민수기 25:6의 Halakhah

Although the prohibition is not expressly formulated in Scripture, the action of Phinehas, described in Numbers 25:6-8, serves to establish that cohabitation with a non-Jewess is proscribed, at least under some circumstances. The concept of "kana'im poge'im bo" is one which is well known to students of Halakhah. Halakhah prescribes that, subject to certain limitations, a Jew who is apprehended in flagrente delicto in the act of cohabiting with a non-Jewess may be executed summarily. Translated literally, "kana'im poge'im bo" means that zealots may take justice into their own hands and may execute the transgressor on the spot. There are, to be sure, many halakhic fences which serve to limit implementation of this principle. First, punishment may be meted out only while the act is actually in the course of being performed. According to some authorities, the usual hatra'ah or warning must be administered.¹Rabbi Moses Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer, I, no. 38, citing Rashi, Sanhedrin 81b, and the reported view of R. Shlomoh Heiman, declares that such action is permitted only to “zealots,” defined as kesherim whose motives are entirely noble and whose intentions are exclusively for the sake of Heaven. Most significantly, the rule which applies is: "Halakhah ve-ein morin ken"; while the punishment is justified, no one may be instructed to carry it out. Nevertheless, a person who acts in accordance with this principle acts in accordance with Halakhah. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 82a, describes Phinehas' action with regard to Zimri as having been based upon this principle. Zimri was engaged in an act of fornication with a Midianite woman and, while yet in the midst of the coital act, was executed by Phinehas.

Several commentaries, by virtue of their answers to the query presented by Tosafot, indicate that, in their opinion, there is no obligation whatsoever to resurrect the dead. The Shitah Mekubezet parallels the previously cited view of Maimonides in stating that the child was not dead but merely in a swoon. Rosh,²³Quoted by Shitah Mekubeḥet, Baba Meẓi‘a 114b. Radbaz,²⁴Vol. V, no. 2203. and Abarbanel²⁵Commentary on the Guide, I, 42. Puzzling is the parallel cited by Abarbanel concerning the slaying of Zimri and Cozbi by Phineas (Num. 25:6–8), a deed which necessarily involved the latter’s defilement. The rabbinic view is that since Phineas was born before the consecration of Eliezer, he was not a priest by virtue of genealogical descent and, accordingly, required personal consecration to achieve priestly status. Rabbinic tradition views the verse “Behold I give him my covenant of peace” (Num. 26:12) as recording that this status was accorded him as a reward for his zeal in the matter of Zimri. Thus, at the time of the slaying, Phineas had not yet attained the status of a priest and was not bound by the priestly prohibition regarding defilement (See Zevaḥim 101b). all state that Elijah's act was a form of hora'at sha'ah—an action having express divine sanction limited to the specific case at hand—and from which no normative halakhic practice can be deduced.

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.)