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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

.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.”

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.”

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.

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;”

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.

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.”