Not every dilemma has an immediate solution, and in such situations patience and inaction are far preferable to reckless patchwork that could possibly worsen the problem. 

Jarring as it may seem, Chazal identified within Haman and Achashveirosh’s celebration after sentencing an entire population to death a certain point of comparison with the meal eaten by Yosef’s brothers after casting him into the pit. The Sages here censure the brothers for so easily resuming normal activity, and sitting down to a meal, after committing what essentially amounted to fratricide.

  Yosef’s cries from the pit offered his brothers an opportunity to reverse their decision, to save their brother from the pit and themselves from the eternal stain of this dreadful crime.  It seems, however, that they were unable or unwilling to hear the voice of conscience.

Did Yosef relate to his brothers with arrogance, or with frienship? And would it have made a difference, one way or another?

By selling Yosef, the brothers condemned their younger brother to a life of slavery and suffering and paved the way for their family’s exile.

עם מינויו של הרברט סמואל שהיה יהודי, לנציב הבריטי בארץ, נדרש הראי"ה קוק זצ"ל לתשובה בדבר ביטול הצומות. את תשובתו הוא פורס באגרת שלפנינו.

Yaakov remained in Canaan out of loyalty to his family heritage, whereas Esav divorced himself from the legacy of Avraham and Yitzchak, and therefore found a different land for establishing his permanent residence.

The reason why we find criticism difficult to handle is because it immediately places us in a position of inferiority in the speaker’s eyes – just as Yosef’s dreams placed his brothers in a position of inferiority.  What ensues, like in the story of Yosef, is essentially a power struggle.  We, like Yosef’s brothers, resent and resist our relegation to an inferior position, which of course entails resisting the call to change.

 When Yaakov settled in Chevron and reached old age, he hoped to “dwell in tranquility,” that he had already endured the full consequences of his scheme.  But this was not to be. 

Lofty goals, even if they are pursued with pure sincerity, do not always authorize us to suspend normal protocols of conduct.  Extraordinary circumstances warrant extraordinary measures – but only to a point.