창세기 40:1의 주석

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.]