You state that "a person must rebuke someone who willfully sins,even if one is certain that the sinner will not heed the rebuke."
You base this on OC 608:2
It seems to be that the Beir Halacha there as well as the Aruck Hashulchan do not hold the above.
It also seems to me that the Gemara itself indicates otherwise.
The Gemara discusses a "rasha" who has done all kinds of "toevas" but is to be rebuked only because it is not "galuiy v'yadua l'fornanu" that he will not accept the rebuke. From this I understand that if I was _certain_"that the sinner not heed the rebuke " I am not obligated (and even prohibited) to rebuke him.
The Bi'ur Halachah (DH Mochin) cites those who say that we do not need to rebuke sinners when we do not have the power and authority in our hands to separate them from the sin. The Bi'ur Halachah himself argues and maintains that even in such a case, one must give rebuke.
Elsewhere, the Bi'ur Halachah (DH Chayav) writes in the name of the Sefer Chasidim (#413) that one does not need to rebuke someone in such a situation unless he is close to him (that is, he is his friend and they know each other). One need not rebuke someone else who will only hate him and try to avenge him for the rebuke.
The Ran seems to limit rebuke to cases which are mfurash bkrara(explicit Torah prohibitions). Do we not apply mutav syeu shoggin val ywhu shoggin?
Rav Soloveitchik Z'l explained that the din of tochchacha involves a chiuv to protest on the min Hatorah level The din of protest even if you accomplish nothing or achieve a negative result is a second level of interpretation from Chazal .
The concept of "Mutav" does not apply to Isurim which are explicit in the Torah, because by virtue of their being explicit, one who transgresses them is considered Mezid.
Do we assume that all Jews should be reproached , regardless of their lack of knowledge that they are a committing an issur that we know is mfurash ba Torah? The Chazon Ish , the Chafetz Chaim and Rav Kook Z'l advocated not rebuking such individuals in Yoreh Deah13,100:16, Ahavas Chesed and Iggerot Re'AYaH 1:171. Rav Amital discsuused this issue in Tradition in 1988 and in Mamelekhet Kohanim Vegoy Kadosh ed. Rav Yehuda . Shaviv.
That is correct. Sometimes one must rebuke a person in the form of rebuke, and sometimes it must be in the form of education, to teach the person the ways of Hashem when one is not aware of the Mitzvos of the Torah or does not value them.
The main thing, as the Gemara says, is that one's intention is for the sake of Shamayim and that one accomplishes through whatever form of education or rebuke that he uses the goal of bringing Jews closer to Hashem and His Torah.
Thank you for your response.The average Jew who is being rebuked today is a tinok shenishba.Would your answer apply to such a person ? We should be able to differentiate between a tinok shenishba and an advocate of wholesale deviation of halacha(meisis umedach).
Yes, our answer would apply to a Tinok sh'Nishba.
We wrote that today there is still a Mitzvah to rebuke a Jew who is sinning. However, that rebuke must take on a form which is appropriate to the person sinning. Thus, for a Tinok sh'Nishba, who never learned about the Mitzvos, the rebuke must be in the form of education. That is, teaching him about the Mitzvos in a warm and caring way is a fulfillment of the Mitzvah to "rebuke" one's fellow Jew who is sinning, even though it does not look like the rebuke that we usually think of when we think of rebuking someone.
Take care, may Hashem return the hearts of all Jews to His Torah and His merciful ways!
I'm not sure I understood your last response. A Tinok Shenishba according to the Chafetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish and many other Poskim
is a potential Baal Teshuva. Therefore, the function of rebuke should be limited to the leaders of those movements which are deviationist in nature. With regard to their "rank and file" , where is a mesorah for counterproductive acts of tochacha?
It is certainly not proper to give Tochechah where that will be counterproductive. The way to reach out to alienated Jews who are considered "Tinok sh'Nishba" is to compassionately offer them knowledge of their heritage, and not to rebuke them confrontationally, or even to mention to them that they are doing something wrong, but to nurture them back to the ways of the Torah.
However, the Gemara discusses in Gemara Beya, Daf Lamed, Amud Aleph, Rava's statement, Hanach Lahem LiYisroel, Mutav Sheyihyu Shogigim V'al Yihyu Mizidim! I saw a tshuva of this in the Kovetz Shiurim on Gemara Beya as well as a lengthy discussion on Tochacha and when you can say Hanach Lahem in the Halachic Journal T'chumin (from Chevron) vol. zayen, Tashmav, (1986), written by Rav Simcha Cohen Shlita. Can you comment?
I assume that you are referring to "Hanach Lahem" with regard to a Tinok sh'Nishba.
The concept of "Mutav sh'Yeyihu..." (which is also discussed in our Gemara on Daf 148b) does not apply to explicit laws written in the Torah. Therefore, that concept cannot be invoked to permit alienated Jews, even those with the status of Tinok sh'Nishba, to continue sinning. I would be interested to know what has been written on the subject of the relationship between this concept and reaching out to alienated Jews, such as in the article that you cite.