Save "The Mitzvah of Tochacha
"
The Mitzvah of Tochacha

(טז) לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י ה'׃ (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 ה'׃

(16) Do not deal basely with members of your people. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow [Israelite]: I am ה'. (17) You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account. (18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against members of your people. Love your fellow [Israelite] as yourself: I am ה'.

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

From where is it derived with regard to one who sees an unseemly matter in another that he is obligated to rebuke him? As it is stated: “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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל אָדָם לוֹמַר דָּבָר הַנִּשְׁמָע — כָּךְ מִצְוָה עַל אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁמָע. רַבִּי אַבָּא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תּוֹכַח לֵץ פֶּן יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ הוֹכַח לְחָכָם וְיֶאֱהָבֶךָּ״.

The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
גמ' לומר דבר הנשמע - דכתיב (ויקרא יט) הוכח תוכיח להוכיח מי שמקבל הימנו:

(א) מצות תוכחה לישראל שאינו נוהג כשורה - להוכיח אחד מישראל שאינו מתנהג כשורה, בין בדברים שבין אדם לחברו או בין אדם למקום, שנאמר (ויקרא יט יז) הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא. ואמרו בספרא (קדושים ד ח) מנין אם הוכחתו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים ולא חזר, שאתה חיב לחזר ולהוכיח? תלמוד לומר הוכח תוכיח. ועוד אמרו זכרונם לברכה בגמרא (ב''מ לא א) הוכח תוכיח אפילו מאה פעמים. ואמרו שם בספרא יכול מוכיחו ופניו משתנות? תלמוד לומר ולא תשא עליו חטא. וזה מלמד שבתחלת התוכחה שראוי לאדם, להוכיח בסתר ובלשון רכה ודברי נחת, כדי שלא יתביש, ואין ספק שאם לא חזר בו בכך, שמכלימין החוטא ברבים ומפרסמין חטאו ומחרפין אותו עד שיחזר למוטב.

(ב) משרשי המצוה. לפי שיש בזה שלום וטובה בין אנשים, כי כשיחטא איש לאיש ויוכיחנו במסתרים יתנצל לפניו ויקבל התנצלותו וישלם (י''ג וישלים) עמו, ואם לא יוכיחנו ישטמנו בלבו ויזיק אליו לפי שעה או לזמן מן הזמנים...וכל דרכי התורה דרכי נועם ונתיבותיה שלום.

(ג) מדיני המצוה. מה שאמרו זכרונם לברכה (ערכין טז ב) שחיוב מצוה זו עד הכאה, כלומר שחיב המוכיח להרבות תוכחותיו אל החוטא עד כדי שיהיה קרוב החוטא להכות את המוכיח. ומכל מקום, אמרו זכרונם לברכה (שם) גם כן, שאם יראה המוכיח שאין בדברי תוכחותיו שום תועלת נמצא, מתוך גדל רשע החוטא, או שהוא אלם ורשע ביותר ומתירא ממנו שלא יעמד עליו ויהרגנו שאינו חיב במצוה זו באיש כזה, וזהו אמרם זכרונם לברכה (יבמות סה ב) כשם שמצוה לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצוה לשתק במקום שאין הדבר נשמע, לפי שיהיה בענין קלון למוכיח ולא תועלת לאשר הוכח...

(ד) ונוהגת מצוה זו בכל מקום ובכל זמן בזכרים ונקבות, והעובר עליה ולא הוכיח בענין שאמרנו בטל עשה, ועוד שהוא מכת הרשעים שעושים כן.

(1) The commandment of rebuke to an Israelite who does not behave properly: To rebuke an Israelite who does not behave properly - whether about things that are between a man and his fellow or between a man and the Omnipresent - as it is stated (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 and he did not return, that you are obligated to go back and rebuke [him again]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall surely rebuke.'" And they, may their memory be blessed, also said in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 31a), "'You shall surely rebuke' - even a hundred times." And they said in the Sifra, "Perhaps, he should rebuke and his face change [color]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and you shall not bear a sin for him.'" And this teaches that at the beginning of the rebuke it is fitting for a person to rebuke privately, with soft expressions and calm words, so that he not be embarrassed. But there is no doubt that if he does not return with this, that we shame the sinner in public and publicize his sin and insult him, until he returns to the better.

