Every form of the word קץ means “the end.” It is obvious that קץ means “end,” as Onkelos translates it. However, [Rashi is answering the] question: Why does Scripture write the word ימים? It would be understandable if קץ did not [always] mean “end,” but [also can mean] “some of,” as in מקצה אחיו, “From some of his brothers” (47:2). Accordingly, here it mentions ימים to indicate that it was two full years, not part of two years. But if מקץ always means “end,” why does Scripture write ימים? Rashi answers: We might think מקץ means “some of,” and it alwaysmeans this, unless it is evident otherwise from the verse. That is why it is written here ימים — to show that it means “end,” and not “some of.” Consequently, קץ always means “end.” For it is evident here that קץ means “end,” and we make a gezeirah shavah between קץ [written here, and any other instance of] קץ. Thus Rashi says, “And [henceforth,] every form of the word קץ means ‘the end’.” So it seems to me, as opposed to Re’m’sexplanation, that Rashi says every form of the word קץ means “the end” because Rashi wishes to distinguish קץ from קצה. This is because קצה sometimes means “end,” as in: “At the end (מקצה) of three years” (Devarim 14:28). And it sometimes means “side,” as in: “One cherub on this side (מקצה)” (Shemos 25:19). And it sometimes means “some of,” as in: “From some of (מקצה) his brothers” (47:2). Although [the word קץ] appeared several times previously in Scripture, [and Rashi did not comment there,] this is not problematic, as many similar cases exist [where Rashi does not explain a word the first time it appears]. Re’m writes: We need not object that it says, “At the קץ of seven years, you are to make shemitah” (Devarim 15:1), which apparently means at the beginning of shemitah, as it is written, “But in the seventh year you must let it rest” (Shemos 23:11). For [the answer is:] The verse in Devarim is speaking of releasing debts (השמטת כספים), and this is at the end of shemitah.

All other rivers are not referred to as יאורים**except for the Nile...**Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written היאור, with a definite article? [The answer is:] Perforce it refers to the known יאור, mentioned earlier — the four נהרות written in Bereishis (2:11). Accordingly, why is it not written נהר here, like it does there? Surely [the answer is:] If it was written נהר here, we would not know which נהר, as four נהרות were mentioned earlier. Thus it says יאור, meaning the נהר that has יאורים. And all other נהרות are not called יאורים, only the Nile, as Rashi goes on to explain. The Nile is the Pishon River mentioned in Bereishis, as Rashi explains there. When Rashi says, “All other rivers,” he is referring to the other three נהרות written in Bereishis.

The entire country is made up of man-made canals, and the Nile overflows... Rashi is answering the question: Since this verse is referring to one of the rivers mentioned in Bereishis, why is it not mentioned by its name? [The answer is:] Since Egypt is made up of man-made יאורים, its river [came to be] called יאור. But all other rivers [of other countries] are not made up in this manner.

Symbol of the period of abundance... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif not interpret the fact that the cows were “fine-looking”? In v. 26 it clearly says he interpreted “well-fleshed,” but his interpretation of “fine-looking” is nowhere mentioned. Rashi answers: Just as he interpreted that the seven good cows mean seven years of abundance, so too he interpreted that “fine-looking” symbolizes the years of abundance. For in a period of abundance, people look finely upon one another: they greet each other pleasantly and provide one another with whatever is lacking.

Meaning thin. Rashi is answering the question: How could an animal and its flesh be described as דק [literally: “fine”]? It should have said כיחוש בשר (“lean”). Thus Rashi explains: “Tenvesin Old French.” Rashi is saying that in O.F., a lean animal is called *tenves,*even though tenvesmeans דק. Thus in Hebrew, too, a lean animal is called דקות בשר. Rashi is explaining the word tenves when he says, “Meaning thin.”

Symbolizing that all the joy of the abundant years will be forgotten. Rashi is answering the question: The cows’ eating can be understood in two ways. Either that the joy will be forgotten in the hunger years, or that there will be food to eat in the hunger years, which is a good sign. How do we know which it is? Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.” This [i.e., Rashi’s] explanation is right, [despite Ramban’s objections] — for later on, we see clearly that Yoseif explained it so. Maharshal explains that Rashi [knows this because he] is answering the question: Why does it say the cows “ate”? It should say they “swallowed up” (ותבלענה), because the term “ate” is not normally used to describe one animal consuming another. Thus Rashi explains: “Symbolizing that all the joy... will be forgotten.”

Tudel in O.F. Rashi is saying that in O.F., a grain stalk is called *tudel,*although this also means a wooden reed. And so too it is in Hebrew.

Seines in O.F. Rashi is answering the question: How could ears of grain be described as בריאות (literally: “healthy”)? This applies only to animals, as with the cows before. Rashi answers: In O.F., good ears of grain are called *seines,*which in Yiddish is frisch. Thus in Hebrew, too, בריאות can apply to both.

Hasledes **in O.F.**Rashi [is answering the question:] שידפון is a type of disease, affecting only people, not grain. [So why does it say שדופות]? He answers: In O.F., [afflicted grain] is called *hasledes,*even though this is a human disease. And so it is in Hebrew. Whereas Onkelos does not translate שדופות as שידפון, but as שקיפן, which means “beaten.” So explains Re’m. But Maharshal writes about this: To me it does not seem so, because in Devarim 28:22 Rashi clearly explains that שידפון is an epidemic affecting grain. It must be that שידפון and שדופות are different, for Rashi cites a different O.F. word here than he does there. And we cannot say that here Rashi is explaining [it in connection with] the wind, because Rashi there explains differently in connection with the wind.

The wind from the east which is called bise**[in O.F.].**Rashi is answering the question: It is implied here that the east wind is bad, while in Yoma 21b it says that the east wind is the best of all winds and it is a sign of blessing for the world. Thus Rashi explains: “The wind from the east which is called bise.” Rashi is saying that the east has three kinds of winds, and the one called biseis bad.

A whole dream was complete before him... I.e., the first time [he woke up] he decided to sleep more, perhaps he will dream more, as in fact happened. But the second awakening was at the end of his sleep, close to morning when he would not sleep more. Thus, the dream was complete and required interpreters. [Alternatively: Rashi knows it means this] because והנה [usually] indicates the timing, that it happened just now. But here we cannot say it means: “Behold, the dream was completed after he woke,” because the dream was completed even before he woke, when he saw the ears eating the other ones. [Alternatively,] it seems to me [that Rashi explains it so] because after the first dream Pharaoh may have thought it was completed, but it was not — for it says, “As for the dream being repeated twice to Pharaoh, it is because the thing stands ready...” (v. 32). (Nachalas Yaakov)

It beat within him like a פעמון. I.e., ותפעם comes from פעמון. His spirit was beating like a clapper within a bell.

Bones in Aramaic. Rashi first explains that טימי is Aramaic because he seeks to explain חרטמי as two words: חר, from נחורים, and טומי, from טימי (bones). נחורים could be from נחירים (nostrils), because they would put the bone of a corpse into their nostrils, and it would speak. Or it could be from חום (heat), as in (Yechezkel 24:10), והעצמות יחרו (“And the bones will be burnt”). This is because they would put a bone under their armpit and warm it, and it would speak through sorcery.

He found no relief in their interpretations... But when Yoseif told him the land will have a famine, he found relief, saying this is why Hashem showed it to him — so he could properly prepare the country lest they die in the famine. (Maharshal) [Alternatively,] he found relief because kings’ dreams are not private matters but matters affecting the whole kingdom, or the whole world, as with the dreams of Nevuchadnezzar. (Akeidah) 12

A fool, and is not fit for greatness. I.e., נער in gematria**equals שוטה.

He does not even know our language. And surely not other languages. And it is written in the laws of Egypt that the ruler must know seventy languages; see Sotah 36b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

And it is written in the laws of Egypt that a slave can never rule... [Rashi knows this] because the word “slave” is also superfluous. Once it was said that there was a Hebrew lad in the prison, why mention also that he was a slave? Surely, no Hebrew lad was there other than Yoseif. Perforce, the word “slave” is to be expounded.

From the prison... Rashi explained this so we will not think that after the butler got out of prison, Yoseif was put into a בור (i.e., an actual pit). Thus Rashi explains that בור and prison mean the same. And we need not ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it was an actual pit? For [the answer is:] It is writtenוירצוה מן הבור . And ריצה (literally: “running”) is not the right term for [exiting] a pit. Rather the proper term is משיכה (pulling out), as it is written (37:28): וימשכו את יוסף מן הבור.

