Parshas Vayechi
1. On the verse, "ראובן בכורי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת ויתר עז פחז כמים אל תותר גו׳" ("Reuven, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my vigor; superior in rank and superior in power. Restless like water, you shall not have superiority…"),1 Rashi explains the words as follows: "יתר שאת" ("superior in rank") — "You were fit to be superior to your brothers in the priesthood, an expression of the raising of the hands [in the Priestly Blessing]"; "ויתר עז" ("superior in power") — "in kingship… And what caused you to lose all these?"; "פחז כמים" ("restless like water") — "the impetuosity and the haste with which you hastened to show your anger, etc. — therefore"; "אל תותר" ("you shall not have superiority") — "do not take all these superior qualities that were fitting for you, etc."
The Targum2 renders the verse: "הוה חזי למיסב תלתא חולקין בכירותא כהונתא ומלכותא" ("You were fit to receive three portions: the birthright, the priesthood and the kingship") — that Reuven was fit to receive three portions: the birthright, the priesthood and the kingship — and they were not given to him. (This is also stated in Tanchuma3 and in Bereishis Rabbah.4)
This needs to be understood: since the verse also mentions the advantage of the birthright, why does Rashi learn that "you shall not have superiority" refers only to "superior in rank and superior in power" — the priesthood and the kingship5 — and not to the matter of "Reuven, you are my firstborn…", which is stated at the beginning of the verse?6 On the contrary — "you are my firstborn" is the very reason he was fit for the priesthood and for kingship.
One cannot say that Rashi holds that, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the birthright was not taken away from Reuven — for there is an explicit verse in Divrei HaYamim:7 "ובני ראובן בכור ישראל גו׳ ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכורתו לבני יוסף וגו׳" ("And the sons of Reuven, the firstborn of Israel… but because he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef…").
Moreover: a few verses earlier,8 Rashi himself explains (according to one interpretation) that "שכם אחד" ("one portion") "is the birthright, that his sons (Yosef's) should take two portions"; and even earlier, in Parshas Vayishlach,9 Rashi explains: "בכור יעקב, בכור לנחלה בכור לעבודה בכור למנין ולא נתנה בכורה ליוסף אלא לענין השבטים שנעשה לשני שבטים" ("'Yaakov's firstborn' — firstborn for inheritance, firstborn for the service, firstborn for the count; the birthright was given to Yosef only with regard to the tribes, in that he became two tribes"). That is, the birthright ("with regard to the tribes") was taken away from Reuven (because of "he lay…"10) and was given to Yosef.
2. At first glance one could say: from the precise wording of the verse, "you shall not have superiority" (which the verse uses with regard to "all these" that Reuven "lost"), it is evident that the verse comes to exclude only those advantages in connection with which the expression "superiority (of these)" is used — "superior in rank and superior in power," the priesthood and the kingship; whereas the advantage of the birthright, where the expression "superior"11 is not mentioned, is not included in the exclusion of "you shall not have superiority."12
But this is only a proof (from the wording of the verse) in the interpretation of the verse — that it is not speaking here about the loss of the birthright.13 The reason for the matter itself, however, remains not understood: why is the birthright different from the priesthood and the kingship — so that the verse speaks only about Reuven's loss of the priesthood and the kingship, and not about his losing the birthright (with regard to the tribes)?
3. Further, on the verse14 "גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית וגו׳" ("Yehudah is a lion cub; from the prey, my son, you withdrew…"), Rashi explains: "מטרף" ("from the prey") — "From what I suspected you of, in [saying] 'Yosef has surely been torn apart; a wild beast has devoured him'15 — and this is Yehudah, who is compared to a lion"; "בני עלית" ("my son, you withdrew") — "you removed yourself and said, 'What gain is there…'16 And similarly in the killing of Tamar, when he admitted, 'She is more righteous than I'17 etc."
This needs to be understood: from the fact that Rashi adds "And similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc." in his commentary on "my son, you withdrew," and not in his commentary on the word "from the prey," it is evident (seemingly) that "and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc." does not relate to the word "from the prey" (i.e., from the killing of Tamar, as the Midrash18 explains it: "מטרף, מטרפה של תמר" ("'from the prey' — from the prey of Tamar")), but to the words "my son, you withdrew" — that "you withdrew" also means a second "withdrawal" and removal: from the killing of Tamar.
It is not understood: since the words "my son, you withdrew" come in continuation of the word "from the prey," how can one separate them and interpret that "my son, you withdrew" includes two things while "from the prey" means only one thing?
It is also not understood: what compels us at all, in the plain meaning of Scripture, to say that by "you withdrew" Yaakov meant (not only the suspicion of "Yosef has surely been torn apart," but) also the killing of Tamar?19 (For Rashi does not say (as in the Midrash20) that these are two interpretations; rather, he adds it as a continuation: "and similarly in the killing of Tamar.")
4. To the first question one could answer: Rashi does indeed mean to say that "from the prey" refers to both (Yosef and Tamar); and the reason he writes "and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc." only after the explanation of "my son, you withdrew" is in order to establish how "from the prey" can mean the killing of Tamar. By way of introduction:
There are two ways to interpret the plain meaning of "from the prey, my son, you withdrew": a) "my son" goes together with the word "from the prey": "from the prey of my son (Yosef) — you withdrew" (Yehudah).21 b) "my son" relates to "you withdrew":22 "from the prey" — from the matter of the "prey"23 — "my son, you withdrew" (you, my son (Yehudah), withdrew). If one adopts the first interpretation, that "my son" is joined to "from the prey," one cannot learn that "from the prey of my son" (also) includes Tamar.24
Therefore, before Rashi adds "and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc.," he must first pause on "my son, you withdrew" and establish that these words belong together — which is why Rashi quotes from the verse the word "my son" as well (even though to his explanation "you removed yourself" only the word "you withdrew" is relevant) — for precisely according to this, the word "from the prey" can by itself include (two matters —) also the killing of Tamar.
[And Rashi's compelling reason for the interpretation that "my son" goes with "you withdrew":25 Yaakov our forefather was intending here to praise Yehudah; and since even without adding "my son" one understands that "from the prey" refers to Yosef (since we find the expression "torn apart" in connection with him), the emphasis that "from the prey (that is, of) my son" adds no praise. On the contrary: it gives room to say that only because this was the "prey" of Yaakov's son (and his own brother) did Yehudah withdraw.
Therefore the plain meaning of Scripture follows the second way: "from the prey — my son (Yehudah), you withdrew."]
It still remains not understood (as above): granted that "from the prey" can mean (also) the killing of Tamar, but where does Rashi find a compelling reason that "from the prey" means both things? Especially since in connection with Tamar the expression "prey" is not used.
5. We will understand this by first raising a general difficulty in this matter: the superiority of kingship, which was taken away from Reuven, was given to Yehudah (as it is written in Divrei HaYamim,26 "כי יהודה גבר באחיו ולנגיד ממנו" ("for Yehudah prevailed over his brothers, and the ruler came from him")). This is what Yaakov meant with the words "Yehudah is a lion cub…," and as Rashi explains,27 this is the matter of kingship that was given to him (David,28 Shlomo, etc.). The reason it was given to Yehudah is stated in the blessing itself — "from the prey, my son, you withdrew"29 — and as Rashi concludes his commentary on "from the prey, my son, you withdrew": "(and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc.) therefore 'he crouched…'"
It is not understood: Yehudah's merit — that he withdrew from that of which "I suspected you, in 'Yosef has surely been torn apart; a wild beast has devoured him'" by saying "What gain is there…" — was also present in Reuven, as is related in Parshas Vayeshev,30 that Reuven said "לא נכנו נפש" ("Let us not take his life"). And likewise Yehudah's merit, that he admitted (in the episode of Tamar), "She is more righteous than I," is also found in Reuven, who repented for "you defiled my bed which you ascended," as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayeshev:31 "במכירתו לא היה .. עסוק היה בשקו ובתעניתו על שבלבל יצועי אביו" ("He was not present at his sale… he was occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting for having disturbed his father's bed").
