Comentário sobre Gênesis 44:37

AS MUCH AS THEY CAN BEAR. I.e., more than they were entitled to for the money they had brought him.

ושים כסף איש בפי אמתחתו, and inform them about it, so that they will realise that I am trying to compensate them for the anguish to which I have subjected them.

אמתחת הקטון מלא את אמתחות האנשים אכל…ואת גביעי תשים בפי. "Fill up the pouches of these men with food and place my goblet in the pouch of the youngest." We need to understand Joseph's motivations in all this. We can hardly assume that he wanted to cause his brothers anguish after he had invited them to his palace and had wined and dined them. Perhaps Joseph had three separate motivations. 1) He wanted that they should be able to atone for having stolen him at the time. By accusing them of theft they would feel the embarassment a thief feels when he has been found out. Once they experienced this feeling they could atone for the sale of Joseph. 2) He wanted to find out if the brothers would risk their lives for the freedom of Benjamin. This would enable him to gauge the degree of brotherliness they felt towards Benjamin. This in turn would enable Joseph to forgive them their sin against him. 3) He sent them a signal that there was somebody in the viceroy's palace who was thoroughly familiar with their past history. He had already made them curious about this on the previous day when he had seated them according to their respective ages at lunch (43,33).

ויצו, all the matters described are quite clear to the reader. Joseph arranged this whole charade in order to discomfort the brothers and to make them feel afraid without actually causing them any harm, and not hurting them physically or even economically. He displayed great wisdom in what he did.

כאשר יוכלון שאת, “as much as they could carry.” This means that Joseph gave them more than the rations allowed other purchasers.

כאשר יוכלון שאת, “as much as they were able to carry.” According to Nachmanides this means that Joseph provided them with far more grain that they were entitled to for the amount of money they had brought with them.

(1-2) גביע, Becher. גבע, Hügel. Verwandt mit גבא: An sammlung von Flüssigkeiten, Pfütze. גבא: einkassieren, einsammeln. Ebenso wie eine Stoffansammlung in die Tiefe, so auch von festen Stoffen in die Höhe: Hügel. גביע scheint nicht der Becher zu sein, aus dem man trinkt, sondern ein großes Gefäß, in welchem der Wein gemischt wird. Auch bei Pharao finden wir nicht גביע, sondern כוס פרעה in der Hand des Mundschenks. גביע entspricht mehr unserer Flasche. Verstärkt ist es קֻבעת und erklärt sich daher die Zusammenstellung: את קבעת כוס חמתי (Jesaias 51, 22). — Josefs Hausmeister muss ein rechtlicher Mann gewesen sein. Oben, wo er den Leuten etwas Freundliches leisten sollte, war er sofort bereit, und heißt es daher einfach (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 44: 17.): ויעש האיש כאשר אמר יוסף. Hier aber, wo ihm der Auftrag wurde, einem unschuldigen Menschen die böseste Schikane zu bereiten, muß er wohl stutzig geworden sein, muss es kaum für Josefs Ernst gehalten haben; es gehörte Josefs gemessener Befehl dazu, dass er es ausführte; denn hier heißt es: ויעש כדבר יוסף אשר דבר.

AND PUT EVERY MAN’s MONEY IN HIS BAG’s MOUTH. That is, with their knowledge, for the house steward said to them, “My lord knows that he did you wrong, and he now wishes to make amends to you.” If he would do as he had done the first time, that is, [put the money in their bags] without their knowledge, they would have had a defense in the matter of the goblet, i.e., that the same thing happened to it as happened to the money. Instead, it was done with their knowledge, and they knew of the money just as they knew of the load, for they recognized that he had given them as much as they can bear. But if it were done without their knowledge, he might perhaps argue on their behalf that the money had come to them this time too on account of its having been hidden there,²¹²It was inadvertently placed in the grain which was collected during the years of plenty, and it happened to be hidden in the grain purchased by Joseph’s brothers. but such was not possible with the goblet. But, then, who can argue with one more powerful than himself?²¹⁷See Ecclesiastes 6:10.
Know that on account of the very many buyers from all over Egypt, and the great confusion in the midst of it, those who came to buy would give their sacks and money to the seller, and he would measure grain for them according to the amount of money he found in the sacks. They in turn took the grain given to them, forasmuch as the king’s word hath power,²¹⁸Ibid., 8:4. and moreover, for he did his work honestly.²¹⁹See II Kings 12:16. It is for this reason that they took their closed sacks the first time, and even the second time they knew not what was in them.

וישם כסף איש בפי אמתחתו, “he placed the money of each brother at the top of his travel bag;” in full view of each one of them. He explained to them that his master was aware that they had been dealt with unlawfully and violently, and as compensation, he was returning their purchase money. If he had just put it back as he had done the first time they would have been able to argue when the goblet was found that this was merely a replay of what had happened to them the first time. Now they were aware that the money had been replaced, just as they were aware that their donkeys had been loaded with much more grain each than the first time they had come to Egypt. Their suspicions had therefore been laid to rest completely, and they would be dumbfounded when the goblet would turn up in Binyamin’s travel bag. This could not be explained away as a treasure that was left behind by someone.

גביעי MY CUP — a long goblet called maderin in old French.

תשים בפי אמתחת הקטן, in order to test how the brothers would react to Binyamin becoming involved as the victim of a potentially life-threatening accusation, and what the brothers would do in order to save him.

גביע is a tall goblet... Since it is written גביע twice, Rashi deduced that it means a tall cup. We need not ask: Why was Yoseif not concerned they would [later] claim the goblet was theirs? Because [the answer is:] It was for divination, so surely it was [not theirs but] Yoseif’s. For it says, “There is no divination amongst Yaakov” (Bamidbar 23:23). (author’s commentary)

תשים בפי אמתחת הקטן “place at the top of thetravelling bag of the junior brother!” The reason that Joseph prepared to indict Binyamin as being guilty of theft, was because he had not recognised him as his brother, seeing that at the time Joseph had been sold he was only about 10 years old and had not yet grown a beard. He said to himself: “maybe this lad is not even my brother and they brought some orphan they picked up somewhere in order to deceive me. If I indict him and he is not their brother they will not interfere and will abandon him.”

הבוקר אור, became lit, as in Samuel I 14,29 ראו כי אורו עיני, “see for yourselves how my eyes have lit up.” A reference to what had occurred already. Similarly, when Bileam referred to the tents of the Jewish people with the words מה טובו אהליך יעקב, “how goodly are your tents O Yaakov,” he did not refer to something that occurred just then, but to a phenomenon which was already well known (Numbers 24,5).

הבקר אור, the word אור here is a verb in the active mode of the passive conjugation We encounter a similar construction in Samuel I 14,29, כי אורו עיני, “for my eyes have lit up.”

4 והאנשים שולחו, המה וחמוריהם. הם יצאו את העיר. “The men had been discharged, they and their donkeys. They had left the city.” In this verse you also find a number of allusions to how G’d’s principle of retribution corresponds to the nature of the sin committed. In this instance, the brothers’ sin was the sale of Joseph. The retribution is linked to the sale of grain to the brothers. I have already explained in connection with Genesis 11,9 that every time the Holy Name of G’d (י-ה-ו-ה) appears in the Torah in a reverse order of the letters of that name, it is a reference to the attribute of Justice at work. In this instance the first letters of the words המה וחמוריהם הם יצאו comprise that name spelled backwards. As a result of this the brothers had to retrace their steps.

הבקר אור והאנשים שולחו, “it was already bright daylight, and the men had been sent off;” even though most of the people who had come to buy grain rose very early in the morning to start on their return journey, Joseph did not see them off until was daylight, as he was afraid they would kill the official he sent after them in order to search their belongings. If this would occur when nobody was about yet, they would be able to get away with this without fearing detection.

וחמוריהם, they were given a sendoff together with their fully loaded donkeys.

לא הרחיקו, “they had not traveled far.” Joseph intercepted them promptly so that they would not lose too much time in retracing their steps.

יצאו את העיר, similar to Joshua 6,7 עברו את העיר, “go through the city,” or Exodus 9,29 כצאתי את העיר, “when I leave the city.” A similar construction with pronoun ending instead is found in Jeremiah 10,20 בני יצאוני, “my children have left me.” [the point is the construction in the accusative, with or without the word את. Ed.]

הם יצאו את העיר, the word את in this verse means “from.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 9,29 כצאתי את העיר, “when I leave the boundaries of the city.”

הם יצאו את העיר, לא הרחיקו, “They had left the city, and had not traveled a great distance, etc.” The words את העיר mean the same as מן העיר, from the city. Alternately, the meaning of the phrase is “although they had departed they had not yet traveled far from the city.” The reason was that that the pursuers could not afford to let them get far away before arresting them, as they were known to be brave warriors and once outside the urban area they would simply kill their pursuers in self defense.

הם יצאו את העיר, “when they had barely left the gates of the city,” not having covered any distance as yet. Joseph had reasoned that once they had reached beyond a certain distance it would be impossible to exercise any control over them [without violence. Ed.] as they had been compared to wild beasts. (Compare Yaakov’s blessing of Yehudah in Genesis 49 9 where he compared Yehudah alone to a ferocious lion.) In verse 21 in that chapter the tribe of Naftali is described by Yaakov as a hind let loose, suggesting again that militarily the sons of Yaakov were feared by their contemporaries. They would inspire fear in their adversaries.

לאשר על ביתו, “to the manager of his household;” according to a comment in B’reshit Rabbah, this was Menashe, Joseph’s older son, and seeing that the brothers rent their garments on account of the false accusations leveled at them by Menashe, the latter’s ancestral territory in the land of Israel was also torn apart, most of it being on the east bank of the river Jordan.

הרחיקו, a verb in the intransitive mode. A similar construction of the same verb occurs in Judges 18,22 המה הרחיקו מבית מיכה, “they had traveled a certain distance from the house of Micah.”

והשגתם, hurry in order that you catch up with them.

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.

חלילה לעבדיך FAR BE IT FROM TIIY SERVANTS — It is a degradation (חולין a profane thing) — this is an expression denoting a shameful act. The Targum חס לעבדיך “a sparing to thy servants!” signifies “May there be a sparing from God upon us that we should not do this thing” The expression חס ושלום occurs often in the Talmud in this sense — Forbearance and peace!

למה ידבר אדוני כדברים האלה?, as if he were suspecting all of us?

למה ידבר אדוני כדברים האלה, "Sir, why do you say such things?" The brothers not only objected to what the adjutant had accused them of directly but even to what he had implied, i.e. כדברים האלה, "words similar to these!" Whereas up to that point they were going to use the argument that they had proven their honesty by returning the money, they now had to add something more. This is why they introduced their argument with the words הן כסף, וגו. They agreed that a thief might indeed act in the manner suggested by the adjutant, i.e. establish his credentials by a spurious act such as claiming to return money which he had never stolen in the first place. However, no person who had legally acquired what he had found and had discovered this only after having travelled a long distance as had the brothers, would go to so much trouble merely in order to establish such a point. Besides, they had long ago disposed of the actual money they had discovered. It was totally unbecoming to suspect them of having returned the money for any ulterior motive. Only meticulously honest people would do what they had done. As to the adjutant's argument that the goblet was so valuable because of its properties connected with sorcery, this was meaningless to them. It might be of value to the adjutant's master, but as far as they were concerned the goblet was a mere silver trinket, not worth more than hundreds like it. After all, they were not sorcerers; what good would possession of this goblet be to them?

למה ידבר אדוני כדברים האלה? וגו'...הן כסף אשר מצאנו בפי אמתחותנו השיבונו אליך ואיך נגנוב, “why does my lord speak such words? ..Here the money we found in the mouth of our feeding bags we returned; how is it possible to think we would steal, etc.” Our sages used this argument as one of ten classic pieces of logic (קל וחומר) which are spelled out in the Torah. The argument is: “if we returned even what we found, how could we be suspected of stealing outright?” (Bereshit Rabbah 92,7)

May God spare us from doing such a thing... [Implying,] since we have not done it. Re’m asks: On חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה (18:25), Onkelos translates חלילה as קושטא (truth). [Why does he translate it here differently?] Re’m answers: [There, it refers to Hashem. And] being “spared” is not applicable to Hashem, since He is not subject to the mercy of others.

חלילה, wir würden es für eine Ertötung unseres ganzen geistigen und 8.7. חלילה sittlichen Charakters halten, wenn wir dies getan hätten.

הן כסף אשר מצאנו BEHOLD THE MONEY WHICH WE FOUND — This is one of the ten inferences from minor to major mentioned in the Bible. They are all enumerated in Genesis Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 92:7).

אשר ימצא אתו מעבדיך ומת, "whichever of your servants it will be found with shall die, etc." Gentiles are subject to the death penalty for theft (Sanhedrin 54); the brothers offered themselves as slaves in addition

אשר ימצא אתו מעבדיך ומת, “whoever of your servants it will be found with shall die.” They were so certain that none of them had stolen it that they could safely make such a statement as decreeing death on the thief if he were one of them. However, afterwards, when the goblet had been discovered in the travel bag of Binyamin, they no longer mentioned the death penalty but offered themselves collectively as slaves to Joseph.

גם עתה כדבריכם IT WERE RIGHT TO BE ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS — Indeed, this is only right: in very truth it should be according to your words since you are all guilty in this matter. Because when there are ten men and stolen property is found in possession of one of them, all of them are involved in the theft. I, however, shall deal with you within the line of strict justice (i.e. more equitably) and only אשר ימצא אתו יהיה לי עבד HE WITH WHOM IT IS FOUND SHALL BE MY BONDMAN (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).

ALSO NOW IT WERE RIGHT TO BE ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS. “Indeed, this is only right. Verily it should be according to your words since you are all guilty in this matter. When there are ten men and a stolen thing is found in the possession of one of them, all of them are arrested. I, however, will deal with you inside the bounds [of justice, that is, I will deal with you more leniently]. He with whom it shall be found, he alone shall be my servant.” Thus the language of Rashi.
But according to this interpretation, the words, gam atah (also now), do not fit in well.²²⁴For since Rashi writes that this is a din emeth (a true decision), how can the words gam atah (also now) fit into the context since these words suggest that now a new law is established. (Aboab.) See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 238. Perhaps Rashi is saying: “Also now, when according to your words, it is the law [that all be held guilty in the matter], he with whom it shall be found shall be my servant.”²²⁵Thus, Joseph’s verdict is not at all related to the established law concerning theft, but is primarily designed to bespeak his kindness in keeping only Benjamin as a servant while the rest go completely free. Hence the words gam atah (also now) apply since this is a principle newly set forth. But this can hardly be correct since Joseph said, Far be it from me to do so.²²⁶Verse 1 here. This shows that it is not the law that they all be held responsible for the theft. It is for this reason that he said: “Far be it from me, for I am the judge of the whole land, and far be it from me to do you wrong,” for all ten men are not guilty if a stolen article is found in the possession of one of them unless they all planned the theft and were united in going to steal it. Then, if one of them took it with the knowledge of all, they are all liable.
The correct interpretation would seem to be that at first he accused them all: Why have you repaid evil for good?²²⁷Verse 4 here. You have done evil in so doing.²²⁸Verse 5 here. And they freed themselves of the accusation by saying, “With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, let him die, since he is the thief, and we also, who are guiltless of the theft, will be my lord’s servants.²²⁹Verse 9 here. Thus their opinion was that the thief, in whose possession it might be found, was the only one with knowledge of the theft, for if they were all involved in the theft, why should that one alone be put to death while the rest remain alive. In that case, all of them should be put to death or all of them should become servants, for they all bear equal legal responsibility. Rather, they pleaded that the others had no knowledge of the theft. They agreed that they should become servants as a self-punishment only. This is why Joseph said to them, “Gam atah (also now) that you are assembled and are together,²³⁰The fact that you are now all found together suggests that you all had a hand in the stealing. it were right to be according to your words; nevertheless, he with whom it is found, he alone is the thief, and he alone is deserving of punishment, and he will be a servant to me for I desire his services more than his death. But you shall be guiltless, for perhaps you did not know about the theft, as you say.”
Perhaps the meaning of the words kein hu (it were right) is that “it shall be so,” meaning, “also now that the law is not so,²³¹For you said that only as an act of self-punishment you agree to be servants. That is not the law, for since there is a suspicion upon all of you, you should be arrested until the matter is clarified. Yet so shall it be according to your words, and ye shall be guiltless. according to your words so shall it be.” A similar case is the verse, And she said: According to your words, ‘kein hu,’ and she sent them away, and they departed,²³²Joshua 2:21. which means, “so shall it be.” This is the correct interpretation in my opinion. This conforms to the words of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,²³³92:8. who say, “If ten people are discovered with a stolen article, are they not all to be imprisoned? I will not do so, but he with whom it is found shall be my servant.” They thus intended to interpret the verse as I have explained it,²³⁴That the brothers were denying that under the law they were all responsible. It was only as a form of self-punishment that they agreed to be servants. Joseph, however, argued that since suspicion does fall upon them they should be imprisoned until their innocence is established. and not in accordance with the words of Rashi.²³⁵That the brothers agreed that under the law they all could be held responsible.
We might correct the interpretation in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi] by stating that Joseph said: “Far be it from me to do this and deal more harshly with you than my house-steward, who freed you at the outset by saying to you, but ye shall be guiltless,²³⁶Verse 10 here. for I will confirm the words of my servant, and the counsel of my messenger will I perform.”²³⁷See Isaiah 44:26.
Vayigash

כדבריכם כן הוא, you are truly all partners in all that you do. It is the custom of merchants to always attribute blame to one another. But I am not willing to go along; only the one in whose bag the goblet was found הוא יהיה לי עבד, he alone will be my slave.

גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא. Even though now, in this instance the argument you cite is logical, correct, but in this special circumstance, the goblet in question belonging to the king, a man who has treated you well by giving back all your money in your sacks, the fact is that האיש אש אתו ימצא הגביע הוא יהיה לי עבד, and not all of you. Even this individual will not be sentenced to death as would be required if we applied the law in all its strictness.

ויאמר גם עתה בדבריכם כן הוא, He said: "also now I accept your words, etc." What does the word גם contribute to the legal aspects of what was taking place? Besides, what did the adjutant mean when he said: "it is as your words?" It appears that he did not accept their words; the brothers had decreed death on the thief whereas the adjutant had decreed only slavery!

ויאמר, גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, he meant that although legally speaking the law is as you say, I will be more lenient with you, etc.

גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, “I also accept your arguments now.” Rashi explains this phrase to mean that although, according to logic, the brothers’ argument makes sense, he, Joseph, would make an additional concession by holding only Binyamin responsible. Nachmanides writes about this that the words:גם עתה, “now also,” are not compatible with Rashi’s commentary. He therefore explains that although, seeing that the brothers had said that they knew nothing about the theft of the goblet, even assuming that Binyamin had stolen it, that he would have accepted their argument and not held them responsible at all. However, seeing they had already tied their fate to that of their younger brother, they had, in effect, punished themselves by volunteering to be slaves to Joseph. If, as they said they knew nothing about all this, they should be free to go, whereas Binyamin is guilty of death. If they did have knowledge of all this, why should only Binyamin be punished by death and not they also? Their suggestion that no one should be punished by death, and they should all become slaves certainly was inappropriate. The words גם עתה refer to the brothers’ original statement that did make sense, namely that the person in whose possession the goblet would be found would deserve to die. The fact that they now changed their opinion about who should be punished and how, only lent support to the suspicion that they had all known about the theft of the goblet. He would therefore do them a favour by reverting to their original suggestion that only the person with whom the goblet had been found would be considered guilty, and would suffer the penalty his own brothers had decreed for him. However, he would not insist on the penalty in full, and be satisfied to keep Binyamin as a slave. Joseph was not interested in the thief dying, but in his making restitution for his thievery, something that would best be achieved through his labour as a slave for Joseph. Alternatively, the words כן הוא mean the same as כן יהיה, it shall be thus, i.e. the judgment will not be in accordance with your proposal. Some commentators understand the words as a question, expressing surprise. He meant: do you really think that you can get away with a perversion of justice as you now suggest?” “No way, but….” Another approach goes as follows: “I accept your argument that you have proved your honesty by having brought back the money you had found in your sacks. But this argument applies only to nine of you. Binyamin never brought back any money, seeing he had not been here before; neither did Shimon, seeing that he had never left Egypt before. In light of this, I will detain the one with whom the goblet has been found, seeing he had no record of proving his honesty.

גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, “also now I accept your words.” He meant that according to Egyptian law all of the brothers were considered guilty if one of them had stolen. However, he would not apply the full severity of the law and would be content with punishing only the person in whose sack the goblet would be found.

This, too, would be only just. Truly it should be as you say... Rashi means as follows: “Your words are now also correct,” does not relate back to [their statement of,] “He among your servants with whom it is found, he shall die.” This is because, “When there are ten persons and a stolen item is found in the possession of one of them,” they all deserve equal punishment [by the king’s law], whatever the punishment may be. That is why Rashi says, “You are all responsible.” Although they had said, “He shall die,” in their bitterness they exaggerated. [Rashi elaborated because] we might think that, “He... shall die,” is what is intended by, “Your words are now also correct.” But this is not so, for [in v. 16, when] the brothers [speak to Yoseif himself, they] do not say this, [that he shall die. Perforce, it was an exaggeration]. Rashi added, “Not according to the strict letter of the law; only he with whom it was found shall be my slave,” because it was not strictly according to the law [to punish only one of them].

