סנהדרין פב

סנהדרין פב

לֹא פָּגְעוּ בּוֹ קַנָּאִין, מַהוּ? אִינַּשְׁיֵיהּ רַב לִגְמָרֵיהּ. אַקְרְיוּהּ לְרַב כָּהֲנָא בְּחֶלְמֵיהּ: ״בָּגְדָה יְהוּדָה וְתוֹעֵבָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִירוּשָׁלִָים כִּי חִלֵּל יְהוּדָה קֹדֶשׁ ה׳ אֲשֶׁר אָהֵב וּבָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר״. אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אַקְרְיוּן.

If zealots did not strike him, what is the halakha? Rav forgot that which he learned through tradition concerning this matter. They read this verse to Rav Kahana in his dream: “Judah has dealt treacherously and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, as Judah has profaned the sacred of the Lord, which he loves, and has engaged in intercourse with the daughter of a strange god” (Malachi 2:11). Rav Kahana came and said to Rav: This is what they read to me in my dream.

אִדַּכְרֵיהּ רַב לִגְמָרֵיהּ. ״בָּגְדָה יְהוּדָה״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כֵּן בְּגַדְתֶּם בִּי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם ה׳״. ״וְתוֹעֵבָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִירוּשָׁלִָים״ – זֶה מִשְׁכַּב זְכוּר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא״. ״כִּי חִלֵּל יְהוּדָה קֹדֶשׁ ה׳״ – זוֹ זוֹנָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תִּהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל״. ״וּבָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר״ – זֶה הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה.

Rav then remembered that which he learned through tradition and said: “Judah has dealt treacherously,” this is a reference to the sin of idol worship. And likewise it says: But as a wife who treacherously departs her husband, you have dealt treacherously with Me, house of Israel, says the Lord (Jeremiah 3:20). “And an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem,” this is a reference to male homosexual intercourse, and likewise it says: “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “As Judah has profaned the sacred [kodesh] of the Lord,” this is a reference to a prostitute, and likewise it says: “There shall be no harlot [kedesha] of the daughters of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18). “And has engaged in intercourse with the daughter of a strange god,” this is a reference to one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman.

וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״יַכְרֵת ה׳ לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה עֵר וְעֹנֶה מֵאׇהֳלֵי יַעֲקֹב וּמַגִּישׁ מִנְחָה לַה׳ צְבָאוֹת״. אִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא – לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ עֵר בַּחֲכָמִים וְעוֹנֶה בַּתַּלְמִידִים. אִם כֹּהֵן הוּא – לֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ בֵּן מַגִּישׁ מִנְחָה לַה׳ צְבָאוֹת.

And it is written thereafter with regard to those enumerated in the verse: “May the Lord excise the man who does this, who calls and who answers from the tents of Jacob, and he who sacrifices a meal-offering to the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:12). The Gemara interprets the verse: If he is a Torah scholar, he will have neither one among his descendants who calls and initiates discourse among the Sages, nor one who answers among the students, i.e., one who is capable of answering questions posed by the Sages. If he is a priest, he will not have among his descendants a son who sacrifices a meal-offering to the Lord of hosts.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אֲבוּיָה: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה, כְּאִילּוּ מִתְחַתֵּן בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָעַל בַּת אֵל נֵכָר״. וְכִי בַּת יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאֵל נֵכָר? אֶלָּא זֶה הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya says: With regard to anyone who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman it is as though he married the object of idol worship itself, as it is written: “And has engaged in intercourse with the daughter of a strange god.” Does a strange god have a daughter? Rather, this is a reference to one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman who is an adherent of a strange god.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אֲבוּיָה: כָּתוּב עַל גֻּלְגׇּלְתּוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹיָקִים ״זֹאת וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת״. זְקֵינוֹ דְּרַבִּי פְּרִידָא אַשְׁכַּח הָהוּא גּוּלְגֻּלְתָּא דַּהֲוָת שַׁדְיָא בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, וַהֲוָה כָּתוּב עִילָּוַיהּ ״זֹאת וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת״. קַבְרַהּ וַהֲדַר נְבוּג, קַבְרַהּ וַהֲדַר נְבוּג. אֲמַר: הַאי גּוּלְגֻּלְתָּא דִּיהוֹיָקִים, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר יִקָּבֵר סָחוֹב וְהַשְׁלֵךְ מֵהָלְאָה לְשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָים״.

