Genesis · Chapter 44

He commanded the one appointed over his house, saying: Fill the sacks of the men with grain, as much as they are able to carry, and place each man's silver in the mouth of his sack.

AS MUCH AS THEY CAN BEAR. I.e., more than they were entitled to for the money they had brought him. 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, but such was not possible with the goblet. But, then, who can argue with one more powerful than himself? 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, and moreover, for he did his work honestly. 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.

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).

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. ושים כסף איש בפי אמתחתו, “and place each one’s money at the top of his feeding bag.” This time their money was replaced with their knowledge, as opposed to the first time. Had Joseph not advised the brothers that he was returning their money (at least the money they brought as substitution) they would have a valid excuse once the goblet would be discovered in Binyamin’s sack. Now that Joseph had proven that he dealt with the brothers in an above-board manner, they would not be able to claim that he had once before deceived them by planting something in their luggage. They were also aware that Joseph had loaded their beasts to the utmost capacity. Joseph might have argued that even this time the money which he put in their sacks was a gift from G’d, an argument that could not be used as applying to his goblet. If we were to assume that now too the money the brothers found in their sacks had been placed there without their knowledge, he might have argued that whereas the money was again a treasure their G’d had granted them, the same could not apply to his personal goblet. They would not be able to argue (successfully) with someone stronger than they. Remember that Egypt was a country in which there occurred many disturbances (compare Amos 3,9). In order to avoid becoming victims of muggers etc., the travelers who came to Egypt to buy grain entrusted their beasts, their sacks as well as their money, to the officials who would measure out the grain for their rations. The official would measure out grain for them in accordance with the amount of money they had deposited with him. The buyers would accept what was given to them without double-checking and thereby displaying distrust in the Egyptian government (based on Kohelet 8,4). The brothers therefore had good reason not to appear suspicious and to double-check what Joseph’s officials had done when filling their sacks.

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

And my goblet — the silver goblet — you shall place in the mouth of the sack of the youngest, along with the silver for his grain. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken.

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

"My goblet" — a cup.

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.

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.”

The morning grew light, and the men were sent off, they and their donkeys.

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.

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

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).

They had gone out of the city but had not gone far when Joseph said to the one appointed over his house: Rise, pursue the men, and overtake them, and say to them: Why have you repaid evil in place of good?

לאשר על ביתו, “to the manager of his household;” according to a comment in Bereshit 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.

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.

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, “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.

Is this not the one from which my master drinks, and with which he indeed examines? You have done wrong in what you have done.

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? here. And they further said, “With whomsoever of thy servants there be found stolen silver or gold, let him die.” here. 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. 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. 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. here.

"And he divines with it" — he tested you with it, to determine whether you are thieves. It is like "I have observed" (Gen. 30:27); and similarly, "for he surely divines" (Gen. 44:15). Its meaning is: why did you not fear? — for to test you I placed the silver goblet before you and averted my eyes until you would take it. R. Yonah says that the meaning of "with it" is "on account of it," and accordingly the sense is: he inquires of diviners on account of it. And likewise, "for he surely divines" means: a man such as I has diviners. Others say that the goblet was decorated with images, and with it he would gaze into it before his brothers and say: this one is the eldest, and this one was born after him.

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. 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? 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.

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.

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. 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.

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? 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.

He overtook them and spoke to them these words.

And they said to him: Why does my master speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants to do such a thing.

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)

Behold, the silver that we found in the mouth of our sacks we brought back to you from the land of Canaan — how then could we steal from your master's house silver or gold?

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).

Whichever of your servants it is found with shall die, and we too will become slaves to my master.

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.

He said: So then, let it be according to your words: the one with whom it is found shall be my slave, but you shall be acquitted.

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. (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.” 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. 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? here. You have done evil in so doing. 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. 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, 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, 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, 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, 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. 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, here. for I will confirm the words of my servant, and the counsel of my messenger will I perform.” Vayigash.

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

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! 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. 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.

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.

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.

“And he said, ‘Now too, it shall be according to your words.’” How could he say according to your words, so it shall be when they had said that the thief should be put to death and they would become slaves, but this is not what he said? Rather, he said that whoever is found with it shall be his slave and they would be innocent. Rashi’s explanation does not conform to the precise language [of the verse]. Furthermore, how could the messenger say he shall be my slave? He should have said he shall be a slave to my master since he himself was a slave, and thus he would be making them a slave to slaves. Additionally, he said and you shall be innocent, while Joseph [later] said and you shall go up in peace to your father. What is the meaning of the phrase shall be innocent? It should have said and you are innocent. Also, the phrase we too, as well as the one in whose hand the goblet was found requires explanation. The Akeidah explains that they said, “We know that this sin is not within us, except that God has found the sin of your servants, and another sin caused this stumbling block” — namely, the sin of selling Joseph, in which Benjamin had no part. Therefore, they said, “Not only we — it is obvious that we deserve to be slaves for the sin of selling our brother as a slave — but even the one in whose hand the goblet was found, who has no part in that sin, nevertheless he too shall be a slave.” However, according to his explanation, it is difficult: if so, the ruler did not know and could not understand their words. What kind of “not only this, but also that” reasoning is there here, since they certainly did not reveal to him the selling of their brother. Therefore I must explain, “not only this, but also that,” in a way that also the ruler understood it. And that is that there were four divisions and laws here. Initially, the brothers went to the extreme by saying that the thief himself deserves death, while those associated with him should receive a lighter punishment and therefore become slaves. This was because they should have been on guard, as he was clearly a habitual thief since he couldn’t refrain from stealing even from the ruler’s table. Joseph’s messenger said that according to their laws, a thief is not subject to death, and they don’t impose death for monetary theft, only slavery. According to this, it would be proper that you all become slaves. However, since it would be shameful for you to be judged equally with the thief himself, lest people say you are also thieves like him, I will make this second distinction. Even according to this distinction, it will be as you said — you won’t be equal to the thief himself. He will be my slave, meaning a slave to slaves, while you will also be slaves but not to me, rather to the ruler himself, meaning a cleaner form of slavery. That’s why he said you shall be clean/free, meaning there would be reality even to your slavery, albeit in a somewhat dignified way. He hinted to them that they would be “clean” of their possessions, as whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master, as Rashi explains on the verse and the owner of the ox shall be clean/free (Exodus 21:28) — meaning so-and-so became free/clean of his possessions. Thus he hinted to them that they would also experience slavery, but not the types of exile associated with slavery — only that they would be clean of their possessions and not be free men. But for the thief himself, beyond this, there are many more forms of disgrace associated with being a slave to slaves. And because he did not equate, even according to his reasoning, the brothers with the thief himself, he said “even now, according to my reasoning, it is as you say.” When the brothers came before Joseph, they said “We are servants to my Lord” as your servant ruled upon us, but what he ruled — that the thief should be a slave to slaves — this is a great disgrace. Regarding this, they asked the ruler to lighten their burden, and as a compromise, they were stricter on themselves by equating themselves with him so they would all be slaves to the ruler. They weren’t concerned he would steal again because “we will stand guard.” They spoke in terms of “not only this, but even that,” saying “Not only we — obviously it is proper that we shouldn’t be slaves to slaves, as we are not suspicious in your eyes, for we returned the money we found in our sacks to you, so how could we steal from my Lord’s house? But even the one in whose possession the goblet was found — we request to do him a kindness that he should be a slave to my Lord and not a slave to slaves.” Joseph said, “Far be it from me to equate you with the thief. Rather, he alone will be my slave as you requested, and therefore you must necessarily go up in peace to your father.”

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.

They quickly lowered each man his sack to the ground, and each man opened his sack.

He searched, beginning with the eldest and finishing with the youngest, and the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack.

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

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.

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 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.

They tore their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city.

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). 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).

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.

And they rent their clothes; but the strength of fortitude was given to them; and they laded every man his ass, and returned to the city.

Judah and his brothers came to Joseph's house, and he was still there, and they fell before him to the ground.

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).

Joseph said to them: What is this deed that you have done? Did you not know that a man such as I surely examines?

'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!

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. 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.

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.

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.

Judah said: What shall we say to my master? What shall we speak, and how shall we justify ourselves before Hashem? The guilt of your servants has been found. Here we are, as slaves to my master — both we and the one in whose hand the goblet was found.

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). 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).”

The tet in נצטדק (we justify ourselves) takes the place of the tav of the hitpa'el form, on account of the tzadi. "God has found" — this is a figure of speech: we had a sin, and it was as if it had been forgotten and was no more, but today it has been found out. Alternatively, "the iniquity of your servants" may be understood to mean *punishment*, as in "my punishment is greater than I can bear" (Gen. 4:13).

What shall we say. What can we say in response? מה נדבר? What can we possibly say in justification? How could we prove that we did not do what you accuse us of? How can we justify ourselves. How can we prove that we have been framed? God has found the iniquity. Hashem is punishing us not for this deed, of which we are innocent, but for a much earlier crime.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

.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.”

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.

He said: Far be it from me to do this. The man in whose hand the goblet was found — he shall be my slave, but as for you, go up in peace to your father.

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.

חלילה לי מעשות זאת, “far be it from me to do such a thing!” “Seeing that I am the judge of the whole country I could not possibly act in such an illegal (violent) manner against you.” Apparently, Joseph interpreted the Egyptian statute which decreed collective guilt when a member of a group was found guilty of stealing as applying only when all the members of that group had been aware of and had approved such a theft. When the stolen object was found in the possession of one person and there was no evidence that he had acted as part of the group, only he would be held responsible and would be executed. This is why the brothers said: “we will all be slaves.” This was equivalent to their saying: “we punish ourselves to be slaves to my lord.” The words גם אנחנו, “we also,” mean: “also we who are innocent of the charge.” To this statement Joseph replied that it was out of the question that he should accept their offer. האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו, “the man in whose hand the goblet has been found,” he is guilty of the death penalty; this is the meaning of the extra word הוא in this part of the verse. However, “I do not want to kill him; “ הוא יהיה לי עבד, ואתם “he will become my slave; as for you” who are innocent, עלו לשלום אל אביכם,” go on home to your father.” A kabbalistic approach to this dialogue: The fact that this Parshah concludes with the words עלו לשלום אל אביכם, “go on up to your father in peace,” is a reference to the ten martyrs (of whom we have spoken repeatedly) who were tortured to death by the Romans supposedly because the brothers had never paid the penalty prescribed by Jewish law for kidnapping. The words “in peace to your father” refer to “your father in heaven.” Joseph meant that once the brothers had been cleansed of their sin against Joseph they could once more face the G’d in heaven upon their deaths and take their place in the hereafter. You are acquainted with the fact that the entire Joseph tragedy began when his father Yaakov made a coloured coat for him which Joseph wore as a sign of distinction. The fact that the brothers dipped the coloured coat of Joseph in the blood of a male goat which they specially slaughtered for that purpose telling their father: “this is what we have found,” was considered an act of great cruelty on their part. This is why their punishment which involved their bodies commenced immediately after Joseph’s death. Eventually, during the time of the Romans and after the destruction of the second Temple [which was destroyed due to an excess of groundless hatred between Jew and Jew. Ed.] the ten martyrs paid the last installment of that penalty with their deaths. As a reminder of all this, our Parshah mentions the word אנשים or האנשים a total of ten times when describing the brothers. Had it not been for this consideration, the Torah would have called them אחי יוסף, “Joseph’s brothers” or “the sons of Yaakov” each time. [The author lists the ten instances. I leave this to the reader. Ed.] It is important to realise that contrary to a perception that all the ten martyrs listed in our prayers commemorating their death as martyrs occurred at one and the same time, this is simply not so. We find the following text in Pirke Heychalot: “Rabbi Yishmael said that the decree to torture these sages to death came out on a Thursday. News came from the capital in Rome that Emperor Lupinos had ordered the execution of four of the outstanding Jewish scholars. They were Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba. Many thousands of other scholars in Jerusalem offered to take the place of those condemned. When Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah realised that this decree was irrevocable he inquired about it from Suriel the Sar Hapanim (one of the angels close to the attribute of Justice). He was told that actually, in the books of G’d (attribute of Justice), there was a list of ten scholars whose lives had been handed over to Samael, (the angel of death) the guardian angel of Esau. The instructions which this guardian angel of Esau had received at the time were to destroy amongst the leaders of Israel every “good cut of meat” and throw it into the cauldron.” The purpose of this decree was to complete the expiation needed for the sin of the brothers who had sold Joseph at the time, and who had violated the prohibition in Exodus 21,16 “if someone steals and sells a person and the party concerned is found in his hands, he is to be executed.” This decree, i.e. application of this penalty, could be delayed all the time until “In that day, the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth” (Isaiah 24,21). This expiation could occur by means of the goats and sheep on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yishmael said that Samael had heard all these threats and conditions and that he had said that he accepted them. As a result he chose 10 of the outstanding scholars of Israel to be that unexpired expiation, “scape-goat,” for what had been done to Joseph. When G’d heard about these resolutions of Samael, i.e. the Romans to kill ten outstanding Jewish scholars, He was so angry that He imediately wrote down decrees which would afflict the entire Roman Empire, each one for six months at a time. As a result of all the afflictions that will strike the Romans at that time, one individual will say to another that if he were offered the entire Roman Empire in exchange for a minor copper coin he would decline to make such a purchase. Thus far the quote from Pirke Heychalot [with minor changes. Ed.] One of the amazing statements in that passage concerns Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyan who supposedly was exchanged for Emperor Lupinos who was burned in his stead. Similar statements appear concerning the other martyrs on that famous list. Concerning such far-out statements, I have heard that they must be understood as analogous to the binding of Yitzchak. Once Avraham was irrevocably committed to slaughtering Yitzchak, and the latter had accepted the decree, he was replaced by the ram Avraham found which had been caught in the thicket (Genesis 22,13). According to that view something similar occurred with all of the ten martyrs. Seeing that they had submitted to G’d’s decree it became possible to exchange them for Romans or others. The point is that once the lives of these scholars were spared they were in effect reborn. It is therefore no contradiction to say that they had indeed died a martyr’s death. These scholars had all “tasted” death so that the sin for which their lives were meant to expiate had been wiped out once and for all. When the Torah wrote: “and place each man’s money at the mouth of his feeding bag,” this was an allusion that the Torah treats the life-force, נפש, of a person as equivalent to minted silver whereas his body is compared to a feeding bag seeing it contains the soul (silver). I believe we can carry this allusion a little further when we look at 43,10 when Yehudah said: “we could have returned already twice.” He may have hinted at something we find in Job 34,36 and 33,29[based on the concept of a soul’s repeated return to life on earth in order to cleanse itself of sins committed in a former life. Ed.] where the point is made that in order to deal finally with some sin, retribution may have to be spread over several installments. [Rabbi Moshe Alshich makes this point more clearly when explaining why G’d did not wipe out Pharaoh with a single plague. His sins were such that a single act of retribution would not have sufficed to punish him. He had to have relief between one affliction and the next in order to absorb and suffer the next installment. Ed.] The verse in Job 33,29 פעמים שלוש עם גבר, “two or three times with a man,” may be a reference to the need for someone to be reincarnated repeatedly in order to expiate for sins committed in a previous incarnation. The words וישובו העירה describing the return of the brothers to the capital of Egypt may be an allusion to Yehudah’s feeling on the matter. All the Torah had needed to write was וישובו מצרימה, “they returned to Egypt.” The use of the word העירה suggests a meta-physical aspect of the matter. (Compare the use of the word עיר as a hyperbole in Kohelet 9,14). This is the reason that the Parshah concludes with the words: 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.”

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.

Judah approached him and said: Please, my master, let your servant speak a word before my master, and let not your anger flare at your servant, for you are like Pharaoh.

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

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

"And Judah drew near, etc. — for you are like Pharaoh" — you are like a king, and the king is like you. And so it is with every pair of consecutive kaf-prefixes, as in "as my people, as your people" (1 Kings 22:4); this is a concise mode of expression.

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

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?" 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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."

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. 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. 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, “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.

מענה רך ישיב חמה, ודבר עצב יעלה כעס, “A gentle response turns away wrath; a harsh word causes anger.” (Proverbs 15,1) Solomon warns us in this verse to train ourselves to become mature enough to respond in measured tones even to extreme provocations. A softly worded reply is apt to reduce the wrath of someone who had expressed himself very angrily. On the other hand, provocative responses are apt to incite the party to whom they are addressed. It is a well known fact that the spoken word possesses the power to achieve either positive or negative results. Speech is to man what fruit is to a tree. If we were not able to verbalize our thoughts we would not be human anymore than a tree which does not bear fruit does truly perform the function for which trees have been created. [Compare Rashi on the earth failing to fully respond to G’d’s command to produce trees which had both edible trunks and edible fruit Genesis 1,12. Ed.] When the Torah wrote (Genesis 2,1) “man became a living creature,” it meant to inform us that the essential part of man was its נפש חיה, its life-force, i.e. its ability to communicate its thoughts by means of speech. This is why Onkelos translates this expression as לרוח ממללא, “a talking spirit.” We have examples of speech being considered as “a fruit, i.e. as a product “ in Isaiah 57,19: בורא ניב שפתים “who creates the fruit of the lips.” Speech is the product of one’s lips. If Isaiah attributed the fruit of the lips to something G’d had “created,” this is due to the fact that speech is derived, distilled, from the abstract power of the human brain. Man’s נפש life-force, is different from that of the animals which do not possess this power of speech. This advantage man possesses over the animals is expressed in Job 35,11 in these words: “who gives us more knowledge than the beasts of the earth, makes us wiser than the birds of the sky.” We also have a verse in Proverbs 18,21 making this point even more strongly. Solomon writes “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” This is a warning to those people who indulge in free use of their tongue to be very careful with each word they utter as their words may hold an awesome power which must not be abused. Such power is to be used to spread the knowledge of Torah, to further the performance of G’d’s commandments, etc. It must not be used for anything contrary as then it becomes an instrument leading to someone’s death. Solomon tells us that if one uses most of one’s words in the right way this leads to man qualifying for Leviticus 19,24 “all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the Lord.” People who are circumspect in the use of their tongue will qualify for a great deal of reward. If, perchance, they abuse this power of speech on a regular basis, they will be severely punished. It is precisely because the power of speech is so crucial to man that Solomon felt impelled to teach us something about the prudent use of this power. He taught us that a gentle response is apt to influence even the decisions of powerful kings and to assuage their feelings if they had been bruised, as we find in Proverbs 16,14 “the king’s wrath is a messenger of death.” Yehudah, who was very well aware of the potential of any words he might say, couched what he had to say in words which were apt to touch the heart of even the most obstinate ruler. Joseph’s relenting and revealing himself to the brothers was the direct result of the diplomatic use of his tongue by Yehudah. Had he accused Joseph of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s bag, something which was the truth, after all, he would not have achieved the desired result, i.e. to make Joseph reconsider his decree to keep Binyamin as a slave. Yehudah had three major objectives i.e. to assuage Joseph’s anger with words. 2) to demand his rights on a legal basis. 3) (as a last resort) to take Binyamin back by force. This is the meaning of the following verse: ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני, ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני ואל יחר אפך בעבדך כי כמוכך כפרעה, “Yehudah approached him and said: “if you please my lord, may your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears and let not your anger flare up at your servant for you are equal to Pharaoh.” The expression הגשה, “approach” is found as having one of three meanings. דין, פיוס, מלחמה “judgment, reconciliation, or war.” (based on Bereshit Rabbah 93,4) “and they approach the court and they shall judge them.” It occurs as meaning reconciliation in Joshua 14,6: “the members of the tribe of Yehudah approached Joshua, etc.” Finally, it occurs as a prelude to war in Samuel II 10,13: “Yoav and the people with him marched into battle.” In this instance, Yehudah combined all these three meanings of the word when he “approached” Joseph. When he said בי אדני, this meant that he gave Joseph the chance to choose which of the three kinds of הגשה he wanted to make the basis of this meeting. He spoke like someone who is fully armed, ready for a military confrontation. He meant: “you may find in me a partner for discussion on any one of these three levels. If you want to be conciliatory, fine and good. If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of what has happened also well and good. If, however, you want to use your military power to enforce your decree I am willing to confront you also on that basis. Alternatively, the word בי here means: “(the guilt is all) mine.” He said this seeing that superficially it appeared that the entire guilt was that of Binyamin in whose sack the goblet had been found. He pleaded with Joseph not to treat Binyamin as the sole guilty party but to consider him, Yehudah, the guilty party instead. He asked Joseph to keep him as a slave in lieu of Binyamin and to treat him as if he had been the guilty party. He wanted Joseph to set Binyamin free. Throughout the entire story Yehudah focused on substituting for Binyamin. When he said the words ידבר נא עבדך דבר he meant that this “word” would be instead of any that Binyamin would have to say. Yehudah had no other purpose than to serve as the surrogate slave instead of his brother Binyamin. 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. Having taken permission to speak by saying ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדני, Yehudah came to the substance of the issue, i.e. the circumstances preceding Binyamin traveling to Egypt altogether. He used the tactic suggested by Solomon in being extremely gentle in any implied rebuke of Joseph’s part in this whole affair. He begins with the fact that Joseph had inquired about their family background in order to appeal to his feelings of mercy. At the same time he implied that Joseph had described himself as a G’d-fearing man in 42,18. He reminds Joseph אדוני שאל את עבדיו לאמור, “my lord asked your servants to say,” Yehudah reminded Joseph that he and his brothers had not volunteered speaking about their family status, etc. but had been forced to do so in answer to Joseph’s inquiries concerning their younger brother. Originally, they had not been willing to have Binyamin travel to Egypt at all and had only brought him there in response to Joseph’s ultimatum. By giving them this ultimatum Joseph had severely endangered their aged father’s peace of mind. Had it not been a matter of survival for them to come to Egypt and to buy grain, they would never have been able to persuade their father to agree that his youngest son Binyamin undertake a potentially dangerous journey. If Binyamin would now fail to return home his father would die an embittered man. 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. ועתה ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער עבד לאדוני... כי איך אעלה אל אבי והנער אינני אתי?; “And now allow your servant to remain as a slave to my lord... for how could I return to my father when the lad is not with Me? Yehudah made it plain that he would feel more at ease as a slave for the rest of his life than returning as a free man to his father minus Binyamin. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Vayigash 3 to Yehudah’s speech. The words ויגש יהודה introduce a confrontation between the lion and the ox. Yehudah represents the lion (Gen. 49,9), Joseph the ox (Deut. 33,17). The words בי אדני are a plea not to apply the attribute of Justice when judging Binyamin as well as themselves. The words: “let me say a word in the hearing of my lord,” mean “may my words find a receptive ear.” He then proceeded to tell Joseph that Sarah, the great-grandmother of Binyamin had been kept against her will in the palace of a previous Pharaoh. (Genesis 12,17) As a result, both Pharaoh and his entire household had been so stricken by G’d that he immediately not only released her but pacified her husband with generous gifts. Joseph was to reflect what this G’d would to him if he tried to keep Binyamin as a slave. He added that Binyamin’s mother died prematurely due to a carelessly worded curse by her husband Binyamin’s father (Gen. 31,32). Imagine what would happen if his father were now to pronounce a deliberate curse upon Joseph for depriving him of his son! He asked Joseph to also reflect on the fact that two of their number had destroyed an entire city (Gen. 34,25). He could imagine what all of them could do if they set their mind on it. At that time the reason for their act of vengeance had been the rape of their sister. This time it involved freedom of a male, their brother. Seeing this male was destined to house the Sanctuary of the G’d of the heavens on earth (Deut. 33,12), they would move heaven and earth to ensure that that prophecy would be fulfilled. Yehudah added: ”for you are like Pharaoh.” He meant: “just as Pharaoh makes promises and does not keep them, so you too make promises and do not keep them.” You had said that you merely wanted to take a look at Binyamin to convince yourself that we had spoken truthfully (42,20). Just as Pharaoh is known to indulge his homosexual tastes, so you appear to want to keep Binyamin for similar reasons. Just as Pharaoh is the King and you are his number two, my father has the rank of king in his country and I am second in command. He added that if he were to draw his sword he would start by slaying Joseph and finish by slaying Pharaoh.

“And Judah approached him and said: Please, my master.” Since the brothers had already said to him God has found the sin of your servants, meaning that the creditor has found a place to collect his debt, they were hinting to him that all of this was a fabricated matter and that God had brought all these events to their hands because of another sin they had committed — namely what they had done to their brother Joseph, as they said Indeed we are guilty concerning our brother. And regarding that sin, Judah spoke as one confessing his sins and said Please [Bi, literally, It is with me], my master — that other sin which we think has caused all these events weighs more heavily upon me than upon any of my brothers. Therefore, I am compelled to enter into the thick of the matter and speak before you more than all of them. And this is indeed the truth, as it is said And Judah went down from his brothers (Genesis 38:1) — Rashi explains that his brothers lowered him from his high position, saying “You told us to sell him; had you told us to return him, we would have done so.” For two reasons, Judah said to Joseph It is with me, my Lord, [indicating that] this sin was dependent on him. The first reason was to explain why he specifically approached to speak before [Joseph] more than all the others, because he was responsible for all those events that happened to them due to that sin. And although Rashi explains that regarding what he said for your servant became a guarantor, etc. [explaining] why he entered into the dispute more than his other brothers etc., because he bound himself with a strong bond to be excommunicated in two worlds etc., nevertheless, this itself raises the question: why did he take upon himself excommunication more than his other brothers? Rather, it was because he sensed within himself that he was guilty of that sin which led to the false accusation that they were spies, and that they would not be able to be freed from it except by bringing Benjamin. Therefore, he needed to accept the excommunication upon himself in order to deliver Benjamin through his guarantee and to free his brothers from the accusation which he had caused them, through his telling them to sell Joseph. Furthermore, Jacob had said to them My son shall not go down with you, because his brother is dead and he alone remains, etc. This implies that if Jacob had not been able to make this argument against them, he would have sent Benjamin immediately. Thus it turns out that Judah, by virtue of having ordered Joseph’s sale, caused Jacob to refuse to send Benjamin. Because of this, he needed to fully involve himself and accept the excommunication upon himself, and regarding this he said It is with me, my Lord The second reason is, since he means to say please let your servant remain as a servant instead of the youth, etc., the ruler might argue against him: “Why should the guilty go free while the innocent becomes guilty by entering into servitude for no reason?” Therefore, he says It is with me my Lord — [meaning] truly that sin which causes everyone to become servants rests upon me more than all of them. Therefore, it is justified that the punishment of servitude decreed upon Benjamin should fall upon me. And this is indeed the truth, for he [Judah] was the one who caused Joseph to be sold as a slave, while his other brothers’ guilt is not as great, and all the more so Benjamin who has no part whatsoever in that sin. “Let your servant speak a word in my Lord’s ears.” Since he [Judah] wanted to tell him [Joseph] that the whole matter of the goblet was a false accusation, therefore he approached him to whisper in his ear so that he [Joseph] would not be embarrassed and thereby come to anger. “For you are like Pharaoh.” Just as it is appropriate to show respect to royalty and one should not speak harshly before the king, for the king’s wrath is as messengers of death (Proverbs 16:14), similarly it is not proper to speak haughtily or to utter arrogant words in front of all listeners. They learned this from him [Joseph], for Joseph said Rise up, pursue after the men and overtake them — specifically when you catch up to them and are close to them, speak in their ears about the matter of the goblet, and do not shout at them from afar to denounce them as thieves, but rather speak to them privately so that the Egyptians would not know anything about this matter. Therefore, in this argument as well, Judah wanted to whisper in his [Joseph’s] ear so his voice would not be heard by the Egyptians. And he said let not your anger burn against your servant, for all anger leads to error and will cause my arguments not to enter your ears even if they are correct to one who understands, as anger will cause you to be unable to judge righteously. And if you were to say, “What of it if sometimes some official or ruler errs in judgment? There is one higher above all high ones — the king — to whom they can take the case, and he will correct what the ruler corrupted.” To this he [Judah] said for you are like Pharaoh — with you the final judgment rests just as it does with Pharaoh, and there is no taking the case from you to the king, and from before you my judgment will emerge completely. Therefore, I request that your eyes see uprightly and let not your anger flare, and then you will not come to error. One must analyze why he spoke in third person saying let your servant speak a word. We can say that since he wanted to say “let your servant sit in place of the youth for everything” [because] I am superior to him in strength, warfare, and service, he mentioned here another matter: that every servant needs to know how to speak before kings and arrange his words so they enter their ears, when they are presented with intelligence and proper order. But a servant who doesn’t know how to arrange his words is not fit to be a servant to an important ruler like a king. Therefore, he said regarding what Joseph had definitively stated the man in whose hand the goblet was found shall be my servant — but he is still a youth and isn’t even fit to speak before you. And regarding this he said “test and examine, and let your servant whom you have chosen speak a word in my master’s ears in a way that will not arouse your anger against your servant.” And you will surely find that your anger will be aroused, for you are like Pharaoh, and to speak before someone of your stature requires a wise and understanding person, not an ignorant youth like him. But in me, my master, you will find everything you seek, which is not in him, for he doesn’t even possess proper speech, let alone knowledge of other royal protocols. And some say that when he said let your servant speak he was referring to the one who did the deed with the goblet and placed it in Benjamin’s sack, and he will tell about all that happened and that this was all a contrived plot.