(2) It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because there is peace and goodness between people with this. As when a man sins to a man, and he rebukes him privately, he will apologize in front of him, and [the other] will accept his apology and he will be whole (some have the variant, at peace) with him. But if he does not rebuke him, he will loathe him in his heart and injure him at the time or at some [other] point in time, as it is stated about evildoers (II Samuel 13:22), "And Avshalom did not speak with Amnon." And 'all the ways of the Torah are pleasant and its paths are peace.'

(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Arakhin 16b) that the obligation of this commandment is until hitting - meaning to say that the one rebuking is obligated to multiply his rebukes upon the sinner until it is enough that the sinner is close to hitting the one rebuking. And nonetheless they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Arakhin 16b) that if the one rebuking sees that there is no benefit at all found from the words of his rebukes - from the greatness of the sinner's evil, or that he is deaf [to it] and extremely evil and [the rebuker] is afraid of him that he not stand against him and kill him - that he is not obligated in this commandment with this man. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 65b), "In the same way as it is a commandment to say something that will be heard, so [too,] is it a commandment to be quiet in a place where the thing will not be heard" - since there would be disgrace in the matter for the one who is rebuking and no benefit to the one who is rebuked. And nonetheless, it is for every careful person to consider and to pay great attention to these matters and to think and see if there will be a benefit to the sinner with his words, such that he should rebuke him and trust in God, may He be blessed - as He will help him in his fight with His enemies. And let his heart not be soft and let him not fear, since 'the Lord protects all those that love Him and He obliterates all of the evildoers.' And if the sinner returns, he will have great reward for this. But the one who has in his hand [the possibility of] bringing him back and rebuking him, and does not rebuke him, is caught in his sin. And this is something clear from the words of our Rabbis (Shabbat 55a) and also from Scripture (Isaiah 3:14). And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Yevamot 65b) that even a minor is obligated to rebuke an adult if he sees the adult going in a path that is not good. [These] and the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in scattered [places] in the Talmud (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Human Dispositions 6).

(4) And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does not rebuke in the manner that we said has violated this positive commandment; and he is also from the group of evildoers who do this.

(ו) כְּשֶׁיֶּחְטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ לֹא יִשְׂטְמֶנּוּ וְיִשְׁתֹּק כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּרְשָׁעִים (שמואל ב יג כב) "וְלֹא דִבֶּר אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת אַמְנוֹן מְאוּמָה לְמֵרָע וְעַד טוֹב כִּי שָׂנֵא אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת אַמְנוֹן". אֶלָּא מִצְוָה עָלָיו לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לָמָּה עָשִׂיתָ לִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְלָמָּה חָטָאתָ לִי בְּדָבָר פְּלוֹנִי. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יז) "הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ". וְאִם חָזַר וּבִקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לִמְחֹל לוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְחֹל. וְלֹא יְהֵא הַמּוֹחֵל אַכְזָרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ יז) "וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם אֶל הָאֱלֹקִים":

(6) When one person wrongs another, the latter should not remain silent and despise him as [II Samuel 13:22] states concerning the wicked: "And Avshalom did not speak to Amnon neither good, nor bad for Avshalom hated Amnon."
Rather, he is commanded to make the matter known and ask him: "Why did you do this to me?", "Why did you wrong me regarding that matter?" as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "You shall surely admonish your colleague."
If, afterwards, [the person who committed the wrong] asks [his colleague] to forgive him, he must do so. A person should not be cruel when forgiving [as implied by Genesis 20:17]: "And Abraham prayed to God..."

(ד) אֲבָל אִם (יג) יֵרָאֶה לָהֶן, שֶׁהַחוֹטֵא יָדַע אֶת עֶצֶּם אִסוּרוֹ וְגַם בְּמִתְכַּוֵּן עָשָׂה אֶת הַחֵטְא כְּבִיאַת עֲרָיוֹת וַאְכִילַת דְּבָרִים אֲסוּרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵּא בָּזֶה, (יד) שֶׁנִּתְפַּשֵּׁט יְדִיעַת אִסוּרָן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, תָּלוּי בָּזֶה, אִם הוּא אָדָם בֵּינוֹנִי בִּשְׁאָרֵי דְּבָרִים, שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּר עַל פִּי הָרֹב מֵהַחֵטְא, וּבָזֶה לֹא רָאוּהוּ שֶׁנִּכְשַׁל, רַק פַּעַם אַחַת בַּסֵתֶר, אֲסוּרִין לְגַלּוֹת אֶת חֶטְאוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים, (טו) אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְהַמְגַלֶּה אוֹתוֹ, אָשׁוֹם אָשַׁם עַל זֶה כִּי אוּלַי הַחוֹטֵא הַהוּא שָׁב מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה וִיגוֹנָיו בְּרַעֲיוֹנָיו עַל זֶה הַחֵטְא וְהוּא נְשׂוּא עָוֹן לִפְנִי ה', כִּי עִקַּר הַתְּשׁוּבָה לְפִי מְרִירוּת הַלֵּב, וּכְשֶׁיְּסַפֵּר זֶה אֶת הַחֵטְא לִפְנִי הֶהָמוֹן, יִהְיֶה לְבוּז וּלְקָלוֹן בְּעֵינֵיהֶם, אַחַר אֲשֶׁר נִחַם עַל רָעָתוֹ וְנִסְלַח לוֹ עַל עֲוֹנוֹ, עַל כֵּן יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם הָאֱוִיל הַמַּזְכִּיר עֲוֹנוֹ...

וְיִזָּהֵר הַמּוֹכִיחוֹ לְדַבֵּר לוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן רַכָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַכְלִימֶּנּוּ, כְּדִכְתִיב: "הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא" (יח) וְכָל זֶה שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ הוּא אֲפִלּוּ אִם הוּא רַק אָדָם בֵּינוֹנִי בִּשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן אִם הוּא אִישׁ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וִירֵא חֵטְא, אַךְ עַתָּה גָּבַר יִצְּרוֹ עָלָיו, בְּוַדַּאי עָוֹן גָּדוֹל הוּא לְפַרְסֵם חֶטְאוֹ וְאָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ לְהַרְהֵר אַחֲרָיו כִּי בְּוַדַּאי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, וְאַף אִם יִצְרוֹ נִתְחַזֵּק עָלָיו פַּעַם אַחַת, נַפְשׁוֹ מָרָה לוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ עַל זֶה וּלְבָבוֹ יָרֵא וְחָרֵד מְאֹד עַל אַשְׁמָתוֹ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲזַ"ל: אִם רָאִיתָ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה בַּלַּיְלָה אַל תְּהַרְהֵר אַחֲרָיו בַּיּוֹם, שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה *

.,*וכל זה שכתבנו באלו הסעיפים הוא בשאין הדבר הזה מועיל לאפרושי מאסורא, אבל אם הוא (יט) מועיל לאפרושי מאסורא, כגון, שראה לאשת איש שזנתה, דמן הדין נאסרה עבור זה להבעל, אפלו ראה דבר זה ביחידי, צריך (כ) לגלות (כא) להבעל כדי להפרישו מאסור, ודוקא אם ראה בעצמו שזנתה, דמן הדין נאסרה על ידי זנות להבעל, אבל אם שמע זה מאנשים אחרים, דמן הדין לא נאסרה על ידי זה להבעל, או שאר אפנים כיוצא בזה אסור לגלות. ואפלו אם ראה בעצמו שזנתה, לא יגלה, רק אם הוא משער, (כב) שאפשר שהבעל יאמין לו כבי תרי (כשני עדים) ויפרש על ידי זה ממנה, אבל בלאו הכי אסור לו לגלות דבר זה להבעל וכל שכן לזולתו.

