This Shabbas Kodesh, we will read parshas Pinchas. In a non-leap year, it always falls during the first of the three weeks of Bein HaMetzarim. This name is derived from the passuk (Eichah 1, 3): "כל רודפיה השיגוה בין המצרים"—all her pursuers overtook her “bein hametzarim” (literally: “between the narrow straits,” referring to times of trouble, dire straits). During this period between Shivah Asar B’Tamuz and Tishah B’Av, every Jew has an added obligation to feel distress and concern over the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael’s state of exile.
Now, we have learned in the Gemara (Megillah 31b) that Ezra HaSofer arranged all the weekly Torah-readings to coincide with the annual cycle of Shabbasos with precision and intent. Thus, it behooves us to establish a connection between parshas Pinchas and the period of Bein HaMetzarim.
Pinchas Is Eliyahu Who Will Announce the Arrival of the Geulah
As we like to explain every year, Ezra HaSofer intentionally chose to begin the Torah-readings of the three weeks of Bein HaMetzarim with parshas Pinchas, because at the beginning of the parsha, we are taught that Pinchas is Eliyahu HaNavi. For saving Yisrael from annihilation, HKB”H promised him that he would live forever and come to announce the arrival of the future geulah to Yisrael. Here is the pertinent text (Bamidbar 25, 10):
"וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר, פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל, בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי, לכן אמור הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום".
Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Pinchas the son of Elazar, the son of Aharon HaKohen, turned back My wrath from upon Bnei Yisrael, when he zealously avenged Me among them; so, I did not consume Bnei Yisrael in My vengeance. Therefore, say: Behold! I give him My covenant of peace.
The Targum YoNasan comments: האנא ,את בריתי שלום« למבשרא גאולתא בסוף ,ואעבדיניה מלאך קיים ויחי לעלמא ,גזר ליה ית קימי שלם »יומיא -- I will establish My peace covenant with him by making him a malach and a messenger who will live for all eternity; he will be the one to announce the redemption at the end of time. In other words, Pinchas is one and the same as Eliyahu HaNavi who ascended to the heavens while still alive without experiencing death; he will herald in the geulah for Yisrael at the end of days. At first glance, this Targum YoNasan is rather obscure. Where do we find in this passuk: »הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום«—Behold! I give him My covenant of peace—any reference to the fact that Pinchas is destined to become Eliyahu and to announce the future and final redemption? We find an explanation by dint of allusion in the commentary of Rabeinu Bachayei: I heard that the word (“shalom”) is an abbreviation for של"א למו"ת (“never dying”); this reinforces the tradition (teaching) of our Rabbis of blessed memory that Pinchas is Eliyahu.
Additionally, it appears that the Targum YoNasan is referring to an exposition here in the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Pinchas is Eliyahu! HKB”H said to him: You established peace between Yisrael and Me in Olam HaZeh; so, too, le’asid la’vo you will be the one to establish peace between Me and My children. As it says (Malachi 3, 23): “Behold, I send you Eliyahu HaNavi before the coming of the great and awesome day of Hashem. And he will turn back the hearts of fathers with their sons and the hearts of sons with their fathers.”
This enlightens us as to why Ezra HaSofer instituted the reading of parshas Pinchas at the beginning of the three weeks of Bein HaMetzarim. Since this is a time when all Jews lament the churban of the Beis HaMikdash and our prolonged state of galus, it is encouraging and uplifting to recall the zealous, heroic act of Pinchas. He was willing to sacrifice his own life to protect the honor of Hashem and to save Yisrael from extermination. By reading this parsha, we wish to arouse divine mercy in the hope that HKB”H will fulfill his promise to Pinchas/Eliyahu: “Behold! I give him My covenant of ‘shalom’”—that he will be privileged to come and announce to Yisrael the arrival of the complete geulah, swiftly, in our times.
It is now incumbent upon us to explain in greater depth how Pinchas’ reward exemplifies the concept of “midah k’neged midah.” Why did killing Zimri and thereby saving Yisrael from extermination warrant Pinchas the privilege of heralding in the future geulah?
Pinchas Only Became a Kohen after the Neshamos of Nadav and Avihu Entered Him
Let us begin with a teaching in the Zohar hakadosh (Pinchas 217a). We learn an amazing fact! It is written (Bamidbar 25, 7): "ויקם מתוך העדה ויקח רומח בידו"—he stood up from the midst of the assembly, and he took a spear in his hand. To avenge Hashem and to save his people, he zealously killed Zimri the son of Salu. Zimri’s shevet, Shevet Shimon, rose up against Pinchas. Due to his extreme fear, his neshamah left him; however, the neshamos of Nadav and Avihu came to his rescue. From the time of their demise, they had not found a resting place until they entered the being of Pinchas. According to the Zohar hakadosh, this is the reason the Torah details his lineage back to Aharon HaKohen: "פנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן"—Pinchas the son of Elazar, the son of Aharon HaKohen.
In other words, until then, he had merely been the son of Elazar. At that moment, he actually became the son of Aharon HaKohen, since the neshamos of Nadav and Avihu, Aharon’s sons, had become part of him.
According to the Zohar hakadosh, this explains magnificently why Pinchas did not become a kohen until after he killed Zimri. In the words of the Gemara (Zevachim 101b): "לא נתכהן פינחס עד שהרגו לזמרי"—Pinchas did not become a kohen until he killed Zimri. In his commentary on the Torah, Rashi explains the reason for this: For even though the kehunah had already been given to the offspring of Aharon, it had not been given to anyone but Aharon and to his sons who were anointed with him, and to the progeny whom they would beget after their anointing. But Pinchas, who was born before then (before they were anointed), was not included in the kehunah.
So, why did Pinchas merit becoming a kohen after killing Zimri, even though he had not been anointed along with Aharon? The teaching of the Zohar answers this question. Seeing as the two neshamos of Nadav and Avihu entered him, and they had been anointed with their father Aharon, Pinchas became qualified for the kehunah through them.
We must now endeavor to explain why HKB”H afforded the neshamos of Nadav and Avihu their tikun specifically by having them enter Pinchas at the moment he performed this zealous act. Additionally, what is the connection between the tikun of their neshamos and Pinchas’ reward—becoming Eliyahu HaNavi, the herald of the future geulah?
When Will These Two Old Men Die and We Will Be in Charge
We will begin to shed some light on the matter by introducing a fascinating Midrash (V.R. 20, 10) related to the passuk (Shemos 24, 1): “To Moshe He (G-d) said, ‘Go up to Hashem, you, Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu.’” This teaches that Moshe and Aharon walked first; Nadav and Avihu walked behind them; and all of Yisrael after them. And they (Nadav and Avihu) were saying, “When will these two elders die, and we will assume authority over the public?” . . . HKB”H said to them (Mishlei 27, 1): “Do not boast about tomorrow.”
This is indeed surprising! After all, in parshas Shemini, the Torah gives a different reason for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu (Vayikra 10, 1): "ויקחו בני אהרן נדב ואביהוא איש מחתתו ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטורת, ויקריבו לפני ה' אש זרה אשר לא צוה אותם, ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם וימותו לפני ה'." Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his own pan, and put fire in them; they placed “ketores” (incense) on it (the fire). Thus, they brought an unauthorized fire before Hashem, which He had not commanded them to do. A fire emerged from Hashem and consumed them; thus, they died before Hashem. Yet here the Midrash suggests another reason for their deaths—because they spoke disrespectfully about Moshe and Aharon.
Furthermore, another passuk states explicitly (ibid. 3): "ויאמר משה אל אהרן, הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמר, בקרובי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד, וידום אהרן". Moshe said to Aharon: Of this did Hashem speak, saying: “I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me, and I will be honored before the entire people”; and Aharon fell silent. Rashi comments: Moshe said to Aharon, “Aharon my brother, I knew that the House would become sanctified through those intimate with the Omnipresent. I was under the impression that it would be either through me or through you. Now I see that they are greater than me and you.” This attests to the high degree of kedushah of Nadav and Avihu.
Additionally, we are familiar with the commentary of the Ohr HaChaim hakadosh on the passuk (ibid. 16, 1): "וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו"—Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they approached before Hashem, and they died. He explains that Nadav and Avihu perished, because they drew exceedingly close to Hashem. Due to this extreme intimacy with the divine, their souls left them via a divine kiss, in keeping with the passuk (Shir HaShirim 5, 6): "נפשי יצאה בדברו"—my soul departed as He spoke! Hence, it is hard to believe that these two holy men would have spoken disparagingly of their Rav and their father, Moshe and Aharon, saying: “When will these two old men die, and we will assume authority over the public?”
In fact, in the Likutim of the Chiddushei HaRim (Shemini), he writes that although the world is astonished by this comment, it is not hard to understand coming from men like Nadav and Avihu, because everything they did was for the sake of Heaven; they had no personal, ulterior motives whatsoever. Nevertheless, to the best of our limited abilities, we will try to gain a better understanding of their profound intent.
Mitzvos Will Be Annulled Le’asid La’Vo
I would like to propose a way of clarifying the puzzling remarks of our sages by referring to what the great Rabbi YehoNasan Eybeschutz, zy”a, writes in Yearos Dvash (Part 2, Derashah 9) regarding Chazal’s statement (Niddah 61b): "מצוות בטילות לעתיד לבוא"—mitzvos will be abolished le’asid la’vo. According to the Ritva, this implies that in the future Yisrael will fulfill the mitzvos of their own free will; thus, they will be categorized as those who perform without being commanded to do so—“eino metzuveh v’oseh.” Why, indeed, will they perform the mitzvos le’asid la’vo as someone who is not commanded but does so, nevertheless?
To explain the matter, the Yearos Dvash refers to what we have learned in the Gemara (Kiddushin 31a): "אמר רב יוסף מריש הוה אמינא, מאן דהוה אמר לי הלכה כרבי יהודה דאמר סומא פטור מן המצוות, עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן דהא לא מיפקידנא והא עבידנא, השתא דשמעיתא להא דאמר רבי חנינא גדול מצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה, אדרבה מאן דאמר לי דאין הלכה כרבי יהודה עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן". Initially, Rav Yosef, who was blind, believed that someone who is not obliged to perform the mitzvos and fulfills them anyway is superior to someone who fulfills the mitzvos, because he is obliged to do so. This prompted him to announce that he would make a feast for the sages if anyone would tell him that the halachah accords with Rabbi Yehudah’s viewpoint that a blind man is not obliged to fulfill any of the mitzvos. For, being blind, he fulfills the mitzvos even though he is not obligated to do so. However, after Rabbi Chanina pronounced that someone who is obliged to perform the mitzvos and does so—“metzuveh v’oseh”—is superior to someone who is not obliged to perform the mitzvos and does so, he reversed his offer. Instead, he announced that if anyone would pronounce that the halachah does not accord with Rabbi Yehudah—in other words, obligating a blind man to fulfill all of the mitzvos—he, Rav Yosef, would make a feast for the sages.
Apropos this issue, Tosafos wrote (ibid.): "גדול המצווה ועושה, נראה דהיינו טעמא, דמי שמצווה ועושה עדיף, לפי שדואג ומצטער יותר פן יעבור, ממי שאין מצווה שיש לו פת בסלו שאם ירצה יניח". “Metzuveh v’oseh” is greater, because he is concerned and worried that he may transgress and violate a direct command. This is in direct contrast to one who is not commanded to perform the mitzvah. He has the luxury of performing the mitzvah at his own discretion and leisure.
Now, basic logic would suggest just the opposite. It seems more meritorious and praiseworthy to perform a mitzvah without being commanded to do so. After all, one is fulfilling the mitzvos voluntarily, out of one’s own free will. Nevertheless, the opposite is true, because someone who is commanded to perform a mitzvah is being assaulted by his yetzer hara, who is trying to persuade him to be noncompliant.
