One of the subplots of the drama of Yosef and his brothers is consistency. In Parshas Vayeshev the Torah records that "[the brothers] hated [Yosef]; and they could not speak to him peaceably." Rashi elaborate that this remark, while disparaging of the brothers, also praises them. They did not speak echad b'peh v'echad b'lev - with one sentiment on their lips but a different one in their heart. Since they could not speak genuinely peaceably, they did not speak at all. They did not speak insincerely.
In Parshas Miketz Potipahr's wife attempts to induce Yosef to sin. He adamantly refuses, explaining that to do so would betray his master's trust. Betrayal is an especially egregious form of inconsistency.
And finally in Parshas Vayigash when Yosef reveals himself to his brothers - "I am Yosef; is my father still alive?", according to Chazal (as explained by the Beis Halevi), he rebukes them for their inconsistency. You claim, chastises Yosef, to be solicitous of our father's concern for Binyamin. How then could you have tortured him so by selling me into slavery?
Arguably the brother's inconsistency triggers the chain of events which results in galus Mitzrayim, the Egyptian exile. At any rate, apropos of this season's krias haTorah, it is especially appropriate to reflect and introspect about consistency.
There are several aspects of consistency. First of all, consistency entails complete congruence between belief and practice. According to Rabbeinu Bechaye, the mitzvah of "tamim t'hiye im Hashem Elokecha" mandates this facet of consistency. How can a ma'amin, believer, steal, cheat on his taxes or engage in other forbidden business practices if he believes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu ordains to the penny a person's livelihood? Does Hakadosh Baruch Hu expect us to cheat to receive the sustenance He provides us?
Consistency also demands that our actions be internally consistent. To paraphrase the Beis Halevi: how can we plead a lack of resources to give generously to tzedaka when we have ample money for luxurious cars and vacations and homes?
Yet another stricture of consistency is tocho k'baro, that the external manifestations of one's avodas Hashem not exceed the reality or substance of one's actual avodah. Thus, if a certain mode of dress bespeaks a certain level of learning, one must ensure that what is intimated by his garb is indeed true.
The final aspect of consistency which I would like to mention is to be, in the idiom of Chazal, na'eh doreish v'na'eh mekayeim. In current cliche, this translates as practice what you preach.
The current forum does not allow for a discussion of all the aforementioned aspects of consistency. Let us, however, reflect upon and consider applications of this final aspect.
The Gemara in Yevamos quotes a braysa with the teaching of Ben Azai that if one does not [attempt to] procreate it is as if he had committed murder and diminished the divine image. The braysa then proceeds to record the Sages' indictment of Ben Azai. "Some people are na'eh doreish v'na'eh mekayeim (preach well and perform well), others are na'eh mekayeim v'eino na'eh doreish (perform well but do not preach well). You, however, are na'eh doreish veino na'eh mekayeim (preach well but do not perform well).
The chachamim do not simply indict Ben Azai for not performing well. They indict him for the contrast between his exalted words and substandard behavior. [It should be noted that Ben Azai felt that, due to his all consuming involvement with Talmud Torah that he was exempt from the mitzvah of procreation. And, in fact, the halacha follows Ben Azai's opinion.] To preach well without performing well is not simply ineffective; it is wrong.
Preaching without practicing is wrong on several levels. First of all, it is hypocritical to do so. Chazal [Bava Metzia 87a], contrasting the behavior of Avraham Avinu and Efron, comment that tzadikim speak sparingly but act generously, whereas reshaim speak grandiloquently but do nothing.
Na'eh doreish without na'eh mekayeim is also potentially damaging. The following scenario sometimes unfolds in shul. Someone who himself talks at times during davening shushes others for talking. His protests are, at least, ignored or, more likely, met with derision. The effort to maintain a sense of sobriety and decorum for davening and shul becomes identified with inconsistency. As a result people are more likely then ever to continue talking during davening.
The potential for damage is greatest when dealing with children who are especially impressionable. Moreover, due to the innocence of youth, they are ill-prepared for inconsistent behavior, especially on the part of parents and teachers. As a result, they are more prone to being damaged by inconsistency.
Consider the example of a father who constantly exhorts his son to learn Torah. He enrolls him in a yeshiva with little, if any, vacation. He pushes his son to maximize his time and potential. The father is indisputably na'eh doreish. If the father would also be na'eh mekayeim, the combination of his deeds and words would be especially influential and inspirational. But if the father does not exert himself in learning or push himself to maximize his own time and potential, then the disparity between his words and actions can easily breed cynicism. In the son's mind Talmud Torah becomes associated with his fathers inconsistency. In this instance the father's na'eh doresih might very well deter his son from learning. [To be sure, no two people are identical. Thus, for example, there are cases where the son posses the temperament and abilities to excel in Talmud Torah, whereas the father does not. Maximizing their respective potentials will take father and son along different paths. In such cases when the son is old enough to appreciate this distinction, the father can and should urge his son along a path which differs from his own.]
Similarly it is certainly an instance of na'eh doreish to instruct our children regarding middos. "Keep calm." "Maintain perspective. Don't blow things out of proportion." "Anger is a terrible, destructive emotion." But if we fail to keep our composure, maintain perspective or restrain our anger, we risk breeding cynicism in our children, rachmana litzlan.
Cynicism is especially insidious because it is antithetical to faith. Faith, while firmly rooted in knowledge, requires a trusting disposition. Faith involves trusting Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The distrust which a cynic feels for his fellow man can eventually, rachmana litzlan engulf even Hakadosh Baruch Hu as well. The Rambam (end of Hilchos Tum'as Tsora'as) vividly describes a progression which begins with lashon hara (speaking ill of a fellow Jew) and culminates with heresy. The cynicism which leads one to focus and comment on his friend's shortcomings rather than his virtues will, rachmana litzlan, if unchecked, poison his relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
Hopefully, b'ezras Hashem we can be na'eh doreish v'na'eh mekayeim. But if we are not na'eh mekayeim, it is better that we not preach at all.