Torah Study Pinchas 5784

Bamidbar/Numbers 25:10-30:1, Jeremiah 1:1-2:3, John 2:13-22

Torah Portion Bamidbar/Numbers 25:10-30:1

Numbers 25:10-13 “Then Adonai spoke to Moses saying, “Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the kohen has turned away My anger from Bnei-Yisrael because he was very zealous for Me among them, so that I did not put an end to Bnei-Yisrael in My zeal. So now say: See, I am making with him a covenant of shalom! It will be for him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood—because he was zealous for his God and atoned for Bnei-Yisrael.””

1. What does a covenant of shalom as used here mean? #1

a. pact of friendship

b. it is a covenant with Pinchas alone.

c. it implies protection with some Sages saying he lived for such a long time due to this pact. He is written about in Judg. 20:28

RASHI My pact of friendship. More literally, “I grant him My covenant in peace.” It should be a covenant of peace for him.—The phrase expresses the feelings of one who is grateful to someone who does him a good turn. Here too the Holy One is expressing His gratitude.

IBN EZRA My pact of friendship. The Hebrew implies “My pact—a pact of friendship.” For another example of this grammatical phenomenon (which is common) see “your divine throne” (Ps. 45:7). What the “pact” meant in practical terms was that Phinehas had nothing to fear from Zimri’s relatives (though he was the chieftain of an ancestral house) and that he and his descendants would have the priesthood for all time. In fact, the High Priests would descend from him, though it is reasonable to suppose that Eleazar had other sons beside Phinehas.

NAHMANIDES Say, therefore. Say it to the Israelites, to inform them that Phinehas would be a priest for all time.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS I grant him My pact of friendship. The ו of the last word in the verse, shalom (“peace” or “friendship”) is broken in half (Masorah). Even if the Israelites do feel enmity toward him, he has nothing to fear, either from them or from Cozbi’s relatives (Bekhor Shor). Since a priest who has killed someone may not offer the Priestly Benediction, Phinehas was worried that he would lose his priestly status; the Holy One assured him that he would keep it, since he had acted for the sake of heaven (Hizkuni). Rather, “My Pact—protection” from the angel of death. This is why Phinehas lived so long (Sforno).

2. What priesthood is Pinchas now a part of? #2

a. Kohen/Levitical

b. not a new or seperate one

c. it is for all time

d. interesting to note many sages connect Pinchas and Eliyahu as ancestor and descendant

RASHI It shall be for him. This pact of friendship. A pact of priesthood for all time. Though the priesthood had already been conferred on Aaron and his descendants, it was given only to those whom Aaron and his sons would father after they had been anointed. Phinehas, who had already been born and was not anointed, did not fall into this category. B. Zev. 101b tells us this plainly: “Phinehas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri.” For his God. That is, “on his God’s behalf.” Compare “Are you wrought up on my account?” (11:29); “I am very jealous for Zion” (Zech. 8:2).

IBN EZRA His descendants after him. “After him” shows that he did in fact die. He could not, therefore, have been Elijah (as some think). He did, however, live well into the period of the judges (see Judg. 20:28) but not as late as the time of David (see my comment to 1 Chron. 9:20). Because he took impassioned action for his God, thus making expiation for the Israelites. Out of his love for God, he did Israel a good turn as well. But midrashically, this can be read to say that he “made expiation” for the Israelites on an ongoing basis—his sons would now do so just as their father did.

NAHMANIDES It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time. Notice that this is not what Aaron’s other priestly descendants were told—that their anointing would “serve them for everlasting priesthood throughout the ages” (Exod. 40:15). Rather, God gave Phinehas “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (OJPS)—“My covenant, with peace” (as the phrase in v. 12 is correctly understood). God would give him a covenant to which peace was inextricably attached. But Aaron was granted the priesthood “for dignity and adornment” (Exod. 28:2). That is why we are reminded here that Phinehas took impassioned action for his God. One who is enlightened will understand.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time. The High Priesthood remained in the family of Phinehas as late as the early Second Temple period (Hizkuni). The priesthood would pass to his descendants anyway; this is a promise that he will not cease to have descendants—and also that he would outlive his father Eleazar and attain the High Priesthood (Gersonides).

Numbers 25:15–18 “The name of the executed Midianite woman was Cozbi, daughter of Zur—he was a tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian. Adonai spoke to Moses saying, “Deal with the Midianites as enemies and strike them. For they have been enemies to you in their deceptions of you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite prince, their sister who was slain on the day of the plague on account of the Peor incident.””

3. Are these the same Midianite’s that Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law, and Tzipporah, Moshe’s ex-wife, are part of? #3

a. Yitro seperated from the rest of Midian with his small clan.

b. He refused to be an idolator and the rest of Midian rejected him.

RASHI The name of the Midianite woman who was killed. This is to tell you how much the Midianites hated the Israelites. To get an Israelite to sin, they prostituted a king’s daughter. He was the tribal head. Literally, he was “head of the people” (OJPS). In fact, he was one of the five kings of Midian: “Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian” (31:8). He was the most important of them all, but was demoted to third in the list because he debased himself by prostituting his daughter. An ancestral house. Midian had five ancestral houses: “The descendants of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Enoch, Abida, and Eldaah” (Gen. 25:4). He was king of one of them.

IBN EZRA Zur. He was one of the kings of Midian mentioned in 31:8. They too, like the chieftains of the Simeonite ancestral houses, were five in number.

Numbers 26:1–2 “After the plague, Adonai said to Moses and Eleazar son of Aaron the kohen saying, “Take a headcount of the entire community of Bnei-Yisrael, sons twenty years old and upward, by their ancestral houses, all who can serve in Israel’s army.””

4. Why is another census being taken?

a. Yisrael had been through a number off events recently that had an effect on the population.

b. Rashi: It is like a shepherd after wolves have descended upon his flock and killed some of them. He counts them to know how many are left.

c. Another explanation is that Moshe knows he is coming to the end of his life soon and so to prevent quarlelling is getting ready to divide up the land now for when they eventually enter.

Numbers 26:9-11 “The sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These were the Dathan and Abiram who were community leaders who rebelled against Moses and Aaron and were among the following of Korah in their rebellion against Adonai. Then the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them with Korah, whose followers died when the fire consumed the 250 men, these men serving as a warning. Korah’s sons, however, did not die.”

5. Wanted to point out that from the Korach portion we see here again that his sons did infact survive.

6. The 250 followers of Korah that where consumed by fire serve as a warning of what specifically? #4

a. To not try and take the priesthood, to not contest the priesthood, to not change the priesthood, and especially not to offer incense offerings as the priesthood.

RASHI They became an example. Literally, a “banner,” that is, “a sign” (OJPS), as was mentioned at the time: “It was to be a reminder to the Israelites, so that no outsider … should presume to offer incense before the Lord” (17:5) or ever again raise a challenge about the priesthood.

IBN EZRA Whereupon the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with Korah—when that band died. Rather, “whereupon the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up—with Korah, when that band died.” See my comment to 16:35. And they became an example. As God told Moses, “Let them serve as a warning to the people of Israel” (17:3).

Numbers 26:51 “These sons of Israel totaled 601,730.”

7. We see a large drop in population specifically we have entire families missing from those listed in Genesis 46 that entered Mitsrayim. How many are present and how many are missing compared to the number that entered Mitsrayim? #5

a. 70 entered Mitsrayim 65 families are present here.

b. The gentiles are split into 70 families and some of the sages speculate that there was to be 70 Israelite families to match the 70 gentile families of the world. Here we see Yisrael is diminished.

c. We could also consider if there was 70 families and we have 70 elders then it could have been a representative of each familiy.

RASHI Zerah. This is Zohar (“brightness”) of Gen. 46:10; but notice by comparison with that verse that the family of Ohad is no longer in existence. The same is true of five families from Benjamin (see my comment to v. 38) and the family of Ishvah from the tribe of Asher (compare vv. 44–45 with Gen. 46:17). That makes a total of seven families that have disappeared. In the Palestinian Talmud I found the following explanation: When Aaron died, the clouds of glory that had protected the Israelites up to that point left them, and the Canaanites came forth to fight them. The Israelites decided to return to Egypt, and actually traveled eight stages back in that direction, from Mount Hor to Moserah: “From Beeroth-bene-jaakan the Israelites marched to Moserah. Aaron died there” (Deut. 10:6). But it was actually at Mount Hor that Aaron died (see 20:23–28), and Moserah is eight stages before Mount Hor (see 33:31–37). So the Israelites must have headed back, toward Egypt. The Levites chased after them to bring them back, and killed these seven families in doing so. Four families of the Levites themselves also perished. The Shimeites (3:21) and the Uzzielites (3:27), missing from v. 58, were two of them; of the descendants of Izhar, only the Korahites are mentioned; and I do not know what the fourth missing family was. R. Tanhuma explains it differently, saying that these families perished in the plague that followed the Balaam incident (v. 9). But by comparing the numbers for Simeon in this census and the earlier one—22,200 (v. 14) versus 59,300 (1:22)—it would seem that all 24,000 who died in the plague must have come from Simeon. If you count them, you will find a total of 57 families in this section, plus another 8 Levite families, making a total of 65. This is what is meant by calling the Israelites “the smallest” (המעט) of peoples (Deut. 7:7). If you read the ה not as “the” but with its numerical value of 5, the same phrase indicates that the Israelites are “five smaller” than the other peoples—of whom there are 70, not 65. This I understood from my reading of the Yesod of Moses ha-Darshan. But throughout this section I have not quoted him precisely but have had to omit some of what he said and add some things of my own.

NAHMANIDES Zerah. See Rashi’s comments to this entire passage, especially to this verse and to vv. 24 and 40. But I am surprised at his approach. The problem is not that some who are identified as brothers in Genesis 46 are identified as sons here (which is indeed to be explained as does Rashi; a similar thing happened with Judah, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher). But if we say that Ard and Naaman were born to Bela after he came down to Egypt, then they should not have been counted here among the clans to whom the land is to be apportioned. Yet if they were born before he came down to Egypt, the total of those who came down would be greater than 70. That is why Moses ha-Darshan explains that their mother was already pregnant with them on the way down. They were not counted then but are counted here as if they had already been born. “If this is a traditional legend,” then we must put up with the compulsion to accept it. But in that case we are further compelled to say that Jochebed was born “between the walls” on the day they entered Egypt, and that these two were born a few months later. But if it is not a tradition passed down by our Sages, we should thrust this conclusion of his away with both hands. What we could say is that Benjamin’s sons Ard and Naaman died without sons of their own, and that Bela wanted to “establish a name” (Deut. 25:7) for his brothers and so named his own sons after them. Being the first-born, he may even have “performed the duty of a levir” with their wives, in accordance with the Deuteronomy passage. This would explain why they became the heads of clans—to replace the clans that would have been founded by their uncles of the same name. But what I think is that the Ard and Naaman who are identified as sons of Benjamin in Gen. 46:21 are really the sons of Benjamin’s eldest, Bela, just as it says in our v. 40. (This is also how they are identified in 1 Chron. 8:3–4.) Scripture frequently calls grandsons “sons”; compare Gen. 29:5 with Gen. 25:20 and 1 Chron. 1:17 with Gen. 10:23. Even though this was not done with the sons of Perez (son of Judah; see v. 21) or Beriah (son of Asher; see v. 45), perhaps Ard and Naaman were born on the knees of Benjamin and he considered them his own, as in “This is the line of Aaron and Moses” (3:1). Or perhaps because Benjamin had so many sons, these two were simply lumped in with them. Logically, though, we might suggest that the text is not listing only the clans of those who came down to Egypt, as Rashi says in his comment to v. 24, but (as with Ephraim and Manasseh) also some clans descended from those born there. It is illogical to make an exception for Ephraim and Manasseh just because they were already in Egypt; there should have been 70 clans, matching the number at the time they entered Egypt. In fact, the text consistently identifies Ephraim and Manasseh as having been among the ancestors of the Jews who “went down to Egypt seventy persons in all” (Deut. 10:22). And Ard and Naaman were unquestionably born after the arrival of the “70” in Egypt. The thing is that the custom in Israel in those days was the same as the custom of the Ishmaelites in our own day, as well as that of the Jews who live among them: to be named after one’s clan (e.g., ibn Ezra or ibn Sassoon). As we learn from Exod. 6:14, once the Israelites multiplied and increased so greatly in Egypt, they established clans, identifying certain ancestors as “the heads of their respective clans.” This system may also have been established in Egypt in order to keep the Israelites from mixing with other nations and to enable them to be organized by tribe—at which time it became the rule in Israel. All the men named in this section (of whatever generation) became heads of ancestral houses. This is why vv. 29–32 can name a clan for Machir, a clan for his son Gilead, and six more clans for Gilead’s sons. (You find the same in the tribe of Judah, vv. 20–21, and of Ephraim, vv. 35–36.) These particular sons of clan founders were great and noteworthy enough to found clans of their own. It is not, as Rashi thinks, that just these men had large numbers of descendants, for all of the Israelites “were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly” (Exod. 1:7). Since the clans were formed in Egypt, most of them did link themselves with the names of the 70 who descended there with Jacob, but not all; some took names from the next few generations.

Numbers 27:1–4 “The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh son of Joseph (the names of his daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah) stood before Moses, Eleazar the kohen and the princes of the entire assembly at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and said, “Our father died in the wilderness. But he was not one of the followers banding together against Adonai with Korah, though he died for his own sin. Yet he had no sons. Why should our father’s name diminish from his family just because he had no son? Give to us property among our father’s brothers.””

8. What where the daughters of Zelophehad requesting and what where they not requesting?

a. The Father’s name to be carried on and not diminished.

b. to change the Torah for a more “equal or equitable” ruling

Numbers 28:11–15 ““On the first of the month you are to present to Adonai a burnt offering of two young bulls, one ram, and seven flawless male lambs a year old, with three tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering with each bull, and two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering with the ram, and with each lamb a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, a burnt offering as a pleasing aroma, an offering by fire to Adonai. Their drink offerings shall be: per bull, half a hin of wine, a third of a hin of wine per ram, and, a fourth of a hin per lamb. This will be the monthly burnt offering at each new moon throughout the year. Also, one male goat as a sin offering to Adonai beside the regular burnt offering is to be offered with its drink offering.”

9. The number of animals offered in verse 11 is very specific. What might they represent? #6

a. 2 bulls - Moshe and Aharon

b. 1 ram - the holy one

c. 7 flawless male lambs - Noach, Avraham, Yitsak, Yakov, Levi, Kohath, Amram, all devoted to serve as the junction between HaShem and his people.

IBN EZRA On your new moons. Moses Gikatilla (may he rest in Paradise!) says that “your” new moon must refer specifically to the new moon of Nisan, the only month of which we are told, “This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months” (Exod. 12:2). Only later will we be told that this shall also be the monthly burnt offering “for each new moon of the year” (v. 14). And his explanation is correct. One might argue that our phrase refers to “new moons” in the plural. But we see (from 1 Sam. 20:5) that ḥodesh by itself means “new moon.” So the rosh ḥodesh of our verse must mean the “chief,” most important, new moons—those of Nisan. He is therefore quite correct.

ABARBANEL On your new moons. All the new moons of the year. Had it said merely “on the new moon” it could have been interpreted as referring to the special new moon, the new moon of Nisan. Two bulls of the herd. Representing Moses and Aaron, the two great leaders to whom the very first commandment to Israel, about the month of Nisan (Exod. 12:2), was given. One ram. Representing the Holy One. Seven yearling lambs. Representing the seven righteous ancestors of Moses and Aaron: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, and Amram.

Haftorah Portion Jeremiah 1:1-2:3

Jeremiah 1:16 “I will pronounce My judgments on them for all their wickedness— they have forsaken Me, offering incense to other gods, worshipping the works of their hands.”

10. We have the reminder of incorrect application of incense in both the Torah and Haftorah portions this week. 1st incorrect application of who offered and 2nd who it was offered too. What is something that you see in the offering of incense?

11. Today in both Judaisim and Christianity it is said that our prayers are like the incense offering, this is based on Psalm 141:2 “May my prayer be set before You like incense. May the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.” If this is so is there a correlation between expectations of us and expectations of the priests?

Jeremiah 2:3 “Israel was kadosh to Adonai, the firstfruits of the harvest. All who devoured him were held guilty. Catastrophe overtook them.” It is a declaration of Adonai.”

12. What does it mean that Yisrael is the firstfruits of the Harvest? Yakov also compares Yisrael to firstfruits Jakov 1:8.

a. first to recieve the Torah and the Meshiac

b. first to know HaShem

c. older sibling

Besorah Portion John 2:13-22

John 2:15 “Then He made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the Temple, both the sheep and oxen. He dumped out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.”

13. Why did Yeshua drive out the money changers? #7

a. They may have been working on Shabbat.

b. The exchange of money was a business transaction and should have been done outside the temple.

c. money changing is not a SIN.

d. The animals for sacrifice could have been making a mess in the court of the gentiles.

e. The prices could have been quite high. Rabbi Gamaliel also forced a price reduction by throwing a fit. He forced the price down 99%.

Babylonian Talmud Keritot 1:7 L. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, “By this sanctuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall be at [silver] denars.” M. He entered the court and taught [the following law]: N. “The woman who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages [or] five confirmed fluxes brings a single offering. O. “And she eats animal sacrifices. P. “And the rest [of the offerings] do not remain as an obligation for her.” Q. And pairs of birds stood on that very day at a quarter-denar each [one one-hundredth of the former price].