More on Absence of Evidence vs. Evidence of Absence

PaleoJudaica on the existence of a pre-Herodian Temple:

As for their being "no archaeological evidence at all for any earlier temple [than Herod's] on the site," as phrased, that's more or less correct. (I could dispute that point, but let it lie for now.) Herod's expansion of the Temple Platform seems to have obliterated the earlier architecture. Of course, the only way to find out if some of that earlier architecture survives is to excavate the site. Obviously that is politically impossible. I have expressed the hope that future technologies may someday allow us to do nonintrusive scans of the site.

But in any case, what is the implication you are drawing from this (current) lack of archaeological evidence? Are you seriously suggesting that there wasn't a Jewish Temple on the site before Herod built it? That would mean there must have been a massive conspiracy by Josephus, the (pre-Herodian!) Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., to convince someone or other that there was a pre-Herodian Temple on the (previously empty?) site. I can't parse this at all, so I'll just have to ask you what you do mean.

Much more here.

haftarat Matot: Yirmiyahu's Multifunctional Almond Staff

The haftara for parshat Matot is the beginning of Yirmiyahu. The first prophecy mentioned (Yirmiyahu 1:6-10) appears to be an initiation prophecy. In the next (Yirmiyahu 1:11-12), in what appears to be the continuation of the first, he is shown an almond staff, and is told explicitly its meaning:

יא וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר, מָה-אַתָּה רֹאֶה יִרְמְיָהוּ; וָאֹמַר, מַקֵּל שָׁקֵד אֲנִי רֹאֶה.	11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying: 'Jeremiah, what seest thou?' And I said: 'I see a rod of an almond-tree.'
יב וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֵלַי, הֵיטַבְתָּ לִרְאוֹת: כִּי-שֹׁקֵד אֲנִי עַל-דְּבָרִי, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ.	12 Then said the LORD unto me: 'Thou hast well seen; for I watch over My word to perform it.'

However, perhaps another meaning is alluded to here, and that is to Aharon's staff, which quite appropriately for our parsha, is called a מַטֶּה (plural מַטּוֹת). There, in parshat Korach, there was an issue of which tribe, or perhaps which leader of the tribe, would serve in the Mishkan. An excerpt (Bemidbar 17:16-24):

טז וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	16 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יז דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקַח מֵאִתָּם מַטֶּה מַטֶּה לְבֵית אָב מֵאֵת כָּל-נְשִׂיאֵהֶם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, מַטּוֹת: אִישׁ אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, תִּכְתֹּב עַל-מַטֵּהוּ.	17 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and take of them rods, one for each fathers' house, of all their princes according to their fathers' houses, twelve rods; thou shalt write every man's name upon his rod.
יח וְאֵת שֵׁם אַהֲרֹן, תִּכְתֹּב עַל-מַטֵּה לֵוִי: כִּי מַטֶּה אֶחָד, לְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אֲבוֹתָם.	18 And thou shalt write Aaron's name upon the rod of Levi, for there shall be one rod for the head of their fathers' houses.
יט וְהִנַּחְתָּם, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד--לִפְנֵי, הָעֵדוּת, אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לָכֶם, שָׁמָּה.	19 And thou shalt lay them up in the tent of meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you.
כ וְהָיָה, הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֶבְחַר-בּוֹ--מַטֵּהוּ יִפְרָח; וַהֲשִׁכֹּתִי מֵעָלַי, אֶת-תְּלֻנּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַלִּינִם, עֲלֵיכֶם.	20 And it shall come to pass, that the man whom I shall choose, his rod shall bud; and I will make to cease from Me the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against you.'
כא וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתְּנוּ אֵלָיו כָּל-נְשִׂיאֵיהֶם מַטֶּה לְנָשִׂיא אֶחָד מַטֶּה לְנָשִׂיא אֶחָד לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, מַטּוֹת; וּמַטֵּה אַהֲרֹן, בְּתוֹךְ מַטּוֹתָם.	21 And Moses spoke unto the children of Israel; and all their princes gave him rods, for each prince one, according to their fathers' houses, even twelve rods; and the rod of Aaron was among their rods.
כב וַיַּנַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַמַּטֹּת, לִפְנֵי ה, בְּאֹהֶל, הָעֵדֻת.	22 And Moses laid up the rods before the LORD in the tent of the testimony.
כג וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אֹהֶל הָעֵדוּת, וְהִנֵּה פָּרַח מַטֵּה-אַהֲרֹן, לְבֵית לֵוִי; וַיֹּצֵא פֶרַח וַיָּצֵץ צִיץ, וַיִּגְמֹל שְׁקֵדִים.	23 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and put forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and bore ripe almonds.
כד וַיֹּצֵא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-כָּל-הַמַּטֹּת מִלִּפְנֵי ה, אֶל-כָּל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּרְאוּ וַיִּקְחוּ, אִישׁ מַטֵּהוּ.	24 And Moses brought out all the rods from before the LORD unto all the children of Israel; and they looked, and took every man his rod.

Perhaps there is a Biblical allusion at play here, besides the overt meaning given in the verse. After all, this is an initiation prophecy, and Yirmiyahu is being told that he was chosen - in fact, sanctified - from before birth for a special relationship with God, to act as intermediary between Hashem and humanity. Earlier, in pesukim 4-5:

ד וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	4 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying:
ה בְּטֶרֶם אצורך (אֶצָּרְךָ) בַבֶּטֶן יְדַעְתִּיךָ, וּבְטֶרֶם תֵּצֵא מֵרֶחֶם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ: נָבִיא לַגּוֹיִם, נְתַתִּיךָ.	5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.

And Yirmiyahu is, after all, a descendant of Aharon. Yirmiyahu 1:1:

א דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ, בֶּן-חִלְקִיָּהוּ, מִן-הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת, בְּאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִן.

1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin,

Update:
Firstly, in response to Rachel's comment below, I would just point out that I strongly suspect that מַטֶּה/מַטֶּה is more than just a homonym - they are likely related etymologically. That is, the concrete meaning of "staff" came first, from which developed "sovereignty,"(and sovereign entity) as represented by wielding that staff. Thus, the nesiim, the princes, in the aftermath of Korach, brought each of their staffs to represent them and their tribes. Indeed, a synonym, שבט (shevet) means both "staff" and "tribe" as well.
(This type of phenomenon is not unknown. Consider בגד/מעל as referring to both clothing and betrayal.)

Secondly, I'd like to expand on the theme of Yirmiyahu's vision of the staff (מקל) being a parallel to Aharon's staff (מטה), and Yirmiyahu being a descendant of Aharon. In fact, according to the Targum on Eicha, Yirmiyahu was also a Kohen Gadol. See for example the first verse:

1 Jeremiah the Prophet and High Priest told how it was decreed that Jerusalem and her people should be punished with banishment and that they should be mourned with /ekah...

To bolster (or perhaps to source) this, we see in 2 Kings 23:4:

ד וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל וְאֶת-כֹּהֲנֵי הַמִּשְׁנֶה, וְאֶת-שֹׁמְרֵי הַסַּף, לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֵיכַל יְהוָה, אֵת כָּל-הַכֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִם לַבַּעַל וְלָאֲשֵׁרָה וּלְכֹל צְבָא הַשָּׁמָיִם; וַיִּשְׂרְפֵם מִחוּץ לִירוּשָׁלִַם, בְּשַׁדְמוֹת קִדְרוֹן, וְנָשָׂא אֶת-עֲפָרָם, בֵּית-אֵל.

4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el.

and we read in the first pasuk in Yirmiyahu:

א דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ, בֶּן-חִלְקִיָּהוּ, מִן-הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת, בְּאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִן.

1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin,

If one equates the two Chilkiyahus, then Yirmiyahu is the son of the Kohen Gadol, and might just be in a position to inherit the office at some point.

parshat Matot: First to the Leaders

The parsha begins {Bemidbar 30:2}:

ב וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה.	2 And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.
ג אִישׁ כִּי-יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה, אוֹ-הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל-נַפְשׁוֹ--לֹא יַחֵל, דְּבָרוֹ: כְּכָל-הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו, יַעֲשֶׂה.	3 When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

The Sifrei at the very beginning of parshat Matot mentions the idea that here, the nesiim (princes, leaders) were told first, before the rest of the populace. The same is true for other dibrot, but how this is derived is a matter of dispute. (See Sifrei, and Rashi.)

