JUDAISM'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ANGER,
REVENGE AND COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
Every trait, without exception, has the potential to cause either a
sanctification of God's Name or a desecration of God's Name depending upon the circumstances
in which, and the motivation with which, it is exercised. So it is with the
trait of Revenge. That Revenge can be a holy trait is clear. As the Hebrew
Bible declares: "HaShem is a Zealous and Vengeful God; HaShem is Vengeful
and full of Wrath; HaShem is Vengeful to His adversaries and reserves Hostility
for His enemies. HaShem is slow to Anger, but He has great Power and He will
not absolve [Evil]." (Nahum 1:2-3); and: "The righteous man shall
rejoice when he sees Vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the
Wicked. And Mankind shall say, 'Truly there is a reward for the Righteous.
Truly there is a God Who judges on Earth.'" (Psalms 58:11-12).
Furthermore, as is demonstrated with respect to the foreordained Egyptian
Exile, although Exodus-era Egypt is merely fulfilling a role assigned to
it by the God of Israel (see Gen. 15:13-16), the Creator of Morality
purposefully stiffens the resolve of Egypt's evil Pharaoh only so that
He may exercise a horrific Vengeance against that nation as punishment for its
enslavement of the Jewish people. As the Torah relates: "HaShem said to
Moses, 'When you go to return to
That being said, the issue is always one of proper discernment. A Jewish
leader must be able distinguish between those situations which require mercy
and forgiveness and those which require strict justice and vengeance. This is
no easy task as can be seen from the vantage point of one of the most
perplexing incidents in the Torah, namely, the massacre at the City of
To summarize: Shechem, son of King Chamor and Prince of the City of
A closer examination is in order. The text relates that: "Jacob's
sons arrived from the field when they heard; the men were distressed and were
fired deeply with indignation, for he [Prince Shechem] had perpetrated an outrage
in
Upon learning of the massacre, Jacob stridently rebuked Shimon and
Levi. As the Torah relates: "Jacob
said to Shimon and Levi, 'You have gotten me into trouble and caused me to be
repulsive to the Canaanites and Perrizites who live in the land. I am few in
number, and should they band together and attack me, I will be annihilated -- I
and my household.'" (Gen. 34:30). Please note carefully Jacob's exact
words; he does not question the morality of his sons' actions, but only its
practical consequences, namely, the fact that it might cause the surrounding
nations to retaliate against him and his family. The censure of his sons was
due to his mistaken belief that the doctrine of Pikuach Nefesh (avoidance of
danger to life) excused the nation of
Shortly thereafter we learn that: "They [Jacob and his family] set out, and there fell a Godly terror on the surrounding cities, so that they [the inhabitants of the surrounding cities] did not pursue Jacob's sons." (Gen. 35:5). By extending His Divine Protection to Jacob's sons, God Himself had the last Word -- the brothers' attack on the Shechemites was thereby justified and sanctified (notwithstanding the fact that -- as will be later demonstrated -- the brothers' motivation was impure). But this is not the only evidence of Divine Ratification of the brothers' actions; for, generations later, the tribe of Shimon proudly displayed a picture of the City of Shechem on its tribal flag (see Num. 2:2; Bamidbar Rabbah 2:7), something that God would never have permitted if the incident was a badge of shame rather than a badge of honor, and the tribe of Levi became, inter alia, the tribe which produced Moses, the tribe which was appointed as protector of the Ark of the Covenant and the tribe which became the source, through Aaron, of the priestly line.
All of this, however, does not explain why the entire City of Shechem -- rather than only Prince Shechem and, perhaps, his father, King Chamor -- was deserving of death. Rambam (Maimonides), in viewing the City of Shechem as a collection of individual citizens with individual responsibilities, opines that: "All the residents of [the City of] Shechem incurred a death sentence because [Prince] Shechem stole, and they saw and knew, yet did not put him on trial" (Hilchot Melachim 9:14), while Ramban (Nachmanides), in viewing the city as a single social unit with a collective responsibility, opines that: "They [Shimon and Levi] killed the king and all the people of his city because the latter were his slaves and under his charge." (Ramban on Gen. 34:13). Both views represent the Torah concept of collective punishment -- that is, the idea that ordinary people justly suffer the Divine Consequences of their leadership's conduct.
