Joshua or Pinchas?

Pinchas

Num. 25:10 - 30:1

 

Précis: This parasha begins with a reward for Pinchas’ zealotry in slaying the offending adulterers at the conclusion of the previous parasha (the hereditary High Priesthood). The laws of inheritance are amended to provide, at least in certain cases, for daughters to inherit their fathers’ estates. Joshua is appointed the successor to Moses as leader of the People. The parasha then shifts to details of sacrifices.  

Num. 27:15 -16 “And Moses spoke to Adonai saying, ‘Let Adonai, God of the spirit of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who will go in front of them and who will bring them out and who will bring them in, so that Adonai’s congregation won’t be like sheep without a shepherd.…’”

 

Once Moses has accepted that a new leader for Israel is required, the question then turns to whom the succession will fall.  There were probably three potential followers. First, it could be the military leader Joshua, who displayed his virtue during the episode of the spies.  Second, it might have been Pinchas, who had just been awarded the most significant religious leadership position, that of High Priest, due to his zealotry. Finally, it could have been Moses’ own first-born son, given that primogeniture was the rule among nations at that time.  But it was Joshua who was selected. Why?

            Traditional commentary states that Moses feared Pinchas’ zealotry, since tolerance is an essential part of leadership. Moses’ sons, according to Midrash, refused to study Torah (a metaphor for not following God’s Law). Joshua alone had demonstrated the ability to lead as a shepherd tends his flock and had shown faith in God. He thus merited the leadership role.

            As we celebrate America’s 250^th anniversary this Shabbat, we should consider the kind of leadership we have now, and the kind of leadership we should work for in the coming months and years. May God grant us Joshuas and save us from Pinchases as we enter the next phase of the American Experiment.

            

A People Apart

 Chukat-Balak

Num. 19:1 – 25:9

 

Précis: Chukat begins with a discussion of the Red Heifer, used for ritual purification after one comes into contact with a dead body. The story then shifts to the death of Miriam. With her death, the well of water which had accompanied their travels disappears, and Moses strikes a rock to provide water to the People. Aaron also dies and the Israelites engage in a series of battles which conclude the parasha.

In Balak, the King of Moab, fearful of the success of the Israelites in war, hires a local magician named Bilaam to place a curse upon the Israelites. Bilaam begins the journey riding upon his ass, which refuses to proceed and talks to Bilaam, protesting Bilaam’s foul treatment. Bilaam eventually pronounces a blessing. At the end of the parasha, Pinchas sees an Israelite having sexual relations with a Midianite woman and slays both of them.

 

Num. 23:9 “It is a nation dwelling alone, not reckoned among the nations.”

 

Rabbi Sacks tells the following story (Rabbi Sacks Legacy, 7/10/25):

“The year is 1933. Two Jews are sitting in a Viennese coffee house, reading the news. One is reading the local Jewish paper, the other the notoriously antisemitic publication Der Stürmer. “How can you possibly read that revolting rubbish?” says the first. The second smiles. “What does your paper say? Let me guess: ‘The Jews are assimilating.’ ‘The Jews are arguing.’ ‘The Jews are disappearing.’ Now let me tell you what my paper says: ‘The Jews control the banks.’ ‘The Jews control the media.’ ‘The Jews control Austria.’ ‘The Jews control the world.’ My friend, if you want good news about the Jews, always pay attention to the antisemites.”

In this week’s parasha, the verse cited above becomes of paramount importance. What do these words imply? Ibn Ezra suggested that even when widely dispersed among other nations, Jews will not assimilate. There are two ways a people become a nation: a group faces a common enemy and bands together forming a nation, or a group living in a land, develops a shared culture and forms a society, becoming a nation. Jews (at least from the time of the Babylonian Exile) did neither. They were spread widely, did not share the same language, did not have a common political experience, and did not share the same fate.  

Nevertheless, we saw ourselves as a nation. Uniquely, for us, religion and nationhood coincided. We were a People even when exiled from our national territory, a unique experience among all nations. Bilaam was correct: the Jewish People are different than all other peoples. What makes us a “nation dwelling apart” is that our nationality is not a matter of geography, politics, or ethnicity. It is a matter of a common way of life and adherence to a common core of moral teaching, creating a unique way of life.

Today, the antisemites again are active in their critique of our exceptionalism. We are, depending on the orientation of the antisemites, either in control of everything or of nothing, either mighty colonialists or subhumans not deserving a physical home. We are behind both the “socialist antifa” conspiracy and the capitalist “Epstein class.” Jew hatred comes from all directions.

It is claimed that Israel (read Jews) led the U.S. into a war with Iran, and prevents the U.S. from reaching peace with Iran by attacking Lebanon. Incredibly, the U.S. has signed an agreement with Iran which requires a third party (Israel) to cease defending itself against an armed group (Hezbollah) supported, paid, and directed by Iran. When the “peace agreement” inevitably fails, Israel (Jews) will once again be cast as a “nation apart.” We’ve survived for 3,000 years, and we will continue to do so.