The Torah tells the story of the complex and tense relationship between Yosef and his brothers. Yosef’s dreams stirred jealousy and conflict, and the brothers plotted to throw him into a pit and kill him. Reuven intervened - he did not oppose throwing Yosef into the pit, but he rejected the idea of killing him, and his advice was followed.
At that moment, a caravan of Ishmaelites passed by, and Yehudah spoke up: “מַה־בֶּצַע כִּי־נַהֲרֹג אֶת אָחִינוּ וְכִסִּינוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ. לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים… וְיָדֵנוּ אַל־תְּהִי־בוֹ.” “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Let us sell him to the Ishmaelites… and our hand shall not be upon him” (Bereshis 37:26-27). Yehudah proposed a compromise: not to kill Yosef, but to sell him. Clearly, this was not the ideal solution - certainly not like sending him safely back to their father - yet it was the practical option in that moment. The brothers accepted his suggestion.
Chazal discuss Yehudah’s actions. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 6b introduces the pasuk “בּוֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה'” “One who blesses a botzea (wrongdoer) - blasphemes G-d.” The Gemara explains: “לא נאמר פסוק זה בבוצע אלא כנגד יהודה…” “This verse was stated not about a generic ‘botzea,’ but specifically regarding Yehudah…” Then Rabbi Meir comments: “וכל המברך את יהודה - הרי זה מנאץ” “And anyone who blesses (praises) Yehudah - this is an insult to God.” This introduces a subtle textual issue: how can Yehudah’s action, which saved Yosef from death, be criticized at all?
There are two possible explanations of this statement. According to the straightforward interpretation, “מברך” means praises. Anyone who praises Yehudah for proposing the sale of Yosef is actually insulting God, because Yehudah had the influence to demand Yosef’s safe return. Had he insisted, the brothers would have obeyed, and Yosef could have been returned safely to Yaakov. To praise only a partial or flawed action is to diminish the moral standard God requires, and this is considered ניאוץ, an affront to Heaven. Rashi explains that Yehudah’s authority was such that a stronger stand could have fully saved Yosef (Rashi on Bereshis 37:26-27).
The Maharsha, however, offers a different perspective. He explains that “מברך” here is not literal praise. In this context, it is a euphemism, a polite or indirect way of signaling criticism. The Torah could have openly censured Yehudah but instead used the term “bless” to convey critique without harsh language. Maharsha writes that anyone who literally blesses Yehudah for saying “What profit is there if we kill our brother…” when they sold Yosef for money without returning him is misreading the text.
The actual intent is that to curse or harshly condemn Yehudah would be improper, because Yehudah acted responsibly under impossible circumstances. He saved Yosef from immediate death in the only way realistically available. Maharsha thus clarifies that the verse is carefully balanced: Yehudah’s action was praiseworthy as a lifesaving compromise, yet it did not achieve the full ideal. Criticizing him for doing what was necessary would be equivalent to insulting God (Maharsha, Chidushei Aggados on Sanhedrin 6b).
Yehudah teaches a critical principle: sometimes the ideal cannot be fully achieved, but we must act for what is possible - without surrendering core principles. This tension recurs throughout Jewish history. During the destruction of Yerushalayim, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai requested only three limited concessions from Aspasianos: “תן לי יבנה וחכמיה… ושושילתא דרבן גמליאל… ותן לי אסוותא דרפאות לר’ צדוק” “Give me Yavneh and its sages… preserve the line of Rabban Gamliel… and provide medical help for Rabbi Tzadok” (Gittin 56b).
He did not ask for the entire city to be spared. The Gemara explains that had he asked for too much, he might have received nothing. “תפסת מרובה - לא תפסת” “If you grasp too much - you grasp nothing.” He sought what was achievable, ensuring the continuity of Torah for generations.
These examples illustrate the eternal challenge of Jewish leadership: knowing when to stand firm and when to acknowledge reality, when to pursue the ideal and when compromise is necessary. Today in Eretz Yisrael, the tensions are even greater, with pressures from political, social, security, and economic forces. Every decision inevitably leaves someone disappointed. Some situations, like the pardon for Netanyahu, allow for discretion and understanding the situation. Other issues, such as the draft law, if affecting Torah study and observance, leave no room for compromise. On the walls of Torah and tradition, there are no concessions. In Torah, there is no compromise - not a single letter, not a single mitzvah, not a single principle. (And that is why the Hasmonaim Brigade was established, ed.)
Yehudah needed Divine assistance. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai needed it. Our leaders today need it even more. Our responsibility is to daven, strengthen ourselves, build unity, and uphold Torah and mitzvos without compromise. As it is written: “אִם ה' לֹא יִבְנֶה בַּיִת - שָׁוְא עָמְלוּ בּוֹנָיו” “If God does not build the house - its builders toil in vain” (Tehillim 127:1). Anything without Torah will collapse. Any decision without yiras Shamayim will fail.
The lesson is clear: know when to stand firm, know when reality requires compromise, and never compromise on Torah and mitzvos.