§ The Gemara cites another of Rav Ḥiyya bar Avuya’s statements. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya says: It was written on the skull of Jehoiakim king of Judea: This and yet another, indicating that he will suffer a punishment in addition to the punishment that he already received. The Gemara relates: The grandfather of Rabbi Perida, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya, found a skull that was cast at the gates of Jerusalem, and upon it was written: This and yet another. He buried it, and it then emerged [navug] from beneath the soil. He buried it and it then emerged from beneath the soil again. He said: This is the skull of Jehoiakim, as it is written in his regard: “With the burial of a donkey he shall be buried, drawn and cast beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19). He will find no rest in a grave.

אֲמַר: מַלְכָּא הוּא, וְלָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְבַזּוֹיֵי. שַׁקְלַהּ, כַּרְכַהּ בְּשִׁירָאֵי, וְאוֹתְבַיהּ בְּסִיפְטָא. אֲתַאי דְּבֵיתְהוּ, חֲזֵיתַהּ. נְפַקַת, אֲמַרָה לְהוּ לְשִׁיבָבָתַהָא. אָמְרִי לַהּ: הַאי דְּאִיתְּתָא קַמַּיְיתָא הִיא, דְּלָא קָא מִנְּשֵׁי לַהּ. שְׁגַרְתַּא לְתַנּוּרָא וְקַלְתַהּ. כִּי אֲתָא, אֲמַר: הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב עִילָּוַיהּ: ״זֹאת וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת״.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya said: He is a king and it is not proper conduct to treat him contemptuously. He took the skull, wrapped it in silk [beshira’ei] and placed it in a chest [besifta]. His wife came and saw the skull, went out and told her neighbors and asked them what it was. The neighbors said to her: This is the skull of the first wife to whom he was married, as he has not forgotten her and he keeps her skull in her memory. That angered his wife, and she kindled the oven and burned the skull. When Rabbi Ḥiyya son of Avuya came and learned what she had done, he said: That is the fulfillment of that which is written about him: This and yet another. Having his remains cast beyond the gates of Jerusalem did not complete the punishment of Jehoiakim. He suffered the additional indignity of having his remains burned.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל חַשְׁמוֹנַאי גָּזְרוּ, הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה, שִׁפְחָה, גּוֹיָה, אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans issued a decree that one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is liable due to his violation of prohibitions represented by the letters: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman [nidda] who did not immerse in a ritual bath and remains impure. Although by Torah law there is no impurity of menstruation with regard to gentiles, it has been decreed that one must distance himself from them as he does from a menstruating woman. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant [shifḥa], as relative to a Jewish woman, the status of a gentile woman is that of a maidservant. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman [goya] and with a married woman [eshet ish].

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם נשג״ז – נִדָּה, שִׁפְחָה, גּוֹיָה, זוֹנָה. אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם אִישׁוּת לֵית לְהוּ. וְאִידַּךְ: נְשַׁיְיהוּ וַדַּאי לָא מַפְקְרִי.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He is liable due to his violation of prohibitions represented by the letters: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin. Ravin agreed with Rav Dimi that the Hasmoneans decreed that one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is liable for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, a maidservant, and a gentile woman. He adds that the individual is liable for engaging in intercourse with a zona. But he disagrees with Rav Dimi and holds that one is not liable due to the violation of the prohibition involving matrimony, i.e., of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, because the halakhic framework of matrimony does not exist among gentiles. Their relationships are fundamentally temporary. And the other amora, Rav Dimi, holds that gentiles certainly do not forsake their wives; therefore, the status of the wife of a gentile is that of a married woman.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַבָּא לִימָּלֵךְ, אֵין מוֹרִין לוֹ. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַבָּא לִימָּלֵךְ, אֵין מוֹרִין לוֹ.

Rav Ḥisda says: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court when he sees a Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the transgressor. It was also stated that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Concerning one who comes to consult with the court, the court does not instruct him that it is permitted to kill the Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman.

וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם פֵּירַשׁ זִמְרִי וַהֲרָגוֹ פִּנְחָס – נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ זִמְרִי וַהֲרָגוֹ לְפִנְחָס – אֵין נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי רוֹדֵף הוּא.

Moreover, if Zimri son of Salu (see Numbers 25:1–9) had separated himself from the woman and only then Pinehas killed him, Pinehas would have been executed for killing him, because it is permitted for zealots to kill only while the transgressor is engaged in the act of intercourse. Furthermore, if Zimri would have turned and killed Pinehas in self-defense, he would not have been executed for killing him, as Pinehas was a pursuer. One is allowed to kill a pursuer in self-defense, provided that the pursued is not liable to be executed by the court.

״וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. הָלַךְ שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן אֵצֶל זִמְרִי בֶּן סָלוּא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֵן דָּנִין דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וְאַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹתֵק?! מָה עָשָׂה? עָמַד וְקִיבֵּץ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֶלֶף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְהָלַךְ אֵצֶל כׇּזְבִּי. אֲמַר לַהּ: הִשָּׁמֵיעִי לִי. אָמְרָה לוֹ: בַּת מֶלֶךְ אֲנִי, וְכֵן צִוָּה לִי אָבִי: לֹא תִּשָּׁמְעִי אֶלָּא לַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶם. אֲמַר לַהּ: אַף הוּא נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט הוּא, וְלָא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא שֵׁנִי לַבֶּטֶן וְהוּא שְׁלִישִׁי לַבֶּטֶן.

It is stated: “And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Each of you shall slay his men who have adhered unto Ba’al-Peor” (Numbers 25:5). The tribe of Simeon went to Zimri, son of Salu, their leader, and said to him: They are judging cases of capital law and executing us and you are sitting and are silent? What did Zimri do? He arose and gathered twenty-four thousand people from the children of Israel, and went to Cozbi, daughter of Zur, princess of Midian, and said to her: Submit to me and engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am the daughter of a king, and this is what my father commanded me: Submit only to the greatest of them. Zimri said to her: He, too, referring to himself, is the head of a tribe; moreover, he is greater than Moses, as he is the second of the womb, as he descends from Simeon, the second son of Jacob, and Moses is the third of the womb, as he descends from Levi, the third son of Jacob.

תְּפָשָׂהּ בִּבְלוֹרִיתָהּ וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֵצֶל מֹשֶׁה. אָמַר לוֹ: בֶּן עַמְרָם, זוֹ אֲסוּרָה אוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת? וְאִם תֹּאמַר אֲסוּרָה, בַּת יִתְרוֹ מִי הִתִּירָה לָךְ? נִתְעַלְּמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲלָכָה. גָּעוּ כּוּלָּם בִּבְכִיָּה, וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּרְא פִּנְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר״.

He seized her by her forelock and brought her before Moses. Zimri said to Moses: Son of Amram, is this woman forbidden or permitted? And if you say that she is forbidden, as for the daughter of Yitro to whom you are married, who permitted her to you? The halakha with regard to the proper course of action when encountering a Jewish man engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman eluded Moses. All of the members of the Sanhedrin bawled in their weeping, and that is the meaning of that which is written: “And they are crying at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 25:6). And it is written thereafter: “And Pinehas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw and arose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand” (Numbers 25:7).

מָה רָאָה? אָמַר רַב: רָאָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִזְכַּר הֲלָכָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אֲחִי אֲבִי אַבָּא, לֹא כָּךְ לִימַּדְתַּנִי בְּרִדְתְּךָ מֵהַר סִינַי: הַבּוֹעֵל אֲרָמִית קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ? אָמַר לוֹ: קַרְיָינָא דְּאִיגַּרְתָּא אִיהוּ לֶיהֱוֵי פַּרְוָונְקָא.

The Gemara asks: What did Pinehas see that led him to arise and take action? Rav says: He saw the incident taking place before him and he remembered the halakha. He said to Moses: Brother of the father of my father, as Moses was the brother of his grandfather Aaron, did you not teach me this during your descent from Mount Sinai: One who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman, zealots strike him? Moses said to him: Let the one who reads the letter be the agent [parvanka] to fulfill its contents.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: רָאָה שֶׁאֵין חׇכְמָה וְאֵין תְּבוּנָה וְאֵין עֵצָה לְנֶגֶד ה׳. כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם, אֵין חוֹלְקִין כָּבוֹד לָרַב. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: רָאָה שֶׁבָּא מַלְאָךְ וְהִשְׁחִית בָּעָם.

And Shmuel says: Pinehas saw and considered the meaning of the verse: “There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord” (Proverbs 21:30), which the Sages interpreted to mean: Anywhere that there is desecration of the Lord’s name, one does not show respect to the teacher. In those situations, one need not consult his teacher, but must immediately proceed to right the wrong that is transpiring. Therefore, he took the spear and took immediate action. Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Eliezer says: He saw that an angel came and destroyed among the people in punishment for the sin of Zimri, and he realized that he must take immediate action to ameliorate the situation.

״וַיָּקׇם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ״. מִיכָּן, שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין בִּכְלֵי זַיִין לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שָׁלַף שְׁנָנָהּ וְהִנִּיחָהּ בְּאוּנְקָלוֹ, וְהָיָה

It is written with regard to Pinehas: “He arose from amidst the assembly and he took a spear in his hand” (Numbers 25:7). From here, where it is written that he took the spear only after he arose from the assembly, it is derived that one does not enter the study hall with a weapon. The assembly in this context is referring to the seat of the Sanhedrin. Pinehas removed the blade of the spear and placed it in his garment [be’unkalo] and held the shaft of the spear like a walking stick, and he was

נִשְׁעָן וְהוֹלֵךְ עַל מַקְלוֹ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ שֶׁשִּׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁל שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמְרוּ: הַנִּיחוּ לוֹ, אַף הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו נִכְנַס. הִתִּירוּ פְּרוּשִׁין אֶת הַדָּבָר.

walking, leaning on his walking stick, the shaft of the spear. And once he reached the tribe of Simeon he said: Where did we find that the tribe of Levi is greater than that of Simeon? If all the members of your tribe submit to the temptation of the women of Moab, I may do so as well. After hearing that statement, the members of the tribe of Simeon said: Allow him to enter; like us, he too is entering to attend to his needs and engage in intercourse with the Moabite women. They rejoiced and said: Apparently, the pious and God-fearing have permitted this matter, as Pinehas is one of them.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁשָּׁה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לוֹ לְפִנְחָס. אֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְזִמְרִי לִפְרוֹשׁ וְלֹא פֵּירַשׁ. וְאֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְדַבֵּר וְלֹא דִּבֵּר. וְאֶחָד, שֶׁכִּוֵּון בְּזַכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ וּבְנַקְבוּתָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. וְאֶחָד, שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁמְטוּ מִן הָרוֹמַח. וְאֶחָד, שֶׁבָּא מַלְאָךְ וְהִגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַמַּשְׁקוֹף. וְאֶחָד, שֶׁבָּא מַלְאָךְ וְהִשְׁחִית בָּעָם.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Six miracles were performed for Pinehas when he killed Zimri. One is that Zimri should have separated himself from Cozbi, and he did not separate himself. Had he done so, it would have been prohibited for Pinehas to kill him. And one is that Zimri should have spoken and alerted the members of his tribe to come to his assistance, and he did not speak. And one is that Pinehas directed the spear precisely to the male genitals of Zimri and to the female genitals of Cozbi so that the reason that he killed them would be evident. And one is that Zimri and Cozbi did not fall from the spear. And one is that an angel came and raised the lintel of that chamber so that Pinehas could emerge holding them aloft on the spear. And one is that an angel came and caused destruction among the people, distracting them from interfering with the actions of Pinehas.