How, though, does this pasuk teach that Moshe spoke to the nesiim first? Only the nesiim are mentioned (רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת) while the rest of the populace are not mentioned at all!

The answer is fairly clear, and I see others have already put it forward. Siftei Chachamim cites Mizrachi, who explains that וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר is being taken as "And Moshe spoke unto the heads of the tribes, and unto the children of Israel, saying." That is, אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת and לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל are two recipients of Moshe's dibbur, rather than לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל acting to modify רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת (that they were the heads of the tribes of benei yisrael).

I would only add that this parsing of the pasuk in fact corresponds to the way the trup parses the pasuk, and so the public reading of Torah in shul reflects this midrashic parsing.

How so? I've written about this in the past, and for further reading on the subject of understanding trup one should look to Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament, by William Wickes (link goes to amazon, where you can buy the book). Basically, trup can be determined by a simple algorithm determined by the logical parsing of each verse and the distance of each break (disjunctive accent) from the end of its clause or subclause.

Here, the trup is:

ב וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה הֽ׃

There is an etnachta on the word לֵאמֹ֑ר which breaks the pasuk in two, and since we only are concerned with the contents of the first half of the verse, we can ignore the rest. Now, there are two trup that subdivide a clause ending in etnachta. One is zakef and the other is tipcha. A tipcha is used within one word or two away from the etnachta, while zakef is used two or more words away from the etnachta. (For comprehensiveness, there is a form of zakef, called segol, which occurs 9 words or more away from etnachta.)

Both zakef and tipcha occur here, a fairly usual occurrence. The zakef occurs on the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, while tipcha occurs on the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.

What this means is that the clause ending in etnachta is being subdivided twice. We start with:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר

We then subdivide it at the word הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, which gives us two clauses:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר

Of these two clauses, only one of them, the latter, ends in an etnachta. By Wickes' rules, since the clause has three (or more) words in it, it must be subdivided, and so we divide it at the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל into:

לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר

A slight digression. How do we know that the tipcha did not subdivide the clause first? Because then, starting with:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר

we would subdivide at tipcha into:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
לֵאמֹ֑ר

We then would not be able to make sense of the zakef at הַמַּטּ֔וֹת, for a zakef only subdivides a clause ending with etnachta (or silluq/sof pasuk). (We know this through extensive study of how trup works in general throughout Tanach, and this rule holds.) Any subdivision of a clause ending in tipcha, as the former of the two above does, would have to utilize the tevir trup - ֛ .

Thus, the parsing of the pasuk, as we read it in shul, is:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר

And Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes,
To the children of Israel, saying:

which is the way the Sifrei takes it.

{
What if we wanted to convey the meaning: to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel? Then אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל would be a single phrase, and assuming we would have the tipcha on יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, then we would have a tevir on הַמַּטּ֛וֹת, a darga (which functions as a servus for tevir) on אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י, a revi'i to subdivide a clause ending in tevir, so with a munuch as as servus of that, so: וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה

In total, the first half of the pasuk, if I did not mess up somewhere, would have looked like this:

וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֧י הַמַּטּ֛וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר
}

parshat Balak/Pinchas/Matos: Midianites or Moabites?

At the tail end of Balak, it is the daughters of Moav who entice the Israelites to sin: Bemidbar 25:1-3:

א וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.	1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.
ב וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם, לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן; וַיֹּאכַל הָעָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶן.	2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
ג וַיִּצָּמֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	3 And Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor; and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Yet the one woman mentioned by name is Kozbi bat Tzur, of the Midianites. In Bemidbar 25:6:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.	5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.'
ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.	6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

and in parshat Pinchas, in Bemidbar 25:14-15:

יד וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית--זִמְרִי, בֶּן-סָלוּא: נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב, לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.	14 Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers' house among the Simeonites.
טו וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית, כָּזְבִּי בַת-צוּר: רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית-אָב בְּמִדְיָן, הוּא	15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers' house in Midian.

and immediately after, the Midianites are blamed for Baal Peor and for the harlotry. In Bemidbar 25:16-18:

טז וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	16 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יז צָרוֹר, אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִים; וְהִכִּיתֶם, אוֹתָם.	17 'Harass the Midianites, and smite them;
יח כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם, בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר-נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וְעַל-דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת-נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן, אֲחֹתָם, הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם-הַמַּגֵּפָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר.	18 for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.'

Indeed, the battle in this week's parsha, Matot, against the Midianites, is the revenge spoken about in the aforementioned pesukim. Pinchas is even appointed to lead them. In Bemidbar 31:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
ב נְקֹם, נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֵת, הַמִּדְיָנִים; אַחַר, תֵּאָסֵף אֶל-עַמֶּיךָ.	2 'Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.'
ג וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הָעָם לֵאמֹר, הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא; וְיִהְיוּ, עַל-מִדְיָן, לָתֵת נִקְמַת-ה, בְּמִדְיָן.	3 And Moses spoke unto the people, saying: 'Arm ye men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the LORD'S vengeance on Midian.
ד אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה, אֶלֶף, לַמַּטֶּה--לְכֹל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, תִּשְׁלְחוּ לַצָּבָא.	4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.'
ה וַיִּמָּסְרוּ מֵאַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה--שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר אֶלֶף, חֲלוּצֵי צָבָא.	5 So there were delivered, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
ו וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה, לַצָּבָא: אֹתָם וְאֶת-פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, לַצָּבָא, וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה, בְּיָדוֹ.	6 And Moses sent them, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
ז וַיִּצְבְּאוּ, עַל-מִדְיָן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיַּהַרְגוּ, כָּל-זָכָר.	7 And they warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew every male.
ח וְאֶת-מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן הָרְגוּ עַל-חַלְלֵיהֶם, אֶת-אֱוִי וְאֶת-רֶקֶם וְאֶת-צוּר וְאֶת-חוּר וְאֶת-רֶבַע--חֲמֵשֶׁת, מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן; וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב.	8 And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

and when they spare the women, Moshe is upset, for they were the very cause of the trouble.

ט וַיִּשְׁבּוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-נְשֵׁי מִדְיָן, וְאֶת-טַפָּם; וְאֵת כָּל-בְּהֶמְתָּם וְאֶת-כָּל-מִקְנֵהֶם וְאֶת-כָּל-חֵילָם, בָּזָזוּ.	9 And the children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a prey.
י וְאֵת כָּל-עָרֵיהֶם בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם, וְאֵת כָּל-טִירֹתָם--שָׂרְפוּ, בָּאֵשׁ.	10 And all their cities in the places wherein they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire.

...

יד וַיִּקְצֹף מֹשֶׁה, עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל, שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת, הַבָּאִים מִצְּבָא הַמִּלְחָמָה.	14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war.
טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, מֹשֶׁה: הַחִיִּיתֶם, כָּל-נְקֵבָה.	15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive?
טז הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם, לִמְסָר-מַעַל בַּה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה, בַּעֲדַת ה	16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to revolt so as to break faith with the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

How did we get from the daughters of Moav to the daughters of Midian?

