Quote "but I'm not sure that absent those decrees if there would be a prohibition."

It’s definitely forbiden, a Machlokes if it’s from the Torah or from the Rabanan. The same Gemarah in Avodah Zara explains that Dovid was Gozer even Yichud with an unmarried woman.

Quote "
One pshat I heard was that the Bas Kol heard after this incident, when many were shocked that Pinchus had killed a Prince,"

It wasn’t a Bas Kol, but rather some people from Shimon who complain how can a child from Yisro, who’s a Ger, kill a prince. That’s why the Torah gives him full Yichus to Ahron Hakohain (See Rashi in the beginning of Parshas Pinchus.)

Quote "were it not for the uniqueness of the situation, such as specific peace he brought about, it was an illegal action for which Pinchus would be subject to the death penalty of the earthly court."

Chazal learn it to be a completely legal action, that anybody that is Boyel Aramis a Kanoy
can kill him.

quote:

It’s definitely forbiden, a Machlokes if it’s from the Torah or from the Rabanan.

Was Yehudah in our Parsha compliant with this mitzvah?

Or its uniqueness for Moshiach makes for no comparison?

B"H

Rob, you asked:

"Was Yehudah in our Parasha compliant with this mitzvah?"

This becomes a little complicated, but the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 36b brings down a whole panoply of different time periods with different levels of moral condition, biblical laws and/or rabbinic enactments that affect men. As for Yehudah, the Talmud says there that he learned from the school (Beith Midrash) of Shem that it was forbidden for a male idolator to have connexions with a woman who had forsaken all practices of idolatry. Therefore, when Yehudah thought that Tamar had played the harlot with an idolator, he gave orders that she be taken out and burnt at stake. But as for his own "license and promiscuity" (may G-d forbid), when he approached unto whom he thought to be a gentile woman of the nations, no law was yet enforce touching upon what a man does or should not do with a gentile woman. The Torah simply was not yet given.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

And what of the mitzvah of the Yafes Toar?

My understanding is that this speaks of a Jewish soldier who sees a beautiful gentile woman with whom he is permitted to have relations one time but then the Torah instructs what must be done following if he wishes her to remain with him?

I am not asking if you think these required procedures are likely to dissuade him from continuing with her, or if you agree that there are implicit warnings that the result is likely to be a hated wife with whom he is stuck, etc, I am only asking if the situation's starting point, and the permissibility of relations.

I'll posit that given the track record of marauding raiders to towns, and the conduct of modern armies on leave, even in modern times, that the way of soldiers who had authority to kill all they came in contact with, this law shows a Torah way of restraint for Jewish armies.

See what I wrote about Yafas Toar in the below post, this would answer your question.


http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/904606335/m/962102464

quote:

1. The Gemarah learns the Kareis from a Pasuk in Malachai, which was written 400 years (around) before the Chashminaim...

My dear Rav Chaim,
I will have to concede with you that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 82b gives the reason for extirpation (i.e. when a Jewish man has unlawful relations with a gentile woman) and it is, as you said, because of a Pasuk in Malachai and NOT because of the Hasmonaean decree as I wrongly assumed.
This brings us back to the initial question. Why do the Rabbis say (in Avod. Zar. 36b) that having relations with non-Jewish women (other than the Canaanites) is only a rabbinic prohibition, but in Sanhedrin 82a they hold that it is a prohibition taken from the Torah?

Perhaps we can reconcile the differences this way, namely: In San. 82a it was Rav Kahana who was asking about what would happen to that man who engaged in sinful licence with a gentile woman and yet no zealot intervened to stop him, to which it was replied that he would suffer "Kareth" (extirpation) by the hand of G-d. (Malachai) Obviously, the reference here about "Kareth" in Malachai was conditional upon the Oral Teaching delivered to Moses at Sinai (Halacha le-Moshe Mi-Sinai) and which was made long before (Avod. Zar. 36b), viz., that such connexions were forbidden, and whenever such things be done wantonly before the public's gaze they would warrant a severe censure - even death! This could be done by any man who was deeply incensed and moved with choler over seeing such a despicable act. Yet, the prohibition to lay carnally with a gentile woman has always been and is still an Oral Teaching delivered to Moses at Sinai, having the full force and validity of the Torah when the act is done publicly. And this is what we, indeed, learn through the Gemara in Abodah Zarah 36b, when it was stated there, "the Torah decreed against marriages with non-Jews(Devorim 7), yet the disciples of Hillel & Shammai came along and decreed against licentious conduct (זנות)." When it was countered that the decree against licentious conduct was already learned from the school of Shem, and that Yehudah was willing to inflict punishment over the act, the Rabbis averted the problem by saying that Shem's law applied only to daughters that fain attempted to have connexions with idolatrous men. However, Jewish men were probited in the same licentious conduct by a decree made by the two schools of Hillel & Shammai. This opinion was also rejected, the Rabbis going on to say that licentious conduct practiced by a Jewish man towards a non-Jewish woman is an old, Oral Teaching delivered unto Moses at Sinai, "Ha-Bo'el Aramith Kenaiim Pog'im Bo." (But only when such license is acted in public.) This opinion seems to stand,, although the Gemara goes on in its quest to verify why it was necessary for the disciples of the schools of Hillel & Shammai to decree against the daughters of gentiles that they be equivalent to a menstruate. The Rabbis said that it was in order to keep Jewish men and boys away from them, knowing that they might attempt to lie carnally with them in secret,, especially as having cognizance that the act was no longer punishable by death if done in secret. This too was rejected, the Rabbis saying that it has been forbidden unto Jewish men and boys to have carnal relations with non-Jewish girls, even in secret, ever since the time of the Hasmonaeans! In a way of rectifying this apparent loss of adequate reason (i.e. in their decree which equates gentile daughters to menstruates), the Rabbis say that the Hasmonaeans decreed against actual coitus, but the disciples of the schools of Hillel and Shammai decreed against being left alone with them, etc. etc.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Yehudah, besides being before Matan torah, his wives definitely converted to whatever was Judaism was before Matan Torah.

When Zimri brought Kuzvi before Moshe and asked him if she was permitted, and if you say she’s prohibited, who permitted to you the daughter of Yisro. Though the distinction was easy to understand, that Tziporah converted, and Kuzbi was still an idol worshipper, but it was needed for Zimri to bring it up to try to cloud the Inyan.

Did it even matter that she was an idol worshipper? I thought the fact that she was not a Hebrew is what mattered, whether she was and idol worshipper or not. Furthermore, wasn't the case of Zimri after Sinai anyway?

It doesn't make a difference that if she actually worshipped idols or not. (Though the nickname for Goyim is "Akum" which means idol worshipper, so I wrote that which infers that she didn't convert.)

B"H
Rav Chaim,
For your information: The word "Akum" (lit., "worshippers of stars and horoscopes") is actually a later addition to our Talmud, added by the censor in Europe. All old Talmudic editions before the censor had literally, "Goy," meaning "gentile."

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham