Sefer Bemidbar: Fairness vs. Morality

A while back, people were discussing a study which concluded that conservatives and liberals viewed the world in different ways*. Roughly, liberals think in terms of fairness while conservatives think in terms of morality. And, as Scott Adams suggested, that might be one reason one side cannot persuade the other -- they are speaking different languages, and what one side would consider a strong argument, the other would consider irrelevant.

Fairness and equality, as opposed to adherence to God-given rules, seems a recurring theme in Chumash Bemidbar. We have three separate instances in which the rules were set up, ordained by God, but in which some people, through no fault of their own, end up in an unequal situation. And in each instance, they complain to Moshe with למה נגרע, "Why should we be worse off?"

1) For Korban Pesach, people with ritual impurity contracted from a corpse may not eat of it. That is the Divine rule that applies equally to all people, that ritual impurity invalidates people from partaking in a korban in general. And some years, people miss out, and other years, they may partake. But the impure complain that it isn't fair to them, because they get left out. As they said in Bemidbar 9:7, lama nigara:

• פסוק ז: וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵמָּה, אֵלָיו, אֲנַחְנוּ טְמֵאִים, לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם; לָמָּה נִגָּרַע, לְבִלְתִּי הַקְרִיב אֶת-קָרְבַּן יְהוָה בְּמֹעֲדוֹ, בְּתוֹךְ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. 

Rather than dismissing their complaint and saying that they have lost out, Moshe takes their complaint seriously. Since he has a direct connection to God, he revisits the topic and asks what can be done for these folks. And God tells him about Pesach Sheni, a second chance. But adds a protection that people don't use this to be derelict in the first korban Pesach.

2) The inheritance of Israel is based on males. The daughters of Tzelophchad complain that, because their father died in his own sin and only had daughters, they have been left out, and their father has no share in the land. Their situation wasn't the origin intent of the Divine decree, but it has that unfortunate effect. It is not fair.  As they say, in Bemidbar 27:4, lama yigara:

• פסוק ד: לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם-אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן; תְּנָה-לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ. 

Rather than dismiss their claim, he tells them to wait while he asks God directly. And he gets a revision, that in such a case, the daughters will inherit.

3) Even revisions can have unintended effects. The tribe of Menasheh complains that when the daughters of Tzelophchad marry, they will take their inheritance with them to another tribe, and so Menasheh's portion will shrink. That is not fair. As they say, in Bemidbar 36:3, venigraah:

במדבר פרק לו

• פסוק ג: וְהָיוּ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי שִׁבְטֵי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְנָשִׁים, וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָן מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּ, וְנוֹסַף עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם; וּמִגֹּרַל נַחֲלָתֵנוּ, יִגָּרֵעַ. 

Moshe consults Hashem and revises the law once again, to require women, in such a situation, to only marry into their own tribe.

Is such a situation sustainable? Any time someone is adversely affected by the law, should they complain and the law will be revised? Maybe that was the intent, if we understand going to the shofet in a given era in that light. But having the law in such a constant state of flux does not seem sustainable to me. Eventually, the law is the law, and some people fall through the cracks, and it isn't fair.


-------------

* I would treat all such studies with skepticism, because I think that the researchers' political views will influence the design of the study or the interpretation of the results.

Charging Yehoshua

The Samaritans have a curious insertion towards the end of parashat Pinchas:

That is, after Bemidbar 27:23, they insert the command portion of Devarim 3:21-22:

כא  וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי, בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר:  עֵינֶיךָ הָרֹאֹת, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לִשְׁנֵי הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה--כֵּן-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לְכָל-הַמַּמְלָכוֹת, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹבֵר שָׁמָּה.	21 And I commanded Joshua at that time, saying: 'Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings; so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over.
כב  לֹא, תִּירָאוּם:  כִּי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, הוּא הַנִּלְחָם לָכֶם.  {ס}	22 Ye shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fighteth for you.' {S}

(Except they left off the Elokeichem from pasuk 22.)

This is a typical Samaritan modification and harmonization. Since Devarim asserts that Yehoshua was commanded this 'at that time', the command to Yehoshua should ideally also appear in that earlier text. (Meanwhile, it is obviously an insertion and tampering with the text. Indeed, the very point of mentioning this Devarim is to add information, to let them know what they otherwise would not have known from the earlier text.)

I don't know that this charging of Yehoshua regarding Sichon and Og is best inserted here of all places. There might well be better guesses. But I suspect the decision to insert it here is the link (gezeira shava) formed by וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי in Devarim 3 and ויצוהו in Bemidbar 27:23.

Rav Ovadia Seforno and the balance of opposites

Note: I am trying a gentler approach to my critiques. I am trying to first praise for what is good and then suggest areas for improvement.

I read through the Chazaq parsha package this Shabbos and came across an interesting devar Torah from Rabbi Bentzion Shafier. You can read it here in the Shmuz.

Rabbi Shafier encounters a Seforno which is difficult to reconcile with modern science. And -- kudos! -- he asks the question! Others would have just accepted it without question. He could have done better in his approach. His assumption appears to be that Seforno must be correct. (After all, Seforno is a late Rishon.) And if so, we must look to modern science to justify the Seforno's position. And then, when finding something which can be kvetched to support Seforno's idea, we accept this as Seforno's meaning. Finally, we marvel at how Seforno was 500 years ahead of his time -- a sure sign of ruach hakodesh -- and draw important life lessons of how to conduct ourselves.

Drawing inspirational life lessons from the words of great Biblical commentators is nice. And it is also nice that people walk away with great respect for Torah and its interpreters. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that people walk away with a flawed understanding of what Rav Ovadia Seforno actually meant. I think that Seforno would have preferred that we understand his actual meaning, even if we ultimately disagreed with him.

Rav Ovadia Seforno was a physician. He was born in 1475 and died in 1550. If he is bringing science to bear on a question, it makes sense that he would be using the science of his day. Let us see the pasuk and comment in question.

 ספר במדבר פרק כה

יא) פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו 

 :את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי

 :יב) לכן אמר הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום

 ספורנו עה"ת ספר במדבר פרק כה פסוק יב

יב) את בריתי שלום. ממלאך המות, כענין עושה שלום במרומיו כי אמנם 

ההפסד לא יקרה אלא בסבת התנגדות ההפכים. וזה אמנם נתקיים בפינחס 

שהאריך ימים הרבה מאד מכל שאר אנשי דורו, עד שהיה הוא משמש במשכן 

שילה בזמן פלגש בגבעה, שהיה בלי ספק אחרי מות יהושע ושאר הזקנים 

אשר האריכו ימים אחרי יהושע וכל שכן אם היה בזמן יפתח שכתב למלך בני 

עמון בשבת בני ישראל בחשבון ובבנותיה כו' שלש מאות שנה וכבר סיפרו ז"ל 

שפינחס לא רצה ללכת אז אל יפתח להתיר נדרו. וכל שכן לדברי האומר 

 אליהו זה פנחס, והוא עדין חי וקיים

Rabbi Shafier explains:

Pinchas was zealous in defending the honor of HASHEM; therefore, he
was granted a Bris of Shalom. The Siforno explains that because of
this covenant of peace, Pinchas lived to an extraordinary age -- far
longer than was expected in his times. However, the Siforno points out,
the reason for his longevity wasn’t supernatural, but rather because he
was granted this Bris. Since he was given Shalom, he was at peace with
himself, and as a result, he didn’t suffer the normal internal conflict
that causes damage to our bodies. He therefore lived to an extremely
old age.

The Siforno explains: all degeneration happens to the body because of
conflict of the opposites. In other words, all disease, infirmity, and
weakening with age, only occurs because of internal conflicts. Since
Pinchas was granted peace, he had no internal battles; therefore, his
body didn’t age, and so he lived hundreds of years. 

The way he explains the degeneration because of conflict of opposites, it seems like this is a psychological conflict, "internal conflicts", "internal battles", which Pinchas lacked because he now was granted peace.

However, to understand Seforno, we must understand the science of his day. This was the theory of humours. Here is a good summary of the theory:

Based on the theory that natural matter comprised four basic elements, the Greek philosophers came up with the idea that the human body consisted of the four humours, which had to be kept in balance. This theory survived until after AD 1700.

Then, derived from his study of mathematics, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras came up with the idea of the balance of opposites. This gave Greek doctors their idea of the underlying cause of disease. We can read about this in the 70 books ascribed to the Greek doctor Hippocrates, who thought that disease occurred when the humours of the body fell out of balance.

So, when Seforno says כי אמנם ההפסד לא יקרה אלא בסבת התנגדות ההפכים, all degeneration happens to the body because of conflict of the opposites, he is speaking as a medieval physician, and the opposites are the opposing humours in the body. Part of this gift of shalom was that these opposites were in balance, and so Pinchas was immune to disease.

That is a true explanation of Seforno. It is emes, which is a great virtue. By knowing a bit about the science of the day, we can get to the bottom of what Seforno meant. However, if we don't study the history of science, and cannot entertain the possibility that Seforno could be basing himself on faulty science, then we end up with a flawed understanding of Seforno's intent. Such as, e.g., that he was speaking from psychological perspective, and that he intuitively, or via ruach hakodesh, knew all of modern science.

Let us see how this plays out. Rabbi Shafier continues:

The body was made to last only so long… 
The difficulty with this understanding of the Siforno is that it negates
our basic understanding of health. The reality is that humans age. The
heart, the liver, the pancreas were designed to function only for a given
length of time, and then they break down. Infirmities and weakness
come naturally with old age; arthritis, high blood pressure, and the
thickening of the arteries are a part of life. While the heart may be a
remarkable living pump, the valves start to weaken with time, the
muscle tissue begins to break down, and the health of the heart
deteriorates with age. The body was made to last only so long; then it
just wears out. 

The Chazaq sheet (but not the Shmuz) then ends with this question:

So how can the Sifrno [sic] argue with our accepted understanding by stating "All deterioration happens to the body because of conflict of the opposites.[sic]"

The answer to this question, from our perspective is straightforward. Of course the Seforno can argue with our accepted understanding. Seforno is based on Aristotelian science. Our accepted understanding is based on modern science. There are a great many differences between the two. And Rishonim have often based themselves on Galenic or Aristotelian science.

