Commentary for Genesis 42:36

אתי שכלתם ME YE HAVE BEREAVED OF CHILDREN — The inference is that he suspected them of having slain or sold him (Simeon) as they had done to Joseph (Genesis Rabbah 91:9).

עלי היו כלנה, none of these incidents has befallen you, whereas all of them have befallen me. It is therefore clear that the reason these tragedies have all befallen me must be your quarrels with one another. Therefore you are to blame for my being bereaved.

שכלתם, “you have bereaved;” a transitive mode, referring to a third person. The same construction appears when the prophet Samuel tells King Agag why he is about to kill him, saying שכלה נשים חרבך, “your sword has bereaved women” (Samuel I 15,33) Yaakov meant that “you my sons have caused me this problem with three of my sons.”

ויאמר ראובן אל אביו, “Reuven then said to his father, etc.” The reason why Reuven spoke up first was because he had not had a part in the sale of Joseph.

This teaches that he suspected them of killing him or selling him as they did to Yoseif. You might ask: It is implied that now, when they asked for Binyamin to go down with them, that Yaakov realized they had sold Yoseif, [or killed him]. If so, why did he later say to them (44:27-28): “You know that... surely he is torn to pieces,” [i.e., by a wild beast]? (Re’m) This is not a question because nowhere do we find Yaakov saying, “Surely he is torn to pieces,” to his sons. It was only Yehudah who said this to Yoseif, in his father’s name. Yehudah might have fabricated it to evoke Yoseif’s mercy, just as Yehudah also said, “His brother is dead” (v. 20), on which Rashi explains that fear brought Yehudah to utter an untruth. The proof [that Yehudah fabricated it] is that Yaakov said here in v. 38, “My son will not go down with you; for his brother is dead.” He did not say, “Torn to pieces.” (Tzeidah Laderech)

Ihr könnt es mir nicht übel nehmen, dass ich euch den Benjamin nicht mitgeben will, ich darf nicht. Ich weiß freilich nicht, wie Josef weggekommen, auch Simons Verlust ist mir unerklärlich. Untereinander mögen diese Ereignisse allerdings nicht in Zusammenhang stehen, allein עלי היו כולנה: in mir treffen sie zusammen, mir wurden sie geraubt. Wenn jemandem wiederholt sich Dinge in gleicher Weise ereignet haben, und er auch nicht in ihre veranlassenden Ursachen Einsicht hat, so soll er nicht wieder in ein ähnliches Verhältnis eingehen, bevor es ihm klar geworden. Er soll sich das wiederholte Faktum als סימן, als zu beachtendes Augenmerk nehmen, und sich, bis es ihm klar geworden, vor ähnlichem hüten. Das ist die Lehre der Weisen: בית תינוק ואשה איעיפי שאין ניחוש יש סימן (Chulin 95.b.): Josef ist unter euch verloren gegangen, ebenso Simon, und nun soll ich es mit Benjamin versuchen — ich darf nicht.

שכלתם YE HAVE BEREAVED — any-one whose children are lost to him may be called (שכול) bereaved.

כלנה, all these problems.

את שני בני תמית, “you may kill my two sons, etc.” some commentators who cannot believe that Reuven could make such a statement, [as it is commonly understood, Ed.] prefer to understand the word תמית as a feminine mode of the future tense, meaning “may be killed by a force which is feminine, i.e. מגפה, a plague.” Nachmanides understands what Reuven said as similar to when Yehudah said that if he would fail to bring Binyamin back alive and well that he would consider himself as remaining guilty of a sin against his father for the remainder of his life (both on earth and beyond) (43,9). Reuven chose different words to convey a similar meaning, i.e. “you would be morally entitled to kill two of my sons if I were to fail you so tragically as not to bring him back alive and well.” Even though Reuven had four sons, he meant to tell his father that the loss of one son, Binyamin, would be tantamount to he, Reuven, losing two of his sons. Yaakov did not reject Reuven’s offer because he considered him foolish and rash, but he placed more confidence in Yehudah’s ability and personality. Yehudah had waited with applying pressure to his father until their food supplies had almost run out, and his refusal would put the whole family at risk.