At the end of parashat Balak we read: “When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, 8 he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked” (Numbers 25:7-8). Parashat Pinhas begins with the reward granted to Phinehas for his action: “Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the Israelites when he zealously acted for my zeal in their midst, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My zeal.  Therefore say:  I grant him My covenant of peace. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he acted zealously for his God, and atoned for the Israelites” (25:11-12).

From these verses it is clear that Phinehas’ action was justified. He is described as acting “for my zeal.” In other words, Phinehas is portrayed as acting on God’s behalf in the performance of His will, and therefore, he is rewarded.

Nevertheless, the sages considered Phinehas’ conduct problematic. Thus, for example, the Talmud discusses what answer a court should give to a person like Phinehas who seeks its advice: “If he comes to take counsel, we do not instruct him to do so” (Sanhedrin 82a).In other words, the rabbis would not tell Phinehas that killing the sinners is permitted. The Talmud continues: “Moreover, had Zimri left [Cozbi] and Phinehas slain him, Phinehas would have been executed on his account.” In other words, Phinehas’ conduct was acceptable only because it was performed in flagrante delicto. Otherwise, Phinehas would have been guilty of a capital crime. In addition, “had Zimri turned upon Phinehas and slain him, he would not have been executed, since Phinehas was a pursuer (rodef).” In other words, had Zimri killed Phinehas, it would have been deemed self-defence.

The Netziv (R. Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893) suggests a different understanding of the significance of the reward granted Phinehas for his zealousness. In his commentary Ha’amek Davar, he writes that Phinehas is granted God’s “covenant of peace: in order “to protect Phinehas from the destructive impulse within him”.

1. According to the plain meaning of the narrative, Phinehas’ conduct is justified and desirable, yet it would seem that the sages did not view it as justifiable a priori, but only as excusable after the fact. If the Bible clearly indicates that Phinehas’ conduct was acceptable to God, how could the sages criticize it?

2. The Mishana says: “These may be delivered [from transgression] at the cost of their lives: he that pursues [rodef] after his fellow to kill him…” (Sanhedrin 8:7). In other words, a person who attempts to kill another is called a “pursuer” (rodef), and a pursuer can be killed in order to prevent him from committing a transgression. It is interesting to note that the moral justification for killing the pursuer is not directly based upon the positive value of saving a human life, but rather upon saving the pursuer from committing a sin that is so grave that his death is preferable. In view of the extremely negative, antisocial connotation of the term “pursuer”, why did the sages choose to apply this term to Phinehas, who would appear to have acted for the public good?

3. The Netziv viewed the reward given to Phinehas as a means for tikkun – as a remedy intended to “save” him. Can this approach help us answer the above questions?

4. The Mishna says: “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them close to the Torah” (Avot 1:12). Might we say that according to the approach of the Netziv, Phinehas was made Aaron’s heir to the High Priesthood not because he was like his father, but in order that he become like his father?