Is a father permitted to favor one son over the others? May one sibling show preference to another above the rest? How severe is the prohibition of favoritism? Was Yaakov’s love for Yosef the primary cause of the Egyptian exile, or merely the trigger that set in motion the earlier decree from Bris Bein HaBesarim? And after all the suffering Yosef endured as a result of favoritism, why did he himself repeatedly favor Binyamin over his other brothers?
What is included in favoritism? Does rewarding exceptional effort count? What about compensating for past harm? When is differentiated treatment permitted and even advisable, and in which areas is extra caution required? Is it permissible to favor a son who is a talmid chacham?
These and related questions are explored in this week’s article.
Favoring Children and Relatives
In this week’s parashah we learn about Yosef’s emotional reunion with his brothers. After revealing his identity to his brothers, he sent them back home laden with supplies: wagons, provisions for the journey, and ten donkey-loads of produce — enough to sustain them until they’d arrive in Egypt.
The Torah mentions a specific detail (Bereshis 45:22): “To each of them he gave a change of garments, but to Binyamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of garments.” Each brother received a personal gift of fine clothing, while Binyamin was given five sets of garments together with a substantial monetary gift of three hundred silver pieces.
How much was this gift? If measured according to the shekel ha’kodesh, three hundred shekels were worth 9,600 zuz – enough to sustain a person for forty-eight years.
The Gemara in Megillah 16b addresses this episode and raises a penetrating question: how could Yosef HaTzaddik, who himself suffered so terribly as a result of his father’s favoritism, display special treatment toward Binyamin, thereby risking the arousing his brother’s jealousy again?
This question touches the core of one of the most challenging and pervasive issues in child-rearing. Is it ever legitimate to favor one child over another? If favoritism is generally discouraged because it breeds jealousy, resentment, and discord within the family, how should one act when unequal treatment appears necessary? What can be done when one child has greater financial needs, requires more emotional attention, or if, perhaps, a parent naturally feels a stronger emotional connection to one child?
As with many moral and educational issues, this topic is not addressed through a clear-cut ruling in the Shulchan Aruch. Instead, it requires careful study of the relevant sugyos in the Gemara, close attention to the questions they raise, and a thoughtful examination of the explanations offered by Chazal throughout the generations. Through this process, we can clarify what is prohibited, what may be permitted, and how to conduct oneself wisely and responsibly.
Sources
The Gemara (Shabbos 10b) teaches: one should never single out one son for preferential treatment over the others, for it was because of a seemingly insignificant amount of wool worth two sela’im that Yaakov Avinu added to Yosef’s clothes, that set in motion a chain of events leading to our forefathers’ descent to Egypt.
Yaakov provided all his sons with tunics. Yet Yosef’s garment had a small additional measure of wool, weighing two sela’im. This became the famous “striped cloak” that aroused his brother’s jealousy. Eventually, this led to the Egyptian Exile.
This principle appears in the laws of inheritance, in the Rambam (Hilchos Nachalos 6:13) and the Tur (CM 282). This point was discussed at length in this space over three weeks (Pinchas; Mattos–Masei; Devarim 5784) in a discussion about the halachos of wills. As we discussed there, we do not have a Shulchan Aruch for child-rearing, and the issues must be derived from the mefarshim on the relevant sugyos.
The Egyptian Exile and the Striped Garment
Tosefos (to Shabbos 10b) raise a difficult question. The Gemara implies that the chain of events leading to the exile of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt was triggered by Yaakov Avinu’s favoritism toward Yosef, expressed through the striped garment. Yet the Torah states explicitly that in the Bris Bein Habesarim, it had already been decreed to Avraham Avinu that his descendants would be strangers in a foreign land, afflicted, and redeemed only after many years. If so, the descent to Egypt appears to have been inevitable.
Tosefos answer that while the decree of exile indeed existed, the intensity and form of suffering were not fixed. The decree already began being fulfilled at Yitzchak’s birth, and Yitzchak, Yaakov, and the Shevatim’s lives prior to the descent to Egypt were all counted as part of the exile. In this light, Yosef’s sale intensified and concentrated the suffering of the proscribed exile.
The Ritva (ibid.) develops this idea further. While exile was decreed in the Bris Bein Habesarim, its location was left unspecified. Through Yosef, the events unfolded in such a way that the exile took place specifically in Egypt.
