The Torah portion of Pinchas speaks at length
[1] about two kinds of offerings:
- the korban tamid, or regular daily burnt offering, brought both morning and afternoon; and
- the additional offerings brought on Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh and Festivals.
With regard to the korban tamid, the Torah states
[2] that it is to be brought "in its appointed time." Rashi explains that "every day is the 'appointed time' " for this offering.
Rashi's comment is perplexing. Is he adding anything to what the verse itself goes on to say - that the korban tamid was a regular daily offering?
Rashi is seeking to address the following question: When an offering is brought infrequently, the statement that it be brought at its "appointed time" is understandable; it should be brought at the proper time, neither a day earlier nor a day later. But how does this term apply to an offering brought on a daily basis?
It would seem that the korban tamid differed from all other offerings, in that bringing it on a daily basis caused it to have no "appointed time"; after all, it was brought constantly.
Rashi therefore advises us that this is not so; every day is the exclusively appointed time for offering the korban tamid designated for that day. This makes the korban tamid similar to other offerings, so that if the day passes without the offering of that day being brought, it cannot be brought on another day.[3]
In terms of man's spiritual service, Rashi is informing us of the following:
The Divine Presence that dwelled in the Sanctuary and consequently within the entire world came as a result of the sacrificial offerings.[4] Understandably, each category of offering resulted in a distinct revelation of the Presence.
As mentioned earlier, there are two general categories of offerings, the korban tamid and the additional offerings. These two kinds of offering are associated with two common ways of revealing holiness in the world:
The additional offerings brought on Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh and Festivals accomplish an indwelling of holiness that transforms time; a revealed sanctity resides within these days that makes the days themselves "holy days."
However, since this sanctity is limited to a specific point in time, it is itself limited.
With the korban tamid the opposite is true: This offering is constant, i.e., without limitations. As a consequence, the sanctity that accompanies it is boundless as well, and not subject to change.
We may be led to think that since this level of holiness is boundless it remains elusive - higher than time and thus with no effect on time. We are therefore informed that "every day is the appointed time for the korban tamid," i.e., this sanctity too filters down into the realm of time.
In terms of our divine service, the lesson is as follows. When one serves constantly, in the style of the korban tamid, then one can be assured that his spiritual service will not deteriorate. Whatever the time, be it a regular day, Shabbos or Yom Kippur, such a person will always feels that he exists solely to fulfill G-d's will.
Serving in this manner ensures that each day becomes a special day, filled with the appropriate level of holiness. This will hasten the arrival of Moshiach, when each day will become "a song for the Shabbos day[5]" - "a day of eternal Shabbos and tranquillity."[6]
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 182-190.
Notes:
- (Back to text) Bamidbar, chs. 28-29.
- (Back to text) Ibid., 28:2.
- (Back to text) See Rashi, ibid., verses 10 and 14.
- (Back to text) See Kuzari, Maamar II, ch. 26; Siddur Im Dach, p. 33b-c; Or HaTorah, Pinchas, p. 1072ff. and sources cited there, et al.
- (Back to text) Tehillim 92:1.
- (Back to text) Conclusion of Tractate Tamid.
The Gemara states:
[1] "If one sees Pinchas in a dream, a wonder (peleh) is destined to happen to him [i.e., the dreamer]." Comments Rashi: " 'A wonder is destined...' Just as there occurred with Pinchas, as the Gemara states in Sanhedrin.
[2]"
But the Gemara in Sanhedrin states that "six miracles (nissim) transpired with Pinchas."
This being so, why is only a single wonder destined to happen to the dreamer?
Also, why does Rashi use the expression "a wonder (peleh) is destined... Just as there occurred with Pinchas," when the Gemara states that "six miracles (nissim) transpired with Pinchas."
In fact, the word peleh here refers to a kind of wonder that is even loftier than ordinary miracles. This is similar to its usage in the verse[3] "As in the days of your exodus from Egypt, I shall demonstrate wonders."
This verse implies that the miracles during the future Redemption will be veritable "wonders" compared to the miracles that took place at the time of the Exodus.[4]
This is Rashi's intent when he states: "Just as there occurred with Pinchas, as the Gemara states in Sanhedrin." The wondrous aspect that transpired with Pinchas is not the quantity of miracles but their quality, i.e., the miracles themselves came about in a truly wondrous manner. For the six miracles that occurred with him all transpired as upshots of a single event; each detail of Pinchas' zealous action for G-d's sake was accompanied by its own miracle - a true wonder.
The matter is as follows: A nes involves the rupturing of natural barriers. The very fact that nature must be "broken" indicates that there is room for natural conduct; in order to perform a miracle, nature must be subdued. Thus, each time a miracle occurs, nature must again be subjugated.
But a peleh involves an event that is entirely removed from the bounds of nature, so much so that it is not necessary to "break" nature in order for the event to occur. Rather, miraculous conduct becomes the norm.
