פירוש על בראשית 40:30

אחר הדברים האלה AFTER THESE THINGS — Because this malignant woman made the righteous man (Joseph) a familiar topic of conversation with every one so that he was spoken about discreditably the Holy One, blessed be He, brought about the offences of these men in order that people should turn their attention to them and not to him (Genesis Rabbah 88:1), and also in order that relief should come to the righteous man by their agency (Genesis Rabbah 88:3).

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה, the underlings of the chief cup-bearer and the underlings of the Chief of the bakers were guilty of a misdemeanour.

לאדניהם, the stress is on the letter (syllable) א.

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, (words), etc.” After the cursed woman had caused the subject of Joseph and his supposed misdemeanors to become the talk of the town, G’d wanted that subject to take a back seat. He therefore contrived to have the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers put in jail so that their fate would become the talk of the town, and in order that both these prisoners would have to turn to Joseph whose esteem in the eyes of his contemporaries would rise as a result of his ability to interpret the dreams of these two prisoners correctly.

One, a fly was found in his cup... פיילי means cup in Aramaic. Then Rashi explains that in Greek, cup is פוטירין.

(1-2) Im ersten Vers werden sie einfach Schenk und Bäcker genannt, im zweiten "Fürst" der Schenke und "Fürst" der Bäcker. Darin liegt der ganze Hohn und die Erbärmlichkeit einer solchen Fürstenschaft. Nach unten, dem Volke gegenüber, ist er ein שר, nach oben aber ist er ein tieferer Sklave als der Gassenkehrer. Eben weil seine ganze "fürstliche Würde" nur in der unendlichen Ehre, dem Könige zu schenken und Konfekt zu bringen, somit rein nur in dem persönlichen Verhältnisse des Königs zu dem gefürsteten Diener besteht, so wird dieser, der ärgste Sklave, völlig abhängig von dessen Gunst. Der König gebietet vollständig über Freiheit und Leben der "Fürsten" wie über einen Leibeigenen. Der König sieht in ihm nicht den Fürsten, sondern nur den Bäcker und Schenk. Es ist sein "Herr", und wenn dieser zürnt, so bekommt er einen Fußtritt und wandert ins Gefängnis.

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים, “the cup bearer and the baker of the King of Egypt committed a transgression. The former had mixed water in the king’s cup, the latter had mixed some stones in the dough of the King’s bread. According to Rashi, the former was guilty of allowing a fly to settle on the brim of the king’s cup פיילי פושרין, but פושרין seems to be a copyist error, since in the Arukh it is said that one calls a cup in the Greek language פוטירי, and this is the correct form (Compare B’reshit Rabba 88,1 where this subject is discussed)

חטאו HAD SINNED — in the case of the one, a fly was found in the goblet of aromatic wine, in the case of the other, a pebble was found in the loaves he baked (Genesis Rabbah 88:2).

חטאו שר המשקה מלך מצרים והאופה, “The chief butler of the king of Egypt and the baker sinned.” The Torah does not specify their sins, but our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 88,2 state that the Chief butler was guilty of allowing a fly to fall into the cup of Pharaoh, whereas the baker was guilty of a pebble which was found inside one of the rolls served to Pharaoh This is why Pharaoh was angry at both of them. The pebble in the roll was a clear case of negligence on the part of the baker, and this is why he was hanged. The fly which fell into the cup could not be accounted as negligence on the part of the butler as it fell into the cup after the butler had mixed the wine. It was an accident.

A pebble was found in the bread of the other. You might ask: Perhaps it was the opposite? The answer is: It must have happened this way, because the other way a question arises — why was this one hanged, and the other, not? It is understandable if the fly was the butler’s. He was not hanged because it was beyond his control; he could not prevent a fly from suddenly falling into the cup. The baker, however, whose bread had a pebble, was negligent. He should have cleaned out the oven thoroughly, so that no pebble remained.

והאפה AND THE BAKER of the king’s bread. The root (אפה) is only used of baking bread. old French pistor; English, kneader.

לאדוניהם למלך מצרים, “against their master, the King of Egypt.” Actually, the Torah should have added the word לפרעה, before the words למלך מצרים. In the next verse the Torah mentions Pharaoh as being angry without saying that “Pharaoh” and the “King of Egypt” were one and the same person. We may explain this apparent inconsistency in the syntax of the Torah as the Torah giving us a hint of what would be in store for the King of Egypt at the hands of the Israelites at a future time. This is why the Torah made a distinction between the Kingdom of Egypt as such and between the person of Pharaoh as an individual in his own right. You will find that the Torah makes a similar distinction at the time the Israelites were engaged in crossing the sea of reeds with Pharaoh in hot pursuit. In Exodus 14,5 the Torah writes ויגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם ויהפך לבב פרעה, “the King of Egypt was told that the people had fled, and Pharaoh’s heart was completely changed, etc.,” whereas the Torah should have written ויגד לפרעה מלך מצרים, “Pharaoh the King of Egypt was told, etc.” The reason the Torah separated these two “titles,” was to hint that the individual Pharaoh would be deprived of his title “King of Egypt” at a future time. On the other hand, when the Torah describes Pharaoh’s obstinacy such as in Exodus 14,8 we read ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה מלך מצרים, “G’d strengthened the heart of Pharaoh the King of Egypt.” At that point in time, the Torah was intent on demonstrating that Pharaoh, though himself a powerful man as well as in charge of a powerful country, Egypt, was no match for G’d who proved that He was many times more powerful than the combined might of both Pharaoh and the Egyptian Empire. Solomon alluded to this in Proverbs 21,1 פלגי-מים לב מלך ביד ה', “the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hands like channels of water.” [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich, kings do not enjoy the freedom of choice enjoyed by private citizens as they are G’d’s representatives on earth, not unlike angels who do not enjoy any freedom of choice for that very reason. Hence the words פלגי מים are a reference to “channels” within which water run; the waters must not leave the channels assigned to them. Ed.]

AGAINST TWO ‘SARISAV’ (OF HIS EUNUCHS). These two lords were both castrates, for as they also acted as the chiefs of the butlers and bakers in the women’s quarters in the royal apartments, the kings would customarily castrate them. Onkelos’ opinion though is that sarisim means lords and chiefs. Thus he says of Potiphar, who is called sris par’oh,²⁴¹Above, 37:36. “the officer of Pharaoh,” and in the present verse he similarly translates, “against his two officers.” And so did the Targum Yonathan translate: And they shall be ‘sarisim’ in the palace of the king of Babylon.²⁵⁶II Kings 20:18. Yonathan translated this as: “And they shall be officers.”

ויקצף פרעה על שני סריסיו, because they had not supervised their underlings carefully, as was their task.

ויקצף, the Torah appears to have unnecessarily repeated the words על שר המשקים ועל שר האופים, seeing that they had both been mentioned already in the previous verse. What the Torah wanted us to know was that Pharaoh was not angry at the actual people who had committed a misdemeanour, but at their supervisors who had allowed such a thing to happen. Joseph attended to the needs of these supervisors as he had been assigned to attend to only the highest ranking prisoners.

על שני סריסיו. “at his two ministers.” The expression סריס implies: “holder of distinguished office.” This is why Onkelos translates it in this fashion. [the term is not used in that manner in modern Hebrew. Ed.] Some commentators understand the word here literally, i.e. “eunuchs.” The reason why these officials had to be castrated was that they performed their duties also in the palaces set aside for Pharaoh’s women.

ויקצוף פרעה על שני סריסיו, “Pharaoh was angry at his two courtiers.” G’d contrived to make Pharaoh angry at his servants in order to rescue the righteous Joseph from the dungeon. We see that history repeated itself in Shushan when G’d contrived to make Achashverosh angry at Haman in order to save Mordechai and the Jewish people (Bereshit Rabbah 88,2). [I suppose the point of the Midrash is the superfluous word שני, “two,” before the word סריסיו. Ed.]

מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, the Torah had to write this so that we understand how these prisoners came to tell Joseph their dreams, the dreams which became instrumental in Joseph being released from prison, eventually. The word מקום here is in a construct mode to the word אשר. Hence we have only a sheva under the letter מ instead of the full vowel kametz. Similar constructions are found in Job 18,21 מקום לא ידע א-ל, “a place for people who did not know G’d. (no kametz under the מ in the word מקום. The same applies to Isaiah 8,6 ומשוש את רצין, where the word משוש does not have the vowel kametz under the letter מ as it is in a construct mode to רצין בן רמליהו.

מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם, “the place where Joseph was kept imprisoned.” All of these “coincidences” were designed to bring about the descent to Egypt by Yaakov and his family in accordance with the prediction in Genesis 15,13 “for your descendant will be a stranger, etc.” [without overt interference with the free choice of either party. Ed.]

במשמר. Auch bei מקושש ist משמר nur eine Untersuchungshaft. Im Hause des Fürsten der Köche war ein Gefängnis. Ihm wurden sie anvertraut. Er konnte sie, wo ihm beliebt, bewahren. Siehe oben zu Raw Hirsch on Genesis 40: 20.

ויתן אותם במשמר בית שר הטבחים, “He placed them under protective custody in the house of the chief of the executioners.” This was the customary place where prisoners whose crime carried the death penalty if proven guilty would be placed pending judgment.

ויפקד שר הטבחים את יוסף AND THE OFFICER OF THE EXECUTIONERS APPOINTED JOSEPH — to be WITH THEM (i.e. supply the word להיות to complete the sense).

ויפקד שר הטבחים, he appointed him to look after all the needs of the various prisoners in that jail.

ויפקוד, he appointed Joseph to be their constant companion and personal valet. We are told this so that we can understand why Joseph enjoyed their confidence and they told him their dreams.

ויהיו ימים במשמר, ”they remained in custody for a year.” The word ימים meaning “year” appears in Leviticus 25,29 “its period of redemption is a full year.”

To be with them. I.e., the verse seems to imply that the chief of the slaughterers appointed Yoseif along with them, and they too had been appointed over something. Had Scripture previously written that the butler and baker received appointments, this would be understandable. But now that Scripture did not [write this], what is the meaning of, “With them?” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “To be with them.”

ויהיו ימים במשמר AND THEY WERE A YEAR IN WARD — ימים means twelve months (cf. Rashi on Genesis 24:55).

ויהי ימים, he remained in that position for a whole year. We know that the word ימים means “a year,” from Leviticus 25,29 ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it (the house) may be redeemed for up to one year.” Also in Genesis 24,55 the words ימים או עשור meant “a year, or at least 10 months.”

ימים, the Torah does not give further details about how many days. It is possible that the word ימים means “a year,” as it appears in that sense in Leviticus 25,29.

ימים refers to twelve months. Rashi deduces this from (Vayikra 25:29), ימים תהיה גאולתו, through a gezeirah shavah between ימים and ימים. We need not ask: Perhaps they were there for two days [because ימים literally means “days” and implies a minimum of two], and they dreamt on the second night? For [the answer is:] If so, why would Yoseif say (v. 13): “In another three days,” [if three days had not yet past]? He should have simply said, “After three days.”

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?

זעפים means SAD. Similar are (1 Kings 20:43) “sullen and displeased (וזעף)”; (Micah 7:9) “I will bear the displeasure (זעף) of the Lord (the sadness which the Lord has imposed on me).’

והנם זועפים, and they were distressed. According to our sages in Berachot 55 the reason that both of them were distressed was that they both dreamt the meaning of the other's dream. The chief butler was distressed having seen in his dream what was going to happen to his companion the chief baker. Whereas the chief baker had seen in his dream that the chief butler would be reinstated he had nonetheless prepared himself for adversity and could not bring himself to have peace of mind.

זעפים, each one of them was deeply upset about the dream he had had as they could not figure out its significance.

זעף verwandt mit צעף, wovon צעיף, der Schleier. צעיף: äußere Verschleierung des Angesichtes. זעף: eine Verschleierung des Angesichtes von innen heraus. Der Anblick eines betrübten Gesichtes gleicht dem eines Schlafenden oder Sterbenden; die Seele, das Leben, ist daraus zurückgetreten, und der sonst lebendige Ausdruck ist verschleiert.

והנה זועפים, “and they looked very distressed.” As they considered themselves innocent in accordance with their dreams, they did not understand why they were still in jail, and considered appealing to Pharaoh who might have forgotten about them. This caused their distress.

AND HE ASKED PHARAOH’s OFFICERS THAT WERE WITH HIM IN THE WARD OF HIS MASTER’s HOUSE. It would be proper for Scripture to say; “And he asked them, saying.” Instead, Scripture speaks at length about it for its desire is to speak in praise of Joseph. Here is a servant lad who is enquiring of two great officers who are wards in the house of his master who hates him,²⁶⁰“Who hates him.” Ramban is here writing from the standpoint of the butler and the baker, who must have thought that Joseph’s master imprisoned him because he hated him, not being aware, as explained above, that he did so to protect his family’s reputation. and each of whom could command his hanging.²⁶¹If his interpretation of the dreams would turn out to be incorrect. Thus, as explained further on by Ramban, if the baker had been restored to his position, he would have seen to it that Joseph pay for his mistake with his life. Yet he was not afraid of them, and asked them their dreams and told them his opinion with respect to the interpretation because he trusted in his wisdom. Had the lord of the bakers been saved and restored to his position by the king, he would have hung him for his false interpretation.

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.

וישאל את סריסי פרעה, He enquired from Pharaoh's ministers, etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "who were with him in jail?" Also, why did the Torah add: "in the house of his master?"

וישאל, the Torah now adds the words סריסי פרעה, Pharaoh’s highly placed officials, although at the time אשר אתו, they were on a par with him, both in jail. When Joseph saw their pitiful state of mind, he felt he had to ask what caused such highly placed personages to be in such a depressed mood. After all, his superior, the warden had charged him with looking after the well being of these two special prisoners.

וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר, “he enquired from Pharaoh’s ministers, the ones in the same jail as he, etc.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “וישאל אותם,” he asked them.” The only reason why the Torah chose more cumbersome wording is to tell us of the praiseworthy conduct of Joseph who, although he found himself in the presence of two prisoners vastly superior to him in personal power even while in jail, and moreover, in the jail of his former master Potiphar, who by now hated him, i.e. people who could have ordered his execution without worrying about their being held accountable, nonetheless had the courage to interpret their dreams, although at least one of them would be frustrated with his interpretation. He had confidence in his wisdom, for if the chief of the bakers had been pardoned, he would surely have hung Joseph for having made him deathly afraid for a number of days.

וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר בית אדוניו לאמר, He asked the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him in the custody of the house of his master to tell, etc.” What was the need for the Torah to write this cumbersome introduction? Did we not know that these courtiers were in jail together with Joseph? All the Torah had to write was that Joseph asked the courtiers why they were so glum. It is possible to understand the wording of the Torah here in light of what had been written before in verse four that Joseph was with these courtiers in the same jail and that he who was in jail with them performed personal valet service for them; these services were rendered to these prisoners only because they were of such an elevated stature. Now that the boot was on the other foot, the Torah wanted to mention that they were with him, i.e. that they depended upon him to enlighten them. The Torah wrote: “the courtiers of Pharaoh who were with him,” to draw our attention to the fact that they were now secondary to Joseph instead of Joseph being secondary to them.
Furthermore, the Torah wanted to explain why Joseph had the audacity to mix into the private affairs of such highly placed personages as the Chief of the butlers, etc. The Torah illustrates the point that when lowly prisoners, slaves, foreigners such as Joseph and highly placed personages such as these two courtiers find themselves in similar circumstances, i.e. in a dungeon, considerations such as their former status vanish and there is established a form of equality based on a common fate. This is what gave Joseph the courage to comment on the glum expressions of the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. Joseph was concerned with their well-being although they were wicked people serving a wicked King.

