Q&A: Secret Revenge
Secret Revenge
Question
I’m asking in general, but my motivation is a very specific case that happened to me.
No worries—I’m not actually going to carry this out, so there’s no need to be afraid to give me a practical answer without knowing all the details.
Someone harmed me maliciously, in order to humiliate me—both financial damage, and physical pain, and also a lot of anger.
I can’t confront him directly because of the power imbalance.
I also can’t sue him because there’s no proof of anything, and it’s also not a large enough sum (around 250 shekels).
In short, there’s nothing I can do, and he’s laughing in my face.
And I’m very angry.
The question is this:
According to Jewish law, leaving aside the issue of civil law for the moment, generally speaking and without committing this to my specific case, am I allowed to take revenge on him secretly?
Scratch his car
Throw a rock through his window
Make a hole in his pipe
Uproot trees in his yard
Smear poster paint on the clothes hanging on his line
Harass him with phone calls and emails and threaten him
Spread false rumors about him in the neighborhood
Cut off his electricity from time to time
And if necessary, I have a few more ideas
If something like this is permitted, when there’s no other option, and when the retaliation is reasonable—then fine.
If something like this is forbidden, then I don’t understand something: what can a person do when someone stronger than him harms him maliciously, but there’s no way to bring witnesses and things like that?
Thank you
Answer
This is a complicated question, and I can’t give a general answer to it. As a rule, there is no permission to cause damage gratuitously even if you were harmed. At most, a person may take the law into his own hands—that is, take money from him in the amount of the damage he caused you. But even here there are limitations (some opinions hold that this is permitted only if you can prove the matter in religious court). If you mean doing the act in order to prevent the damage before it occurs, that is permitted, in a proportional way.
Discussion on Answer
The logic is obvious. You’re not responsible for punishing him. At most, you can take what is yours or make sure he pays you. Simply harming him is not within your authority.
Not punishment but collection—I collect from him the money he has to give me and throw the money into the sea. And to shorten the process, I just damage him and that’s it. That way it balances out. Why is it any of his business in what form I choose to reduce his assets—by having him give it to me or by damaging him?
That’s hairsplitting. Once the money is in your hands, throw it into the sea if you want.
Even in cases where it’s permitted to take money equal to the damage he caused, is it still forbidden to damage him by that same amount? What’s the logic?