On the contrary, in both these details Reuven's merit is seemingly greater than Yehudah's:
a) Yehudah's saving Yosef from being killed was not done with the intention of returning him to his father, but in order to sell him to the Ishmaelites;32 especially since: (i) he had the power to bring him back to Yaakov, as Rashi cites33 that the tribes said to him, "אילו אמרת להשיבו היינו שומעים לך" ("Had you said to return him, we would have listened to you"); (ii) his saying "What gain is there…" means (according to Rashi) "what money, etc." — that is, the reason he did not allow them to kill him was that they would gain nothing from it, and therefore he said, "Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites" (and earn "money").34
Whereas Reuven wanted to return him to Yaakov, as the verse says35 explicitly: "למען הציל אותו מידם להשיבו אל אביו" ("in order to rescue him from their hand, to return him to his father").
b) In Yehudah's admission (regarding the episode of Tamar): (i) we find only his one-time statement, "She is more righteous than I." (ii) Mainly: had he not admitted, he would have caused the killing of Tamar (and of the fetuses in her womb);36 so it is understood that Yehudah had to admit.
By contrast, with Reuven: (i) his repentance was such that so many years afterward he was still continuing to repent (for the sale of Yosef took place about nine years37 after he disturbed his father's bed); (ii) his repentance took the form of being "occupied… with his sackcloth and his fasting"; (iii) the act of "disturbing his father's bed" was done (as Rashi explains38) because "תבע עלבון אמו" ("he protested his mother's humiliation") — he did it out of honor for his mother — to the point that it is not even considered a sin, as Rashi cites, "ללמדנו שכולן שוין וכולן צדיקים שלא חטא ראובן" ("to teach us that they were all equal and all righteous, for Reuven did not sin"), and therefore "even at the time of the misdeed he called him firstborn"39 — and nevertheless Reuven increased in repentance.
Accordingly it is all the more puzzling: how can "from the prey, my son, you withdrew" be a reason that Yehudah is more fit for kingship than Reuven?40
6. We will understand this by explaining Yaakov's words to Reuven, "Restless like water, you shall not have superiority…," which Rashi explains: "(And what caused you to lose all these?) 'Restless like water' — the impetuosity and haste with which you hastened to show your anger, etc. — therefore. 'You shall not have superiority' — do not take all these superior qualities, etc. And what was the impetuosity with which you acted?" (and Rashi continues his commentary on "for you ascended your father's bed; then you defiled it").
From the sequence of Rashi's words it is understood that the reason Reuven did not receive "all these superior qualities" is not the act itself of "you ascended your father's bed…," but the "restlessness like water — the impetuosity and haste with which you hastened to show your anger" (it is only that this "impetuosity" expressed itself — "and what was the impetuosity, etc." — in the matter of "you ascended…").41
That is, from the fact that Yaakov first mentions and separately emphasizes the deficiency of "restless like water," Rashi derives that in the matter of "disturbing his father's bed" there are two details: a) the disturbance itself; b) that it was done in a manner of "restless like water" —
and that for each of these two details there was a separate punishment: a) for disturbing his father's bed, the birthright was taken from him (at least "with regard to the tribes"), as it is written in Divrei HaYamim, "because he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given…"42 (and as Rashi already cites in Parshas Vayishlach43 that "the birthright was given to Yosef"); and b) for "restless like water… you hastened to show your anger" — "you shall not have superiority; do not take all these superior qualities" — the priesthood and the kingship (as above, section 2).
7. The explanation of this:
The difference between the priesthood and kingship on the one hand and the birthright on the other: the advantages of the priesthood and of kingship express themselves mainly (and especially in our context) in relation to others, in their dealing with others. The function of a king is "אשר יצא לפניהם גו׳" ("who will go out before them…"),44 to provide for the affairs and needs of the country, and so on; and as Rashi explains here on "cub" — "who leads Israel out and brings them in," and on "he crouched, he lay down" — "each man under his vine…." So too the priesthood, one of whose principal functions is (as Rashi explains here on "superior in rank") the raising of the hands — blessing Jews45 [as well as teaching Jews the laws and rulings of the Torah, as it is written:46 "ובאת אל הכהנים גו׳ והגידו לך את דבר המשפט .. על פי התורה אשר יורוך גו׳" ("And you shall come to the Kohanim… and they shall tell you the word of judgment… according to the Torah which they shall teach you…")].
Whereas the birthright is an advantage that concerns the firstborn himself (because of the advantage and importance of the birthright he receives a double portion of the inheritance, etc.), not in connection with another.47
And this is the explanation of the two details mentioned above: the matter of "restless like water… you hastened to show your anger" [as soon as he concluded that his father's bed ought to be in Leah's tent, anger arose in him — against another — and he acted on it immediately ("you hastened to show your anger") and disturbed his father's bed (in another's tent)] is a conduct contrary to caring for the good of others. Therefore the punishment for it was also measure for measure: the priesthood48 and kingship49 were taken from him.
Whereas the "misdeed" itself of disturbing his father's bed shows that he made an error in his thinking — that out of honor for his mother ("שפחת אחות אמי תהא צרה לאמי" ("shall my mother's sister's maidservant be a rival to my mother?")50) his father's bed ought to be in Leah's tent. And since the error is a "flaw" in himself, therefore, correspondingly, he lost the advantage and importance that relates to himself alone — the birthright.
[According to this one can also understand the essential distinction that, according to Rashi and the plain meaning of Scripture, the birthright as a whole was not taken away from Reuven51 — he remained "firstborn for inheritance," etc. — only the birthright "with regard to the tribes" was taken from him, whereas the priesthood and kingship he lost entirely —
because the act itself of "disturbing his father's bed" is not so severe (since Reuven's intention was to protest "his mother's humiliation"), to the point that, as Rashi explains (as above, section 5), "Reuven did not sin,"52 "even at the time of the misdeed he called him firstborn," and his repentance was in the manner of "he was occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting" for so many years — therefore only the birthright "with regard to the tribes" was taken from him.]
8. This is also the explanation of why the "superiority" of kingship was given to Yehudah because of "from the prey, my son, you withdrew" (even though Reuven had a greater merit than Yehudah, as above):
The difference between the "from the prey, my son, you withdrew" of Yehudah and that of Reuven: through Yehudah's "from the prey, my son, you withdrew," a rescue of another actually resulted. Yehudah's saying "What gain is there…" saved Yosef from "let us kill him," and it took him out of the pit (which had "snakes and scorpions in it"53); and through his saying "She is more righteous than I," Tamar was saved from burning.
With Reuven, although his repentance and intention were greater than Yehudah's, this was a merit in himself, not in connection with the good and the rescue of another. His saying "Let us not take his life… cast him into this pit… in order to rescue him from their hand, to return him to his father" shows his intention — but in actuality Yosef was not thereby removed from the danger of death by starvation (only — "do not lay a hand upon him") [especially since the pit had "snakes and scorpions in it."
Although in the plain meaning of Scripture one can say that Reuven did not know about this54 and is therefore not to blame for it, in actuality Yosef was in danger].
So too regarding the merit of Reuven's repentance, that "he was occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting for having disturbed his father's bed": this was a matter that had no connection with another.55 Moreover: had Reuven not been "occupied… with his sackcloth and his fasting" at the time of the sale of Yosef, he might have found a way to save Yosef56 (just as he had earlier influenced his brothers that "let us not take his life") and ultimately return him "to his father." Precisely because he was occupied with himself (indeed with lofty matters, "with his sackcloth and his fasting," but nonetheless with his own affairs) did the sale of Yosef come about.
Therefore it is precisely Yehudah's "from the prey, my son, you withdrew" — his actually standing up for another, and his admitting, etc., in connection with saving another — that is proof that he is fit for kingship (whereas Reuven, the great elevation of whose repentance, etc., is a merit for himself, is fit for the birthright in general, but not fit for kingship57).58
[According to the above, it is simply understood why Rashi explains "from the prey, my son, you withdrew" as referring to both things (the sale of Yosef and the episode of Tamar): Yaakov wanted to bring out Yehudah's merit relative to Reuven (which is why "a lion cub…" — the matter of kingship — was transferred from Reuven to Yehudah); and since with Reuven we find two matters — his wanting to save Yosef and his repentance for "disturbing his father's bed" — it is reasonable that Yaakov emphasized Yehudah's merit in both these matters.]
9. The lesson from this is simply understood:
A Jew may not be satisfied with being entirely occupied only with his own perfection; he must also be involved in Ahavas Yisrael, in doing a favor for another Jew. Moreover: since Ahavas Yisrael "זהו כל התורה כולה" ("is the entire Torah"),59 even when he himself is not on as lofty a level as another, who is entirely immersed in working on his own elevation and perfection — nevertheless, since he occupies himself with the good of others, he is connected with "the entire Torah."
This is even more evident in the outcomes of the two modes of conduct of Reuven and Yehudah:
Through Reuven's being "occupied with his sackcloth and his fasting," the sale of Yosef became possible, and after that the exile of Egypt, the head (and root) of all the exiles;60
whereas through Yehudah's saying "She is more righteous than I" — although this does not reach the merit of Reuven's repentance — nevertheless it is precisely on this that the redemption from exile depends: through it Peretz was born, from whom descends the kingship of the House of David,61 down to King Moshiach — "עלה הפורץ לפניהם גו׳" ("the one who breaks through has gone up before them…")62 — the final redeemer, who will break through the barriers of the exile and bring the true and complete Redemption, speedily, in very truth.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi, 5730)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 49:3-4.
2) Onkelos; and similarly in Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi here.
3) Our parsha, 9.
4) Ch. 98:4; ch. 99:6. And so too in Aggadas Bereishis ch. 82 (83).
5) See also Ohr HaChaim here.
6) As for what the Re'em and the Meturgeman write — that the Targum's mention of the birthright as well is not from the wording of the verse but is his own addition, since the Targum refers to the words "superior in rank and superior in power" — see Bereishis Rabbah ch. 99, ibid. (and similarly in Aggadas Bereishis, ibid.): "the birthright, as it is written, 'Reuven, you are my firstborn.'" But in Tanchuma, ibid.: "'Superior' — the birthright, which is two portions."
7) I Divrei HaYamim 5:1.
8) 48:22.
9) 35:23. See also Rashi, Vayetzei 29:32.
10) Ibid., 22.
11) Tanchuma, ibid., explains that "superior" refers to the birthright (as above, note 6) — but it is evident that this is not the plain meaning.
12) Perhaps this is the intent of the Re'em in writing that "the birthright is not included in 'rank' and 'power'"; see there.
13) In Tanchuma Buber (our parsha, 11): "Yours was the fitting high priesthood… yours was the fitting kingship," and the birthright is not mentioned. But it is understood that there must be a compelling reason, in terms of the plain meaning, to explain it so.
Note that in Tanchuma Buber (Vayetzei 13) it states: "'He may not grant the birthright to the son of the beloved' — to Yosef. Why? 'For the firstborn, the son of the hated one, he shall acknowledge' — this is Reuven, as it says, 'Reuven, you are my firstborn…'" (i.e., "Reuven, you are my firstborn" means that he remained the firstborn*). See below, note 51.
