"Now all those descended from Yaakov were seventy souls, and Yoseph, [who] was in Mitzrayim." (Shemos 1:5)
This verse appears repetitive, since it is well established that Yoseph was in Mitzrayim - the entire end of Sefer Bereishis describes his rise to power there. What is the reason the Torah chooses to reiterate this point?
Rashi addresses this question directly: "... Did we not know that he (Yoseph) was in Mitzrayim? But [this clause comes] to inform you of Yoseph's righteousness. He, the Yoseph who tended his father's flocks, is the same Yoseph who was in Mitzrayim and became a king, and he retained his righteousness."
Of note, Rashi does not simply say that Yoseph remained righteous in Mitzrayim. He says: "He, the Yoseph who tended his father's flocks, is the same Yoseph who was in Mitzrayim and became a king." Rashi’s emphasis is on sameness - on maintaining his same identity across radically different circumstances.
Let us examine the radically different circumstances that Yoseph found himself in. As a seventeen year old shepherd in Canaan, he lived under his father's authority, tending flocks, surrounded by brothers who hated him. He had no power, no wealth, no status outside of his family.
In Mitzrayim, he became viceroy over the most powerful civilization on earth. He controlled the food supply of an entire nation. He wore royal garments, rode in Pharaoh's second chariot, and had every person bow before him. He had unlimited access to wealth, pleasure, and power.
How many people can remain the same under such radically different circumstances?
Rashi is teaching us that this consistency of character—being "the same Yoseph" - defined Yoseph’s righteousness. Yoseph is often referred to as, “Yoseph HaTzaddik”. The Hebrew word “Tzaddik” is related to “Tzedek” which means straightness, correctness, alignment. A Tzaddik is one whose inner character remains aligned, remains straight, regardless of external circumstances.
Many people maintain their principles when they are powerless but abandon them when they gain power. When they have nothing, they speak of justice and fairness. When they acquire wealth and status, they discover reasons why the rules should not apply to them. Their earlier righteousness was not conviction but convenience - they had nothing to lose by being principled.
Yoseph had much to lose. Maintaining the moral standards of a shepherd's son when you are a king means forgoing pleasures and advantages that are now within easy reach. It means holding yourself to constraints that no one around you shares or would impose upon you.
On the other hand, many people maintain their dignity when they are honored but lose themselves when they are humbled. Yoseph endured being thrown into a pit, slavery, false accusations and imprisonment. A lesser person might have emerged from such experiences bitter, cynical, or morally compromised - feeling that the world owed him something, that normal rules no longer applied after such suffering. Nevertheless, Yoseph remained consistent in character, exhibiting neither entitlement nor moral decline in either prosperity or adversity.
Yoseph’s righteousness was not superficial in any way - his Middos Tovos (good character traits) were deeply rooted and therefore the shepherd-Yoseph and the king-Yoseph were "the same Yoseph," which defined his righteousness.
A related thought appears in the Mishnah in Avos (2:4): "Do not place your trust in yourself until the day you die." One interpretation of this teaching is that nobody can be certain of their own righteousness until it has been tested through every situation - whether it is poverty or wealth, shame or honor, powerlessness or authority. For example, a person may act righteously now because they are poor, but they could behave differently if their circumstances change and they become wealthy. Therefore, unless today is the final day of one’s life, future challenges may still test one’s integrity and one may not remain righteous in those circumstances..
