Comentário sobre Gênesis 41:64

ויהי מקץ AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END — As the Targum renders it by מסוף “at the end” All forms of the noun קץ signify one end or the other.

BY THE ‘YE’OR’ (RIVER). With the exception of the Nile, none of the other rivers is called ye’or, a word signifying “canal,” because the entire country consists of artificially constructed canals, and the waters of the Nile¹“Rain does not fall in Egypt, but the Nile rises and irrigates the land.” (Rashi, Exodus 7:17). flow into them. This is the language of Rashi.
Onkelos however did translate the word ye’or here as “river,” but in the book of Exodus he translated al ye’oreihem²Exodus 7:19. as “on their canals,” as he had to distinguish between nahar and ye’or since they are both mentioned in the same verse: ‘al naharotham ve’al ye’oreihem’ (on their rivers and on their canals). Thus, according to Onkelos, all rivers are called ye’orim, with the large ones being called both n’haroth and ye’orim while those canals constructed by man are also called ye’orim.³Thus the word nahar applies only to a natural river, while the word ye’or applies to both a natural river and a man-made canal. Thus we find that the Tigris, besides being called nahar, is also called ye’or, as it is written, I was by the side of the great ‘nahar’ (river), which is Tigris… and behold a man clothed in linen,⁴Daniel 10:4-5. and it is further written there: And, behold, there stood other two, the one on the bank of the ‘ye’or’ (river) on this side, and the other on the bank of the ‘ye’or’ on that side. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the ‘ye’or’ (river).⁵Ibid., 12:5-6. In my opinion the fact is as Onkelos said,⁶When he said that ye’or and nahar are both terms for rivers. as both ye’or and nahar convey the same concept, both being an expression for orah (light). The rain, likewise, is called or (light), as it is said: He spreadeth ‘oro’ (His light) upon it;⁷Job 36:30. He spreadeth abroad the cloud of ‘oro’ (His lighting);⁸Ibid., 37:11. and as Rabbi Yochanan said,⁹Bereshith Rabbah 26:18. “All verses in Elihu’s speech in the book of Job containing the word orah refer to the coming down of rain.” Perhaps this is because the rains are influenced by the luminaries,¹⁰“Luminaries.” In his commentary to Job 36:30, Ibn Ezra writes: “For the rain is called or (light) on account of the small luminary (the moon), since its movements, by command of the Creator, cause the rain.” An identical explanation is also found in R’dak’s Sefer Hashorashim, under the root or. and the rivers which are formed by the rains are thus related to their first cause,¹¹This explains why rain is referred to in Elihu’s speech as or (light), since the rain is caused by the movement of the luminaries, as explained above. the luminaries.

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, two whole years according to Leviticus 25,29-30 ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it may be redeemed until the end of one year.” Here the Torah speaks of שנתים, i.e. twice a year. The word ימים as meaning a year has already occurred in Genesis 24,54 ימים או עשור, “a year or at least 10 months.” Also in Exodus 13,10 we find the expressionמימים ימימה, which means: “from year to year, annually.” When the words מקץ שנתים occur without the addition of the word ימים, they mean “one year.” When an animal did not yet reach the first anniversary of its birth it is called as being בן שנתו, “an up to one year old.” (compare Leviticus 12,6)

ויהי מקץ..ופרעה חולם, while he was dreaming about all kinds of matters of no relevance, matters reflecting what he had experienced during the course of the previous day, he also dreamt something totally unrelated to matters he could relate to, i.e. he saw himself standing on the banks of the river. The word חולם in the present tense, as opposed to חלם in the past, recalls Daniel’s statement as well as the Talmud’s statement in Berachot 55 that generally the subjects one dreams about are unfinished business of what one had been thinking of in the course of the previous day.

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, It happened at the end of two years, etc. The reason the Torah introduces this paragraph with the word ויהי, a word indicating an unhappy event, is that as of now the exile of the Jewish people begins to unravel. Even though this exile had been decreed almost two hundred years previously, it had not been decreed anywhere that this exile had to be in Egypt. Moreover, the exile turned out to be more cruel than necessary in order to satisfy G'd's decree as we know from Tossaphot on Shabbat 10 and as the ראב׳ד has written in a glossary on Maimonides's Hilchot Teshuvah chapter six. He explains that the Egyptians behaved in an abnormally cruel manner as indicated by Genesis 15,13.

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, at the end of two years after the release of the cup bearer Pharaoh had given this banquet, following which he had the dream narrated here.

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, “it was at the end of two years.” Pharaoh’s dream occurred two years after the reinstatement of the chief of the cupbearers. Although the Torah did not specify when the two years which it describes as having ended commenced, it is reasonable to assume that they commenced at the time the cupbearer had been released. The Torah implies that although the time had come then for Joseph to be released also, the fact that he pinned his hopes on the goodwill of the cupbearer whose good fortune he had foretold caused G’d to keep him in jail for another two years. As a result, he spent a total of 12 years in jail. He had served in the house of Potiphar for only one year. We arrive at this conclusion by the verse which says “the blessing of G’d was on the house of the Egyptian both in the field and in the house, the field being a reference to the summer, and “the house” being a reference to winter, the season when most people in temperate climates spend most of their time indoors. He had already been in jail for 9 years before the king’s prisoners joined him there. This is clear from the verse (Genesis 40,4) “they had been in jail for one year.” (a reference to the two ministers.) These ten years were followed by another two years that ended at the beginning of our portion. This account is difficult to reconcile with a statement in the Midrash Hagadol on Genesis 40,1 that the cupbearer and the chief baker sinned [in the sense that the Satan encouraged them to sin, Ed.] in order that they should have reason to bemoan their own fates instead of slandering Joseph, etc.” If the Midrash is correct, it is strange that they were not jailed many years previously. Perhaps one could say that though both the cupbearer and the chief baker committed a variety of sins against their king much earlier, the identity of these sinners had not been discovered until much later so that they were not jailed until Joseph had already been in jail for nine years.

Every form of the word קץ means “the end.” It is obvious that קץ means “end,” as Onkelos translates it. However, [Rashi is answering the] question: Why does Scripture write the word ימים? It would be understandable if קץ did not [always] mean “end,” but [also can mean] “some of,” as in מקצה אחיו, “From some of his brothers” (47:2). Accordingly, here it mentions ימים to indicate that it was two full years, not part of two years. But if מקץ always means “end,” why does Scripture write ימים? Rashi answers: We might think מקץ means “some of,” and it always means this, unless it is evident otherwise from the verse. That is why it is written here ימים — to show that it means “end,” and not “some of.” Consequently, קץ always means “end.” For it is evident here that קץ means “end,” and we make a gezeirah shavah between קץ [written here, and any other instance of] קץ. Thus Rashi says, “And [henceforth,] every form of the word קץ means ‘the end’.” So it seems to me, as opposed to Re’m’s explanation, that Rashi says every form of the word קץ means “the end” because Rashi wishes to distinguish קץ from קצה. This is because קצה sometimes means “end,” as in: “At the end (מקצה) of three years” (Devarim 14:28). And it sometimes means “side,” as in: “One cherub on this side (מקצה)” (Shemos 25:19). And it sometimes means “some of,” as in: “From some of (מקצה) his brothers” (47:2). Although [the word קץ] appeared several times previously in Scripture, [and Rashi did not comment there,] this is not problematic, as many similar cases exist [where Rashi does not explain a word the first time it appears]. Re’m writes: We need not object that it says, “At the קץ of seven years, you are to make shemitah” (Devarim 15:1), which apparently means at the beginning of shemitah, as it is written, “But in the seventh year you must let it rest” (Shemos 23:11). For [the answer is:] The verse in Devarim is speaking of releasing debts (השמטת כספים), and this is at the end of shemitah.

קץ ,מקץ von קצץ verwandt mit גזז abschneiden, trennen, auch mit כסם Zahl und Maß bestimmen, wovon כס ein Gefäß von bestimmtem Maß. Vergl. גזר ,כרת: trennen und bestimmen. So auch קצץ beides. ויהי מקץ: es war eben, als man von Beendigung zweier voller Jahre kam. — פרעה: kein Nomen proprium, sondern Bezeichnung der königlichen Würde in Ägypten, wie alle Könige in Philistea Abimelech heißen. Demgemäß ist das Wort allerdings ägyptischen Ursprungs. Würde es hebräisch oder die Bedeutung in beiden Sprachen dieselbe sein, so käme es von פרע, ungebunden sein, und wäre eine sehr charakteristische Bezeichnung der Majestät in Ägypten. Es gab keinen Staat, wo alles so gebunden, so fest geregelt war, wo sich das ganze Staatsleben in so festen Klammern bewegte, wie Ägypten. Einen gab es da, der frei war, es war die Spitze, der König, er hatte das alle fesselnde Band der Staatsgewalt zu halten, er war somit frei, jedoch auch nur in seiner Art; denn in Wirklichkeit war es war ein Königstraum. — עמד על, wo es nicht konkret auf etwas stehen bedeutet, heißt es in der Regel nicht nur räumlich neben etwas stehen, sondern zugleich Geist und Gedanken darauf gerichtet haben. העומד על (z. B. M. 18, 13). ויעמד העם על משה בני עמך (Daniel 12, 1 [siehe Kap.28, 131]). Also: er stand sinnend an dem Flusse. Der Fluss war Gegenstand seiner Betrachtung, der Fluss, der durch seine überschwemmung die ganze Fruchtbarkeit des Landes bedingt. — יאר vielleicht verwandt mit קער ,יער, vielleicht auch קערה .יהר: Schüssel, also: Behältnis zur Aufnahme von Flüssigkeiten. יערת רבש, also ebenfalls eine Ansammlung von Flüssigkeiten. Möglich auch, dass auch יער darum Wald bedeutet, da Waldung für die Gegend ebenfalls eine Vermittelung der Ansammlung von Feuchtigkeiten ist. Somit יאר eine Wassersammlung, speziell der Nil, in welchem sich die von den Gebirgen herabströmenden Wassermengen ansammeln und überfließen. Vielleicht so auch גבר יָהִיר übersprudelnder Mutwillen, ולא ינוה, der daher keine bleibende ruhige Stätte gewinnt (Habakuk 2, 5).

ויהי מקץ, “it was at the end;” according to Rashi, the word מקץ means: at the end.” The reason why Rashi was forced to give this interpretation-which to most of us is quite clear, is that there are occasions when this expression means: “at the beginning.” One such example occurs in Jeremiah 34,14: מקץ שבע שנים תשלחו חפשי, “at the beginning of the seventh year you must release him to freedom” (the Jewish slave) [Seeing that his term or servitude is for six years, (Exodus 21,2) it cannot mean that he is to be released only at the end of the seventh year. Ed.] There is another verse involving this expression in Deuteronomy 15,1: מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה, but this is inconclusive for our purpose, as the release of the debtor from overdue loans becomes effective only at the end of the seventh year.

ויהי מקץ, “it was at the end of;” Rashi writes that the meaning of this word corresponds to Onkelos’ translation, i.e. “at the end,” as it does always. If you examine the Hebrew language closely you will find that this word does not always mean “end,” as for instance when Joseph in Genesis 47,2 presents some of his brothers to Pharaoh and the word chosen for “some of” is מקצה. We also find this word in Jeremiah 34,14, meaning: “at the beginning of seven years.

על היאר BY THE RIVER — No other river is called יאר) except the Nile, because the whole country (Egypt) is full of artificially constructed canals (יאורים) and the Nile flows into them and fills them with water, since rain does not fall in Egypt as regularly as in other lands.

ופרעה חלם. He was dreaming that he was standing by the river. The word על as meaning “besides, close to,” occurs for instance, also in Numbers 2,20 ועלי מטה מנשה, “and beside him (the army of the tribe Ephrayim) camped the army of the tribe Menashe.” The meaning certainly could not be that Menashe was “above, over,” the tribe of Ephrayim, a more common meaning for the word על. G’d directs all these various apparently unrelated little incidents in mysterious ways in order to promote the realisation of His overall plan in historical developments, both of His people, and of mankind generally. Pharaoh’s dream was inspired by G’d in order that the prophecy to Avraham that before his descendants would take possession of the land of the Canaanites which He had promised them could come true. He had spoken of a period of 400 years parts of which would be harsh treatment of Avraham’s descendants as slaves. In order for this to come about, Avraham’s descendants had to be in Egypt. In order for them to go there voluntarily G’d had to orchestrate the famine. In order for Egypt not to perish during the famine Joseph had to interpret Pharaoh’s dream correctly and make the Egyptians indebted to himself and his family, thus reducing the number of years the Jews would do slave labour there. David details these steps of G’d’s השגחה in Psalms 105. When we look at Pharaoh’s dream with hindsight, we cannot fail to wonder why this dream was so difficult to interpret, and why the collective wisdom of all of Pharaoh’s wise men failed them. The answer is that G’d withheld their normal sagacity in order to bring Joseph into the picture. This concept of G’d interfering sometimes with the thought processes of human beings [not with their will which is inviolate they having been created in the image of G’d, i.e. with free will. Ed.] is described by the prophet Isaiah with the words משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל, “He turns sages back and makes nonsense of their knowledge.” (Isaiah 44,25)

מקץ, Rashi, following Onkelos, translates this as “at the end.” The reason he interprets the word as meaning “at the end,” is so we should not misunderstand its meaning to be “at the beginning,” as in Deut. 14,28 מקצה שלש שנים, where it means “the beginning of the third year.”

All other rivers are not referred to as יאורים except for the Nile... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written היאור, with a definite article? [The answer is:] Perforce it refers to the known יאור, mentioned earlier — the four נהרות written in Bereishis (2:11). Accordingly, why is it not written נהר here, like it does there? Surely [the answer is:] If it was written נהר here, we would not know which נהר, as four נהרות were mentioned earlier. Thus it says יאור, meaning the נהר that has יאורים. And all other נהרות are not called יאורים, only the Nile, as Rashi goes on to explain. The Nile is the Pishon River mentioned in Bereishis, as Rashi explains there. When Rashi says, “All other rivers,” he is referring to the other three נהרות written in Bereishis.

An additional reason for introducing this paragraph with the word ויהי is that G'd announced that there would be a famine and G'd always shares the pain He inflicts on His world (compare Megillah 10 on Exodus 14,20).

ופרעה חולם, “and Pharaoh was dreaming;” G–d’s method of applying reward and punishment cannot be compared to any human system of doing so. Human beings inflict wounds with a chisel, a metal and pain causing instrument, while they apply only a flimsy plaster to heal the wound. G–d inflicts a wound that is superficial, like the application of a plaster, but when it comes to healing it, He uses immediately effective means. Joseph had been thrown into a pit on account of a mere dream he had dreamt concerning his brothers; he was healed by a dream dreamt by the then most powerful ruler on earth, the King of Egypt. In other words, G–d employed “the heavyweight” on earth in order to heal his wounds. One of our liturgists pointed this out already in a s’lichah recited on the third day of the “s’Iichot” recited before Rosh Hashanah. He points out there that the remedy G–d used to heal Joseph consists of parts of the weapon used to harm him.

”שנתים ימים, “two years;” these years are counted from the day that the chief cupbearer was released from imprisonment. In other words שנתים ימים means two complete years (i.e. complete with 730 days, just as חודש ימים means a month complete with 30 days). If the Torah had used the word שנתים, which also means “two years,” I might have thought that it could have been as little as one year plus a day, as we find the years of a king’s rule is described in such a way from the moment the second year of his reign has commenced. The Torah wished us to know that Joseph spent a whole two extra years in jail because the chief of the cupbearers did not keep his promise.[Had he kept it, it is doubtful that he would ever have become viceroy and that the Egyptians would have been saved from the ravages of the famine. Ed.] From G-d’s point of view he was punished for putting his trust in that cup bearer instead of praying to G-d for his release. An alternate exegesis: the two years were two years that had been added to G-d’s decree for Joseph to spend time in jail. (Compare Talmud Sotah folio 36) According to the Talmud, Joseph had actually wanted to sleep with the wife of Potiphar when his father’s image appeared to him and helped him to overcome the temptation. According to the description there, he dug his fingernails into the floor and ejaculated semen by that means. The Talmud continues that he was really meant to sire twelve tribes just as had his father Yaakov, but enough semen escaped through the ten fingernails to preclude him from fulfilling his destiny in that respect. Instead, he spent ten years in jail as penance. Pharaoh’s dream occurred 12 years after he had been jailed. The Torah reports that he was 30 years old when appointed to high office. (verse 46). He had served in Potiphar’s house for a year. Therefore he was in jail for a total of 12 years.

The chief butler did not remember. After he was restored to his position he considered it beneath his dignity to remember a lowly Hebrew slave.

שנתים ימים, “two years;” seeing that the word שנתים means “two years,” why did the Torah add the superfluous ימים “years?” Some commentators explain this as meaning that here the Torah speaks of solar years instead of lunar years, as in ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it is to be redeemed within a year.” (lunar year of 12 months.) (Leviticus 25,29). This is supported by the words עד מלאת לו שנה תמימה, “until he has completed a full year” (Leviticus 25,30) Other commentators understand the phrase as referring to two of three ימים that Joseph spoke of in interpreting the dreams of the cupbearer and chief baker.

The entire country is made up of man-made canals, and the Nile overflows... Rashi is answering the question: Since this verse is referring to one of the rivers mentioned in Bereishis, why is it not mentioned by its name? [The answer is:] Since Egypt is made up of man-made יאורים, its river [came to be] called יאור. But all other rivers [of other countries] are not made up in this manner.

The word ויהי also reflects the mental anguish Joseph endured during the two years after the chief butler was released from jail. Originally, it had been intended that Joseph should be released at that time (Bereshit Rabbah 89,2). He had to endure two additional years in jail because he had put his trust in a human being. The Midrash there understands the words ויהי מקץ as indicating an end to darkness. קץ is also a word which describes the evil urge, i.e. קץ כל בשר. Accordingly, the Torah uses this word to allude to the reason that Joseph had to stay in jail another two years. These two years during which Joseph experienced mental anguish are counted as part of the Jewish people's exile experience because the chief butler had neglected to remember Joseph favourably. The reason that not one but two additional years were decreed was because Joseph said both כי אם זכרתני and והזכרתני. He wanted to be remembered and to be mentioned favourably.

ופרעה חלם, “and Pharaoh had a dream.” The prefix letter ו at the beginning of the word ופרעה, is an oblique confirmation of the statement by our sages that G’d does not set in motion an important sequence of events without first consulting with the Heavenly Tribunal and revealing it to His prophets. Joseph, supposedly, also dreamt Pharaoh’s dream. We are therefore encouraged to treat this paragraph as a continuation of the preceding one by means of this letter ו, although on the face of it, it would appear to introduce something not connected to what immediately preceded it. [the Talmud does not include Joseph in its list of 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses. Ed.]

The wording מקץ שנתים also means that it was on the second anniversary of the day the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had their dreams. When Joseph's fortunes took a turn for the better this was to be related directly to the dreams, showing that the dream had correctly forecast what would happen.

והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing over the river (Nile)” According to Rashi no other river has ever been referred to as יאור. Nachmanides disagrees, saying that the river Tigris has also been described as יאור as we know from Daniel 12,6 where the word יאור cannot refer to the Nile but must refer to the Tigris. We also find that Onkelos translates the word יאור simply as נהרא, “river.” If it were a designation that applies exclusively to the river Nile, Onkelos could not have chosen the word נהרא to describe it. The word יאור is a derivative of the word אור, light, and we also find the word אור describing גשם, rain. (Job, 37,11 יפיץ ענן אורו, “the cloud spreads its rain). Bereshit Rabbah, 26,7 (quoting Rabbi Yochanan) states that wherever in the Book of Job, Elihu speaks of אור, he refers to rainfall. Perhaps this is all connected to the vapours rising from the streams and rivers, eventually producing rain. [the author must consider the “atmosphere” as another term describing light in the sense of daylight (seeing that we have daylight even when the sun does not shine, and as proof he considers the rainbow as part of this “atmosphere.” [Seeing that the author engages in speculation, I have added my own so as to make his speculation more plausible sounding, even if not scientifically correct. Ed.]

By asking the Chief of the butlers to intercede on his behalf, righteous Joseph demonstrated that he had not attained the level of trust in G’d which an Elijah demonstrated in his life. As a result Joseph was punished by having to stay in jail two years longer than had been decreed originally.

ופרעה חולם, and Pharaoh had a dream. Inasmuch as the Torah here begins with the introduction of a new episode, we would have expected either the word חלם, or ויחלום, he dreamt, not חולם, he was dreaming. The latter word would only be appropriate if the Torah told us about the continuation of something that we knew had begun previously. Actually, the Torah uses this present tense in this case to show that Pharaoh's dream was a direct continuation of events which had begun when the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had had their dreams. The Torah wanted to show us that even though the chief butler did not want to help Joseph get out of jail, G'd had other means at His disposal to help Joseph get out of jail. It is therefore best to imagine the last verse of the previous chapter and the first verse in this chapter as being continuous, thus: "since the chief butler did not remember Joseph and forgot him Pharaoh had a dream at the end of two years." This eventually forced the chief butler to speak up and mention Joseph as a successful interpreter of dreams.

It is also possible that during the two years Pharaoh repeatedly kept dreaming the same dream without recalling it in the morning. Now that two years had elapsed he suddenly had a vivid recollection of this dream.

The words "and Pharaoh was dreaming" may also have been intended to tell us that even Pharaoh personally felt during his dream that he was dreaming. The reason he felt that way was that the events that occurred during the dream were so totally unlikely. The Torah wishes to teach us a lesson here about how to determine if a dream has meaning as a message to the person who dreams it. When a person feels during his dream that he must explore the meaning of what has appeared to him in the dream, this is a clear sign that the dream cannot be dismissed as being of no consequence but that it presages something that will occur in the future.

(On verses 37-38:) What did Pharaoh see to say to his servants, "Could we find another like him, a man in whom is the spirit of God," and that he said to him, "there is no one wise and understanding like you," and that he made him the master over his entire household and ruler over the entire land of Egypt - before he knew whether his words would be substantiated and whether the thing would come to effect as he had interpreted or not?! As behold, the chief wine steward did not do a thing [for just this reason], when he interpreted his dream positively. As maybe the thing would not be as he had interpreted it to Pharaoh. And if so, why did he raise him before the thing was tested? And he also [prematurely] gave him a wife from the notables of the land.

יפות מראה BEAUTIFUL TO THE SIGHT — This was an indication of a period of plenty, when people show themselves well-disposed one to another, for no-one then envies another person’s prosperity (cf. Genesis Rabbah 89:4).

AND BEHOLD, THERE CAME UP OUT OF THE RIVER. Since the land of Egypt is irrigated by the river, and it is from the river that abundance or famine befalls them, the king saw the cows coming up out of the river. The cows symbolize plowing, and the ears of corn symbolize the harvest, just as Joseph said, in which there shall be neither plowing nor harvest.¹²Genesis 45:6. Thus it is obvious that Joseph understood the characters in the dreams — i.e. the cows and the ears of corn — as symbolizing plowing and harvesting. He saw that the river rose only slightly and there would thus be no plowing, and the little which will be planted in moist places, a wind blowing from the east, a wind from the Eternal¹³Hosea 13:15. would burn them, even as he saw the ears of corn parched with the east wind.¹⁴Verse 6 here.
It would appear to be implied in the verses that the abundance was only in the land of Egypt, even as it said, Seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt;¹⁵Verse 29 here. likewise the verse, And he stored up all the food of the seven years which was in the land of Egypt.¹⁶Verse 48 here. But the famine, on the other hand, was in all the lands. And so did Joseph interpret it when he said, And there shall arise after them seven years of famine,¹⁷Verse 30 here. and did not mention the land of Egypt. It was for this reason that in the other countries they were unable to store up food even if they had heard about it, as they undoubtedly did, for the matter was well known throughout their lands. Perhaps this was alluded to in the dream since with respect to the fat cows, it mentions, And they fed in the reed-grass, for it was there in Egypt that they fed and stood, but the lean ones, after they consumed the fat ones, walked to and fro through the earth,¹⁸Zechariah 6:7. and Pharaoh did not know where they had gone.

והנה מן היאור עולות, it is a common practice to water all the animals at the same time after which they all return to graze in the meadows. [as opposed to what occurred in Pharaoh’s dream. Ed.]

מן היאור עולות, from the river there were rising, etc. The Torah should have written: עולות שבע פרות מן היאור, "seven cows were rising from the river." Why was the river mentioned first? Perhaps the Torah wanted us to appreciate that the existence of those cows was entirely due to the river, as if the river itself had produced them. To this end the Torah first had to mention who it was that created these cows. What the river produced became of secondary importance. Had the Torah employed the normal syntax we would have thought that the cows crossed the river and rose on the far bank but not that they were a product of the river itself. This very fact also made Pharaoh aware that it could only be a dream. In real life rivers do not produce cows. The reason he was given such a vision was to alert Joseph to the fact that two separate products emanated from the river, i.e. the years of plenty and the years of famine. The river was the key to the ability of the cows to rise or not to rise.

והנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות, this was part of the interpretation, as in Egypt the river Nile rises annually above its embankment irrigating the farmland surrounding it. The cows both pull the ploughs and thresh the grain after it has been harvested. [thus far the dream reflected a well known reality in Egypt and it is difficult to see how the Egyptian wise men could have missed something so simple unless their eyes had been blinded by G’d. Ed.]

הנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות, “and here seven cows were rising from the river.” Seeing that the Egyptians drink the waters of the Nile, and that river is the key to their enjoying a bountiful harvest or famine, the cows in Pharaoh’s dream are portrayed as “rising from out of the river.” The cows themselves symbolize beasts working the land, whereas the kernels in the second part of the dream portray the eventual harvest. Had Pharaoh only been shown cows in his dream, one might have been tempted to understand them as symbols of nations which Egypt would subjugate. This is why also the kernels were included in his dream. On the other hand, if Pharaoh had been shown only the kernels this would not have sufficed as the repetition of the dream was vital for its proper interpretation. Nachmanides writes that the phenomenon of extra-ordinarily bountiful harvests for seven consecutive years which Joseph predicted was experienced only in Egypt and not in the surrounding countries. This is why the Torah emphasizes (verse 29) שבע גדול בכל ארץ מצרים, great abundance of food in the whole land of Egypt.” The famine predicted by Joseph, however, included all the surrounding countries, all the trading partners of Egypt. Seeing that the seven good years occurred only in Egypt accounted for the fact that the surrounding countries had not laid in any supplies of non perishable food in anticipation of the famine to come.

.והנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות , “and here seven cows were climbing out of the river.” Egypt’s economic base was the river Nile; it provided the key to its food supply. Isaiah 19,7 already commented on this when he said: “bed-rock will be exposed by the river Nile (as a result of drought and its failure to overflow), everything sown by the Nile will wither and blow away, etc.” Isaiah continues: “the fishermen shall lament and all who cast lines shall mourn. The flax workers too shall be dismayed. Her foundation (Egypt’s) shall be crushed, etc.”

Symbol of the period of abundance... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif not interpret the fact that the cows were “fine-looking”? In v. 26 it clearly says he interpreted “well-fleshed,” but his interpretation of “fine-looking” is nowhere mentioned. Rashi answers: Just as he interpreted that the seven good cows mean seven years of abundance, so too he interpreted that “fine-looking” symbolizes the years of abundance. For in a period of abundance, people look finely upon one another: they greet each other pleasantly and provide one another with whatever is lacking.