*) Note that this exposition is also cited in Aggadas Bereishis ch. 48 (49), although in our parsha it explains that "three crowns were taken from you… were it not for this, 'you are my firstborn' — this is the birthright, etc." (as above, notes 4 and 6).
14) 49:9.
15) Vayeshev 37:33 (in reverse order).
16) Vayeshev, ibid., 26.
17) Vayeshev 38:26.
18) Bereishis Rabbah ch. 98:7; ch. 99:8. Tanchuma, our parsha, 10.
19) See Devek Tov and Maskil LeDavid here.
20) Bereishis Rabbah ch. 99, ibid. (which is not so in Tanchuma and in Bereishis Rabbah ch. 98, ibid.).
21) See Tanchuma, ibid.; Sechel Tov here; and elsewhere.
22) See Targum Yonasan here, and elsewhere. See also Rashbam here.
23) See Chizkuni here.
24) See Re'em and Divrei David here.
25) The Re'em here writes (in the second reason) that the compelling reason is from this itself: "that the word 'from the prey' includes the prey of Yosef and the prey of Tamar, etc." But from the fact that Rashi writes his explanation on "my son, you withdrew" before writing "and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc.," it is evident that there is a compelling reason for this even without the explanation "and similarly in the killing of Tamar, etc."
26) Ibid., 5.
27) See also Rashi on Divrei HaYamim, ibid.
28) The compelling reason to explain it so — and not that it refers to Yehudah himself (especially since Rashi continues (s.v. "from the prey"), "this is Yehudah, who is compared to a lion"): from the doubled expression "lion cub" it is evident that there are two levels ("at first a cub… and in the end a lion"), and we find two periods in the matter of kingship only with David. Therefore Rashi cites "this is what Onkelos translated, etc." — to exclude Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi, which translated "a cub, son of a lion."
29) See also Baal HaTurim here. See also the words of our Sages: Mechilta, Beshalach 14:22; Midrash Tehillim, Psalm 76:2; Tosefta Berachos ch. 4:16; Tanchuma, our parsha, 10; Bereishis Rabbah ch. 99:8; and elsewhere.
30) 37:21. See also Mikeitz 42:22.
31) Ibid., 29.
32) See also Riva on the Torah here.
33) Vayeshev 38:1.
34) See Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados, Sanhedrin 6b.
35) Vayeshev 37:22. See Rashi there.
36) And in Rashi, Vayeshev (38:25): "and do not destroy three souls."
37) For after Yosef's birth Yaakov worked six years with Lavan's flocks (Rashi, Toldos 28:9), and they spent two years on the way (old edition of Rashi, Toldos, ibid.; see also Rashi, Vayishlach 33:17), and at the end of these came Reuven's deed (Vayishlach 35:22) — according to what is written in Seder HaDoros (from Rabbeinu Bachya, beginning of Shemos). Yosef was then at least eight years and four months old — and Yosef was sold at the age of seventeen.
38) Vayishlach 35:22.
39) Rashi, ibid., 23.
40) See the response of R. Tarfon [reading uncertain; OCR: דריש (ר"ע)] — in the Mechilta, Midrash Tehillim and Tosefta cited above in note 29. But note Rashi on Divrei HaYamim, ibid., 1.
41) See the question of the Ohr HaChaim here; and elsewhere.
42) And what is stated there, "for Yehudah prevailed over his brothers…," is a parenthetical statement, as Rashi explains there ("and if you ask: if so, why did the descendants of Yosef not reign, etc.").
43) See note 9.
44) Pinchas 27:17.
45) See also Rashi, Eikev (10:8): "the Kohanim — that is, the raising of the hands."
46) Shoftim 17:9-11.
47) See below, note 58.
48) Accordingly, it is all the more understandable why Rashi explains that "rank" is an expression of the raising of the hands [Priestly Blessing], and not as in Sechel Tov here: "'Rank' — a superior gift… the gifts of the priesthood" — for the emphasis here is on a matter of the good of others. [The right edge of this note is cut off in the OCR; the missing letters were restored from context.]
49) See also Abarbanel here.
And note regarding the halachah: the raising of the hands must be done with love [OCR unclear at line edge], and not, etc. (Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, 128:19); regarding a king, see Rambam, Laws of Kings, end of ch. 2.
50) Rashi, Vayishlach 35:22.
51) According to this commentary of Rashi there is no room (in terms of the plain meaning) for the question of the commentators: how did Yaakov transfer the birthright to [Yosef — OCR unclear], when it is stated (Seitzei 21:16), "He may not grant the birthright…," and [OCR unclear] (133b): "even from a bad son to a good son" — for in Rashi's view (in terms of the plain meaning) Reuven was "firstborn for inheritance… and the birthright was given to Yosef only with regard to the tribes, etc." See Tanchuma (Vayetzei) cited above in note 13. And see Rashi on our parsha 48:5-6 (and Ramban there), that there is no practical difference in Efraim and Menasheh being two tribes with regard to inheritance (and this is difficult; see at length in Rashi's commentators there). But see the second interpretation in Rashi on our parsha 48:22 (cited at the beginning of this Sicha): "this is the birthright, that his sons should take two portions, etc." This is not the place to elaborate.
According to Rashi, that "the birthright was given to Yosef only with regard to the tribes, etc.," the precise wording of the verse in Divrei HaYamim, "his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef," is simply resolved (see [OCR unclear: תורת יחי] 48:22; and elsewhere).
52) Although there was a misdeed in it (in Rashi's words, "even at the time of the misdeed, etc."). See also Rashi, Berachah 33:6. And Rashi's wording (Vayishlach, ibid.), "that they were all equal and all righteous, for Reuven did not sin," is similar to what is explicitly stated: "Will You slay a nation even if it is righteous?", even though "cleanness of hands" was not present there (Vayera 20:4-5; Rashi there, 6).
53) Rashi, Vayeshev 37:24.
54) As the Ramban writes, Vayeshev, ibid.; and elsewhere.
55) See Chizkuni, Berachah (33:7) — according to Rashi's view — that Reuven's confession was only in private, and through Yehudah's public confession he caused Reuven too to publicize his confession (and similarly in Tosafos, s.v. "Mi Bikesh," 92a).
And note that according to what is explained in Sotah (end of 7b), that Reuven confessed "so that his brothers should not be suspected," it follows that as long as Reuven did not confess publicly there was room for Yaakov to suspect his brothers, and nevertheless he did not confess until Yehudah caused it, etc.
56) Perhaps he could have taken him out of the pit when his brothers sat down "to eat bread." See Rashi, Vayeshev (ibid., 22); Vayetzei 29:32.
57) Note Panim Yafos, Berachah (ibid., 6): "His repentance was more effective than Reuven's… so that from him came kingship and the court… for through his confession he brought merit to Reuven, etc."
58) Nevertheless, Reuven was "firstborn for the service" — for the service, especially before the Giving of the Torah (as we find with the altars, etc., of Avraham and Yaakov), does not relate (so much) to others, but is an advantage in the firstborn himself.
59) Tanya, ch. 32 (based on Shabbos 31a).
60) For all the kingdoms are called by the name of Egypt (Bereishis Rabbah ch. 16:4; see also the maamar beginning "Kol Dodi," 5709, at its beginning).
61) End of Megillas Rus.
62) Michah 2:13. Aggadas Bereishis, end of ch. 63. Rashi on Bereishis Rabbah ch. 85:14.
Key Lesson
Yehudah, not Reuven, received the kingship because his deeds actually saved others, while Reuven's greater repentance stayed a personal achievement. A Jew may not be content with perfecting himself alone; he must also do good for another Jew, which connects him with the entire Torah. It is precisely through such care for others, as with Yehudah's descendant Moshiach, that the true and complete Redemption comes.