قَالُوا۟ نَفْقِدُ صُوَاعَ ٱلْمَلِكِ وَلِمَن جَآءَ بِهِۦ حِمْلُ بَعِيرٍ وَأَنَا۠ بِهِۦ زَعِيمٌ
“They said: We have lost the king's cup, and he who bringeth it shall have a camel-load, and I (said Joseph) am answerable for it.” — M. M. Pickthall
According to this exegete, the words 'sikaye' and 'sıvâ' mentioned in the text refer to the same object; sıvâ is the container with which Joseph measured grain and it is a vessel made of silver, shaped like a measure (mekkuk). Furthermore, the word 'zaîm' used in the verse means guarantor and it is stated that a camel-load of food will be given in exchange for the sıvâ that is brought.
والصواع: هو الإناء الذي كان يوسف يكيل به الطعام، وكذلك قال أهل التأويلAccording to this exegete, the one who spoke these words is the announcer; it means 'and I am a guarantor for a camel-load (as much as a reward),' that is, he is committing that he will give this to whoever brings it. What is meant here is a camel-load of food/grain that is promised to be given to whoever finds and brings the missing thing.
يقوله المؤذن ، يريد : وأنا بحمل البعير كفيل ، أؤديه إلى من جاء به ؛ وأراد وسق بعير من طعام جعلا لمن حصلهAccording to this exegete, the expression in the text clarifies the object of the action of satiation/feeding and means 'from food'; that is, what is meant is the type of food mentioned in the verse.
أي من الطعامAccording to this exegete, the word 'birır' mentioned in the verse means a camel according to the majority, and according to one view it means a donkey in the language of some Arabs. Furthermore, the word 'zaîm' is used in both the sense of 'the one who calls out/announcer' and 'chief/leader.' According to this exegete, the verse contains two pieces of evidence regarding the permissibility of the ceale (undertaking a task in return for a reward) contract and the kefalet (guarantee) contract; for the announcer's (Joseph's servant's) promise of a camel-load as a guarantor points to the legitimacy of both ceale and kefalet.
الدليل الثاني جواز الكفالة على الرجل لأن المؤذن الضامن هو غير يوسف عليه السلام قال علماؤنا : إذا قال الرجل تحملت أو تكفلت أو ضمنت أو وأنا حميل لك أو زعيم أو كفيل أو ضامن أو قبيل أو هو لك عندي أو على أو إلي أو قبلي فذلك كله حمالة لازمةAccording to this exegete, the expression of 'measure/vessel' in the verse refers to the container with which Joseph made measurements. Ibn Kathir evaluates this event both as an application of a reward/compensation (ci'âle) and at the same time as a type of guarantee/security (kefalet and zamân).
أي صاعه الذي يكيل به وهذا من باب الجعالة وهذا من باب الضمان والكفالةBaydawi reports that Joseph's helpers announced in this verse that the king's water container (sikka measure) was lost, they promised a camel-load of food to whoever finds it, and that he was the guarantor of this promise. Joseph's brothers, on the other hand, tried to prove by swearing in the name of Allah and relying on the trustworthiness and honesty they had shown in their two previous visits and their comings and goings to the king (such as returning their money, tying the animals' mouths) that they did not commit theft and mischief.
وفيه دليل على جواز الجعالة وضمان الجعل قبل تمام العمل. قالوا تالله قسم فيه معنى التعجب، التاء بدل من الباء مختصة باسم الله تعالىCommon ground
All exegetes accept that the verse contains a promise of a camel-load of food to whoever finds the lost vessel (sıvâ/sikaye) and that this promise has the nature of a guarantee/undertaking (zaîm). Kurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and Baydawi unite in evaluating this event from a legal perspective as an example of the ceale and kefalet contracts.
Differences
While Taberî elaborates on the basis of chains of transmission that the vessel was made of silver and shaped like a measure, Zamakhshari and Razi focus more on linguistic/rhetorical analysis and suffice with clarifying the meaning of the expression. Kurtubi points to linguistic richness by presenting the discussion of whether the word 'birır' means camel or donkey and the dual meaning of 'zaîm' (announcer/chief); Ibn Kathir and Baydawi, on the other hand, address the event more within a legal framework (ceale, kefalet, zamân). Baydawi additionally makes a contextual reading, evaluating the event within a holistic narrative by referring to the brothers' previous honest conduct.
Historical context
While the early period exegete Taberî focused on the physical qualities of the object with a transmission-weighted method, in subsequent periods exegetes like Zamakhshari and Razi turned toward linguistic and rhetorical analysis, and later exegetes like Kurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and Baydawi brought the legal deduction dimension to the fore by drawing legal conclusions from the verse. This shows that the tafsir tradition expanded over time from transmission to linguistic analysis, and from there to legal deductions; however, the basic meaning framework remained fixed.
The element of undertaking and guarantee in this verse can remind us today of how important the promise given when undertaking a task and mutual trust are in social relations. The way the brothers defend themselves through examples of their previous honesty can open a door to constructive thinking about the role of moral consistency and past conduct in building trust. In this context, the verse can cautiously point to an understanding of social solidarity in which knowledge and moral responsibility walk together.
AI analysis — not a fatwa or ruling, not yet reviewed by a scholar