Pinchas' Zeal

Hello. A mitzvah is a mitzvah and must be performed regardless of its consequences (except in very exceptional cases). But here it is a transgression, and therefore it must be judged and decided whether to perform it or not based on its consequences. Therefore, Pinchas's act is worthy of praise and Schlissel's act is severely condemned (he did no good to anyone, but only harmed). Beyond that, Pinchas intentionally harmed the criminal (I assume) who did his actions when the people were obligated to the commandments. In contrast, Schlissel accidentally harmed the criminal or actually raped (he actually harmed someone who was not a criminal at all), since homosexuals today do not understand that this is a prohibition (they are secular). Beyond that, the people today are in a different situation, since most of them are not obligated to the law. On this occasion, I will mention what some recent scholars write that a crime for its own sake depends on the intention of the perpetrator (the Netziv and the Rai, etc.). I do not accept this. Take away Yael's act (which is cited as an example in a parallel issue in Nazir). The act was justified because of its consequences (Sisra was the enemy's general), and therefore it is not reasonable in my opinion that if Yael felt that she was doing the act out of lust, it would be forbidden. The need to kill Sisra still exists, and the people of Israel were not required to give up just because Yael was not right. This is a consequence of the concept that a crime for its own sake is examined according to the results I cited above.