Genesis · Chapter 41

And it came to pass at the end of two full years that Pharaoh was dreaming, and behold, he was standing by the river.

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. 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.

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’oreihem 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. 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, 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). -6. In my opinion the fact is as Onkelos said, 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; He spreadeth abroad the cloud of ‘oro’ (His lighting); and as Rabbi Yochanan said, “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, the luminaries.

"And it came to pass at the end of" — the text does not specify the starting point of this reckoning. Similarly: "And it came to pass at the end of forty years" (2 Samuel 15:7); and similarly: "And within sixty-five years" (Isaiah 7:8); and similarly: "And it came to pass in the thirtieth year" (Ezekiel 1:1). It is possible that this reckoning begins from the chief cupbearer's release from prison, or from Joseph's time there. The meaning of "days" [i.e., "two years' worth of days"] I have already explained above (27:44). "And Pharaoh was dreaming" — he was [in the midst of] dreaming; similarly: "And Rebekah was listening" (Genesis 27:5).

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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

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. ”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.

בטח אל ה' בכל לבך ואל בינתך אל תשען, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insights” (Proverbs 3,5). In this verse King Solomon warns regarding the importance of displaying faith in the Lord. The reason Solomon does so is because faith in the Lord is such a central pillar of Torah and the observance of G’d’s commandments. Solomon means that if a person has been endowed by G’d with intelligence, wealth, physical strength and all the other attributes which are observed amongst successful people, he should not put his trust in any of these attributes. He should put his trust exclusively in G’d. This is what the prophet taught us in Isaiah 44,25 when he said: משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל, “who turns sages back, and makes nonsense of their knowledge.” All of man’s machinations, his planning, even his deeds amount to nothing unless G’d decrees that they should succeed. If man amassed a great deal of wealth he has no reason to be smug about it and to attribute it to his sagacity. This is precisely what Solomon said in Kohelet 9,11: “the race is not won by the swift, nor the battle by the strong, nor does bread come to the wise, riches to the intelligent, nor favour to the learned; but time and death will happen to them all.” He also said in Proverbs 16,1: “A man may plan with his heart; but the answer of the tongue comes from the Lord.” If even his speech is not (entirely) under his control, how much less can he be in control of matters involving external factors? He therefore has no reason to place his trust in his own insights and other attributes. He must not rely on the efficacy of his diligence, etc., but only on G’d. This is what David meant when he said in Psalms 62,6: “Truly my soul waits quietly for G’d; my deliverance comes from Him.” David contrasted G’d’s input in whatever success he experienced with that of his own effort. It is a well known fact (based on the wording in Chovat Halevavot by Bachyah ibn Joseph Pekudah) that man’s confidence is subject to eight stages of developments: At birth, he places all his trust into the breast of his mother who supplies his nourishment. This corresponds to Psalms 22,10 “You have made me secure at my mother’s breast.” As he grows a little older he still relies on his mother to feed him only food which is wholesome, tasty, and nutritious. Concerning this stage in man’s development the psalmist says (Psalms 131,2) “but I have taught myself to be contented like a weaned child with its mother.” What David meant was that his trust in G’d could now be compared to the trust he displayed in his mother during the early years of his childhood. A third stage in man developing reliance on an outside force occurs when he learns to trust his father. The fourth stage is reached when he begins to become self-reliant, trusting his body and his mind, learning how to fend for himself and to earn his livelihood. At that stage in his development he relies less and less on his father and he relies instead on his own machinations. At a fifth stage in his developing maturity he begins to rely on G’d and to and put his faith in Him. He develops this faith in G’d as a result of having experienced that his own machinations are not as reliable as he had thought. By that time in his life he has learned the shortcomings inherent in all creatures and the fact that they cannot be relied on. At that point in his life he learns that trusting in himself is a form of vanity. He will realize that, to quote only one single example, all his efforts as a farmer are doomed unless rain materializes at the proper time, a factor which is controlled exclusively by G’d. This teaches him dependence on G’d’s goodwill. If he is a mariner, he learns that he who controls the winds controls his fate. The sixth stage in man’s developing maturity is reached when he realizes that he is dependent on G’d even in matters not involving external forces such as rain or wind, etc., i.e. when man learns that he overestimated the assessment of his capabilities. He may realize that whereas his own faculties enabled him to wrest a meager livelihood from the earth thanks to backbreaking labor, he is in need of G’d’s help in order to secure a better and less physically exhausting kind of livelihood. The seventh stage of his progressively better appreciation of G’d’s role in his survival and success is reached when he realizes that G’d has a part to play in all his activities. The eighth and final stage in his development is reached when he realizes that only G’d’s input determines his success or failure. He must learn to be happy with whatever G’d has decided should be his fate. He must give G’d credit for his health — or otherwise; he must give G’d all the credit for his wealth — or otherwise. He must appreciate that if G’d saw fit to subject him to trials and tribulations in his life on earth, that G’d had a benevolent purpose in all this, that He has his best interests at heart. G’d is equally active in protecting someone’s freedom or keeping him in jail. Seeing that G’d’s superior wisdom decrees if man is to undergo afflictions of one sort or another, it behooves man to accept such afflictions willingly. He is not to look for “natural” ways to escape such predicaments. If he does so, this demonstrates that his faith in G’d is not absolute but that part of his being is still convinced that he can escape what is decreed for him. It appears to me that when we keep in mind these comments of the author of חובת הלבבות, we can better appreciate why Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3,5: בטח אל ה' בכל לבך, “trust towards G’d with all your heart,” instead of writing בטח בה' בכל לבך, “trust in G’d with all your heart.” He wanted to alert us that a person who truly puts his faith in G’d is someone whose thoughts are oriented only towards G’d. Another example of such a construction is found in Psalms 25,15 עיני תמיד אל ה', “my eyes are ever toward G’d.” We have already mentioned that Elijah was a prime example of someone who did not try and survive by looking for logical means to do so, but that he took refuge in a place where there was no possible chance to find food and that he relied on G’d to provide it for him in His own way. This is the highest level of trust in G’d. 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. ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים פרעה חולם והנה עומד על היאור, “It was at the end of two years and Pharaoh was dreaming that he was standing above the river (Nile).” The words שנתים ימים mean two years (not two days). These years were counted from the time Joseph interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s two courtiers who were imprisoned with him. On this occasion Pharaoh had a dream. Our sages said that Joseph’s stay in jail had been extended as we mentioned in our commentary on 39,5. This was due to the two words והזכרתני והוצאתני which Joseph permitted himself to say to the Chief of the butlers. We pointed out that these words did not mean that he did not trust in G’d but that he wanted to exploit his relationship to the Chief of the butlers to make him the instrument of G’d for his freedom. Seeing that the Torah speaks of שנתים, “two years,” what was the need to add the words ימים, “days?” When the Torah wanted to tell us that there had been two years of famine it wrote כי זה שנתים הרעב, “for these last two years which have been famine,” (Genesis 45,6), it did not bother to add the words ימים. The point the Torah wanted us to know here by adding the word ימים is that it was precisely two years to the day after Joseph had interpreted the dreams in jail that Pharaoh dreamt his dream of the cows and the ears of corn. According to a Midrashic approach in Tanchuma Miketz 1 the wording of the Torah here may teach us the following: The words מקץ שנתים ימים are a reminder of Job 28,3: “He sets bounds for darkness, to every limit man probes, to rocks in deepest darkness.” Everything G’d decrees is finite, has a limit. Even the rains emerge after a time-frame has been assigned for them. G’d determines the time frame and the quantity for rain on earth at the beginning of the year. If the Jewish people keep G’d’s laws these rains descend to make the plantings of the Jewish farmer grow by descending upon these fields and orchards in the appropriate quantities at the appropriate time of year. If the Jewish people fail to observe G’d’s commandments, He does not withhold such rains; rather such rains will descend in areas and at times when they do not fulfill the purpose of making the Jewish farmer bring in a good harvest. This is what was implied in the verse in Job 28,3 which we have quoted., i.e. that G’d had set a time limit to the “darkness” the Jewish people experienced when enslaved in Egypt. This is why the Torah in Exodus 12,41 spoke of a קץ, “an end” when it reported ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, ויהי בעצם היום הזה יצאו כל צבאות ה' מארץ מצרים, “it was at the end of 430 years, on exactly that day that all the hosts of G’d departed from Egypt.” Just as the day of the departure of the Jewish people had been predetermined by G’d, so Joseph’s release from prison had been predetermined by G’d. The Torah writes ופרעה חולם, “and Pharaoh was dreaming,” instead of writing ופרעה מלך מצרים חולם, “and Pharaoh the King of Egypt was dreaming.” This was an allusion to the future, i.e. that the King of Egypt would be brought down by water, that his fate would be linked to the river Nile. This river was to be the beginning of the ultimate demise of the Egyptian Empire as the foremost Empire of its period at the time of the Exodus of the Israelites. This is the reason why throughout this Parshah Pharaoh is never accorded his title as “the King of Egypt.” The failure of the Torah to mention the name “Pharaoh King of Egypt,” is a compliment to Joseph. The only time Pharaoh’s title is mentioned is when Joseph is described as standing in front of this ruler in 41,26 as in that verse mention of Pharaoh’s title further enhances the phenomenal rise to power by Joseph. It underscores that Joseph’s extraordinary attributes were responsible for Pharaoh retaining his position of power. Had it not been for Joseph and the part he played in strengthening the political power of Pharaoh during the years of famine, his decline would have set in much sooner. The entire land of Egypt, nay even the whole earth, would have been a loser had it not been for the advice proffered by Joseph how to cope with the impending seven years of drought. You should appreciate that dreams are caused by one or several of three factors. 1) because of the food a person consumed prior to going to sleep. 2) because of certain thoughts which he entertained before dropping off to sleep. 3) in order to reinforce and provide encouragement to a person’s emotional balance. The food a person consumed produces a sense of haughtiness and results in some kind of vapour rising to a person’s brain. Dreams which are engendered through this phenomenon are to be totally disregarded; they do not contain any message to the person who dreams them. When a dream is the continuation, albeit in his subconscious, of thoughts he had entertained on an ongoing basis prior to dropping off to sleep, such dreams are the type which were dreamt by Nebuchadnezzar as mentioned by Daniel 2,29 when he said to the King that his thoughts came to him while he was contemplating the future. Seeing he had done so, G’d used this as the appropriate time to reveal some of the future to the King in his dream. Finally, the third cause of a dream, the cause we have termed חזוק הנפש. This is the kind of dream to which it always pays to pay attention as it is a reflection of the dreamer’s personality. Dreams which are the result of a person’s imagination draw images for him during his sleep of matters which had already been the subject of his thinking and planning during his waking hours, matters which had already coalesced in his planning and thinking. During sleep, when a person’s emotions are not interfering with his thought-processes, the factors which prompted him to pursue a certain course of action while he was fully awake are reinforced and engraved in his imagination. Such dreams are not the result of wishful thinking, but are in the nature of a minor prophetic vision. This is what the sages had in mind when they said (Berachot 57) that a dream is 1/60th prophecy. These kinds of prophecies are granted to young children and feeble minded persons (Baba Batra 12) precisely because their minds have not yet been filled with all kinds of images during their waking hours which would have left an impression on their minds even while they were asleep and as a result of which it would be impossible to tell whether such dreams are inspirational or a continuation of what they thought while awake. Dreams of such a nature are granted both to the righteous and to the wicked; they are not due to the dreamer having been immersed in thoughts of such a nature previously; they are not self-induced. G’d wanted to let Pharaoh have such a dream in order to frustrate his advisers and professional dream-interpreters in order to elevate Joseph to the position of viceroy of Egypt, i.e. King, except in name. והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing above the river Nile.” The expression נהר and יאור may be used interchangeably as they mean the same thing. We find this confirmed by Onkelos who translates the word נהרא. The common denominator between both words is אורה, “light.” We find that even the word גשמים “rains” is referred to in terms of אור, “light,” as for instance in Job 36,32 על כפים כסה אור, “Lightning fills His hands,” and Job 37,11 יפיץ ענן אורו, “He also loads the clouds with moisture.” The reason for this interchangeability is the fact that the rivers are composed of rain water and rain water in turn is due to the influence of the luminaries. It is perfectly in order to call the effect by a name similar to its cause just as children are named after the fathers, their causes. The river in question was called נילוס, Nile, as it rose and provided irrigation for the land which is not being irrigated by rains as Egypt does not enjoy rainfall on a regular basis. What is the reason Pharaoh is described as dreaming that he was standing על היאור, “above the river,” whereas the Torah could have been expected to describe him as standing “on the banks of the river,” as indeed the cows themselves are described as standing on the banks of the river in verse three? In fact, when Pharaoh repeats his dream to Joseph in verse sixteen, he describes himself as standing on the banks of the river not above it. We may deduce from the objective report of the dream in the Torah, that the Torah wanted to portray to us the haughty character of Pharaoh who viewed himself as master of the river, as “standing above it.” When relating his dream to Joseph, he was discreet enough not to make his arrogance so obvious. This is why he changed both this and some other detail of what he had actually dreamt and what he claimed to have dreamt. The Torah was at pains to inform us that the claim that Pharaoh considered the Nile in terms of לי יאורי ואני עשיתיני, “the river Nile is mine and I have made it,” (Ezekiel 29,3) was not a figment of the prophet’s imagination but was reflected even in the dream of a benevolent Pharaoh such as the one with whom we are confronted here. Thus Pharaoh’s confusion at the premonition that the dream portended some disaster may have also been the reason why he soft-pedalled the matter of his standing above the river in his dream.

