Sanhedrin 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

And when he reached the tribe of Simeon, he said

to them in language that could be understood in two ways, and as a rhetorical question: “

Where do we find that the tribe of Levi

is the tribe of Phinehas

greater than that of Shimon!?”

is greater than that of Simeon!?”

And when they heard this,

the tribe of Simeon

—who understood him as though he were saying to them: “I too shall do as you have done, for is my tribe perhaps more removed from sin and purer than your tribe?”—said to those standing at the entrance: “

Let him enter

the kubah, because

he too has entered to attend to his needs

—that is, for intercourse—

;

and surely

the abstinent ones have permitted the matter

since Phinehas too is acting as we do.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Six miracles were performed for Phinehas

at that time:

One: Zimri should have withdrawn

from the woman before Phinehas killed him,

but he did not withdraw.

And one: he should have

—Zimri—

spoken

and cried out to the members of his tribe to come to his aid,

but he did not speak.

And one: Phinehas aimed

Phinehas

at the male organ of the man and at the female organ of the woman.

When everyone saw them attached to one another on the spear in Phinehas’s hand, they all knew that permission had been granted to the zealot to strike him, and they would not say: “He had hatred for him in his heart.”

And one: they did not slip off the spear

and separate from one another after being pierced, so that everyone would see them attached to one another.

And one: an angel came and raised the lintel,

so that when Phinehas left the kubah, he would not have to lower the spear in which they were impaled, for if he had done so, they would have fallen from the spear.

And one: an angel came and wreaked destruction among the people,

and the members of Zimri’s tribe were driven away and did not kill him.

Phinehas came

Phinehas

and shook them off

—that is, he cast them from the spear forcefully—

before the Omnipresent. He said before Him: “Master of the Universe!

Is it possible that

twenty-four thousand of Israel should fall because of these men?”

As it is stated: “

And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.”

And this is what is written

in Psalms 106: “They attached themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead. They provoked Him with their deeds, and a plague broke out among them.

And Phinehas stood up and interceded

and the plague was halted.”

And

Rabbi Elazar said: “

And he prayed”

was not stated; rather, “

and he interceded.”

This teaches that, as it were, he conducted a legal dispute

—a quarrel—

with his Creator.

The ministering angels sought to push Phinehas down

because he had conducted a dispute with his Creator.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them

the ministering angels: “

Leave him alone! He is a zealot, the son of a zealot,”

for he is from the tribe of Levi, and his forefather too was zealous in the incident of Shechem and Dinah.

He is one who turns away wrath, the son of one who turns away wrath;

he is the grandson of Aaron, who brought the incense when wrath broke out in the incident of Korah.

The tribes began to disparage him: “

Have you seen this son of Puti, whose maternal grandfather fattened

—Jethro, who was a priest of Midian—

calves for idolatry, and

he

killed the prince of a tribe of Israel?”

The verse came and traced his lineage

to Aaron, in contrast to the way they had traced his lineage to Jethro, as it is stated after the incident of Zimri: “

Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest,

turned My wrath away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel in My vengeance.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Extend a greeting of peace to him

to Phinehas,

as it is stated

there: “

Therefore say: Behold, I give him My covenant of peace.

It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and atoned for the children of Israel.”

And this atonement

that Phinehas performed

was worthy

to continue effecting atonement forever.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “

A girded one, or a he-goat, and a king against whom none can rise

—with the aleph vocalized with patah and the qof with shuruk—

with him”?

Four hundred and twenty-four—

the numerical value of “zarzir”—

were the acts of intercourse that the wicked man performed that day.

And Phinehas waited for him

before killing him

until his strength had weakened

from the numerous acts of intercourse, as it is stated: “Girded— or a he-goat [he waited until his strength weakened].”

And he

Phinehas

did not know that

he need not wait, because the Holy One, blessed be He, whose name is

“the King against whom none can rise”

was with him.

And

in the baraita it was taught

that the verse is to be explained differently:

sixty

acts of intercourse,

until he became like a rotting egg—

which is the meaning of “zarzir”—because of the many acts of intercourse he had performed, and his strength weakened—which is the meaning of “he-goat”—and his semen did not ripen.

And she

Cozbi

was

filled with his semen

like a garden bed filled with water.

Rav Kahana said: And the

place

where Cozbi sat

was as large as the measure of

a beit se’a,

that is, she was exceedingly broad and occupied a beit se’a when seated.

Rav Yosef taught: Her grave

—the opening of her womb—

was one cubit.

Rav Sheshet said:

It was not “

Cozbi

daughter of Zur”

the name

of the Midianite woman,

but rather “

Shuilnai, daughter of Zur”

was her name.

And why was she called “

Cozbi”?

Because

she deceived her father,

for he had said to her: “Listen only to the greatest among them,” whereas she listened to this one.

Alternatively:

This was why she was called “

Cozbi,”

because she said to her father: “

Slaughter

—a term for slaughtering—

me with this people,”

meaning: “Through this, you will cause them to be slaughtered.”

And this is what people say,

that is, because of the prostitute Shuilnai, people customarily say of every prostitute: “

Among the reeds and the rushes

—the reeds and thin willows that grow among the marshes—

what is Shuilnai doing there

if not engaging in prostitution?”

