Why did Jacob anoint Judah, and not Joseph, as his heir apparent? Joseph clearly was Jacob’s favorite, and the one that Jacob was begging to see before he died. Instead, Jacob said that the kingdom of Israel would spring through Judah from which name our people comes, and who was the direct ancestor of King David. If Jacob was going to skip over his first born, go out of succession to birthright and pick another son to lead Israel, why not pick Joseph? (Was it simply that Joseph was heading back to Egypt?)
Hi! This is a really terrific question. I’ve been thinking about it for years! Let me just share with you a few of my thoughts; maybe you’ll have some suggestions as well.
It’s important to remember that all of Jacob’s children were righteous. Unlike the sons of Abraham and Isaac, where one son was chosen to carry on the tradition, Jacob’s family was a whole group of successful children. Each was extraordinary in his way, each had his own unique strengths.
The two sides of the family were quite different. Rachel was more quiet, more inner-directed; Leah more out-going (our Sages say that she was originally slated to marry Esau, the man of the fields). This applied to their offspring as well. Dinah, for instance, was out-going like her mother. Benjamin (from the side of Rachel) is said by our sages as being one of the four people who never did a sin in their lives. And the central part of the Temple mount was placed in his territory.
Now, Joseph was a fascinating character. Wherever he went, people were awed by his greatness and closeness to G-d. They immediately appointed him to run whatever they were in charge of. This happened with Potiphar, with the jailer, and with Pharaoh himself. Maybe we could say that the same thing happened with Joseph’s father Jacob – Joseph was recognized by his father as being the greatest of the brothers, and given a coat that signified his higher position.
I’d like to point out, though, that Joseph tended not to be the leader. He was always put in as second-in-command, as the top administrator. He did a great job at whatever he did, but someone else was always king.
It could be that this is going to be a characteristic of Rachel’s side of the family in general, who are after all more inward-directed. Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, was a very great person, but he was not a good king. His son, Jonathan, said to David that in the end David would be the king; he would be David’s second in command.
Judah, on the other hand, was a born leader. In fact, in the story of Joseph and his brothers, Judah was originally the one who ultimately decided to sell Joseph as a slave. Not good, but it does seem that the brothers respected his leadership. He had the courage to admit his fatherhood of Tamar’s baby(s). He got his father to send Benjamin to Egypt, by taking personal responsibility for the result. And he was the one who eventually got to Joseph’s heart by offering himself as a slave in place of Benjamin, making Joseph break down and admit his identity.
I have a little bit of a feeling that we as Americans tend to have a preference for fame and glory. Whoever is more famous, more outgoing, more powerful, is also better off. I don’t think that the Torah has that perspective. The best brother to be king was chosen to be king. That doesn’t at all detract from the tremendous importance of Joseph’s side of the family.
Best wishes,
Michoel Reach
