Parashat Pinchas Worse Than Murder

 Parashat Pinchas

Worse Than Murder

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Pinchas opens not at the beginning of a story but in its aftermath. The act has already been done, the plague has already been arrested, and the Divine response has already been spoken. Pinchas, son of Elazar son of Aharon the Kohen, has been granted a covenant; twenty-four thousand have already died. And then, instead of moving away from the episode, the Torah turns back toward it, as if something in the event remains unresolved and still presses for understanding.

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹאכִלִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי׃ לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם׃

“The Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon the Kohen has turned My wrath away from the Children of Israel when he acted zealously for My sake among them, so that I did not destroy the Children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say: behold, I give him My covenant of peace.” (Bemidbar 25:10–12)

One might have expected the matter to end there. Instead, immediately after the covenant of peace, another command is issued:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם׃ כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹרוְעַל דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן אֲחֹתָם הַמֻּכָּה בְּיוֹם הַמַּגֵּפָה עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר׃

“God spoke to Moshe, saying: Harass the Midianites and strike them. For they are enemies to you through their schemes with which they deceived you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Kozbi the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was struck down on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.” (Bemidbar 25:16–18)

The command is jarring not because Midian was innocent, but because the narrative had pointed elsewhere. The beginning of the episode had named Moab:

וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּשִּׁטִּים וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב׃

“Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry toward the daughters of Moab.” (Bemidbar 25:1)

If the seduction begins with the daughters of Moab, if the entire collapse unfolds in the plains of Moab, then why does the command of retaliation fall upon Midian? Why is Midian singled out while Moab remains untouched by any corresponding command? The question deepens when placed beside an earlier prohibition:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֵלַי אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה כִּי לֹא אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי לוֹט נָתַתִּי אֶת עָר יְרֻשָּׁה׃

“God said to me: Do not distress Moab and do not provoke them to war, for I shall not give you any of their land as a possession, for I have given Ar to the children of Lot as a possession.” (Devarim 2:9)

The Torah itself has placed the asymmetry before us. Midian is to be struck; Moab is not even to be harassed. The distinction is therefore not political alone. It touches the nature of the offense itself.

מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים – וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַמּוֹאָבִים, שֶׁהַמּוֹאָבִים נִכְנְסוּ לַדָּבָר מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה שֶׁהָיוּ יְרֵאִים מֵהֶם, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹלְלִים אוֹתָם... אֲבָל מִדְיָנִים נִתְעַבְּרוּ עַל רִיב לֹא לָהֶם.

“From the Midianites—and not from the Moabites, for the Moabites entered this matter out of fear, because they feared them, that Israel would plunder them... But Midian involved themselves in a quarrel that was not theirs.” (Rashi to Bemidbar 31:2)

Rashi introduces the first distinction. Moab acted out of fear. Midian entered a conflict that was not their own. The line does not yet tell us everything, but it already shifts the moral balance. Moab's action may have been corrupt, but it was bound up with anxiety, with fear before a people whose recent victories had unsettled the region. Midian, by contrast, cannot be explained in the same way.

The same distinction appears in other commentators as well.

צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים – וְלֹא אֶת הַמּוֹאָבִים, כִּי הַמּוֹאָבִים מִדְּאָגָה עָשׂוּ, פֶּן יָבֹאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְעוֹד יִשְׂרָאֵל לָקְחוּ אַרְצָם מִיַּד סִיחוֹן.

“Harass the Midianites—and not the Moabites, for the Moabites acted out of concern, lest Israel come against them; moreover Israel had taken their land from the hand of Sichon.” (Chizkuni to Bemidbar 25:17)

צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים... וְנִרְאֶה דְּהָא דְּהִקְפִּיד עַל הַמִּדְיָנִים יוֹתֵר מִמּוֹאָב מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹאָבִים עָשׂוּ כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל עַצְמָם, אֲבָל מִדְיָנִיםנִתְעַבְּרוּ עַל רִיב לֹא לָהֶם.

“It appears that the reason He was more exacting with the Midianites than with Moab is that the Moabites acted in order to save themselves, but the Midianites involved themselves in a quarrel not their own.” (R. Chaim Paltiel to Bemidbar 25:17)

A further sharpening appears in the Shelal David:

כִּי צוֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם, כְּלוֹמַר מִדְיָנִים הֵם צוֹרְרִים לָכֶם בְּעֶצֶם וּבְכַוָּנָה... לֹא כֵּן הַמּוֹאָבִים שֶׁנִּתְיָרְאוּ מִפְּנֵי אַרְצָם.

“For they are enemies to you—meaning that the Midianites are your enemies essentially and intentionally... not so the Moabites, who were afraid on account of their land.” (Shelal David to Bemidbar 25:17)

The point is delicate. The commentators do not erase Midian's calculation, nor do they attribute to them some abstract metaphysical hatred detached from history. But they do insist that Midian cannot be placed within the same category as Moab. Moab acts in fear; Midian joins itself to a conflict not its own. Already a hierarchy of culpability begins to emerge.

And yet this only begins to answer the question. For even if Midian's motive is darker, one still wonders whether the textual narrative itself supports a distinction so sharp. The opening verse had spoken of the daughters of Moab. The Kli Yakar therefore listens with unusual care not only to what the verse says, but to how it says it.

צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים וְגוֹ'. וְלֹא צִוָּה לָצוֹר אֶת הַמּוֹאָבִים, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב. מַהוּ וַיָּחֶל? אֶלָּא כָּךְפֵּרוּשׁוֹ שֶׁיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ הַמַּתְחִילִין וְתוֹבְעִים אֶת בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב... לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אֶל בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר עִם בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב, אֶלָּאשֶׁבָּא לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁיִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֲבָל מוֹאָב לֹא שָׁלְחוּ נְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם אֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל... אֲבָל בַּמִּדְיָנִים הָיָה הַדָּבָרבְּהִפּוּךְ, שֶׁאַדְּרַבָּה הַמִּדְיָנִים הִפְקִירוּ אֶת בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁתָּבְעוּ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת.

“Harass the Midianites, etc. He did not command to harass the Moabites, because it says, ‘the people began to commit harlotry toward the daughters of Moab.’ What does ‘began’ mean? It means that Israel were the initiators, pursuing the daughters of Moab... therefore it says ‘toward the daughters of Moab’ and not ‘with the daughters of Moab,’ teaching that Israel went to them, but Moab did not send their wives and daughters to Israel... But with the Midianites the matter was the opposite: the Midianites exposed their daughters, and they pursued Israel to entice them to harlotry.” (Kli Yakar to Bemidbar 25:17)

This is a bold reading, and it must be heard as such. The Kli Yakar is not merely repeating a consensus. He is offering a close reading of the verse, building a moral distinction on the basis of grammar: el rather than im, movement toward rather than mutual encounter. According to that reading, Moab's guilt is not erased, but its form changes. Israel is described as moving toward Moab; Midian is described as coming toward Israel.

He continues, and his argument becomes more pointed:

וְהַסְּבָרָא נוֹתֶנֶת, כִּי אֵיךְ מָלֵא לִבּוֹ שֶׁל זִמְרִי לִתְבּוֹעַ אֶת בַּת מֶלֶךְ? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁהִיא תְּבָעַתּוּ... וְאִם לֹא אָמְרוּ כֵּן בַּפֶּה, מִכָּלמָקוֹם עָשׂוּ הַהִשְׁתַּדְּלוּת עִם צַרְצוּר שֶׁל יַיִן לְהַשְׁקוֹתָם כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה כְּדֵי לְהַבְעִיר בָּהֶם אֵשׁ הַתְּשׁוּקָה.

“Reason itself suggests this: how could Zimri have had the audacity to demand the daughter of a king? Rather, surely she pursued him... and even if they did not say so openly, in any case they employed effort with a flask of wine, giving them the cup of intoxication in order to ignite within them the fire of desire.” (Kli Yakar to Bemidbar 25:17)

Here the Kli Yakar joins the Talmudic picture in Sanhedrin, where wine becomes part of the mechanism of seduction. Still, care is required. This is the Kli Yakar's interpretive move, not an uncontested historical reconstruction. What matters for our purposes is that he senses in the verses themselves a distinction in initiative: Moab in the opening verse, Midian in the decisive act.

Rashi, commenting on Kozbi, points in a related direction:

וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה... לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שִׂנְאָתָם שֶׁל מִדְיָנִים שֶׁהִפְקִירוּ בַּת מֶלֶךְ לִזְנוּת כְּדֵי לְהַחֲטִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל.

“And the name of the slain woman... this comes to teach you the hatred of the Midianites, who exposed a king's daughter to harlotry in order to cause Israel to sin.” (Rashi to Bemidbar 25:15)

The Torah reveals her name not merely to identify her, but to disclose the scale of the offense. A king's daughter does not simply appear in the Israelite camp by accident. The verse itself hints at policy, at deliberation, at a level of approval that rises to the ruling house. This is developed with particular force by the Ramban:

וְעוֹד שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ לָהֶם בַּת מַלְכָּם לִזְנוֹת עִמָּהֶם, וְזֶה טַעַם וְעַל דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן אֲחֹתָם – כִּי לוּלֵי מִדַּעַת יוֹעֲצֵי הַמַּלְכוּתנַעֲשָׂה, כְּבוֹדָהּ בַּת מֶלֶךְ בְּמִדְיָן מַה תְּבַקֵּשׁ בַּשִּׁטִּים בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב לָבוֹא אֶל מַחֲנֵה עַם אַחֵר.

“Furthermore, they sent the daughter of their king to engage in harlotry with them, and this is the meaning of ‘and in the matter of Kozbi daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister’—for had this not been done with the knowledge of the royal counselors, what would a princess in Midian be doing in Shittim, in the plains of Moab, coming to the camp of another people?” (Ramban to Bemidbar 25:18)

The Ramban's question is as sharp as it is simple. What indeed is Kozbi doing there? The verse forces the question, and once asked it is difficult to evade. Her presence cannot be accidental. It points toward counsel, toward deliberation, toward a plan.

At this point the figure of Bilam comes back into view, and with him the larger shape of the episode. Bilam had been summoned to curse Israel; the curse failed. Yet when the Torah later returns to the matter, it reveals that Bilam's failure was not the end of his involvement.

הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסָר מַעַל בַּה' עַל דְּבַר פְּעוֹר.

“Behold, these women were, through the counsel of Bilam, a cause for the Children of Israel to commit treachery against the Lord in the matter of Peor.” (Bemidbar 31:16)

The verse is explicit. The design of the scheme belongs to Bilam. One cannot attribute that design elsewhere. What, then, belongs to Midian? Not the originating idea, but the eager embrace and concrete execution of the idea. Midian is not the architect; Midian is the participant that gave the counsel flesh.

Rashi, drawing on Sanhedrin, cites the content of Bilam's counsel:

בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם – אָמַר לָהֶם: אֲפִלּוּ אַתֶּם מַכְנִיסִים כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אֵין אַתֶּם יְכוֹלִים לָהֶם... בּוֹאוּ וַאֲשִׂיאֲכֶם עֵצָה: אֱלֹהֵיהֶםשֶׁל אֵלּוּ שׂוֹנֵא זִמָּה הוּא.

“Through the counsel of Bilam—he said to them: even if you gather all the nations in the world, you cannot prevail against them... Come and I will give you advice: the God of this people hates immorality.” (Rashi to Bemidbar 31:16, based on Sanhedrin 106a)

And in Avot de-Rabbi Natan the strategy is stated with chilling clarity:

אָמַר לוֹ: עַם זוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה שׂוֹנֵא רָעֵב הוּא לַאֲכִילָה וְצָמֵא הוּא לִשְׁתִיָּה... לֵךְ וְתַקֵּן לָהֶם קֻבּוֹת וְהַנַּח לָהֶם מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה וְהוֹשֵׁבבָּהֶן נָשִׁים יָפוֹת בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזְנוּ הָעָם לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.

