Arevut and Tokhacha
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal
Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur
#20: Arevut and Tokhacha
As we saw
last week, one of the greatest expressions of love is to help those who have
transgressed to repent. The Torah explicitly requires that one who notices
anothers improper behavior must rebuke the sinner. This obligation is found in
the Torah immediately after the prohibition to hate another Jew. In addition, it
is followed by a cryptic statement. The verse states:
You shall
certainly rebuke your comrade, and you shall not bear sin on his account. (Vayikra
19:17)
The Talmud in
Arakhin 16b interprets this in the following way:
From where do we know that one who sees in his neighbor something
unseemly is obligated to rebuke him? It is stated: "You shall certainly rebuke."
Before explaining
the ramifications and the halakhic distinctions regarding the obligation to
rebuke others, known as tokhacha, we must understand the nature of the
responsibility. In last week's lesson we identified an essential part of loving
one's fellow: the willingness to perform the uncomfortable task of helping
someone realize his or her mistakes. More than a mere act of love, rebuking a
fellow Jew who is straying from the path is characterized by the Rambam as a
natural extension of the Torah's mandate to care for one's fellow Jew. The
Rambam sharply criticizes one who lacks concern about what is happening in
society, focusing only on his own spiritual needs (Sefer Ha-mitzvot,
Positive 205):
He has
commanded us to rebuke the sinner or one who wishes to sin and to prevent him
from doing so through speech and reproach. It is unfitting to say: "I will not
sin. If someone else wishes to sin, what does it have to do with me? His issue
is with God." This is the opposite of the Torah. We are commanded
not to transgress and not to allow other members of our people to transgress,
and if someone tries to transgress, we are obligated to rebuke him and bring him
to repent.
The Rambam thus sets out that one's
concern for the Jewish people's spiritual wellbeing is paramount, which creates
uncomfortable situations and questions. At what point must one waive personal
needs and object to others actions despite the awkwardness?
First,
let us return to the verse which serves as the source for rebuke. In lesson #14,
we saw a disagreement as to whether the individual to be rebuked is one who has
personally wronged the rebuker or one who has been seen violating a biblical
commandment. Defining the subject and object of the verse will clearly shape our
understanding of the final clause, And you shall not bear sin on his account.
As
indicated in lesson #14, a simple approach is to apply this clause to one who
ignores his obligation to prevent another from abusing a third party: either one
rebukes or one bears sin. Under these circumstances, ones responsibility is
clear. As the injured party continues to act as if nothing is wrong, the
offender continues with his or her behavior, unaware of its ill effects.
The
commentators who follow this approach understand the verse as teaching us that
one who fails to reprove another will be held accountable for the sin. Onkelos,
the Targum Yerushalmi and the
Ibn Ezra all interpret it as follows:
You must
surely rebuke, or else you will be held accountable for your comrade's sin.
To what degree a person will be held
accountable must be analyzed, but the bottom line is that they understand the
verse to explicitly state that one can be punished for anothers sin if one
fails to provide rebuke.
Rabbeinu
Yona (Shaarei Teshuva 3:59; see also 72, 196) goes one step further by listing
And you shall not bear sin on his account as an additional prohibition,
violated by one who fails to confront sinners with reproof.
Rav
Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz He'arot, Yevamot 48:10), explaining the view
of the Tosafists, states that one who enables another to perform a sin is not
viewed merely as a passive accessory, but rather as an active partner in the
sin.
Indeed,
the Talmud is replete with examples of cases where one who stands idly by and
doesn't rebuke another is viewed as having personally sinned. Shabbat 55b
states as much regarding Chofni and Pinechas, the notorious children of the High
Priest Eli.
How can
the failure to rebuke a sinner be viewed as harshly as actually committing the
crime?
This
verse, which speaks of the responsibility to rebuke a sinner, becomes more
profound in light of another verse towards the end of Vayikra, in Chapter
26, a unit itself often called the Tokhacha (as is the corresponding
passage in Devarim 28). This unit details the various curses which will
befall the Jewish people if they fail to adhere to God's commandments.
Vayikra 26:37 states:
They will
stumble each man over his brother, as if before the
sword, even when there is no pursuer.
The simple understanding of
the verse, as Rashi points out, would indicate that when trying to escape, they
will fall over each other while running in confusion. However, the Talmud (Shevuot
39a) learns from this verse a concept similar to the one seen above. It expounds
this verse as follows:
"They will stumble each man over his brother
due to his brother's sin. This teaches that all Jews (kol Yisrael) are
guarantors (arevim) for one another (zeh ba-zeh).
The continuation of the
passage limits the responsibility to a case where one could have protested and
perhaps prevented another from sinning but did not do so. Nevertheless, this
derivation teaches us the obligation and its philosophical underpinnings: each
Jew is an arev, bearing arevut, mutual responsibility, for the
actions of all fellow Jews.
In fact, the term arevut has great significance. An arev,
a guarantor, promises to pay back anothers loan if the other fails to do so.
Using the term in the context of one Jew's obligation for another's sin would
seem to indicate that all Jews are guarantors for the obligations of other Jews.
Before
dealing with the specifics of the obligation to rebuke, we will analyze the
Torah's outlook regarding one's responsibility and arevut for fellow
Jews. What is the source of this responsibility and what are its ramifications?
This
concept of arevut has both positive and negative ramifications. Regarding
the negative ramifications, we have seen that one can be responsible for
another's sins; however, there is also a positive side of the coin. This concept
is also used as the source that each Jew has a responsibility to be concerned
about other Jews' observance of mitzvot. Thus, we find in Rosh Hashana
(29a) that a person can make a blessing on behalf of another individual, even
though the former has already fulfilled the obligation.
The Source of the
Responsibility
There are
a number of texts which discuss the source of this responsibility, which may
reflect differences of opinion as to its nature. Alternatively, one may
understand that there are different levels of arevut which came into
existence at different points in history.
The
Mekhilta explains that this
arevut began with the preparations for
the giving of the Torah, as "Israel encamped opposite the mountain" (Shemot
19:2). The Mekhilta comments on the
singular phrasing used in this clause, which is unusual, indicating that They
united themselves here with one heart, without the machaloket, the
disagreement, disputes and discord, of other encampments. The Mekhilta
then uses the same phrase, citing Rabbi, in the next chapter (20:2):
This
tells the praise of Israel: standing at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, they
united themselves here with one heart to accept upon themselves the Kingship of
Heaven joyously. Furthermore, they committed themselves to mutual
responsibility.
The term used, mashkon, literally
refers to security put down for another when one serves as the guarantor of a
loan. The Mekhilta continues by
defining the nature of this mutual responsibility.
God
revealed Himself to them to make a covenant not only about the revealed things,
but about the hidden things as well, as it says (Devarim 29:28), The
hidden things belong to Lord our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to
our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah. But
they said to Him, We are only willing to make a covenant concerning the
revealed things, not the hidden things. Otherwise, an individual may sin
privately, and the whole community will be held responsible!
In fact, the Talmud (Sanhedrin
43b-44a) analyzes arevut in terms of the covenant of Mount Gerizim and
Mount Eval, upon entering the land of Israel. The Torah (Devarim 11 and
27) describes a covenant of mutuality to be made upon these two mountains,
involving the pronouncement of blessings and curses regarding the respective
fulfillment or violation of various commandments. Moshe goes on (Devarim
29) to explain that the covenant is one binding upon future generations,
concluding (v. 28):
The hidden things belong to Lord our God, but the revealed things apply
to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this
Torah.
The Talmud expounds thusly:
This
point is disputed by Tannaim: The hidden things belong to Lord our God, but the
revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill
all the words of this Torah. Why are the words to us and to our
children and the first letter in forever dotted? To teach that God did
not punish for hidden things, until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan this
is the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Nechemya said to him: Did God ever punish
for hidden things; does not the Torah say, forever? Rather, just as God did
not punish them for hidden things [ever], so too He did not punish them for
revealed transgressions until they had crossed the Jordan.
Rabbi
Yehuda explains that after the crossing of the Jordan and entering into the
covenant at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, there was mutual responsibility for
hidden sins. The
dots that are found
in the Torah over certain letters indicate an exception. In this context, we see
that there is a distinction between the period prior to crossing the Jordan and
the period afterwards.
Let us
set aside the various ramifications of this responsibility for the moment. It is
clear that our sources indicate that "the revealed things apply to us and to our
children forever." Thus, the Jewish people share mutual responsibility for one
another's actions. It is also interesting to note that there are at least two
moments in Jewish history which witnessed this new acceptance of arevut:
the Giving of the Torah and the entrance into the Land of Israel. (For a more
in-depth picture of the halakhic ramifications of this arevut, see Rav
Baruch Gigi's article at:
www.vbm-torah.org/archive/halak57/12halak.htm.)
The
points in history of accepting mutual responsibility are at Sinai and at Gerizim
and Eval. The Torah and the Land of Israel, we may thus see, are legacies which
tie the Jewish people to each other.
The Nature of this
Arevut
This
arevut carries with it a number of halakhic ramifications, but it also helps
us develop a new philosophical outlook on the connections between Jews. Being
responsible for another means that one can help the other fulfill his or her
obligations because kol Yisrael arevim zeh ba-zeh.
This idea
is stated in an extreme form by Rav
David Tevele b.
Moses Rubin (1794-1861), best known
for his magnum opus on Jewish civil law, Nachalat David. In his
collection of sermons, Beit David (ch. 6), he writes:
Division
and disunity among the Jewish people is absolute heresy
The fact of the Unity
of God obligates the entire holy Jewish nation to be unified in love and
brotherhood, to be bound together, conjoined as one man, without any disunity,
just as the Creator is one
So too, the Jewish people, whose collective soul
emanates from this source of unity, must unite and cleave one to another, in a
degree of unity beyond that of the body, which is made up of numerous
independent organs. The unity of the holy Jewish nation testifies to His blessed
Unity. For this reason, the sin of causing discord is clearly understood to be
absolute idolatry
One who does so testifies that he has no portion in the God
of Israel.
Similarly, the Rambam (Hilkhot Teshuva
3:11) rules:
A person
may separate himself from the community even though he has not transgressed any
sins. A person who separates himself from the congregation of Israel and does
not fulfill commandments together with them, who does not take part in their
hardships or join in their fasts, but rather goes on his own individual path as
if he is from another nation and not this one, does not have a portion in the
World to Come.
One who disconnects himself from the
Jewish people essentially disconnects himself from God.
Accepting
Differences
The proper understanding of achdut (unity) and arevut is
vitally important; these concepts, if misunderstood, may actually lead to the
opposite result. In fact, sometimes our desire to create "unity" in its most
extreme forms actually breeds divisiveness. While achdut means unity, a
very similar word, achidut, means uniformity. If the call for achdut
becomes a call for uniformity, it often leads to disunity. The need for a
unified national front does not mean that there should be no differences among
people. To this end, sometimes our desire to live in a certain way actually
leads to accusations against those who conduct themselves otherwise.
What is the genuine Jewish outlook? Different strokes for different folks
are fine as long as there is a united cause. The Jewish people are made up of
twelve tribes which together form one nation. This complexity is part of the
wonderful makeup of the Jewish nation.
A nice
expression of this idea is expressed by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, author of Emet Le-Yaakov and Iyunim
Ba-Mikra. Chumash Ateret Rashi (Bamidbar 2:2) cites him as
questioning the chronology of the tribal banners. Why are these mentioned only
at the beginning of Bamidbar? Why wait until after the lengthy
descriptions of the building of the Mishkan (Tabernacle)?
He
explains that each banner represents the uniqueness of each tribe. Breeding
uniqueness and tribal spirit is very important, but only if a preexisting,
unifying cause binds everyone together. Only after the Mishkan has been
finished and all the tribes are encamped together around the unified goals and
messages embodied in the Mishkan can there start to be a development of
tribal unity, fostering distinctive strengths. Individuality is important, but
only if there is a higher cause and goal allowing a place for unity.
By the
same token, as long as the overall unifying goal and mission are maintained,
sometimes separation may actually be the greatest expression of achdut.
In their biography, Reb Yaakov: The Life and Times of HaGaon Rabbi Yaakov
Kamenetsky (Mesorah Publications, 1993),
Yonason Rosenblum and
Noson Kamenetsky cite Rav
Yaakovs support for splitting congregations: certain synagogues fraught with
dispute should divide, he suggested, rather than attempt to stay together in
unfeasible circumstances. This division may create a healthier communal
relationship, enabling those with different outlooks on public prayer, all under
the rubric of Halakha, to live together in peace and harmony. This is actually a
greater fulfillment of achdut, because unity is accomplished by
recognizing the different strands among the wonderful tapestry of tribes which
make up the Jewish people. As long as a common Mishkan is created, this
unity is inviolable.
This may
help us understand why arevut is invoked particularly at the moments of
accepting the Torah and coming into the Land of Israel. As long as the Jews have
a common goal and a common mission, they can embrace unity and mutual
responsibility, even as they set out for different communities and alternate
paths. The values which bind the Jewish people together outweigh the geographic
distance, and understanding this allows for a truer form of achdut, in
which everyone raises his or her own unique flag, while surrounding the same
Mishkan housing the same tablets from Sinai.
Similarly, Rav A.Y. Kook expounds a statement of the Zohar (Mishpatim
98a) decrying that which begins with unification and ends with separation in a
manner that is rather unique considering his inclusive worldview. Rav Kook
advances a separatist approach in order to create unity, explaining that
attempts at social integration between sectors with completely different
languages and religious aspirations would be spiritually and socially harmful.
However, as he explains, separatism is merely a means of achieving true
achdut:
This is
the inheritance of God in all matters of holiness separation for the sake of
unification, the opposite of crude generalization, which speaks nobly about
uniting everything into one package, and thus loses all spiritual glory and
majesty. In the end, the darkening of life dims the light of clear thought, and
the crude, unique love of every creation becomes stronger and poisonous, to the
point that everything separates and the entire world moves like a drunk weighed
down by sin. The other side begins with unification and ends with separation;
the side of holiness starts with separation and ends with unification. (Orot
Ha-kodesh 2:439)
Rav Kook illustrates his view with a
number of analogies, including the separation between Israel and other nations
and the distinctions between a kohen and an average Jew. (Rav Tamir
Granot, in his Letters of Rav Kook series for the VBM, has a lengthy and
fascinating exposition of Rav Kook's ideas on this topic
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/igrot/26b-igrot.htm.)
In short,
while it is true that kol Yisrael arevim zeh ba-zeh and the Jewish people
must be unified, we must recognize the differences among Jews and not force
everyone to walk the same walk or live in the same place.
Different
Perspectives
In fact,
as we saw in lesson #17, part of the beauty of the Torah-true community is that
it leaves room for well-intentioned disagreements a real machaloket le-shem
shamayim. (However, see there about the need to be careful that one's true
intentions are righteous.) This might also be part of the basis for the Talmudic
statement (see there) that even though we may clearly accept one rabbinic
opinion as binding, "these and those are the words of the living God."
This idea is stated
beautifully in the Arukh Ha-shulchans introduction to Choshen Mishpat.
He is explaining why the Torah is referred to (Devarim 31:19) as shira
(song).
The debates of
Tannaim and Amoraim and Geonim in fact represent the truth of the living God.
All of their views have merit from a halakhic perspective. In fact, this
diversity and range constitute the beauty and splendor of our holy Torah. The
entire Torah is called a song, the beauty of which derives from the interactive
diversity of its voices and instruments. One who immerses himself in the sea of
Talmud will experience the joy that results from such rich variety.
The Torah is a harmonious symphony
enriched by the diversity of its instruments and variations as long as it bears
the singular message of the word of God. As long as the Jewish people remain
united in their ideals, they can express their ideas differently.
In truth,
there is a fear that room for diversity will become an ideal in its own right
and replace the desire for a genuine connection to the Torah. However, the
opposite approach, which paints all of the Torah in simple white and black,
leaves no room for a machaloket le-shem shamayim and erases the symphonic
nature of the Torah.
This idea
of the beauty in the multiple outlooks of Torah is explained by Rav A.Y. Kook as
the deep meaning of a statement that is part of our prayers but is sometimes
hard to comprehend.
The Talmud (Berakhot 64a) states:
Torah
scholars increase shalom (peace) in the world.
Some wags have commented that this line
is evidence for a Talmudic sense of humor, as scholarly fights are numerous and
harsh.
Rav Kook,
however, sees this statement of the Sages as entirely sincere:
There are
those who mistakenly think that world peace cannot be built except by forming
one universal model of opinions and character traits. With this understanding,
when they see that the scholarly search for truth naturally leads to diverse
opinions on matters, they conclude that scholars are actually causing
dissension, the opposite of peace. However, the truth is not so: genuine
shalom cannot come to the world except through the catalyst of increasing
peace. This is to say that specifically when scholars present their various
views and outlooks, one can see these diverse opinions coalesce into a more
complex and complete expression of the whole picture
(Ein Aya, Berakhot
361)
Thus, shalom may be achieved only
when we have an outlook that is shalem, complete and comprehensive.
Recognizing the various viewpoints together can bring us to a Godly outlook that
is broader than that which any single scholar can independently discern. The
Jewish outlook recognizes that unified does not need to be, and indeed should
not be, uniform. We truly are an indivisible whole, full of individual strengths
and views that together produce the symphony of the Torah's shira.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!