Rashi thus writes that a peleh, a single wonder (and not many wonders) are destined to happen to the individual who sees Pinchas in a dream, "as it occurred with Pinchas," for the many miracles that transpired with Pinchas were truly part of a single "wonder" - totally removed from the confines of nature.
This peleh reflected an integral aspect of Pinchas' very being; if this were not so, how is it that because a peleh happened to him on one particular day, whoever dreams about him is destined to have a peleh occur in his life?
In other words, G-d acted toward Pinchas in a wondrous manner because Pinchas conducted himself in this selfsame manner; his ongoing spiritual service was not on an ordinary level. G-d therefore acted towards him measure for measure.
For in a spiritual context, divine service in a "miraculous" manner means that a person serves G-d with mesirus nefesh,[5] total self-sacrifice: just as a miracle demonstrates that nothing can stand in the way of His will, so, too, service in a "miraculous" manner means that nothing will impede the person from executing G-d's will; if necessary, the person will give his very life.
The service of peleh, however, goes even further, referring as it does to an individual whose total being is that of mesirus nefesh - he is totally dedicated to the A-mighty, and no desire other than G-d's exists within him. Therefore all his actions are permeated with mesirus nefesh as a matter of course.
Since Pinchas' zealousness on behalf of G-d knew no limits, and he always acted at the level of mesirus nefesh and peleh,[6] G-d responded in kind.
Therefore, whoever sees Pinchas - who personifies peleh and mesirus nefesh - in a dream, is destined to have a peleh occur in his life.
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXXIII pp. 164-167.
Notes:
- (Back to text) Berachos 56b.
- (Back to text) 82b.
- (Back to text) Michah 7:15.
- (Back to text) See Or HaTorah, Michah, pp. 486-7; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XV, p. 367, fn. 16, and sources cited there.
- (Back to text) See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVII, p. 151ff.
- (Back to text) See Sanhedrin 81b; Rambam, Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah, 12:5; Ramah, Choshen Mishpat 425:4.
The portion of Pinchas begins
[1] with G-d's statement to Moshe: "Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Priest, turned My wrath away from the Children of Israel when he displayed anger among them on My behalf...." Pinchas turned away G-d's wrath by killing Zimri, who was acting immorally.
Rashi[2] explains that the verse traces Pinchas' lineage to Aharon, the lover of peace,[3] because the tribes were saying that Pinchas' action stemmed from his grandfather (on his mother's side) who fattened cattle to be slaughtered before idols. By disparaging Pinchas, the tribes were trying to salvage the honor of the Jewish people and Moshe, for it was only Pinchas who acted in this zealous manner.
They therefore said that Pinchas's act was not motivated by true zealousness for the sake of G-d, but happened because he was descended from someone who fattened calves solely for the purpose of slaughtering them.
The Torah therefore traces his lineage to Aharon, informing us that Pinchas' innate tendencies echo those of his peace-loving grandfather Aharon; his killing of Zimri stemmed solely from anger and zeal on G-d's behalf.
There are a number of important lessons to learn from this. When one observes someone doing something good, then even if he thinks he has proof that the person has a self-serving reason, he should not minimize the other's action.
Even if it is true that the person is acting for a selfish reason, there is still the law[4] that "One should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvos even if it is not for the purest of intentions, for this will eventually lead him to [perform them with] wholly pure intentions."
Moreover, making light of a person's good deeds may have a negative impact on him; he may cease the study of Torah or the performance of good deeds. It is thus better to merely encourage such an individual to act out of pure motives.
Most importantly, we can never truly know what lies in another's heart. Although the tribes seemingly had ample proof that Pinchas' behavior stemmed from something other than pure motives, the A-mighty - who "sees into the heart"[5] - made it known that Pinchas was motivated entirely by his zealousness for G-d.
There is yet another aspect. When one makes light of another, contending that the other is only acting well because of an ulterior motive, the critic may well be mistaken in thinking that his criticism stems from a holy instinct. The person might say to himself that since he is so humble, he cannot stand seeing another acting in a haughty manner. Thus when he sees an individual studying Torah with great impetus or performing a mitzvah in an exceedingly beautiful manner - acts which seem to him to verge on egotism - he is incapable of tolerating such behavior.
In fact, however, such critical attitudes can stem not from a sense of humility but from arrogance:
It is possible that what really bothers the critic is the fact that the other possesses a fine quality which he himself lacks. He is therefore jealous. If he were to be entirely honest with himself, he would learn from the other person's behavior. But since his own haughtiness is combined with laziness, he tries to belittle the other's behavior rather than emulating it.
The lesson is this: we should always judge another person favorably, and learn from his good deeds.
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VIII, pp. 160-169.
Notes:
- (Back to text) Bamidbar 25:10.
- (Back to text) Ibid.
- (Back to text) See Avos 1:12; Rashi, Bamidbar 20:29.
- (Back to text) Pesachim 50b and places cited there. See also Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe 4:3 and Kuntres Acharon there.
- (Back to text) I Shmuel 16:7.
Balak