This concept of collective punishment will again be demonstrated in the
Torah when God imposes upon Pharaonic Egypt ten awful plagues, including the
final one which strikes down all of the first-born of Egypt "...from the
first-born of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the first-born of the captive
who was in the dungeon..." (Ex. 12:29). Why were the imprisoned of
However, doesn't the earlier confrontation that Jacob's grandfather,
Abraham, had initiated with God over the impending destruction of
That, in order to avoid death and destruction, righteous persons are
required to separate themselves from the evil societies in which they
dwell is proven by reference to the plight of the Kenites (a people who were
descended from Moses’ father-in-law Jethro) during King Saul’s war of annihilation
against the Amalekites. As the Hebrew
Bible relates: "Saul came to the City of
God's exemption of unrighteous Lot, a resident of
Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of this discussion is intended to either minimize the fact that Dina was the direct victim of Prince Shechem's crimes or to suggest that a Chillul HaShem results only when an Evildoer harms a Jew for nationalistic reasons. On the contrary, every time that an Evildoer harms an innocent person -- whatever the motivation or lack thereof -- a Chillul HaShem is created; for, ordinary Evil and nationalistic Evil both result in a desecration of God's Name. However, if Dina had not been a representative of the nascent Jewish people, then an ordinary -- rather than a national -- Chillul HaShem would have resulted, for which atonement could have been obtained by punishing only the perpetrator. Yet, even in such circumstances, if such ordinary Evil were to be so tolerated as to become endemic to Society, as was the case with ancient Sodom, then even the ordinary Chillul HaShem which is created cannot be undone by punishing only the perpetrator -- for, in such a case, all of the members of Society constitute co-perpetrators.
Our biblical ancestors certainly acknowledged the reality, and feared the
consequences, of Divine collective punishment. For, when they mistakenly
believed that the leadership of those of their number who had been granted
lands on the east side of the Jordan River (namely, the tribe of Reuben, the
tribe of Gad, and half of the tribe of Menasseh ) had erected an idolatrous
altar, they were determined to wage war against their kinsmen in order to avoid
God's Wrath against all of the people of Israel. Accordingly, as a
prelude to the military confrontation, a diplomatic delegation representing the
leadership of the remainder of the tribes confronted their brethren. As the
Hebrew Bible relates: "They came to the Children of Reuben, the Children
of Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh, to the land of Gilead, and they
spoke with them, saying, 'Thus said the entire assembly of HaShem: "What
is this treachery that you have committed against the God of Israel -- to turn
away from HaShem this Day, by building for yourselves an altar for your
rebellion this Day against HaShem? Is the sin of Peor not enough for us -- from
which we have not become cleansed until this Day, and which resulted in the
plague in the assembly of HaShem? Yet, Today, you would turn away from Hashem?
If you rebel against HaShem Today, [then] Tomorrow He will be angry with
the entire assembly of
Moreover, even the evildoing of a single person was sometimes enough to justify the imposition of Divine collective punishment against the entire people. As the Hebrew Bible relates, concerning the consecrated valuables of the destroyed City of Jericho: “The Children of Israel trespassed against the consecrated property because Achan, son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took [some] of the consecrated property; and the Wrath of God flared against the Children of Israel.” (Joshua 7:1).
But, now returning to the massacre at the City of
Unfortunately, the very same anger that had led Shimon and Levi to attack
Shechem -- a Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God's Name) -- had later led
them to plan the murder of Joseph -- a Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's
Name). Joseph was the recipient of special affection from Jacob and had
prophetic dreams of kingship over
Although most people cannot help but exhibit personal anger from time to time, when a leader of the Jewish people falls prey to this primal instinct in his dealings with the Jewish people he creates a Chillul HaShem. This can be discerned, inter alia, from a comparison between the responses of two Jewish leaders -- Moses and Phineas -- to two separate incidences of idolatry among the Jewish people, the first caused by Moses' absence from the Jewish people and the second caused by the sexual allure of Midian's women.
When God informed Moses -- then atop
In the face of the sin of the golden calf, why did God choose to reward the Jewish people with the Gift of the Tablets of the Ten Commandments? The answer is that this was no reward! Rather, this Gift was an immediate antidote to that very sin. In the absence of Moses -- the flesh-and-blood representative of Omnipresent yet Incorporeal God -- the Jewish people had sought a tangible representation and a substitute manifestation of God's Presence. This was the golden calf. As the Torah relates: "And Aaron saw and built an altar before it; and Aaron called out and said, 'A festival for HaShem tomorrow!'" (Ex. 32:5). Yet, this misguided attempt to honor God was a violation of the Second Commandment which prohibited the creation of such idolatrous objects (see Ex. 20:4). In order to provide His People with an appropriate manifestation of His Presence, God had created the Tablets of the Ten Commandments. In His Wisdom, God -- by creating the Tablets as the sin was being committed -- had sought to prevent the Jewish people from again falling into the sin of idolatry by removing any future need therefor. Yet, in his personal anger, Moses sought to substitute his judgment for that of His Master. In his rashness, Moses sought to prevent the Jewish people from again falling into the sin of idolatry by denying to them, as a punishment, God's holy Tablets -- this being the very antidote which God Himself had designed to accomplish that very purpose. That is precisely the reason why God commanded Moses to recreate the smashed Tablets in every detail. In this way, God's original Will was effected despite Moses' ill-considered attempt to deviate therefrom.
Much later -- as His Response to the Jewish people's strident complaints to Moses concerning their thirst and, yet again, concerning their distress at being forced to come "... to this wilderness to die there ..." (Num. 20:4) instead of having been permitted to remain in the Land of Egypt -- God instructed Moses: "'Take the staff and gather together the assembly, you and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes that it shall give its waters; and you shall bring forth water from the rock, and give drink to the assembly and to their animals.'" (Num. 20:8). Yet, in a fit of personal anger at the Jewish people's repeated demonstrations of lack of faith in God's Power and Promises, Moses improperly substituted his own response for that of God. As the Torah relates: "Moses took the staff from before HaShem, as He had commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation before the face of the rock, and he said to them, 'Listen now, O rebels, shall we bring forth the water for you from this rock?! Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock with his staff twice; and abundant water came forth, and the assembly and their animals drank. HaShem said to Moses and to Aaron, 'Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel; therefore you will not bring this congregation to the Land that I have given to them.'" (Num. 20:9-12). What is meant by God's Declaration that Moses did not "believe" in Him? For, clearly, Moses not only believed in God but actually conversed with Him on a regular basis! The Declaration meant that Moses did not "believe" that certain of God's Decisions were appropriate responses to the Jewish people's serial transgressions, and that, consequently, Moses was not able to subordinate his human emotions to God's measured Determinations. In other words, as in the earlier crisis over the golden calf and the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, Moses -- leader of the Jewish people and, as well, God's Emissary to them -- being unable to control his personal anger, thereby converted that which was supposed to be a Kiddush HaShem into a Chillul HaShem. That is precisely the reason why the Torah then continues: "They are the waters of strife, where the Children of Israel contended with HaShem, and He was sanctified through them." (Num. 20:13). In order to reconvert Chillul HaShem into Kiddush HaShem, God had to publicly punish righteous Moses for his transgressions; and He was, consequently, sanctified through His own Conduct (in punishing His Servant Moses) rather than through Moses' conduct (in improperly substituting his will for God's Will) (see Num. 20:1-13). This is similar to the earlier incident in which God sanctified His Name by publicly taking of the lives of Aaron's two sons -- Nadab and Abihu -- who, in their religious exuberance, had brought before Him their fire pans with an uncommanded alien fire. As the Torah relates: "Moses said to Aaron, 'Of this did HaShem speak, saying, "I will be sanctified through those who are nearest to Me, [thus] I will be honored before the entire people"'; and Aaron was silent." (Lev. 10:3).
That the power of personal anger could induce Moses to substitute his own judgment for God’s Judgment should not be surprising. For, the seductive desire to substitute one’s own judgment for God’s Judgment lies at the root of the very first sin. As the Torah relates: “And HaShem God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the Garden you may freely eat. But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, you must not eat from it; for, on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’” (Gen. 2:16-17). God was warning Adam that human beings were barred from seeking to “‘… be like God, knowing Good and Evil.’” (Gen. 3:5) -- meaning that a human being, including God’s Anointed One, the future Messiah, must never believe that he has the Transcendent Ability to declare that which is Good and that which is Evil. From the Dawn of Creation, that Holy Prerogative has been reserved by God for Himself, and for Himself alone. To reiterate: As the Prophet Isaiah, speaking in God's Name, declares concerning God's Morality: "For, My Thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My Ways -- the Word of HaShem. As high as the Heavens are above the Earth, so are My Ways high above your ways, and My Thoughts [high] above your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9). Consequently, a leader of the Jewish people must never seek to substitute his own Judgment for God’s Judgment. For, on the Day that he does so, he shall surely be condemned to suffer the same punishment as God meted out to Moses for his sins.
Revenge, as a national and holy obligation, must be undertaken by a
leader of the Jewish people solely for the Sake of Heaven and must never
be motivated by personal anger. This lesson is finally learned by
Levi's descendant (and Aaron's grandson), Phineas, who was faced with massive
idolatry among the Jewish people induced by the sexual enticements of Midian's
women. While the Tablets of the Ten Commandments had sufficed to prevent idolatry
among the Jewish people motivated by the incorporeality of God, this antidote
did not suffice to prevent idolatry among the Jewish people induced by the
allure of forbidden sexual activity. Phineas responded to this crisis by
ruthlessly killing Zimri, the Israelite notable, and Cozbi, the Midianite
notable, in response to their very public sexual embrace in the sight of the
entire congregation of
© Mark Rosenblit