Standing By Your Sex-Hobbyist -Man; Because It's Your Fault Too?

Let him love rebuke


By Alana Suskin

Talmud Masechet Tamid 28a: It was taught, Rabbi says, “Which is the right way that a person should choose? Let him love rebuke, since as long as there is reproof in the world, ease of mind comes to the world, good and blessing come to the world, and evil departs from the world.”

Well, who do I know who loves rebuke? Let’s see. There’s — no, well, how about — no. Hmm. I think , didn’t — …uh, nope, not her either. Maybe..? No, nope. Well, I can’t really think of anyone I know who loves rebuke. But rebuking, that’s another story. I’m sure we can all think of lots of folks who are pretty into it. They swoop into your office on an already unpleasant Monday to let you know about some trivial thing that no one but them noticed. Or they call you up and sweetly tell you they told you so. Or — Hey, Mom, do I have to hear about that again?

But surely, that’s not what the Torah is speaking of,

Leviticus 19:17: You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your fellow and do not bear sin because of him.

Actually, Americans overall, probably hear very little rebuke in our lives. We seem to have become a culture in which we have raised non-judgementalism to a religion. I can’t personally think of any term more vilified in American culture than “jugdemental.” It’s the ultimate term of disapprobation. We are told all the time by people not to judge them — how would we know what we would do in that situation after all?

We have somehow come to regard “not judging others” as one of the few values that all can agree on. Our society has somehow transformed any attempt to categorize a person’s behavior in moral terms into itself a great moral flaw.

It is difficult for us to imagine in this world in which we seem to be poised between the inflexible social regressiveness of those who are very eager to rebuke others, and the extreme permissiveness of those who advocate social progressiveness, that there could be a middle ground in which a religious person could advocate for a moral code and still refrain from attempting to control the lives of others through enforced rigid social mores being written into civil law.

How can we reconcile this call to judgement with our American value of non-judgementalism. The comment of the great Maimonides on this verse drives the point even farther home between what Judaism requires of us, and how American society shapes us:

He states: A person may not say, “I am not going to sin; and if another sins, that is a matter between him and God.” Such an attitude is repugnant to the Torah. We are commanded not to sin and not to permit any of our nation to sin. If one chooses to sin, it is every person’s duty to rebuke him and prevent him, even though there is no supporting evidence of his liability to punishment. One might think that in rebuking him you may cause him shame [and should therefore refrain]: Scripture thus says, “You shall not bear sin because of him.”

The Sages explain that this commandment is binding upon every person, so that even an inferior is under obligation to rebuke a person of high rank, and even if he is met with curses and insults, he may not desist or cease rebuking him until he is beaten — as the rabbis say, “to the point of suffering blows.”

This is the very opposite of what we hear people saying all the time: “Well, I don’t believe in it myself, but who am I to judge others?” Or, the reverse “If you don’t care for x, don’t do it.” And not only, according to Maimonides, is this the way we should act with our peers, but it is also an obligation of ours with those who have power over us - even to the point of them threatening or harming us. Lest we think this is another case of Maimonides being his usual hot radical self, this view is supported by the talmud, as well,

Shabbat 54b-55a: Rab and R. Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba taught …Whoever can forbid his household [to commit a sin] but does not, is seized for [the sins of] his household; [if he can forbid] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world. R. Papa observed, And the members of the Resh Galutha’s [household]are seized for the whole world. Even as R. Hanina said, Why is it written, The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of his people, and the princes thereof: if the princes sinned, how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they do not forbid the princes.

Clearly we’re not just speaking about individuals dealing with one another on a peer basis. The talmud tells us that because of God giving us the obligation to rebuke others, we are responsible for the sins of those whom we fail to rebuke - even if that means the entire world. Well, we already know that the rabbis were radicals, but indeed, this is strong language. According to what the rabbis tell us, we share in the responsibility for the wrongs of those whom we fail to inform of what they’re dong wrong.

Ramban (Nachmanides) commentary on our verse tells us that this is explicitly what is meant by the third clause of our command:

Ramban (Nachmanides) commentary on the Torah, Lev 19:17: “Do not bear sin because of him” means “You will bear sin because of his transgression if you do not rebuke him.”

In fact, the talmud even continues on to tell us that we are obligated to rebuke even if we don’t think that we can have any effect.

Shabbat 54b-55a: …R. Zera said to R. Simeon, Let the Master rebuke the members of the Resh Galuta’s house. They will not accept it from me, was his reply. Though they will not accept its returned he, yet you should rebuke them. For R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a favourable word go forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, of which He retracted for evil, save the following, where it is written, And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [taw] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof, etc (Ezekiel 9:4)

In this continuation of the talmud from above, the prooftext cited to show that Rabbi Shimon should rebuke those in the house of the Reish Galuta is a verse in which those people who went around “sighing and crying” about the wrongs that went on in the city are the only ones who are spared destruction of the city.

But there’s more to our verse than just the requrement that we are to take on even the entire world if they are doing wrong. The kind of thinking that has led the USA into Iraq, believes it understands this verse, but in fact, does not understand the beginning of the verse, which is essential to perform it correctly. We are commanded to judge those who do wrong and prevent them from acting to do wrong in the future (including making them desist from any wrong that they’re dong right now). But more importantly, we also must act according to love.

According to the Avnei Ezel, the first clause of our command means that one can only rebuke through love. If one does not have love in one’s heart when rebuking, it is impossible for it to be successful, like a “parent who rebukes a child and not someone elseís child. The closer you are to a person, the greater the love and the more sincere the rebuke. Rebuke that is the byproduct of love has the greatest affect….Without ‘do not hate’ there cannot be rebuke.”

I have in mind as I write of this two different situations. On the one hand, I am thinking of America’s war in Iraq. We went in, certainly with the intention of rebuking Iraq for — something. Bush may have been interested in his father’s legacy, or perhaps he really did want to topple an unjust governmet (although that does leave us the question of why that one - as if there were a shortage). Of course, on the other side of that coin, the Bush administration does not hear rebuke for their own actions. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov said,

“He who cannot accept reproach cannot become a great man.”

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch says “A society in which every member can call the conduct of every other member to account presupposes that every one is equally prepared to accept admonition on his own behavior.”

In fact, the Bush administration refuses any criticism, whether from our own citizens - by accusing those who question the President’s policies of being unpatriotic, or giving succor to terrorists; or whether the criticism comes from our allies, who have presented serious questions to us about policies of all kinds during the reign of this administration, and who have had their friendship returned with a slap or else been ignored entirely.

And while I keep this in mind, I also cannot help but consider the way that Jews in the USA respond to other Jews who in any way criticize policies of the Israeli government. Recently I was reminded of some writing that I had done some years ago, which stated in fairly blunt terms that I thought that some of Israel’s economic policies in the territories had led to the desperation which resulted in some Palestinians engaging in terrorism. While I grant that if I were to write it again, I might have chosen gentler language, I still believe that a significant part of the conflict is due not to religious or national differences but economic ones. My point, of course, was not that terrorism is ever acceptable. To the contrary — there are plenty of poor people in the world who never do harm to others. Violence is not an acceptable means of discourse — or anything else. Nevertheless, it is an explicable one. There is a difference between explaining a situation and saying that it is acceptable.

As soon as someone writes off behavior as inexplicable, it ceases to be the responsibility of the observer to do anything about the behavior. If you can’t understand why someone is doing something, it is very difficult to react to change the behavior. Alternatively, if you claim that the behavior is explicable only because the person is innately evil, or morally bankrupt, similarly, one no longer needs to consider one’s own potential contribution to the problem, because the proper response is only and always to protect oneself.

This is why I continue to say that Israel’s economic policies make a difference in what happens in the territories (and how that spreads into Israel) and that some of those policies are wrong, morally, and need to stop. While terrorism is not an acceptable response, it is not impossible to understand - particularly if those committing terrorism have actually achieved what appears to them to be some results, and simultaneously, those who have chosen alternative, non-violent means of protest and change, appear to be ignored by the world and local press, and appear to be failing to achieve any objectives. Acceptable? No. Understandable?

In Israel, itself, there is a wide spectrum of discourse: speaking about Israeli-Palestinian relations in economic terms, in moral terms, in terms which allow for a variety of grays, rather than a black or white “my country love it or leave it,” is much more common than it is in the USA.

Here in the US however, not only is there absolute rigidity in the “mainstream” Jewish community on any discussion of Israeli-Palestinian relations other than to state that Israel is defending itself so no criticism will be brooked, but this has actually gotten worse over the last few years.

Recently there has been much discussion from mainstream jewish organizations working to speak to young Jews, particularly on college campuses, who have heard the arguments about some of Israel’s policies. There is a great deal of concern over young Jews who decide that some of these arguments have merit, and they attempt to counter-argue, and show that in fact, all israel’s actions are provoked and done entirely for reasons’ of self-defense. Some studies show that younger jews feel that they have less of an attachment to Israel, and there is much hand-wringing over this situation. But it is very dificult, the more one reads, to maintian that all israel’s policies are motivated by pure motives of self-defense. House-demolitions of non-terrorists, the persecution of the cave-dwellers, the treatment of the Bedouin, cannot be defended through the argument of “pure motives.”

If we want to have young jews love israel, the answer is not to shut down dialogue about some of Israel’s security and economic policies. To the contrary, as Jews, the response of “it’s a shanda fur de goyim” has gotten less useful and more untenable as time goes on. We can’t pretend that no one will see our dirty laundry — it’s too late for that. Rather what we should be doing is opening up more dialogue. Instead of criticizing the many Jews — who have a loving relationship to Israel and who also want Israel to live up to the best of its ideals, we should be promoting discussion of how Israel can respond while maintaining those ethical ideals. Only by opening up discussion, making room for rebuke, can we ensure that those Jews who are currently feeling marginalized will be heard. And only when they are genuinely being heard, will they turn back to Judaism.

If we want Jews to connect to Israel, we have to show them that in fact mainstream Judaism actually does have place for those voices who can be critical off israel from a place of love. Judaism in fact insists on our being able to accept rebuke. If we want to survive, then we have to survive as Jews. And as Jews, our connection to Israel must be - as with our connection to all of life- from a place of deep moral and halachic grounding.

The Torah rejects the idea that we should just shut up and be silent if we feel that Israel is doing wrong. In the sugiya from Shabbat 54-55, not only do the rabbis tell us that we are responsible not only for individuals who do wrong if we are able to tell them, but in fact it continues, saying that even if those who do wrong are unable to hear what we say, we should nevertheless rebuke them - even the whole world, if it is necessary.

Even more than saying that one should only rebuke out of a place of love, saying, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” is the beginning to that verse to remind us that, to the contrary of the way it seems, if we fail to rebuke our brother when he is wrong, it is as if we hate them, because we condemn them to doing wrong, we assume that they cannot or will not change, that they will not take another way, even if it is shown to them. As long as the American Jewish community continues to shun thos voices which question whether what Israel is doing must remain unquestioned, as long as we make Judaism about how unquestioning our loyalty is, we do not love Israel.

Surely, if we love Israel, and believe as well that God gave us the Torah to teach us, then surely we must take seriously the possibility that there is a deep moral component to our inheritance of the land. And if that is so, then we who love Israel, the land, the people, klal yisrael, must be willing to stand up and say that we believe that some of the policies of Israel are wrong, and that even if we can do nothing about how other people behave, we care about how we behave, because we hold Jerusalem above our highest joy.

And I promise that should you come to rebuke me from a place of love, then I will be happy to discuss it, and as it is says in the Midrash Ribesh Tov,

“Both of you will join in love, and both of you shall obtain improvement.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE