Commentary for Genesis 42:42

וירא יעקב כי יש שבר כמצרים AND JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS A SALE OF CORN IN EGYPT — How did he see it? Surely he did not see but he heard it, as it is said (v. 2) “Behold, I have heard ... What, then, is meant by “And Jacob saw”? He saw in a holy dim vision that there was שֶׂבֶר hope for him in Egypt, but it was not a true prophetic vision telling him plainly that it was Joseph in whom his hope lay (Genesis Rabbah 91:6).

WHY ‘TITHRA’U’. (DO YOU LOOK TO YOURSELVES)? “Do not show yourselves before the children of Esau and Ishmael as having plenty to eat.” At that time they still had some grain. From others I have heard that the word tithra’u is an expression of leanness. Thus Jacob said to his sons, “Why should you become lean through hunger?” A similar [use of the word tithra’u, i.e., similar to the first explanation], is the verse: And he that satisfies (‘umarveh’) abundantly shall be satisfied (‘yoreh’).¹¹⁹Proverbs 11:25. That is, he who is benevolent to others will himself be recompensed by the Divine bounty. Thus the language of Rashi.
Now the comment of “others,” [namely, that the word tithra’u connotes leanness], has no validity whatsoever. And I did not understand that which Rashi says, “Do not show yourselves before the children of Ishmael and the children of Esau as having plenty to eat.” The children of Ishmael and of Esau were not then present in the land of Canaan, and why did Jacob not say that they should not show themselves before the children of Canaan as having plenty to eat? Perhaps the children of Ishmael and of Esau did come from their dwelling places to Joseph to buy food, and they came by way of the land of Canaan, thus passing by Jacob. He thus said to his children that they should not show themselves before them as having plenty to eat, for they would then suspect that Jacob has food, whereupon they would come to eat bread with him in his house. Accordingly, Jacob’s words, That we may live, and not die,¹²⁰Verse 2 here. constitute another reason for his command to them. He warned them to be careful with the little food yet left to them, and that they should go to buy food from Egypt so as not to die when all the bread in their possession is consumed.
The correct interpretation is: “Why do you show yourselves in this place, for you should have immediately journeyed from here when you heard that there is grain in Egypt,” since they were already in a state of danger if they would not make haste in the matter. This is the meaning of the words, That we may live, and not die.¹²⁰Verse 2 here.

למה תתראו?, the use of the conjugation hitpael, the reflexive conjugation here, is similar to its use in Kings II 14,8 לכה ונתראה, “come let us confront one another!” At that time King Amatziah wanted to show off his power to Yoash, King of Israel (10 tribes). Here too, Yaakov’s question למה תתראו, meant: “why are you (my sons) conducting yourselves in front of the other people in this land as if you had all the food in the world, whereas only they have to travel to Egypt to buy rations from there?

וירא...למה תתראו?. Why are you looking at one another as if each one of you hopes that another one would go to buy food? Our sages (Eyruvin 3) have said קדרא דבי ששותפי לא חמימה ולא קררא, an ancient way of saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth.” The conjugation hitpael, i.e. the reflexive conjugation, occurs with the root ראה also in Kings II 14,8 נתראה פנים, “let us confront each other.”

וירא יעקב, he saw local inhabitants arriving with grain and fodder. He asked these people where they had bought it, and they told him that they had brought it all the way from Egypt. As a result, he told his sons what he had heard and wanted to know why they acted as if they did not need additional supplies.

וירא יעקב, “Yaakov saw, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the origin of the 5 senses, hearing, seeing, smelling, etc., are all located next to one another, as we know from when Yitzchok spoke about ראה ריח בני, “Look, the smell of my son, etc.” (Genesis 27,27) [He referred to the pleasant sensation of light, a sensation as pleasant as a pleasant fragrance. Ed] seeing he himself was already blind at the time. The names of the senses themselves may on occasion be used interchangeably, so that in our verse the true meaning of the word וירא is: “he heard,” as we know from Yaakov’s own lips in the very next verseהנה שמעתי כי יש שבר במצרים, “here I have heard that there is food for sale in Egypt.” If he had already “seen” it in the literal sense of the word, why would he have to repeat: “I have heard,” a far less reliable source of information?

וירא יעקב, “Yaakov saw.” This is not something that Yaakov saw with his eyes but something he saw in his heart; proof that this this the meaning of the word וירא in this instance is that he described what he had “seen” as הנה שמעתי, “here I have heard,” instead of saying: הנה ראיתי, “here I have seen.”

Why do you show yourselves... as though you are satiated?” Meaning: If you show yourselves to them as being satiated and having grain, they will come and ask us for food, since they are our relatives. Therefore, go and buy food so they will think we have no food. But in fact they did have food at the time. Accordingly, תתראו means satiation.

וירא. Es scheint, dass Jakob doch mehr Einsicht als seine Söhne hatte. Er hatte gehört, dass man in Mizrajim nur im Detail kaufen konnte. Die Söhne glaubten das nicht und sahen sich einander an, warteten, dass einer sich zu der Reise für alle entschließen möchte. Jakob aber sah die Glaubwürdigkeit des Gerüchtes aus der Dringlichkeit der Verhältnisse ein und sprach daher: was seht ihr euch einander an? Ihr müsst alle selbst hinunter.

וירא יעקב כי יש שר ב מצרים, “Yaakov ‘saw’ that there was grain-trading in Egypt;” this is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 20,12: אוזן שומעת ועין רואה ה' עשה גם שניהם, “the ear that hears, and the eye that sees, the Lord has made them both.” What prompted Solomon to make such a banal sounding statement? Did G–d not make the whole body? Why did he single out the ear and the eye? The answer is that all parts of the body, in due course, will have to give an accounting for their activities while they were alive on earth, except the ear and the eye. What is the reason for this? The eye sees things which are not good for it to see, and so does the ear hear things which are not good for it to hear. [involuntary perceptions. Ed.] This is not true of the other organs or limbs. You choose what the mouth eats, etc., you choose where your legs are to take you, etc. Rabbi said that the words: וירא יעקב, “Yaakov saw,” although he was an old man sitting hundreds of miles away, what his ten sons who were going in and out and meeting all kinds of people, did not see. All this was although both Yaakov and Joseph had been blessed with the spirit of prophecy. Joseph was only a distance of 4 or 5 days travel away from them, and when they searched for him they did not find him. Furthermore, why did Joseph not communicate with his father during all these years which would have spared his father a great deal of grief? The answer is that they all had sworn a sacred oath not to reveal to their father that he was in Egypt. They had made G–d a partner to their oath, so that He too could not reveal their secret to him. All this can be proved from Scripture, when before revealing himself to his brothers (Genesis 45,1) he commanded that all the people around him remove themselves before he would have that conversation with his brothers. He did not want that anyone would ever hear about that oath which had now expired. Other commentators offer a different reason for why Joseph had not communicated with his father for 22 years. As long as he had been a slave (13 years) he did not want to increase his father’s grief by informing him of his sorry condition. If he were to end a message that in the meantime he had become a king, his father would not believe him; he was right as his father did not even believe this when all his sons told that they had seen it with their own eyes. (Genesis 45,26) In addition, he was afraid that if his father were to leak his new found knowledge to someone, the brothers would each flee in all directions out of fear of his vengeance. As a result, his father would experience additional grief. This is why he waited until the time would be ripe for him to reveal himself, so that he would first reveal himself to his brothers before informing his father of his survival and the good fortune which had befallen him.

.וירא יעקב שיש שבר במצרים , “Yaakov heard (not saw) that there was grain in Egypt;” (this was not a spiritual revelation, but he had heard from people returning from there.) When telling his sons about it, he therefore used the words: “I have heard that there is grain to be had in Egypt.” The word ראה meaning “hearing,” instead of “seeing,” is not unique; we find it for instance in Exodus 20,15, where the Torah writes: וכל העם ראו את הקולות, “ all the people saw the thunder,” when the meaning clearly is that all the people heard the thunder.

למה תתראו WHY DO YE LOOK UPON ONE ANOTHER? — Why do you show yourselves (pretend) before the children of Ishmael and the children of Esau as though you have plenty to eat (Taanit 10b). For at that time they still had some grain. I am of opinion that the real meaning of למה תתראו is: Why should every one gaze at you and wonder at you because you do not search for food before what you have in your possession comes to an end. From others I have heard that it has the meaning of leanness: why should you become lean through hunger? A similar use of the verb as that in the first explanation is (Proverbs 11:25) “And he that satisfieth abundantly shall be satisfied (יורא) also himself”.

?למה תתראו, “Why do you give the impression that you have adequate supplies of grain? Everybody else is going on a buying trip and you sit at home!”

למה תתראו?, “Why are you looking so irresolute?” According to Rashi, Yaakov rebuked his sons for giving the impression to the surrounding people that they had so much food stored up that they could afford to sit still without traveling to Egypt to try and supplement their supplies. Nachmanides writes that the words quoted here by the Torah as Yaakov having addressed to the brothers, were said to them in the presence of Ishmaelites and Edomites, make little sense, as why would Ishmaelites and Edomites be in the land of Canaan in the first place? Furthermore, if Rashi means that Yaakov admonished his sons in public (for show) why did Rashi not mention that he did so in front of the local inhabitants? He would certainly have had reason to do so in order not to arouse the jealousy of his neighbours! Had that impression been allowed to spread, all his neighbours would have invited themselves to eat at Yaakov’s table! He therefore instructed them to go down to Egypt in order to preserve the food supply they still had. Then he told them to buy additional supplies in order to forestall death through hunger after their supplies ran out. Alternately, the word תתראו, is short for למה תתראו במקום זה “why do you display such indecision by remaining here, instead of getting going to buy supplies?” “You should have started to move as soon as you heard that grain was for sale in Egypt.” Yaakov and family already found themselves in imminent danger of starvation. Some commentators understand the rebuke as “why do you quarrel as to who is to go to Egypt to buy food, I want all of you to go.” Yet another interpretation of the question למה תתראו, views it as a rebuke of their acting as if it were below their dignity to personally go to Egypt like the common people and to beg to be allowed to buy grain there. After all, they were the elite of “Canaanite” Society, akin to aristocracy! Their indecision was reinforced by their reluctance to send others on their behalf and to subject these others to the potential dangers of the journey.

כי יש שבר במצרים, “that there is grain for sale in Egypt.” The word שבר usually refers to something for sale as we know from Deut. 2,6 אוכל תשברו מאתם, “purchase food provisions from them.” It is noteworthy that Yaakov neither mentioned the word “food,” nor the word “grain,” The reason he referred to grain by saying שבר is because that word includes both “trading or selling” as well as “‘grain.” He continued using this word when he told his sons in Genesis 43,2: שובו שברו לנו מעט אוכל, “go back and secure for us some food (by buying grain).” In our verse (2) he said: שברו לנו משם, without the word אוכל. When Yaakov described the journey to Egypt he asked his sons to undertake as רדו שמה, “descend there,” instead of לכו שמה, “go there,” he also foreshadowed that any journey to Egypt would be but a prelude to the family’s eventual exile in Egypt. The number of years the Jewish people would be enslaved in Egypt corresponded to the numerical value of the letters in the word רדו, i.e. 210 years. When he used the expression ושברו משם, he meant that he foresaw both food supply as well as enslavement or exile as emanating from Egypt.

Similar to: ומרוה גם הוא יורא. The א of תתראו replaces the ו of the root ר–ו–ה. There are many similar examples. The verse means: He who satisfies others with his learning in this world will himself be satisfied in the World to Come. You might ask: How is this proof for the last explanation, that תתראו is a term for leanness? On the contrary, it is a proof that it means satiation! The answer is: Rashi is bringing a proof for both explanations. For the first explanation, the plain meaning is a valid proof. And for the last explanation too it is a proof: תתראו is like תתרוו, but it means “not satiated.” This is similar to Rashi’s explanation of הולך ערירי (15:2) as “childless,” although ער means an heir, i.e., one who has sons. And it is also similar to what is written ודשנו את המזבח (Bamidbar 4:13), where Rashi explains: “They shall take away the ashes from the Altar,” although דשן means ashes. The same is true here. It is as if Scripture had written תתרוו since an א can be replaced by a ו, because the letters א–ה–ו–י are interchangeable. Thus מרוה, too, could mean “satiation,” yet will fit exactly with תתראו. Accordingly, the meaning of ומרוה גם הוא יורא is: He who is not satiated in this world will be satiated in the World to Come.

?למה תתראו, “why should you stand out (as being different)?” Why do you wish to create the impression that only you have plenty to eat and do not need to buy grain in Egypt? It would make everyone else jealous of you! This is the way the Talmud in folio 10 interprets this phrase. Rashi adds that he heard from others that the meaning of the word תתראו is “to be weakened,” and that it appears in this sense in Proverbs 11,25: ומרוה הוא יורא, “and he who waters (others) will also be irrigated.” According to this, both the words מרוה and יורא in that verse ought to be understood as having been written with the letter א at the end. The idea is that Yaakov did not want his sons to create the impression (erroneous according to some) that they had ample supplies which they had not shared with their neighbours. This is supposed to be so, although the two explanations are contradictions in themselves, one suggesting abundance, and the other, weakness for lack of food. (As a result one of these interpretations would appear to be wrong. Ed.

ונחיה ולא נמות, “so we may live and not die.” He meant that even if in the more distant future his descendants would face great problems in Egypt, they would not succumb to them and die. They would survive thanks to the very grain they were going to purchase now. Our sages (Sotah 9) referred to this phenomenon when they said concerning Deut. 32,23 חצי אכלה בם “My arrows I will use up against them.” They said that half the Jews in exile may be exterminated by their Gentile enemies while the other half will survive. The meaning of the verse is that whereas G’d’s arrows will become exhausted the Jews will not all perish.
Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 91,6 had still another interpretation for the word שבר. They saw it as if it had been spelled with the dot on the left side of the letter ש, so that we would read it as סבר, “hope.” If we accept this interpretation we could read the verse as: “Yaakov saw in his mind’s eye that there was hope in Egypt for his descendants.” Although the ”hope” referred to the exalted position of Joseph in Egypt, Yaakov had lost the power to have clear visions ever since he had been parted from Joseph, so that this was only a very nebulous kind of vision.

רדו שמה GO DOWN THITHER — He did not say to them לכו “Go ye” but רדו an allusion to the 210 years during which Israel was to be enslaved in Egypt corresponding to the numerical value of (רד״ו (210 (Genesis Rabbah 91:2).

ונחיה, even if we cannot buy enough food to eat to our satisfaction, at least it will be enough not to die from the famine. This is why Yaakov added the words ולא נמות, “and we will not die.”

ונחיה ולא נמות. "so that we shall live and not die." The reason that Jacob repeated "so that we shall not die," was that negligence would be a capital sin for which an accounting would have to be given even in the Hereafter. On the other hand, if they made appropriate efforts to secure a supply of food, their lives in this world as well as in the Hereafter would be assured.

This alludes to the 210 years... The correct text of Rashi omits, “He did not say לכו but rather רדו.” This is because no teaching can be derived from רדו. Scripture needs to write רדו (go down) — for Eretz Yisrael is higher than the other lands, so רדו is the right term for going from Eretz Yisrael to Egypt, as Re’m writes. And so the term ירידה is written in the entire section. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to write, “Go down there”? It is written right afterward, “And buy for us from there.” Thus it should just say, “Go down and buy for us from there.” Perforce, it is written רדו שמה (Go down there) to allude that they will be there (שמה) for 210 (רד''ו) years. But without the word “there,” we would be unable to expound anything. Alternatively, we could say that the correct text of Rashi includes, “He did not say לכו but rather רדו,” and Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written רדו, which connotes downfall? It should use the favorable term of לכו (go). Despite Eretz Yisrael being higher than the other lands, it should not use a term which connotes downfall. Perforce, “This alludes to the 210 years...”

The verse might also be read thus: ונחיה, "so that we may live comfortably," ולא נמות "or at least not die." It would all depend on the amount they were able to buy in Egypt.

וירדו אחי יוסף AND JOSEPH S BRETHREN WENT DOWN — It does not call them “the sons of Jacob” (as in 5:5), thus suggesting that they regretted having sold him and that they had made up their mind to behave towards him in a brotherly manner and to redeem him at whatever price people might fix for them to pay (Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 8).

וירדו אחי יוסף עשרה, the official selling grain in Egypt did not sell to more than one family per buyer. The reason for this restriction was intended to ensure that the buyers would not resell some or all of what they had bought, thus using what Joseph had stored as a source of enriching themselves.

אחי יוסף, Joseph's brothers. The reason they are described as Joseph's brothers instead of as Jacob's sons is that at that time they were determined to perform the brotherly act of redeeming him out of slavery.

