Thursday, May 9, 2019

Rebuke For Yourself

The Rambam in listing the commandment of תוכחה as #205 on his list (which I’m still looking for an explanation as to what kind of order the Rambam is using,) lists the commandment of תוכחה.  He explains the mitzvah is to stop someone else from sinning, למנוע אותו ממנו.  He follows this הגדרה in Daot 6:7 that the mitzvah is להחזירו למוטב.  Following this logic, it should come out that if one knows that the recipient of his/her rebuke will not adhere to the words being thrown at them, that there is no obligation of rebuke.  Indeed, that it the opinion of the Smag עשה  #11 (as cited in Beiur Halacha 608.)  In fact, it may be according to the Rambam that if one can stop the sinner via kind words instead of harsh words, then the mitzvah of תוכחה must be performed in that manner (heard from Rav Chayim Shalom Deutsh in the name of Rav Levi Ginzburg.)  

However, the Beuiur Halacha also cites the dissenting opinion of the Rav Eliezer M’mitz and it is clear from the Rosh in the name of the Baal Haetur in Betzah 30a that they disagree and hold even if the rebuke won’t be accepted there still is an obligation of תוכחה.  What is their reasoning, what’s the point of shouting empty words? 

One approach (set forth by Dibros Moshe Shabbos siman 42 and Bircas Avrohom Betzah) is that they hold of any entirely different גדר of the mitzvah.  They don’t maintain the point of the mitzvah is to stop the sinner from sinning, rather the point is for the rebuke, he shall not stand idle and let his eyes see sin happening.  The point of the mitzvah isn’t to help the one being rebuked, it’s to help the one giving the rebuke so that he isn’t influenced by the negative behavior that s/he is witnessing. Hopefully more on this in the future so stay tuned.

2 comments:

  1. couple of haaros
    See הרחבת גבול יעבץ from rabbi david cohen in the קונטרס he wrote on the topic of the order of the mitzvos acc. to rambam where he suggests that the order is based on the עשרת הדברות but seems not to really have an order within each mitzva.
    Secondly, how can you quote torah from that apikoress Levi Ginzberg?
    third perhaps the mitzvah of tochacha applies even when they won't listen acc. to r"e"m is maybe on the offchance that it will help. or maybe because lo plug on de'oraiso

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't be confused with Loui Ginzburg. I'm quoting the mekubal from Israel.
    The Poskim say the case is he won't listen, according to what your interpretation is, that's not the case. I assume if they say the case is that we know the recipient won't listen, that they wo't listen at all.

    ReplyDelete