Now, we are taught in the Gemara (Succah 52a) that le’asid la’vo, the yetzer hara will cease to exist: "לעתיד לבוא מביאו הקב"ה ליצר הרע ושוחטו בפני הצדיקים ובפני הרשעים"—le’asid la’vo, HKB”H will bring the yetzer hara and slaughter it in the presence of the tzaddikim and in the presence of the reshaim. With the yetzer hara out of the picture, the logical situation will prevail. One who performs a mitzvah even though he is not commanded to do so will be considered greater than one who performs a mitzvah because he is commanded to do so—“gadol eino mitzuveh v’oseh mimitzuveh v’oseh.” For, Tosafos’s reasoning will no longer apply le’asid la’vo; there will be no yetzer hara to harass a person who is obligated to perform the mitzvos.
Therefore, Chazal’s statement makes perfect sense: "מצוות בטילות לעתיד לבוא"—mitzvos will be abolished le’asid la’vo. Then people will fulfill all of the mitzvos willingly out of the goodness of their hearts in the category of “eino mitzuveh v’oseh”; because in the absence of the yetzer hara “gadol eino mitzuveh v’oseh mimitzuveh v’oseh.”
When Yisrael Declared “Na’aseh V’Nishma” the Yetzer HaRa Was Uprooted from Their Hearts
We also find this explanation of the Yearos Dvash in the writings of the Yismach Moshe (Yisro) related to the Midrash: "בשעה שאמרו ישראל נעשה ונשמע נעקר יצר הרע מלבם"—when Yisrael declared “na’aseh v’nishma,” the yetzer hara was uprooted from their hearts. The declaration “na’aseh” suggests that Yisrael initially intended to perform the mitzvos as “eino mitzuveh v’oseh”—someone who is not commanded but does so; and only afterwards as “mitzuveh v’oseh”—“v’nishma.” This creates a difficulty, since we hold like Rabbi Chanina: "גדול מצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה". So, why did Yisrael declare “na’aseh” prior to “nishma” as if they were aspiring to the lower level of performing mitzvos?
To resolve this difficulty, let us analyze the wording of the Midrash. When they declared “na’aseh v’nishma,” "נעקר יצר הרע מלבם". In other words, at Matan Torah, prior to the “cheit ha’eigel,” they were unencumbered by the yetzer hara. Hence, they fell into the category of “gadol eino mitzuveh v’oseh mimitzuveh v’oseh.” Since they did not have to contend with the yetzer hara, it makes sense that they said “na’aseh” prior to “nishma.”
Based on this introduction, the Yismach Moshe also explains the Gemara (Shabbas 88a): "בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע יצתה בת קול ואמרה להן, מי גילה לבני רז זה שמלאכי השרת משתמשין בו, דכתיב ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו, ברישא עושי דברו והדר לשמוע". When Yisrael pronounced “na’aseh” prior to “nishma,” a heavenly voice went out and said to them, “Who revealed to My children the secret employed by the ministering angels?” But why do the ministering angels specifically pronounce “na’aseh” prior to “nishma”?
In terms of what we have learned, this makes perfect sense. After all, the malachim do not have a yetzer hara. Therefore, the logic that someone who is “eino mitzuveh v’oseh” is superior to someone who is “mitzuveh v’oseh” is valid for them. Hence, they pronounce “na’aseh” prior to “nishma.” They desire to fulfill the will of Hashem without being commanded to do so. Similarly, at Matan Torah, since Yisrael were free of the yetzer hara, they also declared “na’aseh” prior to “nishma.” This prompted the heavenly voice to inquire: “Who revealed to My children the secret employed by the ministering angels?”
Nadav and Avihu Intended to Accomplish the Ultimate Tikun
Proceeding along this path, we will now endeavor to explain the brazen remark made by Nadav and Avihu: “When will these two old men die, and we will assume authority over the public?” The Chiddushei HaRim (Acharei) brings down in the name of our master the Arizal (Sha’ar HaPesukim, Shemini) that Nadav and Avihu sought to rectify the cheit of Adam HaRishon; this was an extremely challenging, difficult task! Instead of accomplishing this tikun, they sinned by performing a service that they had not been commanded to do.
