Parasha: Miketz · Aliyah: Fifth (Hod)

אם כנים אתם, "If you are really honest, etc." This verse may be understood with the help of our sages in Yerushalmi Terumot chapter 8. We read there as follows: "If a group of people travel together and they encounter Gentiles who demand that one of them be handed over to be killed, the alternative being that they would all be killed, it is forbidden to hand over anyone belonging to the group. The whole group must face death rather than make the decision whom to hand over. If, however, the person to be handed over had been named by the killers, the others may save their lives by handing over that person." When Joseph said: "if you are honest, etc.," he meant that the brothers knew full well if they were telling the truth; אחיכם אחד, your one brother will be imprisoned. There was no death threat to the brothers, hence they were allowed to choose whom to hand over for incarceration. Joseph implied that if, on the other hand, they were dishonest, i.e. spies, (which made all of them guilty of the death penalty) then, of course, they would not be allowed to hand over one of their number who had not been specified. Handing over their brother would then be tantamount to killing him. This would also be illegal as they would all have to be prepared to die. The brothers were agreeable, thus indicating that they had spoken truthfully all along. We may presume that the brothers themselves elected that Shimon be imprisoned; Joseph did not single him out.

It is also possible that the brothers had agreed between themselves to leave one of their number behind as a guarantee but before they could agree on who it should be Joseph decided to keep Shimon as he considered Shimon and Levi together as very dangerous.

ויאמנו דבריכם. "And your words will be verified." This means that if the brothers did not agree it would prove their guilt and that that was the reason they did not dare leave one brother behind. Moreover, it would be forbidden to hand over an unnamed individual if there was a likelihood he was guilty of the death penalty. Another possible meaning of these words is simply that by bringing Benjamin down to Egypt Joseph would make sure their families would not die of starvation. The brothers referred to this when they told their father in verse 34 that Joseph had offered ואת הארץ תסחרו, "you may travel freely in the land."

ויאמרו….אבל אשמים אנחנו, They said:…"but we are guilty (of something else)." The word אבל, "but" does not appear to have any meaning here. Onkelos translates it as "truthfully;" I do not agree with this translation either. There was no need for the brothers to say: "truthfully," as if they had so far not spoken truthfully. Besides, why did the brothers have to add: "when we saw his anguish, etc,? All they had to say was that they were guilty of having sold their brother into slavery. This was the essence of their guilt.

Perhaps they still considered that Joseph had been guilty of the death penalty and if they had only sold him they had actually performed an act of kindness. As to the grief they had caused their father at the time, they were certain that at the present time G'd would not heap further grief upon their father as a result of their having sold Joseph at that time. The only thing they did feel guilty of was not displaying a sense of compassion when they saw Joseph's anguish when he pleaded for his life and they proved cruel. It is not becoming for people who consider themselves as righteous to conduct themselves in such a heartless manner.

It is also possible that when the brothers saw that they were all being jailed, they began to think which one of them was the cause of the disaster that had befallen them. The common denominator up to that point had been the fact that they had sold Joseph. Since Reuben had been innocent of that crime, not having been present when both the suggestion and the implementation of selling Joseph had been made, they had to search for something that both they and Reuben were guilty of. They concluded therefore that it must have been their heartlessness. Reuben too had not responded to Joseph's pleas as he had suggested that the brothers throw him in the pit instead of killing him outright. No doubt Joseph had pleaded with all the brothers not to do that to him. In fact, slow death in the pit was a more frightening prospect to Joseph than a relatively swift death. The words על כן באה אלינו are an acknowledgement that they all, Reuben included, were guilty of a lack of compassion. Presumably, the brothers must have said these things as soon as they were being led to prison, whereas the Torah reports them as if they had been said after they had all been in prison for three days. Why does the Torah make it appear as if the brothers had only come to this realisation after three days in prison? Presumably, the Torah did not want to diminish the impact Joseph's words and deeds are to make upon the reader. Any diversion would detract us from the clever way Joseph set about creating the scenario he had planned.

Besides, if we were to assume that the brothers acknowledged their guilt only after they had themselves agreed that Shimon would remain in prison as the hostage, why did it take them so long to acknowledge that Shimon had been more guilty than they?