One possibility is that both Midian and Moav were involved, but so long as Moav took no physical belligerent step, they were immune from attack. After all, we read in Devarim 2:8-11:

ח וַנַּעֲבֹר מֵאֵת אַחֵינוּ בְנֵי-עֵשָׂו, הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּשֵׂעִיר, מִדֶּרֶךְ הָעֲרָבָה, מֵאֵילַת וּמֵעֶצְיֹן גָּבֶר; {ס} וַנֵּפֶן, וַנַּעֲבֹר, דֶּרֶךְ, מִדְבַּר מוֹאָב.	8 So we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau, that dwell in Seir, from the way of the Arabah, from Elath and from Ezion-geber. {S} And we turned and passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab.
ט וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֵלַי, אַל-תָּצַר אֶת-מוֹאָב, וְאַל-תִּתְגָּר בָּם, מִלְחָמָה: כִּי לֹא-אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ, יְרֻשָּׁה--כִּי לִבְנֵי-לוֹט, נָתַתִּי אֶת-עָר יְרֻשָּׁה.	9 And the LORD said unto me: 'Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give thee of his land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.--
י הָאֵמִים לְפָנִים, יָשְׁבוּ בָהּ--עַם גָּדוֹל וְרַב וָרָם, כָּעֲנָקִים.	10 The Emim dwelt therein aforetime, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim;
יא רְפָאִים יֵחָשְׁבוּ אַף-הֵם, כָּעֲנָקִים; וְהַמֹּאָבִים, יִקְרְאוּ לָהֶם אֵמִים.	11 these also are accounted Rephaim, as the Anakim; but the Moabites call them Emim.

We know that both Moav and Midian were involved in consulting Bilaam in the previous episode with Balak. The pesukim in parshat Matot (just referred to above) note that Bilaam was killed among the Midianites (Bemidbar 31:8), and that this enticement was at the advice of Bilaam ben Beor (Bemidbar 31:16).

Earlier, in parshat Balak, we see the Midianites involved in the consulting of Bilaam, and that they were among the princes sent to Bilaam. In Bemidbar 22:4:

ג וַיָּגָר מוֹאָב מִפְּנֵי הָעָם, מְאֹד--כִּי רַב-הוּא; וַיָּקָץ מוֹאָב, מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many; and Moab was overcome with dread because of the children of Israel.
ד וַיֹּאמֶר מוֹאָב אֶל-זִקְנֵי מִדְיָן, עַתָּה יְלַחֲכוּ הַקָּהָל אֶת-כָּל-סְבִיבֹתֵינוּ, כִּלְחֹךְ הַשּׁוֹר, אֵת יֶרֶק הַשָּׂדֶה; וּבָלָק בֶּן-צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב, בָּעֵת הַהִוא.	4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian: 'Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field.'--And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.--

and

ז וַיֵּלְכוּ זִקְנֵי מוֹאָב, וְזִקְנֵי מִדְיָן, וּקְסָמִים, בְּיָדָם; וַיָּבֹאוּ, אֶל-בִּלְעָם, וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו, דִּבְרֵי בָלָק.	7 And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spoke unto him the words of Balak.
ח וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה, וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי אֶתְכֶם דָּבָר, כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר ה אֵלָי; וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׂרֵי-מוֹאָב, עִם-בִּלְעָם.	8 And he said unto them: 'Lodge here this night, and I will bring you back word, as the LORD may speak unto me'; and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.

Documentary Hypothesists believe that the references to elders and princes of Midian in parshat Balak was the work of a redactor (and might point out the lack of the princes of Midian in pasuk 8), and say similar things about Midian mentioned in the Shittim/Pinchas story. It is a convenient method of eliminating contradictions - simply moving the inconvienient fact to a different author - but I will not take this path here.

I do not know what the political situation situation was on the ground with regard to Midian and Moav, but from parshat Balak, it seems the rulers had some connection. We know they contended earlier. In the lists of Edomite kings, we read:

לד וַיָּמָת, יוֹבָב; וַיִּמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו, חֻשָׁם מֵאֶרֶץ הַתֵּימָנִי.	34 And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.
לה וַיָּמָת, חֻשָׁם; וַיִּמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו הֲדַד בֶּן-בְּדַד, הַמַּכֶּה אֶת-מִדְיָן בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב, וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ, עֲוִית.	35 And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Avith.

Was Hadad ben Bedad an Edomite? He is listed as an Edomite king, but Rashi cites a Midrash that appears to take him as a Moabite. In parshat Balak, Rashi cites a midrash about Moav consulting Midian:

to the elders of Midian But did they not always hate each other, as it says, “who defeated Midian in the field of Moab” (Gen. 36:35), when Midian came against Moab in battle? However, because of their mutual fear of Israel they made peace with each other. And what did Moab see to take counsel with Midian? Since they saw that Israel was supernaturally victorious [in their battles], they said, “The leader of these [people] was raised in Midian. Let us ask them what his character is.” They told them, “His strength is solely in his mouth.” They said,“We too will come against them with a man whose strength is in his mouth.” - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 3, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

According to this, Moav fought at times with Midian, but here made peace. Alternatively, this is Edom fighting Midian, in the plains of Moav. This would mean that Midian rules over some Moabite territory - the field of Moav. This would make sense, as we see that these countries wages wars against each other, taking over territory. Thus, for example, the land of Sichon had been taken over from the children of Ammon, as discussed previously.

Thus, we might expect there to be Moabite women and Midianite women living in close proximity. Indeed, there might be Moabite commoners and Midianite nobles living in this land. We would expect commoners to go with commoners, and Israelite nobles, such as Zimri ben Salu, to take noble women. Indeed, this is part of the import of the giving of the lineage of both Zimri and Kozbi. Bemidbar 25:14-15:

יד וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית--זִמְרִי, בֶּן-סָלוּא: נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב, לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.	14 Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers' house among the Simeonites.
טו וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית, כָּזְבִּי בַת-צוּר: רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית-אָב בְּמִדְיָן, הוּא	15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers' house in Midian.

I would note that Balak himself is taken by a midrash to be a Midianite noble, which is why he consulted with the Midianite elders. On the pasuk:

ד וַיֹּאמֶר מוֹאָב אֶל-זִקְנֵי מִדְיָן, עַתָּה יְלַחֲכוּ הַקָּהָל אֶת-כָּל-סְבִיבֹתֵינוּ, כִּלְחֹךְ הַשּׁוֹר, אֵת יֶרֶק הַשָּׂדֶה; וּבָלָק בֶּן-צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב, בָּעֵת הַהִוא.

4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian: 'Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field.'--And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time.--

Rashi cites this midrash:

at that time He was not entitled to the monarchy. He was one of the Midianite nobles [according to some: of the nobles of Sihon (Josh. 13:21)], and when Sihon died, they appointed him over them on a temporary basis. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:4]

the Midrash is picking up on the strange phrase that he was king of Moav at that time. On a pshat level it is just identifying the king of Moav during this episode, but the Midrash takes this as an asterisk on Balak's record.

If Midianites and Moabites were having their their daughters do this, but the location was initially that of Moav, or the commoners were Moabites, or the majority of participants were Moabites, or it was a Moabite area ruled by nobles from Midian, then we can see why the pasuk initially describes the enticers as the daughters of Moav.

Carnival of the Parsha #0

I'm thinking of starting up a new feature, Carnival of the Parsha. If you have any noteworthy posts on the parshat haShavua, drop me a line (user: joshwaxman, domain: gmail.com), and I may just include it in the post.

parshat Balak/Pinchas/Matot: Did Pinchas Act On His Own Initiative?

Pinchas scares people. He is traditionally cast as a zealot who assassinated a leader, the prince of a father's house from the tribe of Shimon.

Some on the Jewish left, and some secular Israelis, imagine that the crazy right wingers and charedim are a bunch of zealots who are liable to go off and assassinate people, and they can cite the example of one or two lunatics who did. As a result, Pinchas looms as a dangerous precedent, since they think if he is legitimized some "right-wing Jewish fanatic" will follow his lead. As a result, when dealing with parshat Pinchas, there is a need to delegitimize what he did.

The problem with this approach is that Hashem himself seems to reward Pinchas for his act of zealotry. The parsha begins {Bemidbar 25:10-12}:

י וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	10 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יא פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, הֵשִׁיב אֶת-חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת-קִנְאָתִי, בְּתוֹכָם; וְלֹא-כִלִּיתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקִנְאָתִי.	11 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.
יב לָכֵן, אֱמֹר: הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, שָׁלוֹם.	12 Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace;

Thus Hashem endorses Pinchas' actions.

The response in the two articles cited above is to try to reinterpret Hashem's response. Bolding mine:

After all, doesn’t God reward Pinchas for his zealotry in this week’s parsha? Isn’t Pinchas granted God’s brit shalom (covenant of peace)? Yes, he is. But to my mind, the Torah is telling us not that God rewarded Pinchas, but that God cured him. God tempered Pinchas’ fanaticism so that he would never kill again.

and

And here, once again, a member of the tribe follows in his ancestors’ path – murders and destroys in public, without shame; and God decides to put an end to it.

