From: Yeshivat Har Etzion Office <office@etzion.org.il>
To: yhe-parsha@etzion.org.il
Subject: PARSHA62 -11: Parashat Vayigash
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
PARASHAT HASHAVUA
PARASHAT VAYIGASH
Yehuda's Plea and its Audiences
By Rav Chanoch Waxman
I
Like his grandfather Avraham who had pleaded with
God, Yehuda approaches his master and pleads.
And Yehuda came near and said: Please my master, let
your servant speak a word in my master's ears and
please do not be angry. (44:18)
Just as Avraham "came near" (vayigash) (18:23), so too
Yehuda comes near (vayigash) (44:18). Just as Avraham
addressed his pleas and prayers to his master (18:27, 30-
32), so too Yehuda speaks to his "master" (44:18-20).
Finally, in another echo of Avraham's prayer, Yehuda
prefaces his plea with the hope that his daring to speak
will not arouse his master's anger (18:30, 32, 44:18).
Admittedly, the "Prayer of Avraham" (18:23-33) and
the "Plea of Yehuda" (44:18-34) constitute fundamentally
different events. In the former story, Avraham pleads
with the Master of the Universe. In the latter story,
Yehuda pleads with no more the master of the Egyptian
granary. Yet at the same time, they are united by more
than just the stylistic markers of servant-master prayer
noted above. In both cases, the "prayer" involves
pleading for the sparing of the condemned. Just as
Avraham pleads for the sparing of Sedom, so too, Yehuda
pleads for the sparing of Binyamin.
Moreover, the method is the same. Avraham's prayer
tactic consists of defining a guiltless group, some
number of righteous men in Sedom, and linking their fate
to the fate of the guilty. By dint of God's mercy upon
the innocent, the guilty should also be spared. Yehuda
employs an identical method. He defines Yaakov as
undeserving of death, which would result from Binyamin's
slavery. Yaakov has already suffered enough. This is
somehow supposed to lead to the sparing of Binyamin. A
quick sketch of the highlights of Yehuda's plea should
confirm this point.
Yehuda begins with a recap of the first conversation
between the brothers and the Egyptian (44:18-23), in
which he elaborates on the previously unmentioned death
of Binyamin's brother, the death of Binyamin's mother and
his father's unique love for Binyamin (44:20; see also
42:13). It turns out that the brothers had told the
Egyptian viceroy that "the lad cannot leave his father:
for if he should leave his father he would die" (44:22).
Even if this "death" predicted by Yehuda in the recap of
the original conversation refers to that of Binyamin
(Rashi, Ramban), and not to the death of Yaakov
(Rashbam), Yehuda has already made his point. Yaakov has
suffered enough and deserves to suffer no more.
In the second section of his speech, his recounting
of the conversation between Yaakov and his sons during
their interlude in Canaan (44:24-29), Yehuda emphasizes
Yaakov's suffering again. In addition, he warns of the
certainty of Yaakov's death upon losing Binyamin. Yehuda
has Yaakov refer to the fact that "his wife" bore him
only two sons, and one has already been torn to death.
If this last son will be taken, "You will send my white
head down to Sheol in sorrow," a clear reference to
Yaakov's death (44:27-29).
Finally, in the last section of his plea, his
summary and conclusion (44:30-34), Yehuda makes explicit
what had previously been perhaps merely implicit. The
soul of the father is tied up with the soul of the son
(44:30). Consequently,
.When he sees that the boy is not with us, he will
die, and your servant will have sent. our father in
grief down to Sheol. (44:31)
In sum, in the case of Avraham, the guilty people of
Sedom, and God, Avraham sought to introduce a fourth
actor and thereby spare the guilty. So too Yehuda, in
pleading with the Egyptian, seeks to introduce a fourth
player, the innocent, long-suffering and ancient Yaakov.
By linking the guilty Binyamin to the innocent Yaakov, he
hopes to persuade the master to act with mercy.
In fact, we should realize that it is not just mercy
that Yehuda seeks. He also seeks justice. Avraham's
tactic allowed him to challenge God. He brazenly
challenged God not to "slay the righteous with the
wicked," for after all, "Shall not the judge of all the
earth do right?" (18:25). So too, Yehuda implicitly
presses the Egyptian for justice. The Egyptian should
not slay Yaakov the righteous as part of his quest to
enslave the guilty.
The parallel to the prayer of Avraham, the
tripartite structure of Yehuda's plea and the mercy-
justice content outlined above should make us realize
that part of Yehuda's plea seems not to belong. At the
very end of his plea, deep into his conclusion, after
warning of his father's death, Yehuda states the
following.
For your servant has pledged himself for the lad
(arav et ha-na'ar) from my father and said: If I do
not bring him to you, then I shall have sinned to my
father forever. (44:32)
Yehuda continues on to offer himself as slave in place of
Binyamin (44:33) and concludes his speech with a
confession of inability.
For how can I go up to my father and not have the
lad with me? Lest I see the evil that shall come
upon my father. (44:34)
Yehuda seems to segue from a servant-master plea for
mercy and justice, involving the coupling of the fates of
the innocent and guilty, to something else altogether.
He offers a substitution of himself for Binyamin (44:33).
This new approach is bracketed on either side by Yehuda's
discussion of his personal relationship with his father
(44:32, 34). He cannot sin to his father; he cannot bear
to see his father's pain and suffering.
This problem of a sense of disjunction, of a shift
in theme and approach, can be rephrased in far sharper
fashion. The second plea of Yehuda, "Substitution and
Confession" (44:32-34), appears unnecessary. If Yehuda
has already carefully structured a classic mercy-justice
linkage plea and has successfully made the case for the
sparing of Binyamin for Yaakov's sake, why offer
substitution? Why describe his promises to his father and
his personal pain? At the very least he should wait for a
"no" from the viceroy before trying a new tack.
Moreover, the material connected to Yehuda and Yaakov's
relationship seems wholly irrelevant. What possible
interest could the Egyptian viceroy have in the promise
Yehuda had made to his father, or in Yehuda's personal
concern for his father's suffering?
II
Both Ramban and Abarbanel relate to the shift in
Yehuda's plea noted above. According to Ramban (44:18-
19), although Yehuda does embark on a systematic effort
to arouse the mercy of the Egyptian viceroy, he never
expects to achieve more than substitution. The offer of
substitution is necessary, and the shift is not a shift.
Since Ramban does not comment extensively on the
inclusion of the Yehuda's guarantee and anguish, which
bracket the substitution offer, we must turn to Abarbanel
to complete the picture.
On Abarbanel's account, Yehuda ends with his anguish
as part and parcel of his effort to arouse the mercy of
his audience. He portrays himself as well as his father
as deserving of mercy. He includes mention of the
guarantee he gave his father in order to explain why it
is that he (as opposed to any of the other brothers) has
stepped forward to plead. In sum, both the offer of
substitution and the inclusion of the Yehuda-Yaakov
relationship can be integrated into the general theme of
a mercy-justice plea.
While this can be made to work, it nevertheless
seems insufficient. The claim that Yehuda never expects
to achieve anything more than substitution fails to give
sufficient importance to the parallel of his plea with
that of Avraham. The parallel seems to imply that
linkage of the innocent and the guilty constitutes a
valid argument.
Furthermore, the request for mercy and the offer of
enslavement seem mutually contradictory. If Yehuda
intends to capitalize on the sympathies of the viceroy
for his commitment and relationshipto his father, why
offer to spend his life as a slave? Can he truly expect
the viceroy to believe that enslaving the wrong man
constitutes an act of mercy?
Moreover, as Ramban and Abarbanel themselves
recognize, reading the text afresh always leaves us with
a sense of surprise. Yehuda's offer of substitution
strikes us as unplanned, a last minute addition, akin to
the irrational flailing of a drowning man. It is not
part of any premeditated plea for mercy and justice. On
the contrary, it seems to be a spontaneous outburst, a
desperate and almost illogical act of despair. Yehuda
cannot bear to leave Binyamin behind. In light of the
awful possibility, he is willing to try anything.
The language of the text seems to support this last
point. In the first section of Yehuda's plea (44:18-23),
the terms "master" (adon), "servant" (eved) and "father"
(av) comprise a conceptual triangle, each appearing five
times. This fits with the notion of a servant-master
prayer, revolving around the fate of the innocent father.
Yehuda's final words, the third section of his speech
containing his offer of substitution and confession
(44:30-34), also include a conceptual triangle delineated
by three terms. But they are not the same terms. The
term "youth" (na'ar) replaces the term "master," and
along with "servant" (eved) and "father" (av) appears six
times. This telegraphs that Yehuda's plea is no longer
about arousing the master's mercy and sense of justice.
Rather, everything is driven by this horrifying
combination of the youth, slavery and his father, the
terrible triangle that threatens to engulf Yehuda.
If so, we are left with two alternatives. We can
adopt the approach of Ramban and Abarbanel and explain
away the shift. Either their specific answers, or
others, can be utilized to integrate Yehuda's closing
words into the overarching structure of his plea. We can
reject the premise of the problem. Alternatively, in a
second approach hinted at above, we can accept the
premise of the problem. Yehuda's speech does in fact
undergo a mutation midway through. While he begins in
purposeful and deliberate fashion, he ends in a crescendo
of emotion, baring his despair to the Egyptian. He
cannot bear the thought of returning to his father
without the boy. Even a lifetime of slavery is
preferable to letting down his father.
III
The analysis of Yehuda's plea presented above rests
upon a simple and crucial premise. Everything assumes
that Yehuda addresses Tsafnat Paneach, the Egyptian noble
who serves as second-in-command of Egypt and governs the
economy. Of course, Yehuda does in fact address the
Egyptian viceroy. However, unbeknownst to Yehuda, he
also addresses the man behind the Egyptian mask, his
brother Yosef. His words penetrate beyond the persona,
to the real person entombed within. A proper and
complete analysis of Yehuda's talk must take into account
not only the intended audience of the talk, the Egyptian,
but also the unintended audience, the brother beneath.
Shifting to Yosef's perspective puts a highly
different cast on the problematic section, "Substitution
and Confession" (44:32-34), discussed above. It is
immediately after Yehuda's offer of substitution and his
expressions of personal responsibility and concern for
his father that Yosef reveals himself. It is Yehuda's
final words, his cry of "How can I go up to my father and
not have the lad with me?" and his lament of "Lest I see
the evil that shall come upon my father" (44:34) that
pave the way for Yosef's shocking revelation (45:1-3).
While Yehuda might have intended to stir the soul and
arouse the mercy of the Egyptian, his words have stirred
an altogether different soul.
And Yosef could no longer restrain himself before
all that stood by him; and he cried out, "Have
everyone taken out from me." And no man stood by
him when Yosef made himself known to his brethren.
And Yosef wept aloud. (45:1-2)
No doubt, the intended, planned and "standard"
portions of Yehuda's speech play a causal role in Yosef's
revelation. Yehuda frames the story of the suffering
father and his impending death to arouse the mercy even
of a manipulative Egyptian governor. Surely the plea
possesses the power to stir the heart of the very son
whom the father pines for. But this is only part of the
cause of Yosef's unmasking.
When Yosef hears Yehuda expressing concern for
Yaakov and responsibility for Binyamin, he hears the
words he didn't hear twenty years earlier. We can never
know for certain whether Yosef overheard his brothers'
plotting, upon Yehuda's suggestion, to sell him.
Nevertheless, the quick textual progression from the
stripping of the coat and the tossing of Yosef into the
waterless pit (37:23-24), to the brothers' callous
sitting down to share a meal and intra-dinner plotting
(37:25-27), certainly implies geographic proximity. The
brothers' later confession of guilt due to ignoring
Yosef's pleading for mercy and begging for his life
(42:21) further reinforces the assumption of proximity.
Yosef's plaintive calls from the pit were met by nothing
but the sounds of munching and money-making (37:25-28).
As pointed out previously, throughout the latter
parts of his plea, Yehuda emphasizes the unique
relationship of Yaakov with Rachel, as well as the
privileged status of her children. When Yehuda quotes
Yaakov, the latter refers to "my wife," a singular term,
as if Rachel had been his only wife (44:27). Yaakov
still pines for Yosef (44:28), possesses a bond of souls
with Binyamin (44:30) and will certainly die if stripped
of Binyamin (44:29, 31). Yehuda not only accepts and
respects this situation, but out of love and duty feels
obligated to mortgage his very freedom to maintain it.
To put all this together, when Yosef hears Yehuda's
offer of substitution and confession, he hears the
reversal of the exact family dynamic that had led to his
slavery in Egypt. Instead of callous disregard and
resentment of Yaakov's choice of favorites, Yosef hears
respect, duty, caring and self-sacrifice. In place of
hatred of Yosef, he finds brotherly regard for Binyamin
and his role.
