Rebuke: From Bible to Talmud to Zohar

The command to rebuke others offers a non-juridical means for balancing the need to constrain inappropriate behavior on one hand and preventing excessive social policing on the other.

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

^{Lev 19:17} You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kin but incur no guilt on their account.^[1]

The verse does not specify the parameters of such a rebuke, what it would look like and how to measure its success. Must the offender change their behavior, or does getting it off one’s chest suffice? How vigorously must the rebuke be pursued? Must one reprove under all circumstances, even if it endangers your own person?^[2]

Rebuke in Proverbs

The benefit of rebuking is also found in the book of Proverbs, which states that someone who is angry at his fellow and doesn’t say anything is lying:

^{משלי י:יח} מְכַסֶּה שִׂנְאָה שִׂפְתֵי שָׁקֶר וּמוֹצִא דִבָּה הוּא כְסִיל.

^{Prov 10:18} He who conceals hatred has lying lips, while he who speaks forth slander is a dullard.

Thus, it is better to speak to offenders than to stay quiet before them while slandering them behind their backs:

^{משלי כה:ט} רִיבְךָ רִיב אֶת רֵעֶךָ וְסוֹד אַחֵר אַל תְּגָל.

^{Prov 25:9} Defend your right against your fellow, but do not give away the secrets of another.

At the same time, Proverbs recognizes the challenges involved in offering rebuke, given that one never knows how the other will react:

^{משלי ט:ח} אַל תּוֹכַח לֵץ פֶּן יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ הוֹכַח לְחָכָם וְיֶאֱהָבֶךָּ.

^{Prov 9:8} Do not rebuke a scoffer, for he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

These verses all imply that a rebuke is worthy if the person being rebuked is openhearted enough to accept criticism.

Bekhor Shor: Learn His Side of the Story

​R. Joseph Bekhor Shor (12th-cent. French exegete) suggests that the command to rebuke may be a way to avoid misunderstanding; perhaps what you think you saw or heard has a context that you do not know:

^{בכור שור ויקרא יט:יז} שאם יעשה לך אחיך דבר שקשה בעיניך, לא תשנאנו בתוך לבבך, אלא הוכיחנו ואמר לו: למה עשית לי כזאת? שמא לא נתכון למה שאתה סבור, או נאנס, או שום טעם יש בדבר שיאמר לך ומתוך כך תדע שלא עשה עמך שלא כהוגן.

^{Bekhor Shor Lev 19:17} If your fellow does something objectionable in your eyes, do not hate him in your heart. Rather, rebuke him, saying, “Why did you do this to me?” Perhaps he did not intend that which you thought, or he was coerced, or some other explanation that he’ll give you, and as a result you will know that he actually did you nothing untoward.^[3]

Bekhor Shor reads the second and third phrases of the verse in light of the first: lest one bear unjustified resentment against one’s fellow, one must discuss the matter for the sake of clarification. Misunderstanding may be at the root of things and should not be the cause of enmity.

It Is Sinful to Leave Your Friend Unrebuked

Bekhor Shor then goes on to suggest that, if an offense was indeed perpetrated, you need to make sure you have given your friend the opportunity to repent, otherwise you become partially responsible for their bad behavior:

ומצות הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, אם תראה בו דבר ערוה. ולא תשא עליו חטא, אם הוכחתו ואינו רוצה להניח בשבילך. אבל אם לא תוכיחנו יש לך חטא, כדכתיב ביחזקאל: ולא הזהרתו רשע מדרכו הרשעה הוא רשע בעונו ימות ודמו מידך אבקש.

And the commandment, “You shall surely reprove your fellow,” if you see some transgression within him. “And not bear guilt because of him”—if you rebuked him but he doesn’t wish to abandon [the behavior] on your account. But if you do not rebuke him, then the sin is yours, as is written (Ezek 3:18): “...and you have not warned the wicked man against his wicked ways, that wicked man shall die for his crime, but his blood I will require of you.”^[4]

Bekhor Shor’s reading brings the verse in line with the attitude found in the prophet Ezekiel, that all you must do is issue a warning. At that point, it is all up to your friend to either repent or continue to knowingly sin and face the future consequences. For the rabbis, though, that is not sufficient: the point of rebuke seems to be to get the other person to change their behavior.