Rabbi Shafier offers the following answer, based on modern science:

Mind / body relationship 
The answer to this question is based on 20th century medical findings.
Herbert Benson, MD, PHD, was professor of medicine in Harvard
University in the 1960’s when he stumbled upon an unusual
phenomenon. He found that when a patient’s blood pressure was taken
in his office, invariably it was higher than then when taken at home.
His patients would regularly report blood pressure levels significantly
lower than what was found in his office.

After careful study, he concluded that anxiety contributes to high blood
pressure. Being examined by a doctor was causing his patients to be
nervous, and that was contributing to the rise in their blood pressure.

While it may seem obvious to us today, at the time it wasn’t clear at all
that there was a correlation between stress and high blood pressure. For
decades, it was assumed that a person’s mental condition
had no affect on his physical condition. Any reported affects of stress
and anxiety on health were taken as psychosomatic or imagined.

His discovery led him to firmly establish the correlation between stress
and high blood pressure, and he became a pioneer in a new field of
medicine: the relationship between mind and body. Since those times,
it has now become accepted in the medical community that stress causes
a marked deterioration to a person’s health. Stress can bring about heart
disease, gastrointestinal disorders, pain, insomnia, asthma, allergies…
It is now accepted medical opinion that along with diet and exercise, the
lowering of stress levels is a major contributor to a person’s overall
health. 

This answer unfortunately takes us further in the wrong direction. It continues in the incorrect assumption that Seforno's conflict of opposites" is mental and psychological. And it finds some relatively recent discovery. I don't know that Herbert Benson was the first to come up with the idea that emotional state can have an effect on physical health, and that the idea did not exist at all prior to the 1960's. However, let us grant that, for the sake of argument. It is still the case that according to modern science, absence of mental stress will not ensure a lifespan of hundreds of years, which is what Seforno is speaking about. See Seforno's words! Does all degeneration happen as a result of mental stress? Scientists in the 20th century will tell you that there is still the effect of aging, of physical stresses to the body from daily living, the effect of diet, and attacks by microbes. A really mellow person will still not live forever, or for hundreds of years!

Rabbi Shafier continues:

This is something that the Siforno taught us over 500 years ago. What
he was saying was the Pinchas naturally lived for hundreds of years
because the normal cause of deteriorating health didn’t apply to him. He
wasn’t in conflict; he was at peace with himself, and as such, his body
was healthier and able to live to a remarkably advanced age

Here we are supposed to be awed at Seforno's knowledge of present science. 500 years ago, he already knew this. And scientists are just catching up!

It is more likely that, rather than the kvetch that doesn't actually resolve the problem, Seforno was basing himself on what was known 500 years ago.

The rest of the Shmuz is how to apply this deep lesson to our own lives. Thus:

The ultimate cause of distress – the voice inside 
This concept has major ramifications in our lives. When HASHEM
created man, He implanted into each of us an inner sense of right and
wrong, a Voice Inside that allows us to know the correct course of
behavior for each situation. More than simply a moral compass, this
Voice Inside acts as our guide to self-perfection.

When a person listens to that voice, he lives a fulfilling, meaningful life
-- as his Creator intended -- and he is at peace with himself. If he
chooses to ignore that voice, not only doesn't he grow to the heights for
which he was destined, he lives in

And so on.

OK, so I disagree with the Shmuz as far as methodology and conclusions go. But should we be so harsh? Here I explain why it is not such a big deal.

What is the purpose of a Shmuz? Is it Talmud Torah? Is it deep study of Biblical commentators in order to understand their intent and perhaps the meaning of the Biblical text?

Or, is the purpose to inspire? If so, getting to the true meaning of Seforno's words may not be as important.  Consider that this might be what happens in a lot of midrash: rather than considering the pasuk as text, the midrashist treats it as pretext, a means of getting a specific homiletic message across while tying it to the Torah text.  And so the highlighted textual difficulty need not be truly as difficult as presented.  It is a specific genre of midrash.  So too here, a Shmuz is a specific genre of dvar Torah, and so perhaps we need not be so insistent that Seforno be understood correctly.

Still, this was a missed opportunity to teach how to understand Chazal,  Rishonim,  and Acharonim -- on their own terms,  based on the science of their day.  And a missed opportunity to promote Torah Umaddah -- since Seforno thought to explain pesukim based on science,  something which is only entirely evident when the science is wrong.  (Otherwise people attribute it to ruach hakodesh, as seems to be the case here in this Shmuz;  or else drawn from the text itself,  with science learned from pesukim,  as perhaps is being suggested here. ) And of course, it is better to draw inspiration from interpretations of pesukim and meforshim when the interpretation is actually true...

Why we don't know Yocheved's mother's name

In parshat Pinchas, we read of Yocheved's birth {Bemidbar 26:59}:

נט  וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת עַמְרָם, יוֹכֶבֶד בַּת-לֵוִי, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי, בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַתֵּלֶד לְעַמְרָם, אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה, וְאֵת, מִרְיָם אֲחֹתָם.

59 And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.

There is a slight awkwardness in אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי. The translation above seems to take it as the passive. Is this possible? We would expect yudela. But this is just nikkud, vocalization, and perhaps
it can even be an instance of the elusive kal passive. However, would a passive have אֹתָהּ, her, after it?

