Rabbi Howard Morrison

Dear Congregational Family,

In this week's Parsha of Pinchas, we read about the selection of a successor for Moses, who will not be allowed to lead his people into the promised land.

If you had a say, who do you think should be chosen to succeed Moses?

Perhaps one of his sons should lead. This is not the correct choice. While Priesthood transitioned from father to son, this was not necessarily the case for national leadership. Since we hear almost nothing about the sons of Moses, we can presume they were not worthy for consideration.

Perhaps Pinchas should succeed Moses. After all, the same Parsha which informs us that Moses will die before entering the promised land is entitled, Pinchas. As we know, Pinchas committed a bold and extreme act to preserve the purity of his people. He seems to be rewarded with a "Covenant of Peace."

Interestingly, classical commentaries are split on the zealous and extreme behavior of Pinchas. It is noteworthy that the word "Shalom" in the expression "Covenant of Peace" is written with a broken "vav." It has been suggested that maybe at that one instance, his zealous behavior may have been warranted, but not as a regular way of leading a people. Extremism as a normative form of leadership will result in a broken peace.

Ultimately, we learn that God advises Moses to select Joshua to succeed him. Joshua is neither a son to Moses nor a Priest, like Pinchas. But Joshua apprenticed under Moses. Joshua understood the nature of the people and his teacher. Joshua was considered to be a paradigm of moderation. He was the logical choice when choosing from within the people's potential candidates.

Zealotry or extremism rarely win out in the long run. Effective leadership is the ability to hear all sides, give respect and receive respect. With these qualities in mind, Joshua will lead our people into the promised land.

Rabbi Howard Morrison