"Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the Kohen removed My wrath from the Children of Israel..." (Bamidbar 25:11). Rashi, quoting the Talmud (Sanhedrin 82b), explains that the Torah presented Pinchas' lineage at this juncture in order to counter the harangue of some people who protested that Pinchas was unjustified in slaying Zimri, for Pinchas was of idolatrous stock (his mother was from Yisro's family) and Zimri was a prince of the tribe of Shimon. Mocking his ancestry as heathen and base, there were Jews who argued that Pinchas exhibited "chutzpa" to rise up in zealousness against the royal Zimri. The Torah therefore proclaimed that Pinchas was of priestly lineage, tracing him directly to Aharon the Kohen Gadol, his paternal grandfather.

What does the above explanation mean? Despite Pinchas' relationship to Aharon, he was still maternally descended from Yisro. Thus, how does the Torah's emphasis that Pinchas was from the family of Kohanim dispel the notion that a young descendant of a formerly idolatrous clan (Yisro's household) dared strike a prince of Shimon? Furthermore, Pinchas' priestly lineage was already known to the public; his relationship to Aharon and Elazar was not a secret. What was gained by the Torah affirming this already established ancestry?

If we explore the parsha further, we again see lineage brought up for discussion. The daughters of Tzelofchod requested title to their father's portion in the Land (rather than this inheritance going to males) due to their relationship, and Rashi notes (on 27:7, from Sifri 18) that the daughters of Tzelofchod (out of their love for Eretz Yisroel and their quest for halachic guidance) merited to correctly intuit that they had an halachic right to the portion of land they requested. Rashi also explains (on 27:16, from Tanchuma 11) that prior to Yehoshua being appointed as the next leader, Moshe Rabbeinu sought for his own sons to succeed him in that post, but that Hashem rejected the idea, as Yehoshua merited this position instead due to his attachment and devotion to Moshe, his rebbe.

What emerges from these cases is that assumptions of entitlement, or lack thereof, due to lineage are ignored in favor of personal or halachic merit and/or spiritual accomplishment. The position of those who chastised Pinchas for slaying Zimri and Kozbi was that yichus (lineage) is a legitimate qualifying factor for taking a stand in a Torah matter. This anti-Pinchas faction argued, "How can one from flawed stock challenge one from royal ancestry?" However, Pinchas' opponents were informed that they were totally incorrect, for yichus is not a factor; Pinchas could be viewed as the regal grandson of Aharon the Kohen just as easily as he could be viewed as a descendant of heathen Midianites. The Torah instructed the people to look at Pinchas' deeds, not his background, for one's deeds are what count when it comes to spiritual endeavors and standing up for Torah principles.

So, too, the fact that Tzelofchod committed a major public sin and was executed on account of it did not detract from the standing of his daughters (who were accorded high praise by Chazal, for their love for Eretz Yisroel and sincere pursuit of halachic guidance were what counted in the eyes of our Sages). 

Yehoshua succeeded Moshe Rabbeinu not because of ancestry or family connections; it was Yehoshua's qualification as Moshe's prime talmid - a qualification that was acquired through years of study at Moshe's feet - that made Yehoshua worthy to succeed his rebbe and become the leader of the generation.

Some aspects of yichus are of great import in certain areas, but attainment of spiritual greatness is open to the masses. The halacha is that a Torah scholar who is the product of an illegitimate parental union is to be accorded greater honor that a Kohen who is not a talmid chochom. Let us keep this in mind as an example of what our priorities should be when it comes to choosing our leaders and assessing the attainments of others.