(ה) אֲבָל (כג) אִם הוּא רוֹאֶה שֶׁהַחוֹטֵא הוּא מֵהָאֱוִילִים הַלֵּצִּים הַשּׂוֹנְאִים לְמוֹכִיחָם, כְּדִכְתִיב {משלי ט' ח'}: "אַל תּוֹכַח לֵץ פֶּן יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ", וּבְוַדַּאי לֹא יִתְקַבְּלוּ דְּבָרָיו בְּאָזְנָיו, וַאֲנָשִׁים כָּאֵלּוּ בְּנָקֵל לָהֶם לִשְׁנוֹת בְּאִוַּלְתָּם, וְאִם כֵּן יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת שֶׁיָּבוֹא עוֹד הַפַּעַם לִידֵי חֵטְא, עַל כֵּן טוֹב לָהֶם, שֶׁיַּגִּידוּ לְדַיָּנִי הָעִיר, כְּדֵי שֶׁהֵם יְיַסְרוּהוּ עַל עֲוֹנוֹ וְיַפְרִישׁוּהוּ מֵהָאִסוּר עַל לְהַבָּא, וְנִרְאֶה דְּהוּא הַדִּין (כד) לִקְרוֹבָיו שֶׁל הַחוֹטֵא, אִם דִּבְרֵיהֶם יִהְיוּ מִתְקַבְּלִין לוֹ, וְעַיֵּן בִּבְאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים. וְכָל כַּוָּנַת הַמְסַפֵּר תִּהְיֶה לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם וּבְקִּנְאַת ה', לֹא בְּשִׂנְאָתוֹ לוֹ עַל דָּבָר אַחֵר...​​​​​​​

(1) It is forbidden to speak against one's friend — even if not to his face and even if it be true — something that will shame him. And not only demeaning things in general, such as mentioning about him the [negative] deeds of his fathers and his relatives, or his early deeds, both those between him and his Maker and [those between] him and his neighbor; for since he now conducts himself correctly it is forbidden to demean him with this and it is called lashon hara. — But even if he saw him of late doing something unbefitting according to the din, one of the things between man and his Maker (for in those things between man and his neighbor there are many distinctions, which we will explain, the L–rd willing, below in Principle X), it is also forbidden to demean him with this, even not before his face, if not in accordance with the qualifications explained below in section 7.

(2) And there is no distinction in this between [reporting him to have transgressed] an absolute negative commandment or an absolute positive commandment of the Torah, which is well known to be forbidden, in which instance he will certainly be shamed before the hearer, but even if it is something which many Jews are not careful about, in which instance he will not be greatly demeaned, such as saying about one that he does not want to learn Torah or that something which he said is false and the like (unless there be some benefit in this, such as apprising his friend that something is false, intending only his benefit, as will be explained below in Principle 10) — even in such instances, it is forbidden. For in any event, according to his [the speaker's] words, he is a man that does not fulfill the Torah. And it is even forbidden to speak against him in the branches of the mitzvoth, such as that he is stingy and does not honor the Sabbath as he should (this [the honoring of the Sabbath] being included in the positive commandment of "Zachor" [i.e., "Remember [Zachor] the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it" (Shemoth 20:8)], as explained in Charedim].) Or even if he maligns him for violating a general edict of the Rabbis, as when they [the Rabbis] rule that ab initio this and this should not be done. And [it is forbidden] even if not spoken to his face, and even if it is true, he [the speaker himself] having seen him do this thing.

(3) But this din is subject to various qualifications, as I shall explain. For if he [the object of the lashon hara] were a "mediocre" person, a plain man of Israel, who generally guarded himself against sin, and "stumbled" in this sin only occasionally, and it is possible to assume that he committed this sin unintentionally, or that he did not know this thing to be forbidden, or that he thought the ruling to be a stringent one [chumra], or conducing to a good trait in general, which saintly men are circumspect in — then, even if he saw him transgress this several times, he should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt, and it is forbidden to expose him, so that he not be an object of shame before his people, and so that he not be shamed even in his own eyes. And it is forbidden to hate him for this, for he must be judged in the scales of merit, this being a positive commandment of the Torah, according to many poskim, viz. (Vayikra 19:15): "In [the scales of] righteousness shall you judge your friend."

