Rashi Sanhedrin 81b says: קנאין
פוגעין בו - בני אדם כשרין המתקנאין קנאתו של מקום פוגעין בו בשעה שרואין את המעשה
אבל לאחר מיכן אין מיתתו מסורה לבית דין והלכה למשה מסיני הוא:
The end of Rashi indicates that the zealot that kills the violating individual
is acting in place of the beis din.
This view would seem to be the opinion of the Raavad as well that
requires התראה
before killing (Forbidden Relations 12:4.)
The Rambam says: כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין ודבר זה הל"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי. Why does the Rambam need to bring a proof from Pinchos, if tis a halacha there is no need for any other proofs? Furthermore, why does the Rambam use an ex post facto terminology of אם פגעו בו קנאין and not the language of the Gemorah קנאין פוגעין בו? It seems that the Rambam holds its not an obligation to kill the offender as a punishment for his actions; it’s a permissive act for a zealot who can’t bear to see such a desecration of the name of God to quench his anger by killing the offender. The Rambam doesn’t hold there is a punishment placed upon the offender that the zealot is carrying out for the beis din, he holds it’s a license for the zealot to kill the offender. Hence, he holds that there is no need for התראה. (Binyan Av volume 5 #62.)
It should be noted however, that the Raavad maintains if there was no התראה there is no punishment for the zealot coming and taking the life of the perpetrator. If he held it was merely an act of a punishment of beis din, then he should hold that there that the zealot should be punished for illegally taking a life? We see he holds that there are two dinim, the din of the Rambam learnt from Pinchos that if he can't stop himself, the zealot may kill someone else. However, he holds optimally התראה should be given and a form of a punishment of beis din should be carried out.
The Rambam says: כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין ודבר זה הל"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי. Why does the Rambam need to bring a proof from Pinchos, if tis a halacha there is no need for any other proofs? Furthermore, why does the Rambam use an ex post facto terminology of אם פגעו בו קנאין and not the language of the Gemorah קנאין פוגעין בו? It seems that the Rambam holds its not an obligation to kill the offender as a punishment for his actions; it’s a permissive act for a zealot who can’t bear to see such a desecration of the name of God to quench his anger by killing the offender. The Rambam doesn’t hold there is a punishment placed upon the offender that the zealot is carrying out for the beis din, he holds it’s a license for the zealot to kill the offender. Hence, he holds that there is no need for התראה. (Binyan Av volume 5 #62.)
It should be noted however, that the Raavad maintains if there was no התראה there is no punishment for the zealot coming and taking the life of the perpetrator. If he held it was merely an act of a punishment of beis din, then he should hold that there that the zealot should be punished for illegally taking a life? We see he holds that there are two dinim, the din of the Rambam learnt from Pinchos that if he can't stop himself, the zealot may kill someone else. However, he holds optimally התראה should be given and a form of a punishment of beis din should be carried out.
יש לחקור אם התרו בו לפי דעת הראב"ד שהוא כמו שליח של ב"ד אם יש היתר להבועל להרוג את הקנאי כמו שהתיר הגמ' לזימרי להרוג פנחס.
ReplyDelete