Parashat Pinchas (5760)

With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Pinchas, 5760

Zeal and Truth

In our portion, the Torah recounts the praise of Phinehas, who killed Zimri and Cozbi daughter of Zur. God says:

“Phinehas … turned back My wrath from the children of Israel by being zealous with My zeal in their midst, so that I did not destroy the children

of Israel in My zeal” (Num. 25:11). That is, God Himself is zealous, and Phinehas merely acted with His zeal. Phinehas receives for

this a reward from God: “It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous

for his God …” (Num. 25:13).

In the prophetic reading we encounter another zealot, Elijah the prophet. After the killing of the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel,

it is written: “And he said, ‘I have been very zealous for the Lord, God of Hosts …’” (I Kings 19:10). It is not for nothing that the Sages say that Elijah

the prophet is Phinehas (see Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 47).

Today zealotry is regarded by most people as a reprehensible trait, but in Scripture this is not so.

Zeal that is for the sake of God is a praiseworthy trait, worthy of reward, provided that it is solely for God’s sake.

In such a case, zeal is an imitation of God’s attributes, for, as stated,

He Himself is described as zealous. The condition for proper zeal is certainty that this is the truth. God always possesses such certainty,

and therefore He is capable of being zealous. Phinehas and Elijah were the kind of people who, even as human beings, knew

the truth as it really is, and therefore were prepared to be zealous for it.

In this definition there is a hint as to why zealotry is today considered a reprehensible trait, perhaps

the most reprehensible of all. The reason is mainly that today there is no legitimacy for a sense of certainty. Truth today

is regarded as relative, as people are accustomed to say, “no one has a monopoly on it”; consequently there is no place

for zealotry, which rests on certainty at its foundation. To be sure, such an approach has a measure of benefit, for if one grants

legitimacy to zealotry, all sorts of groups can arise and act zealously, even kill (like Phinehas

and Elijah), for reasons over which we have no control, and without any decision by authorized institutions.

On the other hand, it is important to note that the price we pay for this approach is exceedingly high.

We arrive at a situation in which even one who is convinced of the justice of his position feels obliged to doubt, to cast doubt,

and to “understand the other side.” Here too, of course, there is great benefit, but at times this is not so.

There are approaches, or situations, in which the price of doubt is too high, and then there is no place

for tolerance. Not every piece of nonsense, or slogan (even a widespread one), necessarily contains some measure of truth

worthy of attention and consideration. The absence of zealotry may lead, and indeed leads, to the absence

of any sense of certainty and truth at all, and this is an exceedingly high price.

Rousseau said that even if he does not agree with a single word that his opponent says, he is prepared to die for

his right to say what he says. The reason for such chivalrous tolerance is the understanding that the truth may

lie with the other, and therefore I must give him an opportunity to state his case, and perhaps even be persuaded by him. In a world

in which tolerance is derived from the absence of any concept of truth at all, or at least from the belief that it cannot be attained,

there is likewise no point in tolerance. True, the truth is not with me, but neither is it with my opponent.

I personally, for example, am not prepared to die for anyone’s right to say things devoid

of sense and meaning.

Even the aspiration to peace, so common in our part of the world, generally does not stem from an aspiration to a life of

spiritual endeavor, or of clarifying any truths whatsoever. The main reason for the weakness of Western society

in general, and Israeli society in particular, is the feeling that there are no such truths at all, as in that

line from the well-known song: “without anything at all worth dying for.” It seems to me that if there is nothing

for which people are prepared to be zealous, there is no point in tolerance. In a world in which there is no truth, there is no point

in pluralism. In a world in which there is no engagement with truth, there is no point in peace. In a world in which there is nothing worth

dying (and killing) for, there is no point in life.

We thus learn that the absence of zealotry may testify to spiritual virtue, but also, and perhaps

primarily, to a deficiency.

Ironically, this point is also relevant to the phenomenon of violence spreading among us. In a world in which

there is no way to arrive at clarification through rational discussion, since there is no truth, the only way

to “persuade” another person is by beating him (if not worse). The modern

and postmodern relinquishing of the very concept of truth, which was fundamentally intended to prevent violence and the imposition of

total ideologies over others, in fact leads to more violence. Of course, there is no one

who will admit this, for that would be “heresy against the fundamentals.” It is taken for granted that religious faith is the one and only

thing that leads to violence, and not, God forbid, left-wing secular “enlightenment.” The prisons are full

of murderers, rapists, and those who abuse family members, most of whom come from secular society, and this is a result

of secular “culture” and the throwing off of restraint found within it. Despite all this, it is clear to everyone (!)

that the main source of the potential for violence today is “fanatical” religious belief (see Yigal

Amir). If that itself is not a “religious,” mystical, fanatical, and unfounded belief, I do not know

what such a belief is.

In the same absurd way, silencing political, social, and religious voices that express positions

different from those prevailing in public discourse (not in the public itself) can also lead

to violence. Filling the public media, the Supreme Court, the State Attorney’s Office, the army,

and the other positions of power in the state with people of a single worldview and culture, a practice that finds

expression in double standards toward those who hold other positions, and in a self-righteous and spurious denial of their

ability to speak publicly and to criticize—this is precisely what may compel the other side to act

forcefully. The “pluralism” whose purpose is to ensure the absence of violence often in fact encourages it.

In a world that is whole and meaningful, in which truth and falsehood exist, there is also zealotry.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be placed in a repository for sacred texts at any synagogue or religious academy. Comments and responses are welcome.

Biton48.doc