וַיַּֽחַלְמוּ֩ חֲל֨וֹם שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אִ֤ישׁ חֲלֹמוֹ֙ בְּלַ֣יְלָה אֶחָ֔ד אִ֖ישׁ כְּפִתְר֣וֹן חֲלֹמ֑וֹ הַמַּשְׁקֶ֣ה וְהָאֹפֶ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲסוּרִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר׃
Y ambos á dos, el copero y el panadero del rey de Egipto, que estaban arrestados en la prisión, vieron un sueño, cada uno su sueño en una misma noche, cada uno conforme á la declaración de su sueño.
Or HaChaim
ופרעה חולם, and Pharaoh had a dream. Inasmuch as the Torah here begins with the introduction of a new episode, we would have expected either the word חלם, or ויחלום, he dreamt, not חולם, he was dreaming. The latter word would only be appropriate if the Torah told us about the continuation of something that we knew had begun previously. Actually, the Torah uses this present tense in this case to show that Pharaoh's dream was a direct continuation of events which had begun when the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had had their dreams. The Torah wanted to show us that even though the chief butler did not want to help Joseph get out of jail, G'd had other means at His disposal to help Joseph get out of jail. It is therefore best to imagine the last verse of the previous chapter and the first verse in this chapter as being continuous, thus: "since the chief butler did not remember Joseph and forgot him Pharaoh had a dream at the end of two years." This eventually forced the chief butler to speak up and mention Joseph as a successful interpreter of dreams.
Ramban
AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi.
But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four,13Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. and Reuben was with them,14As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22. and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all15“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,1684:7. he uttered slander against all of them.17And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder:18Sedrah or Parsha (section). And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison.1940:5. The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them20The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers13Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers21The sons of Leah. saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father.
The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify,22I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature. for dibah itself connotes evil.23Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report. Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees,24He reports the truth. but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood.25This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.
In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age26Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth. presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them,27II Chronicles 13:7. yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign.28Ibid., 12:13. Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom?29II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar. And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now,30For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt. and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar.31Further, 44:31 and 33.
Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above.32Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.
The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost,33Above, 33:2. as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.34Above, 35:22. [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.
But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four,13Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. and Reuben was with them,14As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22. and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all15“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,1684:7. he uttered slander against all of them.17And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder:18Sedrah or Parsha (section). And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison.1940:5. The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them20The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers13Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers21The sons of Leah. saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father.
The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify,22I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature. for dibah itself connotes evil.23Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report. Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees,24He reports the truth. but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood.25This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.
In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age26Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth. presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them,27II Chronicles 13:7. yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign.28Ibid., 12:13. Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom?29II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar. And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now,30For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt. and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar.31Further, 44:31 and 33.
Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above.32Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.
The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost,33Above, 33:2. as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.34Above, 35:22. [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.
Radak
כפתרון חלומו, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 40,5.