English translation — בלק ב

A.

On the verse¹

"And Pinchas saw etc. and took a spear etc." says the Gemara²

— and Rashi brings it in his commentary on the Torah — "He saw the deed and remembered the law etc. 'One who cohabits with a gentile woman, zealots may strike him.'"

And although the law "One who cohabits with a gentile woman, zealots may strike him" is "a law [given] to Moses from Sinai,"

there is, however, a proof for it also from the Written Torah: from this same verse itself "And Pinchas saw etc. and took a spear etc."³

And based on this, one will also understand what the verse⁴

expresses, that.

"And they pierced the two of them" was "the

woman through her stomach",

and Rashi explains⁵

"He aimed at the male organ of Zimri and her female organ, and they all saw that not for nothing did he kill them" — for prima facie 1)

Why does the verse recount this here?

2)

How can there even be a possibility that "for nothing did he kill them" — after Zimri's explicit statement: this one is forbidden or permitted, etc. — as brought in Rashi's commentary there?

Only since with the story "And Pinchas saw etc." the verse also wants to hint the halacha that "one who cohabits with an Aramean woman, zealots may strike him",

he therefore says "do not curse" in order to also hint the details of the halacha,

that the zealot may strike the one who cohabits with an Aramean woman specifically during the act but not after he has separated⁶.

B.

Seemingly one can ask: if the Torah wants to let us hear the law of "zealots may strike him" — why is this halacha brought in the verse in a manner of a story and not

In a manner of a law,

as the other laws stand in the Torah?

So the explanation in this is:

Regarding the matter of "zealots may strike him",

it states⁷

"one who comes to inquire, we do not instruct him".

Therefore the law cannot stand in the Oral Torah

(except in the manner of a narrative),

because the eternity of the Oral Torah — since it is matters of <b>Written</b> [Torah],

it is in a manner that they constantly keep <b>saying</b> the matters that are in it⁸

that it is "a <b>commandment</b> standing forever and for all eternities"⁹

— its <b>commandments</b> and <b>instructions</b> do not change].

And consequently,

if in the <b>Written</b> Torah there had been written a <b>law</b> that "zealots may strike him",

it would have become a <b>permanent</b> instruction — also for one who "<b>comes</b> to <b>inquire</b>"<b>¹⁰</b>

And based on this it follows,

that also the very fact that the halacha "zealots may strike him" is in the Oral Torah only in the manner of a narrative,

alludes to a detail in this law — that "one who comes to ask for guidance, we do not instruct him."

3.

In this law of "one who cohabits with an Aramean woman, zealots may strike him" — since "his death is not handed over to the court",

so much so that the court may not at all instruct the zealot that he should kill him — there are early authorities¹¹

who learn,

that the one who cohabits with an Aramean woman is <b>not</b> liable to the death penalty.

The "halachah" is,

that the <b>zealot</b> has a commandment¹²

to strike the one who cohabits,

but the <b>one who cohabits</b> is <b>not</b> liable to the death penalty¹³.

And with this they explain the law¹⁴

: "If Zimri turned and killed Pinchas, he is not killed for him, because he is a pursuer" — as

As soon as the law "they strike him" was said regarding the <b>zealot</b>,

that <b>he</b> must strike the one who cohabits with a gentile woman,

but regarding the one who cohabits, there is no death penalty,

it follows automatically,

that regarding Zimri, Pinchas was a "pursuer"; he was pursuing a person who is not liable for the death penalty.

And therefore Zimri was permitted to kill Pinchas — because "if one comes to kill you, rise early to kill him"¹⁵.

But from the <b>simple</b> language of the Gemara¹⁶

"Who would say something that the Merciful One exempts him and we should arise and kill him?" implies¹⁷

like the other opinion¹⁸,

that "zealots strike him" applies also to the one who cohabited — he is <b>liable</b> to death¹⁹.

Only <b>the</b> liability to death is different from other capital offenders,

in that he was handed over

(not to the court,

but)

specifically to "zealots — those who are zealous for the zeal of the Omnipresent"²⁰

(until that "if one comes to consult the court, they do not instruct him")

and specifically at the time of the act of the sin

(not like the death by

court which is <b>after</b> the act of the transgression).

4.

And one can say,

So also Rashi in his commentary on the Torah holds like the view that "zealots strike him" is because the one who cohabits with a gentile woman is <b>destroying</b> <b>death</b>:

When Rashi explains "he aimed at the male organ of Zimri and the female organ of her" he adds as above: "And all saw that not for nothing did he kill them."

And at first glance it is perplexing:

If Pinchas had not intended "within the male organ etc.",

then one would have thought that Pinchas killed them &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; he separated&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

and then it would have turned out that Pinchas killed them &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;according to law&lt;/b&gt;,

and Pinchas would be liable for capital punishment

(as the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

says "that if Zimri separated and Pinchas killed him, he would be executed for it")

— it would then turn out,

that by means of what "he intended etc." is "all saw that he killed them &lt;b&gt;according to law&lt;/b&gt;" and he

(Pinchas)

is exempt from capital punishment — why then does Rashi say that through "he intended etc." it is only indicated "that he did not kill them &lt;b&gt;for nothing&lt;/b&gt;"?

So the explanation of this is:

The law is that in certain cases the court must give lashes or even kill also those who are not themselves destroying in this — "to make a fence for the Torah.

And since the court sees that the people have breached in the matter,

they must fence and strengthen the matter as it seems to them"²².

And consequently,

in the case of Pinchas,

even if he had not aimed "into the membrum etc."

(and they would have thought that he killed them <b>after</b> they had withdrawn),

they would

Held that he killed him &lt;b&gt;justly&lt;/b&gt;.

Because they would have assumed that he killed them because of what "and the people began to commit harlotry etc."&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

— "the people broke out in the matter"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

But then it would have turned out that "he killed them &lt;b&gt;for nothing&lt;/b&gt;" — not because of their deed in itself: they themselves are &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; liable to death, and that which they were killed,

it was because of an &lt;b&gt;other&lt;/b&gt; thing — "to make a fence for the Torah",

But through that which "he intended etc.",

is "they all saw <b>that not</b> <b>in vain</b> they killed",

because one who has relations with an Aramean woman is <b>liable</b> <b>to death</b>,

and as above.

5.

One must however understand: since that according to the above,

the one who has relations with an Aramean woman <b>destroys</b> death,

why is his death only through zealots and only at the time of the act?

The question is even greater: By one who cohabits with an Aramean woman there is also a liability of kares,

as the Gemara derives it from the verse "and one who cohabits with a daughter of a foreign god,

<b>shall be cut off</b> the Lord etc."²⁵

And the liability of kares is indeed

remained also <b>after</b> he separated — why is the liability of death by the zealots different,

that it is specifically at the time of the act?

One must say,

that in the sin of one who cohabits with a gentile woman there are two matters

(transgression,

defects)

: a)

a matter

(defect)

that is drawn out — which remains also after the act

(as with all transgressions&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;)

and &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; matter

(defect)

brings the punishment of kares.

b)

another matter

(defect)

which exists only at the time of the act and is not drawn out for later.

And for &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; matter

(defect)

the liability is death and by zealots.

6.

It will be understood through the introduction what is stated about Pinchas&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

"And it was for him and for his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood,

because he was zealous for his God."

And superficially it is not understood:

a)

from the phrase "which he was zealous for his God" it is implied,

that by the sin of one who cohabits with a gentile woman one touches,

as it were,

the Most High — more than by all other sins.

"in his being zealous for My zeal",

which this means — as Rashi says — "in his anger at the anger that was Mine to be angry",

because this sin,

touches as it were the Most High Himself].

And superficially,

why does this sin touch more than all other sins?

b)

True indeed that for the one who "is zealous for his G-d" he receives a great reward,

but priesthood is not a matter that is given as a reward,

but rather a thing that comes by "nature"

that "boundaries the Holy One, blessed be He, set in His world" and that "and He set apart Aaron to sanctify him as holy of holies, he and his sons forever"³⁰,

it is a matter of nature just like the separation between "and there was evening" and "and there was morning"],

Today, since until then Pinchas was not a kohen

(because "was not given

(priesthood)

except to Aharon and his sons who were anointed with him and to their descendants who were born &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; their anointing"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

and Pinchas was born earlier),

so how did he become a kohen "because he was zealous"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;?

7.

So the explanation in this is:

The sin of forbidden unions is harsher than other transgressions,

thereby that "union" occupies the entire person³³

and derives from the soul as it is above the revealed faculties

so that it can be that "<b>beautiful</b> is the strength of the son from the strength of the father"³⁴,

for procreation takes

from the essence of the soul as it is above the revealed faculties — and in his very soul the father is indeed complete in all his faculties³⁵],

it thus follows,

that through a forbidden union, may G‑d spare us, one brings an essential matter into the husk

(not as with other transgressions,

where the sinner brings into the husk only those faculties of the divine soul which are related to that particular action).

But even harsher is the sin of one who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman,

as the expression³⁶

: "There is a loss in it that is not found in any of the forbidden relations."

Because with every other sin,

even of forbidden relations,

one does not cross the "boundaries" which the Most High established between Israel and the nations

(which also they are in the nature of creation³⁷,

in the manner of "And He separated etc. between the light and between the darkness"³⁸),

For not only does the <b>transgressor</b> of the prohibition of forbidden relations remain a Jew as before

(as with all sins,

as the saying³⁹

"Israel, although he sinned, he is Israel")

and he is obligated in all the commandments"⁴⁰,

But also the child that is born in prohibition — is "considered within the Jewish people even though he is a mamzer"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

and he is obligated in all the commandments

(since as soon as he is a Jew&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

— then if only he will learn Torah and become a Torah scholar,

he will be "precedes a High Priest who is an ignoramus"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;)

But not so the one who cohabits with a gentile woman,

because "the son from the gentile woman is not his son",

he is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a Jew — he thus crosses the boundaries between Israel and the nations,

he takes &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt; procreative power,

in which is found &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt; essential soul,

and he thereby begets a gentile!

8.

And another matter in this: the Gemara⁴³

says "three partners in a person,

father and mother etc. and the Holy One, blessed be He, places in him a soul".

And it is well known⁴⁴,

that

the portion of the Holy One, blessed be He,

is]

also regarding the body — the portion of father and mother,

it is not a matter of "nature"

(where G‑dliness is in concealment),

but also in this stands the power of the Supreme One in revelation.

It thus follows,

that through the sin of one who cohabits with a gentile woman,

he takes the power of procreation of a Jew — which by Jews the power of the Ein Sof is in revelation⁴⁵,

and

He uses it for the opposite, G‑d forbid — for "for he will turn away your son from after Me — he removes him from being after G‑d."

And therefore it says by Pinchas "because he was zealous for his G‑d",

because the zeal that Pinchas was zealous in the sin of cohabiting with a gentile woman was "for his G‑d",

because of the power of the Ein Sof

(which is revealed)

that goes over, heaven forfend, to the opposite of G‑dliness⁴⁶.

9.

It is, however, not understandable: since the distinction "between Israel and the nations" is one of the "boundaries" that are established in the nature of creation — how can a Jew cross this boundary

(by being a boel aramis)?

So the explanation in this is:

The power of choice that exists by a Jew,

comes from that "Behold, the man has become like one of us"⁴⁷,

he is in likeness, as it were, to the Most High — that "there is none who can stay His hand" and He can choose in what He wants⁴⁸.

And since the Most High is, after all, not defined, heaven forbid, by the laws of nature,

to the extent that He is not defined even in the distinction between Israel

to the nations⁴⁹

(because <b>He</b> indeed <b>made</b> the separation,

and <b>in His choosing</b> <b>the Cushite</b>),

therefore, from the aspect that the power of choice which derives "from a very high level" came down below and a Jew can use it to choose also in the opposite G‑d forbid — he can

(by begetting a gentile, heaven forbid)

cross the boundaries between Israel and the nations.

And this is also the explanation in that the reward of Pinchas is "a covenant of eternal priesthood" — although priesthood is a matter of nature — because since the sin of Zimri

(which brought out the zeal of Pinchas)

consisted in removing the separation between Israel and the nations,

which is analogous to "and He separated between the light and between the darkness" as above,

therefore "in <b>place of</b> that he was zealous for his God",

he received the reward — measure for measure,

"and it was for him and for his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood"⁵⁰.

10.

This matter regarding the sin of one who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman,

through which is transferred, G‑d forbid, the power of the Infinite One into the side of impurity, to distinguish,

is only at the time of the act:

By all other sins,

although the power of the divine soul that is clothed in the act of transgression descended into the three completely impure shells,

it nevertheless remains still a power of holiness.

It is only that the power of the divine soul becomes absorbed in the "intentional sins" which conceal it⁵¹.