The Shevus Yaakov (Shabbos 10b) adds an important dimension. Egypt was an especially hostile environment for the Jewish people. Even during Yosef HaTzaddik’s rule, after saving Egypt from devastating famine, the Egyptians still abhorred any social interaction with the Hebrews, as the Torah states (Bereshis 43:32): “For the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that was an abomination to Egypt.” This hostility later crystallized into explicit oppression, as the Torah records (Shemos 1:12): “And they loathed the Children of Israel.” Had Yosef not been sold, it is conceivable that the exile would have unfolded in a less antagonistic setting.
The Chasam Sofer (ibid.) proposes an even more far-reaching explanation. To fulfill Hashem’s words to Avraham — “Your offspring will be strangers in a land not their own” (Bereshis 15:13) — it was not strictly necessary for Bnei Yisrael to travel to Egypt. They could have remained in the land of Canaan as resident aliens, without a permanent inheritance, until the time came for the Canaanite and Amorite nations to be removed, at which point Hashem would have settled Am Yisroel in their stead.
The Maharsha (Shabbos 10b, Chiddushei Aggados) offers a different perspective. Had Yaakov not shown favoritism, the descent to Egypt might still have occurred, but not through the sin of the brothers selling Yosef. Instead, it would have come about through some other, non-transgressive means. There is a profound distinction between exile brought about through sin and exile that unfolds solely as the execution of a Divine decree for the purpose of refinement and growth rather than punishment.
The Maharal of Prague (Nesiv HaShalom 3) explains that even when a decree has already been issued, it still requires a significant cause to be activated. The fact that this decree was realized through a display of favoritism among children demonstrates how severe this matter is — capable of bringing about an exile so severe as the Egyptian exile.
Along similar lines, the Vilna Gaon (Tehila L’Yona to Shabbos 10b), the Sefas Emes (to Shabbos 10b), and Maharatz Chiyus explain Chazal’s teaching in Shabbos 32a: “Merit is brought about through the meritorious, and liability through the liable.” The exile to Egypt was indeed decreed earlier in the Bris Bein Habesarim. However, when Yaakov clothed Yosef in the striped garment which aroused the brothers’ jealousy, a subtle claim arose against him — commensurate with his exalted spiritual stature. As a result, an additional decree, namely that the descent to Egypt would come about through him, was activated. Had this misstep not occurred, that obligation would not have been realized in this manner. The fact that this particular failing served as the catalyst illustrates the gravity of the issue.
Apparently, Yaakov was held accountable for not being sufficiently attentive to the dangers of differential treatment among children. The jealousy and hatred this treatment generated had far-reaching consequences, and the Jewish people endured added suffering beyond what had originally been decreed in the Bris Bein Habesarim.
No person can compare to Yaakov Avinu’s towering spiritual stature. Nevertheless, the Torah’s messages are recorded to impart enduring lessons, relevant to all, at all times. The Gemara’s discussion calls upon us to read these events as moral instruction and to strive, as much as possible, to be mindful of our own conduct. While a measure of sibling rivalry may be inevitable, parental awareness of this dynamic, and a conscious effort to minimize it, can significantly mitigate its effects. Sensitivity to a child who feels less appreciated, coupled with a wise and sincere expression of that child’s unique value, can go a long way. In this manner, our families can enjoy mutual love and harmony and prevent any discord.
Showing Favoritism to a Sibling
Let us return now to the Gemara in Megillah 16b, which questions Yosef’s conduct. How could Yosef HaTzaddik, who suffered so profoundly because of his father’s favoritism, himself favor Binyamin by giving him five changes of garments while the other brothers received only one?
(Incidentally, this passage teaches that the concern of favoritism applies not only to a father toward his sons, but also to one sibling toward another.)
The Gemara explains that Yosef acted symbolically, hinting to the future Mordechai HaTzaddik, a descendant of Binyamin, who would one day emerge adorned in five royal garments, as described in Megillas Esther (8:15).
Nevertheless, this explanation remains difficult. Even if Yosef’s intent was symbolic, why choose an act that could rekindle jealousy within a family only recently reunited?
Moreover, Yosef showed favor to Binyamin in another way as well, giving him three hundred pieces of silver. The Gemara is silent about this gift and offers no symbolic interpretation for it. Why, then, is only the matter of the garments addressed?
Similarly, in the previous parashah, when the brothers sat down to eat with Yosef before he revealed his identity, the Torah states (Bereshis 43:34): “He took portions from before him to them, and Binyamin’s portion was five times greater than the portions of all of them.” The Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah 92:5) explains that Yosef, Osnat, Menashe, and Ephraim each gave him their own portions. Thus, in addition to the portion Binyamin received like the other brothers, he received five additional portions.
The question goes even further. After the family had already been reunited, and after Yaakov had witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of favoring one son over the others, he once again granted Yosef a preferential share. As stated in Parashas Vayechi, Bereshis 48:22: “And I have given you one portion more than your brothers.” How could Yaakov Avinu not fear of repeating the very pattern that had caused him and Yosef so much suffering and had ultimately led to the descent to Egypt?
The responses to these questions fall into two broad categories. Some focus on how differential treatment, when genuinely necessary, may be carried out with wisdom and sensitivity, so as not to provoke jealousy or resentment among siblings. Other approaches address circumstances in which favoritism is not only permitted, but may in fact be required.
Symbolic Allusion Negating Favoritism
Rabbenu Chaim Paltiel (Bereshis 45:22) challenges the Gemara’s question at its root. The brothers were well aware that Yosef and Binyamin were full brothers, sharing both father and mother; it would be natural, then, for a closer bond to exist between them than with brothers who shared only a father.
He therefore explains that the Gemara is actually asking: When Yosef gave Binyamin five portions, the brothers were still unaware of this unique blood relationship. If so, why did Yosef not fear arousing their jealousy?
Rabbenu Chaim Paltiel explains that the answer lies in the surrounding circumstances. Yosef had insisted that Binyamin be brought down from Eretz Yisrael solely to demonstrate that the brothers were not spies, thereby subjecting him to unnecessary hardship and perils of travel. It was therefore appropriate for Yosef to appease him with an extra portion of food. Moreover, since Yosef was already preparing to reveal his identity to the brothers, and they would soon discover that Binyamin was his full brother, he was unconcerned about provoking jealousy.
A similar approach is cited by the Riva in the name of Rabbenu Elyakim, and by other Rishonim in their Torah commentaries.
However, this answer raises another difficulty. The Gemara’s answer that Yosef intended to hint to Binyamin through the five garments addresses only the question of why he gave him five changes of clothing. It does not address the more central issue of why he gave him five portions at the meal. Especially in light of the fact that Rabbenu Chaim Paltiel and other Rishonim exerted such effort to explain why Yosef’s preferential treatment did not constitute a problem, it seems that the Gemara’s explanation does not fully resolve the original difficulty.
It therefore appears that Rabbenu Chaim Paltiel and other Rishonim understood that the Gemara indeed raised a question without offering a direct resolution. The statement that the five garments alluded to Mordechai the righteous is an additional teaching, not the answer to the earlier difficulty.
Nevertheless, these Rishonim explain that the question itself is not truly problematic, because there are several valid ways to resolve it. The Amora nevertheless chose to highlight the issue in order to teach that Yosef’s conduct is not a model that can be imitated without careful consideration. Before acting, one must reflect on why this case differs from that of Yaakov Avinu and examine whether his own situation truly contains the factors that allow for an exception to the rule, such as when it is known that there is a full sibling relationship that leaves no room for jealousy.
The Vilna Gaon (Shenos Eliyahu, Likutim, end of Bikkurim) offers another perspective. He explains that Yosef was, in fact, careful not to show undue favoritism. While he gave Binyamin five garments, each of the other brothers received a single garment as compensation for the clothes they had torn when Binyamin was accused of theft, ensuring they could return home properly attired. Importantly, the five garments given to Binyamin were inexpensive and, in total value, no greater than the single garment given to each brother. Yosef did not, therefore, give Binyamin more than he gave his brothers.
The Gemara explains that from a practical standpoint, Binyamin would have preferred a single dignified garment like his brothers, rather than multiple inferior ones. Yosef’s choice, however, was symbolic: the Avos’ actions were not mere gestures. They served to bring latent potential into actualization. Through this subtle allusion, Mordechai, who would descend from Binyamin, was empowered to merit the very royal garments that restored Israel’s honor and inspired fear of the Jews among the nations, culminating in the miracle of Purim. And the other brothers also recognized the hint that Yosef had conveyed. They understood that Mordechai would descend from Binyamin. Rather than feeling jealousy, their love for Binyamin deepened, acknowledging that, though born of a different mother, his descendants would play a pivotal role in the redemption and protection of all Am Yisrael.
Three Hundred Pieces of Silver
The Rishonim, including the Ba’alei HaTosafos and others, offer a striking explanation for why Yosef gave three hundred pieces of silver specifically to Binyamin. The brothers were deeply ashamed of having sold Yosef, and Yosef sought to relieve their discomfort. The Torah values a slave at thirty pieces of silver (Shemos 21:32), and one who sells a slave to a non-Jew must redeem him up to ten times that amount (Gittin 44a). Thus, the brothers’ debt for selling Yosef was three hundred pieces of silver. Yosef intended to give each brother this sum. Then, instead of giving it to them, he reclaimed it as payment, letting them feel as if their debt was settled. Only Binyamin, who had no part in the sale, actually received the three hundred pieces.
This explanation becomes even clearer when considering that the transaction was essentially symbolic. Yosef controlled all the wealth of Egypt; the Egyptians had already spent everything including property, livestock, and even personal freedom to buy his grain. He had already told the brothers they would be sustained at his table and have access to all of Egypt, which was his own. The three hundred pieces thus had no practical value; their purpose was purely emotional, freeing the brothers from their guilt for having sold him.
The Maharsha (Megillah 16b) explains why the Gemara does not question this gift to Binyamin: it is self-understood that a full brother is naturally closer than a half-brother, and when circumstances warrant a slightly larger gift, there is no prohibition. The Gemara’s difficulty focuses on the clothing, which symbolize social status and is therefore a sensitive issue, even among full and half-brothers. That is why the original question concerned the striped garment: giving Binyamin more clothing could have provoked jealousy. The answer is that the additional garments were symbolic, pointing to Binyamin’s future and not intended to elevate his social status. The brothers understood the hint, so no jealousy was caused.
When Giving More Is Permitted and Advisable
The Yefeh To’ar (Bereshis Rabbah, Parashah 84:8) asks why the Gemara does not question the portions of food that Yosef, Osnat, Menashe, and Ephraim gave to Binyamin. He answers that at the meal was no cause of jealousy, since their gift was clearly meant to compensate Binyamin for the discomfort of travel. The prohibition applies only to favoritism; there is no issue when the purpose is to appease someone who has been wronged.
Similarly, the Yefeh To’ar explains that Yaakov Avinu’s giving Yosef an additional portion of land did not provoke jealousy because it was given as payment for Yosef’s commitment to exert himself in arranging Yaakov’s burial. Alternatively, since the birthright had been removed from Reuven due to the incident with Bilhah, Yaakov was entitled to transfer it to Rachel’s firstborn.
Another explanation, cited by the Yefeh To’ar in the name of the Minchas Yehudah, distinguishes between the two situations. When Yaakov gave Yosef the striped garment, Yosef was still the youngest brother, and favoritism beyond natural affection had no apparent justification. However, when Yosef was king, showing his brothers kindness instead of anger, giving him an additional share was understandable, and would not provoke jealousy between them.
Only When All Brothers Are Equal
In a similar vein, the Chasam Sofer (Shabbos 10b) notes that the Gemara’s wording, “One should never favor one son among the sons,” implies that the prohibition applies only when that son is truly equal to the others “among the sons”. When one child excels in Torah and is head and shoulders above his brothers to such an extent that the others are obligated to honor him, showing preference is permissible.
On this basis, the Chasam Sofer explains that initially, Yaakov Avinu believed the brothers recognized that Yosef was a “ben zekunim,” which the Targum translates as “bar chacham,” a wise son. Yaakov had succeeded in transmitting all his wisdom specifically to Yosef, and assumed his brothers understood that they were obligated to honor him. The error was that the brothers viewed Yosef merely as a youth, as the pasuk states (Bereshis 37:2), “and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah.” In their eyes he was just a youngster, not a uniquely wise son. Thus, they were jealous of him.
Summary
Favoring one sibling over another is prohibited, especially in matters that reflect social status or convey special affection. Yet, when circumstances clearly justify granting one child more, or when the preferential treatment is intended to comfort or compensate a child who has been wronged rather than to show favoritism, no prohibition is involved. Even so, a parent must exercise careful judgment, thoughtfully weighing whether the situation truly warrants such differentiation.
