Comentário sobre Gênesis 41:8

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.