Pinchas, Kehuna Gedola, and Kohen Gadol Challal

PART I, ON PINCHAS BEING GRANTED KEHUNA GEDOLA

This is the gist of Reb Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma here: 

Pinchas' action, which saved Klal Yisrael from the devastating punishment for the sin of Bnos Mo'av, resulted in his being given Kehuna. Kehuna itself, by its nature, would have been perpetual. But Hashem wanted Pinchas to be rewarded with more, that Kehuna Gedola would be his family's, and Kehuna Gedola is not purely an inherited entitlement, it requires ongoing siyata dishmaya to be worthy of being appointed to that position. As the Rambam says, Hashem's promises are contingent on zechusim and not sinning, but those of a Navi are guaranteed and unconditional. Because a bracha from Hashem requires constant merit, and Hashem wanted the bracha to be unconditional, Hashem told Moshe to inform Pinchas of the bracha in his capacity as Navi. 

כה יב-יג לכן אמור הנני נותן יו את בריתי שלום והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם

הביאור על פי מה שפירש רבינו בהקדמה לפירוש המשניות שכל ההבטחות שהבטיח הקב"ה לאדם יכול להשתנות על ידי חטא וכמו שפחד יעקב שמא יגרום החטא ריש פרשת וישלח אבל מה שמבטיח על ידי נביא אינו יכול להשתנות על ידי חטא אם נאמר במאמר מוחלט לא על ידי תנאי עיין שם דברי פי חכם חן 

וזה שאמר השם: "פנחס וכו' השיב.. ולא כיליתי וכו" פעולה קיימת לדור דורים שהסיר העון מן כללות ישראל. לכן אמור פירוש אתה תאמר לו, לא שאני אומר לו, אעפ"י שהיה נביא (כמו שכתוב דברי הימים א ט:כ ופנחס בן אלעזר נגיד היה עליהם לפנים ה' עמו.) ״והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם״ שלא יגרום החטא ולא על ידי שום סיבה 

שכן מצאנו שאף בבית שני היו כהנים גדולים ממנו וכדאיתא בספרי משום שנאמר על ידי משה שהוא נביא והוא קיים לעולם 

Rav Kopperman brings that the Netziv says something that dovetails perfectly with this. 
The Sifri in the beginning of Pinchas (or the end of Balak, it's 131:3-4,) says

באו שבטו של שמעון אצל שבטו של לוי: וכי בן בתו של פוטי היה מבקש לעקור שבט אחד מישראל? וכי אין אנו יודעים בן מי הוא? כיון שראה המקום שהכל מזלזלים בו - התחיל מייחסו בשבח, שנאמר "פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל". כהן בן כהן, קנאי בן קנאי, משיב חימה בן משיב חימה, השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל:

לכן אמור הנני נותן לו בריתי שלום. מלמד שעמדו ממנו בבנין ראשון י"ח כהנים גדולים,

The Netziv on that Sifri says

וחשיב שני דברים, שעשה שני פעולות, קנא לכבודו ית' והציל את ישראל ותעצר המגפה בתפלתו.

מלמד שעמדו: דכה"ג נבחר במדת השלום, וכדכתיב באהרן בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום. וכאשר נתברך פנחס במדה זו ממילא אין ראוי לכה״ג יותר ממנו ומבניו אחריו זרע השלום. 

ורואין אנו שכאשר חטא פנחס בבת (גדעון) [צ״ל יפתח] כמבואר בויקרא רבה פ' בחוקתי, שאמר אני כה"ג בן כה"ג ואלך אצל עה"א, בין דין לדין ספת עלובתא דא, ושניהם נתחייבו בדמי' כו', פנחס נסתלק ממנו רוה"ק הה"ד ופנחס בן אלעזר נגיד הי' עליהס לפנים ה' עמו. כצ"ל. וכלומר לפנים ולא אח"כ, כדאי' בירו'. ובב"ר פ״ט דייק מדכתיב הי' נגיד ע"ש. ומאז נסתלק מכה"ג ע' תד"א והובא בילקוט שופטים רמז ס"ח, שאז ניתנה לעלי מבני איתמר, והיינו מפני שמעל במדת החיים והשלום.