It was made as a sort of pit... Before it is written (39:20) that they put Yoseif in prison, whereas here it is written, “They hurried him out of the בור (literally: ‘pit’).” Therefore Rashi explains that the prison “was made as a sort of pit.” (Maharshal)

Even if it does not contain water it is called בור... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise his clothes would be wet. He obviously would have to change them regardless of respect to royalty. In which case, why does it need to say, “He changed his clothes”? Thus Rashi explains that בור means prison, so it did not contain water. And why did Yoseif change his clothes? Perforce, out of respect to royalty. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Out of respect to royalty. [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif would not have shaved out of celebration, for he did not yet know how he would be judged, as he had not yet come before Pharaoh. And who knows if he would be able to interpret [the dream]?

This wisdom is not mine, but God will answer... [Rashi knows this] because here it cannot mean as it did in (14:24), “Except (בלעדי) what the lads have eaten.” Here, how could it mean: “Except for Hashem”? It also cannot mean, “Rather, Hashem will respond,” because Yoseif indeed intended to interpret the dream for him. Perforce, בלעדי consists of two words: בלי (not), and עדי, which means “from me,” as Rashi explains.

Meaning lean, as in... I.e., דלות does not mean impoverished.

All terms of רקות**that appear in Scripture [refer to] lacking of flesh.**Meaning: the words אך and רק always come to exclude something. Here, too, רקות comes to exclude. What does it exclude? Flesh. It does not mean רֵק (empty), because that word is missing the middle letter of the root [and thus would not take a dageshin the ק].

Onkelos translates it נצן לקין**...** Question: Why does Rashi cite Onkelos, when he already cited a [differing] Aramaic translation, “dry as a stone”? [The answer is:] It seems Rashi is thereby answering a question. Pharaoh had said to Yoseif that the ears were צנומות, but Yoseif did not interpret this at all. He interpreted only “bad-looking” and “thin” (v. 27). Furthermore, in Pharaoh’s above-stated dream it does not even mention צנומות. We are forced to say that Pharaoh told him something he never dreamed because he wanted to find out whether Yoseif would interpret correctly. Pharaoh reasoned: if he grasps this, he then understands the [correct] interpretation of the dream. Yoseif grasped it and did not interpret צנומות at all. Perforce, this is the plain meaning of Scripture. Rashi questions this: how did Yoseif grasp it? Was he a prophet? [To answer this,] Rashi cites the first Aramaic translation of צנומות, “dry as a stone.” Yoseif reasoned that צנומות could not have been in the dream because if the curse was to the point of “dry as a stone,” the world could not survive. Yoseif assumed there must have been some moisture. But a question remains: How do we know that צנומות means “stone”? Perhaps it means נצן לקיין, [as Onkelos says]? Thus Rashi explains that also Onkelos’ translation conveys lack of moisture, since נצן means, “They had only the נץ... no seeds.” (Maharshal)

The dream being repeated twice is because the thing... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yoseif interpret that this was one dream? Being that one [dream] was with cows and the other with ears, it surely must be two dreams! Therefore Rashi explains that it was [one dream but was] repeated [because of its imminence].

This is the interpretation of “But it could not be recognized...” You might ask: [Rashi says that ולא יודע השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up.] Why did Rashi not explain that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the good cows being eaten up? Rather, he says [on v. 30] that ונשכח כל השבע is the interpretation of the ears of corn being swallowed up. The answer is: ולא נודע כי באו אל קרבנה, said of the cows in v. 21, is from the root of הודעה, and so is ולא יודע השבע here. Therefore, Rashi connects them. However, ונשכח is not from הודעה, therefore Rashi connects it with the ears being swallowed up.

Stands ready. I.e., the meaning here of נכון is not the same as in אמת נכון הדבר (Devarim 13:15), where it means “correct.”

As Onkelos translates it: and prepare... I.e., וחמש does not mean taking a fifth, as Scripture mentions only gathering, which is the preparation.

And is vocalized with a patach koton**...** A patach kotonis [what we call] a segol, and a kametz kotonis [what we call] a tzeirei.

That is stored up as any other deposit that has been stored away... I.e., the food that they wish to save should be like any other deposit. In other words, not that it should be entrusted in the care of an individual, rather it should be stored like a deposit of silver and gold.

