{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018401015228426396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025380710659898475, 'mean_word_length': 4.693140794223827, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Duty and Dangers of Rebuke in Rabbinic Literature

In the Book of Leviticus we encounter a commandment that a person should rebuke his or her fellow for wrongdoing rather than harboring hatred against them: “You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him” (Lev 19:17). The obligation to rebuke may, at first glance, appear straightforward. Yet, the concluding clause of the verse, which warns against incurring sin, alerts us to a potential danger. What is the nature of this sin and to whom does it belong? Is the sin generated through an action done by the rebuker or is it somehow related to the original transgressor? There are a number of different ways of understanding the referent of this sin, marking the word as a highly ambiguous element in the verse. If the sin refers to the original transgression committed by the offending party, then this phrase could mean that by refraining from rebuke one actually takes responsibility for the crime committed by the other party. Alternatively, the sin could point to future transgressions that the offending party will perform if you hold your tongue. On the other hand, if the sin belongs to the would-be rebuker there are another set of potential meanings. Failure to rebuke itself could constitute a sin through the neglect of a positive scriptural injunction. Or, the sin could belong to the rebuker but could actually be a byproduct of the rebuke itself rather than a result of failure to rebuke. An ineffective rebuke could encourage a rebellious individual