פירוש על בראשית 40:5

ויחלמו חלום שניהם means AND BOTH OF THEM DREAMED A DREAM — This is the real meaning (that שניהם is the subject of ויחלמו and is not to be connected with חלום). A Midrashic explanation is, taking חלום as construct case: each dreamed the dream of both of them — i.e. he dreamed his own dream and the interpretation of the other’s dream. This is what it means when it states (v. 16) “And the chief baker saw that he had interpreted well”). (Genesis Rabbah 88:4; Berakhot 55a).

EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM. The expression “interpreting dreams” means relating the events which will happen in the future, and he who foretells that future is called potheir (interpreter). In the opinion of many scholars the word pithron signifies “meaning.”²⁵⁷But it does not signify the foretelling of future events. And the interpretation of the verse, Each man according to the interpretation of his dream, is that each dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation²⁵⁸The butler dreamed of wine, the symbol of joy, while the baker dreamed of a bird snatching the food he was bringing to the king, an event which signifies grief. (Tur.) which foretold the future that was to befall them. This is Rashi’s language.
Now what sense does it make for Pharaoh’s chief butler to say, “We have dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation,” thereby minimizing the wisdom of the interpreter. Besides, Pharaoh’s dream [related later on] may not have been so, [that is, consistent with the interpretation], and Joseph would not know it.²⁵⁹Why then did he recommend Joseph as being able to interpret the king’s dream? The king had not yet related his dream, and it could be that that dream might not be consistent with its interpretation, as was the case in his own dream. Why then did he not fear for his life in recommending Joseph to the king?
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says in explanation of the verse that each saw in his dream the truth concerning the future as the interpretation would indicate, meaning that it was a true dream, not the kind which comes from many worries, of which only a part is fulfilled. This is the correct interpretation.

איש כפתרון חלומו, the line means that each of them dreamt a dream which lent itself to interpretation. It did not appear to be one of the many dreams that defy making sense of it.

סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו, seeing that his master had entrusted their well being to him, as we know from verse 4 “the official in charge appointed Joseph to be with them.” If it had not been for this, it would not have been appropriate for Joseph to enquire into the private affairs of these ministers awaiting their final sentence.

איש כפתרון חלומו, each one would have his dream interpreted as an individual dream forecasting his particular fate. The interpretations were tailored to measure.

איש כפתרון חלומו, “each man according to its interpretation.” According to Rashi each man dreamt a dream that was roughly in accordance with the eventual interpretation offered for it as forecasting his fate. In other words, the cupbearer dreamt something which was enjoyable for him, i.e. he saw grapes which he could convert into wine, whereas the chief baker dreamt something that was disturbing, i.e. the bird consumed what he had meant to serve the King. Joseph interpreted the dreams to correspond to the mood that these dreams evoked in their principals. [the author’s version of Rashi’s commentary must have differed from that found in most of our Chumashim nowadays. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that such a commentary does not reflect what the chief of the cupbearers said to Pharaoh in 41,11; “we had dreamt a dream that corresponded to Joseph’s interpretation of it.” If Rashi’s interpretation were correct, it would have diminished Joseph’s reputation as an interpreter of dream rather than have enhanced it. What the chief of the cupbearers meant to imply was that Joseph knew how to interpret the dream although on the face of it, it did not resemble the eventual interpretation at all. Ibn Ezra writes that each of the two ministers dreamt his own dream plus the interpretation that applied to the dream of his colleague. [there is also confusion between what Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as saying, and the version found in recent, amended versions of Ibn Ezra’s commentary by Asher Weiser. Ed.] Ibn Ezra’s major point [according to Nachmanides as per version in Rabbi Chavell’s edition] is that as opposed to Solomon’s statement in Kohelet 5,2 each party dreamt a precise forecast of his fate, there was no extraneous matter in the dream that would have confused the potential interpreter. [Rabbi Chavell quotes our author‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Ed.]

The same as ויחלמו שניהם חלום. Meaning: each of the two had a dream. Not that each saw the dream of both of them, i.e., his dream and that of his fellow.

