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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.