“He said to him: this people that you hate is hungry for food and thirsty for drink... Go and prepare booths for them, place food and drink there, and seat within them beautiful women, daughters of kings, so that the people will commit harlotry to Baal Peor.” (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, ch. 1)

Bilam failed to wound Israel from above; he sought instead to unmake Israel from within. If the covenant could not be broken by curse, perhaps it could be broken by seduction. He understood something terrifyingly precise: Israel's bond to God was their strength, and therefore their bond to God must become the object of attack.

This is why the Midrash in Bemidbar Rabbah formulates the principle in so radical a way:

ר' שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַמַּחֲטִיא אֶת הָאָדָם יוֹתֵר מִן הַהוֹרְגוֹ? שֶׁהַהוֹרֵג הוֹרְגוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְהַמַּחֲטִיאוֹ הוֹרְגוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וּבָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

“Rabbi Shimon says: From where do we learn that one who causes a person to sin is worse than one who kills him? For one who kills him kills him in this world, yet he still has a share in the World to Come; but one who causes him to sin kills him in this world and in the World to Come.” (Bemidbar Rabbah 21:4)

The Midrash is not speaking explicitly about the conscious intention of Midian in metaphysical terms. It is formulating a principle. But once the principle is stated, the event at Peor can no longer be read as a mere moral lapse or political intrigue. The offense is deeper. To strike at Israel by corrupting the covenant is to attack a people at the point of their eternity.

The Midrash continues by contrasting two kinds of enemies:

שְׁתֵּי אֻמּוֹת קָדְמוּ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחֶרֶב וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּעֲבֵרָה... אֲבָל אֵלּוּ שֶׁקָּדְמוּ בַּעֲבֵרָה לְהַחֲטִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִיוּמוֹאָבִי.

“Two nations confronted Israel with the sword, and two through transgression... but those who came through transgression to cause Israel to sin—an Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter [the congregation].” (Bemidbar Rabbah 21:4)

The Torah distinguishes between the enemy who attacks the body and the enemy who attacks covenantal fidelity. This distinction does not make bloodshed less terrible. It says, rather, that there is a form of assault more penetrating still: to turn Israel against the One in whose life they truly live.

This is perhaps why the Ramban, after noting the counsel of Midian and the role of Kozbi, adds that Bilam himself was likely part of that counsel:

וְקָרוֹב הוּא שֶׁהָיָה גַּם בִּלְעָם בָּעֵצָה הַזּוֹ... וְהִנֵּה כָּל הַמִּתְנַכְּלִים מְחֻיְּבֵי מִיתָה, וְלָכֵן הֵמִיתוּ גַּם בִּלְעָם כִּי יָדְעוּ שֶׁהוּא בַּעַלהָעֵצָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת.

“And it is likely that Bilam too was part of this counsel... and behold, all who scheme in this manner are liable to death; therefore they also killed Bilam, for they knew that he was the one who possessed this evil counsel.” (Ramban to Bemidbar 25:18)

Still, Moab remains. Why is Moab spared military destruction, even if not moral condemnation? The answer unfolds on two levels. The first we have already seen: fear. The second reaches into the future.

מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים – וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַמּוֹאָבִים... דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִפְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי פְּרֵדוֹת טוֹבוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶם – רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָההָעַמּוֹנִית.

“From the Midianites—and not from the Moabites... Another explanation: because I have two precious descendants to bring forth from them—Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite.” (Rashi to Bemidbar 31:2)

The Talmud gives this idea fuller expression:

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֹא כְּשֶׁעָלָה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ. שְׁתֵּי פְּרֵדוֹת טוֹבוֹת יֵשׁ לִי לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן, רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָה הָעַמּוֹנִית.

“The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: not as it arose in your mind. I have two precious descendants to bring forth from them: Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite.” (Bava Kama 38a)

History here is not exhausted by judgment. The future is already concealed within the present, and divine restraint is shaped not only by what a nation has done but by what may yet emerge from it. Moab is not acquitted. Devarim will still legislate distance:

לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה'... עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם... וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר.

“An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord... because they did not come before you with bread and water... and because he hired against you Bilam son of Beor.” (Devarim 23:4–5)

The Kli Yakar, troubled by the apparent disproportion of the charge, offers a daring reading of this verse as well:

וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהַדָּבָר כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ, וְהָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא... לָכֵן לֹא קִדְּמוּם בַּלֶּחֶם כְּדֵי לְהַרְעִיבָם וּלְהַאֲכִילָם מִזִּבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן, וְלֹא קִדְּמוּםבַּמַּיִם כְּדֵי לְהַשְׁקוֹתָם כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה וְיֵין נִסְכֵיהֶם... וְכָל כַּוָּנָתָם הָיְתָה לְהַכְשִׁילָם בִּזְנוּת וּלְהָבִיאָם עַל יָדוֹ לְמַעֲשֵׂה פְּעוֹר.

“And I say that the matter is to be taken literally, and this depends upon that... therefore they did not greet them with bread in order to leave them hungry and feed them from the sacrifices of their gods, and they did not greet them with water in order to give them the cup of intoxication and their libation wine... and all their intention was to make them stumble in harlotry and thereby bring them to the act of Peor.” (Kli Yakar to Bemidbar 25:17 / Devarim 23:5 theme)

Again, this is not a consensus position casually restated; it is the Kli Yakar's own powerful rereading. But its force is undeniable. The refusal of bread and water ceases to be mere inhospitality. It becomes the first stage of seduction.

One more textual moment now begins to glow retrospectively. When Balak first summons Bilam, both Moab and Midian send elders:

וַיֵּלְכוּ זִקְנֵי מוֹאָב וְזִקְנֵי מִדְיָן וּקְסָמִים בְּיָדָם... וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה... וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב עִם בִּלְעָם.

“The elders of Moab and the elders of Midian went, with divinations in their hands... and he said to them, ‘Lodge here tonight’... and the officers of Moab stayed with Bilam.” (Bemidbar 22:7–8)

The verse mentions only the officers of Moab remaining. Where did the elders of Midian go?

וְזִקְנֵי מִדְיָן לְהֵיכָן הָלְכוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה וְגוֹ' הָלְכוּ לָהֶם. אָמְרוּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ אָב שֶׁשּׂוֹנֵא אֶת בְּנוֹ?

“And where did the elders of Midian go? Once he said to them, ‘Lodge here tonight,’ they went away. They said: is there any father who hates his son?” (Da'at Zekeinim mi-Ba'alei HaTosafot to Bemidbar 22:8)

They understood that a curse against Israel would not be forthcoming. The father in the comment is God, the son is Israel. The Midianite elders see the impossibility of the curse and depart. And yet their departure from that scene is not innocence. For when the strategy shifts from curse to seduction, Midian returns to the foreground, no longer as onlooker but as implementer.

Chizkuni offers another possibility:

וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב עִם בִּלְעָם – לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ שָׁם מַכִּירִים בְּמִדְיָן, נִתְאַכְסְנוּ עִם בִּלְעָם; אֲבָל זִקְנֵי מִדְיָן שֶׁהָיוּ מִמִּדְיָן נִתְאַכְסְנוּבָּעִיר עִם חֲבֵרֵיהֶם.

“And the officers of Moab stayed with Bilam—because they had no acquaintances there in Midian, they lodged with Bilam; but the elders of Midian, being from Midian, lodged in the city with their companions.” (Chizkuni to Bemidbar 22:8)

The two readings are different, but they converge in one respect: Midian is present at the beginning of the affair. Their role is not accidental, not peripheral.

What emerges, then, is not a single explanation but a constellation. Rashi and those who follow him distinguish fear from intrusion into another's conflict. The Kli Yakar proposes a distinction in initiative. Rashi and Ramban stress the exposure of a royal daughter, indicating counsel at the highest level. The Torah itself names Bilam as the source of the counsel, and Midian as one of its active instruments. The Midrash defines the gravity of such an assault not as ordinary hostility but as the corruption of covenantal life itself. The future, meanwhile, holds back the destruction of Moab because Ruth must yet emerge.

