“A stinging rebuke” is an apt description of an experience that can be deeply hurtful. Ouch! Already in Talmudic times, observers lamented that those who were able to graciously accept such ethical criticism were rare. Equally rare were those who could deliver it well[i]. As unpleasant as getting such feedback is, it can be done in a way that preserves dignity and does not need to be degrading.
In their book The Courage To Be Disliked, Ichiro
Kishimi and Fumitake Koga assert that one must not rebuke or praise. Because
both create hierarchical relationships between the one praising or rebuking and
the recipient of these forms of feedback, the recipient is positioned beneath
the one who passes judgment [ii].
While the authors can be assumed to be responding to their Japanese context and
cultural norms, they also draw heavily on the theories of Alfred Adler, one the
giants of 20th-century Viennese psychology. Adler insisted that all human
relationships should be horizontal rather than vertical ones, and that both
paise and rebuke reinforce vertical ways of relating.
I do not agree. Rebuke is possible within a horizontal
relationship. It is possible between spouses who deeply respect each other or
fellow adherents of a set of teachings or principles. Equals can call each
other out over their failures to live to their shared standards.
The conflation of the delivery of rebuke with status
difference appears to be an error made by the brothers of Joseph, when
confronted by Joseph regarding the harm they did to him and their father when
they sold him into slavery [iii].
Many years after the evil deed, Joseph reminded his brothers
of what they had done. “I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt [iv]”.
Joseph asked his brothers sarcastically [v],
“is my father still alive?” This rhetorical [vi]
question followed a monologue by Judah, one of the brothers, about the close
bond their father, Jacob, had with his children, and that if one of them was to
be taken away from him, Jacob would die of grief. Following Judah’s assertion, Joseph
implicitly confronted his brothers with the terrible suffering they inflicted
on their father when they sold Joseph [vii].
By their own logic, the brothers had nearly killed their father, in addition to
betraying their own brother.
The brothers felt terrible, stunned and overwhelmed, not
just by their shock in discovering that the high Egyptian official was in fact
their brother, but also by their shame and guilt viii].
Joseph reassured his brothers that although they were
responsible for their deeds and for the bad thoughts about him that led them to
sell him, the main outcome of their deeds turned out to be beneficial [ix];
he was now in a position to feed and save them during the famine.
For many years after this conversation, the past appeared to
have been resolved. Joseph had forgiven his brothers and they, together with
their father, Jacob [x],
dined at his royal table.
However, when Jacob died almost two decades later, the
brothers’ guilt resurfaced. They worried that Joseph might hate them [xi],
projecting their fears on to him. They were so troubled by their guilt that
they half- hoped Joseph would hate them [xii].
His hatred would be easier to bear than his kindness [xiii].
The brothers assumed a vertical relationship with Joseph,
with him at the top and themselves at the bottom, his rebuke from years earlier
ringing in their ears as they pleaded with him - as if he were God - to bear
their sins [xiv].
They then offered themselves as slaves. Joseph did not accept their
characterisation of their relationship as vertical, reminding them of their
shared human status. He asked them, “Am I instead of God? [xv]” He wanted them to understand that although they
had done wrong, he had long forgiven them. He also reminded them that God is
the only One to whom it was appropriate to be subservient.
Perhaps it was the fact that the brothers were, in their own
minds, stuck in a vertical dynamic with Joseph that prevented them from
forgiving themselves and restoring a horizontal relationship with their
magnanimous, but briefly critical brother.
We all fall short sometimes. It hurts to recognise it.
Hopefully, it can sting less if we recognise that our shortcomings do not make
us less than those who point it out to us. To err is human but to accept rebuke
is somewhat divine.
[i] Talmud,
Arachin 16b
[ii]
Kishimin, I, and Koga, F, (2017), The Courage To Be Disliked, Allen
& Unwin, pp. 177-180
[iii] A
summary of the story as it is told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a
special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him,
but in the end sold him into slavery.
Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely
accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly,
from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting
troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt,
Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program
of food storage to prepare for famine.
When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to
access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for
Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him but he recognised them.
Joseph-Tzafnat accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they
would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother
Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of
them to return home with food to their hungry families. He kept one brother,
Simeon, as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.
When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in
Benjamin’s bag and threatened to enslave Benjamin. This presented an
opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin in a situation
that was somewhat of a reenactment of the situation of their betrayal of Joseph
and opportunity for complete their repentance for their betrayal of him.
The brothers passed this test, with Judah offering himself as a slave instead
of Benjamin and argued that if Benjamin were not returned to their father,
Jacob, the distress would cause Jacob to die.
Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers, and reconciled with them and he
forgave them, even though he had not forgotten what they had done and reminded
them of them of their deed.
Joseph’s brothers and father subsequently moved to Egypt from their native
Canaan and their food and other requirements were provided by Joseph.
When Jacob died, the brothers worried about Joseph taking revenge and offered
themselves as slaves. Joseph reassured them that he was not in the place of God
and that God made it all turn out for the best.
[iv] Genesis
45:4
[v]
The suggestions that Joseph was sarcastic is made by Rabbi Yosef Dov Ber Soloveitchik,
in Beis Halevi on the Torah, translated into English by Rabbi Yisroel
Isser Zvi Herczeg, the Oliner edition, (2016), Feldheim, p. 168.
[vi][vi]
The assumption that it is a rhetorical question is based on the fact that the
brothers had told Joseph numerous times before that their father was indeed
alive
[vii]
Soloveitchik, Y.D.B., based on the Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10.
[viii]
Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10 and as explained by Soloveitchik
[ix] Genesis
45:5-8 and 50:20
[x] Midrash,
Bereshis Rabba, 100:8, cited in Rashi.
[xi]
Genesis 50:15
[xii]
Ohr Hachayim and Malbim on Genesis both comment on the unusual wording in verse
XX. In Biblical Hebrew, if individuals were worried about a possible event they
wished to avoid, the word used was פן (“pen”) which translates as “lest”. If one
hopes for an outcome, the words (“lou”) לוor (“oolai”) אולי are used. The use of לו (“ou”) in this verse
implies that the brothers, at least on
some level, hoped for hatred and/or retribution.
[xiii]
Malbim
[xiv] David,
Avishai, in Drosh Darash Yosef, lessons and sermons on the weekly
Torah portion by Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Hebrew Edition, Mosad HaRav
Kook, p. 88-90
[xv] Genesis
50:19