So the Netziv also says that Pinchas' reward for saving Klal Yisrael was Kehuna Gedola. Kehuna Gedola stems from the middah of Shalom, Aharon's middah.

(If you say that you don't see that the Sifri is saying that there is a relationship between Brisi Shalom and Kehuna Gedola, please note that Tosfos in Zevahim 101b brings the Sifri and learns it like the Netziv.)

There is, however, a basic difference, though, between Reb Meir Simcha and the Netziv. Reb Meir Simcha is saying it was a rock solid grant of the position. The Netziv is saying that the grant was "Brisi Shalom," an amplification of a middah that was already strong in Pinchas, and that once he got the bracha of Brisi Shalom, he would be the person most fit for the position of Kehuna Gedola. 

It may also seem that the Netziv is contrary to Reb Meir Simcha's point that the bracha, having come through a navi, was therefore immutable, because the Netziv talks of the time the Kehuna Gedola was not held by Pinchas' descendants, that the position was taken away from them. But this is not just the Netziv, it is a fact of history. Eli, the Kohen Gadol in Shiloh, he was not a descendant of Pinchas'. True, one might say that he was from Pinchas on his mother's side, but that is not what Rashi and the Radak bring from a Medrash in Shmuel I 2:30. Their Medrash says that Kehuna Gedola had been taken away from Pinchas' descendants and given to Elozors, but that this would now change, and it would revert to Pinchas' family. 

The passuk says that Elkana told Eli the Kohen Gadol that his family's gadlus had come to an end and he would be cursed.

{כז} ויבא איש אלהים אל עלי ויאמר אליו כה אמר יהוה הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך בהיותם במצרים לבית פרעה: {כח} ובחר אתו מכל שבטי ישראל לי לכהן לעלות על מזבחי להקטיר קטרת לשאת אפוד לפני ואתנה לבית אביך את כל אשי בני ישראל: {כט} למה תבעטו בזבחי ובמנחתי אשר צויתי מעון ותכבד את בניך ממני להבריאכם מראשית כל מנחת ישראל לעמי: {ל} לכן נאם יהוה אלהי ישראל אמור אמרתי ביתך ובית אביך יתהלכו לפני עד עולם ועתה נאם יהוה חלילה לי כי מכבדי אכבד ובזי יקלו: {לא} הנה ימים באים וגדעתי את זרעך ואת זרע בית אביך מהיות זקן בביתך: 

Rashi explains that Kehuna Gedola started out in the family of Elozor, it was taken away from them as a punishment, it moved over to Issamar's family, and now, due to Eli's children's bad behavior, the Issamar period ended and it would revert to Elozor's family.

אמור אמרתי . שני פעמים פסקתי גדולה לבני איתמר , בבני גרשון ובבני מררי נאמר ( במדבר ד כח לג ) , ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן , ועלי מבני איתמר היה , זו ראיתי במדרש שמואל ולשון הגון מזה שמעתי : אמור אמרתי ביתך ובית אביך וגו' ; מתחלה נתתי כהונה גדולה לאלעזר הכהן , שנאמר ( שם כ כו ) : והפשט את אהרן את בגדיו וגו' , ובימי פלגש שפקרו ישראל ברוב המצות , ומי גרם להם , פנחס וכיוצא בו , שהיה להם לסבב מעיר אל עיר ולהוכיחם , נטלתי הכהונה גדולה מהם ונתתיה לך , שמבני איתמר אתה , ואמרתי יתהלכו לפני עד עולם , שכשפוסקין לו גדולה לאדם , פוסקין לו ולדורותיו עד עולם :

כי מכבדי אכבד . את בני פנחס , שכבד אותי בשטים ( שם פרק כה יא ) , וכן היתה בימי שלמה , כשנבנה בית המקדש , (מלכים-א ב כז ) : ויגרש שלמה את אביתר מהיות כהן לה' כדבר ה' אשר דבר אל בית עלי , ונעשה צדוק כהן גדול תחתיו , שהיה מבני פנחס , שכן נתייחסו בדברי הימים ( א ו לח ) :

The Radak says the same.

אמור אמרתי. במדרש מתחילה נתתי כהונה לאלעזר הכהן ובניו שנאמר והלבשת אותם את אלעזר בנו ובימי פלגש בגבעה שפקרו ישראל ברוב המצות ומי גרם להם פנחס ואלעזר ושאר הכהנים שהיה להם לסבוב מעיר אל עיר ולהוציאם ולא עשו כן לפיכך נטלתי כהונה גדולה מהם ונתתיה לך שאתה מבני איתמר ואמרתי שיתהלכו ביתך ובית אביך לפני עד עולם עתה חלילה לי כי מכבדי אכבד בני פנחס שכבד אותי בשטים:

The point is that the Kehuna Gedola had moved from Elozor/Pinchas to Issamar. The Netziv's Yalkut in Shoftim says it was because of lack of sympathy for Yiftach, and Rashi/Radak in Shmuel say it was because the story of Pilegesh b'giva took place on their watch. 

In any case, it had been taken away and given to Eli's family, despite Reb Meir Simcha's ברית כהונת עולם שלא יגרום החטא ולא על ידי שום סיבה.  I guess we have to say that "immutable" doesn't mean that Kehuna Gedola would be his forever, it just means that he would have a greater right to it than anyone else. This is why, upon the failure of Eli HaKohen's children to live up to their yichus, it was taken back from them and returned to Elozor/Pinchas' descendants. So in a sense, the bracha was permanent, and the loss of the position was only temporary.  It is like Malchus and Yehuda.

In the past, we discussed the Yerushalmi that says that Eretz Yisrael and Torah are ours, but they are called Morasha, not Yerusha, and that means they are "entitlements that have to be earned." Here we learn that even those things that are out and out gifts, that are granted without condition, they, too, can be lost. The Ribono shel Olam can give you something, and if you fritter it away, or actually ruin it, it's your problem. Reb Meir Simcha saying that the gift of Kehuna Gedola to Pinchas was without condition did not mean that his descendants could not throw that gift out of the window.




Some years ago, I had mentioned that the Urim Ve'Tumim only functioned when they were on the heart of Aharon, a heart that was in total sympathy with Klal Yisrael. This is exactly the point of both Reb Meir Simcha and the Netziv. Kehuna Gedola requires the empathy and compassion that famously characterized Aharon HaKohen. A Kohen Gadol that lacks this trait is not fit, or capable, to function in that position. Pinchas, having demonstrated this kind of loving sympathy, was granted the gift of Kehuna Gedola forever - so long as his descendants embodied the trait that was essential to that position. 

This is what I had said there.

Ho’Urim ve’es HaTumim Vehoyu al Leiv Aharon. The Urim Vetumim were on the heart of Aharon. This phrase, “ahl leiv Aharon,” does not merely describe the placement of the Urim Vetumim. As we will explain, it describes the condition necessary for the Urim Vetumim to function.
The Yalkut here: R’ Shimon Ben Yochai says, the heart that rejoiced when Moshe was elevated to greatness will wear the Urim Vetumim. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz here in the ma’amar “Sheves Achim Gam Yochad” says that this means that a heart that feels such empathy for others is fit to wear the Urim Vetumim. To understand the messages that come through it, one has to have complete sensitivity and sympathy for Klal Yisroel.
The Choshen only serves to amplify and augment that intrinsic empathy, which enables the wearer to correctly understand its messages. He connects this to the story in Brochos 31b with Eli Hakohen. When Eli told Chana that she was a drunk— shikora— she answered “lo adoni...” And the Gemora there explains “lo odon atto bedovor zeh, giliso be’atzmecho she’ein ruach hakodesh shoreh olecho sheteida she’eini schuras yoyin.” You are not a master in this matter, you have revealed that the divine spirit is not resting on you, for then you would know that I am not drunk, but rather I am overwhelmed with emotion and I am praying with total concentration. The pshat is that if Eli did not have the necessary sympathy to discern that she acted as she did because she was davening with great kavono because of her emotional desolation, he could not correctly interpret the message of the Urim Vetumim. He thought it said "shikora," drunk, when it actually said "kesarah," like Sarah, who also prayed to have a child.

