ויגש אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי יְדַבֶּר נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאָזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי וְאַל יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ כִּי כָמוֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹה
(בראשית מד:יח)
The midrash—based on a pasuk in Tehillim—explains that during their initial encounter in the parsha, both Yehuda and Yosef displayed anger towards each other. The rationale behind Yehuda’s anger towards Yosef is clear: Yosef prevented Binyamin from returning to Yaakov Avinu in Eretz Yisroel. Before departing for Mitzrayim, Yehuda had assured Yaakov Avinu of Binyamin’s safe return, thereby taking responsibility for him. Given this, Yehuda’s anger towards Yosef is understandable. However, the reason for Yosef’s anger towards Yehuda remains unclear. What did Yehuda do to Yosef to cause Yosef to be angry at him?
Zera Shimshon explains Yosef’s anger by analyzing the events that transpired just before Yehuda’s coming to him. In the conclusion of the previous week’s parsha, the leader of Yosef’s household “found” Yosef’s goblet in Binyamin’s sack. Subsequently, Yosef declared that while his brothers could return to their father in Eretz Yisroel, Binyamin must stay in Mitzrayim as his slave.
This verdict plunged the brothers into deep distress, leading them to return to Yosef’s palace to challenge his decision. They then offered themselves as slaves in Binyamin’s place. Simply understood, the reason for their offer to become slaves was to take the place of Binyamin, in order that Binyamin would be able to return to Yaakov and not to cause pain to Yaakov. If Yosef took him as a slave for his own benefit, then surely, he would be happy to have several slaves in place of only one. However, Zera Shimshon provides a different explanation al pi drush, of their offering to become slaves.
All the children of Yaakov were aware of the decree Hashem made to their great-grandfather Avraham during the bris bein habesarim, foretelling the enslavement of his descendants in a foreign land. The brothers understood that to mitigate or completely eliminate the suffering of their future generations, this decree could be fulfilled if even one of them became enslaved, provided the rest remained united (Zera Shimshon, Parshas Mikeitz, Drush 10 explains their reasoning at great length). Consequently, they selected Yosef—who had spoken lashon hara about them—to be sold into slavery, with the hope that this action would spare their future descendants from the full extent of the decree.
Subsequently, though, they began to doubt the logic of their earlier decision—questioning if the enslavement of Yosef alone would be enough to satisfy the decree given to Avraham. However, their perspective changed after Yosef called them together following the incident involving his goblet. They then realized that their destiny—as per the decree of bris bein habesarim—was for all of them to become slaves. The reason was not because of the incident with Yosef’s goblet since even Binyamin—who had not been involved in selling Yosef—was with them. Rather, the reason was to mitigate the decree that was made at the bris bein habesarim. Therefore, when they entered the palace of Yosef, they offered all of themselves to become slaves.
Yosef responded by rejecting the idea of enslaving all the brothers, asserting that any such judgment was a matter between them and Hashem. He believed that if Hashem intended to punish them, it was Hashem’s prerogative—not his. Yosef emphasized that he would only make decisions based on civil law and would refrain from executing divine judgments and, therefore, only Binyamin who “stole” his goblet will be enslaved, but not the other brothers.
Zera Shimshon raises a query regarding Yosef’s immediate decision to enslave Binyamin, questioning how this aligns with civil law. Normally, the punishment for theft is to repay double (keiffel), and enslavement is a consequence only when the thief is unable to pay. Therefore, taking Binyamin as a slave without considering payment contradicts civil law!
However, Yosef rationalized his judgment by stating that the standard penalty of paying “keiffel” applies only when stealing from a commoner—not from royalty. The theft of his goblet—used for divination and revealing secrets—warranted a harsher punishment. Upon hearing this, Yehuda approached Yosef and accused him of uttering nonsense! Yehuda argued that since Yosef was initially a slave in Mitzrayim, he could not legally become a king, thus Binyamin’s act did not constitute theft from royalty, and there was no basis for a harsher punishment.
Yosef countered by suggesting that even if he were not deemed royal, the brothers’ admission of selling their sibling into slavery implied that they, too, came from a family of slaves—as no honorable family would sell their own. Thus, taking Binyamin as a slave was not excessively harsh. Zera Shimshon concludes that Yehuda’s assertion challenging Yosef’s royal status was the trigger for Yosef’s anger towards Yehuda.
We have to understand, though, who was correct in their claim? Did Yosef truly qualify to be a king, or was Yehuda’s assertion accurate that Yosef—having been a slave—was ineligible to rule under Egyptian law?
Zera Shimshon suggests an intriguing resolution where both perspectives are right.
The reasoning hinges on the nature of slave ownership in the era when such practices were common. It is written in the Gemara that an idol worshipper purchasing a slave would only acquire the slave’s labor, meaning the earnings of the slave were the property of the owner—not the personhood of the slave.
This principle is discussed in the Kessef Mishna—a commentary on the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, who is unsure whether this rule applies universally to all idol worshippers, including a king or not. The distinction lies in the authority of kings to enact laws (dina d’malchusa dina), which might grant them the capacity to own not just the labor, but also the personhood of a slave. This nuance in law potentially supports both Yosef’s and Yehuda’s positions.
According to this, Zera Shimshon explains that Yosef wasn’t lying that he was fit to be a king and Yehuda didn’t make a mistake. How is this?
Yosef was of the opinion that a king could fully acquire a slave, and the rule preventing a slave from becoming a king applied only to such cases. In contrast, when a commoner purchases a slave, the slave retains their personhood—with only their earnings belonging to the master—leaving no barrier to them becoming a king.
Since Yosef was never sold to a king but initially to simple Yishmailim, then to Midyanim and, finally, to a minister in Pharaoh’s government, therefore, in Yosef’s own opinion, he was eligible for kingship. Yosef was angry at Yehudah who viewed slavery uniformly—where all slaves remain their own person and, therefore, all slaves are invalid to become a king in Mitzrayim. Thus, from Yehuda’s standpoint, Yosef’s claim to authority in Egypt was invalid.
Yehuda was angry at Yosef for two reasons: Firstly, according to Yosef’s view, he had the authority to enslave Binyamin, contrary to Yehuda’s wishes. Secondly, it implied that his and the brother’s initial decision to sell Yosef was fundamentally flawed and it made him look like a fool! They had sold him to an ordinary Yishmailim who—according to Yosef’s understanding—since he gained rights only to Yosef’s labor and not his personhood, would fail to mitigate the decree upon Avraham’s descendants, which entailed complete enslavement. Consequently, their selling of Yosef was of no worth!
Although the Kessef Mishna’s shaila whether an idolatrous king can possess someone’s being is not particularly pertinent today, there is a valuable lesson to be drawn from Zera Shimshon’s dvar Torah. In disagreements, it’s essential to recognize that the one you’re arguing with probably has grounds for their views. It’s okay to have differing views, but it’s important to listen to their perspective. Just as Yehuda and Yosef’s debate was grounded in their respective sources and were not just yelling at each other, the person you’re disputing with—your spouse, your coworker and even your teenage child—assuming they are of sound mind, usually has some basis for their argument. Acknowledging their viewpoint—not necessarily agreeing with it—just listening and trying to understand it, can lead to more fruitful interactions, better relationships and enrich your understanding.
HaRav Shimshon Nachmani—author of Zera Shimshon—lived in Italy, about 300 years ago, in the time of the Or HaChaim HaKodesh. He had one child who died in his lifetime and, in the preface, he promises that those who learn his sefarim, “will see children and grandchildren like the offshoots of an olive tree around your tables.”
This week’s dvar Torah is being sponsored as a zechut for Mazal bat Victoria Malka that Hashem should grant her zera shel kayama and have healthy children from whom she will see lots and lots of nachat.
