“And
they told him, saying ‘Yosef is still alive. He is the ruler of all
Egypt’ and his heart became numb, for he did not believe them” (45:26)
The verse states that when the brothers revealed to Yaakov that Yosef
was still alive, he did not believe them. The Midrash comments that
“such is the fate of the liar – even when conveying the truth he is not
believed”.1 Since they had lied to Yaakov earlier concerning
Yosef’s fate, Yaakov refused to believe them this time. When Delilah was
attempting to discover the source of Shimshon’s great strength,
Shimshon initially gave her false information. When he finally told her
the true source of his strength, the verse states that she knew
immediately that he was not lying.2 The Talmud comments that the reason for this is “nikarim divrei emes” – “the truth is clearly discernable”.3
Why is it that Yaakov refused to believe his sons because of their
previous falsehood, whereas Delilah was able to discern the truth in
Shimshon’s words, although he had been untruthful in the past? How do we
reconcile the axioms “such is the fate of the liar – even when
conveying the truth he is not believed” and “the truth is clearly
discernable”?
There are two kinds of liars; one is a person whose sole motivation
is to mislead the listener with the falsehood that he is conveying, and
the other actually believes the falsehood to be a reality. The terms for
these two types of liars are “shakran” and “badai” respectively. The
term “badai” is also used by the Talmud to reflect certain expressions
formulated by the Sages which create a vow or oath, a new reality –
“lashon asher badu chachamim” which means “expressions formulated by the
Sages”.4
The Midrash referring to Yaakov states that such is the fate of a
badai. According to the commentaries, Yosef’s brothers convened a Beis
Din which judged Yosef as guilty and sentenced him to death.5
In their eyes, selling Yosef to the Midianites was the manner by which
to carry out the sentence without actually having to kill Yosef with
their own hands. Therefore, when they informed Yaakov that Yosef had
been killed, they were so convinced that they had done the right thing,
that they believed that Yosef, in reality had been killed. They were
sure that Hashem must have carried out their sentence for them.
Therefore, the brothers were bada’im, they believed their own
falsehoods, and consequently, Yaakov did not believe them. The lies of a
person who believes his own falsehoods cannot be distinguished from the
truth.
Shimshon is described as speaking “kezav” or “sheker”, when he attempted to mislead Delilah.6 He himself did not believe the lie. Therefore, when he told the truth, it was discernable – “nikarim divrei emes”.
The Right Way Home
“and he said to them ‘Do not agitate on the way'” (45:24)
Rashi cites the Talmudic interpretations for this verse and then
offers the simple meaning of the passage. The Talmud states that long
strides are armful to a person’s health, and Yosef was cautioning his
brothers that in their haste to return home, they should not travel in a
manner which could be injurious to them. The other interpretation
offered by the Talmud is that they should not involve themselves in
Halachic discussion, lest the matter become so involved that they may
lose their way.7 As to the simple meaning of the verse, Rashi
says that Yosef was preempting any quarrel which may occur regarding
responsibility for Yosef’s sale. He therefore cautioned them not to
quarrel on their way home.
It is understandable why, after Yosef’s revelation, it would be
important to enjoin his brothers concerning their travelling in a
healthy manner, for in their excitement to return home, they may become
careless. Similarly, enjoining his brothers not to quarrel is a concern
which could arise at this juncture. However, why would Yosef be
concerned about his brothers becoming so involved in a Halachic debate
that they lose their way? There is no law preventing a person from Torah
study while travelling; on the contrary, the Torah commands us to study
even while we travel – “uvelechtecha baderech”.8
Furthermore, the Midrash offers an interpretation which appears to
contradict the Talmud’s interpretation. The Midrash records that Yosef
enjoined his brothers not to desist from the study of Torah as they
traveled.9 How do we reconcile the Talmudic and Midrashic interpretations?
It is common to see individuals who harbor ill feelings, yet behave
civilly toward one another when required to do so. However, if a dispute
should arise, although it may have no connection to the reason why
these two individuals are at odds with each other, the dispute will
become the vehicle through which they vent their anger. All too often,
the issue which is used as the vehicle to vent anger is of a spiritual
nature, allowing the disputants the avenue to voice their feelings in an
even more heated manner. Yosef was aware that his brothers may be
harboring ill feelings toward each other as a result of his sale. He
therefore cautioned them against entering into a heated Halachic debate,
for this could be the avenue by which they vent their ill feelings and
blame one another. The possibility of such a debate was of especially
great concern to Yosef, for if it would cause them to lose their way, it
could endanger their lives. The Midrash is explaining that Yosef’s
intention in instructing his brothers not to desist from Torah study was
to warn them to focus on the issues, and not fall into the trap of
using their Torah debate as a vehicle through which to vent other
non-Torah disputes which may arise.
1. Berishis Rabbah 94:3, Sanhedrin 89a, Avos D’Rav Nosson 30
2. Shoftim 16:18
3. Sotah 9b
4. Nedarim 10a
5. See Seforno 37:25
6. See Shoftim 16:13, Targum of kezav is sheker
7. Taanis 10b
8. Devarim 6:7, See Maharsha, Taanis 10b
9. Beraishis Rabbah 94:2, See Maharsha ibid
Comments
Post a Comment