The Torah has several examples of how important diplomacy is.  Avraham must negotiate all the time with the people and monarchs he encounters. Sometimes, he uses ambiguous language. Sometimes, he says what the other party wants to hear. So, too does Isaac. He certainly uses diplomatic language to humble himself both before Laban his father-in-law and his brother Esau.

The Midrash plays on the opening word in the Torah this week Vayigash, because the word means ‘to approach. It is used both of approaching for war and approaching to settle terms of peace. And suggests that Judah was prepared for both possibilities.  Joseph arranged to sequester his silver cup into Benjamin’s sack of provisions. He would pretend to be surprised that it was found by Joseph’s men as the brothers were on their way home. So that he could accuse him of theft and bring him back to prison in Egypt. Why he chose to do this is of course, subject to plenty of speculation.

Judah, the strongest of the brothers, steps forward to deal with this crisis and addresses Joseph in what sounds like a conciliatory manner. He refers to himself and to his father as Joseph’s servants. The Midrash (Genesis 75:5) seems to approve of this tactic. It records that Rebbi Judah, the Prince who was head of the Jewish world during the second century, had to send diplomatic messages to Rome. We are not sure which Roman Emperor he addressed. But he instructed his secretary R. Afess to write a letter in his name to the emperor Antoninus. R. Afess wrote, “From Judah the Prince to his Majesty the Emperor.”

Rebbi Judah took the letter and tore it up. He told him to write: “From your servant, Judah, to his Majesty the Emperor Antoninus.” R. Afess objected that Rebbi was debasing himself. Rebbi Judah replied, “Am I any better than my elder, Jacob? Did not Jacob say [to Esau]: “Thus says your servant, Jacob”?

Yet, in the Rashi commentary this week on Judah’s approach, he disagrees.  Rashi says that first Judah opened aggressively, threatening to destroy Joseph and only then did he turn to a more conciliatory approach.

Different times call for different responses and I suspect the aggressive approach reflected a Jewish response both to Roman and Christian oppression. However, to think that the biblical Judah was in any position to threaten Joseph is laughable. Unless it was a bluff! But this tactic, of using two ways of negotiation opened up a huge debate throughout the medieval period as to how one should deal with non-Jews. This issue was particularly controversial when it came to whether we should negotiate with Hitler and, indeed, today with Hamas.

This episode clearly supports the need for diplomacy even if it means using language that might be considered beneath one’s dignity. Very often, we have different options in dealing with ethical and diplomatic matters. As with Simon and Levi, the two sons of Jacob who led the massacre at Shechem as retaliation for the rape of Dina, the ethical issue is left unanswered.