How Should Rabbis Teach Parsha: Pinchas To Kids?

Whenever Pinchas comes up in my synagogue’s cycle I get a little thrill — the haftarah that almost always accompanies it is the dramatic story of Elijah, taken from '1 Kings', traditionally quoted as 18:46–19:21 (some editions mark the verses slightly differently, but that span is the usual chunk). It starts with Elijah’s triumphant race after the contest on Mount Carmel and then moves quickly into his crisis and flight when Jezebel threatens him. The arc is cinematic: victory, threat, despair, and then the quiet revelation at Horeb. I like how this pairing isn’t random. Pinchas is about zealous action — he stops a plague, gets a covenant of priesthood — and Elijah is the archetypal zealot-prophet who confronts idolatry head-on. On a literary level the haftarah echoes the parsha’s moral and theological tensions: zeal versus restraint, communal protection versus personal cost. Different communities sometimes trim the passage or start at a different verse, and special Sabbaths can substitute other selections, but the Elijah episode is the classic match for Pinchas, and it always makes the liturgy feel like a mini-drama. If you haven’t read that haftarah closely, give it a look: it’s a brilliant counterpoint to the parsha, full of human emotion and divine subtlety — and it ends with a kind of gentle, odd hope that’s stuck with me long after the aliyah is over.

On slow Shabbat mornings I like to sit with a cup of tea and the little scroll of the weekly reading, and 'Pinchas' always hooks me differently than other sections. The central figure is Pinchas himself — Aaron's grandson — who steps into a frantic scene where Israel is flirting with Moabite seduction, Zimri and Cozbi openly sin, and a deadly plague is ripping through the camp. Pinchas' sudden, violent intervention stops the plague and draws God's notice. What fascinates me is how the narrative shifts afterward: God rewards Pinchas with a 'covenant of peace' and an 'everlasting priesthood' in the language of 'Numbers'. That reward complicates everything. On one hand the text seems to endorse zeal for communal holiness; on the other, rabbinic and modern readers parse whether private violence can ever be sanctioned by divine approval. I find myself oscillating between admiration for the bravery to defend a fragile community and discomfort at how the story valorizes a lethal act. It leaves a lingering ethical question that I love chewing on during long walks.

Reading the parsha really hits me in a complicated way: Pinchas's move is written like a narrative climax. The Torah describes him seeing Zimri and Cozbi's public transgression, acting decisively, and then the plague stopping — and right away the text gives him a 'covenant of peace' and a perpetual priesthood for his descendants. The structure itself frames his deed as effective and divinely approved, because cause (the sin) leads to effect (plague), then to remedy (his intervention), then to reward. I find the literary framing fascinating: there's almost no lingering judgment from the narrator about the ethics of violence. Instead, the text emphasizes communal survival and divine sanction. That has always sparked heated conversations for me — was this a unique, divinely inspired act, or a dangerous precedent for zeal? When I read it now, I try to sit with both impulses: the relief that a plague ends and the discomfort with unilateral lethal action. It leaves me wondering how communities balance urgent moral outrage with rule-bound justice.

Wow — Pinchas is packed, and I get a little giddy every time I skim it because it jumps between drama and law so fast. First, the parsha praises Pinchas and God grants him a 'covenant of priesthood' for his zeal; narratively it's a reward story, but it also establishes the special status of Pinchas' line. Then the Torah deals with the daughters of Tzelophehad: they successfully ask for inheritance rights when there are no sons, and rules are spelled out about how land is inherited and what happens if a daughter marries outside her father's tribe. That ruling became a key precedent about inheritance law in later halachic discussion. After that comes a leadership moment: Moses receives instructions to appoint Joshua as his successor — a concrete command to ensure continuity of national leadership. The rest of the parsha gives very detailed sacrificial laws: the daily 'tamid' offerings, extra offerings for Shabbat, offerings for Rosh Chodesh (new moon), and the festival offerings for Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah (the day of blowing), Yom Kippur and Sukkot — all spelled out with numbers and animals. Practically speaking, many of these are Temple-centered mitzvot (korbanot), but their text still shapes our prayers and calendar practices today and the inheritance ruling has lasting civil-legal impact. I always leave this parsha thinking about how narrative moments (a courageous act, a family's plea) turn into standing laws that affect whole generations.

