ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: Reparation and Revenge

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

What happens to the Givonim after our story? They do not appear in ืชื ืดืš at all. to understand their fate, we need to learn a halacha:

ืขืžื•ื ื™ ื•ืžื•ืื‘ื™ ืืกื•ืจื™ื, ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจืŸ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืขื•ืœื; ืื‘ืœ ื ืงื‘ื•ืชื™ื”ื ืžื•ืชืจื•ืช ืžื™ื“โ€ฆืžืžื–ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื ืชื™ื ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ, ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจืŸ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืขื•ืœื; ืื—ื“ ื–ื›ืจื™ื, ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืงื‘ื•ืช.

ืžืฉื ื” ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ื—:ื’

Who are the ื ืชื™ื ื™ืŸ?

ื ื•ืืœื” ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื”ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉื‘ื™ ื”ื’ื•ืœื” ืืฉืจ ื”ื’ืœื” ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืฆื•ืจ (ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืฆืจ) ืžืœืš ื‘ื‘ืœ ืœื‘ื‘ืœ; ื•ื™ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืœื™ืจื•ืฉืœื ื•ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ืฉ ืœืขื™ืจื•ืƒโ€ฆืžื’ ื”ื ืชื™ื ื™ื; ื‘ื ื™ ืฆื™ื—ื ื‘ื ื™ ื—ืฉื•ืคื ื‘ื ื™ ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืชืƒโ€ฆ

ืขื–ืจื ืคืจืง ื‘

ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืฉื ืชืŸ ื“ื•ื™ื“ ื•ื”ืฉืจื™ื ืœืขื‘ื“ืช ื”ืœื•ื™ื ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื; ื›ืœื ื ืงื‘ื• ื‘ืฉืžื•ืชืƒ

ืขื–ืจื ื—:ื›

ื”ื ืชื™ื ื™ื: ื”ื ืจืืฉื™ ื’ื‘ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื” ื•ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืชื ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ืืœืงื™ื•, ื•ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ื ืงืจืื• ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืืขืดืค ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ ื›ืŸ โ€ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืฉื ืชืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื”ืฉืจื™ื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื”ืœื•ื™ืโ€œ, ื›ื™ ื”ื˜ืขื ืงื™ื™ื ื”ื ืชื™ื ื”, ืื• ื ืงืจืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ื›ื™ ืžืงื•ื“ื ื”ื™ื• ื ืงืจืื™ื ื’ื‘ืขื•ื ื™ื.

ืื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื, ืขื–ืจื ื‘:ืžื’

The implication of the text in Ezra is that David righted the wrong that Saul had done: Yehoshua had designated the Givonim for ืขื‘ื•ื“ื”, and Saul dispossessed them. David restored them to their role in the ืžืฉื›ืŸ; that was demanded by the injustice that ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ had done. But why should they be forbidden to marry into ื›ืœืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ if they convert?

ื›ื‘ ืžื™ ืฉื ืชื’ื™ืจ ืžืฉื‘ืขื” ืขืžืžื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืœื‘ื•ื ื‘ืงื”ืœโ€ฆ

ื›ื’ ื•ื”ื ื”ื ืงืจืื™ื ื ืชื™ื ื™ื ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืชื ื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ. ื‘ื ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉืœื ื™ื›ื ืกื• ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืืคืœื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉโ€ฆ

ื›ื“ ื•ืœืžื” ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืœืคื™ ืฉืจืื” ืขื–ื•ืช ื•ืื›ื–ืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ื”ื ื‘ืขืช ืฉื‘ืงืฉื• ืฉื‘ืขืช ื‘ื ื™ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ื—ื™ืจ ื”ืณ ืœืชืœื•ืชื ื•ื”ืจื’ื•ื ื•ืœื ืจื—ืžื• ืขืœื™ื”ื.

ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื”, ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ืื™ืกื•ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืคืจืง ื™ื‘

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื‘ืจ ืื“ื: ื ืชื™ื ื™ืโ€”ื“ื•ื“ ื’ื–ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื, ืฉื ืืžืจ: ื•ึทื™ึผึดืงึฐืจึธื ื”ึทืžึผึถืœึถืšึฐ ืœึทื’ึผึดื‘ึฐืขื•ึนื ึดื™ื ื•ึทื™ึผึนืืžึถืจ ืึฒืœึตื™ื”ึถื ื•ึฐื”ึทื’ึผึดื‘ึฐืขื•ึนื ึดื™ื ืœึนื ืžึดื‘ึผึฐื ึตื™ ื™ึดืฉื‚ึฐืจึธืึตืœ ื”ึตืžึผึธื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ.

ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ืขื—,ื‘

ืืžืจ, ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื•: ื”ืจื—ืžื ื™ื, ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื. ืจื—ืžื ื™ืโ€”ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื™ื’:ื™ื—): ื•ึฐื ึธืชึทืŸ ืœึฐืšึธ ืจึทื—ึฒืžึดื™ื ื•ึฐืจึดื—ึทืžึฐืšึธ ื•ึฐื”ึดืจึฐื‘ึผึถืšึธ. ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸโ€”ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ืฉืžื•ืช ื›:ื™ื–): [ืœึฐื‘ึทืขึฒื‘ื•ึผืจ ื ึทืกึผื•ึนืช ืึถืชึฐื›ึถื ื‘ึผึธื ื”ึธืึฑืœึนืงึดื™ื] ื•ึผื‘ึทืขึฒื‘ื•ึผืจ ืชึผึดื”ึฐื™ึถื” ื™ึดืจึฐืึธืชื•ึน ืขึทืœ ืคึผึฐื ึตื™ื›ึถื. ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ืโ€”ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ื™ื—:ื™ื˜): [ื›ึผึดื™ ื™ึฐื“ึทืขึฐืชึผึดื™ื•] ืœึฐืžึทืขึทืŸ ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ื™ึฐืฆึทื•ึผึถื” ืึถืช ื‘ึผึธื ึธื™ื• ื•ึฐืึถืช ื‘ึผึตื™ืชื•ึน [ืึทื—ึฒืจึธื™ื• ื•ึฐืฉืึธืžึฐืจื•ึผ ื“ึผึถืจึถืšึฐ ื”ืณ ืœึทืขึฒืฉื‚ื•ึนืช ืฆึฐื“ึธืงึธื” ื•ึผืžึดืฉืึฐืคึผึธื˜]. ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื”ืœืœื•โ€”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื•.

ื™ื‘ืžื•ืช ืขื˜,ื

What are those three moral characteristics that make a person ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืื•ืžื” ื–ื•? The prooftexts demonstrate that ืจื—ืžื ื™ื, ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื donโ€™t have their literal meanings. They are gifts that ื”ืณ has given ืขื ื™ืฉืจืืœ, and in a manner of speaking we only accept converts who bear the imprimatur of G-dโ€™s approval: the potential convert must have those gifts. ื‘ื™ื™ืฉื ื•ืช doesnโ€™t mean โ€œeasily embarrassedโ€; it means having ื™ืจืืช ืืœืงื™ื, awe of G-d, a sense of a higher moral authority. ื’ื•ืžืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื means doing both ืฆื“ืงื” and ืžืฉืคื˜, doing what is right for others. But what then is ืจื—ืžื™ื? How is it different from ื’ื•ืžืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื? Levinas translates it as โ€œpityโ€:

And yet the Gemara teaches more. A verse of the text (1 Samuel 21:2) indicates to us, seemingly as a simple piece of historical information: โ€œThe Gibeonites were not part of the children of Israel but of the rest of the Amoreansโ€. To this preliminary verse, the Gemara attaches the meaning of a verdict. It is David who would have excluded the Gibeonites from the community of Israel and relegated them to the Arameans. To belong to Israel, one must be humble (place something or someone higher than oneself ), one must know pity and be capable of disinterested acts. The Gibeonites excluded themselves from Israel.

Emmanuel Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings, Toward the Other, p. 28

ืจื—ืžื™ื refers specifically to how we approach ืžืฉืคื˜ when we are involved. ื’ื•ืžืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื is disinterested acts (in the English teachers' definition of โ€œdisinterestedโ€, โ€œhaving no personal involvementโ€, not โ€œuninterested, apatheticโ€). ืจื—ืžื™ื is how I care about the other, even when they oppose me, when ืžืฉืคื˜ demands I care about myself.

What difference is there between pity and generous action [ืจื—ืžื ื™ื and ื’ื•ืžืœื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ื]?โ€ฆ.[S]trict justice, even if flanked by disinterested goodness and humility, is not sufficient to make a Jew. Justice itself must already be mixed with goodness. It is this mixture that is indicated by the word Rachamim, which we hav badly translated as โ€œpityโ€. It is that special form of pity which goes out to the one who is experiencing the harshness of the Law.

Emmanuel Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings, Toward the Other, p. 28

There is a line of justice. If I have a dispute with another and it goes to court, there will be a decision. The judge will decide that my rights extend so far, and the otherโ€™s rights extend up that point. That is โ€œืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸโ€, the line of the law. ืจื—ืžื ื•ืช means I give up something of mine even if it is mine by right. I willingly move the line closer to my side; ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ. The idiom is the opposite of the English โ€œbeyond the letter of the lawโ€. That means doing more than required. This means accepting less than pure justice, giving something up even it is rightfully mine.

And going ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ is required by the Torah:

ื•ื”ื–ื”ืจืชื” ืืชื”ื ืืช ื”ื—ืงื™ื ื•ืืช ื”ืชื•ืจืช; ื•ื”ื•ื“ืขืช ืœื”ื ืืช ื”ื“ืจืš ื™ืœื›ื• ื‘ื” ื•ืืช ื”ืžืขืฉื” ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืช ื™ื—:ื›

ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸ: ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ.

ื‘ื‘ื ืžืฆื™ืขื ืœ,ื‘

ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณ; ืœืžืขืŸ ื™ื™ื˜ื‘ ืœืš ื•ื‘ืืช ื•ื™ืจืฉืช ืืช ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื˜ื‘ื” ืืฉืจ ื ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืณ ืœืื‘ืชื™ืšืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•:ื™ื—

ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื˜ื•ื‘: ื–ื• ืคืฉืจื” [ื•]ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ.

ืจืฉืดื™, ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•:ื™ื—

ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ืŸ, ืชื‘ืจื• ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื”ื• ืฉืงื•ืœืื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ื—ืžืจื. ืฉืงืœ ืœื’ืœื™ืžื™ื™ื”ื•. ืืชื•, ืืžืจื• ืœืจื‘. ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”: ื”ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื’ืœื™ืžื™ื™ื”ื•! ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”: ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™? ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”: ืื™ืŸ; (ืžืฉืœื™ ื‘:ื›) ืœึฐืžึทืขึทืŸ ืชึผึตืœึตืšึฐ ื‘ึผึฐื“ึถืจึถืšึฐ ื˜ื•ึนื‘ึดื™ื. ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื’ืœื™ืžื™ื™ื”ื•. ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื”: ืขื ื™ื™ ืื ืŸ, ื•ื˜ืจื—ื™ื ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื” ื™ื•ืžื, ื•ื›ืคื™ื ืŸ, ื•ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ืžื™ื“ื™! ืืžืจ ืœื™ื”: ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื‘ ืื’ืจื™ื™ื”ื•. ืืดืœ: ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™? ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ; (ืžืฉืœื™ ื‘:ื›) ื•ึฐืื‡ืจึฐื—ื•ึนืช ืฆึทื“ึผึดื™ืงึดื™ื ืชึผึดืฉืึฐืžึนืจ.

ื‘ื‘ื ืžืฆื™ืขื ืคื’,ื

It is no doubt this pity which the Gibeonites lacked! I have the impression that I have come back to the theme evoked by Mr. Jankรฉlรฉvitch when he opened this colloquium, even though no one in this hall has asked that the descendants of our torturers be nailed to the rocks. The Talmud teaches that one cannot force men who demand retaliatory justice to grant forgiveness. It teaches us that Israel does not deny this imprescriptible right to others. But it teaches us above all that if Israel recognizes this right, it does not ask it for itself and that to be Israel is to not claim it [emphasis mine].

Emmanuel Levinas, Nine Talmudic Readings, Toward the Other, pp. 28-29

And when Israel fails to embrace ืจื—ืžื™ื in this sense, then Israel ceases to exist.

โ€ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื•ืŸโ€œ ื–ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ, ื“ืืžืจ ืจืณ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ: ืœื ื—ืจื‘ื” ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉื“ื ื• ื‘ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื”. ืืœื ื“ื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื’ื™ื–ืชื ืœื“ื™ื™ื ื•? ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ื”ื ืขืœ ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื”, ื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ.

ื‘ื‘ื ืžืฆื™ืขื ืœ,ื‘

(The following is based on my shiur on reparations: ืคืจืฉืช ื‘ื ืชืฉืขืดื–)

So, there is a right to justice, to revenge historic wrongs. But actually claiming that right is wrong. Are we to give up on justice altogether?

Letโ€™s look at a situation when ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ were in the opposite position. They were historically oppressed, looking for justice against the oppressor.

It was the fulfillment of a 400-year-old prophecy:

ื™ื’ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืื‘ืจื ื™ื“ืข ืชื“ืข ื›ื™ ื’ืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื–ืจืขืš ื‘ืืจืฅ ืœื ืœื”ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ื•ื ื•ืขื ื• ืืชื ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืฉื ื”ืƒ ื™ื“ ื•ื’ื ืืช ื”ื’ื•ื™ ืืฉืจ ื™ืขื‘ื“ื• ื“ืŸ ืื ื›ื™; ื•ืื—ืจื™ ื›ืŸ ื™ืฆืื• ื‘ืจื›ืฉ ื’ื“ื•ืœืƒ

ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืคืจืง ื˜ื•

But itโ€™s striking how the โ€œื™ืฆืื• ื‘ืจื›ืฉ ื’ื“ื•ืœโ€ is fulfilled:

ื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืฉื• ื›ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื”; ื•ื™ืฉืืœื• ืžืžืฆืจื™ื ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืฉืžืœืชืƒ ืœื• ื•ื”ืณ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื—ืŸ ื”ืขื ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืืœื•ื; ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• ืืช ืžืฆืจื™ืืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืช ืคืจืง ื™ื‘

I wonโ€™t deal with the implications of โ€œื•ื™ืฉืืœื• ืžืžืฆืจื™ืโ€; I will simply translate as โ€œasked fromโ€ rather than โ€œborrowed fromโ€. But what does ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• mean?

Rashi, based on the targum, translates it as โ€œemptiedโ€: โ€œthey emptied Egypt outโ€.

ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื•: ื•ืจื•ืงื™ื ื•.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืฉืžื•ืช ื™ื‘:ืœื•

The Baal HaTurim cites the Gemara (and connects it to a gematria, as is his wont):

ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• ืืช ืžืฆืจื™ื: ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื ืขืฉืื•ื” ื›ืžืฆื•ื“ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ื“ื’ืŸ (ื‘ืจื›ื•ืช ื˜,ื‘).

ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื•ืจื™ื, ืฉืžื•ืช ื™ื‘:ืœื•

But the problem with that is that the word ื ืฆืœ never means โ€œemptyโ€. It generally means โ€œsaveโ€. The Rashbam points out that there are other uses of the root to mean โ€œremove, take something from a place it does not belongโ€, which could go with the โ€œemptyโ€ meaning:

ื•ื™ืชื ืฆืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ืขื“ื™ื ืžื”ืจ ื—ื•ืจื‘ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืช ืœื’:ื•

ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• ืืช ืžืฆืจื™ื: ืขื“ื™ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืœื‘ื•ืฉื™ื”ืŸ ืฉืืœื• ื•ื ืชื ื• ืขืœ ื‘ื ื™ื”ื ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ื. ื•ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ โ€ื•ื™ืชื ืฆืœื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืช ืขื“ื™ื™ื ืžื”ืจ ื—ื•ืจื‘โ€œ.

ืจืฉื‘ืดื, ืฉืžื•ืช ื™ื‘:ืœื•

But thereโ€™s a problem with this. Look at all the other uses of the root ื ืฆืœ to mean โ€œtake off, plunderโ€:

ื•ื™ืฆืœ ืืœืงื™ื ืืช ืžืงื ื” ืื‘ื™ื›ื ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื™ืƒ

ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื:ื˜

ื•ื™ืขืŸ ื›ืœ ืื™ืฉ ืจืข ื•ื‘ืœื™ืขืœ ืžื”ืื ืฉื™ื ืืฉืจ ื”ืœื›ื• ืขื ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ื™ืขืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ื”ืœื›ื• ืขืžื™ ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžื”ืฉืœืœ ืืฉืจ ื”ืฆืœื ื•; ื›ื™ ืื ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืืฉืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื™ื ื”ื’ื• ื•ื™ืœื›ื•ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืœ:ื›ื‘

ื•ื™ื‘ื ื™ื”ื•ืฉืคื˜ ื•ืขืžื• ืœื‘ื– ืืช ืฉืœืœื ื•ื™ืžืฆืื• ื‘ื”ื ืœืจื‘ ื•ืจื›ื•ืฉ ื•ืคื’ืจื™ื ื•ื›ืœื™ ื—ืžื“ื•ืช ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• ืœื”ื ืœืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื; ื•ื™ื”ื™ื• ื™ืžื™ื ืฉืœื•ืฉื” ื‘ื–ื–ื™ื ืืช ื”ืฉืœืœ ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื‘ ื›:ื›ื”

In each case (except the last which does not have an object), the object of the verb ื ืฆืœ is the thing taken or โ€œsavedโ€, not the place it was taken from. In English thatโ€™s not a problem; one can โ€œempty a potโ€ or โ€œempty the water from a potโ€, and โ€œplunder a bankโ€ or โ€œplunder the goldโ€, but to have a use of a verb in ืชื ืดืš that doesnโ€™t correspond to anything else is problematic. Ibn Ezra notices the problem, but isnโ€™t bothered:

[ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื•] ืคื•ืขืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืฉื ื™ ืคืขื•ืœื™ื.

ืื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื, ื”ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ื”ืงืฆืจ, ืฉืžื•ืช ื™ื‘:ืœื•

The Mechilta translates it as โ€œsavedโ€: ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ โ€œsavedโ€ the Egyptians by taking their gold and silver ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”:

ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• ืืช ืžืฆืจื™ื: ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืœื”ื ื ืชื›ืช ื•ื‘ื˜ืœื” ื•ื—ื–ืจื” ืœืชื—ืœื”.

ืžื›ื™ืœืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ื, ืžืกื›ืชื ื“ืคืกื—ื ืคืจืฉื” ื™ื’

The most insightful translation in my opinion (based on Rabbi Sacks) is from Benno Jacob. Jacob was an interesting character; he was a staunch Reform rabbi (1862-1945) (he never met a mitzvah he didnโ€™t despise) but wrote a very traditionalist, anti-Documentary Hypothesis, commentary on Chumash. Jacob translates ื•ื™ื ืฆืœื• as โ€œsavedโ€ but with a twist:

Kn. and Di. interpretation โ€œthey pulled the Egyptians out, i.e., they looted the objects which they demandedโ€, represents a Germanization (entzogen), for only in that language is it possible to equate โ€œpull outโ€ with โ€œplunderโ€: this has no relationship to our Hebrew text. Even if we assumed they โ€œrescuedโ€ objects which were legitimately theirs, they should have been the object, not mitz-ra-yim.

We can only translate this phrase as โ€œand they saved Egyptโ€. This does not refer to the Egyptian fear of death (our statement follows the last plague), nor was it concerned with the earlier plagues, which they deserved as they had not helped the Israelites. Rather they were saved from the future destructive hate of G-d and any final vengeance. [emphasis mine]

Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, 12:35-36

The key to understanding ื•ื™ืฉืืœื• ืžืžืฆืจื™ื ื›ืœื™ ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืฉืžืœืช is that these โ€œgiftsโ€ are reparations. They allow ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ to leave Egypt without hating the Egyptians, without always looking for revenge. Rabbi Sacks connects this to a mitzvah in ื›ื™ ืชืฆื:

ืœื ืชืชืขื‘ ืื“ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืื—ื™ืš ื”ื•ื; ืœื ืชืชืขื‘ ืžืฆืจื™ ื›ื™ ื’ืจ ื”ื™ื™ืช ื‘ืืจืฆื•ืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ื’:ื—

Now, forty years later, Moses speaks as if none of this had happened, as if the Israelites owed the Egyptians a debt of gratitude for their hospitality. Yet he and the people were where they were only because they were escaping from Egyptian persecution. Nor did he want the people to forget it. To the contrary, he told them to recite the story of the exodus every year, as we still do on Passover, re-enacting it with bitter herbs and unleavened bread so that the memory would be passed on to all future generations. If you want to preserve freedom, he implies, never forget what it feels like to lose it. Yet here, on the banks of the Jordan, addressing the next generation, he tells the people, โ€œDo not hate an Egyptianโ€. What is going on in this verse?

To be free, you have to let go of hate. That is what Moses is saying. If they continued to hate their erstwhile enemies, Moses would have taken the Israelites out of Egypt, but he would not have taken Egypt out of the Israelites. Mentally, they would still be there, slaves to the past. They would still be in chains, not of metal but of the mindโ€”and chains of the mind are the most constricting of all.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Ki Tetse (5772)โ€”Letting Go of Hate

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The victim of injustice needs closure to go on with their life. There are three ways to achieve closure: reconciliation, revenge and reparation. Reconciliation, forgiving the perpetrator and just letting go of the past, is impossible for most people in egregious cases. Revenge works, but not long term:

Arguably, revenge could also serve the function of closure for the individual; a possibility wholly excluded and deemed outside the acceptable range of discourse of the South African TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission]. Equally, revenge could also serve as a way of perpetuating violence and in so doing trap the individual in the liminal space.

