Torah Pearls #41 – Pinchas (Numbers 25:10-30:1)

Torah Pearls PinchasIn this episode of The Original Torah Pearls Pinchas (Numbers 25:10-30:1), we discuss what is the qualification of the first born? Who inherits the land if a father has no sons but only daughters? Did Pinchas impale a princess of Midian? Double portion or two thirds – what did it mean for Moses to impart some of his glory to Joshua, or Elijah’s spirit to Elisha?

I look forward to reading your comments!

Download Torah Pearls Pinchas

Subscribe to "Nehemia's Wall" Podcasts
YouTube | iTunes | Android | Google Play | Stitcher | TuneIn

Share This Teaching

Related Posts:
Prophet Pearls - Pinchas (1 Kings 18:46-19:21)
Torah and Prophet Pearls
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Nehemia Gordon's Teachings on the Name of God
Support Team Studies

19 thoughts on “Torah Pearls #41 – Pinchas (Numbers 25:10-30:1)

  1. Yes, I believe Moshe had a moment of weakness at the M’rivat-Kadesh but it was serious since he promoted himself to be the giver of water and thereby failed to honor our God Jehovah’s name.

    Maybe following the example of Zimri was the reason why the numbers of the tribe of Shim’on was so diminished in the census (compared to the first one).

    Leaders need to be real careful not to be bad examples and lead people astray.

    A question: Korach’s sons were allowed entry into the promised land. Were they born after the Exodus?

  2. What eye-opening revelations between the three of y’all! I listen to these repeatedly and never stop comin’ away with new insights for action, Todah raba! The urim and thummin, which you, Nehemia, refer to as “light and truth,” is this what we read of in Psalm 43:3 “Send out Your light and your truth.” ?

  3. In this Torah portion you discuss Phinehas killing Zimri, a Simeonite, and the massive reduction of the population of the tribe of Simeon in the wilderness, during the time between the two censuses. It has been proposed that these events are not unrelated. The Milesians, who were probably a big piece of the tribe of Simeon, shows up in Ireland about this time with their queen, Scota, waving a banner adorned with Moses’ bronze serpent. Probably not a coincidence.

  4. The first verse of chapter 26 says that Yehovah spoke to Mosheh and Eleazor the son of Aaron. So my question is did he actually speak to them or was it a vision?

  5. Shabbat shalom from South Africa Pretoria. Coming out of a Christian church and discovering the anciant roots was such a blessing but also a devestating lonely experience. I sometimes had the Broom tree experience like Eliyahu?. Losing lots of our friends and familyConfusing with different translations…. discovering Nehiamswall and listening to the Torah and Prophet Pearls add so much joy and growth in me and my husband’s lifes. I want to thank JHUH for both you and ‘Keith for be available to help gentiles who came to love and adore YHUH and His Torah. Oh… Oh… how He bless us through you. You both are ike family to us now. Will love to meet you in the future. Love and blessings Deidré

  6. At ~45:12 (I think), we learn that Nehemia’s father dispensed wisdom by quoting Yeshua (Matt. 26, Mark 14) ! Hilarious!

  7. Nehemia, @ 1h1m seems to absolutely nail the double portion/Elijah matter but does he quite realise what he just said? There are two priests Elijah and Elisha, both descendants of Jacob, analogous to two brothers. The inheritance must be divided in three, then one receives a single, the other a double portion. Now this makes perfect sense, surely? Maybe Nehemia knows exactly what he said but is leaving it to us to connect.

  8. Thank you so much for this postings and giving me the chance to listen via internet. May you all be blessed. I try not to miss the Torah Pearls

    kind regards all the way from South Africa

  9. Amien! I so look forward to this trialog every week!Thank you for your donations to Torah pearls !!!!It is good ground to sow in!!!Thanks for sharing all your knowledge…! 🙂


    I really love listening to the Torah Pearls. Not only do I enjoy the attitude of respect and friendship exhibited between Keith, Nehemia, and Jono, and the insights brought forward on the scripture, but your good-natured banter often gives me a laugh as well.

    In the discussion of portion “Pinchas”, at one point Nehemia made reference to 2 Kings 2:9, which is usually translated with Elisha’s request to Elijah: “give me a double portion of your spirit”. Nehemia explained that the Hebrew word translated as “portion” is the work “peh” (“pi” , perhaps ??), and that an archaeological find had identified that word as a measure of “a third” (of a talent, I believe). His conclusion was that Elisha’s request was for “two thirds of your annointing/spirit”.

    I have only begun to try to study Hebrew word meanings, and largely as a result of listening to the Truth2U podcasts of Torah Pearls, so I do not claim to be any kind of expert at this. However, with the exception of references to Heinrich Ewald’s casual comments in a footnote to his “History of Israel”, I have not found any other source (besides Nehemia’s comment) indicating that “peh” means anything other than “mouth” or “mouthful” (and thus, the “double mouthful” or “double portion” translation and the generally accepted “give me your annointing as if I was inheriting it as your first-born son” interpretation.

    It seemed that Nehemia was saying that the Hebrew was considered unclear until the archaeological discovery of the measuring device, but I did not uncover any other reference to a confusion. Every reference I found to the Hebrew described “peh” as literally meaning “mouth” or “mouthful”. (such as: )

    Can you elaborate further on why you believe the 2 Kings 2:9 passage was not a request for Elijah’s annointing as a spiritual inheritance?

    Thank you in advance for your comments.

      • Ah, so that would mean there is an error in Strong’s reading of the Masoretic text at that verse (2 Kings2:9) ?

        From Strongs:
        portion h6310 פֶּה peh

        QBible, among several others that I found using your spelling, shows it to be “Piy” as you explained, but still translates it as “mouth” or “portion”, in the context of:

        [ piy (Hebrew #6310) shªnayim (Hebrew #8147)]

        variously rendered as “second portion”, “a portion again”, “both portions”, and of course “double portion”.

        Interestingly, I found zero interpretations of that as “twice as much anointing as you”. Every interpretation I saw treated it as “your anointing as an inheritance, as if to your firstborn”. Sometimes referenced is Deut 21:17 , which is said to use the same Hebrew words “piy sh’nayim”, wherein “piy” is considered a form of “peh”.

        To make it worse, Brown-Driver-Briggs lists the “two-thirds of a shekel” as an alternate definition (but under “peh”), and says it only occurs once in the entire TaNaKh, at 1 Sam 13:21 . Ugh.

        All very confusing to me, but I really want to understand.

        Are “piy” and “peh” two forms from the same root?

        Do you think there is merit to “[when you die] give me your annointing as an inheritance, as if to your firstborn” ? If not, can you direct me to some online resource(s) where I can resolve the differences?

        Thanks for replying, by the way. I look forward to even more info from you on this, and I will be looking forward to more Torah Pearls.

  11. Hi. I am Oswald from Goa, in India. Just recently started listening to Torah Pearls. Simply brilliant. Especially, the explanation on Urim & Thumim. Always wanted to know what they meant. YAHOVAH continue to bless the three of you and your families.

Please leave a comment.