PART II, ON A KOHEN GADOL THAT WAS FOUND TO BE A CHALLAL

 - I know this is too yeshivish for relaxed erev Shabbos Torah, but I thought the whole idea was fascinating. I'm torn between absolutely believing, alternately, the various contradictory opinions on this matter.
On the basis of the Sifri that says that Pinchas was granted not only Kehuna, but also Kehuna Gedola, Reb Meir Simcha points out that the Gemara's rule (e.g., Kiddushin 61b) that if a Kohen was found to be a Challal, his avoda is kosher, applies equally to a Kohen Gadol. If, on Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol had done the avodah, and we then realize he was a challal, bedieved his avodah is kosher. His proof is because it is from our parsha that the Gemara learns the kashrus-of-a-challal rule by a regular Kohen, from the words והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, and since the Sifri says that these words really refer to Kehuna Gedola, then the same rule must apply there.

He (and Reb Yitzchak Elchanan in B'er Yitzchak 25, first paragraph,) then says that this is clear from the Gemara (Makkos 11b) that discusses a person that was in an Ir Miklat and then the Kohen Gadol was found to be a Challal. There is a machlokes whether it is viewed like there was a Kohen Gadol but he died now (מתה כהונה,) or as if he were never a Kohen Gadol in the first place (בטלה כהונה.) The Gemara then says that both agree that the avoda that a kohen challal had done is kosher after the fact, and the argument is whether this is limited to kashering the avodah, or that it can be extrapolated to the laws of Arei Miklat. So, RMS says, it is clear that everyone agrees that even for those avodos for which only a Kohen Gadol is kosher, his being found a challal is not a problem.


The basic issue of a Kohen Gadol found to be a challal is also discussed in the Achronim. The Hafla'ah (Ksuvos 23) says that the avoda is passul (and I I love his proof. He says that even if a Challal is a Kohen, he can't be better than a Kohen Hedyot!) and the Minchas Chinuch (185) says it is kosher. But I like Reb Meir Simcha's proof from the Sifri. The proof from the Gemara in Makkos can be pushed away by saying that it's not true according to all the drashos in Kiddushin 61, but the raya from the Sifri seems to say that even for "l'zaro acharav" he's called not only a Kohen but even a Kohen Gadol. 

I do want to mention the Gevuras Ari's excellent question. According to those (like the Rambam (6 Bias Mikdash 10) that even after you find out that a kohen is a challal, if he persists in doing the avoda it's kosher, then why does the Gemara in Makkos say מתה כהונה ? מתה כהונה means that just like for Avodah, challalus does not passel, so too for Ir Miklat, he was a Kohen Gadol until now that we know of his psul, and it's as if he died (as far as being Kohen Gadol.) If even now that we know of his psul, it doesn't passel his future avodah, at least if he pushes his way in and does the avodah, , why would you say מתה כהונה??

Here's Reb Meir Simcha.

ובקידושין דף ס"ו ובן גרושה ובן חלוצה דעבודתו כשרה מנ"ל כו' והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית בהוגת עולם בין זרע כשר בין זרע פסול הפירוש דבני משה נתרחקו מן הכהונה מפני שבניו היו בני בת יתרו ראב"ע ולכד בני אהרן שהיו מיוחסים בכהונה מפני שהיו בני בת נחשון ופנחס היה בן בת פוטיאל לכן גם הוא לא נתכהן עד שהרג את זמרי ולכן אמר פנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן כף לכן אמור הנני נתן לו את בריתי שלום דבתר אביו אזיל שהוא מיוחס ומה שאמו מבנות פוטיאל זה אינו פוסל בכהונתו והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו כו' בגדר הזה אע"ג שאמם תהיה גרושה או חלוצה אין החסרון שבמעלת אמו גורמת לו לחלל עבודתו דבתר אביהם אזלי שהוא במעלתו אין חסרון והוא לא נתחלל ועיין ב"ב דף ק"ט בזה ודו"ק 

והנה עפ"י מה דדריש בספרי והיתה לזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם שקאי על כהונה גדולה א"כ קמ"ל הפסוק דבן גרושה שלא נודע מלבד שאם עבד לא חלל אלא אף אם היה כה"ג ועבד עבודות כשהיה כה"ג דלא כשר בשאר כהן כמו עבודות דיוהכ"פ ג"כ כשר ולכן אע"ג דכתיב ברך ד' הילו על חללים בעי גם הד קרא דזרעו אחריו להכשירו למפרע לכה"ג לכן ס"ד אמינא דאפילו בע"מ נמי קק"ל שלם ולא כשהוא חסר וכן מפורש במכות דרק לענין ערי מקלט' פליגי אם מתה כהונה או בטלה כהונה אבל לעבודת כהן גדול לא מבטל כהונה ישו"ש ועיין בירושלמי תרומות ק רסבר דלמאן דמפיק מברך ד' חילו לא אמרו אלא בקדשי מקדש יוזה דלא כהגמ' פסחים ע"ג דתרומה איקרי עבודה יעו"ש ובזמן שבהמ"ד קיים וכהן מקריב נראה דוקא בכהן שאינו בע"מ אם אכל קדשי מזבח איש משלם אבל בע"מ שאכל קדשי מזבח ונודע שהוא בן גרושה משלם קרן לכהנים ובזה נדחו דברי הבתי כהונה הובא בשו"ת רע"ק סימן ע"ה לגבי וא"ו קטיע יעו"ש היטב ודו"ק

Te'tzaveh, Shemos 28:30. The Urim Ve’tumim.

Ho’Urim ve’es HaTumim Vehoyu al Leiv Aharon. The Urim Vetumim were on the heart of Aharon. This phrase, “ahl leiv Aharon,” does not merely describe the placement of the Urim Vetumim. As we will explain, it describes the condition necessary for the Urim Vetumim to function.

The Yalkut here: R’ Shimon Ben Yochai says, the heart that rejoiced when Moshe was elevated to greatness will wear the Urim Vetumim. Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz here in the ma’amar “Sheves Achim Gam Yochad” says that this means that a heart that feels such empathy for others is fit to wear the Urim Vetumim. To understand the messages that come through it, one has to have complete sensitivity and sympathy for Klal Yisroel.

The Choshen only serves to amplify and augment that intrinsic empathy, which enables the wearer to correctly understand its messages. He connects this to the story in Brochos 31b with Eli Hakohen. When Eli told Chana that she was a drunk— shikora— she answered “lo adoni...” And the Gemora there explains “lo odon atto bedovor zeh, giliso be’atzmecho she’ein ruach hakodesh shoreh olecho sheteida she’eini schuras yoyin.” You are not a master in this matter, you have revealed that the divine spirit is not resting on you, for then you would know that I am not drunk, but rather I am overwhelmed with emotion and I am praying with total concentration. The pshat is that if Eli did not have the necessary sympathy to discern that she acted as she did because she was davening with great kavono because of her emotional desolation, he could not correctly interpret the message of the Urim Vetumim. He thought it said "shikora," drunk, when it actually said "kesarah," like Sarah, who also prayed to have a child.

The lesson is that you need the “leiv Aharon” in order for the Urim V’tumim to work. I once heard a nice story about empathy from my father shlitah. The Baal Shem Tov once said that he learned ahavas Yisroel from a drunken peasant. Two drunken peasants were staggering through the street, holding on to each other, saying "John, you are my best friend!" "Ivan, you are my best friend!" Suddently, John pushes Ivan away and kicks him. Ivan, shocked, said, "John, why did you kick me? I am your best friend!" And John said, "I was sick last week, why didn’t you visit me!" Ivan answered, "But John, my best friend, how was I supposed to know you were sick? I didn’t know you were sick, I don’t see you every day!" John yelled at him, "You call yourself my friend? Why didn’t it hurt you when I was sick?"

