Stop Trusting the Non-Jews’ ‘Innate Morality’!
וישב (ב’)
החטא של הסברה
פרק מ, פסוק יד
כי אם זכרתני אתך כאשר ייטב לך ועשית נא עמדי חסד והזכרתני אל פרעה והוצאתני מן הבית הזה:
רש“י לפסוק כג
… מפני שתלה בו יוסף לזכרו, הוזקק להיות אסור שתי שנים, שנאמר “אשרי הגבר אשר שם ה’ מבטחו ולא פנה אל רהבים” (תהלים מ, ה), ולא בטח על מצרים הקרויים “רהב”:
Q: According to the Midrash, Yosef spent an extra two years in prison because he counted on the Sar Hamashkim to put in a good word to Pharaoh on his behalf.
But what rational person would not have acted exactly as Yosef did? Should he have just hoped that the Sar Hamashkim would do him a favor without his asking for it? Surely Yosef recognized that Hashem had orchestrated this opportunity for salvation, and he would have been foolish not to make the most of it. Even the greatest of tzadikim are supposed to recognize the Yad Hashem in seemingly ordinary events, and to act accordingly. Consequently, Yosef could not have been expected to continue waiting for some sort of miraculous salvation – this was it!
A: Without question Yosef acted correctly by asking the Sar Hamashkim to put in a good word for him, and Yosef never lost sight of Who was running the show. His fault was believing that the Sar Hamashkim, and ultimately Pharaoh, would help him because justice was on his side. Yosef believed that if Pharaoh was made aware of the injustice he had suffered, it was inconceivable that Pharaoh would allow him to remain in prison a moment longer. The morality of the Egyptians, Yosef believed, would play a role in his salvation – all he needed was a chance to tell his story. (This reads very smoothly into Yosef’s words.)
For this trust in the basic morality of rehavim (the haughty), Yosef was punished with an additional two years in prison. Indeed, when the Sar Hamashkim finally deigned to mention Yosef , he did so in a scornful way and surely for his own benefit. And Pharaoh never displayed any interest in Yosef beyond what Yosef had to offer him.
This is an enduring lesson that is of particular relevance in this period of crisis for Israel and Jews all around the world. Most Jews, even talmidei chachamim with emunah in Hashem, believe that if we could just get the facts out, if we could just tell the world our side of the story, they would surely acknowledge that truth and justice are with us.
But this is false, and placing any kind of trust in the morality of our “allies” (and kal vachomer our open enemies, those with Jewish blood on their hands), is not only dangerous but sinful. It is certainly proper for us to tell our side of the story, as we must pursue natural means, but we need not try too hard to convince anyone. The truth is clear for all those who wish to see it, and those who don’t will never be persuaded by our hasbarah.
We must never lose sight of the fact that our only hope is with Hashem , and He is directly responsible for every aspect of our salvation. To put any confidence in rehavim will only prolong our troubles, God forbid.
CONTRA BRISK: Understanding Arrives Long Before the Ability to Explain
Quoting Rabbi R.C. Klein’s Word column:
The Vilna Gaon (to Proverbs 2:2-3, 2:6) differentiates between binah and tevunah by explaining that tevunah refers to the “reflection” that qualifies one’s chochmah or binah. The Vilna Gaon in Chemdah Genuzah (to Proverbs 1:1) writes that binah refers to understanding something on one’s own terms, while tevunah refers to understanding something so thoroughly that one can explain it to others (see also Zohar, Vayakhel 201a). Rabbi Shlomo Brevda (1931-2013) points out in Leil Shimurim (p. 26) that this latter source runs counter to the aphorism often cited in the “Yeshiva World” in the name of Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk (1853-1918): “A deficiency in being able to explain something is a sign of a deficiency in one’s actual understanding.”
Why Anti-Zionists Are Borderline Depressed
A bochur once approached Rav Shmuel of Zelichov with complaints of depression and negative thoughts. In those days, no one thought to seek medical attention from psychologists, but the mashgiach suggested that he study the 26 chapters of Yeshayahu from 40 until 66 which constitute the haftoros of consolation. He explained that these are eternal sources of comfort for Klal Yisroel as a whole and for every individual (Naharei Aish, selection No. 80, and Yagdil Torah, Devorim, page 148).
(Quoting here.)
Medrash Eicha 3:6:
זאת אשיב אל לבי על כן אוחיל ר’ אבא בר כהנא בשם ר’ יוחנן אמר משל למה”ד למלך שנשא מטרונה וכתב לה כתובה מרובה ואמר לה כך וכך חופות אני עושה ליך כך וכך ארגוונות טובות אני נותן ליך הניחה המלך והלך לו למדינת הים ואיחר לשם נכנסו שכנותיה אצלה והיו מקניטות אותה ואומרות לה הניחך המלך והלך לו למדינת הים ושוב אינו חוזר עליך והיתה בוכה ומתאנחת וכיון שנכנסה לתוך ביתה פותחת ומוציאה כתובתה וקוראת ורואה בכתובתה כך וכך חופות אני עושה כך וכך ארגוונות טובות אני נותן ליך מיד היתה מתנחמת לימים בא המלך אמר לה בתי אני תמה איך המתנת לי כל אותן השנים אמרה לו אדוני המלך אלמלא כתובה מרובה שכתבת ונתת לי כבר אבדוני שכנותי כך עובדי כוכבים מונין את ישראל ואומרין להם אלהיכם הסתיר פניו מכם וסילק שכינתו מכם עוד אינו חוזר עליכם והן בוכין ומתאנחין וכיון שנכנסין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות וקורין בתורה ומוצאין שכתוב (ויקרא כ”ו) ופניתי אליכם והפריתי אתכם ונתתי משכני בתוככם והתהלכתי בתוככם והן מתנחמין למחר כשיבא קץ הגאולה אומר להם הקב”ה לישראל בני אני תמה מכם היאך המתנתם לי כל אותן השנים והן אומרים לפניו רבש”ע אילולי תורתך שנתת לנו כבר אבדנו האומות לכך נאמר זאת אשיב אל לבי ואין זאת אלא תורה שנא’ (דברים ד’) וזאת התורה וכן דוד אמר (תהלים קי”ט) לולי תורתך שעשועי אז אבדתי בעניי על כן אוחיל לו ומיחדים שמו שתי פעמים ביום ואומרים (דברים ו’) שמע ישראל ה’ אלהינו ה’ אחד.
Kal Vachomer today, after the first stage of the ingathering of the exiles…
Don’t Dismiss ‘Unarticulated Cultural Distillations of Experience Over Generations’!
G.K. Chesterton:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
As Thomas Sowell says in “Intellectuals and Society”, p. 204:
… Everything from economic central planning to environmentalism epitomizes the belief that third parties know best and should be empowered to over-ride the decisions of others. This includes preventing children from growing up with the values taught them by their parents if more “advanced” values are preferred by those who teach in the schools and colleges.
The vision of the anointed is not just a vision of society; it is also a very self-flattering vision of the anointed themselves — a vision which they are very unlikely to give up. A “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”—the phrase used in the Declaration of Independence — has no place today in the vision of the anointed. On the contrary, defying “public clamor” has become a badge of honor and a certification as a member of the anointed. Angry outcries from the masses are not treated as warnings to be heeded but as further evidence of one’s own superior insight, shared by other “thinking people.” This is one of the many ways in which the vision seals itself off from challenges coming from the mundane experiences of millions. Moreover, the sweeping presumptions and aspirations of the anointed are still widely regarded by themselves and by others as idealism, rather than as ego indulgences.
That the world must present a tableau matching their preconceptions — or else there is something wrong with the world — is not just a fancy of the intelligentsia, but a basis for quotas by corporations and universities seeking to create such a tableau, and part of the law of the land in cases where discrimination is charged when the reality does not match the envisioned tableau.