And therefore the sinner can — through his repentance — elevate that power back into holiness;

And even in a case when "he came upon a forbidden relation and fathered from her a mamzer" which then it is a "perversion that cannot be rectified"⁵²,

it is only regarding the rectification of the sin — because "his iniquity is revealed and remembered as long as the mamzer exists"⁵³.

that since the vitality that came into this world,

became clothed in a body of flesh and blood

(which was created through the transgression),

he cannot elevate that vitality into holiness].

But nevertheless,

since also the mamzer is "considered within the Jewish people",

even when the vitality is clothed in that mamzer — it is still a vitality of holiness.

And therefore transgressions have a continuation also after the commission of the transgression — because as long as he does not do repentance,

there is found a power of holiness in "intentional sins"; but not so in the case of one who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman,

since immediately as the vitality passes over to the non-Jewish woman it becomes <b>devoid</b> of holiness — it is therefore a matter that exists only at the time of the act*⁵⁴

Regarding the general power of a person that is clothed in the act of sin — because also the one who cohabits with a gentile woman, "even though he sinned, he is [still] Israel,"

it is similar to all transgressions,

that also &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; the commission of the sin, the power of holiness remains clothed in evil.

And therefore there is upon him the obligation of kares even later; but regarding the "loss" — see Rambam — by one who cohabits with a gentile woman

(which is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; by other sins)

— from the aspect of the vitality as it passes over, heaven forbid, to gentiles,

&lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; matter is only at the time of the act,

as above.

And therefore the law of "zealots may strike him" is specifically &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; he withdraws — because the striking of the zealots is connected with the "loss" at the sin of one who cohabits with a gentile woman,

which is only at the time of the act,

and as above.

11.

Based on the above, one can also explain, possibly, that which the death penalty for one who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman was not handed over to the court

(like all other capital offenses),

but to zealots:

The choice, as it was given to a Jew from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt;,

is only that he can choose "the life and the good"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

or, heaven forbid, the opposite — "the death and the evil"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;,

but &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; to transform from evil to good or from good to evil.

That this is the explanation in that teshuvah is higher than Torah⁵⁷,

Because from the side of Torah, intentional sins cannot be turned into good⁵⁸

; but specifically a Jew — that Israel <b>preceded</b> the Torah⁵⁹,

<b>He</b> has the power to transform even from intentional sins to merits⁶⁰.

And just as it is regarding the matter of intentional sins become for him like merits,

so too is it also

(and all the more so⁶¹)

regarding the changing from good to evil,

which is caused by the sin of one who cohabits with a gentile woman: that in <b>that</b> choice which exists by a Jew,

is expressed the root of souls as they are rooted in the Essence — higher than Torah⁶²,

which

from the aspect of "Who can say to You what You shall do"⁸³,

a Jew has the power to take, as it were, the power of the Infinite One and to generate through this such a one who "removes him from being after the L-rd".

And therefore also the punishment for this sin — for a punishment is indeed according to the manner of the blemish&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

— was handed over not to beit din who rule based on &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt;,

but to "zealots",

to Jews who sacrifice themselves for zeal for G‑d,

even in a matter that

(from the perspective of Torah)

is "&lt;b&gt;one does not&lt;/b&gt; instruct him"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;.

12.

Based on all the above one will also understand the connection of the counting of the children of Israel; the division of the land; and the portion of the offerings

(which ends with the matter of "on the eighth day of assembly it shall be for you")

— to "Pinchas"

(for the name Pinchas is indeed on &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; parts and matters of the sidra&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;)

"Count of the children of Israel" — where every Jew,

not looking at his level in the study of Torah and fulfillment of the commandments,

is

counted with the same number — <b>one</b> — expresses the essence of Jews as they are above Torah⁶⁷

Also the division of the land,

is

(in addition to this that it expresses the distinction between Israel and the nations,

as the law is,

that one may not give away or sell from the Land of Israel to the nations of the world⁶⁸

— is in addition to this,

the division of the Land of Israel is)

was by lot,

which the matter of the lot indicates⁶⁹

upon the aspect of the essence of the soul which is above reason and intellect⁷⁰

And also the portion of the offerings,

which ends as above with "on the eighth day of assembly it shall be <b>for you</b>",

emphasizes the distinction between Israel and the nations,

as it brings upon this the verse "they shall be for you alone and not for strangers with you"⁷³.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Balak 5725)