Netira
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of
Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #28: Netira
One of the most
complicated aspects of interpersonal relations is developing the strength of
character to deal with individuals who have wronged one. Beyond natural feelings
of dislike towards the aggressor, one is often tempted to get some payback; as
the English proverb goes, Turnabout is fair play. Even if one succeeds in
holding back from actual vengeance (nekima), it feels only natural, at
least, to countenance ones holding a grudge (netira). What does the
Torah have to say about this type of behavior?
On the one hand, the
desire for revenge may simply be a character flaw built into man's nature, an
animalistic tendency which can bring no good; after all, as another saying goes,
two wrongs cannot make a right. On the other hand, there is certainly room to
view revenge as a necessary means of teaching evildoers that their antics will
not be tolerated. Indeed, dealing with one's persecutors may be understood in
terms of the biblical epigram, "An eye for an eye (Shemot 21:24,
Vayikra 24:20). This educates wrongdoers: by hurting others, they ultimately
hurt themselves. Certainly, we might expect holding a grudge to be acceptable,
as this guarantees that the malefactors misdeeds won't be easily forgotten.
The Torah's outlook on
the proper response to personal offenses is therefore completely fascinating.
Under normal circumstances, the Torah forbids taking revenge or even bearing a
grudge, classifying these actions as harmful. At the same time, there are
exceptions to the rule and God Himself is seen as an avenger. Understanding both
aspects can allow us to grasp the Torah's definition of nekima, as the
translation "revenge" does not do it justice.
Initially, the Torah seems to state unequivocally that any form of
grudge-bearing or vengeance is prohibited:
Do not hate your brother
in your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your comrade, and you shall not bear
sin on his account. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen, and you shall love your as yourself. I am God. (Vayikra
19:17-18)
Previously (see Lesson 14), we noted that a
number of commentators view these verses as dealing with the spirit that should
prevail in relations bein adam le-chavero when one feels wronged. The
verses educate man how to effectively deal with someone who has wronged him or
her. Verse 17 states that, first and foremost, one must not let concealed hatred
flare up inside; rather, one must confront and reprove the malefactor, without
causing any undue embarrassment.
According to this
understanding, verse 18 discusses how one should proceed if previous attempts at
reproof and reconciliation have failed. The verse states that one must not take
revenge or even bear a grudge; rather, one must love all Jews. This
understanding is expressed by Rav S.R. Hirsch:
The preceding verse
teaches that if a person feels that someone has wronged him, it is his duty to
reprove him verbally. Our verse now teaches and demands of the offended party
something that is most difficult: Even if his reproof turned out to be
fruitless, he may not take revenge; what is more, he must purge from his heart
the remembrance of the wrong that was done him, even if the other has done
nothing to conciliate him.
The Natural Urge
The natural urge for
nekima and netira is expressed very powerfully by the Ramchal in
Mesillat Yesharim (Chapter 11):
Hate and revenge, too,
are very difficult for man's spiteful heart to escape, for in view of his being
extremely sensitive to insult, and suffering great anguish because of it,
revenge, being the only thing which will put him at rest, is sweeter than honey
to him. Therefore, if it is within his power to abandon the urging of his nature
and to overlook the offense so as not to hate the one who ignited hatred within
him, nor to take revenge against him when the opportunity to do so presents
itself, nor to hold a grudge against him, but to forget the whole affair and
remove it from his heart as if it had never occurred if he can do this, he is
strong and courageous. Such conduct is easy only for the ministering angels
among whom the aforementioned traits do not exist, not for "dwellers in houses
of clay whose roots are in dust" (Iyov 4:19). But the King has decreed,
in perfectly lucid language, requiring no interpretation: "Do not hate your
brother in your heart ... You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against
your countrymen.
The Ramchal considers it a natural urge,
almost impossible to overcome, to forgive and forget wrongs. He notes that it is
an angelic quality to be able to treat the offender as if nothing has been done.
He goes on to say that the means of overcoming this attempt of the evil
inclination to ensnare man may be found in the concluding passage of the verse.
The evil inclination
progressively inflames the heart and constantly seeks to leave at least some
trace or memory of the wrong. If it is not successful in leaving a strong
reminder it will attempt to leave a weaker one. For example, it will tell a
person, "If you wish to give this man what he did not want to give you when you
were in need, at least do not give it to him graciously." Or, "If you do not
want to hurt him, at least do not do him a great favor or offer him valuable
assistance." Or, "If you want to go so far as to be of great help to him, at
least do not provide this help in his presence." Or, "If you have forgiven him,
do not renew your acquaintance with him and do not become his friend; it is
enough that you do not show yourself to be his enemy. And if you want to go so
far as to befriend him, at least do not show him as much friendship as of yore."