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. 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. 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.

My master asked his servants, saying: Do you have a father or a brother?

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: “Is this the ‘setting your eyes upon him’ to which you referred when you said, That I may set mine eyes upon him?” 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, and he made all a party before him in the palace in Benjamin’s honor, and he gave them presents and gave them corn as much as they can bear 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, 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. 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. here. However, at the peril of our lives, because of the burning heat of famine, we brought him, for you said, Ye shall see my face no more. 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, here. he will die in bitterness of soul. Therefore, let my supplication, I pray thee, be presented before thee, 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.” 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, 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. [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, 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: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…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, “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.

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.

And we said to my master: We have an aged father, and a young child of his old age, whose brother is dead; and he alone is left of his mother, and his father loves him.

ונאמר אל אדני WE SAID TO MY LORD — we kept nothing back from you (Genesis Rabbah 93:8). 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”. לבדו לאמו [HE] ALONE [IS LEFT] OF HIS MOTHER — of that mother he has no other brother.

"An old father" — for the eldest among them is forty-five years old, and it is possible for their father to be a young man.

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).

And you said to your servants: Bring him down to me, that I may set my eyes upon him.

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; Take him, and put your eye upon him, and do him no harm, 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, out of respect or out of the fear of majesty.

"That I may set my eyes upon him" — that I may see him.

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.

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.

Bring him down to me that I may set my eyes upon him. This is difficult to understand — what is the significance of saying that they should bring him down and that he wants to set his watchful eye upon him? Furthermore, it is difficult because we do not find that Joseph ever said that I may set my eyes upon him. Now, regarding what they said my Lord asked his servants, saying: Do you have a father or a brother? — even though we don’t find that Joseph explicitly asked them about this, nevertheless, from their response we can understand what prompted the question. Since they needed to defend themselves against the accusation of being spies by saying we have an elderly father, etc., and as they said and the youngest is with our father today, etc. — it appeared to them as if he had directly asked them about this. For surely you knew we weren’t spies, but rather you came to investigate through this whether we had a father or brother. Therefore, we said to my Lord, etc. — because we understood your intention and accordingly we responded, hiding nothing. However, the statement that I may set my eyes upon him — we do not find that Joseph ever said this at all, even by hint. It appears to explain that this “setting of eyes” is not referring to the setting of eyes of his supervision, but rather because Joseph told them that through Benjamin he wanted to test their words, as it is written by this you shall be tested, etc. Therefore, his desire was to set his eyes upon him and to see through him whether their words were true or not. The commentators said that initially it states there and your words shall be tested, and after they were in prison he said to them and your words shall be verified. For testing means inquiry and investigation, as with a child speaking innocently, but the brothers did not agree to this, saying “perhaps they will teach him to speak erroneously,” and they chose to remain in prison. Afterward, he released them from prison and said to them your words shall be verified without inquiry and investigation, and to this they agreed to bring him. Therefore, he [Judah] said to him [Joseph] here that you said “I will set my eyes upon him” because by merely bringing him you would see that our words were very trustworthy, so how have you suddenly turned against him to scheme and fall upon us.

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.

And we said to my master: The lad cannot leave his father, for if he were to leave his father, he would die.

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.

"And if he were to leave his father, he would die" — why did the one who cites the five passages that have no decisive resolution (Yoma 52b), such as "and he drew off his sandal" (Ruth 4:8), not include this verse among them?

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, also his father will die without question if the lad leaves him.

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;”

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.

And you said to your servants: If your youngest brother does not come down with you, you shall not see my face again.

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.

And it came to pass, when we went up to your servant our father, that we told him the words of my master.

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, 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.

And our father said: Go back, buy us a little grain.

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.

And we said: We cannot go down; only if our youngest brother is with us will we go down, for we cannot see the man's face if our youngest brother is not with us.

And your servant our father said to us: You know that my wife bore me two.

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? 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; And he called Rachel and Leah to the field. Rachel took precedence in his mind. The commentators have said that the reason why Scripture in this Seder says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife, 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. 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.

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.

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.”

One left me, and I said: He has surely been killed, and I have not seen him to this day.

"He has surely been torn to pieces" — and the proof is that I have not seen him until now.

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.

If you take this one too from before me, and death befalls him, you will bring my old age down in misery to Sheol.

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

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, 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.

And now, when I come to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us — since his soul is dear to him as his own soul —

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.”

it will come to pass, when he sees that the lad is not there, that he will die, and your servants will bring down the old age of your servant our father in grief to Sheol.

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.

For your servant became surety for the lad before my father, saying: If I do not bring him back to you, I will be guilty before my father all my days.

