Yehuda’s petition to Yosef seems perfectly clear and readily understandable. Did the Midrash actually intend to correct the mistaken impression that we might have from the plain reading of the text, and tell us that Yehuda spoke with hostility? Or, are these comments intended to complement, rather than supplant, the simple reading?
The likely explanation, as discussed by Professor Nechama Leibowitz in her Studies, is that the Midrash refers here to a conversation that took place in Yehuda’s mind, rather than an actual exchange between Yehuda and Yosef.
Yehuda’s petition to Yosef in the beginning of Parashat Vayigash, on the basic level of interpretation, is clear and straightforward, both in content, intent, and tenor. Yehuda makes no effort at all to justify Binyamin; although he presumably realizes that Binyamin was framed, he realizes that any attempt at proving his younger brother’s innocence would fail. Indeed, as we read in the final verses of Parashat Miketz, Yehuda pronounces the brothers’ collective guilt as soon as they come before Yosef: “What shall we say to my master? What can we say, and how can we justify ourselves?” (44:16).
Now, after Yosef declared his sentence, that Binyamin must remain as a slave, Yehuda jumps forward to appeal for mercy. He recalls – truthfully or otherwise – how in the brothers’ initial meeting with the Egyptian vizier they explained the special affection felt by their father toward their youngest brother, on account of which he did not join the others on the trip to Egypt. Yehuda further describes Yaakov’s insistent refusal to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt even when this was made a condition for the brothers’ return, and then his own guarantee to bring Binyamin back to his father. The sole argument posed by Yehuda in this plea is compassion for an aged, heartbroken father. He offers no justification, no claims of innocence, and no rational explanation for why Binyamin deserves to go home.
The Midrash, however, from which Rashi cites extensively in his commentary to this section, portrays Yehuda in a much different light, as assuming an aggressive, even hostile, posture in his appeal to Yosef. Yehuda is depicted in the Midrash Tanchuma as openly challenging Yosef, accusing him of making false charges, and even threatening violence against Egypt. The Tanchuma also depicts Yehuda as engaging in charged deliberations with the Egyptian vizier, specifically regarding the sale of Yosef:
Yosef said to him, “Yehuda! Why are you, out of all your brothers, the speaker? I see in my goblet that there those among them who are older than you!”
He said to him, “All this that you see is because of the guarantee that I gave for him [Binyamin].”
He said to him, “Why did you not guarantee your brother when you sold him to the Yishmaelites for twenty silver coins, and caused your elderly father grief and said to him, ‘Yosef was torn apart [by a wild beast]’, even though he never sinned? Regarding this one, who sinned and stole a goblet, tell your father, ‘The rope follows the bucket!’”
When Yehuda heard this, he shouted and wept in a loud voice, saying, “For how can I go to my father if the boy is not with me!”
Later in this passage, the Tanchuma records a similar harsh exchange of words:
Yehuda said to Yosef, “What shall I say to my father?”
Yosef said to him, “I already told you: Say to your father, ‘The rope follows the bucket.’”
Yehuda said to him, “You are rendering a false judgment against us!”
Yosef said to him, “Falsehood is for liars. There is no false judgment like the sale of your brother!”
…Yehuda said to him, “I am now going to go and dye all the markets of Egypt with blood!”
Yosef said to him, “You have always been dyers – like when you dyed your brother’s cloak with blood and said to your father, ‘He was torn apart’!”
According to this depiction, Yehuda protested Yosef’s treatment of the brothers, and Yosef retorted by noting the brothers’ guilt in their treatment of him many years earlier. And in response to Yehuda’s question, “What shall I say to my father?” Yosef answered, “The rope followed the bucket” – meaning, Binyamin suffered the same fate as his older brother. Just as the rope attached to the bucket will always follow the bucket into the well, similarly, Binyamin followed Yosef to the bitter fate of slavery in a foreign country. This was clearly intended as a stinging censure of Yehuda, who argues for Binyamin’s freedom after selling Yosef as a slave, as though trying to throw the bucket into the well and expecting the rope to remain in place.
Why would the Sages of the Midrash present such a depiction of Yehuda’s plea? As mentioned, Yehuda’s petition seems perfectly clear and readily understandable. Did the Midrash actually intend to correct the mistaken impression that we might have from the plain reading of the text, and tell us that Yehuda spoke belligerently? Or, are these comments intended to complement, rather than supplant, the simple reading?
The likely explanation, as discussed by Professor Nechama Leibowitz in her Studies, is that the Midrash refers here to a conversation that took place in Yehuda’s mind, rather than an actual exchange between Yehuda and Yosef. Yehuda knew full well that Binyamin was framed, and that the Egyptian vizier was bent on finding the brothers guilty from their very first meeting. The words ascribed to Yehuda by the Midrash are the words that Yehuda wanted to speak. He wanted to protest the injustice perpetrated against Binyamin, to challenge the vizier who from the outset looked to find fault and seemed to have concocted some sort of scheme against the brothers. And he wanted to warn of a violent response to this injustice, and threaten to wage a vicious battle should Binyamin be detained. But Yehuda was barred by his own conscience from assuming such a posture. He could not, in all honesty, protest what was being done to Binyamin with the memory of what he had done to Yosef. Like the Egyptian vizier, he and his brothers consigned an innocent man to lifelong slavery in a foreign country. Any argument Yehuda could have presented was undermined by his crime against Yosef. As Nechama Leibowitz noted in explaining the Midrash, “The more Judah denounces the injustice of the regent’s conduct, the more his conscience reminds him of the injustice he inflicted on Joseph.”
And it is therefore here where the dramatic story reaches its dénouement, and its resolution. According to several commentators, Yosef’s intent throughout this ordeal he inflicted upon his brothers was to bring them to a realization of the gravity of the crime they had committed, thereby preparing them to again accept him as part of their family and as part of the developing nation of Am Yisrael. This occurs when Yehuda, representing his brothers, accepts full responsibility for Binyamin, Yaakov’s favorite, and is prepared to consign himself to the life to which the brothers had consigned Yosef. At this point, Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers and full reconciliation among the sons of Yaakov is once and for all achieved.