Do Not Hate! Rebuke without Sin

The command of תּוֹכֵחָה (tokheḥah)—to rebuke, reprove, or reproach one’s neighbor—is located in a section of the Torah (Lev 17–26) that is primarily concerned with interpersonal moral values—not only what one should do or not do, but also how one should think and feel.^[1]

It is sandwiched between the command to “not hate your brother,” and the Golden Rule to “love your fellow as yourself.”^[2]

^{ויקרא יט:יז} לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא. ^יט:יח לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה.

^{Lev 19:17} You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely reproach your neighbor, and you shall bear no sin because of him. ^19:18 You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, and you shall love your fellow as yourself; I am YHWH.^[3]

Each of the precepts in these verses is defined in particularistic rather than universal terms, concerned with the relationships between fellow Israelites:

his אָח, “brother or kinsman” (Lev 19:17a);
his עָמִית, “neighbor” (17b);
the בְּנֵי עַם, “sons of (his) people” (18a); and
his רֵעַ, “fellow or friend” (18b).

The biblical precept of תּוֹכֵחָה (tokheḥah) is the command to verbally confront one’s fellow Israelite about their wrongdoing.‏ The infinitive absolute, הוֹכֵחַ, adds emphasis to the command—הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ, “you shall surely reproach your neighbor” (Lev 19:17)—which is formulated with hiphil (causative) of י.כ.ח, meaning to “decide, prove, adjudge.”^[4] To engage in rebuke is to criticize another, impose judgement, declare what is wrong about their actions or speech in order to prompt a process of self-reflection and lead to changing their behavior or ways and mending the relationship.

The Old French reprocher conveys the relational aspect of a reproach: “to draw close again.” The Latin repropiare pivots between the prefix re-“across from” and prope-“near,”^[5] suggesting an oppositional stance, a re-proach rather than an ap-proach.

Do Not Hate, and Do Reproach

If there is a relationship between rebuking and the preceding command, “you shall not hate your brother in your heart,” then one must rebuke one’s kinsman in order not to harbor resentment and hate him within one’s heart.^[6] Consider the silence of the brothers after Joseph tattles on them (Gen 37:2) and in the face of their father’s favoritism:

^{בראשׁית לז:ד} וַיִּרְאוּ אֶחָיו כִּי אֹתוֹ אָהַב אֲבִיהֶם מִכָּל אֶחָיו וַיִּשְׂנְאוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יָכְלוּ דַּבְּרוֹ לְשָׁלֹם.

^{Gen 37:4} And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.”^[7]

They do not directly rebuke Joseph, and the relationship devolves into near fratricide. To their credit, however, they do not feign a positive relationship with Joseph. Indeed, Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, France, 1083–1174) emphasizes how we must not “seem” or “appear” [תתראה] to be a friend when we have been wronged. Yet he also asserts that we should externalize our feelings for the sake of reconciliation:

^{רשב"ם ויקרא יט:יז} לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך – אם גמלך רעה לא תתראה לפניו כאוהב, ובקרבו ישים ארבו (ירמיהו ט':ז'). לא טוב – אל תשנאהו בלבך, אלא הוכיח תוכיחהו על מה שעשה, ומתוך כך יהיה שלום.

^{Rashbam Lev 19:17} “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (v. 17a)—if he wronged you, do not appear to him as his friend, “[One speaks peaceably to his friend with his mouth], but inwardly he lays in ambush for him” (Jer 9:7). This is not good [l’o tov]. Rather, “you shall surely reproach…” (v. 17b) him for what he did, so that by doing so there would be peace (between you and him).^[8]

The Torah thus emphasizes the ideal of integrity and sincerity over hypocrisy.

Do Reproach and Do Not Bear Sin

The command that follows the rebuke is ambiguous:

^{ויקרא יט:יז} ...הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא.

^{Lev 19:17} ...You shall surely reproach your neighbor, and do not bear guilt because of him/it.

How do we read the וְלֹא (ve-loʾ)? Is it a conjunction, meaning either “rebuke and do not bear guilt” or “rebuke so that you do not bear guilt,” which suggests that the law’s primary concern is that the rebuke should occur? Or is it a disjunction, “rebuke but do not incur guilt,” which emphasizes how the rebuke should be given? In addition, who would bear—תִשָּׂא, meaning “carry, forebear, tolerate, or forgive”—the guilt, and how would it be incurred?

1. Rebuke So That the Victim Won’t Incur Guilt

Everett Fox and Robert Alter treat the וְלֹא (ve-loʾ) as conjunctive, indicating that the offended victim should rebuke the offender to clarify, to dispel, or to undercut the sense of grievance so that the aggrieved will not sin:

^{Fox, The Five Books of Moses} You are not to hate your brother in your heart; rebuke, yes, rebuke your fellow, that you not bear sin because of him!^[9]

^{Alter, The Hebrew Bible} You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely reprove your fellow and not bear guilt because of him.^[10]

Already Rashbam links the command not to bear guilt with the prohibition on taking vengeance:

^{רשב"ם ויקרא יט:יז} ולא תשא עליו חטא – בלבבך.

