Parashat Matot-Masei (5761)

With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Matot-Masei, 5761

Vengeance and Extermination: The Modern Regime and the Torah Regime

The concept of vengeance, much discussed in our circles at this time, appears in this week’s portions in two

contexts. In Parashat Matot the verse appears, ‘Take vengeance for the children of Israel against the Midianites’ (Numbers 31:2), and immediately

afterward, ‘to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian’ (Numbers 31:3). At the end of Parashat Masei appear the passages dealing with the murderer (whether inadvertent

or intentional), where we find a central role for the ‘blood avenger,’ that is, the one who avenges the blood of his relative

who was murdered.

Today the concept of vengeance is perceived negatively, whereas in the sources the command does indeed appear, ‘You shall not take vengeance

or bear a grudge’ (Leviticus 19:18), yet alongside it there appear passages such as those mentioned above (or:

‘Daughter of Babylon… happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rock’ [Psalms 137:8-9]).

What distinguishes the concept of positive vengeance from base vengeance is the purpose of the vengeance. If the intention

of the avenger is to find release for his heated passions, this is negative vengeance. But if the avenger’s purpose is

to bring justice into the world, and to restore something of the cosmic order that was damaged to its proper place, this is positive vengeance.

Vengeance of the second type is usually described as God’s vengeance, or that of ‘the children of Israel’ as a whole.

Admittedly, the vengeance of the blood avenger appears to be private vengeance, and ostensibly this is vengeance in its

lower sense, yet here too both purposes may appear. Beyond that, some commentators speak of a

commandment incumbent on the blood avenger to kill the murderer, whereas others say only that he will not be punished for doing so.

That is, it is a semi-legitimate outlet for his feelings, from which it is proper for him to refrain; but if he does not

succeed in doing so, he is not punished for it.

Thus we find several types of vengeance: 1. ‘the Lord’s vengeance’ (Numbers 31:3), or ‘the vengeance of the children of Israel’ (Numbers 31:2), which is

a blessed and positive vengeance. 2. The vengeance of the blood avenger, which is permitted vengeance, though it may be that ideally

it is not desirable. 3. Vengeance motivated by other considerations, which is negative vengeance (‘You shall not take vengeance’ [Leviticus 19:18]).

What characterizes positive vengeance is that it arises from motives of restoring a moral-divine order to its proper state,

and in practice it is an action carried out in God’s name. Such an action must come as the result of a divine command and not as the result

of one emotion or another. If indeed there were today a body that represented God, or the community of Israel,

in the world, that body could decide upon vengeance of the positive type. Unfortunately, no such body exists today,

and therefore it is no wonder that today there is no legitimacy for making decisions on grounds of vengeance. This state of affairs

is very good, and anyone who complains about it does not understand the situation in which he lives. Only in a world in which

there is divine direction can acts of vengeance be carried out. In a world that is not guided by God

there is no possibility of vengeance free of emotions, vengeance stemming from a pure motive.

There is another point, parallel to this one, that appears in Parashat Masei. The Torah speaks there of the conquest

and inheritance of the land, and commands the destruction of the peoples dwelling in it. The Torah states that if we do not dispossess

the inhabitants of the land before us: ‘then those of them whom you leave shall be as pricks in your eyes [Rashi: pegs that pierce

your eyes] and as thorns in your sides [Rashi: a hedge of thorns that covers you, closing and confining you

so that none may go out or come in], and they shall harass you in the land in which you dwell’ (Numbers 33:55).

Again, the situation seems astonishingly parallel to what is happening today. The non-Jews we have left in our midst constitute

a thorny hedge that does not allow us to leave our places, and they gouge at our eyes (in the

best case). Ostensibly, action in the spirit of what the Torah commands us in the portion is called for: to inherit the land

and destroy its inhabitants. As with the concept of vengeance, here too the modern moral spirit utterly rejects

such an approach.

And indeed, as with the concept of vengeance, here too one must distinguish between the situations. First, the peoples

that dwelt in the land when our forefathers arrived there were liable to death, as God commanded us

in the Torah (and this was already said to our father Abraham in the Covenant Between the Pieces, Genesis 15), but regarding the non-Jews now in our midst

we have no divine source for this at all. Second, we must ensure that the destruction of those peoples

be carried out so that they do not lead us astray by their abominations. If the situation today is such that we do not

need the non-Jews for that, because we manage quite well with abominations on our own, then once again we have no

legitimacy for it. Of course, the needs of self-defense (and sometimes attack is the necessary defense) are

legitimate in every situation. But motives of vengeance and the restoration of a spiritual-divine order, unfortunately, are not

relevant to us today.

In both cases we see a situation in which a distorted morality masks a distorted spiritual condition. The distortion

in the spiritual realm is what created the distorted modern moral doctrines, yet in our present condition

these are indeed the moral doctrines that should govern. So long as there is no divine-spiritual supervision over

our conduct, we have no choice but to limit ourselves by these distorted constraints. One who

calls for applying to our present situation moral norms that are valid only under a Torah-divine regime

does the opposite of what he is obligated to do. The goal should be to act for the sake of restoring

the divine dimension to our world, and not for the sake of restoring divine norms as such, apart from changing the overall condition

within which we operate.

A similar approach is taken by those who try to introduce elements of Jewish law into the legislation of

the State of Israel. Here too this is an irrelevant substitute, and so long as the basic attitude

toward God Himself does not change, there is no place for introducing His norms into the legal system. It has no value,

and sometimes it can even be harmful.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This may be deposited for ritual burial in any synagogue or rabbinical academy. Comments and responses are welcome.

Biton97.doc