Halachic Perspectives on "Shaming" and Social Media Karen Miller Jackson

“You shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor.” If one rebuked him for his action but he did not accept the rebuke, from where is it derived that he must rebuke him again? The verse states: “You shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ],” and the double language indicates he must rebuke in any case. One might have thought that one should continue rebuking him even if his face changes due to humiliation. Therefore, the verse states: “Do not bear sin because of him”; the one giving rebuke may not sin by embarrassing the other person.

(11) Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said... and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public...even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, 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: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment.

(7) He who beholds his fellow stooping to sin or following an unrighteous path, is obliged to return him toward the good, and to let him know that he is actually sinning against himself in pursuing wicked deeds for, it is said: "And thou shalt indeed rebuke thy neighbor" (Lev. 19.17). He who rebukes his fellow, whether it be regarding a sin committed between man and man, or whether it be regarding matters between man and God, it is essential that the rebuke be administered only between them both

(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.

To not whiten the face of an Israelite: To not embarrass an Israelite; and our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, called this sin (Avot 3:15), "whitening the face of his fellow in public. And the negative commandment that comes about this [in the Torah] is that which is written (Leviticus 19:17), "you shall surely rebuke your compatriot, and you shall not bear a sin for him." And they said in Sifra, Kedoshim 4:8, "From where [do we know] that if you rebuked him four or five times [...] go back and rebuke [him again]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall surely rebuke.' Perhaps, he should rebuke and his face change [color]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall not bear a sin for him.'" The root of the commandment is well-known - since embarrassment is very painful for the creatures - there is nothing greater than it. Therefore God prevented us from causing so much pain to His creatures, since it is possible to rebuke them in private and not to embarrass the sinner so much. From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 86b) that we were not warned like this about all things, but rather [only] about things between a man and his fellow. But with Heavenly matters - if he does not return after the private rebuke - it is a commandment to shame him publicly, to publicize his sin and to disgrace and curse him until he returns to the good, as the prophets did to Israel.

With regard to the mitzva of rebuke, the verse states: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall rebuke [hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17). The Gemara understands that from the use of the compound form of the verb, “hokhe’aḥ tokhiaḥ,” the Sages derive that one must rebuke another multiple times if necessary. A certain one of the Sages said to Rava: Say that from “hokhe’aḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another once, and from “tokhiaḥ” one derives the obligation to rebuke another twice, and beyond that there is no obligation. Rava said to him: “Hokhe’aḥ” indicates that one must rebuke another even one hundred times.

and he shall speak to him calmly, employing soft language, telling him that he does not speak of it to him, save for his own good, to bring him to a life in the world to come. If he receive it attentively from him, it is well; if not, he should rebuke him a second, even a third time. So is the constant duty of a man to continue to rebuke his fellow, even until the sinner strike him, and say unto him: "I will not listen". He in whose power it is to prevent sin and does not take the means to prevent it, he himself is ultimately overtaken by their sin, since it was possible for him to prevent them.

We learned in a mishna: The Rabbis decreed that one may not clap, nor strike a hand on his thigh, nor dance on a Festival, lest he come to repair musical instruments. But nowadays we see that women do so, and yet we do not say anything to them. He said to him: And according to your reasoning, how do you explain that which Rava said: A person should not sit at the entrance to an alleyway, next to the side post that has been placed at the edge of an alleyway in order for it to be considered a private domain, as perhaps an object will roll away from him and he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby transgressing a biblical prohibition? But don’t these women take their jugs, and go, and sit at the entrance to an alleyway, and we do not say anything to them? Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners. Here, too, with regard to clapping and dancing, leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners.

(1) He who bears tales against his fellow violates a prohibitive commandment, saying: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Lev. 19.16.); and although the punishment of flogging is not inflicted for violating this charge, it is a gross iniquity, and is the cause of the slaughtering of many souls in Israel; it is because thereof, that following this commandment is this Verse: "Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor" (Ibid.). Now, go ye and learn of that which happened to Doeg the Edomite.