All of this returns us to the opening paradox of the parasha. Pinchas is given a covenant precisely after an act of violence. This is difficult only if one imagines that the violence and the covenant belong to unrelated worlds. But they do not. The strategy of Midian, under Bilam's counsel, had been to use the body against the covenant, to turn desire into an instrument of estrangement, to make physical appetite the medium through which the bond between God and Israel would be ruptured. Pinchas performs the opposite movement. He intervenes at the point where body and covenant had been fused in desecration, and by stopping the sin in its tracks he seeks to heal the relationship that had been torn.

וְהָיְתָה לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

“And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and he effected atonement for the Children of Israel.” (Bemidbar 25:13)

The man who saved the covenant is rewarded with a covenant. The symmetry is exact. Midian had sought to shatter the bond; Pinchas restores it. Their weapon was seduction; his act is interruption. They used the body to estrange Israel from God; Pinchas acts within the broken world of the body in order to return Israel to God. The brit shalom is therefore not an ornamental reward attached externally to zeal. It is the healing of the very reality that had been assaulted. Peace appears here not as softness, but as the restoration of covenantal wholeness after an attempt to tear it apart.

Antisemitism: Then and Now Musings for Parashat Balak

 Antisemitism: Then and Now

Musings for Parashat Balak

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Historically, people have been critical of Jews even when they did not personally know any Jews. They have feared Jews without ever meeting one. They have hated Jews without contact, and plotted against them for imagined slights. The Jew, in many such cases, is not encountered as a person, but as a construct—a figure shaped by narrative, closer to literature than to lived reality.

One of the earliest biblical expressions of what would much later be recognized as antisemitism appears in the figure of Balak, who turns to Bilaam in search of a way to undo a people he neither knows nor engages. Pharaoh had already dehumanized the Israelites and reduced them to a labor force. Balak and Bilaam are searching for something else—not subjugation, but a formulation that would make annihilation conceivable.

If one studies carefully the unfolding of Parashat Balak—not as an isolated episode, but as part of a recurring pattern—one begins to recognize that the danger does not begin with action. It begins earlier, elsewhere.

The Jewish people in this parsha are not attacked. They are not even addressed. They are simply observed.

Balak looks at them, and from that act of seeing, everything follows.

The Torah is precise. It does not tell us what Israel did to Moav. It tells us what Balak saw—and what he concluded. And the conclusion is immediate, total, and disproportionate: this people will consume everything around us.

The claim is neither argued nor tested. It becomes the premise upon which an entire political and spiritual campaign is built.

What begins as perception is already charged. It is not only a matter of what is seen, but of how it is received. A people is encountered, and almost at once transformed into something else—something threatening, expansive, undefined. The reaction tells us as much about the observer as about the object of observation. It is not only a misreading of Israel; it reveals the one who sees.

This is the first step, and it is one that repeats throughout history. Antisemitism begins not with evidence, but with interpretation. A people is observed, misread, and fixed within a narrative that is rarely reexamined.

Once that narrative is in place, it develops a life of its own.

Balak does not keep his fear to himself. He gives it language, and in doing so transforms it into something shareable. What begins as perception becomes a collective understanding. Once articulated, it no longer belongs only to him; it acquires form and coherence, and can be taken up by others. Midian joins him—not because they naturally belong together, but because they now inhabit the same interpretation.

This is not incidental. The Torah is pointing to a mechanism: those who have little in common can be united through a shared hostility toward Jews. The alliance itself is artificial, even unstable, but it is effective. It creates a coalition where none previously existed.

What binds this coalition is not shared identity, but a shared reading of reality. Different groups, with different histories and interests, come to see the same object through the same lens. The narrative provides enough structure to hold them together, even as everything else would keep them apart.

This, too, repeats. There is no need to search far in history to find moments in which competing forces—political, ideological, even theological—discover that cooperation becomes possible when the object of their opposition is the same.

But the next step in the parasha is even more telling.

Balak does not prepare for war. He turns to Bilaam.

That decision reveals something essential. Balak does not understand Israel as merely a military threat. He senses—however vaguely—that what he confronts cannot be addressed on the battlefield alone. And so he turns to speech, to interpretation, to influence. He seeks someone who can reshape reality through words.

Bilaam is introduced as a figure whose words have power: whom he blesses is blessed, and whom he curses is cursed. The language should sound familiar. It echoes what was said about Avraham. That is precisely the point.

Bilaam is not simply an outsider. He stands within the echo of Avraham’s legacy—and distorts it. The resemblance is not continuity, but inversion. Where Avraham’s speech emerges from covenant and responsibility, giving form to blessing, Bilaam deploys language as an instrument of control, severed from obligation. The structure remains, but its direction is reversed.

The opposition to Israel, then, does not arise only from distance, but from distorted proximity. Moav comes from Lot. Midian comes from Avraham. Bilaam presents himself, in effect, as a kind of alternative Avraham—a figure with access to divine language, but without the covenantal commitment that gives that language meaning.

Antisemitism, in this sense, is not always the product of ignorance of the Jewish story. At times, it emerges as a corruption of that story—one that preserves its forms while emptying them of their content.

Yet even this does not capture the full complexity.

In one reading, Bilaam is a pagan sorcerer. In another, he is far more unsettling: a person who recognizes the truth, who speaks with God, and yet cannot live in accordance with what he knows. A “tortured monotheist.” The problem is not ignorance. It is that knowledge and being have separated—that what is grasped intellectually never fully takes hold.

He can articulate truth with precision. But articulation does not bind him. Speech remains intact—even compelling—while the self stands elsewhere. What is revealed is not ignorance, but dislocation.

This, too, echoes in later history. Opposition to Jews is not always rooted in ignorance. At times, it emerges from an encounter with ideas that are partially understood, deeply felt, and ultimately resisted. The resistance does not undo the encounter; something remains—fragments, severed from their source and rearranged.

The attempt to curse Israel fails.

But that failure is misunderstood if one assumes the story ends there. The significance of Bilaam lies not only in his inability to curse, but in what follows.

If Israel cannot be defeated from the outside, it must be undone from within.

This is the turning point. The strategy shifts—from confrontation to infiltration, from curse to seduction. The goal is no longer to destroy Israel, but to dissolve it. The episode of the women of Moav and Midian is not a separate story, but the continuation of the same plan.

And here the Torah’s insight sharpens.

Israel does not fall through weakness. It falls through strength—through openness, through chesed, through a model of giving that traces back to Avraham. The seduction succeeds precisely because it exploits that strength. What appears as moral virtue, under altered conditions, becomes a point of exposure.

This is among the most difficult lessons carried by the narrative. The danger lies not only in external hostility, but in the misapplication of what is best within us. Chesed without limit, openness without boundary, does not disappear—it is redirected, and can be turned against the very people who embody it.

 

And when that happens, the collapse is severe. The number twenty‑four thousand—the victims of the plague that follows—appears not once, but in recurring moments, as if marking not a single failure but a pattern: the inability to hold together generosity and restraint, openness and form.

If one steps back from the details and looks at the pattern as a whole, a structure begins to emerge.

It begins with perception—distorted, unexamined, yet compelling. What is seen is quickly drawn into narrative, shared and repeated until it takes hold. From there, strategy follows: at first external, and when that fails, internal. And finally, there is execution—not always by those who first conceived the idea, but by those who come to inhabit it.

Between Balak and the women of Moav there is distance. Between idea and action lie many intermediaries. Yet the Torah insists they belong to a single continuum. The movement from one stage to the next is not abrupt, but cumulative—each layer preparing the conditions for what follows.

This, again, is not limited to the ancient past. The planning of atrocities and their execution are rarely carried out by the same individuals. One group imagines, another organizes, another implements. Those who act often do so within a framework already constructed for them—a framework that shapes not only what they do, but how they understand what they are doing.

They do not experience themselves as originators, but as participants. The actions feel immediate, even necessary, while the assumptions beneath them remain unexamined.