“And it was at the end of two years.” Since it is not explicitly stated in the text when these two years began, our Rabbis taught (Genesis Rabbah 89:2) that these two years were added to his prison sentence beyond what was originally decreed upon him, because he placed his trust in the chief cupbearer, as it is said Fortunate is the man who makes God his trust and does not turn to the arrogant ones (Psalms 40:5) — these being the Egyptians who were called rahav [arrogant]. One might question why it says who makes God his trust [asher sam Hashem mivtacho] when it should have said “who places his trust in God” [asher sam baHashem mivtacho], as it is written Blessed is the man who trusts in God, and God will be his trust (Jeremiah 17:7). Besides the apparent redundancy in this verse, the language also needs explanation regarding the phrase and God will be his trust. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why the Egyptians are called rehabim [arrogant ones] and not by their well-known name. What seems most reasonable to me in this matter is that it is the way of the world that when someone has some superior quality over his fellow, he does not remember his fellow who is lesser in stature and will not even mention his name due to his haughtiness. This is the argument of the philosophers regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, saying that due to His great exaltedness, He does not supervise the lowly beings beneath the sphere of the moon. To refute this corrupt opinion, it is said Do not speak with excessive pride, let not arrogance come from your mouth, for God is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed (1 Samuel 2:3). This means: do not say that because the Holy One, blessed be He, is higher than all heights, He has no knowledge of the details of our actions, for God is a God of knowledge who has awareness of everything, and to Him all the deeds of man are measured. And in order to verify this matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, dwells with the crushed and lowly of spirit, He incorporated in His great name four letters that have the lowest numerical value of all the letters in the alphabet. When you write yud-heh-vav-heh in their full form, examine all the letters — you will not find any letter that adds up to such a small number as these. And so our Sages said (Megillah 11a), “Rabbi Yochanan said: Wherever you find mention of God’s greatness, there you find mention of His humility… This is proven from the Writings, as it is said Extol Him who rides upon the clouds, His name is Yah (Psalms 68:5).” This means praise Him that even though He rides upon the clouds, higher than all, nevertheless His name is “Yah” — these being the letters with the smallest numerical value, and the word consisting of only two letters, meaning the minimum combination of letters. All this is proof of His blessed humility. According to this understanding of the nature of the Great Name, it serves as a sign and source of security for those below [on earth], that the Holy One, Blessed be He, remembers them and watches over them. This prevents any critic from claiming that due to His exalted greatness, God has abandoned the earth. Unlike human nature, where one does not pay attention to or remember those beneath them in status, the Holy One, Blessed be He, acts differently. This verse addresses these two premises. Regarding the first premise — to trust in God — it states Blessed is the man who makes God his trust. For the nature of the Great Name and its humbling is his security, showing that the Blessed Name connects with the lowly. This is why it doesn’t say “in God,” because “God” — meaning the essence of the Name — is itself his security. On this it says, Blessed is the man who trusts in God, and in what will he be secure? To this it answers, And God will be his security — the essence of the Name is his security. Regarding the second premise — not to trust in man, since their elevated status leads them to forgetfulness [as it says Your heart will become proud and you will forget God] — it states and does not turn to the arrogant ones as he is arrogant [rahav]. For rahav refers to pride and haughtiness, and one should not turn their trust toward flesh and blood, because due to their arrogance and pride they do not turn to those who trust in them. As it is written, The chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph — because he became the chief cupbearer and was restored to his position, becoming an important official, therefore he did not remember Joseph, who was contemptible and lowly in his eyes. This is why Egypt is called the arrogant ones. The reason Joseph was decreed to be imprisoned for two years was because this sin was double, as it is written Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from God (Jeremiah 17:5). Therefore, one year was decreed corresponding to trusting in man, since the time of forgetting is a year — like a dead person who is forgotten from the heart after a year. And another year corresponding to whose heart turns away from God. It is possible to further interpret the verse “and the Lord will be his trust” [as follows]: There are several levels in the attribute of trust [in God] which Rabbeinu Bachya mentioned in this [Torah] portion. The final level is one who trusts in God without [focusing on] any [specific] means — meaning he doesn’t think to say “The Holy One, blessed be He, will do this thing for me through this particular means.” This is because a person doesn’t know which means will be for his benefit, as perhaps a person might think that this particular thing will be the means to finding what he seeks, when it could actually result in the opposite of what he planned. Therefore it is said Trust in Him and He will act (Psalms 37:5) — meaning the Holy One, blessed be He, will create the means which appear good in the eyes of the blessed Lord, and you should not be the one to choose them. If it had said everywhere [simply] “trust in the Lord,” I would have said that one should attach their trust to some [specific] means. Therefore it says and the Lord will be his trust — meaning God Himself is his trust, without [any focus on] means. This was the type of trust that Joseph [should have] had — for without doubt he trusted in God, except that he attached the means [of his salvation] to the chief butler. Therefore, they showed him from Heaven that this was not the means of his redemption as he had thought, but rather God’s counsel is what would prevail. “And behold, he stood by the river.” [Though] Pharaoh said on the bank of the river, in his dream he saw seven other cows emerging after them from the river, yet Pharaoh didn’t mention from the river. In his dream it states and they stood next to the cows, but Pharaoh didn’t mention this. According to the simple interpretation, he didn’t mention this so that Joseph wouldn’t understand that they only appeared bad when they stood next to the good ones, but when they weren’t standing next to them, they didn’t appear quite so bad, because they were only bad in comparison to the good ones. Therefore, Pharaoh didn’t mention this so that Joseph would understand that they were bad in their own right. And to strengthen this point, he said instead, I have never seen such bad ones in all the land of Egypt, which indicates that they appeared bad even on their own merit. This is also how Joseph interpreted it when he said and all the abundance will be forgotten, meaning you shouldn’t say that there won’t be actual famine except for those who remember the years of plenty and see the lack in comparison during the years of famine. Rather, even for someone who doesn’t remember the years of plenty, the famine will still be severely felt. That’s why he said all the abundance will be forgotten, because the years of famine were bad in their own right, even in the eyes of those who don’t remember the years of plenty. Pharaoh saw [cows that were] beautiful in appearance and robust of flesh, but to Joseph he said that he saw [cows that were] robust of flesh and beautiful of form. There are two changes here: namely, the change in language from appearance to form and the reversal in mentioning robust of flesh first. Similarly, there are many changes found in his retelling of the dream from what he actually saw. And I say to resolve all of these [issues], with one suggestion taken from the words of the commentators, that Pharaoh considered the Nile to be a deity, and therefore he did not want to say “I am standing over the Nile” because he wanted to show respect to his god. And with this, all the aforementioned variations will be resolved, because for this reason he did not want to say that the bad cows came up from the Nile, as he did not want to attribute any bad thing to his deity, thinking that it only ruled over good things and nothing bad would come from it. Perhaps he thought there was another deity ruling over bad things, like the opinion of the Manicheans that the Akeidat Yitzchak brings in Parshat Va’etchanan. And perhaps this is why Pharaoh said See that evil is before your faces (Exodus 10:10) — meaning that the ruler over evil things is before your faces. And this is what is meant by Speak not so exceeding proudly (1 Samuel 2:3) — literally high, high — meaning don’t say there are two higher powers, one ruling over good things and one over bad things. Therefore, it immediately says The Lord kills and makes alive, makes poor and makes rich — meaning He causes all opposites and everything comes from Him, blessed be He. And similarly it is said See now that I, I, am He… I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal (Deuteronomy 32:39), and the repetition of I, I parallels the repetition of “high, high.” And for this reason, Pharaoh did not say and they stood beside the cows and ate them, because this would have implied that there was a battle between them until the power over the evil ones prevailed, and therefore the evil cows ate the good ones. This is because the language of and they stood indicates that they did not initially come to enter into the evil ones in order to satisfy them and nullify their hunger, for they stood beside them, which means their intention was to stand [separately], except that the evil ones overpowered them and swallowed them against their will. This would have been disgraceful to his deity, suggesting it lacked the power to save the good ones that were influenced by it. Therefore, Pharaoh changed [his words] and said and they came into their midst, meaning that of their own good will they entered into the evil ones to satisfy their hunger. All this stems from the good nature of his deity, which wanted to benefit and repair the evil ones. Thus, they didn’t come initially just to stand there, but rather to enter into their midst, which is why he didn’t say and they stood beside the cows. He testified that it was of no benefit, for it could not be known that they had entered into their midst, and their appearance remained as bad as before, because they were at the ultimate level of evil. Therefore, he needed to testify, I have never seen such [ugly ones] in all the land of Egypt. Some say that he mentioned this so that no one would say that before that night he had seen such evil cows and was affected by seeing such a novelty, which is why he had this dream. For it is common that what a person sees as novel during the day and contemplates appears to them in a dream. Therefore, he said I have never seen such [ugly ones] in all the land of Egypt, and this is proof that this dream was among the truthful dreams. Regarding the matter of “beautiful in appearance and form”: Some say that this description is not appropriate for animals but only for humans, which is why the text changes from appearance to form, and this is why Rashi explains it as a sign for creatures [humans]. However, it seems to me that this is not correct, because the verse explicitly states that he was shown [cows that were] beautiful in appearance, so this description certainly applies to animals as well. Furthermore, would they show a person something that doesn’t exist in reality, like an elephant passing through the eye of a needle? Rather, it must certainly apply to animals as well, and it refers to when all their limbs are full of flesh and not lean — this is their beautiful appearance. Healthy of flesh is an explanation of beautiful in appearance, because otherwise how would one know if the flesh inside is healthy or sick, if not for the beautiful appearance that testifies to the health of the flesh within? The “form” is a different matter that doesn’t depend on the health of the flesh, as Rashi explains on the verse Rachel was beautiful in form and beautiful in appearance (Genesis 29:17), as it refers to the shape of the face — for example, if the nose isn’t crooked or longer than it should be, and similarly with the eyes, lips, and such features. Now, this verse says that he saw seven cows coming up from the Nile that were beautiful in appearance and healthy of flesh — this is natural, for although the Nile doesn’t have divine power, its natural function is that its waters irrigate the land and cause grass to grow for animals until they become fat and fresh. However, the Nile doesn’t have the power to make them beautiful in form with straight rather than crooked nose, eyes, and mouth, nor to make these features neither too large nor too small, as this is the work of God who made all His creatures with proper form. Pharaoh, to honor his deity according to his foolish belief that the Nile possessed divine power, attributed this power to his god, saying that the cows came up from the Nile both healthy of flesh and beautiful in form. This suggests not only that they came up healthy of flesh, which isn’t such a novelty since all waters can naturally do this, but even that the Nile caused them to be beautiful in form, as if it had created them in this state, according to his belief. Therefore, in this account, he put healthy of flesh before beautiful in form, in the manner of “not only this, but even this.” And regarding the thin cows, he reversed the order, saying poor and ugly in form and thin of flesh, meaning not only were they ugly in form and strange in appearance, which isn’t so significant and the absence of which isn’t such a novelty, but they were even thin of flesh, contrary to nature, which is significant. And there is clear proof for our words, from what Pharaoh said and the thin and poor cows ate the first seven healthy cows. Why didn’t he mention the matter of appearance in any of them, neither in the good ones nor in the bad ones? Rather, it must be because it does not contribute to or detract from the matter of health and eating, for they were not hungrier due to being of poor appearance, but rather due to being of poor appearance meaning they were lean. Similarly, they did not eat the good ones because they were beautiful in appearance, but rather because they were healthy of flesh, meaning they looked good. And regarding what is written and the cows ate and it does not say the seven cows — this is because the seven years of famine were not consecutive, as when Jacob arrived after two years the famine stopped, and then resumed upon his death, as will be explained later in Parshat Vayechi at Goren Ha’Atad, God willing (Genesis 49:10). And regarding why he added the term thin [tzenumot] when describing the stalks: This is because hearing is not comparable to seeing, for Pharaoh saw thin stalks, and sometimes there are thin stalks that still contain small grains. However, Pharaoh saw with his own eyes that they were empty and contained no grains at all. He was afraid that Joseph might misinterpret the term thin [dakot] since he had not seen them himself, but only heard about them from Pharaoh. Therefore, he explained, “tzenumot [withered/emaciated] — this is what I saw,” meaning they contained nothing but chaff. This resolves all the questions that most commentators have grappled with. This is a precious insight, and the remaining aspects of the dream will be explained shortly, with God’s help.