Restrained Rebuke: Tractate Arakhin

In its discussion of this verse, the Talmud explores how far one should go when rebuking someone:

^{בבלי ערכין טז: [וטיקן 120–121]} מניין לרואה דבר מגונה בחבירו שחייב להוכיחו? ת"ל הוכיח תוכיח.

^{b. Arakhin 16b [Vatican 120–121]} From where is it derived with regard to one who sees an unseemly matter in another that he is obligated to rebuke him? As is said, “You shall surely rebuke.”

הוכיחו ולא קיבל מניין שיחזור ויוכיח[ו]? ת"ל: "תוכיח"—מכל מקום.

If one rebuked him, but he did not accept [the rebuke], from where is it derived that he must rebuke him again? The verse states: “Rebuke” in any case.^[5]

יכול אפילו פניו משתנין? ת"ל: "ולא תשא עליו חטא."

One might have thought that one should continue rebuking him even if his face changes [due to humiliation]. The verse states: “Do not bear sin because of him.”^[6]

In other words, the one giving rebuke may not sin by embarrassing the other person (see next section). And yet, further down in the discussion, this restriction becomes more limited:

^{בבלי ערכין טז:} עד היכן תוכחה? רב אמר: "עד הכאה." ושמואל אמר: "עד קללה." ורבי יוחנן אמר: "עד נזיפה."

^{b. Arakhin 16b} To what extent must one rebuke? Rav says: Until [his rebuke is met by] striking. And Shmuel says: Until [his rebuke is met by] cursing. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until [his rebuke is met by] reprimand.^[7]

The goal is to bring about a behavioral change in the person being rebuked—certainly being on the receiving end of a pummeling will not reduce hatred in the rebuker’s heart. From this vantage point it appears that the rabbis are more interested in societal reform than communal amity.

Humiliating People in Public

In contrast to their strong urge to rebuke, even at high cost, the rabbis speak in the harshest of terms against shaming another. Rabbi Elazar ha-Moda’i lists הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָרַבִּים “one who publicly causes his fellow’s face to blanch”—or, according to the Kaufmann manuscript, וְהַמְּאַדִּים אֶת פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ “one who reddens his fellow’s face”^[8]—among behavior which, if engaged in, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא “even though the person has Torah and good deeds, the person has no portion in the world to come” (m. Avot 3:11).

The Talmud expands colorfully upon this restriction:

^{בבלי בבא מציעא נח: [המבורג 165]} תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק: "כל המלבין פני חברו ברבים כאלו שופך דמו." אמ[ר] ליה: "שפיר קאמרת, דאזיל סומקא ואתי חיורא."

The tanna taught before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: “Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he spilled his blood.” [Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak] said to him: “You have spoken well, for the red leaves [his face] and pallor comes.”

אמ[ר] ליה אביי לרב דימי: "במערבא במאי זהירי?" אמ[ר] ליה: "באחוורי אנפי. דא"ר חנינא: 'הכל יורדין לגיהנם חוץ משלשה... ואלו הן? המכנה שם לחברו, והמלבין פני חברו ברבים, והבא על אשת איש.'" הינו מכנה הינו מלבין! א'ע'ג' דדש ביה בשמיה.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: “What are they especially careful about in the west?” He said to him: “Not shaming others, for Rabbi Hanina said: ‘Everyone goes down to Gehenna (temporarily) except for three (who remain)…^[9]And who are they? One who gives his fellow a nickname, one who shames his friend in public, one who has relations with a married woman.’” Isn’t giving someone a nickname the same thing as humiliating them? Even if he uses it.

Worse than Adultery

אמ' רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן: "נוח לו לאדם שיבעול ספק^[10] אשת איש ואל ילבין פני חברו ברבים."...

Rabbah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “It is preferable for a person to have sex with a woman whose marital status is in question and not humiliate his fellow in public.”…

...ואמרי לה א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים. מנ"ל, מתמר.

…Some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: “It would be better for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace than to humiliate another in public. From where do we derive this? From Tamar.”^[11]

The reference here is to Genesis 38, in which Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah is willing to allow herself to be burned before she gives away the secret that Judah is the father of her child. We are thus faced with the delicate balance of needing to rebuke a fellow for wrongdoing but not embarrassing this same person in the process.

Balancing the Prohibition to Shame with the Need to Rebuke: Maimonides

In his discussion of the positive commandment to rebuke, Moses Maimonides (Rambam, 1138–1204) offers one way to maintain this balance:

^{רמב"ם משנה תורה ספר מדע הלכות דעות ו:ז} הַמּוֹכִיחַ אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ... צָרִיךְ לְהוֹכִיחוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ. וִידַבֵּר לוֹ בְּנַחַת וּבְלָשׁוֹן רַכָּה וְיוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֶלָּא לְטוֹבָתוֹ לַהֲבִיאוֹ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אִם קִבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו יוֹכִיחֶנּוּ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וּשְׁלִישִׁית. וְכֵן תָּמִיד חַיָּב אָדָם לְהוֹכִיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּכֵּהוּ הַחוֹטֵא וְיֹאמַר לוֹ אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ.

^{Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Book of Mada, “Laws of Deot” 6:7} One who rebukes his fellow… is obliged to rebuke him privately. And he should speak to him calmly and gently, telling him that he is only speaking with him for his own good, to bring him to life in the world to come. If he is receptive, good; if not, he should rebuke him a second, even a third time. Thus it is the duty of a person to continue to rebuke their fellow, up to the point that the sinner strikes them, saying, “I will not listen.”^[12]

Maimonides’s emphasis on privacy, and his specification of tone and demeanor, show a psychological sensitivity that aims to satisfy the two potentially conflicting impulses: to straighten out one’s fellow and to refrain from shaming them.^[13]

The Zohar in its Pietistic Mode

The Zohar—written mostly in late 13^th century Castile^[14]—is a monumental work of mystical midrash, especially in its largest section, referred to in scholarship as guf ha-Zohar “the body of the Zohar.” Strictly speaking, the Zohar is an anthology of over twenty sections, and its main text consists of mystical, pietistic homilies enfolded within narratives.^[15]

Even though they are set in Talmudic times, depicting Talmudic-era rabbis recast as mystical initiates as they wander the Galilean countryside, these homilies voice pietistic critiques of the lax practice and spiritual vacuity of the authors’ contemporaries, namely the Castilian Jewish courtier class.

In their peregrinations, the Zohar’s rabbis encounter various figures who are either revealed to be mysterious kabbalists in their own right or they become the subjects of the rabbis’ reflection, like in the story of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yosi encountering a man with visible skin disease. This passage tackles the subject of rebuke and its purpose:^[16]

^{זוהר תזריע דף כרך ג דף מה:–מז.} עד דהוו אזלי אערעו בחד ב"נ ואנפוי מליין מכתשין והוה קם מתחות אילנא חד אסתכלו ביה וחמו אנפוי סומקין באינון מכתשין.

^{Zohar Tazria 3:45b–47a} As [R. Ḥiyya and R. Yosi] were going along, they came upon a man whose face was filled with lesions, who rose from beneath a tree. They gazed upon him and saw that his face was red from those lesions.

אמר רבי חייא: "מאן אנת?" א[מר] ל[יה]: "יודאי אנא."

R. Ḥiyya said, ‘Who are you?’ He said to him, ‘I am a Jew.’

Learning that the man is a Jew, both rabbis decide his disease must be a punishment for some sinful behavior, and not merely divine afflictions given to the righteous so they can accrue merit, what the Talmud (b. Berakhot 5b) calls “chastenings of love”:

א"ר יוסי חטאה הוא דאי לאו הכי לא אתרשימו אנפוי באלין מרעין בישין ואלין לא אקרון יסורין דאהבה.

R. Yosi said, “He is a sinner, for if this were not the case, his face would not be marked with these ghastly lesions—and these are not called chastenings of love.”^[17]

א[מר] ר[בי] חייא: "הכי הוא ודאי דיסורין דאהבה מתחפיין אינון מבני נשא."

R. Ḥiyya said, “This is the case, indeed, for afflictions of love are occluded, obstructed from other people’s vision.”

To prove his point, R. Ḥiyya turns to the Torah laws of tzaraʿat, “skin disease,” listing its types,^[18] and then concludes:

אבל אינון דיתחזון לבר כתיב (ויקרא יג:ג) "וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו." דהא ודאי אינון דיתחזון לבר בבני נשא מסטרא דמסאבא קא אתיין ולאו יסורין דאהבה נינהו.

But of those which are visible externally, it is written (Lev 13:3): “When the priest sees it, he shall declare him impure,” for surely those that are externally visible in the presence of others come from the side of impurity and are not chastenings of love.”

Rabbi Yosi, however, is unclear about this proof and asks Rabbi Ḥiyya to expand upon it, leading to a midrashic reading of a verse in Proverbs:

א[מר] ר[בי] יוסי: "מנ[א] ל[ן]?"

Rabbi Yosi said, “How do we know this [i.e. that chastenings of love are concealed]?”

א[מר] ר[בי] חייא: "דכתיב (משלי כז:ה) 'טוב תוכחת מגולה מאהבה מסותרת.' אי ההיא תוכחת מאהבה מסותרת מבני נשא.

Rabbi Ḥiyya replied, “Because it is written (Prov 27:5) ‘Better open reproof than hidden love’—if that reproof is from love, it is hidden from people.”

How to Reprove Others

At this point, the text switches from an abstract discussion of how we know this person was punished for sin to a discussion of how to reprove the sinner without humiliating them:

כגוונא דא מאן דאוכח לחבריה ברחימותא בעי לאסתרא מלוי מבני נשא דלא יכסוף מנייהו חבריה, ואי מלוי אינון באתגלייא קמי בני נשא לאו אינון ברחימותא.

Accordingly, one who reproves his fellow lovingly should conceal his words from others, so that his fellow may not be ashamed. But if his words are delivered openly before others, they are not loving.

Using language of concealment and exposure the Zohar explains that proper rebuke is offered in private, just like God begins the punishment of the sinner in private:

כך קודשא בריך הוא כד אוכח לב[ני] נ[שא] בכלא אוכח ברחימותא, בקדמיתא מחי ליה בגרמיה דלגו. אי הדר ביה מוטב ואי לאו מחי ליה תחות תותביה ואלין אקרון יסורין דאהבה.

Similarly with the blessed Holy One: when He reproves a person, He always does so lovingly. First, He strikes his body internally. If he repents, good; if not, He strikes him beneath his clothes, and these are called ‘chastenings of love.’

If this doesn’t work, however, the rebuke turns public:

אי הדר ביה מוטב ואי לאו מחי ליה באתגלייא באנפוי קמי כלא בגין דיסתכלון ביה וינדעון דהא חטאה איהו ולאו רחימא דמאריה הוא.

If he repents, good; if not, He strikes him on his face openly, in front of all, so that they will look at him and know that he is a sinner, unloved by his Lord.”

R. Ḥiyya explains that the visibility of this man’s lesions indicates that the blessed Holy One lost patience with him, and that open reproof was now called for. In keeping with a general kabbalistic motif that our lower world should mirror the upper world—imitatio dei writ large— R. Ḥiyya and R. Yosi follow God’s lead, shaming the man publicly.

The Man Is Offended by the Rabbis

At this point, the man responds with anger at being spoken to so directly and rudely by these two rabbis:

אמר לון ההוא בר נש: "בקיטרא דעיטא חד אתיתון גבאי! ודאי לאו אתון אלא מאינון דדיוריהון בבי רשב"י דלא דחלין מכלא! אי בני דאתיין אבתראי יקטרגו בכו איך מלייכו באתגלייא.

That man said to them, “You have come as one, single-minded. You must be from the group who dwell in the house of R. Shimon bar Yochai, entirely fearless. My sons are behind me: they will upbraid you for speaking your words in the open.”^[19]

The man’s critique is based on Rabbi Ḥiyya’s own midrashic reading of Proverbs quoted above, that criticism should be loving and private.

The Rabbis Defend Themselves

The rabbis respond by explaining that they have no choice but to rebuke him, given that they know he is a sinner:

א[מרין] ל[יה]: "אורייתא הכי הוא, דכתיב (משלי א:כ–כא) "[חכמות בחוץ תרנה ברחבות תתן קולה.] בראש הומיות תקרא בפתחי שערים בעיר אמריה תאמר.' ומה אי במלי דאורייתא אנן דחלי מקמך הא נשתכח בכסופא קמי קודשא בריך הוא ולא עוד אלא דאורייתא בעי צחותא.

They replied, “This is the way of the Torah, as is written (Prov 1:20–21): ‘[Wisdom cries aloud in the streets, Raises her voice in the squares.] At the head of the busy streets she calls; At the entrance of the gates, in the city, she speaks out.’ If we shall fear you regarding words of Torah, how ashamed shall we be before the blessed Holy One. Moreover, the Torah demands thirsting clarity.”

The rabbis deploy the verse from Proverbs with its familiar lament of Wisdom going unheard to refer specifically to social rebuke. What is the content of Wisdom’s cries? It is a call of rebuke, a sounding of the alarm to protest the broad indifference to the call to morality and piety.^[20] Undergirding this response may also be a reading of the verse in Leviticus, “you shall not hate your brother in your heart,” i.e., that the sin which brought about the hate must be identified and exposed, privately, and if need be, publicly. Moreover, through identifying the man’s sin and his subsequent repentance, the rabbis have avoided the problem of “you shall not bear guilt because of him.”^[21]

The Man Accepts the Rebuke

This rebuke has struck him in the heart, and he cries:

פתח ההוא גברא ואמר (מיכה ז:יח): "מי אל כמוך נושא עון [ועבר על פשע] וגו', ארים ידוי ובכי

The man opened, saying (Micah 7:18): “Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression….” He raised his hands and wept.

At this point, the man’s sons arrive (אדהכי מטון בנוי) and the younger one breaks into a long homily which ends with his explanation that his father was punished because he refused to reprove his fellows and even forbade his sons from doing so:

כגון אבא דאתפס בחובייהו דבני מאתיה דהוו כלהו חציפין והוא לא אסהיד בהו ולא אכסיף להו לעלמין.

“This is like the case of (our) father who was ensnared by the sins of his townsfolk, who were all brazen, and he neither reproached them nor did he ever shame them.

ומחי בידן דלא נתגרי בהו ברשיעייא והוה אמר לן (תהלים לז:א) "לדוד אל תתחר במרעים אל תקנא בעושי עולה."

Further, he prevented us from admonishing those wicked people, citing the verse (Psalms 37:1): ‘From David. Do not be incensed by evildoers. Do not envy those who do wrong.’”

This time, instead of objecting, the man admits to the wrongdoing:

אמר אבוי ודאי קודשא בריך הוא אעניש לי בדא דהא הוה רשו בידי למחאה בידייהו ולא עבדית ולא אכסיפנא (נ"א אוכיחנא) להו לא בטמירו ולא באתגלייא,

His father said, “Indeed, the blessed Holy One is punishing me for this, for I had the capability to censure their behavior, and I did not, nor did I shame them privately or publicly.”

While the Zohar is clear that this great sinner’s transgression is a failure of leadership—his own reluctance to call out the delinquent behavior in his own community,^[22] it never says what sins the community were committing. Though set in the rabbinic period, the Zohar grapples with issues from its own time, one of which was Castilian men having sexual relations with their enslaved Muslim girls, one of the panoply of sexual misbehaviors that the Zohar addresses in various places.^[23]

The Rabbis Kiss the Man and Welcome Him into Their Group

After the father admits his guilt, his other son offers his own homily, following which the rabbis welcome the man and his sons into their group, and they continue on as one:

נחתו רבי חייא ורבי יוסי ונשקוהו אזדווגו כחדא כל ההוא ארחא.

R. Ḥiyya and R. Yosi dismounted and kissed him, and they joined together as one for the whole journey.

Dismounting, kissing, and joining together all have mystical significance. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai dismounts when his student R. Elazar ben Arakh commences his discourse on the account of the chariot (b. Ḥagigah 14b)—an act that signifies the honor due to that event. A kiss, in Zoharic kabbalah, often marks the inclusion of a student into the mystical fraternity, in this case, the sick man is now part of the rabbinic cohort.^[24]

Most obviously, however, the fact that R. Ḥiyya and R. Yosi now travel “as one” with this heretofore sinner indicates that he has now been restored to good standing within the community. And this was accomplished through harsh, semi-public rebuke.

A Fictionalized Account of a Real Scandal and Its Solution

The criticism of a community leader who allows his fellows to go astray is likely a fictionalized reflection of events in 1280–1281, in which King Alfonso X of Castile suppressed a rebellion led by his son Sancho. In his violent response, the king had a number of courtiers executed including members of the Jewish community, and reportedly imprisoned all the Jews of Toledo on the Shabbat of January 19, 1281.

In a sermon, Rabbi Todros b. Yosef Halevi Abulafia of Toledo blamed his community’s sinful behavior (rather than their political misdeeds) for the event’s consequences, but also conceded that he, too, was to blame:

ואילו באתי להשיב עליהם בראיות ברורות מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים... שיוסיפו על חטאתם פשע ויגלו פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה במה שאפשר להם...

If I had responded to them [the sinners] with innumerable clear proofs from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings... they would have compounded their sins and transgressions, revealing aspects of the Torah in contravention of the halakhah to the extent of their abilities...

ע'כ אמרתי אשמרה דרכי מחטוא בלשוני אשמרה לפי מחסום, ומוטב שיהיו מקצתן שוגגים ואל יהיו כלן מזידין. וה׳ אלהינו יורנו וישכין כבוד בארצנו.

Rather than causing them to pile evil upon evil, I thought to myself, “I will guard my path from sinning with my tongue and guard my mouth with a bit–better that some of them should transgress unknowingly rather than all of them being intentional transgressors.” The Lord our God will teach us and cause His Glory to dwell in our land.^[25]

The sermon continues to sanction various kinds of transgressions and calls for a series of policing measures to keep his compatriots in line.

Religious Police!

The regulations Abulafia instituted were apparently inspired by the following call in R. Yonah Gerondi’s ethical and pietistic treatise, Sha’arei Teshuvah (Gates of Repentance):^[26]

^{רבינו יונה שערי תשובה ג:עב} "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא" (ויקרא יט, יז)—הוזהרנו בזה שלא נשא חטא בחטא חברינו בהמנענו מהוכיח אותם. ואם איש אחד יחטא, בהגלות נגלות חטאו, כל העדה יענשו עליו אם לא יוכיחוהו בשבט מוסרם....

^{R. Yonah Shaarei Teshuva 3:72} “You shall surely reprove your kinsman so that you will not incur any guilt because of him” (Lev 19:17)—We have been cautioned on this matter, that we shall not incur sin through the sins of our fellows by failing to rebuke them. And if one person should sin, the entire congregation shall be punished on his account when the sin becomes known if they had not reproved him with their rod of rebuke…

The solution, theorized by Rabbenu Yonah and instituted by Todros Abulafia as well as Solomon ibn Adret of Barcelona, is the appointment of berurei aveirot, a kind of halakhic police, to root out evil and maintain righteousness:

^ג:עג ולהנצל מן העונש הזה, נכון הדבר לבחור אנשי אמת ולחזות מכל העם אנשי חיל, לתתם ראשי השגחה על כל שוק ומגרש משכנותם, להשגיח על שכניהם ולהוכיחם על כל דבר פשע ולבער הרע.

^3:73 To escape punishment for this transgression, it is appropriate to select men of truth and to recruit valiant men from among the people and appoint them as head overseers for every market and courtyard where they dwell, to watch over their neighbors and to rebuke them for every sin, eradicating evil.^[27]

In our story, while lacking juridical power, R. Ḥiyya and R. Yose step into that role, clarifying sin to uphold appropriate religious standards.

In the hands of medieval Spanish rabbis, and as animated in our story from the Zohar, the command to rebuke (Lev 19:17) was interpreted with an eye toward the formation of social policy, resulting in theocratic enforcers of sexual norms and other community standards. In the Zoharic story, public shaming resulted in the restoration of harmony, and certainly the halakhic, ethical, and community leaders in Castile and Aragon sought to rehabilitate their congregations as well.^[28]