בָּא וַחֲבָטָן לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַל אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֶלֶף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף״. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל״.

Pinehas came and slammed them on the ground before the Omnipresent and said before Him: Master of the Universe, will twenty-four thousand of the children of Israel fall due to these sinners? As it is stated: “And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9). And that is the meaning of that which is written: “And Pinehas stood and wrought judgment and the plague was stayed” (Psalms 106:30).

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״וַיְפַלֵּל״. מְלַמֵּד כִּבְיָכוֹל, שֶׁעָשָׂה פְּלִילוּת עִם קוֹנוֹ. בִּקְּשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לְדׇחֳפוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶן: הַנִּיחוּ לוֹ, קַנַּאי בֶּן קַנַּאי הוּא, מֵשִׁיב חֵימָה בֶּן מֵשִׁיב חֵימָה הוּא.

Rabbi Elazar says: It is not stated in the verse: And prayed [vayitpallel]; rather, it is stated vayefalel. This teaches that Pinehas, as it were, wrought judgment [pelilut] with his Creator. The ministering angels sought to push him away because he spoke harshly to God. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Leave him be; he is a zealot, son of a zealot, from the tribe of Levi, who was zealous in avenging the violation of his sister Dinah; he is an alleviator of wrath, son of an alleviator of wrath, a descendant of Aaron, who alleviated the wrath of God during the plague that followed the assembly of Korah.

הִתְחִילוּ שְׁבָטִים מְבַזִּין אוֹתוֹ: רְאִיתֶם בֶּן פּוּטִי זֶה, שֶׁפִּיטֵּם אֲבִי אִמּוֹ עֲגָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהָרַג נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל? בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְיִחֲסוֹ: ״פִּנְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״.

The tribes began to demean Pinehas: Did you see this son of Puti, so-called because his mother was one of the daughters of Putiel (see Exodus 6:25), and they interpreted homiletically: As Yitro, the father of his mother, according to one rabbinic tradition, fattened [shepittem] calves for idol worship, and he impudently killed the prince of a tribe of Israel without a trial. In response, the verse comes and provides his lineage as “Pinehas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest” (Numbers 25:11). It is due to that lineage that he zealously executed Zimri.

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: הַקְדֵּם לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם״. וּרְאוּיָה כַּפָּרָה זוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְכַפֶּרֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לְעוֹלָם.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Be the first to greet Pinehas with a blessing of peace, to honor him before the people, as it is stated: “Therefore say: I hereby give to him My covenant of peace” (Numbers 25:12), and it is stated: “And it shall be unto him and to his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and he atoned for the children of Israel” (Numbers 25:13), and this atonement that he facilitated is worthy of continuing to atone forever.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״זַרְזִיר מׇתְנַיִם אוֹ תָיִשׁ וּמֶלֶךְ אַלְקוּם עִמּוֹ״? אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת וְעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּעִילוֹת בָּעַל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, וְהִמְתִּין לוֹ פִּנְחָס עַד שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ. וְהוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמֶּלֶךְ אַלְקוּם עִמּוֹ.

§ With regard to the same matter, Rav Naḥman says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The thigh-belted greyhound [zarzir], or the he-goat, and the king against whom none can rise” (Proverbs 30:31)? That wicked Zimri engaged in four hundred and twenty-four, the numerical value of the word zarzir, acts of intercourse with Cozbi that day. And Pinehas waited until his strength waned from all that activity. And Pinehas did not know that it was not necessary to wait that long because the king against whom none can rise, a reference to the Holy One, Blessed be He, was with him.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: שִׁשִּׁים, עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כְּבֵיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת, וְהִיא הָיְתָה כַּעֲרוּגָה מְלֵיאָה מַיִם. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: וּמוֹשָׁבָהּ בֵּית סְאָה. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: קֶבֶר שֶׁלָּהּ אַמָּה.

It was taught in a baraita: Zimri engaged in intercourse sixty times until he became like an addled egg whose contents are a muddled and non-differentiated fluid, and Cozbi was like a garden bed full of water. Rav Kahana said to underscore her disgrace resulting from her extensive sexual activity: And her seat was as wide as the area required for sowing one se’a of seed [beit se’a]. Rav Yosef taught: The opening of her womb was a cubit.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לֹא ״כׇּזְבִּי״ שְׁמָהּ, אֶלָּא ״שְׁוִילְנַאי בַּת צוּר״ שְׁמָהּ. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״כׇּזְבִּי״? שֶׁכִּזְּבָה בְּאָבִיהָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״כׇּזְבִּי״ – שֶׁאָמְרָה לְאָבִיהָ: ״כּוֹס בִּי עַם זֶה״.

Rav Sheshet says: Cozbi was not her given name; rather, Shevilnai, daughter of Zur, was her real name. And why was she called Cozbi? Because through her actions, she distorted [shekizzeva] the instructions of her father. He told her to submit only to the greatest of the children of Israel, and she submitted to the leader of a tribe. Alternatively: She was called Cozbi because she said to her father: Slaughter [kos] this people through me [bi], as I will seduce them to engage in licentiousness.

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״בֵּין קְנֵי לְאוּרְבָּנֵי, שְׁוִילְנַאי מַאי בָּעֲיָא?״ ״בַּהֲדֵי קְלִפֵּי דִקְנֵי, שְׁוִילְנַאי מַאי בָּעֲיָא?״ גַּפְתָּהּ לְאִמַּהּ.

Her name was Shevilnai; and this is as people say in reference to a famous prostitute: Between reeds and willows, what does Shevilnai seek? Clearly, she seeks licentiousness. There is another adage: Among the peels of the reeds, what does Shevilnai seek? Clearly, she seeks licentiousness. She prostituted her mother. Apparently, Shevilnai became a name popularly used to connote a prostitute. Since everyone refers to her as prostitute, daughter of prostitute, she has implicated her mother with her licentiousness.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ: זִמְרִי, וּבֶן סָלוּא, וְשָׁאוּל, וּבֶן הַכְּנַעֲנִית, וּשְׁלוּמִיאֵל בֶּן צוּרִי שַׁדָּי. זִמְרִי – עַל שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כְּבֵיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת, בֶּן סָלוּא – עַל שֶׁהִסְלִיא עֲוֹנוֹת שֶׁל מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, שָׁאוּל – עַל שֶׁהִשְׁאִיל עַצְמוֹ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה, בֶּן הַכְּנַעֲנִית – עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה כְנַעַן, וּמָה שְׁמוֹ? שְׁלוּמִיאֵל בֶּן צוּרִי שַׁדָּי שְׁמוֹ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Zimri has five names: Zimri; and son of Salu; and Saul; and son of the Canaanite woman; and Shelumiel, son of Zuri Shaddai. He was called Zimri because of the fact that he became like an addled [hamuzeret] egg as a result of engaging in multiple acts of intercourse. He was called son of Salu because of the fact that he evoked [shehisli] the sins of his family. He was called Saul [Shaul] because of the fact that he lent [shehishil] himself to sinful matters. He was called son of the Canaanite woman because of the fact that he performed an act of Canaan, as the Canaanites are renowned for their licentiousness. And what is his given name? Shelumiel, son of Zuri Shaddai, is his name, the leader of the tribe of Simeon (Numbers 1:6).

כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה, חַיָּיב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם אוֹ אֵין חַיָּיב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם?

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, the young of the priesthood kill him. Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, is he liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven or is he not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, כֹּהֵן שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה אֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְבֵית דִּין, אֶלָּא פִּירְחֵי כְהוּנָּה מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה וּפוֹצְעִין אֶת מוֹחוֹ בְּגִיזְרִין. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְחַיֵּיב בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, לִישְׁבְּקֵיהּ דְּלִיקְטוֹל בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם! אֶלָּא מַאי? אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב.

