Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aharon the Priest, has turned away My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion. Say therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship. It shall be for him and his descendents after him a pact of priesthood for all time, because he took impassioned action for his God thus making expiation for the Israelites.’ (Numbers 25:11-13)

According to the account in Sanhedrin 82a (see also Midrash Rabba and Midrash Tanchuma end of parashat Balak and beginning of parashat Pinchas), after Moses appointed courts to deal with the fornication and idolatry of Baal Peor, the tribe of Shimeon approached their prince Zimri, demanding protection. Zimri’s reaction was to publically confront Moses and mockingly inquire why it was that while Moses forbade Zimri to fornicate with Cozbi (a Midianite princess), Moses himself was married to a Midianite woman (overlooking, of course, the fact that Moshe had married her before the giving of the Torah, and that, in any case, Ziporah had converted to Judaism). Proceeding to his tent, Zimri then openly fornicated with Cozbi. Moses having forgotten the halakha dealing with this situation, remained at a loss for what to do. Pinchas reminded Moses that after coming down from Mount Sinai he had taught that one who openly fornicates with a Gentile woman may be summarily executed during the act (without regular judicial procedure) by a kanai - someone zealous to avenge the honor of God. After Moses indicated that it was up to him to take the initiative, Pinchas slew both Zimri and the woman. For this act, the plague ravaging the camp was abated and Pinchas was rewarded with a special treaty of peace and everlasting priesthood.

To understand the significance of Pinchas’ act, one must study the halakha of kanaim pogim bo - that the zealous may summarily execute. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 82a, see Rashi’s commentary) applies this law to three types of sinners: one who steals a vessel used in the Temple service; one who curses God with the name of an idol (i.e.,verbally calling upon the “powers” of an idol to fulfill the curse); and one who fornicates with a Gentile woman. If not executed by a kanai, the sinner is punished by kareit -- excision, i.e. execution by Divine rather than human intervention (see Meiri on Sanhedrin 82a). Among the many requirements to be satisfied so that the law of kanaim pogim may be carried out, are the following: the sinful act must be done openly (before at least ten adult male Jews) and the sinner is to be killed only while still engaged in the sinful act.

Let us first identify the unique feature possessed by these three offences which renders the sinner liable to summary execution, although the offences themselves do not warrant (post facto) punishment by the court, Basically, it appears, all these acts constitute especially prominent displays of chillul Hashem -- profanation of the Divine.

A vessel used in the Temple ritual possesses an intrinsic sanctity engendered by its consecration to Divine service. Just as any common thief attempts to overpower the human owner of the stolen object, and scorn his authority; here the thief tacitly attempts to overpower and scorn the authority of the Divine ‘owner’ of the vessel. Although Judaism recognized God’s ‘ownership’ over all of creation by virtue of the very act of creation , it also regards property as belonging to human beings in the sense that it is given to them for ‘safe-keeping’ and permissible human utilization. In the case of a vessel consecrated for Temple use even this type of subsidiary human ownership, i.e., usage rights, is lacking since the vessel may be utilized only for Divine service. The thief, to speak anthropomorphically, in trying to prevail over God is at the same time effectively regarding his usage rights as superior to Divine ownership rights. In addition, and perhaps even more significantly, such a vessel is being profaned (chillul), i.e., made common and mundance (chol), since it will be ultimately used in a secular context. This is especially true for the thief since halakhically a thief to a certain extent acquires kinyanei gezeila, ownership rights (at least in the negative sense that he is totally responsible for the article) over the stolen object (see Rambam, Yad Hachazacka, Hilkhot G’zaila V’avaida, 3:15). Hence, both the Divine ‘ownership’ of the object and its intended function are tainted by being combined and confused with the secular.

One who curses God with the name of an idol (i.e., utilizing the presumed powers of the idol) is in effect saying that the idol has some power over God, thus putting God and the idol on the same level. Here again we find a confusion of the sacred and the profane, not only in the ascribing of Divine powers to the idol, but also in the attempted utilization of these powers to undermine the sacred.

Similarly in the third case, one who fornicated with a Gentile woman. The Talmud (Eruvin 19a) states: the patriarch Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna and rescues any Jew who is damned. However, one who has relations with a Gentile woman blemishes his brit milah -- the circumsision - and thus becoming unrecognizable as a Jew, cannot be saved. The brit milah, “the covenant which You have sealed in our flesh” (see second blessing of Birkhat Hamazon), is the paramount symbol of the Jew (see Chinuch, Mitzvah II). It identifies the Jew as a member of a naiton set apart and chosen from among all the nations of the world; a covenental community wih a unique historical mission. This covenant is associated with the organ of procreation to symbolize survival of the nation, and its continuing commitment to this historical mission. Just as we make ourselves different from the nations in body by the act of circumcision, we must make ourselves different from them spiritually by active fulifillment of God’s will. Herein lies the special significance of the Brit milah as a permanent symbol of the historical continuity of our devotion to God. In fact, herein lies the special accomplishment of the Patriarchs. Although there were many individual righteous persons in the generation before Abraham, it is only with the patriarchs that this devotion to the Eternal finds a historical continuity. “Because I have given him (Abraham) special recognition (special signs of love) in order that he command his children and children’s children after him, to keep the ways of God, to do acts of charity and justice...” (Genesis 18:19) If the force of this symbol is somewhat lost in this day of widespread surgical circumcision, it is well to note the prominence it has had in other historical periods. (E.g., during the Hadrianic persecutions when circumcision was a capital offense, in the Hellenistic period, with its philosophical abhorrence of bodily mutilation, and during the Middle Ages in Christian Europe when the brit milah earmarked the Jew as an object of ridicule.)

To take this symbol which proclaims to the world “I am a Jew, a member of the people sanctified, set apart and dedicated for all time,” and profane it by relations with a Gentile (to mix the holy seed with the unholy - see Zohar, parashat Pinchas and also Raishit Chochma, Shaar HaKedusha, chapters 16 and 17), to thus subvert and subjugate higher destiny and purpose to momentary desire, is a profanation of the sacred (a combination of the sacred and profane) to the highest degree. This is made all the more evident by the admonishment of the Rambam (Hilkhot Isurei Biah, 12:7-8). According to the Rambam, this sin should not be regarded lightly even though it carries no court-imposed death penalty, because it is more detrimental than all other transgressions of incest-adultery (which do carry the death penalty). For if a child is born from an incestuous or adulterous union; it is regarded as a Jewish child in every respect (for example, with regard to laws of procreation, education and inheritance) although it is a mamzer. The child of a Gentile woman is, however, a Gentile. This results in our attachment to the nations from which God has set us aside (i.e., it causes assimilation, thus subverting the uniqueness and special historical mission of the Jew). Here the holy (set apart) is combined and confused with the worldly (profane) in a most striking and permanent way.

To the Jew, the concept of holiness is inextricably intertwined with this idea of being set apart and especially committed. In Hebrew, the very word kadosh, holy or sanctified, literally means ‘set apart’; thus marriage is called kidushin because in marriage the woman is set apart from all other men and especially committed to a unique individual. In the same manner, chillul or profanation literally means ‘made plain - common,’ undistinguished and mundane (see Rashi on Genesis 18:25). The Jewish concept of chillul HaShem is hence that of mixing the Divine and the mundane, putting the common, undistinguished and uncommitted on the same level as the special, set apart and dedicated. The purpose of the Jew upon this world is to sublimate the physical - to utilize the physical through mitzvot in fulfilling the will of God, thus elevating the physical and exposing the Divne will which underlies it. The Jew must sanctify the mundane by making it an instrument for holiness, actually setting it apart and dedicating it to the highest ideal it can attain in its secular context. Any blurring of the categories of the sacred and profane any confusion of the dedicated and not dedicated, can only be detrimental to this objective. Chillul HaShem, which in essence denies this differentiation, makes this mission impossible.

This theme of chillul HaShem underlying the situations of kanaim pogim helps to explain why this halakha may only be applied during the act, since it is then that the element of chillul HaShem becomes most conspicuous. The offense must be committed publically before ten adult male Jews, just as is true for the mitzvah of Kiddush HaShem Barabim, public sanctification of the Divine. Rabbi Gamliel said (Sanhedrin 39a) that the Divine Presence rests on every group of ten Jews; they constitute a congregation - a symbolic representaion of klal Yisrael sanctified by its Divine mission. Chillul HaShem before such a group is hence an incomparably greater repudiation of the mission of klal Yisrael as a whole than is a private chillul. For its demoralizing effects are directed towards the commitment of Jewery rather than the commitment of the individual Jew.

