호세아 1:10의 Musar

And King Solomon, peace be upon him, said (Proverbs 24:29-30), “Do not be a vain witness against your companion; would you mislead with your speech? Do not say, ‘I will do to him what he did to me; I will pay the man like what he did.’” Its explanation is: It is not necessary to warn, saying, “Do not be a false witness”; but do say, “Do not be a vain witness.” For if your companion stumbles upon a sin, do not testify about it and do not reveal it in vain, without punishment. For while it is true that if a man stole or extorted his countryman, [a witness] is obligated to testify so that [if] there are two witnesses he will return the theft that he stole; and if there is only one witness, there will be an oath between them; but if he saw his fellow stumble in a matter of a sexual prohibition or one of the sins [that do not involve payment], it is not fitting that he should testify about this in vain - meaning to say without punishment - even if there is another witness with him to authenticate the matter. And if the sinner was someone who fears sin, it is fitting to speak to one’s heart, [to say] that he truly [already] repented. And also because he should fear to himself and say in his heart, “Since this man fears the Heavens, maybe His merits are more numerous than his iniquities; and our Rabbis said (Kiddushin 39a) that a man whose merits are more numerous than his iniquities is surely from the congregation of the righteous.” However if the sinner is from the fools - the way of which is to repeat their foolishness - it is good that they tell the judges, in order to chastise him and separate him from sin. However if he is one witness, it is not good for a man to be alone, testifying about his fellow. For his testimony is vain, since they cannot rely upon it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 19:15), “A single witness may not validate against a person any guilt or sin.” And therefore he is considered a defamer. And the word, “mislead (fitita) is [in] a causative structure - it means to say that through your lips, you are grinding his face (from the usage [Leviticus 2:6], “You shall break it into bits.”) when you reveal his hidden iniquity. And after this, he said, “Do not say, ‘I will do to him what he did to me.’” For if he revealed your sins, do not take vengeance or bear a grudge to do to him like what he did to you. [And this is a glorious teaching and from the essence of fear [of God].
But if the sinner is a man that does not fear in front of God - like someone who removes the yoke of the Heavenly kingdom, and is not careful about a commandment which all the rest of his people know is a sin - it is permissible to embarrass him and to speak about his disgrace. Thus did our Rabbis say (Baba Metzia 59a), “‘A man shall not oppress his countryman (amito)’ (Leviticus 25:17). [Meaning, from] his nation (amo) - one that is with you in [observance of] Torah and commandments - he shall you not mistreat. But [regarding] one who did not put his heart to the word of the Lord, it is permissible to embarrass him with his actions, make his abominations known and pour forth disgrace upon him. And they also said (Yoma 86b), “We publicize the hypocrites due to the desecration of [God’s] name.”
But if he stumbled on a sin by chance and it is his habit most of his days to be careful about iniquity, we should not reveal his sin - as we have explained. So it would [then] be possible to explain, “Do not be a vain witness against your companion” - to testify about sins with which you have also fallen sick, like him. Hence he is called his companion. And this is shown by its stating afterwards, “Do not say, ‘I will do to him what he did to me.’” For even though it is a commandment to publicize the ones that sin to their core and the hypocrites; [in the case of] a sinner - if it is a man like him in his evil and [like other] people with his sins, we should not publicize [his sin]. For [the first one’s] intention to reveal his secrets will not be for the good, but rather to rejoice in his calamity. Secondly, how will he not be embarrassed to mention the defect of these actions in someone else, when he holds on to them [himself]? And it is stated (Hosea 1:4), “I will punish the House of Jehu for the bloody deeds at Jezreel”: Behold even though he did a commandment in cutting off the House of Ahab, [Jehu] bore his sin. For he was also full of transgression.

And even though he had rendered a great favor to Israel, for Achav had served the Ba'al and the calves, and Yehu had abolished Ba'al worship from Israel and made [their sites] sewers, as Scripture states (II Kings 10:27), and he had also found favor in the eyes of the L-rd for having killed Achav (for which the kingdom was given him for four generations as mentioned in Scripture), and Yehu's later idol worship was unwitting, (as written in Sanhedrin 102a): "Yehu was a great tzaddik … but he saw the signature of Achiya Hashiloni and erred" — in spite of all this, since there remained in him part of the sin of Achav, he was punished, as is written in the beginning of Hoshea (1:4): "And I will remember the blood of Yizre'el (i.e., the blood of the house of Achav, whom he had killed in Yizre'el) on the house of Yehu." And from the words of Semak we learn that the same applies in all similar instances between man and his neighbor. If one punishes his friend with any manner of punishment — by striking [him] or "whitening" his face or by speaking lashon hara against him — even if in this, the din were in accordance with the shamer or the speaker — still, he must "know in his soul" that if he himself had transgressed in this way in the past or if he will transgress in this way in the future, then the suffering of this man whose face he whitened or against whom he spoke lashon hara will be reckoned "innocent blood," and he will be punished for it, just as if he had acted thus against a man complete in the Torah of the L-rd and His mitzvoth.