Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Tochacha And Arvut

Targum Unkles (see Ramban as well) and Sharei Teshuva (3:72) explain (19:17) הוכיח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא  refers to one that doesn’t rebuke his/her friend that they carry the burden of the sin as well.  Rav Elchonan Wasserman (Betzah #67) says we see that they are of the opinion that the mitzvah of תוכחה  is an outgrowth of the din of ערבות.  ערבות  is what teaches us that one bears the sin of another if one has the wherewithal to object to the sin (see Sanhedrin 27b.)  We see that they hold that תוכחה  is tied into the obligation of ערבות.  The Yad Shaul uses this principle to explain Rashi in Sanhedrin 75a ד"ה ואם איתא  that there is no mitzvah of תוכחה  for a גר תושב.  Why is there no mitzvah for a גר תושב?  He explains since they aren’t included in ערבות, there is no mitzvah to rebuke them.  

Last week I cited the Mishna Berura that brings the Yereim that even when one won’t be listened to there is an obligation of rebuke.  The Beiur Halacha however, proves that there is no obligation of ערבות in that situation. 

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (608:5) says the opposite.  He says that its ערבות  that is the cause of the obligation to give rebuke even if it won’t be heeded (this is the opposite of the way the Beur Halacha understands the Yereim that there is no ערבות in that situation but there is a mitzvah of תוכחה.)  In fact, in 156:7 the Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that the mitzvah of תוכחה  applies only to a friend that will listen to the rebuke that s/he is being told.  This opinion runs contrary to the Yereim but it supported by the Ritva in Betzah 30a that explains the obligation to rebuke someone else if it won’t be heeded is because of the principal of ערבות.  That means in his view one is viewed as responsible for the sin as long as s/he doesn’t object to it.

1 comment:

  1. i don't understand the shulchan aruch harav's pshat in the yereim (and the words of the ritva). If the reason is because of arvus and arvus is responsibility for the person, how can that be mechayev tochacha if you know he won't listen. It seems like he is explaining that there is arvus for the sin not for the person doing the sin. How can that be possible? the sin never entered into an arvus agreement?

    ReplyDelete