בריא, gesund, feist, dick, alles dies heißt בריא von ברא, äußerlich machen, also בריא: äußerlich geworden, großen Umfang gewonnen habend. — אחו Wiese, von אחה zusammen verbinden, wovon aא, Bruder. Gräser sind Geselligkeitspflanzen, die von selbst in der Regel nie vereinzelt vorkommen. Daher אחו eigentlich: Geselligkeit. — Der Fluss gibt siebenmal gute Kühe und siebenmal schlechte Kühe; da der Fluss jedes Jahr nur einmal spendet, so ist unmittelbar damit gesagt, dass die sieben Kühe sieben Jahre bedeuten, und dies damit auch für die Ähren entschieden. Pharao stand ja sinnend an dem Flusse, dachte an ihn, als den Spender der Fruchtbarkeit, somit des Reichtums an Vieh und Korn. Kühe und Ähren sind Spenden des Flusses. — Ferner: Als die guten Kühe aus dem Flusse gestiegen waren, fanden sie Weide und gingen dorthin zu weiden. Als aber die schlechten Kühe aus dem Flusse stiegen, da standen die guten Kühe bereits wieder an dem Rande des Flusses, weil sie bereits alles abgeweidet hatten. Die schlechten Kühe waren an sich keine Kannibalen. Sie hätten die guten nicht vor Hunger aufgezehrt, wenn diese noch etwas übrig gelassen hätten. So ist auch unmittelbar bereits die Warnung gegeben, nicht alles aufzuessen. Somit ist die ganze Deutung bereits im Traume enthalten. So spricht Gott in Bildern, und diese Deutung Josefs ist Muster und Maßstab für jede deutende Erklärung, die דרש, nichts hineinlegen, sondern nur herausfinden darf.

והנה מן היאור, “and lo, out of the River (Nile)” seeing that famine and satiation have their origin in water, (irrigation or lack thereof of the earth) this was the symbol shown Pharaoh in his dream. (B’reshit Rabbah 89,4)

מן היאור עולות, “rising up from the river Nile;” they had first descended to its banks to drink its waters.

באחו IN THE REED-GRASS — in the marshy land. old French marais; English, marsh. Similar is (Job 8:11) “Can reed-grass (אחו) grow?”

BA’ACHU. Meaning “in the marshy land,” as in the verse, Can ‘achu’ grow?¹⁹Job 8:11. This is the language of Rashi.
This is not correct, as achu is the name of the grass which grows, [and not the land upon which it grows, as Rashi explained it], just as in the verse, Can the rush shoot up without mire, can the ‘achu’ (reed-grass) grow without water? It withereth before any other herb.²⁰Ibid., Verses 11-12. Thus it is obvious that the word achu is not the marsh land. Perhaps Rashi’s intent is that the grass which grows in the marsh-lands is called by the name of the land upon which it grows.
The correct interpretation is that achu is the generic name for all vegetation and grass which grow on the banks of the rivers and the marsh-lands. In that case, the letter beth in ba’achu would be as the beth in the verse, Come, eat ‘b’lachmi’ (of my bread), and drink of the wine which I have mingled,²¹Proverbs 9:5. Ramban’s intent is to say that if achu is the name of the grass, as he said in attempting to vindicate Rashi’s explanation, the verse before us should have said achu, rather than ba’achu. But if achu is a generic name, the term ba’achu is correct, and the verse would mean that they fed in the green foliage or vegetation which was upon the bank of the river. for they were feeding on the bank of the river, just as it is said, near the cows upon the bank of the river.²²Verse 3 here. Now perhaps the word achu is a derivative of achvah (brotherhood), since many varieties of grass grow together.

באחו, a place where herbs grow as we know from Job 8,11 ישגא אחו בלי מים, “can bulrushes grow without water?”

ותרעינה באחו, as they found plenty of grass near at hand.

ותרעינה באחו, “they grazed on a meadow.” The letter ב in the word באחו, is a prefix and not part of the noun. It is analogous to Proverbs 9,5 לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי, “come and eat my bread, drink the wine which I have mixed.” There too the letter ב in both the words בלחמי and ביין are prefixes, the respective nouns being לחם, יין. Here too the noun is אחו, a type of grass (rushes). The meaning of the line then is: “they (the cows) were feeding on a certain type of grass known as “אחו.” Job 8,11 speaks of ישגא אחו בלי מים, “can rushes grow without water?” It is quite plausible that rushes grow along the banks of the river Nile; we know this from Yocheved hiding Moses in such rushes.

ודקות בשר THIN-FLESHED in old French tenuis, meaning thin.

AND THEY STOOD BESIDE THE COWS. I.e., by their side and near them. This was a sign that there would be no lapse of time between the years of plenty and the years of famine even though Pharaoh did not relate this to Joseph.²³See Verse 19 here. But perhaps the vision which Pharaoh saw and the relating of the dream to Joseph were really alike, except that Scripture did not concern itself [with mentioning all the details Pharaoh told Joseph], just as it added into the story [details not mentioned in the actual dream, as for example], And it could not be known that they had eaten them up,²⁴Verse 21 here. and also, the ears of corn came up on one stalk,²⁵Verse 5 here. which was a sign that the seven years will occur consecutively.

ותעמודנה אצל הפרות, before they had been devoured by the fat cows. This apparently minor nuance was to tell Joseph that famine and plenty would occur at the same time, would overlap at some stage. [the countries surrounding Egypt not having had the benefit of the seven good years, experienced the famine already when there was still plenty of food in Egypt itself. Ed.] (compare verse 54)

עולות אחריהן מן היאור, rising behind them from the river. This description corresponds to what we explained on the previous verse, that the cows' existence was due to the river. Although in this instance the river is not mentioned first, i.e. מן היאור עולות, the word אחריהן, behind them, makes it plain that both categories of cows had an identical origin.

ותעמדנה, this is the first unusual thing in the dream, that the hungry, lean cows instead of grazing as did the fat, satiated cows, were simply standing around, inactive, as if helpless. Joseph, of course, draws attention to the meaning of this phenomenon in his interpretation.

ותעמודנה אצל הפרות, “they were standing next to, etc.” They stood right next to one another, as a sign that there would be not much interval between the seven good years and the famine following. Although Pharaoh had not even bothered to tell Joseph this detail (compare verses 18-20) There were sufficient hints in the story (his dream) as Pharaoh related it to Joseph to convince Joseph that the years of plenty would be immediately followed by the years of famine. The way the starved looking cows swallowed the fat cows leaving no trace of even having ingested them, alerted Joseph to the detail hinted at by the Torah’s report of the dream.

Meaning thin. Rashi is answering the question: How could an animal and its flesh be described as דק [literally: “fine”]? It should have said כיחוש בשר (“lean”). Thus Rashi explains: “Tenves in Old French.” Rashi is saying that in O.F., a lean animal is called tenves, even though tenves means דק. Thus in Hebrew, too, a lean animal is called דקות בשר. Rashi is explaining the word tenves when he says, “Meaning thin.”

שבע פרות, “seven cows;” an allusion to the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine to occur. Cows are relevant animals as they do the ploughing in order for crops to grow.

They stood next to the cows. They were so weak that they could stand only by leaning upon the healthy ones. This indicated that the populous would only survive the years of famine by consuming what they saved during the years of plenty.

ותאכלנה הפרות, “the cows devoured, etc.;” this was an indication that the years of famine would completely neutralize the blessing of the seven good years; it alerted Joseph to the need to forestall this disaster by collecting non perishable food and storing it so it could be easily accessed when the time came. He impressed upon Pharaoh the need for draconian measures in order to ensure that the years of drought would not destabilize the country and his rule on the throne. Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh does not commence until when he suggests collecting and storing the surplus food of the seven good years. Rashi (verse 30) is not correct when he explains the manner in which the good years will be forgotten as part of Joseph’s advice. Joseph, concluding from the unchanged appearance of the starved looking cows that the impact of the seven good years would be forgotten, makes this part of this explanation to Pharaoh.

ותעמודנה אצל הפרות, “they were standing alongside the other cows;” the reason they are described as standing, is that they did not immediately consume the seven fat cows. It was a signal that the famine would not immediately destroy the existing crops, as Joseph told Pharaoh in verse 54: ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, “whereas in the whole land of Egypt there was bread.”

ותאכלנה AND THEY ATE — indicating that all the joy occasioned by the years of plenty would be forgotten in the days of famine.

AND THE COWS ATE UP. In my opinion²⁶Ramban’s interpretation differs from Rashi, who writes that the eating up of the fat by the lean indicates that all joy occasioned by the years of plenty would be forgotten in the days of the famine. His own opinion is presented in the text. this is a sign that the years of famine shall consume the years of plenty. It is from this that Joseph inferred that he should tell Pharaoh, And let them store up all the food of those good years,²⁷Verse 35 here. And the food shall serve as a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine,²⁸Verse 36 here. as he saw that the healthy cows and ears of corn were absorbed by the lean ones.²⁹The fact that the fat ones were absorbed by the lean ones was a sign to Joseph that the food from the seven years of plenty should be kept as a reserve for the years of famine. This was no mere counsel which Joseph proposed, for was he appointed to be a counselor of the king?³⁰See II Chronicles 25:16. It was only in connection with the interpretation of the dream that he said thus: And the plenty shall be forgotten,³¹Verse 30 here. And the plenty shall not be known.³²Verse 31 here. These words of Joseph constitute the interpretation of: It could not be known that they had eaten them up, their appearance being bad as previously,³³Verse 21 here. for Joseph saw that by their consumption of the fat cows, the lean ones did not become fine and plump. They served them for subsistence only, for had they not eaten them they would have died in their lean state. This is unlike Rashi, who says that the plenty shall be forgotten³¹Verse 30 here. is the interpretation of the eating itself.³⁴But according to Ramban, Joseph’s words, And the plenty shall be forgotten, are the interpretation of the aspect of the dream expressed by: It could not be known that they had eaten them up.

ויקץ פרעה, ויישן (מיד) ויחלום, normally when a person has dreamt a dream and has woken up going to sleep again thereafter, any dream during the second sleep will focus on another subject. As a result, he is not even aware yet that that he had completed his first sleep and had become wholly awake. Pharaoh, on the other hand, was immediately fully awake, even before going back to sleep and having another dream. Only after his second awakening did he realise that the whole vivid pictures he had seen while asleep were not reality but were a dream. (verse 7)

ותאכלנה, this is the explanation of the strange behaviour of the seven lean cows, i.e. that during the seven years of famine the seven good years of plenty would be absorbed as if they had never existed. No trace would remain of the seven good years.

Symbolizing that all the joy of the abundant years will be forgotten. Rashi is answering the question: The cows’ eating can be understood in two ways. Either that the joy will be forgotten in the hunger years, or that there will be food to eat in the hunger years, which is a good sign. How do we know which it is? Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.” This [i.e., Rashi’s] explanation is right, [despite Ramban’s objections] — for later on, we see clearly that Yoseif explained it so. Maharshal explains that Rashi [knows this because he] is answering the question: Why does it say the cows “ate”? It should say they “swallowed up” (ותבלענה), because the term “ate” is not normally used to describe one animal consuming another. Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.”

וייקץ פרעה, die Erscheinung der schlechten Kühe erschreckte ihn so, dass er erwachte, aber nicht zum wachen Bewusstsein kam, sondern weiter schlief und träumte. קוץ und יקץ synonym, wie טוב und קוץ .יטב: übersatt werden, Ekel haben. Im Schlafe regeneriert sich der Körper, und wenn er genug hat, "übersatt geworden" dann erwacht er. Das gewöhnliche Erwachen wird im Hebräischen schön durch eine aktive Tätigkeit, הקיץ: ausgedrückt. Im Schlafe tritt der Geist zurück und lässt den Körper an den Brüsten des Schlafes "saugen", — sleep chief nourisher in lifes feast — wenn er genug gesogen hat, dann schüttelt der Geist ihn von der Brust des Schlafes ab: הקיץ. —

ויקץ פרעה, Pharaoh awoke (at this point) in order to let the message of the dream sink into his consciousness before he would be told of the second half of his dream. The two parts should not be mixed up, and to be understood as a single event.

בקנה אחד ON ONE STALK— Tuyau in old French

בקנה אחד, this was a symbol of plenty, seeing that each stalk had seven ears of grain

Tudel in O.F. Rashi is saying that in O.F., a grain stalk is called tudel, although this also means a wooden reed. And so too it is in Hebrew.

(5-6) שדף mildere Form von שטף, durchwaschen, so vom Winde: durchwehen. Er erwachte, und siehe, es war ein Traum. Bis dahin war es ihm als volle Wirklichkeit erschienen, und auch nach dem Erwachen war der Eindruck noch ein so mächtiger, dass er erst der vollen Besinnung bedurfte, um es als Traum zu erkennen.

עולות בקנה אחד, “rising on a single stalk;” this was an allusion to plenty, abundance. The message had now become more explicit than in the first half of the dream. Normally, the seven kernels would compete with each other for the nutrients provided by a single stalk. In this dream they did not do so. They were all fully developed.

בריאות sains, English HEALTHY.

Seines in O.F. Rashi is answering the question: How could ears of grain be described as בריאות (literally: “healthy”)? This applies only to animals, as with the cows before. Rashi answers: In O.F., good ears of grain are called seines, which in Yiddish is frisch. Thus in Hebrew, too, בריאות can apply to both.

שבלים, Ähren, von שבל. Die Begriffsbezeichnung der Kornähre durch שכל ist dunkel. שבל ist offenbar verwandt mit שפל und שול, niedrig und der untere Saum eines Gewandes. Merkwürdigerweise bezeichnet dasselbe Wort שִבלֶת Kornähre und Strudel im Strom. שבלת שטפתני (Ps. 69, 13). Strudel entstehen durch plötzliches Hineinstürzen des strömenden Wassers in eine Tiefe, und somit entfernt sich die Bedeutung Strudel nicht von der Bedeutung des ,"abwärts", die in שול und שפל liegt. Demgemäß wäre auch שביל nicht einfach Weg, sondern ein jählings abwärts führender Weg, im Gegensatz zu מסלה, von ללo, dem aufwärts führenden Pfad. Jirmija 18, 15 in dem Verse: כי שכחוני עמי לשוא יקטרו ויכשילום בדרכיהם שבילי עולם ללכת נתיבות דרך לא סלולה stehen vier verschiedene Bezeichnungen für "Weg" und liegt der Sinn des Satzes nur in der richtigen Würdigung der verschiedenen Nuancen des Begriffes. דרך ist die Bewegung eines Wesens zu einem Ziele überhaupt. אורח der soziale Weg, der den Menschen zum Menschen gesellt. (Daher Jes. 2, 3 ויורנו מדרכיו ונלכה באורחתיו: von den Wegen des jüdischen Individuums, zu denen auch עריות ,מאכלות אסורות usw. gehören, werden nur einige, die sozialen jüdischen Wege aber alle Gemeingut der Völker werden). שביל der abschüssige Weg, den man auch unfreiwillig geht. מסלה der aufwärts führende Pfad, den nur die freie Energie des sittlichen Menschen, nicht aber die Materie geht. נתיב, verwandt mit נרב, ein Pfad, den man aus freier Entschließung einschlägt. Rings um sich sieht der Mensch nur שבילים und zwar שבילי עולם, außer ihm stürzt die Materie jählings dem Ziele zu, folgt blind der Kraft, welche die Wesen führt, und stets und wandellos sieht er diese Gänge unfreier Gebundenheit. "Was hat mein Volk dazu gebracht, mich zu vergessen und dem Nichtigen Weihopfer zu streuen? Die Unfreiheit, die sie überall um sich gewahrten, brachte sie zum Straucheln in ihren Lebenswegen, so dass sie freiwillig den Weg einschlugen, der nicht aufwärts führt." Von Gottes Wegen heißt es: auch sie "führen mit unwiderstehlicher, jäher Kraft; allein sie führen hindurch durch die Fluten auf unsichtbarer Spur!" בים דרכך ושבילך במים רבים ועקבותיך לא נודעו (Ps .77, 20). — Bezeichnet nun שבל einen jähen, plötlichen Zusammensturz von Kräften, so kann vielleicht שבלת, wie Strudel, auch eine plötzliche Entwicklung von Kräften bedeuten, die bis dahin geschlossen zum Ziele strömten, wie dies in der Ähre der Monokothledonen erscheint. Ohne Ansatz und Anzeichen einer Fruchtentwicklung steigt der Halm einfach und einheitlich empor, und plötzlich bildet sich die Krone von allseitig sich entladenden Fruchtkörnern.

ושדופת PARCHED old French hales, (i.e. burnt up by the east wind) — But the Targum renders it by שקיפן קדום beaten upon by the east wind (and so burst open). This Aramaic word שקיפן is of the same root as משקוף a lintel, which is beaten continually by the door which knocks against it.

SPRUNG UP AFTER THEM. Not that he saw them springing up —[although the word tzomchoth is actually in the present tense] — for he saw ripe ears of corn. But the verse is to be interpreted as if it said “they sprang up,” [i.e., tzamchu, which is in the past tense], suggesting that no sooner did he see the full ears than he immediately saw the thin ones coming up after them, for he saw the sign of immediacy in all facets of the dream.

והנה חלום. Just as Yaakov had faced a new reality in 29,25 when he woke up finding that Leah had been his mate in bed, so Pharaoh now faced a new reality, i.e. he found that what he had considered as reality, the images he saw while he had been asleep, had only been a dream.

צומחות אחריהן, “were growing forth after them.” Pharaoh did not actually see these kernels growing in his dream. They were already fully grown when they appeared in his dream. The language used was only meant to show the fact that the good kernels were followed immediately by the windblown ones. The windblown kernels are not described as having all grown on a single stalk, suggesting that each successive one was forecasting that the famine would get worse from year to year

Hasledes in O.F. Rashi [is answering the question:] שידפון is a type of disease, affecting only people, not grain. [So why does it say שדופות]? He answers: In O.F., [afflicted grain] is called hasledes, even though this is a human disease. And so it is in Hebrew. Whereas Onkelos does not translate שדופות as שידפון, but as שקיפן, which means “beaten.” So explains Re’m. But Maharshal writes about this: To me it does not seem so, because in Devarim 28:22 Rashi clearly explains that שידפון is an epidemic affecting grain. It must be that שידפון and שדופות are different, for Rashi cites a different O.F. word here than he does there. And we cannot say that here Rashi is explaining [it in connection with] the wind, because Rashi there explains differently in connection with the wind.

ושדופות קדים, “and parched by the east wind;” the wind coming from the eastern regions is known as kadim. It had been heated by the sun from which it blew in, as the sun there had risen earlier. This is alluded to in the expression קדמה מזרחה, (Exodus 27,13). The reason why the “west” in Hebrew is called: מערב, is that when the sun sets in the west it is evening.

קדים is THE EAST WIND — called bise in old French

The wind from the east which is called bise [in O.F.]. Rashi is answering the question: It is implied here that the east wind is bad, while in Yoma 21b it says that the east wind is the best of all winds and it is a sign of blessing for the world. Thus Rashi explains: “The wind from the east which is called bise.” Rashi is saying that the east has three kinds of winds, and the one called bise is bad.

הבריאות sains in old French; English HEALTHY.

AND PHARAOH AWOKE, AND, BEHOLD, IT WAS A DREAM. The meaning thereof is that “there was a complete dream before him.” Thus the language of Rashi.
In my opinion³⁵Ramban finds a difficulty in Rashi’s interpretation. If the sense of the verse is that Pharaoh felt that an entire dream had been presented to him, why was he not troubled until the following morning? Ramban therefore presents his own interpretation. (Aboab.) the verse alludes to the fact that Pharaoh lay awake, thinking about his dream, wondering whether he will see yet a third manifestation, and when he arose in the morning and had not dreamed again, his spirit was disturbed. This is the meaning of the verse, And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled.³⁶Verse 8 here. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, however, it says, And his spirit was troubled, and his sleep broke from him,³⁷Daniel 2:1. for even the night brought no rest to his mind. The verse mentions, And Pharaoh awoke, in order to indicate a matter stated in the Book of Sleep,³⁸Apparently this book by some unknown medieval author dealt with the art of interpreting dreams. But see Tractate Berachoth 56 a, in connection with a man called Bar Hadya, whose profession was interpreting dreams, where the Talmud relates: “As he went away, his book fell down,” thus indicating that books dealing with this topic were prevalent even in Talmudic times. i.e., that a dream which is followed in the same sleep by another dream with different content is not fulfilled. Therefore the verse says that when he awoke it was a dream fit for fulfillment. Yet he thought about it till morning, that perhaps he will have his dream a third time in the manner in which it had been repeated. But Pharaoh himself realized that the two dreams had the same content. This is why the verse states, And behold, it was a dream. So, likewise, did Pharaoh state it: I have dreamed ‘a dream,’ and none can interpret it,³⁹Verse 15 here. and he did not refer to the plural form, “dreams.” This is also the sense of the verse, And I saw in my dream.⁴⁰Verse 22 here. Scripture however states, But none could interpret ‘them’ to Pharaoh,⁴¹Verse 8 here. meaning that none could interpret even one of them.

והנה חלום, he himself felt that it was all one dream, and that what had been shown him during the second dream was a continuation of the first dream. When he referred to בחלומי, “in my dream,” (sing.) in verse 22 he himself made this point.

וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום, Pharaoh awoke and it had been a dream. It is possible that when Pharaoh dreamed the section about the ears of corn he had not noticed during the dream that he was only dreaming. He may have thought that he was awake due to the extreme clarity with which he saw that scene. After he got up from his sleep, however, he realised in retrospect that he had been dreaming. This is why the Torah had to add: "Pharaoh awoke."

ויקץ פרעה, he awoke briefly between the first dream and the second dream. Had the dreams been one continuous experience without Pharaoh waking up in between, he himself would have understood immediately that the scenario he saw in the second dream was closely related to the scenario he had seen in the first dream. Seeing that there were two separate dreams, this indicated to Joseph that the events foreshadowed would come to pass without delay.

ותבלענה, “they devoured, etc.;” use of the word ותאכלנה has been avoided by the Torah here. The reason is that this word is inappropriate for kernels which were the subject in our verse, as opposed to verse 4 where the consuming of cows is described as their being “eaten,” ותאכלנה. The word ותבלענה is parallel to כבלע את הקודש in Numbers In practice, the windblown kernels grew and enclosed the good ones until the latter were as if they had never existed. Some commentators understand the word ותבלענה as literally meaning that the windblown kernels devoured their healthy counterparts. If so, the expression בליעה instead of אכילה, needs further elaboration. On the words וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום at the end of our verse, Rashi comments that the Torah merely indicates that this was the end of the dream Nachmanides writes that the Torah informs us that Pharaoh was preoccupied with his dream even after having awakened, i.e. realizing that what he had seen was not reality. He was wondering whether he would have a third dream that might enable him to make sense of the first two images. When he finally arose in the morning without having had an additional dream, he became very agitated. This is why the Torah continues with: “it was in the morning, and he proceeded to call in the necromancers of Egypt and all its wise men.” This is quite different from what we are told in Daniel 2,1 about Nevuchdnezzar’s dream. That King’s anxiety is described as ותתפעם רוחו, a more intense kind of agitation and trepidation than that which bothered Pharaoh. Nevuchadnezzar called in the potential interpreters still in the middle of the night, not waiting until a normal hour in the morning.

וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום, “Pharaoh awoke, and here it had been a dream.” Actually, the Torah should have written והנה חלומות, “and here it had been dreams,” seeing that Pharaoh had awoken twice, each time after a different dream. The reason that the Torah wrote חלום, “dream” (sing.) was because Pharaoh himself felt that the two phenomena he had dreamt about were part of one and the same dream. However, he did not understand the message.

A whole dream was complete before him... I.e., the first time [he woke up] he decided to sleep more, perhaps he will dream more, as in fact happened. But the second awakening was at the end of his sleep, close to morning when he would not sleep more. Thus, the dream was complete and required interpreters. [Alternatively: Rashi knows it means this] because והנה [usually] indicates the timing, that it happened just now. But here we cannot say it means: “Behold, the dream was completed after he woke,” because the dream was completed even before he woke, when he saw the ears eating the other ones. [Alternatively,] it seems to me [that Rashi explains it so] because after the first dream Pharaoh may have thought it was completed, but it was not — for it says, “As for the dream being repeated twice to Pharaoh, it is because the thing stands ready...” (v. 32). (Nachalas Yaakov)

ותבלענה השבלים, “the ears swallowed;” the text is not to be understood literally; the meaning appears to be that each successively growing ear of corn completely covered the one that had grown before it, so that it could not be seen by the beholder, but it had not vanished as does the food one swallows. The expression בלע in the sense of “covering” occurs in Numbers 4,20, when the holy vessels being packed before the Israelites broke camp is discussed. According to the Talmud, tractate B’rachot, folio 55, where dreams are discussed at length, the Talmud states that G–d does not send a dream to a person in which he is shown something that does not make any sense, such as an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. This statement is to be understood as an aggadah. The plain meaning of our verse is that Pharaoh believed he had seen the ears of corns being swallowed by their hollowed out counterparts. This is why the Torah had to add that when he awoke he realised that he had not seen something real, but that it was a dream in which one does see such things. Pharaoh could understand that cows eat each other, but he was baffled by ears of corn consuming one another. Hence he was convinced that he had only dreamt, although the dream was very vivid.

ותבלענה השבלים, “the kernels swallowed;” some commentators understand this expression as describing the kernels growing so high that they completely covered the ones which had grown earlier so that they could no longer be seen. The word בלע certainly appears in this sense; of course the word ותבלענה in our verse is not to be understood literally, as G-d does not show people things in dreams which are impossible to occur in reality, such as elephants sliding through the eye of a needle.

והנה חלום AND, BEHOLD. IT WAS A DREAM — and behold a whole dream was completed before him (i.e. representation of what was evidently a completed whole had passed before him as a dream during his sleep) and demanded an interpreter.

והנה חלום, the dream was complete. He did not dream any more during that night.

והנה חלום, “and, behold, it had only been a dream.” From the use of the singular “a dream,” although Pharaoh had seen two distinctly separate visions in his dream, the Torah hints that he himself realized that it had all been part of a single dream, as Joseph was to confirm to him later. The words ואין פותר אותם לפרעה, mean that not even a single one of the necromancers and the wise men had suggested interpretation that appealed to Pharaoh.

והנה חלום, and Pharaoh realised that what he had seen was in a dream. Whenever a person is dreaming, he believes that the images shown him represent reality, and that is why he reacts to them with different degrees of joy or consternation. As soon as he wakes up, he realises that what had so emotionally disturbed him had only been a dream. Proof of this statement can be found in Isaiah 29,8: והיה כאשר יחלום הצמא והנה שותה והקיץ ונפשו שוקקה, “like one who is thirsty and dreams that he is drinking, but when he wakes up he finds himself faint and utterly parched.” Pharaoh was meant to react in a similar manner to the cows he saw consuming cows twice their size without gaining weight. However he waited until Joseph had completed his interpretation. Some commentators point out that as far as the cows in Paraoh’s dream are concerned, we do not even find that the Torah writes that upon awaking he realised that this had been only a dream. [as opposed to the dream with the stalks of kernels of grain.] The reason for this is that it does happen in real life occasionally that one cow eats another cow. Kernels of grain consuming other kernels of grain however, is something that is unheard of.” This is why the Torah added the words: “and here it had been a dream,” to describe Pharaoh’s reaction when awaking. Another interpretation of these two words is that Pharaoh now realised that the dream had ended.

ותפעם רוחו HIS SPIRIT WAS TROUBLED — The Targum renders it by “his spirit was agitated” (beaten upon) — it rang within like a bell (פעמון). With regard to Nebuchadnezzar it states (Daniel 2:1) ותתפעם רוחו (the verb in the Hithpael, thus having a double ת), because in that case there were two reasons for perturbation — his forgetting the dream and his ignorance of its interpretation (Genesis Rabbah 89:5).

ותפעם רוחו; his mind was thoroughly disturbed so that he felt the urgent need to explore the meaning of this dream. We find that King Nevuchadnezzar’s mind was similarly disturbed by a dream when he called in Daniel in Daniel 2,3.after his own experts had failed him. [Of course, on that occasion the king was not even able to recall what he had dreamt and he set his interpreters an impossible task, not like here. Ed.]

