Tents

Bava Bathra (60a) לא יפתח אדם לחצר השותפין פתח כנגד פתח וחלון כנגד חלון ... מנהני מילי א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (במדבר כד, ב) וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו מה ראה ראה שאין פתחי אהליהם מכוונין זה לזה אמר ראוין הללו שתשרה עליהם שכינה:  The Ramah says מיהא שמעינן דבהא איסורא נמי איכא משום צניעותא דנשי, ואע"ג דאחזיק נמי לא מהניא ביה חזקה. דאי ס"ד לענין דינא בלחוד קאמרינן, מאי ראויין הללו שתשרה עליהן שכינה, דמשמע טעמא דאין פתחיהן מכוונין זה לזה הא לאו הכי לא, ואי טעמא דדינא [קאמר] ותו לא, כי מכוונין נמי אמאי אין ראויין, דילמא ממחל הוא דמחלי גבי הדדי, אטו מאן דמחיל היזיקיה גבי חבריה (בריעותא) [גריעותא] היא, אלא משום דלאו מידי דמשתריא במחילה הוא.  The possuk here by telling us the Shechina being present depends upon privacy that this is not just a Choshen Mishpat law not to infringe upon someone else's privacy but it is an issur and therefore mechilah will not help.    

The prohibition of looking into someone else's property is a halachik law but also contained other lessons.  Rav Nissim Peretz says a mussar approach that one should not look to copy the Jones's but should be happy with one's own lot.  One should not be looking at the neighbor's tent to see what there is in it to copy what they have but one should be happy with their own possessions.  Rebbe Nasan (Likutay Halachos Shcanim) says that the lesson is that everyone has their own 'window of truth,'  their own way of doing things and one must not denigrate their neighbor's way of doing things although it may differ.

No Spirituality

Balak sends a message to Bilam, עַ֣ם יָצָ֤א מִמִּצְרַ֨יִם֙ הִנֵּ֤ה כִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ וְה֥וּא ישֵׁ֖ב מִמֻּלִֽ, A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the eye of the land, and they are stationed opposite me.  According to Rashi the words כִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ refers to the killing of Sichon and Og who were the guardians of the land.  Why does the possuk use the word כסה, cover to refer to destruction, we would expect the word to be destroyed, killed, a harsher word to convey that they were wiped out.  Furthermore, why does the possuk use the word עיו, eye, to refer to taking over the land?  

The Sfas Emes says כִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ refers to the idea that Klal Yisrael takes the ארץ, the total gashmious and and they find the ruchnious aspect of it.  What Balak was afraid of what not a physical destruction but a spiritual elevation.  He did not want to be bothered with having a spiritual way of living life, he preferred to continue living the way he always had. The Chasam Sofer adds based upon the writings of the Shla that the letter עין is often inserted to take something of holiness and lower it.  An example of this is seen in the name of בלעם himself.  the name בלעם contains the word לבם, their heart and has an עין added to it.  בלעם was a heart contaminator.  He took the capability of kedusha that he had but exchanged it for tumah purposes.  This fits with the Sfas Emes that the complaint of Balak is that Klal Yisrael is covering the עין, they are covering over our ability to use the base aspects of the world for tumah and instead are infusing it with kedusha.  That is why he approaches בלעם to reinsert the עין of tumah back into everyday activities.  With this idea we can read the possuk differently.  כִסָּה֙ אֶת־עֵ֣ין הָאָ֔רֶץ means that Klal Yisrael has covered over our natural tumah way of living by introducing kedusha into the very basic aspects of our lives and we are not willing to tolerate it.  In other words, Balak was not not able to tolerate a change of adding kedusha into his life.  

Facilitators Of Crime

The Rambam (איסורי ביאה 12:10) says that a yisrael who has relations with a gentile woman, the gentile woman gets killed הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה. וְדָבָר זֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא טז) ".הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" (במדבר לא יז) "וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ  Why does the Rambam need to jump to this verse in this week's parsha and not cite the fact that Pinchas killed Kazbi?  The Or Hachayim in fact, at the end of Balak ask why was Kuzbi killed and suggests along the lines of the Rambam that the woman gets killed because she caused a תקלה for Zimri.  So, why does the Rambam not cite that possuk?  Rav Moshe Feinstein says that the rule of the Rambam is a greater chiddush than the killing of Kuzbi and therefore he can't prove his law from there.  Kuzbi was killed in the middle of the act, she was caught red handed, there it is understood she gets killed for being a participant in the averah.  The Rambam is telling us a din that the woman gets killed even if the act is over, it could even be years later, if she is tracked down, she is killed because she caused the sin.  For that the Rambam has to cite our parsha, that there was a command to kill the Midyanite women.  This is why Moshe got angry at the army for not killing the woman, for they aren't being killed because of the din of מלמחה, in which they may be spared, they are being killed for causing an averah.  

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 35) suggests that when a gentile is killed because they caused a sin, they are not killed according to the rules of a gentile violating one of the 7 mitzvot with one witness and judge, rather they are killed according to the rules of an animal engaged in bestiality which is also killed for causing a sin, which requires two witnesses and 23 judges.  If that is correct, where were the 23 judges at the time of Kuzbi's killing?  It's the same idea.  That requirement is only when the woman is being killed later on due to her action.  However, during the act she is killed as a partner in crime just as the Jewish man.  

The Maggid Mishne asks how can the Rambam prove from this parsha the din that the woman gets killed because she caused a sin, all the woman were killed in the war, not only those that did a sin, so it was a gezerat hakatuv to kill all of them?  Rav Chayim Feinstein explains that the Rambam understands the woman in totality were wiped out because there was a national plot to cause Yisrael to sin.  In that situation, we no longer look at each specific woman to determine if they sinned, but rather the entire nation gets wiped out.  However, we see the reason for their death penalty is because of the women that cause Yisrael to sin.

Enjoy It

The Gemarah explains the possuk in Yermiyahu (9:12) על עזבם את תורתי אשר נתתי לפניהם ולא שמעו בקולי ולא הלכו בה that the reason for the churban Habait was שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה.  Where do we see that in the words of the possuk?  The Levush (beginning of siman 47) says ונראה שפירושו "הלכו" מלשון טיול ושעשוע, כמו "והתהלכתי בתוככם", כלומר שלא חשבו לימודה לטיול והנאה, רק לאומנות ושלא לשמה.  The words הלכו indicates a joyous stroll.  The issue wasn't that Torah wasn't being learnt but that it wasn't being enjoyed.  With this approach we understand that when it says בחוקותי תלכו which Rashi says means עמילם בתורה that amelut b'Torah means learning with enjoyment.  Normally עמילות means hard work, the opposite of enjoyment, even in ruchniut לפום צערא אגרא, however, in Torah it is a paradox that עמילות leads to enjoyment, the amelut does not make things harder but adds to the enjoyment.  The Or Hachayim in Balak (23:21) says that it the interpretation of the words in the possuk ולא ראה עמל בישראל that the amelut does not feel like amelut, "עוד נתכוון באומרו ולא ראה עמל בישראל כי הצדיקים כל צפצופם עושים בו נחת רוח לה׳ ואינם מיגעים אותו כביכול על דרך אומרו (מלאכי ב) הוגעתם ה׳ בדבריכם, ולזה אמר ולא ראה עמל בישראל."

This has נ"מ also regarding halacha, R' Avraham min hahar Nedarim (48a) and Taz Yoreh Deah (221:43) hold that we don't apply the rule of מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו to talmud Torah because the mitzvah is to have enjoyment from Torah. (Based upon a shmuzz from Rav Refael Shmulevitz zt"l printed in the Mir parsha sheet.)

