Hurtful Words [Part II] Tochacha and Halbunis Panim I figured that once i am getting into Tochuchu i will get into it in more depth. So i expanded that section trying to keep it as PC as possible. It may need to be further PC'd. -GM In Hurtful Words Part I we examined at length the meaning of the verse, And you shall not commit Onah to one another, and you shall fear your G-d, for I am Hashem your G-d (Lev. 25:17). We saw that this verse is referring to Ona as Devorim and we attempted to understand the meaning of the word Onah through the many examples brought in the Mishna and Talmud. We came to the conclusion that the Torah s prohibition is one against taking advantage of another s weakness. Which brings us to the next discussion. Is every hurtful word aimed at our fellow man considered taking advantage? Criticism is most definitely painful to hear, but where does constructive criticism fit in? Is that also a violation of Ona as Devorim? Food for Thought: Pointing out to someone his shortcomings is almost always hurtful to him. Are there situations in which it is appropriate to point out someone s shortcomings? What if your friend has a drinking problem to the point where he comes home and can act violently toward his wife? He thinks he is hiding his problem from everyone, but you spoke with his wife and know that he is in need of some help. However, if you let on that you know about the problem your friend will be ashamed and hurt. Is that Ona as Devorim? Assuming that there is a time to indeed address your friend s faults, what if that discussion will just lead to resentment and anger on his part? Is it worth it?
When Ona as Devorim is Permitted Translation: (17) You may not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely admonish your fellow man but do not thereby incur guilt! (Lev 19:17) Vayikra 19:17 The Talmud explains the intention of the second half of this verse: Translation: From where do we know that one who sees something improper in his friend s [behavior] that he is obligated to admonish him? [It is learned from the fact that] the verse says, You shall surely admonish How do we know that if he gave admonishment and the friend did not accept it, that he must try again? This is learned from the [emphasis] surely 1. (- Erchin 16b) מנין לרואה בחבירו... מכל מקום Erchin 16b The Talmud here tells us that the verse not only bids us to admonish and rebuke one another, but if need be to do so repeatedly. So there is clearly a time to admonish our fellow man (even though that will, by definition, place him in an uncomfortable position). 1 In the Hebrew the word admonish is written twice, which in English translates into surely admonish. Is is from the double expression (i.e. the emphasis) that this last point of the Talmud to admonish again when necessary is based. Important Note: The rules of when and where to admonish another person are complex. It must be emphasized that if the situation is such that giving admonishment will lead to hatred and fighting it may be prohibited to do so! See Orach Chaim 608 with commentaries.
Discussion Question: Why is that not Ona as Devorim? 2 One could easily imagine that there would be situations where rebuke is uncalled for. Furthermore, even when giving rebuke, there are clearly different ways in which one gets his message across. Can you announce your neighbor s drinking problem in the town paper so as to really get him to think about it, or is that going too far? The Talmud notes that even though we must admonish one another, we must be careful not to go too far Extreme Embarrassment Translation: I might have thought that this [need to give admonishment applies] even if his face turns [colors due to embarrassment], therefore the verse says, but do not thereby incur guilt! (Ibid) יכול אפילו פניו משתנות ת''ל לא תשא עליו חטא The Talmud here is telling us that unnecessary embarrassment is a red line not to cross in the giving of admonishment. In fact, it is a violation of a biblical prohibition ( do not thereby incur guilt ). Discussion Question: When someone has a substance abuse problem sometimes his friends and family will get together and collectively force him to address his problem. This is known as an intervention. Is that considered going too far? 3 2 Presumably, if one s intentions are to help his fellow man then he cannot be accused of taking advantage of that person. 3 Presumably the answer to this will always be situational-specific. If this is what is necessary then this is what needs to be done. You have not gone too far.
So we have learned the basic prohibition of Ona as Devorim plain old nasty comments. But now we see a new more powerful form of paining another human being - extreme embarrassment and we see that it warrants an additional prohibition (based on the above verse of but do not thereby incur guilt ) over and above the prohibition of Onah. Publicly degrading an individual and demolishing his self-image is far different than taking advantage of someone s weak point for our own benefit, and as we will see it is dealt with much more severely... The Talmud has the following to say about the severity of the prohibition of extreme embarrassment: Translation: A Tanna taught in the presence of Rav Nachman; One who severely embarrasses 4 his fellow in public is considered as having spilled his blood! (Bava Metziah 58b) תני תנא קמיה דרב Bava Metziah 58b נחמן...שופך דמים Furthermore the Talmud goes on to note: Translation: Rabbi Yochonon said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai: It is preferable for one to throw himself into a fiery furnace than to embarrass his fellow in public! (Ibid. 59a) א''ר יוחנן...ברבים Bava Metziah Finally, the Talmud says: Translation: One who severely embarrasses his fellow in public has no part in the Afterlife. (ibid) המלבין פני חבירו ברבים אין לו חילק לעולם הבא 4 Lit. whitens his face
The severity of causing someone extreme embarrassment is such that it is viewed as murder, and just like in the case of literal murder, one must rather die than commit such an act ( It is preferable to throw one s self into a fiery furnace ). Finally, one who engages in the act of embarrassing his fellow man, may very well be destroying his soul to the point that he has no share in the Hereafter. So admonishment is important, but one may not go too far in administering admonishment. Ultimately one must use his or her judgment in assessing whether or not a red line is being crossed. Let s now address the other issue as to whether there are times when admonishment in general is inappropriate. Are there times when it is better just to turn a blind eye? A Time To Talk A Time To Be Quiet Scenario: You just learned the prohibition of Ona as Devorim and you are sitting around with your friends, Jack and Sammy. Sammy has a weight problem over which he is a bit sensitive. Jack turns to Sammy and says a nasty comment about his weight. Now, you know that there is a requirement to give admonishment, so are you required to say something? Just as it is meritorious to say [an admonishment] that will be heard, so too is it meritorious to refrain from talking when it will not be heard! Rebbi Abba goes [further] and says it is a requirement [to remain quiet], because the verse says, Do not chastise the flippant one lest he despise you (- Proverbs 9:8). (- Yevamos 65b) כשם שמצוה... פן ישנאך Yavamos 65b The Talmud here tells us that there are indeed times when it is better to say noting at all. What are examples of such times? We will get back to this soon However, before we do that, we must recognize that one must not be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the person in question is beyond our help. This
idea is borne out of the following powerful story in the Talmud which records a conversation G-d (so to speak) has with Himself 5 at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem at the end of the first temple period (586 BCE): א''ל הקבה לגבריאל... להם מי גלוי shabbos 55a (When Hashem was about to destroy the wicked people living in Jerusalem, He was to spare the righteous living among them. Towards this end He commanded one of His ministering angels as follows:) Said G-d to [the ministering angel] Gavriel, Go and place a mark of ink of the foreheads of the righteous so that the angels of destruction [that I am about to send] will not have power to [hurt] them. But on the foreheads of the wicked place a mark of blood so that the angels of destruction will have power over them. (But, G-d s Attribute of Justice rejected this differentiation as follows:) G-d s Attribute of Strict Justice 6 (so to speak) said to Him, Master of the Universe, what is the difference between these and them? He said back to the [Attribute of Strict Justice], These are wholly righteous while these are wholly wicked. Said [the Attribute of Strict Justice], But Master of the Universe - they (the righteous) had the power to object and they did not object! Said [Hashem back], It is clear to Me that even had the righteous spoken up their words would not have been accepted. But, says [the Attribute of Strict Justice], Although that is clear to You, was it clear to them?! (And so the righteous too were destroyed together with the wicked.) (- Shabbos 55a) The righteous people of Jerusalem, according to the Talmud here, were not spared the fate of their wicked neighbors because they never gave admonishment. Thus, on some level they too were at fault. This is notwithstanding the fact that G-d Himself testified to the fact that the admonishment would not work nevertheless that is something that the 5 Clearly an Omniscient G-d does not have doubts as to what course of action to take. The following from the Talmud is meant to inform the reader of the different factors involved in G-d s decision. It is not meant to imply that G-d was indecisive. 6 G-d has different attributes vis-à-vis His interactions with this world. The Attribute of Strict Justice is the notion of fairness to the point of getting what one deserves. The attribute that He uses to balance this Strict Justice attribute is the Attribute of Mercy. The latter attribute gives greater weight to the positive aspects of the Judgment in question. This topic is ultimately very deep and esoteric and warrants a separate discussion to deal with it in depth. It is brought here briefly so as to give a slight background to the above quote from the Talmud.