ואין פותר אותם, because they all proceeded from the premise that there had been two dreams. They did not realise that in the first part of the dream the focus was on the active causes of producing food, i.e. ploughing by the cows and threshing of the grain before it could release its kernels, whereas in the second half of the dream the focus was on appearance of the product which is converted into food, the stalks of growing corn, as well as its function, i.e. when the ears are empty there is no food.

ואין פותר אותם לפרעה. And no one could give a satisfactory explanation for them to Pharaoh. The reason the Torah speaks of "them" is that they were in fact two dreams. Even though the Torah insists that the dream was one, writing את חלומו, when it came to describing the interpretation the Torah speaks of אותם, meaning there was no interpretation for the two dreams.

ויהי בבוקר ותפעם רוחו, his spirit was broken due to his profound worry about the meaning of this dream. Although he had dreamt in two stages having awoken in between the two sections, he was convinced that the message conveyed by what he had been shown was a single message, that the dream was a single dream containing two parts.

ותפעם רוחו, “his mind was agitated.” He had not forgotten what he had dreamt, as had Nevuchadnezzar. There had been no need for Nevuchadnezzar at the time to recall what he had dreamt as it foreshadowed events long in the future, and no one would have believed Daniel’s interpretation; he was not promoted to a position of prominence on account of his coming up with the interpretation but because he had been able to tell the king what he had dreamt, something the king had been unable to recall until reminded by Daniel. (Daniel chapter 2) In our situation here, it was enough for Joseph to offer the dream’s meaning, as he placed its realization as beginning almost immediately. Some commentators claim that the reason Joseph was believed was precisely because the dream had not been forgotten. Had it been forgotten, any reconstruction of the dream by an interpreter would have to rely on the words of the interpreter, as no one could know if he spoke the truth.

ותפעם רוחו, “his spirit was agitated.” The use of the word פעם, “bell,” suggests that in his mind alarm bells were ringing. When we encounter a similar reaction to a dream by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,1 the text there describes the King’s reaction as ותתפעם רוחו, as if two bells rang in his mind.” The reason is that there it was clear that the king had had two separate dreams, each one of which had alarmed him. In that story the king’s agitation was caused also by his failure to recall precisely what it was he had been dreaming (Daniel 2,5) This too reinforced his agitation, hence ותתפעם רוחו instead of ותפעם רוחו. According to the story in Daniel as understood by Tanchuma Miketz 2, the Kings’s agitation was severe as he had forgotten both the dream and its interpretation. The King threatened to execute his interpreters if they failed to give him satisfactory interpretations and helped him recall the substance of the dream, whereas he promised to reward them generously if they came up with an acceptable explanation (Daniel 2,4-9). Naturally, his interpreters could not do so, but they made the mistake of saying that “no man on earth can do so.”

It beat within him like a פעמון. I.e., ותפעם comes from פעמון. His spirit was beating like a clapper within a bell.

ותפעם, eigentlich: es wurde geklopft, geschlagen. — חרטומי von חרט: die der eingegrabenen Bilderschrift Kundigen. Diese fortwährend in Deutung von Symbolen geübt, waren die Geeignetsten, von welchen die Deutung eines Traumes erwartet werden konnte. — Keiner deutete sie dem Pharao. Schon dadurch, dass sie die Träume nicht als einen auffassten, und an dem Willkürlichen der Deutung fand Pharao Veranlassung, sich durch keine der mannigfachen Deutungen befriedigt zu finden.

ותפעם רוחו, “his mind was disturbed.” Rashi draws our attention to the fact that when the reaction of King Nebuchadnezzar to his dream is described in the Book of Daniel 2,1, the author uses a different conjugation, i.e. ותתפעם which is a combination of the passive and reflexive mode. [The latter could not even remember what he had seen that disturbed him so much. Ed.] His interpreters were required to tell him what he had dreamt as well as what it meant. Pharaoh, on the other hand, had only forgotten the interpretation of what he had seen in the dream. (B‘reshit Rabbah, 89,5.) Even though when relating his dream to potential interpreters he did not let on how deeply he was troubled and he used the same words for his reaction as are reported of Pharaoh, חלום חלמתי ותפעם רוחי, “I have dreamt a dream and my mind is disturbed,” (Daniel 2,3) the difference was that the inability of his interpreters to offer any interpretation was due to the fact that they had not been told what he had dreamt. One of the differences between the two dreams was that Nebuchadnezzar dreamt something that would occur in the distant future, whereas Pharaoh dreamt something that would occur almost immediately. If Daniel had not been able to tell Nebuchadnezar what he had dreamt, he would never have believed the interpretation that Daniel offered him. Seeing that Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream as predicting matters that would occur in the immediate future, he believed him, as otherwise he could have called him a liar within a short time and have dealt with him as a false prophet. As to Nebuchadnezzar having meted out the death penalty to all the interpreters that had failed to interpret his dream, (compare Daniel 2,12) this was partly due to their having said that no human being could interpret his dream, only angels (verse 11). Prophets had been rare already in the time of Samuel; (compare Samuel 3,1) The word ואחרון לא איתי, in Daniel 2,11, should be read as ואהרן לא נמצא, “there is no Aaron nowadays who by means of the urim and tumim in the folds of his breastplate could have secured an answer from G–d to his query.” Nebuchadnezzar, when hearing these words of Daniel, told him that he now remembered about the significance of that breastplate and the urim and tumim. He added that the Jewish people had lost their world because their priests had made unlawful use of that breastplate. This is why he decreed a similar fate for his own priests. (Tanchuma section 2 on our portion)

ותפעם רוחו, “His mind was greatly disturbed;” even though in Daniel 2,3 when a dream of Nebuchadnezzar is reported and he described himself as ותפעם רוחי, “my mind was disturbed,” this was because when the Babylonian soothsayers were called in for consultation, Nebuchadnezzar could not even remember what he had dreamed, as distinct from here where Pharaoh had a clear recollection of the details of his dream. [According to this view, he therefore had no reason to be so agitated. Ed.] Pharaoh had also forgotten the interpretation of his dream, and when Joseph interpreted it he recalled that he also had dreamt this interpretation. This also brought back to the chief of the cup bearers his own experience in jail with Joseph as an interpreter of dreams.

חרטמי ENGRAVERS OF HIEROGLYPHICS — It is a compound word הנחרים בטימי those who excite themselves by means of the bones of the dead — because they enquire of the dead. טימי used in this phrase means bones in Aramaic. In the Misnna we have (Mishnah Oholot 17:3) “a house that is full of טמיא” — full of bones.

וישלח ויקרא, he summoned them by means of messengers.

Bones in Aramaic. Rashi first explains that טימי is Aramaic because he seeks to explain חרטמי as two words: חר, from נחורים, and טומי, from טימי (bones). נחורים could be from נחירים (nostrils), because they would put the bone of a corpse into their nostrils, and it would speak. Or it could be from חום (heat), as in (Yechezkel 24:10), והעצמות יחרו (“And the bones will be burnt”). This is because they would put a bone under their armpit and warm it, and it would speak through sorcery.

The Torah added the apparently unnecessary words לפרעה. The Torah therefore may use the word פרעה as the name of the kingdom, as opposed to it being his personal name. This maybe the reason that when the chief butler addressed Pharaoh, he said: "Pharaoh was angry, etc." It would be most inappropriate for the chief butler to address his king by using his personal name. It is clear therefore that it refers to the kingdom itself. The king was identified with the state. Our view has been confirmed by Rashi on Psalms 34,1. We can now understand why Pharaoh was unwilling to accept the interpretations offered to him by his advisors. Inasmuch as the dream addressed itself to Pharaoh the head of state and not Pharaoh the individual, any interpretations which did not take this fact into consideration did not satisfy him. He felt sure that the dream contained a message of importance for his people. According to one view expressed in Bereshit Rabbah 89 their interpretation was not acceptable "to him;" this interpretation overlooks the fact that the word לו, "to him, does not appear in the text" [I have not found this statement in Bereshit Rabbah 89, Ed.].

ותפעם, “it became agitated;” there is a difference in meaning between the words: ותפעם and ותתפעם. The former describes an emotion which cannot be explained as resulting in a definite action by the person so troubled faking his agitation, whereas the reflexive mode ותתפעם, allows for the subject either to take an action as a result of his agitation or to remain passive. The latter is a rule that applies whenever we encounter the use of the reflexive mode. Compare Deuteronomy 29,18: והתברך בלבבו, “he consoles himself by thinking, etc.” There are numerous examples of this. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,3, the king was in two minds if to reveal the content of what he dreamt, fearing that if he did so, the soothsayers would exploit this to offer each his own interpretation so that he would be forced to choose which to accept without knowing which interpretation to accept. He therefore decided to act as if he had forgotten the content of the dream. Whichever of the soothsayers would both tell him what he had dreamt, and what it meant would surely have offered the correct interpretation. That interpreter must have been inspired by G-d Himself. Whatever that interpreter foresaw would happen as a result of having heard my dream, would surely occur in reality. Pharaoh, on the other hand, who revealed to all what he had dreamt, acted very foolishly, except that he did not threaten to kill the ones who interpreted his dream incorrectly, as did Nebuchadnezzar.

ואין פותר אותם לפרעה AND THERE WAS NONE THAT COULD INTERPRET IT TO PHARAOH — There were, indeed, some who interpreted it, but not in reference to Pharaoh (לפרעה) (i.e., their interpretations had no reference to him as a Pharaoh, as a king), so that their words found no acceptance by him and he was not satisfied with their interpretation. They said: “You will beget seven daughters and you will bury seven daughters” (Genesis Rabbah 89:6).

ואין פותר אותם, none of the them could interpret. The word אותם does not refer to the dreams but is used as in 44,4 הם יצאו את העיר. “they had departed from the city.

He found no relief in their interpretations... But when Yoseif told him the land will have a famine, he found relief, saying this is why Hashem showed it to him — so he could properly prepare the country lest they die in the famine. (Maharshal) [Alternatively,] he found relief because kings’ dreams are not private matters but matters affecting the whole kingdom, or the whole world, as with the dreams of Nevuchadnezzar. (Akeidah) 12

ויספר פרעה להם את חלומו, Pharaoh told them the contents of his dream.” The reason why Nebuchadnezzar was bound to have forgotten the dream itself as opposed to Pharaoh, [seeing that as it turned out both had received messages. Ed.] was that implementation of Pharaoh’s dream would commence almost immediately, whereas that of Nebuchdnezzar’s dream was long delayed. He would not believe Daniel’s interpretation if he had remembered the dream and told it to Daniel. Only the fact that Daniel proved to even have been privy to his dream itself, convinced him that the interpretation was the true one. Joseph, when interpreting Pharaoh’s dream as being in two stages was that it foreshadowed immediate fulfillment of what he had seen symbolised in his dream. This is why he said: וממהר האלוקים לעשותו, “G-d will hasten to carry out what was in your dream. “

ואין פותר אותם, “and there is no one who can interpret them.” The reason was that Pharaoh’s wizards considered the dreams as two separate dreams.

את חטאי אני מזכיר, not because I want to complain that you, O King, had placed me in prison, for it was my sin that caused this

וידבר שר המשקים את פרעה, The chief butler said to Pharaoh saying, etc. The reason the Torah had to add the word לאמור as well as the word את פרעה instead of אל פרעה, maybe that the chief butler did not address the King personally but his advisers. He asked the king's advisers to relay his words to the king. This is the reason that his entire speech is in the third person.

את חטאי, even though it is not good manners for a person to mention the sins he had committed against his sovereign in his presence after the time had passed for forgiveness, in this instance the cup bearer excuses his mentioning these sins as he does so in the king’s interest.

את חטאי, “my sins, etc.” he used the plural form in describing his sin, as he had also been guilty of forgetting the promise he had made to Joseph, something he should have kept at once.

I recall my sins. I was the primary culprit while the baker was secondary, thus Yoseif’s interpretation was not a natural one and could only have been arrived at through Divine inspiration.

את חטאי, “my sins;” the plural mode the cupbearer chose here was to admit his sins against Pharaoh as well as his sin in not fulfilling his promise to Joseph through his forgetfulness.

Another reason he said לאמור את חטאי "to relate my sins," maybe the following. He wanted Pharaoh to be sure not to understand his words as a complaint for having been wrongfully incarcerated, but rather stressed his own insignificance. This is why he emphasised that he had indeed committed a sin. The chief butler added the word היום, "today," to explain that the reason he had come forward now was that there was an overriding need for the information he had to impart. Had this not been the case he certainly would not have brought up his own incongruous past. The reason the chief butler spoke about his sins in the plural, i.e. את חטאי, was that he wanted to convey the impression that although he had committed only one sin, this fact weighed as heavily on him as if he had committed several sins. Perhaps he simply considered that his tardiness in coming forward was an additional sin.

פרעה קצף על עבדיו, the word Pharaoh in Egyptian means “king.” All the Egyptian kings are known as “Pharaoh,” whereas the kings of the Philistines are known as “Avimelech” even as late as the time of King David when the latter pretended to be mentally disturbed (Psalms 34,1) The city of Jerusalem used to be known as “Tzedek,” as we know from Genesis 14,18 as well as Joshua 10,1) During the reign of David, compare Psalms 110,4, G’d refers to Jerusalem as such, seeing that Malki Tzedek is described as “King of Jerusalem. The kings of the nation Amalek were known as “Agag,” [not only the one mentioned in the Book of Samuel. Ed.] (Numbers 24,7, Samuel I 15,8) In our verse here Pharaoh is not the name of an individual but that of the title accorded the Egyptian head of state. The proof for this is simple. Who would dare to address the King by his first name or even by his family name instead of by his title? Certainly not a cup bearer or a recently released prisoner such as Joseph at the time! This is also why Joseph was renamed אברך, meaning אב למלך, “father of the king,” provider. The author of the book לקח טוב has also written in this vein.

אותי ואת שר האופים, even though he already mentioned אותי, I, etc., he repeated this again in the next verse when he spoke about אני והוא, “I and He.” The reason was because of the words he had spoken in the interval. We find a parallel example in Judges 9.19 ואם באמת ובתמים, where these words have been repeated even though the same speaker had used the identical words already in verse 16 in the same speech, on account of what he had been saying in the interval between then and now. Yet another parallel example to the syntax in our verse is found in Nechemyah 4,17 ואין אני ואחי ונערי, “neither I, my brothers, or servants, etc.,” and is repeated verbatim by the same speaker in chapter 5 verse 10 on account of all that he had said in the interval, though it was all part of the same assembly.

פרעה קצף, “Pharaoh had been angry, etc.” It is bad form to call the king by his name, hence one refers to him in the third person even while in his presence. The word “Pharaoh” is not a proper name but a title accorded to the ruler of Egypt.

קצף, verwandt mit קצב, כזב. כזב: wider Erwarten zu Ende gehen, daher auch: täuschen. קצב: mit gewaltsamer Einwirkung Ende, Grenze und Ziel setzen, bestimmen. קצף: mit gewaltiger Erregung einer Sache entgegentreten und ihr ein Ende, oder doch Beschränkung bringen. כסף: sich nach einem Ende sehnen, streben, vergl. כלה כֶסֶף: die Vermittlung, um zu einem Zwecke zu gelangen, das alles vermittelnde Geld. —

ויתן אותי במשמר....ואת שר האופים, “and he placed me in jail, together with chief of the bakers.” Why did the chief of the cup-bearers repeat the word: אותי, “me,” in this verse? I have heard from Rabbi Yehudah the priest, that he said so to Pharaoh in order that he should not think that in his foolishness he had believed that he deserved to be reinstated in his position anymore than did the chief of the bakers who had been hanged. He and the chief of the bakers had always been good friends, they had been together, and he did not feel superior or more deserving. He realised that only due to Pharaoh’s magnanimity had his life been spared at the time.

אותי ואת שר האופים, “me and the chief of the bakers.” Although the cupbearer had already said ויתן אותי, “he placed me, etc.”, he repeated the words אותי ואת שר האופים, omitting the reference to the jail being under the control of the chief executioner, so that it meant that he and the chief of the bakers were in the same part of the jail together. Had they not been treated alike in the jail, Joseph’s prediction of freedom for one and death for the other would not have been remarkable. The fact that these two ministers were assigned the same part of the jail made Joseph’s prediction doubly remarkable. Joseph realized that one of the two had not committed a crime that would qualify for the death penalty.

איש כפתרון חלמו [WE DREAMED] EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM — each of us dreamed a dream that fitted in with the interpretation that was given to us, and was exactly like it (not the kind of irrelevant interpretation offered you by your wise men).

כפתרון חלומו, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 40,5.

(11-12) Der Schenkfürst hatte erfahren, dass es eine Deutung gebe, die, ganz unabhängig von dem Erfolg, sich als richtig ausspricht. Er sagte daher: ich begreife sehr wohl, weshalb dir keine der versuchten Deutungen genügt; es ging uns einst ebenso.

נער עברי עבד A LAD, AN HEBREW, A SLAVE — Cursed be the wicked for the favours they do are never really complete! He mentions him in disparaging language.

TO EACH MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DREAM. He interpreted it in accordance with the dream and consistent with its contents. Thus the words of Rashi. A more correct interpretation would be for Rashi to say that “he interpreted it in accordance with the truth of the dream as it was destined to befall him, for as he interpreted it, so it befell us.” Similar in thought is the verse, Every man according to his blessing he blessed them,⁴²Further, 49:28. In the case of Jacob’s blessing to his sons. i.e., according to the blessing which was destined to come upon him.
But in my opinion there is no need for this. Instead, the verse is stating that “he interpreted his dream for each man, and as he interpreted it to each one, so it came upon us.” The chief of the butlers is thus saying that these were different dreams with different interpretations, as he would explain, so that Pharaoh should not think that the two [the butler and the baker] dreamed one dream having one interpretation. In my opinion, a similar thought is conveyed in the verse, Every man according to his blessing he blessed them,⁴²Further, 49:28. In the case of Jacob’s blessing to his sons. meaning that he did not bless them with one blessing common to all, but with a unique blessing for each one, as he explained to each son and spoke to him.

איש כחלומו פתר, “according to the meaning of the dream he interpreted.” [this could only be said with hindsight, of course, after the interpretation had proven itself as correct. Ed.] The words following prove this.

נער, seeing that he performed personal valet duties for them in the prison he referred to him as a נער, [describing his function. Ed.] He added that Joseph was also עבד לשר הטבחים, he had been informed about Joseph’s immediate past before he was thrown into jail. He gave this information so that anyone enquiring about him would know the name of the person they were trying to locate.

A fool, and is not fit for greatness. I.e., נער in gematria equals שוטה.

נער עברי, עבד, “a Hebrew lad, a slave;” the chief of the cupbearers was afraid that he might become the cause of Joseph being promoted to an elevated status if he succeeded in interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams. Therefore, he mentioned two adjectives that should militate against any promotion for him, a) his youth and inexperience, b) his status as a slave. An alternate explanation: he wanted to protect himself against the accusation why he had not come forward before with the information he revealed now. This is why he explained that Joseph had two strikes against him; 1) youth, 2) status as slave.

נער a lad, unwise and unfitted for a high position.

איש כחלומו, the prefix ל is missing here in front of the word איש. The word איש has to be understood as if the cup-bearer had said: לאיש, meaning that each of the two received an interpretation tailored to his particular dream. One dream had been appropriate for a cup-bearer, the other for a baker. One dream dealt with a drink, the other with food, baked goods.

He does not even know our language. And surely not other languages. And it is written in the laws of Egypt that the ruler must know seventy languages; see Sotah 36b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

עברי a Hebrew, who does not even know our language;

And it is written in the laws of Egypt that a slave can never rule... [Rashi knows this] because the word “slave” is also superfluous. Once it was said that there was a Hebrew lad in the prison, why mention also that he was a slave? Surely, no Hebrew lad was there other than Yoseif. Perforce, the word “slave” is to be expounded.

עבד a slave — and it is written in the laws of Egypt that a slave may neither become a ruler nor dress in princely robes (Genesis Rabbah 89:7).

איש כחלמו EACH MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DREAM — He interpreted in accordance with the dream and approximating to its contents.

השיב על כני HE RESTORED UNTO MY OFFICE — he means Pharaoh who was mentioned before, where it is said (v. 10) “Pharaoh was wroth with his servants”. The phrase is elliptical not stating explicitly who restored, for it is not necessary to state explicitly who restored: obviously he who has the power to restore viz, Pharaoh. This is the ease with all elliptical sentences — they leave the matter indefinite as to who has to do the action (i.e. they omit the subject of the verb).

AND IT WAS AS HE INTERPRETED ETC. Me he restored to my post.

אותי השיב על כני, “me he restored to my position,” according to the plain meaning the word השיב refers to Pharaoh as being the one who restored the cupbearer to his former position. Other commentators consider Joseph as the subject of the word השיב, seeing that we have a tradition that the words of the interpreter determine the meaning of the dream, (Berachot 55) i.e. that Joseph’s interpretation set in motion the release of the cupbearer. Accordingly, Joseph had held the fate of both the chief of the bakers and the cupbearer in his hands when he offered his interpretation.

מן הבור OUT OF THE DUNGEON — from the place of imprisonment which was made as a kind of pit Similarly, wherever בור occurs in Scripture it signifies a pit — even though it does not contain water (for בור is used of a cistern, excavated as a pit out of rocks) it is still called a בור; old French fosse.

They hurried him. A miraculous deliverance always transpires with haste. So it was when the Israelites left Egypt (see Shemos 12:39), and so will it be when Yisrael is redeemed from the current exile.

ויריצוהו מן הבור, they removed him from jail in haste seeing that Royal commands are always carried out promptly and as a matter of priority.

ויריצוהו מן הבור, “they rushed him from the pit.” In view of the earlier statement that Joseph had the run of the whole jail, and that the warden did not interfere with anything he did, (39,21-23) it sounds strange that Joseph had to be rushed from “the pit.” We may assume that when the warden heard that Pharaoh had sent for Joseph, he did not know if this portended something positive or negative. In the event that it spelled doom for Joseph, the warden did not want to appear as if he had favoured a prisoner slated for execution. Therefore, upon receiving the king’s summons, the warden first placed Joseph into the pit appropriate for all the other prisoners. In retrospect this was most appropriate, as it means that Joseph who had been incarcerated in a pit before the warden decided to make use of his intelligence, would now rise overnight from the lowest of the low to the second highest office in the world, i.e. viceroy to Pharaoh the world’s most powerful ruler. The fact that Pharaoh had exhausted all other means of having his dream interpreted satisfactorily, also contributed to the almost unbelievable reversal of his fortune.

וירצהו מן הבור, “and they rushed him from the dungeon.” Tanchuma Miketz 3 applies to this the words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi “out of a narrowly confined space into a spacious area; from darkness into bright light; from the disgrace suffered by the righteous to princedom.” All of this has been described by Solomon in Proverbs 30,32: with the words “if you have suffered disgrace you will be elevated.” We find that Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were similarly elevated after first having suffered disgrace (compare Daniel 3,21-30 where these men are described as being thrown into a fiery furnace only to be saved from the fire miraculously. Subsequently they were elevated to high office). We find that Mordechai, after he had worn sackcloth and ashes to get the Jewish people to become penitents and to head off the evil decree of Haman (Esther 4,1 and 8,15), was subsequently elevated to be the Persian king’s first minister. Even Daniel, who was out of favour with King Darius, was thrown into a den of lions (Daniel 6,18) before being saved and subsequently raised to great influence at the court of said King. He had revealed the impending downfall of the Babylonian Empire to the Persians when he was able to decipher the meaning of the famous “writing on the wall” to King Belshazzar (Daniel 5,16). Joseph’s sudden elevation was similar and is described in Kohelet 4,14 as “from the prison house he emerged to reign,” and in the words of our sages in Shemot Rabbah 1,9, the words ועלה מן הארץ, which Pharaoh said worrying about a sudden rise to power by the Israelites (Exodus 1,10) were also inspired by the recollection of how a Jewish slave had suddenly risen to power in Egypt.”

From the prison... Rashi explained this so we will not think that after the butler got out of prison, Yoseif was put into a בור (i.e., an actual pit). Thus Rashi explains that בור and prison mean the same. And we need not ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it was an actual pit? For [the answer is:] It is writtenוירצוה מן הבור . And ריצה (literally: “running”) is not the right term for [exiting] a pit. Rather the proper term is משיכה (pulling out), as it is written (37:28): וימשכו את יוסף מן הבור.

Wir dürfen auf alle Züge aufmerksam sein, die uns Josef charakterisieren. Die Hofbedienten wollen ihn rasch herausholen zum Könige. Es gilt ja den König zu beruhigen, und war er doch nur ein verachteter gefangener Sklave. Er aber lässt sich Zeit, scheert sich, wechselt erst seine Kleider — (es kommt nur noch einmal הַלֵף שמלתיו im Piel vor: Sam. II. 12, 20 und auch dort geschah es unter Widerspruch oder doch Missbilligung der Umgebung). — Er eilt auch nicht, er "kommt" zum Pharao. Er hat volles Bewusstsein seiner Persönlichkeit und seiner Sendung. Das machte ihn eben, wie wir gesehen, zum חכם, dass er jede Persönlichkeit, jedes Verhältnis, und so auch jede Lage in der ganzen Schärfe ihrer Besonderheit erfasste.

ויחלף שמלותיו, “he changed his clothing.” Our sages saw a hint in these two words that Joseph was brought before Pharaoh on Rosh Hashanah, as stated by the Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 11. The numerical value of the letters in these two words is the same as in the words: בחד בתשרי on the first day of the month of Tishrey (Rosh Hashanah) Our author questions this as the word שמלותיו has the letter ו missing in the middle of the word.

ויגלח AND HE CLIPPED HIS HAIR, out of respect for the king (Genesis Rabbah 89:9).

ויחלף שמלותיו. It is forbidden to appear in the Royal palace clad in sackcloth, prisoner’s garb. [we know this already from Esther chapter 4 when Mordechai, to the consternation of Esther, approached the palace dressed in sackcloth.

ויגלח ויחלף שמלותיו, admission to the presence of the king is conditional on both body and attire being in first class condition.

It was made as a sort of pit... Before it is written (39:20) that they put Yoseif in prison, whereas here it is written, “They hurried him out of the בור (literally: ‘pit’).” Therefore Rashi explains that the prison “was made as a sort of pit.” (Maharshal)

Even if it does not contain water it is called בור... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise his clothes would be wet. He obviously would have to change them regardless of respect to royalty. In which case, why does it need to say, “He changed his clothes”? Thus Rashi explains that בור means prison, so it did not contain water. And why did Yoseif change his clothes? Perforce, out of respect to royalty. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Out of respect to royalty. [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif would not have shaved out of celebration, for he did not yet know how he would be judged, as he had not yet come before Pharaoh. And who knows if he would be able to interpret [the dream]?

תשמע חלום לפתר אותו — means thou payest heed to and UNDERSTANDEST A DREAM TO INTERPRET IT.

תשמע חלום, you understand a dream and are able to explain its meaning.

תשמע חלום לפתור אותו, that you understand the principles involved in dreams so that you can use your knowledge to interpret them, not just by a haphazard guess.

ופותר אין אותו "and no one can interpret it." This means that there were numerous interpreters but none that he considered satisfactory to him. He did not consider the interpretations to be appropriate to his dream.

ויאמר..לאמר; people say that you understand the meanings of a dream and are able to interpret it correctly.

ואני שמעתי עליך לאמור תשמע חלום לפתור אותו, “I have heard it said about you that you only have to hear a dream and you already are able to interpret it.” The word שמע, normally translated as “hear,” really means “to hear and understand.” Already in Deut. 6,6 where Moses said “Hear O Israel the Lord our G’d the Lord is One,” the true meaning of the word שמע is not just “hear!,” but “hear and understand!” Pharaoh meant that Joseph had the intelligence and wisdom to interpret a dream. We find the same expression when Belshazzar said in Daniel 5,16 ואנה שמעת עליך די תוכל, “but I have heard about you that you are able to provide interpretation known to me.”

השמע חלום, nicht תדע. Ich habe von dir gehört, "du hörst den Traum so an, dass du ihn von innen heraus erschließest". Es kommt eben auf das rechte Hören an. Von zehn, die eine Rede oder eine Geschichte hören, hört sie oft jeder anders, und nur einer richtig.

תשמע means understanding and paying heed to. Examples are: (42:23) “Joseph (שומע) understood”; (Deuteronomy 28:49) “[a people] whose tongue thou shalt not understand (תשמע)”. old French entendre.

תשמע, this means the same here as “you will understand.” The root שמע appears meaning the same in Deuteronomy 28,49 גוי אשר לא תשמע לשונו, “a people whose language you do not understand.”

ואני שמעתי עליך, "and I have heard concerning you, etc." Here too the word לאמור needs explaining. Besides, why did Pharaoh have to say תשמע "you will hear the dream?" Isn't it obvious that Joseph could not be expected to interpret a dream he had not been told yet?"

Actually, the Torah described that Pharaoh was very clever, trying to commit Joseph to interpret the dream by not giving him any excuses not to do so. He told him that he had been told that Joseph himself had described himself as an interpreter of dreams. Now he either had to interpret Pharaoh's dream or admit that he was a swindler and had interpreted dreams incorrectly. When Pharaoh said to Joseph: "I have heard it said about you that you listen to a dream and interpret it," he meant that this was what Joseph himself had claimed. Pharaoh was partially correct; Joseph had indeed invited the chief butler and the chief of the bakers to "tell" him their dreams so that he could interpret them (40,7). It may be assumed that the chief butler reported the events to Pharaoh faithfully. It is also possible that Pharaoh surmised that his senior ministers would not have volunteered to tell a Hebrew slave their dreams unless they had been invited to do so. Now Joseph had to interpret Pharaoh's dream in order to justify his reputation.

בלעדי NOT I— (the word is compounded of בל and עדי, it does not extend to me) The wisdom to interpret dreams is not my own, but God will answer — He will put in my mouth an answer that will be for Pharaoh’s welfare.

בלעדי, this matter does not depend on me but on G’d; He may let me know how to put your mind at ease.

בלעדי. Even though you have said ופותר אין אותו, that there is no one who knows how to interpret it, as if I were the only exception who possesses the necessary wisdom, I am convinced that there is certainly someone beside me who knows the answer.

ויען יוסף את פרעה לאמור, Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, etc. The word "לאמור" here refers to Pharaoh's claim that Joseph claimed he only had to hear a dream and he already had its interpretation ready. בלעדי, "this does not depend on me." Joseph corrects the impression Pharaoh entertained about him. He explains that G'd knows the interpretations of dreams and informs certain human beings of this. The same had taken place when Joseph had told the chief butler and the chief of the bakers that the interpretations were G'd's, not his. He had invited those men to tell him their dreams in the hope that an interpretation could be found. He had never claimed an exclusive on that knowledge. This is also why he added: אלוקים יענה, "G'd may provide the answer." He added the word שלום in order to warn Pharaoh not to take offence if perchance the interpretation would not be to his liking and would presage something unpleasant. He should not accuse Joseph on the basis of "the dreams follow the interpretation chosen by the mouth" (of the interpreter). Even if he were to come up with an interpretation that forecast trouble, he was only G'd's mouthpiece, the source was G'd.

בלעדי, “I cannot do this based on my intelligence.

בלעדי, אלוקי יענה את שלום פרעה, “this is not up to me; may G’d provide a reply which will put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” Ibn Ezra says that seeing Pharaoh had asked Joseph to interpret the dream, Joseph told him that the interpretation was not up to him, but that it was up to G’d. He was confident that G’d would put Pharaoh’s mind at rest when he would hear the interpretation. One could also understand Joseph’s words to simply mean that there is a greater interpreter of dreams than he, namely G’d, with whom the dream originated. He wished and prayed that G’d would put Pharaoh’s mind at rest. Seeing that Joseph had given G’d credit by prefacing his interpretation with the word בלעדי, “it is not up to me,” this word is repeated when Pharaoh appoints him to high office and adds that without Joseph’s approval, בלעדיך, “without your (approval) no one will lift a foot in this country. (verse 44).”

This wisdom is not mine, but God will answer... [Rashi knows this] because here it cannot mean as it did in (14:24), “Except (בלעדי) what the lads have eaten.” Here, how could it mean: “Except for Hashem”? It also cannot mean, “Rather, Hashem will respond,” because Yoseif indeed intended to interpret the dream for him. Perforce, בלעדי consists of two words: בלי (not), and עדי, which means “from me,” as Rashi explains.

בלעדי: "das ist nicht bis zu mir", dazu bin ich viel zu geringe, als dass ich solches von mir zugestehen dürfte.

אלוקים יענה, G’d will provide the answer, i.e. whatever I will interpret has been revealed to me by G’d.

אלוקים יענה, G’d will provide the answer and thereby put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” The meaning of the word יענה here is similar to Kohelet 5,19 מענה בשמחת לבו, “G’d provides him with the joy of his heart.” He will display goodwill and His concern with Pharaoh’s peace of mind. Or, Joseph may have meant that G’d will put in my mouth words which will provide Pharaoh with peace of mind. This would be analogous to Proverbs 16,1 ומה' מענה לשון, “but the answer of the tongue comes from G’d.”

Joseph may also have had something quite different in mind when he said: "may G'd answer the peace of Pharaoh." He emphasised that in contrast with ordinary interpreters who are able to bend the meaning of the dream according to their choice, he, Joseph, could not do so. He could only relate the objective meaning of what Pharaoh had seen in his dream. [Berachot 56 lists a variety of dreams and how the interpretation which seemed to contradict the impression left on the dreamer came true, thus proving that much depends on the person who interprets the dream. Ed.]

את שלום פרעה, I will utter words which will restore Pharaoh’s peace of mind, seeing that the realisation of matters foretold in a dream is determined largely by the words of the interpreter. (Berachot 55)

וידבר, we have already written that when someone repeats something he has said previously he is apt to either add something to the previous version, or he is apt to omit something he had mentioned in the previous version. The speaker, generally, is concerned only with conveying the same meaning as he had conveyed the first time he said the same thing. The same is thing is true of someone relating a dream he had more than once.

Es ist interessant, diese Erzählung des Traumes aus Pharaos Mund mit obigem Bericht über den wirklichen Vorgang zu vergleichen. Oben haben wir den Traum objektiv, hier, wie er sich in Pharaos Seele abspiegelt, und wie er ihn wieder reproduziert. Wir werden daraus zugleich erkennen, wie die חרטומים, selbst wenn sie חכמים gewesen, auf falsche Fährte geleitet wurden. Jede Erzählung, mit Ausnahme der תורה, trägt eine subjektive Färbung, den Eindruck nämlich, den das Ereignis auf den Erzählenden gemacht. Wenn Gott jemandem etwas im Traume mitteilen will, so treibt er kein neckisches Spiel, ihm etwa ein Rätsel aufzugeben; seine Sprache, auch in Bildern, ist klar. Pharao aber hatte Wesentliches verwischt. In der Wirklichkeit des Traumes stand Pharao על היאר, sinnend am Flusse, und in dieser Betrachtung der Bedeutung des Flusses liegt der ganze Schlüssel zum Traume; in seiner Erzählung steht er על שפת היאר und erscheint das als bloße Szenerie. Im Traume waren die Kühe יפות מראה ובריאות בשר, schön von Ansehen und gesund von Fleisch, beides gehört zusammen und bezeichnet sie von vornherein in ihrem Werte für den Menschen. Pharao erzählt יפות תואר, sie waren schön von Gestalt. Auf Symmetrie des Gliederbaues sieht aber kein Metzger, sieht ein Symboliker und Maler, und darum hatten auch die חרטומים auf alles Mögliche raten können, sieben Töchter, sieben Provinzen usw. Ebenso bei den magern Kühen. Oben sind sie רעות מראה ודקות בשר, sind für den Menschen schlecht und versprechen ihm nicht viel Fleisch. Hier sind sie דלות "armselig", רעות תואר "schlecht von Gestalt" und דקות הבשר "beschränkt" an Fleisch. רַק ist nicht רֵיק leer, sondern wie רַק die beschränkende Partikel (und umgekehrt גַם von גמה und גמא reichlich in sich aufnehmen, die erweiternde Partikel) ist, somit: beschränkt an Fleisch, alles Epitheta, die mehr die Beschaffenheit der Tiere an sich, als in ihrem Werte für den Menschen vergegenwärtigen. (רקק verwandt mit רכך weich, zart sein, daher auch רק die erweichende Flüssigkeit: der Speichel). Er erzählt auch nicht, dass sich die Schlechten zuerst neben die Guten an den Rand des Flusses gestellt haben, woraus hervorgegangen wäre, dass sie nur aus Hunger, und weil keine Weide mehr da war, die Guten aufgezehrt. — Der Eindruck der schlechten Tiere und Ähren muss ein weit stärkerer gewesen sein, als der der guten. Pharao häuft bei ihnen die Attribute, um den Eindruck, den sie auf ihn gemacht, genügend zu schildern, und hebt die Beschaffenheit der schlechten Ähren ihm die Güte der vorangehenden noch mehr hervor, so, dass er diese אחריהם, mascul. bezeichnet.

בריאת בשר ויפות מראה, “of healthy flesh and handsome appearance.” When these cows were mentioned in verse two they were described as יפות מראה ובריאות בשר. This is only one of the minor changes in language that we encounter between the objective report of the dream by the Torah and by the more subjective manner in which Pharaoh tells Joseph of the impressions he formed while dreaming. We have already drawn attention to the fact that the Torah described Pharaoh as dreaming that he stood above the river Nile, whereas when he relates his dream he described himself as standing on the banks of the river. This is why according to Tanchuma Miketz 3 Joseph actually corrected Pharaoh saying to him: “you did not see בריאות בשר ויפות תואר, but you saw יפות מראה ובריאות בשר. According to the Midrash, Joseph similarly corrected Pharaoh’s account of what the ears of corn had looked like in his dream. Upon hearing Joseph’s version of his dream, Pharaoh was dumbfounded and was forced to admit that אחרי הודיע אלו-הים אותך את כל זאת, “after G’d has informed you of all this, etc.” (verse 39). He meant that Joseph himself must have been in his dream how else could he have had such detailed knowledge of it. When Yaakov blessed Joseph on his deathbed (Genesis 49,22), he referred to this incident when he said; בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין, (freely translated) “Joseph had ample knowledge of the cows, he set his eye on it.” [He meant that Joseph’s rise to power had been occasioned through his intimate knowledge of the meaning of the cows in Pharaoh’s dream. Ed.]

דלות means LEAN, as (2 Samuel 13:4) “Why art thou thus becoming (דל) lean?” which occurs in the narrative of Amnon.

לא ראיתי כהנה, Pharaoh meant that such a dream as he had did not reflect anything that he might have thought about during the preceding day, as is usual for most dreams. For what he had seen in his dream was beyond anything he had ever experienced while awake. (compare Daniel 2,29). [the novelty of Seforno’s approach is that he does not understand the word כהנה as referring merely to the frightening appearance of the lean cows. Ed.]

ורקות בשר, with the letter ר instead of the letter ד the meaning is derived from רקק, as in רקיקי מצות, in Exodus 29,2 where it means “unleavened wafers.” [the author refers to the thinness of wafers describing the thinness of the flesh on these cows. Ed.]

Meaning lean, as in... I.e., דלות does not mean impoverished.

ורקות בשר, “of poor quality flesh.” The descriptions of these cows/ears of corn as either רקות or דקות are nuances of רעות, how poorly they appeared to Pharaoh in his dream. [Personally, I have always thought that by varying the adjectives applicable, Pharaoh wanted to test Joseph to see if he had really been shown his dream by G–d. Ed.]

דלות ורעות תואר מאד ורקות בשר, “very thin, badly formed, and meatless;” in verse 20,27, both the cows and the stalks that were inferior are described as רקות, instead of as דקות. The reason that Pharaoh’s dream is spelled out twice was as compliment to Joseph.

ורקות בשר AND LEAN-FLESHED — wherever רקות is found in Scripture it means spare (literally, deficient) of flesh; old French flouet.

All terms of רקות that appear in Scripture [refer to] lacking of flesh. Meaning: the words אך and רק always come to exclude something. Here, too, רקות comes to exclude. What does it exclude? Flesh. It does not mean רֵק (empty), because that word is missing the middle letter of the root [and thus would not take a dagesh in the ק].

הרקות , the ones mentioned as possessing only a thin layer of flesh as in verse 19.

ולא נודע כי באו אל קרבנה, thus Pharaoh said to Joseph at this time; he only now remembered that at the time that he had been dreaming it had appeared to him as if there was no trace of these seven fat cows having come into the lean cows. However, at the time when he had dreamt, i.e. when the Torah told us what he had dreamt it would not have been appropriate to describe anything beyond the facts, i.e. that the lean cows had eaten the fat cows. At that point in the narrative there had been no call to describe Pharaoh’s subjective reaction to what he had seen.

ולא נודע כי באו אל קרבנה, analogous to the warning in Leviticus 26,26 that even when the Israelites would have food, eating it would not satiate them. We also have a statement by our sages describing the effect of food on those who have it (in the fridge) as being different than for those who run out immediately after having eaten their last provisions. The latter cannot feel the effect of what they have eaten because they do not know where their next meal will come from. (Yoma 74)

ולא נודע, concerning this comment of Pharaoh’s narrative Joseph said in verse 31 that ולא יודע השבע that during the years of famine the abundance of food during the preceding 7 years will not even be something people could remember.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ואין מגיד לי. He noted that all his professional wise men proceeded from the premise that they had to interpret two separate dreams. Pharaoh, however, was convinced that it was one dream as he himself had said when telling it and introducing his narrative in verse 22 with the word בחלומי, “in my dream.” (sing.)

I have told my sorcerers, but nobody can explain it to me - All this seems unnecessary [ed. that he has told his sorcerers]. [It also seems unnecessary] that he as already said nobody could explain it. Furthermore, we must investigate why the Sages (חכמים) aren't mentioned, because it says (Genesis 41:8) that he also sent for the Sages. Rather, this is simply referring to the question that Pharaoh asks Joseph. Joseph was wondering why Pharaoh hadn't consulted with his sorcerers, and Pharaoh responds that he had but they couldn't answer him. And from there, there's no cause to wonder about [why] the Sages (חכמים) [were not mentioned] because their wisdom wasn't sufficient enough to understand the deep details of such a dream. But the sorcerers who made magic needed such details in order to interpret the dream, and if so, it is obvious that [he didn't need to mention the Sages]. [summary - the Sages and the sorcerers needed each other to properly interpret the dream, and thus the fact that one of them couldn't do anything logically implies the other couldn't as well].

אשר האלוקים עושה, He has told Pharaoh what He will do in the near future. One king spoke to another king, seeing that the king is charged with making provisions against all eventualities.

41, 25. חלום פרעה אחד הוא, and this is why all your interpreters have failed to come up with the correct answer.

את האלוקים עושה הראה לפרעה. "G'd has informed Pharaoh of what He is about to do." Berachot 55 mentions that there are three matters concerning which G'd Himself makes public annoucements; abundance of crops, famine, and a good leader. The Torah informs us that G'd had informed Pharaoh in his dream concerning all these three matters. There would be a period of abundance of agricultural products; there would come a famine; Pharaoh was given a chance to appoint a leader who could head off the impact of the famine. Even though Joseph did not mention who that person should be, the fact that G'd had withheld the interpretation of the dream from all other potential candidates for such leadership and had brought Joseph to Pharaoh's attention through the chief butler who had told him what happened to him, made Joseph a natural choice for this appointment. When the Torah says: הגיד לפרעה, this means that G'd gave Pharaoh the means to make the necessary provisions. Joseph himself spelled this out for Pharaoh in verse 33.

את אשר אלוקים עושה, “that which G-d is about to do etc.;” what He wishes to do in His world He has revealed to Pharaoh, seeing that he is a king and has been charged with looking after his people, He has provided him with a means to do his duty.

את אשר אלוקים עושה הגיד לפרעה, the fact that G’d gave Pharaoh advance knowledge of what He was about to do is another reason that your interpreters could not come up with the right interpretation.

שבע שנים ושבע שנים SEVEN YEARS AND SEVEN YEARS —all together they are only seven years (not fourteen); and the reason why the dream was repeated is because the thing is ready to happen as he expressly stated to him afterwards (v. 32) “And for that the dream was doubled etc.” With reference to the seven good years it says (v. 25) “[What He is about to do] God hath declared unto Pharaoh”, because it (that period) was close at hand; whilst in the case of the seven years of famine it states (v. 28) “He hath shown unto Pharaoh” — because this thing was distant and far off (as regards time) the proper word to use in reference to it is “showing”.

The dream being repeated twice is because the thing... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif interpret that this was one dream? Being that one [dream] was with cows and the other with ears, it surely must be two dreams! Therefore Rashi explains that it was [one dream but was] repeated [because of its imminence].

THEY SHALL BE SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE. Since plentifulness in the land of Egypt is not a great novelty since the country is as the garden of the Eternal,⁵²Above, 13:10. Joseph first mentioned the interpretation concerning the bad events, for it was this that constituted the novelty and the purpose of the dream. G-d in His mercy showed the famine to Pharaoh to save life for a great deliverance.⁵³See further, 45:7. This is the sense of the verse, And the seven years of famine began to come, according as Joseph had said,⁵⁴Verse 54 here. for the truth of Joseph’s words was not realized until the years of famine.

יהיו שבע שני הרעב, "there will be seven years of famine." The reason that Joseph did not describe the seven years of plenty as such in verse twenty six was simply that even during the present period food was plentiful in Egypt. The great plenty that would characterise the next seven years was not such a contrast to the existing conditions. The only thing that was different was that the adjective גדול could be applied to those years of שבע (verse 29). Joseph stressed only what would be radically different from the present.

ושבע הפרות הרקות, the word הרקות is again derived from רקיק, wafer, as on the previous occasions it was mentioned.

יהיו שבע שני רעב, “will be seven years of famine.” Joseph commenced his interpretation by mentioning the famine which it predicted, although in the dream the seven good years appeared first. He did so, seeing that Egypt was a land blessed with an abundant food supply, one which was taken for granted by its citizenry, and therefore mentioning it first would not have served as a warning signal. After all, G’d would not have sent Pharaoh a message advising him that seven good years were in store for his country. The principal message of the dream was to beware of the forthcoming famine and not to be lulled into a false sense of security by the seven good years. Another reason why Joseph zeroed in on the seven years of famine was that the accuracy of his interpretation could not be ascertained until then. Nobody would have cheered Joseph for predicting seven years of plenty.

יהיו שבע שני רעב, “will be seven consecutive years of famine.” The word יהיו should be understood as a prayer by Joseph, who was aware that actually 42 years of famine had been decreed for Egypt. How did Joseph know this? You will note that the number שבע appeared in Pharaoh’s dream 6 times. Twice seven when Pharaoh had the dream, once with the cows, once with the ears of corn. The same was repeated when he related his dream to his interpreters. It was repeated again when he related the dream to Joseph. Joseph’s prayer achieved that the 42 years which had been decreed were shrunk to only seven years. The arrival of Joseph’s father Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing to Pharaoh reduced the famine further so that it lasted only two years. The 40 years that were chopped off the decree did not disappear but were “paid back” to Egypt in later years as we know from Jeremiah that Egypt experienced 40 years of total drought predicted by that prophet. (Ezekiel 29,9 and 12)

יהיו שבע שני רעב, “will be seven years of famine.” Joseph started with the prediction of the famine first, as he wanted to show him the problem before revealing the solution.

השבלים הרקות, here the word הרקות is derived from the word ריק, empty, as in והבור רק אין בו מים, “the pit was empty, it did not contain water.” (Genesis 37,24)

Inasmuch as the increased harvests during the coming seven years were merely designed to offset the lack of harvests during the seven years following, Joseph did not describe those years at once. The major message of the dream was the eventual famine.

הוא הדבר, it is the forthcoming famine which I described as the advance information given by G’d to Pharaoh in order to ward off the danger that the famine would destroy Egypt.

הקדים as if the Torah had written קדמאה, “the one previously mentioned in verse 25.” הגיד, “He showed Pharaoh in his dream,” instead of spelling it out to him.

הראה את פרעה, the years of plenty, to give you an idea of how to save your people from the devastating effects of the famine.

שבע גדול; the word שבע being a noun here and not a participle, has the vowels kametz under both the letters ש and ב, seeing the stress is on the last syllable. Other similar examples are the words דבר, davar, בקר, bakar, רעב, raav. and numerous more such examples.

הנה שבע שנים באות שבע גדול, "There are seven years coming of great plenty, etc." Joseph stressed that these plentiful harvests would be experienced "in the whole land of Egypt," and again mentioned בארץ מצרים, in the land of Egypt in the following verse, whereas he could have simply that בארץ, "on earth." He wanted to make it clear that whereas the plenty would be found only in the land of Egypt, the subsequent famine would be world wide. This is why he said וכלה הרעב את הארץ, "the famine will destroy the earth," when he described the effect of the famine. We find confirmation of all this (41,56) where the Torah describes the famine as extending all over the earth. When describing the effect of the years of plenty, however, the Torah merely speaks of "the seven years of plenty in the land of Egypt came to an end (41,53)." This shows clearly that the abundant harvests occurred only in Egypt itself. Were it not so the words "in the land of Egypt" would be misleading. Joseph realised all this by the appearance of the cows. When the lean cows were described as so exceptionally thin and poorly, this could not have been so if the whole earth had experienced abundance in the years preceding the famine. Egypt could then have imported food which the other countries had accumulated during the years of plenty. It was therefore clear to Joseph that the famine would be world wide whereas the plentiful years would be restricted to the land of Egypt.

ונשכח כל השבע AND ALL THE PLENTY SHALL BE FORGOTTEN — this is the interpretation of the act of swallowing.

ונשכח כל השבע , similar to the expression used before ולא נודע in verse 21.

ולא יודע השבע AND THE PLENTY SHALL NOT BE KNOWN — this is the interpretation of (v. 21) “And it could not be noticed that they had eaten them up”.

This is the interpretation of “But it could not be recognized...” You might ask: [Rashi says that ולא יודע השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up.] Why did Rashi not explain that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up? Rather, he says [on v. 30] that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the ears of corn being swallowed up. The answer is: ולא נודע כי באו אל קרבנה, said of the cows in v. 21, is from the root of הודעה, and so is ולא יודע השבע here. Therefore, Rashi connects them. However, ונשכח is not from הודעה, therefore Rashi connects it with the ears being swallowed up.

נכון —means PREPARED.

AND FOR THAT THE DREAM WAS REPEATED UNTO PHARAOH TWICE. The verse is explaining the reason for the repetition of the dream — i.e., that it occurred twice in one night⁵⁵Ramban’s intent is to point out that there are two aspects to the dreams. They depicted two subjects — the cows and the ears of corn — and they were shown in two separate dreams although they might have been shown to Pharaoh in one continuous dream. Ramban will explain that these double aspects indicated two things: the fulfillment of the dream and its speedy realization. — although it would have been possible for both the cows and the ears of corn to be shown in one dream and make known that there shall neither be plowing nor harvest.⁵⁶As Ramban explained above, at the beginning of Verse 2, the cows symbolize the plowing, and the ears of corn the harvest. Yet He showed them in two separate dreams, one after another, in one night — an unusual circumstance for dreamers in order to make known that the matter is prepared, and G-d hasteneth to do it. This is the meaning of the word pa’amayim (twice) as the dreams concerning the cows and the ears of corn were not presented at one time.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that the repetition of the theme of the dream — through the medium of the cows and the ears of corn — attested to the fact that the matter is set and established. And the fact that the dream occurred twice in one night attested that G-d hasteneth to do it. But if so,⁵⁷That is, if both the cows and the ears of corn symbolize, as is the opinion of Ibn Ezra, that the matter is set and established, and not as Ramban has it, i.e., that the cows symbolize that there will be no plowing, and the ears of corn that there will be no harvest, what was the necessity of the dream about the cows? The dream concerning the corn would have indicated the impending famine, and showing that G-d hasteneth to do it could have been accomplished by repeating the same dream. we would say that the dream concerning the ears of corn would have been sufficient since that dream informed Pharaoh of the famine.

ועל השנות החלום, if Joseph’s dreams of the stars and the sheaves of corn respectively, would have been dreamt by him in the same night, he would not have had to wait for 13 years until they would prove themselves as a true forecast of his rise to power.

ועל השנות, "concerning the repetition, etc." Joseph alluded to two things. 1) the actual repetition; 2) the minor changes in the second half of the dream, i.e. the fact that the second part did not feature cows. Had both parts of the dream featured cows, Pharaoh might have thought that the impression made upon him by the first dream had caused him to lie down a second time. The reason for the way in which Pharaoh had dreamt the dream was that G'd wanted to show him that all this would begin to happen almost immediately. Pharaoh was not to think that the very change of venue, i.e. ears of corn instead of cows, indicated that the dream was meaningless as a vision of the future.

ועל השנות, Joseph added the word פעמים, in order to make this more plain after he had used the expression השנות.

ועל השנות החלום אל פרעה פעמים, “and concerning the basically same dream having been sent to Pharaoh twice, etc.” Actually, the dream had been repeated in a different variation only once, so why did Joseph speak of it having been repeated twice? Nachmanides explains that Joseph referred to it having been repeated a second time during the same night, not on successive nights, as is the custom with dreams that are intended to impress the dreamer with their message. G’d could have let Pharaoh have the dream with the cows on one night, and repeated it with the dream about the kernels on the following night, making two dreams of it. The fact that G’d did not wait, and let Pharaoh receive both parts of the message in the same night, was a sign that whatever the dream portended would occur in the immediate future. An alternate meaning could be that Joseph meant the changes Pharaoh had made in his dream when telling him, i.e. השנות from שנוי, change, and Joseph’s ability to detect that Pharaoh had made such changes, was proof that Joseph had interpreted the dream correctly.

ועל השנות החלום אל פרעה פעמים, “as for the repetition of the dream to Pharaoh twice,” etc. The unusual fact that two dreams were repeated twice in a single night, although they were only one dream.

Stands ready. I.e., the meaning here of נכון is not the same as in אמת נכון הדבר (Devarim 13:15), where it means “correct.”

ועל השנות החלום פעמים, this teaches that the first dream and the second dream were one. Why then did Pharaoh have to dream the same dream twice? כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים, the seven years of plenty would commence immediately.

ועל השנות החלום, “and concerning the repetition of the dream (in a different guises);” you might ask that the dreams of Joseph that the Torah recorded for us are also repetitions, (and were not fulfilled immediately) but took 22 years to be fulfilled? Joseph’s dreams did not occur during the same night so that their interpretation was not subject to the same rules.

כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים וממהר אלוקים לעשותו, “(it means) that the matter is ready and prepared from G’d’s part and that He will carry it out promptly.” Ibn Ezra interprets the meaning of the word השנות as the repeating of two symbols in the dream, i.e. both cows and ears of corn as a sign that the events foreshadowed would occur soon. Rabbeinu Chananel, focusing on the word פעמים, “twice,” wrote that the meaning of that word is that the message of the dream of the cows and the message of the dream of the ears of corn is the same; however the reason the message has been repeated is that the word נכון is a reference to the period of plenty, whereas the words וממהר האלוקים לעשותו “and G’d will hasten to do it,” refer to the famine that is to follow the years of plenty immediately.

וממהר האלוקים לעשותו, "and G'd will carry this out promptly." Joseph deduced this from the two parts of the dream both being dreamt during the same night instead of during consecutive nights.