But even this is only partial. As I argued in
discussing Parashat Miketz, by repeatedly returning his
brothers their money and demanding Binyamin in return,
Yosef recreated the circumstances of his own sale. When
Yehuda refuses to leave Binyamin behind in Egypt in
exchange for the grain and money, he refuses to repeat
the sale of Yosef, the favored son of Rachel. In fact,
when Yosef hears Yehuda's offer of substitution, he
realizes that Yehuda is not just refraining from
committing the same crime again, but is reversing the
original situation. Whereas before, Yehuda had counseled
to sell Yosef, a son of Rachel, into slavery (37:26-28),
he now counsels selling himself into the very same
slavery, instead of Rachel's son.
In sum, it is precisely Yehuda's offer of self-
sacrifice and his expressions of responsibility, anguish
and caring that complete the reversal of Yosef's youth.
It is precisely the section of "Substitution and
Confession" that shatters Yosef's Egyptian front and
prompts his revelation. The section constitutes not a
problematic digression from a carefully crafted servant-
master plea for mercy and justice aimed at an Egyptian
noble, but rather the exact words necessary to draw out
the brother underneath.
But this seems problematic. Yehuda possesses no
clue that the Egyptian and Yosef are one and the same.
He is dumbstruck upon learning the real identity of the
governor. How does he manage to say exactly the right
thing?
We may be inclined to write this off to coincidence,
the random interplay of the free will of human beings.
Unable to control himself, to maintain the molded form of
a defense attorney crafting a closing argument, Yehuda
shifts from his mercy-justice plea to an offer of
substitution and a baring of his soul. His outburst, the
breaking of his mask, is met by an equal outburst, the
breaking of Yosef's mask.
Alternatively, we may, and probably should, assign
this all to divine providence. Right after revealing
himself to his brothers, Yosef repeatstates that it was
really God who had sent him to Egypt, to eventually
provide sustenance for his family (45:5, 7). He even
goes so far as to claim that ".It was not you that sent
me here but God" (45:8). This is not apologetics, but
rather part of the mysterious mix of human free will and
divine providence present throughout the story of Yosef
and his brothers.
So too, the shift in Yehuda's speech. On the
surface, Yehuda speaks to an Egyptian and either
concludes as planned, or, as argued here, shifts to a new
offer and almost unwillingly bares his soul. But at the
subsurface strata, something altogether different is
going on. Yosef constitutes the real audience and God
plays a role in choosing Yehuda's words. In some
mysterious fashion, God helps Yehuda to shift, to bare
his soul and reveal the concealed. This is God's plan,
and it helps Yosef to reveal the concealed. This divine
intervention allows Yosef and his brothers to reconcile.
IV
Before closing, I would like to discuss a third
audience present at Yehuda's plea. As Abarbanel hints at
the end of his discussion of Yehuda's speech, the address
is not only directed at both the Egyptian and Yosef, but
also at the reader of the story, the critical viewer
interested in the saga and character development of
Yehuda. Abarbanel makes this point by claiming that
Yehuda must offer himself up for enslavement, must offer
substitution, in order to suffer measure-for-measure
punishment, or perhaps atone, for recommending the sale
of Yosef.
Earlier on, I claimed that the second audience,
Yosef behind the mask, is already aware of Yehuda's
culpability, the reversal and his repentance.
Nevertheless, Abarbanel is fundamentally correct. Only
the third audience, the reader, possesses all the pieces
of the puzzle necessary to string together the story of
Yehuda's character.
This can best be realized by noting that all of the
key stories involving Yehuda throughout Vayeshev, Miketz
and Vayigash are linked together by a series of terms and
literary symbols.
Yehuda first rises to prominence in the story of the
sale. He formulates the plan (37:26-27). Shortly
afterwards, the brothers cover their tracks by tricking
Yaakov. They dip Yosef's coat in blood and "send" the
coat to their father (37:31-32). They ask him to "please
acknowledge" (haker na), is this the coat of Yosef or not
(37:32)? Yaakov indeed does recognize and acknowledge (va-
yakirah), concluding that Yosef has been torn to shreds
(37:33). These very terms reappear in the next chapter,
the story of Yehuda and Tamar. Just as Tamar is being
taken out to be burnt she "sends" to her father-in-law
and asks him to "please acknowledge" (haker na), to
identify, to whom the stick, seal and cord belong
(38:25). Like his father previously, Yehuda does indeed
recognize and acknowledge (va-yaker), concluding that
Tamar is more righteous than he (38:26).
Just as the first and second Yehuda stories are
linguistically linked, so too the second Yehuda story
connects with the remaining Yehuda stories. In making
the deal with the prostitute, Yehuda transfers his staff,
seal and cord as a pledge (eravon), a guarantee of future
payment. This stem and symbol reappears in the two
remaining Yehuda stories. In arguing for Yaakov to allow
Binyamin to accompany the brothers to Egypt, Yehuda
pledges his word and very self. He tells his father, "I
will be guarantee (a'arvenu)" and "from my hand you may
demand him" (43:9). Finally, this stem (A-R-V) surfaces
one last time in the fourth Yehuda story, the narrative
of Yehuda's plea. It constitutes the key term in
Yehuda's offer of substitution. Yehuda opens his offer
with the statement that he has pledged himself for the
boy (arav et ha-na'ar, 44:32).
Mapping this out yields the following:
* Yehuda and Yosef (the sale of Yosef, 37:26-36) -
"sending," "recognizing";
* Yehuda and Tamar (38:17-30) - "pledge-guarantee"
and "sending," "recognizing";
* Yehuda and Yaakov (43:1-10) - "pledge-guarantee";
* Yehuda and Yosef (Yehuda's plea, 44:30-34) -
"pledge-guarantee."
The resulting A-B-A-B-B literary pattern, which portrays
the gradual move from "sending" and "recognizing" to the
symbol of "pledge-guarantee" (signifying commitment and
responsibility), constitutes far more than literary
artistry. In fact, it seems to mark a crucial
transformation in the character of Yehuda.
In suggesting and executing the sale of Yosef,
Yehuda behaves in a highly inappropriate fashion. Since
there is "no profit in killing our brother and covering
his blood," he advises selling Yosef instead. After all,
Yosef is their brother, their own flesh and blood (37:26-
27). At this point, Yehuda possesses a very poor sense
of brotherhood and family responsibility. He acts
cruelly, without regard for the suffering of Yosef or the
feelings of his father. He is arrogant, wholly removed
from the effects of his actions on the souls of others.
His sphere of interest consists of no more than the
twenty silver pieces received in exchange for his
brother. The act of sending the coat to Yaakov and
demanding that he recognize it captures and symbolizes
the character and behavior of Yehuda.
In the Yehuda and Tamar story, Yehuda is subjected
to a bit of his own medicine. Just as Yehuda once sent
to his father Yosef's coat and demanded the Ya'akov's
painful acknowledgement of Yosef's death, now he himself
receives the objects and acknowledges. He engages in the
undoubtedly painful acknowledgement of having consorted
with a harlot, of having neglected his familial
responsibility to his daughter-in-law, of the evil of his
sons and of having arrogantly and presumptuously passed
judgement upon his daughter-in-law. In sum, he moves
from a realm of haughtiness, arrogance and neglect of
responsibility to a realm of humility, caring and
responsibility. To rephrase, he moves from the world of
the symbols of his own "sending" and demanding
"recognizing" to an existential world defined by his
admission and marked by the symbols of "guarantee-
pledge." The categories of humility, caring and
responsibility now constitute the core of his character.
The last two stories confirm this point. Utilizing
the transformed symbol of "guarantee-pledge," Yehuda
offers his very self to his father and assumes
responsibility for his family's survival, his brother's
safety and his father's heart and life (43:8-10, 14). By
no accident, the term is monetary. Yehuda mortgages
himself, as he had once sold off Yosef.
By now the point should be obvious. The pattern
reaches its crescendo in the final Yehuda story, in the
final section of Yehuda's plea, what we have termed
"Substitution and Confession." Yehuda's newfound
character of humility, concern, caring and responsibility
leads him to volunteer to substitute himself for
Binyamin. It leads him to undo the crucial sin of his
earlier self. Without concern for his self or his
personal destiny, he accepts upon himself a lifetime of
slavery.
If so, we have arrived at a third role for Yehuda's
finale. The verses of "Substitution and Confession" are
not just about persuading the Egyptian, or, through the
mystery of divine providence, provoking Yosef's
revelation. They are also aimed at the reader, reminding
us who Yehuda has been and who he has now become.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
Copyright (c) 2001 Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.
*********************************************************