Vayeishev: The Consequences of Tattling and Misguided Rebuke

Yosef brought "bad reports" about his brothers to his father. Was he correct in doing so? What lessons can we learn from his example? As usual, Ralbag spells out these practical lessons for us.

Dec 08, 2023

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-6:30

The Torah Content for Chanukah has been sponsored by Malky M. with gratitude for introducing her to a new way of thinking and learning.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Artwork: generated using Adobe Firefly 2.0; I made so many attempts for this week’s art that I can no longer keep track of which prompt finally generated this image. All I know is that I went back in and gave him a coat of many colors.

Preface: This is an article I originally wrote in November 2013 for my high school students at Shalhevet in my short-lived “Underground Dvar Torah” newsletter. The reason I feel compelled to mention this fact at the outset is to provide some context for how I chose to present these ideas. My goal in this newsletter dvar Torah was to find something in the parashah that would have practical relevance specifically to teenagers and enable them to relate to the contents of the parashah. If I rewrote this from scratch today, I would probably present the ideas in a different manner. In the interest of time, I decided to publish a lightly edited version of the original. Enjoy!

Vayeishev: The Consequences of Tattling and Misguided Rebuke

Some parents want to know everything that goes on in the lives of their children. The children of such parents might therefore feel obligated to “tell on” their siblings. Sometimes they carry out this obligation with glee, relishing the opportunity to get their brothers or sisters in trouble while earning parental approval points. Other times they fulfill their duty with guilt and conflict. Either way, the expectation and pressure are present.

The question is: Should such children always comply with their parents’ demand for full knowledge of everything that goes on in the household? When they see or hear about their siblings doing something of which their parents would disapprove, should they run and tell their parents what they saw or heard? According to the Ralbag on this week’s parashah, the answer is: no, not always.

Parashas Vayeishev begins with a depiction of the relationship between Yosef and his brothers:

Yosef, at the age of seventeen years, was a shepherd with his brothers by the flock, but he was a youth with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; Yosef would bring bad reports about them to their father (Bereishis 37:2).

Rashi (ibid.) expands upon the content of Yosef’s bad reports:

[and Yosef] brought tales of evil about them – any evil he saw in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he would tell his father: that they ate limbs from living animals (in violation of eiver min ha’chai – the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal), that they demeaned the sons of the handmaids by calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of arayos (illicit sexual relationships).

One might think that Yosef was right in bringing these reports to his father. After all, Yosef and his siblings were destined to become the Shivtei Yisrael (the Tribes of Israel). Any transgressions or imperfections possessed by his brothers might be passed on to their descendants, which would pose a threat to the legacy of the Avos (forefathers). Wasn’t Yosef correct in reporting the bad behavior of his siblings to Yaakov, so that the latter could rebuke his sons and facilitate their teshuvah (repentance)?

Ralbag concludes each section of his Chumash commentary by summarizing the philosophical, ethical, and halachic lessons that we can derive from the text. Ralbag (Bereishis 37:2-4, Toeles #2) explains why he thinks that Yosef was misguided in his decision to “tell on” his brothers:

This is a lesson in middos (character traits), namely, that it is not proper for a person to tell his father all of the improper things he hears about the members of his household, for this will generate strife and conflict, and will cause himself harm. We see that since [Yosef] brought a bad report about his brothers to his father, his brothers hated him, to the extent that they would have killed him, were it not for the help of Hashem (exalted is He).

According to Ralbag, Yosef was shortsighted. He failed to recognize the consequences of telling on his brothers. Had he thought of the ramifications, he would have realized that his tattling would fuel his brothers’ animosity and would have posed a serious threat to his well-being. Ultimately, this lack of foresight came back to bite Yosef in a major way, and nearly cost him his life.

We learn an important lesson about rebuke from the Ralbag’s comments here. It is true that the Torah expects us to rebuke our fellow Jews. Indeed, we are commanded to do so, as it is stated, “you shall surely rebuke a member of your people” (Vayikra 19:17). Nevertheless, we must factor in the risks and costs of delivering such rebuke. If our rebuke is likely to generate strife, animosity, and hatred, then perhaps it is better to remain silent, or find some other course of helpful action. We must be especially careful not to get carried away with righteous zeal.

An interesting application of this lesson can be seen at the Cheit ha’Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf). Bnei Yisrael panicked when Moshe didn’t come down from the mountain when expected. This incited the Eirev Rav (Mixed Multitude) to build the Eigel ha’Zahav (Golden Calf). Aharon seemingly went along with their plan. He took charge of the process of building the Eigel. He built the altar and scheduled a festival for Hashem for the next day.

Rashi, commenting on the phrase “Aharon saw and built an altar etc.” (Shemos 32:5), explains: “Aharon saw many things. He saw that Chur, the son of his sister (Miriam) rebuked [the Jews] and was killed” (ibid.). Ralbag (ibid., Toeles #11) explains Aharon’s reasoning:

When a person sees that people intend to do evil, and he knows that if he rebuked them, that they wouldn’t accept it from him – in such a case, it is proper for him to make it appear that he agrees with them; then he’ll be able to strategize to prevent this evil in as many [other] ways as possible, for they will trust in him and think that he agrees with them … For this reason, we find that Aharon – once he knew that the Jews wouldn’t listen to him if he rebuked them for making the gods that they asked him to make – made himself appear as if he agreed with them. He then strategized in every way possible to prevent them from doing this deed.

Ralbag goes on to clarify that in the particular case of the Eigel, which involved a sin of avodah zarah (idolatry), Chur was correct to risk his life in order to stop his fellow Jews from sinning. Ralbag explains that Hashem was angry at Aharon, who “should have rebuked them, letting whatever happens happen.” Nevertheless, if the sin had been anything less severe than avodah zarah, Chur would have been wrong to put himself in harm’s way to rebuke his brethren – just as Yosef was acting foolishly by bringing the “evil reports” of his brothers to his father.

The moral of the story is that when we attempt to help someone return someone to the good, we shouldn’t throw caution to the wind and needlessly endanger ourselves, like Yosef did when we tattled on his brothers. Rather, we should conduct ourselves with wisdom, looking for the most strategic ways to guide others while preserving a harmonious relationship so that we can continue to be a positive influence on them in the long run.

What factors or considerations have you found to be helpful when deciding whether or not to rebuke someone?

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post