At the end of parashat Balak we read: “When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, 8 he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked” (Numbers 25:7-8). Parashat Pinhas begins with the reward granted to Phinehas for his action: “Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the Israelites when he zealously acted for my zeal in their midst, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My zeal. Therefore say: I grant him My covenant of peace. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he acted zealously for his God, and atoned for the Israelites” (25:11-12).
From these verses it is clear that Phinehas’ action was justified. He is described as acting “for my zeal.” In other words, Phinehas is portrayed as acting on God’s behalf in the performance of His will, and therefore, he is rewarded.
Nevertheless, the sages considered Phinehas’ conduct problematic. Thus, for example, the Talmud discusses what answer a court should give to a person like Phinehas who seeks its advice: “If he comes to take counsel, we do not instruct him to do so” (Sanhedrin 82a).In other words, the rabbis would not tell Phinehas that killing the sinners is permitted. The Talmud continues: “Moreover, had Zimri left [Cozbi] and Phinehas slain him, Phinehas would have been executed on his account.” In other words, Phinehas’ conduct was acceptable only because it was performed in flagrante delicto. Otherwise, Phinehas would have been guilty of a capital crime. In addition, “had Zimri turned upon Phinehas and slain him, he would not have been executed, since Phinehas was a pursuer (rodef).” In other words, had Zimri killed Phinehas, it would have been deemed self-defence.