וממהר האלוקים לעשותו, the famine will start immediately after the seven years of abundance. (as quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya)

NOW THEREFORE LET PHARAOH FIND A MAN UNDERSTANDING AND WISE. Joseph told Pharaoh that he will need an understanding and wise man who will be appointed to administer the entire land, and he in turn will appoint overseers under him who will go through the land and gather all the food since the ruler cannot travel throughout the entire land. He told him that the man must be understanding and wise. Understanding, in order to know how to support the people of Egypt from his hand with bread, in accordance with their family requirements, to supply them with their sustenance, and sell the balance to other countries in order to accumulate wealth and money for Pharaoh. Wise, in order to know how to preserve the produce so that it should not rot, by mixing with each kind some natural preservative such as the salty substances used for the preservation of wheat, which our Rabbis have mentioned,⁵⁸Shabbath 31a. and some raw silver dust, which prevents the grain from getting mothy,⁵⁹Machshirin VI, 1. Rashi, Shabbath 88b. and similar things. Thus the Sages said in Bereshith Rabbah:⁶⁰90:50. “He mixed the grain with earth and sawdust, things which preserve the grain.” Joseph mentioned all this so that they should choose him for this task, for the wise man’s eyes are in his head.⁶¹Ecclesiastes 2:14.

ועתה ירא פרעה, seeing that G’d has seen fit to inform you of the impending famine, no doubt in order to afford you an opportunity to ameliorate its effect on your people, and He has also shown you that this famine will be preceded by seven years of extraordinarily abundant harvests, it is appropriate for you not to become guilty in His eyes if you were to ignore such warning.

ועתה ירא פרעה איש נבון וחכם, "Now let Pharaoh see to an understanding and wise man, etc." The reason that Joseph made himself the king's adviser when he had only been asked to interpret the dream was that Joseph wanted to tell Pharaoh why G'd had revealed all the information of what He was about to do. The only reason for this was to encourage Pharaoh to appoint the appropriate officials to deal with the future. Furthermore, the manner in which the lean cows had devoured the fat cows without leaving a trace was clear evidence that during the lean years survival would depend on the produce of the years of plenty. Joseph therefore told Pharaoh to make the appropriate provisions.

ירא פרעה איש נבון, “let Pharaoh see (find) a man of insight and understanding, etc.” a leader who is able to run the state in a manner which will assure adequate bread for each of its citizens in accordance with the size of their respective families, dependents. He should also possess חכמה, the wisdom to store and preserve the surplus of the good years so that they would not rot before the seven years of famine commenced. Clearly, this would not be a task for a single individual but would require a number of officials, פקידים, for each region of Egypt. Joseph intended that he should be the man Pharaoh would appoint, that is why he defined the job in a manner that fitted his proven qualifications.

ועתה ירא פרעה איש נבון וחכם, “and now, let Pharaoh seek out a discerning and wise man.” Joseph meant that there was now a need for a discerning and wise man to be appointed as being in charge of the land of Egypt, i.e. וישיתהו על ארץ מצרים, “who would have authority over all the people in Egypt.” He employed the term נבון as an attribute of someone who is discerning enough to establish a fair rationing system, a system which allowed for the sizes of the different families. Such a man, after having provided for the needs of the local population first, could export the surplus to other paying customers. He added the word חכם, “wise,” as an additional attribute of such an economic czar to describe someone who knew how to prevent the stored surpluses of the next seven years from rotting or otherwise becoming unfit to eat. Joseph’s suggestions were designed to promote his own appointment to this position. According to Nachmanides, Joseph displayed the truism of Solomon’s statement (Kohelet 2,14) that החכם עיניו בראשו, “the wise man has eyes in his head.”

Während sonst in der Regel חכמה der בינה vorangeht, steht hier bedeutsam חכם .נבון וחכם verwandt mit אגם: Aufnahme des Vorhandenen. Wer die Dinge nach ihrem Wesen und ihrer Bestimmung kennt, ist ein חכם. Beides ist etwas Gegebenes, es hat der Mensch es nicht erst zu schaffen. Der ist aber der wahrste חכם, der diese Erkenntnis des Wesens und der Bestimmung der Dinge von dem entnimmt, der den Dingen ihr Wesen und ihre Bestimmung gegeben hat. Deshalb ist הכמת התורה die höchste. — בין ,בינה, Einsicht, richtiger: Zwischensicht; — Einsicht, die Fähigkeit, in das Wesen der Dinge an sich einzudringen, hat kein Sterblicher; — aber Zwischen- sicht, d. h. das aus dem Verhalten mindestens zweier gegebener Momente Resultierende zu erkennen, das folgernde Urteil, das ist die zu der Erkenntnis des Gegebenen hinzukommende eigentliche Operation des menschlichen Geistes. Eigentümlich ist es nun, dass gerade diejenige geistige Tätigkeit, die uns mehr passiv erscheint, הכמה, die Rezeptivität. aktiv ausgedrückt wird, הכם ,הכמתי, im Kal; und umgekehrt, diejenige Geistesoperation, in welcher wir am meisten selbsttätig erscheinen, die folgernde, produktive Tätigkeit, immer passiv ausgedrückt wird: נבונתי ,נבון. Es dürften hier zwei wichtige Erinnerungen gegeben sein: Zur Aufnahme dessen, was in Natur und göttlicher Offenbarung über Wesen und Bestimmung der Dinge gegeben ist, gehört die vollste Energie des Geistes, eine völlige Konzentrierung der Geisteskräfte, damit die ganze und die wahre Wirklichkeit erfasst werde. Energielos meint man gesehen, gehört, verstanden zu haben, und hat nur falsch gesehen, halb gehört, oberflächlich verstanden, und das Erfasste entfällt bald wieder. Umgekehrt hat der gewöhnliche Mensch mehr Freude an תבונה, an der folgernden, schließenden Tätigkeit, er sieht sich darin mehr produktiv, mehr sein Werk, und ist daher sehr zu warnen, nicht zu rasch, zu aktiv zu dieser Tätigkeit zu schreiten, sich beim Schließen mehr passiv als aktiv zu erhalten, die beiden Prämissen in sich so lange und so intensiv abspiegeln zu lassen, bis sich das Produkt, der Schluss, von selbst ergibt, ehe man מבין wird, lange נבון zu bleiben; sonst ist der Schluss scharfsinnig, aber die Prämissen sind unwahr. Keiner mehr als der Scharfsinnige läuft Gefahr, falsche Urteile zu bilden. Daher auch die tiefen Sätze der Weisen; אם אין בינה אין דעת ,אם אין דעת אין בינה. Ohne theoretisches Wissen (בינה) bleibt das empirische (דעת) mangelhaft; denn eben die theoretische Wissenschaft muss vielfach das Empirische kontrolieren und berichtigen und Schein von Wirklichkeit unterscheiden lehren. Noch mehr aber bedarf das theoretische Wissen der Empirie. Denn ohne vollständige empirische Unterlage baut alle Theorie in die Luft. Es ist daher klar, warum gewöhnlich הכמה der תבונה vorangeht. Hier aber waren die gegebenen Verhältnisse völlig klar. Allein es galt zu ermitteln, was unter den gegebenen Umständen nun vorsorglich zu tun. Dazu war zuerst der נבון notwendig. Das aber durch בינה Ermittelte musste dann mit הכמה, d. h. mit gerechter Würdigung aller wirklichen Verhältnisse ausgeführt werden. Für die praktische Ausführung ist der חכם wichtiger als der נבון. Der Scharfsinnige nimmt leicht die Dinge anders als sie sind, und geht irre. Also: einen einsichtigen und weisen Mann suche sich Pharao und setze ihn über das Land, שות .וישיתהו ist mehr als הפקיד. In הפקיד erscheint der Eingesetzte mehr abhängig und untergeordnet, in שות mehr als Selbständiger. Die Zeiten werden so schwer, sich selbst überlassen wird das Land die in den Jahren der Fülle gegebenen Mittel der Abhülfe unbenutzt lassen. Deshalb ist es notwendig, dem Lande einen "Vormund" einen agrarischen Diktator zu geben, damit der Verbrauch in diesen Jahren nicht unbeschränkt bleibe.

איש נבון וחכם, a wise man, someone possessing the necessary insight of how to put his wisdom to practical use, who will guide the affairs of the country so that the kingdom will not come to harm.

איש נבון וחכם. "An understanding and wise man." The man should know how to store agricultural produce so that it would not rot. The word חכם, wise, referred to someone who was an engineer, could deal with numbers, etc. The reason Joseph first mentioned the qualification נבון was because it was most important to preserve the harvests in good condition.

וחמש — render it as the Targum does “and they shall prepare”. Similar is (Exodus 13:18) “וחמושים and prepared (for war)”.

ויפקד פקידים...וחמש, the general population would be required to hand over one fifth of the non-perishable parts of their harvest to a central storage facility administered by the government. According to Samuel warning the Jewish people of taxation that a king would impose upon them, (Samuel I 8,14-15) such taxation normally amounted to ten percent. Joseph now suggested that during the seven years of plenty this level of taxation be increased to twenty per cent, (a reserve for the people for the years of the famine to follow), not for the king’s needs as regular taxation.

יעשה פרעה ויפקד, and see to it that this man appoint officials as his delegates in each and every city so that these officials will be known locally as their superiors as well as accepting the authority of their economic czar and that all of them work together in harmony. Special conditions require special measures. Once the Jewish people were dispersed in their own country, the Torah also legislated measures of centralising supreme religious authority in Jerusalem as we know from Deuteronomy 17,8 וקמת ועלית אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלוקיך בו, “you will arise and ascend to the place which the Lord your G’d will select for being this the seat of this central authority.”

יעשה פרעה פקידים, "let Pharaoh appoint trustworthy officials, etc." Joseph realised that the reason the dream was needed was to ensure that the Egyptians would make prudent use of the years of plenty. Had they not been made aware that the years of plenty would be followed by years of famine, they would become careless with the storage of food after the first year of abundance. Not only would they not build silos, they might even decide to plant less in order to maintain the prices. As a result they would not bother to plough. When they would see another year of bumper crops their negligent attitude would only be further reinforced. This is why G'd explained in Pharaoh's dream that the surplus during the coming seven years was only meant to compensate in advance for the absence of crops during the following seven years. This is why Joseph felt compelled to advise Pharaoh. He wanted Pharaoh to involve as many people as possible in the task of storing and preserving food.

וחמש, he should confiscate one fifth of the harvest.

וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “and divide Egypt into 5 regions;” some claim that the meaning is that Pharaoh should impose a 20% tax, payable in produce,” this tax to be used as food storage in anticipation of the years of famine. Pharaoh would use the accumulated quantity to distribute seed to the farmers for planting. In return, Pharaoh would own one firth of the soil of Egypt in perpetuity.

יעשה פרעה, “let Pharaoh proceed, etc.” to appoint a single ruler over these various civil servants,” i.e. the officials whom Pharaoh would appoint. Clearly, the שליט, would have to appoint officials as he could not possibly perform all this work by himself.

As Onkelos translates it: and prepare... I.e., וחמש does not mean taking a fifth, as Scripture mentions only gathering, which is the preparation.

Was aber von Pharao selbst ausgehen soll, das ist die Steuererhebung eines Fünftels. Da erscheint Josef wieder als חכם. Mit der Anordnung und Erhebung dieser Steuer soll der dem Lande zu bestellende Vormund verschont bleiben, um ihn, der so sehr des moralischen Einflusses auf die Bevölkerung bedürfen wird, von allem Gehässigen frei zu erhalten. Eine jede Steuer, selbst die allernotwendigste und heilsamste, erscheint drückend. Dies soll daher Pharao, resp. durch die von ihm angestellten Steuerbeamten, selbst tun. Dem andern bleibt noch genug zu tun übrig. Mit diesem 1/5 soll nur das Allernötigste versorgt werden. Warum gerade 1/5? Vielleicht deshalb. Nehmen wir einmal an, dass man in Jahren des Überflusses doppelt so viel darauf gehen lässt, als in Jahren gewöhnlicher Verhältnisse; und umgekehrt, dass man in Zeiten der Teuerung sich mit der Hälfte dessen begnügen müsse, was in gewöhnlichen Zeiten verbraucht wird, so ergibt sich, dass im Überflusse viermal so viel verbraucht wird, als im Hungerjahr. Ist das wahr, so ergibt sich einfach, dass jedenfalls 1/5 des in einem Überflussjahr Hervorgebrachten genügen muss, um ein Hungerjahr zu speisen, wenn auch alles übrige, die 4/5, völlig aufgezehrt würden.

וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “and impose a tax of one fifth of the harvest to be given to those in charge for storage under safe conditions.” It is from this stored grain that distribution started to be made as we read in Genesis 46,24.

וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “the overseer should collect a tax of 20% of the harvests of the next seven years to be put at the disposal for the King,” even though during normal years only 10% was set aside for the King’s use, as we know from Samuel I 8,1415. This advice of Joseph was carried out, as we know from Genesis 47,26: על אדמת מצרים לחומש, “all over the land of Egypt one fifth would be taxed for the king.”

וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “let him set aside one fifth of all (the grain) growing during the seven years of plenty.” The economic czar was to confiscate 20% of every farmer’s harvest. An alternate meaning of the word וחמש could be “let this economic czar urge the people to gather, etc.” The word then would resemble the word חמושים עלו בני ישראל, in Exodus 13,18 meaning: “in a pioneering spirit.”

When Joseph spoke about וחמש, he meant that Pharaoh should imbue these officials with a sense of urgency when they would assume their tasks. It could also mean that Pharaoh should impose a harvest tax of twenty percent which would serve as the national grain reserve. This was an innovation, seeing that normally the farmer only has to tithe ten percent of his grain harvest to the king (compare Samuel I 8,15). Pharaoh would do the people a kindness with this tax; he would not touch the grain during the years of plenty, thus not competing with the farmers who were marketing their own grain. I shall explain the procedure in my commentary on the verses following.

את כל אֹכֶל ALL THE FOOD — The word אֹכֶל is a noun and therefore the accent is on the א and the last syllable has the vowel Patach Katan (a name Rashi uses for our Segol), whilst אוֹכֵל — which is a participle, as for instance, (Leviticus 7:25) “For whosoever eateth (אוֹכֵל) the fat” — has the accent on the ultimate syllable, on the כ, and has the vowel Kametz Katan (Zéré).

ויצברו בר תחת יד, someone appointed for the task by Pharaoh.

ויקבצו את כל אוכל השנים, concerning this tax of twenty percent of the harvest, Joseph suggested that the appointed officials should collect the food thus set aside by Pharaoh during the seven years of plenty and store it near various cities under Pharaoh’s direct supervision so that it would be at hand when the years of famine would commence. This would be independent of what private individuals would put in storage on their own account. If this advice were followed, each city would have a substantial hoard of grain near at hand when the famine would break out and there would not be any panic or undue profiteering.

אוכל בערים, “food in the cities, etc.,” so that it need not be brought from a distant central depot. This would also have the psychological advantage of putting local residents’ mind at rest if they knew there was a local food storage depot nearby.

ויקבצו את כל אוכל, “and let them gather in all the food, etc.” the words “all the food,” refer to the 20% of the crops to be taxed by Pharaoh. The words “all the food,” mean that 20% of each type of harvest such as wheat, rye, corn and barley were to be taxed and collected to be stored.

And is vocalized with a patach koton... A patach koton is [what we call] a segol, and a kametz koton is [what we call] a tzeirei.

Allein es soll noch mehreres geschehen, es soll nicht bloß dem Allernotwendigsten vorgesorgt werden. Diese, dem einzusetzenden Landesvormund vorbehaltene Maßregel wird in diesem Vers entwickelt. Das Verständnis hat aber Schwierigkeiten. Es heißt: אוכל וגו כל ויקבצו אתי wenn in den guten Jahren alle Nahrungsmittel aufgespeichert werden sollen, so verhungert die Bevölkerung, ehe die Hungerjahre kommen. Möglich, dass קבץ, das allerdings sonst zusammen sammeln heißt, hier mehr: zusammen halten, an sich halten bedeute, eine Bedeutung, die an sich nicht fern, und in seiner offenbaren Verwandtschaft mit יבש ,גבש ,כבש ,גוץ ,כוץ ,קפץ liegt, die allesamt ein Komprimieren ausdrücken. Demgemäß scheint ein doppeltes vorgeschlagen. 1) eine Steuer im vorigen Vers. 2) hier eine Bevormundung der Verwendung, d. h. eine Beschränkung des Kornhandels, zunächst des Exportes. Ägypten war ja im ganzen Altertum der Kornspeicher der übrigen Welt. Es soll daher אוכל in natura im Lande verbleiben. Es heißt darum wiederholt אוכל und nicht תבואה, da zuletzt ja auch das Geld als Erträgnis der Jahre betrachtet werden könnte. Nichts soll daher in den Jahren des Überflusses nach außen. Ja, es soll nicht einmal eine Stadt mit der anderen in Getreide Geschäfte machen, so dass kein Korn in unfruchtbares Geld umgesetzt werde. Wollen die Produzenten verkaufen, so sollen sie nur an Pharao verkaufen können und das also gekaufte Getreide unter seinem Verschluss geborgen bleiben. Und damit der wohltätige Zweck dieser allerdings beengenden Kontrolle allen gegenwärtig bleibe und deshalb das Gehässige verliere, soll das von der Krone aufgekaufte Getreide nicht in ein Zentralmagazin gebracht, sondern אכל בערים ושמרו, in jeder Stadt selbst das in ihr aufgekaufte Getreide unter Verschluss der Regierung aufgespeichert und so der Bevölkerung überall das wohltuende Bewusstsein verbleiben, in diesen Kornvorräten eine Sicherung gegen künftigen Mangel vor Augen zu haben — אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו וכוי — und überzeugt zu sein, dass nicht etwa die Regierung mit diesen Aufkäufen eine Handelsspekulation nach dem Auslande beabsichtige, die sie dem Volke untersagt.

.את כל אוכל, “all the food;” as far as possible;” (compare verse 57)

תחת יד פרעה UNDER THE HAND OF PHARAOH — under his control and in his storehouses.

פרעה, All of this would be enforced against the wishes of the population. This is why Joseph spoke of the appointment of פקידים, overseers with powers of enforcement,ויצברו, this expression is also used when King Ahasverus appointed officials to bring all good looking virgins to his court so that he could eventually make the selection of a new queen replacing Vashti from amongst one of the. (Esther 2,3)

ויצברו בר, “and they will amass grain.” The expression צבר used here by the Torah refers to underground storage. We find a comparison between עפר, earth, dust, in Job 27,16 אם יצבר כעפר כסף, “if he were to pile up silver like dust.” Joseph suggested to Pharaoh to store grain both above ground in grain elevators as well as below ground. The expression צבירה includes both kinds of storage. We find the expression occurring when the Egyptians piled up the frogs into great heaps in Exodus 8,10.

The expression ויקבצו, “and they shall gather in,” is applied here to produce, whereas in Esther it was applied to people. [the reader can form his own opinion about human rights of women in Persia of old. Ed.]

תחת יד פרעה “under Pharaoh’s control.” under Pharaoh’s control and in storage-houses owned by him.
אוכל בערים, “food in the cities.” Produce grown near certain cities should be stored within these cities.
ושמרו, “and they are to guard and protect” the grain is to be brought into these storage houses in a condition which makes it fit to store for an extended period.

אוכל בערים, there would be such storage silos in every city so people could buy during the years of the famine without having to travel far from their homes.

והיה האכל — means AND THE FOOD that is stored up SHALL BE AS ANY other DEPOSIT (פקדון) that is held in reserve for the maintenance of the people of the land.

AND THE FOOD SHALL SERVE AS A RESERVE FOR THE LAND. Joseph said that the food should be kept in reserve under the charge of Pharaoh’s officers for the needs of the land during the seven years of famine, and they should not be used for other purposes lest the land be consumed by the famine just as the cows in the dream did not die on account of their leanness.

לשבע שני הרעב, "for the seven years of famine." First of all Egypt would provide a reserve for itself; as a secondary consideration they would serve as the pool other countries i.e. הארץ could draw on. Joseph added the consideration that the rest of the earth should not starve to death.

לפקדון, as an insurance to have handy in time of need. Even though the people who had turned in that part of their harvest would in due course be forced to buy it back, this arrangement would be good for them as at least they would insure that when needed it would be available.

והיה האוכל לפקדון, “the food shall serve as a reserve.” The word פקדון is used here in the same sense as elsewhere when someone is given something to guard on behalf of a third party. The food stored was to be stored on behalf of the farmers who grew it. The objective was to forestall that the land would perish as had the seven undernourished cows in Pharaoh’s dream.

That is stored up as any other deposit that has been stored away... I.e., the food that they wish to save should be like any other deposit. In other words, not that it should be entrusted in the care of an individual, rather it should be stored like a deposit of silver and gold.

For maintaining the country. I.e., it is not for [maintaining] the soil but for [the survival of] the people.

וייטב הדבר, Joseph’s basic advice as well as his outline of how to execute his plan

וייטב הדבר, Pharaoh approved of Joseph’s suggestion as did his ministers as they all understood that it was a wise and practical plan. They realised that it was very likely that Joseph’s interpretation of the dream was correct. They were furthermore very impressed by the chief of the cup-bearers who had told them how Joseph’s interpretation of both his and the chief baker’s dreams had come true. Moreover, Joseph had not claimed that the realisation of the dream would be in the distant future, but by seizing on the word והנה twice at the very beginning of Pharaoh’s dream and again in verse 29, he had made it plain that these predictions would come true in short order.

ובעיני כל עבדיו וייטב הדבר בעיני פרעה, “the matter (advice) was viewed favourably by Pharaoh and by all his servants.” Pharaoh’s servants realised that Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh was sound and that the Royal Palace, the wealthy classes as well as the poor in Egypt stood to gain from following Joseph’s advice. This is why they concurred and expressed their approval of the plan Joseph had outlined.

הנמצא כזה CAN WE FIND SUCH A ONE AS THIS? — The Targum renders it: “can we find like this one” — meaning, “If we go to seek one could we find anyone like him?” הנמצא is a question, as is every ה prefixed to a word with the vowel Chataph Patach.

CAN WE FIND SUCH A ONE AS THIS? Because he was a Hebrew, the members of which race were repugnant to the Egyptians, who would not eat of the things the Hebrews touched, or have any contacts with them as they considered them unclean, Pharaoh did not want to appoint Joseph viceroy without their permission. Therefore he said to them that they would find no Egyptian comparable to him, as the Spirit of G-d is in him. After they admitted it, he said to Joseph, Since G-d has made all this known unto thee,⁶²Verse 39 here. for since the interpretation met with the approval of Pharaoh and all his courtiers,⁶³Verse 37 here. they regarded everything he had said as if it had already been fulfilled.
It is possible that the expression, all this, alludes also to that which the chief of the butlers told Pharaoh. A similar case is the verse, And he [Jacob] related to Laban all these things,⁶⁴Above, 29:13. meaning the blessings bestowed upon him by Isaac mentioned before. Pharaoh thus said: “Since G-d has imbued you with this great wisdom, thus enabling you to interpret all secret and hidden dreams, and not a word of yours has failed, there is none so understanding and wise in all matters as you are, and you are therefore fit to assume authority and rulership and to be second to me.”

אשר רוח אלוקים בו, if he is able with G’d’s help to interpret intangibles such as dreams, he must certainly be smart enough to arrange administrative earthly affairs in a competent manner.

הנמצא כזה איש, "Can we find a man such as this one etc.?" The reason that Pharaoh did not say הנמצא איש אשר "can we find a man who, etc.," is because he would then have created the impression that there were people with Holy Spirit only that they did not possess it in the degree that Joseph did. Pharaoh wanted to make it plain that he did not think anyone else possessed the Holy Spirit.

הנמצא כזה, the letter נ in the word הנמצא was directed at the people who were talking about the whole subject. Pharaoh said to the assembled advisers: “Joseph has made certain suggestions. Can we possibly find someone better qualified to put these suggestions into practice? He is clearly superior in wisdom and acumen to all our local experts, and this can only be due to the fact that he enjoys Divine inspiration.”

הנמצא כזה?, “can someone like this one be found elsewhere?” The reason why Pharaoh felt he needed the consent of his ministers before appointing Joseph to such a position was the well-known animosity harboured by Egyptians generally against any Hebrew (Mesopotamians). The appointment to a position with such wide-ranging powers was something extraordinary even if Joseph had not been a slave and a Hebrew to boot.

הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלו-הים בו, “can we find a man so filled with the spirit of G’d?” We find something very similar in Daniel 4,6 after Daniel had interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.

“Can we find another like this one”... I.e., the meaning of הנמצא here is not the same as in הנהיה כדבר הגדול הזה (Devarim 4:32), where it means, “Did such a great thing ever happen in the world?!” Otherwise, Onkelos would have translated it here as האשתכח כדין (Did something like this ever exist?!) Since he translates it הנשכח, it means: “If we would go and search, would we find?” Accordingly, the נ is of the active future tense, not of the passive past tense. Furthermore, if הנמצא meant: “Was there ever anyone in the world like this?!” then a question arises: For what purpose did Pharaoh say this? But if it means, “If we would go and search, would we find?” then it is understandable, for Yoseif said, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom.” Pharaoh thus said to his servants, “If we would go and search, would we find one like him? We should therefore appoint Yoseif for this.”

If we would go and search for him, would we find another like him... Rashi cites Onkelos in order to say that הנמצא כזה means, “Would we now find one like him,” rather than, “Would one like him ever have been found.” The latter is not true since there was Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov. Thus it must mean “now,” and this is seen more clearly from Onkelos: if Onkelos meant, “Ever have been found,” he would have said אם אשתכח כדין (past tense). But in Scripture, הנמצא is conjugated in the same manner for both the past tense and the future tense. Onkelos deduced that it is not past tense because it is writtenהנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלקים בו, rather than הנמצא איש אשר רוח אלקים בו כזה. The verse placed כזה at the beginning in order to connect it with איש אשר רוח אלקים, conveying that no one has Hashem’s spirit like he does. All this shows that it means, “Would we now find one like him?” (Maharshal)

אין נבון וחכם כמוך THERE IS NONE SO DISCREET AND WISE AS THOU ART — If we do seek for a discreet and wise man as you suggested (v. 33) we shall find none like you).

נבון, he understands the future, having been able to foresee it.

אין נבון, "There is no one as understanding, etc." "There is no one else as qualified to carry out the measures suggested as you yourself, seeing that you have been granted the Holy Spirit."

אחרי הודיע אלוקים אותך כל זאת, “seeing that G’d has informed you of all these details, etc.” Pharaoh refers to the fact that Joseph’s interpretation of his dream seemed so amazingly logical and believable, so much so that it appeared to the listener as if it had already come true; It is also possible that Pharaoh referred also to the previous interpretation Joseph had given to the cupbearer, so that the words כל זאת seem amply justified.

אחרי הודיע אלו-הים אותך את כל זאת, “after the Lord has informed you of all this.” Pharaoh referred to Joseph’s wisdom rather than to his knowledge as a prophet in predicting the onset of the seven good years, etc. He added: “seeing that you advised me to appoint a discerning and wise man it stands to reason that seeing that —

To seek an understanding and wise man as you suggested... [Rashi knows this] because if Pharaoh intended to praise Yoseif, why did he do so in Yoseif’s presence, [which is not the way of a king]? Furthermore, why did he not praise him before, when he told him the dream [and Yoseif interpreted it? Rather, Pharaoh first spoke to his servants; see v. 38]. Perforce, Pharaoh is replying to Yoseif’s statement of, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom,” and he is saying: Hashem’s spirit is in you, as you know about the famine. So too, you will know how to handle it, to gather the grain.

אחרי הודיע, “since G-d has informed;” this refers also to what follows, i.e. since G-d has granted Joseph so much wisdom: “you shall be in charge of My palace.”

אין נבון וחכם כמוך, “there is no one as wise and understanding as you.” In this instance the attribute נבון is mentioned before the attribute חכם, whereas in Deuteronomy 4,6 the nations of the world as described as describing the Jewish people as חכם ונבון, i.e. in the reverse order of these attributes. In this instance, insight was the first attribute required in order to understand the dream, whereas wisdom was required in order to deal with the challenge presented by fulfillment of the dream. When it comes to understanding words of Torah, the first requirement is חכמה, a certain amount of common sense, before one penetrates below the surface of what the text conveys to us.

