The beginning of Parashat Va-Yigash is an example of an event where the Torah records the words of a character (in this case, Judah) but does not discuss his internal frame of mind. Was he submissive to the mysterious ruler of Egypt who was now about to take away Benjamin? Was he, on the contrary, threatening or confrontational to the Egyptian? The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis 93:6) cites various three opinions on the matter and states:

Then Judah came near unto him: R. Judah, R. Nehemiah and the Rabbis commented. R. Judah said, “He came near for battle, as in the verse, So Joab and the people that were with him drew nigh unto battle (II Samuel x:13).” R. Nehemiah said: He came near for conciliation [to appease him], as in the verse, Then the children of Judah came near unto Joshua (Josh. xiv:6)- to conciliate him [to appease him].” The Rabbis said, “Coming near applies to prayer, as in the verse, And it came to pass at the time of the evening offering that Elijah the prophet came near, etc. (I Kings, xviii:36).” R. Leazar combined all three views: “I come whether it [will] be for battle, for conciliation, or for prayer.”

If one scans R. Menachem Mendel Kasher’s collection of Midrashim on the topic in his monumental Torah Shelemah, one in fact finds that apparently, the majority of midrashic comments seem to that Judah actually threatened the ruler (as does Rashi, in his commentary ad loc.). In other words, Judah came for battle. Here and there, however, here are some sources that follow the shitah of R. Nehemiah understand that Judah was really, sincerely pleading for Benjamin and was honestly offering to serve s a slave in place of Benjamin. He was definitely not threatening the ruler of Egypt, explicitly or obliquely. An example of this latter opinion written in the medieval era can be found in a remarkable work called Coat of Many Cultures: The Story of Joseph in Spanish Literature 1200-1492 (Selected, Translated, and Introduced by Michael McGaha [Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1997]). On p. 331ff. of that work he cites the interpretation of Judah’s words to the ruler of Egypt found in the 13^th century book General estoria (General History). First, a few words about this source are in order.

The General estoria (General History) (begun 1272) of Alfonso X the Learned, King of Castile (1221-1284), has been described as the first attempt to write a history of the world in a modern language (in this case, medieval Castilian, a forerunner to modern Spanish). The principle sources of the General estoria are the Bible, Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, Peter Comestor’s 12^th century Historia Scholastica and the Book of Roads and Kingdoms of Abu ‘Ubaid al-Bakri (d. 1094), “the most important geographer that Arab Spain ever produced.” How involved in the actual production of the work was King Alfonso? It is difficult to tell. It is known that he “caused to be assembled” the various sources, “selected from them the most reliable and the best that I knew,” and then “made this book” and “commanded” it to be written.” In general, the book has been praised as a medieval work that contains the “inclusion of many humanizing details.”

The question is: how does this work, as a representative example of a medieval interpretation of the Bible, look at the words of Judah to the mysterious ruler? The words of the General History read as follows:

When Judah had spoken these words, he bent his knees and prostrated himself on the ground before him, and said again, “Sir, I am your servant, and if you want to punish this deed, and take revenge for it, take me, and order all the punishments you like done unto me, but be so kind as to release Benjamin so that he may go with his brothers to his father, that his father not perish on his account. Unless he goes, I shall never return nor stand before my father to see him die of this pain. For all of us- both we and our father- are still grieving over the loss of the other one, and every day our grief over him weighs more heavily on our hearts, and our longing for him; and we are comfortless, and want to perish because of him. Sir, have pity on our father and on us. As I have just said, this is the great man’s honor: to forgive a great mistake and thereby be like God, Who does likewise and thence to win grace and honor.”

In short, this work followed the shitah of R. Nehemiah.

It may be that davka in this type of depiction of Judah’s approach towards Joseph, in the portrait already adumbrated and prefigured by the shitah of R. Nehemiah in the Midrash, there is an analogue in the halakhot of teshuvah. When one repents, one cannot hold on to any aspect of his former behavior. If he does, he would be “immersing with an [impure] insect in his hands, which invalidates his repentance.” Judah, along with his brothers, had to (and indeed did) repent of their actions regarding Joseph. They certainly did not want to let Benjamin stay in Egypt and cause their aged father Jacob even more pain. But they also had to let go of the violence that characterized their behavior towards their little brother, when “we looked on at his anguish, yet paid no heed as he pleaded with us (Genesis 42:21).” According to this approach, Judah had to let go of that aspect of his personality. If he would threaten to kill the ruler of Egypt, he would still be carrying a bit of a “might makes right” perspective. But Judah had to stop not only violence, but threats of violence. He had to follow the celebrated Mishnah in Pirke Abot that states the following: “Who is strong? He that conquers his desire.”

Perhaps R. Nehemiah means to stress that only by truly coming not in war but as a contrite individual, Judah proved that he had turned over a new leaf. When Joseph saw that, he proceeded to reveal himself to his brothers, and the reunification of the sons of Jacob could start anew. And Judah could truly be the subject of his father’s blessing,”You, O Judah, Your brothers shall praise (Genesis 49:8).