The 251st prohibition is that we are forbidden from verbally wronging another person by telling him things that will distress and humiliate him, and make him discouraged. For example, when a person has sinned in his youth, but changed his ways, and someone tells him, “Thank G-d who has taken you away from that path to this good path,” or similar indirect references to faults that cause him pain.
The source of this prohibition is G-d’s statement (exalted be He), “V’lo sonu one another and you shall fear your G-d.” Our Sages said that this refers to verbally causing him pain (ona’as devarim).
Sefer Hamitzvot in English
“Hurtful Words”
Negative Commandment 251
Translated by Rabbi Berel Bell
Chabad.org
I receive daily emails on the commentaries of Maimonides on the 613 commandments as outlined in his classic work Sefer Hamitzvot, but I rarely use them as the basis for any of my “meditations”. The simple reason for this is that the vast, vast majority of these commandments aren’t considered to be applicable to the lives of non-Jewish people. Traditional Christianity considers the “Law is dead” and thus would tend to disregard these lessons in any case, and only some non-Jews in the “Messianic” movement feel that they share an equal obligation with the Jewish people to fulfill the full “yoke of Torah”. However, I’m not writing to address that issue, but because I believe we do have a parallel commandment in Christianity.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. –Matthew 18:15-17
You may be wondering why Jesus suggests that you go through all of these steps in trying to reconcile with a fellow believer who has sinned against you. Let’s review the process again. First you go to the person alone. If they don’t listen, take two or three witnesses (referencing Deuteronomy 19:15, which suggests that there is a legal component to these actions). If all else fails, bring the matter before the entire congregation and if the situation still can’t be resolved, only then must the offender be expelled from the body of believers.
The way I learned how to interpret this passage (you may have heard this before, too) is that you first go to the person alone so you don’t embarrass them. If you can take care of the problem just between the two of you, without bringing anyone else into it, you can avoid the other person digging their heels in, so to speak, because you have publicly humiliated them. Even if you can’t resolve it in that context, your next step is to bring in just two or three other trusted (that’s my interpretation) brothers and sisters to help mediate the problem. It still doesn’t have to be dragged in front of the entire congregation. The offender can still “save face”.
Why is this important? From a “common sense” point of view, we know that people are more likely to listen to criticism about themselves in a private rather than a public setting. An old adage in management says to “praise publicly and criticize privately.” If you’ve ever been yelled at by your spouse for something you did or gotten a good “dressing down” by your boss, you know it isn’t quite as painful if it’s just the two of you than if it’s in front of family, friends, or co-workers. People are more likely to listen to criticism privately and are more open to discussing their “issues” in a private setting than if it’s all happening in front of a crowd.
Is the “common sense” approach Biblical? I think it is.
If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. –Deuteronomy 21:22-23
The idea behind the phrase cursed by God seems to be not that the person was impaled because he was cursed but that to leave him exposed there was to invite the curse of God upon the whole land. Why this would be so is not clear, though the rabbinic idea that even a criminal is created in the image of God may give some clue (thus J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [JPSTC], 198). Paul cites this text (see Gal 3:13) to make the point that Christ, suspended from a cross, thereby took upon himself the curse associated with such a display of divine wrath and judgment (T. George, Galatians [NAC], 238-39).
Commentary from net.bible.org
The phrase we need to key in on is “the rabbinic idea that even a criminal is created in the image of God may give some clue.” I tend to agree with the Talmudic interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:22-23. We are all created in the image of God, great and humble alike. On a very basic level, we are all entitled to a certain amount of care and dignity befitting the image of our Creator and in that sense, we should avoid going out of our way to embarrass or humiliate a person, even if we think “they deserve it”.
This brings me back to a “meditation” I wrote a few days ago called Considering Replies. Maybe you’re thinking that I’m beating a dead horse, but the Internet is a “rough neighborhood” and a lot of people get hurt out here. It’s not enough to say that we’re “telling the truth in love” when telling the truth can have devastating results. This is like embarrassing a “former sinner” by saying you are so glad they gave up their horrible lifestyle to come to Christ. If you make a person feel like dirt by “telling them the truth in love” you probably didn’t consider “love” before you opened your mouth or typed something on someone’s blog and then pressed “Publish”.