^{Rashbam Lev 19:17} “And bear no sin because of him”—in your heart.

Thus, refraining from rebuke would result in the sin of bearing a grudge (v. 18), the cause of hatred in the heart.

James Kugel calls this the “externalizing” model of rebuke: “The sin is hatred or anger and their potentially disastrous results.”^[11] This idea is prevalent throughout Wisdom Literature, especially in Proverbs, as a model for “virtue” or “character” education.^[12] Ben Sira (2^nd c. B.C.E., Jerusalem), a Jewish work that is part of the Catholic Old Testament canon, declares:

^{Sirach 20:2 (NRSVue)} How much better it is to rebuke than to fume!

This approach also aligns with Moses Maimonides’ (Rambam; 1138–1204) first model of rebuke.^[13]

Maimonides: The Duty to Rebuke

Maimonides speaks to the emotional dynamic when an aggrieved party has been sinned against, presumably unjustly. Refraining from verbal rebuke not only fails to disarm the anger but, through repression, allows it to simmer to a boil. He cites the example of Absalom, who is silent after Amnon rapes their half-sister Tamar, but who later has Amnon murdered:^[14]

^{משנה תורה הלכות דעות ו:ו} כְּשֶׁיֶּחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ – לֹא יִשְׂטְמֶנּוּ וְיִשְׁתֹּק, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר בָּרְשָׁעִים "וְלֹא דִבֶּר אַבְשָׁלוֹם עִם אַמְנוֹן, לְמֵרָע וְעַד טוֹב. כִּי שָׂנֵא אַבְשָׁלוֹם, אֶת אַמְנוֹן" (שמואל ב יג:כב).

^{Mishneh Torah, Laws of Character Traits 6:6a} When a person sins against another, the offended person should not hate the offender and keep silent, as it says about evildoers, “And Absalom did not speak with Amnon either evil or good, for Absalom hated Amnon” (2 Sam 13:22).^[15]

Rebuking his fellow is most emphatically a “duty,” a mitzvah—hokheaḥ tokhiaḥ—to ensure that the verbal rebuke preempts the sinful reaction that devolves into animosity and grudge-bearing:

^{הלכות דעות ו:ו} אֶלָּא מִצְוָה עָלָיו לְהוֹדִיעוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ: לָמָּה עָשִׂיתָ לִי כָּךְ וְכָּךְ וְלָמָּה חָטָאתָ לִי בְּדָבָר פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ, וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא" (ויקרא יט:יז).

^{Laws of Character Traits 6:6a} But it is his duty to inform him and say to him: “Why did you do this to me? Why did you sin against me in this matter?” For it is written, “You shall surely reproach [hokheaḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor…” (Lev 19:17).

Maimonides’ “why” appears to be a rhetorical question,^[16] as in God’s rebuke of Cain: “Why are you distressed? And why is your face fallen?” (Gen 4:6); or Moses’ rebuke of the two Hebrews fighting: “Why do you strike your fellow?” (Exod 2:13).

Maimonides also adjures the offended party to accept, in the event of an apology, the offender’s contrition and refrain from cruelty or vengeance, following the model of Abraham, after Abimelech errs in taking Sarah into his house:

^{הלכות דעות ו:ו} וְאִם חָזַר וּבִקַּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לִמְחֹל לוֹ, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּמְחֹל; וְלֹא יְהֶא הַמּוֹחֵל אַכְזָרִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם, אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים" (בראשית כ:יז).

^{Laws of Character Traits 6:6b} If he has repented and asked for forgiveness, he should be forgiven. The person who so forgives must not be cruel, as it is written: “Abraham prayed to God” [for the man who wronged him] (Gen 20:17).

Through reproach, hatred is mitigated, as well as vengeance and grudge-bearing, ideally by voicing criticism and not harboring resentment or anger in the heart.

A Bystander’s Duty

Maimonides’ second model of rebuke is pedagogic or altruistic and other-directed, focused on one who observes another transgressing, but who has no personal stake in the matter:

^{הלכות דעות ו:ז} הָרוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁחָטָא, אוֹ שְׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ לֹא טוֹבָה – מִצְוָה לְהַחְזִירוֹ לַמּוּטָב, וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ שְׁהוּא חוֹטֶא עַל עַצְמוֹ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ" (ויקרא יט:יז).

^{Laws of Character Traits 6:7} If one observes that a friend (or colleague) has committed a sin or has followed the wrong path, it is a duty to bring the erring person back to the right path by pointing out to him that he is doing wrong to himself by his bad behavior, as it is said, “You shall surely reproach [hokheaḥ tokhiaḥ] your neighbor…” (Lev 19:17).

