Which two sins did Pinchos rectify?

(25,11) Pinchos the son of Elozor the son of Aharon the Kohen has turned away My anger from the children of Yisrael, when he took My vengeance amongst them…Therefore, say: I hereby give him my covenant of peace. And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him…because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the children of Yisrael.

The explanation of these posukim, is that when Yisrael sinned with the daughters of Midian there were two sins besides the actual sin of forbidden relationships - one was that the others did not see fit to avenge Hashem, and the second was that they did not protest against the sinners. Therefore, when Pinchos came and killed Zimri, he rectified these two sins - he took vengeance on the sinners, and also rectified their sin of not protesting, because there was found amongst Yisrael one man who protested, and that was sufficient.

This is what these posukim are saying, that Pinchos did these two things: One, was that he “turned away My anger from the children of Yisrael, by zealously avenging Me amongst them” - he avenged My requirement to punish the wicked, and therefore, “I hereby give him my covenant of peace”, and also “it shall be for him and his descendants after him an eternal covenant of priesthood, because he was zealous for his G-d, and atoned for the children of Yisrael”, that is, Pinchos also rectified their sin that they should have been zealous for their G-d. Therefore, he deserves reward also for this. With this explanation, many of the questions that the commentaries have asked have been answered.

How did the first sons of Pinchos also become Kohanim?

(25,11) Pinchos the son of Elozor the son of Aharon the Kohen has turned away My anger from the children of Yisrael, when he took My vengeance amongst them…Therefore, say: I hereby give him my covenant of peace. And it shall be for him and for his descendants after him…because he was zealous for his G-d and atoned for the children of Yisrael.

Although Rashi explains the words בקנאו את קנאתי as meaning “when he took My vengeance amongst them”, that is, when he did the deed of taking vengeance, the actual translation is “when he was jealous for My jealousy”, that is, when he hated that which Hashem hates. On this the Alshich asked why the posuk mentions only his thoughts and not his deed?

It seems to me that we can give a very good answer to this question - Hashem wanted to reward Pinchos, that not only he and his future offspring would be Kohanim, but that even his sons that he had already would also be Kohanim. Therefore it writes “and for his descendants after him”, which implies all his descendants. But it is clear from the Holy Zohar that when Pinchos killed Zimri, his soul flew away, and the souls of Nadav and Avihu entered him in its place, and for this reason, the Alshich explained that this why the Torah refers to him as “Pinchos the son of Elozor the son of Aharon the Kohen”, that is, he was the son of Elozor, but became the son of Aharon.

Now, all the reward which Hashem gives is only to the soul, because the body has no power to do either good or evil without the soul. Therefore, even in this world the reward is only given to the soul and not to the body. If so, when Pinchos killed Zimri he already did not have his original soul, only the souls of Nadav and Avihu. Therefore, granted that the offspring that were born after that event came from the souls of Nadav and Avihu, and so they could be included in the reward to make them all Kohanim. But the sons that were born when he had his first soul have no connection to the souls of Nadav and Avihu at all, so how could his earlier sons merit to be Kohanim, since his first soul did not do the deed for which he was rewarded?

However, Chazal have taught that if a person decides to do a mitzvah but is unable to perform it due to adverse circumstances, the Torah accredits it to him as if he had performed it. Therefore, since Pinchos had already thought about and decided to take vengeance for Hashem whilst he had his first soul, even though his soul subsequently departed, the Torah accredited it to him as if he had done the deed. Thus even his first offspring merited to be Kohanim, since the first soul of Pinchos bestowed his holy sprit also to his children, because the soul of the son is like a branch from the soul of the father.

Therefore Hashem said, “Pinchos the son of Elozor…turned away My anger…when he took My vengeance…, that is, even with his thoughts, as the Alshich wrote. Therefore, “I hereby give to him my covenant of peace, and it will be to him and to his descendants after him”, that is, all his descendants, even the earlier ones. And so it concludes, “because he was jealous for his G-d”, that is, for his thoughts alone, “and atoned for the children of Yisrael”. This answers the question of the Alshich.

Why was Pinchos rewarded in this world for his deed?

(25,11) Pinchos the son of Elozor the son of Aharon the Kohen has turned away My anger from the children of Yisrael, by zealously avenging Me amongst them…Therefore, say: I hereby give him my covenant of peace.

It is brought in the Midrash on the posuk “Pinchos the son of Elozor…” - he justly deserved to take his reward. “Therefore, say: I hereby give him my covenant of peace”. This Midrash is a puzzle, and the commentaries have already written about it at length.

But it seems to me that we can explain it by noting that even though Chazal taught that one who has been commanded to do a mitzvah and does it is greater then one who has not been commanded and yet does it, but in one aspect we can say that the one who has been commanded is inferior. We can see this from the gemara which says on the posuk (Iyov 41,3) “Who preceded Me, that I should pay?” - does a person affix a mezuzah before I have given him a house? Does he make tzitzis before I have given him a garment? Meaning, that therefore he does not by rights deserve a reward.

But this argument is only relevant with somebody who has been commanded to do mitzvos, and so Hashem gives him a garment or a house for the purpose that he should affix a mezuzah and make tzitzis. But someone who has not been commanded in a certain mitzvah, even though Hashem gives him, nevertheless He does not expect from the person that he should do with it a mitzvah, and if he does so voluntarily, then he justly deserves reward. I also found this idea clearly expressed in the sefer Parshas Derachim.

Now, even though the law is that a zealous person can kill another who is involved in a forbidden relationship under certain circumstances, nevertheless, it says in the gemara that if Zimri had instead killed Pinchos he would have been exempt from the death penalty, because Pinchos was a pursuer. That is, he was subject to the law concerning one who pursues another in order to kill him, in which case the one being pursued is permitted to kill his pursuer. The Rosh explained the reason why Pinchos was considered to be a pursuer, because this particular law is in the category of those laws which, although it is the halachah, one does not teach it. Therefore, Pinchos was not commanded to do this, and thus he justly deserved to be rewarded.

Now, the Midrash that we brought above had a difficulty with that which Hashem said “I hereby give to him my covenant of peace”, because we do not find that Hashem pays a reward for mitzvos immediately, that is, in this world. An additional difficulty is that we find many times that Moshe and Aharon turned away Hashem’s anger from Yisrael, and yet we don’t find that Hashem rewarded them here in this world. Also difficult is the question of the Alshich - why does not every Beis Din who kill those who are liable to the death penalty receive a reward like Pinchos?

But according to the above, we can resolve the question very well. That certainly when a person does a mitzvah because he is commanded he does not deserve by rights any reward, but rather Hashem gives him as charity and as a kindness. Therefore, Hashem does not want to pay him in this world, since this world is not the place to give reward for mitzvos, as is explained elsewhere, and it is saved for the world to come. But someone who does a mitzvah even though he is not commanded, he does deserve a reward by rights, and so just as with a worker who performs some work, the employer cannot say to him to go away and come back tomorrow and then he will pay him, so too Hashem cannot place a condition on this reward that he will pay it in the world to come, but rather He must pay it immediately. And so, since Pinchos was not commanded to bring himself into this very great danger, since the law that zealous one can kill a sinner is a halachah which is not taught, therefore he justly deserved to take his reward immediately, in this world.