hate and love that eclipse all else; reward is only when you go the extra mile

Kozbi bas Tzur was a Midianite princess.  Rashi writes that We see the degree of hatred Midian had for Bn"Y from the fact they were willing to sacrifice even their nobility to the goal of causing Bn"Y to be chotei.  R' Shtienman in his Ayeles haShachar points out that the people of Midian were maaminim. They accepted that Hashem would be angered at Bn"Y's actions and take care of them. If Midyan believed in Hashem and knew he would be angered by arayos, then doesn't it follow that Hashem would also be angry at them for hatching such a plan? 

We see that a person can be so bent on bringing someone else down that they lose sight of the fact that in doing so their own actions are a far cry from causing nachas ruach to Hashem.  Apply as you will to current events. 

 

We have almost the flipside of this attitude in the parsha.  Pinchas gets a huge reward for curbing Hashem's anger against Bn"Y and bringing a mageifa to a halt.  פִּֽינְחָ֨ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי:  The Agra d'Kallah is medayek that 2 times the pasuk mentions ּ בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, but in the middle it doesn't mention their name, it just says בְּתוֹכָ֑ם.  The pasuk could just as well have ended  וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אותם, or could just as well have said in the beginning הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מעליהם.  Why  does it repeat the name of Bn"Y unnecessarily 2x and then leave it out?  He answers that the pasuk uses the full name בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל when speaking about Bn"Y being saved in order to emphasize that in essence, Bn"Y is pure and does not deserve punishment.  That's their identity.  When it comes to the middle of the pasuk where it speaks about בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י for what they did wrong, the pasuk switches to a pronoun, to a kinuy, because when it comes to doing wrong, that's not us, that's not our identity or who we are.  Then he adds an additional point:

 

עוד תתבונן בפסוק אהבת הבורא ית' לישראל, הגם שפנחס קינא קנאת הש"י, לא עשה הש"י מזה עיקר, רק להיות שנמשך עבור קנאתו הצלת ישראל, זה הוחשב לו לעיקר הזכות, וזה יורה באומרו השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו וכו' ולא כליתי וכו' לכן אמור וכו' (במדבר כה יב), כי זה הוא העיקר אשר מצא חן בעיני, וחש הבורא ית' על כבוד בניו יותר מכבודו

 

The ַקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is not the reason for the reward of Pinchas.  The reason for the reward is הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל and וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.  The קַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is just the means to that end. 

Hashem kavyachol turns a blind eye to his own kavod and instead places the emphasis on Bn"Y being saved, because His love of Bn"Y kavyachol outweighs all else.   

Midian is all about hatred blinding a person to their lack of kavod shamayim.  Pinchas' reward speak about Hashem's love outweighing even kavod Shamayim.  Opposite attitudes.

 

2) Pinchas saved Klal Yisrael and got this great reward.  Tremendous!  But didn't Moshe do that for 40 years?  Didn't Aharon in parshas Korach bring a stop to a mageifa by offering ketores?  Where is the applause for them, where is the special reward of a bris? 

 

I saw a beautiful answer.  Moshe and Aharon were the leaders of Klal Yisrael.  As leaders, they are supposed to stand up for their constituents, for the people.  That's their job.  You don't get extra rewards for doing your job.  Pinchas wasn't even a kohen (according to some shitos) yet.  He had no responsibility to stand up for anyone.  For him to step forward and take the bull by the horns, risking his life along the way, is above and beyond the call of duty.  That's why he gets reward.

korban musaf on shabbos and lechem mishneh

Around 2-3 weeks ago someone asked me whether a double portion of mon fell before Yom Tov and I pointed them to Tos in Beitzah 2b the end of d"h v'haya:

תימה דכאן משמע שהמן לא היה יורד בי"ט כדפי' רש"י הששי הראוי להכנה וזהו בחול והא אמר ויברך ויקדש ברכו במן וקדשו במן שבשבת לא היה יורד מן אבל בי"ט היה יורד וי"ל דמדרשים חלוקין כדאיתא במדרש (מכילתא פ' בשלח) שבת לא יהיה (שמות טז) לרבות יום הכפורים לא יהיה בו לרבות י"ט שלא היה יורד בהן מן ועי"ל דאפי' היה יורד בי"ט מ"מ בי"ט שחל להיות בע"ש לא היה יורד מדכתיב קרא בו ביום הששי ולא כתיב ששי משמע הששי המיוחד שהוא ראוי להכנה ולא בששי שהוא יו"ט 

The problem is that there are 2 halachos that we learn from the mon: 1) the requirement to have lechem mishneh to commemorate the double portion of mon; 2) we eat seudah shlishis on shabbos because there were 2 portions of mon left to eat on that day.  If a double portion of mon fell for Y"T like shabbos, and therefore we require lechem mishneh on Y"T, then shouldn't we also have to eat seudah shlishis on Y"T?  

Be that as it may, the reason I bring this topic up is because of the Daas Zekeinim/Hadar Zekeinim's explanation based on Midrash of why there are 2 sheep offered for the korban musaf on Shabbos:

כל מעשים של שבת כפולים. שירו כפול מזמור שיר ליום השבת. תענוגו כפול וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה׳ מכובד. עונשו כפול מחלליה מות יומת. לחמו כפול לחם משנה. קרבנותיו כפולים שני כבשים. וזהו שאנחנו אומרים ותצונו ה׳ אלהינו להקריב בה קרבן מוסף שבת כראוי לו.

The Ohr haChaim similarly comments:

טעם שמוסף שבת הוא מועט מכל מוספי ראש חודש ומוספי יום טוב והמועדים, הוא סוד לחם משנה

If you know what he means by "sod lechem mishneh," I guess keep it a secret.

The Abarbanel is having none of this:

ואמנם למה היה מוסף השבת שני כבשים כתמידין כתבו מאחרוני המפרשים שמפני שבשבת דבורו כפול זכור ושמור לכן היה קרבנו שני כבשי׳ כנגד שני הדבורים שנאמרו עליו ואינו נכון. כי הנה זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו

His explanation is that the 2 sheep correspond to the 2 reasons for shabbos, 1) zecher l'maaseh braishis; 2) zecher l'yetzi'as Mitzrayim, or they correspond to 1) the act of creation; 2) Hashem's hashgacha in maintaining creation.

