Many ethical values can be derived from the discussions of the Temple sacrificial service that appear in our parasha. One of the values that can be learned relates to our goal of avoiding embarrassing others. “The sin offering shall be slaughtered before the LORD, at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered: it is most holy” (Vayikra 6:18). In Massekhet Sota the following lesson is taught:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: For what reason did the Sages institute that the Amida prayer should be recited in a whisper? So as not to embarrass transgressors who confess their transgressions during prayer. Just as the verse detailing where different offerings are slaughtered does not differentiate between the place where a sin-offering is slaughtered and the place where a burnt-offering is slaughtered.
(Bavli, Sota 32b)
What is striking about this is that we are talking about sinners. Even sinners have the right to privacy and honor. For this reason the sacrifices of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering are brought on the same altar, so that no one standing in line can guess what kind of sacrifice is being brought by the person in front of him.
The Gemara notes that there are differences between details of the laws of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, and that based on those differences it would be possible to figure out what kind of sacrifice was being brought. For example, the blood of the sin-offering is sprinkled on the top part of the altar, while the blood of the burnt-offering is sprinkled lower down. Similarly, the animal brought as a sin-offering is female, while the burnt-offering is male. The Gemara explains, however, that the gender of the animal is hidden and that sprinkling the blood can be seen only by the priests, so the type of sacrifice being brought remains hidden from onlookers and privacy is maintained.
It appears that the priests are obliged to be secret-keepers and are not at liberty to publicize what kinds of sacrifices people are bringing and for what reason they are doing so. It is true that the individual bringing a sin-offering can choose a she-goat instead of an ewe, making it obvious that the sacrifice is not a burnt-offering, but since that decision is made by the sinner, if he chooses the goat, it is his own decision to publicize his sin. The only sin that requires a she-goat to be brought is for the sin of accidental idolatry, and in that case it appears that public shaming is part of the atonement.
We find the principle of mandating uniformity to avoid embarrassment in a number of other places, as well. In Massekhet Ta’anit, for example, the Mishnah describes:
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says, “Never were there more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ab and the day of atonement, for on those days the maidens of Jerusalem used to go out dressed in white garments – borrowed ones – in order not to cause shame to those who did not have their own.
(Mishna Ta’anit 4:7)
In Massekhet Pesahim, when discussing how remnants of the Pascal sacrifice are to be destroyed, in certain cases the rabbinic sages preferred that wood from the Temple be used, rather than from people’s private woodpile. The Gemara explains: “Rav Yosef said: It is in order not to embarrass one who does not have the means to bring his own wood” (Pesahim 82a).
The principle to avoid embarrassing others is not a guiding principle in every case. For example, in the event that the shame is indirect, it was not necessarily avoided. As an example, the sages established a marriage contract of 200 zuz for a virgin bride and 100 zuz for a widow. The mishnah allows, however, for the husband to add to that amount if he so desires. The Gemara explains that even though it is obvious that a husband can give gifts to his wife whenever he wants, this addition is emphasized by the mishnah specifically because otherwise we might have thought that uniformity would be important in this case in order not to embarrass one who does not have.
It appears that the rabbinic sages did not think it appropriate to establish one fixed model for the monetary relationship between a man and his wife at the time of the marriage, even if it caused someone to feel inferior (see Bavli Ketubot 54b).
There are occasions when a clear decision was made to cause embarrassment to someone. One example of this is when a person wanted to back out of a business transaction to which he committed himself. According to Jewish law, until a formal act of acquisition is performed, the transaction is not final and either party can back out. The mishnah teaches, however, that the person who backs out will be cursed with the words: “He who exacted payment from the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the Dispersion will ultimately exact payment from he who does not stand by his word” (Mishnah Bava Metzia 4:2). The Gemara relates the story of R. Hiyya bar Yosef who received payment in exchange for salt. By the time the salt was ready to be delivered, its price had risen, and R. Hiyya wanted to renege on the deal. R. Yohanan ruled that he had to either complete the deal or else suffer the curse of “He who exacted payment.” It is clear that the “He who exacted payment” curse is not merely an expression of disapproval by the sages, but was a public shaming ceremony carried out by the rabbinic court.
This is how the Rambam summarizes the law:
How is he to receive this curse? They speak a curse against him as follows: “He who punished the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the Dispersion, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Egyptians who were drowned in the sea, will punish him who does not stand by his word.” Then the money is refunded.
(Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mehira 7:2)
It appears that in earlier generations there was some level of control over the level of public shaming that was permitted and considered to be effective. Not every person was permitted to enter the public square and embarrass someone who they felt deserved to be shamed. The first place where this idea arises is, as has been noted, our parasha. The closing words of the verse are important and significant in understanding this: “The sin offering shall be slaughtered before the LORD, at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered: it is most holy” (Vayikra 6:18).
“It is most holy.”
The reason that the sin-offering is brought in the same spot where the burnt-offering is sacrificed is because “It is most holy.” Its status is no less holy than that of the burnt-offering, and it might even be the opposite – the sinner’s sacrifice may be even holier – “It is most holy.”
An echo of this idea may be found in these verses in Psalms:
You do not want me to bring sacrifices; You do not desire burnt offerings;
True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit; God, You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart.
(Tehillim 51:18-19)
Someone who brings a sacrifice – whose heart is broken as he searches for a remedy to help him cope with his mistake and heal the relationship that has been torn apart by his actions – does not deserve to be shamed as he faces God. His sin-offering is most holy.