וירדו אחי יוסף. The reason why the Torah describes them all of a sudden as “Joseph’s brothers” instead of as Yaakov’s sons, is that they went down to Egypt because of what had happened with Joseph so many years ago. The time had come for Joseph’s dream to be realised, and the Torah wants to alert the reader to this. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,2 the question is raised why there is a dividing tone sign, etnachta, under the word עשרה, as if the verse ended there. The answer given is that nine of the brothers only were concerned with finding Joseph and being good brothers, whereas the tenth, Shimon, joined them only in order to buy grain. [the basis of the Midrash is the number “ten” being mentioned. We all knew that only ten brothers went to Egypt, Yaakov not allowing Binyamin to join them. Hence, the Midrash reads additional meaning into the word “ten,” as well as into the tone sign under that word. Ed.]

עשרה TEN — What is the mention of this number intended to tell us? Is it not written (Genesis 42:4) “but Benjamin, Joseph’s brother did he not send” (and we therefore know that only ten brothers went to Egypt)? But it means to suggest that so far as their feeling of brotherhood towards Joseph was concerned they were divided into ten, because the love and hatred that all of them bore him were not alike, where as in regard to buying corn they were at one and united (Genesis Rabbah 91:2).

עשרה, ten. During famine, more than during any other time, people are extremely miserly and malevolent; they are apt to commit robbery and even murder to secure a piece of bread. This is why all the brothers went down to Egypt. If attacked, they could help one another. They also wanted to take Benjamin with them, but their father demurred. This is why the Torah makes a point of saying: "he did not send Benjamin." Had it not been for Jacob's concern that an accident would befall Benjamin he would have sent him along.

Besides, it appears that Joseph was selling a fixed amount of grain to each purchaser. He had two objectives in mind, an obvious one and a secret one. The obvious objective was to prevent speculating in grain if someone were to purchase an amount larger than for his own needs. Joseph's method was of benefit both to him and to the purchasers. By refusing to sell large quantities at one time, Joseph could take advantage of any rise in price when it occurred. The customers benefited by what he did since Joseph did not raise prices unreasonably. Joseph's secret objective was to force each of the brothers to make a trip to Egypt to provision himself as he only sold rations for one family at a time.

פן יקראנו אסון LEST MISCHIEF BEFALL HIM — And at home could not mischief befall him?! Rabbi Eliezer the son of Jacob said: We may infer from this that Satan accuses a man at the time of danger (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 1).

ואת בנימין... אחי יוסף, he is mentioned once more as “Joseph’s brother” as he was the only full brother Joseph had, being a brother both from the same father and the same mother.

קרא .פן יקראנו אסון verwandt mit קרח ,קרע ,קרה, eine Familie scheinbar disparater Begriffe: Rufen, Treffen, Zerreißen, Frost und Eis. Sie sind jedoch nur Modifikation eines Grundgedankens:

אסון, a mishap brought about either by man or by direct heavenly intervention, a natural disaster, for instance. Yaakov’s fear was based on a mishap having befallen Joseph at the time (as he had been led to believe). The Talmud in Ketuvot 30 describes mishaps caused by “man” as thorns and thistles, and the like. [based on Proverbs 22,5. The assumption appears to be that such “mishaps” are preventable by man being careful.] We may well ask why Yaakov was afraid of a mishap that might befall Binyamin while he was on the way more than he was afraid of a mishap which might befall him at home? The answer is that mishaps which befall people on a journey are statistically far more frequent than those that befall a person while he is at home. Wild animals, bandits, etc., are usually roaming on much traveled routes. Due to the likelihood of encountering such hazards while traveling, even righteous people who have no reason to fear G’d’s retribution for any wrongs they may have committed, need to be especially careful in any situation which is known to be especially hazardous, and they must not ignore such dangers by relying on G’d to keep them safe. Even if they would be saved from some danger through a miracle G’d would perform for them, their accumulated merits would be diminished thereby. Our sages have found an allusion to all this in Deuteronomy 6,15 לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “do not cause the Lord your G’d to have to perform a miracle for you.” We find proof that even an outstanding man such as the prophet Samuel when sent to anoint a successor to King Sha-ul and setting out on the way to Chevron to anoint one of Yishai’s sons, was afraid and said so to G’d. G’d Himself told him what precautions to take. (Samuel I 16,2) In view of the above it is not surprising therefore that Yaakov was especially concerned about Binyamin’s safety during the journey.

קרא, Rufen: jemanden aus der Richtung, die er inne hat, veranlassen, sie freiwillig zu verlassen und לקראתי: in meine Richtung zu kommen.

קרע, Zerreißen, die Teile eines Körpers aus ihrer natürlichen Richtung in die entgegengesetzte bringen. Während קרא bloß die Aufforderung ist, die bisherige Richtung freiwillig zu verlassen, heißt קרע dies gewaltsam tun. Gewaltsame Überwindung der Kohäsionskraft. Jedes Teilchen wird gewaltsam aus seiner Richtung herausgerufen. Es ist uns bereits bekannt, wie ׳ח größtenteils das Gegenteil von ע bedeutet, so נח das zur Ruhe gekommene נע. Wenn קרע die Teilchen eines Körpers in die der Kohäsionskraft entgegengesetzte Richtung bringt, so tut

קרח, der Frost, das Gegenteil. Er bringt die Teilchen eines Körpers, die natürlich eine der Kohäsion entgegengesetzte Richtung haben, zerfließen, zusammen, hemmt ihre zerfließende Bewegung, macht sie kohärierend: fest. קרע "ruft" die Teilchen auseinander, קרח "ruft" sie zusammen.

קרה, treffen. Alle jene Einflüsse, gleichviel ob glücklich oder unglücklich, welche einen Gegenstand oder Menschen aus seiner natürlichen oder selbstgewählten Richtung herausrufen und ihn veranlassen, eine andere einzuschlagen, heißen: מקרה. Wir nennen alle von uns nicht berechneten, außer unserer Berechnung liegenden Ereignisse: Zufall, מקרה. Es ist aber vielleicht nichts also berechnet, also von dem Leiter aller Ereignisse gefügt, als das, was wir Zufall nennen. Wir haben es nicht berechnet, aber es ist vielleicht Berechnung des größten Rechenmeisters. In der objektiven Wirklichkeit ist das "Zufallende" ein "Zugeschicktes". פן יקראנו: er wird in einer Richtung gehen, es kann aber etwas kommen, was ihn gerade aus dieser Richtung hinausruft. Daraus folgt aber, dass מקרה ,קרי, der "Ruf einen "Rufenden" voraussetzt. Unser Ausdruck, "es ereignet sich" ist heidnisch. Nichts gestaltet sich selbst, alles wird gestaltet. Nur der Mensch in seiner freien sittlichen Willenstätigkeit bestimmt sich selbst. — So heißen auch diejenigen Mittel, welche aufgeführte Bausteine aus ihrer natürlichen in die dem Menschen beliebige Richtung halten: קורות, Balken.

אסון, irgend ein überwältigendes Ereignis, Unglück. Es scheint verwandt mit ,חצן חסן .חסן: etwas mit Macht zusammen fassen. Davon חָסוֹן das Starke, Gewaltige, das viele Kraft in sich vereinigt. חצֶן: der starke, haltende Arm. Vielleicht auch חשן: der die Brust panzernde Schild. Möglich auch, dass און, eine milde Form von אסן, das Organ bezeichnet, das eine reiche Fülle von Eindrücken aufnimmt und durch welches der Mensch eigentlich dem mächtigsten Einfluss des andern geöffnet ist.

בתוך הבאים AMONG THOSE THAT CAME — They hid themselves in the crowd that people should not recognize them, for their father had bidden them not to show themselves all at one entrance to the city but that each should enter by a different gate in order that the evil eye should not have power over them (i.e. that they should not attract the envious attention of the people) for they were all handsome and stalwart men (Midrash Tanchuma 1.:10:6).

בתוך הבאים, people traveled together in large groups to afford themselves protection against highway robbers. At that time there were more than the usual amount of these. They would rob both the money carried to buy food and the food itself

ויבאו בני ישראל…כי היה רעב, The children of Israel arrived…for there was a famine in the land of Canaan. The fact that there was a famine had to be repeated. This is to explain why the Torah first wrote בתוך הבאים. You should not ask where these הבאים have been mentioned previously so that the Torah could describe the brothers as "being amongst them." Once we are told that there was a famine in Canaan it becomes obvious that many other people from Canaan must have been going to Egypt to buy grain there.

בתוך הבאים, they did not appear different although they were Hebrews. Seeing that it was a time of danger, i.e. famine, they mingled freely with all the other people traveling to Egypt for the same purpose.

Hier treten sie zum erstenmale als בני ישראל auf. Es war dies auch ein Moment von keiner kleinen Entscheidung. Die ganze Zukunft trug er in seinem Schoße. Und sie kamen בתוך הבאי׳. Es ahnte ihnen nichts von dem Folgenschweren dieses ganzen. —

בתוך הבאים, “they intermingled with others going to Egypt for the same purpose, disguising themselves so as not to draw attention to themselves as they had been commanded to do by their father, when he had said: למה תתראו, “why do you draw attention to yourselves?”

The Torah also wanted to indicate that the brothers devised a clever scheme to disguise themselves "among the other travellers." They created the impression that they were in Egypt for the same purpose as all the other travellers from Canaan, whereas in reality they were searching for Joseph. In other words: the brothers' disguise was to appear as shoppers for grain. This ought to have been an easy way to camouflage their real purpose because of the famine in the land of Canaan.

וישתחוו לו אפים means THEY PROSTRATED THEMSELVES ON THEIR FACES— Similarly wherever various forms of this verb (שחה) in the Hithpael occur it implies stretching out the hands and feet when a person casts himself on the ground in the act of prostration (Megillah 22b).

HE IT WAS THAT SOLD GRAIN TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND. Now it is not befitting a ruler of a land, second in rank to the king of Egypt, that he sell everyone a se’ah [a dry measure] or a half thereof of grain. It was for this reason that our Rabbis were impelled to say¹²¹Bereshith Rabbah 91:6. that Joseph had ordered at that time that all storehouses except one be closed so that he would be sure to meet his brothers.
In line with the literal interpretation of the verse it is possible that the people from all lands came before him, and he would question and investigate them, and then command the officers, “Sell so much food of this — and that — kind to the people of that city.” Thus it was necessary for the children of Jacob to come before him among those who came from the land of Canaan, that he could issue an order concerning them, specifying how much grain should be sold to their land, since they were the first to come from the land of Canaan¹²²See further, at the end of Verse 9, where Ramban establishes the fact that the brothers were the first to come from the land of Canaan to buy grains, thus offering Joseph the opportunity to charge them as spies. and they came before him for the sake of all.

He was the one who sold. He did not trust his servants with the task because the sums involved were too great.

הוא השליט על הארץ הוא המשביר לכל עם הארץ, he was the ruler of the land; he was the one who sold to all the people of the land. Even though Joseph was the ruler, and it is not usual for the ruler to personally conduct the grain sales, especially when this involved so much effort, he did so himself in order to encounter his brothers eventually.

ויוסף הוא השליט, the brothers had to appear before him personally as he was the seller, i.e. he authorised who could buy and how much. הוא המשביר. The term is only used transitively, someone who sells somebody else’s property to a third party. He gave instructions to his agents to sell. Initially, all potential purchasers had to be examined by Joseph personally. Although, no doubt this was a tedious procedure, Joseph had issued these instructions to make sure he would spot his brothers when they would arrive, as he was sure they must. As a result he would be able to confront his brothers.

הוא המשביר לכל עם הארץ. “He was the seller of grain to the entire population of Egypt.” It sounds extremely strange that the viceroy, and de facto ruler of such an empire, should personally engage in grain sales, and in retail quantities at that! This is why some commentators understand the expression as that Joseph gave the order to open his silos for public sales of grain. According to the plain meaning of the text, Joseph personally, checked out all the travelers from foreign countries who had come to the border in order to buy grain in the land of Egypt. He instructed his officials how much to sell to any city, etc. When the sons of Yaakov arrived at the boundary of Egypt, they represented a delegation empowered to buy on behalf of their whole region.

Siehe oben voriges Kap.Raw Hirsch on Genesis 42: 56 u. 57.

ויוסף הוא השליט על הארץ, “and Joseph was the onewho was the sole ruler of the land.” In spite of having such a demanding position, [which one would expect would force him to delegate the task of presiding over grain sales, he was the one who presided personally over all these sales. Ed.] He collected the money from all the customers. The reason that he did this was so that when, as he expected, his brothers would show up, he would immediately be aware of this.

Yoseif’s brothers came. Because Yoseif sold the grain personally the brothers were forced to come before him.

ויתנכר אליהם HE MADE HIMSELF STRANGE UNTO THEM — He made himself like a נכרי a stranger to them in his conversation, speaking harshly (Genesis Rabbah 91:7).

AND JOSEPH SAW HIS BRETHREN, AND HE RECOGNIZED THEM. Immediately as he saw them he recognized them, and he feared lest they recognize him. And he made himself strange (‘vayithnakeir’) unto them by putting a mitre upon his forehead and part of the face, thus disguising himself, just as it is said concerning the wife of Jeroboam, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam,¹²³I Kings 14:1. Ramban explains the word vayithnakeir in a physical sense. Joseph disguised himself by placing his mitre over his face. Further on, Ramban mentions a second interpretation. See Note 126. and it further says, For it will be, when she cometh in, that she ‘mithnakeirah’ (will pretend to be another woman).¹²⁴Ibid., Verse 5. It may be that the word vayithnakeir here means that he made himself strange by his words, speaking to them harshly and asking them in anger — as if it were not customary to come before him to purchase food — “From where do you come to appear before me?” And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. When they mentioned this to him, it then became clear to him that they were indeed his brothers. This is the meaning of the expression, And Joseph recognized his brethren,¹²⁵Verse 8 here. which is mentioned a second time to indicate an additional sense of recognition and knowledge of the truth with respect to them.
Now Rashi wrote in explanation of the word vayithnakeir: “He made himself like a nochri (stranger) in conversation by speaking harshly to them.” According to Rashi’s opinion, the word vayithnakeir signifies that he spoke to them as a man who is a nochri (stranger). But this is not correct.¹²⁶A stranger does not necessarily speak harshly. Hence Rashi’s interpretation is incorrect. Ramban’s second interpretation mentioned above, however, is based upon the word vayithnakeir having the same root as heker (recognition), except that the word here changes its meaning so as to indicate its opposite. See Rashi on Exodus 27:3, where he says that there are many such words in the Hebrew language. In the case before us, the word vayithnakeir would thus mean that Joseph made himself unrecognizable by speaking harshly to them. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 232.

מאין באתם?; he pretended not to know who they were.

ויכירם, he recognised them collectively as being his brothers, without being able to recognise who each brother was.

וירא יוסף את אחיו, Joseph saw his brothers, etc. When he saw them he felt as their brother and displayed friendliness towards them. It was only from the brothers' side that he appeared as a stranger. The Torah emphasises that he acted like this because the brothers did not recognise him. Joseph could speak to them sternly without the brothers taking offence as brothers. After all, he was a stranger to them. Joseph's whole purpose was to devise a scheme whereby also Benjamin would come to Egypt. He also wanted to test them to see how they felt now about what had transpired between them many years ago. He then became aware that they were sorry for what they had done to him and considered themselves as having committed a sin against him.

וירא יוסף...ויכירם, our sages explain that the fact that Joseph had left home when he did not have a beard yet, whereas his brothers already had beards accounts for the fact that whereas they did not recognise him, he recognised them. (quoted by Rashi) It is possible that they would have recognised him in spite of his having grown a beard if they had not seen the man confronting them dressed in the uniform of the highest ranking nobles of the land. They could not imagine that this man could be Joseph even if there had been points of resemblance. The idea that someone who had been sold into slavery had risen to such power was too mind-boggling for them.

ויתנכר להם, “he misrepresented himself to them.” According to Rashi, the word is derived from נכרי, “stranger, alien.” Nachmanides explains that as soon as Joseph spotted his brothers and recognized them, he was afraid that they in turn might recognize him; this is why he disguised himself with a different type of turban, one which covered most of his forehead; or, he disguised his manner of speech including his stern demeanor, so that they would not be alerted to his true identity. This is why he subjected them to the third degree kind of interview, acting as if they had been the first people ever to come from Canaan to buy grain. From their answers he became progressively more certain that they were indeed, his brothers. This is the reason why the Torah repeats: ”he recognized them.” According to Ibn Ezra, the first statement “he recognized his brothers”, refers to them collectively, whereas after questioning them he recognized each one individually.

He acted as a נכרי to them. I.e., ויתנכר means he acted like a stranger (נכרי).

ויכרם ויתנכר וגו׳. Scheinbar zwei entgegengesetzte Bedeutungen einer und derselben Wurzel, נכר: Erkennen und Fremdsein. Jedoch nur scheinbar. נכר im Hiphil: הַכִיר heißt nichts anderes als: Fremdmachen. Alles "Erkennen" ist ein "Fremdmachen". Wir erkennen einen Gegenstand nur dann, wenn wir ihn fremd zu machen verstehen, ihn aus allen übrigen Dingen auszuscheiden vermögen. Je mehr Unterscheidungsmerkmale wir von einem Gegenstande kennen, desto spezieller erkennen wir ihn. Mit jedem neuen uns bekannt werdenden Merkmale machen wir ihn allen andern Reichen, allen andern Gattungen, allen andern Arten, endlich allen andern Individuen derselben Art "fremd", d. h. scheiden wir ihn von allen andern aus, und erkennen ihn als den einen, einzigen, von allen andern Unterschiedenen. Auch unser deutsches Unterscheiden, das mit Erkennen verwandt ist, ist in ähnlicher Anschauung gebildet. הכיר heißt also, einen Gegenstand aus allen andern durch seine Besonderheit herausheben. Demgemäß ist נכרי nicht der Unbekannte — er kann uns jahrelang bekannt und doch נכרי sein — sondern der Andersseiende, der durch sein Leben und Wesen irgendwo nicht Hingehörende, nicht zum Anschluss Geeignete. Der andere Ausdruck für fremd: זר, heißt auch nicht unbekannt, sondern eigentlich das Fremdgewordene, das zu einem andern Kreise gehören könnte, aber wegen seiner Eigentümlichkeit von diesem, oder aus diesem ausgeschieden worden, von זור: ausscheiden, ausdrücken. Daher זורר: Nießen. התנכר heißt daher wie in גם במעלליו יתנכר נער, sich von allen andern unterscheiden, sich in seiner Eigentümlichkeit zeigen, oder, wie hier und Kön. I. 14, 5: sich in einer anderen Eigentümlichkeit darstellen, als man wirklich ist. Er zeigt sich ihnen anders, als er wirklich war, indem er sie hart anfuhr und auch als נכרי in einer fremden Sprache durch Vermittelung eines Dolmetschers mit ihnen sprach; dadurch gelang es ihm, dass הם לא הכירוהו.

And recognised them. Because he was searching for them, if they came because of the famine, since it's the way of the patriarchs to come to Egypt because of the famine. See for example "And there was famine in the land, and Avram descended Egyptwards" (Bereishit 12:1), and so too with Yitzchak until the Holy Blessed One said to him "Don't descend Egyptwards" (Bereishit 26:2). And they weren't looking for him and thinking he would be king! And my teachers have explained that the brothers had beards when they sold him, and now were unchanged, but Yosef didn't have a beard and had since grown one, so he looked different.

ויתנכר אליהם, “he acted like a stranger to them.” His reasoning was that if he would reveal his identity, they would say to him: “if you expect us not to reveal your true identity, you are also sworn not to reveal our true identity.” Alternately, his reasoning was that he would frighten them into trying to flee. As a result, he would cause his father untold additional anguish. It would therefore be better that they would appear before him because they had no choice not to do so, as they needed the supplies that only he could provide. This would provide him with the chance to force them to bring Binyamin down to Egypt and he would detain him there. As a result, the fact that he was Joseph would become known.

ויתנכר אליהם, he adopted a manner totally uncharacteristic of him, by speaking arrogantly, masking his true voice, etc, apart from the fact that he spoke to them in Egyptian having everything he said translated into Hebrew by an interpreter.

ויתנכר, Joseph moreover deliberately misrepresented himself to prevent their suspecting that it might be him.

And made himself strange to them. He thought, if I reveal myself to them immediately, since they are embarassed to have sold their brother and pained their father, they will say to me "silence! You're already under oath not to reveal us." And he said to them "harshly" (Bereishit 42:7), "you are spies" (Bereishit 42:9)! And he pushed them off until they brought him Binyamin, and put the goblet in his pack, and told a servant to delay them. And when he saw that, under pressure, they were afraid to sin against their father, he revealed himself, for then he knew that against their will they themselves revealed that they wouldn't hold Binyamin back.

קשות, so that they would not recognise his voice.

'ויכר יוסף וגו AND JOSEPH RECOGNISED HIS BRETHREN etc. — because, when he left them they were full-bearded (Yevamot 88a).

BUT THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. I.e., at all. And so he no longer needed to make himself appear strange to them. Now in this matter of recognition, our Rabbis have said¹²⁷Kethuboth 27b. that Joseph recognized his brothers because he had left them bearded, but they did not recognize him because when he left them he had no beard and now they found him with a beard.
Now Issachar and Zebulun were but a little older than Joseph,¹²⁸Thus they were also beardless when Joseph left, so how did he recognize them now that they were bearded? but having recognized the older ones, he recognized them all. Moreover, he recognized them because he knew they were bound to come, but they did not recognize him because it did not occur to them that a slave sold to the Ishmaelites should be the ruler of a land.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says: And he recognized them.¹²⁹Verse 7 here. That is, at first he recognized them to be his brothers, and following that, he looked at each one and recognized him individually.¹³⁰This explains the repetition in Verse 8, And Joseph recognized his brethren, since it refers to individual recognition.

והם לא הכירוהו. Joseph had grown a beard, something, which at 17, when they had last seen him, he had not yet had. Furthermore, the Royal garments were something they would not have associated with their brother. They did not recognise his voice either, as they had never heard him speak Egyptian. Joseph made sure that there was always an interpreter between him and his brothers as we know from verse 23.

ויכר יוסף את אחיו, now he recognised them each individually

ויכר יוסף את אחיו. Joseph recognised his brothers. Joseph had no trouble recognising his brothers since they all wore beards when he left them. Although it is normal for acquaintances who have not seen each other for a long time to recognise one another, i.e. that as soon as one person recognises the second person, he in turn suddenly is able to recognise the first person also, this was not the case here. Normally the heart communicates secrets as we know from Proverbs 27,19 "man's heart will be reflected by his counterpart;" the Torah reveals that in this instance this phenomenon did not work. The reason was that Joseph's exalted position stifled any glimmer of recognition there might have been on the part of the brothers.

ויכר יוסף, as we already explained on verse 7. The reason the Torah has repeated this is that the Torah wished to emphasise that he showed them brotherly love by not harming them or killing them, whereas they, at the time had not shown him any brotherly feelings in their treatment of him, first planning to kill him, then stripping him, throwing him into the pit, and subsequently selling him into slavery.

והם לא הכירוהו, “but they did not recognize him.” Joseph had left his father’s house before he had grown a beard, and in the meantime his beard had materially changed his facial features. Although we must assume that Issachar and Zevulun who were hardly older than he had also not had a beard at the time when he left his father’s house, the fact that he had identified eight of the ten brothers who had had beards before he left home, made it easy for him to also recognize the other two. Furthermore, he enjoyed the advantage of having known with certainty that his brothers would come to Egypt to buy grain. He therefore kept a special watch for their arrival. The fact that Pharaoh had changed his name also made it more difficult for his brothers to suspect that someone by that name was their brother. In addition, Joseph now spoke Egyptian whereas they spoke Hebrew.

ויכר יוסף את אחיו, “Joseph recognised his brothers;” because they addressed each other with their names, and he understood both their names and the language in which they spoke.

והם לא הכירהו BUT THEY RECOGNISED HIM NOT — because when he left them he had no beard whereas now he had grown a beard.

והם לא הכירוהו, “but they did not recognise him;” one reason was that he had grown a beard that he did not have when he was sold. Secondly, his name had been changed. Thirdly, he now spoke Egyptian and he used an interpreter, making believe that he did not understand Hebrew.

A Midrashic explanation is: ויכר יוסף את אחיו JOSEPH RECOGNISED HIS BRETHREN — Now that they were in his power he recognised them as his brothers and had pity on them, והם לא הכירהו but when he fell into their power, “they did not recognize him” as their brother, by acting towards him in brotherly manner (Genesis Rabbah 91:7).

אשר חלם להם WHICH HE HAD DREAMED OF THEM — להם means “about them”. He then knew that they (the dreams) were being fulfilled, for they (his brothers) had bowed down to him.

AND JOSEPH REMEMBERED THE DREAMS WHICH HE DREAMED OF THEM. [That is, he remembered the dreams which he dreamed] concerning them, and now knew that they had been fulfilled, for they had bowed down to him. This is the language of Rashi.
In my opinion, the matter is the reverse. Scripture states that when Joseph saw his brothers bowing down to him, he remembered all the dreams which he had dreamed concerning them and he knew that in this instance, not one of the dreams had been fulfilled. He knew that it was inherent in their interpretation that according to the first dream, at first all his brothers would bow down to him, as it says, And, behold, we were binding sheaves,¹³¹Above, 37:7. for “we” refers to all eleven of his brothers. The second time, in accordance with the second dream, the sun, the moon and eleven stars¹³²Ibid., Verse 9. would bow down to him. Now since he did not see Benjamin with them, he conceived of the strategy of devising a charge against them so that they would also bring his brother Benjamin to him, in order to first fulfill the first dream. It is for this reason that he did not wish to tell them at this time, I am Joseph your brother,¹³³Further, 45:4. and to say, Hasten and go up to my father,¹³⁴Ibid., 45:9. and send wagons, as he did to them the second time,¹³⁵Ibid., Verse 19. for in that case his father would undoubtedly have come at once. It was only after fulfillment of the first dream that he told them, I am Joseph your brother,¹³³Further, 45:4. etc., in order to fulfill the second dream. Were it not for this consideration, Joseph would indeed be regarded as having committed a great sin: bringing anguish to his father, leaving him for many days in the position of being bereft and mourning for Simeon and him. Even if it was his intention to cause his brothers minor anguish, how did he not have compassion for his elderly father? But he assigned each to its proper time¹³⁶Ecclesiastes 3:11. in order to fulfill the dreams, knowing that they would truly be fulfilled. Also, the second matter, which he effected against them in connection with the goblet,¹³⁷In which he accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet. (Further, 44:17). is not to be interpreted as if his intention was to cause them anguish, but rather because he suspected that they might hate Benjamin as a result of their jealousy of him on account of his father’s love for him, just as they were jealous of Joseph. Perhaps Benjamin had sensed that they had harmed Joseph, thus causing a quarrel and hatred to erupt between him and his brothers. Therefore, Joseph did not wish Benjamin to travel with them until he had tested their love for him, lest they harm him.
It is to this matter that our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah¹³⁸93:9. referred when they said: “Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said, ‘When you read the entire plea which Judah made in the presence of his brothers, until you reach the verse, Then Joseph could not refrain himself,¹³⁹Further, 45:1. [you can see that] there was in it an attempt to win the sympathy of Joseph, the sympathy of his brothers, and the sympathy of Benjamin. Joseph’s sympathy [would be gained since Joseph would think], ‘See how he is ready to give his life for Rachel’s children, etc.’”
Similarly I say that all these acts of Joseph are accounted for by his wisdom in the interpretation of the dreams. Otherwise, one should wonder: After Joseph stayed in Egypt for many years and became chief and overseer in the house of a great lord in Egypt, how was it possible that he did not send a single letter to his father to inform him of his whereabouts and comfort him, as Egypt is only about a six-day journey from Hebron? Even if it were a year’s journey, out of respect to his father, he should have notified him, in which case even if the ransom of his person would be ever so costly, he would have redeemed him. But it was because Joseph saw that the bowing down of his brothers, as well as his father and all his family, could not possibly be accomplished in their homeland, and he was hoping that it would be effected in Egypt when he saw his great success there. This was all the more so after he heard Pharaoh’s dream, from which it became clear to him that all of them were destined to come there, and all his dreams would be fulfilled.

ערות, places where the walls were breached, areas from which it would be relatively easy to invade the country. The word ערוה is used in this sense in Chabakuk 3,13 ערות יסוד, “revealing its very foundations.” Another verse in which the word ערוה appears in a similar sense as here is Psalms 137,7 ערו ערו עד היסוד, as well as Isaiah 19,7 ערות על היאור”whatever is by the side of the Nile will be blown away, will vanish.” The fact that all the brothers were of exceptional build, always went everywhere together, made them distinctly different from other travelers so that Joseph pointed to that fact as being suspicious and accused them of being spies.

ויזכור יוסף את החלמות אשר חלם להם. He remembered the part his brothers had played in his dreams, how they had bowed down to him in the dream showing the sheaves of corn. (37,7) He remembered that only his own sheaf had remained erect, and not fallen after first having arisen. This is why he wanted that they would all come when he would recognise them and the part in the dream speaking of the upright sheaf remaining upright would be fulfilled also. This detail of the dream was due to Joseph symbolising the redeemer of the Jewish people in the future as portrayed by the words ירה ויור, “shoot!, and he shot”. in Kings II 13,17. [this was an opportunity, though missed because of the king of Israel not complying completely with the prophet Elisha’s instructions, of reuniting the kingdoms of Yehudah and the Kingdom of Israel. i.e. that of Ephrayim, the descendant of Joseph. Ed.] There were several such opportunities foreseen by the prophets compare Hoseah 2,2 and Daniel 2,44. The author does not really elaborate. Ed.]

ויזכור יוסף את החלומות, Joseph remembered the dreams, etc. Inasmuch as he had really dreamt what he claimed to have dreamt and they had accused him of telling lies because he wanted to become superior to them, he now intended to let them atone for their sin by in turn accusing them of something they had not been guilty of. He accused them of coming to spy.

אשר חלם להם, for the dreams had really concerned the brothers, primarily. He realised now that they had hated him on account of his dreams; this is why when he remembered all that they had done to him instead of repaying them in kind, he only made them extremely uncomfortable for a while. [perhaps what the author means is that originally, Joseph had thought that the brothers resented his becoming a big shot in his dreams, whereas only now did he realise that what they really resented was the fact that they, the brothers, appeared as socially low ranking, slave like, in Joseph’s dreams. Ed.]

ויזכור יוסף החלומות אשר חלם להם, “Joseph remembered the dreams he had dreamt concerning them.” According to Rashi, this means that he considered his dreams a having come true. Nachmanides not only does not agree, but, on the contrary, he feels that the Torah reports that Joseph’s dreams now revealed themselves to him as not having come true. When Joseph now saw his brothers he recalled all of his dreams and realized that not a single one had come true as yet. According to his interpretation of his dreams, all the brothers would bow down to him, whereas now only ten brothers had done so, something that had not been part of any of his dreams. In his second dream, not only his brothers were shown as bowing down to him. The main reason Joseph accused the brothers as being spies was because Binyamin had not come with them, and he wanted to devise a stratagem whereby at least the first of his dreams would come true henceforth. This is why he insisted on their bringing Binyamin down with them. If he had revealed himself to them already now, fulfillment of his dreams might never occur in accordance with what he had expected. Once the first dream of his had come true, Joseph manipulated things in such a way that the second dream could come true also, by instructing the brothers to move to Egypt, both they, their families and their aged father. If Joseph had not believed that his dreams were meant to be of a prophetic nature, and would come true, he would have been guilty of a grievous sin for not having revealed his whereabouts to his father who was grieving over him all these years. He had also caused Yaakov distress in not having allowed Shimon to return with the brothers on their first trip. Even allowing for the fact that Joseph thought that his brothers deserved some discomfort and worry in return for what they had subjected him to, how could he not have had pity on his father who had been so depressed for all these years, not knowing what had become of him! We can only justify his conduct throughout as an attempt not to preempt what had been decreed. [כל הדוחק את השעה, השעה דוחקת אותו “anyone who tries to pre-empt pre-ordained events= will experience that he himself will be pre-empted by other events to his detriment.” (Berachot 64.) Ed.] It is also possible that a major consideration in Joseph’s conduct was to examine whether the brothers’ hatred of him was based on his being a son of Rachel, jealousy of the sons of Leah on their mother’s behalf, or, whether it had been directed only at him, and he himself had brought it upon himself. To this end, he had them bring Binyamin to Egypt, planted the goblet in his sack to see if the sons of the other wives of Yaakov would now abandon their half brother, the remaining son of Rachel, or if they would all as one close ranks around the supposed “thief.” All of Joseph’s considerations were bound up with his exceptional gift of interpreting dreams. If it were not so, it would be most difficult to understand why, even after having attained high office, he still did not inform his father of his whereabouts, and the fact that he was alive. When he had interpreted the dream of Pharaoh successfully and been rewarded accordingly, why did he not at least send a letter to his father? By that time he had had every reason to believe that also his own dreams would come true, including the one in which his father bowed down to him?

Onkelos translates it: בדקא דארעא as in בדק הבית... Meaning: breach in the [wall of the] town.

Wir müssen aus dem Gegebenen versuchen, uns Josefs Benehmen zu erklären. Wir hätten denken sollen, er habe schon um seines Vaters willen sich ihnen sofort zu erkennen geben müssen, umsomehr, da er ja bereits in allem die göttliche Fügung erkannt und all sein Unglück samt der Versündigung der Brüder gegen ihn als das göttliche Werkzeug seines höchsten Glückes verehren gelernt hatte. Ein gescheidter Mann wie Josef kann auch nicht geglaubt haben, sich in den Dienst seiner Träume stellen zu müssen. Bedeutet der Traum etwas, so überlässt man dessen Realisierung dem, der ihn geschickt. Es können ihn nur Erwägungen der zwingendsten Notwendigkeit zu einem Verfahren veranlasst haben, das sonst als eine völlig zwecklose Schikanierung erscheinen würde, die man, abgesehen von dem sittlichen Charakter Josefs, schon seiner doch gewiss unleugbaren Klugheit nicht zutrauen dürfte. Denken wir uns ganz in seine Lage, so dürfte sich uns folgendes ergeben: Würde Josef seinem Vater und seinen Brüdern gegenüber wirklich der Fürst und nichts als der Fürst haben bleiben wollen, hätte ihm nichts daran gelegen, wieder als Sohn und Bruder in den Kreis der Familie einzutreten, er hätte aller dieser Veranstaltungen nicht bedurft. Allein er, der auch als ägyptischer Fürst seine Kinder für das Haus Jakob erzogen und auch seine Gebeine einst in väterlichem Boden wollte ruhen lassen, er musste vorher ein Zwiefaches als notwendig erkennen: 2. dass er womöglich von seinen Brüdern, vor allem aber, b. dass seine Brüder von ihm eine andere Meinung erhielten. Ihre inneren Gesinnungen zu einander mussten zuvor völlig andere geworden sein, sonst wäre nie ein inniges Verhältnis wieder möglich gewesen, und wenn auch äußerlich der Familie wiedergegeben, wäre ihm die Familie und er für sie verloren geblieben. Dass Josefs Meinung von den Brüdern keine ungetrübte, dass ihm ihre heftige Rücksichtslosigkeit gegenwärtig geblieben, mit der sie seines Flehens in der Grube, mit der sie des Schmerzes des Vaters nicht geachtet, das ist durchaus natürlich und konnte nur durch den Erweis vollständiger änderung aus seinem Gemüte getilgt werden. Es war ihm daher eine Notwendigkeit, sie zu prüfen, ob sie wohl noch einmal im Stande wären — und zwar aus durchaus reellen Ursachen — einen Sohn dem Vater abzulocken. Vielleicht lebenslängliches Gefängnis, die zu Hause vielleicht verhungernde Familie waren ernstere Gründe, als eine imaginäre, von Josefs vermeintlicher Herrschsucht drohende Gefahr. Diese Prüfung war für Josefs Gemüt notwendig, um, wenn sie sie bestehen, den letzten bittern Tropfen aus seinem Innern zu tilgen. Das Zweite aber, und vielleicht das Wichtigere war: Josef gedachte seiner Träume, gedachte, wie diese Träume bei ihnen die Vorstellung von seiner Herrschsucht und der ihnen daraus drohenden Gefahr geweckt und zu einer solchen tiefen Überzeugung gesteigert, dass sie sich aus vermeintlicher Selbstverteidigung zu dem größten Verbrechen berechtigt halten konnten. War dies bereits der Fall, als er noch im verbrämten Rock zwischen ihnen umherlief, um wie viel mehr musste er jetzt von ihnen mit Angst und Schrecken gefürchtet werden, wo er "König" war und noch dazu Ursache hatte, sie zu hassen und nach Art gemeiner Seelen sich an ihnen zu rächen. Es war daher mehr als notwendig, dass sie ihn in seinem wahren Charakter kennen lernten, und dazu war es vor allem nötig, dass er sich ihnen in seiner wahren Stellung zeigte. Bisher kannten sie ihn nur als den משכיר, vielleicht den Kommis eines untergeordneten Beamten, er musste sich ihnen als den שליט zeigen, sie mussten erfahren, wie er jetzt alles mit ihnen machen konnte, was er wollte, und wenn er dann doch, statt allen dessen, nur ihr größter beglückender Wohltäter wurde, so durfte er hoffen, sie damit von allen ihren irrigen Vorstellungen geheilt zu haben. Kurz, in dem Momente, wo er sich ihnen als Josef zeigte, musste ihnen die Binde von den Augen fallen und beiderseits ein völliger Strich durch die ganze Vergangenheit möglich sein. Nur so durfte er hoffen, wieder als Sohn und Bruder dem Vater und seinen Kindern wiedergegeben zu werden. Irren wir nicht, so dürften eben solche Erwägungen es auch gewesen sein, die Josef davon zurückgehalten, in den Jahren seines Glückes seinem Vater Kunde von sich zu geben. Was hätte Jakobs Herz dabei gewonnen, gegen ein wiedergewonnenes Kind zehn Kinder zu verlieren und fortan seinen Kinderkreis nur in feindseligster Spannung gegen einander denken zu müssen?! Zu diesem großen Ziele waren aber alle diese Veranstaltungen unumgänglich und — wie uns scheint — der Weisheit eines Josef völlig würdig. —

ערות הארץ means THE NAKEDNESS OF THE LAND — from which side it might easily be conquered. Of similar meaning are, (Leviticus 20:18) “He hath made naked (הערה) her fountain”; (Ezekiel 16:7), “naked and עריה) bare”. Indeed all forms of this root ערה signify “uncovering”). Onkelos renders it by “the breach (בדקא) of the land”, similar to (2 Kings 12:6), “the breach (בדק) of the house”— the defective places in the house — but he was not particular to translate according to the wording of the text (i.e. literally).

AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, YE ARE SPIES. This accusation requires some reason or some plausible explanation, for what did they do that he should so accuse them? People from every country came to him to buy grain, and they were “among those who came,” just as it says, To buy grain among those that came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan.¹⁴⁰Verse 5 here. Perhaps [the reason for the accusation was that] they had the appearance of men of stature and prominence, all of them clothed most gorgeously,¹⁴¹Ezekiel 38:4. whereupon he said to them, “It is not customary for prominent people as you to come to buy food, having as you do many servants.”
It is possible that they were the first ones to come from the land of Canaan. This is the meaning of the verse, And the sons of Israel came to buy grain among those that came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan,¹⁴⁰Verse 5 here. meaning that now they were the first who came from there. So Joseph said to them, “You are spies, since no one has come from the land of Canaan to buy food.” This is the intent of the question, “Where have you come from?”¹⁴²Verse 7 here. which he addressed to them at the outset.

לראות את ערות הארץ באתם, to find out if we have enough food supply for our own country. You did not really come here to buy. It is certainly not the custom of other buyers to arrive in groups of

מרגלים אתם!, “you are spies!” This was not a trumped up accusation, taken out of thin air. The arrival of Joseph’s brothers through ten different border checkpoints was certainly something suspicious, although the Torah did not bother to spell out this detail in its narrative. When they told Joseph that they were all the sons of one father but had not traveled together, as Joseph knew, this was an incriminating factor. We can reconstruct part of the dialogue between Joseph and his brothers. First they had been found entering through different gates, and then they suddenly claimed to all belong together. Such conduct begs further examination of their true intent. In addition, their garments revealed them to be people of prominence and wealth. Joseph was entitled to wonder why such people subjected themselves to a lengthy journey just to buy grain, instead of leaving this chore to one or more of their many servants. It is also possible that the brothers were among the first grain shoppers from the land of Canaan, and this prompted Joseph to question them more thoroughly than travelers arriving later.

לא אדני NAY, MY LORD — do not say this, for behold ועבדיך באו לשבר אכל THY SERVANTS HAVE COME TO BUY FOOD.

ויאמרו אליו לא אדוני, They said to him: "No sir, etc." They said; 1) There is no reason to suspect us of spying even if we had come without a specific purpose. [I believe the author derives this from the tone-sign tipcha under the word באו; we would have expected the tone-sign mercha Ed.] 2) "In fact your servants have come to purchase food." They presented the purpose of their presence to buy food as the most natural explanantion for their journey to Egypt.

ועבדיך, the letter ו at the beginning of this word substitutes for the word אבל, “but”. In other words: “no my lord, not as you have said; but your servants simply came here to buy food.” The use of the letter ו instead of the word אבל is not unique, as it also occurs in Psalms 7,5 ואחלצה צוררי ריקם, “but I have rescued my foe without reward.”

Do not say this (לא תאמר כן)... Rashi added in the wordsתאמר כן (say this) because Yoseif had declared them as spies, so the proper word [to deny this] would be אַל. So we see with Channah (Shmuel I, 1:16). Eli thought she was a drunk, and she replied [in denial]: אַל תתן אמתך לפני בת בליעל. Whereas לא [when standing alone] is the proper reply to a question or a request.

Rather, “Your servants have come to buy food.” This statement is not a proof [that they are not spies, which we see] because Yoseif replied, “No, rather, you have come to spy the land.” This is what the verse means: Do not say this. Rather, [the point is that] your servants have come to buy food. It is like saying אבל עבדיך.

כלנו בני איש אחד נחנו WE ARE ALL ONE MAN’S SONS — The Holy Spirit was enkindled in them and they included him with themselves (by using the word “We”) that he, also, was the son of their father (Genesis Rabbah 91:7).

WE ARE ALL ONE MAN’s SONS. It is possible to explain this plea as follows: They said that “since we are brothers, one man’s sons, who do not separate from each other for such is our father’s will, we all came to buy food, and we did not send one of us with his servants.” This indeed was the truth, for why should Jacob have sent them all, except that it was not their wish to be separated from one another. It is also possible that they did so because of the extreme famine, lest the grain brought by their servants be robbed from them on the way.
It is also possible that they said to him: “We are all one man’s sons. You can investigate him, for he is known in the gates by the vastness of his wealth and the multitude of his children. And if you will inquire and investigate, you will know that we are trustworthy, righteous men, sons of a righteous one, and not spies.”

כולנו בני איש אחד נחנו, this is why we always keep together, not because we are spies.

כלנו בני איש אחד יחנו, if we were spies we would have to be in the employ of some king. No king would select as his spies all members of the same family. The only reason why we arrived together is because we are all members of the same family.

כלנו בני איש אחד, "we are all the sons of one man." There is no reason to suspect us of being spies. Spies are always from different branches of a community. Moses sent out spies from all the twelve tribes; even the two spies Joshua despatched were not sons of the same man. It is in the nature of things that spies should be representative of the people on whose behalf they spy. It would not make sense to appoint ten members of the same family as spies. They added: כנים אנחנו, "we are honest men," meaning that after we have identified ourselves it should be obvious that we are honest. Spies would never identify themselves voluntarily.

כלנו בני איש אחד, if you claimed that the fact that we stick together is proof that we are spies, consider that the reason why we stick together is because we are all sons of the same father. This is why we always ask our questions in unison. We belong to the same family, and are honest upright people.

כלנו בני איש אחד, “we are all the sons of the same father.” They answered the question why all of them had come, saying that they were brothers, and that their father did not want them to separate from one another. It is also possible that they answered that the reason why they had all come was due to the severity of the famine, and their fear that Joseph would sell only to one family head at a time. Moreover, had they sent their servants, they could not be sure that these servants would not sell of part of the purchase at higher prices to people who had not taken the trouble to journey to Egypt. The brothers may even have assumed a provocative posture, telling Joseph that he could examine them minutely as they were so sure of being upright and that they were well known as such in their hometown, in Chevron.

(11-12) Längst ist es bemerkt worden, dass er daraus, dass sie doch ein jeder für sich zu kaufen hatten und doch alle zusammen gekommen, den Anlass genommen habe, ihnen andere Gründe unterzuschieben, sie für Spione zu erklären. Wenn dem so ist, dass sonst nicht Familien zusammen gekommen sind, so wäre es ein charakteristisches Zeichen des Einflusses, den eine so allgemeine Kalamität geübt. Man sagt sonst, Not verbindet. Aber wie lange? So lange man in dem andern einen Helfer erblickt. Aber sodald dieses aufhört, die höchste Not isoliert. Jeder sucht dann nur sich selbst zu retten. Dass nun בני יעקב in dieser allerhöchsten Not zusammenhielten, das ist kein unedles Merkzeichen des jüdischen Familiengeistes, der sie auch in der höchsten Not, wo keiner mehr etwas von dem andern zu erwarten hatte, ja, wo jeder in dem andern nur einen Konkurrenten erblicken durfte, zusammen hielt. Keiner drängte sich vor. Sie wollten alles, das sie doch nur einzeln erhalten konnten, gleichzeitig und gemeinschaftlich erhalten. — אנחנו — נחנו. In der Angabe ihrer sozialen Stellung sprechen sie bescheiden: נחנו. Allein, in ihrem Charakter angegriffen, mit vollem, stolzem Bewusstsein: אנחנו. Redlichkeit und Unbescholtenheit wiegen mehr als כן — .יחוס, von כון: das, was so ist, wie es sein soll: der sich durch keine Rück- noch Absichten vom Rechten abwendig machen lässt, wir waren nie Kundschafter. Es liegt dies gar nicht in unserer Sinnesart, Spionage zu treiben.

כולנו בני איש אחד, “we are all the sons of the same father.” How was this revelation an appropriate answer to the accusation that they were spies? Presumably they meant to say that if indeed they had been spies the spies that were sent were people that did not know one another. (Attributed to Rav Meir.)

כנים means TRUE MEN — Similar examples of כן in sense of true, right, are (Exodus 10:29) “Thou hast spoken right (כן)”; (Numbers 27:7) “The daughters of Zelophechad speak (כן) right”; (Isaiah 16:6) “and his wrath, his untruthful (לא־כן) boastings”.

THY SERVANTS HAVE NOT BEEN SPIES. The meaning of this expression is: “We have been trustworthy in all our affairs from our youth on. Your servants have not been spies from then till now.” Similarly, We have not been spies,¹⁴³Further in Verse 31. means: “We have never been spies.”
Now our Rabbis have been aroused by the matter we have discussed,¹⁴⁴Namely, what did the brothers do to justify Joseph’s accusation that they were spies? and they have expounded¹⁴⁵Bereshith Rabbah 91:6. that they entered the city by ten different gates in the manner of spies, and it was for this reason that he accused them. Now this is plausible; however, Scripture does not mention it! Moreover, at the very outset, the brothers said to him in defense of themselves, We are all one man’s sons, and [if, as the Midrash has it, the basis of his accusation was that they entered by ten different gates], this itself indicates their guilt.¹⁴⁶Since brothers as a rule stay together, the fact that they did not enter by the same gate indicates that they are spies.
Now it is possible to say in explanation of the Midrash that Joseph originally said to them, “you entered by ten gates, and now you are all gathering in one place and conspiring together. This is nothing other than the behavior of spies.” Thereupon they said to him, “It is because we are brothers that we are gathered together.” But he said, “Not so, but you have come to find out the condition of the land.¹⁴⁷Verse 12 here. If you were brothers you should have entered by one gate, just as you are now together.” Then they told him that one of them is gone,¹⁴⁸Verse 13 here. and that they had gone in search of him, [which was why they entered by different gates]. Scripture, however, does not care to prolong the discussion of the motivation of their arguments.

כנים אנחנו, not only are we 100% above board in all our dealings, but

לא היו עבריך מרגלים, "your servants have never been spies." They chose the past tense to indicate that they had not even been spies before they had been identified. Naturally, now, that they were known, they could not be spies even if they wanted to.

לא היו עבדיך מרגלים, we have never been spies in the past either, and there is no reason at all of suspecting us to be spies now.

כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות BUT TO SEE THE NAKEDNESS OF THE LAND YE ARE COME — I still insist that you are spies, for what you have just said bears this out for you have entered by ten different gates of the city; why did you not all enter by the same gate if you are really brothers and travelled together? (Genesis Rabbah 91:6).

ויאמר אליהם לא, כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות, if it were as you said, how could you not even leave one of you at home to attend to the needs of your father? Joseph said all this in order to find out if his full brother Binyamin was alive. As a result of his probing they elaborated that in fact they were a total of twelve brothers, one, the youngest having remained at home and one having been lost. They did not know his whereabouts or if he was even alive. We know that there were several questions and answers as when the brothers returned home and their father was reprimanding them for volunteering uncalled for information about their family status, they replied that the “man” had kept asking more and more questions. (compare 43,7)

לא. It is simply not true that you are brothers.

ויאמר אליהם לא. He said to them: "NO!" "Your words are not convincing since your actions contradict what you have said. You have demonstrated by your actions that you were searching for weak points in the land. I know this because you have each entered the country by a different border point (compare Bereshit Rabbah 91,6). The only reason for this is that you wanted to spy.

Why did you not all enter through one gate? Yoseif knew his brothers would come to buy food, and he told the guards of the gates to write the name and father’s name of whoever came to the city, and show it to him. Ten guards came and he found here, “Reuven son of Yaakov,” and there, “Shimon ben Yaakov,” and so in every record book. Thus he knew they entered through ten gates. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, on: “You have come to see where the land is exposed” (v. 9)? The answer is: The proof for it is here, because it is written in the next verse, “Your servants are twelve brothers... and one is no more.” How did this refute his assertion that they were spies? Perforce, Yoseif had said, “[You are spies,] for you entered through ten different gates of the city,” to which they replied, “No, rather we are all the sons of one man... and one is no more.” And it was because of the one who is no more that we scattered throughout the city in order to search for him, [as Rashi explains on v. 9].

כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות, “for you came to seek out the country’s nakedness.” Rashi comments on this that the brothers had used ten different border crossing points when entering Egypt. If you want to know how Joseph knew all this, Midrash Tanchumah explains that Joseph had issued 3 decrees. 1) No slave was to be allowed entry into Egypt in order to buy grain on behalf of his master. 2) No person was allowed to walk behind two donkeys; 3) no one was to be allowed entry unless he registered with his own name and that of his father and grandfather. Moses collected this information day after day, and examined if any of his brothers had registered. Seeing his brothers had entered at ten different border crossings, he had knowledge of this, and could challenge them, so that they would reveal in self defense that they were all brothers of one father. Their father had instructed them not to draw attention to themselves; when each one came to the border crossing and the border guard would ask about his name and the name of his father and grandfather, he would answer truthfully: Reuven son of Yaakov and grandfather Yitzchok.

כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות, you have agreed among your selves to claim to be brothers so that this would provide you with a pretext to act as spies in the land and to find weak spots in our security system.

'ויאמרו שנים עשר עבדיך וגו AND THEY SAID, THY SERVANTS WERE TWELVE BRETHREN — [AND ONE IS NO MORE], and it is on account of that one who is no more that we dispersed ourselves through the city in order that we might search for him (Genesis Rabbah 91:6).

שנים עשר עבדיך אחים, בני איש אחד בארץ כנען, what we have said before can easily be proven. After all, our father is still alive in the land of Canaan. Both he and his neighbours will confirm what we have told you, i.e. that we used to be twelve brothers, that one went missing, and that the youngest remained to look after the affairs of our father’s household. You can confirm that we have spoken the truth by checking out all these details.

ויאמרו שנים עשר עבדיך אחים, They said: "Your servants are twelve brothers, etc." They explained that they had split up in order to locate the missing brother. They added that the youngest brother remained at home with his father. They volunteered this information as it was something that could be proved and would help establish their credibility.

ויאמרו...בני איש אחד, they now felt the need to assert further that they were in fact honest and forthcoming by revealing that actually there were twelve of them, all sons of the same father, etc.

שנים עשר עבדיך אחים אנחנו, “we, your servants, are actually twelve brothers.” Originally they had said that they were twelve men all the sons of a single father (verse 11). They had done so in order to explain why they were traveling together and keeping company all the time. They also explained that their traveling together reduced the chance of their being robbed of their food purchases.

Sie erklärten ihm ihr Zusammenkommen aus ihrer Brüderlichkeit und gingen in die Spezialitäten ein, damit er sich eventuell erkundigen könne.

את אבינו, they had left one brother to attend to the needs of their father during their absence

איננו; the reason why they chose this ambiguous way of referring to the fate of their missing brother was to avoid being trapped. If they had said that their missing bother was dead, Joseph could have accused them of lying –in the event Joseph was alive and this ruler had knowledge of the fact.- They knew that Joseph had been sold to Egypt but had no knowledge beyond this. They had reason to fear that while a slave in Egypt and wanting to obtain his freedom he might have revealed his origins, implicating the brothers in having sold him. The fact that this slave, like they themselves was of Hebrew origin, may well have become known as he had been bought from Hebrews. Even the wife of Potiphar, when thwarted in her advances too him, suddenly refers to him in a derogatory fashion as “the Hebrew man her husband had brought into the house to belittle them, etc.” (39,14) The Chief of the cup-bearers had also referred to him as Hebrew slave. (41,12) However, while Joseph may have revealed or may not have been able to conceal that he was a Hebrew, it was by no means certain that he had also revealed details about his family, his father, etc. Neither would he have had reason to reveal how many brothers he had\, etc. Therefore, when referring to him, they decided to use the non committal ואיננו, meaning that they had no knowledge of where he was if he was still alive.

הוא אשר דברתי THAT IS IT THAT I SPAKE UNTO YOU — The statement which I made — that you are spies — is true and certain. This is the meaning according to the literal sense of the words. A Midrashic explanation is: he said to them, “And if you find him (your brother) and they demand of YOU a large sum, would you redeem him?” They answered him, “Certainly!” He asked them, “If they tell you that they will not restore him to you for any sum of money, what would you do?” They replied, “That is what we have come for — to kill or to be killed”. Whereupon he retorted:הוא אשר דברתי אליכם THAT IS JUST WHAT I SAID TO YOU — you have come to kill the people of this city. I have divined by my goblet that two of you destroyed the great city of Shechem (Genesis Rabbah 91:7).

הוא אשר דברתי אליכם, the very one of whom you have said that he is no longer, whereas you refused to be specific about what happened to him, is the one who went back to report all that you have seen here, or that you have decided to stay a while in order to engage in spying.

הוא אשר דברתי, "This is precisely what I have said (you came to spy)." Joseph meant: "I do not retract a single word from what I have said before." The word לאמור here means "I continue to say what I have said all along."

הוא אשר דברתי, if you really spoke the truth that ten of you came as brothers, why did the eleventh not come also? As far as your claiming that he stayed home in order to attend to the needs of your father, what about your father’s wives and your own wives? Are they not able to cope with these chores during your absence?

The statement that I made, that you are spies... Rashi is answering the question: Does the verse not imply that the brothers, too, said they were spies? For we find Yoseif responding to them, “That is just what I said... you are spies.” Yet this cannot be true, for they said, “Your servants have never been spies.” Rashi answers: The word “that” (הוא) belongs at the end of the sentence. [Accordingly,] the verse means: “What I said to you, saying you are spies, that is the truth.” Some ask: What was it that led Yoseif to accuse them of being spies, causing him to say, “That is just what I said... you are spies”? Another question: How would bringing Binyamin verify that they were not spies? The answer is: First he said to them, “You are spies, for you entered through ten different gates of the city,” as Rashi explained. They replied, “We are all the sons of one man, and a man does not send all his sons together to spy, lest they be caught and all killed.” He said to them, “According to this, you surely are spies. Would a man send all his sons [to buy food] without leaving one or two to serve him? Perforce, your father sent [some of] you to spy the land, but since [each of] you was afraid to be caught and did not want to [be the one to] take the chance, your father was obliged to send all of you. Furthermore, he did this so that you could take counsel from ten, because “Salvation results from much counsel” (Mishlei 11:14). To this they replied, “Your servants are twelve brothers, and behold, the youngest one stayed with our father to serve him, while the ten of us went to search for our lost brother. None would do this as faithfully as his own brothers. We risked our lives to bring him back to his father, and entered through ten gates.” Yoseif replied, “That is just what I said to you. You are spies. You claim your brother is missing for many years, but you did not search for him until now! Surely you are lying, and you came to spy. And it is also a lie that you left one brother with your father to serve him. Therefore, you shall be tested in this manner. If your brother comes with you, it is questionable whether you are spies. But if he does not come, you definitely are spies, for the reasons I stated.” This answers all the questions. In the name of Maharshal I found somewhat similar to this.

Das eben greift Josef auf. Weil euer Vater weiß, dass euer Vorhaben ein gefährliches ist, schickt er den Jüngsten nicht mit.

It is also possible that Joseph meant: "When I accused you of spying this is exactly what I had in mind. You came to look for something you had lost. You yourselves have only confirmed it. The Midrash there describes the discussion about what the brothers were going to do if they located their brother and the owner would refuse to release him The word לאמור is an allusion to what the brothers had said they would do in such an event.

חי פרעה BY THE LIFE OF PHARAOH — If Pharaoh lives! Whenever he swore for the sake of appearance (literally, falsely) he swore by Pharaoh’s life (Genesis Rabbah 91:7).

בזאת תבחנו, if he is not your brother, the youngest one of whom you spoke will not endanger his own life to come with you and to share your fate of the death penalty.

בזאת תבחנו, "You will be tested as follows:" Joseph expressed readiness to put their words to the test by the yardstick they themselves had provided, although this was not sufficient proof for their claim that they had come to Egypt to obtain the release of their brother.

כי אם בבוא אחיכם הנה, “unless your other brother comes here.” The reason Joseph was not suspecting them of bringing some other individual, claiming that he was their brother, was that all ten of them had features which showed unmistakably that they were closely related to one another.

If Pharaoh lives. If understood literally, [חי פרעה means “Pharaoh’s life,” then the verse is not understandable. Thus Rashi added the word “if” (אם) so that it means, “If Pharaoh lives you shall not leave from here.” Accordingly, אם conveys a negative. It is like אם לדוד אכזב (Tehillim 89:36), which means, “I will not lie to David.” From our verse it follows that if you do leave, Pharaoh will not live. Yet, they left [with Yoseif’s permission], proving that “Whenever he swore falsely [he would swear by Pharaoh’s life].”

אם תצאו מזה YE SHALL NOT GO FORTH FROM THIS i.e. from this place.

Alternatively, Joseph meant that if their younger brother would confirm that all his brothers had come to Egypt to locate and free their lost brother, he, Joseph, would believe all they had said.

האמת אתכם means WHETHER THERE BE TRUTH IN YOU — therefore the ה has the vowel Patach, because it is a kind of question. And if you do not (ואם לא) bring) him חי פרעה כי מרגלים אתם BY THE LIFE OF PHARAOH, SURELY YOU ARE SPIES.

שלחו מכם אחד, "Despatch one of you, etc." They did not do this as they were concerned that their father would worry needlessly about the fate of all the remaining brothers.

if you indeed speak the truth, as you claimed when you said that you are כנים, truthful, above board.

Whether there is truth with you. Rashi is answering the question: האמת אתכם seems to show that Yoseif admitted that the truth was with them. But does this not contradict, “Your words will be tested,” which shows that he was in doubt about them? Thus Rashi said that the ה is in question form, conveying: “Is it so?”

(16-17) Er ließ ihnen drei Tage Zeit, um ihre Lage ganz durchdenken zu können und um das Dringliche derselben auf sie einwirken zu lassen. Ihnen droht Gefahr, ihre Familien verhungern, es waren der Gründe genug, die wohl einen oder den andern von ihnen zu dem Entschluss bewegen konnten, den Vater durch List oder Gewalt von dem Benjamin zu trennen. Denn er konnte doch hinlänglich wissen, dass der Vater es nicht gutwillig zulassen würde.

If you do not bring him, then by Pharaoh’s life, you are spies. [Rashi knows this] because it cannot mean that “If you are not tested, then by Pharaoh’s life, you are spies.” For even if they are not tested, they are not necessarily spies.

Furthermore, they were convinced that if only one brother would arrive back in the land of Canaan their father would never allow Benjamin to travel. We only need to look at the strenuous efforts Yehudah had to make to obtain permission for Benjamin to travel even though all the brothers except Shimon had returned home. If all the brothers were in jail in Egypt there would be no chance at all of Jacob allowing the last of the brothers to risk his life also.

It may also be that the brothers did not even consider being separated. The only reason that they eventually agreed to leave Shimon behind was that Joseph had made this a test of how they could establish their credibility. I shall explain this in greater detail in my commentary on verse 19.

משמר WARD — the prison-house.

AND HE PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER INTO A WARD THREE DAYS. This he did in order to frighten them and to make them believe that it is G-d he fears,¹⁴⁹Verse 18 here. meaning that it is because of his fear of G-d that he is releasing them lest the people of their households perish from hunger. This is the meaning of his words, The rest of you, go and take grain home to your starving households.¹⁵⁰Verse 19 here. Besides, they would not have consented to leave the one [Simeon]¹⁵¹See Verse 24. behind except for the purpose of saving all their families.

ויאסוף, he caused them mental pain without touching their bodies or causing them financial loss.

ויאסוף אותם אל משמר, “he put all of them together in jail.” This was intended to instill fear in them. He also wanted to demonstrate that he was a G’d-fearing individual so that when he eventually released all but one of them it was so that their families should not suffer hunger and deprivation merely because of a suspicion he had that they were spies. He also wanted to see if they would leave one of them as a hostage. Seeing that they would not agree to this voluntarily, he first jailed all of them.

Prison. I.e., משמר does not mean that he merely placed guards (שומרים) over them, for in v. 19 it is written יֵאָסֵר בבית משמרכם (imprisoned in your place of משמר). Rashi did not explain on 41:10 that משמר means prison because there it is clearly written in 40:3 that it was a בית הסוהר (jail).

את האלוקים אני ירא. Therefore, I will let you take home enough food for your families

את האלוקים אני ירא, therefore I will not detain all of you seeing that your families are starving and I would be to blame for this. I will only detain one of you in order to put your claim to the test.

ביום השלישי זאת עשו “on the third day ‘do this!’” According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,9 the verse in Hoseah 6,2 יחיינו מיומים ביום השלישי יקימנו ונחיה לפניו, “In two days He will make us whole again; on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live in His presence,” are a reference to what happened to the brothers during the three days described in our verse. G’d does not subject the righteous to trials lasting more than three days. The merit of the fathers Yaakov, Yitzchak, and Avraham was instrumental in Joseph changing his mind. The third day was significant already ever since the day Avraham espied the mountain on which he prepared Yitzchak as a sacrifice (Genesis 22,4), and it became important again in Exodus 19,16 as the day G’d revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. This implies that the merit of their Torah learning also assisted the brothers when they confronted Joseph.

בבית משמרכם (literally, in the house of your ward) — the house in which you are at present imprisoned.

אם כנים אתם, "If you are really honest, etc." This verse may be understood with the help of our sages in Yerushalmi Terumot chapter 8. We read there as follows: "If a group of people travel together and they encounter Gentiles who demand that one of them be handed over to be killed, the alternative being that they would all be killed, it is forbidden to hand over anyone belonging to the group. The whole group must face death rather than make the decision whom to hand over. If, however, the person to be handed over had been named by the killers, the others may save their lives by handing over that person." When Joseph said: "if you are honest, etc.," he meant that the brothers knew full well if they were telling the truth; אחיכם אחד, your one brother will be imprisoned. There was no death threat to the brothers, hence they were allowed to choose whom to hand over for incarceration. Joseph implied that if, on the other hand, they were dishonest, i.e. spies, (which made all of them guilty of the death penalty) then, of course, they would not be allowed to hand over one of their number who had not been specified. Handing over their brother would then be tantamount to killing him. This would also be illegal as they would all have to be prepared to die. The brothers were agreeable, thus indicating that they had spoken truthfully all along. We may presume that the brothers themselves elected that Shimon be imprisoned; Joseph did not single him out.

שבר רעבון בתיכם, what will break the hunger, i.e. the harvest; this is why the harvest, תבואה is also called שבר, as we have already explained on 41,56.

שבר רעבון בתיכם, “the provisions to still the hunger of your families.” This verse contains the veiled lesson that man must not use food and drink in order to indulge himself and his palate but merely in order to maintain the health of his body. Solomon phrases this principle thus in Proverbs 13,25: “the righteous eats to sustain his life-force.” This is the reason that Joseph used the term שבר רעבון when speaking of the provisions he let them purchase. The limitation (rationing) was particularly appropriate at a time of famine when there is not enough food available to gorge oneself. The principal manifestation of a person’s יראת ה', fear of the Lord, is the manner in which he makes minimal use of the creature comforts available to him in this world. This is the reason that Joseph commenced this sentence with the words את האלו-הים אני ירא, “I am a G’d-fearing person.”

In which you are now imprisoned. [Rashi explains this] so we will not think that משמרכם (your place of guarding) means that it was made especially for them.

ואתם לכו הביאו BUT YE, GO, CARRY to your father’s house.

That you bought for the hunger of the people of your household. [Here,] שבר denotes buying, not selling. And since hunger is not applicable to their houses, Rashi added “the people of your houses.”

It is also possible that the brothers had agreed between themselves to leave one of their number behind as a guarantee but before they could agree on who it should be Joseph decided to keep Shimon as he considered Shimon and Levi together as very dangerous.

שבר רעבון בתיכם CORN FOR THE FAMINE OF YOUR HOUSES — what you have purchased for the hunger of the people in your houses.

ויאמנו דבריכם— means so shall your words be verified and confirmed. Other examples are, (Numbers 5:22) “It is true, it is true (אמן אמן)”, and (1 Kings 8:26) “Let thy word, I pray thee, be verified (יאמן).”

ולא תמותו, he meant that they would not die here, as he was able to have them killed also in the land of Canaan if they would not come back of their own free will.

ויאמנו דבריכם. "And your words will be verified." This means that if the brothers did not agree it would prove their guilt and that that was the reason they did not dare leave one brother behind. Moreover, it would be forbidden to hand over an unnamed individual if there was a likelihood he was guilty of the death penalty. Another possible meaning of these words is simply that by bringing Benjamin down to Egypt Joseph would make sure their families would not die of starvation. The brothers referred to this when they told their father in verse 34 that Joseph had offered ואת הארץ תסחרו, "you may travel freely in the land."

They decided to do so. In the course of making the difficult decision of who to leave behind, they said, “In truth, we are guilty, etc.”

ויעשו כן, “they did so.” This teaches that all the brothers willingly submitted to Joseph’s decision and said to him: “we are all at your disposal; take the one from amongst us whom you choose.”

Will be shown to be true... as in: אמן אמן... Rashi is saying that ויאמנו does not mean “faithful” (אמונה). It means “true,” as in: “And the woman shall say אמן... (Bamidbar 5:22). For the kohein says [to the sotah], “Adonoy shall make you a curse and an oath...” and then it is written, “And the woman shall say אמן.” There, אמן cannot mean “faithful.” It can mean only it will be “true” that her thigh will collapse, etc.

ויעשו כן, sie konnten ja nicht anders.

.ויעשו כן, “they did so.” They agreed with Joseph’s conditions.

אבל VERILY — It is to be understood as the Targum renders it: בקושטא “in truth”. I have seen a statement in (Genesis Rabbah 91:8) that in the Roman (Latin) language אבל means ברם (verum) truly, indeed.

IN THAT WE SAW THE DISTRESS OF HIS SOUL, WHEN HE IMPLORED US. It is obvious that the brothers now considered their display of cruelty towards Joseph as deserving of a greater punishment than the sale itself since it was their blood-brother who was imploring and prostrating himself before them and they remained unmoved. Scripture, however, did not relate there [that Joseph implored them at the time of the sale], either because it is naturally understood that a person would implore his brothers when falling into their grip when their intention is to harm him, swearing by the life of his father, and doing all that is possible to save himself from death. It may be the desire of Scripture to speak only briefly of their sin, or it is possible that it is characteristic of Scripture to speak briefly about a matter in one place, and to elaborate on it in another place.
Now Reuben answered them by saying: “Now I already told you at the time that the event took place that you should not sin against him for he is only a lad, and only on account of his youth did he sin against you, and it is therefore fitting for you to gloss over the sins of his youth. And now, his blood also,¹⁵²Verse 22 here. together with the display of cruelty which you mention, is required.” Perhaps the explanation of the phrase, his blood also, may be: “Even though you have not killed him, G-d will require his blood of you, and it will be accounted to you as if you spilled his blood since he was sold as a permanent slave, for it is possible that being a darling child,¹⁵³Jeremiah 31:19. unused to work, he died.”
Our Rabbis have expounded¹⁵⁴Bereshith Rabbah 91:10. “The expression, ‘Also’ his blood, implies his blood and the blood of his aged father.”

הצרה הזאת, tit for tat. We threw Joseph into a pit, now we have been thrown into jail.

בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמעבו. This made us guilty of being cruel against our brother, even though we considered him halachically in the category of a רודף, someone threatening us. We should have reacted with pity once he started pleading with us. Now, we are being punished by being treated cruelly ourselves by the ruler of this land.

ויאמרו….אבל אשמים אנחנו, They said:…"but we are guilty (of something else)." The word אבל, "but" does not appear to have any meaning here. Onkelos translates it as "truthfully;" I do not agree with this translation either. There was no need for the brothers to say: "truthfully," as if they had so far not spoken truthfully. Besides, why did the brothers have to add: "when we saw his anguish, etc,? All they had to say was that they were guilty of having sold their brother into slavery. This was the essence of their guilt.

ויאמרו, after Joseph had finished speaking with them and had left, the interpreter who had acted to preserve the impression that Joseph did not understand Hebrew also left the room where the encounter between Joseph and his brothers had taken place. In the absence of the interpreter the brothers acknowledged their sin against Joseph, seeing in their incarceration and in their position as accused, G’d’s punishment for their conduct against Joseph. They knew that they had been discriminated against by Joseph, knowing that they had been subjected to a far more intense questioning than other travelers who had come to Egypt to buy food. This is why they connected their present predicament to their behaviour against Joseph. However, they saw the nature of their sin not in their basic attitude to Joseph but

אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו, “when we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us, etc.” Although the Torah had not written about this, it is impossible to imagine that Joseph did not plead for mercy with his brothers when they threw him into the pit. The Torah condensed the scene in order not to unnecessarily portray the brothers as heartless monsters.

(21-22) אבל tritt immer einer früheren Annahme entgegen, verdunkelt (,אפל אול ,אבל) was früher klar und entschieden geschienen. Indem die Brüder hier אבל sagen, müssen sie sich bisher nicht für schuldig gehalten haben. Sie werfen sich auch jetzt nur Grausamkeit und Härte vor, bisher auch dies nicht, sie hatten es als Notwehr betrachtet. Reuben aber sieht ihre Schuld nicht nur in Hartherzigkeit, er hatte ihnen von anfang gesagt: ihr begeht ein Unrecht; er hatte in Josef nur ein Kind gesehen und seine Pläne, vor denen ihnen graute, als Kindereien betrachtet. Er sagte ihnen daher: Ihr habt euch nicht nur vorzuwerfen, dass ihr nicht Gnade für Recht habt ergehen lassen, sondern ihr habt euch schwer an ihm versündigt. — אשם und אשם .חטא: die mit א׳ beginnenden Wurzeln individualisieren den Begriff, der mit dem zweiten und dritten Wurzelbuchstaben ausgedrückt wird, wie א בר ,א כל ,א הב usw. So auch .א שם שמם heißt: ein leerer Raum sein, daher שָם: die Hinweisung auf einen Raum, den etwas einnimmt, oder einnehmen soll. שממה: ein des Inhalts vollkommen entleerter Raum, die Öde. Auch die Geistesöde, in welcher kein Gedanke aufdämmert, heißt שמם, eine Geistesleere ohne Vorstellung und Gedanken. אשם demgemäß: in sich selbst den Grund der Verödung tragen, in der eigenen Persönlichkeit den Grund der שממה haben. Es können jemandem alle Güter ohne sein Verschulden geraubt werden, dann ist es שממה ohne אשם. Wenn aber der Persönlichkeit selbst der Grund der Entziehung von Gütern und Freuden innewohnt, so ist das Bewusstsein davon: אשם .אשם ist also das Bewusstsein, dass man eine Verödung an Lebensgütern und Freuden verdiene. חטא ist, wie wir gesehen haben, eine "Verdunkelung" unseres sittlichen Wesens, Entziehung dessen, das ׳לחם אשה ד sein sollte, diesem göttlichen Einflusse. חטא bezeichnet somit das Vergehen nach seinem Ursprunge in unserem Innern und nach seiner Wirkung auf unser Inneres. חטא ist die unausbleibliche, sofort im Entstehen eintretende innere Folge der Sünde: unser Fernwerden von dem Göttlichen, während אשם die zu er- wartende äußere Folge der Sünde bezeichnet. אָשֵם ist die Stimme des Gewissens, die dem חוטֵא die שממה in Aussicht stellt. dass אשם mehr in Beziehung zu den äußeren als inneren Momenten der Sünde steht, sehen wir an den Opfern. אשם גזלות und מעילות stehen schon durch das Vergehen selbst in Beziehung zu äußeren Gütern. Spezifisch ist dafür איל der Ausdruck der besitzmächtigen Persönlichkeit, und nur אשם hat ein Minimum bestimmten Wertes. הטאות und אשמות treten vorzugsweise für שגג ein, und stets steht dabei ואָשֵם, "er verdient שממה" und dies hängt tief mit dem Begriff שכך) שגג), ja eigentlich "Sorglosigkeit" zusammen. שגגה entsteht aus Sorglosigkeit und sittlicher Gleichgültigkeit und hat nur ein geringes, sich leicht entschuldigendes Schuldbewusstsein zur Folge. Während daher für מזיד auch die irdische Gerechtigkeit eintritt, gehört es mit zur erziehenden göttlichen Waltung, unser in שגגה eingeschläfertes Bewusstsein durch יסורין, durch äußere Leiden, durch angehende "Verödung", aufmerksam zu machen, dass etwas in unserer Lebensweise fehl ist und der Änderung bedarf. Dieses Wecken und Betätigen des Schuldbewusstseins ist Zweck der Sündenopfer, die somit die Leidenserziehung vertreten, und tritt dieses מגין על היסורין bei אשם תלוי שבא על הספק um so bedeutender hervor, als eben bei der zweifelhaften שגגה das Schuldbewusstsein am meisten schlummert und der ernsten Weckung in noch höherem Grade bedarf. So auch hier: Seit 20 Jahren haben sie bei sich plädiert und sich entschuldigt, jetzt aber werden sie durch Leiden erschüttert, und es tritt das אבל אשמים אנחנו hervor: es lastet dennoch ein ungesühntes Unrecht noch auf uns, das uns und den Unsrigen Gefahr und Untergang, שממה, Verödung droht — die Stimme des Gewissens lässt sich nicht ersticken, man kann Asche auf die Kohlen schütten, aber noch nach fünfzig Jahren schlägt die Flamme hell hervor — אבל! Es ist doch alles unwahr, was wir uns vorgesprochen. das strafende Verhängnis ist erst im Anzuge, die gegenwärtige :עלינו nicht ,באה אלינו Not nur der Anfang. —

באה אלינו [THIS DISTRESS] IS COME UPON US — The word באה has the accent upon the ב because it is the perfect tense — for it had already come upon them. The Targum therefore renders it by אתת which is a perfect tense in Aramaic — it has come.

בהתחננו אלינו¸ their turning a deaf ear to Joseph’s pleas for mercy after he had been thrown into the pit. Joseph had started pleading already when they stripped him of the coloured coat his father had had made for him especially. The entire episode is described in detail by the Torah to teach the reader that if and when apparently undeserved troubles befall him, that he is to examine his past deeds to find out what sin, intentional or unintentional, could have caused G’d to bring this to his attention in such a manner so that he would repent his error. He is to exploit his troubles to ask G’d for forgiveness for his wrongdoing. [even if the major act of penitence has to be performed toward the person against whom he had sinned and from whom he must ask for a pardon. Ed.]

ולא שמענו, “and we did not listen.” They now realized that their cruelty deserved harsh punishment, much more so than the sale of him to the Ishmaelites. Reuven told them that he had already told them at the time not to become guilty of a sin against the “child.” Reuven had argued that Joseph’s conduct stemmed from youthful immaturity, and not from a thirst for power over his brothers. Now, they are being paid back by G’d not only for their cruelty, but also for his death, i.e. “his blood.” In G’d’s eyes, although they had not killed him with their hands, they had still been the cause of his death. He had probably not been able to perform the duties a slave has to perform just because he had been physically still a child.

Perhaps they still considered that Joseph had been guilty of the death penalty and if they had only sold him they had actually performed an act of kindness. As to the grief they had caused their father at the time, they were certain that at the present time G'd would not heap further grief upon their father as a result of their having sold Joseph at that time. The only thing they did feel guilty of was not displaying a sense of compassion when they saw Joseph's anguish when he pleaded for his life and they proved cruel. It is not becoming for people who consider themselves as righteous to conduct themselves in such a heartless manner.

אל תחטאו בילד, indem ihr euch an dem Kinde vergreift, handelt ihr schlecht, es ist nicht das göttliche Feuer, das in euch lodert, ihr fallet aus dem göttlichen Feuer der Sünde in die Hand.

It is also possible that when the brothers saw that they were all being jailed, they began to think which one of them was the cause of the disaster that had befallen them. The common denominator up to that point had been the fact that they had sold Joseph. Since Reuben had been innocent of that crime, not having been present when both the suggestion and the implementation of selling Joseph had been made, they had to search for something that both they and Reuben were guilty of. They concluded therefore that it must have been their heartlessness. Reuben too had not responded to Joseph's pleas as he had suggested that the brothers throw him in the pit instead of killing him outright. No doubt Joseph had pleaded with all the brothers not to do that to him. In fact, slow death in the pit was a more frightening prospect to Joseph than a relatively swift death. The words על כן באה אלינו are an acknowledgement that they all, Reuben included, were guilty of a lack of compassion. Presumably, the brothers must have said these things as soon as they were being led to prison, whereas the Torah reports them as if they had been said after they had all been in prison for three days. Why does the Torah make it appear as if the brothers had only come to this realisation after three days in prison? Presumably, the Torah did not want to diminish the impact Joseph's words and deeds are to make upon the reader. Any diversion would detract us from the clever way Joseph set about creating the scenario he had planned.

Besides, if we were to assume that the brothers acknowledged their guilt only after they had themselves agreed that Shimon would remain in prison as the hostage, why did it take them so long to acknowledge that Shimon had been more guilty than they?

Perhaps up to the time when Joseph had said that one of their number had to remain in prison as hostage, they had not related their present experience to the sale of Joseph at all. They had thought that inasmuch as man is a free agent that whatever had happened to them was in retribution for freely committed wrongs. They had not considered what they had done to Joseph as a wrong at all. When Joseph pointedly said: "one of your brothers has to stay here," they suddenly realised that their situation was connected to what they had done to another one of their brothers. The words ויעשו כן then mean that they singled out Shimon. They suddenly realised that the painful experience they now underwent of leaving one of their brothers with a stranger was tit for tat for having abandoned Joseph to a fate with strangers at the time of the sale. I have frequently alluded to the fact that guilt somehow creates situations in which the retribution experienced reminds one of the nature of one's sin. David has mentioned this in Psalms 62,13: כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו, "for You repay each man according to his deeds." The brothers saying אבל may therefore be understood thus: "If our present experience had been even slightly different we would not have realised why we are now being punished; but the very fact that our punishment corresponds to the nature of our sin convinces us of our guilt. Now we are absolutely certain that we are guilty of lack of compassion."

The very fact that it was Shimon who was being detained convinced them; after all, according to Tanchuma Parshat Vayechi, it had been Shimon who had made the suggestion to kill Joseph; he and Levi were the subject of 37,19 "one said to his brother." Shimon the elder said to his brother Levi the younger. They had been a team already when they wiped out the men in the city of Shechem.

וגם דמו ALSO HIS BLOOD [IS REQUIRED] — the particles את and גם extend the scope of the clause; here it implies “his blood and also the blood of his old father” (Genesis Rabbah 91:8).

הלא אמרתי אליכם אל תחטאו בילד?. He had never intended to cause your death when he had done what he did, as you had imagined. His actions were due to the fact that he was immature, was childish.

ויען ראובן אתם. Reuben answered them. How can the term "he answered" be justified in this context? Who had asked him anything? The repeated use of the word לאמור and the words וגם דמו also require justification.

וגם דמו הנה נדרש, seeing that they believed that Joseph had died after he had been sold, they felt that G’d was also holding them responsible now for having shed his blood.

ויען ראובן, “Reuven replied to them;” originally Joseph had intended to keep Reuven, who was the oldest, as hostage pending Binyamin’s coming to Egypt. It is customary that when a number of people are guilty of a crime that the senior member of the group is punished first. When Joseph overheard their conversation and found out for the first time that it had been Reuven who had tried to save him, he changed his mind and kept Shimon as a hostage instead, as he was the second oldest.

וגם דמו הנה נדרש. The sin we are being punished for now is not only our cruelty, as you think, but also his blood, if your actions were the cause of his death, seeing that he was innocent. There can be little doubt that he died in the performance of his tasks as a slave, something he had not been equipped to cope with.

Reuben reacted to the brothers having said that they were being punished for not having displayed compassion when Joseph pleaded with them, something in which they had included him also. Reuben retorted that he did not consider himself included in that sin as he had warned: "do not commit a sin against the boy!" Even though at that time he had only warned them not to lay a hand upon Joseph and to throw him into the pit, his intention had been as if he had said: "do not commit a sin." The Torah itself exonerated Reuben independently by revealing Reuben's intention to restore Joseph to his father.

You could ask what reason Reuben gave for the brothers to believe that this had been his intention, when on the contrary, selling Joseph at the time was more merciful than to let him die a slow death in the pit and therefore Reuben had no reason to complain?

The fact is that Reuben's principal complaint against the brothers was that he told them not to lay a hand upon Joseph. "Selling him into slavery was certainly laying a hand upon him!" Reuben's argument was certainly valid; moreover, by selling Joseph to other human beings the brothers had made his fate dependent on people with a free will who could act arbitrarily. Reuben's intention had been not to allow Joseph's fate to be in the hands of people who could make arbitrary decisions. Selling Joseph did not reduce the danger to Joseph's life or wellbeing any more than throwing him into the pit. We only need to read the Bereshit Rabbah 86,3 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph to commit acts of sodomy with him. G'd Himself made Potiphar impotent to protect Joseph against such abuse. When Reuben had advised throwing Joseph into the pit he felt that if Joseph was not guilty nothing would happen to him. He had been most concerned to remove Joseph from the hands of people who could arbitrarily decide his fate. That is why he accused them ולא שמעתם, "you did not listen." He meant: "you did not understand my intention.

When you think that you are being punished only for your cruelty and not for the deed itself, you are quite wrong. Also his blood is being demanded, i.e. you are also guilty of either killing him or putting his life in jeopardy." According to Reuben this was why they now had to face the charge of spying, a charge that was punishable by death. Reuben resented being considered a partner of that part of the brothers' crime. He was not willing to share their responsibility seeing he had not taken part in the sale. As of that moment Reuben only agreed to remain with them, but not to share their guilt. At the end of the examination it would become clear who was legally guilty and who was innocent. Our interpretation of the words אבל אשמים אנחנו as referring to the brothers waking up to their guilt only after Shimon alone was being held prisoner is completely compatible with everything else we have written.

והם לא ידעו כי שמע יוסף AND THEY KNEW NOT THAT JOSEPH שמע UNDERSTOOD their language, and they said this in his presence.

כי שומע יוסף, he understands, [not only hears. Ed.]

והם לא ידעו…כי המליץ בינותם. They did not realise this….for the interpreter was between them. The brothers who had observed the interpreter all the time, assumed that Joseph did not understand Hebrew.

כי המליץ, we already explained the function of the interpreter.

When they spoke... the interpreter was between them. I.e., whenever they spoke with Yoseif previously, the interpreter was among them. But now the interpreter was not there, and they thought Yoseif did not understand Hebrew.

לוץ: Dolmetscher, Fürsprecher, Gedicht, Spott, allen diesen mit der Wurzel לוץ ausgedrückten Begriffen liegt der gemeinschaftliche Begriff des künstlichen לוז (weichen). der "Übertragungskunst", zu Grunde. Der Dolmetscher überträgt Gedanken und Worte in ein solches Sprachgewand, dass sie zum Verständnis des Hörenden Eingang finden; der Fürsprecher stellt Tatsachen in einem solchen Gewande dar, dass sie zum Urteil des Hörenden den gewünschten Eingang finden; die Dichtkunst stellt Gedanken in einem das Gemüt ansprechenden schönen Gewande dar. Alles dies ist eine künstliche Übertragung aus dem natürlichen in einen dem jeweiligen Zwecke entsprechenden Ausdruck. Es gibt aber auch eine fluchwürdige "Übertragungskunst", es ist dies die Kunst des Wortes, die Dinge anders darzustellen als sie sind, und zwar also, dass Schlechtes und Gemeines als schön und edel, Heiliges und Ehrwürdiges zur Fratze herabgewürdigt erscheint. Es ist dies die Kunst der verführerischen Dialektik, die Kunst der לצים.

כי המליץ בינתם FOR THE INTERPRETER WAS BETWEEN THEM — for when they had spoken to him there was an interpreter between them who knew both the Hebrew and the Egyptian languages. He interpreted their words to Joseph and Joseph’s words to them. Consequently they were under the impression that Joseph did not understand the Hebrew language.

Alternatively, they could not speak freely being afraid that the interpreter would overhear them.

המליץ THE INTERPRETER — This was Manasseh (Genesis Rabbah 91:8).

כי המליץ בינותם, as if Joseph could not understand otherwise what they had been saying.

ויסב מעליהם AND HE TURNED AWAY FROM THEM — He moved some distance away from them so that they should not see him weeping.

את שמעון. In order to separate him from Levi, so that the two between them would not hatch a plot to cause major damage as they had done in Shechem at the time.

ויבך, when he noted their distress.

ויקה מאתם את שמעון, He took Shimon from them. The brothers had singled out Shimon, or Shimon had volunteered to be the hostage as I have explained on verse 19.

ויבך. Overhearing the brothers confess their sin against him caused Joseph to weep.

ויקח מהם את שמעון, “he took Shimon away from them.” Actually, he should have taken Reuven, seeing that he was the oldest. Usually, the oldest is taken as hostage for the younger ones. Seeing that it had been Reuven who had saved him from imminent death at the time, Joseph kept Shimon as hostage.

ויקח מאתם את שמעון, “he took from amongst them Shimon.” He kept Shimon in jail longer than the other brothers in order to keep him apart from Levi. He remembered that when it came to killing the males of the town of Shechem, Shimon and Levi had acted as a team. Yaakov referred to the matter on his deathbed when he said (Genesis 49,5-6) “Shimon and Levi are brothers (comrades), violence is their stock-in trade.”
When the Torah writes in 42, 27: “The one opened his sack,” the words “the one” are a reference to Levi the other half of that team of brothers. Seeing the brothers had not been prepared to select one of their number who should remain behind as a hostage that they would return with Binyamin, Joseph had to make the selection himself. From this incident our sages derived an important ruling, i.e. that when Gentiles demand from Israelites that they hand over one of their number without specifying which person they are to hand over, that the Israelites must not make such a selection but must rather all face death than to condemn someone in their midst. (If however, the Gentiles selected a particular individual from amongst the Israelites and they threaten to kill all the Israelites unless that individual is handed over, the Israelites (in order to save their lives) must hand over the individual demanded from them) (Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5,4).
There is a well known example in Samuel II 20, 1-22 when Sheva ben Bichri, a rebel against the regime of King David, happened to be trapped amongst other Jews and David had given orders to liquidate this Sheva ben Bichri as a dangerous rebel. His commander-in-chief Yoav and his brother Avishai had surrounded the town in which Sheva ben Bichri found himself. A woman in that town saved the other townsfolk by persuading them to hand over the rebel and thus to save the inhabitants of the town from becoming victims of Yoav’s army. [This was during the period of Avshalom’s uprising against his father. Ed.]

Because he heard that they had regrets. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he cry? He should have been angry with them, as he heard that they themselves admitted that they did wrong. Therefore Rashi explains that he cried because he heard that they had regrets. (Maharshal)

סבב eine Kreislinie um etwas bilden. חִסוֹב eine Kreislinie um sich selber bilden, sich um sich selber drehen, d. h. sich ganz umwenden.

ויבך AND HE WEPT because he heard that they regretted their past conduct to him.

את שמעון, he shackled him for it had been Shimon who had thrown him into the pit.

The one that threw him into the pit, he was the one who said to Leivi... Rashi deduced this because it is written [prior to throwing him into the pit]: “A man said to his brother, ‘Here comes the dreamer...’” (37:19). And it is written in 49:5, “Shimon and Leivi are brothers.” (Re’m) [You might object: Did Shimon alone throw him in?] Is it not written (37:24), “They took him (ויקחהו) and threw him into the pit,” in the plural form? The answer is: ויקחהו is written with the middle ו missing, so we [could] read it ויקחֵהו, in the singular form.

את שמען SIMEON — he had cast him into the pit and it was he who had said to Levi “Behold, this dreamer cometh” (Tanchuma Yashan 1:10:17). Another explanation is: It was Joseph’s intention to separate him from Levi lest the two of them might conspire to kill him.

ויאסור, he brought him back to jail in front of their eyes. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,8 Rabbi Chani points out that the restrictive addition of the word לעיניהם, “in their presence,” means that Shimon remained tied up only while the brothers could see him. As soon as the brothers started their home-bound journey Shimon was released by Joseph. He fed him, bathed him, anointed him, in other words treated him like a V.I.P not like a suspected criminal.

He bound him only while he was seen by them... Otherwise, why does it say, “Before their eyes?”

ויאסור אתו לעיניהם AND HE BOUND HIM BEFORE THEIR EYES — He only kept him in bonds whilst he was before their eyes, but as soon as they departed he freed him and gave him food and drink (Genesis Rabbah 91:8).

AND TO GIVE THEM PROVISION FOR THE WAY. The reason for saying this is so that they should not consume the food which they bought in the course of the journey. He informed them of this for he gave them the provisions for the journey in a kindly fashion so that they should be able to bring the brother [Benjamin] to him, for he said, “I have no intention of harming you if your words are verified.”

ולהשיב את כספיהם, and to restore their money. The plural mode in the word does not apply to the collective term כסף, money, but to the coins which together made up the money.

ולהשיב כספיהם, and to give back their money. The reason that this verse does not employ the syntax that is commensurate with the first half, i.e. וימלאו, or למלאות…ולהשיב, could be that the person who filled the sacks was unaware of the fact that someone else had returned the money. The person who put back the money was Joseph's most trusted servant. It is also possible that Joseph ordered that the filling of the brothers' sacks with grain was to be done publicly, whereas the return of their money was to be accomplished secretly after the sacks had already been filled with grain. The reason Joseph did not give both instructions simultaneously was so as not to arouse the envy of the person entrusted with filling the sacks with grain.

ויצו יוסף, he instructed his servants, the ones who were selling the grain (completing the transaction once it had been approved) to fill the brothers’ containers with grain, which they did. וימלאו; this is one of many verses in the Torah which has been written in an abbreviated manner.

וימלאו את כליהם בר, “they filled their containers with grain.” They did not measure the quantity.
ולהשיב את כספיהם איש אל שקו, “and to put back each man’s money into his sack.” so that the brothers would be unaware of this. This is why when one of them discovered his money in verse 28 they all became frightened. By contrast, when their money was replaced after their second trip to Egypt, Joseph informed them of that fact. As to the צידה, which the Torah says Joseph gave the brothers to be eaten on the journey, this was an act of kindness. He wanted to convince the brothers that he had no hostile intentions towards them provided they could prove that they had spoken the truth. He gave them these extra provisions in order to enable them to bring their youngest brother to Egypt.

ויצו. Der Befehl, ihre Behälter mit Getreide zu füllen, geschah bei ihnen wie bei den andern, das ׳ולהשיב וגו war das Besondere. — צידה ist nicht allgemeine Nahrung, sondern Nahrung für eine bestimmte Frist. Es ist nicht die Nahrung, die schon verspeist wird (טרף), sondern die "eingefangen" (צוד) wird, um später verspeist zu werden. Auf die traurige Tatsache, dass die menschliche Nahrung unter der Anschauung eines Kampfes mit der Natur und der Gesellschaft ihre Benennung לחם ,טרף, hat, haben wir schon hingewiesen. Dieser Anschauung analog ist צידה von צור.

ולהשיב, he also instructed his servants at the same time to replace the purchase money the brothers had paid.

ויעש להם כן, these words refer to the restoration of the money and the brothers being given enough provisions for themselves for their journey. We had heard already that their containers had been filled with grain.

וישאו…וילכו, They loaded…and went on their way. The Torah mentions this to show that they did not linger after their sacks had been filled. Unless the Torah wanted to make this point, the whole verse is unnecessary. We would all have assumed that the brothers carried their supplies with them.

ויפתח האחד literally, AND THE ONE OPENED HIS SACK — This was Levi who remained alone (one) being without Simeon his companion (cf Targum Jonathan).

AND AS ONE OF THEM OPENED HIS SACK. One of them opened his sack in the inn to give therefrom some fodder to his ass, while the others did not open their sacks until they were with their father, just as it says, And it came to pass as they emptied their sacks,¹⁵⁵Verse 35 here. for perhaps the others took straw for their asses, lest they consume their entire loads on the way. But the one who opened the sack on the way had a weak ass, which required fodder, and he thus found the money in the mouth of his bag (‘amtachto’).
Now Rashi writes that amtachath is the sack, but Onkelos translated it as “load.” It appears from Onkelos’ opinion that each one in order to equalize his load, had large sacks and small sacks, and the total load of each one is called amtachath. Thus it happened that one of them found his money at the mouth of the particular sack he opened, while it did not happen to the others until they emptied all their sacks.
It seems plausible to me that amtachath is a large sack containing two sides, known in the language of the Talmud as matrata,¹⁵⁶Kethuboth 110 a: hafuchi matrata lamah li, meaning that if a person is carrying two leather sacks of equal weight on his right and left shoulders, why should he change one sack for the other? (See Rashi there.) and the money of each one was put at the mouth of one of the sides. Now it so happened that one of them opened the side where the money lay, but it did not happen to the others. This kind of sack is called amtachath because it stretches (yimtach) at the sides.

ויפתח האחד, one of them. According to a homiletic comment quoted by Rashi, the definitive article at the beginning of the word האחד is a hint that this was Levi, who, through his buddy Shimon having been detained by Joseph, was now “the one,” i.e. left alone without his closest companion.

ויפתח האחד את שקו, “the one opened his sack;” Noachmanides writes that the emphasis on האחד, “the one,” means that the other brothers did not bother, at that stage, to open their sacks and to examine their contents. They waited till they had arrived back at their father’s house. Perhaps the reason why this one brother opened his sack (the one containing fodder) may have been that his donkey was relatively weak and needed something more than straw to keep up its strength. Onkelos who translated the word אמתחת as טוענא, a carrying bag, wants to tell us that the most commonly used container to carry and transport loads was called שק, sack, whereas containers containing personal effects, such as are carried in briefcases nowadays, were called אמתחת, travel bag. Well to do travelers frequently had several of the latter. Sometimes these travel bags were also used to balance the loads carried in sacks. It was therefore surprising to find one’s money in a sack intended to carry grain, rather than in one of the travel bags. In our example the אמתחת appears to have been carried inside the sack of grain, at the op of it, as a security precaution, maybe. The very term אמתחת may imply that this bag had compartments, and that different objects would be enclosed in different compartments. A simpler explanation is that the brother who opened his sack did so in order to give fodder to all their donkeys. My father, blessed be his memory, the רא'ש, says that the brother referred to as “the one,” was Levi, who though normally inseparable from Shimon, was now “alone,” seeing Shimon had been detained by Joseph in Egypt. Seeing that Levi was leading two donkeys, his own and that of his brother Shimon, as he already had occasion to dip more deeply into the sack of Shimon, he found the money at the bottom. The other brothers, each of whom had only one donkey to feed, had not yet had to dip so deeply into their sacks.

This was Leivi because he was left alone... [Rashi knows it was Leivi] because otherwise, why does it say, “The one”?

Das Verhältnis von שק zu אמתחת ist dunkel. שק, von שקק, wahrscheinlich gleichbedeutend mit נסק, wovon ק וגו׳oאם אֶ hinaufsteigen, ein Tragmittel, von der Wurzel des Hinaufsteigens gebildet, wie סַל Korb von אמתחת .סלל von מתח ausdehnen, scheint einen größeren, dehnbaren Behälter zu bedeuten, in welchem mehrere Säcke und Bündel zusammen bewahrt werden. Es ist ja auch nicht wahrscheinlich, dass das Geld in den Kornsack gelegt worden sei, in welchem es ja leicht unter das Getreide gekommen wäre, ohne sofort sichtbar zu werden.

במלון means the place where they stayed over night — THE INN.

בפי אמתחתו, Joseph had instructed that the money of one of them should be not just placed back in his sack, but should be placed near the top so that he would find it immediately he opened the sack. The money of the other brothers had been placed somewhere in the middle section of their respective containers, or even at the very bottom. If the money of all of them had been placed near the top of their bags they would see it as soon as they started giving fodder to their beasts, and they would turn around to Egypt pointing out that someone had made a mistake. They would be anxious to clear themselves of the danger of being accused of an additional crime, of being thieves. Joseph had therefore taken precautions that only one of them should find his money before they would get home. He had arranged matters in a way to cause them maximum worry.

At the place they stayed overnight. [Rashi is saying:] Do not think that since it is written בַמלון [rather than בְמלון] it means the place set for all wayfarers to stay. For if so Scripture should have written, “They came to the מלון,” and only afterward say, “The one opened his sack...at the מלון.”

אמתחתו is the sack (שק) just mentioned.

It is the sack. Rashi says, “It is the sack,” rather than simply saying, “Sack,” because he is answering the question: At the beginning of the verse it is written, “One of them opened his sack.” And afterwards it is written, “For behold it was in the opening of his bag.” Does this not imply it was not the [abovementioned] sack? Thus Rashi explains, “It is the sack.” In other words, the bag mentioned here is the same sack mentioned before.

וגם הנה באמתחתי AND, LO, IT IS EVEN IN MY SACK — the money also (גם) is in it together with the grain.

מה זאת עשה, how can this be a retribution by G’d in the nature of “tit for tat,” that He has added money for us!? How could we profit by our sin to become enriched by it?

מה זאת עשה אלוקים לנו?. Why would G’d put such ideas in the heart of a person (the ruler) who described himself as “G’d-fearing?” This is also why later, after the goblet had been found in the sack of Binyamin, the brothers offered themselves as slaves to Joseph, feeling that this would be the appropriate punishment for their having sold Joseph into slavery. (43,18). Still, they felt that selling Joseph had not been intended to be detrimental to him; rather seeing they had considered themselves endangered by him as a רודף, they considered this at the time as mild compared to killing him, which they thought they were entitled to do. The very fact that they had not killed him at the time they had considered as proof of their brotherly love

ויצא לבם, as Joseph expected, discovery of the money was a major shock for them. The expression used by the Torah for this emotion is also found in Song of Songs 5,6 נפשי יצאה בדברו, “I fainted because of what he said.”

מה זאת עשה אלו-הים לנו, “What is this that G’d had done to us?” They felt that G’d had repaid them for their deception of their father by now making them the victim of deception.

To cause us to be falsely accused... Accordingly, “What is this?” means: “What evil is this?” It does not mean, “What good [is this, that our money was returned]?” Otherwise, why does it say, “And they trembled”?

Der Schreck war um so größer, da er sein Geld in seinem Beutel wiederfand, es daher auf eine persönliche Anklage abgesehen zu sein schien. Dass Josef überhaupt ihnen noch diese Verlegenheit bereitete, war ganz im Plane des Ganzen. Er wollte sich ihnen eben völlig als שליט zeigen, wie er alles mit ihnen machen könnte, was er wollte.

מה זאת עשה אלוקים לנו, “what is the meaning of this that G-d has done to us?” They could understand that their brother had been incarcerated as punishment for what they had done to Joseph, when they had not responded to his pleas. They knew that it is the custom of G-d to match the punishment to the crime/sin. But they could not figure out how G-d could punish them by having their money returned to them. This would be the reverse of punishment, as the sinner goes rewarded instead of punished.

מה זאת עשה אלהים לנו WHAT IS THIS THAT GOD HATH DONE UNTO US by bringing us into the danger of this accusation? For the money can only have been put back into our sacks in order to bring an accusation against us.

ויבאו, the words they told their father are quite clear, although there are minor variations, additions, omissions; changes; the basic subject was reported faithfully

שנים עשר אנחנו בני אבינו, “we are altogether twelve sons of our father.” When repeating their conversation with Joseph to their father, they were careful to omit the word עבדיך, “your servants,” which they had used then, and which unwittingly included their father in their reference to their being his servants. Had they not omitted mentioning this, their father could have accused them of already having described Binyamin as Joseph’s servant, also, and thereby admitting that he had the right to demand Binyamin’s presence the next time they came to Egypt.

האחד איננו, והקטן את אבינו היום, “the one is no longer, and the youngest is with his father at this time.” When addressing Joseph they had presented the situation in reverse order, i.e. הקטן את אבינו היום והאחד איננו. The reason why they did not repeat the conversation to their father verbatim, each word in its proper sequence, was because the very manner in which they presented the situation made Joseph ask, justifiably, “if the youngest is at home, where is the other brother who is unaccounted for at this time?” By slightly misrepresenting the conversation they had had with Joseph, they managed to portray him as overly inquisitive without their having given him any cause for this.

ואת רעבון, the words are once more inverted and mean ואת שבר רעבון, “the food for the starving, etc.”

בעל und בעל .אדון ist der Überwältigende, also der Übergeordnete. אדון bezeichnet den Herrn von einer ganz anderen, edleren Seite. Es ist verwandt mit אדן, Säulenfuß, also: Träger, nicht: der den andern auch vernichten könnte, sondern der Tragende. So steht ד׳ den בעלים gegenüber. Der heidnischen Anschauung ist das Attribut des Göttlichen wesentlich zu fürchtende Gewalt. Gewährung ist ihr Schwäche. Ihre Götter sind אלילים, versagende Mächte, die an der Vernichtung der Menschen ihre Lust und Freude finden und dem Glück des Menschen feindlich sind. Dem gegenüber ist ׳מתחת זרועות עולם ,מקומו של עולם :היבה, bis in die tiefste Niedere herab: Stätte und Träger aller Wesen. Der בעל hat deshalb eigentlich keinen עבד. Er hat nur Sachen, mit denen seine Willkür spielt. Nur ein אדון hat in Wahrheit einen עבד. Josef hatte im edelsten Sinne die Stellung eines רעבון - .אדני הארץ בתיכם: das, wonach es eure Häuser hungert.

ואת הארץ תסחרו AND YE SHALL TRAVEL IN THE LAND — It means literally, “ye may travel round the land”. All such words as סוחרים merchants, סחורה merchandise, are derived from this root סחר to go round, because the merchants travel round looking for merchandise.

AND YOU SHALL BE FREE (‘TIS’CHARU’) TO TRADE IN THE LAND. They altered it for the sake of peace¹⁵⁷For we do not find that Joseph told this to his brothers. so that Jacob would consent to send Benjamin along with them. It had been their desire to return immediately were it not that Jacob had said, My son shall not go down with you.¹⁵⁸Verse 38 here. Similarly, for the sake of peace, they told him Joseph’s words, ‘Leave’ one of your brothers with me,¹⁵⁹Verse 33 here. and they did not tell their father of their imprisonment or of Simeon’s imprisonment.
It is possible that Joseph did tell them, And you shall be free to trade in the land, but Scripture does not relate it. If so, the intent of the statement is that “you will be able to bring merchandise at your will for the purpose of purchasing grain, and I will not take it, as compensation for your embarassment.”¹⁶⁰Thus he suggested that they will be able to keep their original merchandise for sale to others, and obtain grain free.
Similarly, their saying, The man persisted in asking about ourselves, and our family,¹⁶¹Further, 43:7. constitutes a motivating plea to their father, [but the event never actually took place]. It may be that when they told Joseph, We are all one man’s sons,¹⁶²Verse 11 here. he said to them, “Not so, but you have truly come to find out the condition of the land.¹⁶³Verse 12 here. Now tell me if your father is alive, and if you have another brother, for I will investigate you and know what you are.” Then they said, “We are twelve brethren, the sons of one man who is presently in the land of Canaan, for he is still alive, and the youngest one is with him, and one is gone.” This was what Judah said to Joseph: My lord asked his servants, saying, Have you a father, or a brother?¹⁶⁴Further, 44:19. In a similar manner Scripture, in many places, is concise about an event or the recounting thereof, as I have mentioned.¹⁶⁵See Ramban above in Verse 21.
Now Rashi writes: “Tis’charu, you may travel round the land. All expressions of s’chorah (merchandise) and socharim (merchants) are derived from sochar, which means ‘going around,’ because the merchants go round looking for merchandise.”
It would seem that the Rabbi [Rashi]¹⁶⁶See Bereshith, Note 139. aimed by this interpretation to guard himself against this difficulty.¹⁶⁷Namely, that we do not find that Joseph mentioned to his brothers about being free to trade in the land. Therefore, Rashi explained the word tis’charu as giving them the right to travel around the land and buy grain always without hindrance. He therefore explained their words as reporting only that Joseph had said that they would be permitted to travel around the land and always buy grain at their pleasure. But above, in the story of Shechem, Rashi did not so interpret the same expressions: Settle down ‘us’charuah’ (and engage in trade);¹⁶⁸Above, 34:10. For there actual trade is referred to, while here only travelling around the land is meant. Therefore Rashi makes his comment here, and not there in the story of Schechem. ‘v’yis’charu othah’ (and engage in trade in it).¹⁶⁹Ibid., Verse 21.

ואת הארץ תסחרו, “and then you may freely wheel and deal in the land.” Although we cannot find that Joseph had said these words to them, they may be justifiably inferred from the tenor of their interview with, or interrogation by Joseph. Sometimes the Torah abbreviates its narrative of events. Alternately, the brothers may have misquoted Joseph for the sake of family harmony, in order to secure their father’s permission to let Binyamin go to Egypt with them on their next journey, as it was their intention to return to Egypt immediately in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. At that point they did not spell out that Shimon had not been detained as an honoured guest but as a prisoner, as they were sure this would be an additional reason for Yaakov not to risk Binyamin by allowing them to take him along. [it is interesting to see how the Torah draws attention to the fact that at the beginning the brothers did not even tell their father that Shimon was imprisoned. In verse 29 the Torah had said that the brothers reported to their father all that had happened to them in Egypt. When detailing this, the imprisonment of Shimon is not mentioned, begging the question why the brothers did not include this in their report. Ed.]

You will travel around. You might ask: Where do you find that Yoseif said this to them? The answer is: Since Yoseif accused them of being spies, he did not let them roam about the city in order to prevent them from spying. But if they bring Binyamin and will thus no longer be suspect of spying, they will be allowed to roam about the city. This relates back to (v. 20), “So that your words will be verified.” The meaning of תסחרו is “to roam about,” and not, “to do business (סחורה).” Otherwise, how is it connected to the narrative?

ואת הארץ תסחרו, “and then you can carry on trade freely.” This is not what Joseph had said to them, but this is what they added in order to induce Jacob to send Binyamin back with them.

צרור כספו means HIS BUNDLE OF MONEY.

כספיהם, seeing that the letter ס in the word כספיהם “swallows” the otherwise necessary chataf patach under it, the letter פ, normally weak, without the dagesh, has been given a dagesh in this instance. A similar example of this construction is found in the relationship of נסך, nessech, and נסכיהם, nisskeyhem.

בשקו, in the actual text it does not say בפי שקו, as we already mentioned on verse 27.

את צרורות כספיהם, “each man’s bundle of money;” this is the only time that either silver (money) or gold (coins) are described in the plural mode.

וייראו; they now worried if the sellers of the grain had not deliberately replaced their money in order to set a trap for them when they would return when they would be accused of being thieves.

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.

MY TWO SONS ‘TAMITH’ (THOU SHALT SLAY). Under penalty of a curse,¹⁷⁰Ramban’s intent is to explain that the word tamith is not to be understood literally as meaning that Reuben was ready to forfeit the lives of his two sons. Instead, the word is to be understood in a general sense, i.e., that Reuben is willing to be punished, but not that Jacob slay Reuben’s sons. Reuben obligated himself to return Benjamin to his father, as he said to him, My two sons ‘tamith,’ meaning, “May thy punishment be upon me if I do not bring him back to you.” This is similar in intent to that which Judah said: Then I shall have sinned against thee all my days.¹⁷¹Further, 43:9.
Now Reuben said, My two sons, although he actually had four.¹⁷²Ibid., 46:9. His intent in saying “two” was to state that “in place of one of your sons, it should be visited doubly upon my sons.”
Now Jacob did not rely upon Reuben as he did upon Judah,¹⁷³For when Judah gave his promise to his father that he would bring back Benjamin, he finally consented to send him along (43: 9-13), but Reuben’s plea went unanswered. for Judah prevailed upon his brethren.¹⁷⁴I Chronicles 5:2. Thus suggesting that Judah’s great influence upon his brothers would assure their cooperation in bringing back Benjamin under all circumstances. Moreover, Reuben had already sinned against his father,¹⁷⁵Above, 35:22. and therefore he would no longer rely upon him. Generally, Judah’s counsel was sound: i.e., to leave the patriarch alone until there was no bread in the house, for then he would listen. This — [Judah’s reference to the complete absence of food] — is indicated by Judah’s words to his father: That we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones.¹⁷⁶Further 43:8.

את שני בני תמית, he cursed (conditionally) now two of his sons that they should die if he would not bring back Binyamin safely. The matter is similar to an incident related in Shabbat 108 where Rav said to Shemuel “may it be G’d’s will …that your children will not live.” The curse came true. [The story is extremely enigmatic, seeing that Rav who had thought that Shemuel had treated him not only in a miserly fashion, but had caused him physical discomfort deliberately, had become aware in good time that Shemuel, an outstanding physician, had done what he did in order to relieve an ailment Rav had clearly been suffering from. In spite of this, the conditional curse was fulfilled, much as Yaakov who had cursed the thief who had stolen Lavan’s teraphim not knowing that it had been Rachel. Although the condition had been that if the thief would be found he should not live, Rachel died in spite of the thief (she herself) never having been found. Ed.]

לאמור את שני בני תמית, saying: "you may kill my two sons, etc." The reason the Torah inserts the expression לאמור at this point is that Reuben was not willing to utter such a sentence outright, seeing that even a conditional curse by a wise man may have fatal consequences (Makkot 11). He phrased his offer in such a way that the meaning was unmistakable though he did not actually speak about killing his sons.

את שני בני תמית, two of my sons. [he had four. Ed.] Reuven said something foolish in even suggesting that his father might kill his own grandsons. Yaakov responded: (not in text) “you are a foolish firstborn what makes you think that your sons are not also my sons?” Seeing that Reuven’s suggestion was so foolish, Yaakov did not even bother to formally reply to it. It did not deserve to be dignified with a serious answer. He just told him that he would not send Binyamin with him and the other brothers.

Es war dies gut gemeint, es lag aber nicht die geringste Ursache darin, Jakob zur Änderung seiner Entschlüsse zu bewegen.

According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,9 Yaakov told him that he was a foolish firstborn seeing that he assumed that his sons were only his sons and not also the sons of their grandfather.

The reason he said ואת שני is that he referred to two of his four sons.

The word תמית is to be understood as "you may punish." We find a similar punishment being inflicetd upon Aaron, when G'd killed two of his four sons as an expression of His anger at Aaron's share in the sin of the golden calf. Compare ובאהרון התאנף Deut. 9,20. Vayikra Rabbah 7,1 makes this point. Reuben made it clear that he did not want to risk losing more than two of his sons if he failed to honour his guarantee of Benjamin's safe return. His reason was that if he risked more he would nullify the merit of having fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. He therefore risked only something that would not impair his standing in the Hereafter. Yehudah understood Reuben very well; this is why he undertook to risk even his life in the Hereafter in order to secure Jacob's consent to take Benjamin to Egypt and to secure their lives in the present world first (compare 43,9).

תנה אותו על ידי, "Put him in my charge, etc." Perhaps Reuben's knowledge that he had no share in the guilt of selling Joseph gave him confidence that both he and Joseph would return unharmed. He alluded to the fact that only he was able to have such confidence seeing the other brothers bore the guilt of having sold Joseph, by twice emphasising "entrust him to my hands," and "I will return him,"

לא ירד בני עמכם MY SON SHALL NOT GO DOWN WITH YOU — He did not accept Reuben’s offer. He said, “What a fool is this oldest son of mine! He suggests that I should kill his sons. Are they his only and not mine also?” (Genesis Rabbah 91:9)

My son. Yaakov refers to Binyamin in this way because he was the only son left from his primary wife [Rochel].

כי אחיו מת והוא לבדו נשאר, "for his brother is dead, and he alone remains, etc. Jacob felt the need to explain how he evaluated the certain loss of Shimon who was presently a hostage in an Egyptian jail- if Benjamin were not to go to Egypt, compared to the possible loss of Benjamin if the latter were to go to Egypt. Jacob explained that if he were to lose Benjamin he would not have a son of Rachel left at all. If he were to lose Shimon, however, he would at least have other sons of Leah left to him. Besides, Jacob described an accident which would happen to Benjamin as practically certain; this is why he spoke about וקרהו אסון in the past tense instead of יקראהו אסון, something in the future. He added the words בדרך אשר תלכו בו, "on the journey you will undertake." He hinted that what happened to Joseph happened to him although he travelled on a route which he was familiar with and had travelled many times without encountering anything dangerous. Jacob was afraid that something similar could happen to the brothers even on a route they considered safe.

כי אחיו מת, not a statement of fact but an assumption. Yaakov reasoned that if Joseph were alive he would have heard from him at some time during the over twenty years that he had been missing.

לא ירד בני עמכם, “my son will not go down (there) with you.” Yaakov did not say a word in response to Reuven’s offer of his sons as a guarantee. He had no confidence in Reuven seeing that he had previously sinned against his father in the matter with Bilhah’s couch. He did, however, have confidence in Yehudah, seeing Yehudah was the strongest and had displayed mastery over the other brothers (Chronicles I 5,2). Yehudah’s argument presented Yaakov with two choices. According to Bereshit Rabbah 91,10 Yehudah told his brothers not to argue with their aged father but to wait until their shortage of food would make a trip to Egypt an absolute necessity. When that point was reached he told his father that whereas it was not certain Binyamin would not be arrested in Egypt, it was certain that if they did not travel to Egypt they would all perish from the famine. It was better therefore to have at least a chance of all of them surviving by fulfilling Joseph’s conditions.

He did not accept Reuvein’s offer... [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] It was not because misfortune might befall Binyamin that Yaakov prevented him from going with them, although the verse states as much. Because if so, why did Yaakov not say he feared misfortune might occur on the way, when Yehudah offered (43:9), “I will be security for him”? Perforce, the argument of misfortune was merely an excuse, as Yaakov did not want to shame Reuvein by rejecting his offer. The reason he rejected Reuvein’s offer was he feared the master of the land would imprison Binyamin, as he did to Shimon, and no one could stop it. But when Yehudah assumed responsibility when he offered to take Binyamin, Yaakov allowed it because he knew that if Yehudah was involved, he would utterly dedicate himself to rescue Binyamin.2

וקרהו אסון, “and some mishap would befall him;” the letter ו in the word קרהו has the vowel shuruk, whereas the letter ק has the semivowel sh’va.