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.
couple of haaros
ReplyDeleteSee 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
Don't be confused with Loui Ginzburg. I'm quoting the mekubal from Israel.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.