Question

Hello,
I just read the chapter in the third book of the trilogy that deals with territorial considerations, and there I found the Rabbi’s reference to the Kli Chemdah at the end of Parashat Balak. I opened the relevant Kli Chemdah, but I got the impression that his claim is somewhat different. He argues that Zimri could not stop sinning, since he was compelled to continue (“for his inclination had clothed him”), and not that it was his right to continue sinning. I attached below the passages that seem relevant to me, and I would be happy for an explanation of the matter.
Thank you very much.
Kli Chemdah, Parashat Balak, section 4
And now it may be said that there, in the case of Zimri, we indeed say that if he turned around and killed Pinchas, he would not be executed for it, because he is considered compelled, and it is not called a case where one can save himself by injuring one of the pursuer’s limbs through separating from the transgression, for we say that his inclination had clothed him and he is therefore compelled. Just as warning is ineffective at the final stage of intercourse according to the Maharit of blessed memory for this reason, because at that point it is not considered that one can save him by injuring one of his limbs. Nevertheless, zealots may strike him, since he brought himself to this situation, as with all those liable to execution by a religious court. This is not the case with one pursuing another to kill him, or even with one pursuing a forbidden sexual relation, where he may be saved at the cost of his life, but only before he has intercourse; for then the idea that “his inclination had clothed him” does not yet apply. Thus he is rightly not considered compelled, since he can save himself by not committing the transgression, and that is like a case where one can save him by injuring one of his limbs…
For if he had turned around and killed Pinchas, he would not have been executed for it, even though he could save himself by injuring one of his limbs by withdrawing from the intercourse. So perforce this is not considered a case where one can save him by injuring one of his limbs, as I wrote above, since if he wishes to commit the transgression he is compelled. And if so, here too it is the same.