The perasha begins at a moment of climax- All seems lost. An innocent descent to Egypt to purchase food has ended up with Benyamin in prison, and it seems that due to the actions of the brothers, the descendents of Rachel are at risk of total decimation, which they know would compound their father's already unrelieved grief to beyond mortal tolerance. In an act of desperation, Yehudah steps forward and begins to plead with the hostile sovereign for his brother's life. The text uses some unusual language- its says" Vayigash Elav Yehudah" Yehudah encountered him. The use of the term vayigash, from the root hagasha, (to come close, also to prepare) is somewhat unusual, both linguistically and from the fact that they were in the same room. And who is the word "Elav", "to him" referring to?

In fact, it is valuable to establish why the Text needs to quote Yehuda's speech at such length. There is seemingly nothing new revealed in terms of the linear development of the plot; we are given no new facts and no new personal revelations. Yet this speech is very extensively analyzed by the Midrashim. The Midrash choreographs entire dialogues lurking behind the words of Yehudah, referring to all sorts of hidden meanings, both conciliatory and threatening; the prelude in the Midrash Rabbah (BR 93:3) insists that the words of Yehudah "can be interpreted from every angle". The Midrash (BR 93:6) then tells us that the term vayigash reflects three types of preparation:

"R. Yehudah says: preparation for war...R. Nehemiah says: preparation for mediation, diplomacy...The Rabbis say: preparation for prayer...R. Elazar settled this saying: If for war, I'm ready, if for diplomatic mediation, I'm ready, if for prayer [i.e., if all is lost], I'm ready...

We see then several possibilities for the odd word vayigash, akin to the contemporary stepping out or stepping forward. Who then, does the "elav" refer? Many of the commentators assert that the Elav to whom this verse refers is Gd, in other words, that this speech made by Yehudah is in essence a prayer, where Yehudah is pleading and negotiating with Gd (cf. Noam Elimelech and the Bat Ayin. They both read the speech as addressed to Gd, and not necessarily referring only to this particular narrative. An interesting difference between them is what they do with the phrase "ki komacha k'pharoh", generally taken to me that Yehuda is telling Yosef, the number two man, that he is equal to the Pharoah. In terms of rereading this speech as a prayer, the Noam Elimelech takes it to signify our inability to concentrate- sometimes my mind is fixed on holiness (kamocha), sometimes it is distracted by this worldly things(Pharoah). The Bat Ayin, his disciple, turns it into one of those classic Hassidic plaints toward Gd- "How can you, Gd, behave like the evil Pharoah?" The Mei HaShiloach, who also offers a reading in this vein, adds that the next phrase, bi adoni reflects Yehuda's internal certitude that his cause is correct thus Gd must redeem him). The Sefat Emet, in earlier years, also reads the "elav" as referring to Gd, but in the year 5637 (1877), he added that the phrase Elav means that Yehuda approaches himself in dialogue, that he is recounting and summing up the events for himself:

'after all, Yehudah did not introduce one new fact in these words, and he had no solid claim to put forward as a defense to Yosef- even so, the clarification of the issue to himself brought about salvation'

In current terminology, one might say that only the individual's construction of his own narrative brings about a level of self-understanding, that only then can the individual (and us as the readers) come to enlightenment. This message is related multiple times in the Torah. For example, there is the well known Midrash that Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, had a daughter that he wished Isaac to marry as revealed by the deficient spelling of the word "perhaps" in the phrase "perhaps she (a prospective bride for Isaac found in Haran) will not wish to follow me back here" (the word for perhaps, "ve'ulay" is written without a vav). The Kotzker points out that actually, as this episode transpired in real time, when the servant (incidentally, not identified as Eliezer in the Text) says this to Avraham, the word is written complete, with the vav. It is only when the servant repeats the story to Rivka's family that the perhaps is deficient, only when the servant recreates the events in his own mind and thus constructs a narrative, that he comes to realize that his intentions were, in fact, tainted by a personal desire for failure of the mission. Only in retrospective reconstruction does one recognize deleterious inner motivations. (i.e. in therapy, these days).

The Midrash (BR 93:9) tells us that it was only after Yehuda's speech that he himself realized that he was now willing to give up his life for his brothers, and thus, revealed his sincere contriteness for his previous actions. It is this construction of his internal narrative that is recorded as a lesson for us here, the centerpiece of the narrative, the moment of insight, of progress, is Yehuda's internal story.

Perhaps we can enlarge the notion that the critical lesson in this episode hinges upon personal recognition of underlying motivation, that goes beyond simply Yehuda and Yosef. There is a very clear shift in the structure of the story from the conflict between Yehudah and Yosef, who both fade out of center stage, to a resumption of concern with Yaakov, who resumes centrality in the next perasha as he gives the blessings to his sons. Contrary to previous blessing narratives, such as that of Yitzhak, in which a general good blessing is given, this one also contains recollection of past events linked with wishes and predictions for the future. Blessings now come with a history and a story. The stories relating to the fraternal enmity and eventual consolation in Egypt are all framed by Yaakov's narrative. One could argue that just as Yehuda learns by recollecting, so does Yaakov. Perhaps Yaakov now receives the answer to his early request- Yaakov asked, "Im yihyeh Elokim imadi", "If Gd would be with me", and now, at this point, at the end of his tale, he recognizes, that Gd was there all along, present in every moment of History; we learn that it takes each person's recollection review and retelling of his own story, the construction of one's personal narrative, in order for every person to learn to see this.

The Izhbitzer goes one step further. Here he is consistent with his reading of Shemot 23, where Gd reveals himself to Moshe with the phrase, my back you shall see and not my front. This the Izhbitzer reads as meaning that Gd can be found in history in retrospect; we may not sense Gd's presence as events are occurring, but in a retrospective analysis Gd is clearly there all along. The same is true here, and in essence, in all of Jewish history, of which this episode is thus archetypical. Here the brothers perceive of themselves in the darkest of situations, about to lose everything, with no hope for redemption, and suddenly, in retrospect, it becomes apparent that they never were in any danger at all, that it was their brother they were standing before all along. So will it be at the end of history, when we realize finally what Hashem's plans were and all the dark moments will become enlightened.

This requires one critical stipulation, however. Is it a question of "personal narrative" with which we are dealing? Too often these messages are read as being geared at uniquely personal understanding and enlightenment, at the level of some kind of purely private moment, a kind of therapeutic or self help approach.

This is what they tell you: Figure out what is wrong with your own story and then you will fit in better, your life will be smoother, its all your own problems that are creating the tension in your life. However, upon closer analysis, self help advice is frequently a disguise for deflecting injustices in society onto a failure of the individual to conform. Much of the self centering idealogy of contemporary society is meant to subvert the alienation and injustice induced by society into a deficiency of the individual , who only needs to cope and accommodate in order to be "happier" and have more "fun". (cf. Radical Readings on Perashat Shemot, where this issue is dealt with at greater length). For our purposes here, it is adequate to suggest that sometimes in fact society is in error and personal satisfaction and joy will only be achieved with a dramatic change of the political and economic aims of society.

Returning to our perasha, I suggest that what Yehudah is doing is questioning the dominant society's sense of fairness in this episode which clearly represents a miscarriage of justice. The Radomsker in his Tiferet Shelomo reads Yehudah's narrative in just this light. He says that the success of Yehudah's speech is due to his speaking out of a sense of arevut, out of a sense of responsibility for the Other. Once he took the Other's cause upon himself, he could speak clearly and correctly. For after all, when we need to speak of our own needs, we often find ourselves feeling inhibited, embarrassed, and unable to communicate what we really mean. However, when we truly take up someone else's cause, we can pinpoint the needs and the injustices. This, the Radomsker stresses, is the key to all tefillah, to all our prayer. "Kol Yisrael arevim zeh la'zeh"- all of Israel needs to feel responsibility for one another's welfare. This is why all the prayers are in the plural voice. The Talmud tells us that when one prays for another's well being, his personal needs are answered first- because our own needs are not as clear to us until first we have stood up for the rights and needs of another. In short, the lesson of Vayigash elav Yehuda might be read that a relationship with Gd requires the construction of one's personal narrative, which is only possible if we learn to feel responsibility for the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings.

This yearning to mitigate the suffering of others is our most important tefillah,  and ought be viewed as the most valid route towards humankinds ultimate redemption, and in the process of transformation we may even be granted a truer insight- into our own selves....