In the sefer V'Darashta v'Chakarta (telita'ah, question #5 on the parsha), R' Grossman asks: if bringing 2 sheep corresponds to the doubling of the portion of mon, to the "sod lechem mishneh" as the Ohr haChaim puts it, then since a double portion also fell for Y"T shouldn't Y"T have the same korban as Shabbos?  

B'mechilas k'vodo, I don't understand the question.  Putting aside that whether the double potion fell for Y"T is a machlokes I still don't get it.  Maybe ain hachi nami, if there was no other reason for the musafim on Y"T, they would be the same as those of Shabbos.  But there are other reasons!  Because a double portion of mon fell for Y"T doesn't preclude our offering more korbanos to celebrate and recognize other aspects of Y"T that do not apply on shabbos.  Why should the "sod lechem mishneh" be dominant and push off the very good reasons (whatever they are -- see the various meforshim) we might have for offering an increased number of korbanos on Y"T?

To answer his questioh he suggests that there is a difference between the way the mon fell before shabbos vs the way it fell before Y"T.  Before shabbos the people would gather one portion of mon which would then miraculously double in size and they would find that they had twice as much as they had gathered.  Before Y"T, they would gather a double portion, i.e. twice as much as on a normal day.

It's like l'mashal 2 people who beis din paskens have to pay $200.  One has to pay $200 because they stole $100 and now have to pay keifel = $200.  The other has to pay $200 because they took a loan and owe $200.  That $200 is all keren, not keifel.  Shabbos is keifel, is one portion turned into two.  Y"T is a double portion k'peshuto, meaning the people gathered twice as much as they did on an ordinary day.

Unfortunately he does not quote any proofs to this assertion in this piece, but references what he wrote elsewhere in a piece that I have been unable to location online.  

when can a kohen become not a kohen? The chiddush of the Aderet and the bracha given to Pinchas

The gemara Zevachim 101b tells us that even though Aharon and his children had been anointed as kohanim and been invested in their job during the days of miluim, Pinchas was not counted among them and it was not until this parsha that he became a kohen:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם 

The gemara quotes a second opinion

 רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. 

Meaning, it was later, in the days of Yehoshua, when Pinchas was sent as an emissary to prevent the people living in Eivar haYarden from breaking away, that he became a kohen.  What does this second opinion do with the pasuk in our parsha  ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״?  The gemara answers that the pasuk is a bracha.  Rashi and Tos disagree how to interpret that answer.  Rashi explains בשרו שלא תפסוק כהונה מזרעו אבל עדיין לא נתכהן:  Pinchas would in the future be blessed with eternal status as kohen, but it did not happen yet.  Tos explains מיד היה יכול להיות כהן אלא שתחילה צריך להלבישו ולמושחו ולחנכו בחביתין כדין הדיוטות המתחנכים בחביתין כדאמרינן בסוף התכלת (מנחות דף נא:) אבל שמא לא נתרצו לו כל ישראל באותה שעה מפני שהרג נשיא שבט עד ששם שלום בין השבטים בימי יהושע ואז נתרצו לו והלבישוהו [ומשחוהו] וחנכוהו בחביתין:   Pinchas was already appointed kohen by Hashem, but there is a process that has to be followed before he could serve and do avodah and that process depends on Bn"Y acquiescing.  At this point, Bn"Y was not yet on board with what Pinchas had done to Zimri, and so the process was delayed until the days of Yehoshua.  (There is actually a third view, quoted in Zohar, that Pinchas became a kohen with Aharon and his children, but because he killed Zimri he would have lost the kehuna status and been barred from avodah if not for Hashem's intervention and renewal of his status.)

 What's the hesber of the machlokes Rashi and Tos?  One approach I saw is that the gemara (Nedarim 35b) has a safeik אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  The Rishonim ask why this is a question when the gemara (Kid 23b) proves conclusively that they shluchei d'Shemaya:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי? 

Ran answers that Rav Huna's conclusion is correct, but the sugya in Nedarim wanted to explore whether there was a proof from a Mishna or braysa to support that conclusion.  Tosfos in Kid answers that Rav Huna is maybe only half right.  Undoubtedly the kohanim are שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא, as Rav Huna proved.  The safeik in Nedarim is only whether kohanim ALSO have a status as  שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן.

 

Rashi holds like the Ran, that a kohen's role is purely  שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  It is up to Hashem alone to appoint someone to that role.  Tos l'shitasam holds that a kohen also fills a role of being שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן; therefore, even if Hashem granted Pinchas the status of kohen, if Bn"Y were not yet prepared to go along with that decision, he was unable to serve. 

 

Ramban explains the bracha to Pinchas  לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם that וצוהו שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם.  Isn't every kohen a כהן לעולם?  Is it possible to be a kohen and not be a כהן לעולם? 

 

The gemara (Brachos 46) relates that Rav Zeira became very ill and recovered.  Rabbi Abahu hosted a party to celebrate, and invited Rav Zeira to say ha'motzi to start the meal.  Rav Zeira declined, as there is a din that the baal ha'bayis should be the one to break the bread.  Asks the Rashba: didn't Rabbi Abahu know that?  What was Rabbi Abahu thinking?  Rashba answers that since the meal is in Rav Zeira's honor, it is like he is the baal ha'bayis.  L'halacha, the MG"A paskens based on this Rashba that the baal ha'bayis can defer and choose to honor someone else.  Ad kan the sugya.  The Aderet writes that he doesn't understand how the Rashba's question even gets off the ground. There is a Yerushalmi that indicates that Rav Zeira was a kohen.  Of course Rav Zeira should have been given the honor to be the one to break bread because a kohen always gets first dibs!  To get around this issue the Aderet serves up a big chiddush.  He suggests that perhaps this episode occurred after the famous Purim seudah in which Rabbah became so inebriated that he (if the gemara is to taken literally) killed Rav Zeira, who was his guest, and then, after realizing what he did, davened and brought Rav Zeira back to life.  True, Rav Zeira 1.0 was a kohen, but maybe a person who is reborn, Rav Zeira 2.0, is a different person entirely, and therefore no longer a kohen! 

 

R'  Meir Don Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (78:3) writes that if the Aderet is correct, then we understand what the Ramban in our parsha meant.  Pinchas = Eliyahu, and Pinchas 1.0 is just the first iteration of his time on earth.  Although other people may change status when they come back, Pinchas is blessed, as Ramban writes שהוא כהן לעולם  -- even after coming back to our world for another round, no matter how many times around, he remains a kohen and does not lose his status. 

 

When a letter with this chiddush reached Rav Chaim Berlin, he wrote back to the Aderet that surely he meant this as Purim torah, as there is a black on white gemara against him.  Sanhedrin 90b:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

 

How could Aharon eat terumah after techiyas ha'meisim?  According to the Aderet, wouldn't Aharon 2.0 be a different person than Aharon 1.0 and therefore not have the status of a kohen? 

 

This topic became a to-do.  It's hard to believe the Aderet meant this as a joke because he repeats the chiddush in a few places.  Some rallied to defend the Aderet because they could not believe a genius like that missed a gemara.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos (shoresh 3) writes that after techiyas ha'meisim there will be a new miluim process to sanctify the kohanim just like there was the first time around.  This suggests, in line with what the Aderet wrote, that without such a process Aharon 2.0 would not have the same kohen status as Aharon 1.0.  Surely the Ramban did not forget the gemara in Sanhedrin!  One is forced to say that the gemara in Sanhedrin means that Aharon would be able to eat terumah after the new miluim process is completed.

 

R' Meir Don Plotzki elsewhere (in the Kli Chemdah) says that he is not so happy with this chiddush.  What he says reminds me of an old joke, and sadly I have to admit that I wrote this whole shtickel this week just so I could say this old, bad joke.  A guy who came to the Rabbi and said that he wants the Rabbi to make him a kohen.  The Rabbi told him that it's just not possible.  The guy said, "Come on Rabbi, I'll give $10,000 to the shul if you make me a kohen."  Once again the Rabbi brushed him off.  The guy was not to be disuaded and said, "Rabbi, I'll give $100,000, just make me a kohen."  The Rabbi once again refused, but was curious and asked the man why he wanted so much to be a kohen.  The guy responded, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen."  The Kli Chemdah knew the joke and argues that being a kohen is not like a din or a status or like being right or left handed.  It's a function of a person's lineage.  If your father is a kohen, you're a kohen.  If Rav Zeira or anyone else comes back for round 2.0, their "being" must still have had a father, a grandfather, etc. so how can it be that they are not a kohen? 

 

This topic is an even bigger to-do.  Is 2.0 really the son of the same father as 1.0?  Is he chayav in kibud av?  When Elisha haNavi brought the child of the Isha haShunamis back to life, he told her שְׂאִי בְנֵךְ.  Sounds like the parent is still the parent even though the child is on life 2.0  Is his wife still his wife, or does he need to do kiddushin all over again?  Chazal tell us at mattan Torah "parcha nishmasam" of Klal Yisrael, it was like they died and underwent techiyhas ha'mesim.  Nonetheless, afterwards Hashem commanded "shuvu lachem l'ohaleichem," to return to living together as husband and wife, presumably without a new kiddushin being done.  Sounds like the wife/husband of 2.0 remains the same as that of 1.0.  (Don't think this is all pilpul and theory. Maybe it applies l'maaseh to someone r"l pronounced clinically dead on the operating table, for example, but then somehow recovers?) 

There is pilpul on top of pilpul on these issues.  Tein l'chachan v'yechkam od, this is just roshei perakim to whet the appetite.  

look twice

  וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֔ה עֲלֵ֛ה אֶל⁠־הַ֥ר הָעֲבָרִ֖ים הַזֶּ֑ה וּרְאֵה֙ אֶת⁠־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

 וְרָאִ֣יתָה אֹתָ֔הּ וְנֶאֱסַפְתָּ֥ אֶל⁠־עַמֶּ֖יךָ גַּם⁠־אָ֑תָּה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר נֶאֱסַ֖ף אַהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִֽיךָ

Some of the meforshim (Ohr haChaim, Netziv, Malbim, to name a few) ask why the Torah repeats וְרָאִ֣יתָה אֹתָ֔הּ (27:13) when in the previous pasuk it already said וּרְאֵה֙ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ.  R' Chaim Elazari answers with a Rashi from earlier in the parsha.  In the count of families (ch 26) every family has a letter ה before its name and a letter י afterwards, e.g.  מִשְׁפַּ֣חַת הַחֲנֹכִ֔י,  מִשְׁפַּ֖חַת הַפַּלֻּאִֽי.  Rashi explains: 

לפי שהיו האומות מונין אותן:⁠ מה אילו מתייחסין על שבטיהם, סבורים הם שלא שלטו המצריים באמותיהם, אם בגופן היו מושלין קל וחומר בנשותיהם, לפיכך הטיל הקב״ה שמו עליהם, ה״י מצד זה ויו״ד מצד זה, לומר: מעיד אני עליהם שהם בני אבותיהם.

The Torah adds the extra letters to connect the shem Hashem to the families. Here too, says R' Chaim Elazari,  the word could just as well be written וְרָאִ֣יתָ, but the Torah adds a ה at the end and repeats the command in this way after already saying  וּרְאֵה֙ in order to connect the shem Hashem to seeing Eretz Yisrael.  When we look at Eretz Yisrael we have to not just see mountains and valleys and cities, but we have to see the shem Hashem manifest there, we have to see the special hashgacha pratis that is there.   The way to look at Eretz Yisrael is different than the way we look at the rest of the world. 

To add one morsel to his idea, I think it is not  by chance that when it comes to the shevatim, the shem Hashem is represented by the letter ה before its name and a letter י afterwards, but when it comes to Eretz Yisrael, there is the ה afterwards, but there is a ו beforehand (which R' Chaim Elazari does not even mention) instead of the י.  

