Parashat Hashavua · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Numbers 25:10-30:1
Sugya Map
The dramatic arc of Parashat Pinchas Numbers 25:10-30:1 presents a series of legal, ontological, and structural transitions. It shifts from the raw, extrajudicial violence of Pinchas’s zealotry to the highly structured, bureaucratic redistribution of the Land, the determination of inheritance rights, the formal transition of national leadership, and the cyclical order of communal sacrifices.
- The Status of Pinchas’s Kehuna: Did Pinchas’s act of zealotry trigger an ontological transformation of his metaphysical status, or was it merely a belated promotion?
- Nafka Mina: Whether a descendant of Aaron born prior to the consecration of the priesthood can achieve the status of a Kohen without the formal anointing oil (Shemen HaMishchah), and whether his priesthood is an inheritance or a novel acquisition.
- Primary Sources: Numbers 25:11-13, Zevachim 101b, Sanhedrin 82b.
- The Mechanics of Land Apportionment (Yerushat HaAretz): How was the Land of Israel legally acquired and divided—by the generation of Egypt (Yotzei Mitzrayim) or the generation entering the Land (Ba'ei HaAretz)?
- Nafka Mina: The inheritance rights of the daughters of Zelophehad; whether their father’s share was a vested right (Muchzak) or a prospective claim (Ra'uy) at the time of his death.
- Primary Sources: Numbers 26:52-56, Numbers 27:1-11, Bava Batra 117a-119b.
- The Taxonomy of the Festival Offerings (Mussafim): What is the dual nature of the Mussaf sacrifices listed in chapters 28 and 29? Are they an obligation of the day (Chovat HaYom) or an independent communal offering (Korban Tzibbur)?
- Nafka Mina: The priority of offerings under the rule of Tadir VeShe'eino Tadir Tadir Kodem (the more frequent takes precedence); whether a Mussaf of Shabbat precedes a Mussaf of Rosh Chodesh when they coincide.
- Primary Sources: Numbers 28:1-29:40, Zevachim 89a, Mishnah Menachot 10:4.
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
To understand the core tensions of the parashah, we must analyze the exact linguistic construction of the divine responses.
לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי שָׁלֽוֹם׃
וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם...
"Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship [peace]. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time...'" — Numbers 25:12-13
Grammatical and Scribal Anomalies
The word שָׁלוֹם (Shalom) in the Masoretic text contains a Vav Ketia (a broken or severed Vav). Scribes must write this letter with a split down its middle, rendering it visually fractured.
Linguistically, the word "לָכֵן" (Lachen - "therefore") is an absolute oath, functioning as a divine decree that bypasses normative legal channels.
The pronoun "לוֹ" (lo - "to him") is highly restrictive. It isolates Pinchas from the broader family of Aaron, highlighting that this covenant is a personalized, non-transferable metaphysical upgrade.
כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה...
"The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding..." — Numbers 27:7
The word כֵּן (Ken - "just" or "yes") is a rare divine validation of human legal interpretation. The double verb נָתֹן תִּתֵּן (Naton Titten - "you shall surely give") acts as a double inheritance, signaling both their father's share and his share of his father Hepher's estate Bava Batra 119a.
Readings
1. The Priesthood of Pinchas: Ontological Mutation vs. Jurisprudential Realignment
The legal status of Pinchas is one of the most complex issues in priestly genealogy. The Talmud in Zevachim 101b states a surprising rule:
"לא נתכהן פנחס עד שהרגו לזמרי" (Pinchas did not become a priest until he killed Zimri.)
This is difficult to understand. If Pinchas was the grandson of Aaron, why was he not automatically a Kohen? The Halakha rules that when Aaron and his sons were anointed in the wilderness Exodus 40:15, only they and their descendants born after that anointing became priests. Pinchas, who was already alive at the time of the anointing, was excluded. He remained a Levi until his act of zealotry at Shittim.
How did the "Covenant of Peace" change this? We find two distinct conceptual approaches among the commentators:
The Or HaChaim: The Legal Necessity of Public Exoneration
The Or HaChaim on Numbers 25:10:1-2 asks why God commanded Moses "לֵאמֹר" (Lemor - "to say") in this context. Usually, Lemor means "say this to the Jewish people." Why did the nation need to know about Pinchas's reward?
"לכן אמור - פירוש: לפי שהיו השבטים מבזים אותו... הוצרך ה' לומר משה שיכריז דבר זה לעיני כל"
The Or HaChaim explains that the tribes of Israel were actively slandering Pinchas, calling him a murderer. They argued that because his maternal grandfather was Yitro (who fattened calves for idolatry), Pinchas’s act was not holy zealotry but inherited, red-blooded violence.
"הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום - שיהיה ניצל מרודפי דם זמרי, וגם שלא יהיה בו כעס וטינא, שהריגת נפש מולדת טבע האכזריות..."
The Or HaChaim argues that the "Covenant of Peace" was both a physical shield against the avengers of Zimri's blood and a psychological cure. Taking a life, even for a holy cause, injects a spiritual poison of cruelty into the soul. God granted Pinchas a special covenant of Shalom to neutralize this psychological damage, restoring his soul to a state of peace.
The Ralbag: A Functional Reward of Leadership
In contrast, the Ralbag in his first To'alet (benefit) on Numbers 25:10-11 views the covenant as a straightforward, functional reward:
"התועלת הראשון הוא להודיע כי ה' יתע' ישלם לעושה הטוב בטובתו ולזה היה ברית שלום לפינחס... והיתה לו הכהונה הגדולה לו ולזרעו..."
For the Ralbag, the Brit Shalom was not a metaphysical transformation of Pinchas's character, but a legal guarantee of the High Priesthood (Kehuna Gedola) for him and his descendants. The Ralbag focuses on the political stability of the priesthood. Pinchas's act secured the line of Eleazar as the permanent dynasty of the High Priesthood, bypassing the line of Ithamar.
The Sfat Emet: The Healing of Split Identity
The Sfat Emet on Parashat Pinchas deepens this issue through a psychological lens. He explains the Vav Ketia (the broken Vav) in the word Shalom.
The letter Vav represents connection (Vav HaChibur). A broken Vav represents a connection that is split.
Pinchas’s act of violence was a necessary disruption of the peace to save the nation. But violence is fundamentally incompatible with the peaceful nature of the priesthood. The broken Vav teaches that Pinchas’s peace was achieved through a broken act. God had to mend this break by granting him a divine covenant of peace, bringing his split identity back into harmony.
2. The Daughters of Zelophehad and the Metaphysics of Land Division
The petition of Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah in Numbers 27:1-4 is a landmark case in biblical property law. To understand the depth of their claim, we must analyze how the Land of Israel was divided.
"לָאֵלֶּה תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ בְּנַחֲלָה בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת׃ לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט נַחֲלָתוֹ..."
"Among these shall the land be apportioned as shares, according to the listed names: with larger groups increase the share, with smaller groups reduce the share..." — Numbers 26:53-54
The Talmudic Debate: Yotzei Mitzrayim vs. Ba'ei HaAretz
In Bava Batra 117a, the Sages debate the mechanics of this division:
- Rabbi Yoshiyah argues: The Land was divided among the Yotzei Mitzrayim (those who left Egypt). Even though they died in the wilderness, their deceased spirits retroactively inherited the Land, which was then passed down to their living children who actually entered Canaan.
- Rabbi Yonatan argues: The Land was divided among the Ba'ei HaAretz (those who actually entered the Land). Only those alive at the time of entry received a share.
The Gemara resolves this by showing that the land division combined both methods. It was a unique legal process:
"לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו - משונה נחלה זו מכל נחלות שבעולם... שמתים ירשו חיים"
(This inheritance is different from all other inheritances in the world... for the dead inherited from the living.)
The Land was divided among the living (Ba'ei HaAretz), but they then returned their shares to the estate of their deceased fathers (Yotzei Mitzrayim), who had left Egypt. The estate was then re-divided among the living descendants.
The Brisker Chakira: Ra'uy vs. Muchzak
Based on this Gemara, the Brisker school (specifically Rav Soloveitchik in his Shiurim) poses a classic conceptual question (Chakira):
Did the Yotzei Mitzrayim have a vested property right (Muchzak) in the Land of Israel while they were still in the wilderness? Or was it merely a prospective claim (Ra'uy) that only became real when their children conquered the land?
┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Did Yotzei Mitzrayim have a │
│ vested property right? │
└────────────────┬─────────────────┘
│
┌───────────────────┴───────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐
│ MUCHZAK │ │ RA'UY │
│ (Vested Property) │ │ (Prospective Claim) │
├───────────────────────┤ ├───────────────────────┤
│ The Land of Israel │ │ The Land was only a │
│ was already their │ │ future promise. They │
│ legal possession. │ │ did not legally own │
│ Zelophehad's daughters│ │ it yet. Their claim │
│ inherited a real │ │ had to be retro- │
│ asset. │ │ actively validated. │
└───────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────┘
The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father’s share was a real, vested asset (Muchzak). If it were merely prospective (Ra'uy), then by the rules of inheritance, daughters would not inherit it.
The Gemara in Bava Batra 119a confirms that they successfully proved their father had a double share: his own share as one of the Yotzei Mitzrayim, and his share of his father Hepher's estate. This shows that the Torah treated the Land of Israel as a vested possession (Muchzak) for the Jewish people even before they crossed the Jordan River.
The Ralbag: The Social and Ethical Benefits of the Law
In his seventh To'alet on Numbers 25:10-11, the Ralbag explains the social and ethical reasons behind these laws of inheritance:
"התועלת השביעי הוא במצוה והוא מה שצוו לדון בדיני נחלות... והנה לא היתה הבת יורשת כי מדרכה שתהיה נקנית לא קונה אלא אם יהיה זה בזה המקום שאין שם בן..."
The Ralbag notes that in biblical society, daughters did not normally inherit property because when they married, the property would transfer to their husband's tribe. This would disrupt the tribal boundaries.
However, when there are no sons, the daughter must inherit to preserve her father's name and estate ("כדי שלא יעזוב לאחרים חילו"). The Ralbag highlights how the Torah balances the preservation of tribal boundaries with individual equity and family continuity.
3. The Liturgical Architecture of the Mussaf Offerings
Chapters 28 and 29 of Numbers contain the most detailed list of communal sacrifices (Korbanot Tzibbur) in the Torah. This includes the daily offering (Tamid), the Shabbat offering, and the Mussaf (additional) offerings for Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and Shemini Atzeret.
The Ramban: Why Are These Laws Repeated?
The Ramban on Numbers 28:2 asks why these laws are repeated here. The details of the festival sacrifices were already outlined in Leviticus 23.
"כי שם בפרשת אמור אל הכהנים לא הזכיר מן הקרבנות רק לחם הביכורים... אבל כאן צוה בקרבנות עצמן שיקריבו בכל חג וחג"
The Ramban explains that in Leviticus, the Torah describes the festivals in terms of their personal and agricultural sanctity (Kedushat HaYom), such as resting from work and eating matzah.
In Numbers, the focus shifts to the altar liturgy (Avodat HaMizbe'ach). Moses was preparing the new generation to enter the Land, where they would be obligated to bring these sacrifices as a community.
The Netziv: The Transition from Miraculous to Natural Existence
In his commentary Ha'amek Davar on Numbers 28:2, the Netziv notes that the language used for these offerings is highly specific:
"את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחוחי..."
"My offering, My food for My fire offerings, My pleasing odor..."
The Netziv explains that in the wilderness, the Jewish people lived a miraculous life. They ate manna from heaven and drank water from Miriam's well. They did not need to bring animal sacrifices to "feed" the divine presence in the same way.
As they prepared to enter the Land of Israel, they were transitioning to a natural existence based on agriculture. The Torah commands them to be diligent in bringing these sacrifices to show that their physical food and agricultural success come from God.
Friction
The Paradox of "Kano'in Pog'in Bo"
The legal category of the zealot’s strike (Kano'in Pog'in Bo) presents a profound halakhic paradox. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 82a states:
"הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו"
(One who cohabits with an Aramean/gentile woman, zealots strike him.)
Yet, the Gemara immediately places extraordinary limitations on this rule:
"הבא לימלך אין מורין לו"
(If he comes to ask the court for a ruling, we do not instruct him to do so.)
This is a conceptual contradiction (Trei DeSatri). If the act of the zealot is a mitzvah or a legitimate form of capital punishment, why can the court not authorize it ab initio (l'chat'chilah)? If it is not a legitimate halakhic act, why is the zealot exempt from murder charges ex post facto (bedi'avad)?
Furthermore, the Gemara states that if the sinner (Zimri) had turned around and killed the zealot (Pinchas) in self-defense, the sinner would not be executed in court. This is because the zealot is legally classified as a pursuer (Rodef).
How can an act be so holy that it earns a divine "Covenant of Peace," while at the very moment of its execution, the agent is legally classified as a murderer whom the victim can kill with impunity?
THE ZEALOT'S DILEMMA
┌────────────────────────────────┐
│ Pinchas Attacks Zimri │
└────────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ HALAKHIC STATUS │ │ HALAKHIC STATUS │
│ OF PINCHAS │ │ OF ZIMRI │
├─────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────┤
│ • Acting as a "Zealot" │ │ • Committing a capital │
│ • Exempt from murder │ │ sin in public │
│ charges bedi'avad │ │ • Legally allowed to │
│ • Rewarded with the │ │ kill Pinchas in │
│ "Covenant of Peace" │ │ self-defense (Rodef) │
└─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘
The Terutzim
1. The Brisker Approach: The Dual Track of Halakha
The Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchok Ze'ev Soloveitchik) resolves this paradox by explaining that there are two distinct tracks of law in the Torah:
- The Track of the Court (Mitat Bet Din): This track requires witnesses, a warning (Hatrah), and a formal judicial process. It is objective, public, and governed by strict rules of evidence.
- The Track of Zealotry (Gezairat HaKatuv of Kano'in): This is not a court process. It is an extraordinary, personal obligation that exists only when the zealot acts out of pure, selfless outrage for the honor of God.
Because zealotry is not a court process, a court cannot authorize it. If a person asks the court for permission, they are trying to bring an extraordinary, personal act into the objective system of the court.
The moment a person asks, they prove that they are operating under cold, calculated logic rather than spontaneous, holy passion. Therefore, the court must tell them: "No, we cannot authorize this."
The legal classification of Pinchas as a Rodef (pursuer) is a built-in protection. The Torah did not want to make vigilante violence easy or safe. A person who chooses to act as a zealot must be willing to risk their own life. If they calculate their own safety, they are not a true zealot, and their act is simple murder.
2. The Chiddushei HaRan: Zealotry as an Extension of Rodef
The Ran (Chiddushei HaRan on Sanhedrin) offers a different approach. He argues that Kano'in Pog'in Bo is not a punishment for the past sin, but a preventative measure to stop an ongoing desecration of God's name (Chillul Hashem).
When Zimri sinned in public, he was spiritually "pursuing" the entire Jewish nation, bringing down a deadly plague. Pinchas’s act of killing Zimri was an act of national self-defense.
"כל מקום שיש חילול השם, אין חולקין כבוד לרב... והיה זה כהוראת שעה להציל את הכלל"
Because it was an act of self-defense to stop a plague, it could only be done while the sin was actively occurring. Once the sin was completed, or if the zealot hesitated to ask the court, the immediate danger of the "pursuit" had passed, and the extraordinary permission to kill without a trial was lost.
Intertext
1. Pinchas and Elijah: The Two Faces of Zealotry
The Midrash famously connects Pinchas with Elijah the Prophet:
"פנחס הוא אליהו" (Pinchas is Elijah.) — Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 771
Both figures acted with intense, uncompromising zealotry (Kanalut). Pinchas killed Zimri to stop public immorality; Elijah slaughtered the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel to stop idolatry I Kings 18:40.
However, their stories end in very different ways. This contrast reveals a deep truth about the nature of zealotry.
THE TWO PATHS OF ZEALOTRY
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ACTS OF ZEALOTRY │
└────────────┬────────────────────┬────────┘
│ │
┌────────────┴───┐ ┌───────┴────────┐
│ PINCHAS │ │ ELIJAH │
└────────────┬───┘ └───────┬────────┘
│ │
┌────────────┴───┐ ┌───────┴────────┐
│ Rewarded with │ │ Replaced by │
│ "Covenant of │ │ Elisha; taken │
│ Peace" │ │ to Heaven in │
│ │ │ a whirlwind │
└────────────┬───┘ └───────┬────────┘
│ │
┌────────────┴───┐ ┌───────┴────────┐
│ Act saved the │ │ Act prosecuted │
│ community; │ │ the community; │
│ brought healing│ │ brought drought│
└────────────────┘ └────────────────┘
While Pinchas was rewarded with a "Covenant of Peace" and a permanent priesthood, Elijah was eventually told by God to appoint Elisha as his successor I Kings 19:16. This was a polite retirement. God was telling Elijah that his uncompromising zealotry, while necessary for a moment, could not serve as a permanent model for leadership.
Why did Pinchas’s zealotry lead to peace, while Elijah’s led to his replacement?
The answer lies in their motivations and the results of their actions. Pinchas acted to save the community. He stepped in to stop a plague that was destroying his people. His zealotry was an act of love and protection.
Elijah, on the other hand, became a prosecutor against the Jewish people. He lamented to God:
"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה' אֱלֹהֵי צְבָאוֹת כִּי־עָזְבוּ בְרִיתְךָ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל..." "I have been very zealous for the Lord... for the Israelites have forsaken Your covenant..." — I Kings 19:10
When a zealot turns their passion against the community rather than using it to protect them, their zealotry becomes destructive. The Torah rewards only the zealotry that heals and brings peace.
2. The Codification of Inheritance: Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 281
The laws of inheritance established by the daughters of Zelophehad are codified in detail in the Shulchan Aruch:
"סדר הנחלות כך הוא: מי שמת ובן אין לו, תסוב נחלתו לבת. ואם אין לו בת, יורשיהו אביו..."
"The order of inheritance is as follows: If a person dies without leaving a son, his estate passes to his daughter. If he has no daughter, his father inherits..." — Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 281:1
This halakha presents a major practical challenge in Jewish law. Under biblical law, if a man leaves both sons and daughters, the sons inherit the entire estate, and the daughters receive nothing.
While this kept property within the tribe in ancient times, it can lead to inequitable outcomes in the modern world, where women are financially independent and expect to inherit equally from their parents.
To address this, the Sages developed creative legal mechanisms to ensure daughters could inherit within the framework of halakha. The most famous of these is the Shtar Chatzi Zachar (Document of a Half-Male Share), championed by the Rema:
"ואם רוצה ליתן לבת כחלק זכר... כותב לה שטר חוב מעכשיו..."
"If a father wants to give his daughter a share equal to a son... he writes a promissory note of debt to her from now..." — Rema on Choshen Mishpat 281:7
The Mechanics of the Shtar Chatzi Zachar
The father signs a document stating that he owes his daughter a massive, unrealistic sum of money, payable one hour before his death. The document contains a clause stating that if his sons agree to share the estate equally with their sister, the debt is completely waived.
MECHANICS OF SHTAR CHATZI ZACHAR
┌────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Father creates a massive debt │
│ to daughter, due before death. │
└─────────────────┬──────────────────┘
│
┌─────────────────┴──────────────────┐
│ Father passes away; sons inherit │
│ the estate but also the debt. │
└─────────────────┬──────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Sons Pay Debt │ │ Sons Waive Debt │
├─────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────┤
│ Pay the massive, │ OR │ Share the estate │
│ unrealistic debt to │ │ equally with sister; │
│ their sister. │ │ debt is cancelled. │
└─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘
This legal mechanism uses the laws of debt to bypass the biblical exclusion of daughters from inheritance. It achieves a fair, modern result while fully respecting the formal structure of Torah law.
Psak/Practice
1. The Restriction of Extrajudicial Violence
How do the laws of Pinchas’s zealotry apply to modern halakhic decision-making? The short answer is: they do not. Halakha has completely neutralized the practical application of Kano'in Pog'in Bo.
The Chazon Ish explains that the laws of extrajudicial execution can only be applied when they clearly lead to a positive spiritual outcome, such as saving lives or stopping a plague.
"ובזמננו שאין אנו רואים את הגילוי שכינה... אין דין קנאין פוגעין בו נוהג כלל, ועושה כן הרי הוא כשופך דמים"
(In our time, when we do not see the open revelation of the Divine Presence... the law of the zealot's strike does not apply at all, and anyone who does so is considered a murderer.) — Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 2:16
In modern times, unauthorized violence in the name of God is classified as a capital crime. The exceptional case of Pinchas was a unique event (Hora'at Sha'ah) that cannot be used as a precedent for vigilante justice today.
2. The Halakhic Will (Tzava'ah)
In contemporary practice, most rabbinic authorities strongly recommend that every person write a halakhically valid will (Tzava'ah).
Without a halakhic will, a secular estate division that gives equal shares to sons and daughters can violate the biblical laws of inheritance. This can lead to serious halakhic issues of theft (Gezel) among siblings.
By using a modern version of the Shtar Chatzi Zachar or a Matnat Bari (a gift given while in good health), a person can legally distribute their property to their spouse, sons, and daughters in any way they choose, while remaining fully compliant with both secular law and halakha.
Takeaway
Parashat Pinchas shows us that while raw, passionate zealotry may be necessary to save a community in a moment of crisis, it cannot serve as a permanent model for leadership. True, lasting peace is built through the structured order of law, the fair distribution of resources, and the quiet, daily commitment to communal responsibility.
Footnotes
- Numbers 25:11-13: The divine covenant of peace and perpetual priesthood granted to Pinchas.
- Zevachim 101b: The talmudic discussion explaining why Pinchas was not a priest prior to his act of zealotry.
- Sanhedrin 82b: The detailed analysis of the legal status of the zealot's strike and the miracles performed for Pinchas.
- Numbers 26:52-56: The biblical instructions for dividing the Land of Israel by lot and population.
- Bava Batra 117a-119b: The talmudic debate on whether the Land was inherited by the generation of Egypt or the generation of entry.
- Numbers 27:1-11: The petition of the daughters of Zelophehad and the resulting laws of inheritance.
- Numbers 28:1-29:40: The complete liturgical calendar of the daily and festival offerings.
- Zevachim 89a: The halakhic discussion of priority in sacrifices (Tadir VeShe'eino Tadir).
- Or HaChaim on Numbers 25:10:1-2: The explanation of why Moses had to publicly declare Pinchas's reward.
- Ralbag on Numbers 25:10-11: The eight To'alot (benefits) derived from Parashat Pinchas.
- Sfat Emet on Parashat Pinchas: The homiletical and psychological interpretation of the broken Vav in Shalom.
- Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 771: The midrashic identification of Pinchas with Elijah the Prophet.
- I Kings 19:10: Elijah's lament of zealotry on Mount Horeb.
- Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 281: The codification of the biblical laws of inheritance.
- Rema on Choshen Mishpat 281:7: The codification of the Shtar Chatzi Zachar for daughters' inheritance.
- Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 2:16: The contemporary nullification of extrajudicial violence in halakha.
derekhlearning.com