In order to understand that aspect of the kanai’s act which in some manner neutralizes the influence of the chillul HaShem on the community, we must analyze the halakhot relevant to the act of execution itself. (See Rambam Hilkhot Isurei Biah, 12:4-5.)

The execution itself may not be performed by an ordinary individual but rather by a kanai - one who is zealous to avenge God’s honor. This requirement becomes more comprehensible when one realizes that kanaim pogim is not an obligatory commandment but rather just a permission granted (although the act is laudable it is not required of the individual). This has the immediate consequence that the kanai has no legal protection from the sinner, i e if the sinner kills the kanai to defend himself from execution, the sinner cannot be punished for murder (in self defense). This is in sharp contrast to the law of rodef, a “pursuer”. (See Rambam Hilkhot Rotzeach, 1:6-16; see especially Mishneh L’Melect on Halakha 15). If someone is attempting to murder (or rape in a case of incest or adultery) another that is, he is in ‘pursuit’ of his intended victim), it is an obligatory mitzvah for any third person to thwart the attempted murder (rape) by any means, even by killing the pursuer if it is necessary, However, even while this third person is pursuing the pursuer, if the pursuer kills the third person in self defense, he is subject to capital punishment. This follows because the third person, due to his halakhic obligation of “do not stand idly by while your friend is being murdered” (Leviticus 19:16) is given legal protection by the Torah to enable him to fulfill his responsibility. Since the kanai is not obligated to execute the sinner, he is not given this halakhic protection. Kanaim pogim hence requires great self sacrifice, for the potential kanai must voluntarily place himself in a situation of mortal danger. In the particular case of Pinchas this feature was all the more emphasized since Pinchas was not only endangered by Zimri, but by the entire tribe of Shimeon who supported him. In fact, according to the Midrashic account (cited above) he was saved from death only by miraculous Divine aid.

It is this need for self-sacrifice, motivated by only the purest intent - not for personal glory but for the glorification of God, that determines the qualifications of a kanai. This willingness to undergo mortal danger, to demonstrate ultimate commitment is the only possible answer to chillul HaShem . For only a dramatic affirmation of the mission of klal Yisrael before the entire community and a supreme statement of the degree of commitment which it entails can overcome public denial of this mission.

The kanai’s depth of moral commitment must be such that he requires no source of moral justification for his actions other than his personal relationship with God. Hence, if before executing the sinner he asks the court for a halakhic decision, they are enjoined from answering him. For if the court renders a decision he becomes a “messenger of the court” (see Yad Ramah on Sanhedrin 82a) and hence becomes unable to play his role as an example par excellence of overwhelming personal emotional (in the sense that emotion transcends reason) commitment. This explains why Moshe, the “court”, only hinted to Pinchas that it was dependent on Pinchas’ initiative to execute Zimri. Had he told Pinchas explicitly to do so he would have diminished the impact of Pinchas’ act in the eyes of klal Yisrael.

According to some views, Pinchas who was not a priest up to this time was rewarded with the Priesthood (see Rashi Numbers 25:13); according to others he was promised the High-Priesthood which in fact was dominated by the descendants of Pinchas throughout most of Jewish history (see Rambam on Numbers 25:11). Thus, dedication to sanctity of the Jewish people as a whole was rewarded on the personal level by a higher level of sanctity (the priesthood), an even closer and more special relationship with the Almighty than that possessed by klal Yisrael in general. On the communal level, the efforts of Pinchas were successful in arresting the plague - not just the physical plague but also the plague of idolatry and fornication, the plague of chillul HaShem, the plague of lost commitment (See Sefer Likutei Sichos by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, vols. 2 and 4 on parashat Pinchas.)

The Midrash says that the reason Moses forgot this halakha was just in order that Pinchas might remember it, fulfill it, and receive his reward. The cult of Peor and the assimilation and decadence that it represents is a theme that has occured again and again in Jewish history. (See Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 45 - each year the idolatry of Peor again arises and must again be confronted.) Just as for Pinchas in the desert, in every generation and in every historical situation each Jew is given the oportunity to demonstrate his commitment and by this demonstration to strengthen it. In his personal confrontation each Jew must be a kanai.