Yehuda’s speech was in response to Yosef’s messengers finding Yosef’s goblet in Binyamin’s pack, 44:12, and then Yosef’s rejection of Yehuda’s offer that all the brothers would be slaves, as Yosef had insisted that only the "guilty" person, Binyamin, be a slave, 44:16,17. Yehuda knew that Binyamin had been framed that Binyamin had not stolen the goblet, but he did not argue that Binyamin was innocent. Instead, Yehuda made a counter proposal that he would be a slave instead of Binyamin, 44:32-34. Yet, how could this be a counter-offer since it was less than the previous offer that all the brothers would be slaves? Furthermore, this counter-offer only accounts for the end of Yehuda's speech, 44:32-34, what is the point of the rest of the speech, 44:18-31?
The point of Yehuda’s speech was to make Yosef realize that if Yosef would keep Binyamin in Egypt then Yosef would kill Yaakov. Yehuda states this point before his counter-offer, 44:30,31, and then at the very end of the speech after he made his counter-offer, 44:34. Why should Yehuda have thought that a ruler of Egypt would be concerned about the father of a thief? Do judges give lenient sentences because the father of a criminal would feel bad if their son is punished?
Seforno (on 44:16-18) explains that as Yosef had said that only the guilty person should be punished, then Yehuda followed this logic and argued that Yosef was also punishing Yaakov an innocent bystander. Yet, families always suffer when a family member who is a criminal is punished, why should Yosef, a supposed Egyptian official, be considered about an innocent bystander and a foreigner to boot?
Netziv (on 44:17) explains that once only Binyamin was to be punished, Yehuda realized that the punishment was not due to the brothers throwing Yosef into the pit, and accordingly, he tried everything in his power to change the punishment.
Luzzatto (on 44:18) notes that Yosef in his response in 44:17 seemed to be speaking in a kind manner since he said to them go in peace, and this suggested to Yehuda to appeal for mercy.
While these suggestions are possible, the simplest idea is that Yehuda knew that Yosef would care about Yaakov since Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef. This knowledge was learned from their meal the night before when Yosef seated all of the brothers according to their age, 44:33, Yosef’s statement about Binyamin in 43:29, Yosef’s actions towards them as for example demanding to see Binyamin even though this had nothing to do with his accusation of them being spies, Yosef’s concern about their father and the usual curiosity of people to investigate people who are tormenting them, see our discussions on 43:23-34 "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy enemy,"
The one and only “proof” that Yehuda and the brothers did not know it was Yosef is that it is claimed that 45:3 records that the brothers were surprised when Yosef revealed himself. This surprise would only make sense if they did not know that it was Yosef. However, the word translated as surprised, nivahlu, really means scared as in the only other occurrence of the word in the Torah, Shemot 15:15. (This is also the usual translation of the word in Neviim and Ketuvim, and one wonders if the translation here as surprised is because people think that the brothers did not know that Yosef was speaking to them.)
Thus, as explained by the Bekhor Shor (on 45:3), 45:3 should be understood that the brothers were scared that Yosef was going to take revenge on them after he had revealed himself to them. This would be similar to the idea of cat playing with a mouse before the cat eats the mouse. Here Yosef had been playing with the brothers, and then once he revealed himself to them, the brothers were scared that literally the gauntlet was going to come down on them for trying to kill him. Sadly they were still scared even seventeen years later, 50:15, that Yosef would take revenge on them.
Once we understand that Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, then we can understand what prompted his great speech, and why he did not make this speech previously. At the end of Yosef's response to Yehuda's first offer that all the brothers would be slaves, Yosef said that the brothers, except for Binyamin, should "go in peace to your father," 44:17. Yehuda's response was that if you really care about peace with (y)our father, then I will tell you that your actions will kill our father, and this was the point of his speech. Yehuda was hoping that if Yosef would understand what he was doing to Yaakov then either Yosef would release Binyamin or he would reveal himself and end the charade.
I will now go through the speech verse by verse to point out clues that Yehuda knew he was speaking to Yosef.
44:18 records that Yehuda began his speech by approaching Yosef, apparently getting very close since before he had been standing before Yosef. How could he have been so bold? David Barett (personal correspondence) suggests that because Yehuda knew that it was Yosef, he knew that Yosef would allow him to approach. Yehuda approached Yosef to speak to him personally, brother to brother, in an attempt to awaken within Yosef his feelings towards his family.
44:18 also records that Yehuda began his speech by noting that Yosef was equal to Pharaoh, 44:18. This was to acknowledge Yosef’s dream that he had become a ruler. This was the hope that if the Yosef would realize that his dream was realized then Yosef would reveal himself.
Afterwards, Yehuda quoted Yosef, that Yosef had asked the brothers if they had a father or brother, 44:19. This quote is not recorded in the Torah by the first meeting between Yosef and his brothers in Egypt, 42:10-13, but later Yehuda told Yaakov that such a conversation ensued, 43:7. Was Yehuda embellishing here and in 43:7 or did 42:10-13 not record all the particulars of the conversation? (See Hizkuni and Radak on 44:19.)
In any event, the question, do you have a father, makes no sense since everybody has a father. However, this question introduces the theme of the speech to make Yosef aware of what he was doing to his father, Yaakov. Yehuda was trying to wake Yosef up that by not revealing himself he was acting as if he had no father that he did not care about Yaakov.
Yehuda then told Yosef that the brothers had responded to Yosef's supposed question by stating, "We have an old father and a young child, yeled, of his old age, zekunim, whose brother is dead, so that he alone is left of his mother and his father who loves him," 44:20 (Fox, 1995, translation). This verse raises several questions.
One, there is no record in the Torah of the brothers telling Yosef all this information. Would the brothers have mentioned to Yosef all this information?
Two, Yehuda refers to Binyamin as a yeled, a child, but Binyamin was then 33 years old. Also, in the remainder of the speech Yehuda refers to him as a na'ar, which in the Torah can mean adult, as by Yehoshua, Shemot 33:11, so why in 44:20 did Yehuda refer to Binyamin as a child instead of as a na'ar?
Three, Yehuda referred to Binyamin as zekunim (see Rashbam on 35:18), which is translated as the child of Yaakov's old age, but we know from 37:3, that the term ben zekunim was referring to Yosef and not Binyamin. It could be that after Yosef was sold, Binyamin became the ben zekunim, but this is unlikely since Binyamin was eleven when Yosef was sold and the designation of a ben zekunim is at the time of the birth of a child, see our discussion on 37:3, "The anticipated child,"
Four, Yehuda said that the brothers told Yosef that Binyamin's brother, Yosef, was dead, but not only did Yehuda not know that Yosef was dead, but also throughout the story and later during the speech Yehuda said that one brother was gone, 42:13,32, and 44:28, and not dead. Rashi (on 44:20) writes that Yehuda said this out of fear that if he said Yosef was alive, then Yosef would have demanded that the brothers bring this brother. Yet, Yehuda had already told them that the "other brother" was missing, why now would Yehuda say that the "other brother" was dead?
Five, Yehuda said that the brothers had told Yosef that he, Binyamin, alone was left of his mother, and he repeats this idea in 44:27. Was Yosef supposed to have known that the brothers were from different mothers? All along, the brothers referred to Binyamin as their brother, and there is no indication that they ever called him a half-brother. Was it so obvious from looking at Binyamin, that he had a different mother than the other brothers?
Six, why did Yehuda refer to Binyamin's mother in 44:20? It appears that Yehuda was quoting Yaakov's statement from 42:38, but Yaakov had not referred to Rahel, Binyamin's mother, in 42:38. Why would a stranger have cared about the mother of a criminal?
Seven, the last word in the verse, “who his father loved,” also seems to refer to Yosef, as 37:3 records that Yaakov loved Yosef, and there is no mention in the Torah that Yaakov had a special love for Binyamin.
One might answer all these questions by claiming that Yehuda was stumbling at the beginning of his speech, and hence he made minor errors. Yet, there are so many “errors” in 44:20 and afterwards the speech is so well crafted that it is difficult to accept that 44:20 is full of errors. More likely, while Yehuda was ostensibly talking about Binyamin, he was also talking about Yosef since he knew he was speaking to Yosef.
Yehuda used the term child, yeled, in 44:20 since this was how the brothers referred to Yosef. When Reuven came back to the pit after the brothers had put Yosef there, he told the brothers, the child is gone, 37: 30, also see 42:22. Also, when Yehuda used the term zekunim, this again was referring to Yosef since he was the ben zekunim and not Binyamin. In addition, Yehuda referred to Binyamin's mother, since she was also Yosef's mother.
Why did Yehuda in 44:20 refer to the other brother as being dead? Who is the other brother? Was Yehuda referring to Yosef as being dead? If yes, maybe the idea was that Yehuda was suggesting that Yosef was acting as if he was dead to the family. Or, if Yosef is the subject of the term zekunim, then the other brother is Binyamin, and then maybe the term dead can mean before Binyamin was born since both situations are when somebody is not alive. Yehuda was then trying to recall to Yosef the time before Binyamin was born, when Yosef was alone with him mother. With this reading, the ensuing phrase, he alone is left of his mother and father, could refer to Binyamin, that the brother who was not born then, was presently the only one left of his mother. Or, the phrase of being left alone, could also refer to Yosef before Binyamin was born, when Yosef was alone with his mother. (Note, the similar phrase in Bereshit 32:25 means that Yaakov was left alone.)
Maybe the point of 44:20 is that Yehuda told Yosef to remember the times when your brother was not alive (before Binyamin was born) and you, Yosef, was alone with your mother and father who loved you. If this is correct, then Yehuda made up this verse to remind Yosef of his early childhood. Yehuda wanted to return Yosef to his family, and he did this by trying to recall to Yosef what surely were Yosef's best memories of his family when his mother was alive and doting on him along with Yaakov. Once Yehuda could bring Yosef back to the family, then Yehuda could impress on Yosef the harm he would cause Yaakov if he did not let Binyamin return home.
The following verse, 44:21, records that Yehuda said that Yosef wanted the brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt so that Yosef could see him. This idea of Yosef wanting to see Binyamin is not mentioned when the brothers first came to Egypt, but maybe this was not recorded previously or maybe Yehuda inferred this from Yosef when Yosef made the request/ demand for the brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt. In any event, maybe Yehuda mentioned this idea of Yosef seeing Binyamin to point out that if Yosef’s goal was to see Binyamin, then you saw him, so now you can let him go.
44:22 then records that the brothers told Yosef that if Binyamin would leave his father, then somebody would die. While Rashi (on 44:22) explains that the someone was Binyamin, more likely the person was Yaakov (see Rashbam on 44:22). Yehuda was trying to explain to Yosef what Yosef was doing to Yaakov when he had insisted that Binyamin had to come to Egypt. Yosef understood this, and he would state in 45:3, “Is my father alive?” see our discussion below on 45:3b, “Present danger.”
44:23 then records Yehuda’s recollection of Yosef’s response to the brother’s previous statement that bringing Binyamin could kill Yaakov. While the beginning of 44:23 is the gist of what Yosef told them in their first encounter, the end of the verse, where Yehuda said that Yosef said “lo tosefun lirot panei,” you shall not see my face is never recorded in the Torah. Dorit Friedman (Mekor Rishon, 14.12.2007, Shabbat section, p. 4, perek camos bechayei ha-tatua) points out that the root of the word tosefun, is the name Yosef, and she suggested that Yehuda was hinting to Yosef that he knew that he was speaking to Yosef.
The following verses in Yehuda’s speech, 44:24-29, refer to the discussions between the brothers and Yaakov when the brothers returned from their first encounter with Yosef in Egypt. 44:24, as well as 44:27,30,31, record that Yehuda told Yosef that Yaakov was a servant to Yosef, but this was not true for a person from another land who was not in Egypt or an Egyptian. Again, this statement only makes sense if Yehuda knew he was speaking to Yosef, and then the point was that Yehuda was trying to tell Yosef that Yaakov had also accepted Yosef’s second dream where Yaakov was to bow down to Yosef.
44:25 records that Yehuda uses the plural, our father, 44:25, also in 44:31, when he should have always used the singular my father. Perhaps the plural is to include Yosef.
44:26 records that the brothers explained to Yaakov that they could only go back to Egypt to get food if they took Binyamin and then 44:27 records Yehuda’s recollection of Yaakov’s response to the brothers’ statement that they need to bring Binyamin to Egypt. 44:27 (also 44:20 as mentioned above) is odd that Yehuda claimed that Yaakov had stated that he only had two sons from his wife, but all along, the brothers had claimed that they were one family, 42:13. The only way that Yehuda's statement in 44:27 made sense was if someone knew Yaakov's family, like Yosef. If Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, then we understand that Yehuda could talk as if it was known that Binyamin was from a different mother, and that Yaakov only had two sons from his beloved wife. I have been told that it was so obvious that people had many wives, but the term “my wife” in 44:27 implies one wife. Furthermore, as pointed out by Robert Alter (2004, p. 258) in 44:27 Yehuda was accepting Yaakov’s favoritism of Rahel and Yosef. The verse and 44:20 would only make sense if the person hearing Yehuda’s speech knew Yaakov's family.
44:28 continue Yehuda recollecting Yaakov’s response to the brothers' request to bring Binyamin to Egypt. In this verse, Yehuda refers to Yaakov’s statement when the brothers brought back Yosef’s special coat, 37:33. Why would Yehuda mention to Yosef that Yaakov thought that Yosef had been attacked by an animal? Would this information have been relevant to a stranger who did not know the previous interaction between Yosef and the brothers? Obviously, no. However, since Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, he could mention this information since Yosef had known that the brothers were going to claim that he had been attacked by an animal, as they stated this prior to his arrival to them 37:20, and most likely again when they ripped the special coat off of him, 37:23.
The end of 44:28 records that Yehuda said that Yaakov said “that he had not seen Yosef since then.” Again, was this information relevant to a stranger? No. Instead, Yehuda was trying to tell Yosef that Yaakov had not given up on seeing him,.
42:29 records Yehuda paraphrasing Yaakov’s statement in 42:38 when the brothers first returned from Egypt. In terms of strict chronological order, Yaakov’s recollection of 42:38 in 44:29 occurred before Yaakov told the brothers to go back to Egypt to get food, 43:2, which Yehuda had already mentioned in 44:25. However, the order of the events was not important to Yehuda since he was building up to the damage that Yosef was going to cause to Yaakov by keeping Binyamin in Egypt. This damage was not just causing Yaakov to die, which Yehuda had mentioned in 44:22, but even worse, that Yaakov would suffer a fate of “evil in Sheol” something apparently relating to either dying in a terrible state or referring to something bad in the afterlife.
In 44:30, Yehuda returns to the present, and he mentioned the special connection that existed between Yaakov and Binyamin. I have always thought that this special connection is true for all parents with their children, but again, as in the end of 44:20, Yehuda is trying to remind Yosef of Yaakov’s love for him.
In 44:31, Yehuda’s ends the background information to his offer to replace Binyamin, by stating that Yosef would not only kill Yaakov but also it would be a terrible death, “sorrow in Sheol” if Yosef did not release Binyamin.
44:32,33 record Yehuda’s offer to replace Binyamin, and while this offer is the official point of the speech, it is anti-climactic in the sense that it does not relate to building up the effect that Yosef was going to have on Yaakov by keeping Binyamin in Egypt. Because 44:32,33 was anti-climactic, in 44:34, the last verse of the speech, Yehuda returns to the main theme of his speech that if Yosef insisted on keeping Binyamin in Egypt, then he would cause Yaakov to have a horrible death. As mentioned above, the speech was so effective that Yosef officially revealed himself to his brothers, 45:1-3.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.