The zealous killer’s prize is to be a champion of peace, reconciliation and compassion. From this day forward Aaron and his dynasty become peace-lovers, despite, or perhaps because of, the family’s problematic genetics.

God understands the only way to restrain the violent Pinchas is to burden him with a task that is in total contradiction to his character and one that he must carry out.

The fanatic becomes a peace activist, not just Peace Now, but an eternity of being the high priest of peace.

Needless to say, this reasing of the text is anachronistic and ridiculous. It is clear from the immediate context that Pinchas did a good thing. Zimri, and those who were committing harlotry and idolatry, were violating Hashem's will, in an act of rebellion, and Hashem himself was killing many of them in a plague. In verse 4, Hashem had commanded Moshe to execute the heads of this rebellion:

4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'

and Hashem himself was killing many of the people, as we see in that verse, about the fierce anger. This "fierce anger" itself was manifesting itself in a plague that killed some 24,000 people, as we read in verse 9:

9 And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Hashem was thus commanding in verse 4 an execution of the leaders of the rebellion to avert away his anger. And, when Pinchas killed Zimri and Kozbi, who were engaging in harlotry, he stopped this plague. Verse 8:

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

Hashem even mentions that Pinchas' act stayed the plague, in his reward to Pinchas. Verse 11:

11 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.

This immediately before Hashem gives Pinchas his "covenant of peace," whatever that means. It is clear that Hashem is far from displeased with Pinchas' action, and He is not decrying the violence of this action.

Further, it is downright silly to assert that Pinchas has been "cured" of his violent ways, and is now a peace activist! In this week's parsha, Pinchas is sent off to war, for killing Kozbi bat Tzur was not enough. They exact revenge on the Midianite people, and he is in charge of killing even more Midianites! Bemidbar 31:6-8:

ו וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה, לַצָּבָא: אֹתָם וְאֶת-פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, לַצָּבָא, וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה, בְּיָדוֹ.	6 And Moses sent them, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
ז וַיִּצְבְּאוּ, עַל-מִדְיָן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיַּהַרְגוּ, כָּל-זָכָר.	7 And they warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew every male.
ח וְאֶת-מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן הָרְגוּ עַל-חַלְלֵיהֶם, אֶת-אֱוִי וְאֶת-רֶקֶם וְאֶת-צוּר וְאֶת-חוּר וְאֶת-רֶבַע--חֲמֵשֶׁת, מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן; וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב.	8 And they slew the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian; Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

Indeed, while Pinchas is not mentioned there, the command to exact revenge on the Midianites is mentioned even in parshat Pinchas, in the very next Divine command!

So Pinchas has surely not become a peace activist and a man of peace. How then, can people seriously advance such an obviously silly reading of the text? Perhaps a quote from one of the aforementioned articles might shed light on this:

Between those who possess a deep faith in God and those lunatics who are interested only in themselves, who cynically use God, faith, Torah and peace for their own agendas.

Now, if they want to reread the text in a way that does not encourage the individual zealot to go off assassinating leaders willy-nilly, there is indeed an easy way to do so. Turn and consider the question of whether Pinchas acted alone. Traditionally, Moshe's command in verse 4 to "take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun" is taken to refersto those leaders worshipping Baal Peor, perhaps being led to do this via the harlotry. Meanwhile, Zimri's action of flagrantly bringing the Midianite woman to his tent to sleep with her is taken as a separate act, with a separate response demanded.

Indeed, we see that the command is restricted to those who have "joined themselves to Baal Peor":

ד וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה, נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-ה, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'
ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.	5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.'

Indeed, Rashi cites a midrash that they in fact did this. There were 88,000 judges, and each one slew 2 men who worshipped Baal Peor.

(Just a quick digression to partially explain the mechanics of this midrash. We know the number of judges, because elsewhere Moshe appointed judges over tens, over fifties, over hundreds, and over thousands. In Sanhedrin 18a, this comes to 78,600, based on a population of exactly 600,000. How this equals 88,000 eludes me at the moment. There is a count immediately after which gives 601,730, but the midrash later has each each judge execute 2, for a total of an additional 176,000, which puts us way over the top. About 672,000 men should yield 88,000 judges.
Anyway, each of these judges killed two, because the pasuk stated הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו - each man killed his men, plural, and the minimum plural is two.
)

However, when Zimri came, his sin is overtly committing harlotry, which Rashi takes as separate from the idolatry. Zimri led specifically brought a Midianite woman, asking whether she was permitted, so as to challenge Moshe, who married the Midianite Tzippora. The response of Moshe, according to Rashi, is not to command Zimri's execution, but rather dismay. He and the judges know not what to do, and are reduced to tears, for they have forgotten the halacha that in such a situation, kanaim {zealots} may execute him. Rashi writes:

The law [that anyone cohabiting with a non-Jewish woman is to be executed by zealots] eluded him. [Therefore,] they all burst out weeping. At the incident of the golden calf Moses [successfully] confronted six hundred thousand as it says, “He ground it until it was powder…” (Exod. 32:20), yet here he appeared so helpless? However, [this happened] so that Phinehas should come and take what was due to him. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 20]

This shows an interesting rereading of pasuk 6:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.	5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.'
ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.	6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

According to Rashi, and midrash Tanchuma, the weeping was a response to Zimri, and highlighted their inability to act. Into this vacuum stepped Pinchas.

Pasuk 7:

ז וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן; וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה, וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.

According to Rashi, he recalled this law, and reminded Moshe of it, and Moshe even told him to carry it out!

Phinehas…saw He saw the deed and reminded himself of the law. He said to Moses, “I learned from you, ‘If someone cohabits with an Aramean [heathen] woman, zealots have a right to strike him [dead].’ ” He replied to him, “Let the one who reads the letter be the agent to carry it out.” Immediately,“he took a spear in his hand….” - [Sanh. 82a]

So even without proceeding further, we have, according to the traditional (midrashic) interpretation, forwarded by Rashi, that Pinchas first take leave of the current leader before acting. He acts on a command from Moshe. True, at the same time, the law he acts upon is one for zealots, but there is also a direct command from the one in charge, who previously ordered the judges to execute. This is not really someone taking the law into his own hands.

If we consider further, perhaps on a peshat level there was not even a separate consideration of the law for Zimri, but Pinchas was actually acting on Moshe's previous command to the judges. Let us take it from the top, at the end of parshat Balak. Bemidbar 25:1-3:

א וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.	1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.
ב וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם, לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן; וַיֹּאכַל הָעָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶן.	2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
ג וַיִּצָּמֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר; וַיִּחַר-אַף ה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	3 And Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor; and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

The first and second pesukim are related. The English translation in verse 2, "and they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods," leaves much to be desired, because English does not currently distinguish between genders for third person plural. They and their are feminine, which means that it is the daughters of Moav, who were committing harlotry with the people, who then called the people to sacrifice to their gods, which angered Hashem.

Indeed, the midrash, in Sifrei on Balak, as cited by Rashi, links these further, thus highlighting the connection. As Rashi states:

and prostrated themselves to their godsWhen his urge overcame him, and he said to her, “Submit to me,” she took out an image of Peor from her bosom and said to him, “Bow down before this.” - [Sifrei Balak 1]

Thus, the harlotry and the idolatry are linked. This linking may be seen further on. Let us assume that Kozbi, though a Midianite, was part of this harlotry with the "daughters of Moav."

טז וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	16 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יז צָרוֹר, אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִים; וְהִכִּיתֶם, אוֹתָם.	17 'Harass the Midianites, and smite them;
יח כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם, בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר-נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וְעַל-דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת-נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן, אֲחֹתָם, הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם-הַמַּגֵּפָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר.	18 for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.'

This seems to link the two together, so Kozbi seems to be one of the enticers to harlotry, and in turn to idolatry.