For maintaining**the country.**I.e., it is not for [maintaining] the soil but for [the survival of] the people.

“Can we find another like this one”... I.e., the meaning of הנמצא here is not the same as in הנהיה כדבר הגדול הזה (Devarim 4:32), where it means, “Did such a great thing ever happen in the world?!” Otherwise, Onkelos would have translated it here as האשתכח כדין (Did something like this ever exist?!) Since he translates it הנשכח, it means: “If we would go and search, would we find?” Accordingly, the נ is of the active future tense, not of the passive past tense. Furthermore, if הנמצא meant: “Was there ever anyone in the world like this?!” then a question arises: For what purpose did Pharaoh say this? But if it means, “If we would go and search, would we find?” then it is understandable, for Yoseif said, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom.” Pharaoh thus said to his servants, “If we would go and search, would we find one like him? We should therefore appoint Yoseif for this.”

If we would go and search for him, would we find another like him... Rashi cites Onkelos in order to say that הנמצא כזה means, “Would we now find one like him,” rather than, “Would one like him ever havebeen found.” The latter is not true since there was Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov. Thus it must mean “now,” and this is seen more clearly from Onkelos: if Onkelos meant, “Ever havebeen found,” he would have said אם אשתכח כדין (past tense). But in Scripture, הנמצא is conjugated in the same manner for both the past tense and the future tense. Onkelos deduced that it is not past tense because it is writtenהנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלקים בו, rather than הנמצא איש אשר רוח אלקים בו כזה. The verse placed כזה at the beginning in order to connect it with איש אשר רוח אלקים, conveying that no one has Hashem’s spirit like he does. All this shows that it means, “Would we now find one like him?” (Maharshal)

To seek an understanding and wise man as you suggested... [Rashi knows this] because if Pharaoh intended to praise Yoseif, why did he do so in Yoseif’s presence, [which is not the way of a king]? Furthermore, why did he not praise him before, when he told him the dream [and Yoseif interpreted it? Rather, Pharaoh first spoke to his servants; see v. 38]. Perforce, Pharaoh is replying to Yoseif’s statement of, “Pharaoh should seek a man of understanding and wisdom,” and he is saying: Hashem’s spirit is in you, as you know about the famine. So too, you will know how to handle it, to gather the grain.

Shall be fed... I.e., יתזן is Onkelos’ translation of ישק, and means “shall be fed.” Scripture itself does not write [the Hebrew equivalent of] יתזן because then we might say that Pharaoh appointed Yoseif only over matters pertaining to food. Thus it is written ישק, which means, “All my people’s needs...”

I have appointed you... Rashi is answering the question: If נתתי here has its literal meaning of “placing,” why is it written על ארץ מצרים? It should have written בארץ מצרים. Furthermore, Yoseif was already in Egypt. [So why would it say, “I have placed you in Egypt”?]

Considered very prestigious in Egypt. The Egyptians worshiped the Nile, which is the Pishon River, so called because it raises linen (פשתן) — as Rashi explains on Bereishis 2:11. That is why linen garments were prestigious to them. But Devek Tov writes: A sage from Eretz Yisrael came and told me that [the שש mentioned here] does not mean linen. Rather, שש denotes a prestigious, many-colored garment of silk, worn on top of one’s clothes. It is not the שש mentioned in connection with the Mishkan. Rashi’s words lend themselves to his interpretation, because Rashi says דבר חשיבות הוא במצרים (lit. “It is a prestigious item in Egypt”). If Rashi meant it is linen he should have just said בגדי שש — חשיבות הוא במצרים. Furthermore, Rashi explains on Shemos 25:4 that שש means linen, whereas here he does not, and says only that it is a prestigious item.

On the rows of stones in the Temple Court, refers to the floor. I.e., it says there [in Yoma 4:3] “on the רובד” referring to the floor.

**...*דין אבא למלכא***This is the king’s colleague.

How much longer will you continue to misinterpret Scripture... I.e., R. Yehudah divides אברך into two words, which is a stretched explanation. You might ask: Why was this objection not made before, on Onkelos’ translation, “This is the associate of the king?” There as well, אב means “associate” and רך means “king,” as Rashi explained. The answer is: There, no extra words needed to be inserted. But here, בחכמה must inserted after אב, and בשנים after רך, and that is a stretched explanation.

