Why is Pinchas hailed as the ultimate Warrior of God? Why are we to be so impressed by his expression of zealotry? In describing why He is rewarding Pinchas, God says, ‘Pinchas…turned back My anger against Bnei Yisrael, in avenging My vengeance’ , so that I did not annihilate Bnei Yisrael due to my vengeance…because he fought for His God he atoned for Bnei Yisrael’. According to God’s own reasoning, anyone who would have stood up and speared the brash sinners would have received the very same reward having accomplished the necessary atonement for the nation! Nowhere in God’s statement does it say that Pinchas’ reward is because he stood up when no one else would! God does not praise his zealousness but rather his accomplishments; a success anyone could have achieved ! So what is so special about Pinchas’ actions that the Torah feels the need to emphatically praise his actions and detail his subsequent reward?

In this parsha’s haftarah (not read this week due to Shiva Asar Be’Tammuz calculations), we are told of Eliyahu’s flight from the vengeful wrath of Izevel, Achav’s wife; he killed her prophets of Baal, and was informed that he would therefore pay with his life. Eliyahu runs to the desert where he sits under a bush and pleads for his immediate death. Twice an angel appears and tells the prophet to eat from the miraculously blooming desert foliage, ‘for your upcoming journey is long’. After his second repast, Eliyahu rises and travels 40 days and nights to Har Chorev where he is greeted by the word of God, saying, ‘what business do you have here?’ The prophet quickly answers that, ‘I have been vengeful for God because Bnei Yisrael has corrupted Your covenant, destroyed Your altars and killed Your prophets by the sword; only I, alone, remain and they want to take my life!’ Eliyahu is ‘explaining’ to God that because he took up His cause and killed the prophets of Baal, and continually defied the iniquitous reign of Achav and Izevel, he is now going to be killed for his efforts and therefore has decided to run away, hoping to die naturally in the desert instead of by the hands of the evil king and queen of Israel.

God then responds to Eliyahu’s report with an enigmatic statement: ‘Go and stand before God, and a great, mighty, strong wind that crumbles mountains and smashes rocks will pass before you – but God will not be in that wind; and after the wind, a [huge] noise – but God will not be in that noise; and after the noise, fire – but God will not be in that fire; and after the fire, a very, soft voice.’ And Eliyahu then goes out and hears the soft voice, which then asks again, using the very same words as before: ‘what business do you have here?’ – and strangely, Eliyahu answers exactly as he did before, verbatim! And this time God replies, ‘go and return on your way to the desert of Damascus and go and anoint Chazael as king over Aram, and anoint Yehu as king over Israel and anoint Elisha as the prophet who will succeed you. And those who escape the sword of Chazael will be killed by Yehu; and those who escape Yehu’s sword will be killed by Elisha…’

The obvious connection to the parsha is the use of the word ‘vengeful’ – the same root used to describe Pinchas’ actions. However, this puzzling story with Eliyahu must have a deeper, more significant meaning, thereby conveying an even deeper lesson through its connection to Parshat Pinchas.

We can easily assume that God repeated His very same question to Eliyahu, after His initial response of His unique wind/noise/fire/soft voice-arrival, to elicit a different reply from the prophet; ‘I heard what you said, and here’s what I have to say; so now, having heard my words, let’s try this again – what business do you have here?’ Unfortunately, Eliyahu does not change his answer, choosing rather to use the exact same words as he did previously; so what message was Eliyahu supposed to receive from God’s speech but unfortunately missed?

There was one other time in our history when God appeared to a people along with the very three things mentioned here: shaking mountains, loud thunderous noise and blazing fire – the giving of the Torah! And because of the similarities, the differences are brilliantly highlighted: by the giving of the Torah the voice of God was not soft like as it was with Eliyahu and God specifically did appear within the clouds and fire, thunder and noise (as opposed to the experience with Eliyahu where He explicitly declared that He would not be found neither in the wind, nor the noise, nor the fire)! This blatant juxtaposition is further illustrated by the fact that the angels fed Eliyahu in the desert specifically so that he would have enough strength to travel (for 40 days and 40 nights!) and reach Har Chorev – the same location! The poignant emphasizing of the differences between these two juxtaposed episodes forces us to appreciate that the message of Eliyahu’s ‘Chorev’ experience was the exact opposite to that of giving of the Torah. In placating their fear of God’s overwhelming appearance at Har Sinai, Moshe told Bnei Yisrael that the entire dramatic manifestation of God was purposeful, ‘so that His awe will be upon you to prevent you from sinning’ – the powerful ‘special effects’ were essential to their understanding of God’s omnipotent omnipresence which would positively guide their behavior. Eliyahu’s experience, conversely, lacked that similar force to God’s manifestation – His voice was soft and His presence limited; therefore, God would have been conveying the opposite point: His awe was not upon Eliyahu and therefore was not ultimately directing his laudable behavior.

