Ethical Teachings of the Torah

"He Zealously Made My [G-d's] Rights Valid" (Bamidbar 25:11) - part 3

Zealots, fanatics and vigilantes are usually considered negative since they are connected with taking the law into their own hands and dispensing summary justice. Indeed, we read (Sanhedrin Yerushalmi 9:7), “The Sages were unhappy with Pinchas’s act. Rabbi bar Pazi taught that the tribes wished to excommunicate Pinchas, saying, ‘see the grandfather of this one fattened calves for idolatry [referring to his grandfather Yitro, priest of Midyan], and he kills a prince in Israel’”. Yet here (Bamidbar 25:11-12) we find G-d saying that Pinchas had turned away His wrath from Israel and rewarding him with His covenant of priesthood. What appears to be contradictory or ambivalent teachings are actually the exquisite balance that Torah presents between conflicting spiritual and religious concepts. So, zealotry has an honored function, yet because it may lead to repulsive and illegal acts, it is ringed about, like all else in life, with halahkic restrictions and moral teachings, so that it becomes a davar sheb’kedusha, like that of Pinchas who was granted G-d’s covenant of Kehuna.
“When a man has sexual relations with a gentile woman whether in marriage or of a licentious nature, in public, that is in the presence of ten or more Jews, if a zealot kills him, he is considered praiseworthy and ardent. This is halakha L’Moshe miSinai, a halakha conveyed to Moshe at Sinai. However, the zealot may slay them only at the time of actual relations as in the case of Zimri and Cozbi: ‘he pierced them both [through Zimri’s back] and through Cozbi’s stomach’ (25:7). If however, the fornicator withdraws [even if he has already sinned] he may not be killed; indeed then the zealot may be executed as a murderer, provided warning was given and the act witnessed. Should the transgressor withdraw and kill the zealot in order to save himself, he is not killed for the death of the zealot, who in that case has the status of a rodef” (Hilkhot Isurei Bi’a 12:4-5).
Furthermore, this halakha revealed to Moshe at Sinai is not to be conveyed as an answer to a questioner incensed at public sinning. “The halakha of zealotry is only permissible to one consumed by righteous indignation and a passion for morality and justice. It is not permitted in those cases where one either has the time or mental leisure to consult with the Sages. We may not tell the zealot to kill cohabiters for it is halakhically preferable not to, nor may one risk one’s life where this is not required. Only one who places himself in danger because of passion for G-d and His Torah, not even taking time to seek a ruling, is classed as a zealot; only to such as he, is such an act permitted” (Chidushei Harim of Gur).
“If Pinchas fulfilled the halakha, why was it in opposition to the will of the chachamim” (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 9:7)? There are various explanations for this opposition but all of them are further fences erected around the zealot that prevent him from descending into a mere thug and murderer, enabling him to rise to become a priest to G-d. “Chazal use the word kana’im, the plural form, implying that this halakha may only be carried out by a group. By acting alone, Pinchas exposed himself to a great risk of death at the hands of Zimri’s supporters, therefore no matter how outraged he was at the sin, his zealotry was frowned upon” (Kli Chemda). “Pinchas was a Kohen even before the granting of G-d’s covenant, therefore he was forbidden to come into contact with the dead. Although he was miraculously untouched by his victim’s blood, nevertheless he risked excommunication had not Heaven declared, ‘he has saved Israel from destruction’” (Sifri).
In addition to all these legal restraints, perhaps morally and spiritually even more importantly, the Torah insists that the zealot must be clearly without any egoistical interest and that there can be no suggestion or suspicion in his act, of any personal gain involved. “And they [Moshe and the Elders] were weeping at the entrance to Ohel Moed” (Bamidbar 25:6). Moshe who had successfully stood up to the power of Par’o, who had wrought miracles against the forces of nature and who had called on Israel to take up arms against those who worshiped the Eigel, now stood powerless before the challenge of Zimri. Our sages taught that he had forgotten the halakha of the zealot, or did not know what sort of death penalty applied to one who has public relationship with a non-Jewish woman or simply that his weeping was due to the enormity of the sin and the plague that raged against Israel.
The rebellion of Korach accused Moshe of profiting from his function as a leader and of personal exploitation of his power. There Moshe, in the passionate denial of any such abuse and asserting the transparency of his leadership, could call on G-d to create a special creation to punish the rebels but here Zimri seemingly had grounds to question him. “‘Moshe, this woman is permitted to me or not’, asked Zimri? ‘She is forbidden’, came back Moshe’s answer. ‘You, whom G-d has praised as being His true servant above everybody else, interpret Torah to your own benefit. Tell us why then is Tzipora permitted to you? She is a Midianite just like Cozbi; furthermore while Cozbi is a princess, she is the daughter of Yitro who was only a priest of Midyan’. Hearing Zimri’s taunt to him rendered Moshe powerless. Any action by him could be explained as motivated by simple self-interest rather than pure halakha. Tzipora was converted and the marriage occurred before Matan Torah when everybody had the status of Bnei No’ach. Cozbi, however, had never been converted and now after Sinai, non-Jewish women were forbidden to Israel” (Tanchuma; Midrash Hagadol).
David HaMelech was faced with a similar problem when Yoav, his general and cousin killed Avner and Amasa, the commanders of Shaul’s army. Yoav’s acts called for the death penalty but this would be construed as hiding David’s complicity since their murders were to David’s political benefit. So he delayed Yoav’s punishment, instructing Shlomo in his will to carry it out (Melakhim Alef 2).
Pinchas, however, acted in pure zealotry without any hint of personal hatred of Zimri, or any self-interest on his part or any ulterior motivation.

• Other Ethical Teachings of the Torah
• THE CHALLENGE OF MONEY: ELUL
• The Challenge of Money: Wages and Labor; Employer and Employee [part 5]
• The Challenge of Money: Wages and Labor; Employer and Employee [part 4]