chapter 5 A Perilous Practice: Rebuke in

In addition to , there is another tannaitic , Sifre Devarim, which engages with Lev. 19:17 and rebuke. Unlike Sifra, which directly comments upon Lev. 19:17 in its entirety, when Sifre Devarim explicitly cites this verse it ignores the rebuke clause (Lev. 19:17b).1 Nevertheless, while this aspect of the verse does not expressly appear, the attributed portion of Sifra’s commentary on Lev. 19:17 is incorporated directly into the body of Sifre Devarim. In fact, more attention is paid to the topic of rebuke at the outset of this Midrash than in the totality of Sifra’s comments on this biblical verse. In the present chap- ter I argue that Sifre Devarim expands Sifra’s problematization of rebuke and offers a clearer sociological motivation for refraining from correcting others. Beyond the formal concern of attempting to perform a commandment while ultimately falling into sin, Sifre Devarim recognizes the interpersonal ramifica- tions of rebuke, specifically, the ways in which chastising others can lead to a fraying of interpersonal relationships. Such detrimental consequences lead the Midrash to admit that even Moses, the prototypical rebuker, faced serious opposition to his reproofs and that for most people it is beneficial to postpone or avoid rebuke if possible.

1 Moses as Exemplary Rebuker

The primary textual trigger that incites Sifre Devarim’s frenzy of focus on re- at the beginning ( הַ ּדְ ָ ברִ י ם) ”buke is the appearance of the locution “the words דברים of the fifth book of the Pentateuch. Sifre Devarim understands the term -This is not the only mi .(דברי תוכחות) to refer specifically to words of rebuke that associates it with forceful speech. In Sifra ד.ב.ר drashic gloss on the root אין דיבור אלא) ”is glossed as “strength (דיבור) ” 2:7) the word “speech) Additionally, in Sifre (Pisqa 99; a Midrash from the school of .(לשון עז in contrast to (לשון קשה) is associated with harshness ד.ב.ר R. Ishmael) the root

1 See Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 226 and the parallel passage (Ibid., 267) in which Lev. 19:17a is referenced in the context of describing how the violation of minor commandments leads to the transgressing of more severe commandments.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004376557_007 116 chapter 5

-The partic 2.(לשון תחנונים) which is associated with supplication ,א.מ.ר the root provided by these tannaitic midrashim lend ד.ב.ר ular connotations of the root themselves well to the assertive and polemical mode of speech that one might associate with rebuke, and thus it is not surprising to find a comment glossing to mean rebuke at the beginning of the דברים the word where Moses begins his final address to the people.3 Adopting this under- Sifre Devarim establishes Moses as the exemplary rebuker ,דברים standing of who serves as a model for subsequent biblical figures. Deuteronomy 1:1 begins: “These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan.” Glossing this verse, the first Pisqa of Sifre Devarim opens with five exegetical sections, each of which follows the or [דברי] ”same form. First a biblical verse (beginning with either: “words of -is presented that ostensibly encapsu ([אלה דברי)ם(] ”[these are the words [of“ lates the entirety of a particular figure’s words. Second, the midrash rejects the hypothesis from the base verse that these words represent the sum of the fig- ure’s words by asserting that the biblical character certainly prophesied4 more than the limited selection proposed. In three of the cases, a proof-text for the figure’s proliferative literary output reinforces the rejection of the hypothesis. The midrash then returns to the base verse, which it no longer understands as presenting the entirety of the figure’s words, and questions what the particu- lar formulation implies. All five examples assert that the phrase indicating the connotes rebuke. Finally, the midrash (דברי, אלה דברי]ם[) words of the figure answers the question of how we know that the sections introduced by the base verse indicate rebuke by proffering a proof-text to support this reading. Through this standardized formula Sifre Devarim delineates five major exam- ples of biblical figures rebuking others. The first of Sifre Devarim’s examples of

2 Kahana, Sifre on Numbers, 1:246, 653. However, note Menahem Kahana’s reservations about in biblical and rabbinic Hebrew (Ibid., 1:653–54). For אמירה and דיבור the distinction between additional examples from the amoraic midrashim see Margalioth, Midrash va-Yiqra Rabbah, 271; Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Rabbah, 429; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 13:7; Yalkut from the biblical period ד.ב.ר Mekhiri Tehillim 106:18. On the shift in meaning of the root to the tannaitic period, see Gottlieb, “Language Understanding in Sifre Deuteronomy,” 60–1; Sarfatti, “Semantics of and Interpretation of the Bible by the ,” 32–34. 3 Even later sections of Sifre Devarim appear to understand Deuteronomy as a work of rebuke. See Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 32 and Hammer, Sifre, 399. Additionally, the targu- mim understand Moses’ words, in part or in whole, as constituting rebuke (Maher, “ Pseudo-Jonathan of Deuteronomy 1.1–8,” 267–68, 277, and 289–90). prophesied) is used. The five figures) נתנבא In all five examples some form of the word 4 include not only the classically understood prophets Amos and Jeremiah, but David and Solomon as well.