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. 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.” 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. 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.] 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.]

And behold, from the river there came up seven cows, fine to look upon and plump in flesh, and they grazed in the reed-grass.

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

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. 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 Eternal would burn them, even as he saw the ears of corn parched with the east wind. 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; here. likewise the verse, And he stored up all the food of the seven years which was in the land of Egypt. 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, 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, and Pharaoh did not know where they had gone. BA’ACHU. Meaning “in the marshy land,” as in the verse, Can ‘achu’ grow? 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. 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, 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. here. Now perhaps the word achu is a derivative of achvah (brotherhood), since many varieties of grass grow together.

"In the reed-grass" — some say it denotes a valley in which vegetation grows. Others say it is the name of a plant, and the bet is an added prefix, as in the bet of "He filled me with bitterness" (Lamentations 3:15). According to both interpretations, the word achim in "for he will flourish among the achim" (Hosea 13:15) is the linguistic sibling of achu — derived from the same root.

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.

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

.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.” 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.

And behold, seven cows were coming up from the Nile, etc. Since the health of the cows is dependent on the health of the creatures [humans], for both creatures and cows share the same pasture, and when it is depleted for animals in the field, it is also depleted for humans. As it is first written I will provide grass in your field for your cattle and only afterwards and you will eat and be satisfied. Furthermore, if the animal is not healthy and good, who will plow with the oxen? And “beautiful in appearance” could be referring to the eyes of the cows, that they had beautiful eyes, and this is a sign for creatures [humans] that their eyes will be beautiful towards each other, for when one creature’s eye is begrudging towards another, it is visible in the eyes — whether one sees their fellow with laughing eyes or with angry eyes, which are “of bad appearance.”

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.

And behold, seven other cows came up after them from the river, ill to look upon and lean in flesh, and they stood facing the other cows on the bank of the river.

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. 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, here. and also, the ears of corn came up on one stalk, 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.

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. 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.”

“And behold seven other cows” — They are called other/different because it is said He makes your borders peaceful, He satisfies you with the finest wheat (Psalms 147:14), and similarly [the sages say] “When grain is depleted from the jar, strife comes knocking” (Bava Metzia 59a). Each one becomes “other/different” to his fellow, their hearts are divided and they are not united. For this same reason, regarding the good stalks it says they “came up on one stalk,” indicating unity, and by inference we understand that the bad ones were not united. Similarly with the cows, it mentions others regarding the bad ones, and by inference we understand that the good ones were not “other” but rather unified. Another explanation for why they are called others is because each year’s curse was greater than the previous one, as the famine grew progressively worse. Therefore, each year was like a different year, but the good years were all equally good. Another explanation is that because they were years of suffering, they appeared to be many days, but the good years were like single days in their love and pleasures. And they stood beside the cows. This indicates that the cows were so bad and emaciated that they almost didn’t have the strength to stand on their feet, and the reason they stood was because they were next to the good cows who supported them. This is a sign that creatures would not have had the ability to survive and stand during the years of famine if not for being near the good years that were adjacent to them. Therefore, the years of famine were supported and sustained by the years of plenty, as it is written and the bad cows ate, hinting that during the years of famine, they would eat from the produce of the years of plenty.

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. 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.

And the cows that were ill to look upon and lean in flesh devoured the seven cows that were fine to look upon and plump. And Pharaoh awoke.

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 opinion 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, here. And the food shall serve as a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine, here. as he saw that the healthy cows and ears of corn were absorbed by the lean ones. This was no mere counsel which Joseph proposed, for was he appointed to be a counselor of the king? It was only in connection with the interpretation of the dream that he said thus: And the plenty shall be forgotten, here. And the plenty shall not be known. 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, 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 forgotten here. is the interpretation of the eating itself.

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.

And he slept and dreamed a second time, and behold, seven ears of grain were growing on a single stalk, plump and good.

בקנה אחד ON ONE STALK— Tuyau in old French בריאות sains, English HEALTHY.

"Ears of grain" — a feminine plural form; if it took a mem it would be like "nashim" (women) and "pilagshim" (concubines). "Blasted" — blasting occurred through an east wind, for the east is called "kedem," because the sun first rises there. The meaning of "the full ones" is the same as "the healthy ones" (v. 7).

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.

“And he slept and dreamed a second time.” It doesn’t say “he dreamed again” but rather a second time, to indicate that it was one dream that repeated twice. And behold, seven ears of grain were growing on a single stalk. Regarding the bad ears of grain, it doesn’t say “on a single stalk” because the seven years of plenty were consecutive, one after another, therefore they grew on a single stalk that unified them. However, the seven years of famine were not consecutive, because after two years when Jacob arrived, the famine stopped and resumed after his death. Therefore, it doesn’t say “on a single stalk.” Additionally, this indicates the abundance of produce, that even a single stalk could grow seven ears of grain that were good — a double blessing. The bad ones had a double disadvantage: they grew one by one, and moreover, they were scorched by the east wind. And Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream, because he too understood that it was a single dream.

And behold, seven ears, thin and scorched by the east wind, sprouted after them.

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. קדים is THE EAST WIND — called bise in old French.

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.

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.

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.

And the thin ears swallowed the seven plump and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream.

הבריאות sains in old French; English HEALTHY. 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.

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 opinion 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. here. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar, however, it says, And his spirit was troubled, and his sleep broke from him, 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, 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, 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. here. Scripture however states, But none could interpret ‘them’ to Pharaoh, 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."

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called all the sorcerers of Egypt and all its wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was no one who could interpret them for Pharaoh.

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). 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. 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).

"And his spirit was troubled" — from the nifal conjugation, as in "I was perturbed and could not speak" (Psalms 77:5). Some say the entire word derives from the root of "he strikes a beat" (Isaiah 41:7), the sense being that the spirit is likened to a body that is struck. "Chartumei" — a quadriliteral word; it may be Aramaic or Egyptian. They are the sages of natural lore. "And all its wise men" — those versed in the constellations and the interpretation of dreams.

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. 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 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. 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. 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.

