AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE END OF TWO FULL YEARS. Scripture does not indicate the point from which these two years are reckoned. And it came to pass at the end of forty years (II Sam. 15:7), And within threescore and five years (Is. 7:8), and Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year (Ezek. 1:1)¹ are similar. However, it is possible that Scripture’s point of reckoning is the chief butler’s release from prison or the day that Joseph was put into prison.

footnotes: ¹ In all these verses Scripture doesn’t indicate the point from which the reckoning starts.

[FULL.] I have already explained the meaning of yamim (full).²

footnotes: ² Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 4:4.

THAT PHARAOH DREAMED. That is, was dreaming. Compare, And Rebekah heard (Gen. 27:5).³), hence I.E.’s comment. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 27:5 and the notes thereto.

footnotes: ³ The Hebrew literally reads: that Pharaoh dreams (u-faroh cholem

IN THE REED-GRASS. Some say that achu (reed-grass) means a valley with plants.⁴ Others say that achu is the name of a certain type of plant and⁵. 38. the bet of ba-achu is superfluous.⁶ as valley then the bet of ba-achu serves a purpose; it stands for “in the.” Thus ba-achu means in the growth covered valley. However, if achu is the name of a plant then the bet is superfluous, for one cannot say they fed in the plant (whatever plant achu might be). According to the latter interpretation our verse is to be translated: and they fed upon achu. It is similar to the bet of va-merorim in, He hath filled me with bitterness (va-merorim) (Lam. 3:15).⁷ rather than va-merorim. According to both of these interpretations achu here and achim in For though he be fruitful among the reed-plants (achim) (Hos. 13:15) are related and come from one root.⁸ in Hosea) is its brother (achiv) the son of his mother.” I.E. plays with achim (valley or plant) and ach (brother). His point is that both come from the same root, that our word is in the singular, and that in Hosea it is in the plural (Cherez).

footnotes: ⁴ Hence our phrase is to be rendered: they fed in the growth covered valley. ⁵ So Vat. Ebr ⁶ If we interpret achu ⁷ Hebrew usage requires the verse to read merorim ⁸ I.E. literally reads, “It (achim

EARS OF CORN. Shibbolim (ears of corn) is a feminine plural even though it ends in a mem.⁹ It is similar to nashim (women) and pilagshim (concubines).¹⁰

footnotes: ⁹ Which ordinarily indicates that a word is a masculine plural. ¹⁰ Both of which are feminine plural nouns with masculine endings.

AND BLASTED. U-shedufot kadim means they were blasted by a wind coming from the east for kadim means east. East is so termed because the sun rises there first.¹¹ means first. Cf. Is. 23:7; Ezek. 38:17. I.E. makes this point because kedem can also mean front. However, a circular object (the earth) has no front (Krinsky). Shedufot kadim can be rendered as blasted by the east. Hence I.E. points out that east refers to an east wind.

footnotes: ¹¹ Kedem

Ha-mele’ot (full) has the same meaning as ha-beri’ot (rank).¹² (rank and good). Similarly verse 7 reads, ha-beri’ot ve-ha-mele’ot (rank and full). I.E. points out that beri’ot when referring to ears of corn means full because the term bari (rank), which means fat, can only be used when referring to animals; i.e., one cannot speak of a fat plant. Hence I.E. points out that here bari means full (Filwarg). Thus beri’ot ve-tovot means the same as mele’ot ve-tovot. On the other hand I.E.’s comment may pertain only to verse 7. In this case I.E. is pointing out that the Bible there uses two synonyms, mele’ot and beri’ot, for full (Weiser).

footnotes: ¹² Verse 5 reads beri’ot ve-tovot

THAT HIS SPIRIT WAS TROUBLED. Va-tippa’em (was troubled) is a nifal. It is similar to nifamti¹³. The nun of the nifal is missing in va-tippa’em because it is an imperfect with a conversive vav, and the nun of the nifal is dropped in the future and is compensated by a dagesh in the first letter of the root. in I am troubled (nifamti) and cannot speak (Ps. 77:5). Others say¹⁴ that both va-tippa’em and nifamti come from the same root as pa’am (anvil)¹⁵ (that his spirit was troubled) thus is: that his spirit was beaten. in that smiteth the anvil (pa’am) (Is. 41:7). Its meaning is that his spirit was like a beaten body.¹⁶ (was beaten) can govern rucho (his spirit).

footnotes: ¹³ Which is a nifal ¹⁴ The “others” do not dispute what has been said until now. They explain the meaning of the word, whereas the first interpretation gave the conjugation of the word (Cherez). ¹⁵ The meaning of va-tippa’em rucho ¹⁶ It was pained and troubled. Spirit is immaterial and cannot be beaten. However, it may be compared to a beaten body. His spirit was beaten as if it were a body (Weiser). Hence the verb va-tippa’em

MAGICIANS OF. Chartume (magicians of) comes from a quadriliteral root.¹⁷. However, it is possibly an Aramaic or Egyptian word. It means a scientist.¹⁸

footnotes: ¹⁷ Its root being chet, resh, tet, mem ¹⁸ Weiser.

AND ALL THE WISE MEN THEREOF. Men learned in astrology and dream interpretation.

MY FAULTS. Even though I will recall my faults.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁹ It is not fitting to recall one’s offenses before the king. Nevertheless, in this case I must (Krinsky). I will tell you of an interpreter, even though I have to recall my faults (Cohen).

PHARAOH WAS WROTH WITH HIS SERVANTS. I believe that Pharaoh is an adjective²⁰ (king). Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:1 and the notes thereto. and not a proper name. It is an Egyptian word. It is a title as Hiram in Tyre.²¹. We thus find a Hiram in the days of David (II Sam. 5:11) and in the days of Solomon (I Kings 5:15) (Krinsky). Similarly in our day all great Arab kings are called “prince of the believers.” Hence we find a Pharaoh in the days of Abraham and a Pharaoh in the days of Joseph.²² We also read that a Pharaoh died and a new Pharaoh arose.²³ Similarly we find a Pharaoh in the days of Jeremiah.²⁴ Do you not see that Scripture itself explains that Pharaoh is a term for the king of Egypt,²⁵ as evidenced by the terms Pharaoh Hophra and Pharaoh Neco,²⁶ wherein Hophra and Neco are proper nouns.²⁷ Do not raise any objection from the Midrash concerning Solomon’s throne,²⁸ 20, Pharaoh Neco means Pharaoh the lame. Thus Neco is an adjective. According to the Midrash this Pharaoh tried to sit on Solomon’s throne, which had been brought to Egypt by an earlier Pharaoh named Shishak, and had his leg bitten and broken by a lion, hence the name Pharaoh Neco, Pharaoh the lame. for the king of Egypt did not take it to Egypt.²⁹ Additional proof³⁰ is found in the statement of the chief butler, Pharaoh was wroth, and in Joseph’s statements, God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace (v. 16); He hath shown unto Pharaoh (v. 28); and Let Pharaoh do this (v. 34).³¹ It is not in keeping with proper etiquette to mention the king by name.

footnotes: ²⁰ What I.E. means by “adjective” is an adjectival noun, a descriptive term like melekh ²¹ According to I.E., Hiram is not a proper noun. It is a term like Pharaoh or melekh ²² They obviously were not the same person. ²³ Ex. 1:8. ²⁴ Jer. 44:30. ²⁵ The Bible in a number of places explains that Pharaoh is a king of Egypt. Cf. Ex. 6:13, 29; Jer. 44:30. Filwarg questions this reading and suggests emending it. According to Filwarg we should translate, “Do you not see that Scripture does not explain the term Pharaoh. It does not do so because Pharaoh is a title for the kings of Egypt.” According to Filwarg, I.E.’s point is that the Bible usually does not identify the Pharaoh because it is known to be a title for the king of Egypt. If Pharaoh was a proper name, king of Egypt would follow it. ²⁶ Jer. 44:30; 46:2. ²⁷ Therefore Pharaoh must be an adjective. ²⁸ According to the Midrash, Va-yikra Rabbah ²⁹ King Solomon’s throne was never brought to Egypt as it is not included among the spoil taken by Shishak. Cf. I Kings 14:25, 26. ³⁰ That Pharaoh is not a proper noun. ³¹ Thus these verses prove that Pharaoh is not a proper noun.

ME AND THE CHIEF BAKER. The word me is mentioned twice in this verse in keeping with Hebrew usage. Compare, and as for me, whither shall I go (Gen. 37:30).³².

footnotes: ³² See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 37:30 and the notes thereto. Our verse reads, and put me…me and the chief baker

EACH MAN ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF HIS DREAM. I have previously explained this.³³ in his comments on Gen. 40:5.

footnotes: ³³ I.E. explains the meaning of each man according to the interpretation of his dreams

I WAS RESTORED. By Pharaoh.³⁴), him he hanged (oto talah). The question is, to whom does “he” refer. According to the first interpretation it refers to Pharaoh, according to the second, to Joseph. Or its meaning is, Joseph’s word³⁵ or Joseph’s interpretation restored me and hanged him.³⁶

footnotes: ³⁴ The verse literally reads: me he restored (oti heshiv ³⁵ Since Joseph said it, it was as if he had done it (Filwarg). Or Joseph’s saying it was the cause of it (Krinsky). ³⁶ Joseph, by so interpreting, caused it to happen (Krinsky).

AND THEY BROUGHT HIM HASTILY. Pharaoh’s messengers.

AND HE SHAVED HIMSELF. Someone shaved him.³⁷. If Joseph shaved himself Scripture would have used the hitpa’el va-yitgallach rather than the pi’el va-yegallach (Cherez), the meaning of which is, and he shaved. However, va-yegallach presents a problem. The subject is missing. Hence I.E. notes that it should be rendered: and someone shaved him. According to Krinsky, I.E. is of the opinion (for the aforementioned reasons) that our verse is abridged and the reader has to supply the subject. Our verse should thus be rendered: and the shaver shaved him. I.E.’s note consists of one word, ha-megalle’ach (the shaver).

footnotes: ³⁷ Our verse reads, va-yegakkach

IT IS NOT IN ME. Biladai (it is not in me) is a compound of two words.³⁸ (not) and ade (unto). It is not in me refers to And I have heard say of thee that when thou hearest a dream thou canst interpret it (v. 15). When Joseph heard Pharaoh say this he replied, it is not in me, but God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace via my interpretation.³⁹ (it is not in me) refer to. According to this explanation biladai refers to the power to interpret dreams. The power to interpret dreams is not in me, it comes from God (Cherez). Others say that when Joseph heard Pharaoh say, thou canst interpret dreams, Jospeh replied, I am not (it is not in me) the interpreter; God is, and He will give the king an answer of peace.⁴⁰ means not I, and refers to the interpreter (Cherez). It should be noted that I.E. is vague and that Krinsky, Kaputa and others interpret differently.

footnotes: ³⁸ It is a compound of bal ³⁹ The problem is what does biladai ⁴⁰ According to this interpretation biladai

[WILL GIVE AN ANSWER.] The meaning of ya’aneh (will give an answer) is, He will always provide. Compare, ma’aneh in for God answereth him (ma’aneh) in the joy of his heart (Eccles. 5:19), and ta’aneh in And the earth shall respond (ta’aneh) (Hos. 2:24). Nevertheless, the word is close to its primary meaning.⁴¹

footnotes: ⁴¹ Its primary meaning is to answer. When one provides, he, as it were, answers (Cherez). For an alternate translation see Weiser.

[POOR AND VERY ILL-FAVORED.] In relating the dream Pharaoh added the word dallot (poor), and in place of mareh (favored) he used the term to’ar (favored) because their meanings are similar.⁴² (ra’ot mareh) and lean fleshed kine in his dream. In our verse Pharaoh describes them as poor and very ill-favored (ve-ra’ot to’ar me’od) and lean fleshed. I.E. says there is no discrepancy in the descriptions because adding a word or using a synonym does not change the meaning. He further expands on this point in his comments on Ex. 20:1 where he uses this argument to explain why there are two different versions of the Ten Commandments in the Pentateuch.

footnotes: ⁴² In verse 3 we read that Pharaoh saw ill-favored

BUT THEY WERE STILL ILL-FAVORED. Each one of the kine was ill-favored.⁴³ (favored) is a plural; ra (ill) is a singular. Thus marehen ra is a combination of singular and plural. I.E. explains this by noting that it means each one of the kine was ill-favored. This is how the medieval grammarians explained this type of combination (Weiser). Here Pharaoh expanded in his description of his dream and added that after the ill-favored kine had eaten the fat kine, they were still ill-favored as at the beginning.⁴⁴. Here, unlike verse 19, the addition is significant. The entire verse consists of Pharaoh’s elaboration of his dream.

footnotes: ⁴³ Marehen ⁴⁴ When the dream was first described in verse 4, it was not indicated that after swallowing the seven fat kine, the seven lean ones were still ill-favored as at the beginning

WITHERED. The word tzenumot (withered) is not found elsewhere in Scripture. Its meaning is the same as that of rekot (empty).⁴⁵ (empty). In our verse they are described as tzenumot. According to I.E., Joseph substituted a synonym. I.E. explains these substitutions in his comments on verse 19. Others say that tzenumot means images,⁴⁶ as hard. for that is its meaning in Arabic.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Joseph in verse 27 refers to the ears as rekot ⁴⁶ In a manner of speaking images are imitations. Similarly applying this concept these things were in the shape of ears but empty on the inside (Krinsky). Or images have no practical use, neither did these ears (Cherez). Weiser suggests that what I.E. says is that images are hard; these, too, were hard and could not serve as food. According to the latter interpretation I.E. agrees with Rashi who interprets tzenumot

GREAT PLENTY. Sava (plenty) is a noun. It is like ra’av (famine).⁴⁷ and ra’av are nouns. Hence the one who says in his Sabbath prayers⁴⁸ prayer. u-ve-sova kilkaltanu errs because sova spelled with a vav is an infinitive.⁴⁹ (ra’av) thou didst feed us, and didst sustain us in plenty (p. 419, The Authorized Prayer Book, trans. by J. H. Hertz). Plenty is parallel to famine. As ra’av is a noun so its parallel must be a noun. Hence the correct reading is sava and not sova. The correct way to read this prayer is without a vav, viz., u-ve-sava (and in plenty) kilkaltanu (thou sustained us).

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Both sava ⁴⁸ In the nishmat ⁴⁹ The prayer reads, during famine

[AND THE PLENTY SHALL NOT BE KNOWN IN THE LAND.] Joseph based this on but they were still ill-favored as at the beginning (v. 21).

AND FOR THAT THE DREAM WAS DOUBLED. Hishanot (was doubled) is a nifal. It comes from the same root as shenayim (two). Its meaning is the dream coming twice, once with kine as its symbol and then with ears of corn as its symbol, also attests⁵⁰ that the thing is established by God. Furthermore, the occurrence of the two dreams in one night is proof that God will shortly bring it to pass.⁵¹. This appears redundant; hence I.E. explains was doubled came in two versions, twice, twice in one night. It is because the thing is established by God corresponds to was doubled; and and God will shortly bring it to pass corresponds to twice.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Not only do the kine and the ears allude to seven years of plenty and famine, they also indicate that the decree is established by God; i.e., it is unchangeable. ⁵¹ The dream could have come on two different nights. The fact that it occurred twice in one night is proof that God is bringing it about soon. Our verse reads: The dream was doubled…twice

LET PHARAOH DO THIS. Ya’aseh paro (literally let Pharaoh do) is short for let Pharaoh do according to the following council. Or ya’aseh (do) means get, like asah in My power and the might of my hand hath gotten (asah) me this wealth (Deut. 8:17).⁵² means let Pharoah get. Also according to this interpretation the object is missing. It should be read: Let Pharaoh get wheat (Weiser).

footnotes: ⁵² According to this interpretation ya’aseh paro

AND TAKE UP THE FIFTH PART OF THE LAND. Let him buy a fifth of the produce of the land.

