In an ideal situation we would prefer to fight and destroy all immoral forces that exist in the world. Since our world is far from perfect, and in many instances is ruled by evil and unscrupulous individuals, we are often confronted at the national level with the issue of how to relate to these rulers and their corrupt regimes. Is it permissible to coddle and appease them when it could advance our own interests, or should we choose to oppose them even at an economic and political cost to ourselves?
The above dilemma could easily be applied to a business context. For example, an advertiser could be faced with the dilemma of whether to promote the business of an important client, when that business is against his own principles, i.e. tobacco advertising targeting youth, or television channels which advocate violent movies. Does an advertiser have to refuse such business because he cannot concur with the message being touted, or can he ignore his own personal objections and promote this item, since it concerns his livelihood and does not imply that he agrees with the message?
Another common scenario where this issue may arise is the case of guests of honor or honorary degrees conferred by academic institutions. Can these institutions legitimately give honor to people simply because of their political or financial clout, even if they are inveterate sinners, or do the honorees have to be people of integrity and honesty whom the institutions can identify with at all levels?
The question of whether one is allowed to flatter and support evil people for one’s own benefit is pondered by Yaakov Avinu in this week’s Parsha. Yaakov returns to the land of Israel and realizes that he must find some way to placate Esav for having deceived his father into giving him the blessings. Yaakov’s fear is legitimate –after all, Esav had promised to kill him previously- and therefore he sends messengers in the name of “your servant Yaakov”, to his brother. Yet Chazal are severely critical of Yaakov for the way in which he sends messengers to Esav:
“One who interferes in another’s argument is akin to one who takes a dog by the ears”(Mishlei 26:17)-Rav Shmuel, son of Nachman, said: This can be compared to a robber sleeping on the highway. A passerby wakes him, warning that there are dangers in the vicinity. The robber starts to hit him, whereupon the passerby exclaims “evil has woken up!” The robber replies: Indeed, I was sleeping and you woke me up”. Similarly G-d said “Esav was keeping to himself, and you had to send to him messengers from “your servant”.
A similar criticism is voiced by another Midrash, although it cites a different verse. “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is like a muddied fountain and polluted spring”(Mishlei 25:25). While the first Midrash finds fault in Yaakov’s associating with Esav altogether, the second Midrash criticizes the servile and obsequious way in which he addresses Esav. A righteous man’s principles are compromised when he has to pay homage to an evil person, and therefore even if Yaakov had to fraternize with his brother, he should not have flattered him by calling himself his “servant”, since this honor legitimates his evil actions. The Talmud (Sotah 41a) even suggests that such flattery is a capital offence, because it causes a desecration of G-d’s name in the world.
However, an entirely different approach emerges from a third Midrash, which describes how Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi ordered his student to write a letter in his name to “our lord, king Antoninus” (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Roman Emperor). The student wrote the letter “from Rabbi Yehuda the prince to our lord, king Antoninus. Rabbi Yehuda tore up this letter and instructed his student to write “from your servant, Yehuda to our lord, to our lord, Antoninus”. The student asked in surprise: ”Rabbi, why do you degrade yourself?”. Rabbi Yehuda replied :’Am I better than our father Yaakov?” According to this Midrash Yaakov’s behavior was not just appropriate, it also served as a yardstick for future relationships with gentiles.
In order to reconcile these two opposing approaches, we must conclude that if a righteous man must associate with evil he must endeavor to be as candid as possible. He cannot afford to use excessively florid terminology to glorify evil, because this can cause people to assume that he confers legitimacy on all the evil person’s actions. Thus , Yaakov’s calling himself Esav’s “servant” implies that Esav had a legitimate right to claim supremacy over his brother, and this gives weight to Esav’s subsequent attempt throughout history to subjugate Yaakov. However, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi lived in a period in Jewish history (c 130-170 CE) when the subjugation to Rome was already an incontrovertible fact which he could not negate, and in this context Yaakov Avinu’s obsequiousness would definitely be in place, and therefore he told his student to add “your servant”. (It should also be noted that Antoninus was renowned as an exemplary and just emperor who fully deserved the praise of his constituents.)
This is also the conclusion of the Gemara (Berachot 7b) where after discussing this issue the Gemara states that if the evil person is at present in a position of prominence and power one should not antagonize him in any way.
Regarding the above dilemma, we can say that one is allowed to promote ideas or products that one is morally opposed to, within a business context, and as long as this does not grant them added respectability, such as if the advertiser is known to be connected to the item he is promoting. Recently I discussed this issue with a prominent Chasidic advertiser, who claimed that his Rebbe sees him as a supermarket salesman. Just as that salesman sells goods to questionable people, he can market his advertising skills even to people he does not approve of, as this is purely a business relationship.
Similarly, an academic institution can mention and advertise its donors, and it does not need to identify with their lifestyle but it cannot praise them or grant honorary titles if they flaunt the moral standards of that institution. In this way it will avoid repeating Yaakov Avinu’s mistake -conferring legitimacy on a wicked person by giving him unnecessary honor.
