WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON?

This episode of Yoseph and his brothers as described for us in Parshat Vayeshev is a very difficult one to discuss.  Although we cannot fully comprehend the actions of the early generations and determine the precise nature of their sins, until this point we always knew who was the "good guy" and who was the "bad guy".  When it came to Kayin and Hevel it was obvious who we should identify with.  The same may be said regarding Avraham and Lot, Avraham and Amrafel, Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaakov and Esav.  Out of each of these pairs it was clear whose side we were on and whose side we were not on.  When it comes to Yoseph and his brothers, this distinction between "good" and "bad" becomes more complex, for both sides of the dispute are tzaddikim gemurim!  "kulam ahuvim kulam berurim" "All are beloved, all are flawless", all are giants of the world.  All of their names are inscribed on the shoulders and heart of the Kohen Gadol (see Shmot 28:12 and 28:29) "in order that that the Holy One Blessed is He, should see the names of the Tribes written before Him and give thought to their righteousness" (Rashi Shmot 28:12).  Despite this, there is a terrible feud between them, senseless hatred, ganging up with intent to kill their own brother and in the end selling him into slavery!  How can we begin to understand this?

The fact is that what transpired here is well beyond our comprehension, we have no grasp of these giants - not of their righteousness and not of their sins.  However, given that this chapter is included in the Torah, we are obligated to study and analyze it as best we can.  We must realize, however, that our understanding will be limited and we cannot hope to comprehend matters fully.

At face value, the very idea of trying to kill such a tzaddik and in the end sell him into slavery seems preposterous and terrible indeed.  On the other hand, if Yoseph truly deserved this punishment, how could he have done something so terrible as to deserve it?

The Torah tells us: "then they took him, and cast him into the pit ... and they sat to eat bread" (Bereishit 37:24-25).  Why does the Torah need to tell us that they sat down to eat bread?  The Torah wishes to provide us with some insight as to what precisely took place.  The halacha states: "a Sanhedrin who carried out a death penalty cannot eat that entire day" (Sanhedrin 63a) (This is one of the many halachot derived from the pasuk "you shall not eat over the blood" (Vayikra 19:26)).  What then gives them the right to sit and eat after having just sentenced their brother to death and having carried out the sentence by casting him into a pit filled with snakes and scorpions?  The brothers clearly did not arrive at a halachic ruling that Yoseph should be sentenced to death, for otherwise they would not have sat down to eat.  Furthermore, following the brothers judging of Yoseph, Yehuda arises saying: "What gain will there be if we kill our brother and cover up his blood, come let us sell him to the Ishmaelites - but let our hand not be upon him" (Bereishit 37:26-27).  If

Yoseph was really guilty of a capital crime then the death penalty cannot be substituted with selling him to the Ishmaelites or any other punishment.  The Torah tells us: "you shall not accept ransom for the life of a murderer who is worthy of death" Bamidbar 35:31).

If, on the other hand, they felt that he was not deserving of the death penalty, what right did they have to throw him into the pit?  Chazal, after all comment: "'The pit was empty no water was in it' (Bereishit 37:24), from the plain meaning of what is stated 'and the pit was empty' do I not know that no water was in it?  Rather, what teaching does the Torah mean to convey when it states 'no water was in it'?  Water was not in the pit, but snakes and scorpions were in it" (Shabbat 22a).  Even had Yoseph not met his death through the bite of a snake or the sting of a scorpion, he would have eventually died of starvation, G-d forbid! Without a clear "psak" of the Sanhedrin that a person must be killed, it is forbidden to kill that person.

JUDGED AS A RODEF!

The answer here is that the brothers were not sentencing Yoseph to death for involvement in an ordinary capital crime.  They were rather judging him as a "rodef", a person who is perceived as dangerous and liable to kill another person.  The halacha permits killing such a person. However, the halacha mandates that should there be an alternate way of being saved from the situation then it would be forbidden to kill him (see Rambam Hilchot Rotze-ach UShmirat HaNefesh 1:7).  The "rodef" may only be killed when there is no other means of escape from him.  It was for this reason that the moment Yehuda made the suggestion to sell Yoseph into slavery as a means of ridding themselves of this "rodef", they all accepted his suggestion and agreed to follow his advice.  If they can accomplish their goal of getting rid of him without actually killing him, then why kill him, rather sell him into slavery!

