Ethical Teachings of the Torah

"He Zealously Made My [G-d's] Rights Valid" (Bamidbar 25:11), part 2

At Shitim the people of Israel were punished by a plague because of their sexual immorality and idolatry with the daughters of Moav. In what way was Zimri’s action different from theirs that, instead of dying in the general plague like the other individuals, it called for his death at the hands of Pinchas? These two sets of actions would seem to differentiate between separate elements and motivations regarding assimilation, that of the individual and that of the nation; differences that we find throughout Jewish history.
In the beginning of the story of Zimri, we read, “there came a man of Israel and brought the Midianite woman in front of Moshe and the whole congregation” (Bamidbar 25:6). Here the assimilation and sexual shamelessness was that of the individual, that of a man of Israel subject to the weaknesses, motivations and ambitions that can lead to the desire to assimilate into a culture that is less restrictive, more hedonistic or more profitable than that of Judaism. So there is no mention of any name or status, either of the woman or of the man, since in such a case these are irrelevant. However, Balak realized that the degeneration and assimilation of individual men was insufficient, so he convinced Midian to send the women of their royal families to seduce the leaders of Israel. So, we read, “The name of the man who was killed was Zimri ben Salu, [“His real name was Shlumiel ben Tzurishadai, Prince of Shevet Shimon” (Sanhedrin 82b)], the name of the woman was Kozbi the daughter of Tzur [one of the five kings of Midian]”.
“Moshe said, to the judges of Israel let each man kill his men who were attached to Baal-Peor” (Bamidbar 25:5) “The tribe of Shimon told Zimri, ‘The fates of lives are being decided and you, our prince, stand by idle! So Zimri gathered 24,000 of Israel and went to find favor in the eyes of Kozbi. However, she refused him, saying, ‘my father instructed me to offer myself only to the greatest of Israel, to Moshe himself’. Zimri answered her, ‘I am greater than Moshe, both because I am a prince of a tribe whereas he is not, but also because my ancestor, Shimon, was the second son of Yaakov, whereas his forefather, Levi, was only a third son’” (Shmot Rabba 33:5; Midrash HaGadol 24).
“The Moavim, once they had succeeded in bringing corruption and trouble on Israel, ceased from causing further harm. However, the Midianites persisted in their threats to Israel’s morality and adherence to G-d’s Law. As their princess had not died in the general deaths of the plague but was killed by a Jew, they felt they had to take up the vendetta for their sister. The character of her father as a king gave Kozbi a national status” (S. R. Hirsch).
The same distinction between the individual and the nation is to be found between the idolatry of the period of Shoftim and that of the kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Throughout the first period we find individuals worshiping the spirits of the fields, sprigs and other natural phenomena or the gods of prosperity and fertility, alongside G-d. However, later, the element of a national idolatry was added to this duality. First, Yeravam ben N’vat, when he seceded with the 10 tribes from the Davidic dynasty, set up the molten calves at Dan and at Bet-El, saying, “These are your gods, Israel”. He appointed non-Leviyim to serve in a sanctuary there, created a new festival on the 15 of Marcheshvan to correspond to Sukkot of Tishrei, and forbade - on pain of death, the people from going up to worship at the Temple in Yerushalayim in the territory of the Davidic kings (Melachim A’ 12). Later, Achav and Jezebel reinforced this identification between the kingship and idolatry by establishing Baal and Ashtarte as the national deities. That is why when Eliyahu calls on Israel to choose between monotheism and idolatry, he calls on them to decide whether G-d of Israel is G-d or the Baal, rather than numerous baalim referred to in the book of Shoftim. This state form of Baal worship remained, as we see from the prophets Elisha, Amos and Hoshea, the dominant note in the Northern Kingdom until its destruction.
Unlike Bavel or Rome or other enemies, the Greeks at the time of Chanuka did not want to crush Israel or to destroy the Temple but rather to get the Jews to assimilate into Greek culture, art and philosophy, just as Alexander had done to the other nations of the ancient world. Guided by the same thought process as that of Balak and Achav, they sought to introduce sexual immorality and idolatry into the nation, both by force of arms and by persuading them of the benefits and superiority of Greek civilization.
“To the Greeks, only that which the human mind could measure, quantify and understand existed while the purpose of noble life was to seek the good. Thus they could not accept the idea of a Divine Revelation, of something that was beyond human intellect and wisdom. Chazal taught, ‘wisdom does exist among the gentile nations but Torah min HaShamayim does not’. Now there is much good and human benefit in such wisdom and knowledge; the Rambam holds that such knowledge is also essential for understanding and applying Torah. However, by their intellectual arrogance and their teaching the sufficiency of the thought process to achieve ethical and good behavior, they negated the concept of normative morality, of mutar and assur, permitted and forbidden acts. So the Greeks attacked and forbade the chukim - Shabbat, Mila and Kashrut, and opposed the idea of mitzvot ma’asiyot. Shemen is the symbol of wisdom and knowledge and they wished to pervert our thoughts and our knowledge so they defiled the oil of the Mikdash” (Shem MiShmuel).
Kozbi, Achav and the Yevanim and Mityavnim, all of them attempts at national assimilation.

• Other Ethical Teachings of the Torah
• Today is the Birthday of the World, whether as Children or as Servants [2] by Dr. Meir Tamari
• Funding Social Costs - Taxation [2]
• THE CHALLENGE OF MONEY - Funding Social Costs - Taxation [1]