Parshat Mahsei

Retribution as justice

Each week, I read one chapter from two of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ books on the parsha: Essays in Ethics and Lessons in Leadership. I edit one or both chapters into a shorter recap to share with you.

~

In Essays in Ethics for Parshat Mahsei, Jonathan Sacks writes about the difference between revenge and retribution. What I share below is an edited version of what he says —all quotes are from his book.

“Near the end of the book of Numbers, we encounter the law of the cities of refuge: three cities to the east of the Jordan and, later, three more within the land of Israel itself. There, people who had committed homicide could flee and find protection until their case was heard by a court of law. If they were found guilty of murder in biblical times, they were sentenced to death. If found innocent – if the death happened by accident or inadvertently, with neither deliberation nor malice – then they were to stay in the city of refuge “until the death of the high priest” (Num. 35:28). There, they were protected against revenge on the part of the goel hadam, the blood-redeemer, usually the closest relative of the person who had been killed.”

(“A redeemer is someone who rights an imbalance in the world, who rescues someone or something and restores it to its rightful place… A blood-redeemer is one who ensures that murder does not go unpunished”, Sacks writes.)

“It is foolhardy to act as if the desire for revenge does not exist. It does. But given free reign, it will reduce societies to violence and bloodshed without end. The only alternative is to channel it through the operation of law, fair trial, and then either punishment or protection. That is what was introduced into civilisation by the law of the cities of refuge, allowing retribution to take the place of revenge, and justice the place of retaliation.”

And so, Sacks explains, “There must be no direct act of revenge. The killer must be protected until his case has been heard in a court of law. If found guilty, he must pay the price. If found innocent, he must be given refuge. This single act turns revenge into retribution.”

What’s the difference between the concepts of revenge and retribution?

• “Revenge is an I-Thou relationship. You killed a member of my family so I will kill you. It is intrinsically personal.”

• “Retribution, by contrast, is impersonal. It is no longer [one family] against [another] but both under the impartial rule of law.”

As Sacks writes, “wrong must be punished, but only after it has been established by a fair trial, and only on behalf not just of the victim but of society as a whole.”

But wait, what about the death of the high priest? What does that have to do with anything? The Talmud explains that the death of the high priest “atoned for the death of those who were accidentally killed” since the high priest should have “prayed more fervently, [so that] God would not have allowed this accident to happen”. Alternatively, as Sacks describes from Rambam’s perspective, the period of national mourning for the high priest’s death, mourning together with the others in the collective, “dissolves the longing for revenge”. This gives the blood-redeemer’s time and space to cool.

~

Shabbat shalom!