אין נבון וחכם כמוך "there is none more discerning and wise than yourself, etc." — you will be this person.” Pharaoh and his advisors were so impressed that they acted as if Joseph’s prediction had already come true. This explains the word הודיע in the past tense. [After all, until it had come true how did they know that Joseph’s information had been divinely inspired? Ed.]

ישק —The Targum renders it by יתזן which means SHALL BE FED — all my people’s needs shall be provided through you. Similar are (15:2) “and the steward (ובן משק) of my house”, and (Psalms 2:12) “Provide yourselves (נשקו) with purity” old French garnison.

ישק, he will motivate people through clever use of weaponry to attack their enemies. The use of the word נשק meaning weapons occurs in Kings II 10,2 as עיר מבצר והנשק, “a fortified city and weaponry.” We also find it used in this sense in Psalms 78,9 נושקי רומי קשת, “being armed and carrying bows.”

ישק, a word derived from נשק, arms, as per Onkelos.

על פיך ישק כל עמי , “and by your word will all my people be fed.” Some commentators understand this to mean that no one will be allowed to bear arms, נשק, without Joseph’s approval. Others understand the verse literally, in the sense of נשק meaning “to kiss.” It would then mean that the whole population would pay homage to Joseph by kissing his hand.

ועל פיך ישק כל עמי, “and by your command my whole nation will be sustained.”

Shall be fed... I.e., יתזן is Onkelos’ translation of ישק, and means “shall be fed.” Scripture itself does not write [the Hebrew equivalent of] יתזן because then we might say that Pharaoh appointed Yoseif only over matters pertaining to food. Thus it is written ישק, which means, “All my people’s needs...”

על פיך ישק. Wir finden nirgends einen Mundkuß als Zeichen der Huldigung, wohl das Zuwerfen eines Handkusses (Job 31, 27), nie aber נשק על פה für küssen. Es ist deshalb die andere Auffassung von נשק als: rüsten, entschieden vorzuziehen. Grundbedeutung ist wohl: ineinander eindringen, freundlich: küssen, feindlich: der Kampf, wahrscheinlich das Handgemenge, und die Vorbereitung dazu: sich rüsten. Hier also: nach deinem Ausspruch soll sich mein Volk gegen den kommenden Feind, den Hunger, Rüstzeug schaffen. Es ist der Ausdruck um so treffender, da, wie aus Jes. 22,8. ersichtlich, נֶשֶק ganz eigentlich der gesammelte Waffenvorrat bedeutet. Zuvor übergibt er ihm die Fürsorge für sein, Pharaos, Haus und sodann die Leitung der Maßregel, mit welcher das Volk sich versorgen soll. — כסא. So wie קצה und קצע ein gewaltsames Trennen und Scheiden bedeutet, und כסה das völlige Entziehen und Unnahbarmachen eines Gegenstandes dem Auge oder der Berührung seiner Umgebung, so heißt כִסֵא eine hohe Unterlage, die den, der sie besteigt, allen andern gegenüber hebt und unerreichbar darstellt. Und zwar ist es nicht eine Säule zum Stehen, welche keine dauernde Stellung gewährte, sondern ein hoher Sitz zum Sitzen. Denn für den wahren Fürsten ist das צאת הצבא im Kriege nur Ausnahmsberuf, sein eigentliches Wirken ist das friedliche innere Walten, und sein entsprechender Ausdruck der "gehobene Sitz" in Mitte seines Volkes: der Thron.

ישק כל עמי, “my people will be mobilised for war at Joseph’s command.” The relevant rootword is נשק, “weaponry.” Compare Psalms 78,9: נושקי רומי קשת, “they rely on the bow and arrow.”

רק הכסא ONLY IN THE THRONE — only in the fact that they shall call me king.

רק הכסא אגדל ממך, in matters relating to the throne I will rank as superior to you.

כסא THRONE is a metaphorical term for royal rank, like (1 Kings 1:37) “And he has made his throne (כסאו) greater than the throne of my lord king”.

נתתי אתך The Targum translates it by— “I have appointed thee”; nevertheless even in this sense it really means “giving”, as (Deuteronomy 26:19) “and to make thee (ולתתך) high”. To express either the idea of raising to high rank or of degrading the term “to give” may be used. An example of the latter is (Malachi 2:9) “I have made thee (נתתיך) contemptible and base”.

נתתי אותך, “I have placed you.” Pharaoh said this to Joseph at the time he handed over his ring (seal of office) to him.

ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ מצרים, be aware of the tremendous responsibility I am endowing you with by appointing you as the supreme authority in the whole land of Egypt. [the word ראה, normally translated as “see here,” is used by Pharaoh as telling Joseph to reflect deeply. Ed.]

ראה נתתי אותך, take note of the fact that I have empowered you as effective ruler over Egypt. [the author tells us that the word or root ראה does not need to be translated as “to see, either with the physical eye or even with the mental eye. Ed.] Pharaoh gave Joseph latitude to conduct the affairs of state according to whatever his wisdom dictated to him

ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ מצרים, “here I have appointed you over the whole of the land of Egypt.” We find a parallel expression also in Daniel 2,48 אדין מלכא לדניאל רבי ומתנן רברבן שגיאן יהב ליה והשליטה על כל מדינת בבל. “The king then elevated Daniel and gave him many gifts, and made him the governor of the whole province of Babylon.”

I have appointed you... Rashi is answering the question: If נתתי here has its literal meaning of “placing,” why is it written על ארץ מצרים? It should have written בארץ מצרים. Furthermore, Yoseif was already in Egypt. [So why would it say, “I have placed you in Egypt”?]

(41-43) gehören zusammen. Pharao sprach zu Josef: Siehe ich habe dich "zum Heile des Landes" (נתתי) über das Land gesetzt, und zum Zeichen zog er den Ring von seiner Hand usw. usw. Ein Ring ist eine Auszeichnung der menschlichen Tätigkeit, gleichsam eine Krönung der Hand. Indem er seinen Ring an Josefs Hand steckte, machte er ihn zu seinem Stellvertreter. Josefs Hand zu Pharaos Hand. — Die Bedeutung der בגרי שש im pharaonischen Staat ist uns nicht bekannt. — רבַד heißt Joma 43b. eine in den Boden gelegte Steinreihe. מרברים רברתי ערשי (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 41: 7. 16) sowie das verwandte: רפרתי יצועי (Job 16, 13) weist auf Einlagen, Unterlagen hin. Vielleicht besteht eine Verwandtschaft mit רבץ, das auch vom Einlegen von Steinen gebraucht wird. מרביץ בפוך אבניך (Jes. 54, 11) und möglicherweise heißt רביד זהב ein in Gold gefasster Stein, ein Medaillon. Jedenfalls heißt es aber nicht ein solches, nicht רביד זהב, sondern רביד הזהב, somit "das" goldene Emblem; wahrscheinlich unter den Auszeichnungen die bedeutendste. Durch den Ring hatte er ihn zu seinem ,,משנה׳, seiner "Wiederholung", seinem "alter ego" gemacht, ließ ihn in dem diesem alter ego bestimmten Wagen ausfahren, und man rief vor ihm: אַבְרֵך! wörtlich: ich befehle, dass man kniee! Vor der ägyptischen Majestät rief man nicht ברכו! knieet, sondern: אברך: Ich — d.h. die unter dem Volke erscheinende Majestät — befehle, dass ihr knieet. Dem wahren Fürsten ist nur die freiwillige Ehrerbietung eine solche. Dem sultanischen ist die freiwillige Ehrerbietung zu plebejisch gleichstellend und erniedrigend. Da wird zu huldigenden Ehrenbezeugungen, zum Gruß befohlen. Dieses in Josefs Namen ausgerufene אברך, dass er befiehlt, dass man vor ihm auf die Knie falle, das stellte ihn vollends als den zweiten Pharao dar.

ויסר פרעה את טבעתו AND PHARAOH TOOK OFF HIS RING — When the king gives his ring it is a sign that the person to whom he hands it is to be second to him in rank.

AND PHARAOH TOOK OFF HIS RING FROM HIS HAND. The giving of the king’s ring is a sign that the person to whom he hands it is to be second to him in rank. Thus the language of Rashi.
The correct interpretation is that the king’s ring contains his seal, just as it is said, And sealed with the king’s ring.⁶⁵Esther 8:8. The king thus gave Joseph his seal so that he should be a leader and commander⁶⁶Isaiah 55:4. of the entire government, and seal with the king’s ring whatever he desires.

בגדי שש, the finest Egyptian garments made of superior linen. We know from Ezekiel 27,7 that such garments formed a well-known Egyptian export.

ויסר, the ring which was the symbol of the supreme authority in Egypt and which was used to sign and thereby confirm any Royal decree in the country.

ויסר פרעה את טבעתו, “Pharaoh removed his (signet) ring;” having this ring in one’s possession was proof of one’s high office, a position which enabled the holder to neutralize any decree or legislation by withholding his stamp.

ויסר פרעה את טבעתו, “Pharaoh removed his ring, etc.” He handed Joseph his signet ring with which he appointed ministers or relieved them of their authority. The בגדי שש, “linen garments,” of which the verse tells us were worn by kings in Egypt. The רביד הזהב, the “golden chain” mentioned in this verse is called מניכא דדהבה by Onkelos, i.e. a golden badge of office.

Considered very prestigious in Egypt. The Egyptians worshiped the Nile, which is the Pishon River, so called because it raises linen (פשתן) — as Rashi explains on Bereishis 2:11. That is why linen garments were prestigious to them. But Devek Tov writes: A sage from Eretz Yisrael came and told me that [the שש mentioned here] does not mean linen. Rather, שש denotes a prestigious, many-colored garment of silk, worn on top of one’s clothes. It is not the שש mentioned in connection with the Mishkan. Rashi’s words lend themselves to his interpretation, because Rashi says דבר חשיבות הוא במצרים (lit. “It is a prestigious item in Egypt”). If Rashi meant it is linen he should have just said בגדי שש — חשיבות הוא במצרים. Furthermore, Rashi explains on Shemos 25:4 that שש means linen, whereas here he does not, and says only that it is a prestigious item.

וילבש אותו בגדי שש, “he dressed him in fine linen garments.” According to Rashi, this kind of linen was considered as extremely valuable in Egypt. Some people query Rashi’s comment on Genesis 2,11, where the river Pishon is mentioned which Rashi identifies with the river Nile, pointing out that flax, פשתן, from which linen is made, grows in Egypt, the country that is home to that river. The author believes that linen was indeed grown in Egypt in larger quantities than elsewhere and that it was considered very valuable. Furthermore, it is most likely that the fabric mentioned here as שש, was hemp, a fiber, פשתי העץ, grown on trees as we know from Joshua 2,6, where the spies are described as hiding among accumulated piles of such fibers. Rashi calls it קנבוס. The fabric שש mentioned here was no doubt cotton, which at that time did not grow in Egypt, hence its being described as an expensive imported material.

ויתן אותה על יד יוסף, “he placed it on Joseph’s hand.” Pharaoh said to himself that maybe Joseph’s interpretation etc. was only designed to rid himself of Pharaoh’s supervision. This is why he entrusted him with executive power to observe whether he would work for the benefit of the state. If Joseph accepted this task, he would be convinced that he was loyal and upright, as he would know that failure would bring disastrous consequences for himself.

בגדי שש FINE LINEN — this is a material much valued in Egypt (cf Rashi on Genesis 2:11).

רביד, this describes something that is draped over a person. The word is similar to מרבדים in Proverbs 7,16 מרבדים רבדתי ערשי,”I have decked my couch with covers.”

On the rows of stones in the Temple Court, refers to the floor. I.e., it says there [in Yoma 4:3] “on the רובד” referring to the floor.

בגדי שש , “garments made of the finest linen that only the highest dignitaries in the land were allowed to wear.

רביד means A CHAIN — it is termed רביד because it is made up of links placed in a row. The root is the same as that found in (Proverbs 7:16) “I have decked (רבדתי) my bed with coverings of tapestry (מרבדים)” — i.e. I have placed on my couch rows of rugs. In Mishnaic Hebrew (Mishnah Middot 1:8) we have, “was surrounded with rows (רובדין) of stone”, and (Yoma 43b) “on the (רובד) row of stones that was in the Temple Court” — referring to the pavement (רצפה).

רביד הזהב , “a golden chain of office;” the word רביד is familiar to us from Proverbs 7,16: מרבדים רבדתי ערשי, “I have decked my couch with covers;” [even more so from Proverbs.

במרכבת המשנה means — the chariot second in order to his chariot — that which drove next to his own.

‘B’MIRKEVETH’ (IN THE CHARIOT) ‘HAMISHNEH.’ I.e., in the chariot second to his own chariot, which travelled next to his own. Thus the language of Rashi.
Now according to this interpretation, the word hamishneh refers to the noun, [“chariot,” meaning that this was the chariot of second rank]. The same applies in the verses: the priests ‘hamishneh’ (of the second order);⁶⁷II Kings 23:4. ‘eth mishnei’ (a copy) of this Torah.⁶⁸Deuteronomy 17:18.
The correct interpretation is that the word mishneh is adjectival,⁶⁹Meaning that this was the chariot of the mishneh, of he who was second in rank. just as: And I shall be to you ‘l’mishneh’ (as a second one);⁷⁰I Samuel 23:17. For Mordecai the Jew was ‘mishneh’ (the second) unto king Ahaseurus.⁷¹Esther 10:3. Similarly, the expression, keseph mishneh,⁷²43:12. (the money of the mishneh) is adjectival and is to be understood as “the money of the ‘second’ purchase.” Now the grammarians⁷³Reference is to R’dak who mentions this point in his Sefer Hashorashim (Book of Roots), under the root shana. have already brought a proof to this thesis⁷⁴That the word mishneh here, and in the other three cases mentioned, (see Notes 70-72), all have the meaning ascribed to them by Ramban. since in all these cases the letter nun in the word mishneh is vocalized with a segol, [which does not indicate the construct state as would tzeirei], while mishnei hatorah⁶⁸Deuteronomy 17:18. and all nouns are vocalized with a tzeirei, as is the rule in the construct state. The sense of the present verse is that the king had a chariot known to be his, even as it is said, And the horse which the king rideth upon,⁷⁵Esther 6:8. and there was another chariot known to be for his second in rank, and another one for the third in rank.

במרכבת המשנה, a horse or mule especially designated for the King’s second in command to ride on.

Avreich. This is derived from the word berech — “knee” — that is, they ordered the crowds to bend the knee before him.

"אברך, ונתון אותו על כל ארץ מצרים "On your knees!" and he has been appointed in charge of the whole land of Egypt. These two separate announcements were proclaimed in advance of the parade in which Joseph rode in a state coach. He was granted royalty-like status.

במרכבת המשנה, in the carriage reserved for the second highest official of the land.

במרכבת המשנה, according to Rashi this is a reference to the carriage traveling immediately behind that of Pharaoh himself, the second most important one in the kingdom. משנה therefore refers to someone known. Nachmanides writes that the word משנה is an adjective, defining the rank of the carriage, as in the expression כהני המשנה, or משנה התורה הזאת, or משנה למלך, “second in rank after the king.” Here it would describe the carriage reserved for the king’s deputy. Another carriage was known as the first alternative, and yet another as the third alternative.

ויקראו לפניו "אברך". They called out before him Avrech!” The meaning of the word אברך is the same as הברך, “the knee.” The letters א and ה are part of the group אחה'ע letters which are interchangeable. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 90,3 claim that the word is a composite of the two words אב ורך, “a father-figure though young in years.” There are other examples of the word רך meaning young in years, such as Samuel II 3,39 ואנכי היום רך ומשוח מלך, “and although young in years I have today been anointed king.” Other words which are composites of two words are: פרחה, which is composed of פרי חח; the word עבטיט is a composite of עב טיט.

...דין אבא למלכא This is the king’s colleague.

אברך Render this as the Targum does: “This is the father (counsellor) of the king”. In Aramaic (some editions read in Roman i.e. Latin) רך means king (rex). Thus in the chapter beginning with השותפין (Bava Batra 4a) we have: “neither a noble (ריכא) nor the son of a noble (ריכא)”. In the Midrash (Sifré Devarim 1:1) Rabbi Judah explained: אברך is appellation for Joseph who was אב “a father” in wisdom and רך “tender” in years. Whereupon Rabbi Jose the son of a woman of Damascus said to him: “How much longer will you pervert for us the meaning of Scripture? The word אברך can only be connected with the word ברכים knees (i.e. “Bend the knee”), for all came in and went forth only by his permission, just as it states “and he set him [over all the land of Egypt]”.

אברך, “father of the king.” We have some proof for this from Baba Batra 4 לא רכא ולא בר רכא, “neither a king nor a king’s son. [since we can discount the letter א at the end, this being an Aramaic ending, if בר רכא means son of a king, then אברך means father of a king. Ed.] This is proven further from 45,8 when Joseph speaks of his position beingוישימני לאב לפרעה, “He (G’d) has placed me in the position of being a father (provider) for Pharaoh.” In effect this made Joseph “father” of the king. The word פרעה, after all, is simply a title, meaning “king,” not the personal name of an individual as we explained already on verse 10.

אברך. The letter א in this word appears here in lieu of the letter ה and is part of the infinitive as in ונתון אותו, in other words: it is appropriate to bend one’s knee before this person and to raise him to be ruler over the land of Egypt. Alternatively, the meaning could be that the letter א refers to the respective person (anyone) announcing at the approach of Joseph’s coach that those who were still a distance away before he passed them should get down on their knees to pay their respects anticipating his passing.

ויקראו לפניו 'אברך!', ”they would call out on his approach “bend your knees!” Everyone within range would have to bend down at the approach of Joseph’s carriage. Alternatively, the word is not derived from ברך, knee, but from ברכה blessing, and would mean that the people within sight of Joseph’s carriage passing were required to bless him.

How much longer will you continue to misinterpret Scripture... I.e., R. Yehudah divides אברך into two words, which is a stretched explanation. You might ask: Why was this objection not made before, on Onkelos’ translation, “This is the associate of the king?” There as well, אב means “associate” and רך means “king,” as Rashi explained. The answer is: There, no extra words needed to be inserted. But here, בחכמה must inserted after אב, and בשנים after רך, and that is a stretched explanation.

He thus placed him. He caused the people to accept Yoseif’s authority.

ונתון אותו, and everyone agreed that this person deserved to be given control of the whole land of Egypt.

Because all would enter before him and leave only with his permission... I.e., אברך conveys that all who came to him would say, “I bend my knees to you.”

אני פרעה I AM PHARAOH in whose power it is to issue decrees for my kingdom, and I order that no man shall lift up his hand בלעדיך — without your permission. Another explanation of אני פרעה: I AM PHARAOH — I shall be king, but without thy permission etc. It is exactly similar in meaning to (v. 40) “only in the throne [will I be greater than thou]”.

אני פרעה, “I am king;” this was another way of saying that he was Joseph’s superior only by the formality of occupying the throne. (verse 40)

אני פרעה, ובלעדיך לא ירים איש את ידו "I am Pharaoh; without your permission no one shall even raise his hand, etc." "The kingdom belongs to me." We already mentioned that the name "Pharaoh" referred to the kingdom. Apart from this, no one was to raise his hand without Joseph's permission; the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of ובלעדיך indicates that Joseph's exalted position included this extraordinary authority.

אני פרעה, even though I am nominally king, without your permission לא ירים איש את ידו ואת רגלו, in all respects. [Joseph was appointed as absolute dictator, benevolent, of course. Ed.]

אני פרעה, “I am the nominal ruler, Pharaoh;” Pharaoh meant that seeing every ruler of Egypt was named Pharaoh to indicate his rank, henceforth the only reminder of his rank would be his name. He would be king in name only.

אני פרעה, “I am Pharaoh.” He meant: “I alone am not subject to your authority.” Basically, this was a repetition of the previous statement רק הכסא אגדל ממך, “I will be greater than you only by reason of my occupying the throne.” According to Onkelos Joseph’s authority embraced all aspects of people’s lives in Egypt, so that no one was even allowed to bear arms unless he had Joseph’s approval.

Wahrscheinlich bei seiner Rückkehr von dem öffentlichen Installierungszuge durch die Stadt.

אני פרעה ובלעדיך, “I am Pharaoh; but apart from this, you are (in charge of everything).” As an example of Joseph’s wide ranging powers, he added: “only by the height of my throne will I be bigger than you.” It was necessary to remind Joseph of this, since Pharaoh had handed over to him his signet ring.

את ידו ואת רגלו HIS HAND OR HIS FOOT — Understand it as the Targum does: no man shall raise his hand to gird on a sword or raise his foot to mount a horse.

לא ירים איש את ידו, to countermand your authority, such as Jerobam who is described as “מרים יד, raising a hand against the king” (Solomon) in Kings I 11,27. Jerobam (a member of the tribe of Ephrayim) had first been appointed as in charge of all the forced labour from his tribe, the House of Joseph.

לא ירים איש את ידו, “no one will dare challenge your authority.” We find a similar expression in connection with (later King) Jerovam, who had dared to challenge the authority of King Solomon and had to flee to Egypt. (Kings I 11,27-28)

צפנת פענח signifies "Explainer of hidden things". There is no other example in Scripture of the word.

‘TZAPHNATH PA’NEI’ACH.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said, “If this is an Egyptian word, we do not know its meaning, and if it is a translated one [from Yoseiph, the Hebrew name for Joseph], then we do not know the meaning of the name Yoseiph, [that is, the aspect of the name which has this translation].
But according to the opinion of earlier scholars, who say that it means “explainer of secrets” and is a Hebrew expression, it is possible that Pharaoh called him by this honorable name in accordance with the language of Joseph’s country after he asked him,⁷⁶I.e., Pharaoh asked Joseph, “What is the expression, in the Canaanitish language, which means ‘one who reveals secrets?’” and Joseph told him, “It is tzaphnath pa’nei’ach.” or the king may have known the language of Canaan, which was adjacent to Egypt, and its purport is that “he reveals concealed matters.” So also did Pharaoh’s daughter name Moses our teacher in the language of his people, for out of the water ‘m’shithihu’ (I pulled him).⁷⁷Exodus 2:10.
Now do not wonder why Egyptian writers called Moses, “Munyos,” for they changed the names into the language they understood or used, as the Targum Onkelos does in some cases, as for example, Between Kadesh and Shur,⁷⁸Above, 20:1. which he translated as “between Rekem and Chigra,” and similarly with many names. And in some places Onkelos does not change them at all, just as in the case of Sichon king of Cheshbon and Og king of Bashan, and many others like them. This is because in his times they were called thus in Aramaic.⁷⁹And therefore Onkelos wrote down the equivalent Aramaic name by which they were known in his time, which coincided with the way they were referred to in Scripture.

צפנת פענח, as translated by Onkelos, someone who reveals hidden things. It is a name taken from the Egyptian language. It was a common practice to link the name of a newly appointed official to his office in some manner. Moses changed the name of Joshua when he became selected to be one of the twelve spies. (Numbers 13,16) Similarly, Daniel, when appointed to high office by the king was renamed בל טשצר, (Daniel 1,6 and Daniel 4,5).

ויצא יוסף על ארץ מצרים, he walked away from the interview in a manner which indicated that he was now the ruler over the whole nation

צפנת פענח, an Egyptian expression, similar to Nevuchadnezzar giving Daniel and his companions Chaldaic names when he appointed them to high office. (Daniel 1,7) Other commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ram’ban) explain the name צפנת פענח as being Hebrew.

ויקרא פרעה שם יוסף צפנת פענח, “Pharaoh named Joseph Tzofnat paneach, “the one who reveals what was hidden.” It was customary to give special names to the king’s ministers, names that related to their office, their accomplishments, etc. We find that Daniel was renamed Belteshezzar when appointed to office (Daniel 1,6).

צפנת פענח, “the one who reveals secrets.” This word does not appear a second time in Scripture. We do, however, encounter this word in the נשמת prayer recited on Sabbath mornings where the expression is המפענח נעלמים, [the subject being G’d, not man. Ed.] This gives us reason to believe that the King (Pharaoh) was familiar with the language spoken in nearby Canaan. When Batya, a daughter of a later Pharaoh, named Moses משה, paraphrasing the Hebrew words כי מן המים משיתיהו “for I have pulled him from the water,” (Exodus 2,10) this also indicates that she was familiar with the language spoken by the Hebrews.

He is Potiphar and was called Poti Phera. Rashi deduced this from the fact that it is written, “Pharaoh gave Yoseif the name...and he gave him Osnas...” That is, Pharaoh gave Osnas to Yoseif. Now, what difference does it make that Pharaoh was the one who gave her to Yoseif? It must be that Poti Phera is Potiphar, and it makes a great difference, as follows: Pharaoh wanted to bestow greatness upon Yoseif and dress him royally. But he feared people would not allow Yoseif this greatness since he was a slave. Furthermore, the laws of Egypt stated that a slave may not rule nor wear prestigious garments. Thus Pharaoh [arranged that Potiphar] give Osnas to Yoseif as a wife. If a master gives his slave a wife, the slave is freed — and surely if he gives him his own daughter. From this we may conclude that Poti Phera is Potiphar.

צפנת פענה. Sucht man Analogien für diese wahrscheinlich ägyptischen Worte, so hätte man für צפן :צפנת, verbergen. Für פענת findet sich jedoch vielleicht nur das rabbinische פנח, bewahren (Jebamoth 115 b. לפנהיא שבקיה, siehe das. Raschi) und hieße es dann vielleicht: der, bei dem Geheimnisvolles bewahrt ist, der den Schlüssel zu Geheimnisvollem hat. — Zu Josefs Installierung gehört offenbar, dass er sich verheiraten musste; erst dann geht er hinaus an sein Amt. Im pharaonischen Staat muss ein Mann ohne Frau nur ein halber Mann gewesen sein. Zu dem Posten, den Josef ausfüllen sollte, gehörte ein ganzer Mann. Auch jetzt schenkt das Volksbewusstsein einem Junggesellen nicht volles Vertrauen. Fügen wir hinzu, dass die Aufgabe, die Josef wird, ganz besonders gefördert werden musste, wenn er selbst Haus und Familie hatte. Wenn das Volk in den sieben Jahren der Fruchtbarkeit sich weise beschränken wollte, so reichten sie fünfunddreißig Jahre aus. In sinnloser Verschwendung gingen fie dem Hungertode entgegen. Josef sollte diese heilsame und notwendige Kontrahierung üben. Den wohltätigsten Einfluss würde er durch das eigene Beispiel üben können, wenn er, der erste im Lande, mit dem Beispiele der Einfachheit in Familie und Haus vorangehen würde. Dazu war aber Familie und Haus notwendig, dazu bedurfte er der Frau. Der Mann ohne Familie und Haus hängt nicht in so inniger Weise mit den allgemeinen Angelegenheiten und Sorgen zusammen; allein mit Frau und Kindern, und wäre er ein Kaiser oder König, steht er mitten inne in den allgemeinen Sorgen des Volkes.

צפנת פענח, this name is an acronym, describing a person who is steadfast in the presence of strong urges to satisfy his libido through sleeping with partners legally forbidden to him. Potiphar had had no reason to believe that Joseph could not withstand such temptation. [Pharaoh wanted the world to know that Joseph had been completely innocent of any accusation. Ed.]

פוטי פרע — POTIPHERAH — he is identical with Potiphar. And he is called Potipherah (pherah meaning, disturbed or cut) as he became naturally castrated, since he desired Yosef for male intercourse (Sotah 13b).

THE DAUGHTER OF POTI-PHERAH ‘KOHEIN’ (PRIEST OF) ON. He is indentical with Potiphar.⁸⁰Above, 37:36. He was called Poti-phera⁸¹The word pera connotes “uncover and pull down.” See Ramban above, 39:19. because he had been emasculated on account of having purchased Joseph for sodomy. Thus the language of Rashi, and it is actually a Midrash of our Rabbis.⁸²Bereshith Rabbah 86:3.
On account of this Midrash, Rashi was forced to say in explanation of kohein On⁸³Rashi’s explanation of kohein On is found further in his commentary on 47:22. that “the term kohein always means one who ministers to Deity with the exception of this one, i.e., kohein On, which denotes one of high rank since he was the chief of the slaughterers of the king’s animals, and similarly, kohein Midian.”⁸⁴Exodus 3:1. Meaning the chief of Midian. It could not mean “the priest” of Midian since Jethro had already abandoned idolatry.
But I say that according to the words of our Rabbis, [who said that Poti-phera is identical with Potiphar, and was called Poti-phera because of his emasculation, as explained above],⁸⁵Ramban’s intent is to state that even though Potiphar is identical with Poti-phera, and Potiphar was an officer to the king, he later became a priest, so that kohein On does not mean, as Rashi explained, “one of high rank,” or “the chief of On,” but rather “the priest of On.” Potiphar was an officer of the king, and later when he became physically castrate, on account of which they called him “Poti-phera,” he was embarassed and retired from his office. He then entered a temple of idol-worship and became a priest therein, for such was the custom among the nobility, and it is possible that On was the name of his idol. Likewise, kohein Midian⁸⁶Exodus 3:1. means “priest of Midian,” just as they said, concerning Jethro,⁸⁷Sanhedrin 82b. that he used to fatten calves for the idols.
Now the truth of the matter is that the term k’hunah means ministry, but not to the Deity alone, for it is stated, And David’s sons were ‘kohanim,’⁸⁸II Samuel 8:18. and in the book of Chronicles,⁸⁹I Chronicles 18:17. in the same connection it says, And the sons of David were chiefs at the side of the king.⁹⁰It is thus clear that kohanim in the book of Samuel means “chief ministers.” Similarly we find in the following verses: He leadeth ‘kohanim’ barefoot,⁹¹Job 12:19. referring to ministers of the king; ‘y’chahein pe’eir,’⁹²Isaiah 61:10. Translated: “a priestly diadem.” (he has clothed him in splendor as a ministering priest), meaning that they will make him garments unlike those of the rest of the people, for glory and for splendor. Also similar is the verse [II Kings 10:11], And his familiar friends ‘v’kohanav’, meaning his chief ministers.

פוטיפרע, this is not the Potiphar who had acquired Joseph as a slave.

ויצא יוסף, he now proceeded to take the reins of government into his hands

ויתן לו את אסנת בת פוטיפרע...לאשה, “He gave him Ossnat, daughter of Potiphera as a wife.” He did not give him as a wife the daughter of a member of the Egyptian political hierarchy, but the daughter of Potiphar, Joseph’s former master. This was a politically inspired move, designed to stifle any protest movement that might be sparked by Potiphar resenting that his former slave had now become the economic czar of the empire, with power over life and death. Seeing that he made Joseph Potiphar’s son-in-law by this astute maneuver, he was certain that the former master would now boast about being Joseph’s father-in-law. Rashi also agrees that the man called here Potiphera, was the one that used to be Joseph’s master and is known to us as Potiphar. The name change reflects that he had become castrated. The description by the Torah of the position of this man as “the priest of On,” prompted Rashi to give this commentary, as the word און is an expression of “greatness, strength,” as we know from Yaakov describing his first born son Reuven as ראשית אוני, “the first product of my virility” (Genesis 49,3). In his capacity as the chief executioner, Potiphar occupied a position of power. Nachmanides writes that the attribute כהן און, indicates that as a result of his castration Potiphar felt very embarrassed and decided to devote the rest of his life to a monk-like existence in a Temple, far from the eyes of the world. It is quite possible that the word “On” is the designation given to the specific deity whom Potiphar worshipped as a priest. The description of Yitro as כהן מדין, similarly describes the deity that Yitro used to serve in his position of priest. Our sages illustrate this when they said that he would offer fatted calves to this deity. (compare Yalkut Shimoni Judges 1) Some commentators claim that Potiphar took refuge in a monastery out of fear that Joseph would revenge himself on him for having thrown him into jail.

As a result of becoming castrated... His castration may be learned from the term פרע (torn), but not from פוטיפר. So it seems to me.

ויתן לו את אסנת, “he (Pharaoh) gave him Ossnat (as a wife) If you were to ask why Joseph who was Royalty would marry the daughter of a commoner, remember that Joseph had previously been a slave in the household of Potiphar. He therefore reasoned that if he were to refuse to marry Ossnat, the daughter of his former master, the latter would spread the word that Joseph was really a slave and that he had no business to have risen to such an exalted position. On the other hand, if he would agree and marry this woman, his former master would honour him henceforth, being proud that through this marriage he himself now had connections to the highest social circles in Egypt. There is an additional reason why he agreed to marry this woman, as she was actually a descendant of Yaakov, as Rashi has explained on Genesis, portion Vayishlach, quoting Pirke de rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38, according to which she was the daughter of Dinah from her rape by Sh’chem. According to that chapter, the angel Michael had transported that infant to Egypt where she had been adopted by Potiphar. This is why the Torah calls her the daughter of Potiphar. We find that Moses similarly was adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh, and that in Chronicles I 4,18 Calev is reported as marrying (also) Bityah-the daughter of Pharaoh, who had at the time adopted Moses. When Joseph was paraded throughout Egypt (Genesis 49,23,) and according to the Torah, all the young ladies threw flowers or jewelry at him, when Ossnat, did not have anything to throw, she threw her amulet, which she had worn around her neck at all times, at him. When Joseph looked at the inscription on it, he realised that the girl wearing it was descended from Yaakov, and he went ahead and married her.

ויתן לו את אסנת בת פוטיפרע, “he gave him (as a wife) Ossnat daughter of Potiphera;” according to Rashi, this is the same Potiphar in whose house Joseph had served for a year before his incarceration. If Joseph had married someone of higher rank, he was afraid that his children would be claimed by his former master as slaves, seeing he had owned their father as a slave. When he married his former master’s own daughter, he would be ashamed to say that her children were slaves. A different exegesis: he married her to prove that he had never slept with her mother as claimed. Still another interpretation: Joseph’s wife was called: “the daughter of Potiphar,” only because he had raised her. There was no biological connection with Potiphar. We find something similar in Chronicles I 4,18: אלה בני בתיה בת פרעה, ”these were the children of Batyah, daughter of Pharaoh, as pointed out in Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 111 on this verse, quoting Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 according to which this was the daughter Dinah who had been raped by Sh’chem, her very name suggesting that she was the product of rape. Having been raised in the house of a high official such as Potiphar, and bearing his name, would help to remove any stigma from her. According to the Midrash, Yaakov, after her birth had expelled her, and placed a charm around her neck and hid her among some cactuses and similar prickly plants, so that when found she was named according to the location where she had been found, סנה, “thornbush.” The angel Gavriel brought her to Egypt, presented her to the wife of Potiphar where she was raised. When Joseph was paraded after his ascension to power and all the young women of Egypt crowded around him to admire his being so handsome (49,22), and throwing flowers at him, Ossnat, who had no flowers, threw her charm at him. When Joseph took a look at the inscription on that charm, he realised that she was the daughter of his half sister Dinah, and decided to marry her.

כהן און, a minister in the city of that name, as we know from Samuel II 8,18 ובני דוד כהנים היו, “the sons of David were priests.” [seeing that they belonged to the tribe of Yehudah, how could they have been priests (who were descended from Levi)? The meaning of כהן therefore, both in Samuel and in our verse, must be that they were in exalted positions.

Because he had lusted to sodomize Yoseif. You might ask: Earlier it is written, “Your slave did such things to me” (39:19), and Rashi explains there: “She told him this when they were intimate.” And this was well after he bought Yoseif. [Does this not imply that he was not castrated?] The answer is: He did not have actual relations, only an embracing and kissing. And this explains why Rashi used the phrase ענייני תשמיש כאלה (matters of intimacy such as these), i.e., but not actual relations. Another answer: The castration affected only his testicles and not his membrum, as the Radak explains.

פוטיפרע, according to Rashi, this was the same man as the one who had been Joseph’s master, but his name has been changed after he had become partially castrated so as to prevent him from carrying out his homosexual designs on Joseph. The word פריעה, almost identical with the name given Potiphar here, describes a condition permitting sexual intercourse with females but not with males. Unless you interpreted this in this way, we would not know how Potiphar was able to produce a daughter. Besides, according to the words of his wife who demonstrated to her husband how Joseph had supposedly raped her or tried to rape her, that line would make no sense. (39,19).

בת פוטי פרע, she was described as “daughter of Potiphar” because she had been raised in Potiphar’s house. She was so named in accordance with Sanhedrin 19 that anyone who raises an orphan in his home is deemed to have given birth to that person.”

בן שלושים, and old enough to assume the burden of high office.

ויעבר בכל ארץ מצרים. In order to supervise the storage facilities in the cities and to organize matters. We find the prophet Samuel as traveling the length and breadth of the country instead of waiting for the people to come to him in Samuel I 7,16, וסבב בית אל...והמצפה, “and he made the rounds (annually), starting at Bet El and finishing at Mitzpah, his home.”

ויעבור בכל ארץ מצרים, he traversed the whole land of Egypt. This was in order to familiarise himself with all the fields, to gather information about where to establish silos, etc.

ויצא יוסף מלפני פרעה, instead of remaining standing at Pharaoh’s side, like the other ministers, he left to set about doing his job.

ויצא יוסף , “Joseph went forth.” This refers to Joseph’s reputation which spread all over the land. The word ויצא is used in a similar context in Ezekiel 16,14 ויצא לך שם בגוים, “your fame went forth among the nations.” Alternately, Joseph went on a whirlwind tour of Egypt, a country that he had been totally unfamiliar with up until then.

ויעבר בכל ארץ מצרים, he did not travel for pleasure but in the course of his new duties he had to traverse the whole country. His task consisted primarily of supervising that his instructions were being carried out.

ותעש הארץ AND THE EARTH BROUGHT FORTH — understand it as the Targum does: the inhabitants of the land gathered. Still the word ותעש does not really lose its meaning of “doing” or “making”.

‘LIKMATZIM’ (HANDFULS). They stored up the grain handful upon handful, fist by fist. This is the language of Rashi.
Onkelos translated it as, “into store houses,” since excavations made in the earth for storage or other purposes are called ‘kmatzim.’ He is hid now in one of ‘hap’chothim’ (the pits),⁹³II Samuel 17:9. Jonathan translated, “in one of the kumtza.” Similarly, he always translated the term pachath as kamtza, which is related to the expression, He that diggeth ‘gametz’ (a pit),⁹⁴Ecclesiastes 10:8. as the letter gimmel serves here as kuph, just as it serves as a kaph in the following verses: Never lacking in ‘hamazeg’ (mingled wine),⁹⁵Song of Songs 7:3. the word hamazeg being derived from the term, ‘Mas’cha’ (She hath mingled) her wine;⁹⁶Proverbs 9:2. ‘v’chano’ which Thy right hand hath planted,⁹⁷Psalms 80:16. Translated: ‘And of the stock’ which Thy right hand hath planted. But Ramban explains it as: “And of the garden, etc.” which is like ganoh (garden); ‘vayisachru’ the fountains of the murmuring deep,⁹⁸Above, 8:2. which is like vayisagru (and they were closed); To their native land (‘m’churatham’);⁹⁹Ezekiel 29:14 (m’churatham); 16:3 (m’chorotayich). Thy origin (‘m’chorothayich’) and thy birth;⁹⁹Ezekiel 29:14 (m’churatham); 16:3 (m’chorotayich). And I will give over (‘v’sikarti’) Egypt.¹⁰⁰Isaiah 19:4. In all of these cases the kaph and the gimmel are alike. The kuph and the kaph are often alike, as in kova and chova, (both meaning “hat”);¹⁰¹I Samuel 17:38 (kova); 17:5 (chova). ‘tikein’ (he set in order) many proverbs,¹⁰²Ecclesiastes 12:9. the word tikein being like the term sichein in the verse, Who has directed (‘sichein’) the spirit of the Eternal?¹⁰³Isaiah 40:13. Our Rabbis have said in connection with the term jewelry: tachshitim and takshit. Similarly, it is said, ‘Vayatziku’ (And they set down) the ark of G-d — but Abiathar went up — until all the people hath passed out of the city,¹⁰⁴II Samuel 15:24. and the Targum translates: “And they put down the ark,” thus making vayatziku as vayatzig, just as it is said concerning it, And they brought in the ark of the Eternal, ‘vayatzigu’ (and set it) in its place,¹⁰⁵Ibid., 6:17. the word being derived from the expressions, ‘atziga’ (let me place) with thee,¹⁰⁶Above 33:15. and ‘v’hitzagtiv’ (And I will set him) before thee.¹⁰⁷Further, 43:9.

ותעש הארץ, it produced bountiful harvests. We find the root עשה use in the same sense in Leviticus 25,21 when the Torah describes the bountiful harvests preceding the shemittah year in the words ועשת את התבואה לשלוש השנים, “it will produce a harvest sufficient for the three years.”

ותעש הארץ, the earth produced harvests לקמצים, even a single kernel produced many handfuls. [possibly by “kernel” the author refers to a kernel of seed. Ed.]

לקמצים, “by the handful.” Rashi translates it as “handful over handful.” Other commentators understand this as what the farmers did with the crop, i.e. they hoarded and stashed it away in anticipation of the eventual famine. Onkelos understands the expression as meaning “to store underground,” in line with excavations in the earth which are performed in order to store and preserve valuables, which are referred to as קומצין in Yonathan ben Uziel on our verse. [the Hebrew קומץ, i.e. the hollow of the hand enclosed by the middle three fingers, is also used in Aramaic as describing hollow areas, such as holes in excavated earth. Ed.]

ותעש הארץ. “the earth produced.” This is a reference to the crops the earth produced during the seven years of plenty The root עשה is often associated with crops as we find in Leviticus 25,21 וצויתי את ברכתי לכם ...ועשת את התבואה, “and I will direct My blessing toward you and it (the earth) will produce the crop sufficient for three years.”

The word does not lose its meaning of doing, making. [Accordingly,] ותעש refers to הארץ, which made storehouses. And הארץ refers to the people of the land, as in: “When a land sins” (Yechezkel 14:12).

קמץ) לקמצים die Hand voll nehmen, verwandt mit כמס, bergen). Wo sonst nur eine einzige Frucht stand, da kamen jetzt händevoll.

לקמצים, “in fistfuls.” Joseph’s overseers took a fifth of a fistful, even of the last fistful remaining in the farmer’s barn, as part of the grain to be stored for the future.

לקמצים BY HANDFULS — they stored up the grain handful upon handful, fist upon fist.

לקמצים, a single stalk of grain would yield several handfuls of flour.

לקמצים, “by the handfuls.” The word‘s meaning is similar to לגמצים, i.e. ”digging a pit.” The letter ק is interchangeable with the letter ג. when the letters גיכ'ק are involved. Another example is ויציקו את ארון האלו-הים, “and they set down the Ark of G’d.” the word ויציקו is equivalent to ויציגו. as we know it from Genesis 43,9 והצגתיו לפניך ”I will make him stand upright in your presence (bring him back safely).”

אכל שדה העיר אשר סביבתיה נתן בתוכה THE FOOD OF THE FIELD WHICH WAS ROUND ABOUT EVERY CITY LAID HE UP IN THE SAME — for every district preserves its own produce; and for this people always put amongst the grain some of the earth of the place in which it grows and this prevents it decaying (Genesis Rabbah 90:5).

AND HE STORED UP ALL THE FOOD. “He” refers to Joseph mentioned above.¹⁰⁸In Verse 46: And Joseph was… The same applies to the following verse: And Joseph piled up grain… until he ceased numbering.¹⁰⁹Verse 49 here. The pronoun “he” refers to Joseph, who was mentioned.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the phrase, all the food, is not to be understood literally, for otherwise they would have died of famine immediately. A similar case is the verse, And all the lands came into Egypt to Joseph to buy grain.¹¹⁰Verse 57 here. This verse is also not to be understood in its literal sense since Jacob and Benjamin did not come to buy grain. The meaning of he stored up all the food is only that Joseph stored up all the food which he could.
It appears to me to be correct that Joseph gathered all food under his control, and he gave enough of it every year for sustenance to the Egyptians, so that they should not squander it. This is the intent of his statement, And let them store up all the food of those good years that come, and pile up corn under the hand of Pharaoh… and hold it there.¹¹¹Verse 35 here. Ramban thus makes a distinction between ochel (food) and ibur (corn). At the end of the paragraph, he will mention that Onkelos makes no distinction between them. Now in view of the fact that it says, And let them store up all the food… and pile up corn,¹¹¹Verse 35 here. Ramban thus makes a distinction between ochel (food) and ibur (corn). At the end of the paragraph, he will mention that Onkelos makes no distinction between them. and [here in the verses before us] it says, And he stored up all the food… And Joseph piled up grain, this would indicate that he gathered whatever is eaten by man; corn, bread, and all food essential to life, even figs, fresh and dried, and similar things. He piled the corn — meaning the produce which is brought under a winnowing shovel and fan for fanning and cleansing — under the hand of Pharaoh, and he laid up in the cities enough of all the fruits for sustenance. Thus all the food was held in need for the years of famine to be drawn upon to the degree essential for life, and the balance of the corn he preserved in the storehouses.
It is possible that Joseph paid them money from the royal treasures at a low market price. This was why the corn belonged to Pharaoh, and he sold it to them in the years of famine, just as it is written, And Joseph collected all the money that was found in the land of Egypt.¹¹²Further, 47:14. It is possible that the king took it by force, saying: “I preserved it.”¹¹³For were it not for the king’s dream, the food of the seven years of plenty would have been squandered.
Onkelos, however, translated both ochel (food) and bar (corn) alike.¹¹⁴Calling them ibur. See Note 111.

ויקבץ את כל אכל, He collected all the food, etc. According to the commentary on verse 34 that the word וחמש meant setting aside a tax of 20% the words "all the food" refer to the king's share. According to the alternative commentary that the word וחמש means lending a sense of urgency to the measures to be taken, the verse may be explained literally; Joseph collected the entire excess of that year's harvest over average years' harvests. He bought up all the excess. The farmers offered it for sale seeing they had no use for it.

ויקבוץ את כל אוכל, we already explained this on verse 35.

ויקבוץ את כל אכל, “he collected all the (surplus) food, etc.” Ibn Ezra is quick to point out that Joseph, of course, did not collect all the food, for had he done so the people would have died. The word כל is not always to be understood literally, as for instance in Genesis 41,56 וכל הארץ באו מצרימה, where it does not mean that the population of entire surrounding countries all came to Egypt. Nachmanides writes that Joseph first collected all the harvest, and released it in the form of rations per family. This is the meaning of the verse 41,35 “let them gather all the produce of the good years that are now coming and stockpile grain under Pharaoh’s authority, etc.” According to this verse, when the time came, Joseph collected every kind of crop including dried fruit, in order to have a stockpile and to prevent waste, [and eventual profiteering. Ed.] It is quite possible that Joseph paid cash to the farmers who handed in their crops in order to encourage them not to hold out on him. By doing this, the entire crop became legally Pharaoh’s, and was not only on loan to him. When the time came, Pharaoh could charge a higher price when the Egyptians bought it back, as no doubt prices had risen considerably by then, driven by international demand.

ויתן אכל בערים, “he placed food supplies in the cities.” The fact that previously the Torah had spoken of כל אכל, and here it speaks merely of אכל, shows that in the previous verse the word כל did not refer to quantity but to variety, i.e. “all types of food, not only grain.”
אכל שדה העיר אשר סביבותיה נתן בתוכה, “the food of the field around each city he placed within it.” Joseph’s procedure as reported here caused our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 90,5) to state that when local food supplies are stored locally, such food supply will keep as the earth of that neighbourhood acts as a preservative for what it has produced.

Because every area preserves its produce. I.e., the verse implies that Yoseif stored all the produce that grew in a town’s area into that specific town. Why? Rashi explains, “Because every area preserves it produce...”

אשר היו בארץ מצרים. Weil die außerordentliche Fruchtbarkeit nur im Lande Mizrajim war, war die Gelegenheit zur Handelsausfuhr umsomehr gegeben, und umsomehr die Notwendigkeit, dem kontrollierend vorzubeugen.

אוכל שדה העיר, “he stored inside each city the kind of food had had grown in the vicinity of that city.” By doing this it would be near at hand when the time came for drawing on these supplies.

ויתן אכל בערים, he built all the storage silos in the towns and not in the villages. The twenty percent of the harvest the farmers in the villages had to turn in, Joseph stored in the cities.

And they put among the grain some of the earth from the place... This is an opinion [also from Bereishis Rabboh] which explains it differently: They brought all the produce to [the capital of] Egypt, where Yoseif was. When it is written אכל שדה העיר ... נתן בתוכה, it means they needed to mix into the produce some of the soil from where it grew, but afterwards they would bring it to Egypt [for storage].

עד כי חדל לספר UNTIL THEY CEASED NUMBERING — until the one who was numbering stopped numbering — it is an elliptical phrase

אין מספר; the amount was so great that there was no known word to describe such a number, such an amount in terms of grain.

עד כי חדל לספור, until he stopped counting. They stopped counting the accumulated amount of agricultural surplus because the people delivering the surplus for storage had not bothered to count it. Even though the Torah speaks about one fifth of the harvest being taxed, the farmers merely divided the harvest into five approximately equal piles, and delivered one pile to Joseph's silos. They did not bother to count the total amount they had harvested, however. Joseph's officials did not count, not having been told the amount the farmers claimed to have delivered.

כחול הים, an exaggerated way of describing the abundance of grain.

Like the sand of the sea. Through Yoseif’s wisdom or through Hashem’s will, the grain withstood the forces of decay for seven years, just as the sand withstands the waves.

עד כי חדל לספור, “until he stopped counting.” There came a point when instead of measuring the grain by the usual methods, i.e. employing the standard measure eypha, they simply counted the locations where grain had been stored.

Until that the counter gave up counting it. כי sometimes means אשר (that), as Rashi explains in many places. [Accordingly, the verse means:] Until that the counter gave up counting.

Dass der Vorrat einer jeden Stadt aufgekauft, als Staatseigentum für jede bewahrt und später zur Zeit der Not gekauft werden musste, erzielte auch eine weise Ökonomie. Mit dem, was die Leute kaufen müssen, gehen sie sparsam um. Das Geschenkte achtet man gering. — כי אין מספר. Nicht, dass es keine Zahl dafür gegeben hätte. Es gibt allerdings eine Anschauung, die dem Altertum, insbesondere dem biblischen, alle mögliche kindliche Unbeholfenheit andichten möchte. So auch: man habe nur bis zu einer gewissen Zahl zählen können. Es ist dies eine einfache Gedankenlosigkeit. Sobald man Namen für 1, 100. 1000, ja 10000 hat, so kann man alle möglichen Zahlengrößen bis ins Unendliche komponieren. רבוא und רבבה ist auch keineswegs eine unbestimmte Menge, sondern eine ganz präzise Zahl, wie z. B. aus Zahlbestimmungen wie (Esra 2, 69) שש רבאות ואלף unwiderleglich erhellt. Ist רבוא ein Infinitum, so kann es weder mehreremal, z. B. hier sechsmal, vorhanden sein, noch einen Rest, wie hier Tausend, haben. Und zwar ist es ganz entschieden: 10000, wie aus Richter 20, 10. sich ergibt: ולקחנו עשרה אנשים למאה ומאה לאלף ואלף לרבבה usw. Wenn es gleichwohl hier heißt: כי אין מספר, so muss man bedenken, dass allerdings es für die Vorstellung eine Grenze gibt. Zwischen 3 000 000 000 und 3 155 000 000 ist z. B. in unserer Vorstellung kein Unterschied. Wir können sie wohl zählen, haben aber keine Vorstellung davon. So groß war der immer mehr sich anhäufende Kornvorrat, dass man aufhörte, sich genau zu sagen: so und so viel Scheffel liegen nun da, weil für diese Vorstellung die Summe durch das neu Hinzugekommene gar nicht wuchs; sie überstieg gestern schon alle Vorstellung.

כי אין מספר means because it was without number — The word כי has the meaning of because (Rosh Hashanah 3a).

Here כי means because. [Meaning:] חדל implies that the counter decided on his own to give up, [but could have continued]. Why did he not count more? “Because there were no numbers.” I.e., he knew he will surely run out of numbers because there was so much — thus he gave up from the beginning. (Maharshal)

בטרם תבא שנת הרעב BEFORE THE YEAR OF FAMINE CAME — from here we learn that a man must practise continence during times of famine (cf. Taanit 11a).

בטרם תבא שנת הרעב, seeing that Yaakov arrived in Egypt at the beginning of the second year of the famine and he died at the end of seventeen years of having lived in Egypt, he said to Joseph prior to his death: “the two sons of yours who were born before I came i.e. Ephrayim and Menashe, will be to me as Reuven and Shimon.” Any children of Joseph, and he had such, who were born to him after his father arrived in Egypt would be considered as regular grandchildren of Yaakov in respect of the eventual parceling up to the tribes of the soil of the Holy Land. (48,5-6).

וליוסף יולד שני בנים, Two sons were born to Joseph, etc. The Torah includes this with what has been recorded before about Joseph's remarkable achievements during these seven years. The names Joseph gave his sons are proof that he was well pleased that G'd had let him forget his previous problems and had also made him fruitful. The word "fruitful" includes both having children, amassing wealth and being honoured.

וליוסף יולד, the singular mode used by the Torah in describing the birth of these two sons of Joseph suggests that they were twins. At least they were presumably born during the same night.

וליוסף יולד שני בנים בטרם תבא שנת הרעב, “And two children had been born for Joseph before the years of famine commenced.” From this verse our sages learned that it is forbidden for a person to indulge in marital relations during a famine. This raises the question how Levi could have ignored this ban [in effect already during the deluge in the ark, Ed.] since we have a tradition that Yocheved was not born until the family of Yaakov had reached the boundary of Egypt. Whence would Levi have known when the famine would end, and when the family would be moving to Egypt where the family would be amply provided for? We must assume that Joseph knew that his father’s family was not personally affected by the famine; besides Jews do not need to refrain from practicing reproduction only because the gentiles are short of food. If Joseph did refrain from indulging in marital relations it was because as a member of the Egyptian nation he had to share their hardship and be seen to do so. Moreover, at the beginning of the famine Joseph had no idea if his father was personally affected by the famine, so that he was duty bound to share the hardships endured by other members of his own family.

בטרם תבא שנת הרעב, “before the year of famine had set in.” This verse prompted our sages (Taanit 11) to decree that it is forbidden for man and wife to engage in marital relations during a year of famine. The only exception to this rule are couples who have not yet been able to produce any children. Joseph named his sons by commemorating events in his life.

That a person may not have marital relations during years of famine. Although it is written (v. 54), “There was famine in all the lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread,” perforce it means there was famine in all the lands even in their storehouses. But in Egypt there was bread in the storehouses [of Yoseif]. Although Yitzchok had relations during a famine year (26:8), it was already explained [that in Gerar there was no famine]. Re’m asks: Did not Leivi have relations during famine years? Yocheved was born to him as they entered Egypt, as Rashi explains on 46:15, and there was famine then. The answer is: One who is childless may have relations even during years of famine.