The concern here is only to address the offender’s sin or character, not a personal injury.^[17]

2. Rebuke So That the Rebuker Won’t Incur Guilt

The King James Version reflects a different understanding of the command, in which the conjunctive וְלֹא implies that one should not tolerate the offender’s sin:

KJV: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

This aligns with Kugel’s “judicial” model of reproach: One should warn a person with regard to their misstep, ideally privately, in order to prevent further sin and a public court hearing.^[18] Moreover, if an offender continues to transgress, the guilt can rebound on the one who failed to rebuke him,^[19] as the Aramaic Targum Onqelos suggests:

^{תרגום אונקלוס ויקרא יט:יז} וְלָא תְקַבֵּיל עַל דִּילֵיהּ חוֹבָא

^{Tg. Onq. Lev 19:17} Do not bear sin because of him (i.e. because of the offenders’s own sin).

Maimonides concludes his “pedagogical” model of rebuke with a similar warning:

^{הלכות דעות ו:ז} וְכָל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מוֹחֶה הוּא נִתְפָּשׂ בַּעֲוֹן אֵלּוּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִמְחוֹת בָּהֶם.

^{Laws of Character Traits 6:7} Whoever has the opportunity to rebuke [a sinner] and fails to do so, he is considered liable for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke him (but didn’t).

This is an extension of the idea that “all Jews are guarantors of one another” [כל ישראל עֲרֵבִים זה בזה]^[20]—that is, obligated to take responsibility for the moral improvement of our fellow.

3. Rebuke, but Don’t Shame, So That the Rebuker Will Not Incur Guilt

In a third exegetical tradition, reflected in the NJPS translation, the וְלֹא is disjuntive, placing a limit on how one should reproach another:

NJPS: You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman, but incur no guilt because of him.

It thus implies that the act of rebuking itself might incur guilt.

The Proper Way to Rebuke

The sages in the tannaitic midrash on Leviticus, Sifra (ca. 3^rd c. C.E.) debate how one should effectively go about rebuking another person such that one not incur guilt. The first part of the midrash focuses on not harboring hatred in the heart rather than on externalized expressions of hatred that might entail violence:^[21]

^{ספרא, קדושים פרק ד על ויקרא יט:יז} "לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ" – יָכֹל לֹא תַכֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תְקַלְּלֶנּוּ וְלֹא תִסְטְרֶנּוּ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בִּלְבָבֶךָ", לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא^[22] שִׂנְאָה שֶׁהִיא בַלֵּב.

^{Sifra, Qedoshim 4 on Lev 19:17} "You shall not hate your brother in your heart…” (Lev 19:17)—One might think that you should not strike him, curse him, slap him? The Torah therefore says, “in your heart”—I only said hatred which is in the heart.

One should continue to rebuke, even four or five times (based on the doubling of the verb):

^{ספרא, קדושים פרק ד על ויקרא יט:יז} וּמְנַיִן אִם הוֹכַחְתּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה פְּעָמִים, חֲזֹר וְהוֹכֵחַ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ."

^{Sifra, Qedoshim 4 on Lev 19:17} And whence [do we know that] if you have reproached him even four or five times [and it has not worked], go back and reproach him further? From the [doubling of the verb] “you shall surely reproach [hokheaḥ tokhiaḥ].”^[23]

This might also imply that one should verbalize rebuke, but not to the point of causing a fight, resulting in curses and blows.

A debate in the Talmud explores until what point one should rebuke another:

^{בבלי ערכין טז:} עד היכן תוכחה? רב אמר: עד הכאה ושמואל אמר: עד קללה ורבי יוחנן אמר: עד נזיפה. כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר: עד הכאה, רבי יהושע אומר: עד קללה, בן עזאי אומר: עד נזיפה.

^{b. Arak. 16b} Until what point should a person (persist in) rebuking (his neighbor)? Rav said: until (the rebuke is met by) hitting; Shmuel said: until cursing; and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: to the point of anger (nezifah, alt. reprimand, ban). (This is like a dispute between) Tanna’im: Rabbi Eliezer said: until (the rebuke is met by) hitting; Rabbi Yehoshua said: until cursing; ben Azzai said: until anger (or reprimand).^[24]

In each case, the sin would not fall upon the wrongdoer, who is rebuked, but on the rebuker, for going too far.^[25]

The Problem of Shame

The Sifra also qualifies how one should rebuke another person: Do not rebuke him to the point of causing shame!

^{ספרא, קדושים פרק ד על ויקרא יט:יז} יָכֹל אֲפִלּוּ אַתְּ מוֹכִיחוֹ וּפָנָיו מִשְׁתַּנּוֹת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא".