Rashi - perhaps, depending on the girsa - says the actor here was Levi's unnamed wife. Ibn Ezra says that Yocheved was mentioned as a point in her honor but her mother's name was omitted as a way of writing briefly. Shadal agrees, giving a Biblical parallel of ילדה, of a woman giving birth to someone, where the actor's name is not mentioned:

לא חש להזכיר שם אמה של יוכבד, כמו ואותו ילדה אחרי אבשלום ( מ"א א' ו').א

Others suggest we are told her mother's name in this pasuk -- it is Otah. Meanwhile, the book of Jubilees mentions that her name is Milkah.

However, we can suggest that the reason the pasuk does not tell us Yocheved's mother's name is this: the post-Mosaic author of the pasuk did not know her name, or did not dare to insert information into the Torah that he could not draw from another pasuk,

That is, just like the last 12 pesukim of the Torah and other scattered pesukim (as per Ibn Ezra), this is an editorial insertion. Either as an interjection in Yocheved's honor, or the entire assembled genealogical section. And since no other pasuk standing before the editor mentions Levi's wife, the editor was not going to insert this information.

Looking at this as an editorial insertion clarifies some other matters. Foremost is the claim in this pasuk that Yocheved was the daughter of Levi. This is very hard to make work with chronology. Assuming 210 years in Egypt rather than 400, she would have to be very old when she gave birth to Moshe. The Rishonim grapple with this. Rashi has her born just as they enter Egypt (which also resolved questions of the count of the 70 souls entering Egypt, assuming one takes that number as precise). But then, with 210 years in Egypt and Moshe leading the Israelites out at age 80, Yocheved must be 210 - 80 = 130 years old when she gives birth to Moshe. This is an even greater miracle than what happened to Sarah and yet the Torah does not mention it explicitly! On this basis, Ibn Ezra rejects this. Ramban responds to Ibn Ezra as to why the Torah would not mention the miracle. But one should realize that it is a tug of war. Any years taken off of Yocheved needs to be added to Levi when he fathered her, though it is easier for a man to father children in old age than for a woman to birth children in old age. You can work out the chronology yourself -- I dislike chronological calculations as means of discovering peshat.

However, this all assumes that Yocheved was Levi's daughter. And the pasuk here could not be clearer on this point. She was "Yocheved bat Levi". So too another pasuk is rather clear on this point -- in parashat Va'era, in Shemot 16:

20. Amram took Jochebed, his aunt, as his wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the years of Amram's life were one hundred thirty seven years.

כ. וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת מֹשֶׁה וּשְׁנֵי חַיֵּי עַמְרָם שֶׁבַע וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה:

She is the aunt of Amram, and Amram was grandson of Levi, so Yocheved is the literal daughter of Levi. Though see how the Septuagint and Rav Saadia Gaon deal with that.

But if these two pesukim -- in Vaera and in Pinchas -- are the work of an editor who is interpreting other pesukim, then the source of this assertion can be understood. From Shemot 2:

א  וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי.

1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.

The true peshat in that pasuk is that just as אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי refers to a Levite, in this case Amram, so does בַּת-לֵוִי refer to a female Levite, in this case Yocheved. But all it means is an unnamed female Levite. Indeed, the very purpose and theme of the narrative there has these as anonymous people. Moshe is not named, Yocheved is not named. Moshe is only named at the end, but until then, he is מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. From this, he rose to prominence. But the editor took  בַּת-לֵוִי to refer to the actual direct-line daughter of Levi. And in this way, an assumption and interpretation was encoded in the Biblical text.

We should perhaps then keep this idea in mind when considering other pesukim in this genealogical section. For example, in parshat Korach, there is ambiguity as to just how Korach died -- by fire, by being swallowed up, or in both manners. It depends on how one interprets the pesukim there. And there are pesukim in Tehillim that can be brought to bear as evidence. But those pesukim in Tehillim reflect that (inspired) Biblical author's interpretation of the pesukim in Korach. And if my discussion above it correct, then the same might be said about the discussion in parashat Pinchas of Korach's death -- important to mention because Korach's lineage continued, as his sons did not die:

ט  וּבְנֵי אֱלִיאָב, נְמוּאֵל וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם:  הוּא-דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם קרואי (קְרִיאֵי) הָעֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן בַּעֲדַת-קֹרַח, בְּהַצֹּתָם, עַל-יְהוָה.	9 And the sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, the elect of the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against the LORD;
י  וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת-פִּיהָ, וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-קֹרַח--בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה:  בַּאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ, אֵת חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, וַיִּהְיוּ, לְנֵס.	10 and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died; what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign.
יא  וּבְנֵי-קֹרַח, לֹא-מֵתוּ.  {ס}	11 Notwithstanding the sons of Korah died not. {S}

See my analysis of how to parse pasuk 10, and how trup factors in. And see how the Samaritans resolve it. Perhaps this is deliberate obscurity as to Korach's death. But if we say that the pasuk in Pinchas is asserting that Korach is swallowed, then this does not compel us to (a) interpret the pasuk in Korach likewise, or (b) assert that the author in Pinchas was "unaware" of the text in Korach, should we choose a different interpretation. Rather, "all" we need to do is recognize that this editor, like the Biblical author of the pesukim in Tehillim, was engaging in interpretation.