(4) But if it appeared to them [see Rabbeinu Yonah 215, 218, and 220] that the sinner knew of the issur itself, and committed the sin intentionally — such as illicit relations, the eating of forbidden foods, or the like — the knowledge of this issur having spread in Israel, the following must be taken into consideration: "If he is "mediocre" in other things, usually guarding himself from sin, and in this sin having been seen to transgress only once and in secret, it is forbidden to reveal his sin to others, even not in his [the sinner's] presence, and he who does reveal it is guilty in doing so. For perhaps that sinner has repented of his evil way and his mind has been in turmoil over that sin, and he has been forgiven by the L–rd. For the root of repentance is bitterness of heart, and if he [the viewer] makes this sin public, he [the sinner] will be an object of scorn and mockery in men's eyes — after having repented of his evil and having been forgiven for his sin! Therefore, the fool, who mentions his sin, will himself be sinful and guilty. And it is not to be revealed even to the judges of the city, even if he has with him a second witness to substantiate his claim (for if not, then even without this [possibility of his having repented] it is forbidden to reveal it; for [since he is only a single witness], the judges are forbidden to believe his words and can only confirm him as "a speaker of lashon hara," as we shall explain below), and there can be no benefit in his doing so [i.e., in revealing the sin]. But he must reprove him in private for having rebelled against his G–d by sinning, and [he must] tell him to take care to "fence himself off" from the factors that brought him to it, so that he not come to sin again. And his reprover must take care to speak to him gently, so as not to shame him, as it is written (Vayikra 19:17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him [in reproving him harshly]." And all of this that we have written applies even if he is only a mediocre person in other respects; how much more so if he is a Torah scholar and a fearer of sin, who was suddenly overpowered by his evil inclination, in which instance it is a great sin to publicize his sin. And it is forbidden even to bethink himself of it, for [it is to be assumed that] he certainly repented and that though his evil inclination overpowered him once, his spirit is bitter unto him and his heart is extremely fearful within him over his guilt. As Chazal have said (Berachoth 19a): "If you have seen a Torah scholar who transgressed at night, do not think evil of him in the daytime, for he has certainly repented."

(5) But if they see that the sinner is one of the foolish scoffers who hate their reprovers, as it is written (Mishlei 9:8): "Do not reprove the scoffer, lest he hate you," and their words will certainly not be accepted, and men such as these readily return to their folly, so that he may very likely come to sin again — if so, it is better for them if they tell it to the judges of the city, so that they chastise him for his sin and keep him from future transgression. And it would seem that the same holds true for [telling] the relatives of the sinner if [we know that] their words [of reproof] will be accepted by him [see Be'er Mayim Chayim]. And the entire intent of the teller should be for the sake of Heaven and in zeal for the L–rd, and not because of their hatred of him for something else. And the judges, too, should chastise the sinner in secret and not "whiten his face" in public, as it is written (Vayikra 19:17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him." And all this if they saw him with [i.e., if they were] two witnesses, but if he were a single witness, he may not testify against his friend, for his testimony is in vain, the judges being unable to rely upon it, viz. (Devarim 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Therefore, [if he does so], he is considered a motzi shem ra [the spreader of an evil report], concerning which our Rabbis have said (Sha'arei Teshuvah 22): "One who testified singly against his friend receives stripes of rebellion." And our sages have said (Pesachim 113b): "Three are hated by the Holy One Blessed be He," one of them being "one who sees a thing of ervah [immorality] in his friend and testifies against him singly." But he can reveal the thing secretly to his [the sinner's] Rabbi and to his close confidant, if he knows that his words will be accepted as those of two witnesses. And his Rabbi is permitted to hate him for this and to distance himself from his company, until it becomes known to him that he has repented of his evil way. But his Rabbi may not tell this to others, it being no better than seeing it himself, as we have written above in section 4.

(6) And it seems to me also that if the man were accustomed to repeat his folly, then even if his Rabbi were not very discreet, so that his sin might become public knowledge, still, if his words of reproof would be accepted by the sinner, so that he would no more repeat his offense, it is possible that it is permitted to reveal it to him [the Rabbi], since the teller's intent is to benefit the sinner and not to demean him. And now we shall return to our previous point, that even if two saw him at the time of the sin, and he were a man who readily returned to his folly, still, it is permitted to reveal this only to the judges of the city and not to others. For, in any event, is it not true that we have seen him transgress this issur but once? Perhaps his evil inclination overpowered him, and then he repented, groaning over this in bitterness of heart — so that this sinner has not yet left the category of "your neighbor" because of this (see Vayikra 19:17).

(7) And all of these dinim that we have set down apply only to a man who is wont to regret his sins. But if you have probed his ways and seen that the fear of G–d is not before his eyes and that he always persists in a way that is not good — such as one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven or is unheedful of a transgression which every one of his people knows to be a transgression — that is, whether the sin you wish to reveal has been committed deliberately many times by the sinner or he often transgresses deliberately a different sin which is known by all to be a sin — then it is apparent that it is not because his evil inclination overpowered him that he transgressed the word of the L–rd, but that he does as his heart sees fit and the fear of G–d is not before his eyes. Therefore, it is permitted to shame him and to speak demeaningly of him, both before him and in his absence. And if he does something or says something which can be judged either in the scales of merit or in the scales of guilt, he must be judged in the scales of guilt, since he has shown himself to be an absolute evildoer in his other affairs. And thus have our Rabbis said (Bava Metzia 59a): "'And you shall not wrong, one man, his fellow [amito]' (Vayikra 25:17) — 'a people who is with you' [am ito] in Torah and mitzvoth — do not wrong him with words!" And if one does not direct his heart to the word of the L–rd, it is permitted to shame him for his deeds, to make known his abominations, and to spill scorn upon him. And they said further (Yoma 86b): "Flatterers are exposed because of the desecration of the Name [that they engender]." And much more so if one reproved him for [his sin] and he did not desist from it, is it permitted to expose him and to reveal his sin in "the public gate" and to spill scorn upon him, until he returns to the good, as the Rambam has written in the end of Hilchoth Deoth 5. But it is important not to forget certain considerations that this entails, which I have written of in Be'er Mayim Chayim.

(8) When beth-din tell a man a certain din involving a positive commandment, whether in the area of between "man and his Maker" or in that of "between man and his neighbor," and he absolutely refuses to fulfill it and has no rationale for his refusal, it is permitted to speak demeaningly of him and even to record his refractoriness in the registry for all the generations [to see]. And if he attempts to excuse his behavior, his din is as follows: If we understand that what he says is not true, but merely an attempt to push us off, we need not believe him, and we may demean him and even record his taint, as mentioned above. But if there is some doubt, it is forbidden to speak demeaningly of him.

(9) And now we return to what we began with. For from what we wrote in the beginning [sections 3 and 4], we learn that it is forbidden to demean one's friend and to tell of his negative traits, as when we see him to be haughty or to become inordinately angry or [to display] other unsightly traits, which [i.e., the possession of which traits] is absolutely degrading. And though it be true [that he did act as related of him], who knows if he did not repent in bitterness of heart over these evil traits? And even if one saw that he was habituated to these evil traits and that he was not bitter over them at all — in spite of this, it is forbidden to berate him. For perhaps he is unaware of the gravity of the issur. For, in truth, we see it patently in many individuals, even (sometimes) in Torah scholars, that they do not regard these evil traits as such a grave issur — as they are, indeed, in truth, to those who contemplate them in Scripture and in the words of Chazal — but only as something not quite appropriate. And perhaps this sinner, too, is of this mind. And if he knew the true gravity of the issur, it is possible that he would exert all of his powers not to transgress them (viz. Shabbath 69a): "If he [the sinner] were "unwitting" [shogeg] relative to kareth ["cutting- off"], (i.e., if he did not know that the sin were punishable by the grave penalty of kareth, and he were "witting" relative to [having transgressed] a negative commandment, his act is called "unwitting" [in that he is not aware of its full gravity]). To the contrary, if one sees that he [the sinner] is habituated to one of these evil traits, he should reprove him and impress upon him the gravity of the issur. And in this he would be fulfilling the positive commandment of "Reprove shall you reprove your fellow." And it is possible that he would admit that he was doing wrong, but that at the time his way was just in his eyes, viz. (Mishlei 21:2): "A man's every way is just in his eyes." Therefore, it is forbidden to perceive him as "wicked" and to go and speak [demeaningly] of him.

(10) And even so, if one sees a degrading trait in a person, such as haughtiness or anger or other evil traits or that he neglects Torah study and the like, it is proper for him to tell this to his son or to his students, and to exhort them not to keep company with him so as not to learn from his deeds. For the root of the Torah's exhortation against lashon hara, even when [what is said] is true, applies when one's intent is to shame his friend and to rejoice in his shame. But if his intent is to guard his friend against learning from his [the sinner's] ways, it is obviously permitted, and is also accounted a mitzvah. Yet, in this case and the like, it seems that it is a mitzvah for the teller to explain the reason that he is speaking demeaningly of his friend, so that the listener not err in permitting through him [the speaker] even more [leniency] than this, and also so that he [the listener] not come to wonder how he [the speaker] can thus contradict himself. For at one time he tells him that it is forbidden to speak [lashon hara] even if it is true (as will be explained in Principle 9, that it is a great mitzvah to separate one's young children from this sin), and now, he himself speaks it! (A parallel can be found in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 242, as to whether on Shabbath eve certain things may be permitted, which other poskim forbid, and the like.)

(11) And note also a great fundamental in these things: If one wishes to bring his friend into his affairs, such as to hire him for his work or to go into partnership with him or to make a match with him, and the like, even if until now he has heard nothing negative about him, still, it is permitted to make inquiries of people as to his character and his dealings. Even though they may tell him something negative about him, still it is permitted, since his intent is for his own good alone, so that he will not come afterwards to injury or to strife or to contention and desecration of the Name, G–d forbid. But it appears to me that he must apprise the one he is making inquiry of, that he wishes to make a match with him [the one he is inquiring about] or enter some kind of partnership, as mentioned above. If he does so, there will be no fear of issur — neither because of his questions (because he has no desire to demean him, but desires only his own benefit, as we have explained — though he must take care not to believe his answer completely (if negative) by virtue of the issur of accepting lashon hara, but [he must "hear" the answer] by way of suspicion only — to protect himself) — nor is there any issur by virtue of the answer of his neighbor that would cause us to say that he [the inquirer] transgresses "Before the blind man you shall not place a stumbling- block," For even if he [the answerer] speaks about him [the one inquired about] completely pejoratively, he, too, is not guilty of any issur thereby, since his intent, too, is not to speak demeaningly of his friend, but to tell the truth in order to benefit this inquirer, who has taken counsel with him in this affair, as we explained elsewhere, this being permitted by the din. But he [the answerer] must take great care not to exaggerate his response beyond what he knows to be the truth of the matter and [beyond furnishing] other details pertinent to the inquiry (see below, Principle 9 of Hilchoth Rechiluth in this connection). But if he does not apprise his friend of the reason for his inquiry, but makes himself "as a stranger" [to the subject of his inquiry] so that he come to know better the character of that man [inquired about], it seems obvious that he will be in transgression of "Before a blind man, etc."; for through him his friend [the answerer] will perform an issur if he speaks derogatory things about him, even if they be true, as we have explained elsewhere. For the issur of lashon hara applies even to what it true, according to all of the Poskim. And it may not be spoken unless he intends that in speaking thus demeaningly of him some good will "sprout" for another. But this lacking, he may not speak it. And even if through his speaking it some good does redound to another, still, his intent was to demean. Therefore, he [the inquirer] must do as we have written.

(12) And if he transgressed and spoke lashon hara about his friend and came to repent, it [his repentance] depends upon this: If his friends rejected his words and his friend was in no way demeaned by this [lashon hara] in their eyes, if so, there adheres to him only the sin of "between man and his Maker" (and not that of between "man and his neighbor"), his having transgressed the will of the L–rd, who commanded this [that lashon hara must not be spoken], as we wrote above in the introduction. His correction is to regret what has passed, confess [his sin] and take it upon himself with a full heart not to repeat this [sin] in the future, as with all sins between man and his Maker. But if his friend were demeaned by this in the eyes of the hearers and through this suffered physical or financial harm, or if he were caused [emotional] pain by this, this is in the category of all the sins between man and his neighbor, which even Yom Kippur and the day of death do not atone for until he conciliates his neighbor. He must, therefore, ask pardon of his friend for this, and when he is conciliated and forgives him, there remains with him only the sin of between man and his Maker, and he must do as mentioned above. And even if his friend does not yet know anything about it, he must reveal what he did to him which was not in accordance with the din, and ask forgiveness of him for this, since he knows that through him this harm was done him. From this we can understand how much one must take care to guard himself from this pernicious trait [of lashon hara], for if one is steeped in this, G–d forbid, teshuvah [repentance] is almost impossible for him. For he certainly will not remember all of the souls whom he grieved by this lashon hara. And even those people whom he remembers as having stirred up evil against will not know of it, wherefore he will be ashamed to reveal it to them. And sometimes 54 he will speak of a family taint and thereby harm all the future generations, so that he can never be pardoned for this. As Chazal have said (Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 8:7): "One who speaks of a family taint never has atonement [for this]." Therefore, one must distance himself from this extremely pernicious trait, so that he not thereafter be, G–d forbid, [in the category of] "the crooked cannot be straightened" (Koheleth 1:15).

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור