JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Pinchas

PARSHAT BALAK – GROUP SYMBIOSIS

Parshat Balak, read last week, discusses the attempts of the Moavite king to destroy the Jewish People. He first attempted to have them cursed by Bilam, a Gentile prophet. When that failed, Bilam advised that if the Moavite and Minyanite women would seduce the Jewish men to sin, G-d’s wrath would be spilled out on them. The plan was adopted, and unfortunately, it ultimately resulted in many Jewish deaths.

As the public was sinning, Zimri ben Salu, the Prince of the Tribe of Shimon, committed a particularly brazen act. He and a Minyanite woman openly cohabited in front of Moshe and all of the Jews. According to Torah law, in this type of situation, those who are zealous, may avenge G-d’s Honor by killing them.” Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron therefore arose and slew both of them with a spear.

Regarding Pinchas’s deed the Torah (Parshat Pinchas 25:11) writes, “Pinchas the son of Eliezer, the son of Aaron the priest, turned back My wrath from the Children of Israel when he zealously avenged Me among them, so I did not consume the Children of Israel in My vengeance. This sentence clearly indicates that were it not for Pinchas’s deed, Hashem (G-d) would have destroyed the Jewish People.

The Midrash Rabbah (20:25) explains that the situation could be compared to a king who was passing a group of young people. One of them cursed the king, who understandably became enraged. A local citizen quickly slapped the one who cursed, and the king’s anger abated. So too, due to what Zimri did, Hashem’s anger with the Jews could have led to their death. But after Pinchas’s deed, the Heavenly wrath subsided, and the Jews were saved.

The words of the Midrash require closer examination. Had Zimri not sinned, the people would not have been in danger. This is evident from the Midrash’s example where if the person would not have cursed the king, he would not have gotten angry. If so, why were they suddenly deemed guilty as a result of another person’s sinning? It was Zimri who sinned, not them. If they were considered guilty anyway due to their own sinning, why were only guilty because of what Zimri did?

It must be that there is a powerful symbiotic relationship among members of a group. It is as if their morals were all mixed together in a large pot and that concoction of principles becomes the moral code of every member of the group. Therefore, when one of the group acts, even in an outrageous manner, it is certain that underlying ethics or lack of ethics behind that act was shared by all members of the group. Hence, they too are considered guilty, despite not having committed the actual sin.

Consider: when the Palestinians commit a heinous terrorist act in Israel, who is the guilty party? The prevailing secular notion is that only the perpetrators who are guilty. Hence, after such incidents, Israel typically attempts to avenge the crime by targeting those responsible. And when there is collateral damage to “innocent” bystanders, handwringing, guilt, and earnest apologies are the order of the day.

This text would indicate that the entire Palestinian society is largely guilty and deserving of retribution. If they were a humane people who shuddered at the thought of outrages such as murdering and maiming children on school busses, no member of their group would commit such crimes. A comparable deed in the US would be for someone to shoot Katyusha rockets into downtown Toronto from Rochester, NY because he had a gripe with Canada. For one, it would likely never happen in the country as we know it. Because the USA society is generally law abiding and just, even its extremists will likely not act in this manner. And if such an act ever occurred, the entire USA would be embarrassed and outraged and it would mobilize to track down the cowardly murderer.

The Palestinians act very differently. When five members of the Fogel family in Israeli town of Itamar were treacherously stabbed to death on March 11, 2011, Arabs throughout the territories rejoiced. To illustrate, there were news reports of candy being distributed to children all over Gaza to mark the celebration. The Arabs also maintain a museum of terrorism in the city of Ramallah where they honor the memory of particularly ‘successful’ suicide bombers.

From the perspective of the Torah’s ethics taught in Parshat Pinchas, this group endorsement of terrorist killing renders virtually all of their community guilty of murder. Some may argue that many of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are simply people who want to live peacefully and raise their families and not much more. Is every single one of them guilty of murder? Should all of them be blamed? It is however true that in the example of the Midrash, all of the friends incurred the deadly wrath of the king simply for being part of a group, one member of which cursed the king.

The Arabs are far more than just members of a society that happens to have terrorists in its midst. As a group, they glorify stabbing Jewish children while they sleep. Palestinian children are being raised to rejoice when such events occur. If so, it is all the more true they are all considered participants in the extremist acts of members of their group, despite the fact that they did not do the actual killing.


Politics aside, the idea of group symbiosis has significant personal application as well. People should be very careful when choosing their group of friends. To some extent, the morality of every one of them is uploaded to someplace where it is pooled and returned. The newly downloaded blend then powerfully impacts upon each group member’s code of morals – for worse or for better.