And now putting it all into context: in explaining why he was running for his life, Eliyahu said that it was because he had been vengeful for God which infuriated his enemies enough to call for his death. Hearing this, God illustrated (through his highlighted God-removed Chorev appearance) that there was a dangerous aspect of Godlessness in Eliyahu’s original answer; He then asked His question again, hoping Eliyahu would have understood His intended message and would respond to His query differently. Unfortunately, Eliyahu does not change his response in any way so God tells him (instead) to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha. What is so significant about these three appointments? God states that these people would take care of the very issues which Eliyahu had explained he had been fighting for and still needed to address! ‘Bnei Yisrael have corrupted Your covenant’ – Chazael, the king of Aram, will attack (and thereby punish) the people; ‘[they have] destroyed Your altars and killed Your prophets by the sword’ – Yehu will kill Achav and destroy any remnant of that sinful monarchy which destroyed and killed God’s altars and priests, respectively, replacing them with Baal’s; ‘only I, alone, remain and they want to take my life’ – Elisha will now take his place as prophet. Because of Eliyahu’s (repeated) faulty response, God commanded the prophet’s total removal from his previous role, delegating the entirety of its responsibilities to others.

But what could Eliyahu have possibly said that warranted such Divine criticism and the dramatic removal from his prophet-of-Israel role? Now we return to Pinchas. God says that Pinchas was ‘kan-oh kinati’ – ‘his vengeance was for My vengeance’ – in other words, Pinchas only expressed his vengeance because of God’s similar feelings! Pinchas stepped up to physically exhibit that which God was ‘exhibiting’ spiritually! He was God’s ‘man’ on the ground, intimately connected to the Divine goal; ‘God desires to be vengeful against these sinners; therefore, I will be vengeful, as the perfect reflection of God’s will’! And with this elevated Divine purpose, Pinchas, without question or pause, stepped up as the sole savior of the situation and quickly dispatched the sinners and halted the deadly plague.

How does Eliyahu explain his savior actions? ‘kanoh kinaiti l’adoshem’ – ‘I was surely vengeful for God’ (vs. Pinchas: ‘his vengeance was for My vengeance’). The difference is clear: while both men outwardly demonstrated similar actions, Pinchas’ were performed as a direct extension of God’s will, an expression of his pure connection to God; Eliyahu’s were merely motivated by God’s will, inspired by, but not expressed through, his relationship with God. And the significant weakness of this latter approach is realized when Eliyahu is threatened with his upcoming death by Izevel’s hands: he ultimately regrets his virtuous actions, requesting a death in the lonely desert, complaining (twice!) to God about his plight brought on only because he had fought for Him! Through Eliyahu’s repeated ‘lacking’ response and especially in light of his failure to appreciate God’s ‘instructive’ reply, God quickly ‘noted’ that Eliyahu’s fear and subsequent lament regarding his zealous actions pointedly demonstrated that he did not now possess the deep-seeded faith in and connection to God which was required of a leader of Israel – he was therefore removed from his leadership role. Pinchas, however, fought for God without hesitation or regret, from within the context of a perfect reflection of his powerful connection to Him, and ultimately received for his laudatory actions a guarantee of his future (and his descendants’ eternal) role as kohain!

If zealousness of worship is God-motivated yet ultimately not an expression of a deeply rooted relationship with the Divine, then when it faces the inevitable challenges of failure, danger, boredom or lack of opportunity, that worship will weaken and disappear no matter how strong it may have been originally. A chumra must serve the express purpose of strengthening one’s connection to God; this relationship is eternal, despite the trials and tribulations and limitedness of life; so too a ‘true’ dedicated edification of that relationship.