And they likewise say: “

Beside the husks of the reeds, what is Shuilnai doing there? She has committed adultery against her mother

—what is the prostitute doing among the husks of the reeds, if not engaging in prostitution? And she is committing adultery against her mother, whom they call ‘a prostitute, the daughter of a prostitute.’”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

He

has

five names:

Zimri;

b.

Salu;

c.

Shaul;

d.

son of the Canaanite,

as the verse states concerning the sons of Simeon: “And Shaul, son of the Canaanite,”

and Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai,

as the verse states: “And with you there shall be one man from each tribe, each man the head of his ancestral house … for Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai.”

And therefore he was called

Zimri: because he became like a rotting egg,

as explained above.

And he was called

Salu: because he extolled

—as in the verse, “The precious sons of Zion, valued like fine gold,” meaning that they valued them like fine gold—

the sins of

his family,

meaning that when they spoke about his family, they attributed adultery to the entire family.

And he was called

Shaul: because he lent himself to a sinful matter.

And he was called

son of the Canaanite: because he performed the deed of Canaan,

who said to them, “Love licentiousness.”

And what was his name? “

Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai”

was his name.

We learned in the Mishna:

A priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity

is not brought to the court by his fellow priests; rather, young priests take him outside the Courtyard and split open his skull with pieces of wood:

Rav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: A priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity,

is he

liable

for

death at the hand of Heaven, or is he not liable for death at the hand of Heaven?

He said to him

Rav Sheshet to Rav Aḥa bar Huna:

You have learned it

in our Mishna:

A priest who performed the Temple service in a state of ritual impurity: His fellow priests do not bring him to the court; rather, young priests take him outside the Courtyard and split open his skull with pieces of wood—

And if it enters your mind that he is liable

for death

at the hand of Heaven, let us leave him to be killed by the hand of Heaven

—let them leave him to his fate until he dies at the hand of Heaven!?

The Gemara rejects this proof, for on the contrary, the reasoning is the opposite:

Rather, what if he is not liable

for death at the hand of Heaven?

Is there anything for which the Merciful One exempted him, and we should rise up and kill him

—is there anyone whom the Holy One, blessed be He, exempted from death while we put him to death? Rather, certainly even an impure priest who performed the service is liable for death at the hand of Heaven, and therefore we may kill him.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

Is that so!?

Is there no one who is not liable for death according to Torah law, whom we nevertheless kill?

But didn’t we learn

earlier, on 81b:

One who was flogged and repeated the offense, the court places him in a cell,

and therefore

the Merciful One exempted him, yet

nevertheless

we kill him.

And we answer:

Didn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Reish Lakish said

in the Gemara there:

We are dealing with lashes for offenses punishable by karet, for the man is fit for execution

—that is, the man is subject to death by karet.

And we still ask:

But what of one who steals

the

vessel, whom avengers may strike, even though the Merciful One exempted him from punishment?!

against whom zealots strike, even though the Merciful One exempted him—the one who steals the vessel against whom zealots strike, even though the Merciful One exempted him—!?

And we answer:

Here we are dealing with sacred Temple vessels, and it is alluded to

in the Torah, in the verse: “

They shall not come to see the sacred objects as they are being covered, lest they die.”

And we still ask:

But what of one who curses the sorcerer,

whom avengers may strike, even though the Merciful One exempted him from punishment?!

And we answer:

This is what Rav Yosef taught:

In a case where he says, “

May the sorcerer curse his own sorcery,”

as it appears that he is blaspheming the Name.

And we still ask:

But what of one who has intercourse with a gentile woman,

whom avengers may strike, even though the Merciful One exempted him from punishment?

And we answer:

They recited to Rav Kahana in his dream [

they recited to him in a dream the verse, “May the Lord cut off...” which indicates liability to karet by tradition],

and Rav recalled what he had learned [

and consequently Rav remembered that this was what he had learned from his teachers], as explained above on the first side.

He raised an objection

to Rav Sheshet, who said: “A ritually impure person who performs Temple service is not liable to death at the hand of Heaven,” from what we learned in the Mishna in Zevahim 112b concerning the laws of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard:

One who pours

oil on the meal-offering [as it is written: “And you shall pour oil upon it”],

one who mixes

the meal-offering with its oil [as it is written: “Fine flour mixed with oil, it shall be unleavened”],

one who breaks

the baked meal-offering into pieces [as it is written: “You shall break it into pieces”],

one who salts

it [as it is written: “And every meal-offering of yours you shall salt with salt”],

one who waves

the meal-offering,

one who presents

the meal-offering at the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner,

and one who arranges the Table

with the showbread,

one who prepares the lamps, and one who takes the handful

from the meal-offering,

and one who receives the blood

from the offerings—

if he performed any one of these services

outside [

outside the Temple courtyard], he is

exempt

from karet—

because the Torah makes one liable for performing a service outside only when he performs a service after which no further service is required—“a completed service”—such as burning the offering on the altar. But one who performs a service after which another service is required, such as taking the handful, after which it is necessary to burn the offering, has not performed a service for which one is liable. All these are services after which another service is required, and therefore he is exempt.

And one is not liable for them,

because they are services after which another service remains: