It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know to be cautious when working in a nuclear power plant. To underestimate such a volatile environment is to gamble with your life. There are protocol to follow, paperwork and disclaimers to be filled out upon entry:
I am aware that exposing myself to radiation may result in cancer, mutation and other adversely affecting illnesses and am in agreement that upon entry I am responsible for whatever outcome may result.
Signed, Non-rocket scientist
Our sages teach in Ethics of the Fathers that being involved in controversy and disputes is so dangerous that it may very well require a similar waiver to be filled out prior to the first verbal slur or disparagement.
“Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will have a constructive outcome; but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a constructive outcome. What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shamai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his entire following.” (Ethics of the Fathers 5,20)
Rav Yerucham Levovitz asked; was the only difference between the debates of Hillel and Shamai vs. Korach and Moshe’s this motive of ‘Not for the sake of Heaven??’ These two disputes were as different as day and night and may as well have taken place in different galaxies. On the one side, the sages Hillel and Shamai argued over the interpretation and application of the Torah, regarding various Halachot. On the opposite end of the spectrum, stood Korach’s mutiny against Moshe’s leadership and protest of what he perceived to be Moshe’s usage of the patronage system in electing favourite relatives to positions of prestige. Hillel and Shamai’s disputes were noble in nature, whereas Korach’s complaints seemed to have been more of the selfish and bitter variety. How then does the Mishna contrast these two by merely declaring their lack of commonality as being ‘For the sake of Heaven’ vs. ‘Not for the sake of Heaven?’ Rav Levovitz answered, that we see that our sages are telling us that in truth Korach’s motives began as purely as Hillel and Shamai’s – until his debate with Moshe picked up steam and emotions ran high. It was then that his subconscious resentment and bitterness over his perceived slight at having been passed over appointment became his entire complaint. Korach was in truth a great man; his initial motives in questioning Moshe were valid but he eventually became embroiled in a machlokes – a dispute. Arguments have a way of rapidly losing their civility and spiralling out of control. As a matter of fact, the Talmud brings down, that often the disputes between Hillel and Shamai became so heated that [had their entire dispute not been entirely for the sake of Heaven] “One might have stabbed the other in the street.” We see that the power of machkoles is truly nuclear and must be given a wide berth.
The Medrash Tanchuma quotes a verse in Proverbs (16,14), “The king’s wrath is like angels of death, but a wise man will appease it.” The Medrash explains that the “King’s wrath” is a reference to Yehuda’s indignant anger upon confronting the Viceroy of Egypt, when he sensed something suspicious regarding his brother’s treatment. The “wise man” who appeased this rage is complimenting Yosef, who acknowledged that the time had come to reveal his identity to his brothers thereby avoiding confrontation with Yehuda. The obvious question that arises is that Yehuda and his brothers were mighty warriors, capable of causing much carnage (Shimon and Levi destroyed the city of Shechem single-handedly.) Does it really take such a wise man to avoid going to battle with them? Yehuda was the mightiest of all of the brothers, and had just informed Yosef (according to one interpretation in Rashi) that if he insisted on pursuing his course of action, he would be killed along with Pharoah! Does it take a genius to back away from a mighty man of war, who was clearly about to let loose?
The answer dear friends, is that as objective 3rd parties, it doesn’t take a high level IQ to avoid a fight with someone stronger than you. However, it takes strength beyond comprehension to pull ourselves out of an emotional controversy. Yehuda and his brothers had sold Yosef into slavery and caused all of the unfortunate misfortunes that had befallen him for all of those long years! Now, Yehuda had ‘the gall’ to protest Yosef’s mistreatment of THEM? They deserved it all, plus much more! Yosef must have been seething inside! How then did he have the strength to restrain – and extricate himself from the pull of these poignant, indignant emotions and avoid disaster?
Yosef used his brain. In our subconscious, our brains are always calculating potential loss vs. gains. A video went viral a few months ago;
A man gets out of his car in a huff and belligerently approaches the car in front of his and raps angrily on the driver’s door three times, ready to give him a piece of his mind for some unspeakable offense. The door opens as a much larger man gets out and towers above him, looking down at him in a condescending manner. The belligerent man wisely thinks twice about what he is about to say and turns himself around and walks back to his car.
Ladies and gentlemen; there are no victors in war and there only casualties in disputes. Arguments and confrontations have a way of quickly spiralling out of control and ending with everyone nursing wounds. We need to heed our better judgement and make amends before it’s too late. Yosef had been wronged terribly by his siblings, but he understood that there was still so much more to lose by continuing his dispute. The Medrash praises Yosef’s decision to reconcile with Yehuda and his brothers and deems Yosef “wise” for it. We too can merit this compliment of the Medrash by using our better judgement and realising that there is so much to be gained by avoiding confrontation and machlokes and letting bygones be bygones!
Have a great Shabbos! Menachem