Essentials of Tochacha

[Rabbi Kaganoff]

Essentials of Tochacha

By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

 

Question #1: Cross-gender Tochacha

“The Mishnah states that a man should not converse unnecessarily with a woman. At my workplace, there is a girl who is ostensibly observant, but I see inconsistencies in her observance level. Am I supposed to try to help her become more committed?”

 

Question #2: Ignored Admonition

Is there a mitzvah to admonish someone when I know that they will ignore me?

 

Answer:

Tochacha is a mitzvah bein adam lamakom, since we desire that Hashem be served well by all His servants, and it also demonstrates bein adam lachaveiro, because it indicates our concern for our fellowmen. The underlying principle of tochacha is the realization that fulfilling Hashem’s mitzvos is not merely an individual pursuit – it is a responsibility that I share with all of Klal Yisroel (see Sefer Hamitzvos #205). In explaining the reason for the mitzvah of tochacha, the Shaarei Teshuvah (3:19) notes that a devoted servant or employee performs his own work diligently and also tries to see that his co-workers do their jobs conscientiously. We are all members of the same nation and share a common, collective mission.

 

The mitzvah of tochacha applies whether the sin that is being perpetrated is between man and his fellowman or whether it is between man and Hashem (Sefer Hachinuch #239). Furthermore, the mitzvah applies equally to men and women – both have a requirement to be mochiach, and both should be admonished when they violate the Torah (Sefer Hachinuch #239). In addition, tochacha is a mitzvah that one should fulfill cross-gender; that is, a man is required to be mochiach a woman and a woman is required to be mochichah a man. We can demonstrate this principle through the following passage:

 

Eili and Channah

The pasuk in Sefer Shemuel describes how Channah went to Shiloh, at the time, the location of the Mishkan, the main religious headquarters of the Jewish People, and prayed to Hashem that she merit conceiving and bearing a child. She prayed at great length to Hashem, and Eili was watching her mouth. Channah spoke in an undertone, with only her lips moving but her voice inaudible, and Eili thought that she was inebriated. So, Eili told her, “For how long will you continue to be drunk? Remove your wine from yourself!” Channah responded, saying, “No, my lord, I am a woman who is greatly distressed. Wine and other intoxicating beverages I have not imbibed. I am pouring out my soul before Hashem (Shemuel I 1:12-15).

 

Based on Eili’s reproof of Channah, the Gemara derives that the mitzvah of tochacha includes not only admonishing someone for sinning, but even for inappropriate behavior that is not sinful (Berachos 31b, as explained by Tosafos ad loc.) After all, Eili was admonishing her not for doing something specifically sinful but for behaving in an inappropriate manner.

 

The Cardinal Rule of Tochacha

The most basic rule of tochacha is that the mochiach, the person who is reproving, must truly care for the offender. Being sincerely concerned about the other person's welfare is a condition that must be met if the reproof is to be accepted. Thus, tochacha is an extension of Ahavas Yisroel, loving our fellow Jew. The Rambam (Hilchos Dei’os 6:7) writes that the mochiach should explain that he is helping the offender earn a greater share in olam haba. To quote the Rambam: “One who sees his friend sinning or following a lifestyle that is not good has a mitzvah to influence him to return to the proper way and to inform him that he is harming himself… The one who rebukes must do so privately, with a pleasant manner and a soft voice.”

 

So, how do I influence someone, if I do not love him? The answer is that I am required to teach myself to love him, both to observe the mitzvah of Ahavas Yisroel and in order to fulfill the mitzvah of tochacha.

 

That tochacha must be performed in a pleasant manner is borne out in the following Talmudic passage: The Mishnah (Shabbos 34a) rules that shortly before Shabbos begins, a man is required to ask his family members whether all maasros and challah portions have been separated and whether the eruv has been set up. He then instructs them to kindle the lights in honor of Shabbos. The Gemara makes a point of noting that one should say all these things in a soft voice. These instructions are, in a way, very similar to admonishing one’s family members.

 

One size does not fit all

Prior to admonishing someone, the mochiach should analyze carefully what will be the most effective way to influence the offender. The tochacha should be tailor-made to the person receiving it and presented in a way that it is most likely to influence him or her to change. One should use stories, parables, and/or logical proofs, depending on what will speak most convincingly to the heart of the person one seeks to persuade (Sefer Chasidim #5).

 

Example:

Yitzchak is aware that he is required to influence his next-door neighbor, Benny, to be more observant. Yitzchak realizes that, to draw Benny closer to mitzvos, Yitzchak must sincerely care about him. Thus, Yitzchak’s first step is to truly care for Benny and to use every opportunity to develop a friendship. Once Benny feels that Yitzchak truly cares, he will be open to listening to what his friend has to say about being more meticulous when it comes to mitzvah observance. At this point, Yitzchak can begin to explain the benefits Benny reaps by observing mitzvos carefully.

 

We can now understand the following, somewhat rhetorical, declaration of the Gemara: Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: “I would be astounded to learn that there is anyone in our generation who knows how to admonish” (Arachin 16b).

 

Notwithstanding this observation, the halachic authorities rule that there is still a mitzvah of tochacha, and that one is required to strive to observe it (see Le’reiacha Kamocha pg. 286, quoting numerous authorities).

 

It is axiomatic that admonishing someone should not embarrass him (Arachin 16b; Toras Kohanim to Parshas Kedoshim). The recipient of the tochacha must be taught that it is in his best interest to improve, something that cannot usually be accomplished in an antagonistic interaction.

 

On the other hand…

Whoever has the ability to protest the misdeeds of members of his household and fails to do so is accountable for what they have done. The same is true for someone who could protest the misdeeds of the residents of his city, and even the entire world, but fails to do so. Therefore, the household of the Exilarch (Reish Galusa) is accountable for the misdeeds of the entire world (Shabbos 54b). Similarly, the entire Jewish People were punished in the days of Yehoshua for the crime of one individual, Achan (Yehoshua 22:20). Again, we find that the Kohen Gadol was responsible for the entire Jewish People. If one man sins, the entire nation will be punished, because of their failure to reproach him (Shaarei Teshuvah 3:72).

 

However, someone who admonished the evildoer appropriately has fulfilled the mitzvah of tochacha and will not be punished for the sinner’s evil deeds (Shaarei Teshuvah 3:72; Sefer Chasidim #5). To quote the Navi Yechezkel: Because you warned the evildoer to repent from his way, even though he did not repent – he will die for his sin, but you have saved your own life (Yechezkel 33:9).

 

Tochacha that will be ignored

However, the halachah is that when it is clear that a sinner will ignore any reprimand, one should not attempt to admonish him, as it says in Mishlei (9, 8): Do not rebuke a scoffer, lest he come to hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. As the Gemara expresses this idea: Just as it is a mitzvah to say something that will be heeded, so, too, it is a mitzvah to refrain from saying what will be disregarded (Yevamos 65b). In these instances, censure will cause the evildoer to sin more, rather than to do teshuvah, and, therefore, it must be avoided.

 

Who qualifies as a scoffer?

This question is discussed in a different passage of Gemara (Shabbos 55a), where we find the following conversation:

 

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: “The master should chastise the members of the Reish Galusa’s household.”

 

Rabbi Simon responded: “They will not listen to me.”

 

To this, Rabbi Zeira retorted: “Even if they will not listen, admonish them.”

 

Rabbi Zeira then quoted an Aggadic passage, in which a conversation transpired between Midas Hadin, the attribute of justice, and Hashem. At one point in this “conversation,” Midas Hadin challenged Hashem to punish the righteous for not protesting the evildoings of the wicked. Hashem answered: “I know for certain that even had the righteous protested, the wicked would not have listened.” To this, Midas Hadin retorted: “You knew that the wicked would not have listened. But how did the righteous people know?” And since the righteous had no way of knowing that the evil would not listen, they should be punished for not having attempted to influence them.

 

We can conclude from this that only when it is absolutely certain that the sinner will not listen, is there no mitzvah either to rebuke or to protest. However, as long as the possibility exists that the sinner might listen, one is required to rebuke him.

 

Someone who rejects Torah

There is no mitzvah to admonish an evil person who hates those who observe Torah (Tanna debei Eliyahu Rabbah, Chapter 18). When the Torah presents this mitzvah, it states, hochei’ach tochiach es amisecha, “surely, rebuke your ‘fellowman,’” the word used, amisecha, refers to someone who observes Torah and mitzvos as you do. The Mishnah Berurah rules that there is no mitzvah to reproach someone who desecrates Shabbos in public or who eats non-kosher when he has kosher food readily available – such a person is beyond the pale of being called amisecha. The Mishnah Berurah is uncertain whether there is a mitzvah to admonish someone who observes Shabbos but keeps kosher only when it is convenient to do so, or someone who observes Shabbos in public but desecrates it in private (Biur Halachah, 608:2 s.v aval; however, see Shu”t Avnei Neizer, Yoreh Deah #461, who understands that, in all these instances, there is still a mitzvah of tochacha).

 

Mutav sheyihyu shogagin

There are other instances when one should not rebuke someone who is sinning. One of them is when the sinner may not know that the activity is forbidden, and one is certain that the sinner will not change after being admonished (Sefer Chasidim #413). This halachic status is called Mutav sheyihyu shogagin ve’al yihyu meizidin, “Better that they sin out of ignorance than that they become intentional sinners” (Beitzah 30a; Bava Basra 60b). For brevity’s sake I will refer to this status as “mutav.”

 

In this situation, the tochacha will probably accomplish only having the person sin intentionally, instead of out of a lack of knowledge. Again, we have the idea that since the result of the reproach will be non-constructive, it should be avoided.

 

The law of mutav, better that they sin unintentionally than intentionally, is true even when the prohibition is quite clear and could easily be discovered by the sinner. In other words, the sinner is considered shogeig, uninformed that what he is doing is forbidden, only because he does not want to find out the truth. For example, even when all halachic authorities prohibit the activity, the sinner is still considered one who acted out of ignorance rather than with intent. One should avoid telling him of his error if one assesses that knowledge of the sin will not affect his behavior.

 

This background allows us to understand a passage of Gemara that otherwise seems extremely strange:

 

A person should always live in the place where his rebbe does, for as long as Shimi ben Geira [Shelomoh Hamelech’s rebbe] was alive, Shelomoh did not marry the daughter of Pharoah. [Rashi notes that the verse mentions Shelomoh marrying Pharoah’s daughter immediately after it mentions Shimi’s death, see Melachim I, 2:46 – 3:1.] However, there is a beraysa that says that one should not live in the place of his rebbe. These two statements do not disagree. One is discussing someone who listens to the rebuke of his rebbe and therefore being proximate to his rebbe will prevent him from sinning. The Beraysa is discussing someone who does not listen to his rebbe (Berachos 8a).

 

As Rashi explains, someone who does not listen to his rebbe is better living distant from his rebbe, so that he should be considered negligent when he does not hear his rebbe’s admonition. This is less severe than someone who ignored the admonition. The latter person will become an intentional sinner when he ignores his rebbe. The rule of mutav applies, notwithstanding that he moved a distance from his rebbe so as not to be reproached for this misdeed!

 

Probably won’t listen

Should one reproach an ill-doer when you think he will not listen, but you are not sure? The halachah is that mutav applies only when one is certain that the offending party will not listen. When one thinks that he will probably not listen, but it is not certain, one is required to admonish the offender (Tosafos, Bava Basra 60b s.v. Mutav).

 

Clearly in the Torah

Are there any instances when someone is unaware that something is forbidden and yet the rule of mutav does not apply? Yes, there is.

 

The rishonim dispute whether the law of mutav is true even when the prohibition is written clearly in the Torah. Many rishonim contend that there is an exception to the law of mutav when the Torah overtly prohibits the activity. In this instance, these authorities contend that one is required to rebuke those who violate this prohibition, even when the lack of concern about the prohibition is quite common. Others contend that when you are certain that the wrongdoer will ignore the admonition, you are not required to rebuke, even when the prohibition is written distinctly in the Torah. (Both opinions are quoted in Biur Halachah 608:2 s. v. Aval.) The Rema (Orach Chayim 608:2) concludes that one is required to admonish, in accordance with the first opinion.

 

Some authorities contend that this law applies only when we are in a position to stop the evildoers from their nefarious ways, but that there is no requirement to protest when we cannot prevent sinners from sinning, even when the prohibition is written clearly in the Torah (Birkei Yosef, Orach Chayim 608:4). Others contend that, under these circumstances, one will not be punished for not having protested, but there is still a mitzvah to protest the misdeed (Magen Avraham 608: 3, quoting Semaq).

 

Maybe it is clear

Assuming that we follow the Rema and rule that one is always required to rebuke someone violating a prohibition that is explicit in the Torah, there is a further dispute among authorities whether the rule of mutav applies when it is questionable whether or not the sinner will be violating a Torah law, such as someone who violates Shabbos during the bein hashemashos period -- at a time that it is questionable whether Shabbos has begun. The Yam shel Shelomoh (Beitzah 4:2) rules that the rules of mutav apply, whereas the Machatzis Hashekel (to Magen Avraham 608:2) is uncertain whether mutav applies in this situation.

 

Ruled in error

Similarly, someone who received a ruling permitting a particular activity, but that ruling is clearly in error, there is no mitzvah to admonish him, since he will not listen. However, once the person who issued the ruling recanted the ruling, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that there is now a mitzvah of tochacha, since the possibility exists that the errant party may now listen to reason or re-ask the question (Shu”t Igros Moshe, Even Ha’ezer 4:61:2 s.v.Ulefi zeh).

 

Repeat offender

What is the halachah if you see someone do something wrong for which you have previously rebuked him in a soft, kind way, as described above. Are you required to rebuke him again?

 

The Gemara rules that one is required to rebuke an evildoer repeatedly (Bava Metzia 23a). Nevertheless, we find a dispute among rishonim whether or not this law applies in all situations where one is required to be mochiach. The Sefer Chasidim limits this Gemara to someone with whom you have a very close relationship, such as your brother or parent. Such a person will not begin to hate you if you admonish him repeatedly for his sinful behavior, and therefore there is no limit to the number of times that one must rebuke him. However, in the opinion of the Sefer Chasidim, one should not admonish repeatedly someone with whom there is not such a close relationship -- out of concern that repeating the rebuke may cause him to hate you (Sefer Chasidim #413, quoted by Magen Avraham 608:3).

 

It appears that most authorities do not accept this distinction of the Sefer Chasidim, but rather rule that whenever I have a mitzvah to rebuke someone, I must do so repeatedly (see Magen Avraham 608:3; Orach Meisharim, page 159).

 

Conclusion

As I mentioned above, the basis of the mitzvah of tochacha is that my role in observing mitzvos is as a member of Klal Yisroel –and that I carry responsibility for my brethren at all times. It is insufficient for me to feel that I am minding my own garden when there are other Jews who are distant from our Father. I should always think of ways to help them return to the influence of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.