OFFENDED. They committed an offense (chet) in a matter of state.¹

footnotes: ¹ According to Cherez. Weiser suggests rendering: They committed an offense punishable by the state.

The fact that the samekh of sarisav (his officers) retains its kamatz is proof that the resh of saris (officer) should have received a dagesh, and since it cannot the samekh was vocalized with a long kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh.² beneath their first letter in the singular are vocalized with a sheva under their first letter in the plural; i.e., nagid becomes negidim. Saris does not follow this rule. Its plural is sarisim, not serisim. Hence the word presents a problem. I.E. suggests that saris belongs to the group of nouns vocalized pattach-chirik. The latter retain their pattach in the plural; i.e., kabbir becomes kabbirim. I.E. points out that saris should have been vocalized with a pattach beneath the samekh but due to the fact that a resh cannot receive a dagesh (a dagesh usually follows a pattach), the samekh was vocalized with a kamatz to compensate for the missing dagesh. Hence saris retains its kamatz in the plural.

footnotes: ² Words vocalized with a kamatz

AND HE PUT THEM IN WARD IN THE HOUSE OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD. A place where they would be guarded so they would not escape.

AND THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD CHARGED. When these two officers were put in a ward in the house of the captain of the guard, the latter remembered (pakad)³ (charged) is translated as remembered. Thus according to this interpretation, And the captain of the guard charged (va-yifkod) Joseph is to be rendered: And the captain of the guard remembered (va-yifkod) Joseph. Joseph; i.e., he recalled his abilities⁴. and brought him to his house⁵ and placed him in a dungeon⁶ which is the ward spoken of in our verse. The latter is the opinion of the great grammarian.⁷ However, I believe that the prison was in the house of the captain of the guard and Joseph was there to begin with. Proof of this is Scripture’s explicit statement, And he put them…into the prison, the place where Joseph was bound. What our verse relates is that the captain of the guard commanded (charged)⁸ as charged. Joseph to be with the butler and baker and serve them because they had high status in Pharaoh’s palace insomuch as they were officers of the king.

footnotes: ³ In this interpretation va-yifkod ⁴ He remembered that Joseph was able to relate to nobles (Weiser). Filwarg interprets: remembered the Jospeh episode, i.e., that Joseph, like the butler and the baker, offended his master. Krinsky explains: he remembered Joseph’s words protesting his innocence and decided to place him in a prison whose conditions were better. The Hebrew reading of I.E. is zakhar devarav ⁵ According to this interpretation Joseph was originally in a different prison and was now brought to the one in the home of the captain of the guard. ⁶ Cf. verse 15. ⁷ Jonah Ibn Janah. ⁸ I.E. so translates va-yifkod

AND THEY DREAMED. The meaning⁹ rather than ke-ta’am (Filwarg, Krinsky). The aforementioned is borne out by Vat. Ebr. 38 which reads, ve-ta’am. of each man according to the interpretation of his dream is that each one of them saw in his dream details that could be interpreted to foretell what would happen in the future.¹⁰. 38). Our printed texts read, “Each one saw the interpretation of the dream and what happened to him” The problem with this reading is, if they saw the interpretation of their dream in their nocturnal vision why, then, did they turn to Joseph for its interpretation? Hence we have translated according to Vat. Ebr. 38.

footnotes: ⁹ Reading ta’am ¹⁰ There was no part of the dream that did not allude to something. There was no nonsensical part in the dream. Every part of the dream had a meaning and was interpretable (Filwarg based on the reading of I.E. quoted by Nahmanides which is borne out by Vat. Ebr

SAD. Zo’afim (sad) means agitated, as is the meaning of the word zapo (its rage) in and the sea ceased from its raging (mi-zapo) (Jon. 1:15).¹¹

footnotes: ¹¹ Both words come from the same root.

AND JOSEPH CAME IN UNTO THEM. It is possible that Joseph used to sleep in the dungeon at night.¹²

footnotes: ¹² The prison had a number of levels. Joseph’s quarters were in the lowest. He spent his nights in the dungeon and his days with the other prisoners (Krinsky).

[DO NOT INTERPRETATIONS BELONG TO GOD.] Its meaning is that the interpretations of dreams belong to the Lord because He knows the future. He has revealed what is going to come to pass in a dream to one whom He selected and it therefore makes no difference whether I interpret the dream for good or ill. Since this is so, and all interpretations belong to God, do not be concerned about telling me your dreams.¹³ The Rabbinic statement that all dreams follow the interpretation is the opinion of an individual sage.¹⁴ 55b. According to the latter a dream’s meaning depends on its interpretation. This contradicts I.E. Hence, I.E. says that Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is not binding.

footnotes: ¹³ The point is, only God knows the future and what He knows will come to pass. Hence my interpretation can in no way influence the outcome of your dream. What will be, will be. ¹⁴ Rabbi Elazar in Berakhot

ITS BLOSSOMS SHOT FORTH. Nitzah (its blossoms) is the same as henetzu (be in flower) in And the pomegranates be in flower (hanetzu) (Cant. 7:13).

AND THE CLUSTERS THEREOF BROUGHT FORTH RIPE GRAPES. Hivshilu (brought forth ripe) is the oppposite of boser (sour grapes).¹⁵ Bashal (is ripe) in For the harvest is ripe (bashal) (Joel 4:13) is similar. The two words are similar even though hivshilu in our verse and bashal belong to different conjugational paradigms.¹⁶ is in the hifil, bashal is in the kal. Both mean ripened.

footnotes: ¹⁵ I.E. could not find a synonym for ripe. The only way he could define it was by contrasting it with its opposite. ¹⁶ Hivshilu

AND PRESSED THEM. Va-eschat (pressed) is similar to shochate (slay) in That slay (shochate) the children in the valleys (Is. 57:5). Saadiah Gaon’s interpretation of va-eschat is wrong.¹⁷ does not mean to press or squeeze as Saadiah Gaon says (this interpretation is accepted by J.P.S. and all others) since the word is not found elsewhere in the Bible. The word sachat, meaning to squeeze, is found in Rabbinic literature, but there it is spelled with a samakh and not with a sin. I.E. notes that the word shachat spelled with a shin or sachat spelled with a sin as in our verse means the same, to cut, hence to slay by cutting the throat. Thus our verse should be rendered: And I cut the grape so that its juice ran. It is also possible that in I.E.’s copy of Isaiah shochate was spelled with a sin, i.e., he read sochate, and what I.E. is doing is noting that va-eschat is like sochate. For additional interpretations see Cherez and Weiser.

footnotes: ¹⁷ This is a very difficult comment to unravel. The most acceptable interpretation is offered by Filwarg. According to Filwarg, I.E. maintains that va-eschat

THE INTERPRETATION OF IT. Pitrono (the interpretation of it) means its explanation. The term pitrono is not found in Scripture except in reference to a dream.¹⁸

footnotes: ¹⁸ Hence it means the interpretation of a dream. It cannot he used in any other context (Cherez).

Some ask, how did Joseph know that the three branches refer to three days and not to three months or three years? Because yom hulledet et paroh (v. 20)¹⁹. possibly means the day on which Pharaoh was born.²⁰ For today there are kings who make a party on their birthday and invite their servants and distribute gifts to them. It is also possible that the queen was pregnant.²¹ means the day that a child was born to Pharaoh. It was known that the queen was in her ninth month and Joseph reasoned that the “three branches” referred to the days left till she delivered. The first interpretation appeals to me.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Translated according to Filwarg, Weiser and Cherez. According to Krinsky the question raised in I.E. is not answered. The way Krinsky read I.E. is: I.E. asks, “How did Joseph know that the three branches refer to three days?” He then goes on to explain the meaning of the clause yom hulledet et paroh ²⁰ Joseph knew that Pharaoh’s birthday would be in three days and it was obvious to him that the branches referred to this festive event (Filwarg, Weiser, Cherez). ²¹ And that yom hulledet et paroh

SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THY HEAD. Yissa means shall lift up.²² In its correct sense, yissa means to lift up by counting. ²³ Proof of this is Scripture stating, and he lifted up (va-yissa) the head of the chief butler and the head of the chief baker among his servants (v. 20).²⁴ must mean and he counted because Pharaoh did not exalt the chief baker. I will explain this term in my comments on the Torah portion Ki Tissa (Ex. 30:12).²⁵

footnotes: ²² Pharaoh will raise the chief butler from his fallen state. ²³ See note 25. ²⁴ Here the term va-yissa ²⁵ In his short commentary on Ex. 30:12, I.E. points out that one who counts people lists them in a row and places the most important at the top. Thus when Pharaoh will count his servants he will have a list of his butlers and bakers made. The name of the chief butler will head the list of butlers and that of the baker the list of bakers. Thus to “lift up” means to count. However, it does so only in a specific sense. It is not a mere synonym for counting. It should be noted that some commmentaries maintain that I.E. is of the opinion that to lift up is another way of saying to count. Cf. Krinsky and Cherez.

THINE OFFICE. Kannekha means thy previous station, thy place,²⁶. Compare, mekhunatah in Zech. 5:11. thy state.²⁷. Compare, matkunto in II Chron. 24:13. I.E. is saying is that kannekha (thine office) is similar to mekhunatah and matkunto. However, I.E. changes the pronominal suffixes. Kannekha most likely comes from the same root as ken (a base, a pedestal) (I Kings 7:29). The word kanno (in his place) in Then shall stand up in his place (kanno) (Dan. 11:20) is analogous.

footnotes: ²⁶ Hebrew mekhunatekha ²⁷ Hebrew matkuntekha

OUT OF THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS. I will explain this in my comments on If thou buy a Hebrew servant (Ex. 21:2). When the term hinneh (behold) is found in Scripture following a dream, its meaning is as it were.²⁸ (behold) applies to something real. However, when used to describe what one saw in a dream it means: as it were, as if. Cf. Gen. 28:12; 37:7-10; 41:2-6, 18-23.

footnotes: ²⁸ Hinneh

THREE BASKETS OF WHITE BREAD. Saadiah Gaon says that chori means white bread, as in the nobles (chore)²⁹ (literally, the white ones) because they are metaphorically speaking as the color white which resembles light.” of Judah (Neh. 6:17).

footnotes: ²⁹ Cf. I.E.’s comment on Gen. 36:20 where he writes, “Nobles are called chorim

WITHIN YET. Be’od (within yet) is to be translated before again.³⁰ means again. The bet prefixed to it means before. Thus be’od means before again (within yet), and the meaning of be’od sheloshet yamim (within yet three days) is before three days again pass. I.E. makes this point because Onkelos translates be’od, after yet. Thus Onkelos renders be’od sheloshet yamim at the end of three days. Its meaning is: such a time³¹ will not again pass without this happening.

footnotes: ³⁰ Od ³¹ Three days.

SHALL PHARAOH LIFT UP THY HEAD FROM OFF THEE. He will lift it up from its place. It means he will remove it or raise it up on a pole.³² may mean to remove or to raise up (Cherez).

footnotes: ³² The point is that the Hebrew word yissa

BIRTHDAY. Hulledet (birth) is an infinitive in the hofal.

UNTO HIS BUTLERSHIP. Mashkehu (his butlership) here is a noun.³³ means his drink. The meaning of our verse is: And he restored the chief butler back to being in charge of his drink. In verse 13 it means, gives him to drink. However, mashkehu in when thou wast his butler (mashkehu) (v. 13) is a verb.

footnotes: ³³ Here mashkehu

YET DID NOT THE CHIEF BUTLER REMEMBER JOSEPH. He did not verbally mention him to Pharaoh.³⁴ (usually translated remembered) here means mentioned, as in make mention of me (ve-hizkartani) unto Pharaoh (v. 14). The words tizkeru (shall ye mention) and zakhar (he remembered), in And the burden of the Lord shall ye mention (tizkeru)³⁵ no more (Jer. 23:36) and he remembered (zakhar) Vashti (Est. 2:1), are similar.

footnotes: ³⁴ According to I.E. zakhar ³⁵ Literally, shall ye remember.

BUT FORGOT HIM. In his heart.³⁶

footnotes: ³⁶ Thus the verse tells us that the butler not only failed to mention Joseph to Pharaoh, he totally forgot about him.