Parshat Pinchas

       After Balaam’s unsuccessful attempt to curse Israel he suggested that by luring Israel to sin they would in effect “curse” themselves. When the Moabite women enticed the Jewish men into a licentious scene, Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Simon, challenged Moses by publicly taking Cozbi, a Moabite princess, into his tent to have sexual relations with her. Even Moses and the elders were paralyzed, and were not able to react. At that point Pinchas took the initiative and respectfully reminded Moses what the law states in such a case and after receiving his permission he boldly enters Zimri’s tent and spears Zimri and Cozbi, killing them and in so doing stopped the plague that had begun to devastate the camp.

The portion of Pinchas begins with God rewarding him for his zealousness by granting him “a covenant of peace.” (To understand in depth the meaning of this covenant and its being paradoxically awarded by an act of violence, see Orchard of Delights on this portion).

The name Pinchas is written in the Torah with a small letter yud. The letter yud, is the smallest of the letters and represents humbleness and selflessness. We learn from this that although the act of Pinchas was one of great strength, his inner attitude was of selflessness in risking his own life to turn around a disastrous situation. This idea of a Jewish leader exhibiting great strength on the outside while maintaining an inner sense of humbleness is seen throughout Jewish history.

Perhaps the greatest leader of all generations was Moses. Yet, the Torah itself testifies that he was the humblest person on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3). Immediately following this description God explains to Aaron and Miriam that the prophecy of Moses is qualitatively different than all other prophets. From the juxtaposition of verses we see that Moses’ humbleness was directly connected to his unique status.

When Moses argued with God at the burning bush for a week regarding his assumption of the mantle of leadership, he truly felt he was not capable and that others, especially his brother Aaron, would be a much better choice. His was not a false humility but a reflection of a true existential view of himself.

Twice in response to the people’s murmuring in the desert against Moses and Aaron he exclaims; “…and what are we that you complain against us?” (Exodus 16:7-8). In Chassidut the expression, “what are we,” represents a consummate state of humility, a true consciousness of being nothing in of oneself, but rather of being a pure and open vessel in God’s hands. This exclamation of Moses indicates that although Moses was an incredibly strong leader he always considered himself as ultimately “nothing,” as he had refined his ego to such an extent that he was the ultimate servant of God, as the Torah attests to on a number of occasions.

After the sin of the Golden Calf, Aaron felt complicit and responsible for not being able to turn the people away from such a terrible sin. Even after he was appointed High Priest by God, he still felt inadequate for the position. Moses explained to him that precisely because of his humbleness and feeling of responsibility is why God had chosen him.

In Pirkei Avot (2:5), the Sages teach the following: “Do not judge your fellow man until you have been in his position.” This dictum could be applied to explain on a deep level why Aaron had to undergo the humiliating experience of being partly responsible for the Golden Calf. While the commentaries explain that the reason he participated was to try and stop the people, or at least to minimize the gravity of their sin, in retrospect his participation can be understood on a far more profound level. Aaron, who was to be the High Priest responsible for all of Israel’s sin offerings, needed to experience his own sense of failure and sin to some degree, so that he would be able to deeply relate to all those who would come to the Tabernacle to do teshuvah.

This is what the Talmud means when it declares that Aaron, along with the entire generation of the desert, and King David, when he sinned with Bathsheba, really should not have committed the sins they did; meaning that this singular incident was totally inconsistent with their general character. The Talmud then asserts that on a deep level these sins ultimately came about to demonstrate to individuals, in the case of David, and to the multitude, in the case of Aaron and the generation of the desert, how teshuvah could and should take place (Avodah Zarah 4b-5a). For only through real empathy, honest self-awareness and sincere humility can we hope to return to God and fulfill the deepest inner longings of the heart to be true servants of the King of the Universe.

As a result of his behavior with Bathsheba, King David did teshuvah the rest of his life as attested to by many of his psalms. This experience no doubt instilled in David a deep sense of existential lowliness. This sense of deep humbleness and existential lowliness was expressed by David even before the episode with Bathsheba. When David led a procession to bring the Tabernacle to Jerusalem he danced with total abandon in his great joy. Yet, his wife Michal who was watching from the window thought he was making a fool of himself and she rebuked him. He answered her: “And if I be demeaned more than this, and I was lowly in mine own eyes” (2 Samuel 6:22).

Even after Samuel anointed him to be king while Saul still held that position, he refused to harm Saul even when Saul tried repeatedly to kill him. This shows how David would not take any action to be king while Saul was still alive.

Despite David’s great humbleness, he like Moses was one of the strongest leaders in Jewish history. During David’s rule, he was able to bring all the tribes together and to create the largest kingdom in Israel’s history. It was King David who made Jerusalem Israel’s eternal capital three thousand years ago, and it was he who paved the way for the building of the first Temple by his son Solomon.

More than any other figure in Jewish history David symbolizes the sefirah of malchut, kingship. Paradoxically, the inner essence of malchut is shiflut, a sense of existential lowliness or humility, as we have seen in many examples in David’s life. This state of mind should not be confused whatsoever with sadness, depression or lack of self-esteem, rather it is the conscious awareness of the state of the soul in relation to the greatness to the Creator, as well as the humbling sense of responsibility the yoke of leadership brings with it. In Jewish thought, leadership entails a high degree of humility and shiflut, contrary to the macho, overblown egos we have come to expect from modern political leaders.

The above four examples of Jewish leaders – Pinchas, Moses, Aaron and David – all who exhibited a reluctance to take on a position of leadership, are joined by many others throughout Jewish history. For example: Saul at first disregarded Samuel’s announcement that God had chosen him as Israel’s first king; Gideon initially was ambivalent when an angel of God appointed him leader; Jeremiah among many of the prophets felt they were unworthy to be God’s messenger. And the list goes on and on…

The small letter yud in the name Pinchas highlights this phenomenon in not only Pinchas but throughout Jewish history. Leadership is a privilege and a great responsibility. It is not meant to be a means of amassing wealth and power, position and influence, rather as a vehicle to serve and to give. When Pinchas did what he did at great risk to his own life, he had only one thing in mind – to save Israel from a desperate situation. His intent was rewarded by God with a covenant of peace.