Because all would enter before him and leave only with his permission... I.e., אברך conveys that all who came to him would say, “I bend my knees to you.”

He is Potiphar and was called Poti Phera. Rashi deduced this from the fact that it is written, “Pharaoh gave Yoseif the name...and he gave him Osnas...” That is, Pharaoh gave Osnas to Yoseif. Now, what difference does it make that Pharaoh was the one who gave her to Yoseif? It must be that Poti Phera is Potiphar, and it makes a great difference, as follows: Pharaoh wanted to bestow greatness upon Yoseif and dress him royally. But he feared people would not allow Yoseif this greatness since he was a slave. Furthermore, the laws of Egypt stated that a slave may not rule nor wear prestigious garments. Thus Pharaoh [arranged that Potiphar] give Osnas to Yoseif as a wife. If a master gives his slave a wife, the slave is freed — and surely if he gives him his own daughter. From this we may conclude that Poti Phera is Potiphar.

As a result of becoming castrated... His castration may be learned from the term פרע (torn), but not from פוטיפר. So it seems to me.

Because he had lusted to sodomize Yoseif. You might ask: Earlier it is written, “Your slave did such things to me” (39:19), and Rashi explains there: “She told him this when they were intimate.” And this was well after he bought Yoseif. [Does this not imply that he was not castrated?] The answer is: He did not have actual relations, only an embracing and kissing. And this explains why Rashi used the phrase ענייני תשמיש כאלה (matters of intimacy such as these), i.e., but not actual relations. Another answer: The castration affected only his testicles and not his membrum, as the Radak explains.

The word does not lose its meaning of doing, making. [Accordingly,] ותעש refers to הארץ, which made storehouses. And הארץ refers to the people of the land, as in: “When a land sins” (Yechezkel 14:12).

Because every area preserves its produce. I.e., the verse implies that Yoseif stored all the produce that grew in a town’s area into that specific town. Why? Rashi explains, “Because every area preserves it produce...”

And they put among the grain some of the earth from the place... This is an opinion [also from Bereishis Rabboh] which explains it differently: They brought all the produce to [the capital of] Egypt, where Yoseif was. When it is written אכל שדה העיר ... נתן בתוכה, it means they needed to mix into the produce some of the soil from where it grew, but afterwards they would bring it to Egypt [for storage].

Until that the counter gave up counting it. כי sometimes means אשר (that), as Rashi explains in many places. [Accordingly, the verse means:] Until that the counter gave up counting.

Here כיmeans because.[Meaning:] חדל implies that the counter decided on his own to give up, [but could have continued]. Why did he not count more? “Because there were no numbers.” I.e., he knew he will surely run out of numbers because there was so much — thus he gave up from the beginning. (Maharshal)

That a person may not have marital relations during years of famine. Although it is written (v. 54), “There was famine in all the lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread,” perforce it means there was famine in all the lands even in their storehouses. But in Egypt there was bread in the storehouses [of Yoseif]. Although Yitzchok had relations during a famine year (26:8), it was already explained [that in Gerar there was no famine]. Re’m asks: Did not Leivi have relations during famine years? Yocheved was born to him as they entered Egypt, as Rashi explains on 46:15, and there was famine then. The answer is: One who is childless may have relations even during years of famine.

Because Yoseif was telling them to be circumcised... Rashi deduced this because it is written אשר יאמר לכם תעשו. Why is it written אשר יאמר (“whatever he says”), rather than אשר יצוה )“whatever he commands”)? Perforce, אמירה implies circumcision, as David says (Tehillim 119:162): “I rejoice over Your word (אמרתך),” [referring to circumcision]. The commentators discussed this at length; see there.

Who are referred to as פני הארץ? The wealthy people. But the poor people lower their faces to the ground and do not lift their faces.

Because we find it also in regard to wine and milk: “And go buy...” This is what Rashi means. We should not ask: Although שבר means selling, it also means grain. And since it is written שבר here, perhaps pertaining only to grain can שבר be used to mean selling, because the meaning of the word שבר applies [only] to grain? But regarding wine and other liquids, שבר cannot be used since its meaning of “grain” is not applicable to them. Rashi answers: [This is not so,] “because we find it also in regard to wine...”