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.” According to our sages in above mentioned Tanchuma, these Chaldaens told the King that as long as the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed) had been standing, a person could go to a prophet or to a Priest and enquire from G’d by means of the Urim Vetumim, the breastplate on the breast of the High Priest, that a mystery be revealed to him. This was no longer so, however. The Midrash finds an allusion to the Chaldaens having said this to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2,10-11 when they said: לא איתי אנש, “no man has ever come” (to enquire such a thing). These unnecessary words indicated that at one time one could come to some place to make such enquiries. There is a play on words in the text of Daniel according to which the word ואחרן may be read as ואהרן, seeing that the letters אחה'ע are interchangeable. According to this the word אחרן in Daniel 2,11 is an allusion to Aaron the first High Priest who wore the breastplate with the Urim Vetumim. As already stated the king was very angry at being thwarted in his efforts to have the dream and its meaning recalled, until he was told that there was a Jewish exile who was able to comply with his request. When Daniel told the king what he had dreamt and what it meant, (Daniel 2,29-45) according to the version in Tanchuma, (not mentioned in the Book of Daniel), the king wanted to know when the predictions of his dream would materialise and Daniel told him after having consulted with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. They prayed to G’d so as not to be executed, and they too counted amongst the wise men of the Kingdom. ואין פותר אותם לפרעה, “there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.” According to a Midrash, Pharaoh had dreamt both the dream and the interpretation but had forgotten the interpretation. The professional dream interpreters in his kingdom suggested that the seven cows and seven ears of corn referred to seven daughters Pharaoh would sire and subsequently bury. We have reason to wonder why these great wise men of Egypt were unable to come up with a better or even the true interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. An unprejudiced layman would be able to see at a glance that the subject matter of the dream(s) was seven years of abundance followed by seven years of starvation. Clearly, the cows symbolised the ploughing, seeing that the Egyptians used the cows to pull the ploughs, whereas the ears of corn clearly symbolised the harvest that would materialise as a result of the ploughing. We have a verse in Proverbs 14,4 that “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” The failure of Pharaoh’s advisors was all part of G’d’s plan to arrange for Joseph to be elevated to high status. This is why G’d used this opportunity to “turn sages back and make nonsense of their wisdom” (Isaiah 44,25). In Isaiah 19,11 the same prophet recalled this event when he said: “utter fools are the nobles of Tanis; the sagest of Pharaoh’s advisers have made absurd predictions.” The prophet made the point that only through G’d’s intervention could these normally sagacious individuals fail so utterly in recognising what was before their eyes. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 89,6 used this incident to explain the meaning of Proverbs 14,6: “a scoffer seeks wisdom in vain; but knowledge comes easily to him who is understanding.” The scoffer referred to by Solomon is Pharaoh, whereas the easily acquired knowledge is a reference to Joseph.

And it was in the morning, etc. The Abarbanel wrote that dreams that occur in the morning are the most accurate, therefore his spirit was troubled, because he sensed that there was real substance to them. “And Pharaoh told them his dream, but none could interpret them for Pharaoh.” The word his dream [chalomo] implies a single dream, since it doesn’t say “his dreams” [chalomotav], yet interpret them [otam] implies multiple dreams since it doesn’t say “it” [oto]. And Rashi’s interpretation seems [correct] to me, that they told him “you will bury seven daughters.” Yet I find it difficult to understand why Rashi didn’t also mention what appears in [Genesis Rabbah 89:6] where they told him “you will conquer seven provinces” and “seven will rebel against you.” Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to explain that he wanted to explain this variation in language: Because Pharaoh told them his dream, as he perceived it to be one single dream, being unaware of the significance of the dream’s repetition. Thus, none could interpret them for Pharaoh means they couldn’t interpret them — that is, they couldn’t explain to him why the matter appeared to him twice in different forms. This was the thing they were unable to interpret for him. Another explanation: The magicians gave him a reason for the repetition of the dream, because daughters have two benefits. The first is that their purpose is for procreation for their husbands. The second benefit is that they save their husbands from sin. For this reason, a wife is compared to bread, as we explained above in Parshat Vayeshev on the verse except for the bread that he ate (Genesis 39:6), because there is a small organ in man that when he satiates it, it is hungry, and specifically regarding forbidden relations, because the main desire for relations is for sinners, hence their evil inclination makes them hungry. But his wife satisfies him like this bread that satisfies. And because of this matter, the magicians thought that these two dreams surely had the same meaning. And why did the dream come with such elaborate detail? Rather, surely it meant that he would have seven daughters and marry them off to men, and they would be fruitful and multiply — this is indicated by the term seven cows [referring to being fruitful — “parot”]. And they would be to their husbands like this bread that is made from stalks of grain, which is the matter of the seven stalks. According to this interpretation, they saw well, but they couldn’t explain these two benefits specifically for Pharaoh, because it was difficult to understand why God showed this specifically to Pharaoh. After all, many people have daughters — so why didn’t God show this to them? This is what is meant by that which [Rashi] wrote, “their interpretations did not enter his ears” — meaning, why did God make this known specifically to his ears and not to others? However, according to Joseph’s interpretation, it makes sense because the king had the means to implement it and fix the problem of the famine. This is what is meant by none could interpret them for Pharaoh — they couldn’t explain why God showed these two benefits specifically to Pharaoh and not to others, since these two benefits are found in anyone who marries off his daughter, so what made Pharaoh different from others? However, according to the Midrash Rabbah, who said that they gave him two interpretations — about daughters and provinces — it seems appropriate to explain that they understood the stalks as alluding to daughters, in the way of call him that he may eat bread (Exodus 2:20), and except the bread that he eats. And the cows alluded to the conquest of provinces, as it is written His firstborn bull has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall gore the peoples (Deuteronomy 33:17). For when cows are healthy and good, they have strength in their horns for goring, and even though bulls are stronger than cows, nevertheless the text specifically mentions cows to emphasize that in times of success, even one as weak as a female will say “I am mighty” and will be victorious. But in times of rebellion, Pharaoh’s strength would be weakened like a female’s, such that he would not have power against the seven provinces that would rebel against him. And regarding what is written and none could interpret them — since Pharaoh believed it was one dream, therefore it says he told them his dream, but the magicians thought they were two dreams with interpretations about daughters he would bury and about seven provinces that would rebel against him. They did not want to tell Pharaoh this bad news, therefore it says none could interpret them for Pharaoh — specifically to Pharaoh himself they did not want to interpret, but they did interpret it in front of his other servants. And even his servants did not tell him anything about that interpretation. Therefore, Pharaoh said to Joseph and there is none who can tell me, and he did not say “there is none who can interpret for me.” Rather, he certainly saw his servants whispering and understood that they had interpreted it negatively. Therefore, he was complaining about all his household members before Joseph, saying that none of them would tell him what the magicians had interpreted in their presence. Another explanation: This is why he said and none could interpret it for me. Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who didn’t forget his dream but claimed to his wise men that he had forgotten it in order to verify the truth [since whoever could tell him the dream would surely be a prophet and his interpretation would be true], Pharaoh actually told his dream. So how would he know if the interpretation was true? Therefore, he deliberately changed several details of the dream from what he had actually seen, thinking that whoever could point out these changes must truly have divine inspiration. Just as he related it to Joseph, he had also related it to the magicians, but none could tell him the changes he had made. That’s why Pharaoh didn’t accept his interpretations. However, Joseph pointed out all the changes to him, saying “You didn’t see withered stalks, but rather thin ones,” etc., as is found in the Midrash (Tanchuma 3).

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.

And the chief cupbearer spoke to Pharaoh, saying: I recall my offenses this day.

"My offenses" — even though I must thereby mention my offenses [I will speak].

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. 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.

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.

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.

Pharaoh was angry with his servants and put me in custody in the house of the chief executioner — me and the chief baker.

"Pharaoh was angry with his servants" — in my opinion, "Pharaoh" is not a proper name but a title, and it is an Egyptian word, just as "Hiram" is in Tyre; and even today every great king over the Ishmaelites is called "Commander of the Faithful." That is why we find "Pharaoh" in the days of Abraham, and in the days of Joseph, and one Pharaoh died and another Pharaoh arose, and likewise in the days of Jeremiah. You will observe that Scripture itself explains the meaning of "Pharaoh," for it is "the king of Egypt." The proof is "Hofra" (Jeremiah 44:30), which is the proper name; likewise "Pharaoh Neco" (2 Kings 23:29), where "Neco" is the proper name. Let not the Midrash about Solomon's throne trouble you, for the king of Egypt did not take it. A second proof: the chief cupbearer said "Pharaoh was angry," and similarly Joseph said "God will respond to Pharaoh's welfare" (Genesis 41:16); "what God is showing Pharaoh" (Genesis 41:28); "let Pharaoh do" (Genesis 41:34) — for it is not the way of proper conduct to address kings by their personal name. "Me and the chief baker" — he said "me" a second time, for this is the idiom of the language; similarly: "And I, where shall I go?" (Genesis 37:30).

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. 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.

