Unit 2: Rebuke (תוכחה)

2022 Collegiate Moot Court Competition: Shortened Sourcebook

In the previous unit, we explored the mitzvah to judge a person favorably. We will now turn our attention to a related question: is there a responsibility to speak up when seeing someone act inappropriately? Must one give rebuke if they feel intimidated about speaking up? Is it ever better to remain silent rather than give rebuke?
The mitzvah to give rebuke appears in the same context as the obligation to judge favorably. Since rebuke is essential to understanding our case, we will explore this obligation from a number of perspectives. As you read these sources, reflect on the ways in which the parameters of the mitzvah relate to the specific details of our case.

I. The Source

ויקרא י״ט:ט״ו-י״ח

(טו) לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֙וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ׃ (טז) לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃ (יז) לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃ (יח) לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃

Leviticus 19:15-18

15 You shall not perform injustice in judgement: do not favor the poor or show deference to the powerful; with righteousness shall you judge your kinsman. 16 Do not gossip among your people; do not stand by the blood of your fellow: I am God. 17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your kinsman, and you shall not bear a sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance, and you shall not bear a grudge against your people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am God.

How do you understand the connection between the three mitzvot in verse 17?
What is the relationship between rebuke (verse 17), and the mitzvah to love your neighbor as yourself (verse 18)?

Immediately after the commandment to give rebuke, the Torah warns “not bear a sin because of him.” The commentaries on this verse offer multiple possibilities about what sin the Torah is warning about. In doing so, each of the following three commentaries articulates a different way of understanding the mitzvah to rebuke.

רש"י על ויקרא י״ט:י״ז

ולא תשא עליו חטא. לֹא תַלְבִּין אֶת פָּנָיו בָּרַבִּים (עי' ספרא):

Rashi on Leviticus 19:17

You shall not bear a sin because of him: Do not embarrass him publicly.

Moshe ben Nachman (1194-1270), also known as Ramban, was a leading Torah scholar who lived in Spain and Israel. He wrote influential commentaries on the Torah and Talmud. Ramban also defended the Jewish people during the Disputation of Barcelona.

Rashi’s understanding is that “you shall not bear a sin because of him” is a warning not to rebuke someone in a public manner. In this reading, the first part of the verse teaches the mitzvah to rebuke, while the second half of the verse warns us not to take the rebuke too far by embarrassing the individual.

According to Rashi’s interpretation, what might have one assumed about the mitzvah of rebuke before reading the final clause in verse 17?

רמב"ן על ויקרא י״ט:י״ז

"ולא תשא עליו חטא" שיהיה עליך אשם כאשר יחטא ולא הוכחת אותו… ויאמר הכתוב אל תשנא את אחיך בלבבך בעשותו לך שלא כרצונך אבל תוכיחנו מדוע ככה עשית עמדי ולא תשא עליו חטא לכסות שנאתו בלבך ולא תגיד לו כי בהוכיחך אותו יתנצל לך או ישוב ויתודה על חטאו ותכפר לו

Ramban on Leviticus 19:17

Do not bear since because of him: for you will bear sin because of his transgression if you do not rebuke him… The verse is saying: do not hate your brother in your heart when he does something against your will, but instead you should offer rebuke, saying, “Why did you do this to me?” You will not bear sin because of him by covering up your hatred of him in your heart and not telling him, for when you rebuke him, he will apologize to you, or he will regret his action and admit his sin, and you will forgive him.

According to Ramban, the verse is articulating the importance of giving rebuke, rather than keeping any hatred bottled up inside. The beginning of the verse warns against harboring the hatred internally. By speaking up, Ramban argues that rebuke has the potential to lead to a peaceful resolution. If done properly, it can lead to healing and love, which is why the following verse includes the mitzvah to love your neighbor as yourself.

According to Ramban, how should one understand the progression from verse 16 to verse 17, and then to verse 18?

The third perspective on this verse comes from Keli Yakar.

Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz (1550-1619) was the rabbi of Prague. He is most known for his commentary on the Torah known as Keli Yakar, which means "precious object" (Proverbs 20:15).

כלי יקר על ויקרא י״ט:י״ז

ולפי שנאמר ולא תשא עליו חטא מכלל שאם לא תוכיחו אז יהיה חטאו נשוא עליך וזה לפי שכל ישראל ערבים זה בעד זה, והמלוה לחבירו ונותן לו ערב בזמן שהערב רואה שהלוה מפזר ממונו הוא מוכיחו מיראת הערבות פן יצטרך לשלם בעבורו, כך הערבות של כל ישראל גורם התוכחה ואם אינו מקבלה אזי נקי הוא ממנו כי אין שורת הדין נותן שיסבול אחד בעד חבירו שאינו ברשותו, אך בדבר זה לבד נעשו ישראל ערבים שבזמן שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה אז דין הוא שיתפס בעבורו וישא עליו חטאו אם לא יוכיחו משל משלו בזה במי שקודח בספינה תחתיו צעקו עליו כל אנשי הספינה מה זו אתה עושה, השיב להם הלא תחתי אני קודח אמרו לו אם יכנסו המים תחתיך אז תטבע הספינה מכל וכל.

Kli Yakar on Leviticus 19:17

Since it is written, “you shall not bear a sin because of him,” it implies that failure to rebuke will result in the sin being carried by you, for all of Israel are responsible for one another. One who acts as a guarantor for a loan and sees that the borrower is wasting money fears being held responsible due to their guarantee, and will therefore rebuke the borrower; so too, the responsibility for all Israel should motivate in rebuking a sinner. After the rebuke, one can no longer be held responsible for his fellow's transgression, as strict justice will not allow someone to suffer for their fellow’s actions. Only when one has the ability to protest and fails to do so will they be held responsible. A related parable is that of a passenger on a ship drilling a hole under their seat. The fellow passengers yell at him: “What are you doing?!” The driller responds, “Am I not drilling under my seat?” They will reply, “If water enters under your seat, the whole ship will sink together.”

According to Keli Yakar, the sin being described in verse 17 refers to the culpability a person will have if they do not rebuke. Just like the passengers on the boat, we are all in it together. If someone is transgressing the Torah, I have the responsibility to intervene, since our fates are tied together.

How is the metaphor of drilling on the boat relevant to the discussion of rebuke? Do you think it is an appropriate metaphor?
Which of the three interpretations fits best into the context of these verses?
How do each of these three interpretations affect how the student committee should structure the Defeating Discrimination call-out page?

II. The Limits of Rebuking

The following sources explore the parameters of the mitzvah to rebuke.

ערכין ט״ז ב

מנין לרואה בחבירו דבר מגונה שחייב להוכיחו שנאמר (ויקרא יט, יז) הוכח תוכיח הוכיחו ולא קבל מנין שיחזור ויוכיחנו תלמוד לומר תוכיח מכל מקום יכול אפי' משתנים פניו ת"ל לא תשא עליו חטא

Arakhin 16b

From where is it derived that one who sees their peer doing something improper, one needs to rebuke them? It is stated: “You shall surely rebuke your kinsman.” If one rebuked but it was not accepted, from where is it derived that one must return and rebuke again? The verse states: “rebuke” [the Hebrew contains the word rebuke twice]. One might have thought that one should continue rebuking even if their face changes color due to humiliation. Therefore, the verse states: “Do not bear sin because of him.”

The Talmud states from the double language of rebuke in verse 17 (“הוכח תוכיח”), we derive the obligation to rebuke multiple times. However, the final clause in the verse puts an important limit on the mitzvah: one should not rebuke in a way which causes embarrassment.

Based on this passage, is it ever appropriate to rebuke someone in a way which causes embarrassment? Why or why not?
This Gemara says that one who sees their fellow doing something improper must rebuke them. Returning to our case, how might this apply to one who saw someone acting improperly on a video, though did not witness the act itself? Would there be the same obligation to rebuke? Why or why not?

The severity of causing humiliation appears elsewhere in the Talmud. In one striking passage, the transgression of causing public humiliation is likened to murder.

בבא מציעא נ״ח ב:י״א-י״ב

תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים א"ל שפיר קא אמרת דחזינא ליה דאזיל סומקא ואתי חוורא

Bava Metzia 58b:11-12

A tanna taught before Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: Anyone who humiliates another person in public, it is as though they spilled their blood. [Rav Nahman] said to [the tanna]: You have spoken well, as we see [when a person is humiliated] the red leaves their face and they become pale.

Do you agree with this statement that humiliation is akin to murder? What is Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak trying to convey? Is this hyperbole—why or why not?

This passage from Arakhin on rebuke continues below, and transitions into the difficulty of rebuking someone properly.

ערכין ט״ז ב:י״א

תניא א"ר טרפון (תמיהני) אני אם יש בדור הזה שמקבל תוכחה אם אמר לו טול קיסם מבין עיניך אמר לו טול קורה מבין עיניך אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה תמיהני אם יש בדור הזה שיודע להוכיח.

Arakhin 16b:11

It was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said: I would be amazed if there is anyone in this generation who can receive rebuke. If the one rebuking says: Remove the splinter from between your eyes, the other will reply: Remove the beam from between your eyes! Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke.

רש"י על ערכין ט״ז ב:ו׳:ב׳

שיודע להוכיח - דרך כבוד שלא יהו פניו משתנין

קיסם - כלומר עון קטן שבידך זה יכול לומר לו טול אתה עון גדול שבידך הלכך אין יכולין להוכיח שכולן חוטאים

Rashi on Arakhin 16b:6:2

Who knows how to rebuke respectfully, without causing the person’s face to change color [in embarrassment].

