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).

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.