AND LAY UP CORN. The overseers. Some say that bar (corn) refers to corn in its ears.⁵³ However, I think that bar is the term applied to the corn after it has been fanned and cleansed.⁵⁴. 38 reads, fanned and cleansed. We have followed the latter. To the one who says that the Egyptian air is damp because of the Nile and it is impossible for corn to last there for seven years, we reply that it is possible to mix corn with preservatives.⁵⁵ 90:5 this is precisely what Joseph did.

footnotes: ⁵³ Grain that has not been purified from its stubble (Weiser). ⁵⁴ Grain whose impurities have been removed. I.E. is paraphrasing Jer. 4:11. Our texts read, fanned or cleansed. Vat. Ebr ⁵⁵ According to Bereshit Rabbah

CAN WE FIND SUCH A ONE AS THIS. Nimtza (we find) is a nifal perfect and the meaning of ha-nimtza kha-zeh ish (can we find such a one as this) is, was such a one as this ever found in the world. It is also possible that the nun of nimtza is a first person plural prefix.⁵⁶ is prefixed to the Hebrew root in the first person plural imperfect. According to this interpretation nimtza is a kal. In this case the word ha-nimtza (can we find) relates to what Pharaoh said to his servants.⁵⁷ can either be a third person singular nifal perfect or a first person plural kal imperfect. In the first instance it means was found, and relates to kha-zeh ish (such a one as this); in the second, it means we will find, and it relates to Pharaoh and his servants.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ A nun ⁵⁷ The meaning of the phrase is, can we find such a one as this. The point is that nimtza

THOU SHALT BE OVER MY HOUSE. Thou shalt be chief over my house.

SHALL BE RULED. The shin of yishak (shall be ruled) has a dagesh to compensate for the missing nun of neshek (arms),⁵⁸ is a denominative of neshek (arms), and means will be armed. its meaning being Joseph will be commander of the army.⁵⁹ as, and according unto thy word shall all my people be armed. Hence Joseph will be chief of the army. Others say that yishak is related to neshikah (kiss).⁶⁰) (Filwarg). Krinsky suggests translating it, thy word shall all my people kiss. Literally, pikha means thy mouth. However, the latter is far fetched.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Yishak ⁵⁹ I.E. translates and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled ⁶⁰ All the people will pay homage to Joseph by kissing him on the mouth (pikha

ONLY IN THE THRONE WILL I BE GREATER THAN THOU. It is known that egdal (I will be greater) is an intransitive verb. The meaning of rak ha-kisse egdal mi-mekka is, I will not be greater than you except for the dignity of the throne.⁶¹ being intransitive refers to Pharaoh and not the throne. The word gedelani (he grew up with me) in Nay from my youth he grew up with me (gedelani) as with a father (Job 31:18) is not a transitive verb⁶² was transitive it would disprove I.E.’s contention that egdal is intransitive since they are both kals. but an intransitive verb meaning he grew up with me. The juxtaposition of an intransitive verb (egdal) with the direct object (kisse) is found elsewhere in Scripture.⁶³ Compare, For ye shall be as a terebinth whose leaf fadeth (ke-elah novelet aleha) (Is. 1:30);⁶⁴ (fadeth) is intransitive, aleha (its leaves) is the object. I.E. renders novelet alehah as, which is withering with regards to its leaves. and and ye perish in the way (ve-tovedu derekh) (Ps. 2:12).⁶⁵ (you shall perish) is intransitive. Derekh (way) is the object. According to I.E. the meaning of ve-tovenu derekh is, and you shall perish with regard to the way. Similarly the meaning of our verse is, I will be greater than you with regard to the throne (Krinsky).

footnotes: ⁶¹ Egdal ⁶² Meaning, brought me up. If gedelani ⁶³ That is, found elsewhere in Scripture with a similar meaning, i.e., meaning, with regard to (Weiser, Krinsky). Usually only a transitive verb is connected to a direct object (Weiser). Hence I.E. points out that our verse is not unique. ⁶⁴ Novelet ⁶⁵ Ve-tovedu

SEE, I HAVE SET THEE OVER ALL THE LAND. I have set thee above all the land of Egypt.

