Would anyone like to explain what this gemora is saying? Is it saying that there is a limit to the mitzva of rebuke and that is when it causes the chastizer a certain amount of suffering. When that happens he is exempt from having to give further rebuke. Alternatively rebuke has no exemption. As long as it is possible to correct the person he is required to do it. But this gemora is saying that there is no mitzva of rebuke when the person isn't listening. The indication of this state is the point of dispute. Also problematic is the issue of his wife being beaten. The Maharsha says he doesn't understand it.
Erachin(16b): How far shall reproof be administered? Rav said until the person being rebuked beats him. Shmuel said until he is cursed. R’ Yochanon said until he is rebuked.This is a disagreement amongst Tanaim. R’ Eliezer said until he is beaten, R’ Yehoshua said until he is cursed and Ben Azai said until he is rebuked…. How much abuse should a person suffer before he changes his lodging? Rav said until he is beaten. Shmuel said until they throw his bundles over his shoulder. In the case where he himself is beaten, everyone agrees he should leave. Also in the case where they threw his bundles over his shoulder there is no dispute. The dispute is only when his wife is beaten. One view is that this is not a reason to move since he is not personally suffering. The other says he should move because there will inevitably be a quarrel. Why is there hesitation to move when he is suffering? Because when a person moves his reputation suffers and so does that of his former landlord.
However there is a contrary view which says that rebuke must be given no matter what the response is
Tanchuma(Tazria #9): G‑d told the angel Gavriel to go and mark with ink a letter tav on the foreheads of the tzadikim in order that the angels of destruction would not be able to kill them. Gavriel was also told to mark with blood a letter tav on the foreheads of the wicked so the angels of destruction will have the ability to kill them. However the prosecuting angel came to G‑d and asked how were the righteous different than the wicked that they should be saved? G‑d replied that the difference was that the tzadikim were perfectly righteous while the wicked were perfectly wicked. The prosecuting angels said that the tzadikim had the ability to give the wicked rebuke but they did not. G‑d replied He knew that even if the tzadikim had rebuked it would not have been accepted by the wicked. The prosecuting angel answered that while it was clear to G‑d that the protest would not be accepted but it was not obvious to the tzadikim. Therefore the tzadikim should have rebuked the wicked and suffered insults in order to sanctify G‑d Name and to endure beatings as we see from the prophets such as Yermiyahu and Yeshaya.
It is fascinating sugya? It raises many important questions. What price does a rebuker have to pay, financially, phsically, and socially. Of course it gets even more complicated when you consider that there also has to be an appraisal that sometimes a rebuke turns a shogeg into a mayzid and should not always be done when the rebuke will have no effect. That in turn of course raises the social judgement of how to know when this is the case.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the overwhelming folk halachah of chareidi culture is to always err on the side rebuke. I wonder if others share that impression and if anyone can identify contemporary textual sources that speak to this isssue.
In addition, I would guess halachah makes a distinction on matters of hochachah between halachah and chumrah, yet it seems to me that this distinction has evaporated in Chareidi hashkafah.
Finally, some of these judgement calls depend heavily on communal context. For example, certain kinds of rebuke can have different effects in different communities and thus the halachic directive would change based on context. Again I would be curious to hear about contemporary writings that speak to these issues.
It seems to me the overwhelming folk halachah of chareidi culture is to always err on the side rebuke. I wonder if others share that impression and if anyone can identify contemporary textual sources that speak to this isssue.
ReplyDelete==================
The issue is what is the purpose of rebuking others. This unclarity is inherently in the verse where rebuke is learned from
Vayikra (19:17). You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall reason with your neighbor, and not allow sin on his account.
Minchas Chinuch (#239.6):It is appears to me that the obligation for rebuke is not only from the explicit verse regarding rebuke – but also from Vayikra (19:16): Do not standing idly by the blood of your fellow. This is no different that the obligation of this verse to save a person who is drowning in a river. Also Devarim (22:2) regarding returning that which was lost includes returning the person himself. So surely he would be obligated to save a person from sin which is the lost of his soul and his body. Therefore a person is definitely obligated to restore a person to spiritual health and save him from sin
Is the purpose to remove hatred from your heart which is the sin referred to at the end of the verse? Is it to stop the other from sinning to prevent you from being attracted to that sin? Is it because all Jews are affected by the sins of others and will be punished if they don't try to stop the sinner?
All the above views are expressed in the rishonim. In addition there are clear sources that one must continue rebuke the sinner even if he beats you or even if leaves relgion.
I like this one:
ReplyDelete"The dispute is only when his wife is beaten. One view is that this is not a reason to move since he is not personally suffering. The other says he should move because there will inevitably be a quarrel."
Obviously, no-one considered the fact that the wife could suffer from being beaten a valid reason to move...
Funny...
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/73165722.html
ReplyDeletePOSTVILLE - Former Agriprocessors Manager Sholom Rubashkin is getting a lot of support from the Jewish Community in Postville. A jury convicted Rubashkin last week of 86 federal fraud charges.
Several homes have posters of Rubashkin on an American flag reading "Send Shalom Home" in their front yards. That's upsetting some veterans who say this is illegal.
Local veterans are angry about the design of the posters.
"I was outraged," Veteran Gary Hooper said.
"You got him pasted right into the flag...that's not right," Veteran Terry McNally.
They point to a section of the Iowa Code that makes it illegal to desecrate a flag.
Veteran Harlan White said, "The flag is very sacred to me and our country."
"I sacrificed my blood for the flag, so did my father and grandfather. It means our freedom," Hooper added.
City and state officials say its unclear whether the poster actually violates the law or not.
The Postville VFW is preparing a response and also asking for an apology from those who displayed the signs in their yards.
http://www.hir.org/forms_2008/Complete_Sara_Hurwitz.pdf
ReplyDeleteSome of these modern orthodox rabbis have lost their minds. Here are 3 "teshuvos" written by them and backed up by Avi Weiss were they think they can compare women from today with tzedrayte feminist agendas to every tzadekess from the time of Chazal & Rishonim to say that women can be rabbis and morei horaah.