[Avodah] Are We to Humiliate Sinners as Mitzvah Tochacha?

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi]

Brent Kaufman wrote:
The commandment is to admonish, not to ensure the sinners repent.

It seems this is inaccurate. We are commanded to continue to admonish until
they accept or are readying to strike the admonisher.
[RaMBaM DeOs 6:7] One who notices a co-religionist who has sinned or has
taken an unhealthy life-path, has a duty [Mitzvah] to repair – Holech
BeDerech Lo Tova, Mitzvah LeHachziro LeMutav
Furthermore, he must continue to rebuke until the sinner is ready to strike
https://rambam.alhatorah.org/Main/Deiot/6.1#m7e_he_he_n6
Sounds pretty much like it's our duty to ensure they do the right thing,
no?
And to continue even though the sinner clearly rejects our advances and is
V angry and aggressive.

As for humiliating the sinners - as I posted earlier, the RaMBaM in
Teshuvah Ch 4, 2:5 writes - one who hates receiving rebuke loses
opportunities to repent because when one is advised of his evil deeds and *is
humiliated* … https://rambam.alhatorah.org/Main/Teshuvah/4.1#m7e_he,en_he_n6
one presumes this means that we begin without humiliating but as the sinner
refuses to make corrections we intensify our approach

As for “Just as it is a Mitzvah to say that which will be listened to,
    so it is a mitzva to not to say that which will not be listened to”,
and “Do not reprimand a scoffer lest he hate you”,
Rabbenu Yona [ShTeshuvah 3:196] rules that these apply only to the sinner
who will not listen EVEN to his Rav or RY. If he MIGHT listen to his Rav or
Rosh Y we all must chastise even if we are certain that we will be
dismissed or ignored. He writes – if it is [A] revealed to all, [B]
known, [C] tested
and [D] analysed [he appears to be V determined that there is absolutely
not even the slightest chance that he may listen] that the sinner hates
rebuke and will not listen [even] to the voice of his teachers and will not
bend his ear [even] to his instructors - about this is it stated (Proverbs
9:8), “Do not rebuke a scoffer, for he will hate you.” And they said
(Yevamot 55b), “Just as it is a commandment to say something that will be
heard, so is it a commandment to not say something that will not be heard.”
And they said (Beitzah 30a), “It is better that they be inadvertent, and
not be intentional.”

As for the Rama (OC 608:2) this is a most curious case. The women are
eating on Erev YKippur, all the way until it starts to get dark, which is
prohibited by Torah Law, as we must add MeChol, from the day which is
definitely not YK, before twilight, to the Kodesh.
Now the Rama does say, Mutav Sheyihyu Shogegim, but only AFTER they have
already been advised in a public rebuke that they must light earlier. Well
in that case, they're no longer Shogegim inadvertent but deliberate sinners.
Perhaps the case is where the women argue they are doing as their mothers
and grandmothers did and all this protesting that they must stop eating
earlier is but the noise of fanatics and extremists.
Even so there is an obligation to rebuke once but only once, PUBLICLY
[does this mean every year? Have they not already heard this last year or
some years back?]
And the duty to rebuke PRIVATELY remains upon every individual.
Perhaps the PUBLIC reprimand is made but once a year in order to prevent it
becoming a farce and eroding the authority of the town Rabbonim.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20251030/b0a33ca0/attachment-0001.htm>