righteous did not know. As far as they knew, their admonishment may very well have been heard, and by not giving it they were deemed guilty. This story is a powerful lesson in the need and importance of speaking up in the face of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, this passage makes it clear that even when the admonishment will fall on deaf ears it need not be said. Had the righteous ones of Jerusalem known what G-d Himself knew (i.e. that the admonishment would be ignored), then they would indeed have had no reason to admonish. However, the message that comes across loud and clear is that we cannot jump to make that assessment. We cannot write off people as being incapable of change. We cannot run too quickly to use the dispensation of it is meritorious to avoid saying that which will not be heard. Maybe it will be heard. 7 Let s see some of the situations in which Jewish law (Halacha) considers it inappropriate to speak up in response to a sin. Discussion Point: Which situations would you suggest as being inappropriate to provide rebuke to your fellow? Would you make a distinction between admonishing a friend and admonishing a complete stranger? Translation: And in Sefer Chasidim (#413) he writes that [admonishment should be given] only in situations where it is between man and his friend with whom he is comfortable. But if it is [given] to someone else who if you admonish him he will hate you and seek to take revenge against you, do not admonish him. (Biur Halacha to OC 608:2) Biur Halacha to OC 608 in sv Chayav ובס''ח... להוכיחו L Hocheecho 7 It should be noted that although many early authorities (Maimonides Hilchos De os 6:7, et. al.) assume that the law follows the above dictum of not needing to say admonishment when it will not be heard, there are many who disagree and severely limit that dictum to very specific circumstances (Nimukei Yosef Yevamos 21b in the dapei HaRif, et. al.). According to the latter opinion the fact that your admonishment will not accomplish anything is not a reason to not say it. The only reason to refrain from giving admonishment is when it will produce negative repercussions examples of which we will see soon.
When admonishment leads to hatred, such as is normally the case when it is given to a stranger, then it is worthless in that the end result is simply worse off than where you began. Now you have just created additional evil in the world. Rebuke the is appropriate for those to whom one feels close enough to, that they can hear the admonishment and not walk away with resentment toward the admonisher. When Things May Get Rowdy Let s say the admonishment will not lead to hatred, but the person on the receiving end is known to be somewhat erratic and unpredictable in his response to such rebuke? How much personal insult, if any, do you have to endure for the sake of helping this fellow better himself? The Talmud actually quotes three thresholds before which one can absolve himself from this requirement of rebuke: Translation: Before reaching which point [do we say one need no longer persist with] admonishment? Rav says until he is ready to hit you. Shmuel says until the point at which he is ready to curse you. [Finally] Rabbi Yochonon says until the point where he will tell you off [in response]. (- Erchin 16b) עד היכן... עד נזיפה Erchin 16b One need not endure suffering, whether it be in the form of physical blows ( where he is ready to hit you ) or even verbal abuse ( where he is ready to curse you or tell you off ) in an attempt to help his fellow man. If one refuses help, you need not put your neck out on the line. 8 8 You only need to rebuke him up to but not including that point. If that point would be reached with evn one rebuke, then you need not say anything at all.
The Lessons of the Second Half of the Verse Until now we have been focusing heavily on the first half of the verse in Lev. 25:17 ( And you shall not commit Onah to one another ). In the previous outline (Hurtful Words Part I) we defined the prohibition of Onah, which is hurting others by taking advantage of their weaknesses. In this outline we have seen the notion that there are times to say words that may indeed end up being hurtful. Now Let s look at the second half of the verse: Translation: (17) And you shall not commit Onah to one another, and you shall fear your G-d, for I am Hashem your G-d (Lev. 25:17) Vayikra 25:17 What is the Torah adding in the second half of the verse? Furthermore, let s step back and ask a broader question; how do we know who is saying something nasty with the intention to take advantage (AKA Ona as Devorim) and who is doing so with the intention to help the person (which is permitted and a fulfillment of a biblical directive to admonish)? Is it not all dependent on one s inner motivation? The answer to these questions can be found in Maimonides: Translation: And behold it says by Ona as Devorim And you shall fear your G-d because the matter is known [only] in the person s own heart. For you know [that it is a general rule] that by anything that is known only to the person himself the verse will state and you shall fear your G-d. Furthermore, anyone who cries out [in pain] from the Ona as Devorim [inflicted upon him] is answered right away, as the verse says, For I am Hilchos Mechira 14:18
Hashem. (Maimonides Hilchos Mechira 14:18) The second half of the verse is warning us that G-d knows our deepest motivations and intentions. Some people enjoy giving admonishment because they have a mean streak. If that indeed is one s motivation then he is violating Ona as Devorim. Furthermore, Ona as Devorim is a sin that causes great pain. Sticks and stones may break one s bones, but words can break hearts. When a person cries out from such suffering G-d, so to speak, takes action and retribution is quicker to come. G-d hears the cries of pain from the broken hearted object of one s Ona as Devorim and that means that the usual grace period between one s deed and the retribution justice demands is considerably shortened. For I am Hashem and will enforce this commandment with a fury.