Yehuda, Yaakov, and Sons

   Several different reasons have been offered for why the Torah disrupts the narrative of Yosef’s sale as a slave and his subsequent experiences in Egypt with the seemingly unrelated story of Yehuda and Tamar.  Rashi (38:1) cites one view from the Midrash that finds the point of connection in the Torah’s introduction to the story of Yehuda – “Va-yered Yehuda mei’eit echav” (literally, “Yehuda descended from his brothers”) – which implies a kind of demotion.  Yehuda had been regarded as the leader of the brothers, and the tragedy of mekhirat Yosef marked a grave failure of leadership which prompted the brothers to depose Yehuda from his stature.  Another view in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 85) focuses on Tamar’s choice of words when sending a message to Yehuda as she was about to be executed: “Look, please, to whom this signet, garment and staff belong” (38:18).  The phrase “haker na” (“look, please”) is the identical phrase used by the brothers when they produced to Yaakov Yosef’s bloodstained cloak (37:32).  Yehuda’s tribulations told in the story of his sons and Tamar might thus be viewed as a kind of divine response to the ploy he and his brothers devised to mislead their father, as suggested by the voicing of the same words they uttered when deceiving Yaakov.

Additionally, the story of Yehuda might perhaps serve as a parallel to the story of Yosef, as the two prominent sons of Yaakov – one from Leah, and one from Rachel – both separate from the family and find themselves in complex situations as a result of seduction – Yehuda is forced to publicly confess impregnating his daughter-in-law, and Yosef is sent to prison after refusing Potifar’s wife.  Together, these two concurrent series of events cast a dark cloud over the future of Yaakov’s family, and of the nation which they are destined to produce, setting the stage for the miraculous revival of the family and its growth into a large nation.

There may also be another, more subtle, aspect of this story that bears relevance to the developing saga of Yosef.  After the death of his eldest son, Er, who left behind no children,Yehuda instructed his second son, Onan, to marry the widow in accordance with the laws of yibum (levirate marriage) that were, apparently, practiced back then.  When Onan also died after his marriage, Yehuda chose not to allow his third son, Sheila, to marry Tamar, suspecting – perhaps irrationally – that he might meet the same fate as his two older brothers.  Yehuda’s situation at that point strongly resembled the situation that his father would face later, at the time of the great famine in Canaan.  Yaakov sent his sons to purchase grain in Egypt, and Yosef – the Egyptian vizier who oversaw the distribution of grain – demanded that they bring the youngest brother, Binyamin, the next time they come to Egypt, imprisoning Shimon as a guarantee.  When the brothers returned to Canaan and informed Yaakov of the vizier’s demand, he refused to allow them to take Binyamin to Egypt.  Having already lost two sons during travel – Yosef and Shimon – he feared for the wellbeing of his youngest, Binyamin.  Like Yehuda, who refused to allow his youngest child to follow the route that led to his older brothers’ untimely deaths, Yaakov refused to allow Binyamin to travel away from home after the tragedies that befell two of his older brothers when they journeyed far from home.  (This point was made in an article by Eitan Finkelstein.)

What might be the significance of this parallel?  How does this resemblance between the situations faced by Yaakov and Yehuda contribute to our understanding of the events?

            One possibility, perhaps, is that Yehuda’s background is what ultimately persuaded Yaakov to allow Binyamin to travel with his brothers to Egypt.  As we read later, the conditions in Canaan deteriorated and the brothers again demanded that Yaakov allow them to take Binyamin to Egypt so they could go purchase grain.  When Yaakov again refused, attempts were made to persuade him.  Finally, Yehuda gave his father his word that he would personally guarantee Binyamin’s safe return, at which point Yaakov relented.  Why did Yehuda’s guarantee change Yaakov’s mind?  Why was he prepared to send Binyamin on this journey after receiving Yehuda’s pledge?  Possibly, Yaakov knew that Yehuda fully understood his position.  Having personally experienced the precise same situation, Yehuda could be trusted to identify with Yaakov’s fears.  And thus Yaakov felt confident that, at very least, Yehuda would take his responsibility seriously.  This was not an empty guarantee made in a desperate attempt to change the mind of an obstinate old father; rather, this was a genuine commitment borne out of a deep understanding of the predicament and the desire to ensure a favorable outcome.  It was specifically the tragic story of Yehuda’s sons that ultimately facilitated the brothers’ return to Egypt, as it allowed Yaakov to feel confident in Yehuda’s commitment to ensure Binyamin’s safe return.