What brought the brothers to such a monstrous conclusion regarding Yoseph?  Although "Yoseph would bring evil reports of them to their father" (Bereishit 37:2), is that reason to suspect him of planning some sinister plot?  The brothers feared that history was repeating itself, that this was just another chapter in the story of the previous two generations.  Avraham Avinu had many sons, yet only one of them was chosen as heir not only to the Holy Land but to continue Avraham's legacy as well - Yishmael and the sons of Ketura were shunted aside.  The same thing happened in the following generation - of Yitzchak's two sons, only Yaakov was chosen to inherit Eretz Yisrael and to be the spiritual heir, Esav was cast aside.  Although Esav shouted in protest (see Bereishit 27:34-38), it did not help him, it was Yaakov who received the Land of Israel and the entire spiritual legacy of Avraham Avinu, while Esav was told "your brother you shall serve" (ibid. 40).

Yoseph's brothers felt that he too was planning to oust his brothers from the spiritual legacy of their three forefathers, leaving him alone to inherit, and to take for himself the blessing that Yaakov had received from his father: "Be a lord to your brothers" (ibid. 29). This would mean that at best case the brothers would be his slaves (as appears from the dreams he related to them), and in a worst case scenario they would be cast away from Eretz Yisrael to a faraway land, as Avraham had done to his sons from Ketura (see Bereishit 25:6, and Rashi there).  The brothers thus viewed Yoseph as a very dangerous "rodef" who "wished to take their lives - to remove them from this world, the Next World, or both" (Sforno Bereishit 37:18).

Their allegations of course were unfounded.  Yoseph meant no harm, the brothers may have hated him but he harbored no hatred towards them he loved them.  The reason Yoseph brought these reports to his father regarding his brothers was not to "persecute" them, but rather for their own good.  Yoseph mistakenly thought that his brothers were guilty of eating "eiver min hachai" (portions taken from a live animal) as well as other sins (see Rashi Bereishit 37:2 and Siftei Chachamim there who explains what brought Yoseph to this erroneous conclusion).  He then felt compelled to report this to his father, not G-d forbid, to inflict harm upon them, but in order that Yaakov both in his role as their father as well as that of one of the Gedolei Hador (Yitzchak Avinu was still alive at this point) would set them on the proper path so that they would merit life in the Next World. However, as Yoseph erred in his assessment of his brothers' actions, they erred in their assessment of Yoseph's - they interpreted his behavior as a wish to persecute them and for this they felt they had the right to kill him.

JUDGING FAVORABLY

The Mishna teaches us "judge every man in a favorable, meritorious light" (Pirke Avot 1:6).  This was where Yoseph and his brothers stumbled, if we are permitted to speak in such terms.  Each side did not judge the other in a favorable light.  Yoseph should have said to himself:  "if ten of the greatest sages decided that this food is not "eiver min hachai" then perhaps I am the one who is mistaken.  Perhaps it is permissible to eat the meat in this fashion".  Although he is not permitted to concede to their opinion without clear proof, he should at least have judged them in a more favorable manner.  A possible course of action would have been to ask his father.  If Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, and the other brothers feel that this is not "eiver min hachai"  perhaps they are correct.  Our father is a Gadol Hador, let him rule for us.  If he is not sure we can ask our grandfather Yitzchak.  He should not have rushed to accuse his brothers of eating "eiver min hachai" and then to inform his father of this in no uncertain terms.

The brothers too should have judged Yoseph favorably.  Where did they get the idea that he was a "rodef"?  Perhaps his intentions were quite the opposite, to prevent them from sinning so that they too would have a share in Eretz Yisrael and the entire spiritual legacy of the holy forefathers.  Both sides did not judge each other favorably, if we may speak in such terms.

The Rishonim tell us that the requirement to judge others positively does not apply to evil people, not only are we not required to judge them favorably but we are required to grant them an unfavorable judgment (see Rambam and Rabenu Yonah's commentary to this Mishna).  Unless we are aware that someone is a "rasha", however, we must assume that what he is doing is right and not as it appears.  Even if he is acting improperly, we should assume that perhaps he was not given the same education as we have been given, for a Jew in Moscow cannot be as knowledgeable one in Yerushalayim.  We must always try our best to find the good in others.  The brothers assumed that Yoseph was a "rasha" and therefore had the right to judge him unfavorably, but what gave them the right to assume that he was a "rasha"?

GIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Life would be so much better if we would learn to judge others favorably.  This applies especially to married couples.  Perhaps if people would interpret the actions of their spouse less negatively, there would be far less divorces than we are seeing today.  When the husband comes home and finds his food burnt, why must he assume that his wife did so intentionally, perhaps while the food was on the fire she went to answer the telephone or had to attend to a crying baby?  The story is told of a woman who came to the Rav with the following question: she had salted her meat and then rinsed it as the halacha requires, but could not remember whether or not she waited the requisite amount of time prior to the rinsing.  The Rav asked her what she was doing while the meat was being salted, to which she responded: "I was speaking to my neighbor".  The Rav's response was: "in that case it is definitely kosher!"  Clearly the wives must be told as well not to view their husbands in a negative light, but I am speaking now to future husbands, IY"H.  Life would be so much better if we judged each other in a favorable light.

There are so many stories told regarding how people misjudged others when they should have given them the benefit of the doubt.  We can take this one step further and add that a person may think that his neighbor is guilty of wrongdoing when in reality the accuser is the guilty one, as the following story illustrates.  A woman was waiting at the airport for her flight (let us judge her favorably and assume she had a valid reason for flying to Chutz la'aretz and was not simply vacationing there!).  She went to the newsstand and purchased a package of wafers to eat while she was waiting.  As she was eating her wafers she suddenly heard her name being called over the loudspeaker instructing her to come to the counter to straighten out some paperwork.  Upon returning to her seat to her horror, she noticed a man sitting there, a total stranger quite calmly eating her wafers!  Inside she was very angry but she decided to do her best to avoid publicly embarrassing him.  What did she do? She sat herself down right next to him and proceeded to eat the wafers from her package - the same one the man was helping himself to.  Between them, they managed to finish off the entire package of wafers.  Many hours later, on the plane, she opened her handbag only to discover a packet of wafers!  She suddenly realized that in her haste to go the counter she must have placed the wafers in her bag.  It was now clear that it was not he who was eating from her wafers, but she was eating his! She had thought he was stealing from her, when in fact she was stealing from him.  She could only imagine what must have been going through that man's mind when some strange woman sat herself down next to him and demolished his wafers one after another.  Perhaps he judged her favorably and assumed that she had spent her very last penny on the flight and had nothing left to eat, but could she not have at least asked for permission?

Life would be so much better if we could judge each other favorably.  The following story took place here in the Old City of Yerushalayim:  Two people once came to me.  One man claimed that the other said to him "I will kill your wife!"  The other man responded that he was speaking in question form - "Would I kill your wife?" This was simply a case where one did not understand the other's manner of speaking because they were raised in different cultures.

Chazal provide us with one of the ways of judging others positively: "do not judge your fellow man until you find yourself in his place, his situation" (Pirke Avot 2:5).  My father z"l once explained that "his place" can at times be taken literally.  We cannot compare a person raised in one environment with one raised in another.  Thank G-d, we were raised in Eretz Yisrael, in Yerushalayim or one of many other wonderful cities, we cannot compare ourselves to a Jew raised in Moscow, where the value system is so different to ours.  This was an example of: "do not judge your fellow man until you find yourself in his place" - literally "his place".  In each place there are different opinions and different manners of speaking.

WHY JUDGE AT ALL?

I often say that all of Chazal's adages regarding judging others favorably, and "do not judge your fellow man until you find yourself in his place, his situation", only apply when it is necessary to judge the other!  For example, when a shidduch is suggested, he must know whether or not this is a suitable family for him to marry into.  If someone suggests a chavruta for him, he also must inquire whether it is a good match. In such circumstances Chazal instructed us to do our utmost to judge the other favorably and to try to put ourselves in his place.  When there is no pressing need to judge another, then better not to judge him AT ALL, "the judge of all the earth He will do justice" (see Bereishit 18:25).  Why must you be the judge?  Rather do not judge at all!

The laws of Chanukah show us just how important it is to judge others favorably.  The halacha states that if one's house has two doors, he must place a Menorah by each entrance.  This is to avoid people suspecting him of not having lit.  If all of mankind were to judge each other favorably we would have no need for such a halacha, but unfortunately this is not the case.  Today, some Poskim say that one may be lenient with regard to this halacha, since most people light inside their house, not lighting by the door will not arouse suspicion of the person not having lit.

We should do our utmost to judge one another favorably, for when we do so Hashem will grant us a favorable judgment "mida keneged mida" "measure for measure" (Shabbat 105a).  May we all have a happy and enjoyable Chanukah and merit the kindling of the Menorah speedily in our day. Amen.