VESTURES OF FINE LINEN. I have explained the meaning of shesh (fine linen) in my comments on the Torah portion ve-yikchu li terumah (that they take for me an offering).⁶⁶ is white linen made from a type of flax which grows in Egypt.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ I.E. in Ex. 25:4 writes that shesh

A GOLD CHAIN. Revid (chain) is like marvadim (coverlets) in I have decked my couch with coverlets (marvadim) (Prov. 7:16).⁶⁷ (chain) to mean a coverlet (Krinsky, Weiser).

footnotes: ⁶⁷ I.E. explains revid

THE SECOND. Mishneh (the second) comes from the same root as shenayim (two). The king is like the numeral one, next comes the mishneh which means second to him, and afterward the shalish (adjutant) which means the same as shilishi (third).⁶⁸ means second in rank and shalish third in rank (Netter). Mishneh can be taken to refer to the chariot, as Rashi interprets. Hence I.E. points out that mirkevet ha-mishneh (the second chariot) is to be rendered: the chariot of the second in rank (Cherez).

footnotes: ⁶⁸ I.E. points out that mishneh

CHARIOT. A wooden chariot pulled by four horses,⁶⁹ (chariot) to mean a horse or mule. Cf. Rashi. as is evidenced by the chariot of Solomon.⁷⁰ (merkavah) came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty. Now four times 150 gives 600. Hence each chariot had four horses.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ Some interpret mirkevet ⁷⁰ We read in I Kings 10:29, And a chariot

ABRECH. Every man called before him, I will bend the knee (avrekh)⁷¹ is a first person singular. However, the verb preceding it, va-yikre’u (and they cried), is a plural. Thus rather than avrekh we would expect navrekh, hence I.E.’s comment. and I will bow down. The word avrekh is a hifil. However, the word va-yivrakh in and kneeled down (va-yivrakh) upon his knees (II Chron. 6:13) is a kal. Both words come from the same root, birkayim (knees).⁷². Rabbi Jonah, the Spanish grammarian,⁷³ said that avrekh is an infinitive, with an alef taking the place of the heh,⁷⁴ is a variant of havrekh. This answers the question raised in note 70. According to this comment avrech is not a first person singular but rather an infinitive. The verse thus reads: and they cried before him, bend the knee (havrekh). This is also the opinion of Kimchi. as we find in the word ashkem in sending them betimes (ashkem) and often (Jer. 25:4).⁷⁵ is to be interpreted as if written hashkem. I.E. quotes Jer. 25:4, sending them betimes and often. However, in this verse the word for betimes is written hashkem with a heh. The reference therefore must be to Jer. 25:3 (speaking betimes and often) where the word for betimes is written ashkem with an alef. Either we have a scribal error or I.E. quoted from memory and erred. However, I believe that the alef of ashkem is a first person future prefix.⁷⁶ has not been substituted for an alef, its meaning being: I arose and spoke (Krinsky). Hence we cannot use Jer. 25:3 as an analogy for a heh being substituted for an alef.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Avrekh ⁷² Its root is bet, resh, caf ⁷³ Ibn Janah. ⁷⁴ That is, avrekh ⁷⁵ Wherein ashkem ⁷⁶ In other words a heh

I AM PHARAOH. I alone am king and aside from you no one is permitted to act freely.⁷⁷

footnotes: ⁷⁷ I remain king. However, everyone else will be subservient to you (Cherez).

[HIS FOOT.] The meaning of his foot is permission to go any place.⁷⁸. 38. The same applies to his hand; i.e., no one may do anything without your (Joseph’s) permission (Weiser). It may also be a figurative expression.⁷⁹ The latter is its correct meaning.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Vat. Ebr ⁷⁹ His hand or his foot is not to be taken literally but means do anything significant or insignificant (Weiser).

ZAPHENATH-PANEAH. If this is an Egyptian word then we don’t know what it means.⁸⁰ On the other hand, if this is a Hebrew translation of Joseph’s Egyptian name then we don’t know what Joseph’s Egyptian name was. In the latter case⁸¹ is Hebrew. the meaning of paneah is in accordance with Onkelos’ translation,⁸² as revealed. He renders zaphenath-paneah, a man before whom all secrets (tzefunot) are revealed. and it is a quadriliteral.⁸³.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Since we don’t understand ancient Egyptian we cannot unravel its meaning. ⁸¹ If Zaphenath-paneah ⁸² Onkelos renders paneah ⁸³ Its root being peh, ayin, nun, chet

PRIEST OF ON. The term kohen (priest) can be applied to one who serves the Lord or to one who serves idols, for I believe that when this term is used in Scripture it means one who ministers.⁸⁴ does not mean a priest of the Lord; it means any priest. Hence kohen on means priest of On.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ I.E.’s point is that kohen

AND JOSEPH WENT OUT. His name went out, as in And thy renown went forth among the nations (Ezek. 16:14).⁸⁵ Or it means he went out and traveled throughout the land and they announced who he was that he might become known.⁸⁶ literally and not applying it to his name.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ That is, Joseph was renowned throughout the land. Literally: And thy name went forth among the nations. “Thy name” meaning thy renown. ⁸⁶ Taking And Joseph went out

ALL THE FOOD. All is not to be taken literally, for if it were, then all should have starved to death. All in And all countries came (v. 57) is similar.⁸⁷ The meaning of And he gathered up all the food is: and Joseph gathered as much of the food as he could.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ It is not to be taken literally. It doesn’t mean each and every individual came.

FOR GOD HATH MADE ME FORGET. Its meaning is, because he said God hath made me forget.⁸⁸ and for God etc. Cf. I.E.’s comment on Gen. 26:7. Rabbi Judah, the first Hebrew grammarian,⁸⁹ says that nashani (made me forget) follows the paradigm of channani (dealt graciously with me) (Gen. 33:11).⁹⁰ comes from the root chet, nun, nun. Similarly nashani comes from the root nun, shin, shin. They are both kals. However, Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen, the Spaniard, says that (in nashani) a pattach has been substituted for the chirik.⁹¹ is a pi’el coming from the root nun, shin, heh. Compare, tzivvani whose root is tzadi, vav, heh. The problem is that the first letter of a pi’el perfect is vocalized with a chirik, and nashani is vocalized with a pattach, hence Rabbi Moses’ explanation that a pattach has been substituted for a chirik. Thus nashani is a variant of nishani.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ This is an abridged statement as “because he said” has to be added between Manasseh ⁸⁹ Rabbi Judah ibn Hayyuj (c. 940-1010), the first Hebrew grammarian to put forth the idea that all Hebrew words come from a three letter root. He is considered the father of the science of Hebrew grammar (Weiser). ⁹⁰ Channani ⁹¹ According to this opinion, nashani

AND THE SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE BEGAN. Va-techillenah is a kal and comes from a root whose second and third letters are identical.⁹². This comment presents difficulties. Techillenah is obviously a hifil. If it were a kal it would be vocalized techullenah. Futhermore, this word is never encountered in the Bible in the kal. The entire comment is missing in Vat. Ebr. 38. Similarly S.D. Luzzato had manuscripts of I.E. which omitted this comment. For an attempt to justify this comment see Krinsky.

footnotes: ⁹² Its root is chet, lamed, lamed

IN ALL LANDS. All the lands adjacent to Egypt.⁹³ 90:6, the hunger was in three lands, Phoenecia, Arabia and Palestine. The point is that if the hunger was in lands far from Egypt, how did they survive since they couldn’t come to Egypt to buy food?

footnotes: ⁹³ Cf. Bereshit Rabbah

AND JOSEPH OPENED ALL. The storehouses which they had.⁹⁴ (in them). I.E. interprets ba-hem to mean, had with them, i.e., their storehouses.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ The verse literally reads: And Joseph opened what was ba-hem

AND SOLD UNTO THE EGYPTIANS. It means he gave corn (shever) to the Egyptians.⁹⁵ (and sold) is a denominative of corn or grain. Va-yishbor refers to a corn purchase.⁹⁶ means, and he sold (Krinsky). Va-yishbor usually means, and he bought corn. This is the sense in which this root is used throughout Chap. 42 and in Is. 55:1. However, here va-yishbor seems to mean, and he sold corn. I.E.’s apparent solution to the problem is to explain that va-yishbor can apply either to the seller or to the buyer as the transfer of corn (shever) is effectuated by two individuals, the one giving (selling) the corn and the other buying it. The aforementioned is how Kimchi explains va-yishbor and it appears to be the meaning of I.E.’s comment (Cherez).

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Va-yishbor ⁹⁶ The Egyptians purchased the corn. Hence Joseph sold it. Thus va-yishbor

TO JOSEPH TO BUY CORN. The clause is inverted⁹⁷ and must be understood as: And all the countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn.

footnotes: ⁹⁷ It literally reads: to buy corn to Joseph.