Eine eigentümliche Weise des Erzählens: es wurden ihm zwei Kinder geboren, welche ihm Asnath geboren hatte. Und dazu noch יֻלד Singular, statt: יֻולדו In ähnlicher Weise heißt es später Kap.46, 20: ויוָלד ליוסף בארץ מצרים ילדה לו אסנת וגו׳. Es scheint, dass hier die Geburt in doppelter Beziehung aufgefasst wird, vom Standpunkt der Mutter und dem des Kindes. Es kann die Mutter physisch dem Vater das Kind gebären, dabei aber gleichwohl noch in Frage bleiben, ob das Kind auch nach der Geburt dem Vater geboren bleibt, ob es nach innerer Anlage und äußerem Einfluss sein Kind in geistiger und sittlicher Beziehung wird und bleibt. Unter gewöhnlichen Umständen genügt ותלד לו; was die Gattin dem Gatten gebiert, wächst unter beiderseitigem Einflusse zu ihrem Ebenbilde heran. Es braucht dann nicht noch gesagt werden, dass יֻלד לו, dass dem Vater das Kind geboren worden. Hier aber ist dies ausdrücklich und bedeutsam hervorgehoben. Die Mutter war die Tochter einer angesehenen priesterlichen Familie, die also in alle ägyptischen "Geheimnisse" und Anschauungen ein- geweiht und darin erzogen war, und Josef war doch immer ein durch die Gunst des Königs gehobener Sklave und Ibri. Es kann einer nach außen der gefürchtete Gebieter eines Volkes sein und doch zu Hause der kriechende Sklave seines hochmütigen Weibes. Wie viel gehörte dazu, dass Asnath wahrhaft Josefs Weib und Mutter seiner Kinder werden sollte! Es brauchte nur Asnath nicht ganz mit Geist und Herz in Josefs geistige und sittliche Lebensanschauung aufzugehen, es brauchte nur Josef nicht eben Josef gewesen zu sein, und die Gefahr lag nahe, dass sie ihm wohl Kinder gebären, und doch die Kinder nicht ihm geboren würden. Dazu kommt nun noch das impersonale יֻלָד in welcher Form, wie ויוגד usw eine Tätigkeit oder eine Wirkung ganz absolut, und völlig abgesehen von ihrem Träger, als Subjekt des Satzes gefasst wird. "Es wird gesagt"; d. h. das Sagen wird bewirkt. "Es wurde geboren": die Geburt wurde geboren, die Geburt wurde gefördert, verwirklicht. Damit wird die Geburt als solche als unter besonderem Einfluss, hier des göttlichen Schutzes und Segens, begriffen. Und der gehörte wahrlich dazu. In Mizrajim der einzige Jude sein, die Tochter eines כומר לע׳ז zur Frau haben und doch Kinder erhalten und erziehen, mit denen noch die spätesten Geschlechter sich segnen und keinen höheren Wunsch kennen sollen, als, dass Gott ihnen Kinder gleich diesen möge werden lassen, das ist allerdings eine זכיה, die besonders hervorgehoben zu werden verdient und daher auch später bei der Aufzählung der Familien des Jakobshauses in gleicher Weise angemerkt wird.

בטרם תבוא שנת הרעב, “before the year of famine arrived.” The Talmud in tractate Taanit folio 11 teaches that from this verse we learn that during a famine man and his wife are not to cohabit [so as not to add more hungry mouths at that time. Ed.] In light of this it is difficult to understand how Levi could have sired Yocheved during those years as we have been told that she was born when her mother entered Egypt on her way there with Yaakov’s family. (Compare Genesis 45,6) Rabbi Yehudah hachassid, opined that the prohibition of cohabiting with one’s wife during periods of famine is valid only for a prophet who has been told by G–d directly that there was going to be such a famine. Joseph was such a prophet who had been inspired by G–d to advise Pharaoh of future events. Levi who did not have any direct knowledge concerning the origin of this famine, and who had caused it, was therefore not obliged to abstain from the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. According to a different interpretation, the brothers Levi and Joseph took different sides in an argument aired in the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 61 concerning that if the commandment to be fruitful has already been fulfilled if one has fathered two sons. A second opinion holds that until one has sired both a son and a daughter, one cannot claim to have fulfilled the commandment. Since Levi at this time had not yet sired a daughter, he had felt entitled to maintain normal family relations with his wife. Joseph had already sired two sons, and he held that thereby he had fulfilled the commandment.

בטרם תבא שנת הרעב , “before the first year of the famine commenced.” Rashi explains the significance of this verse being that marital relations during a famine are prohibited under Jewish law. You could ask that his brother Levi certainly had had marital relations with his wife during the famine, else how could his daughter Yocheved have been born during the second year of the famine when Yaakov travelled down to Egypt? (According to our tradition) We must therefore presume that the reason that Joseph abstained during that period was because he realised that his family went through a difficult time, not having any supplies until they replenished them by buying grain in Egypt.

שנת הרעב, the first year of the famine; the Torah adds: בטרם תבא, for they were born during the last year of the 7 years of plenty. Joseph was 37 years old when they were born. They were therefore 19 years old when Yaakov died. My teachers (Taanit 11) explained that the wording “before the onset of the famine,” is meant to teach that a person must not engage in marital intercourse during years of famine.

בטרם תבוא שנת הרעב, before the year of famine arrived. Taanit 11 derives from here that it is forbidden to maintain marital relations during a famine. We can conclude from the fact that the Talmud uses the example of Joseph [the words "before the arrival of the year of famine"] to deduce this ruling, that it is applicable only to people who have not yet fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. Joseph had already fulfilled that commandment, ergo he could not have marital relations during the famine. Had he not had children yet, the fact that there was a famine would not have represented a halachic hindrance to his having normal marital relations during that period.

אשר ילדה לו אסנת, this is to teach that Joseph did not have any additional wives, i.e. both of his sons were born by the same mother.

Keeping this in mind, the question raised by Tossaphot in the Talmud about how Yocheved could have been born during the descent of Jacob's family to Egypt, seeing the famine was in full swing at the time, becomes moot. Tossaphot is at pains to explain that the rule was not a legal one but only a pious practice. This appears unacceptable seeing the whole rule is based on scripture. Besides, the Torah testifies to Levi's piety in Deut. 33,8, suggesting that of all the sons of Jacob he was the most pious. Even though the statement in Deuteronomy refers to the descendants of Levi, i.e. the branches, it is most certainly applicable also to the root, i.e. to Levi himself. Inasmuch as Levi did not yet have a daughter at the time, he was at liberty (compare Yevamot 61 and Even Ha-Ezer 1) to indulge in normal conjugal relations with his wife.

Moreover, the prohibition of conjugal relations applies only when the Jewish people experience the pain of a famine. Famine amongst the Gentiles has no bearing on Jewish family life. Inasmuch as Jacob was known to have a sufficient supply of food (compare Taanit 10) and he only sent his sons to Egypt for appearances' sake (so as not to arouse the envy of his neighbours) as we know from Rashi on Genesis 42,1 למה תתראו, Levi had acted one hundred percent within accepted Jewish norms. While it is true that there is a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 91, that Jacob's family did not even have any barley left, that statement refers to the second year of the famine. During the first year they certainly had enough grain left and Levi had every right to sleep with his wife. They did not have to refrain from conjugal relations on account of Joseph. Joseph was only an individual and the rule applies only to when a community is in economic straits. It is possible that Joseph refrained from conjugal relations with his wife during the famine because he knew that his family in the land of Canaan was suffering from the famine (the first year before they came to him).

נשני, the construction of the word from the root נשש is similar to a similar construction of the root חנן in 33,11 where Yaakov explained to his brother Esau that he was looking at his children. The proof of this is the dagesh in the letter ש. [which effectively doubles that letter. Ed.] If the word nashani had been derived from the root נשה as in Isaiah 44,21 לא תנשני, or as in Lamentations 3,17, נשיתי טובה, where the root is one that loses its last root letter, the Torah here should have written nishani, instead of nashani. It then would have been parallel to the construction in Samuel II 19,27 עבדי רמני, rimani from the root רמה, to deceive, and other similar examples.

כי נשני אלוקים, what happened to him fore- shadowed what would happen in the future, as described in Isaiah 65,16 כי נשכחו הצרות הראשונות, “for the former troubles shall be forgotten

כי נשני, G’d granted me so much wealth and power that He enabled me to forget את כל עמלי, all the problems and setbacks I had experienced, and He has even made me forget all the members of my father’s household. [not including his father, of course. Ed.]

כי נשני אלו-הים את כל עמלי ואת כל בית אבי, “for G’d has enabled me to forget all my problems including those which I have suffered in my father’s house.” This verse prompted our sages (Baba Batra 12) to conclude that the house in which a woman grew up is called בי נשא, “a house inducing forgetfulness.” The origin of this psychological fact is the verse in Genesis 2,24 “for that purpose (to get married) man leaves the house of his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife.” [As long as Joseph had not founded a family he was still deeply attached to his father’s house. Ed.] What holds true for the emotional reaction of a man when he gets married is equally true of the wife once she is married.

נַשַנִי übersetzt man gewöhnlich: Gott hat mich vergessen lassen all mein Unglück und mein ganzes väterliches Haus! Wem kehrte sich dabei das Herz nicht um? Josef nennt seinen Erstgeborenen danach, dass ihn Gott seinen alten Vater und seine ganze väterliche Familie habe vergessen lassen! Dadurch würde allerdings der Umstand, dass Josef sich so lange um seinen Vater nicht gekümmert, auf die fasslichste Weise gelöst. Josef wäre einfach ein herzloser Mensch gewesen. Glücklicher Weise ist "vergessen" nicht die einzige Bedeutung von נשה ,נשה heißt auch "Gläubiger sein" (siehe Kap.32, 33), und נשני kann ebensowohl heißen: Gott hat mir mein Unglück und meine Familie zu Gläubigern gemacht. Was mir bis jetzt als Unglück und Misshandlung erschienen, das hat Gott Werkzeug meines höchsten Glückes werden lassen, so dass ich meinem Unglück und meiner Familie aufs tiefste verschuldet bin. Die Form נַשני statt נִשני ist nach beiden Auffassungen gleich schwierig und würde sich nur durch eine Wurzel נשש erklären lassen, die sonst nicht weiter vorkommt. — Beiläufig wird der Ausdruck עמל zu der Äußerung missbraucht: der Jude ist faul, Arbeit bedeutet ihm Unglück. Dem gegenüber denkt sich der Jude selbst das Paradies nicht als ein dolce far niente! der jüdische Mensch ist selbst im Paradiese "zur Arbeit" da, עמל !לעבדה ולשמרה ist aber nicht eine jede Arbeit, sondern nur eine mühevolle Arbeit ohne entsprechendes Resultat. Wenn uns "arbeitsamen" Deutschen eine solche Arbeit eine Seligkeit wäre, was für eine Seligkeit müsste dann nicht "Mühseligkeit" sein! Das עמל des einen erzeugt im mitfühlenden Nebenmenschen חמל. Es kommt auch als das Unglück vor, das man andern bereiten will, und heißt dann in solcher Beziehung auch: Unrecht; allein in seiner ersten Bedeutung liegt dies nicht.

נשני, the vowel patach under the letter נ substitutes for the vowel chirik which we would normally expect in the transitive conjugation from the root נשה, as then it would have been nishani as in tzivani from the root צוה, “to command.” Some commentators do not accept that this vowel is a variant but claim that it is justified as the root of the word nashani in our verse is נשש. [compare Rash’bam’s comment. Ed.]

... And in truth, the greatness of the righteousness of his heart with God prevented him from fulfilling the commandment of honoring his father (and to tell his father that he was alive); in the same way that all of his behavior towards his brothers at this time - even though at first glance it appears as one who is taking vengeance upon them... in truth [was] only because of his righteousness, to not do anything against the will of his Maker. For so was the decree from the Most High which He showed him in a prophetic dream - "and they bowed down to my sheave" (Genesis 37:7). And he did it with great wisdom and deep counsel that they would not fulfill these bowings and this submission in front of him, while knowing that he was Joseph - as this would have been a great embarrassment for them. Surely to save them from this, he made great efforts that they should fulfill [the dream] without knowing that he was the one to whom they were bowing. [This is] as the verse testifies - "And Joseph remembered the dreams that he dreamt about them" (42:9), as explained there. Likewise was Joseph concerned in his heart about informing his father at the beginning of his being brought up, that he was alive and was the ruler of the country, lest the decree of the Most High about the bowings of the sheaves and the eleven stars be nullified. Behold it is for this reason - even though he was personally yearning to honor his father with the good news - that he nevertheless needed to strain with great strength  to nullify the commandment of honoring his father (in the same was as there is no room for the commandment of honoring one's father if, through it, he nullifies one of the commandments of the Lord)... Behold, in order to fulfill the will of his Maker, he was obligated to forget the honor of his father from his heart, even though he found himself obligated to honor him every instant... Hence he called his son, Menasseh, "as the Lord made me forget..." - He is the one who assisted me that I not think about the honor of my father, as if he was forgotten from my heart. And most of the usage of forgetting is just about not putting one's attention to something; in that it is not [sufficiently] important in his eyes to put his mind to it (hence, he "puts it to the side"). And he said, "all of my father's house," to include all those connected with his father, as they were all equally good in his eyes. And he did not have a grudge in his heart about what they did to him; as he said to them afterwards (Genesis 45:8), "It is not you that sent me here, but rather God." And [about] that which he said, "all of my toil" - his intention was not that with the status of being raised up, he forgot all of the heartaches which he had before his entering into all of this honor. For in fact his intention even at the time of his toil when he had the status of a slave - even though he was forced to be involved in things that were unnatural for him - [was that] this toil was not a strain and a burden upon him; as he accepted it with a joyful heart and gave thanks to Him, may He be blessed, that He helped him spiritually that he should not think of it as a strain, but rather to do it with a good heart. So all of the great toil was as removed and forgotten [even] in its time...

בארץ עניי, in the land which for me was first a land of poverty, oppression, mental anguish, and has now become the land in which my potential has come to fruition where G’d has granted me children, wealth and great honour.

For God has made me forget. Yoseif gave them names that would remind him of his former poverty so that he would never cease to be grateful.

קרא אפרים, “he called Ephrayim.” This was a reminder of the two founding fathers of the Jewish people, Avraham and Yitzchok, both of whom had described themselves as ashes, אפר. Compare Genesis 18,27 and Yitzchok, who when bound on the altar on Mount Moriah, considered himself as soon being burned to ashes. This is why the entire Jewish nation is on occasion called אפרים, compare Jeremiah 31,19: הבן יקיר לי אפרים, “truly, Ephrayim is a dear son to Me.”(G–d speaking)

אשר היה, a collective term, hence in the singular היה instead of the plural היו.

ותכילנה, “they came to an end;” according to B’reshit Rabbah, 90,6 the word is to be understood as derived from כלולות as in כלולותיך in Jeremiah 2,2, a reference to physical beauty, i.e. the seven years of plenty had resulted in the whole Egyptian population having a more pleasing and healthy appearance.

ותכילנה, “they came to an end;” this unusual expression for describing the end of something is based on כלולות יופי, “they were completely beautiful, because fully sated.”

AND THE FAMINE WAS IN ALL LANDS. That is, which surrounded Egypt. Otherwise, what could the distant lands do if there was such a famine in them?¹¹⁵They would not be able to come to Egypt to ease the famine and would have perished. Thus did the Sages say in Bereshith Rabbah:¹¹⁶90:6. “The famine was in three lands: Phoenicia, Arabia and Palestine.”

ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, because Joseph had stored food in the cities.

ותחילנה …כאשר אמר יוסף. The famine began just as Joseph had said. It was necessary for the Torah to repeat "as Joseph had said;" Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was proven true especially after the seven years of plenty were followed by the famine. Had the famine not commenced at that time, people would have said that the seven years of plenty had nothing to do with Joseph's forecast.

ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, in all the countries bordering on the land of Egypt there was food seeing that everyone had amassed a private hoard. [the author may mean that the individual farmers sold their private hoards to foreigners, knowing that when they would run out they would qualify for the accumulated supply of the state, while in the meantime overcharging the people from the neighbouring countries. Ed.]

ויהי רעב בכל הארצות, “The famine was in all the countries, etc.” The Torah refers to all the countries bordering on Egypt. The famine most certainly did not spread world wide, for if it had been that widely spread, most human beings would have perished by it.

ויהי רעב בכל הארצות, “there was a famine in all the countries.” This verse contrasts the conditions in the countries surrounding Egypt with those in Egypt itself where, thanks to Joseph’s foresight, the famine was not felt by the inhabitants of the country. This is why the verse concludes with the words: “but in all of the land of Egypt there was bread (food).”

ותחילנה, “they commenced;” our author, following his interpretation of the expression ותכילנה, understands this word as derived from חולי, sickly, meaning that during the years of famine, the Egyptians began to look very sickly. (B’reshit Rabbah 90,6)

ותחילנה, from חולניות, becoming weak, sickly; when the supply of available food ran out people naturally began to lose weight and become weakened as soon as the famine started. ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם, “but in the whole land of Egypt there was bread. (food),” as opposed to the countries adjacent to Egypt.

Another reason for the Torah telling us the events in this manner maybe that the Torah emphasised a different aspect of Joseph's forecast. After seven years of abundant surplus it is most unusual to feel the onset of a famine immediately. The Torah therefore tells us "as Joseph had said," i.e. that the years of plenty would be completely forgotten, that people would eat but not be satisfied during the years of famine. This lack of satisfaction with the food one ate became evident already at the beginning of the first year of the famine.

ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים AND THE LAND OF EGYPT WAS FAMISHED — for all the grain they had stored up rotted except that of Joseph (cf. Genesis Rabbah 91:5)

ותרעב, each one had used up his private hoard either by eating it or selling it. Besides, they could not store a great deal, having had to surrender twenty per cent of their annual harvests to Joseph’s officials.

ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים, “The whole land of Egypt was famished, etc.” This verse speaks of the second year of the famine. It teaches that G’d had proclaimed that Egypt should suffer the pangs of hunger. We have a similar incidence in Kings II 8,1 כי קרא ה' לרעב, “for G’d has decreed famine.” Another verse in which the expression קרא is used in connection with famine is found in Psalms 105,16 קרא רעב על הארץ כל מטה לחם שבר, “He called down a famine on the land; destroyed every staff of bread.”
As a result the famine was being felt by the people, ויקרא העם אל פרעה ללחם, “the people called out to Pharaoh for food.” It is in the nature of people to cry out to those in whose power it is to satisfy their needs. We find a verse in Psalms 107,5 רעבים גם צמאים נפשם בהם תתעטף, “the hungry and thirsty, their spirit failed”. On the other hand: ויצעקו אל ה' בצר להם, “they cried out to G’d (after) they were in distress, etc.”

Because Yoseif was telling them to be circumcised... Rashi deduced this because it is written אשר יאמר לכם תעשו. Why is it written אשר יאמר (“whatever he says”), rather than אשר יצוה )“whatever he commands”)? Perforce, אמירה implies circumcision, as David says (Tehillim 119:162): “I rejoice over Your word (אמרתך),” [referring to circumcision]. The commentators discussed this at length; see there.

ויצעק העם לפרעה ללחם, “the people cried out to Pharaoh for food.” They wanted him to sell them food which they knew had been stored. It was below the king’s dignity to become a merchant selling food; in order to remain in good standing with his people, he sent them to Joseph who would tell them how to act. He would share out food according to prices determined by him, the proceeds being delivered to Pharaoh’s treasury.

אשר יאמר לכם תעשו WHAT HE SAITH TO YOU, DO — He gave them this order because Joseph had told them to be circumcised. When they came to Pharaoh and said, “Thus he bids us do otherwise he will give us no corn”, he asked them, “Why did you yourselves not lay up corn? Did he not publicly announce that years of famine were coming?” They answered him, “We gathered in much, but it has rotted”. He said to them, “If this be so — what he saith to you, do. See, he laid a decree upon the produce and it rotted; what will happen if he lays a decree upon us that we should die!” (cf. Genesis Rabbah 91:5)

ויצעק העם, they knew that Joseph had stored up their twenty percent contributions each year. They appealed to Pharaoh knowing that the food which had been stored was intended to be sold back to the people during the famine.

על כל פני הארץ OVER ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH — Who are the face of the earth? the well-to-do people (Genesis Rabbah 91:5).

AND HE SOLD GRAIN UNTO THE EGYPTIANS, AND THE FAMINE WAS SEVERE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. The verse states that Joseph did not throw open the contents of the storehouses until the famine had become severe in the land, but not as soon as they cried to Pharaoh,¹¹⁷Verse 55 here. as people would cry even when they have a small amount of sustenance, and it was his desire that nothing remain to them before he opened the granaries. This is the meaning of the verse, And the famine was over all the face of the earth, meaning that before he had opened his storehouses the famine was over the entire face of the earth, and then the verse proceeds to explain that he did not sell them food until the famine had become severe upon them. Perhaps it is possible that the verse is magnifying the famine by stating that it was a “famine accompanied by panic.”¹¹⁸See Aboth V, 8.

וישבר, a term used for trading in food and drink, as we know already from Yaakov having said to his sons, לכו שברו לנו מעט אכל. We also find the expression including the dealing in liquids in Isaiah 55,1 ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב, “come for water, even if you have no money, come buy food and eat, buy food without money, wine and milk without cost.”

Yoseif opened. He opened all his storehouses to show that he had sufficient grain to feed them all.

ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם, Joseph opened all (the granaries) in which grain was stored. The reason that Joseph immediately opened all the silos instead of only the ones which were immediately needed was to see which ones contained grain that was capable of indefinite storage and which needed to be sold first in order that it should not deteriorate.

והרעב...ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם, he now opened all the silos in which grain had been stored.

וישבר למצרים, “he sold to the Egyptians.” This means that he first sold to the Egyptians before selling to foreigners.

והרעב היה על פני כל הארץ, “and the famine embraced the entire land.” This is a reference to the wealthy people who were struck by the famine no less than the poor. The reason the wealthy people are referred to as פני הארץ, is because all the people turn to the wealthy in time of need. We have proof from here that the first people who felt the famine were the wealthy (the spoiled ones).

Who are referred to as פני הארץ? The wealthy people. But the poor people lower their faces to the ground and do not lift their faces.

(56-57) שבר .וישבר seiner Grundbedeutung nach: Brechen, Zerbrechen, scheint das Detaillieren, den Detail- Ein- und Verkauf zu bedeuten. Er verkaufte nur kleine, dem zeitlichen Bedarf eines Hauses entsprechende Quantitäten. Nur so konnte Spekulationsaufkauf vermieden werden. Wie die Weisen bemerken, wurde nur an selbständige Männer und an keinen Sklaven verkauft, sonst konnte ja einer fünfzig Sklaven schicken; und jeder durfte nur ein Lasttier mit sich führen. Und alle Welt mußte לשבר אל יוסף kommen. Er besorgte selbst den Einzelverkauf; leitete nicht das Ganze von oben herab aus vornehmer Ferne, verließ sich nicht auf untergeordnete Beamte, sondern besorgte alles unmittelbar selbst und trat in unmittelbaren Verkehr mit den hungernden Familienvätern, die zum Einkauf kamen. Darum heißt es auch im folgenden Kap.Raw Hirsch on Genesis 41: 6: ויוסף הוא השליט הוא המשביר, obgleich שליט war er doch selbst der משביר. Dies ihm von seiner Weisheit durch die Umstände gebotene Verfahren führte aber auch alles Folgende herbei. Nur so musste jeder selbst kommen, sonst hätte Jakob nur einen der Söhne, oder gar einen Fremden beauftragen können, für alle mit zu besorgen. Und nur so kam es, dass Josef selbst mit seinen Brüdern in unmittelbare Berührung kommen musste. Die wiederholte Bemerkung, mit welcher Stärke die Not auftrat, ist eine Motivierung dieses Verfahrens.

את כל אשר בהם — understand it as the Targum renders it: [JOSEPH OPENED ALL THE STOREHOUSES] IN WHICH THERE WAS CORN.

The famine became severe. Foods other than bread also disappeared.

וישבר למצרים, first he sold grain only to the Egyptians until word had spread that there was food for sale in Egypt. Then he also sold to foreigners. The expression וישבר, vayishbor, is from the conjugation kal, and is used both as applicable to the seller and the buyer. Actually, the word shever means “breaking,” i.e. the grain, the harvest, is what “breaks” one’s hunger. Compare Psalms 104,11 ישברו פראים צמאם, “the wild asses slake their thirst, the word for “slaking,” being the word שבר. When it comes to the transaction, i.e. trading in victuals, especially grain, the seller gives something which will still the buyer’s hunger, i.e. break it, whereas the buyer at the same time is receiving something which breaks his hunger. Hence it is understandable why the same root is used to describe either buying or selling food, seeing both parties are concerned in dealing with someone’s hunger, putting an end to it, as it were. One party hands over the price, the other party receives payment, thus both seller and buyer are active in the transaction. The conjugation הפעיל however, is applicable only to the seller of food, not to the buyer, as in most instances this conjugation is used transitively. The word mashbir, or hamashbir, therefore refers to the seller, not to the buyer.

את כל אשר בהם, “all that was in them.” This is a reference to all the kinds of stored grain contained. Onkelos also translates the verse to mean אוצריה רי בהון עיבורא, “the storage chambers which contained grain.”

Because we find it also in regard to wine and milk: “And go buy...” This is what Rashi means. We should not ask: Although שבר means selling, it also means grain. And since it is written שבר here, perhaps pertaining only to grain can שבר be used to mean selling, because the meaning of the word שבר applies [only] to grain? But regarding wine and other liquids, שבר cannot be used since its meaning of “grain” is not applicable to them. Rashi answers: [This is not so,] “because we find it also in regard to wine...”

Another reason why Joseph opened all the silos simultaneously was that he had arranged for the silos to be close to the various population centres. Had he opened only one silo at a time the people would have had to travel long distances to receive their rations. As it was, Joseph made sure the people knew that there was a supply of food close by. This made the famine a great deal easier to bear. Our rabbis have described this psychological fact by coining the phrase אינו דומה מי שיש לו פס בסלו למי שאין לו. "One cannot compare a person who has bread in his basket to someone whose basket is empty."

וישבור למצרים AND HE SOLD UNTO THE EGYPTIANS — The root שבר has the meaning both of selling and buying. Here it is used in the sense of selling, whereas in (43:2) “שברו for us a little food”, it means buying. You cannot say that it (the word) can be used only of selling and buying grain for we find it used also of wine and milk: (Isaiah 55:1) “And come, buy (שברו) wine and milk without money and without price”.

ויחזק הרעב, as foreign buyers appeared and the quantities sold to each had to be rationed in order to ensure that the supply would last, the famine was felt more strongly also by the local population, seeing the famine had been predicted to last for many years.

וישבור למצרים, “he sold grain to Egypt.” He sold to them (the people).

Joseph may also have wanted the population to see for themselves the huge grain reserves he had accumulated so that they would not become concerned that his supply would be inadequate. In spite of all these confidence building measures taken by Joseph the Torah testifies that the famine grew severe almost at once.

ויחזק הרעב בארץ מצרים, “the famine remained strong in the land of Egypt.” The people, though eating, were not feeling sated. We read of a similar phenomenon in Kings I 18,2 “the famine remained strong in Shomron.”

וכל הארץ באו מצרימה —Transpose the words and explain it thus: “and all the countries came into Egypt אל יוסף to Joseph לשבר to buy corn”, for if you explain the words in the order in which they are written it ought to state לשבור מן יוסף to buy from Joseph.

וכל הארץ באו מצרימה אל יוסף לשבור, [dear reader please note that the author’s commentary consists of his reversing the sequence of the words לשבור אל יוסף, written in the text of the Torah. If the meaning had been as it appears from the written text at first glance, instead of writing אל יוסף, the Torah should have written מן יוסף, from Joseph. Ed.]

לשבור אל יוסף, the words have been inverted and mean the same as if the Torah had written באו אל יוסף לשבור, “they came to Joseph to trade in grain.”

כי חזק הרעב, “for the famine had become very severe.” Joseph did not start selling until the famine had really become severe, He did not sell because the people had come to Pharaoh to complain, but because he convinced himself that the shortages had become real, and they did not hoard their private stocks.

כי חזק הרעב בכל הארץ, “for the famine was severe all over the earth.” The Torah refers to the part of the earth under Pharaoh’s control.

לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph;” the unusual construction here, when we would have expected the Torah to write: לשבור מיוסף “to Joseph in order to buy food;” is similar to construction Genesis 30,39: אל המקלות where the word אל also means: “from,” “as a result of,” (seeing the sticks that had been peeled by Yaakov).