How does the Talmud define revenge for commandment #359?

The Yerushalmi (Nedarim 9:4) gives a precise case: A asks B to borrow his scythe; B refuses. Later, B asks A to borrow his axe. If A says “I will not lend you, as you would not lend me,” that is nekamah — revenge. The definition requires three elements: (1) a prior refusal or harm by the other party; (2) a new opportunity where the original roles are reversed; (3) explicit verbal connection between the retaliation and the prior incident. The explicit verbal link is what constitutes revenge: the retaliator announces that the prior harm is the reason for the current refusal. Without that connection, the refusal may simply be a preference.

What distinguishes revenge from self-defense or legitimate justice?

Commandment #359 prohibits personal revenge — individual retaliation outside the legal system against someone who wronged you. The Torah has an established court system for adjudicating wrongs and an explicit framework for punishment. Taking revenge bypasses the court and makes the individual both judge and executioner. Self-defense (protecting yourself in the moment of an attack) and legitimate judicial recourse (bringing a case before judges) are not revenge. Revenge is the private enforcement of a personal grievance after the fact, by the wronged party, against the person who wronged them.

How did David's treatment of Saul illustrate the prohibition on revenge?

David twice had the opportunity to kill Saul while Saul was actively hunting him to kill him. In 1 Samuel 24, David and his men were hiding in the cave at En-gedi when Saul entered. David's men urged him to act; David cut the corner of Saul's robe instead — and was convicted by his own conscience (24:5: “David's heart smote him”). In 1 Samuel 26, David entered Saul's camp at night and refused to harm him. His explicit statement to Abishai (26:9): “Who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?” Both times David placed justice with God, not with his own hand. His reasoning for non-revenge: “The LORD shall judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee” (24:12).

What is the connection between "do not take revenge" and "love thy neighbour as thyself" at the end of Leviticus 19:18?

Leviticus 19:18 contains both prohibitions (revenge and grudge) and the positive commandment (“thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”) in a single verse. The structure is sequential: clear the negatives first, then state the positive. You cannot love someone while taking revenge against them — revenge requires treating the person as your enemy, as someone who owes you a debt of pain. The prohibition on revenge clears the relational ground on which love becomes possible. The verse does not say “love your neighbor despite the urge to take revenge” — it says: remove revenge and grudge first, and then love is the command that fills the space.

Commandment #359 · Negative · Inner Life · Covenant Community

Do Not Take Revenge

לֹא לִנְקֹם

Source: Leviticus 19:18 · Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative #608

לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.”

Leviticus 19:18 — Open in Reader

What Is Revenge — The Talmudic Precision

Leviticus 19:18: “Thou shalt not avenge.” The Talmud's analysis (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4) is remarkably precise about what constitutes nekamah. The classic case: A asks B for a scythe and is refused; later B asks A for an axe and A says “I won't lend you, just as you didn't lend me.” That explicit connection — the naming of the prior harm as the reason for the current refusal — is what makes it revenge rather than simple unwillingness. The verbal element is critical: revenge announces itself. It makes the prior harm permanent by keeping it alive in the current transaction.

This precision has an implication: silently deciding not to lend to someone because they once refused you — without stating the reason — may be grudge-bearing (#360) but does not meet the talmudic definition of revenge. Revenge requires the public naming. This does not make it acceptable to maintain the silent refusal motivated by the prior harm; that falls under commandment #360. But the two commandments address different acts: #359 addresses the explicit retaliation made visible; #360 addresses the internal maintenance of the account.

David and the Anointed One

1 Samuel 24 and 1 Samuel 26 are two separate accounts of David refusing revenge against Saul — a king who was actively trying to kill him with an army of 3,000 men (1 Sam 24:2). In the first account, Saul entered the cave where David was hiding alone. David's men urged him: “Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand.” David refused and cut only the corner of Saul's robe. Immediately afterward, his own conscience convicted him: “David's heart smote him.” The cutting of the robe was already too close to the revenge he was refusing.

David's explicit statement to Saul (1 Sam 24:12): “The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.” This is commandment #359 stated as a principle: justice belongs to God, not to the person who was wronged. David did not claim that Saul had done nothing wrong — he acknowledged the wrong and placed its resolution with God. In 1 Samuel 26, David extended this to his men as well, stopping Abishai from killing the sleeping Saul: “The LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die” (26:10). Twice refused, twice articulated as a theological position: revenge does not belong to the human hand.

Abigail and the Interrupted Revenge

1 Samuel 25 records a case where David was about to take revenge — and was stopped. Nabal, a wealthy man in Carmel, had insulted David's messengers who came requesting provisions for his men (provisions they had a reasonable claim to, having protected Nabal's flocks). David armed 400 men to kill every male in Nabal's household (25:13, 22): “God do so and more also to the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.” This is revenge — exact retaliation for a specific insult, explicitly connected to the prior wrong.

Abigail, Nabal's wife, intercepted David with provisions and a speech that placed justice with God rather than David's sword (25:24–31): “And it shall come to pass, when the LORD shall have done to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, that this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself.” David accepted her argument completely: “And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me” (25:32). God killed Nabal directly ten days later (25:38). The revenge David had planned never happened — and the narrative records that this was better for David.

David — 1 Sam 24, 26, 25: three separate occasions of refusing revenge. Twice refused to kill Saul when alone with him; stopped the revenge against Nabal at Abigail's intervention. In each case, explicitly placed judgment with God rather than his own hand.
Abigail — 1 Sam 25: intercepted David's revenge against Nabal with an argument that placed justice with God and protected David from the moral and practical consequences of his own planned retaliation. Her intervention is the logic of commandment #359 made visible in action.
Samson — Judg 15: contrast to David. The Philistines burned Samson's wife and father-in-law; Samson retaliated by killing many Philistines; the Philistines retaliated against Israel; the Israelites bound Samson and handed him over; Samson killed 1,000 Philistines with a jawbone. Each act of revenge produced a larger counter-revenge. The cycle escalated with every iteration, ending only when Samson was blind and in chains.

For reflection and group study

The Talmud's definition of revenge requires the explicit verbal connection between the prior harm and the current retaliation. Is the same action — refusing to lend — revenge if stated aloud and not revenge if silent? What does this distinction reveal about the Torah's understanding of what makes retaliation a sin: the act itself, or the act combined with the public naming of the prior harm?

See Leviticus 19:18 — Open in Reader

David twice refused to kill Saul, citing Saul's status as the LORD's anointed. His reasoning placed justice with God rather than with his own hand. What does this grounding — surrendering the right of revenge specifically to divine justice, not merely deciding the cost is too high — reveal about the Torah's understanding of why personal revenge is prohibited?

See Leviticus 19:18 — Open in Reader

Read the source passage in the Torah reader.

Read in the Torah Reader — Leviticus 19:18

← Do Not Hate Your Brother in Your Heart Do Not Harbor a Grudge →