Shabbos Parashas Vayigash - 5776

Shabbos Parashas Vayigash - 5776

Rabbi Hal Miller

And we said to my lord, 'We have an old father and a young child of his old age;

his brother is dead, he alone is left to his mother'. [Bereishis 44:20]

In our verse, Yehuda says that Yosef is dead. Last week, in 42:13, he said that Yosef

is "gone". Has something changed, that Yehuda would change his description? Did he

learn something? What did he mean in these two cases?

Rashi tells us that the verse from last week is a justification for the brothers having

entered the city by separate gates, to explain that they are not spies, as Yosef, the

Egyptian viceroy, charged. Yehuda is saying that they are merely looking for a missing

brother. It seems that the viceroy accepts the explanation. Why, then, did Yehuda see a

need to give him a different line on his return trip to Egypt?

Rashi explains that Yehuda was reacting to his perceptions of the viceroy. On their

first visit, the brothers were accused of being spies, which was a personal charge

against those present, not including either Yosef or Binyamin. On their second visit,

with Binyamin in the company, it appeared that the viceroy might also demand the

presence of the "missing" Yosef to further prove the truthfulness of the brothers. Yehuda

switched to telling that Yosef was dead in order to prevent such a demand.

But would Yehuda ever intentionally lie?

Talelei Oros cites the Meshech Chochmah, and asks that Yehuda knew that Yosef

was not killed, but sold into slavery. Since then, the brothers had no news, and did

not know for certain that Yosef was dead, thus why assume him dead? He answers

that Yehuda knew Yosef's connection to their father, and assumed Yosef, if alive,

would have managed to contact home at some point during the years. Since he had

not done so, he must be dead. Yehuda did not lie, he merely assumed something

that turned out not to be true.

From our perspective, nothing had changed, so Yehuda was wrong to make this

change. However, from his perspective, there was a change, and he was justified in

using the second phrase. There is a huge lesson in this--we must not criticize

someone until we understand his perspective.