But this case is not like that one, because here there is a blood avenger and there there isn't.
On the other hand, if he is exempt, then he wouldn't even need to go into exile to a city of refuge, because he has the right to defend himself, right? And then it comes out that there is no point to the city of refuge, and that can't be the intended meaning..

I didn't understand. What are "this" and "that"? Obviously in Zimri's case there is no blood avenger, but he is comparing a blood avenger who comes to kill an unintentional killer to a zealot who comes to strike someone who is having relations with an Aramean woman.
He has to go into exile to a city of refuge if he doesn't want people threatening him. If he can defend himself, then yes indeed. Though this depends on whether the exile is also a punishment or only protection against the blood avenger, and this is not the place to go into it.

There is a similarity in the pursuit, but it is not an equal comparison from which we can derive the permission.

The blood avenger is not liable to death….

But Zimri was liable to death, as it says: “And the Lord said to Moses: Take all the chiefs of the people and impale them before the Lord, in the face of the sun, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn back from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let each man kill his men who attached themselves to Baal Peor.

And behold, a man of the children of Israel came and brought near to his brothers the Midianite woman, before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of the whole congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. And Pinchas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest saw, and he rose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand. And he went after the Israelite man into the chamber and pierced both of them—the Israelite man…”

First, Zimri is parallel not to the blood avenger but to the unintentional killer. Pinchas is the parallel to the blood avenger.
Second, what you're writing only strengthens the argument: if Zimri, who according to you was liable to death (though in truth that is not correct), is exempt when he killed Pinchas, then an unintentional killer, who is not liable to death, would certainly be exempt when he killed the blood avenger.

Correct, but what I wanted to convey is that the blood avenger is not commanded to kill the unintentional killer. But Pinchas was explicitly commanded to kill everyone who attached himself to a foreign woman as intercourse of idolatry, on Balaam's advice. “Let each man kill his men who attached themselves to Baal Peor.” An explicit command.
I don't understand how, even in your view, Zimri was not liable to death, when Pinchas kills him and receives through that the high priesthood and praise from God.

The blood avenger did not sin and has no death sentence on him. I already said that. What's unclear.
By the way, the exile is both punishment and protection from the blood avenger. And logically, how does the Torah “protect” the unintentional killer, but not protect the “blood avenger”? Doesn't that make no sense?
At the same time, it does not prevent the blood avenger from killing the unintentional killer if he catches him before he reaches the city of refuge.
Given these facts, one can conclude that an unintentional killer cannot kill the blood avenger under any circumstances. The Torah is content with the fact that the unintentional killer accidentally killed the blood avenger's relative…

Pinchas too was not commanded to kill Zimri. He merely had permission. The divine command to kill those attached to Baal Peor has nothing to do with Zimri. By the way, Mishneh LaMelekh even entertains the question regarding an agent of the religious court (though his conclusion there is that in that case the law of a pursuer does not apply).

The Talmud says that Zimri was not liable to death, not I. True, I too, insignificant as I am, agree with the Talmud on this. The fact that Pinchas decided to kill him was his own judgment. Zimri was allowed to defend himself. See Kli Chemda at the end of Parashat Balak.

This is a baseless comparison. The Torah does not protect the blood avenger because he is in no danger. Of course the killer may not just kill him for no reason. He may defend himself if the blood avenger comes to kill him. But the blood avenger comes proactively to kill the killer.

You can sum up whatever you want, of course…

Apparently I didn't understand the content of what was said because of my hasty reading of the biblical text. Why does the Talmud say that Zimri was not liable to death? And why do you agree that he was not liable to death?
What transgression did Zimri commit? That Pinchas specifically chose to kill him and Cozbi with one blow?

Wait a second, let's say the unintentional killer runs to his own territory and sets up guards there, so that if the blood avenger comes and bursts into the territory in order to kill the unintentional killer, they will deal with the blood avenger—is that valid, meaning are they allowed to protect the unintentional killer from the blood avenger? All this while he has no intention of going to a city of refuge, even because there too there are guards outside his home.

Let's say that when he leaves his house he goes out with his guards—what is the law if the blood avenger tries to murder the unintentional killer and is pushed back or killed by the guards?

I jumped ahead of myself—let's postpone conclusions until I understand the content deeply! 🙂

How should the phrase “attached themselves to Baal Peor” be understood?

Why did the Torah write specifically this case if it is not connected to attaching oneself to Baal Peor?

Too many questions, all of them unrelated to the subject under discussion.
For our purposes, the Talmud says that if Zimri turned around and killed Pinchas, he would be exempt. The reason is that Pinchas has the status of a pursuer. If Zimri had been liable to death, then obviously he would have been forbidden to kill the agent of the religious court who came to kill him (Mishneh LaMelekh discusses this there and says so). But Zimri was not liable to death; rather, a zealot was allowed to kill him. The zealot does so on his own responsibility, and therefore Zimri is allowed to kill Pinchas as a pursuer. Mishneh LaMelekh writes that the same applies to the blood avenger.
That is all. Everything else is irrelevant to our issue.

What is the reason that a zealot is allowed to kill Zimri even without authorization from the religious court? I still haven't found your rejection of the claim that Zimri indeed attached himself to Baal Peor. As I understand it, “attached” is a euphemism for intercourse with a foreign woman as part of their idolatry, and that was the advice Balaam gave Balak..

P.S. He thrust the spear into them in order to prove the reason for the killing, and it wasn't because Zimri committed adultery, but because in attaching himself to Cozbi he was completely worshipping idols! And therefore he calmed God's wrath by doing this!

“Judah has acted treacherously, and an abomination has been done in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness of the Lord, which He loves, and has had relations with the daughter of a foreign god.”

Your creative interpretation of the verses could qualify as marvelous epic poetry, but not as an interpretive basis for an objection. What the verses say is that attaching oneself to Baal Peor is idolatry, for which one is liable to death. Regarding that, they were commanded to kill those who attached themselves. Zimri attached himself to Cozbi, meaning he was about to have relations with an Aramean woman, and for that there is no death penalty, only the law that zealots may strike him.
I remind you that creative interpretations are supposed to serve as the basis for answers, not for objections. We have a tradition that one may resolve with difficulty, but one may not object with difficulty.
It seems to me we've exhausted this.

Moshe, I noticed that the Rabbi didn't answer you on a basic question—why did Pinchas kill Zimri?
The answer is that anyone who has relations with an Aramean woman (a non-Jewish woman), zealots are permitted to kill him, but he is not liable to death (the religious court would not kill him).

D, many thanks to you. I confirmed your words by reading http://din.org.il/2013/11/01/%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%91%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%90%d7%93%d7%9d-%d7%a9%d7%a0%d7%9b%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%a2%d7%9d-%d7%92%d7%95%d7%99%d7%94/

Honorable Rabbi, thank you. Indeed, we've exhausted it. D and I will continue to delve into it and expand, because it's interesting… and not enough.

D, what is the law regarding Samson, who had relations with Delilah? And still served as a Nazirite from his mother's womb…

If a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish woman without a Jewish wedding or without her converting, is his law that zealots are permitted to kill him?

D, read at the link http://www.etnachta.co.il/tanach.php?book=%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8&perek=25

and tell me whether from the plain meaning you would not understand that Zimri indeed approached idolatry, besides also having relations with a non-Jewish woman?

D, if indeed Zimri was not liable to death, how did his death stop the plague? Think about it! And more than that, Pinchas killed him and got a reward for it… There is a prohibition against cursing a leader of your people, so all the more so murdering him. How does that fit together?

D, and even more than that, do you know the midrash: “At the time when Zimri was pierced together with Cozbi, the tribes stood up against him and said: Did you see this son of Puti, whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry, killing a prince of a tribe of Israel! Therefore Scripture came and traced his lineage: Pinchas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest. ‘Therefore say: Behold, I give him My covenant of peace.’” Meaning, according to this midrash, he had long since been liable to death—how does that fit together?

I didn't understand the connection to the Nazirite status. In any case, if Delilah was a non-Jewish woman (that is not clear from the verses), a zealot would have been allowed to kill Samson when he had relations with her.

No. It is forbidden to kill a Jew over a marriage. Only at the moment when he is having relations with a non-Jewish woman.

Maybe Zimri also approached idolatry. But what difference does that make?

Zimri was not liable to death, meaning the religious court would not execute him. But certainly his act was not pleasing in God's eyes, and therefore it was permitted to kill him. Indeed there is a prohibition against murder (not only of a leader but of anyone), but it is overridden by other considerations. (A religious court also lashes and executes and violates no prohibition.)

The midrash says that the tribes were angry at *Pinchas*, because his mother's father apparently worshipped idols, and not only that, but he was also killing a prince in Israel, and therefore God praised him so that they would not harm him.
I didn't understand who had long since been liable to death.

You didn't answer me on the main point, and that's a shame. Read at the link http://www.etnachta.co.il/tanach.php?book=%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8&perek=25

and tell me whether from the plain meaning you would not understand that Zimri indeed approached idolatry, besides also having relations with a non-Jewish woman?

You said: "It is forbidden to kill a Jew over a marriage. Only at the moment when he is having relations with a non-Jewish woman"—so if that's the case, if I don't find him in the act, I can't harm him as long as it isn't happening now before my eyes, at that very moment. Right?

On the second question: yes.

On the first question, actually I did answer before that I don't understand why it matters, and indeed it could be that he also approached idolatry (that is not necessarily implied by the verses; it only says that the people of Israel approached the idolatry, and then Zimri came to the Midianite woman).

Ah, so the fact that immediately afterward the story of Zimri is written doesn't connect for you, and you're not so sure. So I'll ask like this: what is your feeling in percentages—few percent if you feel he did not sin with idolatry, and many percent if he did sin with idolatry?

The act of Zimri was intercourse with the Aramean woman.

As for percentages, I have no idea, and I don't think this is the place to investigate me about it (you should first submit an arrest warrant).

It seems to me we've exhausted this.

We've exhausted it—thanks for everything, dear brother. I was not convinced that the act of Zimri was only intercourse with an Aramean woman according to the plain meaning. When I have more proofs in hand, I'll remember to come back to this discussion that we've already exhausted several times with several "different" people.

We've exhausted it, we've exhausted it, we've exhausted it.