At the climax of the narrative, the Egyptian ruler delivers a final verdict that plunges the brothers into their greatest trial yet. By rejecting their offer of collective punishment, he decrees that only the one caught with the stolen item will bear the consequences, while the rest are free to return home. He declares a strict commitment to justice, making it clear that it is beneath his dignity to punish innocent men and treat the righteous exactly like the guilty, particularly after having hosted them with such honor [העמק דבר, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Because the stolen item was found with only one brother, it is highly likely the others were completely unaware of the theft, leaving no grounds for their punishment [רבנו בחיי, בכור שור]. Even if suspicion lingers over the entire group, the ruler cannot act without concrete proof [מלבי״ם]. For him, the mere presence of the stolen item is enough to convict the youngest brother without any further investigation [ביאור יש״ר].
On a deeper level, Joseph is signaling to the brothers that he is not acting as an agent of God to punish them for their past sins. He clarifies that his judgment is based solely on the specific crime committed against him in the present moment [ספורנו, אור החיים]. In delivering the sentence, he actually softens the blow. While the brothers had previously suggested that the thief be put to death and the rest enslaved, he decrees that the guilty party will only become a slave and will not lose his life [רבנו בחיי, שפתי כהן]. A subtle linguistic nuance regarding the word for slave suggests that the youngest brother will not be reduced to a lowly, degraded servant; rather, he will be granted a respected and important status, akin to royalty [הטור הארוך]. The rest of the brothers are dismissed completely and told to return to their father, who is anxiously waiting for them to bring back the much-needed grain [רד״ק].
Beneath this legal ruling lies Joseph's true motive. The primary approach among commentators is that Joseph orchestrated this entire scenario to test his brothers and see if they had truly repented since the day they threw him into a pit. By placing them in an identical situation, he forces them to choose: will they abandon Rachel's second son just as they abandoned him, or will they sacrifice themselves to save him? [מלבי״ם, ביאור יש״ר, The Torah]. Furthermore, he forces them to confront the reality of causing their father unbearable grief over the loss of yet another beloved son. The ruler's parting wish for them to return in peace carries a painful irony, echoing the peace their father lost years ago when these very same brothers brought him a blood-stained coat [The Torah].
This insistence on punishing only the youngest brother is the catalyst that changes the situation for Judah, ultimately driving him to step forward and confront the ruler. Initially, when the brothers believed they would all be punished together, Judah accepted the decree, assuming that God had finally uncovered their old sin and was delivering heavenly justice. However, once the ruler refused to punish the group and demanded only the youngest, Judah realized this was not divine retribution for past wrongs, but rather the arbitrary whim of a foreign leader. This realization pushed him to stand his ground and honor the guarantee he had made to his father [אור החיים, העמק דבר].
From a historical and mystical perspective, the dismissal to return in peace to their father contains a hidden reference to future generations. It alludes to the Ten Martyrs, the great sages of Israel who were executed by the Romans. According to tradition, these scholars paid with their own lives to achieve final atonement for the sin of selling Joseph. Once they were purified through their sacrifice, they ascended in peace to their Father in heaven [רבנו בחיי].