“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.

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.”

“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.

“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 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).

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.

Before the year of famine came. From here [we learn] that it is forbidden to engage in marital relations during years of famine. According to this, the verse should have stated “And to Joseph were born two sons in the years of plenty.” This provides somewhat of a support for the opinion of Beit Shammai who say (Yevamot 61b) that if a person has two sons, he has fulfilled the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying. For if the Scripture hadn’t told us that two sons were born to him before the year of famine came, I would have said that he named his second son Ephraim [meaning God has made me fruitful] because he was born during the famine years when everyone was hungry while Joseph had abundant grain and produce. However, now that we know he called him Ephraim before the famine years, certainly he called him this because at that point he had fulfilled the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying. This is what is meant by for God has made me fruitful — after having two sons, in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion. However, according to Beit Hillel who maintain that specifically a son and daughter are required [to fulfill the commandment], we cannot explain it this way. This could also be an allusion to what is written that a person should not engage in marital relations when he is hungry nor when he is satiated (Rambam, Laws of Personal Development 4:19). Therefore, the verse does not specify “in the years of plenty” because it is referring to the intermediate time between plenty and famine.

“Go to Joseph and do whatever he tells you.” Rashi explains that he [Joseph] asked them to circumcise themselves. The reason for this is because we find that uncircumcision is called a “disgrace,” as it is written For it would be a disgrace for us to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised (Genesis 34:14). And famine is also called a “disgrace,” as it is said And you shall no longer bear the disgrace of famine among the nations (Ezekiel 36:30). Therefore, he thought that by removing the disgrace of uncircumcision, the disgrace of famine would be removed from them. For the removal of the foreskin is the removal of excess blood that causes decay, and the rotting of grain also comes from excess and waste in the grain that causes decay and spoilage. The merit of the covenant of circumcision also helped Noah, as it is said And I will establish My covenant with you (Genesis 6:18) — Rashi explains this refers to [protecting] the grain and fruits from rotting. This is what Joseph answered them when they said their collected grain had rotted — that they should circumcise themselves. This is measure for measure: If a person removes the waste from within himself, God will also give good and remove the waste from within the grain itself, which is impossible for man to remove. Our Sages said (Sotah 4b) “Anyone who has relations with a prostitute will eventually seek a loaf of bread and not find it, as it is said For on account of a harlot, one is brought to a loaf of bread (Proverbs 6:26).” For one who has relations with a non-Jewish woman, his foreskin is extended. Furthermore, circumcision corrects the organ so that one does not engage excessively in sexual relations. The Egyptians were steeped in sexual immorality, therefore they needed this correction during the years of famine. For this reason it is said about Joseph His bow remained taut (Genesis 49:24) — that he conquered his desire with Potiphar’s wife, therefore from there he shepherded the stone of Israel For from there he merited that his grain did not rot, and he was able to sustain and nourish the rock of Israel because he did not “shepherd prostitutes.”