The Shem Havaya is yud-key-vuv-key.  The first two letters represent the higher sefirot, the bottom two letters the lower sefirot.  The Torah adds the first two letters of the shem Havaya to the names of the families in order to emphasize that even though we lived under the thumb of Egyptian subjugation, we did not intermingle with them. We remained on a higher, transcendent plane, elevated from their society.  When it comes to Eretz Yisrael, the Torah adds the last two letters of the shem Havaya to emphasize that the Shechina is not transcendent and outside this world, but is imminent, and rests in Eretz Yisrael. 

kana'im pogim bo and the need for hasra'ah

Why does the Torah mention the yichus of Pinchas at the opening of our parsha?  Rashi explains:

לפי שהיו שבטים מבזין אותו: הראיתם בן פוטי זה, בן שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה יהרוג נשיא שבט מישראל, לפיכך בא הכתוב ויחסו אחר אהרן.

What does the fact that his grandfather Yisro fattened calves for avodah zarah have to do with the price of tea in China?  

Some explain that the shevatim could not believe that Pinchas' zealotry was completely l'shem shamayim.  They thought maybe he was just a hothead.  There are people who are makpid on details and if even one little thing is slightly off, they blow up.  They can't delegate, because they have tolerance for anyone making the smallest error.  This is what the shevatim meant פיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה.  Why was Yisro, the highest priest, fattening the calves himself?  It must be that he was one of these people who needed to personally handle everything, one of these people who blew up at the drop of a hat if the slightest thing is off.  Is it any wonder that his grandson would be a zealot?  It's in his genes, not l'shem shamayim!  Therefore, the Torah stresses that Pinchas was the grandson of Aharon, the ohev shalom and rodef shalom.

I often daven in a Moroccan yeshiva and have the opportunity to see seforim and sources there that I never heard of before, which is how I chanced upon the Maggid of Marrakesh.  The Maggid explains Rashi by quoting the din in Yevamos 102:

 גר דן את חבירו דבר תורה שנאמר שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר ה' אלהיך בו מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך עליך הוא דבעינן מקרב אחיך אבל גר דן את חבירו גר ואם היתה אמו מישראל דן אפי' ישראל 

This is what bothered the shevatim -- how could Pinchas, who was descended from a ger, judge a member of Klal Yisrael?  Therefore the Torah responds by telling us the yichus of Pinchas, tracing his lineage to a Jewish father, which solves the problem.  

Granting that this approach is derush, I still think it's noteworthy that the Maggid treats קנאים פּוגעים בּו as requiring the same criteria as a din torah.  It's not an extra-judicial concept, but rather is a form of misas beis din carried out by the individual, who serves as judge and jury wrapped in one.

Perhaps that assumption is the nekudas ha'machlokes between Rambam and Raavad.  Rambam writes in Issurei Biah 1:4

כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין . ודבר זה הל"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי:

Raavad adds:

תב הראב"ד ז"ל בד"א שהתרו בו ולא פירש אבל לא התרו בו לא אמרינן הרי אלו משובחין עכ"ל:

There is a very difficult Migdal Oz here:

ואני אומר התראה זו לא מצאתיה לא פרק אין מעמידין ולא פרק הנשרפין בבבלי אך בירושלמי יש לו מקצת טעם דאמרינן במעשה זמרי פנחס שלא ברצון חכמים עשה אלא שאין לנו לסמוך עליו הואיל ולא הוזכר בבבלי ושכרו שנתן לו השם מוכיח וגם ר"י אלפס ז"ל לא הביאו בהלכות לומר לך שאינה הלכה ועוד שהרי זמרי בפרהסיא עשה והביאה לפני משה והתריס ומה התראה גדולה מזו והלא אין התראה באה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד וודאי דברי ר"מ ז"ל נכונים:

He writes that the best proof against the Raavad is that we don't see Pinchas giving any hasra'ah to Zimri, but then backtracks and says perhaps that gufa is the reason that the Yerushalmi says שלא ברצון חכמים עשה.  It sounds like he is suggesting that Pinchas may, according to the Yerushalmi, have been in the wrong!  I don't know how you an say that when the whole parsha is about the tremendous reward Hashem granted to Pinchas for his actions.

Be that as it may, perhaps the machlokes Rambam and Raavad here revolves around the Maggid's assumption.  If קנאים פּוגעים בּו is some kind of extra-judicial penalty, then all rules of judicial process go out the window.  However, if it is some quasi maaseh beis din, then maybe hasra'ah is required similar to other cases of dinei nefashos carried out by B"D.

Rav Yaakov David Ilan, in his sefer Masa Yad vol 1, learns the machlokes differently.  Yesh lachkor, he writes, whether hasraah is a din in B"D or a din in the chomer ha'aveira, i.e. is it is the same aveira with or without hasra'ah, but the court needs hasra'ah as a license for them to act, or whether an aveira without hasra'ah is a lesser aveira, and therefore exempt from punishment.

If hasra'ah is a din in B"D, then קנאים פּוגעים בּו, which is not a maaseh B"D, should need no hasraah.  But if hasraah establishes the chomer ha'aveira, then it is necessary even for the punishment of קנאים פּוגעים בּו. 

See also R' Shaul Yisraeli's analysis of the sugya in his Amud ha'Yemini.

לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר - HaKsav v'HaKabbalah on responding to criticism; a proof meant for us

1) Our parsha opens with Hashem declaring that Pinchas would be rewarded:  לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר הִנְנִ֨י נֹתֵ֥ן ל֛וֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם  Netziv writes מלבד שיהא כן, יודיע לו שיהא כן. והוא חיבה יתירה.  Meaning, we see from the pasuk not only that Pinchas was rewarded, but לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר, but also that his reward was announced, which shows Hashem's special love.  Meshech Chochma in many places quotes a yesod from the Rambam in the into to Peirush haMishnayos that a nevuah that is just revealed privately to a navi can be changed and retracted, but a nevuah which the navi is told to declare can never be changed.  Therefore, Hashem not only showed Moshe was Pinchas' reward was, but he told Moshe to articulate that promise so that it would never be subject to retraction.   

The reward given to Pinchas stands in contrast to the reaction of the shevatim to his actions.  Rashi writes that the shevatim criticized Pinchas for killing Zimri, saying that it was not right for the gransdon of an oveid avodah zarah to kill the nasi of a sheiveit.  HaKsav v'haKabbalah interprets the word אֱמֹ֑ר here along the lines of the pasuk  וה' האמירך היום להיות לו לעם סגלה כאשר דבר־לך ולשמר כל־מצותיו (Devarim 26:18)  Ibn Ezra there translates  מלשון גדוּלה, like בְּרֹ֣אשׁ אָמִ֑יר (Yishayahu 17:6), meaning, "the uppermost branch."  Before even talking about the reward for what he did, Hashem told Moshe that if Pinchas is being criticized, לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר, you have to pick him up, you have to give him immediate affirmation.  What a great lesson in how to react and respond when you see someone being put down for nothing.

2) Rashi writes that because the nations cast doubt on the purity of the families of Bn"Y, therefore, there is a letter hey before each family name and a letter yud at the end in our parsha because Hashem wanted to show that his name was connected with each family, a testimony to their purity:  

 לפי שהיו האומות מונין אותן: מה אילו מתייחסין על שבטיהם, סבורים הם שלא שלטו המצריים באמותיהם, אם בגופן היו מושלין קל וחומר בנשותיהם, לפיכך הטיל הקב״ה שמו עליהם, ה״י מצד זה ויו״ד מצד זה, לומר: מעיד אני עליהם שהם בני אבותיהם.

Are the nations of the world who had this taanah going to open our parsha and start reading and see this connection to the shem Hashem?  Do you really think this will convince them that they are wrong?

R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim answers that the proof is not meant for them -- it's meant for us.

When you live in a society surrounded by the umos ha'olam and you hear them talking, sometimes a little of what they say seeps in.  Witness how many poor misguided Jews sadly have been brainwashed by what they hear on college campuses, mainstream media, the internet, and the Democrat party, and have come to think that the poor Palestinians are victims of Israel's aggression, or have come to think that supporting some alphabet soup of LGBT+whatever else rights is a value that we can subscribe to.  The parsha is meant for us, to reaffirm what we know the truth to be against the tide of lies that come from elsewhere.  (I assume he would explain the first Rashi in Braishis in a similar way.)

kana'us for the sake of love

Rashi writes that the Torah spells out Pinchas' yichus because the shevatim criticized him saying, "How dare a descendent of Yisro, someone who fattened sheep to offer as sacrifices to idols, kill a prince of a sheivet!" The Torah therefore links Pinchas to his grandfather Aharon.  

Taz asks: either Pinchas was justified in killing Zimri because kanaim pogim bo or he wasn't; either way, his yichus has no bearing on the issue.  Secondly, reminding us that Pinchas was a descendent of Aharon, which surely everyone knew, does not take away from the fact that he was also descendent from an oveid avodah zarah.  

We've discussed this before, but I wanted to add another twist this year.  R' Tzvi Yehudah Kook explains that there was never a question that the din of kanaim pogim bo justifies killing even the leader of a sheivet.  The issue the shevatim had was the question of motivation.  When there is a cost involved -- loss of life or otherwise -- proper intentions matter.  For example, there are shitos that hold yibum must be done lishma because by definition, there is a conflict between the mitzvah and the issur kareis of eishas ach.  It's the intent and motivation of the mi'yabeim which transforms the act from an issur into a kiyum mitzvah.  Similarly, Ramban in parshas Lech Lecha asks why it is the Egyptians were punished for enslaving Bnei Yisrael when they were just fulfilling the prophecy given to Avraham that his children would be slaves for 400 years.  One of Ramban's  answers is that the Egyptians were punished because they were lacking the right intentions; their motivation was she'lo lishma.  Enslaving a people, with all the negative consequences that go along with that, is something that can only be done for the right reasons.  When Shaul failed to eradicate Amalek, the navi Shmuel tells him (Sh I ch 15) that he was guilty of turning away from Hashem and making Hashem's words disgusting.  Shaul may have failed to finish the job, but how was he guilty because of that of "turning away from Hashem?"  The Chofetz Chaim explains that by substituting his own thinking regarding who to kill and what to eradicate, Shaul proved that he was acting on his own initiative, not purely lishma to carry out the dvar Hashem.  That amounts to murder, not the fulfillment of nevuah.  Here too, even if Zimri deserved to be killed, the shevatim questioned whether Pinchas did so with the right motivation.  Could this descendent of an idolator kill, someone purely lishma, or perhaps there was a little bit of bloodthirst in his genes that led him to act?  By linking Pinchas to Aharon, the great oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom, the Torah gives a stamp of purity to Pinchas' actions.

The pasuk in Tehillim (106:30)  וַיַּעֲמֹ֣ד פִּֽ֭ינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּ֑ל וַ֝תֵּעָצַ֗ר הַמַּגֵּפָֽה tells us that that Pinchas davened (Targum of יְפַלֵּ֑ל is וְצַלֵי, though the derash [Sanhedrin 44] reads it differently) and brought the mageifa to and end.  The gemara (Eiruvin 65a) writes that R' Chanina would not daven on a day when he got angry . רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּיוֹמָא דְּרָתַח לָא מְצַלֵּי, אָמַר: ״בְּצָר אַל יוֹרֶה״ כְּתִיב.  How then, asks the Pnei Menchem, was Pinchas able to daven at this moment of kana'us and passion when he killed Zimri?!  

Al korchacha, Pinchas did not act out of anger.  Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon the oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom, acted lishma, out of love -- love for Bnei Yisrael, who were suffering a mageifa.  That is the only motivation that can justify kana'us.

why the korbanos were put at the end of Pinchas

What is the parsha of korbanos doing at the end of Pinchas?  Wouldn't this sections better fit somewhere in Vayikra, e.g. in Emor, where the chagim are mentioned?

Ramban answers that the korbanos musafim were not offered in the midbar:

כי אחרי שאמר: לאלה תחלק הארץ (במדבר כ״ו:נ״ג), צוה להשלים תורת הקרבנות שיעשו כן בארץ, כי במדבר לא הקריבו המוספים 

Now that Bn"Y would soon be going into Eretz Yisrael without Moshe, he had to teach them the halachos of the korbanos that they would have to offer there.  Im lo acshav, eimasai?

Abarbanel writes that there is more to it than Moshe teaching halachos that were not yet known.  Moshe's presence, as the adon ha'neviim, made propechy easier to attain.  He knew that once he was gone, there would never be a prophet of similar stature.  Therefore, he gave the parsha of korbanos as a means of helping enable prophecy for future generations.

R' Tzadok haKohen follows in Abarbanel's footsteps of linking korbanos to Moshe's impending death.  The era of transmission of Torah sheb'ksav would come to a close with Moshe's death.  Korbanos served to help enable the growth of Torah shebaa'l peh that would begin with Yehoshua.

I think both ideas share a common denominator.  Moshe was the conduit between G-d and man.  Call it nevuah, call it Torah sheb'skav, it amounts to the same thing -- G-d reaching out to Bn"Y to convey his will.  With Moshe gone, with the conduit of communication gone, G-d would no longer be reaching out in the same way.  Therefore, the burden shifted to us to reach out to Him.  Instead of G-d calling to man, drawing close to us,  it became our responsibility to call to Him, to draw ourselves closer to him.  That's what korbanos are all about; that's what tefilah b'makom korban is all about.  

an ownership stake

1) R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Pinchas #9) writes that the fasts of 17 Tamuz and 9 Av always fallout on the same day as the first of Pesach to teach us that there is a parallel between the days.  Pesach is the chag of redemption that led to kabbalas haTorah. So too, the breaking of the luchos on 17 Tamuz ultimately led to a greater kabbalas haTorah, as had we only had the first luchos, everything would be Torah sheb'skav and we would have no need for ameilus in Torah to figure things out on our own.  Because those luchos were broken, Torah shebaal peh came into the world.  The gemara darshens that Hashem said to Moshe "y'yasher kochacha she'shibarta."  (Parenthetically, when I once mentioned this gemara to sefardim I pointed out that kavyachol Hashem must be an Ashkenazi, otherwise He would have said 'chazak u'baruch' and not 'y'yasher koach.') Because of the churban on 9Av, we will once day have a Beit haMikdash that comes down from shamayim.  These fasts are steps toward greater redemption, just twists in the road to get us to our destination.   

R' Leibele Eiger (Imrei Emes, last piece on the parsha) quotes the pasuk

 הָלוֹךְ יֵלֵךְ וּבָכֹה נֹשֵׂא מֶשֶׁךְ הַזָּרַע בֹּא יָבוֹא בְרִנָּה נֹשֵׂא אֲלֻמֹּתָיו.

and points out that if you take the first letter of each of the first three words, the gematriya = 21, which corresponds to the three weeks of bein ha'metzarim.  We are crying during this time because we don't see the fruits of our labor yet and everything looks barren.  The destruction, however, is part of the process of planting, נֹשֵׂא מֶשֶׁךְ הַזָּרַע, and ultimately we will reap the rewards.

2) Rashi comments (27:1) that the Torah traces the lineage of Bnos Tzelafchad back to Yosef because:

וסף חיבב את הארץ, שנאמר: והעליתם את עצמותי (בראשית נ׳:כ״ה), ובנותיו חיבבו את הארץ.

It's not that they wanted a portion in Eretz Yisrael as an investment, because they knew the housing market would go from expensive and rise to outrageous, but rather they wanted a portion simply because of a tremendous love they had for the land.   

Why was this quality of love of the land felt by the Bnos Tzelafchad more than anyone else?  R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah points out that it was Yosef's children alone who were  raised from birth in galus.  The children of all the other shevatim were born in Eretz Yisrael.  When Eretz Yisrael is home, you take it for granted.  For Yosef, it was not home, and therefore he didn't take it for granted.  He had to make a deliberate effort to teach his children a love of Eretz Yisrael and he didn't assume it would be passed to them by osmosis.  Interestingly, at the end of P' Matos we read that it was Menashe's children and grandchildren who took the initiative in conquering territory assigned to them.  They didn't wait for reinforcements.  They, more than others, pushed ahead with the conquest.  

How does their request for a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael demonstrate their love for the land?  It's not like they faced a choice at this point of going to Eretz Yisrael or returning to Mitzrayim.  Where else were they going to go?  If their petition to Moshe was denied, they still would have gone into Eretz Yisrael!  The only difference is that they would be living with their husband and family in his portion of the land rather than having their own piece of the pie.  

My son last year quoted R' Wagshal from the Mir as addressing this issue, but I want to add my 2 cents.

The simple answer (see Netziv, Malbim) is that for Bnos Tzelafchad who were from sheivet Menashe there was in fact some other place else to go -- Eiver haYarden, where other members of their sheivet settled.  Because they requested davka land in Eretz Yisrael proper, it shows they did not just want any portion to call their own, but they wanted to be specifically in Eretz Yisrael.

But I think there is something more here as well.  Ran Nedarim 28a quotes the view of Tos that dina d'malchusa dina does not apply in Eretz Yisrael:

כתבו בתוספות דדוקא במלכי עובדי כוכבים אמר דדינא דמלכותא דינא מפני שהארץ שלו ויכול לומר להם אם לא תעשו מצותי אגרש אתכם מן הארץ אבל במלכי ישראל לא לפי שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה

Ran relates dina d'malchusa to the fact that the gvt, as occurred not infrequently in our history in galus, can expel residents who choose to disobey its laws.  We are just vassals of the state, and must therefore obey its dictates.  However, writes the Ran, this sevara does not apply in Eretz Yisrael.  Our right to Eretz Yisrael is not based on having the approval of a benevolent king, Jewish or not, who chooses to allow us to remain there.  We are not subjects of the state, we are partners in the state.    

A lot of companies give stock options or shares to their employees for the simple reason that when employees have an ownership stake in the company, it gives them a vested interested in the company's success and they will therefore work harder.  I say this b'peh malei as someone who is not living in Eretz Yisrael yet: aino domeh showing love for Eretz Yisrael by making it the place you take your vacations, the place you may spend some of the chagim, the place where you have an apartment to use during a midwinter or summer break, to showing your love for Eretz Yisrael by making it the place you call home.  שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה.  It's different when you are not just a customer of the business, but you are a partner.  

No question that Bnos Tzelafchad would have lived in Eretz Yisrael anyway.  But they wanted more than that -- they wanted to be partners in Eretz Yisrael.  That's what having your own cheilek means. 

Moshe Rabeinu was not able to pasken for the Bnos Tzelafchad because  נתעלמה ממנו הלכה, as Rashi writes.  Moshe received whatever instructions he needed, whatever Torah he knew, directly from Hashem.  He was a subject, so to speak, of the king, the King of Kings, and just followed the rules as given. Yehoshua and the next generation did not have that same benefit -- they had to work to figure things out themselves.  They were  more like partners with the RBS"O, kavyachol, in making Torah shebaal peh, not just copyists.   לפי שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה, building Eretz Yisrael requires figuring out for yourself how to implement the Divine plan in practice, with all the messy details involved in building a functioning state and society.  We are partners with the RBS"O in working things out.   נתעלמה ממנו הלכה because running a partnership is not the role of a Moshe Rabeinu, it's the role of the next generation.  This is why the parsha of Bnos Tzelafchad is immediately followed by the appointment of Yehoshua, as it server as the signal to Moshe that it was time for a new leader.  (See the last Sefas Emes on the parsha for a much deeper spin on this idea.)

Midyan =dimyon; don't lose sight of reality

Three observations/questions and then a thought from the Ne'os Desheh of Ishbitz to try to tie things together:

1) Ramban, who usually take a very conservative approach to using the principle of ain mukdam u'm'uchar baTorah (e.g. see the machlokes Ramban and Ibn Ezra at the beginning of P' Korach) and usually assumes events in the Torah are presented in chronological order, here argues that the count of Bnei Yisrael and the command of tzror es haMidyanim are NOT presented in order.  First came the count, and later came the command of tzror es haMidyanim, the opposite of the order of the text.  In fact, we know that Bnei Yisrael did not wage war with Midyan until later, as recorded in next week's parsha.  Ramban writes (25:12): 

 ואחרי שנתן שכרו הטוב לצדיק, צוהו להפרע מן הרשעים, ואמר לו: צרור את המדינים (במדבר כ״ה:י״ז).

וצוהו שימנה העם תחלה, וזה טעם: ויהי אחרי המגפה (במדבר כ״ו:א׳), כי המנין יהיה תחלה.

He explains why: the Torah wanted to put together the onesh of Midyan with the schar of Pinchas and present it as one unit, even at the cost of inverting chronological order.  (Torah is not a history book of what happened in the midbar.  In a history book, the timeline of events is critical.  What happened and when did it happen.  In Torah, it is the moral message which is critical and everything else takes a back seat. )

The textual proof for Ramban's position is the words יהי אחרי המגפה that precede the count.  Why do we need a statement telling us when this happened if events are in chronological order?  It must be that things are not in fact in order, and so we need to be clued in to the timeline.  (See Ibn Ezra, Netziv, who explain the phrase differently.)

2) כִּ֣י צֹרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר.  Ibn Ezra translated בנכליהם – במחשבותם הרעה.  Sounds strange -- Midyan committed a terrible crime, but that's not what the pasuk focusses on.  Instead, the focus is on machshava, thinking.  

3)  כִּ֣י צֹרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם - why tzoririm in the present tense when the episode already ended?  See Netziv.

The Neos Desheh of Ishbitz has a fascinating explanation as to why sheivet Shimon in particular fell prey to the Bnos Midyan.  When eishes Potifar tried to tempt Yosef, Yosef did not fall victim to sin because, as Chazal tell us, he saw dmus dyukno shel Aviv, a vision of his father.  He felt that connection to his past, to his lineage, to his family, and they stopped him at the precipice to wrongdoing.  In contrast, in Yaakov's blessing to Shimon, he said b'sodam al tavo nafshi; he distanced himself from Shimon. Shimon did not have that same emergency break of dmus d'yukno shel Aviv, that strong bond to his father, his lineage, that would prevent his fall.

The place in which the sin of znus occurred - Shittim - alludes to the fact that sin is rooted in shtus.  It's nonsense.  Midyon = dimyon, it's all appearances, smoke and mirrors that lead the imagination to run wild, but in reality there is nothing true and meaningful and lasting there.  Yaakov was kulo emes, rooted in truth, the antithesis of Midyan.

Noam Elimelech writes: וגם בנידון דידן כל זמן שהיו אותם הרשעים המדינים בעולם, אז היו עדיין הרהורי עבירה דפעור שולטים בישראל לבלבל להם המחשבה, ולכך נצטוה משה רבינו ע"ה לנקום בהם נקמת ה'. וזהו "כי צוררים.. לכם" בהוה, פירוש עדיין הם צוררים לכם, ומפרש הכתוב במה "בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם על דבר פעור", פירוש באותן המחשבות הרעות המתהוים לכם בדברכם במעשה דפעור "ועל דבר כזבי כו'", ולכך תבערו אותם מן הארץ

In light of the Ne'os Desheh, I would suggest along similar lines as the N.E. that it was not the sin itself, but it was the thought that if we can fall prey to such sin and such temptation, then we must not be connected to our forefathers, which lingered long after the sin and which the Torah here is addressing.  It is the self-doubt and self-recrimination after the fact, the feeling of loss of hope and unworthiness, which was tzoririm, present tense --  it continued to eat away at the people and do more harm even than the sin itself. 

The way to antagonize Midyan, tzror es haMidyanim, is to repair the gap of b'sodam al tavo nafshi.  The physical war would come later, but first, one must undo the psychological damage to morale.  The count of Bnei Yisrael reinforced the yichus of families and shevatim, reinforced the connection to our lineage, our connection to Yaakov.  It showed that everyone counts, everyone is worthy, everyone has a connection.  That's the reality; everything else is a dimyon.  The hey and yud at the beginning/end of each family name, Hashem's stamp of approval, showed it to be true.    

If this is correct, then the order of the pesukim fits perfectly.  The count of Bnei Yisrael comes after tzror es haMidyanim because the count is the way in which we fulfill that command.  

Right after the words וַיְהִ֖י אַחֲרֵ֣י הַמַּגֵּפָ֑ה, which appear after tzror es haMidyanim and at the start of the count, the Torah does a very unusual thing and puts in a parsha break right in the middle of the pasuk.  Ohr haChaim comments:

עוד נראה לתת טעם שהתחיל הפרשה מאמצע הכתוב על פי דבריהם ז״ל (ילקוט) שאמרו וזה לשונם ויהי אחרי המגפה שאו את ראש וגו׳ זה הוא שאמר הכתוב אם אמרתי מטה רגלי וגו׳ בשעה שקבלו ישראל התורה נתקנאו אומות העולם וכו׳ אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא הביאו לי ספר יוחסין שלכם וכו׳ כשבאו לשטים קלקלו וכו׳ אמרו האומות העטרה שהיתה בידם בטלה שוים הם לנו זקפן ה׳ שנגף כל מי שנתקלקל והעמידן על טהרתם עד כאן, לפי זה יש טעם בהפסקה באמצע הפסוק להעיר שהמאמר קשור גם עם מה שלמעלה בענין רעות אשר גרמו מדין על דבר פעור ועל דבר כזבי וגו׳ וגם ויהי אחרי המגפה פירוש לשון צער, והוא מה שרמז בפסוק מטה רגלי שהיו אומות העולם מזלזלים בהם שניטלה העטרה שהיתה בידם, וזלזול זה לא נחלט מישראל כשנסתלקה המגפה מהם עד שמנאם ונמצאו כל אחד מכיר אבותיו עד השבט אז נשאו ראש, והוא אומרו ויהי לשון צער גם אחרי המגפה, ולזה ויאמר ה׳ וגו׳ שאו, ולא החליט להפסיק לעשותו פסוק בפני עצמו וערבו עם מה שלמטה ממנו לומר כי בשביל מה שרמוז בתיבת ויהי שהוא זלזול האומות הוא שאמר ה׳ שאו וגו׳.

The umos want to plant the thought in our brain that  אמרו האומות העטרה שהיתה בידם בטלה שוים הם לנו, we are just like them and have no connection to a special history or a special destiny.  The count proves them wrong.

Perhaps undoing this thought is necessary as well, as Ibn Ezra and Neziv understand וַיְהִ֖י אַחֲרֵ֣י הַמַּגֵּפָ֑ה , as a lead up to אחרי המגפה – בעבור שאמר השם: לאלה תחלק הארץ, yerushas ha'aretz.  Our claim to Eretz Yisrael is based on the promise Hashem made to the Avos.  If, as the umos claim, שוים הם לנו, then all bets are off.  But we are different; our connection to the past proves them wrong.

becoming a new person

After lauding Pinchas for his courageous actions that we read about at the end of last weeks' parsha, the Torah tells us about the victims: "V'shem Yisrael ha'MUKEH... v'shem ha'isha ha'MUKAH" -- the man who was killed, the woman who was killed.  Why the passive voice?  Why not say the man who Pinchas killed...? 

The Zohar answers that es pas nisht for a kohen to kill someone.  In last week's parsha, Pinchas was not yet a kohen, so the Torah celebrated his actions.  Now that Hashem gave Pinchas the reward of kehuna, the Torah conceals those very same actions since they are not befitting someone who is a kohen.

What the Zohar is teaching us is that actions are transformative.  When you do a mitzvah, you become a different person.  "Mitzvah gorreres mitzvah" because after you do the first good deed, you are on a higher level, a therefore more good needs to follow.  By the same token, actions that may have been appropriate -- even praiseworthy -- earlier in time, may now seem small and tainted after a person grows.  Think of it this way: what your teacher gave you praises for in elementary school is expected, not celebrated, once you mature.  Pinchas' great act of mesirus nefesh in last weeks' parsha made him into a different person, and based on the standards of who he is now, in Parshas Pinchas, the Torah conceals that same deed because it no longer measures up to the expectations for the new Pinchas. 

step up to the plate

וּבְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ לֹא־הָ֣יָה אִ֔ישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וְאַהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵ֑ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר פָּקְד֛וּ אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּמִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃

Rashi comments that the pasuk specifies "ish" because it meant to exclude the women:

– אבל על האישה לא נגזרה גזירת המרגלים, לפי שהיו מחבבות את הארץ. האנשים אומרים: נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה (במדבר י״ד:ד׳), והנשים אומרות: תנו לנו נחלה. לכך נסמכה פרשת בנות צלפחד לכאן.

The men had participated in cheit ha'mergalim and did not want to enter the land (see Kli Yakar).  The women, however, were Zionists!  They wanted to settle the land, as we see from the next portion where the Bnos Tzelafchad demand their inheritance of a portion in Eretz Yisrael.

The Bnos Tzelafchad were 5 exceptional people.  Granted, sometimes there is a "yotzei min ha'klal" that is "melamed al ha'klal," but how can we really generalize from the behavior of these 5 women to say that all women had a love for Eretz Yisrael?

What we see is that even a small number of people who take a stand can effect on an entire population.  When you have such staunch lovers of Eretz Yisrael like the Bnos Tzeflafchad, other women hear about it, they go home and look in the mirror, and they say to themselves, "Nu, what about me?  Where is my love for Eretz Yisrael?"  You can't live around people who radiate enthusiasm for a cause without some of it rubbing off and causing others to try harder, to do more, to step up to the plate.

But it all starts with one person or one small group having the courage to take action. 

"...Va'yakam mitoch ha'eidah va'yikach romach b'yado..."  Pinchas got up from amidst the people and took action.  Why not just tell us what he did -- why do we need the "va'yakam mitoch ha'eidah?"  Rav Nissim Yagen explains that the Torah wants to emphasize that before this event, Pinchas was not someone special.  He was "toch ha'eidah," just another guy in the camp of Klal Yisrael.  He could have easily gone about his business, chosen not to be involved, declared this was not his responsibility, and he would have been no different than anyone else.  But "va'yakam mitoch ha'eidah" -- he broke free of the lethargy and indifference of the masses.  One person -- and it stopped the mageifah.

"B'kanoh es kinasi b'socham..."  Sefas Emes (5647) writes that inside every person in Klal Yisrael was the feeling that what Zimri did is wrong.  What made Pinchas different was that he acted on that feeling; he didn't just let it sit inside, b'socham, and die a death of quietude. 

You don't have to take action on the scale of what Pinchas did to make a difference.  Simple things --a seder that is kavu'a, a minyan you always attend, etc. might be the one act that inspires others, the one act that causes people to say that if Ploni can do it, why not me?