וְשֵׁם֩ אִ֨ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל הַמֻּכֶּ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֻכָּה֙ אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֔ית זִמְרִ֖י בֶּן־סָל֑וּא נְשִׂ֥יא בֵֽית־אָ֖ב לַשִּׁמְעֹנִֽי׃
죽임을 당한 이스라엘 남자 곧 미디안 여인과 함께 죽임을 당한 자의 이름은 시므리니 살루의 아들이요 시므온인의 종족 중 한 족장이며
Tze'enah Ure'enah
“The name of the Israelite” [25:14]. The Holy One said how his ancestor, Simeon, killed the city of Shechem because of illicit sex. Now, his descendant, Zimri, was engaged in major illicit sex. Therefore, the verse alludes to and mentions his ancestor, Simeon.6Bahya, Numbers, 25:14.
Rashi
ושם איש ישראל וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE ISRAELITE [WHO WAS SMITTEN] — Wherever it gives the genealogy of a good man in praise of him, it gives the genealogy of a bad man mentioned in the same story to disparage him (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).
Kli Yakar
“And the name of the Israelite man who was struck, who was smitten.” Rashi explains that in the place where the righteous person is praised, the wicked person is denigrated. But what disgrace is it when it says Zimri son of Salu? Granted, for praise it makes sense, since Eleazar and Aaron were known in the gates for praise and glory, but who is this Salu and what is his name that you should know it is for disgrace? What hint of fault is heard about him? Furthermore, why does it say who was struck, who was smitten — repeating his blows twice? It should have said, “And the name of the man who was struck with the Midianite woman, etc.” Also, it should have said, “And the Israelite man who was struck, his name was Zimri.” From the fact that it says, And the name of the Israelite man who was struck, who was smitten, this implies that who was smitten refers to the man himself, while who was struck refers to his name, suggesting that his name itself was afflicted.