Save "Bein Adam Lachaveyro: Shiur #1 

Embarrassing Other's
"
Bein Adam Lachaveyro: Shiur #1 Embarrassing Other's

Part 1: Biblical Sources for the prohibition

(א) וְלֹֽא־יָכֹ֨ל יוֹסֵ֜ף לְהִתְאַפֵּ֗ק לְכֹ֤ל הַנִּצָּבִים֙ עָלָ֔יו וַיִּקְרָ֕א הוֹצִ֥יאוּ כָל־אִ֖ישׁ מֵעָלָ֑י וְלֹא־עָ֤מַד אִישׁ֙ אִתּ֔וֹ בְּהִתְוַדַּ֥ע יוֹסֵ֖ף אֶל־אֶחָֽיו׃ (ב) וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ בִּבְכִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמְע֣וּ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹֽה׃ (ג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

(1) Joseph could no longer control himself before all his attendants, and he cried out, “Have everyone withdraw from me!” So there was no one else about when Joseph made himself known to his brothers. (2) His sobs were so loud that the Egyptians could hear, and so the news reached Pharaoh’s palace. (3) Joseph said to his brothers, “I am Joseph. Is my father still well?” But his brothers could not answer him, so dumfounded were they on account of him.

(כד) וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּמִשְׁלֹ֣שׁ חֳדָשִׁ֗ים וַיֻּגַּ֨ד לִֽיהוּדָ֤ה לֵֽאמֹר֙ זָֽנְתָה֙ תָּמָ֣ר כַּלָּתֶ֔ךָ וְגַ֛ם הִנֵּ֥ה הָרָ֖ה לִזְנוּנִ֑ים וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָ֔ה הוֹצִיא֖וּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵֽף׃ (כה) הִ֣וא מוּצֵ֗את וְהִ֨יא שָׁלְחָ֤ה אֶל־חָמִ֙יהָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֵ֣לֶּה לּ֔וֹ אָנֹכִ֖י הָרָ֑ה וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַכֶּר־נָ֔א לְמִ֞י הַחֹתֶ֧מֶת וְהַפְּתִילִ֛ים וְהַמַּטֶּ֖ה הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

(24) About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot; in fact, she is with child by harlotry.” “Bring her out,” said Judah, “and let her be burned.” (25) As she was being brought out, she sent this message to her father-in-law, “I am with child by the man to whom these belong.” And she added, “Examine these: whose seal and cord and staff are these?”

א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י: נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, כה) היא מוצאת והיא שלחה אל חמיה אמר רב חננא בריה דרב אידי מאי דכתיב (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות אל תונהו אמר רב לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה.

It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease [damu]” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood [dami] would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting. And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e., halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression. And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25). § Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate.

(א) אלה הדברים. לְפִי שֶׁהֵן דִּבְרֵי תוֹכָחוֹת וּמָנָה כָאן כָּל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁהִכְעִיסוּ לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ סָתַם אֶת הַדְּבָרִים וְהִזְכִּירָם בְּרֶמֶז מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (עי' ספרי)

(1) אלה הדברים THESE ARE THE WORDS — Because these are words of reproof and he is enumerating here all the places where they provoked God to anger, therefore he suppresses all mention of the matters in which they sinned and refers to them only by a mere allusion contained in the names of these places out of regard for Israel (cf. Sifrei Devarim 1:1; Onkelos and Targum Jonathan). (2) אל כל ישראל [THE WORDS WHICH HE SPAKE] TO ALL ISRAEL — If he had reproved only some of them, those who were then in the street (i.e. those who were absent) might have said, “You heard from the son of Amram, and did not answer a single word regarding this and that; had we been there, we would have given him an answer!". On this account he assembled all of them, and said to them, "See, you are all here: he who has anything to say in reply, let him reply!” (Sifrei Devarim 1:6-7). (3) במדבר IN THE WILDERNESS — They, however,‎‎were not then in the wilderness, but in the plains of Moab (cf. Numbers 36:13 and further on verse 5): What, therefore, is the meaning of במדבר? It does not mean "in the wilderness”, but the meaning is: he reproved them on account of that wherein they had provoked Him to anger in the wilderness — that they said, (Exodus 16:3) “Would that we had died [by the hand of the Lord]” (cf. Sifrei Devarim 1:11). (4) בערבה IN THE PLAIN — i.e. he reproved them regarding the plain: that they had sinned through Baal Peor at Shittim in the plains of Moab (cf. Sifrei Devarim 1:13) (5) מול סוף OVER AGAINST SUPH — i.e. he reproved them regarding that in which they had shown themselves rebellious at the Red Sea (סוף): viz., on their arrival at the Red Sea — that they said, (Exodus 14:11) “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt [that thou hast brought us to die in the wilderness?]"; and similarly when they left the midst of the Sea, as it is said, (Psalms 106:7) “They murmured because of the Sea, at the Red Sea”, as it is related in Treatise Arakhin 15a (cf. Rashi on Numbers 14:22 and Sifrei 1:14). (6) בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן BETWEEN PARAN, AND TOPHEL AND LABAN — R. Jochanan said: We have gone through the whole Bible and we have found no place the name of which is Tophel or Laban! But the meaning is that he reproved them because of the calumnious statements (טפלו) they had made regarding the Manna which was white (לבן) in colour — that they said, (Numbers 21:5) “And our soul loathes this light bread”; and because of what they had done in the wilderness of Paran through the spies. (7) וחצרת AND HAZEROTH — i.e. regarding wh‎at they had done there at the insurrection of Korah. — Another explanation: He said to them, “You ought to have taken a lesson from what I did to Miriam at Hazeroth because of the slander she uttered, and yet you even after that spoke against the Omnipresent (Sifrei Devarim 1:15). (8) ודי זהב AND DI ZAHAB (the name is taken in the sense of “sufficiency of gold”) — He reproved them on account of the golden calf which they had made in consequence of the abundance of gold which they had, as it is said, (Hosea 2:10) “And silver did I give them in abundance and gold: they, however, made it into a Baal” (cf. Berakhot 32a; Sifrei Devarim 1:18).
Ketubot 67b: Mar Ukba had a poor man in his neighbourhood into whose door socket he used to throw four coins every day. Once the poor man thought, “I will go and see who does me this kindness.” That day Mar Ukba stayed late at the house of study and his wife was coming home with him. As soon as the poor man saw them moving the door [to leave the coins] he ran out after them, but they fled from him and hid. Why did they do this? Because it was taught: One should throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than publicly put his neighbour to shame.

(יז) לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃

(17) You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him.

Part 2: The Super - Severity of the prohibition

בבא מציעא נט:ב
נוח לו לאדם שיבא על ספק אשת איש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים...

(יא) רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא:

(11) Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covenant of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come.

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים רבי חנינא...כל היורדין לגיהנם עולים חוץ משלשה שיור דין ואין עולין ואלו הן הבא על אשת איש והמלבין פני חבירו ברבים והמכנה שם רע לחבירו מכנה היינו מלבין.

The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to Gehenna? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe.
Rabeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuva (3:139):
The Talmud should be taken literally. Embarassing others is included in the prohibition of murder...and one must sarifice his life for it.
A proof: The Sages did not make such statements in connection with other severe transgressions..."
This question is asked by Tosafot in Sota 10b explains that it is not recorded in the list because it is a prohibition not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the list of three only records explicitly-mentioned prohibitions.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was a modern posek who also took this prohibition literally.
On the other hand many Rishonim like the Meiri, and the Rambam do not take the language of the Talmud literally.
Part 3: Halachik Detals:
Private Embarassing: Embarassing To inspire change?
The Chafetz Chayim: Negative 14, Be'er Mayim Chayim:
If one speaks to a sinner in a harsh manner, to the extent that he becomes embarrassed, even in private, then one transgresses this prohibition. This is also clear from the wording of the beraita, which states that "if his face changes color, he transgresses," implying that in all situations of embarrassing others, even privately, one violates this prohibition.

(ח) הַמּוֹכִיחַ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ תְּחִלָּה לֹא יְדַבֵּר לוֹ קָשׁוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּכְלִימֶנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יז) "וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא". כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יָכוֹל אַתָּה מוֹכִיחוֹ וּפָנָיו מִשְׁתַּנּוֹת תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא. מִכָּאן שֶׁאָסוּר לָאָדָם לְהַכְלִים אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בָּרַבִּים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּכְלִים אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו עָוֹן גָּדוֹל הוּא. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים (גמרא סנהדרין קז א) "הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא". לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ אָדָם לְהִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לְבַיֵּשׁ חֲבֵרוֹ בָּרַבִּים בֵּין קָטָן בֵּין גָּדוֹל. וְלֹא יִקְרָא לוֹ בְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא בּוֹשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא יְסַפֵּר לְפָנָיו דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בּוֹשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ. אֲבָל בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁמַיִם אִם לֹא חָזַר בּוֹ בַּסֵּתֶר מַכְלִימִין אוֹתוֹ בָּרַבִּים וּמְפַרְסְמִים חֶטְאוֹ וּמְחָרְפִים אוֹתוֹ בְּפָנָיו וּמְבַזִּין וּמְקַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר לַמּוּטָב כְּמוֹ שֶׁעָשׂוּ כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:

(8) He who rebukes a friend, at the beginning, no hard words should be used against him to shame him, for it is said: "And thou shalt bear no sin upon him" (Lev. 19.17). Thus did the wise men say: "Understand it not by rebuking him thou mayest cause his countenance to change expression; for, it is said: 'And thou shalt bear no sin upon him'" (Ibid.; Arakin, 16b); herefrom we learn that it is forbidden to put an Israelite to shame, needless to say publicly. Although he who does put his fellow to shame is not flogged, it is a grievous sin. Even so did the wise men say: "He who publicly puts his fellow's countenance to shame has no share in the world to come" (Pirke Abot, 3.15). A man is, therefore obliged to guard himself against putting his fellow to shame publicly, regardless of whether he be young or old; not to call him by a name of which he feels ashamed, nor tell aught in his presence of which he is ashamed. However, all these refer to matters touching the relationship between man and man; but if it concern heavenly matters, if the sinner does not repent after being rebuked privately, he should be shamed publicly, and his sin should be proclaimed, and harsh words should be used in his presence, and he should be shamed and cursed till he repent and take up the good path, even as all of the prophets in Israel did with the wicked.8Baba Mezi’a 59a; Yoma, 86b. C. G.

The Tiferet Yisrael (Avot 3:15) explains:
Those who embarrass others accept divine creation, but deny that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, they think nothing of embarrassing their fellow man. The entire concept of human dignity is predicated on the belief of a divinely-endowed soul.
The Chinukh (Mitzva 239), on the other hand, is much more willing to allow one to embarrass others, if necessary, for the sake of improving their behavior.
"They teach in the Sifra, “One might think that the obligation of rebuke applies even if the other’s face pales; the Torah therefore states, ‘You shall not bear sin on his account.’” This teaches that initially when one reproves another, he should do so in privacy with soft language and gentle words, so that the other will not be abashed. Still, there is no doubt that if the other does not discontinue at this point, the sinner is to be disgraced in public, his misdeed made widely known, and he vilified until he returns to the good, proper path."
A practical example:
Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 228, Section 5 rules: “One must take care not to call one’s friend an offensive nickname. Even if the individual is accustomed to being called this name, if one’s intention is to shame him, this is forbidden.”
The Gemara in Megillah writes that refraining from calling others by names can grant a person long life. Doesn't this imply that this a "bonus".
We can distinguish between making up a mean najme for someone and calling someone a name he doesn't love-but all call him by that....
Q)What if he prefers his nickname?
A) The Talmud itself is replete with nick-names (Like Sharp one") So it seems it is all subjective... and depends on the context of the name calling.
Part 4: Storytime!
Kiddush over wine. There are a number of opinions recorded as to the reason behind this practice. Both the Rosh (Pesachim 10:3) and his son the Tur (OC 271) quote a passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi (not found in our versions) which provides a fascinating reason, explaining that we do this “so that the bread will not see its embarrassment."
A story is told about the Chafetz Chayim who was invited to the home of a local Jew on his travels to other communities. Knowing that they were having an important guest, the hosts ensured that everything in the house would be perfect. Understandably, much of the workload fell on the wife. As the husband returned home from prayers with the Chafetz Chayim, the smell of the Shabbat meal was enticing, and the table was truly immaculate. However, there was one thing missing: the challa lay on the table, uncovered. The husband, afraid to be considered an ignoramus by the great Chafetz Chayim, looked for his wife. He found her asleep on the floor, exhausted by the preparations for Shabbat. Rather than thank his wife for outdoing herself, he scolded her: “Don't you know we cover the challa? How could you forget?"
The Chafetz Chayim, who was famed for his consideration of others, was not bothered by the uncovered challa; rather, he was taken aback by the callousness with which the husband had treated his wife, specifically under these circumstances. The Chafetz Chayim asked the husband, "Why is it that we cover the challa?"
The husband, wanting to show off his knowledge, explained with pride, "Why, it is so the bread will not see its embarrassment."
The Chafetz Chayim continued, "Exactly. But what embarrassment does the bread feel compared to the embarrassment of flesh and blood? What of your wife, who has slaved over preparing a meal that you intended to make you look hospitable? If the bread must not be embarrassed, how much more so must you care about your wife's embarrassment! It would be best to trade your contempt for praise; commend your wife for outdoing herself."
The story goes that Rabbi Akiva Eger once had a poor man over to his home as one of his many Friday night guests. The Shabbat table was adorned with a beautiful white tablecloth. During the meal, as the poor man lifted his glass of wine, it accidentally slipped out of his hand and stained the pure white cloth. Seeing the poor man squirming in embarrassment, Rabbi Eger immediately knocked over his own glass of wine, "accidentally" spilling it over the tablecloth. As the poor man looked on in great relief, Rabbi Eger remarked, "It seems as if the table is very shaky, isn't it? I must apologize! We are going to have to have it fixed."
The tale is told of Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin (1818-1898), one of the leaders of the Old Yishuv after arriving in Jerusalem in 1878 from Russia. Rabbi Diskin suffered from diabetes in his later years and once while teaching Torah his attendant prepared him a glass of tea. To replenish the sugars in his body, he heaped teaspoons of sugar into the tea and placed the glass in front of Rabbi Diskin. Alas, the attendant mistakenly put salt instead of sugar in the tea! Rabbi Diskin did not flinch, he drank the salty tea despite the awful taste and notwithstanding the health risk for a diabetic. Later the students discovered what had transpired and they questioned Rabbi Diskin: "How could you have endangered yourself by drinking the salty tea?" He explained that he preferred to drink the dreadful tea and risk his life rather than embarrass the attendant. When relating the story the famous storyteller of Jerusalem, Rabbi Sholom Mordechai Hakohen Schwadron (1912-1997) explained: For Rabbi Diskin it was indeed "preferable" to drink the salty tea rather than embarrass the attendant. So preferable was it that his body must not have felt the salty tea! While Rabbi Diskin's conduct might be beyond many of us; it certainly sets a standard for which we can strive. Perhaps we can offer a further angle on the talmudic passage, given that we are rarely faced with the choice of risking our lives or embarrassing another. While fiery furnaces are not a regular feature of our lives, the challenge of not embarrassing others is all too prevalent: The thought of shaming another person should be so scathing, our insides should burn with disgust, so much so that we prefer to jump into temporal fires rather than scorch our soul by embarrassing another.
Rabbi Boruch Ber and his wife often had guests at their Shabbos table. Rav Boruch Ber's wife would first serve everyone their food, and would she would then herself sit down at the table. One Shabbos, as his wife was still serving the cholent (a hot dish primarily served on the afternoon of Shabbos), and Rav Boruch Ber had already been served his cholent, Rav Boruch tasted his food, quickly ate his portion, and then asked for more. He soon finished his second portion and asked for a third helping. He continued to ask for more cholent. As this behavior was very uncharacteristic of Rav Boruch Ber, his wife realized that something was going on. She came to the table to find that everyone other than her husband had barely touched the cholent. She tasted her portion of cholent and spit it out. It tasted so awful that she could not understand how her husband had found it so tasty.
However, in reality, Rav Boruch Ber had not found the food to be tasty at all. After he had tasted the cholent he had immediately realized that his wife had accidentally poured kerosene instead of oil into the cholent. He knew that his wife would be very embarrassed if she discovered her mistake. He had therefore tried to consume the entire pot of cholent so as to spare his wife the potential embarrassment!
Before examining the steps specific to atoning for embarrassment, we must assess whether or not it is even possible to do Teshuva:
  1. According to the Gemara, one embarrasses another publicly descends to Hell and never ascends[22]. This seems to imply that the punishment is final with no chance for Teshuva.
  2. However, Tosafot explain that the Gemara is only talking about if you didn’t do Teshuva, because Teshuva helps for everything. [23
While the steps enumerated above are the standard steps of completing Teshuva, there are specific steps required to atone for embarrassment:
  1. You must try to appease your friend at an opportune time, or until he agrees to listen to you. You must then feel you friend’s pain in your heart and resolve not to embarrass others. Finally, if one embarrasses you in the future, you should not feel upset, rather you should view it as fair. [26]
  2. One should give gifts to the person they oppressed as a means of making amends. One should give Mishloach Manot to the person on Purim, or confront them before Yom Kippur when they’re more likely to listen. One may also have friends help him lay the groundwork for his apology. [27]
  3. “If the humiliation took place in the presence of others, make your apology in their presence, as well as in private. Otherwise the victim has the right to say, “You shamed me in front of others, and now you want to apologize in private. Bring me all the people who heard you embarrass me, and then I will accept your apology.” [28]