창세기 44:22의 주석

ועזב את אביו ומת FOR IF HE SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER, HE WOULD DIE — If he leaves his father we shall be in anxiety lest he die on the journey, because indeed his mother died during a journey.

AND WE SAID UNTO MY LORD: THE LAD CANNOT LEAVE HIS FATHER; FOR IF HE SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER, HE WOULD DIE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained this to mean “and his father would die.” But if so, Judah would have said: “Our father cannot leave his son, for if he should leave his son, he [the father] would die.” Or he should have said, “We cannot bear that the lad leave the father,” for they would not make the plea for compassion for their father dependent upon the lad, [saying, as the verse has it. ‘The lad’ cannot leave his father for if he should leave his father, he would die], since they considered him as a child who did not know the difference between good and evil. [Therefore, if it be as Ibn Ezra says, i.e., that the concern in this verse is lest the father die, they would have said, “We cannot bear that the lad should leave his father,” or “Our father cannot leave his son.”] Rather, the meaning is: The lad cannot leave his father on account of his youth and his being the darling son in the lap of his father who loves him, and if he should leave him and come on the journey the lad would die.

ועזב את אביו ומת, his father will die as a result.

לא יוכל הנער לעזוב את אביו, from the moment he will have left his father, he will pine for his father and become sick or die. Furthermore,

ועזב את אביו ומת, “if and when he leaves his father, the father will die.” Some commentators understand Binyamin as being the subject of the word ומת, meaning that Binyamin would die if separated from his father.

ועזב את אביו ומת, “if he leaves his father he will die. The lad will die from the onerous conditions of the journey seeing he is such a spoiled lad. It is possible that the words refer also to Yaakov dying in the event that Binyamin would not be restored to him. This teaches that the life of a father is tied in some way to the life of his son. Yehudah spelled this out more clearly in verse thirty with the words ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, “his soul is tied to his soul.” This is even clearer in verse thirty-one: “when he sees that the lad is missing he will die;”

He may die en route for his mother, too, died while en route. Question: If it is [as Rashi explains,] why did Yehudah say the danger depended on leaving his father? [According to Rashi,] even if his father would come with him, he should not go, due to the hardships of traveling — as Rochel [his mother] had died in Yaakov’s presence. A further question: Why did Yehudah mention [the factor of] leaving his father, while Yaakov had said (42:4), “Misfortune might befall him” due to the hardships of traveling and the weakness it causes; [see Rashi there]? (Nachalas Yaakov)

ועזב את אביו ומת, also his father will die without question if the lad leaves him.