Splinter, meaning a small transgression. The other person could say, you have committed an even larger transgression! Therefore no one could rebuke, since everyone has transgressed.

While the obligation to give rebuke is clear from the Torah, this passage reflects that it is easier said than done—both regarding giving rebuke, and receiving it, too. On the one hand, rebuking in a way that does not cause embarrassment is extremely difficult. Moreover, there is a vulnerability in that we are all guilty of something. When we try to rebuke someone, they can bring to light that we are in no position to rebuke them.

How can one rebuke in a way which does not cause embarrassment?
None of us are perfect, as Rabbi Tarfon pointed out above. Given this reality, how is rebuke ever possible? How can we rebuke in a way which reflects our own fallibility?

III. Taking Impact into Consideration

The next question we will address is whether one must give rebuke when the person knows that it will not be listened to. Does the fact that it won’t lead to a change in behavior affect the obligation to give rebuke?
The two passages below seem to take different approaches to this question.

יבמות ס״ה ב:ו׳

כשם שמצוה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה על אדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע רבי אבא אומר חובה שנאמר (משלי ט, ח) אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

Yevamot 65b:6

Just as it is a mitzvah for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzvah for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. Rabbi Abba says: this is obligatory, as it is stated: “Do not rebuke a scorner lest they hate you; rebuke a wise person and they will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).

שבת נ״ה א:ד׳

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי סִימוֹן: לוֹכְחִינְהוּ מָר לְהָנֵי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מְקַבְּלִי מִינַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי לוֹכְחִינְהוּ מָר.

Shabbat 55a:4

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master rebuke the members of the house of the Exilarch. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept rebuke from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master rebuke them even if they do not accept it.

The passage from Yevamot states that sometimes it is a mitzvah to remain silent than to give rebuke. However, the passage from Shabbat indicates that one should offer rebuke even if it will go unheeded.

What is the goal of giving rebuke? Is it ever worthwhile to give rebuke even if it does not lead to change? Why?
What does the passage in Yevamot mean when it says that at times it is a mitzvah to not say something?
In the second passage, why do you think Rabbi Zeira urges Rabbi Simon to offer rebuke, even though it will go unheard? Does the person giving rebuke benefit in some way by speaking up?
Is there a way to reconcile these two passages? How might the power dynamic between Rabbi Zeira and the Exilarch, a powerful political leader, affect whether one should rebuke in such a situation?

Mesilat Yesharim offers an explanation of the passage from Yevamot. Sometimes it is better to remain silent rather than to speak up and give rebuke, since the latter has the potential to backfire.

מסילת ישרים כ׳:י״ד

הנה התורה צותה: "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך", וכמה פעמים יכנס אדם להוכיח חטאים במקום או בזמן שאין דבריו נשמעים וגורם להם להתפרץ יותר ברשעם ולחלל ה' להוסיף על חטאתם פשע, הנה בכיוצא בזה אינו מן החסידות אלא לשתוק. וכך אמרו ז"ל: כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצוה שלא לומר את שאינו נשמע.

Mesillat Yesharim 20:14

The Torah commanded: “you shall surely rebuke your fellow.” Often a person attempts to rebuke sinners at a place or time when their words will not be heeded and this causes them to breach even further in their wickedness, to desecrate God, and to add transgression to their sin. In such cases, the only righteousness is silence. As our sages of blessed memory said: Just as it is a mitzvah for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzvah for a person not to say that which will not be heeded.

According to Mesilat Yesharim, how can a poorly timed rebuke backfire and worsen a situation?
Is this concern relevant to our case? If so, how?

Knowing when to speak up, and when to remain silent, is not an easy thing to determine. In the passage below taken from a 19th century responsa, the author of Ketav Sofer refers to this as the most difficult mitzvah of all.

שו"ת חתם סופר, אורח חיים נ״ז

ובאמת מצות תוכחה קשה היא מאוד לקיימה כתקונה יותר מכל המצות כי צריך לשקול במאזני שכלו אם יוכיח או יפה השתיקה

Responsa Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayim 57

The reality is that the mitzvah of rebuke is extremely difficult to fulfill properly, more so than all other mitzvot, since one needs to balance whether to rebuke or it’s better to remain quiet.

Why does the Ketav Sofer find the mitzvah of rebuke so difficult to fulfill properly?
Do you think it is as challenging as he makes it out to be? Why or why not?

Take a step back

Which of the sources above are most relevant for our case?
Given the information provided in the case, do students on campus have an obligation to offer rebuke? If so, does organizing a call-out page qualify as a halakhic rebuke?