Wie viele Worte sind in der ersten Hälfte dieses Satzes überflüssig! Fast so viel als er enthält. Nochmals wird der ganze Pass der beiden Mitgefangenen abgelesen, וישאל אותם hätte uns alles gesagt. Ihre Personalien sind uns ja bereits mehr als bekannt. Trügt uns jedoch nicht alles, so ist uns eben hier das geistige Genie, die חכמה Josefs gezeichnet. Er sah sie betrübt, wusste ja noch von nichts, da fragte er die Hofbedienten Pharaos usw. Der Unterschied der Anschauung, mit welcher ein ge- wohnlicher Mensch die Welt und die Dinge anschaut, von derjenigen, mit welcher ein Josef die Welt und die Dinge anschaute, ist eben der: ein gewöhnlicher Mensch sieht bloß generell, dem חכם erscheint in jeder Person und Sache die ganze Spezialität und Individualität. Jener spricht mit "Kaufleuten", "Gelehrten" usw. Diesem ist in jedem Augenblick die Person, mit der er spricht, in allen ihren Eigentümlichkeiten und Beziehungen zusammen gegenwärtig. Josef vergaß nie, was sie waren, zu welchem Zweck sie da waren, hatte stets ihre ganze Situation in scharf gezeichneten Zügen im Auge. Sie waren במשמר, (— und dadurch unterscheidet sich der ägyptische Pharao vorteilhaft von seinem späteren jovialen persischen Kollegen, dass er nicht sofort im Zorn endgültig dekretiert —) konnten also morgen wieder draußen sein. Waren endlich אתו — eine dunkle Ahnung mochte Josef von der Möglichkeit vorschweben, da sie nur erst in Untersuchungshaft waren, könnten sie einst auf sein Geschick einen günstigen Einfluss üben, und mochte er daher in ihrem Zusammensein eine göttliche Fügung ahnen. Und eben weil ihm die Personen immer in allen ihren Beziehungen gegenwärtig waren, darum sah und hörte er auch alle ihre Worte und Handlungen, und so auch ihre Träume, immer im Zusammenhange mit ihrer ganzen Individualität; und begriff und verstand es auch, aus .dieser Individualität heraus sie aufzufassen und zu würdigen

Perhaps the Torah provided us with the reason why Joseph enquired from the two ministers as to why they seemed so distressed. It was certainly unbecoming for people of inferior standing to enquire into the state of mind of their superiors. The Torah says: "Joseph enquired from Pharaoh's ministers," i.e. although Joseph was only a slave whereas they were ministers of the king he still decided to ask them. The reason was that as of then they were both in jail, normal distinctions between their standing in society did not apply. He may also have thought that their distress had something to do with him personally. The reason the Torah underlined: "in the house of his master," is that Joseph wondered if the distress of the ministers was directed against Joseph's superior, the chief warden. Joseph who was a loyal servant wanted to know if he could perhaps do a service to his master by finding out the reason for the ministers' distress.

Joseph added: היום, "this day," meaning that he did not refer to their general distress about being in jail which is something they had reason to be distressed about already yesterday and the day before, but about their special distress on that day.

AND THERE IS NO INTERPRETER OF IT. The meaning thereof is that “there is no one to inform us concerning the future which can be derived from the dream.”
It is possible that they sent for some magicians in the morning, or that there were people with them in the prison, but no one could interpret it. It may be that they said; “There is no one in the world, in our opinion, who can interpret it, for it is very obscure.”

ופותר אין אותו, as if the Torah had written ואין פותר אותו, “there is no one who knows how to interpret it.” We encounter a similar inverted verse in Ezekiel 33,32 ועושים אינם אותם, which by right should have been ואינם עושים אותם, “but will not obey them. (carry them out)”

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים? The wisdom to interpret a dream is something divinely inspired, seeing that man has been created in G’d’s image. It is therefore possible that even I may have been endowed with such wisdom, even though I am a lowly servant and on top of my misfortune I am in jail. It may therefore be possible that you erred when you said that there is no one who can interpret your dreams.

ויאמרו אליו…ופותר אין אתו, "and there is no one to interpret it." They meant that there was no one to interpret it at all, as distinct from Pharaoh's dream (41,8) when a variety of interpretations were offered, none of which satisfied Pharaoh.

ופתר אין אותו, they had already asked other people to explain their dreams to them but had not found anyone who could interpret it.

פותר אין אותו, “there was no one who would interpret it.” There was no one in the whole world that knew how to interpret it. Alternately, these ministers had sent messengers to a number of well known dream experts, both within the jail and beyond, and none of those had any explanation to offer.

הלא לאלו-הים פתרונים, ”are not the interpretations a matter for G’d?” Joseph meant that future events foreshadowed by dreams are something known only to G’d who is the One who sends the dream to the person whom He wants to warn through a dream. He is the only One who can reveal the future, make peace and initiate evil (Isaiah 45,7). Joseph wanted to reassure the two courtiers that they would neither profit nor suffer any harm by revealing their dreams to him, seeing it was G’d who would determine their future.

Ihr habt keinen Deuter hier? Wenn Träume einer Deutung wert sind, wenn sie eine Bedeutung haben, so muss sie Gott gesendet haben und Gott das Verständnis vermitteln. Gott ist aber auch hier gegenwärtig und kann das Verständnis auch durch den Mund eines jeden gewähren.

ופוטר אין אותו, seeing that they were held in communicado with the outside world, they had no one who could bring their plight to Pharaoh’ attention, or at least to consult with any of the professional sorcerers of Egypt.

DO NOT (‘HALO’) INTERPRETATIONS BELONG TO G-D? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as saying that “future events destined to come as indicated in dreams belong to G-d, for He alone brings on the dream and lets the future be known, and it is He who makes peace, and creates evil,²⁶²Isaiah 45:7. but in my speaking to you there is neither benefit nor loss.” This he said so that they should not punish him if evil should befall them, or so that they should tell him the dreams and not scorn him.²⁶³Thus far the comment of Rabbi ibn Ezra.
But if so, there is no sense for the word halo (do not) in this context.²⁶⁴Since Joseph is stating it all in the affirmative; “dreams belong to G-d, etc.” the interrogative form of the word halo is out of place. Perhaps its meaning is the same as that of the word hinei (behold). Thus Joseph is saying, “Behold, to G-d alone belong interpretations, but not to man the interpreter.”
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that Joseph is saying; “Do not interpretations of all dreams which are obscure and confined belong to G-d? He can make known the interpretation of your dreams. Now if it is obscure to you tell it to me; perhaps He will be pleased to reveal His secret to me.”

?הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, he was reminded of his own dreams. He was still awaiting the correct interpretation of his own dreams, something known only to G’d. He knew however, that G’d lets you dream certain dreams in order to foreshadow coming events. Seeing that this is so, there must be people who can interpret such dreams, why else would the phenomenon of dreams exist? The reason why their dreams were so confused, i.e. that they perceived themselves to be merely bakers and cup-bearers respectively, was that at the time they themselves were imprisoned and it would not have reflected their psychological makeup to perceive of themselves as occupying positions of authority.

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, “is not the subject of interpreting dreams something reserved for G’d? Ibn Ezra says that Joseph meant that G’d exclusively, knows of the interpretation that will come true in the future. Only He knows the future and sees fit to reveal some of it to whosoever needs to know it. Joseph continued: “if I explain the dream to you in a manner that will please you, or even in a manner which will not reflect its true meaning, this will not affect your future fate at all.” He may have said this to them in order to encourage them to tell him their dreams, or as reinsurance so that they would have no reason to punish him if it was found that he erred in his interpretations. Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse in his opinion, is that Joseph explained to them that for all the dreams which defy our ability to interpret correctly there is an explanation which G’d knows of, and this is a knowledge that He has granted to some people to share with Him. If he were to offer an explanation for their dreams, it would be the result of knowledge granted to him by G’d. If they were to tell him the details of their dreams, perhaps G’d would enlighten him concerning the meaning.

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, "don't interpretations belong to G'd?" This was Joseph's way of saying that although he offered his services as an interpreter they should not think that he claimed to boast about his ability, but that G'd had many interpreters at His disposal; he, Joseph, was only one of them. He invited them to tell him their dreams.

?הלא לאלו־הים פתרונים, “since interpretations of dreams is a matter for G-d, perhaps He has decreed that I could interpret it?”

ספרו נא לי, perhaps G’d will grant me the insight to interpret the dream.

When Joseph referred to "interpretations" in the plural, he alluded to a story from the Talmud Berachot 55 according to which there were twenty four regular dream-interpreters in Jerusalem. All of them interpreted the dream of Rabbi Banah, each one offering a different interpretation. All their interpretations happened to come true. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said: "G'd has interpretations." Joseph meant that a dream is capable of many different interpretations all of which are correct.

Joseph had two reasons for saying נא, please, when inviting the ministers to tell him their dreams. 1) An interpretation can only claim to be accurate when it is given on the day after the night the dream has occurred, and this is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath after having had a bad dream; on the other hand, if one delayed fasting, one may not fast on the Sabbath on account of that dream. Joseph's use of the word נא, meant that he urged the ministers to tell him their dreams at once before the interpretations would become useless to them.

The second reason Joseph said נא, is also related to a statement in the Talmud on the next folio. We are told there that most dreams follow the mouth, i.e. the interpreter [I have explained this on page 301. Ed.]. This is why Joseph was anxious that they should tell their dreams to him rather than to someone else in order that his interpretation would be fulfilled. He said: ספרו נא, "please tell now!" Although we have mentioned that there were twenty four interpreters in Jersualem each one of whom was able to give a different yet true interpretation to the same dream, I maintain that this was so only because none of the twenty four interpretations contradicted one another. If, for instance, the first interpreter would say that the prisoner would be released whereas the second interpreter would say that the prisoner would remain in jail until dead, only the first interpretation would be fulfilled. Joseph urged them to make him the first interpreter of their dreams for their sakes.

