Peace and Pinchas -- again

In my previous post, Picking the Right Fight, I discussed why Hillel (Avot 1:12) urged us to emulate Aharon—and not Moshe or Pinchas—when loving peace and seeking it. After citing episodes from the Torah that suggest that Moshe, for all his greatness, was not particularly successful at pursuing peace, I wrote:

If Hillel’s citation of Aharon in this mishnah invites us to draw comparison with Moshe, it can also be said to do so with regard to his grandson, Pinchas. It is with Pinchas that God establishes His covenant of peace (Bemidbar 25:12) after he restored order and halted a plague through his decisive action (Bemidbar 25:6-8). However, while the name of Pinchas is eternally bound in with peace, this is a form of peace-making that, we are taught, is not for us to emulate. So, taking their track records into account, it would hardly have been appropriate for Hillel to urge us to be talmidim of either Moshe or Pinchas if peace was our objective.

Today, in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, I read the following:

During the Three Weeks (17 Tamuz – 9 Av) we remember the destruction of both Holy Temples in Jerusalem. The First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians and the Second Temple by the Romans. This is an appropriate time to recall and to follow the examples of Aaron and Pinchas. When we do so, we will avoid the errors that led to destruction, and can we learn the lessons that can bring true peace to our world [my italics].

I cannot believe that any of us today is entitled to follow the example of Pinchas. According to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 9:7):

תני שלא ברצון חכמים ופינחס שלא ברצון חכמים אמר ר יודה בר פזי בקשו לנדותו אלולי שקפצה עליו רוח הקודש ואמרה וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַֽחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם וגו

It is taught: This was not met with the approval of the Sages. But could Pinchas have acted against the approval of the Sages? Rabbi Yudah bar Pazi said: “They sought to excommunicate him, if the Holy Spirit had not alighted upon him and said “And he and his seed after him will possess a covenant of eternal priesthood etc…’”

With respect to the author of the piece in the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, I think that Pinchas’ killing of Cozbi and Zimri raises two separate issues here. The first is whether he acted correctly. The second is whether we should emulate him and/or follow his example.

Pinchas’ action goes plainly against the norms of conduct by which we are told to act. It is an extrajudicial execution that complies with none of the procedures stipulated by the Written and Oral Torah and by which we are bound. This same action is however not only sanctioned but rewarded at the highest possible level, by God Himself and lies above both human understanding and criticism. Pinchas therefore acted correctly.

Our generation today is not gifted with the sort of direct divine inspiration that guided the hand of not only Pinchas but other worthy personalities of his generation (for example Betzalel). While extrajudicial action is permitted in order to save a life and kill a rodef, an attacker, the circumstances in which we may do so are strictly limited, and if you or I were to act like Pinchas and claim that we were infused by the ruach hakodesh, I doubt if anyone would accept our plea. This, in short, is why I feel that, while we should study and seek to understand the actions of Pinchas, we should not seek to emulate them.