Indeed, when we read of Kozbi's lineage in pasuk 15, Rashi comments, citing the midrash:

The name of the slain… woman…To inform you of the the hatred of the Midianites [toward Israel], for they submitted a princess to prostitution to entice Israel into sin. — [Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 2, Num. Rabbah 21:3]

So the midrash certainly takes her as a participant in the aforementioned enticement to harlotry/idolatry.

And we see later, in parshat Matot, that the Midianite women in general were active participants in this enticement. When the Israelites spare the Midianite women, Moshe berates them (Bemidbar 31:15-16):

טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, מֹשֶׁה: הַחִיִּיתֶם, כָּל-נְקֵבָה.	15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive?
טז הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם, לִמְסָר-מַעַל בַּה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה, בַּעֲדַת ה.	16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to revolt so as to break faith with the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.

Perhaps the Moabite women were somehow equal to the Midianite women, or perhaps the Midianite women somehow formed a large component of the Moabite women. Either way, this was a role the Midianite women played, presumably Kozbi bat Tzur among them.

So Kozbi was part of the general enticement to harlotry/idolatry, and Zimri was engaging in the harlotry aspect of this, at least, and, it follows, also the idolatry of Baal Peor. Returning now to God's, and Moshe's command, in parshat Balak (Bemidbar 25:4-5):

ד וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַה, נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-ה, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל	4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'
ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.	5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.'

We just read (in pasuk 3) that Hashem's anger had kindled against the Israelites, and we see later this anger manifested itself in a plague that killed 24,000 Israelites. Here, Hashem is telling Moshe a way to end the plague, by stopping the ongoing rebellion, by taking the leaders who are rebelling, killing them, and hanging their corpses for all to see, in the face of the sun. This will demoralize the followers, and they will stop sinning, and the plague will end. Alternatively, it will demonstrate that there are those opposing the rebellion within the Israelite camp itself, such that the rebellion will be quashed, such that there is no more reason for Hashem to attack with plague.

We need not read the hanging in the sun as a method of execution. After all, elsewhere (in parshat Ki Tetzei) we read regarding one who has been executed, how we should not leave his corpse hanging overnight, and we also see that ten sons of Haman, who were previously killed, had their corpses hung. Further, hanging up before Hashem in the face of the sun seems to be for the purpose of making known these people's deaths, rather than specifying the method of execution. In the next verse, when Moshe relays Hashem's command, he does not even mention hanging, but just slaying. Indeed, Rashi cites midrashim that highlight that the method of execution was by stoning followed by hanging, (for it was punishment by idolatry), though this is read as part of the punishment - and that the purpose of hanging was for all to see them:

and hang them Heb. הוֹקַע. This refers to [death by] hanging, as we find with the sons of Saul [where a similar expression is used,]“and we shall hang them (הוֹקַעֲנוּם) for the Lord” (II Sam. 21:6), and there hanging is specifically mentioned. Idolatry is [punishable] by stoning, and all those stoned are also hanged [as is stated in Sanh. 45b according to Rabbi Eliezer].facing the sunfor all to see. The Midrash Aggadah (Mid. Tanchuma Balak 19) says: The sun identified the sinners, for the cloud folded back from the area above him and the sun shone on him.

Moshe tells the judges, who have gathered by him, to slay anyone joining Baal Peor, and we know from elsewhere that these are they who are committing harlotry with the Moabite/Midianite women. Now comes Zimri ben Salu, leading the Midianite woman Kozbi bat Tzur.

ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

According to the command Moshe just issued, a judge should slay him. While Rashi cites a midrash that the judges did slay those they were commanded to slay (that is, each of the 88,000 slew two Israelites who sinned with Baal Peor), we see no explicit mention in the text that they had yet fulfilled the command.

Let us assume that Moshe had just issued this command to the judges, at the tent of meeting. Meanwhile, all the congregation (adat) of the children of Isreal were weeping at the door to the tent of meeting.

Why were they weeping? The midrashic answer, advanced by Rashi, was that this was a response of dismay to Zimri's act. However, there are two forms of vav - vav hachibbur = connecting vav and vav hahipuch = reversing vav. The typical vav we see in narrative, as the narrative advances, is the vav hahipuch, which generally transforms an imperfect (=future tense) formed verb into a perfect (=past tense) verb. This form is va + doubling of the following letter. However, the word וְהֵמָּה, referring to their crying, has a vav hachibbur, and so it is not advancing the narrative, but filling in information. The implication of this, on a pshat level, may well be that rather than being a reaction to Zimri's act, it was what they were engaged in when Zimri passed by with this woman.

If so, it stands to reason that this occurred just after Moshe's command. The congregation, afflited by a deadly plague, had gathered at the tent of Meeting to plead, in tears, for salvation. Moshe was informed of the reason for this plague, and how to resolve it. He issues a command, and just then, Zimri, a leader among the Shimonites who is sinning in just this way, passes by.

(Further, as I have posted elsewhere, eda, congregation, often does not refer to the common Israelite but rather the elders and leaders.)

Now, Pinchas has just heard this command, and he sees a ready target pass by, about to engage in harlotry and in the process also idolatry. He is part of this congregation who has received this command, and as member of the leadership, he perhaps has a role of quasi-shofet, judge. Thus, in the next verses:

ז וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן; וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה, וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ.	7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.
ח וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַקֻּבָּה, וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-קֳבָתָהּ; וַתֵּעָצַר, הַמַּגֵּפָה, מֵעַל, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
ט וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה--אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, אָלֶף.	9 And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.

thus fulfilling Moshe's, and Hashem's command, and not at all working independently, as a zealot.

We see that this stops the plague, just as Hashem said would killing those who had joined Baal Peor. It thus is only logical that Pinchas was fulfilling Hashem's command.

Then, we read in the beginning of parshat Pinchas:

י וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	10 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יא פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, הֵשִׁיב אֶת-חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת-קִנְאָתִי, בְּתוֹכָם; וְלֹא-כִלִּיתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקִנְאָתִי.	11 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.
יב לָכֵן, אֱמֹר: הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, שָׁלוֹם.	12 Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace;
יג וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו, בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--תַּחַת, אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו, וַיְכַפֵּר, עַל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	13 and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.'

That is, he acted to turn away the plague by punishing a leader in the rebellion, thus making atonement for the Israelites and being the first judge to act on Hashem and Moshe's command.

If we do not say this, we must find some answer to why the judges' killing of those leaders involved in Baal Peor did not stop the plague, as Hashem promised it would. Perhaps one could claim that Pinchas acted before the judges could act, or that Zimri's act rekindled God's wrath...

At any rate, this would make Pinchas one of the judges, and recipient and executor of a Divine command, and not a zealot who acted entirely on his own.

parshat Pinchas: Why Did Pinchas' Action Stop The Plague?

Perhaps this is obvious. Why did Pinchas' killing of Zimri and Kozbi stop the plague? We read in the previous parsha that as the Hashem became angry when the Israelites committed harlotry with the Moabite women and worshipped Baal Peor (Bemidbar 25:1-3) and this anger was manifest in a plague that killed, until this point, 24,000 people (Bemidbar 25:9). When Pinchas killed Zimri, this plague stopped (Bemidbar 25:8).

Why should more killing - one additional killing by Pinchas - turn away Hashem's wrath?

I would suggest that until this point in this rebellion, no one actively took Hashem's side. Many Israelites were sinning in the two aforementioned ways, and many Israelites did not partake of the sinning. Zimri flagrantly violates Hashem's will, in a public act of rebellion, and in response, Moshe and all the assembled are reduced to tears (Bemidbar 25:6, with an understanding similar to Rashi citing Midrash Tanchuma that וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד was a reaction to Zimri rather than what was happening at the time).

Thus, it was Hashem vs. many Israelites, and in this scenario, Hashem responded by unleashing a plague on the Israelites for their rebellion. When Pinchas stood up and took Hashem's side, it was no longer Hashem vs. many Israelites, but rather Hashem and some Israelites vs. some other Israelites. It is no longer "Me vs. Them" but rather "Me and some of Them vs. Some other of them." If so, such a harsh response was no longer warranted.

Alternatively, the Israelites are now taking control of the rebellion themselves, and so God does not need to handle it in His wrath.

And so parshat Pinchas begins, in Bemidbar 25:11:

יא פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, הֵשִׁיב אֶת-חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת-קִנְאָתִי, בְּתוֹכָם; וְלֹא-כִלִּיתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּקִנְאָתִי.	11 'Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.
יב לָכֵן, אֱמֹר: הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, שָׁלוֹם.	12 Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace;

Pinchas turned away Hashem's wrath because he, among them, was jealous for Hashem's sake, such that Hashem did not have to be the only one standing up for Himself, and so Hashem did not consume the children of Israel in his anger.

posts so far for parshat Pinchas

Year 2

• Giv'at Pinchas
• Many times we hear that the Levites received no inheritance in Eretz Yisrael (with the exception of certain Levite cities) yet the last pasuk in sefer Yehoshua states that Eleazar was buried in Giv'at Pinchas beno - the hill of Pinchas his son - which had been given to him in Har Ephraim.
  The Sifrei explains this as an inheritance from Pinchas' wife, who was from the tribe of Ephraim. I tie this in with the daughters of Tzelophchad, later in Pinchas, in Bemidbar 27, and to the explicit mention at the end of parshat Masei (in Bemidbar 36) that inheriting from a woman who has inherited can cause land to switch tribes.
  I also give two other suggestions - that is was not a true inheritance, but was granted to Pinchas in perpetuity as an achuzat kever, a place to bury his dead; and alternatively, just as we see that Yehoshua seems to have gotten a nachala in Har Ephraim (within his own tribes' land) after and apart from the usual division of the land, perhaps the same was true for Pinchas, as a practical matter of being a member of the ruling elite, who should be in close proximity to Yehoshua, or else as an expression of gratitude for his leadership, for example in the war against the Midianites, as we see in parshat Matot.
• A Real Shlumiel
• A tongue-in-cheek etymology of the word Shlemiel. I note that midrashically, Rabbi Yochanan identifies Zimri ben, the nasi of a household in the tribe of Shimon, with Shelumiel ben Tzurishaddai, the nasi of the tribe of Shimon, and gives explanations of the import of the other names. I also note that this follows a closed-canon approach.
  Thus we have the ultimate Shlemiel. Zimri does the sin, and Shelumiel is blamed for it!
• How Many Tents? (cross-listed from parshat Korach)
• How did Korach die? Was he burned with those offering incense or was he swallowed alive together with Datan and Aviram? I point out in this post that parshat Korach does not answer this explicitly, while in parshat Pinchas, when arriving at the lineage of Datan and Aviram, while the death of Korach is mentioned, how he died is perhaps left ambiguous. The psukim in Pinchas:
  
  וּבְנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָ֔ב נְמוּאֵ֖ל וְדָתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם הֽוּא־דָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם קרואי (קְרִיאֵ֣י) הָֽעֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִצּ֜וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֤ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹן֙ בַּֽעֲדַת־קֹ֔רַח בְּהַצֹּתָ֖ם עַל־ה׃
  וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס׃
  וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃
  
  One could read this as either the earth swallowing them (Datan and Aviram), and Korach up, or else as the earth swallowing Datan and Aviram up, while Korach died with the death of the congregation, the other 150 who offered incense. The trup, in many ways, favors the former interpretation.
  Within parshat Korach, I point out that Moshe explicitly says that Korach will offer incense with the congregation; that he speaks to Korach and his congregation before turning to Datan and Aviram; that we would not truly expect the tent of Korach to be next to the tent of Datan and Aviram (for it to be swallowed up); that Moshe only addresses Datan and Aviram and not Korach; that the phrase mishkan-Korach Datan VaAviram has a makef between "tent" and "Korach," and that this, combined with other trup, suggests that mishkan-Korach means the Korachite tent of Datan and Aviram, and so Korach is not present at all; that only Datan, Aviram, and their families emerge from the tents, and no mention is made of Korach and his family; and finally, that this could be the cause of the statement in parshat Pinchas that the sons of Korach did not die - they were not present at all.
• Why Did Pinchas' Action Stop the Plague?
• I suggest that his act recast the situation from "Me vs. Them" into "Me and Some of Them vs. Others of Them," such that it did not merit as severe a response.
• Did Pinchas Act On His Own Initiative? (cross-listed from parshat Matot)
  
• After rejecting a silly reading which condemned Pinchas' act and claimed he was "healed" and was now a Peace Now activist, I put forth two readings which show Pinchas did not act on his own. According to the traditional reading, put forth by Rashi, he told Moshe the law and received instructions to carry it out on Zimri. According to a possible pshat reading, he was explicitly told a verse earlier to kill the leaders who had joined Baal Peor, and Zimri fit this description.
• Midianites or Moabites? (cross-listed from parshat Matot)
• Considers the issue and evidence of whether Moabites or Midianites were involved in the harlotry and idolatry of Baal Peor, explores Midianite involvement earlier in parshat Balak, and suggests a possible resolution of this difficulty.
  

parshat Pinchas: A Real Shlumiel

At the beginning of parshat Pinchas, we finally hear the identity of the man Pinchas killed together with the Midianite woman. Bemidbar 25:14:

יד וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית--זִמְרִי, בֶּן-סָלוּא: נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב, לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.	14 Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers' house among the Simeonites.
טו וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית, כָּזְבִּי בַת-צוּר: רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית-אָב בְּמִדְיָן, הוּא	15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers' house in Midian.

Who was this Zimri? In Sanhedrin 82b, we read:

Rabbi Yochanan said: [Zimri] had five names: Zimri, the son of Salu, Shaul, the son of the Canaanitish woman, and Shelumiel, the son of Tzurishaddai.

Zimri, because he became like an addled egg [betza hamuzeret]; the son of Salu, because he outweighed [hisli] the sins of his family; Shaul, because he lent himself [hish'il] to sin; the son of the Canaanitish woman, because he acted in a Canaanitish fashion, [i.e., depravedly]; whilst his real name was Shelumiel the son of Tzurishaddai.

Why equate him with Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai? For we read, for example, in parshat Bemidbar, in Bemidbar 2:12:

יב וְהַחוֹנִם עָלָיו, מַטֵּה שִׁמְעוֹן; וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן-צוּרִישַׁדָּי.

12 and those that pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Simeon; the prince of the children of Simeon being Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai,

Now, there were probably many nesiim, princes, for each father's house, in each tribe, aside from the one prince of the entire tribe, but on a midrashic level, since both are called nasi from the tribe of Shimon, they may be identified as the same person.

Further, in the closed-canon approach Chazal typically take, we cannot have Zimri mentioned just once, such that we do not see him elsewhere. And so, he is identified with someone we know from elsewhere in the canon, as one of the nesiim of the tribes. (Similarly, Shaul ben HaKenaanit is the last mentioned son of Shimon, in Shemot 6:15:

טו וּבְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן, יְמוּאֵל וְיָמִין וְאֹהַד וְיָכִין וְצֹחַר, וְשָׁאוּל, בֶּן-הַכְּנַעֲנִית; אֵלֶּה, מִשְׁפְּחֹת שִׁמְעוֹן.

15 And the sons of Simeon: Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman. These are the families of Simeon.

So we see now the derivation of Shlumiel, for he is the ultimate Shlumiel - Zimra does the sin, and Shlumiel gets blamed for it!

The Fast of the Fourth Month

Rabbi Goldwicht has his sicha this week on Shiva Asar b'Tamuz. He notes that Zechariah 8:19 refers to the fast of the fourth month.

יח וַיְהִי דְּבַר-ה צְבָאוֹת, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.	18 And the word of the LORD of hosts came unto me, saying:
יט כֹּה-אָמַר ה צְבָאוֹת, צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית-יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים; וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ.	19 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons; therefore love ye truth and peace.

The brayta in Rosh HaShana 18b cites Rabbi Akiva that this refers to the 9th of Tammuz (the 4th month starting with Nissan) when the walls were breached, as it states in the very last perek of sefer Yirmiyahu, Yirmiyahu 52:6-7:

ו בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרְבִיעִי בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ, וַיֶּחֱזַק הָרָעָב בָּעִיר; וְלֹא-הָיָה לֶחֶם, לְעַם הָאָרֶץ.	6 In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land.
ז וַתִּבָּקַע הָעִיר, וְכָל-אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה יִבְרְחוּ וַיֵּצְאוּ מֵהָעִיר לַיְלָה דֶּרֶךְ שַׁעַר בֵּין-הַחֹמֹתַיִם אֲשֶׁר עַל-גַּן הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְכַשְׂדִּים עַל-הָעִיר, סָבִיב; וַיֵּלְכוּ, דֶּרֶךְ הָעֲרָבָה.	7 Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled, and went forth out of the city by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king's garden--now the Chaldeans were against the city round about--and they went by the way of the Arabah.

This (the brayta and the pasuk) is problematic since we have a different tradition that the city was breached on the 17th of Tammuz (when we have the fast day - and further, Rabbi Akiva seems to be saying the fast itself, of the fourth month, is on the 9th)! Tosafot asks this question and cites a Yerushalmi to give an answer. To quote Rabbi Goldwicht:

The gemara in Rosh HaShana (18b) says in the name of R’ Akiva that the “tzom harevi’i, the fast of the fourth month” (Zechariah 8:19) refers to the 9th of Tamuz, when the walls of Yerushalayim were breached, as the passuk in Yirmiyah says, “Bachodesh harevi’i b’tisha lachodesh…vatibaka ha’ir, On the ninth day of the fourth month [Tamuz], the city was breached” (52:6-7). How can the passuk say that the city was breached on the 9th of Tamuz, when we know that the city was breached only on the 17th of Tamuz?! Tosfot points out that in the Yerushalmi’s version of this beraita, R’ Akiva says the tzom harevi’i in fact refers to the 17th of Tamuz, even though the passuk says the walls were breached on the 9th of Tamuz, explaining that the passuk recorded an incorrect date because of the tremendous panic and confusion. Can we really say that the information provided by a passuk, transmitted through nevuah, is incorrect?!

Just a minor clarification here, before proceeding. Tosafot actually is making two statements. The first is that the brayta in the Yerushalmi has Rabbi Akiva saying the 17th of Tammuz instead of the 9th. For this brayta, see the very bottom of Yerushlami Taanit 23a to the very top of 23b. The second is an explanation of the confusion, which is found earlier on in the Yerushalmi, Taanit 23a, and not in a brayta, but attributed to Rabbi Tanchum bar Chanilai. The Tosafot on Rosh HaShana 18b can be read in this way - check it out - it is the second Tosafot on the page.

Later, Rabbi Goldwicht writes in answer to this question:

The moment the city walls were breached, nevuah stopped. Any nevi’im who continued to prophesize were only able to do so because they had before the walls were breached as well. No new nevi’im arose because the moment the city walls were breached, there arose confusion between proper dibbur and all other forms of dibbur. HaKadosh Baruch Hu chose to express this tremendous confusion of dibbur for all generations by deliberately writing a passuk stating incorrectly that Yerushalayim was breached on the 9th of Tamuz, when really it was breached on the 17th of Tamuz. This is the reason we mourn the breach of Yerushalayim’s walls – because there was no longer any distinction between the commoner’s dibbur and that of the nevi’im, and this bilbul marked the beginning of the churban.

I think Tosafot's answer can be cast somewhat differently. Tosafot wrote:

ורוצה לומר שמתוך טרדותם טעו בחשבונם ולא רצה הפסוק לשנות מכמו שהיו סבורים
And it means to say that because of their preoccupation they erred in their calculations and the pasuk did not wish to change from what they thought.

{See what Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have to say in the gemara about the kilkul of the cheshbonot.}

I might read Tosafot's explanation as dibra Torah kilshon benei adam - the Torah speaks in the language of man. The meaning had to be immediately clear to the people of the current generation, and had the pasuk stated the 17th of Tammuz, people would have thought it was in error. Thus, it recorded according to the calendar as it was known at the time. (And, based on the calendar at the time, it was correct.) This is generally true - that while the Torah is intended for all time, it is also directed towards the people at the time. Thus, for example, Tanach will speak of the sun stopping in the sky, or use 3 as an estimate of pi, or perhaps even treat a rabbit as a ruminant, where there will be no difference in actual law (since it does not have split feet anyway), and where the specific technical knowledge is not really pertinent or the point of the prophetic message.

Another possibility is that since they thought it was a different date, and presumably recorded official items using that date, it was that date. The date, after all, is a convention agreed upon by those using it to keep track of time. Thus, in a sense, it actually was the 9th of Tammuz.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Goldwicht's question:

Can we really say that the information provided by a passuk, transmitted through nevuah, is incorrect?!

tempts me to note that this pasuk which he gave as the source of the date of the 9th of Tammuz occurs in the very last perek of sefer Yirmiyahu, perek 52. Now, examine the very last pasuk of the previous perek, Yirmiyahu 51:64:

סד וְאָמַרְתָּ, כָּכָה תִּשְׁקַע בָּבֶל וְלֹא-תָקוּם מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ--וְיָעֵפוּ: עַד-הֵנָּה, דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ.

64 and thou shalt say: Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again because of the evil that I will bring upon her; and they shall be weary.' Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.

which seems to imply that the last perek, containing narrative very much in Divrei Hayamim style, is not from Yirmiyahu's mouth or quill. Who else would it be? Perhaps Baruch ben Neriah, or Baruch's brother, Seraya, to whom Yirmiyahu had just instructed to read his prophecy when he came to Babylon, in Yirmiyahu 51:61.

However, it still is a pasuk in Tanach, and presumably written with some Divine inspiration. Furthermore, this is not the only place the 9th of Tammuz is mentioned as the date of the breaching of the city. It is also mentioned earlier in sefer Yirmiyahu, in Yirmiyahu 39:2:

א בַּשָּׁנָה הַתְּשִׁעִית לְצִדְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂרִי, בָּא נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל וְכָל-חֵילוֹ אֶל-יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וַיָּצֻרוּ, עָלֶיהָ.	1 in the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem, and besieged it;
ב בְּעַשְׁתֵּי-עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה לְצִדְקִיָּהוּ, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרְבִיעִי בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ, הָבְקְעָה, הָעִיר.	2 in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, the ninth day of the month, a breach was made in the city

This pasuk also makes it more explicit that the breach was made in the city on the 9th of Tammuz. After all, the pasuk in Yirmiyahu 52 could be read that they ran out of food on the 9th of Tammuz, with the breach of the city, mentioned in the next pasuk, happening shortly thereafter, but perhaps 8 days later. This pasuk in Yirmiyahu 39, which is cited by the Yerushalmi, shows that the city was breached on the 9th of Tammuz.

On the other hand, we know that in general Yirmiyahu dictated his prophecies, and they were written down by his scribe Baruch ben Neriah. This verse (2) is part of the narrative of what happens to Yirmiyahu until the end, after recording (in the previous perek his secret conversation with King Tzidkiyahu and how Yirmiyahu stayed in the court of the guard until the end. Perhaps this wrap-up, and the timing of the breach, was also by his scribe.

Of course, Bava Batra 15a states: ירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכים וקינות

Update: And, of course, Radak has a very sensible explanation of עַד-הֵנָּה, דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ which fits in context - that the preceding was the final (public) prophecy of Yirmiyahu which he made sure to deliver.

parshat Pinchas: Giv'at Pinchas

The last pasuk in sefer Yehoshua is somewhat curious. It mentions the death and burial of Eleazar the son of Aharon. Yehoshua 24:33:

לג וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, מֵת; וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתוֹ, בְּגִבְעַת פִּינְחָס בְּנוֹ, אֲשֶׁר נִתַּן-לוֹ, בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם

33 And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him in the Hill of Phinehas his son, which was given him in mount Ephraim.

Eleazar, and Pinchas, were Kohanim, from the tribe of Levi. Now, the Levites did not get any inheritance in the land of Israel. Why should Pinchas possess land in Har Ephraim, presumably in Ephraim? It does not seem to be part of any Levite city.

