Do not be vindictive
Verse: ולא תטר
Command: Do not be vindictive.
Vayikra 19:18
SMG
Anyone who acts vindictively against another Jew [α] violates a negative Mitzva as it says in the verse[i] לא תטר. The Gemara[ii] and Toras Kohanim explain what is נטירה; for example, if Reuvain says to Shimon ‘lend to me your axe’, and Shimon answers ‘I will not lend it to you’. The next day, Shimon needs Reuvain, and he says to him, ‘lend me your axe’ to which Reuvain answers ‘I will lend it to you, as I am not like you and will not do to you what you did’. One who does this or something similar violates the negative Mitzva of לא תטר.
Also, there in the Gemara, Rabbi Yoĉanan said, “‘any Talmud Ĉoĉom who does not take revenge and is not poisonously vindictive like a snake is not a Talmud Ĉoĉom.’ But didn’t the verse say לא תקם ולא תטר – that only applies to financial matters”. The Gemara concludes there that a Talmud Ĉoĉom must be ‘a wretch [rather than] causing wretchedness, listen to [people listing] his defects without responding. Always taking it to heart, [β] but when propitiated, he forgives.’ Rabeinu Moshe [the Rambam] wrote[iii] [δ] that [Rabbi Yoĉanan’s statement in] the Gemara is talking about a case where the Talmud Ĉoĉom was made fun of in public, in such a case, it is forbidden to forgo the honor due him, and if he does forgo the honor, he [the Talmud Ĉoĉom ] is punished because [by embarrassing him as a Talmud Ĉoĉom, the perpetrator is actually] insulting to the Torah. But if he was not insulted publicly, this doesn’t apply. A regular person who is dissing their friends, even if reciprocating [ε] doesn’t qualify [for violating] the negative Mitzva of taking revenge, nevertheless, the pious thing to do would be to overcome his inclinations as was stated there in the Gemara ‘anyone who overcomes his inclinations, has his sins overlooked.’ This is also what [king] Dovid [meant when he] praised his good attributes in the verse[iv] אם גמלתי שולמי רע וגו’, and[v] [like] that certain Ĉossid[1] who whenever Purim would be over, he would say ‘I forgive and forgo anyone who pained me.’
[1] The name of the Ĉossid was Mar Zutra. The word זוטרא in Aramaic means small, or humble. In effect, Mar Zutra’s name was Mr. Humble. Which is why the SMG called him the Ĉossid without giving him a name, since that just emphasizes his characteristic humility.
This Gemara was stated in associated with a question posed to Rabbi Neĉunya son of Hakana by his students as to how he merited long life. His response, ‘all my days, I was not honored at the expense of another, nor did I ever go to bed with another’s grudge [meaning he appeased anyone whom he had offended throughout the day].’
An example of not being honored at the expense of another: Rav Huna was once carrying a hoe over his shoulder. Rav Ĉuna son of Ĉanila’I came and took the hoe from him saying, when he was at home, it was ok for Rav Huna to carry such things, but not when he was in a different city where he was venerated.
[i] Vayikra 19:18
[ii] Gem. Yoma 23a
[iii] Rambam Laws of Talmud Torah 7:13
[iv] Tehillim 7:5
[v] Gem. Megilla 28a
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] the world points out that when it came to the negative Mitzva 11 against revenge, [the SMG] wrote על חברו – on his friend, but when it comes to this negative Mitzva, the term used is מישראל – a Jew (even if not his friend). Seemingly, this is not a question, since when taking revenge, if they weren’t friends, then it would not be clear that the reason [he is refusing to lend the axe] is due to revenge. Perhaps he doesn’t lend out his things normally. [as for why the hypothetical Reuvain would answer ‘just like you didn’t lend me your axe when I asked you to’] he was just looking for a verbal excuse. But with vindictiveness, where he does lend him, but is vindictive with the hurtful words, then there is no difference whether the person is a friend or not.
This also answers the common question the world asks, isn’t revenge included in being vindictive, and ‘better’ [at inflicting harm than vindictiveness]. Why then does the Torah write it [as a separate Mitzva]. We can answer that if it wasn’t written [separately], you might think that even with one’s friend this is not applicable since it could be that when he didn’t want to lend it out [for whatever reason] even to his friend, and it is only an excuse that causes him to say such things – in such a case you might think that doesn’t violate the prohibition. That is why the Torah stated the prohibition [of being vindictive] even if it doesn’t fall into the category of revenge.[1]
[β] Rashi explains that if a person is בקו המשפט – legitimately coming to take revenge [meaning the one who is refusing to lend the axe has a legitimate reason for refusing], he [the one upon whom revenge is being taken] should be quiet, and [later] when he [the one who refused to lend the axe] comes [back] to propitiate, he should forgive him completely.
[γ] There the Gemara asks[2], “didn’t Rava state, ‘anyone who overcomes his inclinations, has his sins overlooked.’”
We can’t ask, how is this a question, maybe the statement [made by Rava] is about where he was not publicly humiliated [especially since we learned previously a Talmud Ĉoĉom is not supposed to allow himself to be belittled in public] as the book [the SMG] will state further on according to Rabbi Meir[3]. Or perhaps [the statement by Rava] was about a person who was not a Talmud Ĉoĉom [who was publicly humiliated] but has no requirement to take revenge on behalf of the honor of the Torah.
We can answer, the phrase ‘anyone…’ implies that this statement is made even with regard to a Talmud Ĉoĉom, which must be in public, because if it wasn’t in public, then there is no difference whether the person was a Talmud Ĉoĉom or a regular person.[4]
And what is being added with the term כל המעביר. The answer is [the statement] when he is propitiated, he forgives. Which means even though we have said ‘anyone who overcomes his inclinations’ which implies that he was not propitiated. Nevertheless, by saying ‘כל המעביר’ about a case which includes even a Talmud Ĉoĉom, this means that it doesn’t apply unless he is propitiated, at least superficially, as [even the Talmud Ĉoĉom] is obligated[5] to forgive.
[δ] Meaning, [the Rambam’s commentary] is about what Rabbi Yoĉanan stated previously – which case applies to a Talmud Ĉoĉom being belittled in public. But when this did not occur in public, he has no obligation to fight back, and in fact he should overlook that inclination, even if the instigator makes no effort to propitiate.
[ε] The implication is this is talking about a regular person who is not a Talmud Ĉoĉom. However, the story quoted [by the SMG] makes this questionable, since that Ĉossid was also a Talmud Ĉoĉom since, [in the Gemara,] the reference to a Ĉossid without being named is always Rabbi Yehuda ben Elazar. The same point can be made by quoting Dovid as an example, was he not [also] a Talmud Ĉoĉom. Therefore, it seems that when saying a regular person, he isn’t excluding a Talmud Ĉoĉom, but including those who aren’t. And this point [by the SMG] was made in reference to the beginning of the discussion about this Mitzva, that the verse of לא תקם ולא תטר is said regarding financial matters, but other types of revenge and vindictiveness is not [technically] included in this prohibition; for example, someone who isn’t a Talmud Ĉoĉom, who is not required to take revenge, even if [harassed] in public – and [another example] a Talmud Ĉoĉom [who was harassed] privately. The practical difference being whether one is violating a negative Mitzva by reciprocating especially when the bully does not beg forgiveness. Even in those cases, it is an attribute of Ĉassidus not to take revenge at all, not even in one’s heart. But a Talmud Ĉoĉom who was harassed in public, it is forbidden for him to [publicly] forgive the person, even if the Talmud Ĉoĉom wants to be a Ĉossid [without at least a superficial propitiation in public]. As is explicitly implied in the Rambam[i].
There are some who explain with regard to Dovid who was embarrassed and harassed publicly, why did he not take revenge? Perhaps we can say that the harassing the king in public is like harassing a regular Talmud Ĉoĉom in private, since everyone feels that the king is powerful and authoritative, and he has the ability to take revenge, but withholds from doing so as a Ĉossid then there isn’t an embarrassment to the Torah or his sovereignty.[6]
Alternatively, Dovid himself was not [at the time] in a position to take revenge, and perhaps he held the grudge in his heart, as can be inferred from other stories[7]. Nevertheless, we can bring proof that refraining from taking revenge is an attribute of Ĉassidus as he could have [ordered] revenge on this person immediately to preserve the respect for his sovereignty. Or possibly, what Dovid said in the verse אם גמלתי he might be referring to other people and Elders who caused him grief.
[1] Meaning, the prohibition of vindictiveness extends to whether or not the action of lending the item was done, since the manner of speaking to the borrower using hurtful language is what is prohibited. This differs from revenge where it is action or lack thereof which is stressed.
[2] unlike the SMG who presented this as a statement, and not as a question.
[3] Unclear where the Maharshal is referring to. Perhaps he meant ‘previously according to Rabbi Yoĉanan’.
[4] And instead of saying כל המעביר, Rava could have said המעביר.
[5] Since the only reason he took offense is for the Torah’s honor, then he has no right to remain offended when propitiated even superficially, because the slight to the Torah’s honor has been repaired – by what right would a Talmud Ĉoĉom be allowed to remain offended?
[6] The assumption being that for a Talmud Ĉoĉom who is silent, either he is silent because he can’t refute what is being said, or because he is weak. Which is why he may not remain passive, as that embarrasses the Torah. But a king, everyone knows he isn’t weak, and he doesn’t need to be in the right in order to strike back and refute what is being said, therefore, if the king chooses to ignore it, people will instead ascribe his lack of action to being a righteous person.
[7] Prior to his passing, Dovid instructed his son to take smart revenge on his behalf.
[i] Rambam הלכות דעות Chp 7
RASHI
Rashi does not comment directly on the verse. In his commentary on the Gemara, Rashi notes the description of נוטר is ‘enmity like a snake in his heart’ and then continues in his notes about the example brought by the Gemara ‘the incident is guarded in his heart, and his intent has never been diverted’.
This implies more than a passive grudge, but something which the victim is actively holding on to in order to be able to strike back at every opportunity.
Discussion by SMS
How does the Gemara know that the prohibition is with regard to the financial – it seems obvious that the previous Mitzva [negative Mitzva 11] covers a grudge that is not financially based, from the verse which states לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא. By including בלבבך – in your heart, the Torah could imply that there is no financial / judicial recourse available. Indeed, that verse was discussed extensively in negative Mitzva 11 which covered topics and situations where a person is angered for everything other than financial reasons. The Torah then continues with our verse, which adds revenge and holding a grudge, which grudge, since it doesn’t include hatred – which was previously prohibited – must be for situations other than those covered previously, namely financial situations.
—
Also, the Gemara[i] seems to indicate that this prohibition exists even when the target of the person’s anger is unaware. Rabbi Meir stated that when a person swears off benefit from another person, to annul the vow the sages are allowed to hint to him that one of the reasons to avoid making such a vow is because it violates this negative Mitzva of holding a grudge. Why else would he be so angry as to swear off benefit from another person.
[i] Gem. Nedarim 65b
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- נטירה – to hold fast a grudge
- עלוב – wretch