Miketz | The Brothers’ Path to Repentance

I. The Goblet Libel

Parashat Miketz presents us with Yosef's mysterious and complex plan regarding his brothers. The plan includes accusing them of being spies, demanding that they bring Binyamin to Egypt with them, and hiding money in their sacks.[1] In one of the last stages of the plan, Yosef leads his brothers to think the danger has passed and they can lower their defenses to the point of drinking to drunkenness:

And portions were taken to them from before him; but Binyamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. And they drank and were merry (lit. became intoxicated) with him. (Bereishit 43:34)

Then, while the brothers are getting over their intoxication, Yosef prepares for the next stage of the plan – the libel concerning the stealing of his silver goblet:

And he commanded the steward of his house, saying: Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put every man's money in his sack's mouth. And put my goblet, the silver goblet, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Yosef had spoken. (44:1-2)

The sacks are filled to the brim, but in addition to the grain, the brothers' money is also returned to their sacks. Yosef's silver goblet is also placed in Binyamin's sack. Presumably, this is the same goblet with which he drank with the brothers to drunkenness.

The trap laid by Yosef does not close on the brothers immediately. First, Yosef allows his brothers to breathe a sigh of relief and believe that they have succeeded to get out of Egypt safely. To counter the fear that the Egyptian plan is: "that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our donkeys" (43:18), Scripture emphasizes: "As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys" (44:3).[2] 

No one tries to stop them from leaving Yosef's house, and they even leave the city safely. Then, while the brothers are still within reach but certainly believe that all the twists and turns of Egypt are behind them, Yosef sets the next step of his plan in motion:

And when they were gone out of the city, and were not yet far off, Yosef said to his steward: Up, follow after the men; and when you overtake them, say to them: Why have you rewarded evil for good? Is it not in this that my lord drinks, and whereby he indeed divines? You have done evil in so doing. (44:4-5)

Yosef instructs his steward not to explicitly mention what was stolen, as the Ramban explains:

"Is it not in this that my lord drinks" – he did not specifically mention the goblet, but he spoke with them as if it is obvious that they took the goblet, and therefore he said to them: "Is it not in this that my lord drinks." (Ramban, 44:5)

Not only is the goblet not explicitly mentioned, but even the very claim that something had been stolen is not spelled out clearly. It is as if there is no need to tell the brothers that a theft took place or what was stolen. Surely, if they are the thieves, they know very well what they stole.

However, the brothers truly do not know what he is talking about:[3]

And they said to him: Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing. Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought back to you out of the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of your lord's house silver or gold? (44:7-8) 

It is clear that valuable property was stolen from the man's house, but the perplexed brothers, who do not know exactly what was stolen or the extent of the theft, are forced to defend themselves in general terms: "such words… such a thing… silver or gold."[4] The brothers then further announce:

With whomever of your servants it be found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen. And he said: Now also let it be according to your words: he with whom it is found shall be my bondman; and you shall be blameless. (44:9-10)

The brothers are so confident in themselves that they are willing to allow the man to search them without even knowing what had been stolen, and they suffice with the non-specific words: "with whomever it be found."[5] Because of this confidence, they even decree a terrible punishment on themselves – death for the thief and slavery for all his brothers. The brothers' willingness to impose such an excessive punishment on themselves seems to cause a change in the man. Instead of continuing to accuse them as a single entity, he is prepared to distinguish between the thief and the rest of the group, who should be considered "blameless." And again, the man refrains from explicitly mentioning the theft or the goblet, preferring obscure language: "He with whom it is found shall be my bondman."[6]

In the eyes of the brothers, the examination of their sacks is nothing but a means of proving their innocence, so they quickly cooperate: "Then they hastened, and took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack" (44:11).[7]

The man checks the brothers in the order of their age, thus postponing finding the goblet to the very end:[8]

And he searched, beginning at the eldest, and leaving off at the youngest; and the goblet was found in Binyamin's sack. And they rent their clothes, and loaded every man his donkey, and returned to the city. (44:12-13)

The brothers rend their clothes in sorrow, and return helpless to the house of Yosef, who rebukes them with general wording similar to that which he had placed in the mouth of his representative:

And Yosef said to them: What deed is this that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I will indeed divine? (44:15) 

The brothers do not try to defend themselves against the man's rebuke and claim their innocence. On the contrary: Yehuda accepts, on behalf of all the brothers, both the accusation leveled against them and the severe punishment:

And Yehuda said: What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; behold, we are my lord's bondmen, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found. (44:16) 

But why is Yehuda willing to accept the charge of theft? Does he really believe that Binyamin stole the goblet? Even if he does, why agree to take upon himself and his brothers a punishment that is more severe than the one demanded by the steward of the king' house?

II. The Theft of the Goblet and the Theft of the Terafim

The story of the theft of the goblet is designed in a way that reminds the reader, and presumably Yosef's brothers as well, of a well-known family story from the previous generation – the story of the theft of the terafim. Thus, for example, Chazal expounded: 

So they arose and, striking Binyamin on his shoulder, said to him: Oh you thief, you son of a thief, you have shamed me! You are your mother's son. Thus did she [your mother] shame our father: "And Rachel stole the terafim" (31:19). (Tanchuma [Buber] Miketz 13)

Here are some of the similarities that Yair Zakowitz found between the two stories:

Many similarities unite the two stories about the mother and her younger son: a. The departure of Yaakov and his household in the first story, and the departure of Yaakov's sons in the second story, from a foreign land to the land of Canaan. b. Yosef's goblet was used for divining… so too the terafim serve a similar function… c. A group of people pursue the fugitives in order to catch up to them… d. The victim of the theft accuses the suspect of being a thief… e. The suspects, who are confident about their righteousness, justify themselves and are prepared to send the guilty party – if one is found – to death: "With whomever you find your gods, he shall not live…" (31:32); "With whomever of your servants it be found, let him die" (44:9)… f. In both stories a search is conducted… g. The last stop in the search for the terafim is Rachel's tent… and in the search for the goblet – the sack of her younger son…[9]

It stands to reason that Yosef took the trouble to set up the story of the theft of the goblet in the format of the story of the theft of the terafim for a specific purpose. But for what purpose? If we adopt the midrashic explanation cited above, the goal is to convince the brothers that just as Rachel stole the terafim without their father’s knowledge, so her son Binyamin stole the goblet without their knowledge.

However, despite the similarities between the stories, it is hard to believe that Yehuda believes that. The goblet may have been found in Binyamin's sack, but it must be remembered that a foreign hand had already meddled with their packs in the past: "And it came to pass as they emptied their sacks, that, behold, every man's bundle of money was in his sack; and when they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were afraid" (42:35; and similarly 42:27-28). Already then, the brothers suspected a plot: "And they said: Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time we are brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our donkeys" (43:18).

Moreover, throughout the story, the man avoided saying explicitly that he was searching for a goblet. Thus, the brothers who declared: "How then should we steal out of your lord's house silver or gold" (44:8), must surely have been frightened to discover that someone had hidden "every man's money in his sack's mouth" (44:1).[10]

Does this not raise a reasonable doubt, if not more than that, as to the validity of the incriminating evidence?[11] Why, then, is Yehuda prepared to confess to the false plot with which they were being framed?

III. The Dangers Associated with Careless Speech

One possible explanation of Yehuda's conduct follows from the brothers' hasty offer to Yosef's representative: "With whomever of your servants it be found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen" (44:9). This unfortunate proposition seems to be a repetition of Yaakov's words: "With whomever you find your gods, he shall not live" (31:32). If the brothers believe that Yaakov unknowingly decreed Rachel's death, they must now fear that they have similarly decreed Binyamin’s death. This fear is intensified in light of the fact that the story of Rachel's death is precisely the story of Binyamin's birth (35:16-20).

On the realistic plain, as well, the brothers have cause for concern. Yosef's steward rejects their offer and insists on punishing only the thief: "He with whom it is found shall be my bondman; and you shall be blameless" (44:10). Yosef, however, does not address the "thief" alone, but once again blames them all collectively: "What deed is this that you [in the plural] have done?" (44:15). This could be a worrying indication that the "Egyptian" intended to punish them all, in accordance with the formula that they themselves had proposed. For this reason, Yehuda hastens to propose a new version, which in fact brings all of the brothers into servitude but does not include the death of Binyamin: "Behold, we are my lord's bondmen, both we, and he also in whose hand the cup is found" (44:16).[12]

IV. “God Has Found Out the Iniquity of Your Servants”

Tracing the behavior of Yosef's brothers in the face of the false accusation of espionage can hint to another explanation, one that is perhaps even more reasonable, for Yehuda’s response to the false accusation of theft.

Earlier, Yosef at first turns to his brothers and demands:

Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and you shall be bound, that your words may be proved, whether there be truth in you; or else, as Pharaoh lives, surely you are spies. (42:16) 

It goes without saying that this false accusation does not stir up feelings of guilt in the brothers. After three days in prison, Yosef softens his attitude toward his brothers:

And Yosef said to them on the third day. This do, and live, for I fear God: if you are upright men, let one of your brothers be bound in your prison-house; but go you, carry corn for the famine of your houses; and bring your youngest brother to me; so shall your words be verified, and you shall not die… (42:18-20)

Surprisingly, it was precisely then that feelings of remorse arose in the brothers:

And they said one to another: We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us. And Reuven answered them, saying: Spoke I not to you, saying: Do not sin against the child; and you would not hear? Therefore also, behold, his blood is required. (42:21-22)  

Yosef's brothers know very well that they are not spies. They probably do not believe that "the Egyptian" is accusing them of espionage because of what they did to Yosef (although surprisingly, this is truly the reason for the accusation!). And yet, when one of the brothers is forced to remain behind in the Egyptian prison pit while his brothers return safely to their father, they cannot help but remember that this is how they behaved with their brother Yosef. Yaakov's sons understand that the connection between the "distress of his [Yosef's] soul" and "this distress" in Egypt is nothing but the hand of providence. God arranged the events, unconnected to the motives of "the Egyptian," so that they would finally be punished for their terrible sin.[13]

It stands to reason that the brothers undergo a similar process when they are accused of the theft of the goblet. The Egyptian official is careful not to accuse them explicitly of stealing the goblet, thus leaving an opening to admit to some other unspecified guilt.[14] Indeed, Yehuda does not confess to the theft of the goblet, but rather admits that God has found out their iniquity. As Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel says:

When they said: "God has found out the iniquity of your servants," they were alluding to the merciless sale of their brother Yosef into slavery, and for that hidden iniquity, God judged them measure for measure. Thus, “we are my lord's bondmen,” for having sold him into slavery… And with this statement, they also alluded to the fact that Binyamin did not steal the goblet, God forbid, even though it is found in his hand… For this reason they did not say: "and he who stole the goblet," but rather: "he in whose hand the goblet is found." (Commentary of Abravanel on Bereishit 43:15)[15]

The fact that "the goblet is found [nimtza] in his [Binyamin's] hand" does not prove that he stole it, but only that "the Lord has found [matza] out the iniquity of your servants" (44:15) – their terrible sin against Yosef.[16] Of course, Yehuda does not claim that "the Egyptian" is acting out of awareness of their wrongdoing towards Yosef (although this is exactly the reason!); rather, he believes this is the hand of providence. For those who sold their brother to be enslaved in Egypt, their fitting punishment is that they all be slaves in Egypt.[17] And what about Binyamin? What sin did he commit? Perhaps Yehuda speculates that the decree was issued against all the sons of Yaakov, and so Binyamin was "caught" by the sins of his brothers.

V. From Acceptance of the Decree to Non-Repetition of the Sin

The "Egyptian" viceroy does not wish to kill Binyamin, nor to enslave his brothers:

Far be it from me that I should do so; the man in whose hand the goblet is found,[18] he shall be my bondman; but as for you, get you up in peace to your father. (44:17)

It is precisely this reaction that removes Yehuda from his position of accepting the decree and sends him to a fierce struggle over the fate of Binyamin (44:18-34). Why is Yehuda, who was willing to accept the bondage of all the sons of Yaakov (including Binyamin!), unwilling to come to terms with a lesser evil – the bondage of Binyamin alone?[19]

It seems that Yehuda and his brothers acknowledge their terrible sin and are entirely willing to accept their punishment. But when the viceroy refuses to take them into slavery in Egypt and insists on the enslavement of Binyamin alone, they can no longer believe that this is a punishment for their sin. After all, it is not possible for the punishment to fall precisely on the head of the individual who did not share in their sin at all.

Yehuda suddenly recognizes a new historical structure: What we have here is not punishment for their sin, but the danger of repeating their sin! Once again, Yaakov's beloved young son faces a terrible fate of slavery in Egypt, and the brothers are being asked to leave him there and return without him to their mourning father.

Yehuda reveals himself here as a full penitent.[20] Given a second chance, he does not repeat his sin, but risks his life in order to correct it. He who previously suggested selling Yosef, Yaakov's favorite son, into slavery in Egypt, now offers to be a slave in Egypt to save his father's preferred son. In doing so, Yehuda teaches Yosef, himself, and us, that if only he were able to return to that terrible day of Yosef's sale, he would behave differently.

VI. The Great Repair

Yehuda and his brothers attribute the strange events that befall them to providence, and by virtue of this belief they merit thoughts of remorse. At first glance, one might think this is based on deception and error, for he who designed the stage and arranged the meticulous setting on it was not God but Yosef. However, as Yosef himself will later teach us, human action does not nullify Divine providence, but rather helps to reveal it: "So now it was not you that sent me here" (45:8). Not only were the brothers’ awful schemes a tool in the hand of providence to ensure the family’s prosperity in Egypt, but so too were the benevolent ruses of Yosef.

It is hard not to marvel at Yosef's willingness to stand behind the scenes and build for his brothers a meticulous backdrop that would enable the repair of their sin, and it is hard not to marvel at Yehuda's complete willingness to seize the opportunity for that repair. On such a bed of sincere and honest repentance, the first buds of unity can grow, that will turn the haters of yesterday into brothers who will tomorrow establish a nation together.

(Translated by David Strauss)