Alles, was über die drei Worte ויחלמו הלום שניהם hinaus steht, scheint völlig überflüssig. "Jeder träumte seinen Traum", — "der Traum war wie die Deutung": natürlich, denn die Deutung richtet sich nach dem Traum. Endlich: "der Schenk usw.", als solche kennen wir bereits die Beiden vollständig. Es scheint vielmehr in allem diesem diejenige Eigentümlichkeit der Träume berichtet zu sein, die sie eben beunruhigte. In den Träumen selbst lag doch eigentlich gar nichts Auffallendes. Dass ein Schenk träumt, er bereite Wein und kredenze ihn dem Könige, was er vielleicht bereits dreißig Jahre lang getan, und so auch der Bäcker, was war daran auffallend und der Deutung bedürftig? Allein eben die Klarheit und die Ähnlichkeit der beiden in einer Nacht geträumten Träume fiel ihnen auf. Augenfällig schienen beide Träume eines Inhalts, jedem nur in den Vorgängen seines Berufes mitgeteilt, und in beiden war jeder in seinem Berufe Gegenstand des Traumes. "Jeder träumte seinen Traum in einer Nacht; beide, die doch jetzt gefangen waren, sahen sich, der eine wieder als Schenk, der andere als Bäcker des Königs, und dabei waren die Träume nicht wie ein Traum, sondern fast wie die Deutung eines Traumes" d. h. sie waren so klar, dass fast nur eine Kleinigkeit zu fehlen schien und sie hätten keines Deuters bedurft. Hätten z. B dem Schenk statt dreier Reben, drei Tage geträumt, so wäre alles andere klar und deutlich gewesen. Eben aber diese dämmernde Klarheit, Gleichheit und selbst in der Dreizahl hervortretende Übereinstimmung beider Träume ließ sie diesen Träumen eine besondere, mit ihrem Geschicke in Beziehung stehende Bedeutung beilegen, über die sie nach Ausschluss grübelten. — פתר, verwandt mit פטר, öffnen, und zwar nicht ein mechanisches Offnen von außen, sondern ein organisches von innen heraus, wie פטר רחם und פטורי ציצים, ist ein schönes Wort für die Deutung eines Traumes, wie für jede vernünftige Deutung. Ein ganz vernünftiger Mensch kann einen Traum ganz genau deuten, ohne damit das Eintreffen desselben behaupten zu wollen. Die Deutung soll von innen heraus sein. Eine solche Deutung eines Traums von innen heraus ist die tiefste psychologische Aufgabe, sowie die Deutung eines jeden Symbols, die hermeneutische Erklärung eines Schriftstückes: פתרון sein soll, den Sinn von innen heraus erschließen. Hineinlegen kann man überall das bunteste Allerlei. Heraussuchen ( — daher ja auch דרש —) nur das eine, das richtige. Und wie bei der organischen Geburt und bei dem Sich-erschließen der Knospe es einen inneren Treibpunkt gibt, von dem aus die ganze Entfaltung ihren Ausgang nimmt, so liegt in jedem symbolisch Verschlossenen ein Kernpunkt, der erfasst sein will, damit sich sodann alles andere von selbst ergibt.

איש כפטרון חלומו, “Each one interpreted his dream in accordance with what he thought was applicable to his personality,” as opposed to interpretations that seemed irrelevant. [As a result they were very disturbed. Ed.]

איש כפתרון חלמו EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM — each dreamed a dream consistent with the interpretation which foretold the future that was to befall them.

המשקה והאופה, these words have been repeated although they have been written before, seeing that each one of them saw in his dream something related to his vocation. The Torah added the words אשר למלך מצרים, seeing that the dream had come about not just because of their vocation but because they had practiced their vocation as direct employees of the King of Egypt, they had risen to the top of their profession. The Torah further adds the word אשר אסורים בבית הסהר, seeing that they would leave the prison as a result of what they had dreamt.

The Midrashic explanation, however, is: Each of them dreamed his own dream and the interpretation of the other’s... Chazal interpreted the verse literally. But instead of saying that each dreamed the other’s dream, they said, “The interpretation of the other’s dream.” We need not ask: How do Chazal know this? Perhaps it means literally, that each one dreamed his own dream and the other’s dream. For the answer is: Right afterwards it is written איש חלומו בלילה אחד, [implying each had only his own dream,] whereas at first it said חלום שניהם, implying that each had two dreams. Since this is self-contradictory, it must mean his dream and the interpretation of the other’s. And when it is writtenאיש כפתרון חלומו, i.e., like the interpretation of his friend’s [dream, perforce] it means a dream consistent with the matter destined to befall them. It cannot mean as it sounds, that he saw also the interpretation [of his own dream]. For if so, what was there for Yoseif to interpret?