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,²¹² but such was not possible with the goblet. But, then, who can argue with one more powerful than himself?²¹⁷ 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,²¹⁸, 8:4. and moreover, for he did his work honestly.²¹⁹ 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.

footnotes: ²¹² It was inadvertently placed in the grain which was collected during the years of plenty, and it happened to be hidden in the grain purchased by Joseph’s brothers. ²¹⁷ See Ecclesiastes 6:10. ²¹⁸ Ibid. ²¹⁹ See II Kings 12:16.

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?*²²⁰ And they further said, “With whomsoever of thy servants there be found stolen silver or gold, *let him die.”*²²¹

footnotes: ²²⁰ Verse 8 here. ²²¹ Verse 9 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.²²² 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.²²³

footnotes: ²²² Verse 15 here. ²²³ Verse 12 here.

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.²²⁴ (a true decision), how can the words gam atah (also now) fit into the context since these words suggest that now a new law is established. (Aboab.) See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 238. Perhaps Rashi is saying: “Also now, when according to your words, it is the law [that all be held guilty in the matter], he with whom it shall be found shall be my servant.”²²⁵ (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.²²⁶ 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?*²²⁷ You have done evil in so doing.²²⁸ 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.²²⁹ 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,²³⁰ 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,²³¹ 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,²³² 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,²³³ 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,²³⁴ and not in accordance with the words of Rashi.²³⁵ 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,²³⁶ for I will confirm the words of my servant, and the counsel of my messenger will I perform.”²³⁷ Vayigash

footnotes: ²²⁴ For since Rashi writes that this is a din emeth ²²⁵ Thus, Joseph’s verdict is not at all related to the established law concerning theft, but is primarily designed to bespeak his kindness in keeping only Benjamin as a servant while the rest go completely free. Hence the words gam atah ²²⁶ Verse 17 here. ²²⁷ Verse 4 here. ²²⁸ Verse 5 here. ²²⁹ Verse 9 here. ²³⁰ The fact that you are now all found together suggests that you all had a hand in the stealing. ²³¹ For you said that only as an act of self-punishment you agree to be servants. That is not the law, for since there is a suspicion upon all of you, you should be arrested until the matter is clarified. Yet so shall it be ²³² Joshua 2:21. ²³³ 92:8. ²³⁴ That the brothers were denying that under the law they were all responsible. It was only as a form of self-punishment that they agreed to be servants. Joseph, however, argued that since suspicion does fall upon them they should be imprisoned until their innocence is established. ²³⁵ That the brothers agreed that under the law they all could be held responsible. ²³⁶ Verse 10 here. ²³⁷ See Isaiah 44:26.

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.”

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:¹ “Is this the ‘setting your eyes upon him’ to which you referred when you said, That I may set mine eyes upon him?”² — 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,³ and he made all a party before him in the palace in Benjamin’s honor, and he gave them presents⁴, Verse 34. and gave them corn as much as they can bear⁵, 44:1. in excess of the money they had brought him, as I have explained, and what else was he to do for him! It therefore appears to me, in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, that Judah’s words are nought but supplications to bestir Joseph’s compassion, for Judah thought that he was a man who fears G-d, as he had told him,⁶, 42:18. and since he had conducted himself mercifully towards them in the manner of one who fears sin, by consoling them for the trouble he had caused them.⁷, 43:23. And this is the purport of the story. Judah said to him: “As a consequence of my lord’s inquiry, we were forced to tell you about this brother of ours, and we also did not consent to bring him down before you as you commanded at first, but we said that the lad cannot leave his father.⁸ However, at the peril of our lives, because of the burning heat of famine,⁹ we brought him, for you said, Ye shall see my face no more.¹⁰ 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,¹¹ he will die in bitterness of soul.¹² Therefore, let my supplication, I pray thee, be presented before thee,¹³ 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.”¹⁴ 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,¹¹ 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.¹⁵ [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,¹⁶ 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:¹⁷ “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.

footnotes: ¹ Bereshith Rabbah 93:5, quoted here by Rashi. ² Verse 21 here. ³ Above, 43:29. ⁴ Ibid. ⁵ Ibid. ⁶ Ibid. ⁷ Ibid. ⁸ Verse 22 here. ⁹ Lamentations 5:10. ¹⁰ Verse 23 here. ¹¹ Verse 31 here. ¹² Job 21:25. ¹³ Jeremiah 37:20. ¹⁴ Deuteronomy 24:13. ¹¹ Verse 31 here. ¹⁵ Exodus 5:16. ¹⁶ Verse 18 here. ¹⁷ 93:8.

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;*¹⁸ Take him, and put your eye upon him, and do him no harm,¹⁹, 39:12. for Nebuchadrezzar did not command Nebuzaradan to merely see Jeremiah after he took him into custody, but to watch him and treat him well. But the meaning here is that Joseph had vowed to them to have pity on the lad and to guard him, even though it is not mentioned explicitly [in the narrative of the original confrontation between Joseph and his brothers], just as Scripture is concise there about all these matters which Judah related in Joseph’s presence. Now Judah did not mention the imprisonment of Simeon and the pretext that Ye are spies,²⁰ out of respect or out of the fear of majesty.

footnotes: ¹⁸ Jeremiah 24:6. ¹⁹ Ibid. ²⁰ Above, 42:9.

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.

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,²¹ for he did not consent to send Benjamin in spite of all we said, until forced to by the famine.

footnotes: ²¹ Verse 25 here.

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?*²² 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;*²³ And he called Rachel and Leah to the field.²⁴ Rachel took precedence in his mind. The commentators²⁵ have said that the reason why Scripture in this Seder says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife,²⁶ 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.²⁷, is independently justified.

footnotes: ²² Verse 29 here. ²³ Ruth 4:11. ²⁴ Above, 31:4. ²⁵ See Rashi further 46:19. ²⁶ Further, 46:19. ²⁷ Above, 31:33 and 37:2. Ramban agrees with the principle as he himself explains it in connection with the verse above, 31:4. However, he points out that in the verse further, 46:19, the term, Jacob’s wife

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,²⁸, 42:4. for the meaning of the word ason is accidental death, such as those killed by a human or a wild beast or the change of air on the road.

footnotes: ²⁸ Ibid.

FOR THY SERVANT BECAME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Judah is saying that his father will go down with sorrow to the grave²⁹ 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, abide³⁰ 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,¹¹ 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,³¹ then Judah] is saying that “we will have caused the death of the aged father by sorrow, for I was surety for the lad.”

footnotes: ²⁹ Verse 31 here. ³⁰ Verse 33 here. ¹¹ Verse 31 here. ³¹ See Ramban above, Verse 19.

He said, For how shall I go up to my father,³² 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.

footnotes: ³² Verse 34 here.