The more I dig into this week's portion, the more tangled the controversies feel. On one hand you have the dramatic act of Phinehas—he kills Zimri and the Midianite woman, and God rewards him with a covenant of priesthood. That scene splits readers: some hail him as a zealous defender of covenantal purity, while others see a terrifying endorsement of extra-judicial violence. Modern commentators wrestle with whether the text honors vigilantism or points to a rare, divinely sanctioned exception. It’s a hard moral knot, and different communities pull it in opposite directions. Beyond that headline episode, the parsha raises hot-button issues about war and ethnicity. The campaign against Midian and the census of spoils bring up accusations of genocidal language in Torah, which fuels debates about how ancient war texts should inform modern political rhetoric. In recent decades, extremist groups have sometimes invoked Phinehas as precedent for violent acts; many rabbis and scholars have pushed back hard, arguing the story cannot be lifted as a carte blanche for modern aggression. I find those corrective readings important because they insist on historical context, halakhic process, and the sanctity of due legal procedure before any use of force.

Reading Pinchas always feels like opening a dense, lived-in novel — it punches first with the raw theme of zeal. I find myself wrestling with the moment when Pinchas acts: there's the immediate moral grappling about when personal passion crosses into sanctioned violence, and how that tension sits against communal norms. The Torah's response is startlingly complex: reward and rebuke braided together in the 'covenant of peace', which forces me to ask whether righteous fury can ever coexist with lasting harmony. Beyond that episode, the parsha unfurls into issues of continuity and reform. The case of the daughters of Zelophehad read to me like an early feminist legal pivot — it insists that inheritance and justice adapt to human reality. Then there are the priestly allocations, the consecration of Elazar, and the detailed sacrificial schedule; they remind me how ritual life stitches a people to memory and land. All together, Pinchas explores justice, leadership, law, and the messiness of human zeal, and it leaves me turning commentary pages late into the night, enjoying how ancient dilemmas still bite.

If you want a verse-by-verse guide to Parsha Pinchas, I usually start with the straightforward text and then layer on commentaries. First stop for me is 'Sefaria'—you can pull up the Hebrew text and then toggle on Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra and more, all aligned verse-by-verse. I like using the parallel English so I can follow quickly, and Sefaria’s interface lets me search specific verses when a line hooks me. After that I often check 'Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary' or the 'Stone Edition Chumash' for more literary and traditional footnotes. For quick, accessible verse-by-verse commentaries online, Chabad.org and MyJewishLearning have Parsha pages that break down verses with modern-language explanations. If I want deep dives, AlHaTorah.org has fantastic tools (including source sheets and a verse-by-verse comparison of commentaries).

When I read the Pinchas episode I get pulled into that uneasy space between righteous fury and law. The image of Phinehas striking down the Israelite and Midianite in the camp makes me think about vigilante impulses today: online pile-ons, doxxing, or people taking the law into their own hands when institutions feel slow or corrupt. I find myself asking when force is ever legitimate—my gut supports protecting vulnerable people, but my head insists on clear rules, proportionality, and independent oversight. Another part of the parsha that clicks with me is the case of the daughters of Zelophehad. Their courage to petition for inheritance rights feels surprisingly modern: an appeal within the legal system that leads to structural change. I like to imagine grassroots organizing in that ancient register—making a moral claim, framing it to existing authorities, and getting law reinterpreted to include marginalized voices. So for me the ethics are threefold: guard against unbridled zeal, strengthen fair institutions that let grievances surface without violence, and uplift quiet lawmaking—argue, lobby, litigate—so people can change unfair norms without lighting the world on fire. It leaves me hopeful and a bit wary at once.