July/August 2002 That's Not Vengeance! By Rabbi Alvin Kass The strong action that Israel has taken in recent months to defend itself has been condemned in many quarters as vengeful. That charge, however, is patently unfair. In the first place, our tradition clearly establishes the principle: "If someone comes to kill you, kill them first" (Sanhedrin 72A). That's not vengeance; it's self defense. Actually, charges that Jews are vengeful conform to an ancient stereotype which contends that ours is a mean-spirited religion. Thus, the famous writer Karen Armstrong wrote in Time: "The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish Scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth; but, like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forego revenge in a spirit of charity!" The implication is that Judaism adheres strictly to the legal requirement and, unlike Christianity and Islam, is deficient in compassion. No one solidified the stereotype of Jewish vengefulness more articulately and brilliantly than Shakespeare in the figure of Shylock from The Merchant of Venice. Shylock treats the need to avenge himself as a part of his definition of human nature. Now Shakespeare is a creator of fiction who has the right to delineate his characters in any way he desires. We, however, must make clear that Shylock is not an authorized spokesman for Judaism, nor is he a typical Jew. The Bible clearly espouses as its guide: "Thou shalt not take vengeance; thou shalt not bear a grudge." As for the Biblical admonition - "an eye for an eye" - far from being an expression of cruelty or revenge, it is a requirement of justice. It was a revolutionary teaching in its day which rejected the practice of the Israelites' neighbors who exacted "two eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth, two hands for a hand, two legs for a leg." The Scriptural lex talionis aspires to insure that the punishment was not disproportionate to the crime. It prevented revenge by guarding against the infliction of arbitrary retribution by enraged parties. Furthermore, very early in the history of our faith, the Sages rejected the literal meaning of "an eye for an eye" by substituting monetary payment for physical retaliation. They reasoned that the only truly just option was to assess the income loss of the victim along with a certain sum for pain and suffering. After all, there could never be an exact equivalence in the body parts of two individuals. Suppose, for example, the victim's eye was sharper than that of the perpetrator; or suppose the latter was blind. Or imagine that a lame person caused another to be lame; or an amputee did something that resulted in another person's losing an arm. Clearly, in all these cases the only feasible option is monetary in nature; and that became the universal mode of enforcement. It's impossible to conceive of a fairer, more just system for dealing with physical injuries. Our Rabbis formulated these principles a long time ago; and the letter and spirit of their interpretations have been part of mainstream Judaism for more than 1500 years. While compassion expresses the true spirit of Judaism, there are times when action is necessary, and a failure to act constitutes its own form of immorality. The Sages declared that in time of war, not only may you profane the Sabbath, but you must profane the Sabbath if it's a matter of life and death. A couple of verses before the Biblical prohibition against vengeance, the Scriptures mandate: "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." For Israel, not to undertake the vigorous defense of its citizens would surely be "to stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." We certainly hope that peace will come speedily to the Middle East. In the meantime, however, Israel has the right and obligation to do all it can to defend itself against its enemies. The principal responsibility of a government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. That's not vengeance!