Do not take revenge
Verse: לא תקם
Command: Do not take revenge
Vayikra 19:18
SMG
Over there[1] we have explained what is revenge.
One who takes revenge on his friend violates the negative Mitzva as it says in the verse[i] לא תקם. And even though one does not get lashed for this violation, nevertheless it is an extremely bad trait [α], as noted in the Gemara.[ii] In the Toras Kohanim it explains what revenge is; for example Reuvain who said to Shimon[1] ‘lend me your axe’ to which Shimon responds, ‘I will not lend you my axe’. The next day, Shimon needed to borrow from Reuvain, and he said, ‘lend me your axe’, to which Reuvain responds, ‘I will not lend to you my axe, just like you didn’t lend me your axe when I asked you to’. That and anything similar is revenge.
[1] Obviously not the names of the actual protagonists, but Hebrew the equivalent of the idiomatic John Doe. Which reminds me of the joke my brother likes to say:
- Question: What did Reuvain say to Shimon?
- Answer: Everything!
[i] Vayikra 19:18
[ii] Gem. Yoma 22b-23a
[1] The edition I am working off of notes that there is missing text in the manuscript here.
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] Meaning this is like the customs of Sodom.[1] [See Amuday Shlomo on negative Mitzva 12 for some comments that apply to this section as well.]
[1] The Maharshal does not elaborate as to why this reflects the customs of Sodom. Perhaps this is along the lines of the Mishna [Pirkei Avos 5:10] which states that a person who states ‘what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours’ is [according to some opinions] the custom of Sodom. In which case, the choice by the SMG to provide the example of axes being the subject of the refusal to lend in both cases would be exact. This is deliberately chosen, unlike in the Gemara’s example [quoted by Rashi], to illustrate the evil being perpetuated. Both individuals had axes of their own but did not want to use them. Instead, they looked to take an axe from their fellow. And each refused, following the principle that ‘what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.’
This might also explain why the SMG chose to identify the protagonists here as Reuvain and Shimon, unlike both the Gemara and Rashi who actually leave them unnamed; to illustrate that even though they were two brothers, and not just friends, they still refused to lend each other anything.
RASHI
On the verse in the Torah, Rashi provides a similar story as stated in the SMG, but he takes no chances. In Rashi’s story, Reuvain is looking to borrow a sickle on the first day, and Shimon is looking to borrow an axe on the second day.
This ensures that the student will not ask why, if Reuvain had an axe that he could lend to Shimon, did he initially ask Shimon to borrow his axe. And if Shimon didn’t have an axe to lend to Reuvain – which seems obvious since the next day he has to go borrow one – why did he answer Reuvain that he wouldn’t lend it instead of admitting he doesn’t have one.
Discussion by SMS
Why does the Torah omit the letter נ in the word לא תִקֺם which could theoretically be read as תָקֻם ‘stand up’? The Ba’al HaTurim suggests that this provides a comparison to the word תקום in the preceding verse of מפני שיבה תקום which teaches us that a sage may take revenge when his honor is slighted, since really the one embarrassing him is insulting the Torah. – Which seems to be the basis of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĉai’s statement in our Gemara ‘Any Talmud Ĉoĉom who does not take revenge like a snake, is not a Talmud Ĉoĉom – as for the verse, that is talking about financial [revenge and not verbal revenge].’
This statement was made by Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĉai in connection with Shaul on his first day crowned as king in front of all the people, there were those who despised and mocked him in public.[i] Instead of responding forcefully and full of venom, he kept his peace and did not respond. As a result, he was perceived as weak and Nachash[1] the Ammonite immediately decided to attack.
This trait of humility also brought about King Shaul’s downfall – when he fought against Amalek and destroyed them, he neglected to wipe out completely every man, woman and child, and all the animals owned by them[ii] – even though that is what G‑d expressly commanded him to do. Instead, when asked by Shmuel why he had spared some of them, he responded[iii] אשר חמל העם ‘the people had pity on them’. King Shaul refused to be the forceful king when needed, and bowed to public pressure, and for ‘humanitarian’ reasons did not follow the express word of G-d to annihilate evil. The result of course was the absolute disaster of the decades of wars with the Philistines and other enemies, his eventual death, and the near destruction of the Jewish people during the times of Queen Ester, as well as the example set these many centuries later for the modern-day Palestinians who wish to take the place of their namesakes the Philistines.
Perhaps this is why the letter נ is omitted – to teach us that a Talmud Ĉoĉom may only forgo vengeance when there is no letter נ which stands for the word נפילה. If it is truly just about money, then of course one must act pleasantly, and let past wrongs go. But when it is about Torah, or lives – one must take vengeance with the poison of a snake about whom it says[iv] הוא ישופך ראש – he will strike first.
[1] Which explains why Rabbi Shimon bar Yoĉai uses the adjective ‘as a snake’ to describe the amount of venom a Talmud Ĉoĉom should employ in responding to verbal attacks against him. This was hinted at in the name of the Ammonite who attacked the Jews, meaning since Shaul didn’t respond venomously like a snake, he was punished with a person named ‘snake’ attacking the Jewish people.
[i] Shmuel I 10:27-11:1
[ii] Shmuel I 15:3
[iii] Shmuel I 15:15
[iv] Beraishis 3:15
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- נקמה – Revenge
The first example in the Torah of the use of the term is with regard to Kayin complaining that his punishment for killing Hevel was too harsh, to which Hashem responded[i] לכן כל הרג קין שבעתים יקם, which most translators render as ‘Therefore, whoever kills Kayin, vengeance will be wrought upon him sevenfold.’
I do not believe that is the correct translation for the following reason. When the avenger for Hevel actually did arise, seven (7) generations later[1], it was Lemeĉ who was blind and unknowingly shot and killed Kayin. His wives quailed at what he had done, and Lemeĉ responded [as Rashi notes – the logic is nonsensical] that if Kayin who deliberately killed Hevel had his judgement pushed off for seven (7) generations, then Lemeĉ who did so without intent or knowledge would have his punishment pushed of for seventy-seven (77) generations – כי שבעתים יקם קין, ולמך שבעים ושבעה. It would thus seem that in the response of Lemeĉ, the word יקם means something closer to the natural meaning of the word, ‘rising up’ – which renders the verse, ‘for if [the avenger] rose up after seven (7) generations for Kayin, then for Lemeĉ [it will take] seventy-seven generations.’
Accordingly, in hindsight we can thus translate G‑d’s words to Kayin to mean ‘therefore, the one who kills Kayin will arise in seven (7) generations.’
This leads me to state that the root source of the meaning for נקמה is actually related to ‘rising up’, with the letter נ added as a prefix as if to say, ‘let us rise up [and seek vengeance].’
With that in mind, perhaps this explains why the Torah presents the prohibition without the letter נ, to teach us that even getting up to seek revenge is forbidden, regardless of whether the revenge is achieved.
[1] שת, אנוש, קינן, מהללאל, ירד, חנוך, מתושלח, למך — שת was the same generation as קין – as both were first generation sons of Adam.
[i] Beraishis 4:15