That is why the Baal Shem Tov said (cited in Degel Beshalach,) the beracha that was not said was the beracha of והערב נא because what was missing was the enjoyment of Torah.  In the same vein we can understand what the Toldot (Vaerah) cites in the name of the Baal Shem Tov who said Mashiach said he has not come because people do not have intent in the beracha of אהבה רבה.  Why is that a reason why Mashiach has not come?  It is in the same vein.  אהבה רבה is the beracha where we express the love Hahem has for us in giving us the Torah.  It serves to awaken the same feelings in us, כמים הפנים לפנים, to love Hashem for and appreciation of the Torah.  The lack of כונה in the beracha is an expression of the lack of appreciation of the Torah, a continuation of the same issue which placed us in the golut.;

The Middah Is Still Present

The Midrash (20:23) says the seeds of the actions of the Benot Moav were already planted in them from the beginning of their nation when the daughter of Lot had illicit relations with her father which led to the birth of the Moabites.  Why is the daughter of Lot viewed as having an illicit relation if she thought this was necessary to save the world?   Furthermore, the Gemarah in Nazir (23a) calls what she did a מצוה and she was rewarded for it?  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz explains that even though in the situation she was in her actions were praiseworthy, since the action itself was one of זנות אישא middah became implanted into the DNA of the nation she created.  He cites the Or Hachayim Devarim (13:18) says that the Torah says about those who killed the individuals of a עיר הנידחת that  וְנָֽתַן־לְךָ֤ רַחֲמִים֙ because nature would have it that after carrying out such a punishment one would become cruel and therefore the Torah has to give a special beracha that one will not lose their natural trait of compassion.  Again we see even though one is carrying a punishment prescribed by Hashem the natural middah of cruelness still would settle in the person. 

The possuk in Berashis (34:1) says ותצא דינה בת לאה.  Chazal ask why does it say בת לאה and not בת יעקב?  Chazal (cited in Rashi) say since לאה went out to greet Yaakov after she sold the דודאים, therefore this middah of leaving one's confines is attributed to Leah.  Chazal elsewhere praise Leah for her actions and attribute that led to meriting to give berth to Yissocher, so why is is viewed in a negative light?  The Shiuray Daas says the same idea at above.  Even though consequently it is a good action, since it involved a middah which can be negative, that middah can set root and come out in a negative form later. 

Possibly this idea can be used to explain the contradiction between the Zohar and Midrash if Yaakov's gifts that he sent to Esav were to be viewed in a positive light for this is helping to subdue the powers of Esav or is it negative for there is no reason to start up with Esav.  The two may go hand in hand.  It was in the situation the right thing to do but the actions themselves, showing favor to Esav still lead to negative consequences down the road. 

This is what Moshe warns about in Netzavim, פֶּן־יֵ֣שׁ בָּכֶ֗ם שֹׁ֛רֶשׁ פֹּרֶ֥ה רֹ֖אשׁ וְלַעֲנָֽה.  Maybe there is the root of evil within you.  One must uproot even middot raot which may have taken root in doing positive actions.

Above Destruction

The parsha of Balak leads right into the three weeks this year.  What lesson can we derive from the parsha about this time of year? The Gemorah in Bava Bathra (14b) says Moshe Rabbenu wrote ספרו ופרשת בלעם.  The word ספרו would seem to be the Torah that is called תורת משה and פרשת בלעם is the parsha of Balak.  The question has been posed why is the parsha of Bilam singled out?  Why according to some midrashim will Moshiach write Bilam's beast? 

Bilam was able to tap into the opportune moment and find a place cursing would be affective.  He was able to tap into the middat hadin an use it to his advantage.  During the time he tried to curse Klal Yisroel the middat hadin was suspended and he had no power.  It was a time of existence that is not present in the normal order of the world.  Bilam tried to tap into the negative actions of Klal Yisroel to administer a curse but it was to no avail.  Hashem was not employing the middat hadin where one's negative actions have an effect but was looking at the innate kesher that exists between Hashem and Klal Yisroel.  At this level there is no room for any curse to take effect. This type of connection is not something that is present in the normal order of Torah.  That is why the the parsha of Bilam is considered a separate sefer.  It is that connection that will be revealed in the future and hence Moshiach will ride on Bilam's animal (based upon מענה יחזקאל brom Rav Yichezkal Hartman.) 

Many of the Chassidic books stress the hidden good that lurks under the surface during the three weeks.  Even the 17 of תמוז is on the day of 17 which is the numerical value of טוב.  How can we relate to this if it is not present at the current time?  By living on a higher plain of existence than we can see above the destruction.  There is a level above the middat hadin, above the destruction and that is what will lead to the tikkun.  Now this is hard to do all the time but at least once a week, on Shabbos, one can take the time to contemplate.  הנה העם היוצא ממצרים the Emrey Chayim points out that the word הנה can be נוטריקון for השבת נועם הנשמות.  It was the merit of Shabbos that greatly bothered Balak.  A Shabbos can not be disturbed by any sort of evil forces that Balak would try to throw at the Jews.  The Rodomsker says (in Shabbos Chazon and Ki Teitzey) that the Gemorah in Shabbos (10b) says אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה מתנה טובה יש לי בבית גנזי ושבת שמה means that the Shabbos exists on the same level after after the destruction of the Mikdash, "ר"ל גם בבית גנזי שבהמ"ק נגנז יש לנו כח השבת כמו בזמן שהי' הבית על מכונו." He says that is the meaning of  רב לך שבת בעמק הבכה, during the time of the three weeks when it is the עמק הבכה, things are more difficult, then the Shabbos is even greater, רב לך שבת.  By stretching Shabbos observance, both in the x's and o's of the basic halachot (which need constant chizuk as the Mishna Berurah writes in his intro. to the third volume of the Mishna Berurah,) and by focusing on kedushat Shabbos and what it means to have a proper Shabbos.

Want Kavod

Rashi says that Bilam said to Hashem בלק בן צפור וגו׳ – אף על פי שאיני חשוב בעיניך, חשוב אני בעיני המלכים.  Why would Bilam say something so ridiculous to Hashem, what is the חשיבות of being חשוב to a king against Hashem?  Rav Eliezer Lopian (son of Rav Eliyah cited in the back of Leb Eliyahu Shemos,) says we see from here the power of a bad middah.  It has such control over a person that it will make one do even foolish things so Bilam was led to say such foolishness because of his desire for honor and fame.
The footnote (not sure who wrote it) gives a different interpretation.  He bases it off an idea from Rav Leib Chasmon who asked what was the greatness of Shlomo that his wish was for a לב שומע, obviously a gift of great spiritual heights is much more important to request than riches and other physical benefits?  He explained that we see from here the pull of a person's middos, that even when talking with Hashem a person will still ask for physical benefits which are merely temporary. The person writing the footnote adds its not just that Shlomo asked for the right thing, that he asked the proper request.  The question Hashem asked was what does your heart really want, what is your true desire.  Shlomo answered that what was important to him was a לב שומע.  It was the fact that indeed it was his true desire that was indicative of a high level.  This is the peshat by Bilam as well.  Bilam didn't say I am חשוב to Balak but it was clear from his words what he felt.  The extra words בָּלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפֹּ֛ר מֶ֥לֶךְ מוֹאָ֖ב give away what he was thinking, why the need to add the words מֶ֥לֶךְ מוֹאָ֖ב?  Because he was thinking about his כבוד.  That is what Rashi means, as he is speaking with Hashem, Bilam is still considered about his own כבוד.     

Fix Your Moshiach

Based upon the previous post an explanation in last week's parsha from Toras Menachem 12 Tammuz 5721.

