Parshas Vayigash- An Uncertain Reconciliaition

The Torah does not state all details of every event in the most explicit way, as it is not a story book. Often, we are compelled to utilize extrapolation, using the facts that are presented in order to deduce the information that is omitted. While there was certainly an underlying issue inherent in the relationship between Yosef and his brothers in the beginning of their story, it remains unclear if there was ever an ultimate resolution to that original strife. As we analyze the concluding events of Sefer Bereishis we are shown some clarity regarding this topic.

The Ramban (Parshas Mikeitz 42:9) explains the calculation of Yosef in stringing his brothers and father along with his charade as the stern viceroy of Egypt, and not revealing his identity earlier, despite the suffering that his family thereby experienced. He states that Yosef wanted the dreams that he had dreamt years earlier to come to fruition, requiring his eleven brothers to bow to him. This necessitated Benyamin joining the others in Mitzrayim, which occurred when the brothers returned from Eretz Canaan. In addition, Yosef wanted to ascertain if the brothers had repaired the underlying friction between them that had triggered his original sale. The sons of Leah had hated the sons of Rachel, as the latter were favored by their father Yaakov, and Yosef wished to see if this issue had been repaired. Yosef instructed that his goblet be placed in the bag of Benyamin, resulting in him being framed as a thief, forced to remain as his servant in Egypt. Yehuda, a son of Leah and the brother who had taken personal responsibility for Benyamin, a son of Rachel, presented a lengthy speech, concluding that he was willing to offer himself instead of their youngest brother. This exhibited the repairing of the underlying strife that had plagued their relationship. Thereupon, Yosef revealed his identity to his brothers. For these two reasons, explains the Ramban, Yosef orchestrated these convoluted schemes, despite the challenges it presented his family, as these were realities that required clarification. 

When analyzing the speech of Yehuda, it becomes abundantly clear that the primary focus of his defense of Benyamin is the potential suffering that his father would experience, should his youngest son not return. Yehuda does not dwell on the fact that Benyamin was innocent and was apparently being framed, but rather on the negative  fallout his servitude in Egypt would cause for Yaakov. This seems strange as this does not prove that the brothers cared deeply for each other and had repaired their underlying enmity, but rather that they cared for their father and his potential suffering. Yehuda’s argument highlighted the brothers concern for the feelings of their father, but not a repair in the original underlying discord between them. 

[It is important to mention that Yosef does seem to have forgiven his brethren, as upon revealing his true identity he tells them all that “just as I have no enmity towards Benyamin, as he did not engage in the sale, so too I have no enmity towards the rest” (Rashi 45:12). However, it is not stated explicitly if the brothers repaired their underlying enmity towards Yosef, as shall be explained below.]  

There are a number of indications that the original enmity between the brothers was indeed still intact, even at the end of the story. Firstly, when the brothers originally descend to Mitzrayim, the verse states that they were “the brothers of Yosef” and that there were “ten” of them (42:3). Rashi clarifies that the description as “the brothers of Yosef” (and not the usual expression of “the sons of Yaakov”) highlights that they were all agreeable to redeem him from servitude, regardless of any cost or interference. Rashi continues, that the implication of there being “ten” brothers (a point that is obvious) indicates that despite having varying degrees of affection for Yosef, they all did agree to purchase food. These statements of Rashi seem contradictory, as an agreed desire to redeem him would highlight their shared affection for Yosef. In order to clarify this we are forced to understand that although they did all agree to redeem Yosef, this was not due to their love for him, but rather because they saw the suffering that their father was experiencing, and that was something which they could all rally around. Furthermore, after the passing of Yaakov (at the end of Parshas Vayechi), the verses tell us that the brothers become nervous that Yosef will now exact retribution against them for their original misdeeds. Yosef eventually comforts them and they seem to accept his words. Although the Midrashim explain that a particular incident (not being invited to the meals with Yosef or Yosef peering into the pit into which he had been cast) triggered this newfound concern, this perception is difficult as Yosef had already stated that he harbored no resentment towards them. It would appear that they perceived enmity from Yosef because they themselves had retained a degree of uncured resentment towards him, a classic case of projection. Finally, the Navi (Yechezkel 37 amongst others) tells us that in the future days there will no longer be strife and hatred between the various factions of the Jewish people. It would appear that this is a “Yemos HaMashiach” reality, but unfortunately has not yet come to fruition. 

It emerges that although the underlying enmity between the brothers persevered, they did all conclude to act in a way that would be mindful of their father’s perspective. This reality was revealed through the incident in which the goblet was placed in Benyamin’s bag and Yehuda’s subsequent defense. Why was this a worthwhile factor that needed to be clarified, important enough for Yosef to cause his family further anguish?

In Parshas Vayechi the verses tell us that Yaakov wished to bless his sons prior to his passing. For the majority of his children, a blessing was indeed meted out. However, Reuvein, Shimon, and Levi receive rebuke, based on earlier incidences of sin (in Parshas Vayishlach). Reuvein had “switched the beds”, in which he had moved his father's bed, transferring it from the tent of Bilhah to the tent of his mother Leah. After the passing of Rachel, Reuvein had felt that the bed of Yaakov should rightfully reside with his mother, and had transgressed in this deed. In a similar vein, Shimon and Levi had destroyed the city of Shechem following the molestation of their sister Dina, so as to protect her honor. In both stories, the sons were motivated by a valid motive (to protect a relative's honor), and were only mistaken in not consulting with their father, to consider the proper course of action, based on his instruction. On his deathbed, Yaakov rebuked these sons for these misdeeds. In regards to the sale of Yosef, a similar error was performed. The brothers had calculated that it was the appropriate action to get rid of Yosef, without taking the perspective and potential suffering of Yaakov into account. Indeed, this sale plunged Yaakov into terrible suffering for twenty-two years. Yosef, as the viceroy of Mitzrayim wanted to ascertain that the underlying issue of caring about the perspective of their father, had been resolved. When Yehuda stepped up to defend Benyamin, he exhibited the shared perspective of all the brothers in that they valued the position of their father, despite not seeing eye to eye on all other issues. This highlighted a fixing of the previous lacking.

Why did this issue necessitate clarification at this particular juncture?

Yosef knew that his family was going to descend to Mitzrayim and begin the exile in the coming days. A small group of people would naturally meld into the common culture around them, losing all sense of unique identity, unless they were connected with a real achdus in regards to issues that were of genuine import. Had the family descended to Egypt as a fragmented people, there was no chance of surviving through the Egyptian exile and culture to merit the eventual Exodus. Indeed, despite all of his efforts (see the end of Parshas Vayigash how Yosef prepared the path for a successful exile in that he bought all the lands and shifted people around so the brothers would be comfortable and he did not place tax on the priests so Levi’im would be free from future servitude), the entire Jewish nation returned to idolatry, other than shevet Levi (see Rambam Hilchos Avoda Zara 1:3), and only twenty percent of the people merited to the eventual redemption (see the beginning of Parshas Beshalach in Rashi). Yosef needed to ensure that his brothers were connected in regards to the important issue that genuinely mattered. Although the brothers did not resolve their underlying enmity, they did conclude to collectively value the perspective of Yaakov. This emphasized that they recognized the crucial issue of the importance of the “da’as Torah” of Yaakov. Yaakov was their connection to the Abrahamic legacy and tradition, and this assumed greater value than their personal opinions or perspectives. This was a significant development from the earlier parts of the story where some of the brothers had exhibited their lack of recognition of the importance of the perspective of Yaakov. This issue needed to be understood deeply, as the importance of the Torah and their tradition is what really connected the brothers, regardless of the differences in their private perspectives. Being connected via the value of their tradition would create a genuine achdus, strong enough to ensure that the fledgling nation would survive the overwhelming, overriding culture of Mitzrayim and eventually see the day of redemption. Thus, despite the anguish his schemes may have caused his family, Yosef understood that these were necessary for their future survival as a nation. 

[Perhaps, Yosef understood the importance of the need to fulfill the dreams, as the Ramban states in his first explanation, with a similar calculation. Yosef was the next “Av” after Yaakov. This is highlighted in many ways, but particularly as he is known as one of the “seven shepherds”. Yosef may have understood that the fulfillment of the dreams (i.e. the brothers bowing to him) would signify their acceptance of his position, creating a unifying thread that would encompass them, strengthening them to be able to survive the future galus. Essentially, Yosef continued the legacy of Yaakov as the unifying factor between them and needed to be recognized as such, in order to ensure an achdus that would allow the nation to persevere and not be swallowed into Egyptian culture.]

Although various groups or individuals may disagree on various things, when they can agree about the essential issues they can remain a united, powerful force. As Jews, there are many things that are cause for disagreement, but we should all agree on the importance of the Torah and our traditions. These are the crucial things that make us uniquely Jewish and when clearly valued can be the cause for the greatest unity, despite having differences of opinions in other areas. May we merit to deeply value the Torah and may this bring us to the greatest achdus possible.  

In the merit of this Torah study, may Hashem protect all of Am Yisrael, in Eretz

Yisrael and throughout the world. Please email yshifman1@gmail.com with

questions, comments, or to be added to the mailing list.