And we dreamed a dream in a single night, he and I; each according to the interpretation of his dream we dreamed.

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).

"Each man according to the interpretation of his dream" — I have already explained this (40:5).

And we dreamed a dream in one night I and he; each man his (own) dream, and the interpretation of his companion's dream we dreamed.

And there with us was a Hebrew youth, a servant of the chief executioner; and we told him, and he interpreted our dreams for us — each man according to his dream he interpreted.

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. נער a lad, unwise and unfitted for a high position. עברי a Hebrew, who does not even know our language; 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.

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, 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, 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.

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.

And it came to pass that just as he had interpreted for us, so it was: me he restored to my post, and him he hanged.

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).

"Me he restored" — Pharaoh [is the subject]. Some say the subject of "restored" and "hanged" is speech — that is, the word [of prediction came to pass] — or that the verb refers to the interpretation itself.

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.

And Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they hurried him out of the prison-house. And he shaved and changed his garments and came before Pharaoh.

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

"And they rushed him" — Pharaoh's messengers. "And he shaved" — the one who shaved [him did so].

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. 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.

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.”

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.

And Pharaoh said to Joseph: I have dreamed a dream, and there is no one to interpret it; but I have heard it said of you that you hear a dream and can interpret it.

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

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.”

And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying: Not by my own wisdom — it is only from before Hashem that Pharaoh shall be given a favorable answer.

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.

"Apart from me" — a single compound word made of two words. The sense refers back to "you hear a dream in order to interpret it" (Genesis 41:15): Joseph said, apart from any interpretation of mine, God will respond to Pharaoh's welfare. Some say that the meaning is: because Pharaoh said to him "you interpret dreams," Joseph replied: it is not I who interprets — it is God who will respond to the king's welfare. The meaning of "will respond" is that He provides continually. Similarly: "for God answers him with the joy of his heart" (Ecclesiastes 5:19); and similarly: "the earth will respond" (Hosea 2:24) — and this is close to its plain meaning.

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

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. 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.]

בלעדי, “this is beyond me!” Joseph replied that the powers of wisdom and understanding were outside of him, personally. The meaning of בלעדי is: “not part of me.” אלו-הים יענה את שלום פרעה, “the Lord will put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” Joseph attributed all intelligence and wisdom to G’d. He possessed those powers. He would help Pharaoh to emerge serene from what troubled him at that moment. He mentioned the attribute אלו-הים, as it is this attribute which is active when revealing the meaning of dream. The attribute אלוקים is represented by the final letter ה in the tetragram i.e. י-ה-ו-ה. Daniel (2,36) made a similar statement when he said ופשרה נאמר קדם מלכא. He too alluded to the letter ה at the end of the tetragram. He meant that the knowledge to reveal the meaning of dreams reposes in the last two letters of that Holy Name. This is the reason that Daniel added (Daniel 2,22) הוא גלא עמיקתא ומסתרחא, ”for He reveals the deep and the mysterious.” By needlessly repeating the word הוא in that verse he referred to the two letters ה and ו in the tetragram which referred to the One and Only, i.e. א=אחד, which are the source of these mysteries. Just as Joseph had said בלעדי to indicate that though he might verbalise such interpretations the source of that knowledge did not reside within him, so Daniel similarly made this clear when he said to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2,30) ואנה לא בחכמה די איתי בי מכל חייא וגו'. “As for me (this secret was revealed to me) not because I possess more wisdom than any living being, etc.” Personally, I believe that the essence of Pharaoh’s dream was centered in the number seven which recurs so many times. It is a fact that both Pharaoh and all his wicked contemporaries believed in the existence of the universe having preceded G’d. They denied such a thing as G’d supervising the fate of the universe and the fate of man or anything that occurred in the terrestrial part of the universe. They attribute all abnormal occurrences in the terrestrial part of the universe to mere chance, at best dictated by a combination of horoscopic influences presided over by the seven fixed stars (planets), which themselves are not subject to influence by man’s deeds. Pharaoh and the likes of him were thoroughly attached to the forces of nature as even his name already suggests. [The name פרעה consists primarily of the letters עפר, i.e. the raw material man is made of. (Rabbi Chavell)] Seeing that Pharaoh was so closely involved in the raw materials our terrestrial universe is made of G’d showed him two of the major elements of that combination of four elements which make up the raw material of our universe. They are water and dust, (earth). Seven cows emerged from the element water, whereas the seven ears of corn grew out of the element dust, earth. These two elements hold the key to satiety or hunger as the case maybe, subject to G’d’s benevolent supervision of what goes on in our world. Our Rosh Hashanah (Mussaph) prayers concentrate on the fact that on that day G’d determines which country is to suffer famine and which will have plentiful food. This subject, i.e. that decisions pertaining to the earth’s food supply are made in heaven was something revolutionary for Pharaoh. The man who had thought that the seven fixed stars determine what happens in our territorial world was taught in a dream that there is a Power which supervises and directs these seven planets at will if need be. (we have discussed this in greater detail in our commentary on Genesis 1,2) He was taught that G’d may increase or decrease the apparent power of these planets relative to the system of reward and punishment which forms the basis of G’d exercising His supervision of the universe. The reason that Pharaoh had to be taught all this was that up until that point he had thought of the river Nile as his personal property, as we quoted from Ezekiel 29, 3 “the river is mine and I have made it.” The fact that the events in his dream originated in the river are an example of what our sages term מגיד מראשית אחרית, “that G’d allows us a preview of things to come.” In this instance the preview granted to us in this dream of Pharaoh was the eventual collapse of Egypt as a world power after Pharaoh and his army were drowned in the sea a week after having suffered the death of all their firstborn. The Egyptians had been give ample warning to change their concept of the terrestrial universe and the place therein of its Creator. The ten plagues had been designed to wean the Pharaoh of his time of his pagan beliefs. His failure to do so resulted in his downfall. The fact that his downfall was caused by water, the element which he thought was under his control, was a clarion call for other nations to recognise the attribute of G’d we call י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. the attribute which G’d uses to demonstrate that He is totally free, not bound by so-called “laws of nature.” The Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus, while acknowledging the אלו-הים attribute of G’d, had exclaimed: מי ה' אשר אשמע בקולו, “who is this new attribute of G’d that I should have to listen to His voice?” (Exodus 5,2). Joseph, well aware of Pharaoh’s faulty pagan beliefs, first told him that the power to reveal the meanings of dreams did not reside within him but was reserved for the superior power of G’d. By that he meant that there was a power which superseded that of the seven planets whom Pharaoh had thought of as independent forces each supreme in governing different parts of the universe. By saying בלעדי אלוקים, he drew attention to the discriminatory nature in which G’d supervises His universe. By saying that this Power אלוקים was going to put Pharaoh’s mind at ease, he introduced him to G’d the benevolent who deals with people on an individual basis. Pharaoh’s relief would come from G’d not via any of the seven planets. It therefore behooves man not to turn to the stars, the horoscopes, etc., in order to divine his destiny but to turn to his Creator. This is what he meant when he said: “G’d will set Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” This approach to matters concealed from us is illustrated by Job 5,8 when Eliphaz said: ואל אלו-הים אשית דברתי, “and I will direct what I have to say to the Lord.” This is also what prompted Hoseah, quoting G’d, to say (Hoseah 2,23-24) “on that day I will respond; I will respond to the sky, and it shall respond to the earth; and the earth shall respond with new grain and wine and oil.” This verse teaches that just as it is not up to the earth to initiate any response to man’s request and efforts unless it had first been so instructed by G’d, so it would be foolish to direct one’s prayers and efforts to intermediaries. The reason Joseph always uses G’d’s attribute אלו-הים when referring to G’d is that he wanted to underline that what purports to be “natural,” i.e. laws of nature which man thinks he can depend on, is so only as long as the Lord who has created these forces, i.e. אלו-הים continues to direct these forces to operate normally. Seeing that the dream of Pharaoh forecast interference by G’d in these “natural” forces of the earth to produce crops, Joseph added את האלוקים עושה הראה לפרעה, “what G’d is about to do, (i.e. changes in established patterns of nature) He has revealed to Pharaoh.” Afterwards Joseph added that not only had G’d given Pharaoh advance warning of what was about to occur, but He had even provided him with a time frame of when to expect these changes, i.e. beginning immediately. [I believe the author went out of his way to justify the use of the word אלוקים when in reality anything denoting G’d’s interference in the laws of nature is usually credited to His attribute י-ה-ו-ה; in this instance, the fact that Pharaoh did not even acknowledge the existence of Creator who had preceded the creation of this universe had to be acquainted with that fact before he could absorb any lesson about the attribute Hashem. Ed.] When Joseph added כי נכון הדבר מעם האלוקים לעשותו, “for the matter is already ready before G’d and He will proceed forthwith to carry it out,” (verse 32) he again attributed anything that would occur to G’d and not to anything man could do. At the same time he wanted to convince Pharaoh that man is not a robot and acts under compulsion, that everything in his life has not been decreed from above. The words בלעדי אלוקים, contain within them an allusion to the limit of G’d’s power, i.e. the freedom of choice He as accorded to man, something over which G’d has no control. If you will examine Joseph’s word carefully you will find that they parallel the Torah’s report of the story of creation. That report began with the words בראשית ברא אלוקים, ”at the beginning, G’d created, etc.” and ended with the words (Genesis 2,3) אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had created as an ongoing process.” Joseph commenced with telling Pharaoh that first and foremost there would be an activity by G’d, i.e. את האלוקים עושה, and he concluded with the words האלוקים לעשות exactly like in Genesis 2,3. You will find that the number seven appears three times each in connection with both the cows and the ears of corn. Once it appears in the Torah’s report of Pharaoh’s dream, once in the dream as related by Pharaoh, and the third time when Joseph refers to this number when he interprets the dream. When you multiply the number 14 (seven cows plus seven ears of corn) you get the number 14. When you multiply this number by three you get 42, [an allusion to the numerical value of one of the names of G’d, the first 42 letters in the Book of Genesis until the letter ב in ובוהו — Ed.] None of the numbers “seven” mentioned in our passage went to waste, every one of them became historically relevant as pointed out by Ezekiel 29, 10-11: “Assuredly I will deal with you and your channels, and I will reduce the land of Egypt to utter ruin and desolation; from Migdol to Syene all the way to the border with Nubia. No foot of man shall traverse it; it shall remain uninhabited for forty years.” The first two of these forty years occurred during the time of Joseph before Yaakov came to Egypt. The remaining forty years of the prophecy Pharaoh dreamt occurred later on in Egyptian history.

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).”

And Pharaoh spoke with Joseph: In my dream, behold, I was standing on the bank of the river.

And behold, from the river there came up seven cows, plump in flesh and fine to look upon, and they grazed in the reed-grass.

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.]

And behold, seven other cows came up after them, gaunt and ill to look upon, exceedingly so, and lean in flesh — I had not seen their like in all the land of Egypt for wretchedness.

דלות means LEAN, as (2 Samuel 13:4) “Why art thou thus becoming (דל) lean?” which occurs in the narrative of Amnon. ורקות בשר AND LEAN-FLESHED — wherever רקות is found in Scripture it means spare (literally, deficient) of flesh; old French flouet.

He added [a description of] wretchedness. And instead of "appearance" (mar'eh) he said "form" (to'ar), for these are close in meaning.

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.]

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.

And the gaunt and ill cows devoured the first seven plump cows.

And they entered their innards, yet it could not be known that they had entered their innards, for their appearance was as ill as before. And I awoke.

"And their appearance" — the appearance of each one of them was bad. And here he added in relating his dream that he saw the good cows enter into the midst of the poor ones, and yet they remained as they had been at first.

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 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.

And I saw in my dream, and behold, seven ears of grain were growing on a single stalk, full and good.

And behold, seven ears, withered, thin, scorched by the east wind, sprouted after them.

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, here. and thin, and parched with the east wind. 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: “Bread hatz’numa in a bowl requires the blessing of hamotzi,” the word hatz’numa meaning “cut bread,” or more exactly, 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: “If one transfers dirt from a malya into malya or natza into natza, it does not constitute taking possession, 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. 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), here. Compare Verse 23. instead of tz’numoth as there were there places on the ears which contained no grain whatever.

"Withered" — this word has no parallel in Scripture. Its meaning is like "thin" (Genesis 41:19). Some say it means "images," as that is its meaning in the Ishmaelite tongue [Arabic].

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.

And the thin ears swallowed the seven good ears. And I told the sorcerers, but there was no one who could show me the meaning.

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.)

And Joseph said to Pharaoh: The dream of Pharaoh is one. What Hashem is about to do, He has shown to Pharaoh.

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

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.

The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years — it is one dream.

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”.

And the seven gaunt and ill cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven thin ears scorched by the east wind will be seven years of famine.

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, 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. This is the sense of the verse, And the seven years of famine began to come, according as Joseph had said, 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. 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.

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.

There will be years of famine. This is the matter of which I spoke, etc. There is a question here why Joseph began his interpretation with the years of famine — he should have begun with interpreting the seven years of plenty which preceded the years of famine. There is also a difficulty with what he said This is the matter of which I spoke, as if he was proving his words to validate his interpretation, but what proof is there here? I say that this is its explanation: Joseph judged through his intellect that there would be years of plenty and years of famine, because he saw the matter of eating in the cows and swallowing in the stalks, where the bad ones ate and swallowed the good ones. The main proof was specifically from the stalks, because from the eating of the cows he could not prove anything about it referring to years of plenty and famine. Perhaps the dream would be fulfilled literally — that seven lean cows would eat seven fat cows, or perhaps its interpretation was that seven wicked, poor, and empty people would consume seven righteous and good people, either their money or their bodies, as this is something that occurs — that the wicked besets the righteous, and as it is stated when the wicked swallows one more righteous than himself (Habakkuk 1:13). However, since he [Pharaoh] told him about the matter of the stalks swallowing [each other], behold this swallowing is impossible to actually occur, since stalks possess only plant-based life force and do not have the spirit of life that would enable one to swallow its fellow. And even if we say this is a metaphor and analogy, nevertheless we don’t show a person something that doesn’t exist at all in reality, just as we don’t show a person an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. From this, he [Joseph] reasoned with his intellect that this wasn’t actual swallowing, but rather the destruction caused by the seven years of famine that would consume, wear down, and swallow up the seven years of plenty. Therefore, Joseph began his interpretation with the seven bad stalks, saying that they would swallow and destroy the seven years of plenty, as it was impossible to interpret them in any other way. And they serve as a prototype for all the details of the dream, since it appears that it was all one dream, and just as the seven thin and bad stalks represent seven years of famine, so too the full ones represent seven years of plenty, and the same applies to the matter of the cows. And since the main proof that Joseph made for his entire interpretation was from the seven thin ears of grain and their swallowing of the good ones, therefore after saying there will be years of famine, he said This is the matter which I have spoken — what God is doing He has shown to Pharaoh. For in this my opinion differed from the magicians, as they interpreted the dream about matters that the Holy One, blessed be He, does through an intermediary, such as the conquest of provinces which the Holy One, blessed be He, does through an intermediary, and similarly the matter of daughters through the angel appointed over pregnancy, and everything that is done through an intermediary is not done as quickly as things done by the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself. And the matter of sustenance, the Holy One, blessed be He, does Himself, not through an intermediary, for there are four keys in the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, and their mnemonic is MAFTEACH: Rain, Sustenance, Revival, and Childbirth. Therefore, Joseph said at the beginning of his words, regarding what Pharaoh said and there is none that can interpret it to me, Joseph said Pharaoh’s dream is one, and he needed to immediately give a reason for the repetition of the dream, saying what God is doing He has told to Pharaoh, for its interpretation concerns matters that the Holy One, blessed be He, does Himself, not through an intermediary. Therefore, the dream was repeated, for everything done by the Holy One, blessed be He, is done quickly. And afterward, Joseph stated this matter more explicitly, saying regarding the repetition of the dream etc., because the matter is established by God, and God is hastening to do it. And therefore Joseph said This is the matter which I have spoken — what God is doing, etc. — I have already preceded to tell you that this dream is about things that the Holy One, blessed be He, does Himself, but I had not yet proven that it would be as I said, that the entire interpretation would be about matters of plenty, sustenance, and food. But now that I see the matter of the thin ears of grain swallowing [the good ones], which can only be interpreted as referring to seven years of famine, there is thus proof for my words, and this is the matter which I spoke — that what God is doing, namely matters of sustenance, He has shown to Pharaoh, in order that he might address the matter of the famine, for it is within his power to act. And this explanation is precious and clear. Regarding what it says “And now, let Pharaoh look out” — The text uses the language of and now because God is hastening to do it, therefore it says and now, meaning immediately and without delay, let Pharaoh look out. And regarding what the Ramban questioned — “was he appointed as an advisor to the king?” — it appears to me that this was part of the interpretation itself. For he [Joseph] rejected the interpretation of the magicians because it was difficult for him [to understand] why God specifically showed this to Pharaoh, as explained above. Therefore, he said in his interpretation that this is precisely why God showed it to Pharaoh specifically — because he should seek out a wise and discerning man to rectify this breach.