All such suggestions are
among the intrigues of the evil inclination, by which it attempts to ensnare a
person's heart. To counteract this, the Torah states a general, all-embracing
principle: "You shall love your fellow as yourself" "as yourself," with no
difference whatsoever; "as yourself," without distinction, without devices and
schemes; literally, "as yourself."
In order to succeed at developing this holy
response and to be able to withstand the natural urge for nekima and
netira, we must first understand what they are and the outlook the Torah is
trying to impress upon us.
The Definitions of the Prohibitions
The two injunctions
mentioned in the verse would seem to imply that there are two separate
prohibitions: a prohibition against taking revenge, nekima, and a
prohibition against bearing a grudge, netira. The Talmud (Yoma
23a) differentiates between the two terms:
What is revenge and what
is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: "Lend me your sickle," and he
replied "No," and tomorrow the second comes [to the first] and says: "Lend me
your ax," and he replies: "I will not lend it to you, just as you would not lend
me your sickle" that is revenge. And what is bearing a grudge? If one said to
his fellow: "Lend me your ax," and he replied "No," and tomorrow the second
comes and says: "Lend me your garment," and he replies: "Here it is. I am not
like you who would not lend to me" that is bearing a grudge.
The examples provided by the Talmud indicate
that this verse prohibits not only a negative response to one who has refused to
lend and now asks for a favor in return, but even an affirmative response
coupled with a snide remark.
The Talmud provided
examples of these two behaviors, and the commentators seek to define them and
identify their unique characteristics. The Ramchal (ibid.) provides a
concise distinction:
The difference between
taking revenge and bearing a grudge is that the first refers to the withholding
of a good from one who kept some good from him or injured him in some way,
whereas the second refers to the interpolation, within a worthy act towards one
who has wronged him, of some reminder of that wrong.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman distinguishes between
nekima and netira based upon the immediacy of the response.
Nekima is immediate vengeance, while netira is nursing hatred in
one's heart while awaiting a later opportunity to take revenge.
Similarly, Rav Hirsch
explains that the word netira is derived from the same Hebrew root as the
word matara, target.
The meaning of netira
then is to concentrate on a specific point for a long time in order to strike it
maliciously
to harbor resentment and bear a grudge.
What is particularly interesting is the type
of nekima which is prohibited: not only is vigilante maliciousness
proscribed, but even the mere refusal to lend out a tool is beyond the pale. The
impulse to repay ungenerosity in kind may be understandable and even acceptable
to many of our minds, but the Torah forbids it. Why is this?
Moreover, the examples in
the Talmud raise a number of questions. Firstly, why does the Talmud focus only
on the second individual's response, ignoring the first individuals refusal?
Secondly, the items to be borrowed change from one case to the next does this
asymmetry have any deeper significance?
Regarding the first
question, the Chizkuni explains:
You may ask: why is only
the second individual is condemned and not the first, despite his unwillingness
to lend to his comrade? After all, seemingly the second individual had good
reason to refuse, as he was not given permission to borrow initially, while the
first individual refuses without any explanation.
One may answer that the
first refuses to lend his tool merely out of miserliness; he cannot bear to part
with his sickle. Now, the Almighty doesn't force a man to lend his implements
out against his will. However, the second individual would have lent him if not
for the fact that his hatred drives him to seek vengeance. Thus, it is hatred
that motivates him to do this. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He says, "Let
the love which you have for him overpower the hatred you feel, and let peace
come to the world."
The Chizkuni's comment is mind-blowing. The
Torah does not obligate one to lend out tools and, therefore, while it may be
unfriendly to do so, one cannot be faulted for refusing to do so. However, one
who doesn't mind lending tools out generally but refuses in a given case due to
harboring resentment violates a prohibition!
As for the second
question, concerning the items being requested, the Malbim explains that the
examples are to be taken in sequence. Reuven asks Shimon for a sickle, and
Shimon refuses. The next day, Reuven vengefully refuses to lend Shimon an ax.
When, on the third day, Reuven asks Shimon for a garment, Shimon may not bear a
grudge by telling Reuven off. Nechama Leibowitz (Studies in Vayikra, p.
361) cites an interesting explanation as well.
A number of questions
also arise based on the Torah's formulation of these two prohibitions. It is
interesting to note that netira, bearing a grudge, is mentioned in the
Torah after nekima, though it would seem that netira is a far less
severe means of dealing with frustration at another's misbehavior. Why is the
verse constructed in this manner? Furthermore, are these two completely separate
prohibitions, or is there some case in which one who violates the prohibition of
nekima also violates the prohibition of netira? Finally, why are
these two prohibitions stated in the same verse that concludes with the
all-encompassing directive, "You shall love your fellow as yourself what is
the connection?
Regarding this last
question, a number of answers have been offered. The Alshikh explains that the
prohibitions of revenge and grudge-bearing emerge from the positive commandment
to love one's fellow as oneself. One would not want to be harmed by a grudge or
act of vengeance, so instead of responding maliciously, one must show love to
others. He adds that even the individual who honestly feels that he has never
wronged another human being should pay heed to the concluding words of the
verse, "I am God." Certainly we have all, at some point or another, not done
what God has asked of us, and just as we would not want Him to bear a grudge or
take revenge, neither should we.
The Or Ha-chayim explains
that the Torah connects loving one's fellow with these prohibitions in order to
indicate that it is God's wish that we relate to our fellow Jews with the same
love that we have for ourselves. As he explains it, the grudge-bearers remark
indicates that he still harbors resentment against his fellow. The Torah tells
us that the reason we must not bear a grudge is I am God. This means that the
unity and harmony of individual Jews enhances God's unity. This is all rooted in
the Kabbalistic concept that all Jewish souls are branches of the Holy Name of
God. This cause is so essential that even when grudges may be justified, they
must be avoided at all costs, because the unity of Jewish souls is so powerful.
A deeper understanding of
these prohibitions will hopefully provide some insight in answering the other
questions as well.
Understanding the Prohibition of Netira
What is wrong with
grudge-bearing? Why is it improper to feel resentment towards a malefactor?
After all, one has no intent to harm the other; one merely seeks to avoid
helping the other who has done wrong.
It may in fact be that
bearing a grudge is not prohibited unless one openly expresses the feeling. The
Talmud's example of netira involves speech: Here it is. I am not like
you who would not lend to me. What is the actual definition of the prohibition
of netira? Is it nursing within one's heart a mindset of disgust, even if
one never openly expresses it; or is it acting on it, not allowing the other to
forget the original misdeed? Moreover, is it prohibited due to its inherent
nature, or does the Torah forbid it because of what it may lead to?
A number of commentators
seem to clearly indicate that the prohibition of netira applies to
bearing a grudge in one's heart, even if it is not openly expressed. The Rashbam
(Vayikra 19:18) distinguishes between the two terms in this exact manner:
You shall not take
vengeance to repay evil with evil; or bear a grudge even in your heart.
Rather, overcome your inner feelings.
Rabbeinu Yona (Shaarei Teshuva 3:38)
seems to explicitly deal with this issue.
Who is bearing a grudge?
One who responds "I am not lending to you, and I am not like you, as you didn't
lend to me in the past. However, the punishment is not for the words spoken,
but rather for bearing a grudge in one's heart.
He indicates that the essential prohibition is
in one's mindset, which ones words merely reveal.
The Rambam (Hilkhot
De'ot 7:8) seems to understand the prohibition of netira as a
prohibition rooted in developing a mindset that might lead to nekima.
So too, one who bears a
grudge against a fellow Jew violates a prohibition
One should eradicate the
thing from his heart and not bear a grudge. For as long as one nurses a
grievance and keeps it in mind, one may come to take vengeance. Therefore, the
Torah emphatically warns us not to bear a grudge, so that the impression of the
wrong shall be obliterated and no longer remembered.
The Rambam indicates that grudge-bearing on
its own would not be so bad if not for the fact that nursing grievances is
liable to lead one to take revenge. Nevertheless, the Rambam does tell us that
bearing a grudge is forbidden even if not expressed in speech.
The Chinnukh (Mitzva 242)
echoes this and adds that any recollection is within the prohibition:
We are forbidden to keep
in our heart any ill-feeling over the harm that another Jew had done to us. Even
if we should resolve not to repay him through actions for his deeds, the mere
remembrance of his sin in the heart is forbidden us.
All the opinions cited above seem to indicate
clearly that the prohibition of netira may be violated even through
thought. However, they might disagree on the question of whether it is to be
viewed negatively on its own or only as presaging material vengeance.
An alternate
understanding is offered by Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook. He deduces (Mitzvat
Reiya, p. 98) from the Talmudic language that bearing a grudge is a normal
feeling deeply imbedded in man's subconscious; therefore, the natural grudge
that might appear in one's heart is not to be viewed as forbidden. (At the same
time, Rav Kook does expand on the relationship between nekima and
netira, as we shall see below.) Nevertheless, even if the element of speech
is integral, nonverbal shows of grievance may still be forbidden (as may be
indicated in the abovementioned passage from Mesillat Yesharim).
Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl (Sichot,
Vayigash) explains that the mere memory of someone else's action is not
the basis of the prohibition. In fact, there are many mitzvot which
require us to remember something, but there too the focus is not upon the
physical memory, but the willingness to act based on that memory. Recalling
anothers misdeed is not prohibited; it is the willingness to "remember" the act
when the other asks for help that is forbidden.
Based on the above, we
may say that the natural emotional memory and grudge that one holds is allowed;
it is the cultivation of these feelings as a reason to treat the other
differently or to remind the other of the misdeed in a time of need that is in
fact prohibited.
