On 9/19/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Micha Berger</b> <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>So, unless someone has the purity of soul of Pinechas, I would think<br>qana'us is a non-option.<br><br><br>GCT!<br>-mi<br><br>--<br>Micha Berger </blockquote><div><br>I concur and May I ad a parallel? How do we know Sha'ul sinned with Amaleik?.
<br>When Sha'ul had rachmanus on the sheep and the King couldn't het have been excused as simply having the Middah of Avraham Avinu?<br><br>Anwser: WHERE was this midah with Nov Ir Hakohanim? [Yes ba'asher hu sham etc., the 2nd incident had not happened.] My point is that HKBH had already realized that Sh'aul was insincere at the Amaleik incident. Llater on Scripture demonstrated to us the evidence at the Nov incident.
<br><br>W/O HKBH's testimony in Scripture it would be hard to know what Pinchas's motives were. [OK so it COULD have been in TSBP!] Micha is correct, Kan'us requires pure intentions. <br><br>Another ra'ya. Lechishasan lechishas Nachash,. A Chacham - or Talmid Chacham's bite is poisonous just like a snake. R. Sh. Schwab Z"L explained that this means he takes ZERO pleasure when he bites a wayward student just as a snake has no hana'ah in biting.
<br><br>OTOH if one takes pleasurein biting then his motives are impure, etc. <br> </div><br></div><br>-- <br>Kesiva vaChasima Tova<br>Best Wishes for 5768,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>