Posts so far for parshat Pinchas

Two posts this week about shafan and al-wabr, which is a hyrax. First, that wascally wabr. And next, did Saadia Gaon have a masorah on shafan as al-wabr?


2013

1. YUTorah for Pinchas.


2012

1. Pinchas sources -- further improved.

2. YUTorah on parshas Pinchas.

3. What made the daughters of Tzelaphchad so brilliant? Rashi says they were smart, since they would not have brought their claim had their father had a son. But this is common gentile law as well! Rather, Levush HaOrah explains that they meant had their father had a daughter of a son. I explain why this is compelling peshat in Rashi, based on the Sifrei. And why I still don't think it is correct peshat in Rashi.

2011

1. Pinchas sources -- further expanded. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Yocheved's mother, whose name was Otah -- Why don't Rashi, Bechor Shor, and Ibn Ezra leap at the cute derash as peshat? I am not convinced they even had access to this midrash, but they might reject it onpeshat grounds -- that it does not feel like peshat -- rather than having to reject it on technical grounds of dikduk.
   .
3. YU Torah on parashat Pinchas.
   .
4. How does Onkelos translate עצרת תהיה לכם? Shadal brings various variants, but dismisses a proof from Zoharic Aramaic. He is cryptic why, but I think that his comment in the addendum of the Vikuach, together with a bit of calculation, can aid us in arriving at why.
   .
5. A son going off the derech is the mother's fault -- so claims the Kav HaYashar on parashat Pinchas. And he backs it up with a apocryphal story of the Ramban's wife being raped. It should be clear that I don't agree with the Kav HaYashar here.
   .
6. Did Korach's sons go to Gehinnom, or did they become prophets? Mizrachi shows a contradiction within Rashis. The Taz attempts to solve it. And I offer suggestions throughout, that Rashi didn't say it, or that Rashi means that their songs ascended, not that they physically ascended.
   .
7. Was Pinechas initially a kohen?  Someone, by email, called my attention to a dispute between the Zohar and the gemara as to whether Pinchas was initially a kohen, prior to his killing of Zimri and Cozbi...  However, if we read that gemara in Zevachim carefully, we see that it is actually amachlokes whether Pinchas only became a kohen then...  Therefore, it would be no surprise if the Zohar presents an interpretation which differs from the one proffered by Rashi.
   .
8. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious?   We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores. -- This touches on Pinchas' assertion that Yocheved was Amram's aunt.
   .
9. Was Baba Elazar a con-artist?  I am not going to address this question head-on, at least initially. I would prefer to start with a story, which happened to some close family friends of mine, a few years back...

2010

1. Pinchas sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftarah.
   .
2. Elokei HaRuchot and avoiding blasphemy -- Shadal is correct from a grammatical perspective of what the text of Onkelos should be, but accidental chiruf ve-gidduf due to grammatical ignorance doesn't really concern me. A short post.a
   .
3. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or from Yosef? Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.
   a
4. Tossing Korach -- out of the pit and into the fire -- Did Korach die with Datan and Aviram, or within the congregation consumed by the fire? Different reads of parashat Korach yield different results. And then, in parshat Pinchas, Korach's fate seems a bit ambiguous. How the Samaritans resolve this difficulty by messing with the Biblical text.
   .
5. Does Eliyahu Hanavi come to every bris? Some sources associate Pinchas with Eliyahu Hanavi, I thought to discuss the midrash that Eliyahu Hanavi visits every bris, such that we have a kisei shel Eliyahu.
   .
6. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude --  If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.

2009

1. Datan and Aviram were at fault, while Korach was just along for the ride. Ralbag's interpretation of certain pesukim in Pinchas.
   .
2. A quick trivia question or two on Pinchas. In a followup, I identify the pasuk that has a peh in each word, discuss Baal Haturim's answer and note his source, note the loss of peh in HaShufami, discuss Baal Haturim's answer and note his source, and finally give my own explanation for the loss of pheh.
   .
3. Should the yud of Pinchas be small? Part one and part two. How the tradition in the Zohar differs from all masorot and sifrei Torah in the time of Minchas Shai. What about now? Look it up this Shabbos and report back.
   .
4. How did one "join" to Baal Peor? Was the method of worship sleeping with a virgin? I disagree.
   .
5. How does the Torah trace the lineage of the wicked for shame? Analyzing Rashi and his sources, as a supercommentator.
   .
6. Zimri the exhibitionist? I don't think so! Considering the typical dumb Pinchas dvar Torah that appears in Jewish newspapers this week, year after year, in which Pinchas' actions were improper and Hashem is trying to reform him.
   .
7. Did Pinchas have to fear for his life? An interesting idea I saw in Chizkuni, but I should have looked at Ibn Ezra, where we can find the same.
   .
8. How Onkelos translates Ish -- why he sometimes translates it gevar and sometims anash. I spot what I think is the rule, after a stark juxtaposition in this week's parsha.
   .
9. An eternal covenant of Kehuna Gedolah -- based on Shadal, Ibn Ezra, and Ralbag. And what about when it did not go to the sons of Pinchas ben Eleazar, but to the sons of Itamar? Was this a violation of the covenant? Why not? And how this might have caused a rift.
   .
10. What was Tzelophchad's sin? And why I favor specific identifications, within the realm of midrash.
    .
11. Did Rabbi Akiva create his own midrashim? I would argue yes, even in the case of Tzelofchad's sin, where he has a gezeira shava working for him.
    .
12. What's in a name? Salu -- where I discuss the name, what it may mean, and its form.
    .
13. Pinchas sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos. Plus a number of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah.
    .
14. Why the war with Midian before Moshe's death? From Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, that they should not think Moshe did not take revenge upon them on behalf of Klal Yisrael because he, too, was guilty.
    a
15. Teshi, with a unique small yud -- but if the masorah states that the yud in Teshi, in Haazinu, is unique, then how can the yud in Pinchas be small?! See also post #3 from the same year.

2008

1. Every week, I first try to plot out what posts I am going to make by going through the parsha with and without various meforshim and noting to myself points of interest. Since I am (more or less) the same individual, going through the same parsha, it can easily occur the same points of interest occur to me from one year to the next. And where I am not careful to first read through old posts, I might end up posting the same thing. That happened this year, with Pashta-Zakef or Mercha on UMinchatam, which is more or less identical to the last post from one year ago. In this version, I include more pictures and perhaps make it clearer. Also, this year, an anonymous commenter suggests that the distinction between trup is musical rather than syntactic, as I had proposed.
   .
2. The ascension of Eliyahu, and the Pinchas-Eliyahu connection.
   .
3. Based in part on targum on the incident with Pinchas (at the end of Balak) as one of many sources, we see that beis torfah does not mean "thigh area," but the pudenda, in contrast with the misinterpretation provided by Rabbi Falk in his Oz veHadar Levushah.

2007

1. Why Isn't Zimri Identified by Name Initially?
   To show the degree to which Bnei Yisrael were attached to Baal Peor? But note Kozbi is also not identified. Various precedents, and then stylistic suggestions. Perhaps to show that Pinchas did not concern himself with rank, or to better stress Cosbi's Midianite identity.
2. Midiantites as a Generic term?
   This would solve problems locally and by the sale of Yosef.
3. Why the Count, and Why The Break Mid-Pasuk?
   Perhaps the preceding plague, perhaps as a closing count matching the count as they left Egypt. I suggest also a count in preparation for war against the Midiantites, And perhaps the pause in mid-pasuk because not just the command, but the entire section, was an interjection, placed by Moshe after the fact.
4. Pinchas or Pinechas?
   Do we pronounce a sheva na in his name? Is there a keri and ketiv in play?
5. Pinchas Picture Punning Puzzle
   .
6. Chirik Chaser vs. Chirik Malei in Aramaic (as a followup to Pinchas or Pinechas)
   .
7. Points on Pinchas
   Individual points that would not merit individual posts.
8. Zimri as the Gilgul of Shechem
9. The trup on UMinchatam
   Shadal notes trup at odds with the minchat shai, and suggests both are possible.

2006

• Brit Kehunat Olam. What Exactly Did Pinchas Get? Also, how could Pinchas Kill Zimri?
• Wasn't he already a kohen? Rashi's famous answer about Pinchas' missing out before. But wouldn't certain Leviim be excluded under the same? Other pashtanim: the high priesthood. How could Pinchas kill Zimri? Would this not make him impure? One answer is that he was not yet a kohen; another is that Zimri was a goses until he left the tent.
• Who was Cosbi bat Tzur?
• How Tg Yonanat creatively reparses the pasuk, such that Tzur becomes Balak.
• Blog Roundup
• What other blogs are saying about Pinchas
• Chamber or Belly?
• Did Pinchas thrust the spear into her belly (/womb)? Or did he kill her in her tent, just as he killed Zimri in his tent? Different approaches on the level of peshat. Then, more parsing of the pasuk to get all the details of the midrashic approach in Sanhedrin.

2005

• 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.

to be continued...

YUTorah on parashat Pinchas

Audio Shiurim on Pinchas Rabbi Hanan Balk: Pinchas, Eliyahu, and Moshe Rabbeinu Rabbi Yehuda Balsam: Avoiding Machlokes Rabbi Eli Belizon: Pidyon Haben When the Kohen is a Chalul Rabbi Avi Billet: Zimri and Tzlafchad: Uncovering their identities Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun: What is the place of Kanaut Rabbi Yosef Blau: Leadership, Succesion and Inheritance Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Making Sense of Census Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Yerusha Bi'Rabbanus Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: How Inspiration Works Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The Message of the Korban Tamid Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Do the Right Thing and Make a Good Name for Yourself Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Aileh Mishpachot Upikudahem Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Incentives of Peace Rabbi Jesse Horn: Torah requires hard work Rabbi Ari Kahn: Truth and Peace Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: Blowing with a stolen shofar Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Bein Hametzarim and Yom Tov Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Running to Israel Rabbi Yoni Levin: Bris Shalom, Bris Kehunah, and Bris Milah Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Appointing a Successor Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Leader of the Nation Rabbi Zev Reichman: Pinchas's Prayer: The Sacrifice of Self Professor Smadar Rosensweig: The Interface of Pshat, Chazal, and Parshanut: The Model of Bnot Zelaphchad Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Understanding the Zealotry of Pinchas Rabbi Baruch Simon: Not being critical of other Jews Mrs. Shira Smiles: Point of Perpetuity Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Tribalism Rabbi Moshe Stav: התבוננות של זמן ושל רגע Mrs. Shani Taragin: The Purpose of the Open-Ended Parsha Rabbi Moshe Taragin: For the Greater Good Rabbi Michael Taubes: The time to Daven Musaf Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Pinchas = Eliyahu Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Passing the Leadership Articles on Pinchas Rabbi Asher Brander: Righteous Women -Then and Now Rabbi Solomon Drillman: The Zealotry of Pinchas Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Lost in Translation: On Being a Zealot Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Allegation and Affirmation Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Appreciating a New Hero Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Generations & Connections Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: מימוש עצמי Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Take Care of Me When I'm Dead Rabbi David Horwitz: The Daughters of Israel and their Love for the Land of Israel Rabbi Elly Krimsky: Is the Halachic System Grassroots or Top Heavy? Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: True Dedication and Devotion to Torah Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: מציון תפתח הרעה YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Kollel: Toronto Torah Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Pinchas See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Pinchas

New This Week The Heter to be a Doctor Rabbi Howard Apfel Doing Chesed with Treiff Rabbi Eli Belizon Should I Go to the Hospital on Shabbos and How Should I Get There Rabbi Beni Krohn Saying Kaddish for Others Rabbi Shmuel Marcus What to do after a relative passes away Rabbi Eli Ozarowski E-Commerce and E-bay Auctions on Shabbos and Yom Tov Rabbi Etan Schnall Using Maaser kesafim for mitzvas, taxes and tuition Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Three Weeks: Destructive Divisiveness Mrs. Shira Smiles The North Pole and Shabbos Rabbi Baruch Simon HaAdam BeOlamo Rabbi Reuven Taragin Providence in our Lives Rabbi Ya'akov Trump

Posts so far for parshat Pinchas

2012

1. Pinchas sources -- further improved.

2. YUTorah on parshas Pinchas.

3. What made the daughters of Tzelaphchad so brilliant? Rashi says they were smart, since they would not have brought their claim had their father had a son. But this is common gentile law as well! Rather, Levush HaOrah explains that they meant had their father had a daughter of a son. I explain why this is compelling peshat in Rashi, based on the Sifrei. And why I still don't think it is correct peshat in Rashi.

2011

1. Pinchas sources -- further expanded. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Yocheved's mother, whose name was Otah -- Why don't Rashi, Bechor Shor, and Ibn Ezra leap at the cute derash as peshat? I am not convinced they even had access to this midrash, but they might reject it onpeshat grounds -- that it does not feel like peshat -- rather than having to reject it on technical grounds of dikduk.
   .
3. YU Torah on parashat Pinchas.
   .
4. How does Onkelos translate עצרת תהיה לכם? Shadal brings various variants, but dismisses a proof from Zoharic Aramaic. He is cryptic why, but I think that his comment in the addendum of the Vikuach, together with a bit of calculation, can aid us in arriving at why.
   .
5. A son going off the derech is the mother's fault -- so claims the Kav HaYashar on parashat Pinchas. And he backs it up with a apocryphal story of the Ramban's wife being raped. It should be clear that I don't agree with the Kav HaYashar here.
   .
6. Did Korach's sons go to Gehinnom, or did they become prophets? Mizrachi shows a contradiction within Rashis. The Taz attempts to solve it. And I offer suggestions throughout, that Rashi didn't say it, or that Rashi means that their songs ascended, not that they physically ascended.
   .
7. Was Pinechas initially a kohen?  Someone, by email, called my attention to a dispute between the Zohar and the gemara as to whether Pinchas was initially a kohen, prior to his killing of Zimri and Cozbi...  However, if we read that gemara in Zevachim carefully, we see that it is actually amachlokes whether Pinchas only became a kohen then...  Therefore, it would be no surprise if the Zohar presents an interpretation which differs from the one proffered by Rashi.
   .
8. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious?   We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores. -- This touches on Pinchas' assertion that Yocheved was Amram's aunt.
   .
9. Was Baba Elazar a con-artist?  I am not going to address this question head-on, at least initially. I would prefer to start with a story, which happened to some close family friends of mine, a few years back...

2010

1. Pinchas sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftarah.
   .
2. Elokei HaRuchot and avoiding blasphemy -- Shadal is correct from a grammatical perspective of what the text of Onkelos should be, but accidental chiruf ve-gidduf due to grammatical ignorance doesn't really concern me. A short post.a
   .
3. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or from Yosef? Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.
   a
4. Tossing Korach -- out of the pit and into the fire -- Did Korach die with Datan and Aviram, or within the congregation consumed by the fire? Different reads of parashat Korach yield different results. And then, in parshat Pinchas, Korach's fate seems a bit ambiguous. How the Samaritans resolve this difficulty by messing with the Biblical text.
   .
5. Does Eliyahu Hanavi come to every bris? Some sources associate Pinchas with Eliyahu Hanavi, I thought to discuss the midrash that Eliyahu Hanavi visits every bris, such that we have a kisei shel Eliyahu.
   .
6. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude --  If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.

2009

1. Datan and Aviram were at fault, while Korach was just along for the ride. Ralbag's interpretation of certain pesukim in Pinchas.
   .
2. A quick trivia question or two on Pinchas. In a followup, I identify the pasuk that has a peh in each word, discuss Baal Haturim's answer and note his source, note the loss of peh in HaShufami, discuss Baal Haturim's answer and note his source, and finally give my own explanation for the loss of pheh.
   .
3. Should the yud of Pinchas be small? Part one and part two. How the tradition in the Zohar differs from all masorot and sifrei Torah in the time of Minchas Shai. What about now? Look it up this Shabbos and report back.
   .
4. How did one "join" to Baal Peor? Was the method of worship sleeping with a virgin? I disagree.
   .
5. How does the Torah trace the lineage of the wicked for shame? Analyzing Rashi and his sources, as a supercommentator.
   .
6. Zimri the exhibitionist? I don't think so! Considering the typical dumb Pinchas dvar Torah that appears in Jewish newspapers this week, year after year, in which Pinchas' actions were improper and Hashem is trying to reform him.
   .
7. Did Pinchas have to fear for his life? An interesting idea I saw in Chizkuni, but I should have looked at Ibn Ezra, where we can find the same.
   .
8. How Onkelos translates Ish -- why he sometimes translates it gevar and sometims anash. I spot what I think is the rule, after a stark juxtaposition in this week's parsha.
   .
9. An eternal covenant of Kehuna Gedolah -- based on Shadal, Ibn Ezra, and Ralbag. And what about when it did not go to the sons of Pinchas ben Eleazar, but to the sons of Itamar? Was this a violation of the covenant? Why not? And how this might have caused a rift.
   .
10. What was Tzelophchad's sin? And why I favor specific identifications, within the realm of midrash.
    .
11. Did Rabbi Akiva create his own midrashim? I would argue yes, even in the case of Tzelofchad's sin, where he has a gezeira shava working for him.
    .
12. What's in a name? Salu -- where I discuss the name, what it may mean, and its form.
    .
13. Pinchas sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos. Plus a number of meforshim on the parsha and haftarah.
    .
14. Why the war with Midian before Moshe's death? From Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, that they should not think Moshe did not take revenge upon them on behalf of Klal Yisrael because he, too, was guilty.
    a
15. Teshi, with a unique small yud -- but if the masorah states that the yud in Teshi, in Haazinu, is unique, then how can the yud in Pinchas be small?! See also post #3 from the same year.

2008

1. Every week, I first try to plot out what posts I am going to make by going through the parsha with and without various meforshim and noting to myself points of interest. Since I am (more or less) the same individual, going through the same parsha, it can easily occur the same points of interest occur to me from one year to the next. And where I am not careful to first read through old posts, I might end up posting the same thing. That happened this year, with Pashta-Zakef or Mercha on UMinchatam, which is more or less identical to the last post from one year ago. In this version, I include more pictures and perhaps make it clearer. Also, this year, an anonymous commenter suggests that the distinction between trup is musical rather than syntactic, as I had proposed.
   .
2. The ascension of Eliyahu, and the Pinchas-Eliyahu connection.
   .
3. Based in part on targum on the incident with Pinchas (at the end of Balak) as one of many sources, we see that beis torfah does not mean "thigh area," but the pudenda, in contrast with the misinterpretation provided by Rabbi Falk in his Oz veHadar Levushah.

2007

1. Why Isn't Zimri Identified by Name Initially?
   To show the degree to which Bnei Yisrael were attached to Baal Peor? But note Kozbi is also not identified. Various precedents, and then stylistic suggestions. Perhaps to show that Pinchas did not concern himself with rank, or to better stress Cosbi's Midianite identity.
2. Midiantites as a Generic term?
   This would solve problems locally and by the sale of Yosef.
3. Why the Count, and Why The Break Mid-Pasuk?
   Perhaps the preceding plague, perhaps as a closing count matching the count as they left Egypt. I suggest also a count in preparation for war against the Midiantites, And perhaps the pause in mid-pasuk because not just the command, but the entire section, was an interjection, placed by Moshe after the fact.
4. Pinchas or Pinechas?
   Do we pronounce a sheva na in his name? Is there a keri and ketiv in play?
5. Pinchas Picture Punning Puzzle
   .
6. Chirik Chaser vs. Chirik Malei in Aramaic (as a followup to Pinchas or Pinechas)
   .
7. Points on Pinchas
   Individual points that would not merit individual posts.
8. Zimri as the Gilgul of Shechem
9. The trup on UMinchatam
   Shadal notes trup at odds with the minchat shai, and suggests both are possible.

2006

• Brit Kehunat Olam. What Exactly Did Pinchas Get? Also, how could Pinchas Kill Zimri?
• Wasn't he already a kohen? Rashi's famous answer about Pinchas' missing out before. But wouldn't certain Leviim be excluded under the same? Other pashtanim: the high priesthood. How could Pinchas kill Zimri? Would this not make him impure? One answer is that he was not yet a kohen; another is that Zimri was a goses until he left the tent.
• Who was Cosbi bat Tzur?
• How Tg Yonanat creatively reparses the pasuk, such that Tzur becomes Balak.
• Blog Roundup
• What other blogs are saying about Pinchas
• Chamber or Belly?
• Did Pinchas thrust the spear into her belly (/womb)? Or did he kill her in her tent, just as he killed Zimri in his tent? Different approaches on the level of peshat. Then, more parsing of the pasuk to get all the details of the midrashic approach in Sanhedrin.

2005

• 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.

to be continued...