The Relationship
between Nekima and Netira
The Rambam indicates that
netira is prohibited for fear it might lead to nekima. The Yad
Ha-ketana, however, disagrees and views netira as an independent
prohibition: netira is prohibited because the bearer essentially declares
that insignificant prior bad acts will forever separate these two individuals,
engendering constant feelings of hatred within society.
The Yad Ha-ketana even
states that keeping the grudge in ones heart is actually more severe than
expressing it with words. The prohibition is violated even in silence, whenever
one fails to forget the act another has done. However, by doing so without
voicing one's feelings, one also violates "Do not hate your brother in your
heart, which refers to unexpressed enmity. By the same token, because it is the
inner feeling of hatred that is forbidden, one violates the prohibition
immediately when feeling the grudge, even if one is never asked to lend in
return. Secondly, because the subject of the prohibition is the hatred and not
the speech, one who rebukes another who has refused to lend while lending an
item will not violate any commandment; on the contrary, the lender fulfills the
mitzva of tokhacha.
Above, we
cited the view of Rav Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook that bearing a grudge in
one's heart is not a violation of the prohibition. However, Rav Kook adds that
even though the natural feeling of being upset is not forbidden, this does not
mean that the focus of the prohibition is taking revenge or making snide
comparisons. In fact, these actions are prohibited because they will actually
lead to a corrupted mindset where one continues to harbor negative feelings and
bear grudges. Interestingly, Rav Kook understands that the primary prohibition
is actually a negative mindset, which seems to be more closely aligned with
netira. This question is also related to the abovementioned question: is
netira an attitudinal prohibition, independent of taking revenge; or is it a
precursor to revenge, contained in every act of vengeance?
We may
even distinguish between the prohibition of revenge and that of bearing a grudge
based on the question cited above: is action necessary? We may understand,
following the view of Rav Kook, that the natural feeling of bearing a grudge is
not prohibited; the injunction is only violated when the feeling is expressed
through speech. On the other hand, the feeling of revenge, the intention to act,
is sufficient to violate the prohibition of nekima.
Self-Control
It seems much easier to
understand how one can succeed in overcoming feelings of nekima; one may
merely feel anger while having the resolve not to act upon it. Netira,
however, is independent of physical action; indeed, according to most sources,
one violates the prohibition even by harboring the grudge inside. How may one
succeed in not only forgiving, but forgetting as well? As we saw above, the
Rambam advises (Hilkhot De'ot 7:8):
One should eradicate the
thing from his heart and not bear a grudge. For as long as one nurses a
grievance and keeps it in mind, one may come to take vengeance. Therefore, the
Torah emphatically warns us not to bear a grudge, so that the impression of the
wrong shall be obliterated and no longer remembered.
The Rambam informs us what must be done, but
how may one succeed in removing the temptation to act in this manner?
The Yerushalmi (Nedarim
9:4) explains that the means of overcoming one's natural inclination to take
revenge or bear a grudge requires a new outlook on the Jewish people as a whole.
It is written, You shall
not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen how is this to be
done? If a man was cutting meat and the knife entered his hand, would the
injured hand retaliate by cutting the other hand?
One who follows this approach and views the
Jewish people as a whole knows that any act of revenge is essentially hurting
oneself as well. (This seems to dovetail with the comment of the Or Ha-chayim
quoted above.)
This explanation might
actually be insinuated in the verse. Rav Hirsch points to the unusual term your
countrymen, literally: children of your people. Rav Hirsch explains:
To strengthen this
command, Scripture reminds the offended party of the offender's identity: the
offender is one of the children of his people
The fact that the offender is
from his people should suffice to remove from ones heart any vengeful feelings.
After all, your people is God's people. It is to this national community that
God refers when He says, I will take you for me as a people (Shemot
6:14). At that time, He transformed Israel into His people. And from then
onward, His dominion has been revealed in His community through the relationship
between its members. They are the ones who are to magnify God's glory and
establish His throne on earth. God has dominion over our land, our possessions
and our legal claims. Hence, He commands us regarding the sabbatical year and
the prohibition of taking interest
By fulfilling these commandments, we submit
to Him in helping one another. God wishes also to have dominion over our
feelings. Hence, He has forbidden us to take vengeance or bear grudges. We are
obligated to offer the most difficult sacrifice of submission: we must
subordinate our feelings to God's Will and remove from our hearts any feelings
of revenge and resentment.
Indeed, forgetting another's negative behavior
is difficult and can be likened to a sacrifice. However, the cathartic feeling
that accompanies doing so paves the way for a unified Jewish people and a
society where people can easily forget each other's mistakes and focus on the
good that binds us.
In next week's lesson, we
will take a fresh look at the prohibition of nekima, taking revenge.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!