For donations Click Here

Public Shaming in Halachah

At the outset of our parashah, Parashas Vayigash, we find a powerful expression of care for others’ feelings. After a separation of decades, Yosef reveals himself to his astounded brothers.

Then Yosef could not restrain himself before all that stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. There stood no man with him, while Yosef made himself known to his brothers. He wept aloud: and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. And Yosef said to his brothers: I am Yosef; does my father yet live? His brothers could not answer him, for they were astounded at his presence.

Yosef then said to his brothers, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Yosef your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. Now do not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that you sold me here: for G-d did send me before you to preserve life (Bereishis 45:1-5).

Commentaries point out that it is surprising that Yosef asked all bystanders to leave the room, which he did, as Rashi explains, in order to spare them the shame of a public revelation. In asking all those present to leave, Yosef placed himself in mortal danger; the brothers, in desperation at their predicament (Yosef had demanded that Binyamin remain his slave), might easily have killed him on the spot!

The Midrash explains that Yosef nonetheless ensured that no one would remain with him, for “it is better that I should be killed, and not publicly shame them” (Tanchuma, Vayigash 5).

This great moral principle – the imperative to refrain from shaming others – is a foremost ethical principle of Judaism and halachah. In the past we have discussed the basic principles of shaming, and reviewed the basic halachos pertaining to the core issue of shaming. In the present article we will expand our horizons on the topic, showing how it applies to different circumstances, and providing examples of the great care with which we must approach it.

The Prohibition of Shaming

The Rambam includes the prohibition against humiliating one’s fellow in his listing of the mitzvos (Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, lo ta’aseh 303), mentioning the source as the Torah obligation to rebuke one’s fellow. The verse obligating a person to rebuke his fellow adds, “…and you shall not bear upon him a sin.” Chazal (Erchin 16b) understand this to mean that one must not publicly humiliate one’s fellow, even if he is deserving of rebuke.

The Rambam elaborates on the matter in his Hilchos De’os (6:8):

One who rebukes his fellow should not speak with him so harshly that he shames him, as it is stated, “[You shall surely rebuke your fellow] and you shall not bear upon him a sin” (Vayikra 19:17). So [too] did the Sages say, “I might think you must rebuke him [even while] his face is turning colors [in shame, therefore the verse] comes to teach us, ‘And you shall not bear upon him a sin.'” From here [we see] that it is forbidden to shame a Jew, all the more so in public.

The Rambam continues, explaining the gravity of the sin:

Even though one who shames his fellow does not receive lashes, it is a terrible sin. So did the Sages say, “One who shames (lit., ‘makes white’) the face of his fellow in public has no share in the World to Come” (Pirkei Avos 3:15). Therefore, one must be careful in this matter – that he not embarrass his fellow publicly, whether a small or great [person]. And he should not call him a name which shames him, nor should he speak before him about a matter which embarrasses him.[1]

So severe is the transgression of shaming another, that according to Chazal a person should rather throw himself into a burning furnace than cause someone public shame (Berachos 43b). This lesson is derived from Tamar, who chose to refrain from exposing Yehuda in spite of the sentence of death that hovered over her head (Bereishis 38:25). It likewise reverberates in the danger that Yosef chose over shaming his brothers.

According to Tosafos (Sotah 10b), the Talmudic teaching is taken literally: A person must give up his life rather than publicly shame his fellow. Others, however, write that the lesson should not be understood this way. According to the Meiri (Sotah 10b), the teaching is written derech he’ara – a pedagogic statement intended to impress upon us the importance of avoiding causing others embarrassment. In his commentary to Berachos (43b), the Meiri refers to this passage as derekh tzachus, again implying that it should not be treated literally. This might also be the opinion of the Rambam, who refrains from mentioning the teaching, and rules that one must only surrender one’s life to avoid transgressing the three cardinal sins (see also Pri Megadim, Teivas Goma 5, and our previous article on this subject).

At any rate, the stringency of the prohibition is certainly not in question.

Related Customs and Enactments

The Mishnah (end of Taanis) notes (citing Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel) that “there were no happier days for Israel than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur, on which maidens of Israel would go out in borrowed white garments, so as not to shame those who did not have them.” The white garments were borrowed by everyone to ensure that no maiden would be shamed by not having them. In a similar vein, we find many customs and enactments whose purpose is to ensure that nobody will be shamed.

An example of this is the Ketubah. The Rivash (no. 153) was asked why the amount of the Ketubah is so low – how can such a small monetary sum ensure that a man will think twice (at least) before divorcing his wife (which is the purpose of the Ketubah). He answers: “The Sages enacted an equal Ketubah for all, so as not to shame he who lacks the means, and they evaluated the sum according to a poor person.”

Even in the Amidah prayer, the Gemara (Sotah 32b) explains that the reason why the prayer was enacted as a silent prayer is in order that sinners (who declare their transgressions as part of the prayer) should not be shamed.

Likewise, we find that customs of mourning and burial were standardized with a view to ensuring that nobody should suffer embarrassment (Mo’ed Kattan 27a).

Leining and Other Readings

In bringing Bikkurim (the First Fruits), the Sages enacted that specifically the Kohen – and not the person bringing the Bikkurim – should read out the mandated declaration. The Rambam (Commentary to Bikkurim 3:4) explains that many who brought Bikkurim were not fluent in the Holy Tongue, and so as not to shame those who did not know how to read, it was enacted that the Kohen should read for all.

In a similar vein, it is customary nowadays that a single person is appointed as the Ba’al Koreh to read from the Torah, rather than each person who receives an Aliah reading for himself. Tosafos (Bava Basra 15a; Rosh Hashanah 27a; Menachos 30a) writes that this is to ensure that those who don’t know how to read will not be publicly shamed.

So, too, it is customary to recite Birkas Erusin (the first blessing recited at a wedding) on behalf of the Chassan, rather than him reciting it himself. Shut Alfei Yisrael (Orach Chaim 6) writes that even the Sheva Berachos should in principle be recited by the Chassan (this matter is the subject of a dispute among authorities), but others recite them so as not to shame those Chassanim who cannot.

Examples abound, but the above suffice to show how careful the Sages and later authorities were in ensuring that nobody should be caused public shame – to the degree that many customs and enactments are based on this consideration.

Exceptions to the Rule

In spite of the above, we find a number of instances where the Sages were not careful in this matter, and enabled social gaps that are liable to cause a person shame.

For bringing Bikkurim, the Sages made no restrictions on how the fruits are brought. The Mishnah states that the rich would bring them in vessels of gold, whereas the poor brought them in pots of clay (see Bikkurim 3:8). Although this is liable to cause the poor a degree of shame, the Tosafos Yom-Tov explains that no standard enactment was made for this would decrease the honor of the Temple.

We thus learn that although the matter of causing shame is an important consideration, it must nonetheless be balanced against other considerations, and under certain circumstances the concern for shame will be deferred by other factors.

Even in the case of the Ketubah, only the principle sum of the Ketubah was standardized, whereas the addition that each man can give was left to individual circumstances. The Gemara (Kesubos 54b) explains that the Mishnah highlights this halachah, to teach us that in this matter the Sages were not concerned about shaming those who lack means. It is possible that here, too, the facilitation of Shidduchim, in which the additional sum can be a significant factor, deferred the concern about shaming those who lack means.

An important application of these considerations is the question of celebrations of bar-mitzvos and weddings, where extravagance can sometimes get out of hand; the same is true of buying apartments for children. In certain communities special enactments were made to restrict these expenses, so as not to cause trouble for those who can’t meet the standards. Other communities, however, refrain from doing so. It is up to the heads of individual communities to strike the appropriate balance between the different factors involved.

Shaming as Sanction

Another exception to the rule is the case of shaming as a sanction, or for the sake of Heaven.

The Gemara (Yoma 86b, based on Rashi) writes that a person’s sins are publicized where there is a need to do so: “We publicize the flatterers [wicked people who make themselves out to be righteous] due to the desecration of the Name [so that others should not learn from their deeds].”

Rashi offers another explanation for the halachah: the sins of wicked hypocrites are publicized so that when they are punished by Heaven, people should not wonder at so apparently righteous a person receiving such a harsh punishment.

Similarly, it is permitted to embarrass a person if this is necessary to cause him to repent his wayward deeds (Rambam, De’os 6:8), or to ensure that he not lead others to sin.

An example of this matter is in the laws of Shechitah. A Shochet who sells non-kosher meat to the public is publicly flogged, and his identity and actions are declared in Shuls, to ensure public awareness (Hagahos Ashri, Chullin 7:16; see Rambam, Maachalos Asuros 8:9).

Likewise, in certain cases it is permitted and obligatory to publicize people who are disqualified from marriage into Israel – for obvious reasons (see Yoreh De’ah 265:4).

At the same time, it is important to note that we find no halachic permit to shame somebody who is only suspected of sin. The Rosh (Kelal 7, no. 7) warns of this concerning somebody under suspicion: “Heaven forbid shaming a Jew in public!”

The Poor and the Meek

It is important to highlight the place of the poor and the meek in the context of concern for shaming. Many of the enactments noted above were made with the poor in mind: “so as not to shame those who don’t have.” Sometimes this rationale is made explicit by the Sages, such as the enactment of the Mourning Meal (Mo’ed Kattan 27a): “At first they would bring the meal to the mourner, for the rich in vessels of gold and silver and for the poor in earthenware – and the poor would be shamed. They enacted that the meal be brought to all in vessels of earthenware, out of honor for the poor.”

An Italian community, where it was custom to draw lots to decide which homeowner will put up the poor who made their way to the city, considered asking the poor people themselves to take part in drawing the lots. The purpose of this was to cause the poor person shame, and to ensure that he shouldn’t burden the community unless circumstances were truly dire. The Mahari Mintz responds:

“Concerning the matter of the guests, Heaven forbid the institution of an enactment that will cause them shame and anguish… I cannot expound on this matter, for it ought to be entirely simple even for an utter simpleton! It is a disgrace for me to mention and to deal with such claims.”

Concern for the shame of the meek and the underprivileged brought the Sefer Chassidim (no. 424) to a far-reaching decision, concerning a Kohen who could not properly pronounce the word yishmerecha (He shall guard you), and rather said yashmidcha (He shall destroy you). A community leader instructed the man to refrain from ascending to bless the people, because instead of blessing, he actually cursed! Yet, the rabbi was shown in a dream that he should allow the person to bless, and should he refrain from doing so he will be punished!

In a halachic sense the ruling is not clear (see Shut Yabia Omer, Vol. 6, no. 11). However, it certainly serves as a pointer of the great care and concern that the Sages and rabbis showed for shaming others, and in particular the poor, the weak, and the meek – even when faced with significant halachic considerations.



[1]
     [1] It is noteworthy that in his Laws of Repentance (3:14), the Rambam writes that the special severity of losing one’s portion in the World to Come applies specifically to someone whose regular conduct is to publicly shame others. A one-time or occasional offense does not carry the same severity.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *