Why was the leadership of Yehuda perpetuated, while that of Yosef did not last?

The opening of our Parasha describes an encounter between two great leaders, Yehuda and Yosef. It is a meeting to which the Midrash applies the Pasuk, “For behold, the kings have assebled” (Tehillim 48:5). Both Yehuda and Yosef were kings; Yehuda led his brothers, while they all bowed before Yosef.  And yet, only one of them perpetuated the leadership within the Jewish people. 

While Yosef received the double inheritance reserved for firstborns (his two children become tribes), Yehuda alone was able to bequeath the kingship to his offspring. As Yaakov Avinu notes on his deathbed, “The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda” (Bereishis 49:10). The lineage of David claimed the true kingship and we await its return with the coming of Mashiach.

What distinguishes one leadership from the other? Why was the one perpetuated while the other did not last?

It seems that Yehuda and Yosef represent two different leadership models. Yosef’s leadership was top-down. In the words of Yaakov Avinu, he was abir Yaakov, the power of the patriarch. Yosef thus continued the stature of our Forefathers into the next generation by begetting tribes – Efraim and Menashe. The Book of Bereishis, the book of the Forefathers, concludes only with the death of Yosef.

Indeed, Yosef’s relationship with his brothers was top-down from the beginning. His policing them and playing the role of informant, his dreams of grandeur and his brothers’ jealosy and resentment, and his rule from the dizzy height of the Egyptian throne – all these represent a top-down leadership that looks down upon subjects from above.

In contrast, Yehuda exemplified leadership from within. To cite again from Yaakov Avinu, “Yehuda, your brothers shall acknowledge you” (Bereishis 49:8). Yehuda’s power was not granted him from an external source but rather from the people. Later, his descendant Shlomo was able to declare before Hashem, “Your servant is among Your nation, which You chose” (I Melachim 3:8). This is quite unlike Shaul (from Binyamin) who was “taller than any of the people” (I Shmuel 9:2). 

This is an entirely a different leadership model. It succeeded where Reuven failed in convincing the brothers to spare Yosef and Yaakov to release Binyamin. Not for nothing does the Torah highlight how Yehuda sinned, yet knew how to repent and admit wrongdoing. Without eliminating the hierarchy that leadership demands, the brothers knew that he was “one of us.” Later, so was King David.

The Leadership that Lasts

Leadership from within is leadership that lasts. Rather than impose domination from above, it draws authority from the people; and rather than smallen subjects before a great monarch, it calls them to grow with a great leader. Yosef may continue to represent the Jewish People to the world (Mordechai did to Persia). The leadership, however, is Yehuda’s.

And what of today?

The Jewish tradition is well acquainted with leadership from within. Even concerning Chazal, the Rambam writes (Introduction to Mishnah Torah) that their binding authority draws from the universal acceptance of the Jewish People. Throughout the generations, rabbis and community leaders have emerged from within and led from among the people.

Moreover, we know the model from our personal lives. Whether as parents, family and community members, employers, and any other social situation, we appreciate the need for balance. Leadership, even hierarchical,is only effective if executed from within.

In our times, the democratic system accentuates this model. Notwithstanding weaknesses, democracies possess the inherent advantage of leadership from within. Yet, the model and its positive aspects require constant vigilance. As Alexis de Tocquville emphasizes throughout his Democracy in America, a democratic society is only as strong as the spirit of the people.

Perhaps as English-speakers with a heightened civic awareness, we have a special responsibility to ensure that here, in the Jewish State, our “leadership from within” (on local, municipal, and national levels) represents us truly and faithfully. It must be a Torah leadership, a leadership of integrity and trust, and a leadership dedicated to our core values. The more representative it is, the more stable and effective it will be.