The Arizal admonishes us not to think erroneously that Nadav and Avihu made such a gross error in judgment by actually offering an unauthorized fire, chas v’shalom. After all, they were equivalent to Moshe and Aharon, and HKB”H said of them, “I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me.” It is analogous to the cheit of Adam HaRishon, and the four sages who entered the Pardes—three of whom were punished. They all had an important, lofty intent. As leaders of Bnei Yisrael, they all sought to rectify a heavenly blemish from the forces of evil. Unfortunately, they failed, erred in what they did, and were punished for performing unintentional sins.
Nadav and Avihu Represented the Situation Prior to the Cheit HaEigel
It appears that we can insinuate this from the comment of the Chiddushei HaRim (ibid.): "נדב ואביהוא היו כמו קודם חטא העגל שהקדימו נעשה לנשמע, וזהו הפירוש אשר לא צוה אותם"—the situation of Nadav and Avihu was similar to the situation prior to the “cheit ha’eigel,” when the people pronounced “na’aseh” prior to “nishma.” This is what is implied by the characterization “which He had not commanded them to do.” As we learned from the Yismach Moshe, prior to the “cheit ha’eigel,” Yisrael declared “na’aseh” prior to “nishma,” because the yetzer hara had been uprooted from their hearts. In that situation, it was superior to be one who is not commanded and does—“eino metzuveh v’oseh.” The same applied to Nadav and Avihu, who represented the situation of prior to the “cheit ha’eigel.” Therefore, they performed a service of their own volition without being commanded to do so.
This illuminates for us the aforementioned, enigmatic words of Chazal: This teaches that Moshe and Aharon walked first; Nadav and Avihu walked behind them; and all of Yisrael after them. And they (Nadav and Avihu) were saying, “When will these two elders die, and we will assume authority over the public?” This should not be interpreted as meaning that they longed to be in charge and were belittling Moshe and Aharon, chas v’shalom. Rather, they were referring to Moshe and Aharon as the old guard, representing the performance of mitzvos categorized as “metzuveh v’oseh,” as per the passuk (Devarim 33, 4): "תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב"—the Torah that Moshe commanded us is the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov.
The same is true of how Aharon HaKohen taught Torah to Bnei Yisrael, as attested to by the navi (Malachi 2, 6): "תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו, בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי ורבים השיב מעון, כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא". The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and with fairness and turned many away from iniquity. For the lips of the Kohen should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth; for he is an agent of Hashem, Master of Legions. Thus, there should be no doubt that Nadav and Avihu respected Moshe and Aharon and were totally subservient to their immense kedushah.
They longed, however, to make amends for the cheit of Adam HaRishon and to hasten the tikun of the end of days, when the following would prevail: "מצוות בטילות לעתיד לבוא". Then, mitzvos will not be performed as “metzuveh v’oseh” but rather as “eino metzuveh v’oseh.”
Therefore, due to their intense desire to accomplish the tikun of the end of days, they said: “When will these two elders die?” They wanted the methodology of Moshe and Aharon to cease—the performance of mitzvos as “metzuveh v’oseh.” Instead: “We will assume authority over the public”—we will begin performing mitzvos as “eino metzuveh v’oseh.” Hence, they offered an unauthorized fire, “which He had not commanded them to do,” because they felt that the time of the complete tikun of the end of days had arrived.
Pinchas the Son of Elazar Sacrificed His Life to Execute a Halachah that Is Not Necessarily Enforced
We will complete this sublime journey by explaining the incredible tikun afforded the neshamos of Nadav and Avihu by entering Pinchas when he went to kill Zimri ben Salu. Concerning Zimri ben Salu, who brought Cozbi bas Tzur to Moshe Rabeinu, we are taught in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 82a):
"תפשה בבלוריתה והביאה אצל משה, אמר לו, בן עמרם זו אסורה או מותרת, ואם תאמר אסורה, בת יתרו מי התירה לך. נתעלמה ממנו הלכה, געו כולם בבכיה, והיינו דכתיב והמה בוכים פתח אהל מועד, וכתיב וירא פנחס בן אלעזר. מה ראה, אמר רב, ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה, אמר לו, אחי אבי אבא, לא כך לימדתני ברדתך מהר סיני, הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו, אמר לו, קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא".
