GEN1558 While significant to the moral shaping of groups, boshet – a sensitivity to the judgment of worthy others—has long been a defining quality of the Jewish self. Yehiel b. Yekutiel, the 13th century Roman ethicist, characterizes boshet’s essence as an ability to conduct ourselves in an unpretentious, introspective manner Sefer Malot Hamiddot. It reflects our continued concern with how others view our behavior. Since we are determined to avoid being shamed, we find that a major consequence of boshet involves treating others with respect, even if we disagree with them on crucial issues. It teaches us that any public shaming of our neighbor is a horrendous evil. To guide us in this regard, the rabbis point to the Torah’s   stories about Tamar and Joseph in which both characters refuse to put others to shame. Condemned to death for apparent harlotry, Tamar will not identify her father-in-law Judah as the man who made her pregnant. This is the rabbinic interpretation of Tamar’s reasoning: “If he confesses, well and good, but if not, I would rather die than put him to shame by publicly acknowledging him as the father of my unborn child.” Judah soon admits to Tamar’s innocence, declaring: “She is more righteous than I”—a stunning praise of her character Genesis 38: 25 – 26. At the end of the story of Joseph and his brothers, we read that when Joseph finally has them in his power, he tells his servants: “All of you leave my presence” [this verse]. Only then does Joseph reveal his identity. True, he had just accused the brothers of both robbery and espionage. But these accusations pale when compared to the public shame Joseph would have caused his siblings if he publicly revealed that they once sold him into slavery. Joseph risks their fright and possible retaliation rather than publicly humiliating them. Tanhuma Vayiggash 5. Yet in their idealism, the rabbis demanded that we balance these examples of idealized action with the Torah’s commitment to reprove our neighbor who has behaved unacceptably. It would be shameless of us, and imply that we do not really care about certain values, were we to say nothing and let the other person continue acting badly. Since giving and hearing criticism are not easy for either party, the author of Orhot Tzaddikim sensitively suggests that we reprove our friend in private, very gently. And should these best-intended remarks evoke shame, and our friend responds defensively by verbally attacking us, we should not answer back in kind. People being what they are, reproof has always been one of the hardest disciplines to accept. Even today, when we are supposed to be open to people’s “different strokes,” relationships require very delicate maneuvering, for shame is a supremely powerful force.   BOROJMV 190-1