“Yehudah said to his brothers, ‘What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?’” (Bereishis 37:26)

Often people do things for which they then orchestrate a cover-up so as not to take the blame. The Kotzker Rebbe (Menachem Mendel Morgenstern of Kotzk 1787–1859) says that the brothers were asking: “Is it correct to kill Yosef if we feel that we will have to cover it up?” The implication is that if one is doing the right thing, one should not be ashamed.

The 10 brothers – the Shivtei Ka – acting as a Beis Din, had come to a clear conclusion that Yosef was deserving of the death penalty. Yet we see time and time again that the brothers have a guilty conscience – unsure if they did the right thing or not. This seems a bit odd, for if there ever was a beis din that had talmidei chachamin on it, it was this one! So what were their misgivings?

When Reuven came back to the pit and saw Yosef was gone, he ripped his garment. Rashi explains that Reuven had been doing teshuva for rearranging his father’s bed. It seems to imply that the two episodes have something in common.

I saw an astounding explanation. A person may know that he could win his case in beis din because the halacha is on his side, but that “quick fix” will not necessarily repair the greater issue. Beis Din is an important institution, but, even if we know the way the judgement will come out, have we really accomplished our ultimate goal?  In these cases, we ought to seek advice of Daas Torah to find out what our proper approach should be.

Reuven used his judgement and concluded that his father’s bed should be moved. Was he right or wrong? Reuven is chastised by his father in Parshas Vayechi, but that was for his impulsiveness, and not that he was incorrect. This implies that while Reuven might have been justified for what he did, it still was not proper to actually use this approach.

So too, when Reuven came to the pit and saw that Yosef was missing, he said, “Perhaps we should have taken council with Yaakov, our father?” Similar to his switching of the beds, this is also an instance where that which was done may have been strictly correct, but was the wrong approach.

On the other hand, we sometimes find the opposite to be true. In last week’s parsha Shimon and Levi destroyed the city of Shechem without first taking counsel from their father Yaakov. Yaakov takes them to task and they give a terse reply which seems to mollify Yaakov. The implication is that they did the right thing, while had they asked first, they might have instead done the wrong thing! It seems to me that we need some type of rule as to when we should “do it on our own without asking advice” and when we should “seek advice before acting.”

Many years ago there was a complex question for which I felt that one should rule leniently, based on three different cases discussed by the gedolei hador, where in each case there was a gadol who ruled that we should be lenient. I presented it to a great Rav in Jerusalem, and suggested that as there were three different possible leniencies, each of which had a great Rabbi behind the ruling, that should be ample reason to be lenient. He smiled at me and said, “If you had thought it was correct to be stringent, would the fact that three other Rabbis were stringent in three different cases be ample reason to be stringent here?” He left me to think it over.

In short, many times our personal agenda gets in the way of our making an objective decision. In those situations, we need to ask for guidance. I am not saying this about the Avos Hakedoshim, but rather as a point to contemplate for our own growth. Yes, sometimes the emotional response is correct, as we see on Chanukah, where the Maccabees went to war knowing that they might lose, but with the understanding that they should be standing up for Hashem.

This Chanukah, may we merit the clarity of thought to make good decisions, which will bring us to take the right actions with the proper motivation.