Rebuke your colleague
Verse: הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך
Command: Properly Rebuke your Colleague
Vayira 19:17
SMG
One who sees his friend sinning or following a not-good path is obligated to rebuke him, as it says[i] הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך. Our sages expounded from the extra word תוכיח that this injunction applies even from a student to teacher. Elsewhere, the sages expounded that the extra word means [the rebuke should be repeated] even one hundred (100) times [β] and even if the friend does not accept the rebuke. The main source for this is from the Gemara.[ii] Rabbi Eliezer of Mitz explained, [that there is a difference in the application of the Mitzva with regard to a teacher as compared to a colleague], the requirement of a student to [rebuke] a teacher is only when the teacher accepts the rebuke, while for [rebuking] a colleague, the obligation to rebuke exists even when the rebuke is not accepted.
When rebuking, whether about something between man and a fellow, or between man and G‑d:
- do so in private, and
- speak pleasantly with a soft voice, and
- make it clear the rebuke is only being provided for the person’s own benefit, to provide a merit to the life of the world to come.
Doing so will ensure that the rebuke is more acceptable. As our sages said in the Gemara[iii] [the head of the household should remind everyone concerning] three (3) things on erev Shabbos:
- Have you set aside Ma’aser?
- Have you established the Eruv?
- Have you lit candles?
These reminders must be given in a pleasant manner to ensure they are accepted. If they are accepted, good. If not, the reminder should be made a second, or third time, or as much as needed.
How far does one have to go with the rebuke? In the Gemara[iv] we learnt Rav says until the sinner hits him. Shmuel says until the sinner curses him. Rav Yoĉanan says until the sinner reprimands him; and the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yoĉanan. [$] (The Rambam wrote[v] the law according to Rav but did not explain why he deviated in this instance.) And anyone who has the ability to rebuke but does not do so; is an accessory in these sins, as it says in the verse[vi] כי לא הזהרתו … ודמו מידך אבקש – since you did not warn him in his sin he shall perish… and his blood will be sought from your hands.
And the Gemara[vii] quotes the verse[viii] וכשלו איש באחיו and expounds that this ‘stumbling’ applies to the sin of ‘your brother’, implying that all jews are guarantors and are responsible one for another. But this is only applicable when you have the ability to rebuke. And elsewhere in the Gemara[ix] we learnt that this applies even when it isn’t clear if there is the ability to rebuke – as proven from the time of the destruction of the Base Hamikdash, when Hashem said[x] to the destroying angels וממקדשי תחלו – start from my holy ones [and work outward – the reference to the ‘holy one’ can refer to the Base Hamikdash or to those who sanctify G‑d’s name, i.e.] these are the people who kept the entire Torah from the letter Aleph to the letter Tav[1]. G‑d intended to salvage the righteous, since he knew that any rebuke they would issue would have been ignored [because as noted before, only the rebukes which would be accepted are required to be issued]. However, the aspect of judgement successfully argued that even though before G‑d this ‘would have’ was known, the people did not know if their efforts would be in vain, and therefore, for the sin of failing to rebuke their fellow, even the righteous were not spared.
However, if it’s clear to the rebuker, that the rebukee will not accept the rebuke,[2] and the sinner is committing the sin inadvertently; it’s better to be silent, as taught in Gemara[xi], even regarding something forbidden under Torah law; leave the Jews to be inadvertent transgressors rather than deliberate [α]. But, when the sinner is deliberately choosing to sin, and it’s obvious that rebukes won’t be accepted – even though the one who can rebuke is exempt from capital punishment as determined in Gemara – nevertheless, one still has the positive obligation to rebuke, even if this causes an increase in the punishment of the sinner[xii].[3] Therefore, the Gemara commands us to be silent only when the sinner is inadvertent.
And I [the SMG] say that this is only good advice,[4] for, even regarding those who deliberately sin, one is obligated to be silent as is stated in Gemara[xiii] that the obligation on the person to be silent exists when the words will not be accepted.[5] As is says in the verse[xiv] אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך, הוכח לחכם ויאהבך.