בחלומי, "in my dream." Since he had dreamt the interpretation of his companion's dream, he now emphasised what he had seen in his own dream, i.e. the dream he had dreamt concerning himself.

בחלומי, “I saw in my dream.”

שריגם BRANCHES — long branches called in old French. vitis.

AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT BUDDED AND ITS BLOSSOM WENT UP. “It seemed as though it budded. And it was as though it budded, i.e., it seemed to me in my dream as though it budded, and after the bud its blossom shot up, and after that it brought forth the clusters and then the ripe grapes. Onkelos translates: ‘And, when it buddeth, it brought forth sprouts.’ These words are the translation of the word porachath alone.”²⁶⁵The Hebrew states: V’hi keporachath althah nitzah. Rashi’s intent, in quoting the Targum, is to say that Onkelos’ words, apeikath lavlevin (brought forth sprouts), is an expression which Onkelos appended to his translation of the Hebrew word porachath. Ramban will later differ with this opinion, holding that it constitutes Onkelos’ rendition of the Hebrew word althah, and signifies: “And it, when it budded, immediately brought forth sprouts.” See below, Note 271. Thus far the words of Rashi.
This is not correct. If he is speaking in terms of appearances because they are matters of a dream, he should say, “Behold, like a vine was before me, and on the vine like three shoots.”²⁶⁶Instead, Scripture states: “Behold, a vine was before me. And on the vine were three shoots.”(Verses 9-10.) This kaph of comparison is found neither in the dream of the chief of the bakers nor in the dream of Pharaoh. Why then should the chief of butlers use the comparative form more than the others? Instead, in all three dreams it says v’hinei (and behold).²⁶⁷Verse 9, in the dream of the butler; Verse 16, in the dream of the baker, and in Chapter 41, Verse 3, the word v’hinei is used in connection with Pharaoh’s dream. It is this word which indicates comparison, for its meaning is “as if.”
But the explanation of the verse before us, And it was ‘keporachath’ its blossoms shot up, is that he saw that immediately as it budded, its blossoms shot up and its clusters ripened into grapes. This was to indicate that G-d was hastening to do it. This is how Joseph recognized that the “three shoots” indicated three days, and not months or years, and he himself deduced that on the same day the two will be summoned before the king. It may be [that this was also indicated by the dreams] because both of them dreamed in one night. Thus there is no need for the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who says that Joseph knew of Pharaoh’s birthday.
This usage of a kaph to indicate immediacy is found in many places: And it came to pass, ‘k’meishiv’ (as he drew back) his hand;²⁶⁸Above, 38:29. ‘k’vo Avram’ (as Abram came);²⁶⁹Ibid., 12:14. ‘uk’eith’ (and at the time) of her death the women that stood by her said,²⁷⁰I Samuel 4:20. and many others.
Onkelos’ rendition into Aramaic stating, “And when it budded, it brought forth sprouts,” [means to say that the expression “brought forth sprouts”] is a translation of the Hebrew word althah, meaning that it immediately brought forth sprouts of the vine. That is, as soon as it budded, it brought forth large sprouts, its blossoms shot up, and its clusters ripened into grapes.²⁷¹Rashi is of the opinion that Onkelos’ expression, va’aneitzath neitz, (not mentioned by Ramban, but appearing in the Targum, following apeikath lavlevin, mentioned above in Note 265), is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew althah nitzah. Ramban however says that it is the translation only of the word nitzah, for althah (shoot up) could not refer to nitzah (sprouts). This is why, according to Ramban, Onkelos translated the word althah as apeikath lavlevin (it brought forth sprouts). In brief, according to Rashi’s understanding of the Targum, the Hebrew v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath apeikath lavlevin. The Hebrew althah nitzah is rendered va’aneitzath neitz. In the opinion of Ramban, v’hi keporachath is rendered by the Targum as kad aphrachath; the Hebrew althah is rendered apeikath lavlevin, and the Hebrew nitzah has its equivalent in Onkelos’ va’aneitzath nitzah. Onkelos would not apply the word althah (shoot up) to nitzah (sprouts), as they do not “shoot up.”

כפורחת עלתה נצה, this was the customary sequence of a fruit’s development. Compare Numbers 17,23ויוצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים, “it brought forth a blossom, sprouted a bud, and almonds ripened.”

שלשה שריגים, branches of the grape vine are known as שריגים.

והיא כפורחת, “and it seemed to be blossoming, etc.” according to Rashi this means that it seemed to the cupbearer in his dreams if the vines were blossoming. Nachmanides queries that if we were to base this interpretation on the presence of the כף הדמיון, the prefix letter כ, which is a frequent phenomenon, and it is used here because everything that one sees in a dream is not real but only imaginary, then the proper place for this letter would have been at the beginning of the image, and the Torah, instead of writing והנה גפן, “behold there was a vine,” should have written והנה כגפן “and behold there was something like a vine, etc.” In his opinion, the reason the Torah writes the letter כ only when it does, is to portray the development of this vine into fruit and ultimately wine which is offered by the dreamer to Pharaoh’s lips, as something occurring with unreal speed. It is this element that prompted Joseph to foresee fulfillment of the message contained in the dream not as occurring three months or longer after the vine begins to blossom, but as occurring within three days.

It seemed as if it budded... Rashi is explaining that the כ of כפורחת denotes “similar to.” It does not denote “when” (כאשר), for such a כ occurs only with a gerund (a type of noun), but not with a verb. But ויהי כמשיב ידו (38:29) [raises a question. Is it not a verb, and yet it has such a כ? The answer is: It] means, “it appeared as if he put back his hand.” He did it unintentionally. However since he put out his hand, the midwife tied on the scarlet thread, and then he immediately pulled it back, it seemed as if he had done so intentionally. Therefore Scripture describes it as such. Onkelos, who translates כפורחת as כד אפרחת, “when it budded,” is rendering a non-literal meaning. The proof is that he renders the present-tense verb פורחת as אפרחת, which is in the past tense. (Re’m)

והיא כפרחת means AND IT WAS AS THOUGH IT BUDDED — it seemed to me in my dream as though it budded, and after the bud its blossom sprang up — i.e. it began to flower; old French spanier — and after that the clusters brought forth ripe grapes. The Targum has והיא כד אפרחת אפיקת לבלבין “and it, when it budded, brought forth blossoms”, These words (ע״כ, abbreviation for עד כאן “till here”. The abbreviation is employed to show where a quotation ends.) are the translation of the word פרחת"” only. A נץ is larger than a פרח (i.e. נץ is a later stage of the bud), as it is written (Isaiah 18:5) “and the blossom (נצה) becometh a ripening grape”, and it is written (Numbers 17:23) “And it brought forth buds (פרח)” and afterwards it states “it brought forth (ציץ) blossoms”.

והיא כפורחת, at the time when the vine was in bloom it produced leaves at the same time.

In my dream it seemed as if it budded. In other words, in my dream I saw it actually budding like a budding vine. [It looked like the real thing,] not like something that had been altered and is “similar to.”

עלתה נצה, the unripe grapes suddenly ripened until they were fully matured fruit. The fruit of the grape vine is not called ענבים until it has fully matured. We have already discussed the meaning of the preposition כ in the word כפרחת in 38,29.

And after it budded, the blossoms bloomed... I.e., he did not see it all happen simultaneously, as the verse seems to imply. [Rashi knows this] because Heaven does not show a person an elephant standing in a needle’s eye. [I.e., prophetic dreams are not absurd.]

ואשחט translate it as the Targum AND I PRESSED — The word occurs frequently in the Mishna (but only here in the Bible).

ואשחוט, I squeezed.

וכוס...ואשחט, the word שחט signals closing something off. It occurs also in this sense in Shabbat 143 אין שוחטים את הפירות, that it is forbidden to squeeze the juice out of fruit on the Sabbath.

על כף פרעה, Pharao reichte also die Hand hin, um den Becher zu empfangen.

אל כוס, not “to the cup,” but “into the cup,” as for instance in Exodus 25,21 where the words ואל הארון תתן do not mean “you are to give it to the Ark,” but “you are to place it inside the Ark.”

שלשת ימים ARE THREE DAYS — They are a symbol to you of three days. There are many Midrashic explanations of these words (cf. Chullin 92a).

