Parshas Vayeira- Responding to Rebuke
When receiving rebuke from another, we may instinctively respond with a visceral reaction. This may be especially true when we feel the criticism is unfounded. Some may respond defensively, claiming their innocence. Others may remain silent, unwilling to engage with the apparent mislabeling of their character. While these varied approaches may appear appropriate, the Torah provides us with guidance in such situations, as illustrated in the stories of our holy tzaddikim.
In the beginning of Sefer Shmuel (chapter 1), we are introduced to the righteous Chana, a barren woman who deeply yearned for the blessing of children. On the holidays, Chana prayed silently for a baby. Eily, the Kohen Gadol, witnessed her silent prayer, and mistook her for praying while under the influence of alcohol, a prohibited action. He rebuked her, based on this mistaken assumption. Chana responded that she was not drunk, rather a broken-hearted woman praying for children. Eily accepted this retort and blessed her. This ultimately resulted in the birth of the holy Shmuel haNavi.
The Gemara (Berachos 31b) derives a series of lessons from this story. Eily’s actions teach us the importance of rebuking another whom we see doing something incorrect, and Chana’s retort teaches the appropriate way to respond to unfounded criticism. Rabbi Elazar teaches that one who is suspected of something that is untrue must inform the person suspecting them. Rashi explains that the suspected individual should respond, clearing their name of any wrongdoing.
It would appear from the above Gemara that the appropriate way to respond to unfounded criticism is with a declaration of innocence. However, in regards to the behaviors of Avraham Avinu it is not as straightforward.
There are two incidents in which Sarah Imeinu was taken captive by a foreign king. The first episode occurs in Parshas Lech Licha (chapter 12). Avraham and Sarah traveled to Mitzrayim, due to famine in Eretz Canaan. Recognizing the fantastic beauty of his wife, Avraham tells Sarah to claim she was his sister, so that the Egyptians would not kil him. Avraham understood that the debased society of Egypt would murder Avraham in order to take Sarah, unless they assumed he was merely her brother. Indeed, upon entering the land, Sarah was abducted and taken to Pharoah. After he and his household were divinely afflicted with a terrible skin ailment, Pharoah realized that she was married and that he would need to return Sarah to Avraham. Pharoah did so, criticising Avraham for claiming she was his sister, and blaming him for this unfortunate outcome. He then tells Avraham to take Sarah and leave his land. In this first incident Avraham does not declare any sort of defense for his apparent misdeeds. He does not clarify his innocence against the rebuke of Pharaoh.
There is a second event in Parshas Vayeira (chapter 20) in which Avraham and Sarah traveled to Gerar, governed by its king, Avimelech. Again, Avraham claims Sarah is his sister to avoid being killed by the local inhabitants, and again Sarah was taken to the house of the king. Avimelech and his household are divinely afflicted with the closure of all of their bodily orifices as punishment. In a dream that night, Hashem tells Avimelech that he would die if he did not return Sarah to her husband Avraham. The next morning Avimelech does return her, rebuking Avraham for the misleading information and terrible outcome. Unlike in the previous incident, Avraham responds with a series of defensive statements. He states that he recognized that there was no “fear of Hashem” in Gerar, and that the locals would kill him if they thought he was her husband. Furthermore, since grandchildren are considered like children, Sarah was indeed akin to his sister. She was his niece, as her grandfather (Terach) was Avraham’s father. Therefore, It was not entirely untrue when he claimed that she was his sister. Avimelech seems to accept these responses and gives gifts to them, allowing them to remain living in his land. In this second story, Avraham defends himself from the rebuke, clarifying his actions and exhibiting his innocence.
The second incident seems to follow the approach of the above Gemara, while the first incident does not. Why does Avraham defend himself from the rebuke of Avimelech, but not that of Pharaoh? How are we to understand the seeming inconsistency in his responses?
Upon analysis it would appear that there are two important distinctions between these events, and this would drive the differing responses of Avraham:
Mitzrayim is identified as a place that was “shitufei zima”, or enveloped in lust. Indeed Rashi (12:19) notes this to be the reason that Pharoah told Avraham to leave his land while Avimelech allowed them to remain. Pharoah was concerned that others would attempt to molest Sarah, while Avimelech was not worried. In addition, Egypt was known to be fully immersed in idolatry, and in general a very low character type place. Although Gerar, and its king Avimelech may not have been entirely righteous, there was nonetheless a degree of decency that existed. Avraham felt that responding to the rebuke of Pharoah would not yield any sort of improvement in him or his nation, based on their general debased character. (See Ohr HaChaim 12:18 who highlights this idea). In contrast, Avraham retorted to Avimelech as he assumed his words would have some degree of effect in a place of decent people. (See Chizkuni on Parshas Toldos 26:7 who explains that indeed his words were impactful).
When Pharoah rebuked Avraham, he stated the perceived wrong that Avraham had done. He did not ask for clarification, but conclusively commanded that Avraham should leave Mitzrayim. In contrast, when Avimelech called Avraham, he initially rebuked him, and then asked him to clarify his apparent misdeeds (see Ohr HaChaim 20:10). Pharoah did not provide an opening for a response, while Avimelech did. Avimelech was genuinely seeking to know why Avraham had misled him, allowing for a proper retort. In doing so, Avraham clarified his position.
It emerges that there are two factors to consider when responding to criticism: the nature of the person who is criticizing, and the reality of the criticism itself. When the rebuker is of a decent character, and the rebuke is in a genuine, questioning way, it is worthwhile to respond, clarifying one’s actions. Otherwise, it may not be worth the time and effort. Then, the best course of action may be to remain silent.
There are two lessons inherent in this idea. Certainly, the obvious lesson is when to respond to rebuke and when to remain silent. However, a secondary idea emerges as well. When in the position of the person giving rebuke it is important to approach in a decent way, allowing the person under scrutiny the opportunity to respond. Rebuke should not be a statement, as much as a question. Sometimes we may be mistaken, and allowing the other the opportunity to respond can make all the difference.
In the merit of this Torah study, may Hashem protect all of Am Yisrael, in Eretz Yisrael and throughout the world. Please email yshifman1@gmail.com with questions, comments, or to be added to the mailing list.