[1] Possibly a play on words – in Yeĉezkel, G‑d tells Gavriel to set marks in ink [as opposed to the mark in blood for those who would not be spared] on the foreheads of the people of Yerushalayim who would be spared for attempting to chastise the people and rebuke them for their evil ways. The mark is called a Tav, which is also the name of the last letter in the Aleph Beis. See Supplemental to Book 12 – Listing of the Aleph Beis and its Typography.
[2] From the Hayom Yom of the 26th of Iyar: the command of הוכיח תוכיח is introduced with the precondition of לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. The verse ends with ולא תשא עליו חטא – do not ascribe sin to him. Because if the rebuke was not accepted, the sin is the fault of the one issuing the rebuke, for he did not speak from the heart – for surely, had he spoken from the heart, it would have penetrated and caused the Jew to return and desist in his evil path.
[3] The Gemara’s phrase is הלעיטהו לרשע וימות – one is not required to take precautions to protect the wicked from the consequences of their sins.
[4] Interesting turn of phrase by the SMG. Presumably, this is considered ‘good advice’ because by rebuking the one who won’t listen, one will ensure that he himself will not be punished for failing to rebuke. However, as the SMG notes without actually saying so outright, rebuking so that you yourself aren’t punished is a very self-centered approach, and fails to uphold the entire purpose of this Mitzva, which is the unconditional love of one’s fellow. For it is only because one loves one’s fellow that a rebuke would be issued for their betterment. If instead a person issues the rebuke for selfish reasons, that might technically satisfy the Mitzva requirement, but the purpose of the Mitzva – to have one’s fellow return to the right path – will not be achieved. The one receiving the rebuke will sense the selfish reasons and will hate you.
[5] Rabbi I’la’ah said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, ‘just like it is a Mitzva to speak that which will be heard, so too it is a Mitzva to be silent when the words will not be heeded.’ Rabbi Aba said, [being silent] is an obligation.
Furthermore, Rabbi I’la’ah said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said, it is even permitted to warp the truth for the sake of peace. Rabbi Nosson said it is a Mitzva to do so.
In the Yeshiva of Rabbi Yishmael, it was taught that peace is so great that even G-d warped the truth, as Sarah actually stated ואדוני זקן, but when repeating this to Avraham, Hashem changed the phrasing to ואני זקנתי.
[i] Vayikra 19:17
[ii] Gem. Bava Metzia 31a & Eraĉin 16b
[iii] Gem. Shabbos 34a
[iv] Gem. Eraĉin 16b
[v] Rambam הלכות דעות 6:7
[vi] Yeĉezkel 3:20
[vii] Gem. Shavuos 39a
[viii] Vayikra 26:37
[ix] Gem. Shabbos 55a
[x] Yeĉezkel 9:6
[xi] Gem. Beytza 30a
[xii] Gem. Bava Kama 69a
[xiii] Gem. Yevamos 65b
[xiv] Mishley 9:8
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] The Ashiri quotes other sources as to the distinction between the committing of a transgression spelled out in the Torah as compared to one derived from Rabbinic sources, or extrapolation. When an ignorant person violates something explicit in the Torah, then even when the rebuke would be ignored, one is still obligated to try. Similarly, one is only to keep silent when there is no doubt the rebuke would be ignored, but if there is even a possibility of the rebuke being accepted, one cannot remain silent.
[β] the reference to the requirement of repeating the rebuke even one hundred (100) times is when the rebuke was effective, but only temporarily. Thereafter the sinner stumbles again, which requires another rebuke, even if this happens one hundred (100) times. But when the sinner deliberately ignores the rebuke, then the verse in Mishlei is to be followed – don’t rebuke a joker. During the first effort of rebuke, one should endeavor to be so persuasive up to the point of being struck by the sinner, but thereafter, if he persists, do not rebuke at all.
RASHI
Rashi does not comment on the verse quoted as the source for this Mitzva. He does comment on the final words in the verse: ולא תשא עליו חטא as a prohibition against embarrassing the person [being rebuked] in public.
I think we can safely say there would be no reason for the Torah to warn against embarrassing one’s friend in public were it not for the obligation to rebuke him. Therefore, we can state with confidence, that the source for this Mitzva does follow the פשט of the verse.
Discussion by SMS
The Gemara[i] quoted by Rashi continues a discussion about the severity of the punishment given to a Metzora who is punished for the sin of Lashon Harah.
Our sages expounded on the verse “Do not hate your brother in your heart”: [without the verse] you might think the prohibition [of not hating someone who is sinning] would be limited to physical expressions; i.e. don’t hit him, don’t slap him (or hurt him indirectly), and don’t ruin him… therefore, the verse states ‘in your heart’ [the prohibition includes being forbidden to hate sinners without any outward expression]. How then would one know to rebuke someone who is doing something wrong; that is why the verse continues with ‘rebuke, rebuke him’.
When the rebuke is issued, but not accepted, what is the source of a continuing obligation to rebuke the sinner? That would be from the duplicate terminology in the verse: הוכח תוכיח. One might think to try rebuking in public, to apply peer pressure, even if this embarrasses the sinner, that is why the verse ends with ‘do not bear sin on his account’.
It is taught in a Beraissa: Rabbi Tarfon stated ‘I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who can be rebuked, because if you tell someone to ‘remove the splinter from between your eyes’, they would answer ‘remove the beam of wood from between your eyes’. [In other words, there are no truly righteous who would be proof against a rebuke that can be upended against them]. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya stated, ‘I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who is capable of issuing a rebuke [without dishonoring the sinner]’. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri stated ‘Heaven and earth shall testify on me that there were many times I caused Akiva to be lashed, when I would complain about his actions to his teacher Rabban Shimon – and this only increased his love for me [for having been the catalyst for Rabbi Akiva’s improved character] – fulfilling the verse “rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”’.
[$] Rav Naĉman bar Yitzĉok says the three (3) opinions as to how far one needs to go in rebuking a friend are all derived from:
When Dovid was concerned that King Shaul wanted to kill him, he and Prince Yehonasan developed a plan to allow Dovid to go into hiding while Yehonasan found out his father’s true intentions. When king Shaul realized Yehonasan was protecting Dovid, he rebuked him, cursed him and tried hit him, as it says in the verses[ii]
- בן נעות המרדות Shaul cursed his son Yehonasan saying he was the son of a wandering[1] rebellious woman. (This is the source of the opinion of Shmuel.)
- הלא ידעתי וגו’ Shaul rebukes his son Yehonasan for choosing to spare Dovid’s life instead of securing his own throne. (This is the source of the opinion of Rav Yoĉanan.)
- ויטל שאול את החנית עליו להכתו Shaul threw his spear at Yehonasan to strike him. (This is the source of Rav’s opinion.)
The Gemara continues, why don’t Shmuel and Rav Yoĉanan accept Rav’s source – didn’t Yehonasan continue rebuking Shaul until he was to be struck with the spear. The Gemara answers, Yehonasan loved Dovid and thus was willing to pursue the matter far more than he was otherwise obligated.
Speaking of aggravating a person to the point where he wants to hit you, the Gemara notes a similar discussion regarding a guest overstaying his welcome:
How long may someone abuse the hospitality of a host: Rav says until the host wishes to hit him, Shmuel says until the host packs the guest’s stuff to throw them out.
The Gemara clarifies these opinions and says that actually both Rav and Shmuel agree that either hitting the guests, or packing up the guests’ things to throw them out means the guest has overstayed his welcome and should leave. Instead, the discussion is concerning if the host hits his own wife in frustration on account of the guest (Rav’s opinion). Rav holds that so long as the guest is not the one being hit, he should not leave, while Shmuel holds that when the host starts hitting the wife, it is eventually going to cause the host and guest to fight, so he should leave.
As to why he shouldn’t leave before things devolve to that level – that is because a guest impugns the [honor of the] host and is himself impugned by leaving since people will say the reason he had to leave is because he couldn’t get along with his host.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, the source for not changing hosts is from the verse[iii] עד המקום אשר היה שם אהלה בתחלה. Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Ĉanina said it is derived from the first half of the verse וילך למסעיו – the difference being as to whether this applies to temporary lodging or permanent lodging. Rav Yehuda says that Rav is referring to permanent lodging, while Rabbi Yosi extends this even to temporary lodging.
A practical example of returning to the same host would be when the Jewish people would go to Yerushalayim every holiday, one should (according to Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav) take great pains to always stay in the same place – until violence ensues on your account. While Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Ĉanina applies this even to the hotels one visits on his way to Yerushalayim.
We find an example of this with Elisha, who always stayed by the house of the lady of Shunam – which resulted in her building out the loft to make it comfortable for him, and eventually being blessed with a son whom Elisha miraculously revived from the dead.
[1] Rashi explains that as a member of the tribe of Benyamin, Shaul had married one of the girls that came out to dance on the 15th of Av after the tribe was decimated in the civil war which was instigated against the tribe for the murder and rape of a concubine. When going to war, all the soldiers vowed to wipe out the tribe. After the war, the people regretted the attempted genocide, and looked for ways to repopulate the tribe – however, since they had made the vow, they could not directly do so (the vow could not be annulled as it had been made in accordance with public understanding – see the laws on vows – see positive Mitzva 124). Instead, they located a city whose members hadn’t participated in the war and therefore hadn’t been part of the vow. They killed all the men of the city, freeing the women to remarry – and the widows and unmarried girls from the one city went dancing on the 15th of Av to entice the men of Binyamin to marry them. Shaul though was extremely shy and didn’t approach any of the girls. It was Yehonasan’s mother who realized the future king would not approach anyone, so she went to him and enticed him to marry her. This is why Shaul now insulted her as a ‘wandering woman’.
[i] Gem. Eraĉin 16b
[ii] Shmuel I 20:30-33
[iii] Beraishis 13:3
Practical Examples
- Chofetz Chaim
There is a story about a boy who studied in the Yeshiva of the Chofetz Chaim who was caught smoking a cigarette on Shabbos. Instead of expelling him, the Chofetz Chaim asked that he be brought to his study for a private consultation.
The Chofetz Chaim came into the room to meet him, clasped his hand in both of his, brought his hands up to his face, closed his eyes, and when he opened them, he was crying. He said quietly, “Shabbos”, and then again “Shabbos Kodesh”.
That was the extent and method of the rebuke. The boy testified decades later that he never violated Shabbos again.
- Reb Yisroel of Vizhnitz
Reb Yisroel of Vizhnitz once visited the home of a bank manager during his evening stroll. The banker was a member of the Enlightenment Movement, and not one that the Rebbe would be likely to visit.
When ushered in, the Rebbe took the seat offered to him, and sat there without a word. After a while, he got up to leave. The host, out of respect, accompanied the Rabbi and after a while decided to ask for the reason for the visit.
The Rebbe answered that he had visited to fulfill a Mitzva. The manager asked him which Mitzva. The Rebbe answered that just like it is a Mitzva to rebuke a fellow, there are also times when it is a Mitzva to be silent. However, how would he be able to perform the Mitzva if he remained silent in his own home? Surely, the Mitzva is to be silent in the presence of the one who will not listen. So, he decided to visit the manager, so he could remain silent there.
The manager protested that the Rebbe couldn’t possibly know that he, the manager, wouldn’t listen – and that he should give him a chance at least.
The Rebbe initially resisted saying if he did so, then he would lose the Mitzva of being silent. Eventually, the Rebbe gave in and told him: where was a poor widow who was being evicted for being unable to pay the mortgage. The mortgage held by the bank the manager worked for.
The manager protested that the matter was out of his hands, he didn’t own the debt personally, and wasn’t in charge of the bank that he could prevent the foreclosure. The Rebbe responded sadly that he was thus proven right, and he had lost the Mitzva to be silent.
The manager went home full of indignation, but after thinking about it for a while, the Rebbe’s rebuke influenced him, and he paid off the widow’s debt from his own funds.
Mnemonic
When attempting a rebuke, the following verse can be recalled to ensure that the rebuke is done properly. The first phrase of Megilla Ayĉa is: איכה ישבה בדד – [in reverse order] when איכה is required, it is best to at first comply with the verse[i] בדד ישב, מחוץ למחנה מושבו – seek solitude so that one is not in a position to rebuke others.
Failing that, when a rebuke is still required, then the other time the term איכה is used applies, from the verse[ii] איכה אשא לבדי – attempt איכה alone, never in public.
[i] Vayikra 13:46
[ii] Devarim 1:12