According to Rabbi Berel’s commentary on Maimonides, the Sages taught that uttering hurtful words is a worse sin than defrauding someone of money. I know someone out there will say that this teaching means we can never confront someone who is doing wrong for fear of embarrassing them, but look back at Matthew 18:15-17. There is a process for confronting a fellow believer if it’s necessary that is still compassionate and respectful. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 even describes how to address a church or congregational leader who has sinned, so your leaders are not “criticism proof” (I’ve seen congregational leaders falsely use the example of Korach and the “evil report” against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16 as “proof” that no one is allowed to criticize a leader) but can be approached in a way that addresses the problem and truly shows respect and love.
The truth isn’t enough, even when we have a “loving” intent. Long before speaking the truth, we must bring love into the picture and make love and truth work together. We must consider the teachings of the Master and his close disciples before launching into any sort of action, especially if we’re emotionally involved in the conflict. The so-called “love passage” in 1 Corinthians 13 (which has nothing to do with weddings and marriage as such), is a very good map to consider when we need to talk to someone about any of their shortcomings. It’s also the guide I’m sure you’d like someone to use if or when you need to be confronted.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is
not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. –1 Corinthians 13:1-7
Love does not dishonor others. It always protects and always trusts. Christians can choose to interpret the lights of Chanukah as representing the light of the world. As I’ve mentioned before, Jesus said that we are also supposed to be lights to the world. Christ gave us a new command to love each other (John 13:34). Let’s start there and then work out way out.
Happy Chanukah. Follow the light. Pass it on.
Morning Meditations 
Great article, James. I had not ever considered it a ‘commandment’ (speaking as one who is free of the law, but still working on obedience) to not embarrass or distress or discourage someone. What you’re saying really makes sense, though, and I think that in my efforts to be loving and peaceful I have known at least subconsciously that that kind of thing was not good. I have been guilty of not watching my tongue closely enough in the past.
I did want to add one thing to your commentary on the passage regarding a brother who sins and the method prescribed for dealing with that. In the end, where it says that if the sinner remains unrepentant we should treat them “as you would a pagan or a tax collector,” it seems that some Christians take it upon themselves to interpret that as shunning them and being rude, gossiping about them and so forth. On the contrary, Jesus also gave us guidelines for dealing with tax collectors and sinners. He ate with them, and when the Pharisees challenged his behaviors: “And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.” – Luke 5:31.
Following your position, my personal conviction is that the passage regarding an unrepentant sinner and the passages concerning Jesus’s relationships with tax collectors and sinners should be considered as they relate to one another, and we should guard our hearts and act with love towards everyone, not confining ourselves to any one category.
Thank you again for the article, I for one was encouraged by it.
Greetings and welcome, Heidi. I’m glad you commented.
We don’t always think about Jesus giving “commandments” in the sense of “the Law”, but it’s important to remember that Jesus was (and is) a Jewish man and teacher and what he said and did was completely consistent with his environment as a teacher and Master of disciples in Israel. He was fully conversant in the Torah (Law) and the way he taught (though with his own authority, which was unusual for first century itinerant Jewish teachers) was very understandable within the context of religious Judaism.
Jesus also point blank gave his disciples a new commandment inJohn 13:34, and in Matthew 28:20 (the Great Commission), he tells his Jewish disciples to teach new non-Jewish disciples to “obey everything he had commanded” the disciples he was sending out, which implies that many of his teachings were seen as “commands”.
I agree that even when we must treat an unrepentant brother or sister as a “sinner or tax collector”, that doesn’t mean we should completely shun them, gossip about them, and disrespect them. Otherwise, why would they ever want to return to the community of faith? Paul says in Romans 5:10 that Christ died for us, even when we were his enemies. If he can be that gracious to us, though we rejected him, we certainly can be gracious to others who reject us and thereby show the love Jesus has for them and for the world.