.
From the title above, one might get the impression that we are referring to Bila’am and donkey, with whom he undoubtedly shared countless trysts of cohabitation — Not!
Yehuda Nachshoni’s discussions of our Parsha Balak cites the Ohr HaChaim’s question of “why Pinchas killed the women [Kosbi] when, as a non-Jewess, she was absolved of Jewish law.” (Studies in the Weekly Parsha Bamidbar, pages 1112-1117).
But before listing the citing, it seems important to clarify that the discussion is in the context of Zimri’s distorted perception of acting “for the sake of Shemayim” in preempting Avodah Zora by bringing the cohabitation with Moabite women into the camp so that men would not go looking for it outside where the cohabitation would be enticement to idolatry.
Zimri, the prince of Shavet Shimon, was the most prominent individual to take part in this act of physical lust in cohabitating with the Midianite Kosbi, daughter of Tzur.
The Ohr HaChaim cites Sefer Bamidbar, Perek 20, posuk 15;
If a man performs a sexual act with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must also be killed.
Likewise, Nachshoni cites R’ Sa’adya Goan, who is explicit in his writings on the 10 Commandments;
Zealots may kill even the non-Jewess involved in the act.
Nachshoni also notes;
Chazal only say that the zealot may kill the Jew who cohabits with a non-Jewess, but did not mention the non-Jewess.
But after some deliberation, Chazal draws this conclusion;
The Jewish cohabiter may be killed by the zealots, in line with Moshe’s oral Sinai tradition, whereas the non-Jewess is killed by a Jewish court, in line with explicit Torah law, and that her execution is far more severe than his.
Nachshoni then relates that Chazal cites Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Biah 12:10);
The non-Jewess is killed as the object through which corruption came to the Jewish people, as is an animal used for cohabitation.
He then relates that Rambam says;
This matter is clearly defined in the Torah, as it says, “kill every woman who has ever lain with a man” (Sefer BaMidbar Perek 31, posukim 16-17).
But then Nachshomi cites the Maggid Mishne which questions Rambam’s source, claiming that the source proves nothing;
These women were to be killed even if they did not cohabit, and even if no one was corrupted by them. Even the comparison to an animal is puzzling in that the Torah nowhere makes a comparison, and nowhere says that their legal status is identical.
Then Rambam’s source in Pesikta Rabati on Pinchas states;
Since there was a plague and 24,000 Israelites fell, Hashem said “My children died because of these corrupters. Shall you not cause the corrupters themselves to fall? I wrote in the Torah, ‘You shall kill the animal.’ An animal, which cannot think for itself, is killed when it becomes a means to corruption. How much more so should the Midianites, who led the Israelites to sin, be killed as well.”
Nachshoni then derives;
If Pinchas had gone and asked for a ruling concerning the fate of the non-Jewess, the verdict would have been death. Yet he did not have time to ask, for the cohabiting Jew could only be killed during the act, and he was then obligated to execute the law for the non-Jewess as well, who was on hand.
He then cites Rashi in Sanhedrin and provides two fundamental constraints on the zealot;
Respectable people who avenge Hashem’s anger. They are allowed to kill the sinner while he is in the act.
- a/ The zealot must free himself of personal interests and avenge only the wrath of Hashem.
- b/ The zealot is innocent of murder only if he performs his act at the same time that the cohabiter is committing his crime.
Nachshoni then cited the explanation of the Lubavitcher Rebbe z”l for Rashi’s treatment of Pinchas’ zealous act against Zimri and Kosbi;
“He impailed the woman through the belly”; “He aimed his spear between their male and female members, proving that he did not kill them in vain.” Why would we think that he had killed them in vain? Rather, the Torah here alludes to the law that a zealot has free reign only while the act is in progress.”
It would seem that this entire analysis above, the discussion of Zimri’s actions; in words related by R’Rafael Katzenellenbogen attributed to R’ Sonnenfeld (Studies in the Weekly Parsha, by Yehuda Nachshoni, Parsha Balak, page 1115.); that Zimri’s distorted sense of “acting for the sake of Shemayim” evolved from a “… novel, misleading ideology, that evil must be tolerated by incorporating it into the Camp of Israel…” in order to preempt idolatry — would and should have its modern-day applications or understandings, i.e. recent events. The terror attacks — a couple of months ago at Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva and last week’s bulldozer terrorist rampage in which Jewish deaths occurred due to police inaction, as well as the mindset of inaction, indecisiveness and equivocation of the regime and of the IDF in not moving to liberate the 3 captives of 2 years ago by force soon after their capture (rather than making deals to release hundreds or thousands of blood-laden terrorists to kill and maim again or to continue the cycle of kidnapping more soldiers), and other instances too numerous to list here.
May we, the B’nai Yisrael be zocha that our brethren — the refugee families from Gush Katif be permanently settled and be made totally whole, that our dear brother Jonathan Pollard and the 3 captive Chayalim and the other MIAs be liberated alive Al Kiddush Hashem and returned to us and that we fulfill Hashem’s blueprint of B’nai Yisrael as a Unique people — an Am Segula, not to be reckoned with as with “the nations” and may we be zocha the Moshiach, the Ge’ula Shlaima, as Dov Shurin sings; “Yom Hashem V’Kol HaGoyim”, the Ultimate Redemption, bim hay v’yameinu — speedily, in our time”, — Achshav, Chik Chuk, Miyad, Etmol!!!
Good Shabbos!
**************************************************************
Moshe Burt, an Oleh, is a commentator on news and events in Israel and Founder and Director of The Sefer Torah Recycling Network. He lives in Ramat Beit Shemesh.
***************************************************************