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.

That is the word of which I spoke to Pharaoh: what Hashem is about to do, He has shown to Pharaoh.

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. 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.

Behold, seven years are coming of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt.

"Great abundance" (sava) — a noun, like "famine" (ra'av). Therefore one who says in the Sabbath prayer "u-vesoʿva khilkaltanu" with a vav is in error, for "soʿva" (with a vav) is a verbal noun; the correct form is "u-veśava khilkaltanu" without a vav.

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.

And seven years of famine will arise after them, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will destroy the land.

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

And after them will arise seven years of famine, which will make all the plenty that was in the land of Mizraim to be forgotten; and the famine will consume the inhabitants of the land;.

And the plenty will not be known in the land because of that famine which will follow, for it will be exceedingly severe.

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”.

The meaning of "and the abundance will not be known" — that their appearance will be as bad as at the start.

And as for the dream being repeated to Pharaoh twice — it is because the matter is established from before Hashem, and Hashem will hasten to bring it about.

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 night 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. 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, 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.

"And regarding the repetition" — a nifal form from the root of "two" (shanayim). Its referent is the cows and the ears of grain. The repetition also serves as testimony that the matter is certain; and since the two dreams came in a single night, it is testimony that God will hasten to bring it about.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

And now, let Pharaoh seek out a man of understanding and wisdom, and appoint him over the land of Egypt.

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, and some raw silver dust, which prevents the grain from getting mothy, Rashi, Shabbath 88b. and similar things. Thus the Sages said in Bereshith Rabbah: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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.”

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.

Let Pharaoh act and appoint faithful men over the land, and let him organize the land of Egypt during the seven years of plenty.

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

"Let Pharaoh do" — this is the counsel. Or it means "let him acquire," as in "this wealth that he made for me" (Deuteronomy 8:17). "And a fifth" — that he should collect the fifth part.

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. 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.

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.”

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. 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.”

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.

And let them gather all the produce of those good years that are coming, and store up grain under the authority of Pharaoh's faithful officials — grain in the cities — and let them keep it.

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

"And let them gather grain" — the appointed officers. Some say that the meaning of "bar" is grain still in its stalk; but in my view the correct explanation is that it is called "bar" after the work of "winnowing or sifting" (Jeremiah 4:11). As for one who objects that the air of Egypt is humid because of the Nile and that grain cannot last there seven years — it is possible to mix it with substances that would preserve it.

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

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. 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. 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, “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.

And the grain shall be held in reserve for the land, for the seven years of famine that will come upon the land of Egypt, so that the people of the land will not perish in the famine.

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.

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.

And the matter was pleasing in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of all his servants.

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

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.

And Pharaoh said to his servants: Can we find a man such as this, in whom there is a spirit of prophecy from before Hashem?

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, here. for since the interpretation met with the approval of Pharaoh and all his courtiers, 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, 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.”

"Can there be found" — a nifal form, and it is a past-tense verb, as if to say: "Has one such as this ever been found in the world?" It is also possible that the nun is a marker of the first person plural: "Can we find one such as this?" — these being Pharaoh's words to his servants.

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 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.

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.

And Pharaoh said to Joseph: Since Hashem has made all this known to you, there is none as discerning and wise as you.

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).

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, “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.”

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 — 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.]

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. 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.

You shall be appointed over my house, and by your word shall all my people be sustained; only this royal throne shall be more honored than you.

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

"You shall be" — in charge over my house. "Will be armed" / "will command" (yishak) — the shin is doubled to compensate for the missing nun of "neshek" (armament). He is the commander of the army. Some say it derives from the root of "kiss" (neshikah), but this is a far-fetched connection. "Only the throne will I make greater than you" — it is well known that "agadel" is an intransitive verb; the meaning is: no greatness of mine above yours, except the greatness of the throne. And "for from my youth he grew up with me as a father" (Job 31:18) is likewise not a transitive use but means he grew up alongside me. This pattern of an intransitive verb used with a following noun is well attested in Scripture, as in: "withering in its leaves" (Isaiah 1:30); and "you will perish from the way" (Psalms 2:12).

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.”

ועל פיך ישק כל עמי, “and by your command my whole nation will be sustained.” רק הכסא, “only by the throne, etc.” Pharaoh meant by this that he would be the titular head of state, i.e. that the people would call him “King.” We find in Kings I 1,37 ויגדל את כסאו, “may he make his (Solomon’s) ‘throne’ greater than that of his father.” This too is a reference to Solomon’s reputation as a great king being established.

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.

And Pharaoh said to Joseph: See, I have appointed you over all the land of Egypt.

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”.

"See, I have set you" — I have placed you in authority over all the land of Egypt.

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 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.”

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

And Pharaoh removed his signet ring from his hand and placed it on Joseph's hand, and he clothed him in garments of fine linen, and he put a golden chain about his neck.

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

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. The king thus gave Joseph his seal so that he should be a leader and commander of the entire government, and seal with the king’s ring whatever he desires.

"Garments of fine linen" — explained in the portion "Take for Me a portion" (Exodus 25:4). "The gold chain" — as in "I have spread coverings on my bed" (Proverbs 7:16).

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

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.

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.

And he had him ride in the second chariot that was his, and they proclaimed before him: This is the father of the king — and he appointed him over all the land of Egypt.

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

‘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); ‘eth mishnei’ (a copy) of this Torah. The correct interpretation is that the word mishneh is adjectival, just as: And I shall be to you ‘l’mishneh’ (as a second one); For Mordecai the Jew was ‘mishneh’ (the second) unto king Ahaseurus. 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 grammarians have already brought a proof to this thesis 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 hatorah 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, and there was another chariot known to be for his second in rank, and another one for the third in rank.

"The second-in-command" (ha-mishneh) — from the root of "two" (shanayim), for the king is as the first, and after him comes the mishneh as his second, and after him comes the "shalish" as the third. "Chariot" — of wood, placed upon four horses. And Solomon's chariot was for his retinue. "Avrekh" — everyone would call out: "before him I kneel and bow down." This word is in the intensive-augmented conjugation; "and he knelt on his knees" (2 Chronicles 6:13) is from the simple conjugation — all from the root of "knees" (berakhayim). Rabbi Jonah the Spanish grammarian said that "avrekh" is a verbal noun, with the alef taking the place of a he, like "ashkem ve-shalouach." But in my opinion the alef of "ashkem" is a first-person marker.

Avreich. This is derived from the word berech — “knee” — that is, they ordered the crowds to bend the knee before him. He thus placed him. He caused the people to accept Yoseif’s authority.

"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.

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. Some commentators understand the word אברך as being composed of the two words אב ואדון, (a translation from the Aramaic) This is based on Baba Batra 4 in which King Herod is described as לא ריכא ולא בר ריכא, “neither a king nor the son of a king.” This was because Herod was born a slave rising to the position of king. The translation of Genesis 25,27 יודע ציד by Onkelos as “a shrewd man,” נחשירכן, i.e. נחש רכן is an example of two words being combined into one. Most hunters are relying on shrewdness to lure their prey. While the more accurate versions of the Targum have the word נחשידכן, based on Baba Batra 139 (compare ערוך), in this instance we are dealing with גברא שדכא, a person who is inactive, without regular occupation. We encounter the word having such a meaning in Joshua 11,23 והארץ שקטה ממלחמה, “the land had rest from war,” which is rendered as וארעא שדוכת מלמעבד קרבא by the Targum.

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 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.