he is incomplete....An objection is raised but the Torah states Shalom with a vov, which is vowelized shalom and means peace. and not Shalam without a vov, meaning whole. The Talmud answers The vov of Shalom is cut off as if it were a Yud, or if missing altogether thus the word could be interpreted as whole, or peace. "

He continues further- "Alternatively: The letter vov, is cut off because Phineas is identical with the prophet Eliyahu, And Eliyahu's name is sometimes spelled Eliya without a Vov, while Jacob's name is sometimes spelled with a vov,. This indicates that Jacob, mood the vov from Eliyahu as security until Eliyahu would come with Mashiach and redeem Jacob's descendants. This is also intimated by the verse Jacob will exult, Israel will rejoice, (It also includes the name of Moshiach) for the letters of Y'simach are the same as those for Moshiach. For Jacob will rejoice at Israel's redemption in the time of Moshiach, and he will return the vov, so that Eliyahu's name will be complete. This is all alluded to by the word Shalom, for the gematria of Shalom is 376, equal to that of this is Moshiach." Interestingly we also find Yaakov Shalom, the name of my son! In Bereshis 33:18. Yaakov Shalom. and the Rosh Tevios when Yaakov comesback into the land with Moshiach's name spell Yeshua (Moshiach's Name.)

Sorry for the brief diversion but I will allow Baal Haturim to again continue immediately following the above he states "And he brought atonement. The verse does not state and l'kipur, to atone but v'ykipur he brought atonement. which may be interpreted as if it read he will bring atonement"

This is quite marvelous that the sages could see such amazing things. I bring only a few other things to this of my own, as I have shown who Moshiach is through Rashi and Baal Haturim (The Tur who wrote Beis Yosef) but I encourage you to enter this covenant of Peace, to revel in this atonement, to finally grasp the taste of the Guelah that is waiting at your fingertips. Talk to us, send us an email, get to know more about this amazing secret that you can taste the Guelah in Golus, and then help us to bring recognition of the Guelah to the world, and bring Teshuvah for all who have missed Moshiach. Or desire is to see the world Kiruved to Moshiach, and to the Torah. An unblemished Cohen, and king are waiting your reply with Atonement, and the Guelah.

bottom of page