פירוש על בראשית 44:5

IS NOT THIS THE ONE IN WHICH MY LORD DRINKETH? He did not mention “the goblet,” but instead he spoke with them as if it was known that they took the goblet. This was why he said, “Is not this, which you took, the one from which my master drinks?” They also answered him as if they do not know what he wants: How then should we steal out of thy lord’s house silver or gold?²²⁰Verse 8 here. And they further said, “With whomsoever of thy servants there be found stolen silver or gold, let him die.”²²¹Verse 9 here.

והוא נחש ינחש, we have to assume that Joseph pretended to get his information about the brothers’ personal data by consulting his goblet. Perhaps a magic formula was hidden within the goblet. Some commentators say that a wise man of Joseph’s caliber would consult the goblet as to who had stolen it, seeing that the Torah quotes Joseph as speaking about איש אשר כמוני, “a man of my type.” [he had, after all, proven that he could see hidden things, hence his name tzofnat paaneach, the one who reveals what is hidden. Ed.] It does not say in the text ינחש בו which would suggest that he consulted the goblet, but נחש ינחש, independent of the inherent power of the goblet to reveal things to its owner.

הלא זה אשר ישתה אדוני בו?, He spoke to them as if they all knew that the goblet in question was Joseph’s special goblet.

הלא זה אשר ישחה אדוני בו "Is this not (the goblet) which my master drinks out of?" There was no need to mention that the speaker was the man who had deposited the goblet in the pouch of Benjamin. Neither was there a need to inform the reader that he spoke about the goblet. He merely wanted to explain why the theft of this goblet had been discovered immediately. The reason was that Joseph drank from that goblet all the time. The adjutant added that his master used this goblet to divine the future. It was clear then that the reason the brothers stole that goblet was to deprive Joseph of the knowledge the goblet could provide. The adjutant had no reason to suspect anyone else of the theft of this goblet. He repeated the word נחש ינחש both in the past and in the future to support his suspicion by reminding the brothers that they had already observed his master use the goblet to reveal the past. He had divined at that time already that the brothers would steal the goblet.

נחש ינחש, some commentators understand this expression to mean “is in the habit of consulting oracles, or people who are expert at doing this.” It is also possible that the expression means that the loss of the goblet represents a bad omen for Joseph as it deprives him of the instrument by which he could foretell the future. The entire sequence from here to verse 10 is quite clear.

הלא זה אשר ישתה אדוני בו?, “is this not the goblet which my master is in the habit of drinking from?” He did not mention the word “goblet” to them, but he described the situation as if they all understood that they collectively had stolen the goblet and it was only a question of who had hidden it amongst his possessions. In their response to the accusation, the brothers said that they had no idea what he was talking about. Why would anyone of them be interested in stealing either silver or gold from the house of the pursuer’s master?

הלא זה אשר ישתה אדוני בו, “is this not what my master drinks out of?” He meant: “is not this goblet which you have stolen the one from which my master is in the habit of drinking?” The reason Joseph had used his goblet as the item he accused Binyamin of having stolen was that by stealing such an item from the palace of the ruler the crime is viewed as also a direct insult aimed at that ruler. The penalty would unquestionably be death.

Er lässt den Gegenstand, um den es sich handelt, gar nicht nennen, lässt voraussetzen, sobald man ihnen nachsetzt, wüssten sie bereits von selbst, warum es sich handle. נהש .אשר נחש ינחש בו, verwandt mit נחץ: mit Gewalt der Eilfertigkeit nach etwas hinstreben, נחש mit ש: ohne Überwindung der Hindernisse nach dem Ziele streben; nach einem Ziele ohne Überwindung der natürlichen Mittelglieder zu gelangen suchen, entweder a. etwas ohne die natürlichen Mittelglieder bewirken, oder b. etwas ohne die natürlichen Mittelglieder erkennen wollen, z. B. das Unbekannte, Zukünftige nicht durch Schluss aus natürlichen Prämissen; beides ist ניחוש. Deshalb vielleicht auch נחש: Schlange, die über das in der Mitte Liegende Hinwegschlüpfende, oder es auf Umwegen Umgehende. Hier: entweder, braucht er ihn zu verborgenen Zauberkünsten, darum hättet ihr euch fürchten müssen; allein jetzt hatten sie ihn ja, und hatten eben darum nichts zu fürchten. Also wohl entweder: mein Herr wird nach ihm auf übernatürlichem Wege sich bemühen und den Dieb entdecken; oder, dies ist das Wahrscheinlichere: der Becher hat für ihn einen ganz besonderen Wert, ist unersetzlich; denn er hat ein ניחוש daran, hält es für ein Unglück, nicht bloß für einen Verlust, wenn er ihn verlöre.

הלא זה אשר ישתה, “is not this that which he (my lord) drinks out of?” Joseph’s messenger expresses utter amazement how of all things worth stealing, the thief should have concentrated on this highly individual property of his master? Surely the thief must have been aware that this goblet would be missed immediately and every effort would be made to find the thief? The owner would employ his supernatural powers immediately in order to divine where it was presently. He had demonstrated already that he possessed such powers. Alternately, he would instruct others to use their powers of divination to locate this goblet for him.

והוא נחש ינחש בו, “and he also uses it to divine by means of it;” this is why he left it on the table and acted as if he had forgotten it, in order to test you and find out if you would steal it. (Ibn Ezra) A different exegesis: the words: והוא נחש ינחש בו mean that you should have realised that Joseph would enquire from diviners what had happened to his goblet. A man of his stature has many diviners at his beck and call, and would find out quickly who had taken it. Still another explanation for these words: the expression describes an omen. An example of it being used in that context is found in Genesis 30,27: נחשתי ויברכני, Lavan saying to Yaakov: “I have found out that I have been blessed through your presence, by having resorted to divination.” In this instance the reverse was true, i.e. Joseph claimed that it seemed as a bad omen for him to have lost such a precious goblet. The word should not be explained as Joseph having used magic, as this would not be fitting for a man of his stature.

IN WHICH MY LORD DRINKETH. This is intended as a pretext in order to magnify the accusation against them, for he who steals the royal cup from which the king drinks demonstrates disdain for royalty, and bribe and ransom will be of no avail.

והוא נחש ינחש בו, “and he (Joseph) makes a practice of divining secrets by means of it?” All of Joseph’s diviners and wise men had told him that it was these men who had taken the goblet, and this is the reason why he had pursued them in preference to other possible suspects who had been entertained at his house. Some commentators understand the word בו as referring to this goblet that Joseph himself was in the habit to divine secrets from. Ibn Ezra explains that Joseph had used the goblet as a test of the brothers’ honesty, and to this end he had pretended to divine from it and had left it unsupervised to find out who of them would steal it.

והוא נחש ינחש בו “and it is this he uses to divine things!” You should have considered that Joseph will ask other diviners to tell him what happened to his goblet. Joseph’s servant said this in order to explain why of all possible thieves who had come to Egypt from afar he had decided to pursue just the brothers. He claimed to have received this information from other people who practiced the art of divining.

הרעוחם אשר עשיתם "What you have done is bad!" Why did the adjutant add these words after having already accused the brothers of repaying good with evil? Is there anything worse than repaying good with evil?

Demgemäß heißt es denn eigentümlich später: wusstet ihr denn nicht, dass ein Mann wie ich ניחוש hat? Nicht etwa, dass alle an ניחוש Hängende damit ein hübsches Beispiel an Josef hätten, sondern Josef spricht als ägyptischer Herr, als ägyptischer Magnat, nicht als Sohn des Abrahamhauses. Je höher, je größer ein Mensch, je wundergleicher sein Glück, umsomehr hängt er an ניחוש, um so abergläubischer wird er — man denke nur an Napoleon — er ist selbst von seinem Glücke überrascht. Der gewöhnliche Mensch hat noch manches beim Schicksal zu gute; allein, wenn wir einmal so weit gekommen sind, dass wir uns sagen müssen, unserm צדקות, unserm sittlichen Verdienste verdanken wir unser Glück nicht, dann schreiben wir es leicht übernatürlichen Umständen zu, und eben wegen der entsittlichenden Wirkung des ניחוש ist es verboten. Sobald wir nämlich glauben, wir könnten zu unserem Glücke noch etwas anderes tun, als brav sein, hätten uns noch vor etwas anderem als vor Schlechtigkeit zu fürchten, sofort sind wir in Gefahr, schlecht zu werden, unterlassen aus ניחוש entweder das Gute, oder tun etwas Schlechtes im Vertrauen auf ניחוש. Wir wägen dann unsere Handlungsweise gar nicht mehr auf der Wage des Gottesgesetzes, tun nicht mehr, was unsere Pflicht ist, weil wir glauben, etwas getan zu haben, wodurch wir ohnehin zum Ziele gelangen.

WHICH INDEED HE USES FOR DIVINATION. That is, he does not wish that his cup be in the hands of others so that he should have to ask other diviners about it. This is the meaning of his words, A man like me.²²²Verse 15 here. And his intent is to say that through diviners he knows that they stole it, and this was why he pursued them more than any other people who came into his house. All this he did in order to give the appearance that the matter is unfamiliar to him, just as he feigned unfamiliarity when he searched their bags, beginning with the eldest and concluding with the youngest.²²³Verse 12 here.

Perhaps the adjutant wanted to demolish the good image of themselves the brothers had created when they brought back the money they had found in their bags after arriving home in Canaan. After all, the adjutant was the very person whom they had told that they had found that money and had brought it back with them. As a result, logic should convince him that the brothers had already established their honesty beyond doubt. In fact the brothers were going to use that argument presently. The words: "you have done something bad," were designed to demolish their argument even before they could present it. Henceforth the adjutant would not allow his suspicions against them to be influenced by invoking their past actions. The brothers having returned the money had been motivated by something other than their honesty.

The adjutant may even have hinted that the fact that the brothers had brought back the money had been a clever ruse to establish their credibility as honest and upright people, all the while providing a smokescreen for the theft of other more precious objects. The goblet was merely one such object.