Perhaps up to the time when Joseph had said that one of their number had to remain in prison as hostage, they had not related their present experience to the sale of Joseph at all. They had thought that inasmuch as man is a free agent that whatever had happened to them was in retribution for freely committed wrongs. They had not considered what they had done to Joseph as a wrong at all. When Joseph pointedly said: "one of your brothers has to stay here," they suddenly realised that their situation was connected to what they had done to another one of their brothers. The words ויעשו כן then mean that they singled out Shimon. They suddenly realised that the painful experience they now underwent of leaving one of their brothers with a stranger was tit for tat for having abandoned Joseph to a fate with strangers at the time of the sale. I have frequently alluded to the fact that guilt somehow creates situations in which the retribution experienced reminds one of the nature of one's sin. David has mentioned this in Psalms 62,13: כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו, "for You repay each man according to his deeds." The brothers saying אבל may therefore be understood thus: "If our present experience had been even slightly different we would not have realised why we are now being punished; but the very fact that our punishment corresponds to the nature of our sin convinces us of our guilt. Now we are absolutely certain that we are guilty of lack of compassion."

The very fact that it was Shimon who was being detained convinced them; after all, according to Tanchuma Parshat Vayechi, it had been Shimon who had made the suggestion to kill Joseph; he and Levi were the subject of 37,19 "one said to his brother." Shimon the elder said to his brother Levi the younger. They had been a team already when they wiped out the men in the city of Shechem.

ויען ראובן אתם. Reuben answered them. How can the term "he answered" be justified in this context? Who had asked him anything? The repeated use of the word לאמור and the words וגם דמו also require justification.

Reuben reacted to the brothers having said that they were being punished for not having displayed compassion when Joseph pleaded with them, something in which they had included him also. Reuben retorted that he did not consider himself included in that sin as he had warned: "do not commit a sin against the boy!" Even though at that time he had only warned them not to lay a hand upon Joseph and to throw him into the pit, his intention had been as if he had said: "do not commit a sin." The Torah itself exonerated Reuben independently by revealing Reuben's intention to restore Joseph to his father.

You could ask what reason Reuben gave for the brothers to believe that this had been his intention, when on the contrary, selling Joseph at the time was more merciful than to let him die a slow death in the pit and therefore Reuben had no reason to complain?

The fact is that Reuben's principal complaint against the brothers was that he told them not to lay a hand upon Joseph. "Selling him into slavery was certainly laying a hand upon him!" Reuben's argument was certainly valid; moreover, by selling Joseph to other human beings the brothers had made his fate dependent on people with a free will who could act arbitrarily. Reuben's intention had been not to allow Joseph's fate to be in the hands of people who could make arbitrary decisions. Selling Joseph did not reduce the danger to Joseph's life or wellbeing any more than throwing him into the pit. We only need to read the Bereshit Rabbah 86,3 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph to commit acts of sodomy with him. G'd Himself made Potiphar impotent to protect Joseph against such abuse. When Reuben had advised throwing Joseph into the pit he felt that if Joseph was not guilty nothing would happen to him. He had been most concerned to remove Joseph from the hands of people who could arbitrarily decide his fate. That is why he accused them ולא שמעתם, "you did not listen." He meant: "you did not understand my intention.

When you think that you are being punished only for your cruelty and not for the deed itself, you are quite wrong. Also his blood is being demanded, i.e. you are also guilty of either killing him or putting his life in jeopardy." According to Reuben this was why they now had to face the charge of spying, a charge that was punishable by death. Reuben resented being considered a partner of that part of the brothers' crime. He was not willing to share their responsibility seeing he had not taken part in the sale. As of that moment Reuben only agreed to remain with them, but not to share their guilt. At the end of the examination it would become clear who was legally guilty and who was innocent. Our interpretation of the words אבל אשמים אנחנו as referring to the brothers waking up to their guilt only after Shimon alone was being held prisoner is completely compatible with everything else we have written.

והם לא ידעו…כי המליץ בינותם. They did not realise this….for the interpreter was between them. The brothers who had observed the interpreter all the time, assumed that Joseph did not understand Hebrew.

Alternatively, they could not speak freely being afraid that the interpreter would overhear them.

ויקה מאתם את שמעון, He took Shimon from them. The brothers had singled out Shimon, or Shimon had volunteered to be the hostage as I have explained on verse 19.

ולהשיב כספיהם, and to give back their money. The reason that this verse does not employ the syntax that is commensurate with the first half, i.e. וימלאו, or למלאות…ולהשיב, could be that the person who filled the sacks was unaware of the fact that someone else had returned the money. The person who put back the money was Joseph's most trusted servant. It is also possible that Joseph ordered that the filling of the brothers' sacks with grain was to be done publicly, whereas the return of their money was to be accomplished secretly after the sacks had already been filled with grain. The reason Joseph did not give both instructions simultaneously was so as not to arouse the envy of the person entrusted with filling the sacks with grain.

וישאו…וילכו, They loaded…and went on their way. The Torah mentions this to show that they did not linger after their sacks had been filled. Unless the Torah wanted to make this point, the whole verse is unnecessary. We would all have assumed that the brothers carried their supplies with them.

לאמור את שני בני תמית, saying: "you may kill my two sons, etc." The reason the Torah inserts the expression לאמור at this point is that Reuben was not willing to utter such a sentence outright, seeing that even a conditional curse by a wise man may have fatal consequences (Makkot 11). He phrased his offer in such a way that the meaning was unmistakable though he did not actually speak about killing his sons.

The reason he said ואת שני is that he referred to two of his four sons.

The word תמית is to be understood as "you may punish." We find a similar punishment being inflicetd upon Aaron, when G'd killed two of his four sons as an expression of His anger at Aaron's share in the sin of the golden calf. Compare ובאהרון התאנף Deut. 9,20. Vayikra Rabbah 7,1 makes this point. Reuben made it clear that he did not want to risk losing more than two of his sons if he failed to honour his guarantee of Benjamin's safe return. His reason was that if he risked more he would nullify the merit of having fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. He therefore risked only something that would not impair his standing in the Hereafter. Yehudah understood Reuben very well; this is why he undertook to risk even his life in the Hereafter in order to secure Jacob's consent to take Benjamin to Egypt and to secure their lives in the present world first (compare 43,9).

תנה אותו על ידי, "Put him in my charge, etc." Perhaps Reuben's knowledge that he had no share in the guilt of selling Joseph gave him confidence that both he and Joseph would return unharmed. He alluded to the fact that only he was able to have such confidence seeing the other brothers bore the guilt of having sold Joseph, by twice emphasising "entrust him to my hands," and "I will return him,"

כי אחיו מת והוא לבדו נשאר, "for his brother is dead, and he alone remains, etc. Jacob felt the need to explain how he evaluated the certain loss of Shimon who was presently a hostage in an Egyptian jail- if Benjamin were not to go to Egypt, compared to the possible loss of Benjamin if the latter were to go to Egypt. Jacob explained that if he were to lose Benjamin he would not have a son of Rachel left at all. If he were to lose Shimon, however, he would at least have other sons of Leah left to him. Besides, Jacob described an accident which would happen to Benjamin as practically certain; this is why he spoke about וקרהו אסון in the past tense instead of יקראהו אסון, something in the future. He added the words בדרך אשר תלכו בו, "on the journey you will undertake." He hinted that what happened to Joseph happened to him although he travelled on a route which he was familiar with and had travelled many times without encountering anything dangerous. Jacob was afraid that something similar could happen to the brothers even on a route they considered safe.

כאשר כלו לאכול, when they had finished eating, etc. Perhaps the Torah mentions this fact to indicate that they had just enough grain left to last them for a journey to and from Egypt. The reason the Torah describes the supply as if it had already come to an end is that now there was a need to bring more grain. It could also be that the Torah considered the food consumed by the brothers while journeying back and forth as part of the supply that Jacob had stored in anticipation of the famine as we have learned in Taanit 10 based on the words למה תתראו in 42,1. This is the reason why the Torah emphasises that what had been eaten up was the "grain they had brought from Egypt" as distinct from their total store.

ויאמר אליו יהודה לאמור, Yehudah said to him, saying, etc. The word לאמור here seems to mean that Yehudah made a variety of suggestions to Jacob all of which were in the nature of a reply to Jacob's arguments against sending Benjamin to Egypt. The most important of these was the reference to the Egyptian ruler's warning that the brothers would not be able to see him (and buy grain) unless they had their younger brother with them. The Torah implies that the brothers did not resort to another reply, namely that they would take Benjamin with them regardless of whether Jacob approved or not. The word לאמור then means they waited for Jacob's word, i.e. permission.

Alternatively, one could read the words העד…לאמור together. It would mean that Joseph had not only warned them but had done so in the presence of witnesses in order to make his threat more potent. Yehudah may also have challenged Jacob to give him another answer if he had one. After all they also had to consider the very real danger to Shimon who was being held as a hostage in a spy case. How did Jacob suggest that the brothers clear themselves of the suspicion of being spies?

לא תראו פני "you will not see me." Yehudah thereby denied Jacob's claims that he had adequate proofs to convince any king or royal adviser that the brothers could not be considered spies, and that this would suffice to neutralise Joseph's accusation against them. Yehudah told his father that Joseph had made it plain that the brothers would not even be able to present their case unless Benjamin appeared at their side. How then could they buy grain if they could not even secure an audience with the ruler who was in charge of the grain sales? Yehudah repeated the words העד העיד to convince his father that Benjamin's presence in Egypt was the key to any success of their trip.

ונחיה ולא נמות, "so that we may live and not die." In order that we may live a life without anguish, or so that we may at least not die even if we have to live with anguish.

Alternatively, the words ולא נמות were intended to tell his father that he could not claim that by not travelling to Egypt they would only find themselves deprived of life's comforts; rather, it would positively cause the death of their families. They would not even live a life of deprivations.

Alternatively, Yehudah meant that if they would not now travel to Egypt with Benjamin they would eventually be called to answer for this in the Hereafter and would be guilty of not having made every effort to stay alive in this world.

גם אנחנו, גם אתה, גם טפנו, "both we, and you, and our children." Yehudah referred to all the people whose lives depended on this trip in addition to Benjamin. If they did not travel with Benjamin, all of them including Benjamin were liable to die of starvation. All of this because of the possible danger to Benjamin in Egypt. It simply was not fair that they all should be condemned to death because of what might happen to Benjamin.

The reason that Yehudah included Jacob's own survival last when he said גם אתה, was in line with the ruling that preservation of one's own life takes precedence even over saving one's father's life ( Yoreh Dey-ah 251). Or, the brothers used the exegetical rule of לא זו אף זו, "not only this but even this," i.e. the most important factor of the argument is presented last. They accorded their father the compliment of presenting preservation of his life as even more important than preservation of their own lives.

According to this principle they mentioned their children last, as those represented the future and as such deserved the highest priority in their considerations (compare David rating Absalom's life as more important than his own even while Absalom sought to kill his father (Samuel II 19,1).

אנכי אערבנו…וחטאתי לך כל הימים "I will remain liable to you forever." The reason Yehudah said "forever" is explained by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 91,10. The Hereafter is called "כל הימים," as it lasts forever.

Rav Yehudah in Makkot 11 teaches the rule that if someone is excommunicated, even conditionally, [i.e. he has been warned he would be put in ban if he did not conform to certain rules of conduct, Ed.] the conditional ban is not considered as having been lifted unless a collegium of laymen or judges has released such a person from such a conditional excommunication. The Talmud cites Yehudah's statement "if I do not bring him back to you" as proof. We have a tradition quoted by Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmeni in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the reason Yehudah and Reuben are linked in Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy 33,6 "may Reuben live and not die" followed by the statement "וזאת ליהודה," is that during all the forty years the Jewish people travelled through the desert with the coffin of Yehudah, the bones in his coffin still kept turning over. If you were to say that perhaps Yehudah's fault had been that he had not spelled out what would happen if he fulfilled his guarantee as did the tribe of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32,29-30 [something known as תנאי כפול in halachah, Ed.], the fact remains that he did deliver on his promise, so why should he be guilty of anything?

According to Tossaphot the whole rule that one needs a release from a conditional excommunication applies only when the person who makes the undertaking is able to carry it out, and no part of the execution depends on someone else's goodwill. In the case of Yehudah, he had no control over what Joseph would or would not do. As a result the conditional excommunication that Yehudah was prepared to endure never became effective legally.

It is no more than reasonable that when someone makes an undertaking to endure excommunication in the event that he will not fulfil his undertaking (such as that of Yehudah, who was unable to know if he would be able to make good on it), he would require that such an undertaking be cancelled by the appropriate religious authority. It does not matter whether one phrased such an undertaking as a תנאי כפול, spelling out the alternative, or not. The very fact that one ties one's fate to something over which one has no control is frivolous. Yehudah's bones rattling in his coffin is quite plausible then, seeing he did not have his undertaking voided by his father or some other religious authority.

[I have condensed the author's treatment of this problem considerably. A reader who will peruse it in the original will see why. Ed.]