Chazal cite the above two pesukim as presenting two of the instances which merited Yehudah the role of monarch over his brothers and — eventually — over Klal Yisrael. In both cases Yehudah asserted himself, either by taking command of an ambiguous situation or by accepting blame for his own actions. Are these sufficient reasons for transferring the mantle of malchus, kingship, to Yehudah?
Horav Chaim Shmuelevitz z.l., asserts that the greatness of a man is commensurate to the degree that he is inclined to assume and accept responsibility. One who shuns responsibility for his actions is not considered a functional human being. In contrast, one who shoulders responsibility to the highest extent reflects a character worthy of monarchy.
With this idea in mind, Horav Shmuelevitz interprets the demand that Yehudah made of his brothers in the following manner. Actually, Yehudah was himself involved in the decision to get rid of Yosef. What made him change his mind? Rashi explains the words, “And conceal his blood,” as meaning, “We will conceal the fact that he died.” Yehudah told his brothers, “We sat in judgment together and concluded that Yosef deserves to die. If we must still conceal his death, then we undermine our own decision! If we cannot accept complete responsibility for what we are about to do, then we are doing something wrong!”
Concerning Yehudah’s relationship with Tamar, he once again demonstrated his nobility by accepting responsibility for his own actions. The actions of a king or leader are not to be obscured from the public view. They must be presented openly, never concealing mistakes, never attempting to veil the truth or disguise the facts. A leader should take pride in his actions and be satisfied with his decisions.
