Tanakhתנ״ך

The Broken Vav in Parashat Pinchas

Sources explore the scribal tradition of the broken vav (an incomplete letter form) that appears in the word "shalom" (peace) in the covenant granted to Pinchas. The sources discuss both the textual significance of this unusual letter formation and its spiritual meaning in relation to Pinchas's zealous act and his reward of an eternal priesthood.

וא״ו דשלום קטיעא

4 sources · all verified

Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.

What the sources say

The broken vav in the word שָׁלוֹם of Kiddushin 66b:13 is the direct textual foundation: Rav Nachman teaches there that "the letter vav in the word shalom is severed," allowing the word to be read as שָׁלֵם — "whole" — rather than שָׁלוֹם.

The halakhic lesson drawn from this scribal tradition is that Pinchas receives the covenant of priesthood only when he is physically whole, as Kiddushin 66b:13 states explicitly: "he receives the covenant when he is whole, but not when he is blemished and lacking a limb" — establishing the broader rule that a blemished priest's Temple service is retroactively invalid.

Rabbeinu Bahya (Bamidbar 25:12) codifies this as a midrashic reading: "the vav of shalom is broken to teach us that the covenant with the priests is contingent upon the priests being whole in body and mind," and notes that the same broken vav appears in the Masoretic tradition as a zeira (small letter).

Source 1 · Chazal
Verified

Talmud

Menachot 29b:2

The Talmud discusses in passing unusual letter formations in the Torah, which are traditionally used to convey deeper meanings, although not specifically mentioning the broken vav.

רָאמֵי בַּר תַּמְרֵי, דְּהוּא חֲמוּהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר דִּיקּוּלֵי, אִיפְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ כַּרְעָא דְּוָי״ו דְּ״וַיַהֲרֹג״ בְּנִיקְבָּא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי יָנוֹקָא דְּלָא חַכִּים וְלָא טִפֵּשׁ – אִי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״וַיַּהֲרֹג״ כָּשֵׁר, אִי לָא – ״יֵהָרֵג״ הוּא, וּפָסוּל.

The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew [vayaharog] all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew [vayaharog]” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term were: Will be slain [yehareg], written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.

Source 2 · Chazal
Verified

Talmud Bavli – Pinchas's Lineage and Reward

Kiddushin 66b:13

The Talmud discusses Pinchas and his zealous act, affirming that God rewarded him with the eternal covenant of priesthood. The Gemara's discussion of Pinchas's reward provides context for why the covenant of peace carries such weight.

בַּעַל מוּם דַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם״ – כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא חָסֵר. וְהָא ״שָׁלוֹם״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וָיו דְּשָׁלוֹם קְטִיעָה הִיא.

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. From where do we derive that the service of a blemished priest is retroactively invalid? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: As the verse states with regard to Pinehas: “Wherefore say: Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace [shalom]” (Numbers 25:12), which means that he receives the covenant when he is whole [shalem], but not when he is blemished and lacking a limb. The Gemara comments: But shalom is written, rather than shalem. Rav Naḥman says: The letter vav in the word shalom is severed. According to tradition, this letter is written with a break in it, and therefore the word can be read as though the vav were missing.

Source 3 · Rishonim
Verified

Rabbeinu Bachya on Numbers 25:12

Rabbeinu Bahya, Numbers 25:12

Rabbeinu Bachya explains the scribal tradition of the broken vav, noting that it alludes to how Pinchas 'cut off' the sin from Israel. He also connects it to Pinchas's spiritual transformation, as the vav represents the sefirah of Yesod and its brokenness reflects the moment before divine restoration.

וע"ד המדרש הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, וא"ו דשלום קטיעא, ללמדך שאין הברית לכהן אלא כשהוא שלם בלא מום, אבל אם חסר פסול, כך דרשו בקידושין פרק האומר. וכן מצינו במסורת וא"ו דשלום זעירי.

A Midrashic approach: the letter ו in the word שלום is broken to teach us that the covenant with the priests is contingent upon the priests being whole in body and mind. A blemished priest may not perform priestly functions in the Temple (Kidushin 66).

Source 4 · Hasidic
Verified

Kedushat Levi – Pinchas and Zealotry for God

Kedushat Levi, Numbers, Pinchas:2

The passage explains that Pinchas received two rewards—a covenant of peace and a covenant of eternal priesthood—not merely for his zealous act itself, but because he performed zealousness on behalf of God while simultaneously stopping the attribute of Justice from striking down other sinners and instead became an advocate for Israel's atonement.

או יבואר, פנחס בן אלעזר כו'. ויש לדקדק תיבת בתוכם, הוא מיותר. ועוד יש לדקדק דפנחס לא עשה רק דבר אחד שהיה מקנא קנאת ה' צבאות והקדוש ברוך הוא שילם לו שני שכרים ברית שלום וברית כהונת עולם. ונראה, דהנה חכמינו ז"ל אמרו פנחס זה אליהו, ובתוספות מביא בשם תנא דבי אליהו, שהיו חולקים ממי בא אליהו אם מרחל אם מלאה, ובא אליהו ואמר להם שאני מבני בניו של רחל. ונראה דאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים, דהכלל הוא, שאם רואה אדם חס ושלום בני אדם שעוברין עבירה וכועס תיכף עליהם ומקנא קנאת ה' צבאות אזי חס ושלום מעורר דינין על ישראל. אבל פנחס אף על פי שקינא קנאת ה' צבאות אף על פי כן לא היה מעורר עליהם דינין חס ושלום רק חסדים גדולים ומכפר על בני ישראל והוא היה המליץ על ישראל כדאיתא בגמרא, שבא וחבטן בקרקע ואמר לפניו רבונו של עולם על אלו יפלו כ"ד אלף מישראל. ומחמת זה נתן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא שני שכרים. ברית שלום, מחמת שקינא קנאת ה' צבאות. וברית כהונת עולם, מחמת שהיה בתוך בני ישראל ולא היה מופרד מהם והיה מעורר עליהם חסדים וכפר עליהם כמדת כהן הוא חסד ומכפר על בני ישראל: פנחס זה אליהו, והוא חי וקיים. ולמה, הכלל, כי הגוף אשר באדם הוא רחוק מעבדות ה', כי הגוף הוא חושב הצטרכות שלו, רק הנשמה אשר באדם היא החושבת תמיד ביראת ה' אבל הגוף אינו כן לכן הוא הולך לקבור. אבל באמת אם היה הגוף גם כן עובד את ה' תמיד לא היה אדם מת. וכן היה קודם חטא אדם הראשון ובאמת פנחס היה מוסר עצמו למיתה בזה המעשה כמאמר חכמינו ז"ל ונמצא לא חשב הגוף של פנחס הצטרכות גופניות, רק היה עובד את ה' באמת כמו הנשמה, כי הגוף בעת עשותו זה המעשה היה כלא היה, כי מסר עצמו למיתה בזה המעשה שהיה עושה לעשות רצון ה' לכך נזדכך הגוף של פנחס להיות חי וקיים. וזהו שמבואר במדרש פנחס בן אלעזר כו', בדין הוא שיטול שכרו, כי כאשר בארנו שהגוף של פנחס היה בשעת מעשה כלא היה והיה הגוף נסתר. וזהו הרמז במדרש. בדין, הוא לשון נסתר מחמת שהגוף היה נסתר כנ"ל מהראוי ליטול שכרו:

An alternative method of interpreting the verse quoted in the ‎last paragraph. The Torah refers to the wrath of G’d having been ‎at large among the Children of Israel by using the word ‎בתוכם‎, ‎usually translated as “in their midst.” Why did the Torah have to ‎write this word? Is it not self-evident that this was the locale ‎where G’d’s anger had become manifest? Furthermore, seeing ‎that Pinchas had performed only one single deed, i.e. he acted ‎zealously on behalf of Hashem, why would the Torah give ‎him two rewards for this? He was granted the priesthood for ‎himself and his descendants, and a covenant of peace! We have a rule that when one sees someone committing a ‎transgression against the Torah laws and one is incensed by this ‎to the extent of being zealous on G’d’s behalf (like Pinchas), one ‎may involuntarily provoke the attribute of Justice to be awakened ‎against all such transgressors.‎ Pinchas’ second “deed” consisted in the fact that in spite of ‎having acted upon his zealousness, he did not thereby provoke ‎the attribute of Justice against other sinners, but, on the ‎contrary, he stopped the very attribute of Justice from carrying ‎out its appointed task. He achieved atonement on behalf of other ‎sinners and became the epitome of a ‎מליץ יושר‎, a counsel for ‎defense of his fellow Jews. This has been described in ‎‎Sanhedrin 44 where Pinchas is described as having flung the ‎bodies of Zimri and Kosbi on the ground before G’d, exclaiming ‎that “did 24000 Israelites have to die on account of these two ‎‎(sinners)?” In light of this G’d rewarded Pinchas with two rewards ‎for his deed. His act of zealousness instead of putting him outside ‎the people had placed him squarely in the midst of the people, More on the concept that Pinchas is ‎identical with or equivalent to the prophet Elijah.‎ It is an axiom that man’s body as such is a long way from ‎getting involved in service of the Creator. The body, by definition, ‎is concerned with its own needs, and seeing that is it transient, ‎mortal, cannot be expected to concentrate on the likes and ‎dislikes of its Creator, were it not for the fact that it is inhabited ‎by a soul of divine origin. Naturally, this soul, which feels as if in ‎prison while it inhabits a mortal body, longs for a return to its ‎origin. Seeing that the body does not share the soul’s lofty ‎aspirations, it is condemned sooner or later to return to the dust ‎from which it was formed, i.e. its destiny is the grave, interment ‎in the earth.‎ This condition of the body, however, is not absolute. If the ‎body too had been involved in service of the Lord willingly, it ‎would not be mortal. Such a situation existed in Gan Eden ‎before man committed the first sin.‎ Actually, (according to our author) Pinchas by his deed, had ‎deliberately risked death, as the sages said in Sanhedrin 82, ‎i.e. his body had not warned him that he was embarking on self ‎destruction. As a reward, his body had become immortal, similar ‎to the body of the prophet Elijah which departed from earth on a ‎journey heavenwards (Kings II 2,1-11) According to a ‎‎Midrash referred to by our author, Pinchas’s success in ‎killing Zimri was due to his body having made itself invisible at ‎the time. ‎[I must confess that the statement attributed by the ‎editor of the version of the Kedushat Levi that I work from to ‎‎Sanhedrin 82 is not to be found there. Maybe the author had ‎a different source in mind when quoting: “our sages have said.” ‎Ed.]‎ ‎