Commentaire sur La Genèse 41:23

צנמות PARCHED — In Aramaic צונמא signifies a rock. They are like wood without moisture and as hard as a rock. But in the Targum it is translated by נצן לקין “their blossom is stricken” — there was nothing in them but the withered blossom, because they were empty of grain).

‘TZ’NUMOTH,’ THIN. Tz’numa is Aramaic for “a rock.” That is, they are like wood without sap and hard as rock. But Onkelos translated, natzan lakyan (their blossom is stricken), i.e., there is nothing in them but their withered blossom because they were empty of grain. Thus the language of Rashi.
But ears of corn when empty of grain have no blossoms! Pharaoh also did not see the ears of corn when they blossomed; he saw them full and good,⁴³Verse 22 here. and thin, and parched with the east wind.⁴⁴Verse 23 here. Likewise, Rashi’s interpretation deriving tz’numoth from tz’numa as signifying “rocky” is also not correct. Thin ears of corn are not as hard as rocks.
But the meaning of tz’numoth is “separated,” [fragmented] into many pieces. It is the Rabbinic word:⁴⁵Berachoth 39a. “Bread hatz’numa in a bowl requires the blessing of hamotzi,”⁴⁶The standard blessing for bread. the word hatz’numa meaning “cut bread,” or more exactly, pieces of bread⁴⁷Rashi, however, in his commentary to Berachoth, translates it as “hard pieces of bread.” This is consistent with his interpretation here. in a bowl upon which he pours soup, and each part is eaten without any other bread. This likewise is the meaning of the Targum, who uses the word natzan, which signifies “cut and deficient.”
The usage of the word natza is similar to that in the saying of the Rabbis:⁴⁸Baba Bathra 54a. “If one transfers dirt from a malya into malya or natza into natza, it does not constitute taking possession,⁴⁹In order to take legal possession of a field, the buyer must perform some constructive act indicating ownership, such as fixing a fence, etc. But this particular act, as explained further, contributes nothing to the field. but if he takes malya and throws it into natza, it does constitute an act of taking possession.” Now a high place in a field solidly filled with earth is called malya, and one in which there is an appreciable shortage of earth is called natza.⁵⁰Thus if the buyer took earth from one malya to another, or from one natza to another, he has not improved the land. Hence it does not constitute an act of taking possession. But if he took earth from a malya and filled in a natza, he has performed a constructive act, and it therefore constitutes an act of taking possession. Here likewise the opposite of “full ones” is tz’numoth, and (the singular) natzan is the opposite of malyan (a full one).
The situation described here in the verse is that the ears were not full of grain but that there were empty spots without grain in them, and in other places, higher up on the stalk, the ears were wind-beaten and empty. This was why Joseph used the word reikoth (empty ones),⁵¹Verse 27 here. Compare Verse 23. instead of tz’numoth as there were there places on the ears which contained no grain whatever.

וצנומות, its meaning is in accordance with the context in which the word appears. It is unique in Scriptures. One may suggest that the word means the same as in the Talmud Baba Batra 18 where it refers to something hard as stone, devoid of any moisture.

צנמות, a word which is understood based on our sages (Rashi, Ram’ban) quoting the expressionפת צנומה בקערה (Berachot 39, “dried bread placed in a dish to soak it in water.”) The interpretation of the dream is now perfectly clear.

צנומות, according to Rashi the word means, “stone-hard,” meaning that it is completely dried out from seed as translated by Onkelos. נצן לקין. Nachmanides questions how one can speak of נץ when the subject is kernels, a stage when נצים, blossoms, have long disappeared. Pharaoh had not seen any of these growing stalks of grain in a stage of budding, blossoming. He had only seen them after their growing process had been completed and the kernels were either full and healthy looking, or dried out, windblown, proof of harvest failure. Therefore, he explains the word צנומות to mean “split open into many small sections”. A similar word is commonly used to describe bread which has shrunk due to being dried out, פת צנומה. Such bread remains are sometimes placed in a bowl, so that when mixed with milk or some other liquid it can be made edible again. The word נצן is also understood as meaning something hollow, empty, lacking earth, i.e. the word is the opposite of מלאה, full. The husks were not full of wheat kernels as they should have been. When the Torah reports the dream objectively, [not as remembered by Pharaoh, Ed.] it said of Pharaoh והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing above the river.” When Pharaoh relates the dream to Joseph, he does not describe himself as having stood above the river, but as having stood on the banks of the river, על שפת היאור. This was Pharaoh’s way of paying tribute to the river which was the mainstay of Egypt’s economy, so much so that Pharaoh worshipped the river as a deity. Describing himself as “standing above the river,” would have been an insult to the river in Pharaoh’s eyes. This consideration also explains why in the Torah’s report, both the good cows and the starved-looking cows are described as “rising from the river,” whereas in Pharaoh’s report the good cows are described as “rising from the river,” whereas the poorly looking cows are simply described as “following behind them,” and no mention is made of the word “the river.” The river must not be perceived as the origin of anything negative. It is always a source of blessing in the eyes of those who worship it as a deity. Pharaoh also described the appearance of the good cows as “of healthy flesh and of well formed shape,” whereas the Torah’s report describes them as “of beautiful appearance and healthy flesh,” in that order. We find similar minor variations in the description by Pharaoh of the poorly looking animals, and the objective description by the Torah of the same phenomenon. Joseph points out to Pharaoh that he had not told him precisely what he had seen, but had given him an edited version. Nonetheless, he says,” it is all one dream,” [even if you have tried to confuse me by not relating it accurately, Ed.] The interpretation of the dream, i.e. what it portends, is not affected by the changes you have made in how you related it. When Pharaoh heard that Joseph had first hand knowledge of his dream not from his mouth but from a higher source, he was dumbfounded and convinced that he had truly received a message from G’d, one that had required a man of Joseph’s caliber to reveal its meaning to him.

Onkelos translates it נצן לקין... Question: Why does Rashi cite Onkelos, when he already cited a [differing] Aramaic translation, “dry as a stone”? [The answer is:] It seems Rashi is thereby answering a question. Pharaoh had said to Yoseif that the ears were צנומות, but Yoseif did not interpret this at all. He interpreted only “bad-looking” and “thin” (v. 27). Furthermore, in Pharaoh’s above-stated dream it does not even mention צנומות. We are forced to say that Pharaoh told him something he never dreamed because he wanted to find out whether Yoseif would interpret correctly. Pharaoh reasoned: if he grasps this, he then understands the [correct] interpretation of the dream. Yoseif grasped it and did not interpret צנומות at all. Perforce, this is the plain meaning of Scripture. Rashi questions this: how did Yoseif grasp it? Was he a prophet? [To answer this,] Rashi cites the first Aramaic translation of צנומות, “dry as a stone.” Yoseif reasoned that צנומות could not have been in the dream because if the curse was to the point of “dry as a stone,” the world could not survive. Yoseif assumed there must have been some moisture. But a question remains: How do we know that צנומות means “stone”? Perhaps it means נצן לקיין, [as Onkelos says]? Thus Rashi explains that also Onkelos’ translation conveys lack of moisture, since נצן means, “They had only the נץ... no seeds.” (Maharshal)