Har Ephraim is also where Yehoshua ben Nun got an inheritance. See Yehoshua 19:50:

מט וַיְכַלּוּ לִנְחֹל-אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, לִגְבוּלֹתֶיהָ; וַיִּתְּנוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל נַחֲלָה לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, בְּתוֹכָם.	49 When they had made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by the borders thereof, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun in the midst of them;
נ עַל-פִּי ה נָתְנוּ לוֹ, אֶת-הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר שָׁאָל--אֶת-תִּמְנַת-סֶרַח, בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם; וַיִּבְנֶה אֶת-הָעִיר, וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהּ.	50 according to the commandment of the LORD they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in the hill-country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein.

The Sifrei on parshat Pinchas (which Rashi cites on the last pasuk in sefer Yehoshua) has a statement by Rabbi Yehuda that Pinchas acquired this land by inheriting it from his wife. This is the mechanism by which land can shift permanently from one tribe to another.

A daughter can only inherit if there are no sons, so this must have been the case for Pinchas' wife.

Thus, while the daughters of Tzelofchad are mentioned in this week's parsha (see Bemidbar 27:1 and on) as having this problem, and raising the issue, it would seem that others benefited from this as well. In Bemidbar 27:6 and on:

ו וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	6 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
ז כֵּן, בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת--נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם; וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת-נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן, לָהֶן.	7 'The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them.
ח וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ כִּי-יָמוּת, וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ--וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לְבִתּוֹ.	8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
ט וְאִם-אֵין לוֹ, בַּת--וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לְאֶחָיו.	9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.
י וְאִם-אֵין לוֹ, אַחִים--וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לַאֲחֵי אָבִיו.	10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren.
יא וְאִם-אֵין אַחִים, לְאָבִיו--וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ; וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה	11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.'

Now, this arrangement can lead to a transfer of landof inheritance from one tribe to another, as we see at the very last perek of sefer Bemidbar, in parshat Masei, when the relatives of Tzelofchad complain to Moshe that their tribe's inheritance will be lost. Bemidbar 36:

א וַיִּקְרְבוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת, לְמִשְׁפַּחַת בְּנֵי-גִלְעָד בֶּן-מָכִיר בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה--מִמִּשְׁפְּחֹת, בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף; וַיְדַבְּרוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂאִים--רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	1 And the heads of the fathers' houses of the family of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spoke before Moses, and before the princes, the heads of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel;
ב וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶת-אֲדֹנִי צִוָּה ה, לָתֵת אֶת-הָאָרֶץ בְּנַחֲלָה בְּגוֹרָל, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַאדֹנִי, צֻוָּה בַיהוָה, לָתֵת אֶת-נַחֲלַת צְלָפְחָד אָחִינוּ, לִבְנֹתָיו.	2 and they said: 'The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.
ג וְהָיוּ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי שִׁבְטֵי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְנָשִׁים, וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָן מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּ, וְנוֹסַף עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם; וּמִגֹּרַל נַחֲלָתֵנוּ, יִגָּרֵעַ.	3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong; so will it be taken away from the lot of our inheritance.
ד וְאִם-יִהְיֶה הַיֹּבֵל, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנוֹסְפָה נַחֲלָתָן, עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם; וּמִנַּחֲלַת מַטֵּה אֲבֹתֵינוּ, יִגָּרַע נַחֲלָתָן.	4 And when the jubilee of the children of Israel shall be, then will their inheritance be added unto the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong; so will their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.'
ה וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-פִּי ה לֵאמֹר: כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי-יוֹסֵף, דֹּבְרִים.	5 And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying: 'The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaketh right.
ו זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה, לִבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד לֵאמֹר, לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם, תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים: אַךְ, לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם--תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים.	6 This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying: Let them be married to whom they think best; only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married.
ז וְלֹא-תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמַּטֶּה אֶל-מַטֶּה: כִּי אִישׁ, בְּנַחֲלַת מַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו, יִדְבְּקוּ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	7 So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe; for the children of Israel shall cleave every one to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
ח וְכָל-בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה, מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לְאֶחָד מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אָבִיהָ, תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה: לְמַעַן, יִירְשׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִישׁ, נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתָיו.	8 And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may possess every man the inheritance of his fathers.
ט וְלֹא-תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה, לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר: כִּי-אִישׁ, בְּנַחֲלָתוֹ, יִדְבְּקוּ, מַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	9 So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one to its own inheritance.'
י כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה, כֵּן עָשׂוּ, בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד.	10 Even as the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad.
יא וַתִּהְיֶינָה מַחְלָה תִרְצָה, וְחָגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְנֹעָה--בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד: לִבְנֵי דֹדֵיהֶן, לְנָשִׁים.	11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons.
יב מִמִּשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי-מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן-יוֹסֵף, הָיוּ לְנָשִׁים; וַתְּהִי, נַחֲלָתָן, עַל-מַטֵּה, מִשְׁפַּחַת אֲבִיהֶן.	12 They were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father.

Now, the daughters of Tzelofchad followed Moshe's command, but apparently the wife of Pinchas did not. Perhaps she married him before this command was given, or lost brothers afterward.

Another possibility was that this was not much land, but rather simply a burial ground - an אחוזת קבר. Perhaps there was an exception that this burial ground did not revert at Yovel. (Not that I know of any current halacha of the sort.)

After all, we see that Avraham, when he was but a sojourner, and had no land (sort of like a Levite), asked for a burial place to bury his wife Sarah. In Bereishit 23:4:

ג וַיָּקָם, אַבְרָהָם, מֵעַל, פְּנֵי מֵתוֹ; וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי-חֵת, לֵאמֹר.	3 And Abraham rose up from before his dead, and spoke unto the children of Heth, saying:
ד גֵּר-וְתוֹשָׁב אָנֹכִי, עִמָּכֶם; תְּנוּ לִי אֲחֻזַּת-קֶבֶר עִמָּכֶם, וְאֶקְבְּרָה מֵתִי מִלְּפָנָי.	4 'I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.'

Indeed, Avraham says תנו, and in the last pasuk in sefer Yehoshua, we don't see that he had been apportioned it, or that he had inherited it from his wife, but rather that it was given to him, אֲשֶׁר נִתַּן-לוֹ. Perhaps they gave it to him as a burial place for his family, and it was called after his name.

Alternativelty, perhaps there was some apportioning of land that went on past the strict rules of the goral. I cited earlier See Yehoshua 19:49-50:

מט וַיְכַלּוּ לִנְחֹל-אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, לִגְבוּלֹתֶיהָ; וַיִּתְּנוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל נַחֲלָה לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, בְּתוֹכָם.	49 When they had made an end of distributing the land for inheritance by the borders thereof, the children of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua the son of Nun in the midst of them;
נ עַל-פִּי ה נָתְנוּ לוֹ, אֶת-הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר שָׁאָל--אֶת-תִּמְנַת-סֶרַח, בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם; וַיִּבְנֶה אֶת-הָעִיר, וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהּ.	50 according to the commandment of the LORD they gave him the city which he asked, even Timnath-serah in the hill-country of Ephraim; and he built the city, and dwelt therein.

We thus see that Yehoshua, who himself was a member of the tribe of Ephraim, received land from the children of Israel in the midst of them, in the hill-country of Ephraim. This was when they had made an end to distributing the land, so it seems to be not part of the typical distribution. Why would they do this? Well, Yehoshua was their leader, and he should reside in the best place geographically for him to rule. Further, he had led them to inherit the very land of Israel, so in gratitude they would grant him the choice land that he desired as his inheritance.

{We see also that the tribe of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe took their inheritance across the Jordan, and received the right to do this in part by agreeing to go to battle in Israel proper at the head (see Bemidbar 31).}

Pinchas was also a member of the ruling elite, and had led the Israelites to war against the Midianites (see Bemidbar 31:6). Perhaps in gratitude for his leadership in battle, and because it made sense to reside in close proximity to Yehoshua, in Har Ephraim, he was granted a small area as an inherit, perhaps post-division by lot, even though he was a Levite.

Update: The gemara which discusses a Biblical derivation (though some Tanaaim hold it is Rabbinic) for a husband inheriting his wife can be found on Bava Batra 111b and on. Giv'at Pinchas is discussed there.