“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.”

“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.

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.