Rav Sheshet said to him: You learned the resolution of that dilemma from the mishna itself, as we learned: In the case of a priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity, his priestly brethren do not bring him to court for judgment; rather, the young of the priesthood remove him from the Temple courtyard and pierce his skull with pieces of wood. And if it enters your mind to say that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, let the young of the priesthood leave him, so that he will be killed at the hand of Heaven. Rather, what must one say? He is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּרַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִיקְטוֹל לֵיהּ? וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה – בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לַכִּיפָּה. רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, וַאֲנַן קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ! הָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּמַלְקוֹת שֶׁל כָּרֵיתוֹת עָסְקִינַן, דְּגַבְרָא בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects that proof: Is there any act for which the Torah absolves him of the death penalty and we shall arise and execute him? Rav Sheshet said to him: And are there not cases where one is executed even though the Torah absolves him? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who was flogged for violating a prohibition and then repeated the violation, the court places him into the vaulted chamber? There too, the Merciful One absolves him of the death penalty and we execute him. Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects that proof: Doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Reish Lakish says: We are dealing with lashes administered for violations of prohibitions punishable by karet? As in that case, the man is essentially liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

וְהָא גּוֹנֵב הַקַּסְוָה? הָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת עָסְקִינַן, וּרְמִיזָא: ״לֹא יָבֹאוּ לִרְאוֹת כְּבַלַּע אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וָמֵתוּ״.

Rav Sheshet said to him: But isn’t there the case of one who steals a kasva, who is exempt from punishment by Torah law, and the mishna says that zealots strike him? Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects that proof: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say: We are dealing with a service vessel utilized in the Temple, and the fact that one who steals a service vessel is liable to be killed by zealots is intimated in the verse: “But they shall not come to see the sacred items as they are being covered, lest they die” (Numbers 4:20).

וְהָא הַמְקַלֵּל אֶת הַקּוֹסֵם? הָא תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: יַכֶּה קוֹסֵם אֶת קוֹסְמוֹ, דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּמְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם.

Rav Sheshet said to him: But isn’t there the case of one who curses the sorcerer, who is exempt from punishment by Torah law, and the mishna says that zealots strike him? Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects that proof: But didn’t Rav Yosef teach that the reference is to a case where one says: Let the sorcerer strike his sorcerer, which appears to be like one who is blessing, a euphemism for cursing, the name of God, and he is liable to be executed for desecration of the name of God.

וְהָא בּוֹעֵל אֲרָמִית? הָא אַקְרְיוּהּ לְרַב כָּהֲנָא בְּחֶלְמֵיהּ, וְאִדַּכְרֵיהּ רַב לִגְמָרֵיהּ.

Rav Sheshet said to him: But isn’t there the case of one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, who is exempt from punishment by Torah law, and the mishna says that zealots strike him? Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects that proof: Didn’t they read a verse to Rav Kahana in his dream and when he related his dream to Rav, Rav remembered that which he learned through tradition that God will excise the soul of one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman?

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַיּוֹצֵק, וְהַבּוֹלֵל, וְהַפּוֹתֵת, הַמּוֹלֵחַ, הַמֵּנִיף, הַמַּגִּישׁ, וְהַמְסַדֵּר אֶת הַשּׁוּלְחָן, הַמֵּטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, וְהַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַמְקַבֵּל דָּמִים בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Sheshet that a priest who performs the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. A baraita teaches: With regard to a priest who pours oil onto a meal-offering, and one who mixes the oil into the meal-offering, and one who breaks a baked meal-offering into pieces, and one who salts the meal-offering, and one who waves it toward the altar, and one who brings the meal-offering to the altar, and one who arranges the Table of the shewbread, and one who removes the ashes from the lamps of the Candelabrum, and one who removes the handful from the meal-offering, and one who collects the blood after the slaughter of one of the offerings; if the priest performs any of these sacrificial rites outside the Temple, although there are severe prohibitions with regard to performing the Temple service outside the Temple, he is exempt from karet.

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן

And one is not liable for their performance,