On the topic of empathy: see the Radvaz in the Rambam Aveilus 14:1. The Rambam talks about the mitzvos of gmilus chasodim, and the Radvaz says that the mitzvah to be mesamei’ach choson vekallah is tied to the five kollos of matan Torah (Brochos 6b), and then he brings the Gemora in Shabbos 31 from Hillel that “desoni loch lechavroch lo sa’avid.” The Radvaz means to explain the connection between the mitzvah of being mesamei’ach choson vekallah and the kabolas hatorah— that desoni means that you have to feel the other person’s feelings as if they are your own. Since desoni is such an essential part of the Torah, as Hillel said, a person that really feels the ‘sharing of the joy of another person’ and who, by sharing the joy of the choson and kallah increases their simcha, is zocheh to Torah.

My son’s Sheva Brochos recently took place during a terrible snow storm. People were stuck on highways all over, cars were in ditches, and walking five inches outside was challenging, to say nothing of driving. Despite all this, most people that were invited did come to the Sheva Brochos. I was very moved by this unambiguous demonstration of caring and love, and the first thing I spoke about was the mitzvoh of Birkas Hagomeil. The Gemora in Brochos 44 says that if a friend sees you and says a birkas hagomeil on your recent recovery or redemption, and you say omein, you are no longer obligated to make your own birkas hagomeil. The gemora asks, but you need a minyon? And answers, yes, there has to be a minyon there. And the gemora asks, but you need sheim umalchus? And answers, yes, he used sheim umalchus. This is brought in Orach Chaim 219:4. The Ramoh adds a very interesting thing. He says that the friend’s brocho is not l’vatoloh, even though we don’t find that people have to make such brochos on their friends’ nissim, since it is a birchas shevach v’hodo’oh “ahl tovas chaveiro she’somei’ach boh.” The Mishneh Bruroh in 18 brings the Taz that explains that with the words "she’somei’ach boh” the Ramoh limits the relevance of this halochoh to a relative or friend who is truly happy about the recovery or salvation of the person; if, however, he is not truly joyful in his heart, and he only made the brochoh for appearances sake, for the sake of being social (mipnei hasholom), then it is a brochoh l’vatoloh, and he had better not use the sheim umalchus. The Taz makes us face an obvious but unpleasant fact. It is not natural for us to rejoice in our friends’ successes. Nobody questions our sympathy and commiseration for a friend’s loss, but that is a feeling that is relatively easy to achieve. Who knows? Maybe, deep down, we think, better him than me, and are relieved at our escape, maybe it’s a little schadenfreude. But whatever it is, the fact remains that it’s easier to sympathize with a friend’s misfortune than to rejoice at his success or recovery or redemption. The initial and natural emotion upon seeing a friend’s success is envy. It sounds sick, but that’s the fact. R’ Mottel Pagremansky is quoted as saying that to sympathize, you need to be a mentsch, but to be happy with another’s success, you have to be a maloch.

Think about how this plays out in our daily lives. We all know of families that know each other, and who each have a daughter in shidduchim. One girl goes out with a boy, and immediately the other family resents it. We heard about him first! How did they get him and we didn’t! They must have paid someone off! Instead of thinking, Boruch Hashem, it should be with hatzlochoh, we will find what is bashert for us, they think they have been cheated.

But this is not what the Torah wants. For us, the foundation of the whole Torah is “veohavto l’rei’acho komocho.” Besides the issur of coveting a neighbor’s property, the Torah says we must rejoice in his successes as if they were our own.

Some readers will say to themselves that this is a ridiculous and naive idea, and that no human being can feel this way. We would be lucky if we feel that close to our immediate relatives. But to feel this way towards anyone but your spouse or your children is unnatural and abnormal. They are probably right. But we are obligated to overcome this natural feeling and become Torah people, not just natural people. This is the trait that Aharon represented, towards which we should aspire, and which we should all work to achieve.