Lessons From Bilam

A couple of points on the parsha.
The Chosom Sofer at the and of his responsa on Yoreh Deah points out that the story of Balak and Bilam is unique in the Torah for no one new about it.  No body in Klal Yisroel saw what they were doing; the entire parsha was dictated by Hashem. We see from here a tremendous lesson in emunah.  Hashem is always protecting us, even when we don't realize.  Even at a time when Klal Yisroel isn't praying or doing anything to shield against the attack Hashem is still watching over us.  Based upon this we can understand the Gemorah in Berachos (12b) that says Chazal wanting to put the parsha of Bilam in krias shemah.  The Gemorah says why, because אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין משום דכתיב בה האי קרא כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו.  Rashi says: כרע שכב - דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא.  However, it still needs to be explained what does the parsha of Balak have to do with the theme of shemah of accepting Hashem's oneness and kingship?  Based upon this Chosom Sofer we understand that this parsha is a living example of Hashem's hashgacha over everything.  That is what the possuk means כרע שכב, even when we are sleeping and not aware of who is coming to attack us, Hashem is still looking after us.

---

The Ramban (24:1) says: ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראת נחשים – כי בפעמים הראשונים היה מנחש ורוצה לקלל אותם בנחש, והיה השם בא אליו בדרך מקרה, לא בכונתו לנבואה ולא ממעלתו שהגיע אליה, ועתה כאשר נאמר לו: כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל (במדבר כ״ג:כ״ג) להרע או להטיב להם, הניח הנחשים ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראתם. אבל שם אל המדבר פניו אשר ישראל שם, שיראה אותם ויכין להם נפשו, שיחול עליו הדבור מאת השם כאשר עשה עמו פעמים, וכן היה לו. על כן אמר: ותהי עליו רוח אלהים – כי עתה היתה עליו יד י״י כאשר היא לנביאים, כמו שאמר: ומי יתן כל עם י״י נביאים כי יתן י״י את רוחו עליהם (במדבר י״א:כ״ט), ואומר: רוח י״י אלהים עלי (ישעיהו ס״א:א׳). ועל כן קרא עצמו עתה: שומע אמרי אל (במדבר כ״ד:ד׳), כי נביא הוא.  The Ramban holds that  the first 'prophecies' of Bilam weren't real prophecies; Hashem merely took over his mouth.  However, the third time Balak assented to the level of real prophesy.  How could such a lowlife as Bilam receive prophesy?  The answer lies in the words of the Ramban.  Bilam took a look deep down in his soul, now that he was looking at Klal Yisroel the good in his soul was magnetically pulled toward the kedusha in front of it and came out.  By focusing on the this aspect of his soul (which had tremendous potential,) Bilam was able to receive prophesy.  The lesson in that if a person focuses on true service of Hashem, even if his/her character hasn't been changed completely, the individual can already tap into the river of truth (based on Mictav M'eliyahu volume 4.)

---

Rashi 22:28 says: [זה שלש רגלים – רמזה לו אתה מבקש לעקור אומה החוגה שלש רגלים בשנה.]  Everyone asks why is it specifically the merit of the three regalim that brings Bilam down?  The idea is that Bilam was one of the greatest intellectuals of the day, he knew all of the philosophy, the arts, all the wisdom and even the all of the ethical teachings and laws of the day.  What was lacking was the legs.  The legs are the lowest part of the body, the part farthest from the brain.  (See similar theme here.)  The feet only act based upon what is ingrained into the core of the person. The wisdom of Bilam was limited to his brain, it didn't affect his feet, his actions didn't parallel his wisdom.  It is the mitzvoh of the feet going up on the regel that is the opposite of Bilam.  It demonstrates that the body of a Jew itself becomes imbued with holiness.  That was something that Bilam couldn't match up to and that is what worked against him.

Tammuz Power: 6 + 7

וירא העם כי בשש משה ובגמ' שבת פט. אל תקרי בשש אלא באו שש.  צ"ב מה נ"מ באיזה שעה הם סברו שמשה יבא ומה איכפ"ל אם היה שעה ששית או שעה אחרת?  עפ"י פנימיות זה לא סתם שעה אלא זה מורה על מהות ותוכן החטא של כלל ישראל כמו שיתבאר. 

השם של החודש הזה הוא תמוז.  מהו תמוז?  רש"י יחזקאל (ח:יד) פ': מבכות את התמוז – דמות א׳ שמחממו׳ אותו מבפני׳ והיו עיניו של עופר׳ והם נתוכין מחום ההיסק ונראה כאלו בוכה ואומרת תקרובת הוא שואל.  וא"כ צ"ב למה בוחרין בשם ע"ז להיות שם של החודש?

כל הענין של יז' בתמוז התחילה ע"י חטא העגל.  חטא העגל היה חטא של פירוד בין ו' לז'.  הם אמרו עכשיו בשש, אין קשר בין ניהוג העולם והקב"ה.  השם של החודש הוא שם של ע"ז שאנשים חושבין שיש בה כח שמכחישין במלכות שמים, שה' מנהיג הכל.  וזה היה הגורם של כל הגלות.  הפירוד הזאת (שנתחדש כבר בדור הפלגה עיין שיעורי דעת) הוא הסיבה שממנו בא כל החטאים. 

מלבד מה שתמוז הוא שם ע"ז יש בו גם רמז למעליותא והיינו שמורכב ממלת תם ו' ז'.  היינו שיש בו רמז לחיבור בין ו' לז'.  ז' הוא ספירה השביעית, מלכות, ההכרה של מלכות שמים.  ו' הן הו' מדות, הו' קצוות של העולם שהעולם נראה בפירוד ממלכות שמים.  ועבודת בנ"י הוא כמשכ' בפסוק ישעיה (מ"ג:כ"א) עם זו יצרתי לי תהלתי יספרו.  זו היינו החיבור בין ו' וז', לחבר את העולם אם הבורא.  בתוך המכה של תמוז, מונח הרפואה.  יש לנו כח להפוך את תמוז לתם ו'ז'.
(עפ"י לקוטי תורה שלח יג: ושבילי פנחס תשע"ג.)

וענין זה מבואר גם בשם הפרשה שלנו.  למה נקרא הפרשה ע"ש רשע, שונה ישראל כמו בלעם?  אלא דזה גופא הוא ביטול הכי גדול שייך לו, שלא רק שכחו נתבטל אלא להיפך, הוא גרם ברכות גדולות לכלל ישראל.  ומה שמוזכר שמו בשם הסדרה זה גופא הוא הביטול הכי גדול ששייך לו.  ולכן מה שהפרשה נקרא על שמו זה גופא הוא קיום של שם רשעים ירקב (עפ"י לקו"ש חכ"ג.)

וגם י"ל דבר זה מרומז בחג הגאולה של האדמו"ר הקודם של חב"ד, הריי"צ, ביג' תמוז (שחל בשבוע הזאת,) שאותיות ו' וז' עולה ביחד למספר יג'.  גאולה של אדמו"ר זה לא גאולה פרטית אלא זה דבר ששייך לכל כלל ישראל.  ובחג הזאת נתגלה במקצת הענין וגילוי המהות הפנימיות של חודש תמוז, שמה שהוא התחלת הגלות באמת הוא מפתח הגאולה.  ובודאי לא במקרה הוא שמספר יג' עולה בדיוק בחשבון של מלת אחד, שע"י חיבור ו' עם ז' מתגלה אחדות הויה. 

שבת הוא פנימיות השבוע ולכן כל הפנימיות של התחלת הזמן שאנחנו מזכירין את ענין וימי הגלות מונח בתוך השבת שחל בו.  ולכן בשבת הזאת קורין בפרשת בלק נבואות על הגאולה!  איך זה מתאים לשבת של יז' תמוז, לכ' הוא היפך כל הענין?  אלא כנ"ל שבתוך הנעול של גלות נמצא המפתח של גאולה.

Zealous Killing

If you can help my cousins please go to this link https://makechangeoncampus.org/granddraw/chabad-jewish-student-center-at-usc and buy a raffle ticket to support their building campaign for their building for Chabad on campus at U.S.C.

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.