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 grave 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, abide 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, 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, 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 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, “for your servant has guaranteed the safety of the lad.” I have undertaken to be surety for him in a manner which is irrevocable and not subject to any redemption by substitution. If I fail to honor the terms of my guarantee all my brothers will remain within the family circle whereas I will be condemned to remain outside. I will be ostracized both in this life and in the hereafter. This is the meaning of the words: “I have sinned against you for all time” (43,9). Another example in Scripture where the words כל הימים also refer to both life in the terrestrial world and life in the hereafter is found in Deut. 6,24 לטוב לנו כל הימים. When Yehudah said here וחטאתי לאבי כל הימים, this may be understood as “I have sinned against my Father in Heaven.” Yehudah included both his biological father Yaakov as well as his father in heaven in this statement. Seeing that Joseph was on record as “I am a G’d-fearing man” (42,18), Yehudah reminded him of his committing a sin against his father in heaven if he were to keep Binyamin as a slave for himself. He would also be guilty of committing a wrong in both worlds. According to Bereshit Rabbah 93,1 the words “for your servant has guaranteed the lad,” are reminiscent of what Solomon said in Proverbs 6,1: “my son if you have become surety for your friend, etc.” It is customary for the guarantor to ask the potential borrower: “do you want me to guarantee the loan for you?” Concerning such an invitation to become a surety for a second party, Solomon warns (Proverbs 6,2) “you are trapped by the words of your mouth.” The guarantor usually agreed to the lender’s request and this is why Solomon describes him as trapping himself by his words. In verse three of that chapter. Solomon warns a guarantor who is trapped by his guarantee that in order to extricate himself from his commitment he should try to use humility and plead with his friend. He should ask for an extension from the lender and should ask the borrower to release him from his guarantee. Solomon used Yehudah’s guarantee of Binyamin as the model for these verses and his advice. Having heard all this, Joseph replied: “why did you not guarantee your other brother just as you have guaranteed the safety of Binyamin?” He added that he could see in his goblet that Yehudah sold his other brother for a sum of money and caused his father a great deal of anguish so that he exclaimed: “Joseph has been torn to shreds by a wild beast.” Whereas Joseph at the time had not been guilty of a sin against Yehudah, Binyamin had proven to be a thief. When Yehudah heard Joseph’s words he exclaimed in a loud voice: “how can I go up and the lad is not with me, etc.?” He challenged Joseph to debate the issue with him, at the same time telling his brother Naftali, the most fleet-footed one of their number, to check the number of public markets in Egypt in preparation for going to battle. Naftali came back reporting that there were twelve such market places. Yehudah undertook to destroy three of them single-handedly. Joseph warned him that Egypt was not comparable to Shechem. If they were going to destroy Egypt this would be equivalent to destroying the earth. (seeing the whole earth depended on Egypt’s grain supplies). To this Yehudah replied that Joseph had accused him and his brothers of being spies already when they came to Egypt the first time, a totally unjustified accusation. Secondly, he had accused them of looking for weak points in Egypt. Thirdly, he had accused them now of stealing the goblet. Whereas he, Yehudah, swore in the name of the Almighty G’d, Joseph, by contrast had sworn by the life of Pharaoh the pagan. It was clear that if he would draw his sword he would cause a blood-bath in Egypt. After this outburst by Yehudah, Joseph told him that if he dared draw his sword, he, Joseph, would strangle him with it by wrapping it around his own neck. To this Yehudah replied: “if I so much as open my mouth I will swallow you.” Joseph countered: “if you open your mouth I will shut it with a rock.” Yehudah then asked: “what shall I tell my father if I return without Binyamin?” To this Joseph replied: “tell him that the rope followed the bucket” [— an allusion to Binyamin having a genetic tendency to steal. Rachel his mother had stolen the teraphim having given birth to a son who became a thief also.] Yehudah shot back that Joseph was framing them and judging them for a sin they had not committed. Joseph retorted that the only perverted justice at stake was the sale of their brother. Yehudah then said that the holy fervor which had imbued him in their fight against Shechem which was caused because of sin involving illegitimate sex was beginning to fill him now. Thereupon Joseph replied that the sin of illegitimate sex he should be thinking about was that of sleeping with his daughter-in-law Tamar. He implied that it did not take much to extinguish Yehudah’s supposedly sincere fervor. Yehudah responded shouting: “I am boiling over with fury and no one takes me seriously!” Joseph said it would be easy to cool down Yehudah’s anger. Thereupon Yehudah announced that he was about to go and paint the market places of Egypt with the blood of its people. To this Joseph replied that this was nothing new. The brothers had experience in painting their brother’s coat with blood and bringing it to their father suggesting to him that it was Joseph’s blood and that the latter had been attacked and killed by a ferocious beast. At that point all the brothers agreed to destroy Egypt. When Joseph realized this he said to himself: “I have to reveal myself to them so that they will not destroy Egypt.” At this point he said to them: “I am your brother Joseph.”

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. 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.

And now, let your servant remain instead of the lad as a slave to my master, and let the lad go up with his brothers.

'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).

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.

For how can I go up to my father if the lad is not with me? Lest I see the misfortune that befalls my father.

He said, For how shall I go up to my father, here. in order to let him [Joseph] 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.