Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
The Torah in parshat Vayigash introduces Yosef's dramatic and climactic self-revelation to his brothers: "ve-lo yachol Yosef lehitapek lekol hanizavim alav vayikra hotziu kol ish me-alai velo amad ish ito bihitvada Yosef el achiv - and Yosef could no longer contain himself in the presence of others and dismissed everyone assembled and no one else was present when Yosef revealed himself to his brothers". On the surface, the Torah seems to be conveying two different facts: 1. that Yosef was finally emotionally moved to reconnect with his family; 2. halachic etiquette required a climate of privacy for the revelation of his identity, possibly in order to safeguard the brothers' reputation and preclude their humiliation (Midrash Tanchuma, Rashi etc.). Thus, at the moment of the culmination of this remarkable drama, Yosef was able to exercise remarkable self-discipline to protect the very individuals who had wronged him.
Indeed, Chazal debate whether Yosef's risky course was wise and proper. The Midrash Rabbah records the critical view of R' Chama ben Hanina ("lo asah Yosef keshurah she-ilu baat bo echad meihem hayah meit".) The Midrash Tanchuma, however, asserts that Yosef's decision was normative because of the grave consequences of humiliation, notwithstanding the assessment that he in fact endangered his own existence. The Tanchuma summarizes Yosef's thinking as follows: "mutav she-eihareg ve-lo avayeish et achai bifnei hamitzriyim." This perspective underscores the Torah's recognition that human beings are emotionally and psychologically fragile; their self image is both critical and even self-defining, requiring protection even at great cost. Thus, safeguarding from personal humiliation or character assassination justifies personal risk, notwithstanding the culpability of the impugned party.
This conclusion echoes Chazal's view on the story of Yehudah and Tamar. The gemara (Sotah 10b) declares, based on the paradigm of Tamar, that forfeit of life is justified to protect another man's dignity - "noach lo leadam sheyapil atzmo letoch kivshan haeish veal yalbin penei chaveiro ba-rabim". Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuvah 3:139) gives significant halachic credence to this aggadic comment, when he codifies the act of humiliation or character assassination as a dimension of murder ("abizraihu de-retzichah")! The obligation to undergo personal risk in order to protect the personal dignity of another is particularly consequential in the Yosef and Tamar contexts, as the victim is endangered to shield the reputation of the antagonist.
Yet, it is noteworthy that Rashi underscores a further dimension of this theme. In his commentary, he conflates Yosef's emotional posture of "velo yachol…le-hitapek" precisely with the overriding urgency to safeguard his brothers' reputation. The fact that Yosef's protective posture affected his emotional sate despite the context of his history with his brothers is all the more remarkable. The emotional component may also explain why he unreservedly endangers himself even according to the disapproving view of R. Chama bar Hanina. Yosef's inability to tolerate his brothers' humiliation or loss of reputation attests to his own deeply ingrained sensitivity and empathy, as well as his profound comprehension of human nature and the corrosive impact of personal degradation. His keen sense of empathy precluded a self-interested stance.
Moreover, Yosef's extraordinary protective posture toward his brothers reflects an exceptional manifestation of family responsibility, identification and loyalty, particularly striking, again, in light of the background of the story. The Torah seems to emphasize that the brother's betrayal of Yosef constitutes a flaw in their very perspective on family ties. Commenting on the verse (37:17) "vayomer ha-ish nasuu mizeh" after Yosef articulates in the previous verse "vayomer et achai ani mevakesh", Chazal note "hisiu atzman min ha-achvah"-that the brothers had abandoned the very concept of brotherhood and family loyalty. Later, as they reassess their conduct, the brothers identify their own flaw as an absence of empathy and sensitivity. Ramban notes that the introspection encapsulated by (42:21) the words "aval asheimim anachnu al acheinu asher rainu tzarat nafsho ve-chithaneno eileinu ve-lo shamaanu" does not focus on regret for the transgression of selling Yosef, but expresses guilt for the insensitivity (achzariyut) of being indifferent to his pleas! When the brothers convey humiliation (Rashi's interpretation of nivhalu mipanav) despite the fact that his introduction addresses them as brothers (45:3-"vayomer Yosef el echav", otherwise superfluous in light of 45:1), he reformulates his perspective unambiguously by further accentuating the irrevocability of the "brother" relationship (45:4): "vayomer Yosef el echav geshu na eilai vayigashu; vayomer ani Yosef achichem asher michartem oti mitzraymah." The Kli Yakar links Yosef's further emphasis of brotherhood in this verse with the contrasting rejection of brotherhood by Yosef's siblings in the verses in Miketz (37:17) cited previously. The Or ha-Chaim adds that Yosef integrates his brotherly posture with a reference to their crime in selling him in order to underscore the irrevocability of brotherly-family ties, even in the context of such a betrayal.
Chazal perceive Yosef's revelation to his brothers both as an exceptionally generous and selfless gesture, as well as a powerful rebuke (Midrash Rabbah - oy lanu mi-yom hadin oy lanu mi-yom hatochachah). The startling contrast between the brothers' shocking multifaceted and gratuitous betrayal of Yosef, and Yosef's hyper-protective stance toward the brothers who had victimized him, constitutes a ringing, albeit possibly an unintended, rebuke more powerful than any words could possibly articulate. Yosef's deeply ingrained sensitivity to the corrosive impact of humiliation, his reflexive empathy toward his brothers, and his profound family identification and intense unqualified family loyalty inexorably accentuated the brother's egregious conduct, provoking initial recriminations and fears (Bereishit 45;24; 50:15-20), but also ultimately inspiring and motivating the kind of personal and national introspection that was essential to the process of teshuvah and the further development of the shevatim into a mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh.