Internal Shalom

When the Torah refers to Pinchas—both in this week’s Parsha, and in last week’s when he was first introduced—he is referred to as Ben Elazar Ben Aharon HaKohen. This is a departure from the standard way that the Torah refers to people, which is by their name and their father’s, not usually including their grandfather’s name.

Rashi explains this based on a Medrash: The Shevatim would embarrass and taunt Pinchas saying: “HaRiesem Ben Puti Zeh, Shepitem Avi Imo Agalim L’Avodas Kochavim, V’harag Nasei Shevet MiYisroel: Do you see this ‘Ben Puti,’ whose mother’s father fattened cows for Avoda Zarah, and he killed the Nasei of a Shevet in Klal Yisroel?” In order to spare Pinchas this embarrassment the Torah makes a point of reminding us that he was Aharon Hakohen’s grandson.

We must try to understand this Medrash. First, what was the claim that the Shevatim would have? Why does it make a difference if Pinchas’ grandfather “fattened cows” for Avodah Zarah? How does that make his actions any less L’shem Shamayim or laudable?

In addition, the words of the Medrash are a little strange. Why is Pinchas referred to as a “Ben Puti?” The word seems to refer to the fattening of the calves “shepitem” but the point of the Shevatim would be made without that addition as well: his grandfather was an Oved Avodah Zarah. Why call him a “Ben Puti?” What does that add?

Further, how does the Torah answer this potential claim by mentioning Aharon? Why does the fact that Pinchas came from Aharon on his father’s side mitigate his questionable lineage on his mother’s side of the family?

Before we answer these questions, we must better understand Pinchas as a person.

There is another Medrash, which explains what happened at the time that Pinchas carried out his Kannaus:

When Bnei Yisroel came to Shittim, they were confronted with two very alluring Aveiros: Avoda Zarah and Giluy Arayos. The Bnos Midyan tried to lure the Jews into their camp, so that they could convince them to do both Aveiros. Zimri, who was the Nasei of Shimon, felt that it would be better to bring the Bnos Midyan to the Machane Yisroel so that even if they would commit Giluy Arayos, the Jews would be saved from Avodah Zarah.

Pinchas disagreed. He felt that there was no way to split the two: an Aveira is an Aveira, whether you are saving someone from more of an Aveira or not. One cannot accomplish good through an action that is inherently bad. He therefore acted with Kanaus and killed Zimri and Kuzbi.

R’ Yaakov Galinsky, zt”l, explains that The Machlokes between Zimri and Pinchas was simple: is there a gray area? Can one be seen as acting correctly, even if his actions are incorrect, if he avoids greater downfall? Pinchas staunchly held that there was no room for contradiction: we could not be seen as “allowing” the Giluy Arayos to take place even if it saved people from Avoda Zarah.

Chazal tell us that Pinchas and Eliyahu were the same person. R’ Yaakov says that this characteristic can be seen in both.

Eliyahu, when speaking to Bnei Yisroel who were tempted by the Nivei HaBaal says: “Ad Mosai Atem Poschim Al Shtei Seifim?: How long can you hobble between two opinions? Im Hahsem HaElokim, Lechu Acharav, V’Im HaBaal, Lechu Acharav: If Hashem is the true God, follow him, and if you think Ba’al is the true god, follow him!” Eliyahu was telling the Bnei Yisroel: you have to choose between good and evil, between right and wrong, you can’t live your life as a contradiction.

We see that Pinchas stood for an unadulterated commitment to the Ratzon Hashem

This understanding of Pinchas’ character and outlook can help us understand the claim of the Shevatim and the Medrash brought by Rashi.

The Gemarah in Sotah brings an apparent Machlokes with regard to Pinchas’s heritage. One Mishna seems to say that he came from the descendants of Yosef, and he fought the Midyanim as a revenge for the hand the Midyanim had in selling Yosef to Mitzrayim. On the other hand the Passuk says that Elazar married the “Bas Putiel,” which the Gemarah interprets to refer to Yisro, who was Mifatem Agalim L’Avodas Gelilim.

The Gemarah explains that according to the Mishna that Pinchas came from Yosef the words “Bas Putiel” refer to Yosef, “Shepitpet B’yitzro: who mastered his Yetzer Harah (in the story of Ashes Potifar.)”

The Gemarah then brings the Medsrah brought by Rashi in this week’s Parsha, that clearly says that Pinchas’s grandfather was Mifatem Agalim L’Avodas Gelilim, proving that he came from Yisro.

The Gemarah resolves this Machlokes in an interesting manner. Says the Gemarah: Pinchas’s mother was not Yisro’s daughter, she was his granddaughter: one of her parents came from Yisro and the other from Yosef! Both understandings of the word Putiel and Ben Puti are correct. Perhaps this is the explanation of the Medrash: the Shevatim understood the Machlokes between Pinchas and Zimri, and they knew that Pinchas’ argument was that there was good and there was evil, and the two could not mix.

They therefore pointed to his own heritage: Pinchas himself came from a mixture of good and bad. On one hand he descended from Yosef—he was a Ben Puti, the son of one who had mastered his Yetzer Harah—but his other ancestors were Mifatem Agalim L’Avodas Gelilim. It was therefore quite incongruous for him to take the position that good and bad could not mix.

That is why the Torah answers the critics by mentioning that Pinchas was Aharon’s grandson.

We know that the prime Midah of Aharon was Shalom, which we think of as peace. But the word Shalom comes from the same root as Shalem—complete. Aharon was the Rodef Shalom in the sense that he sought not only peaceful relationships but a status of Shleimus. Real peace must be unmitigated, and complete.

Many Meforshim point out that the peace that we see on a geopolitical level is only a way for countries to prepare themselves for the next conflict. That is because it is peace, not Shalom. A peace treaty is negotiated: each side gives a little and gets a little and they decide to accept the terms that work best for them. Shalom comes from each side recognize that the other is right in their own way. That is complete peace, Shalom that comes from Shleimus. This was the Middah of Aharon.

The Torah tells us that while on his mother’s side Pinchas came from what could be seen as a “mixed” marriage, where good and evil are combined, he took after his paternal grandfather, Aharon, who was the master of Shalom that was Shalem and not at all ambiguous.

Perhaps it is for this reason that Pinchas was given the “Bris Shalom” as his reward: to show that his position of pure unmitigated good was a tenable one, and was the essence of Shalom.

If we consider this, though, we may be disheartened. Are we not each inherently made up of good and evil? We each have a Yetzer Tov and a Yetzer Harah, we each do Mitzvos and sometimes we do things that are not Mitzvos. How can we reconcile this with the approach of Pinchas that the Torah seems to favor in this week’s Parsha?

I would like to offer an insight of the Ben Ish Chai on a different part of the Parsha as a way to understand how we can live up to this ideal.

In dividing Eretz Yisroel amongst the Shevatim, Heshem instructs Moshe: “L’Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso, Velame’at Ta’amit Nachalaso: To the greater (in number) you should give a larger portion, and to the smaller you should give a smaller portion.”

The Ben Ish Chai says that this Passuk, interpreted Al Derech HaDrash, can be seen as an instruction to us: The “Rav” is the Yetzer Tov—whose mark is Rav B’chachma—and the Me’at is the Yetzer Harah—who is small in a negative sense.

“L’rav Tarbeh Nachalaso” We must give the Rav, the Yetzer Tov, a greater portion of our lives. We must look for more ways to bring our our internal good, to “feed” the Yetzer Tov through Torah and Mitzvos. “Velame’at Ta’amit Nachalaso,” we must seek ways to diminish the Yetzer Harah’s control over our lives, to make the areas that he can affect us smaller and smaller.

The Ben Ish Chai says that when we do this, we show that the Rav is the more important part, the real central focus in our lives, and the Me’at, while necessary to our existence, is insignificant and undesired.

Perhaps if we heed the words of the Ben Ish Chai we can live as Pinchas would want us to and be zoche to the Bris Shalom.