Vayigash: Have You A Father Or A Brother?

Sometimes, seeing other pashtanim address an issue can help clarify what is motivating Rashi, and what is motivating the midrash he cites. Such is perhaps the case on the following pasuk in parshas Vayigash. Yehuda approaches Yosef and says {Bereishit 44}:

יט אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.

19 My lord asked his servants, saying: Have ye a father, or a brother?

On this pasuk, Rashi cites Midrash Rabba:

My lord asked his servants From the beginning, you came upon us with a pretext. Why did you have to ask all these [questions]? Were we looking to [marry] your daughter, or were you looking to [marry] our sister? Nonetheless, “we said to my lord” (verse 20). We did not conceal anything. [From Gen. Rabbah 93:8]

This seems rather far off topic. To what peshat end does Rashi cite this aggada, and what peshat issue is he trying to resolve here?

One could say, as I mention about other elements elsewhere, that this is part of an overall thematic overhaul of the narrative, highlighting ambiguities in the implication and tone of Yehuda's words, in order to show that this is not mere supplication but rather argumentation and accusation of wrongdoing. And I think that to a large extent, this is true. But there is more to this as well.

It turns out there is a big peshat based difficulty with this verse. And that is that while Yehuda reports saying this here, we do not find Yosef actually asking this question to the brothers in the above narrative.

Shadal addresses the question, citing others who resolve it:

אדני שאל: באמת לא שאל אותם על כך, אך אמר להם מרגלים אתם והיה זה מה שהכריחם לומר לו שנים עשר עבדיך וגו', ויהודה לא רצה להזכיר מאומה ממה שדיבר איתם קשות, והחליף הסיפור מעט, בחכמה ובתבונה (אח"ם). ולדעת אוהב גר ז"ל באמת שאל אותם יוסף על כל זה והכתוב קיצר למעלה.

These two resolutions are sort of like the open canon/closed canon approach. We have new information that is not mentioned elsewhere in Tanach, and perhaps clashes. The first approach maps this new information, this new speech, to an existing speech that we find in the Biblical canon. Except we account for changes based on purpose of the speech -- Yehuda did not want to call to mind the harsh charges. Just as a newly introduced Biblical personality is equated with a previously known personality, with explanations for the shift in name. Yet this approach works here well on a peshat level, and so Shadal offers it.

The other answer offered is that this was indeed part of the actual events, but earlier, Scripture omitted it, keeping the narrative short. For not every single thing that happened needs be recorded in every place, or even at all. And so we find out this previous event from Yehuda's speech.

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite says similarly, or the same -- that either Scripture summarized the narrative above, and did not happen to mention this point, or that he replaced the accusation of being spies with this oblique reference, since a smart person would not mention this negative aspect (so as not to revive the charge).

(I would guess, without bothering to look into it, that the Documentary Hypothesis would make distinctions between two stories of Yehuda and Reuven, and claim that the accusation of being spies was part of the Reuven narrative, and this is Yehuda speaking.)

Rashi, and indeed Midrash Rabbah, are perhaps addressing this same point. Quoting Rashi again:

My lord asked his servants From the beginning, you came upon us with a pretext. Why did you have to ask all these [questions]? Were we looking to [marry] your daughter, or were you looking to [marry] our sister? Nonetheless, “we said to my lord” (verse 20). We did not conceal anything. [From Gen. Rabbah 93:8]

That is, take it idiomatically. You asked us all these questions, as if you were trying to marry our sister, or we were trying to marry your daughter. Thus, the specific question need not have been asked above, because it is representative of over-inquiry into their personal affairs. Why this over-inquiry? For pretext to frame them, or to accuse them of being spies. And their response was to be entirely forthcoming, not concealing anything.