Additionally, we can wonder about the very argument of Yehuda as we see that he did not argue that Binyamin’s sin did not deserve punishment, he presented a strange argument that the lad’s father would not be able to withstand the harsh punishment imposed on his son, which would cause him to die from the aggravation. We ask the question, why did Yehuda think that this argument would appease Yosef in favor of Binyamin? Have we ever seen a human judge exonerate sinners so that their parents will not suffer?!
But the truth is that Yehuda did not go back on the decision of the shevatim that the thief of the goblet and his entire group would be punished. He also did not ask for forgiveness for Binyamin’s sin, and he was indeed the thief. His whole argument was that even though they found the goblet in Binyamin’s sack, this was only a plot! Yehuda knew quite well that Binyamin did not do this, and it was clear to him that Yosef knew this as well, just as they already saw with their first encounter. He was looking for something to hold against them. Therefore, his argument to Yosef was to uphold the truth and to release them.
This is why he mentioned his elderly father and he was likely to die, for with this he was trying to hint that even if Yosef had a specific complaint, it was incumbent on him to explain it. For only then would it be revealed that his argument was correct, and if so then they deserved to be punished. For then it would be possible to justify themselves and remove his anger from upon them. But so long as he did not reveal their sin, perhaps this was only a scheme, and if so, then it was fitting for him to consider their elderly father, and not to spill innocent blood...
Perhaps we can say that even Yosef was waiting for this argument, he wanted to hear an argument that contained, ‘There are those who suspect him, but there is nothing there’, and then he revealed himself and told them (45:3), אני יוסף! העוד אבי חי? ' – ‘I am Yosef! Is my father still alive?’ That is, if you claim that the suspect’s case should not be decided as long as there is no solid evidence that he actually did it, then why did you judge me to be put to death or to be sold? Even though in fact I did nothing wrong, all the claims against me were not at all based on solid evidence, so why did you rush to judge me without considering our father? With this, he also wanted to teach them that when there is a specific complaint against a person, do not argue so long as you have not tried to calm him down.
Similarly, Rambam teaches us in his halachos (Deos 6:6), ‘When one person wrongs another, the latter should not remain silent and despise him as it states concerning the wicked (Shmuel II 13:22) 'ולא דבר אבשלום את אמנון מאומה למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון' – ‘And Avshalom did not speak to Amnon neither good nor bad for Avshalom hated Amnon’. Rather, he is commanded to let him know and tell him, “Why did you do this to me, and why did you wrong me in this matter?” as it states (Vayikra 19:17) 'הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך' – ‘You shall surely admonish your fellow’. And if he reconsiders and asks for forgiveness, you must forgive him, and do not be obstinate, as it says (Bereishis 20:17) 'ויתפלל אברהם אל האלקים' – ‘And Avraham prayed to G-d...’