שלשת ימים, when reflecting on the meaning of the dream Joseph realised that whatever it presaged would occur very soon. He surmised this from the speed with which the blossom on the vine in the dream had turned into fully ripened grapes and wine. He therefore interpreted the number 3 which occurred in the dream as not referring to years or months but to days.

They are a symbol to you of three days. I.e., they are not three days themselves, as the verse seems to imply.

ישא פרעה את ראשך PHARAOH SHALL LIFT UP THY HEAD — The words נשא ראש denote to count (cf. Exodus 30:12). When he musters his other servants to wait upon him during the meal he will count you also among them.

ישא פרעה את ראשך, the use of the word ישא here is similar to the use of the same word in Numbers 1,2 שאו את ראש כל עדת ישראל, “count the whole community of Israel, etc.” After three days Pharaoh will again number you among his servants.

As was your previous practice. Before you became an official.

ישא פרעה את ראשך, he will elevate your head. The verb is appropriate as the head of the cup-bearer while in prison was held low, he dared not hold up his head.

בעוד שלשת ימים, “within another three days;” the reason why Joseph felt that the events foreshadowed were to occur so soon, was that in the cupbearer’s dream the development of the budding grapes to becoming wine were described as being so rapid. He therefore also took his cue from the cupbearer’s dream to interpret the solution to the baker’s dream to become evident within three days.

כנך means THY POST and thy place.

והשיבך, in order to restore you to your position. The construction והשיבך meaning “in order to restore your position to you,” is also what happened as we know from verse 20 “he elevated the head cupbearer among his servants. Had the Torah written veheshivcha instead of vahashivcha, the meaning would have been “he will restore you, bring you back,” as in Deuteronomy 28,68.

When you were his butler. When you used to serve him personally — Pharaoh will have you do this to demonstrate that you are again in his favor.

והשיבך, the letter ו has the vowel patach, as opposed to Deuteronomy 28,68 והשיבך ה' מצרים, “G’d will bring you back to Egypt.” [compare Rash’bam on verse 13 above where he explains the meaning of the difference. Ed.]

והשיבך, “he will restore you;” the letter ו in this word is vocalised with a patach (instead of a semivowel sh’va and the letter ה with an abbreviated patach.

כי אם זכרתני אתך means: You will be restored to your post and will have great influence (cf. Nehemia’s position as cupbearer at the Persian court), so that. (כי) if (אם) thou at all bear me in mind after it is well with thee as I have interpreted.

BUT HAVE ME IN THY REMEMBRANCE. “If you will remember me when it will be well with you, I now pray for the kindness and truth you will do to me by making mention of me to Pharaoh.” And if the word na²⁷²V’asitha ‘na’ imadi chesed. In the explanation above the Hebrew word na was understood in the sense of ‘now’: “If you will remember me then… I now pray for the kindness and truth you would show me.” But according to the second interpretation, the word na is understood as supplication, as explained in the text. is to be understood as expressing supplication, the sense of the verse is: “If you will remember me and would, in your mercy, do me a kindness, I beg that you remember me to Pharaoh.”
The sense of the word itcha (with thee) is that “you should remember to show me mercy in the very same way that it has been shown to you, i.e., that you went out from prison.” The interpretation may be that “you should remember me in your heart as if I am with you.”
The purport of mentioning him before Pharaoh is that he should praise him by saying, “Now in the house of the chief of the officers there is an excellent servant fit to enter the service of kings.”
It further appears to me correct that Joseph is saying: “If you will remember me to be with you when all goes well with you and you return to your high position, and you should want to do me this kindness, then make mention of me to Pharaoh, saying to him, ‘I remember a lad who served me in the prison; give him to me to be my servant.’ And bring me out of this house for it is a great sin to those who retain me here.”
It may be that the meaning of the expression, And make mention of me to Pharaoh, is that “Pharaoh saw me when I was a servant to his minister, in charge of all he had and performing my duties before him,²⁷³Thus, the sense of the verse is to state that “all you need do is mention my name to Pharaoh, as he knows me already.” and if you will remember me before him you will bring about my release from here. I have committed no sin, and it is befitting the king to release me and thereby save me from the hands of my oppressors, for there is no matter hid from the king²⁷⁴II Samuel 18:13. if he desires.”

כי אם זכרתני אתך, Joseph expressed his absolute conviction that the Chief of the cup bearers would be reinstated and that he would have the power to bring about his release, seeing that he was innocent. Besides, his very position as a slave was totally unjustified as he had been born a free man, member of a prestigious family. He was neither obligated to work for someone else, nor was he legally incarcerated.

כי אם זכרתני אתך, how would I know that you are really friendly to me, כאשר ייטב לך, if you will remember me also when you are well off, and you will find an hour when it suits you to display such an act of friendship.

כי אם זכרתני, "if you would only remember me, etc." Perhaps Joseph made his favourable interpretation conditional on the chief of the butlers remembering him. The reason that Joseph placed his hopes in the chief butler was that the Jewish people have been compared to a vine, as has been pointed out in Chulin 92. והנה גפן לפני, "there was a vine in front of me;" Joseph reasoned that if the dream only concerned matters related to the chief butler, all that needed to be shown in the dream was that the chief butler held Pharaoh's cup in his hand. He reasoned that the additional information referred to himself in jail; when the Torah goes on to describe how that vine was blooming, Joseph took this as a sign that the vine would prosper; he took the word נצה to mean that his rise would be progressively higher. This is why when he explained the dream to the chief butler he added that it was important that the chief butler remember Joseph during better times.

כי אם זכרתני, the same as כי אם תזכרני.
אתך כאשר ייטב לך, when you will experience that you are being treated fairly, it is no more than fair that you should do me a favour, seeing that through my interpretation you had the good news of your approaching release and re-instatement. When my interpretation will have proven itself I expect you in turn to do a kindness for me namely to mention my case to Pharaoh so that he will release me also. I want you to do me a second favour, i.e. not merely mention me to him, but to lobby on my behalf. He will listen to you for two reasons. 1) You are an influential minister; 2) I have been jailed although I am totally innocent.

כי אם זכרתני אתך, “if only you will remember me, etc.” according to Nachmanides Joseph asks the cupbearer to remember him after he had been reinstated and then bring him to Pharaoh’s attention as another innocent sitting in jail, something he would consider an act of loving kindness on the part of the cupbearer. Another possible explanation of the phrase is that Joseph pleads with the cupbearer to remember him as if he were still in his presence, i.e.אתך. [otherwise the word אתך appears as somewhat redundant. Ed.] Yet another possible meaning is that Joseph said: “the favour you can do me after you have been reinstated and you reminded yourself that I had predicted your reinstatement, is to plead my case before Pharaoh, seeing that I, like yourself, am in jail due to trumped up charges against me.” Still another possibility is that Joseph did not ask the cupbearer to plead his case before Pharaoh but only to mention his name to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh who knew Joseph from the days when he was prominent in Potiphar’s household, would realize that his sitting in jail proved that he was actually free from sin, as otherwise his master would have executed him.

כי אם זכרתני אתך , “if only you would remember me with you, etc.” Joseph made two requests of the Chief of the butlers. 1) That he personally should remember who had foretold him his good fortune. 2) He should bring Joseph’s plight to the attention of Pharaoh. It is because of these two separate requests that the Torah reported at the very end of our Parshah that 1) the Chief of the butlers did “not remember Joseph”, and 2) that “he forgot him (mentioning him to Pharaoh).”
We must not commit the error of believing that Joseph placed his faith in the Chief of the butlers. He most certainly placed his faith exclusively in G’d. He only thought that G’d might employ the Chief of the butlers as a tool to bring about his release from the dungeon. He had some reason to believe this seeing that the dream the Chief of the butler had dreamt in jail in which Joseph was imprisoned appeared to him as part of a miraculous chain of circumstances.
How do we reconcile this with the comment of Bereshit Rabbah 89,3 that Joseph had two years added to the time he had to stay in jail because he said the above-cited two words to the Chief of the butlers (as we pointed out in our commentary on 39,5) that he was punished for pleading with the Chief of the butlers to become the instrument of orchestrating his release? It was not fitting for someone of Joseph’s caliber to be on the lookout for an instrument that G’d should appoint to bring about changes in his fate. He should have been content to trust that G’d would be able to find such opportunities when He deemed the time right for this. G’d does not need Joseph or anyone else to prompt Him in such matters. Joseph’s conduct was accounted a sin only because he was on such a high moral level, and G’d is especially strict in His dealings with people who have attained such a level (Baba Kama 50). To illustrate how someone else behaved in similar circumstances, compare the situation of the prophet Elijah in Kings I 17,6. The prophet was hiding in an inhospitable part of the country and had no access to food. He was told by G’d to drink from the waters of the river Krit (there could not have been much water due to the drought) and G’d told him that He would summon the raven to bring him food. He followed G’d’s instructions. The instrument of keeping him alive, i.e. providing him with food, was the raven. It is also possible that the food the ravens brought Elijah came from the palace of Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah (compare Vayikra Rabbah 19). In either event the provision G’d made for Elijah was of a miraculous nature. Elijah did not involve himself in bringing about means of sustaining himself in a natural way. At any rate, Joseph did not think of the butler as the source of his release from jail but as an instrument to be used by G’d to that end. He should not even have done this and this is why he was punished.