Auch jetzt ist es noch vollständig so, wie ihr sagt. Ihr habt vollständig Recht. Es ist eine reine Unmöglichkeit, dass der, welcher freiwillig Geld wiederbringt, ein Spitzbube sei. Allein einer ist ja da, der diese Probe noch nicht geliefert hat. Er wusste ja, dass der Becher bei Benjamin war.

'גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא וגו, “also now I accept what you have said;” this appears very difficult, as the brothers had suggested that the thief if found among them should be given the death penalty, whereas they as relatives of the thief would become slaves were prepared to become slaves. Joseph’s messenger had only been concerned with punishing the thief himself, and even at that not to execute him. We must therefore interpret the messenger’s words as meaning that he accepted the brothers’ suggested punishment for themselves, if and when one of them were to be found guilty. Joseph’s messenger said that he would be more generous with them than they would be with themselves if it turned out that they were not guilty. An alternate interpretation of the line quoted: “I accept what you said concerning that you had already proved your innocence, and that you are not thieves. However, this applies only to nine of you. Neither Binyamin nor Shimon had brought back any money.” Binyamin had not been in Egypt, ad Shimon had not returned to the land of Canaan, having been in jail during your absence. He must therefore search the sacks of these two.

כדבריכם כן הוא, “you are quite correct, i.e. the thief will be guilty of the death penalty. You yourselves have condemned him as such. However, I do not wish to apply such a harsh penalty. Seeing that only one of you is guilty, the others will not become slaves. The thief will, however, become a slave as his penalty. This was the accepted penalty for stealing in those days before the Torah had been given. Compare Genesis 43,18, where the brothers had been afraid of just that when thinking they had been framed by having had their money restored to them. After the Torah was given, the standard penalty for stealing was for the thief to pay compensation worth twice the value of the stolen object. (Exodus 22,2) If he did not have the money to pay such compensation he would become indentured as a servant for 6 years, the victim being paid by the court from the monies it had received from the indentured thief’s owner.

ואתם תהיו נקיים. You will both be free from becoming slaves or any other form of punishment.

אשר ימצא, the one in whose possession, etc. Other commentators interpret the words כדבריכם כן הוא to mean that your argument that you are honest as proven by your bringing back the money you found is acceptable, [but it does not apply to either Shimon or Binyamin, neither of whom have brought back any money.] but if the goblet is found in someone’s sack, that individual will have to be my master’s slave. I will however, not hold you responsible by association.

Perhaps the adjutant replied to the argument that they had proven their honesty by returning money they had found and were legally entitled to keep. The adjutant admitted that those who had previously returned to Canaan had indeed proven that they should not be accused of theft. Neither Shimon nor Benjamin had proven this, however.. Shimon had been in jail and Benjamin had not been in Egypt previously. The adjutant therefore reduced his suspicion from a collective one to one addressed to either Shimon or Benjamin. As to the death penalty, he was going to keep the thief as a slave until such time as it would please his master to execute him.

יהיה לי עבד, “shall be a slave for me.” This is very strange, as the man saying these words was only a servant of Joseph himself. He should have said: “will be a servant to my master.” Perhaps we can understand this wording as the servant (messenger) said that seeing he is the messenger, he is responsible to his master for anything that he has not carried out correctly in his mission. Therefore, in the first instance, the brothers are his responsibility to deal with. Legally, therefore, the guilty brother becomes his slave initially.

Alternatively, the adjutant argued that the brothers were quite wrong legally. The death penalty is administered only to thieves who have been convicted by the testimony of witnesses who have observed the thief commit the crime. In this instance even the discovery of the stolen object would only be circumstantial evidence. The thief would therefore be guilty by reason of the local legal system, not by G'd's decree.

ואתם תהיו נקיים, "whereas [the rest of you] will be innocent." You retain your presumption of innocence; the fact that the goblet will be found amongst one of you does not make you an accessory unless there was evidence that you were aware of the theft and had condoned it.

בגדול החל AT THE ELDEST HE BEGAN — so that they should not perceive that he knew where it was (Genesis Rabbah 92.8).

ויחפש, בגדול החל, in order that they should not suspect him of having planted the goblet in Binyamin’s sack, he made a show of starting to search the oldest, etc. He knew their respective rank in seniority from the way Joseph had seated them at the meal.

בגדול החל, “he began by searching the sack of the oldest.” He did this in order that they should not realize the goblet had been a plant.

וימצא הגביע, “the goblet was found;” as far as the money found in the bags also is concerned this was not part of the accusation of thievery, as it could not be proven that it was not excess money that the brothers had had with them not knowing the price of their purchase in advance.

וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימין, “the goblet was discovered in the feeding bag of Binyamin.” His other brothers began to shame him by calling him “thief,” and other disparaging names, referring to his mother who had stolen the teraphim of her father Lavan (Genesis 31,19). They also struck him on his shoulders. Seeing that Binyamin had been unjustly suspected by his brothers of being a thief he was compensated by G’d in that the Holy Temple was erected on his tribal territory. This is what Moses meant in his blessing of Binyamin (Deut. 33,12) when he said ובין כתיפיו ישכון that G’d’s Presence would reside between “the shoulders of Binyamin.” He also became the ancestor of Mordechai, who had torn his garments in lament for the fate that threatened the Jewish people at the hands of Haman (Esther 4,1). The brothers deserved to have to rend their garments (verse 13) seeing they had caused their father to rend his garments (Genesis 37,34) when he mourned the presumed death of Joseph. Everything that befell the brothers was in the nature of the punishment fitting the crime.
Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn, acted as his father’s emissary in all these matters as the Torah describes him as “in charge of Joseph’s palace” (verse 1) and Targum Yonatan writes that Menashe was the individual the Torah referred to. Seeing that Menashe allowed himself to become part of this deception and caused the brothers to rend their clothing in frustration, his tribal territory was rent, i.e. was divided, part of it being on the East Bank of the river Jordan.

ויעמוס איש על חמרו THEY LADED EVERY MAN HIS ASS — They were stalwart men and did not require the assistance of each other in loading (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).

ויעמס, each one of them reloaded his ass.

ויקרעו שמלותם, “they rent their garments, etc.” This was an illustration of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that the punishment fits the crime. The brothers having sent the blood-drenched coat of Joseph to their father at the time, had caused their father to rend his garments as a symbol of anguish and mourning. Now these same bothers had occasion to do the same.

וישבו העירה AND THEY RETURNED TO THE CITY — It was the metropolis and yet Scripture says העירה — an ordinary city! But this is because in their eyes it was regarded as a very medium-sized city of only ten inhabitants if it became a matter of waging war against it (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).

עודנו שם HE WAS YET THERE — for he was waiting for them.

ויפלו לפניו ארצה, “they fell to the ground before him (Joseph).” All ten brothers fell to the ground plus Binyamin. This was the realisation of Joseph’s dream in which eleven stars bowed down to him (37,9).

Nun tritt Juda hervor; denn nun gilt es, seine Bürgschaft zu lösen.

'הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש וגו KNOW YE NOT THAT SUCH A MAN AS I CAN CERTAINLY DIVINE? — Are you not aware that so distinguished a person as I am knows how to divine, and (even though you have robbed me of the goblet by which I divine) to discover by my own intelligence and common sense or by logical deduction that it was you who stole the goblet!

איש אשר כמוני, princes and ministers were in the habit of performing magic tricks as we know from Ezekiel 21,26 where the King of Babylon is described as standing at the crossroads in order to engage in this kind of divination. Joseph is saying that he knows who stole my property.

What is this deed. It was not only wicked but foolish as well, because I am an expert diviner.

הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמוני, "Did you not know that a man such as I is able to divine things?" With this comment Joseph wanted to answer the brothers' accusation that he had framed them, since how could he have known that they had committed the theft unless they had themselves confessed to it? Joseph headed off such an accusation by saying that someone like himself practiced sorcery.

Through knowledge, reason ... that you stole the goblet. I.e., although you stole the goblet I divine with, so how could I have known that you stole it? Common sense should have told you that, “A man like me...”

כי נחש ינחש איד אשר כמוני, “for a man of my stature surely is able to divine things?!” He meant that seeing that he was a man in an exalted position, he would investigate thoroughly if someone accused was indeed guilty of the crime he has been accused of.

The reason the Torah has Joseph describe the sorcery as being performed not "by myself," but by someone "in a high position such as I" was, that not just he but anyone who occupied high office was presumed to be able to divine things like that. The brothers should have taken this into consideration before stealing anything.

האלהים מצא GOD HATH FOUND OUT — We know that we have done no wrong, but it has been brought about by the Holy One, blessed be He, that this should come upon us. The Creditor has found an opportunity to collect His debt (Genesis Rabbah 92:9).

What shall we say. What can we say in response?

מה נאמר מה נדבר, "What can we say, how can we speak?" The expression אמירה refers to mild talk, whereas the expression דבור refers to aggressive, tough talk. When the brothers added: מה נצתדק, "how can we justify ourselves?," they referred to their defence in a court of law. They considered that all these trumped up charges were retribution by G'd. The time apparently had come to pay for their guilt. Inasmuch as they were all guilty vis-a-vis G'd, they offered themselves as slaves.

ומה נצעק, what good would it do if we loudly proclaim our innocence. In the matter of the goblet we cannot argue that we have already previously proved our honesty, as we could in respect of the money we had brought back.

האלוקים מצא את עון עבדיך, “the Lord has found out the guilt of your servants.” They did not refer to anything they had been guilty of recently, but to their guilt in having sold their brother 22 years ago.

.מה נאמר לאדוני “what can we say to my lord?” this was a reference to the first sums of money which had been returned to them. מה נדבר; “how can we speak?” this was a reference to the goblet. ומה נצטדק “and how can we justify ourselves?” What argument can we possibly use? האלו-הים מצא את עון עבדיך, “G’d has found out the guilt of your servants.” They said: “we know that we are innocent of this charge; but, we are guilty of a different crime and the accuser has now leveled his accusations against us before the throne of G’d.” (based on Bereshit Rabbah 92,9). As a result of these considerations: הננו עבדים לאדוני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “we are prepared to be slaves of my lord, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet has been found.”