^{Sifra, Qedoshim 4 on Lev. 19:17} One might think even if he rebukes him and his countenance changes (that is, he is shamed). The Torah therefore says, “and you shall bear no sin because of him.”^[26]

That is, the sin is to cause shame by an insensitive, harsh, and perhaps public reproach of another person. In issuing criticism to the point of changing their countenance, you have undermined their very sense of self, penetrated their being to the point of blanching (or reddening) the skin of their face. Indeed, shaming another, according to the rabbinic sages, is tantamount to murder or bloodshed.^[27]

Thus Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, France, 1040–1105) declares:

^{רש"י ויקרא יט:יז} ולא תשא עליו חטא – לא תלבין את פניו ברבים.

^{Rashi Lev 19:17} “But do not bear sin because of him”—Do not expose him to shame (lit. make his face grow pale).^[28]

Brené Brown, the American academic and popular sociologist, defines shame as:

The intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging—something we’ve experienced, done, or failed to do makes us unworthy of connection.^[29]

In her formulation: “Shame is a focus on self, guilt is a focus on behavior. Shame is ‘I am bad.’ Guilt is ‘I did something bad.’”^[30] That is, shame is an unqualified negative emotion that undermines self-esteem.

Yet, according to Jewish tradition, to have no sense of shame, in Hebrew boshet panim, (literally the capacity to be ‘shame-faced’), is to lack conscience, to have no moral compass.^[31] One who does not have boshet panim—humility or shame—but only ‘azut panim (insolence, vulgarity, shamelessness) is oblivious to the impact of his or her behavior on others; in short, a psychopath.

To be capable of flushing or blanching in response to my own actions is to feel the dynamic process of self-reflection on one’s skin, to keenly feel the boundaries between one’s interior and exterior self, which would generate regret and, perhaps ideally, effect positive self-transformation. Perhaps a more nuanced distinction should be delineated between two emotions—a positive, conscience arousing shame (more akin to guilt), and a negative one that engenders the annihilation of self.

Moshe Halbertal offers us a definition of primary shame with finer distinctions:

Improper exposure, contrary to a person’s will, results in shame, and every moment of shame, even the slightest, is a profound wound to one’s consciousness of boundedness, a sort of death blow. The possibility of experiencing shame is a self-protective emotion in its most basic form.

In this sense,…shame is to be differentiated from guilt. Guilt is expressed in the desire to clean a stain that sticks to a person, and expresses the need to reinstate the self that has been sullied. Shame, by contrast, colors the entire self. Shame does not stain, but defiles the entire surface. It arouses the desire to disappear and be effaced, because it results from an injury to the tissues that constitute the self and its boundaries.^[32]

In tokheḥah, the challenge then for educators and parents alike, is to offer constructive criticism that encourages not shame, but guilt—the desire to take responsibility for one’s actions and self-transformation. This is a great aspiration, so rarely achieved!

The Sifra goes on to list, disparagingly, all the ways in which their generation of Tannaim failed in the art of tokheḥah:

1. They were are all pock-marked with hypocrisy:

^{ספרא, קדושים פרק ד על ויקרא יט:יז} אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָעֲבוֹדָה! אִם יֵשׁ בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה יָכֹל לְהוֹכִיחַ!

^{Sifra, Qedoshim 4 on Lev 19:17} Rabbi Tarfon said: “[I swear] by the temple service! I doubt that there is anyone in this generation who is able to rebuke!”

The Rabbis swear by the temple service [‘avodah]^[33]—perhaps ironically because it was no longer operative—offering critiques that also point, perhaps, to the reason the Temple was destroyed and the people of Judea were decimated at the hands of the Romans.^[34]

2. They had no humility, no capacity for regret or for self-transformation:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: הָעֲבוֹדָה! אִם יֵשׁ בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה יָכֹל לְקַבֵּל תּוֹכֵחוֹת!

Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah said: “By the temple service! I doubt that there is anyone, in this generation who is able to receive rebuke!”

3. And perhaps ultimately, because there was no one capable of issuing rebuke without provoking violence or shaming another person:^[35]

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה: הָעֲבוֹדָה! אִם יֵשׁ בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ הֵיאָךְ מוֹכִיחִין!

Rabbi Akiva said: “By the temple service! I doubt that there is anyone in this generation who knows how to rebuke!”^[36]

We cannot help feeling the same despair about our current social climate, with cancel culture and simplistic slogans, intransigent identity politics and accusations of micro-aggressions, as well as the recalcitrant inability to talk across difference. Yehi Ratzon! May it be God’s will that we, as a society, open ourselves up again to rebuke—to receiving and artfully issuing moral criticism—and not harbor hatred in the heart.

I wish to dedicate this essay in loving memory of my father, Professor Howard Adelman, who was outspoken in his rebuke of wrong-doing in the world, yet the gentlest father and teacher, rarely causing us (his children) to feel shame — Rachel Adelman.