[כי means:] that if you will remember me after... In other words, Pharaoh will lift your head and you will be so important “that” if you mention me, you will be able to get me out. כי denotes “that” (אשר). This is because כי has four meanings, and one is אם, which is the same as אשר. Rashi adds, “After things become well for you,” because it is not befitting to mention Yoseif right when Pharaoh treats the butler well, but later, while the butler is standing and serving [before Pharaoh].

כי, denn Gott hat dich hierher gesetzt, um dich die Träume und mich die Deutung finden lassen, weil Gott dich wieder in die alte Gunst einsetzen wird und weil, wenn du mich erst eine zeitlang im Stillen wirst bei dir im Gedächtnis herumgetragen haben, du mich zuletzt doch einst bei Pharao in Erwähnung bringen wirst.

כי אם זכרתני אתך....והזכרתני אל פרעה, “so that when you remember me when you are well off, and bring my problem to the attention to Pharaoh, etc;” I heard from my late father of blessed memory that the wording here with the causative mode in the word: והזכרתני, meant that while the cup bearer would personally remember Joseph and his favourable interpretation of his dream; Joseph only asked him to bring him to Pharaoh’s attention through an intermediary.

כי אם זכרתני, “if you would only remember me;” he meant that if the cup bearer would bring his plight to Pharaoh’s attention, perhaps he would reopen his case, as a result of which he would be released seeing that he had been completely innocent.

ועשית נא עמדי חסד THEN SHOW KINDNESS I PRAY THEE UNTO ME — The word נא is an expression of entreaty.

והזכרתני אל פרעה, and you will bring my situation to the attention of Pharaoh who had gotten to know me when I had been a servant in the house of Potiphar.

In due course Joseph was proven right, for ultimately the chief butler did recall him and this started Joseph's dramatic rise to power. The reason Joseph was punished was because he imagined that his own advancement would depend on the goodwill of the chief butler. While G'd did use the chief butler as His instrument in advancing Joseph's fortune, the chief butler did not act voluntarily. He was prompted by fear to recall his days in jail (41,12). Joseph had to be taught the lesson not to rely on man.

והוצאתני, you will thereby cause him to release me without doubt.

THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS. This means the land of Hebron, wherein dwelt Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham, the head of the lineage, was called “Abraham the Hebrew”²⁷⁵Above, 14:13. since he came from across the River Euphrates, and he was honored among the nations for in him was fulfilled the blessing, And I will make thy name great.²⁷⁶Ibid., 12:1. It is for this reason that all of his seed are called Ivrim (Hebrews). They hold on to this name in order not to intermingle with the various peoples in the Canaanite lands, and this name has been established as the name for all Israel’s seed forever. This is the meaning of the verse, He hath brought in a Hebrew unto us,²⁷⁷Ibid., 39:14. since Joseph told them “I am a Hebrew,” and he did not want them to take him as a Canaanite. And the land where they resided was called “the land of the Hebrews,” that is to say, the land in which the Hebrews are.²⁷⁸But not that it is theirs. It may be that it was so called because they were its leaders and nobles, even as it says, Thou art a prince of G-d in the midst of us,²⁷⁹Above, 23:6. and it is further written, Touch not My anointed ones.²⁸⁰Psalms 105:15.

כי גנב גנבתי וגם פה לא עשיתי מאומה, the reason why he will have me released will be due to your words, for it will be found that neither my status as slave nor that as prisoner is due to any fault of mine. I have never had a trial nor been convicted of any wrongdoing

כי גנוב גנבת, "for I have been kidnapped, etc." The reason the word גנבתי is repeated here is that Joseph endured a double kidnapping. His body was kidnapped, and the people who bought him were fooled because they thought they had bought a slave, whereas in fact they paid for a free man. As a result the people who had paid for Joseph did not really own him. Perhaps Joseph wanted to explode the myth that no slave could ever rule nor wear royal robes in Egypt by explaining that this did not apply to him seeing he had never been a slave (compare Bereshit Rabbah 89,7). Since Joseph realised that the chief butler's dream indicated that he, Joseph, would rise to greatness, he was insistent that the chief butler be aware that he had been born free, that his present status as a slave was due only to his having been kidnapped from his homeland.

כי גנב גנבתי, I have been abducted from my home in the land of the Hebrews. He could say this as the family of his father was very well known in the whole region seeing that already Yitzchok and Avraham the patriarchs had dwelled in the land of Canaan (by that time for about 250 years) It is therefore in order to refer to the land of Canaan as the “land of the Hebrews,” [quite apart of any promise G’d had made to the patriarchs. Ed.]

כי גנוב גנבתי, “for I have been twice kidnapped, etc.” Not only was I kidnapped from my homeland, but here too I have not committed any wrong that would justify my being in jail.

Eigentümlich wird das Land schon hier ארץ העברים genannt; es muss also diese Familie in den Augen der Völker schon so bedeutsam dagestanden haben, dass das Land als ihr Land bezeichnet werden konnte.

כי גונב גונבתי מארץ העברים, “for I have been kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews;” Joseph merited being buried in the land of Israel because he was proud to acknowledge that he was a Hebrew. Moses, on the other hand, who had allowed the daughters of Yitro to describe him as an Egyptian, was denied that privilege. (Compare Exodus2,19.) [This editor has never understood this, as at the time described in that verse, Moses was still at the watering troughs and could not have heard it. Ed.]

מארץ העברים, “from the land of the Hebrews.” Clearly, Joseph did not speak about a state ruled by Hebrews, but he used this adjective to recall that he was descended from Avraham who had been the first עברי to take up residence in the land of Canaan after leaving Mesopotamia.

Joseph added גם פה, that even while in Egypt he was innocent of the charges that had landed him in jail. He explained that the so-called evidence of sperm on the gown of his accuser had been refuted by the clergy (compare Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel on 39,14). This is why Joseph later on treated the Egyptian clergy with extreme leniency during the years of famine (47,22). Had it not been for the clergy's objectivity at the time, Joseph did not need to make any concessions to them as Pharaoh had authorised him על פיך ישק כל עמי, that Joseph's authority extended over the entire nation (41,40).

In our country there are many such baskets and sellers of fancy rolls — old French oublies — usually put them in these baskets.

THAT THE INTERPRETATION WAS GOOD. Onkelos rendered it that he interpreted it well. A similar use is found in the verses: Teach me fair discernment and knowledge;²⁸¹Ibid., 119:66. That they were ‘tovoth’ (fair),²⁸²Above, 6:2. which means “pretty.” The intent of the verse is to state that this man [the lord of the bakers] had scorned Joseph, thinking of him as not ever knowing how to interpret the dream, and he would never have told him the dream had he not seen that he interpreted for his friend in a fair and proper manner. It may be that the verse is saying: “And the lord of the bakers saw that he gave a favorable interpretation to the lord of the butlers and he rejoiced. He then told him his own dream which had caused him more anguish than that of his friend.”

כי טוב פתר, his interpretation sounded very convincing, was accepted as the true interpretation.

כי טוב פתר, he was encouraged to think that Joseph would also come up with positive explanation of his own dream. Our sages use the words “as Joseph had interpreted to them,” (verse 22) to state that most dreams turn out to be in accordance with how the interpreter saw them.

וירא שר האופים כי טוב פתר, When the chief of the bakers saw that Joseph had interpreted well, etc. Since he himself had dreamt the interpretation of the dream of the chief butler he was in a position to evaluate Joseph's interpretation. The same could not be said of the chief butler as the latter did not know whether Joseph's interpretation would prove correct until it would be fulfilled.

וירא, he realised in his heart when he had heard the interpretation Joseph had given to the Chief cup bearer that this was both a true and a positive interpretation, and he was confident that Joseph would also have a similarly positive interpretation for his own dream. He based himself there on something which our sages have called: “most dreams follow the interpretation (by the interpreter).” (Berachot 55). Joseph interpreted the two dreams according to what his reason told him was the most likely interpretation. He was not concerned whether his interpretation would be considered favourable, i.e. as portending something good in store for the dreamer or if the reverse.

