The Talmud tells the story of one who impersonated a Jew in order to obtain portions of the Pesach sacrifice, and was executed upon being discovered. The severity of and the justification for this penalty has troubled many commentators, who offered various explanations.

As the Talmud notes, the prohibition of "Kol Ben Nechar Lo Yochal Bo" is applicable here. Some achronim suggest (see Minchat Chinukh, 14, and Tzlach, Pesachim 73) that this prohibition is addressed to the "Ben Nechar" himself, who thus bears culpability. Others found this explanation unsatisfactory (see Moadim U’Zmanim, VII, 191; Resp. Brit Ya’akov, O.C. 19) in that even if the innovative idea were accepted, the prohibition is still not one of the seven Noahide commandments, and thus the ultimate penalty would not attach. The Sefer HaMikneh (III, Klal 32, prat 3) suggests that perhaps the transgression was violated by the one providing the food, but the one who took it was in violation of the transgression of enabling a sin (“lifnei iver lo titen michshol”). That interpretation assumes that the prohibition of “lifnei iver” is universal, and that it transfers culpability for the sin to the enabler, both of which are disputed points.

Thus, other suggestions assume that the transgression here was somehow included within the seven Noahide commandments. One possibility is that as the meal was obtained deceptively, an act of theft was committed (See Moadim U’Zmanim, ibid, and Resp. Chatam Sofer, C.M. 176; note also the glosses of the Chelkat Yoav to the Minchat Chinukh, who focuses on the possible impurification of the sacrifice and its resulting loss). A less likely possibility is that the act was considered a violation of “ever min ha-chai”, a reflection of a difference in defining that term between Jews and Noahides [as per Chulin 33a]. (See Resp. Yehudah Ya’aleh, O.C. 55, and Resp. Beit Yitzchak, Y.D. I, 37, who raises this possibility and dismisses it. See also Resp. Mekadshei Hashem, I, 82, and D’var Tzvi.)

The Maharatz Chayot, in his Responsa (#2), takes a completely different approach. In a detailed analysis, he develops the position that this event took place after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, when individuals were nonetheless taking it upon themselves to make the trip and partake of the Pesach sacrifice (see Megilah 10a, Zevachim 62a). Such activity was forbidden by the ruling powers at that time. Thus, when this interloper was discovered, it was understood that he was a spy who would endanger the Jewish people. Consequently, his treatment was an act of self-defense.