Brandon Hamber and Richard A. Wilson, Symbolic Closure through Memory, Reparation and Revenge in Post-conflict Societies, pp 5-6

The word liminal comes from the Latin word limen, meaning thresholdโ€”any point or place of entering or beginning. A liminal space is the time between the โ€˜what wasโ€™ and the โ€˜next.โ€™ It is a place of transition, waiting, and not knowing.

What Is A Liminal Space?

Reparation literally means โ€œrepairโ€, but it is not undoing the injustice but allowing the victim to feel that justice has been served.

Reparations are one of the main means by which truth commissions and similar processes seek to achieve national and individual reconciliation, and they result in common psychological consequences in each case. Psychologically speaking, the so-called symbolic acts of reparation such as reburials, and material acts of reparation such as payments, serve the same end. Both these forms of reparation can, although not necessarily, play an important role in processes of opening space for bereavement, addressing trauma and ritualising symbolic closure. They acknowledge and recognise the individualโ€™s suffering and place it within a new officially sanctioned history of trauma.

Brandon Hamber and Richard A. Wilson, Symbolic Closure through Memory, Reparation and Revenge in Post-conflict Societies, p. 6

[I]f the desire for vengeance grips the survivor, then accepting paltry reparations can also be experienced by the survivor as a disrespectful act that betrays the loss they have endured or the memory of those killed. In essence, rituals of respect (such as retribution through the courts) and remembering can be broken by reparations, just as they can in some cases serve as a symbol of mending.

Brandon Hamber and Richard A. Wilson, Symbolic Closure through Memory, Reparation and Revenge in Post-conflict Societies, p. 18

In order for reparations to work, both the perpetrator and the victim have to feel that the reparations are just and proportionate. In Egypt, the perpetrators were subject to ื”ืณโ€™s open miracle: ื•ื”ืณ ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื—ืŸ ื”ืขื ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื. For the Jews, for us, it is our responsibility to let go of hate: ืœื ืชืชืขื‘ ืžืฆืจื™.

And this concept becomes part of the ongoing halacha:

ื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ืœืš ืื—ื™ืš ื”ืขื‘ืจื™ ืื• ื”ืขื‘ืจื™ื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ืš ืฉืฉ ืฉื ื™ื; ื•ื‘ืฉื ื” ื”ืฉื‘ื™ืขืช ืชืฉืœื—ื ื• ื—ืคืฉื™ ืžืขืžืšืƒ ื™ื’ ื•ื›ื™ ืชืฉืœื—ื ื• ื—ืคืฉื™ ืžืขืžืš ืœื ืชืฉืœื—ื ื• ืจื™ืงืืƒ ื™ื“ ื”ืขื ื™ืง ืชืขื ื™ืง ืœื• ืžืฆืื ืš ื•ืžื’ืจื ืš ื•ืžื™ืงื‘ืš; ืืฉืจ ื‘ืจื›ืš ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™ืš ืชืชืŸ ืœื•ืƒ ื˜ื• ื•ื–ื›ืจืช ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื™ื™ืช ื‘ืืจืฅ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ื™ืคื“ืš ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™ืš; ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืื ื›ื™ ืžืฆื•ืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ืืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืคืจืง ื˜ื•

And it continues to matter in Jewish history:

Is it possible to be bought off by such trinkets, to take mere money in exchange for the memory of those tortured or killed? Such was the argument of Menachem Begin with David Ben-Gurion at the beginning of relations between the new Germany and the start-up nation of Israel after World War II. Begin felt that to accept monetary reparations for Holocaust suffering was unacceptable: Donโ€™t let them use a โ€œgiftโ€ to purify their tainted souls.

Ben-Gurion felt differently. The money from Germany was not just compensation for stolen property and lost lives, but a necessary step in financing growth of the new land. Also, if Israel was to join the community of nations, it would need to have interaction with the Germans. To do so, Germans would need a way to apologize for the unforgivable, and Israel would need to accept such an apology, even if offered as a gift wrapped in cash.

Lawrence F. Layfer, Gifts and Forgiveness

The Givonim said, ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื–ื”ื‘ ืขื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืขื ื‘ื™ืชื•. They only wanted the descendants of Shaul dead. That demonstrated their lack of ืจื—ืžื™ื, and so ื•ื”ื’ื‘ืขื ื™ื ืœื ืžื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ, forevermore.