Last Verse

The last possuk in this week’s parsha, וְלֹא־יָבֹ֧אוּ לִרְא֛וֹת כְּבַלַּ֥ע אֶת־הַקֹּ֖דֶשׁ וָמֵֽתוּ is interpreted in many ways.  The Gemorah in Yoma 54a says that this means there is an issur to look at the vessels of the Mikdash when they are uncovered.  Which vessels are included in the prohibition is subject to debate.  The simple read of the Gemorah is that it’s all vessels but Rashi says it means the aron and mizbaoch.  The Even Ezra and Ramban on the possuk limit it to the aron only.  Rashi and Onklus render the possuk like that Gemorah.  However, the Gemorah in Sanhedrin 81a learns from here that one who steals a vessel used in the service of the Beis Hamikdash is liable to be killed through קנאין פוגעין בו.  The Ramban on the possuk explains that the word בַלַּ֥ע can mean steal and that it how the Gemorah learns the possuk. 

The Rambam learns the possuk like the Gemorah in Yoma and therefore doesn’t count it as a mitzvah for it only applied in the desert and doesn’t apply for all generations.  The Rambam explains even though the Gemorah derives from this possuk the prohibition to steal a holy vessel that isn’t the peshat in the possuk and is just a remez.  The Kli Chemdah asks why isn’t the prohibition not to see the uncovered vessels applicable for all generations; it should apply in the Mikdash as well?  He doesn’t find a satisfactory resolution but acknowledges that the simple peshat in the Gemorah in Yoma is clear that the issur didn’t apply in Bais Rishon.  The Gemorah implies that the issur is to uncover the vessels when we are “unfamiliar” with Hashem and not doing his will, but when we are doing His will then there is no issur.  The Ramban in his kabbilistic peshat and Bechai seem to explain the issur in this vein.  (See further sources in letters back and forth from Rav Menachem Kasher and Chazon Eish in Divrei Menachem volume 1 letters 14-17.)

Generally קנאין פוגעין בו is accompanied with a מיתה בידי שמים if the קנאין don't carry out the death.  In this scenario, of stealing the vessels of the Mikdash, this is the opinion of Ramban here as well.  However, the Rambam maintains that there is no punishment coming from heaven in this scenario for he holds it’s only a remez.

The Aruch Le’nair wonders how can there be a principle over here of קנאין פוגעין בו if it only applies at the time of the action and once it’s stolen, the issur is already done? The Radbaz (responsa 631) suggests that as long as the thief still retains the stolen object it is considered the time of the issur.  However, the Kitzots Hachoshen and Nesevos in siman 34 assume one is not defined as a rasha for retaining stolen goods, so it would seem the explanation of the Radvaz is implausible?  The Chabzalos Hasharon suggests that even though in the laws of choshen mishpat one is no longer a thief after the act of stealing, it is still an abominable act to retain holy objects.  Therefore, the zealots may kill him for the zealots kill because of their zealous feeling toward repulsive actions to remove them and it doesn’t depend on the normal rules of how to define the time of the issur, rather they may act as long as the repulsive action still remains.  

The Minchas Chinuch assumes that Rambam will agree that one can’t steal holy vessels on a Torah level because of the prohibition of stealing.  The Meiri in Sanhedrin says there is no prohibition of stealing for there is no owner.  However, it is reasonable to assume that the Rambam would disagree for he holds that the issur of genevah applies even to a gentile, unlike gezaleh (see Chut Hamisulush 17.)  Clearly the Rambam holds that ownership doesn’t define the issur of genaveh for he holds ownership of a gentile is non-consequential when it comes to gezaleh, yet there is a chiuv of genaveh.