The definition of the Mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha

What precisely is the definition of the mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha? Is the mitzvah the simple act of confronting a Jew who is sinning, or has sinned, and admonishing him for his behavior, or is it a general command to devise tactics to influence the Jew to cease sinning, whether this involves admonishing him or showing him extra love and attention?

Answer:

The classic understanding of the mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha, as implied from the Poskim [see Rama 608:2; Admur 608:5], has always been interpreted and understood to mean that one is required to confront someone who is sinning and admonish him for doing so. Accordingly, those who don’t admonish somebody who is sinning, such as one who is talking in shul, are left with the question as to the basis for them not fulfilling this command. Some argue that in today’s times we no longer know how to give proper admonishing. Others however remain steadfast that the mitzvah must be fulfilled in its literal sense, and hence make a point to confront and protest sinners. The approach of others, however, including the approach today of Chabad Chassidim, and practically all groups involved in outreach, is not only not to admonish the sinner, but on the contrary to show him love and treat him with absolute dignity, without ever admonishing him for his sin. Seemingly, this not only lacks the fulfillment of the mitzvah Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha but furthermore transgresses the prohibition against showing flattery towards sinners. In truth, however, after careful analysis of the root of the mitzvah known as Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha we will see that it is precisely this approach that fulfills the mitzvah and not necessarily the approach of admonishing and confronting the individual who is sinning. Careful analysis shows that according to some authorities [Rambam, Admur in 157, and Hagahos Mainais], the Mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha is not a mere momentary act of protest against the sinner, but a general take of action to influence the sinner to come back to proper observance. Admonishing the sinner is a mere tool of reaching the goal and is not a goal in it of itself. Accordingly, in the event that admonishing the sinner will be counterproductive and cause him to not only not stop performing the sin but perhaps to even sin more, then not only does one not fulfill the command of Hocheiach Tochiach Es Amisecha, but furthermore, he sabotages it and goes the exact opposite direction of its intent. Accordingly, in those cases that confronting and admonishing the sinner will be counterproductive, one rather is required to develop a different tactic of influence to reach the goal stated above which is to bring the person to stop sinning. Often, this goal involves giving special positive attention to the individual, not judging him for his sin, embracing him as he is, and slowly but surely influencing him to grow in his Torah observance until he finally makes the full turnaround. This is precisely the method used by Chabad Lubavitch and others involved in outreach; to provide nonjudgmental physical and spiritual support to the not yet observant, with the hope and intent to help the individual turnaround his life spiritually and return to his roots, and hundreds of thousands of people have indeed returned to Judaism as a result of this approach. The former approach, has limited success, especially in today’s generation. Accordingly, there is no excuse for one to ignore influencing a Jew who is a sinner under the basis that today we no longer know how to give Tochacha, as when necessary one is obligated to give Tochacha in the form of positive attention which everyone is able to accomplish. Likewise, Tochacha is not meant to be the expression and therapeutic relief of one’s inner anger at a sinner, but rather the method to influence them. Accordingly, those who scream and shout and reprimand a sinner in a way that causes them to further sin, and does not influence them to change their ways, not only are guilty of not performing the mitzvah of Tochacha, but are also fully warranted to be on the receiving side of their own Tochacha, for not fulfilling the mitzvah of Tochacha, in its true intent. For these people as well however often positive attention Tochacha is the way to go to influence them to change their ways.

The proofs:

There is a meaningful Diyuk (interpretation) derived from both the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch of Admur, which aligns with the latter approach that the meaning of Tochacha is not to rebuke to influence change. Specifically, if rebuking through shouting would lead to a person becoming further distanced from Yiddishkeit, then one has not fulfilled the mitzvah of rebuke Hocheiach Tochiach. On the contrary, if treating the individual with kindness and refraining from yelling could eventually bring them to repent and return to the path of Torah and mitzvot, then this is the true fulfillment of the mitzvah. This Diyuk emerges from the additional wording used in their description of the Halacha of Hocheiach Tochiach, in which they write that the Mitzvah is to “Lehachziro Lemutav” (“to return them to goodness”), which is an expansion upon the original phrasing found in the Gemara. These extra words emphasize the goal of rebuke—not simply correcting behavior, but doing so in a manner that inspires the person to genuinely reconnect with their spiritual roots. In this light, the Hagahos Maimanis and Admur [in 156:7, unlike Admur in 608:5], based on the Talmud emphasize the exemption from rebuking if one knows the personal with not listen and he is not his friend. All this once again proves that the mitzvah is not the actual rebuke, but the influence. This is further elucidated in the book of Tanya chapter 32 in which the Alter Rebbe explains that the mitzvah of Hocheiach Tochiach through rebuke only applies to someone who is one’s friends and will be open to hear the rebuke and can be influenced as a result of it. However, if he is not on intimate terms with him, then towards such a person applies the dictum of Hillel the Elder that one should always chase after peace, and love all creatures and draw them closer to Torah. The above instruction to love all creatures includes even those who are very distanced from the Torah and service of G-d, and are hence referred to as mere creatures, nonetheless, one is instructed to attract them to Judaism with strong cords of love. [All this simply builds the support for this latter approach of understanding the mitzvah, and does not come to negate the fact that the former approach also contains source in the Poskim which require one to rebuke even a person who for sure will not listen, although practically, the widespread practice today is like the latter approach.]

A story:

Rav Chaim Shalom Deitch, in name of Yitzchak Ginzburg, shared an illustrative story of this principle, attributing it to the previous Rebbe of Seret Vizhnitz in Haifa. In the 1950’s, the Rebbe once reached out to a young Jew who had survived the Holocaust who came from a Vizhnitzer background and was no longer observant due to the trauma. The Rebbe invited this individual to attend his *Tish* (a traditional Hasidic gathering) on Friday night, despite knowing that the man would drive on Shabbat to attend—a halachic violation. When the man inquired why the Rebbe wanted him to come, the Rebbe responded with profound love, saying that he loved him as if he were an only son, and he cannot perform the Tish in his absence. This expression of warmth and unconditional care ultimately transformed the man’s life. He became a Chozer Beteshuvah, and for fifty years, he served as a doctor for the Frum community in Haifa. This incredible outcome was a direct result of the Vizhnitzer Rebbe’s foresight and embodiment of the true essence of Hocheiach Tochiach., rebuke rooted in love and compassion, with the ultimate goal of restoring observance.

Sources: Sources that promote the latter approach that Purpose is Kiruv, not admonishing: See Admur 156:7 [unlike Admur 608:5]“One who sees his friend sinning or following a path that is not good, it is a mitzvah to return him to the right path and to inform him that he is sinning against himself through his wicked actions, as it says (Vayikra 19:17), ‘You shall surely rebuke your fellow.’ If he does not accept [the rebuke], he must rebuke him again and again, even up to a hundred times, as it says, ‘You shall surely rebuke. And one must rebuke only his friend, not anyone else as if the person will not listen to him, he is not obligated to rebuke him.; See Rambam Mishneh Torah Mada Hilchos Deios 6:7 “One who sees his friend sinning or following a path that is not good, it is a mitzvah to return him to the right path and to inform him that he is sinning against himself through his wicked actions, as it says (Vayikra 19:17), ‘You shall surely rebuke your fellow.”; Hagahos Maimanis on Rambam ibid letter Gimel Tanya Chapter 32: The Talmud states that if one sees that his friend has sinned, then it is a Mitzvah to hate him and also tell his teacher to hate him. The above Talmudic statement is only directed towards a transgressor who is observant of Torah and Mitzvos [and not towards an individual who is not observant]. Furthermore, even by an observant Jew who has sinned, the instruction to hate him only applies if one already fulfilled the Mitzvah to rebuke him and he nonetheless refuses to repent. Based on the above, we can deduce that one who is not acquainted with the transgressor and is not his friend and is not on intimate terms with him, then the above instruction and Mitzvah to hate him does not apply. On the contrary, towards such a person applies the dictum of Hillel the Elder that one should always chase after peace, and love all creatures and draw them closer to Torah. The above instruction to love all creatures includes even those who are very distanced from the Torah and service of G-d, and are hence referred to as mere creatures, nonetheless, one is instructed to attract them to Judaism with strong cords of love. [There are no drawbacks involved in this love for the nonreligious Jew, as] if he is successful, then he will manage to bring him back to Torah and service of G-d, and even if he is not successful, he does not lose out from being rewarded for fulfilling the Mitzvah of loving his fellow Jew.”; Sources that promote the former approach that purpose is the intrinsic act of admonishing: Rama 608:2; Admur 608:5