Prohibition of revenge when there are additional motives
Does someone who commits an act that stems, among other things, from motives of revenge (there are also legitimate motives) violate the “Thou Shalt Not Rise” law?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
This leads us to the question of the dual intention (the sacrifice for the sake of Passover and for the sake of the peace offerings, and other issues). Since the prohibition of revenge is a prohibition that is fundamentally psychological (and the act is only a condition), there is room for the claim that there is a prohibition in this. Although if he did the act even without the feeling of revenge, then I think that the addition of the feeling of revenge is not considered a motive for the act and therefore there is no formal prohibition (but there is a moral prohibition). This reminds me of a similar example. Some poskim require that a sin for the sake of God be intended for the sake of God, and others prohibit it. To me, this always seems absurd. If Yael’s actions were a sin for the sake of God that the Sages highly praise, then if her intention was not for the sake of God, should she have left Sisera alive?
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
If I understood you correctly, you said that it is permissible to do the act, even if there is a moral problem with it, because I would have done the act anyway even without the motives of revenge? And if so, why did you write that there is a moral prohibition? (Perhaps you meant that there is only a moral problem, but not an actual prohibition?)
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I mean a moral problem. That’s what “moral prohibition” means.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
