Tuesday, July 08, 2014

A Thought on Parshas Pinchas

"...es brisi Shalom..." "...My covenant of peace..." (25:12) After avenging the moral tragedy which took place as our people converged with the nation of Midian, HaShem pronounced that Pinchas would be instated within the Kahuna and would be granted a covenant of peace. Observation of the Torah script shows that the word peace (Shalom) is written in an atypical manner. The letters shin, lamed and mem are typical yet the vav is written smaller than usual, as if it were a yud. There are many places where the words of the Torah are written in an atypical manner yet our sages offer interpretations of those cases where the text veers from the expected. Writing Shalom as if it were the word Shalim (shin, lamed, "vav like a yud", mem) begs interpretation. The Panae'ach Raza offers three views. The first is based on the idea that since the word looks more like shalem (complete) than shalom, it is hinting at the historical reality that up until this moment, Pinchas was not regarded as a kohen in that he was not in the Aharonic line of the descendants of Levi. It was only with this pivotal act that he was admitted into the caste of kohanim, and therefore the word hints at this having marked his completion or fulfillment in that spiritual regard. The second view is based on the idea that the vav which looks like a yud is intrinsically significant, namely, that the yud comes to hint at a later event which involved yud, as in its gematria of ten. Ten generations passed before we find, in later history, that the kahuna gedola was vested in the family descended from Pinchas. So, the covenant of peace was given to Pinchas but it did not kick in, in a complete sense, for ten generations. The third view is based on a combination of two observations. First, as noted above. there is a hint at the significance of ten, symbolized by that "vav like a yud". Secondly, writing the word Shalom in this manner actually diminishes the word from being fully Shalom. Now, earlier, our first view above focused on how the word seems to become Shalim, but this third view is focused on how the word remains Shalom but it is missing something. The Panae'ach Raza suggests that Pinchas acted with zealousness, kinah, which involved avenging the tarnished sanctity of HaShem's nation. We find another such form of kinah which is more of a zealous jealousy, namely, the process of confronting and examining the sotah, the wife suspected of infidelity. Looking back to Parshas Nasso, we find that the Torah addresses that process with ten references to kinah. Pinchas dealt with Kozbi, and with Zimri, as if it was a Sotah process. He intervened with the zeal of vengeance which the Torah allots in the Sotah trial. Hence, Pinchas was awarded the covenant of peace because he avenged the assault on morality and on sanctity as if objecting to a breach of fidelty. That is hinted at by the appearance of a yud with its dual meaning of "ten." However, the second tier of this interpretation is that the "Shalom" of Pinchas was missing something. It was not complete Shalom, for it involved an act of vengeance and of violence. Despite the ends, which was to increase kedusha in the world, the means was still an un-peaceful means. The fact was that HaShem lauded Pinchas for his zealotry and awarded him, henceforth, a covenant of peace, indicating that in this instance, the end did justify the means. However, the fact remained that there was a diminution of peace involved in that means, and this is hinted at by shrinking a part of the word Shalom through a tinier vav. That small deficit of the word alludes to the deficient peace which came about through those means. There was "peace" yet it had been achieved through actions which were not inherently peaceable. The lesson or message to be learned here is that when one must resort to aggression and violence, no matter the ends and the intention, peace takes a hit. I am sending this early because I am about to depart for Eretz Yisroel. Pray for Shalom, fully. Good Shabbos. D Fox

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

A Thought on Parshas Balak

"...el Bila'am ben Be'or..." "...to Bilaam the son of Be'or..." (21:5) In our collective thinking, as well as in Talmudic and Midrashic thought, Bila'am has come to epitomize the individual nemesis of the Jewish people. He, and others comparable to him, have surfaced throughout our history, working behind the scenes or through deceptive machinations to undermine and destroy us and all that we are meant to represent. The Torah introduces Bila'am here, as well as his lineage. He was the "son of Be'or", that much we know. But, who was he? Who was his father? What kind of origin can we find for this archetype of all who would curse our small nation? The Panae'ach Raza offers some sleuthing. He takes us back to Parshas VaYishlach where we meet Bela the son of Be'or, the first king of Edom, who resided, according to the Torah, in a place called Dinhava (36:32). Whereas we might not know where Dinhava was, the Panae'ach Raza offers that the word is a compound made up of two other words, din and hava. Those two words translate into "the decision of "let's do it." A din is a ruling or decision made by a court, and the word hava, such as in "hava nagila", means first-person plural "Let's do it" or "let us go for it." The Panae'ach Raza then reminds us that this word hava has a sinister history. When Pharaoh in Egypt decreed that the persecution of the visiting Jews must begin, he used that word: "Hava nischachma lo" - let us outsmart them (1:10). What was the background of that horrible decision? Our Talmudic sages (Sota 11a) have told us that Pharaoh convened a tribunal to determine what action he should take in deciding the fate of the Jewish people and of the baby Moshe. Our tradition is that Yisro was one of the judges, who ruled to spare Moshe and to leave the Jews alone. Iyov (Job) abstained. It was Bila'am who condemned the Jews and ruled to begin by executing Moshe. It was at that point that Pharaoh confirmed the earlier sentiment that he had expressed by now invoking it as a legal decree to rid Egypt of its Jews. Thus, it was the ruling (the dln) of Bila'am which prompted the royal order (hava). The Torah alludes to this by telling us that Bela was associated with "Din Hava." Bela was the same as Bila'am, and the father's name Be'or supports this conclusion. Now, Bela, according to that verse in Vayishlach, was the first king of Edom. Apparently, by the time we get to Parshas Balak, he had left the monarchy and had gone into private practice, under the name Bila'am. No longer content to harbor his hatred for the children of his great uncle Yaakov at the nationalistic level alone, he now was a mercenary sorcerer, who could be hired out to invoke malevolence against people. All those individuals throughout history, and in our own turbulent tragic times, who market their hatred for Jews, and spread their venom and prejudice by indoctrination, are the archetypal descendants of Bila'am. They will seek to destroy us with words, rather than with weapons alone. They will seek to damage us through propaganda and spinning of facts. They will ally themselves with those, such as Balak, who attack us with physical assault. And they lend their assistance and power so that those who strike out at the Jewish people can gloat in impunity and with immunity. May HaShem protect us and keep us secure. May we preserve and enact the pure and holy missions of our three slain Benei Yisroel HyD. Good Shabbos. D Fox