הננו עבדים לאדוני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “here your servants are ready to be your slaves, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet has been found.” These words of Yehudah to Joseph, (his representative, Ed) are puzzling, as he should have said הננו עבדים אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, גם אנחנו הנקיים, “here we are ready to be your slaves, the one in whose hand the goblet has been found, as well as we who are innocent.” [the guilty one should precede the innocent one in the phrasing of Yehudah’s offer.] How could Yehudah refer to the one in whose bag the goblet had been found as “only” גם, “also,” when it was he who had caused the whole disaster? Anyone reading the words of Yehudah must come to the conclusion that the thief had actually refused to shoulder the blame for his deed, not believing that he should be a slave. Because he was aware of this impression given by Yehudah’s words, Rabbeinu Chananel suggests that Yehudah’s words must be understood in conjunction with the previous words מה נאמר לאדוני, “what are we able to say to my lord, etc.” The word נאמר refers to the money found in their bags the first time, whereas the word נדבר, refers to the second money, the money the brothers had brought to Egypt as compensation for what they had found the last time when they came home. The words ומה נצטדק, refers to the goblet.

Alle Formen werden da gebraucht: Was könnten wir sagen, was dein Herz rührte und Eingang bei dir fände: אמר, — worauf pochen: דבר, — oder uns rechtfertigen. Eins können wir sagen: hierin sind wir unschuldig, aber anderweitig müssen wir uns versündigt haben, und das sucht Gott nun heim. — Josef hatte ja alle unter Verdacht gestellt und hatte Benjamin als Rechtlichkeitsbürgen betrachten wollen. Jetzt war nun der Rechtlichkeitsbürge selbst als Dieb erschienen, daher mussten sie glauben, dass sie nun alle wieder in den alten Verdacht zurückfielen und daher alle der Sklaverei verfallen wären. Erst als Josef sich anders, und zwar dahin geäußert hatte, nur Benjamin solle strafbar bleiben, sie aber frei hinausziehen, wagt Juda die Vorstellung in folgendem.

מה נאמר לאדוני, “what can we say to my lord?” This question referred to the return of their money after the first trip. מה נדבר, “what can we speak?” this question referred to the money found in their bags during the search now. מה נצטדק, “how can we justify ourselves?” This referred to the goblet being found in the bag of one of them.

מה נצטדק How shall we justify ourselves? — This is a verbal form of צדק. In the same way every root whose first letter is צ when used in the Hithpael or Nithpael takes a ט instead of the ת of the prefix. This, however, is not placed before the first radical letter, but between the first two letters of the root. For example: נצטדק of the root צדק; (Daniel 4:13) “and let it be wet (ויצטבע)” of the root צבע to steep; Joshua 9:4) “and made as if they had been ambassadors (ויצטירו)”, of the same root as ציר in (Proverbs 13:17), ציר אמונים a faithful ambassador”; (Joshua 9:12) “we took our provision (הצטידנו)” of the same root as צדה in (Genesis 45:21) צדה לדרך “provision for the way”. And in the same way, with a root whose first letter is ס or ש, when it is used in the Hithpael, the ת of the prefix separate (i.e. is placed between) the first two letters of the root. For example: (Ecclesiastes 12:5) “and the grasshopper shall drag itself along heavily (ויסתבל)” from the root סבל “to carry a load”; (Daniel 7:8) “I considered (משתכל הוית) the horns”, from the root שכל to reflect on: (Micah 6:16) “for the statutes of Omri are kept (ישתמרו)” from the root שמר to keep; (Isaiah 59:15) “And he that departeth from evil (משתולל) is regarded as a fool”, from the same root as שולל in (Job 12:17) “He leadeth counsellors away (שולל) as though they were fools”; (Exodus 9:17) “Thou treadest down (מסתולל) my people”, from the same root as סלולה in (Jeremiah 18:15) “a way not trodden down (סלולה).”

מה נדבר? What can we possibly say in justification? How could we prove that we did not do what you accuse us of?

האלוקים מצא, G’d found our guilt and has now devised a way to trap us and to punish us. This corresponds to how the prophet Ezekiel 3,20 describes G’d’s modus operandi, saying ונתתי מכשול לפניו, “I shall place a stumbling block before him” (a penitent who slides back into sin).

It is also possible that when the brothers spoke of "how can we justify ourselves?," they referred to the disastrous discovery of the goblet in Benjamin's pouch. This fact had destroyed their collective defence that they had already proven their honesty by having returned the money they had found in their bags upon their return to Canaan; alas, Benjamin had not been with them at the time.

האלוקים מצא את עון עבדיך, “He, G’d, has found a way for the debtor to collect the debt due him. However, as to the goblet, this is something we are totally innocent of, not only the ten of us in whose sacks the goblet has not been found, but even the one in whose sack it has been found is innocent of this accusation. This is G’d’s way of incriminating us; we did not incriminate ourselves in this way.

גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “both we and the one in whose hand the goblet has been found etc.;” why did Yehudah use the word גם, “also” twice in this verse? This was to teach us that also those of us against whom there is no evidence or suspicion at all, are prepared to remain as your master’s slaves, not to mention our brother in whose bag the goblet has been found. The difference between what Yehudah says now and what he had said in verse 9 is that in that verse he had accepted the death penalty for the person in whose bag the goblet would be found, as he had been so sure that none of their bags would contain it. When the brothers saw that it had been found in Binyamin’s bag, they offered themselves as slaves also, but backtracked on acknowledging that Binyamin would be sentenced to death. They hoped that their offer would save Binyamin from being convicted of the death penalty.

How can we justify ourselves. How can we prove that we have been framed?

גם אנחנו, both we, etc. The word גם may be understood as הגם, i.e. "even though the goblet has not been found in our pouches." Inasmuch as the sin the brothers had been guilty of did not include Benjamin at all, seeing he had been far too young to participate in the sale of Joseph, they said: "as well as the one in whose pouch the goblet has been found;" they attributed Benjamin's having been found with the goblet in his pouch as a misfortune that had befallen Benjamin only because he had travelled with sinners such as they. We find a similar use of two apparently not only unrelated but completely contradictory phenomena when the Talmud in Sanhedrin 93 compares "two dried out trees and one moist one," saying that when the dry trees go up in flames even the green tree is burnt up together with them.

God has found the iniquity. Hashem is punishing us not for this deed, of which we are innocent, but for a much earlier crime

Alternatively, the brothers shifted gears by no longer speaking about the person in whose pouch the goblet was found as being guilty of death, but גם אנחנו "we too" i.e. Benjamin was to be subject to the same penalty they had declared themselves as guilty of in verse 9, namely slavery. They justified this by citing the fact that there were no witnesses to the actual theft. Benjamin was able to plead that he did not know who placed the goblet in his pouch.

It would be degrading for me. I do not wish to be the instrument of chastisement for your earlier crimes because Hashem uses the wicked for that purpose; see I Shemuel 24:14.

חלילה לי מעשות זאת, "It would be a disgrace if I were to do such a thing." Joseph meant that even if it were true that G'd was using this opportunity to punish the brothers for some other sin, he was neither authorised nor competent to administer such retribution. He was only authorised to deal with guilt which was obvious to him. He was entitled to judge the person in whose possession the goblet had been found. The brothers were free to go home, however. Joseph thought that by allowing them all to go and by keeping only Benjamin as a slave he had appeased Yehudah. He felt certain that Yehudah had accepted the verdict. How was he to know that Yehudah would immediately begin to lambast him as is evident in the following verses. According to our view Yehudah reasoned with Joseph as long as he felt that they were all being punished for something they had done in the past. When he realised that innocent Benjamin was being singled out for punishment whereas they, the guilty ones, were allowed to go free, he realised that he did not confront divine judgment in the person of Joseph, but that Joseph was a capricious ruler who had framed Benjamin for reasons of his own. There was therefore no cause for the brothers to submit to what they had previously considered as divine retribution.

אל אביכם. Who is waiting for you to bring back food.

הוא יהיה לי עבד, “he shall be my slave.” The word eved should have been vocalized with a segol, both under the letter ayin and under the letter beyt. The reason why the letter ayin is vocalised with the vowel kametz, normally reserved for when the word appears at the end of a phrase or sentence, is that Joseph hinted by means of this that Binyamin’s status as Joseph’s personal slave would be far superior to that of regular slaves. He would be treated as if he were royalty.

ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם, “and you return and make your peace with your father (in heaven).” Menashe could simply have said: ”go on your way in peace.” Seeing that the Torah focuses on the ten brothers and the grievous wrong they had done to their brother Joseph, it is not surprising that the Torah also uses this opportunity to hint at the historical consequences of the brothers’ behavior at the time. Our sages in Pesachim 50 go so far as to say that the acceptance of G’d’s decree by the ten martyrs who died a cruel death at the hands of the Romans for a crime committed over fifteen hundred years earlier put these people into a class by themselves, one that could not be matched in piety/faith by anyone else previously. We can apply to them the verse in Isaiah 64,3: “Such things have never been heard or seen. No eye has seen them O G’d, but You, who acts for those who trust in Him.”

ויגש אליו וגו' . . . דבר באזני אדני THEN JUDAH CAME NEAR TO HIM etc. [LET THY SERVANT SPEAK] A WORD IN MY LORD S EARS etc. May my words penetrate into your ears (Genesis Rabbah 93:6).

LET THY SERVANT, I PRAY THEE, SPEAK A WORD. The intent thereof is to say that he [Judah] will speak but a few words which will not burden Joseph. In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that “a word” refers to the exchange concerning which he is to plead before him, namely, that Joseph exchange him for his brother Benjamin, for he will not ask any other thing of him, and all of the rest of his words are an appeasement and a plea for this exchange.

כי כמוך כפרעה, seeing that Your position is one equivalent to that of king, I am afraid of your anger.

ויגש אליו יהודה, Yehudah approached him (Joseph), etc. Why does the Torah have to mention that "Yehudah approached," seeing he had been standing close to Joseph during the previous part of the discussion? The word אליו also does not seem necessary. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 93,6 explained that the word ויגש refers to Yehudah girding himself for war. This is a homiletical commentary. We are concerned with the plain meaning of the verse. Why did Yehudah say בי אדוני, "please my lord" at this point? If these words were intended to put Joseph into a more conciliatory frame of mind he should have said these words when he said ואל יחר לאדוני, "let my lord not become angry." Furthermore, what need was there for the words "in the ears of my lord?" We also need to understand what Yehudah meant when he said: "you are just like Pharaoh?"

כי כמוך כפרעה, the repeated use of the prefix כ is meant to draw a comparison between the two subjects mentioned. We find a parallel construction in Isaiah 24,2 כעבד כאדוניו, “like master like servant.” [that verse contains a string of these comparisons. Ed.] What Yehudah meant was “on the one hand you rule like Pharaoh, and Pharaoh is like you in many respects.” I am therefore as afraid to speak up in front of you as I would be afraid to speak up in front of Pharaoh. However, due to the extreme difficulty we are finding ourselves in I cannot remain silent. I can only ask that in all that I am going to say אל יחר אפך בעבדך, “do not become angry at your servant.” You have already accused us of crimes when we first came here, as distinct from other people who came to buy grain whom you did not subject to such treatment.”

ויגש אליו. ידבר נא עבדך דבר. After you yourself have said (verse 17) that you do not want to do anything which would pervert justice,

ויגש אליו יהודה, “Yehudah approached him closely.” Originally, Yehudah had thought that Joseph wanted to condemn Binyamin to death. If that had been the case, he would not have an opening to substitute his life for that of his brother. Now that he had heard from Joseph’s own lips that he intended to keep him as slave, he felt that by offering himself instead, he might persuade Joseph that his offer had merit.

May my words penetrate your ears. [How does Rashi know it does not mean that Yehudah literally requested to whisper in Yoseif’s ear? The answer is:] They spoke to Yoseif only through an interpreter, as they did not know he understood Hebrew. So how could Yehudah speak directly to Yoseif? Another answer: It is not a king’s honor for a lowly person to whisper in his ear. (Re’m)

באוני אדני, ein schöner Ausdruck, wenn man dem andern etwas sehr zu erwägen geben will. Ich will nicht an dein Gefühl appellieren, sondern an deinen Geist und deinen Verstand mich richten. — חרה .ואל יחר אפך heißt wohl nicht: glühend werden, dies ist חרר. Vielmehr scheint es in Verwandtschaft mit ארה .הרה ,ערה ,ארה: etwas zu sich hin und aufnehmen, daher abpflücken, und ארון: ein Behälter, welcher etwas für den Gebrauch aufnimmt. ערה: der Zustand, in welchem man alle Eindrücke aufnimmt, wahrnimmt: die Blöße. הרה das Aufnehmen eines Keimes. חרה: der gereizte Zustand, in welchem die leiseste Berührung oder äußere Einwirkung einen Eindruck macht, noch nacktere Nacktheit: dass nämlich durch irgend eine Sache jemandes Gemüt so gereizt ist, dass man ihrer gar nicht erwähnen darf. Möge das, was ich spreche, deine Empfindlichkeit nicht reizen; denn siehe, du bist wie Pharao und Pharao ist wie du; d. h. ich achte dich wie Pharao, sollte ich daher etwas sagen, was dir unangenehm ist, so glaube nicht, dass es aus Mißachtung geschehe; was ich dir sage, würde ich auch Pharao sagen.

ויגש אליו וגו'...בי אדוני, “he came near to him;....oh my lord.” Yehudah”s logic in challenging Joseph’s punishment for Binyamin was as follows: normally when a slave owner buys additional slaves and finds out that they steal from him, he demands his money back from the seller and returns such slaves to him. Why, do you do the opposite, by preferring to have a thief as your slave?

ויגש אליו יהודה, “Yehudah approached him;” seeing that he could not remove every official surrounding Joseph, as Joseph did later on, he had no choice but to approach him face to face.

Then Judah approached him: The last letters of these three words create שָׁוֶה (equal.) Judah said to Joseph, "I am equal to you, just as you are a king, I am a king." And for this he demands in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 93:6) For behold the kings have assembled (Psalms 48:5).

ואל יחר אפך AND LET NOT THY WRATH GLOW — From these words you may infer that he spoke to him in harsh terms.

AND LET NOT THINE ANGER BURN AGAINST THY SERVANT. Judah is saying: “Do not be angry at me for speaking before you.”

ידבר נא עבדך, let me explain to you what unfairness and perversion of justice would result from the course of action you plan.

ידבר נא עבדך דבר, “allow your servant to say something.” He meant that he would offer a short plea, and that Joseph should not consider his plea as something tiresome.

From this you may infer that he spoke harshly to him. I.e., not gently and politely as one usually speaks to a king. Otherwise, why should Yoseif grow angry?

It is an accepted fact amongst kings that the most highly placed ministers and advisers are seated in front of the king, and when someone comes to present a request to the king he does not present his case while standing between the advisers and the king, but must stand outside the circle of advisers. The circle of advisers separates the petitioner from the king who presides on the throne. Up until this point Yehudah had stood outside the circle. The word ויגש indicates that at this point Yehudah moved forward to within the area separating the advisers from the king himself. He did so in order that the advisers should not be able to hear what he was about to tell Joseph.

כי כמוך כפרעה, “for you are just like Pharaoh;” just as an earlier Pharaoh lusted after the founding mother of the Hebrews, because of her physical beauty, our matriarch Sarah, you lust after our brother because you are attracted by the fact that he is so handsome.” An alternate interpretation: “just as you are great and mighty in your country, so we are great and mighty in the region which we call our home.” (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 93,6 and Tanchuma on this portion section 5)

יהודה, the reason why Yehudah was the one carrying on this dialogue was that it was he who had guaranteed Binyamin’s safe return to their father.

כי כמוך כפרעה FOR THOU ART EVEN AS PHARAOH — In my sight you are as important as the king. This is the literal meaning, but a Midrashic explanation is: You will ultimately be stricken with leprosy for detaining Benjamin even as your ancestor Pharaoh was stricken because he detained my ancestress Sarah one night. Another explanation is: you are as unreliable as Pharaoh — just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not carry them out, makes promises and does not fulfil them, so also do you. Is this what you meant by “setting your eyes” upon him when you said (Genesis 44:21) “Bring him down and I will set mine eyes upon him”? Still another interpretation of כי כמוך כפרעה FOR THOU SHALT BECOME EVEN AS PHARAOH: if you provoke me I will slay you and your master (Genesis Rabbah 93:6).

FOR THOU ART EVEN AS PHARAOH, i.e., “it is with great fear that I speak before you, as if I was speaking before Pharaoh.”

ואל יחר אפך, and do not become angry when I tell you that you will be guilty of this perversion of justice unwittingly.

כי כמוך כפרעה, “for you are for all intent and purpose equal to Pharaoh.” He meant that he revered Joseph in a manner similar to the reverence shown Pharaoh himself. Alternately, he implied that Joseph should keep his word just as it was expected from a ruler of Pharaoh’s stature that he keeps his word. Binyamin was supposed to have come to Egypt merely to prove that he was a brother of his and that the brothers had not lied when they mentioned him as having remained behind in the land of Canaan to tend to their aged father’s needs.

You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” explains why Yehudah said to him, “Please my master,” by which Yehudah pleaded and supplicated to him, although Yoseif was not a king. Thus Yehudah said [in explanation]: “For you are equal to Pharaoh,” i.e., “You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king.” However, “For you are equal to Pharaoh” does not explain Yehudah’s statement of, “And do not be angry,” which he had previously made. On the contrary, since Yoseif was as esteemed as a king, this is a reason for Yehudah not to speak harshly to him, [so Yoseif’s anger would be justified].

The Maharam Elshakar in his responsum number 93 comments on the difference between the word אליו and the word לו, both of which mean "to him."

באזני אדוני, “for the ears of my lord only.” ואל יחר אפך בעבדך, “so that you will not become angry at your servant.” I have reason to fear this as you are just like Pharaoh in stature and your anger is something that is feared by everyone. Who else is there for me to lodge a complaint to if I feel I have been wronged?

כי כמוך כפרעה, the fact that I address my words to you is not to be considered personally, as I address them to you in your capacity of representing Pharaoh himself.

Its Midrashic explanation is: “Ultimately you will be stricken...” [Although the simple meaning is, “You are as esteemed in my eyes as a king”], the Midrash preferred not to say that Yehudah was speaking gently, rather that he was speaking harshly. Thus it explains, “Ultimately you will be stricken...” But there is a question on the Midrash: Why did it not say, “For you will be like Pharaoh”? Thus Rashi offers another explanation: “Just as Pharaoh issues decrees...” I.e., right now you are like Pharaoh. But there is a question regarding this explanation: Why did it not say אתה כפרעה? Thus, both explanations are needed. And there is a question regarding all the [above] explanations: Why did it not say כפרעה כמוך, since Yoseif was being compared to Pharaoh? Thus Rashi offers another explanation: “If you will provoke me...” Now, Pharaoh is compared to Yoseif as regards being killed. But this explanation is implausible on its own because how could Yehudah have said, “Do not be angry,” when he was threatening to kill him? That is why the above explanations are also needed. (Maharshal)

Yehudah entreated the ruler (Joseph) to speak with him privately; this is the meaning of the words: "please my lord let your servant speak in the hearing of my lord." He also pleaded with Joseph not to become angry immediately; this is why he added: "and let not my lord become angry." He implied that though it is customary for great men to become angry at each other, there is no cause for a highly placed person such as Joseph to waste his energy by becoming angry at a lowly servant such as himself. This was the reason Yehudah emphasised that he was Joseph's servant. The reason that Yehudah said: "for you are just like Pharaoh" is explained in A vodah Zarah 10 in a story involving a certain Ketiah bar Shalum. A certain Roman Emperor disliked the Jews and consulted his advisers what he should do about them. He asked whether if one has a painful fibroid in one's foot one should cut it off and be at ease or whether one should allow it to remain and suffer pain? The advice of all the other ministers was that the Emperor should have the fibroid removed. Ketiah- also one of the officers of the Emperor- said to him: "first of all you cannot get rid of all the Jews, quoting a verse in Zachariah 2,10. Secondly, if you do this your empire will henceforth be known as one that kills its own subjects." The king replied that Ketiah's advice was sound but that there was a law which stipulated that anyone who obstructed the wishes of the emperor must be thrown into the furnace. He had Ketiah executed. As soon as Ketiah was burned to death a heavenly voice was heard proclaiming that Ketiah had acquired his life in the Hereafter in the time it had taken for him to suggest the Jews be saved. Yehudah was careful not to create a situation which would make his words boomerang on himself as had the words of Ketiah. This is why he wanted no one to hear what he had to say to Joseph.

כי כמוך כפרעה, “for you are just like Pharaoh.” Compare a similar expression in Kings II 3,7: כמוני כמוך, “me and you .” Or Hoseah 4,9: כעם ככהן, the common people just like the priests.” Or, Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “the sinner just as the good one.” Or, Psalms 139,12: כחשיכה כאורה, “darkness and light are the same.”According to Rashi, what Yehudah meant was that “just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not keep his promises, so you decree and do not keep your promise.” According to a Midrash, what Yehudah referred to was that Joseph had only demanded to “see” Binyamin before releasing Shimon and letting us buy food and return to the land of Canaan. Instead he had detained them, invited them. caused them to become drunk with him, etc., as a result of which they found themselves in their present predicament. Another Midrash quotes Yehudah as saying: just as Pharaoh violated the Egyptian law that a slave cannot be appointed ruler and he appointed you, so you too act illegally. Furthermore, Pharaoh had announced to the whole world that everybody was welcome to buy grain in Egypt, whereas his family had been discriminated against by having to bring his youngest brother all the way from the land of Canaan in order to buy grain for their starving family.

As the Pharaoh was stricken... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” is connected to, “Let your servant speak a word in my master’s ears.” And what is the [harsh] word that I will speak to you? “For you are equal to Pharaoh,” meaning that “ultimately you will be stricken...”

The words: "for you are just like Pharaoh" may also be understood in a sense similar to Proverbs 21,1: "the king's heart is in the Lord's hands." This means that the king is privileged to receive divine assistance before pronouncing judgment. If Yehudah were to speak publicly, his advisers would pressure Joseph not to follow his heart's inclination so that ultimately he would not decide according to the will of heaven. By speaking in this way Yehudah indicated to Joseph that he considered him a fair ruler, and that his closest advisers were the ones who were in danger of committing a travesty of justice.

Just as Pharaoh issues decrees without carrying them out... Meaning: Pharaoh wrote in his register that a slave may not rule nor may he wear silk garments, yet he did not carry it out because he made you a ruler though you were a slave. And “he makes promises without fulfilling them,” i.e., if he did not carry out his decree where there is no monetary loss, surely he will not carry out a promise where there is monetary loss. You, too, do the same. You promise and do not fulfill, for is this [the meaning of, “Set your eyes on him?”] “You, too, do the same” does not refer to issuing decrees without carrying them out, for nowhere do we see Yoseif issuing a decree and not carry it out. And nowhere do we see Pharaoh making a promise and not keep it. You might ask: What did Yehudah have against Pharaoh, that he so denigrated the king? The answer is: Yehudah was saying to Yoseif, “On what do you rely? Do you place your trust in Pharaoh [to protect you from our retribution]? Pharaoh himself issues decrees but does not carry them out, as he wrote in Egypt’s laws that a slave may not be a ruler yet he did not carry it out.” (Maharshal)

If you will provoke me I will kill you... From this it follows that “For you are equal to Pharaoh” is connected to, “Do not be angry with your servant,” for if you get angry, I will kill you and your master.

A homiletical approach to the words ויגש אליו may be similar to what Solomon tells us in Proverbs 27,19: "as face to face is reflected in water, so man's heart will be reflected by his counter-part." Yehudah endeavoured to turn Joseph's heart towards himself. Yehudah had to make a special effort in this regard as there is a natural dislike between idol worhippers and the servants of the one and only G'd as we know from Psalms 125,3. In this instance, keeping in mind his immediate concern, Yehudah had to overcome his natural dislike for people who worshipped idols.

The word may simply reflect the fact that now that Yehudah was convinced that what had happened was at the initiative of Joseph and not that of G'd, he "approached" the whole subject differently.

Still another possibility is that the word indicates that Yehudah had Joseph's interest at heart. He presented himself as far more useful to Joseph as a slave than his youngest brother Benjamin.

He went on by explaining why it was seemly for Joseph to listen to his plea and to his reasons, seeing כי כמך כפרעה, “you are of equal stature to Pharaoh,” and as such it is incumbent upon you to at least listen to my arguments. Yehudah then proceeded to explain that seeing he had guaranteed the safety of Binyamin it was logical that he should take it upon himself to pay any penalty Binyamin had incurred.

The word אליו may have been inserted in order to deflect an accusation against Yehudah who had previously offered that all the brothers including Benjamin would be slaves to Joseph whereas now he wanted Benjamin released. How could he dare reverse himself? The Torah therefore explains that the word אליו refers to Joseph who wanted to keep only Benjamin.

Yehudah said: "please my lord" for three reasons. 1) He had to explain to Joseph why he alone kept speaking. This was especially so seeing Joseph had already demonstrated that he knew that Reuben was the oldest brother when he had seated the brothers according to their age (43,33). Joseph was liable to interrupt him at any moment demanding to know why Reuben was not acting as the spokesman. Yehudah therefore wanted to explain this before Joseph could become angry. He explained that Benjamin's detention concerned him most because of the guarantee he had given to his father. 2) He used a stratagem designed to free Benjamin by claiming that he himself had stolen the goblet but had hidden it in Benjamin's pouch, deflecting any suspicion from himself in the event that the goblet would be found. It was only proper then that he and not Benjamin should pay the penalty. Now the situation was that Benjamin denied being a thief whereas Yehudah confessed. 3) The word בי may be an allusion by the Torah to the present time when Joseph was the ruler; ultimately, however, authority would pass to Yehudah, i.e. the kingdom of David who was a descendant of Yehudah.

By using these words, the Torah may also have alluded to the fact that had it not been for Yehudah's advice to sell Joseph, the latter would not now be in a position of authority at all; the words בי אדוני then would have to be translated as: "it is only through me that you are my lord."

והורידו עבדיך, “and your servants would bring down;” Yehudah used a third person pronoun, i.e. “they would bring down,” instead of saying “you would bring down.” He did not want to accuse Joseph outright of becoming the cause of their father’s premature death as an embittered man. By adding the words עבדיך, “your servants,” meaning himself, he suggested that by keeping him instead of Binyamin, Joseph would not only save their father’s life, but he would acquire a far better slave than Binyamin seeing that he, Yehudah, was superior to Binyamin in all aspects pertaining to performing the tasks allocated to slaves. Moreover, Joseph would thereby be spared the sin of failing to honour his guarantee that he would bring Binyamin back safely.

אדני שאל את עבדיו MY LORD ASKED HIS SERVANTS — From the beginning you came with a pretext against us. What need had you to ask us all these questions? Were we asking for your daughter in marriage or were you asking for our sister? And yet

MY LORD ASKED HIS SERVANTS. I know no reason for this lengthy speech of Judah in which he relates that which has already transpired between them. And that which the Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said in interpretation of Judah’s words:¹Bereshith Rabbah 93:5, quoted here by Rashi. “Is this the ‘setting your eyes upon him’ to which you referred when you said, That I may set mine eyes upon him?”²Verse 21 here. — does not make it a valid argument, for a ruler who commands that a person be brought before him does not do so on condition that he be freed from the consequences of the evils he would commit, and the more so for a theft in which the goblet from which he drinks was stolen from the king’s house. And originally he had favorably cast his eyes upon Benjamin, greeting him by saying G-d be gracious unto thee, my son,³Above, 43:29. and he made all a party before him in the palace in Benjamin’s honor, and he gave them presents⁴Ibid., Verse 34. and gave them corn as much as they can bear⁵Ibid., 44:1. in excess of the money they had brought him, as I have explained, and what else was he to do for him!
It therefore appears to me, in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, that Judah’s words are nought but supplications to bestir Joseph’s compassion, for Judah thought that he was a man who fears G-d, as he had told him,⁶Ibid., 42:18. and since he had conducted himself mercifully towards them in the manner of one who fears sin, by consoling them for the trouble he had caused them.⁷Ibid., 43:23. And this is the purport of the story. Judah said to him: “As a consequence of my lord’s inquiry, we were forced to tell you about this brother of ours, and we also did not consent to bring him down before you as you commanded at first, but we said that the lad cannot leave his father.⁸Verse 22 here. However, at the peril of our lives, because of the burning heat of famine,⁹Lamentations 5:10. we brought him, for you said, Ye shall see my face no more.¹⁰Verse 23 here. But our father did not want to listen and permit us to return to buy a little food until we were all in danger, and then he consented with fear and worry. But now when he seeth that the lad is not with us,¹¹Verse 31 here. he will die in bitterness of soul.¹²Job 21:25. Therefore, let my supplication, I pray thee, be presented before thee,¹³Jeremiah 37:20. to have pity upon us and the aged father, and take me in place of the lad as a permanent servant, for I am better than he, and it shall be righteousness unto thee.”¹⁴Deuteronomy 24:13. This is the purport of the entire section.
It is possible that the expression, and thy servants will bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father,¹¹Verse 31 here. is a euphemism out of respect [for Joseph, and Judah’s intent was to say], “and you will bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father.” Similarly, But this thing brings sin upon thy people.¹⁵Exodus 5:16. [The officers meant to say, “This thing brings sin upon you.”]
It may further be said, in line with that which our Rabbis have said: “Is this the ‘setting your eyes upon him’ to which you referred?”—that Judah said, For thou art even as Pharaoh,¹⁶Verse 18 here. meaning “it behooves you to stand by your word and your inquest, for it was on account of you that we have brought the lad under great duress,” as he [Judah] mentions, and he feared to be more explicit. But hidden in his words is the hint that the goblet affair was a scheme of his to have a pretext against them, for why should Joseph have wanted to see Benjamin to begin with, against their will. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁷93:8. “Judah said to him, ‘I will prove to you that you moved against us with a pretext. The people of how many countries have come down to buy food? Have you interrogated them as you have interrogated us? Were we perhaps asking for your daughter in marriage or were you seeking to marry our sister?’” The Rabbis are saying that this was hinted at in his words.

אדוני שאל, you are the one who caused us to bring this man (Binyamin) here, and now it seems easy for you to detain him.

אדוני שאל…היש לכם אב או אח, "My lord asked….'do you have a father (alive) or a brother?'" Yehudah wanted to remind Joseph that they had brought Benjamin to Egypt only because of Joseph's insistence. If he were not to be seen with them upon their return their father would die from anguish. He reminded Joseph that when someone is asked questions about family details and the questioner is a king, it is impossible not to answer truthfully. In addition, Joseph had made the appearance of Benjamin in Egypt a test of the brothers' denial to be spies.

אדוני שאל, he proceeded to tell Joseph the sequence of events in a manner calculated to arouse Joseph’s sympathy for the plight of his aged father.

אדוני שאל, ”my lord had inquired, etc.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what Yehudah had meant to accomplish by making such a long speech. Even recalling Joseph’s words of why he wanted to see their younger brother, this surely had not implied that if that brother would commit a criminal act he should go unpunished! All the more so will he deserve to be punished if this brother became guilty of stealing the goblet from the ruler of the country! As long as Joseph had not known anything negative about Binyamin he had welcomed him most cordially and even invoked G’d’s blessing on him (43,29). He had recompensed the brothers for having put them to so much trouble by giving them as much grain as their donkeys could carry, had wined and dined them and showered them with gifts. What could Yehudah have hoped to accomplish by arguing? The only thing he could possibly achieve was to appeal to Joseph’s sense of mercy and pity. Yehudah’s premise was that Joseph was a G’d–fearing man, seeing that Joseph had made that point when keeping only Shimon as a hostage instead of keeping them all and sending one brother to get Binyamin from the land of Canaan. Yehudah’s major argument was to convince Joseph that they had put their lives on the line in order to get their father’s permission to allow Binyamin to travel with them, and that failure to bring him home healthy and well would be like condemning them collectively to death, as well as to hasten the death of their father, something they could not bear to watch. Had it not been for Joseph’s threat to deny them and their families further food supplies, an indispensable lifeline during such a famine, their father would never have consented to allow this remaining son of his favourite wife to be separated from him. If Joseph’s concern was to secure for himself compensation for the theft by way of personal services to be provided for him, he Yehudah, could provide such services better than his brother Binyamin. Alternately, Yehudah may have reminded Joseph simply that it was appropriate for him to stand by his word that he only wanted to set his eyes upon Binyamin. He implied by what he did not spell out, that he considered the matter of the goblet as merely a pretext, a manipulation in order to justify keeping Binyamin with him. He could not risk saying something like this to Joseph’s face openly.

From the start you encountered us with subterfuge. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yehudah tell Yoseif what Yoseif had spoken to him? Did Yoseif not know what he said? Rashi answers: He repeated it in order to say, “From the start you encountered us with subterfuge.”

אדוני שאל, “my lord had asked: etc.; actually, we do not find that Joseph had asked if they had a father or brother. They had volunteered this information without having been asked for it.

Why did you need to ask all these question? Were we seeking your daughter... [Rashi knows this] because only concerning marriage do people ask about sons and daughters and fathers and mothers. You might ask: Why does Rashi say “your daughter” pertaining to Yoseif, and “our sister” pertaining to his brothers, and not the opposite, since the brothers were older than Yoseif? The answer is: Since Yoseif was esteemed in their eyes as a king, they said, “Were we seeking your daughter.” For a son-in-law usually honors his father-in-law. Similarly with, “Were you seeking our sister,” i.e., we would need to treat you with honor so that it will be well with our sister. But the opposite would be a disgrace to Yoseif as a king, for Yoseif would need to honor them.

My master asked. See Rashi. If he truly suspected them of spying he should have asked for character references rather than inquiring about their families.

Nevertheless, “We said to my master” — we withheld nothing from you. Rashi explains this so we will not ask: If Yehudah knew that Yoseif was acting with subterfuge, why did he answer him, “We have an old father...”? Rashi answers: Yehudah was saying, “Nevertheless ... [we acted respectfully and withheld nothing from you].”

ונאמר אל אדני WE SAID TO MY LORD — we kept nothing back from you (Genesis Rabbah 93:8).

ואביו אהבו, more than he loves all (any) of us combined. Therefore he did not allow him to come to Egypt the first time we came here in order to buy food for our families. The reason was not that we came on a spying mission, as you appear to have thought

ואחיו מת, “and his full brother is dead.” According to Rashi fear prompted him to lie and to declare his brother Joseph as “dead.” Even so, it is hard to understand how he dared refer to Joseph as dead when previously he had only described him as missing, i.e. האחד איננו, (42,13).

He thought, “If I tell him that he is alive, he will say, ‘Bring him to me.’” You might ask: On the contrary, was Yehudah not contradicting himself? When they had come previously to Yoseif, they said he was still alive but had been sold, as it says, “And one is no more” (42:13). The answer is: The first time they came, they said, “And one is no more.” But the second time they came, they were saying that he had died, and this verse pertains to [what they were saying] the second time. Although it is not expressly written that Yoseif asked [now for details] about their lost brother, we can still say that he asked, as we anyway have to say [something similar to] this. It is written here that Yoseif had said to them, “Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes on him.” But we do not find it written previously that Yoseif had said this to them. Perforce, he must have said it to them although it is not written previously. And the same is true here: the second time they came, when he asked about their father, he inquired also about their lost brother — and they replied that he had died. [They so replied] out of fear. They saw he had told them to bring Binyomin, and perhaps he would tell them to search for the lost brother and bring him. So they replied that after having searched for him, they received word that he had died.

ואחיו מת AND HIS BROTHER IS DEAD — He uttered this untruth out of fear. He thought: if I tell him that he is alive he may say “Bring him to me”.

From that mother he has no other brother. I.e., לאמו means “of his mother,” [not “to his mother”]. This is because “to his mother” can be said only if the mother is alive. But after her death, one says that he remains “of his mother.”

לבדו לאמו [HE] ALONE [IS LEFT] OF HIS MOTHER — of that mother he has no other brother.

THAT I MAY SET MINE EYES UPON HIM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning thereof is “that I may see him.” But I have not found “setting of eyes” in Scripture in reference to just seeing. Thus: And I will set Mine eyes upon them for good;¹⁸Jeremiah 24:6. Take him, and put your eye upon him, and do him no harm,¹⁹Ibid., 39:12. for Nebuchadrezzar did not command Nebuzaradan to merely see Jeremiah after he took him into custody, but to watch him and treat him well. But the meaning here is that Joseph had vowed to them to have pity on the lad and to guard him, even though it is not mentioned explicitly [in the narrative of the original confrontation between Joseph and his brothers], just as Scripture is concise there about all these matters which Judah related in Joseph’s presence. Now Judah did not mention the imprisonment of Simeon and the pretext that Ye are spies,²⁰Above, 42:9. out of respect or out of the fear of majesty.

ואשימה עיני עליו, it is a severe wrong for a ruler not to keep his word. (you claimed you only wanted to be convinced of his existence.)

ואשימה עיני עליו. There was therefore no reason why his father should be concerned that he would not be allowed to return home.

ותאמר אל עבדיך הורדוהו, "you instructed your servants "bring him down!" Yehudah reminded Joseph that he had not accepted their assurances or examined their truthfulness by any other available means except his insistence to bring Benjamin to Egypt. When they told their father about this condition their father did not agree to let Benjamin travel until they had exhausted their food supply.

ואשימה עיני עליו, “so that I may see him with my own eyes.” This expression is usually meant to convey a benevolent interest in the person one wishes to see. A well known example of this meaning is found in Jeremiah 24,6 ושמתי עיני עליהם לטובה, “So that I may look upon them favourably.” A similar verse with the identical expression is found in Amos. Even though in our verse the word “לטובה”, “favourably,” had not been spelled out by Joseph, it was reasonable for the brothers to understand Joseph’s request in that manner. Yehudah made no reference to Joseph having (in retrospect) imprisoned Shimon without cause, as the brothers had proved that they were not spies. He omitted this reference either because of fear, or because of good manners.

(21-34) Alle diese Verhandlungen waren wohl während der drei Tage ihrer Haft zwischen ihnen und Josef vorgegangen. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 44: 31. Sobald er nur sieht, dass der Knabe nicht da ist, wird er auf der Stelle sterben, wir werden gar nicht einmal Zeit haben, ihm die Sache auseinanderzusetzen und sie etwa in milderem Lichte erscheinen zu lassen.

ואשימה עיני עליו, “so that I can see him personally.” Rashi understands this line as a metaphor, as if Yehudah challenges Joseph: ”is this what you call meeting him personally?” We must therefore explain the reason for Joseph having expressed the wish to meet Binyamin personally as a promise to protect him from harm. We certainly did not understand you to mean that you plan to cause him harm.

ותאמר אל עבדיך הורידוהו אלי, “You said to your servants: ‘bring him down to me.!’” The reason why I, Yedudah, am now speaking up on his behalf, is that I have guaranteed him.”An alternate explanation: when you said: ואשימה עיני עלי, “I will put my eye on him,” I thought that you meant that you will personally protect him. Instead you are doing the reverse and accuse him of having committed a crime. You are looking for ways to detain him.

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.

אם לא ירד, even though you have heard our true arguments against our bringing him here, you insisted as a form of punishment that we bring him with us on penalty of not getting food.

WHEN WE CAME UP UNTO THY SERVANT MY FATHER, WE TOLD HIM THE WORDS OF MY LORD. Judah said that immediately upon coming to their father, they told him that they will not see the ruler’s face again without their younger brother, but he refused to send him, and would have left Simeon to him in his prison. This is the meaning of the verse, And our father said: Go again, buy us a little food,²¹Verse 25 here. for he did not consent to send Benjamin in spite of all we said, until forced to by the famine.

ונגד לו את דברי אדוני, even after haring that you insisted that we bring him here, our father still refused to let him go with us

שובו שברו לנו; due to the severity of the famine we forced our father to send the lad. In spite of the duress he was under he warned us that if we would not bring him back this would be the death of him and he would go to his grave in deep sorrow

YE KNOW THAT MY WIFE BORE ME TWO SONS. If we say [that Jacob’s intention was to point out] that Benjamin is the only one left to his mother, why is this a reason [for his saying that if some harm will befall him] it will bring down his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave?²²Verse 29 here. After all, he has many sons and grandchildren, and Benjamin’s mother has already died, and she would no longer weep over him in Jacob’s presence. The meaning of the verse, however, is that Jacob took only Rachel as a wife on his own initiative. This is the sense of the words, my wife bore me: “for from a woman that was my wife of my own will there have been only two sons born to me, and I have bestowed my love upon them as if they were my only ones, the rest being to me as if they were children of concubines. And with his brother Joseph dead, this one alone is my only son whom I have loved.” It is for this reason that Scripture mentions Rachel before Leah: Like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel;²³Ruth 4:11. And he called Rachel and Leah to the field.²⁴Above, 31:4. Rachel took precedence in his mind. The commentators²⁵See Rashi further 46:19. have said that the reason why Scripture in this Seder says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife,²⁶Further, 46:19. is that she is called his wife in truth, without any deception. In my opinion, however, this is because Rachel is mentioned there among the handmaids, as I have already so mentioned.²⁷Above, 31:33 and 37:2. Ramban agrees with the principle as he himself explains it in connection with the verse above, 31:4. However, he points out that in the verse further, 46:19, the term, Jacob’s wife, is independently justified.

אתם ידעתם כי שנים ילדה לי אשתי, ”you know that my wife bore only two sons for me.” The reason that Yehudah quoted his father as saying: “my wife bore two sons for me,” was to justify his statement that the failure of Binyamin to return home unharmed would cause his premature death. [they had described themselves as 12 brothers, all the sons of the same father. The loss of one, or even two, would not appear to Joseph as such a catastrophe. When he would hear that the dead brother and Binyamin were the only ones from their mother, he would begin to better understand the trauma involved. Ed] The word אשתי was meant to make a clear distinction between פילגשי, “my concubine.”

ילדה לי אשתי, “my wife bore for me.” The Torah should really have written “Rachel bore for me.” However, the point Yehudah made was that he too was aware that Yaakov had considered only Rachel his true wife, seeing that he had served Lavan for Rachel and not for Leah. His marrying Leah had been a totally unwilling act on his part. Yaakov’s true wife had borne him only two children one of whom had disappeared. His love for these two was therefore exceptional. If you will search the Bible you will find that Rachel’s name always precedes that of Leah though Leah was the older of the two. Even in the Book of Ruth, where the townsfolk of Bethlehem congratulate Boaz on taking Ruth as a wife, they phrase their blessing in these words: “may she become like Rachel and Leah who built up the house of Israel.” There are numerous other verses in all of which Rachel is mentioned before her older sister.

אך טרוף טורף, "he must surely have been rippped apart." By quoting his father as using the diminutive אך, Yehudah may have hinted that their father had assumed that Joseph had been only injured by wild animals and that he was neither a slave nor a prisoner. When he had added: "and I have not seen him again until now," he indicated that Joseph was still alive but that Jacob had not seen him again since that time.

וקרהו אסון AND MISCHIEF BEFALL HIM — For Satan brings charges against men in the hour of danger (Genesis Rabbah 91.9).

AND ‘ASON’ (HARM) BEFALL HIM, YE WILL BRING DOWN MY GRAY HAIRS. That is, “if harm befall him as it did to his brother Joseph, you will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.” Perhaps the expression, and ‘ason’ (harm) befall him, means that it will so happen to him on account of his being young and tender and not accustomed to travel on the road, this being analogous to what Jacob said above, Lest ‘ason’ (harm) should befall him,²⁸Ibid., 42:4. for the meaning of the word ason is accidental death, such as those killed by a human or a wild beast or the change of air on the road.

As long as he is beside me I find comfort through him. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written here that on account of Binyomin [Yaakov said], “You will bring my white head down to the grave in evil,” whereas in 37:35 it is written [that Yaakov said] a similar phrase on account of Yoseif? It is written there, “I will go down to the grave mourning for my son [Yoseif].” Rashi answers: Because of Yoseif, they indeed had already brought Yaakov down to the grave in mourning. But now, “As long [as Binyomin is beside me I find comfort through him].” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why would Yaakov be more sorrowful for Binyomin than for Rochel, Yoseif or Shimon?

'והורדתם את שיבתי וגו YE SHALL BRING DOWN MY GRAY HAIRS etc. — Whilst Benjamin is beside me I find comfort in him for the loss of his mother and his brother, so that if he dies it will seem to me as though the three of them died in the same day.

Of his mother and his brother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that it refers also to Rochel, when she is not mentioned in the verses? The answer is: It is written (v. 27), “Two sons were born to me by my wife [Rochel].” This conveys, “Two sons were born to me from her, and she is my wife” — i.e., she especially is my wife, [more than Leah]. This is because Yaakov lived mainly with Rochel. This verse implies that he mourned for Rochel but was comforted through Yoseif. And when Yoseif died, leaving Binyomin, he was comforted through him for both. “And if he dies, it will seem to me as if all three died the same day.” But it seems to me that [the answer is:] It is written here, “You will bring my white head down to the grave in evil,” whereas in 42:38 it [merely] is written, “You will bring my white head down to the grave in sorrow.” Accordingly, Yaakov was saying: until now I found comfort for the loss of his mother. But now I will no longer be comforted for her, thus I will go down in evil to the grave. This is because Chazal say (Yevamos 62b): “He who is without a wife is without good.” Consequently, he is with evil. (Maharshal)

ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, this is why, the moment he becomes aware that Binyamin did not return he will die.

ועתה כבואי....והורידו עבדיך, after he had warned us, if anything were to happen to him it would no longer be considered an accident but we would be given the blame having been warned not to take him along. A similar consideration is mentioned in Isaiah 48,5 under the heading of בטרם תבא השמעתיך פן תאמר עצבי עשם, “therefore I told you long beforehand, announced things before they happened, that you might not say: “my idol caused them.”

ונפשו קשורה בנפשו; due to the intense love he has for this son. If he will not return with us, my father will die and both we and you will be guilty of having brought about his death. If you claim that he has sinned against you, consider against this the fact that you had claimed you merely wanted to see him, i.e. to convince yourself of his existence, not of his being a righteous individual. We fulfilled this request by bringing him with us. We are faced with the dilemma that he says he has not taken the goblet, whereas you claim he has sinned against you seeing the goblet has been found in his bag, which may be circumstantial evidence hard to refute, but it is still his word against yours. If you were now to forgive his presumed guilt this would constitute the תשומת עין, “setting your eye on him,” which is what you requested in the first place. If you were to ask why I of all my brothers have chosen to be the spokesman,

He will die. On the spot, before we have a chance to tell him that Binyamin is alive and well in Egypt. Thus the grounds for clemency were that evil would befall an innocent party.

והיה כראותו כי אין הנער ומת IT SHALL COME TO PASS WHEN HE SEETH THAT THE LAD IS NOT WITH US, THAT HE WILL DIE, i.e. his father will die of grief.

והורידו עבדיך את שיבת אבינו ביגון שאולה, “and your servants will be guilty of causing our aged father a sorrowful death.” It is possible to explain this whole line as a figure of speech, i.e. a tongue in cheek accusation of Joseph by Yehudah as causing their father’s premature death if Binyamin were not to be allowed to return to Canaan.

כי עבדך ערב את הנער FOR THY SERVANT BECAME SURETY FOR THE LAD — Should you ask why I enter into the contest (champion his cause) more strongly than my other brothers — then I tell you: I have more to lose; they all stand outside the matter (are less concerned with it than I am), but I have placed myself under a firm bond to be an outcast in both worlds.

FOR THY SERVANT BECAME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Judah is saying that his father will go down with sorrow to the grave²⁹Verse 31 here. on account of the lad, for “despite all that we have said to him, the aged father did not want to send him until I became surety for him, and he trusted me. Therefore, let thy servant, I pray thee, abide³⁰Verse 33 here. in his stead.” And if the explanation of the verse, And thy servants will bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father…to the grave,¹¹Verse 31 here. is in line with the plain meaning thereof, [namely, that the responsibility will fall upon the brothers, as opposed to Ramban’s previous interpretation that “thy servants” is a euphemism for Joseph,³¹See Ramban above, Verse 19. then Judah] is saying that “we will have caused the death of the aged father by sorrow, for I was surety for the lad.”

כי עבדך, the reason why I speak up more than my brothers is that I guaranteed his safety. Therefore I will take his place as your slave.

כי עבדך ערב, the reason why he would die as soon as the lad did not return without even asking what happened to him is because I have guaranteed the safe return of the lad. As soon as he would notice that that I did not bring him back, he would automatically assume that something fatal had happened to him, and that I had been unable to make good on my vow on account of that.

כי עבדך ערב את הנער, I have guaranteed him; if you now do not want to forgive his presumed guilt, take me in his stead because I am more useful to you as a slave than he is.

כי עבדך ערב את הנער, “for, I, your servant, have guaranteed the safe return of the lad.” He explained to Joseph that their father, although all of them were in danger of starving, had been holding out, not giving his permission for Binyamin to travel until Yehudah had guaranteed his safe return. This would explain why he, more than the other brothers, had taken it upon himself to now be the spokesman of all of them. Alternately, he wanted to explain that there was no element of trickery in his wanting to substitute himself as slave for Binyamin, such as that he thought he would be more capable of escaping from Egypt than his younger brother.

By accepting to be outcast in both worlds. You might ask: Rashi said before (43:9) that “I will have sinned to you for all time” meaning in the World to Come. Why does he say here that it means, “In both worlds”? It seems [the answer is:] Here Yehudah is telling [Yoseif] what he said to his father, so it should say מעם אבי לאמר אם לא אביאנו אליך וחטאתי לך כל הימים. [Why does it say וחטאתי לאבי כל הימים?] Perforce, וחטאתי לאבי means in this world, while my father is alive. And [כל הימים means] also in the world that is completely יום, i.e., the World to Come. We need not ask: Why did Yehudah, in order to explain himself, find it necessary to say that he was liable of being an outcast in both worlds, [whereas to Yaakov he spoke only of being an outcast of the World to Come]? For the answer is: He thought Yoseif might not believe in the punishment meted out in the World to Come, so he mentioned also the punishment of this world. But Yaakov believed in the punishment meted out in the World to Come.

אם לא אביאנו אליך, “if I will not bring him back to you.” He did not now add the words: “and I will place him before you in an upright position,” as he had said to his father at the time. Had he mentioned this aspect of Yehudah’s guarantee, Joseph might have challenged him saying: how did you know that he would be alive at the time of your return? To his father he had said at the time that seeing they were fulfilling the commandment of honouring their father’s wishes, their mission was bound to be crowned with success, as we have a tradition that emissaries engaged in fulfilling a commandment will not be harmed either on their way out or even on their return journey.

'ישב נא עבדך וגו LET THY SERVANT ABIDE etc. — For all purposes I am superior to him in strength — whether for battle or for service as a slave.

ועתה ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער, therefore I beg you to let me be the slave in lieu of the lad so that I will not have to remain a sinner against my father for the rest of my life.

ישב נא עבדך, "may your servant stay, etc." Although Yehudah had undertaken to bring back Benjamin personally, (43,9) he now relied on the dictum that a messenger appointed by a person can discharge that person's obligation as well as the person who has appointed the messenger (Berachot 34).

I am superior to him for all purposes — in strength... Question: Strength is used for either war or service, and both are mentioned. So why does Rashi need to say “strength”? The answer is: War and service are the explanation of “strength.” In other words, “For what am I strong? For war and service!”

ישב נא עבדך, “let your servant (myself) remain;” (of his own free will) Yehudah’s proposal sounds strange, seeing that he feels Joseph’s charges are all trumped up and without substance. He claims that Joseph has no legal right to detain any of them and is acting like a kidnapper.

He said, For how shall I go up to my father,³²Verse 34 here. in order to let him [Jacob] know that he [Judah] would choose to be a permanent servant rather than go up to his father without the lad for he could not bear to see his sorrow, as he would constantly weep and mourn for him all day. Judah mentioned this so that he should not suspect him of planning some deceit since he would know how to escape better than the lad.

כי איך אעלה, even though I know he will be pained by my failing to return it is better for me not to have to watch him in his anguish

איך אעלה אל אבי והנער איננו אתי, "for how could I go up and face my father when the lad is not with me?" Yehudah meant that even if he were not guilty of failing to honour his guarantee, how could he look at the anguish of his father. Perhaps he meant to explain why they had all offered themselves as slaves to Joseph already previously. They could not bear to return to Canaan and face their father without Benjamin.

Yehudah may also have used the argument used by the woman from Tekoah in Samuel II 14,2-20. This woman had been employed by Yoav to bring about a reconciliation between David and his son Absalom. Absalom had been exiled for killing his half-brother Amnon after the latter had raped his sister Tamar. David was very unhappy about all this, and Yoav aimed to resolve the problem. The woman from Tekoah presented a ficticious case and asked for David's judgment. The judgment involved bringing to justice the remaining son of that woman who reportedly had slain her other son. Yehudah argued that once he would return to his father without Benjamin having explained that he was quite innocent in the matter, his father, having already lost his favourite son, would certainly not bereave himself a second time by consigning Yehudah to exile; this is the reason Yehudah presented a second argument, i.e. that his father would die from heartbreak.