כי טוב פתר, “that he had interpreted the dream positively;” the fact that Joseph predicted fulfillment of the dream within three days convinced the baker that he was telling the truth as otherwise he would be proven a liar within such a short span of time.

כי טוב פתר kann nicht heißen: "etwas Gutes gedeutet". Misst man dem Traume und der Deutung irgend einen Wert bei, so kann nicht das Erfreuliche oder Nichterfreuliche des Inhaltes, sondern die Wahrheit oder Wahrscheinlichkeit des Inhaltes über den Wert einer Deutung entscheiden. Es muss sich über den Wert einer Deutung übrigens schon vor dem Erfolge, somit unabhängig von diesem eine Meinung bilden lassen. Denn auch Pharao später erkennt Josef die Palme der Einsicht und Weisheit sofort nach gehörter Deutung zu, ohne erst den Erfolg abzuwarten, ja, glaubt durch den Charakter der Deutung schon des Erfolges im voraus versichert zu sein. טוב פתר heißt jedenfalls "gut gedeutet", obgleich allerdings wenig Beispiele für einen solchen adverbialen Gebrauch des טוב vorkommen. Denkt man bei Träumen oder anderen symbolischen Zeichen, dass derjenige, der den Traum in das Gemüt eines Menschen sendet, ihm damit etwas sagen will, so muss das Symbolartige in dem Traume so sein, dass der Betreffende es sich selbst erklären könne, es muss klar und durchsichtig sein. Wer die Deutung hört, muss, wenn sie richtig ist, sich sagen können: darauf wäre ich auch gekommen, und zwar muss nur eine Deutung möglich sein, wie wir dies schon in dem Worte פתר gefunden zu haben glauben. Dem Schenkfürsten hatte geträumt, ein Weinstock stehe vor ihm usw. Was Josef hinzufügt, ist nichts, als: drei Ranken, die der Weinstock noch zu Blüte und Frucht zu treiben hat, sind drei Tage, die noch vergehen müssen. Alles übrige ist damit von selbst so klar, dass der Schenk sich hätte sagen können: so hätte ich es auch verstehen müssen. Wenn nun aber diese Träume sicher die Vorsehung gesandt und so den herrschenden Glauben an Träume benutzt hat, um Josef zu retten, so sehen wir hier, wie הב"ה in Bildern spricht, und dürften daraus lernen, wie die Deutung seiner Bilder immer das Einfachste und Nächstliegende suchen müsse, nie hinein, sondern heraus deuten müsse und nur dann glauben dürfe "טוב פתר" das Richtige getroffen zu haben, wenn die Erklärung sich so eng und nahe dem zu Erklärenden anschließt, dass man sich sagen muss: es könne fast nicht anders sein und ergebe sich von selbst aus der Sache. — אף אני בחלומי. "Auch ich war in meinem Traume" d. h. wohl, auch ich war der Mittelpunkt, der Gegenstand meines Traumes. Auch mein Traum hat sich um mich bewegt. — סלי חורי, da חורים die Freien, Adeligen bedeutet, so kann סלי חורי: eines Vornehmen würdige Körbe, feine, nicht gemeine Körbe bedeuten.

BASKETS OF ‘CHORI.’”Baskets made of peeled willows, made so that they have many holes.” This is Rashi’s language.
Rav Saadia Gaon²⁸³See the Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra. interpreted it as “baskets of white bread,” white as befits the king’s bread, with the word chori being derived from the Hebrew, Neither shall his face now wax white (‘yechvaru’),²⁸⁴Isaiah 29:22. as well as from the Aramaic where the word chivar means “white.” This is the correct interpretation, for all the baskets in the dream contained the king’s bread, and in the uppermost basket there were all manner of baked goods for Pharaoh.
You find it similarly in the language of our Rabbis in the Mishnah:²⁸⁵Beitzah 2:6. “Large loaves and white cakes (v’chivri) [may be baked on a Festival Day].” And in the Jerusalem Talmud on this Mishnah: “The Rabbis [in discussing the permissibleness of baking extra fine white breads on the Festival Day even though they require more work than ordinary bread] derived the meaning of chori from this verse: And, behold, I had three baskets of ‘chori’ on my head. “²⁸⁶This establishes that the word chori in the verse and chivri in the Mishnah were considered by the Rabbis of the Talmud as identical. For just as in the case of the king’s bread it means “large and white,” as befits such bread, so does it have a similar meaning in the Mishnah. It is thus obvious that the Rabbis understood the word chori, as did Rav Saadia Gaon, to mean “white.”
Mikeitz

סלי חרי; full of holes. The word חורים, appears as meaning holes in Job 30,6 חורי עפר וכפים, “holes in the ground and in rocks.” It also appears in this sense in Isaiah 19,9 ואורגים חורי, “and the weavers making holes.” Baskets which are usually of woven palm frond leaves have these little holes as the nature of weaving does not permit the resulting texture of the material to be airtight and waterproof.

סלי חרי, the word חרי is related to the same word in Kings II 12,10 ויקוב חור, “he bored hole.” The baskets are made of thin strips, peeled, with little holes so that they are elastic and look as if plaited. There is no difference between the meaning of the ending י in חרי, and the noun in the regular plural mode חרים. We find such an ending with the letter י in Samuel II 23,8 ראש השלישי, where the noun שליש means “a type of hero, warrior, leader of a contingent of troops.” Sometimes the author contents himself with a partial plural ending, i.e. י, whereas on other occasions he uses the full plural ending ים. According to my teachers (Jerusalem Talmud Beytzah 2,7) the word חרי is derived from חררה, a type of cake baked on hot coals, and according to this interpretation the baskets the baker saw resembled these cakes in appearance. Whereas the lower two baskets contained these kinds of flat cakes, the topmost basket contained the kind of baked goods served to Pharaoh, i.e. superior goods, pastries, baked in an oven or in an oiled pan.

סלי חורי, “baskets of patisserie.” Rashi explains the word חורי as describing the kinds of baskets, i.e. wicker work. Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon explains the word חורי as referring to bread made of white flour, a delicacy reserved for kings. Linguistically, the word would be related to חיור, “ (Arabic word?)

The words טוב פתר could also mean that Joseph had given a favourable interpretation to the dream of the chief butler. Thus encouraged, the chief of the bakers told Joseph his own dream hoping that Joseph would have a favourable interpretation for him also. His hope was based on the prophecy of Jewish exile that the dream contained. He saw the nations of the world who are compared to vultures consume the Jewish people (compare Targum Yonathan on Genesis 15,11). Israel, on the other hand, is compared to bread as we know from Psalms 14,4: אוכלי עמי אכלו לחם, "who devour My people as they devour bread." When the chief of the bakers spoke about carrying the baskets על ראשי, on my head, he hinted that Israel would be on top of all the nations. You will note that in the description of Pharaoh's activities in the dream of the chief butler, he is not described as drinking the wine, i.e. consuming the Jewish people. He only held the wine in his hand, an expression of paying homage to its worth. Contrast this with the fact that in the dream of the chief of the bakers, Pharaoh, i.e. the vultures, are reported as consuming part of the Jewish people.

כי טוב פתר, “that he had predicted something positive, and he believed him;” his reasoning had been that if someone interprets untruthfully, he does not take a chance to be called a liar after three days.

ובסל, the meaning is clear.

Die Speisen waren alle Pharaos würdig, und doch ist es nicht er, sondern ein Vogel, der sie isst, und zwar hat er die Keckheit, sie mir aus dem Korbe vom Kopfe weg zu essen. Das tut kein Vogel einem lebendigen Menschen; den fürchtet er.

זה פתרונו, "this is its meaning." This expression is a necessary formula if the statement of "most of the dreams go after the mouth" which we referred to earlier is to become true. Once the mind has been tuned in to a certain "wavelength," something that is facilitated by the listener having been told "this is its interpretation," the words of the interpretation will superimpose themselves on the dream, i.e. its message. We shall have more to say about this when discussing Pharaoh's dream.

ויען יוסף, he said that also what was forecast for the baker would occur in three days. The goods in the baskets are also of the type which are prepared in a hurry and which taste well only as long as they are fresh, and would not be served to Pharaoh when stale. The principal difference between the two dreams was that the baker did not see himself serving these pastries to Pharaoh, as opposed to the cup-bearer who featured so prominently in his dream. This detail convinced Joseph that the baker would not be restored to his position. Seeing that the alternative to a pardon was only execution, he said to the baker:

ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך, i.e. he will separate your head from your body with a sword. Subsequently, he would be hung, and Joseph understood that he would not be given a burial from the fact that the baker had dreamt of the birds of prey. These birds feed on flesh which has not been buried.

ישא פרעה את ראשך, in this instance the words are to be taken literally, מעליך, as the Chief of the bakers would be beheaded.

ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head.” The meaning of the word ישא when used in conjunction with the cupbearer is not the same as the same word used by the Torah (Joseph) in connection with the chief of the bakers. In the case of the former, it denotes a promotion, as when the Children of Israel were to be numbered in Exodus 30,12 כי תשא את ראש וגו'. Numbering people means each individual has a distinct value on its own, not only as a member of a larger number. In our context, the meaning of the word נשא as “raising” applies equally to “raising” someone’s head by hanging it from a gallows, instead of by promoting the owner of the head.

יום הלדת את פרעה HIS (PHARAOH’S) BIRTHDAY. It is called (Avodah Zarah 10a) “The birthday festival”. The causative passive form (הלדת) is used because the infant is born only by the assistance of others, for the midwife delivers the woman. On this account a midwife is called מילדת a Piel form “one who brings to birth”. This passive form occurs similarly (Ezekiel 16:4) “And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born (הולדת אתך)”. A similar passive form is used in (Leviticus 13:55) “after the plague (הכבס) is washed away”, because the washing is done by others).

יום הולדת את פרעה, some commentators say that the day referred to was the anniversary of the day Pharaoh had been born, and that he had been in the habit of celebrating this day annually with a banquet. As to the meaning of the word את, which seems difficult to fit into this explanation, one could cite other examples where the word את appears without apparent need, such as Numbers 26,55 יחלק את הארץ, or in Ezekiel 16,4 ביום הולדת אותך “on the day you were born,” where הולדך would have been perfectly adequate.

יום הולדת את פרעה, “Pharaoh’s’ birthday.” On that day a son was born for the king who was also named Pharaoh. It was a custom to make a feast on the anniversary of one’s birth.

Ginusia Day. This means “birthday” in Greek.

יום הולדת את פרעה, wörtlich: der Tag, an welchem die Mutter dazu gebracht wurde, den Pharao zu gebären; jedenfalls eine eigentümliche Umschreibung. Vielleicht ist dies eine für Pharao rücksichtsvolle Bezeichnung. Es tut der Majestät eines Pharao nicht wohl, ihn als neugeborenes Kind sich vorzustellen. Es wird daher der Gedanke von ihm ab und auf die Mutter hingeleitet, damit jeder Gedanke an ein hilfloses Wickelkind als respektwidrig vermieden werde. הולדת geht nämlich jedenfalls auf das Geschäft der Hebamme. So Jecheskeel (Kap.16, 4. 5), wo die Naturwidrigkeit der Geburt Israels hervorgehoben werden soll: "deiner Geburt waren alle Umstände ungünstig, ohne Wunder wärest du am Boden verblutet". Dort heißt es auch wiederholt משתה - .יום הולדת אותך, dass in alter Zeit ein Gastmahl משתה heißt, scheint darauf hinzuweisen, dass man in alter Zeit geistiger gewesen. Wo Trinken die Hauptsache ist, da ist es ganz unmöglich, sechs Stunden lang, ohne zu sprechen, zuzubringen, während beim Essen der Mund andauernd und nicht eben geistig in Anspruch genommen ist. משתה ist jedenfalls ein menschenwürdigerer Ausdruck. — נשא .נשא ראש heißt auch: das Dasein eines Gegenstandes in den Kreis der Gedanken aufnehmen, daher: zählen. Menschen zählen wird wohl deshalb mit: Köpfe zählen ausgedrückt, weil, wenn eine Menge Menschen zusammenstehen, ihre Leiber eine kompakte, nicht zählbare Masse bilden und nur die Köpfe geschieden hervorragen, somit gezählt werden können. — Beide standen noch auf der Liste der Diener, sie waren noch nicht kassiert, sondern in vorläufiger Untersuchungshaft.

‘וישא את ראש וגו means he counted them amongst his other servants — because he counted those who might serve him at his feast — and he remembered these amongst them. The phrase is similar to (Numbers 1.2) “שא את ראש” which signifies counting.

וישא את ראש שר המשקים ואת ראש שר האופים בתוך עבדיו, “and he counted the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers amongst his servants.” The Torah enumerates the names of these two courtiers as amongst the servants of the King. The expression וישא is related to the expression כי תשא in Exodus 30,12 where it means “you will count.” Seeing that the Torah mentions these courtiers as included in the courtiers of Pharaoh, the Torah wanted to inform us about their respective fates telling us that Pharaoh took the opportunity of that feast to publicise the final disposition of the cases which had been pending against both the Chief of the butlers and the Chief of the bakers. The former was acquitted and restored to his position whereas the latter was found guilty and hung.

וישב את שר המשקים, “he restored the chief of the cupbearers;” because his crime had been unavoidable, something beyond human control. Who can prevent a fly from parking on the rim of a cup?

ואת שר האופים תלה, “but he hanged the chief of the bakers.” The pebble that had been found in the king’s breakfast roll was due to negligence by one of his underlings.

ולא זכר שר המשקים AND THE CHIEF OF THE BUTLERS DID NOT REMEMBER HIM on that day,

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, as soon as he came out of prison. Joseph had asked him to remember his case as soon as he would come out of prison, but he did not remember.

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, and the chief butler did not remember Joseph, etc. This means that although he had not yet forgotten him, he did not remember him either. At the beginning he simply did not recall Joseph's name, something that Joseph had asked him to remember.

ולא זכר, he did not remember to do him a favour.

ולא זכר שר המשקים, “but the chief of the cupbearers did not remember.” The repetition means that he neither remembered Joseph by mentioning him, nor even by recalling him in his heart. Some commentators claim that the word וישכחהו is meant to tell the reader that the cupbearer did not fail to remember Joseph because of hatred, but only because he really forgot him.

Afterwards. Because Yoseif depended on him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written here that the butler failed to remember? If to tell us that he did not deal kindly with Yoseif, this is already written: “It was at the end of two full years... the chief butler spoke to Pharaoh...” (41: 1-9). Perforce, it tells us that Hashem caused the butler not to remember Yoseif for two years because Yoseif depended on him. (Kitzur Mizrachi) In Shemos Rabboh ch. 7 it is explained that Yoseif deserved only ten years in prison, corresponding to his bad reports about his ten brothers. But since he said to the butler, “But remember me... and mention me,” two more years were added, because Yoseif mentioned זכירה twice. (Nachalas Yaakov)

שכח, verwandt mit שגח ,שגע ,שגה. Siehe oben 8, 1. שכח heißt ein Vergessen durch Eingenommensein von etwas anderm. Verwandt auch mit שקה: getränkt, voll werden. שכח geistig: so voll von etwas sein, dass für anderes kein Raum ist. Dem Schenkfürsten lag es nicht am Herzen, das Gedächtnis an Josef fortwährend aufzufrischen, er war so von der Gegenwart erfüllt, dass er ihn vergaß.

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, “but the chief of the cup bearers did not remember Joseph. Since he did not bring Joseph’s plight to Pharaoh’s attention as soon as he had been released, he forgot him totally, erased him from his memory

וישכחהו AND HE FORGOT HIM afterwards. Because Joseph had placed his trust in him that he should remember him he was doomed to remain in prison for two years. So it is said (Psalms 40:5) “Happy is the man who maketh the Lord his trust and turneth not to (רהבים) the arrogant” — i.e. doth not trust in the Egyptians who are called arrogant (Genesis Rabbah 89:3 cf. Isaiah 30:7).

וישכחהו, he kept forgetting him until Pharaoh had his dream which defied satisfactory interpretation. When G’d performed a miracle for the sake of Joseph, he was forced to remember him.

וישכחהו, not to mention him to Pharaoh.

This verse also informs us that the chief butler subsequently forgot Joseph completely, he erased the incident from his heart. The Torah indicates that once one has decided not to remember something or somebody such a memory can be blocked out completely. Unless the chief butler had made a conscious effort to blot Joseph from his mind he would have remembered the incident from time to time. Perhaps the Torah wrote וישכחהו, he forgot him, in order to hint that this was a deliberate act of forgetting. Alternatively, as long as G'd did not remember Joseph's condition there was no point in the chief butler remembering him either. It could also be that the word וישכחהו means that only he forgot Joseph whereas G'd most certainly did not forget him.