Vayigash: Understanding your adversary
Vayigash: Understanding your adversary

In last week’s Torah portion, the primary focus was on Joseph’s plan to guide his brothers through the painful reconciliation necessary to lay the foundation of the future nation. Joseph’s incredible leadership throughout this process, cementing his role for future generations. However, he is not the only leader amongst the brothers. In this week’s Torah portion, the focus shifts dramatically to Judah’s defining moment of leadership, as he steps forward during a time of crisis and confronts Joseph. From the very beginning of this event, we are given a window into Judah’s plan, and get a better sense of why he personifies the ideal leader.

The drama leading up to Judah’s confrontation is well known. At this point in the story, Binyamin (Benjamin) had been accused of stealing from the viceroy of Egypt and the fate of the Jewish nation hangs in the balance. The Torah portion now begins (Bereishit 44:18):

Then Judah approached (vayigash) him and said, "Please, my lord, let now your servant speak something into my lord's ears, and let not your wrath be kindled against your servant, for you are like Pharaoh.”

The Sages analyze the word “vayigash”, and explain that there are three different types of “approaches”. One refers to an approach of war, another of appeasing, and the final one of prayer and supplication. Judah made use of all three in dealing with Joseph. What idea is being conveyed here? Of the three different uses of “vayigash”, the one referring to war seems to be the strangest one. In a situation where the brothers were at the mercy of the viceroy of Egypt, it would seem unwise to use a challenging and aggressive tone.

At the end of this verse, Judah compares Joseph to Pharaoh, a smart tactical move. Yet Rashi adds an entirely new layer to this comparison:
This is its simple meaning. Its midrashic meaning is, however: You will ultimately be punished with leprosy because of him, just as Pharaoh was punished because of my great-grandmother Sarah for the one night that he detained her (Gen. 12:17). Another explanation: Just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not carry them out, makes promises and does not fulfill them, so do you. Now, is this the “setting of an eye,” concerning which you said [that you wanted] “to set your eye upon him” ? (this is a reference to a midrashic idea that Pharaoh decreed he would never elevate a slave to a position of stature). Another explanation: For like you, so is Pharaoh-if you provoke me, I will kill you and your master.”

Rashi is taking what would appear to be a sensible statement by Judah and complicating things quite a bit. For one, he offers three different possible explanations for what should be a simple idea. Why such convolution? Moreover, how do we relate to these explanations literally? For example, are we really to believe that Judah was threatening Joseph? Did Judah really mention that Pharaoh abandoned a decree? What overall idea, then, is Rashi trying to convey?

No doubt, there is one theme that courses through the above explanations. Judah’s verbal exchange with Joseph was not a spontaneous emotional outburst. Rather, Judah’s words were the product of a brilliant mind, a thought-out and amazingly powerful plan that was the exact dialogue needed in this situation.

The first Midrash directs us to see Judah’s approach as a three-pronged assault. Judah recognized that preventing Binyamin from being taken by this viceroy was of the utmost importance as failure to do so would result in the destruction of the burgeoning nation. There was no way to predict how Joseph would respond to whatever plea Judah put forth. Therefore, he attempts to convey in his message multiple subtleties and various tones, assuming that one of them will have the needed impact It is for this reason that there was a hint of aggression in Judah’s approach, this idea of “war”. It could be Judah was trying to convey to Joseph just how serious this situation was.

To someone in Joseph’s position of power imprisoning one individual is not particularly significant. Judah therefore risked employing a slightly aggressive tone to ensure that Joseph understood that this was not a simple matter and to enable him to view the situation from their perspective rather than from that of a leader. At the same time, there was a tone of appeasement, an attempt to assuage Joseph’s anger. Judah recognized that a rational conclusion could never be reached with someone in an angry state of mind.. Joseph needed to see matters clearly, rather than in the fog of rage.

Finally, Judah conveyed an attitude of supplication, demonstrating to Joseph how they were completely dependent on his mercy. Appealing to the ego of the viceroy could be a very powerful tool in securing Binyamin’s release. Judah was not just speaking his mind when addressing Joseph. He was, in fact, applying a medley of psychological techniques to offer him the best chance at saving Binyamin.

The last part of the verse supports this overall approach, and adds a critical element to Judah’s entire plan. Comparing Joseph to the ruler of Egypt was another tactic that incorporated multiple considerations. Judah understood that the relationship between a second-in-command and his superior is quite complex, like a vice president to a president.

The viceroy may feel he is no different from his superior, that he could be just as good as the current leader. He may desire the position, biding his time until he can take over. The assurance Judah gives to Joseph that he will meet the same fate as a former Pharaoh is targeting this emotion, this vision that the viceroy saw himself on equal footing as Pharaoh himself.

There are other situations where a second-in-command understands he is a reflection of the leader, an extension of the position. He seeks to mimic the leader and to follow his lead, as a student to a mentor. Judah understood this possibility and thereby alluded to Pharaoh’s previous unfulfilled decree.

Finally, there are situations where the second-in-command truly understands how he is utterly dependent on the leader for his position. The Pharaoh is more than just a mentor – he is a superego. In such a situation, the destruction of the leader is equal to his own annihilation. Judah was hinting to this type of relationship as well in this “threat” of comparison. Rashi is showing us an extraordinary insight into the wisdom of Judah, and how he used his knowledge of how his adversary might react to guide his approach.

One can see from the above how Judah is the consummate leader. He attempts to understand his “opponent”, thinking carefully and strategically rather than relying on outbursts. He tries to anticipate potential outcomes. He avoids caricaturizing, and considers the nature of who he is facing.

The lessons from Judah are just as applicable today. A great leader must always be able to rationally assess the situation he or she is facing, and avoid being led by emotions. A leader must appreciate his or her adversary, analyzing and anticipating. He or she must avoid stereotypes, as if the person is guided by only one specific way of thinking. The adversary’s psychological makeup should be respected and internalized, rather than viewed in a simplistic “one-size-fits-all” outlook.

Our leaders today should turn to the model set forth by Judah, as his leadership was one that reflected the outlook of wisdom that is the hallmark of the Jewish nation.