Responsibility becomes diffused, but the process remains unified.

A further element deepens the problem.

Moav and Midian, as the Torah presents them, lack proper historical consciousness. They encounter Israel without integrating its past. The covenant of Avraham, the descent into Egypt, the redemption, the trajectory toward the Land—these are known, but they do not shape the response.

When history is not integrated, it is replaced by invention.

And when that happens, fear fills the space where meaning should be. What might have been understood within a larger unfolding is instead experienced as an immediate threat. Without memory to give it form, the present becomes unstable—open to exaggeration, to projection, to distortion.

At this point, the question presses itself forward: what is the response?

The material we have been tracing does not offer a simple solution, because it does not point to a single cause. It does, however, suggest several directions.

First, there is the internal dimension. Again and again, the moments of greatest danger coincide with a loss of clarity—clarity about identity, about purpose, about the balance that defines the Jewish condition: between openness and boundary. Unity, in this context, does not mean uniformity. It means coherence: the ability to live as a people that knows what it stands for, even when it debates how to express it.

There is also the preservation of memory. Not a simplified memory, and not a defensive one, but a living narrative. The response to distortion is not silence, nor the abandonment of storytelling, but its refinement. A people that loses its own story becomes vulnerable not only to attack, but to disorientation from within.

There is, as well, the recognition that Jewish existence itself carries a claim. It is not neutral. It embodies a tension—between the particular and the universal, between distinction and responsibility—that is not easily resolved. That tension can be misunderstood, resisted, or turned against the people who carry it. But it can also be lived in a way that remains faithful to its source, without dissolving either side.

And there is a dimension that cannot be overlooked.

Throughout the entire episode of Balak, the decisive force is not Balak’s fear, nor Bilaam’s gift, nor the alliance between Moav and Midian. It is something that operates beneath them, shaping the outcome before the human actors have completed their plans. Plans are made, alliances are formed, curses are prepared—and yet they do not succeed.

The Torah is unambiguous about why. God is not absent from this episode. He redirects Bilaam’s journey, transforms his curses into blessings, and makes clear that the destiny of Israel is not subject to human speech, however powerful. The parsha does not present this as a rupture or interruption, but as part of its structure: there is a limit to what human hostility can accomplish, and that limit is not set by Israel’s strength, but by what stands behind it.

This is not a simple triumph. The protections of the parsha do not prevent the tragedy of the twenty‑four thousand. They do not eliminate danger, or suffering, or the consequences of internal failure. What they establish is something more precise: that the extermination of Israel from the outside—the project Balak conceives and Bilaam is brought to execute—is not within the range of what human coalition and spiritual manipulation can achieve.

From within the story, this is not always visible. The actors do not see what the reader sees. Bilaam does not fully understand why his words keep changing. Balak does not know what has intervened. The protection is real, but it does not announce itself.

Read across the longer arc of history, it becomes unmistakable.

The Jewish people move forward, often unaware of what has been attempted against them. The curses prepared for them become, in the mouth of their would‑be destroyer, some of the most beautiful words ever spoken about Israel: “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob.”

That inversion—of curse into blessing, of intended destruction into involuntary praise—is not incidental. It is the parsha’s final word.

If there is something to be contributed in the present, it begins with recognizing these patterns without surrendering to them. It requires clarity without simplification, strength without hardness, openness without naïveté.

It requires, above all, continuity.

The same structures that generated hostility in the past reappear in new forms. The same confusions about history, the same manipulations of fear, the same attempts to fragment and infiltrate can be discerned again and again.

The response, too, must be continuous.

To remain, to remember, to think clearly, and to live in accordance with a story that transcends the moment—this is not a solution in the technical sense. It is something else.

It is not the resolution of the pattern, but the refusal to be absorbed by it.

That refusal is itself the contribution—not by erasing the pattern, but by insisting that it does not have the final word.

 

The Unfinished Symphony - YouTube

The Unfinished Symphony - YouTube

Parashat Shlach - Goin Home

Parashat Korach = YouTube - The Truth of Distorted Reality