Halachipedia - User contributions [en]

Embarrassing Others

2014-01-07T15:01:34Z

B.z.silberberg:

Embarrassing another person is one of the most severe prohibitions in the Torah. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most often violated. It is essential to learn the Halachot of [[embarrassing others]] in order to avoid causing this terrible pain to others.
==Source of Prohibition==
There are two possible prohibitions that one violates when he or she embarrasses another.

First, the Torah prohibits oppressing another <ref> VaYikra 25:17 </ref>. The Mishnah Bava Metzia <ref> Bava metzia 58b </ref> extends this prohibition to oppressing another with words as well as with money. This prohibition forbids several different ways of oppressing with words. When one embarrasses another, he or she is in violation of the prohibition of “A man may not oppress his fellow <ref> VaYikra 25:17 </ref>."

Second, there is a specific prohibition not to embarrass that is derived from the Mitzvah of rebuking others. The Torah commands “You shall surely rebuke your friend<ref> Vayikra 19:17. </ref>.” However, the end of the verse: “and you shall not bear iniquity because of him” warns us not to allow the fulfillment of this commandment to simultaneously cause a transgression of humiliating another. The prohibition against embarrassing in this specific case creates a general prohibition against embarrassing another in any situation <ref> Sefer HaChinuch 240 based on Sifra </ref>.

In addition to violating the above prohibitions, anyone who embrasses another is also failing to fulfil the Mitzvah of V’ahavta L’reach Kamocha <ref> Vayikra 19:18. </ref>.
==Statements on Severity of Embarrassment==
Statements in Talmud
Throughout the Talmud and later Rabbinic sources we find many statements that emphasize how seriously the Rabbis took the prohibition of embarrassing another.

Statements in Talmud
#He who publicly shames his neighbour is as though he shed blood <ref> Bava metzia 58b </ref>
#Verbal wrong is more heinous than monetary wrong <ref> Bava metzia 58b </ref>
#Better it is for man to cohabit with a doubtful married woman rather than that he should publicly shame his neighbour. <ref> Bava metzia 59a </ref>
#Better to throw oneself into a furnace rather than embarrass another <ref> Bava metzia 59a </ref>
#There was a poor person in the time of the Talmud and Mar Ukva would daily leave coins behind the poor man's door. One day the poor man wanted to find out who had been leaving coins for him. So he waited until Mar Ukva and his wife stopped by and dropped off the coins. The pauper tried to follow them, when Mar Ukva noticed he was being followed he ran with his wife and hid in a hot furnace as to not embarrass the man. <ref> Ketuboth 67B </ref>

Statements from later Rabbinic sources
# Rabbeinu Yonah in his famous work explains that the pain of shame is even worse than death itself <ref> Gates of Repentance 3:139 </ref>.

==Punishment==
There are three opinions about whether someone who embarasses somone else receives the punishment of Malkos (lashes):
# The Sefer HaChinuch says there is no punishment of malkos for [[embarrassing others]] <ref>Sefar chinook</ref>
# The Mordechai does however demand malkos for embarrassment, and onat devarim (verbal oppression.) <ref>Bava Metzia 4:306 </ref>
#The Chiddushei Anshei Shem approves malkos mardus, or unofficial malkos, issued by rabies which may actually be applied more severely. <ref> Chiddusei Anshei Shem</ref>

Payment for damage done by embarrassing someone
# The Talmud says that verbal harassment does not make a person responsible for monetary punishment. <ref>Bava Kama 91a</ref>
# The Maharshal says that a person can choose choose to pay a fine to the victim, or [[charity]] (it’s debated which one) instead of taking lashes. <ref>Yam Shel Shlomo 8:49 </ref>

Other Punishments in this world
# Even though there is no punishment in Beit Din, the Sefer HaChinuch warns that God has other ways of punishing people in this world<ref> Sefer HaChinuch 240</ref>
# “When one causes suffering to others, he is punished in Olam Hazeh too. Every person must pay attention to what he does and what he says so as not to hurt his fellow man. The truth is that the punishment is much worse in Olam Habo, but most people are not aroused by what they can’t see directly, so I am speaking about something that everyone understands well.”<ref>Reb Aharon Leib Shteinman as quoted in http://www.torahlab.org/community/article/why_so_much_suffering/</ref>

Punishment in the World to Come
# The gemara says all who descend into Gehenna (hell) eventually leave. Except for one who publicly shames his neighbour. <ref>R. Hanina in Bava Metziah 58b</ref>
==Atoning for Embarrassment==
In order to achieve full repentance for sinning, one must undergo a complex process of asking for forgiveness. The steps of the process include: <ref> Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva Chapter 1</ref>

# First acknowledging, then regretting one’s sin. # Privately confessing the transgression to God.
# Devoting oneself to not committing a similar transgression in the future.
# Make amends with the person you have transgressed against.
# Ask for absolute forgiveness from the one you offended, and from God.

Before examining the steps specific to atoning for embarrassment, we must assess whether or not it is even possible to do Teshuva:

# According to the Gemara, one embarrasses another publicly descends to Hell and never ascends<ref>Bava Metiza 58b </ref>. This seems to imply that the punishment is final with no chance for Teshuva.
# However, Tosafot explain that the Gemara is only talking about if you didn’t do Teshuva, because Teshuva helps for everything. <ref>Bava Metiza 58b </ref>
# The Midrash, on the other hand, says that embarrassing one in public cannot be absolved by Teshuva <ref> Otzar HaMidrashim pg. 505 </ref>.
# Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the reason we say you are condemned to Hell for eternity is not because Teshuva does not work if you do it, but it’s because it’s highly unlikely that one would actually do Teshuva for embarrassing someone. The reason being that we often rationalize [[embarrassing others]], or we simply fail to acknowledge the damage it causes. <ref> Shaarei Teshuva 3:141</ref>

While the steps enumerated above are the standard steps of completing Teshuva, there are specific steps required to atone for embarrassment:

# You must try to appease your friend at an opportune time, or until he agrees to listen to you. You must then feel you friend’s pain in your heart and resolve not to embarrass others. Finally, if one embarrasses you in the future, you should not feel upset, rather you should view it as fair. <ref> Sefer Chassidim 54</ref>
# One should give gifts to the person they oppressed as a means of making amends. One should give [[Mishloach Manot]] to the person on [[Purim]], or confront them before [[Yom Kippur]] when they’re more likely to listen. One may also have friends help him lay the groundwork for his apology. <ref> Reuven, Rabbi Nitzan Kitzur Hilchot Smirat HaLashon</ref>
# “If the humiliation took place in the presence of others, make your apology in their presence, as well as in private. Otherwise the victim has the right to say, “You shamed me in front of others, and now you want to apologize in private. Bring me all the people who heard you embarrass me, and then I will accept your apology.” <ref> Yalkout Shimoni, Hosea 14 </ref>

==Giving up your life==
The Gemara compares embarrassing someone in public to killing them<ref>Gemara Bava Metziah 58b</ref>. Murder has a special status in Halacha. It is a subject of debate if the comparison the Gemara makes between embarrassing and murder is meant to be taken literally with implications for Halacha or not.
Two comments in the Gemara seem to suggest that the comparison should be taken literally.
# When the Jewish people asked King David “what manner of death befalls he who has relations with a married woman?” David quickly replies “He is executed with strangulation, and then receives a portion in the world to come; however, one who shames his fellow in public has no portion in the world to come.” As you can see from king David is it “Better for one to have relations with a possibly married woman than to shame his fellow in public”<ref>Gemara Bava Metziah 59a</ref>.
# When Tamar, Yehuda’s daughter in law, is accused of adultery, to save herself she privately gives Yehuda a hint that she is pregnant with his baby without embarrassing him publicly. As you can see from Tamar is it “Better for one to hurl himself into a fiery furnace rather than shame his fellow in public” <ref>Gemara Bava Metziah 59a</ref>
On the other hand, some later commentators assume that when the Talmud makes comparisons between an act and some other much worse act (such as comparing stealing to murder or comparing disrespecting the [[Chagim]] to Avodah Zarah) the comparison should not be taken literally <ref>Rabbis Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Zvi Ashkenazi and Yaakov Etlinger as cited by Feldman, Daniel Z. “Emotional Homicide: The Prohibitions Of Embarrassing Others In Public”</ref>
In the following five instances Rabbis have argued about the implications of taking the comparison between embarrassing and murder literally<ref>All five are discussed in detail in Feldman, Daniel Z. “Emotional Homicide: The Prohibitions Of Embarrassing Others In Public”</ref>:
# Should one give up their life to avoid embarrassing another just like one must give up their life to avoid killing another?
# Can you refrain from saving someone if you would be embarrassed in the process just like you can refrain from saving another if you would die in the process?
# Can you violate [[Shabbat]] to avoid embarrassment just like you can violate Shabbbat to avoid death?
# Is a kohen who embarrasses someone prohibited from ascending the duchen to say Birchat Kohanim just like a Kohen who has murdered someone is?
# Are you allowed to give permission to someone to embarrass you or not just like you are not allowed to give someone permission to kill you?

==Types of Embarrassment==
The Mishna and Gemara Bava Metzia provide several examples of things people can say that violate the prohibition of hurting others with speech. From these examples we can discern different types of ways in which a person can be hurt.

The Mishna provides these examples: <ref>Bava Metzia 58 </ref>
#One may not say to a sinner who repented “remember your prior deeds.”
#One may not say to a convert's son “remember your ancestors' deeds.”

The Gemara provides the following additional examples:<ref>Bava Metzia 58 </ref>
#He may not say to a convert who wants to learn “your mouth ate forbidden foods. Will it learn Torah, which was given from God?”
#One may not tell one suffering afflictions that he is receiving those afflictions due to prior sins.

In addition the Gemara relates three stories based on Tanach in which characters experience embarrassment:<ref>Bava Metzia 58a and 59a</ref>

# Iyov's friends spoke to him - "Mi Hu Naki Ovad". They told him that his afflictions were caused by is prior sin.
# Tamar, had she revealed that Yehuda was the one who impregnated her, would have embarrassed him.
# David’s peers used him as an example of an adulterer in their learning.

There are many ways embarrassment takes place. Calling a person by a derogatory nickname, for instance, is forbidden in Halacha. You may not ask an uneducated person for an opinion on a scholarly matter that would draw attention to his lack of knowledge or education. You may not refer someone to another person for assistance when you know the other person cannot help. These are all also examples of embarrassment that would be forbidden in Halacha.<ref>Gemara Bava Metziah 58b</ref>.

On the secular point of view, embarrassment is split up into five parts. Violation of Privacy, when private places on the body are exposed, an invasion of private information, or, an invasion of personal space. Lack of knowledge or lack of skill, when failure to showcase knowledge is displayed. Criticism, when the subject is made the center of attention for a negative reason. Awkward acts, when situations such as inappropriate conversations, clumsiness, and ungraceful actions take place in a social setting, triggering embarrassment. Appropriate image and environment, when personal possessions, clothing, and overall body image is found by the subject to be far less than what is actually expected by themselves and by society. <ref>Withers, Lesley; Sherblom, John. "Embarrassment: The Communication of an Awkward Actor Anticipating a Negative Evaluation". Human Communication 11 (2): 237–254.</ref>

Of these five parts, the examples from the Tanach, Mishna, and Gemara all either fall into one of these categories, or several of these categories.
==Notes==
<references/>

Abortion

2013-03-14T15:04:35Z

B.z.silberberg:

In the torah it seems clear that there is some kind of prohibition on abortion,<ref> Tosafot Sanhedrin 59a “Leka Midam” Since there is no prohibition a non jew has that a jew does not, we can derive it is forbidden for Jews as well.</ref> but it is unclear as to what the prohibition it is.<ref> There seems to be a contradiction in two sources from the torah. In Bereshit Chapter 9, it says that abortion is prohibited for non jews, and one will receive the death penalty for killing a “man within a man.” Sanhedrin 57b. In Shemot Chapter 21, however, it says, if a Jew kills a fetus he is just liable a monetary punishment. Therefore, although there certainly is a prohibition, opinions vary widely as to what the prohibition is, see section “What is the Prohibition?” below. </ref> Due to the dispute about why abortion is prohibited, there is also a debate about in which cases abortion is prohibited and in which it is permitted. Despite the fact that abortion is prohibited, in Halacha, as opposed to in Catholic and other Christian doctrines, all Poskim agree that abortion is permitted at least in one case. Please note, that while this article describes different opinions on when abortion is forbidden and when it is permitted, a layman should not make any decisions on his own in this serious matter, rather he should consult a Rav of eminent stature who is knowledge in this matter.<Ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735906/Rabbi_Chaim_Jachter/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research# Rabbi Chaim Jachter] quotes from Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein that just like an ordinary physician wouldn't perform a complicated surgery such as a liver transplant, so too an ordinary Rabbi should not render an opinion on abortion, rather a Rabbi of eminent stature should render a decision.</ref>
== What is the Prohibition? ==
# According to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, abortion is considered murder. However, this murder does not come with a death penalty. There are some cases of murder when the murderer does not get the death penalty. One of these cases is someone who murders one who is terminally ill. <ref> Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69</ref>
# According to Rabbi Issar Unterman, abortion is considered אבזרייהו דרציחה akin to murder.<ref> I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law</ref>
# One possible prohibition could be that it is against the commandment of פרו ורבו. Part of the commandment is to allow every potential soul to come into being, and if one does abortion, they cannot do this. <ref> Yevamos 63b</ref>
# Spilling the seed/Onanism. The fetus is more similar to the basic seed than to a human, so destroying the fetus would be like destroying the seed.<ref>Talmud Bavli: Niddah 13a; Chavos Yair, Siman 31</ref>
# Aborting the fetus is injuring the mother (Chavalah). Exodus 21 says that if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and there is no death, but the fetus is miscarried, then they have to pay a monetary payment. So the fetus is more a part of the mother than a separate life. <ref>Exodus 21:22</ref>
# It’s a Rabbinical prohibition. There’s no clear prohibition in the Torah, so our only real sources are the rabbinical sources. <ref>Sanhedrin עב; Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, 1963, volume VII, number 48, p. 190.</ref>
# According to the Zohar, one who kills a fetus is guilty of destroying God’s handiwork. <ref>Hok L’Yisrael, Shemot for Monday, Zohar, Shemot 3b</ref> it is unclear if this constitutes a different view of the technical prohibition, or if this is just a reasoning explaining the severity of abortion. A punishment unlike that for murder is detailed.
== Practical Abortion Cases ==
# If the mother’s life is being directly threatened by the fetus, in the sense that if she does not abort, she will die, then it is permissible to abort the child. This is because we prioritize the life that is already living, rather than the one that has not been born yet. <ref>Mishna Ohelet Perek 7 Mishana 7</ref>
# When there is a special case where you are required to kill a fetus or be killed, there is a debate as to what we are allowed to do. In judaism there are three cases that we must die before doing including you must take your life before killing another human. In a case where you are being forced to kill a semi-human, is it allowed? There was a case during World War I in which a doctor was told to abort a baby carried by a mother that had been raped by a German officer. The German told the doctor to abort or be killed. In this kind of case there are two opinions. Rabbi Unterman states that since the prohibition is not murder, but akin to murder, you are allowed to kill the fetus. <ref>I.Y. Unterman, Noam VI (1963), 1-11 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law. </ref> Rabbi Moshe Feinstein disagrees and says that abortion is murder, but it is still unclear if you have to die rather than abort. <ref>Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69. </ref>
# According to many poskim, you are allowed to abort before 40 days of gestation, because no organs or limbs have formed yet and the fetus is not considered alive. <ref>Based on Yevamot 69b which refers to a pre 40 day fetus as “merely water” </ref>
#When a fetus is tested and it is determined that it has a disability or deformity, many poskim <ref>Iggros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2, Chapter 69. </ref>
state that there is no allowance for abortion. Rabbi Waldenberg disagrees and rules that when the resulting child’s deformity will cause stress that the parents will not be able to handle, it is permitted to abort. Rabbi waldenberg says “ there is no greater pain than to have a child that will die and there is nothing you can do to fix it.” For most types of deformities, Rabbi Waldenberg permits abortion only until 3 months. If the child has Tay Sachs he allows abortions even up until 7 months.<ref> Ẓiẓ Eliezer, 13:102; 14:101</ref>
# An issue can also arise when the fetus in question would be born a Mamzer, a child from an illegitimate sexual relationship. Because of the adulterous affair the woman is deserving of the death penalty. Since the fetus is a part of the mother, and not it’s own entity, it too is technically liable for the death penalty and one can therefore, according to Rav Yaakov Emden, abort it. <ref> Sheelas Yaavetz Teshuvah 43, Rav Emden</ref>
# A question arises if the mother will experience severe mental distress if the baby is born. Rabbi Waldenberg holds that abortion is not murder at all, and that mental distress can be equated with physical pain. Therefore, abortion would be allowed if one’s rabbi determines that the mental stress is the same as the physical would be. <ref> Ẓiẓ Eliezer, 13:102; 14:101</ref> Rabbi Unterman takes a similar approach to the issue. Rabbi Unterman does believe that abortion is considered akin to murder, and therefore cannot be allowed in cases of mental anguish. However, if the psychological distress that the mother would feel would cause suicidal tendencies, Rabbi Unterman would permit abortion. <ref> “The Law of Pikkuah Nefesh and Its definition” in HaTorah V’HaM’dinah, IV (1952) 22 - 29 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law. Rabbi Unterman is basing his ruling on a ruling by a case where a where a rabbi was asked if a man could have non kosher soup to prevent him from going insane. Rabbi Israel Meir Mizrachi ruled that serious danger to one’s mental health is the same as a risk to one’s physical health. Resp. Pri HaAretz, Vol III (Jerusalem, 1899), Y.D., No. 2. This ruling was also applied to a specific situation that dealt with birth control, a situation more similar to abortion than non kosher soup. Resp. Binyan David, No. 68; Minhat Yitzchak, Vol. I, No. 115; and Igg’rot Mosheh, E.H., No. 65, would allow the contraceptive mokh when pregnancy would create a serious mental-health risk as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law</ref>
==Sources==
<references/>