Halakhah zu Malachi 2:11

A man who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper, if zealots have not killed him and he has not received lashes at the hands of the court, his punishment is explicit in the words of tradition (Prophets), that he receives excision, as is written, “…For Judah has profaned the holiness of God which He loves, and has married the daughter of his strange god. May God cut off the man that does this, he that calls and he that answers…” (Malachi 2:11-12). He shall not have a caller among the wise nor a responder among the students. Note: This sin has a deficit which is not present among all the other sexual proscriptions, for the son derived from a (Canaanite) female slave or from a Kuthite (non-Jewish) female is not considered his son, as opposed to descendents from other sexually proscribed women (Tur in the name of Rambam). One who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper in public, whose law is that zealots kill him, as will be explained Choshen Mishpat chapter 425, is included in the classification of sexual proscriptions, and the law is that he should permit himself to be killed rather than transgress (Beit Yosef in the name of Orchot Chaim in the name of Rambam) as is the case with other sexual proscriptions and as explained in Yoreh Deah chapter 157.

A man who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper, if zealots have not killed him and he has not received lashes at the hands of the court, his punishment is explicit in the words of tradition (Prophets), that he receives excision, as is written, “…For Judah has profaned the holiness of God which He loves, and has married the daughter of his strange god. May God cut off the man that does this, he that calls and he that answers…” (Malachi 2:11-12). He shall not have a caller among the wise nor a responder among the students. Note: This sin has a deficit which is not present among all the other sexual proscriptions, for the son derived from a (Canaanite) female slave or from a Kuthite (non-Jewish) female is not considered his son, as opposed to descendents from other sexually proscribed women (Tur in the name of Rambam). One who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper in public, whose law is that zealots kill him, as will be explained Choshen Mishpat chapter 425, is included in the classification of sexual proscriptions, and the law is that he should permit himself to be killed rather than transgress (Beit Yosef in the name of Orchot Chaim in the name of Rambam) as is the case with other sexual proscriptions and as explained in Yoreh Deah chapter 157.

It certainly stands to reason that a breach of law punishable by death at the hands of a zealot should not go completely unpunished in the absence of a zealot who feels called upon to act summarily. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 82a, states that the punishment for such a deed is karet, death at the hands of Heaven. In support of this statement the Gemara cites the verse, "Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loveth, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. May the Lord cut off to the man that doeth this" (Malachi 2:11-12). In rabbinic literature this punishment is referred to as karet me-divrei kabbalah, death at the hands of Heaven as recorded in the words of the Prophets.

He prohibited us from marrying heretics. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And you shall not marry them" (Deuteronomy 7:3). And he explained what marriage is - "do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons." And in the explanation (Avodah Zarah 36b), they said, "The Torah forbade [it when it is] by way of marriage." And there are distinctions about the punishment of one who transgresses this negative commandment. And that is that when the one who has sexual relations with an Aramean has sexual relations in public - anyone who kills him while he is clinging to the sin has carried out the punishment, as Pinchas did to Zimri (Numbers 25:6-8). And they said (Sanhedrin 81a), "One who has sexual relations with an Aramean, zealots may attack him" - but with the conditions that we mentioned. And that is that he has relations with her in public, and [that the punishment is meted out] at the time of the act - like the story that happened (with Pinchas and Zimri). But if he did not do this in public or he [already] separated and the zealots did not attack him, he is liable for excision. However this excision is not made clear in the Torah: They said, "[When] zealots did not attack him, what is [the law]?" And it is explained that it is excision (cutting off), from His saying, "for Judah has profaned what is holy to the Lord - what He loves - and espoused daughters of alien gods. The Lord will cut off from the man that does this all living offspring" (Malachi 2:11-12). [This] implies that it is with excision. However when it becomes confirmed about a man - with witnesses and a warning - that he had sexual relations with an Aramean, he is lashed, by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 12.)

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 81a) that zealots would attack one who has sexual intercourse with an Aramean (gentile) publicly in the eyes of ten or more Israelites. And the proof of the thing is the story of Pinchas and Zimri. But the zealot is nonetheless only permitted to attack him at the time of the promiscuous act, and like in the story that happened; as it is stated (Numbers 25:8), "and the woman through her belly." But if he separated [from her], we do not kill him, but [rather] bring him to the court and they administer lashes [upon] him, since he did the act publicly. [If] the zealots did not attack him and the court did not administer lashes [upon] him, we know from the words of tradition that he is [punished] by excision, as it is written (Malachi 2:11-12), "and he who husbands (read here as, who has sexual intercourse with) the daughter of a foreign god. The Lord will excise the man that does it." And a gentile who has sexual relations with an Israelite - if she is a married woman, he is killed over her; but, if not, he is not killed. But a Jew who wantonly has sexual relations with a gentile woman - even [if it is] by way of harlotry - she is nonetheless killed, since a mishap happened to an Israelite through her, like the law of an animal. And this thing is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated (Numbers 31:16-17), "They were the ones that were with the word of Bilaam against the Children of Israel, etc. and any woman that could know a man sexually they killed." [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Avodah Zarah and Yevamot and Kiddushin (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 2).