על שני סריסיו. “at his two ministers.” The expression סריס implies: “holder of distinguished office.” This is why Onkelos translates it in this fashion. [the term is not used in that manner in modern Hebrew. Ed.] Some commentators understand the word here literally, i.e. “eunuchs.” The reason why these officials had to be castrated was that they performed their duties also in the palaces set aside for Pharaoh’s women.

איש כפתרון חלומו, “each man according to its interpretation.” According to Rashi each man dreamt a dream that was roughly in accordance with the eventual interpretation offered for it as forecasting his fate. In other words, the cupbearer dreamt something which was enjoyable for him, i.e. he saw grapes which he could convert into wine, whereas the chief baker dreamt something that was disturbing, i.e. the bird consumed what he had meant to serve the King. Joseph interpreted the dreams to correspond to the mood that these dreams evoked in their principals. [the author’s version of Rashi’s commentary must have differed from that found in most of our Chumashim nowadays. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that such a commentary does not reflect what the chief of the cupbearers said to Pharaoh in 41,11; “we had dreamt a dream that corresponded to Joseph’s interpretation of it.” If Rashi’s interpretation were correct, it would have diminished Joseph’s reputation as an interpreter of dream rather than have enhanced it. What the chief of the cupbearers meant to imply was that Joseph knew how to interpret the dream although on the face of it, it did not resemble the eventual interpretation at all. Ibn Ezra writes that each of the two ministers dreamt his own dream plus the interpretation that applied to the dream of his colleague. [there is also confusion between what Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as saying, and the version found in recent, amended versions of Ibn Ezra’s commentary by Asher Weiser. Ed.] Ibn Ezra’s major point [according to Nachmanides as per version in Rabbi Chavell’s edition] is that as opposed to Solomon’s statement in Kohelet 5,2 each party dreamt a precise forecast of his fate, there was no extraneous matter in the dream that would have confused the potential interpreter. [Rabbi Chavell quotes our author‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Ed.]

וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר, “he enquired from Pharaoh’s ministers, the ones in the same jail as he, etc.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “וישאל אותם,” he asked them.” The only reason why the Torah chose more cumbersome wording is to tell us of the praiseworthy conduct of Joseph who, although he found himself in the presence of two prisoners vastly superior to him in personal power even while in jail, and moreover, in the jail of his former master Potiphar, who by now hated him, i.e. people who could have ordered his execution without worrying about their being held accountable, nonetheless had the courage to interpret their dreams, although at least one of them would be frustrated with his interpretation. He had confidence in his wisdom, for if the chief of the bakers had been pardoned, he would surely have hung Joseph for having made him deathly afraid for a number of days.

פותר אין אותו, “there was no one who would interpret it.” There was no one in the whole world that knew how to interpret it. Alternately, these ministers had sent messengers to a number of well known dream experts, both within the jail and beyond, and none of those had any explanation to offer.

הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, “is not the subject of interpreting dreams something reserved for G’d? Ibn Ezra says that Joseph meant that G’d exclusively, knows of the interpretation that will come true in the future. Only He knows the future and sees fit to reveal some of it to whosoever needs to know it. Joseph continued: “if I explain the dream to you in a manner that will please you, or even in a manner which will not reflect its true meaning, this will not affect your future fate at all.” He may have said this to them in order to encourage them to tell him their dreams, or as reinsurance so that they would have no reason to punish him if it was found that he erred in his interpretations. Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse in his opinion, is that Joseph explained to them that for all the dreams which defy our ability to interpret correctly there is an explanation which G’d knows of, and this is a knowledge that He has granted to some people to share with Him. If he were to offer an explanation for their dreams, it would be the result of knowledge granted to him by G’d. If they were to tell him the details of their dreams, perhaps G’d would enlighten him concerning the meaning.

והיא כפורחת, “and it seemed to be blossoming, etc.” according to Rashi this means that it seemed to the cupbearer in his dreams if the vines were blossoming. Nachmanides queries that if we were to base this interpretation on the presence of the כף הדמיון, the prefix letter כ, which is a frequent phenomenon, and it is used here because everything that one sees in a dream is not real but only imaginary, then the proper place for this letter would have been at the beginning of the image, and the Torah, instead of writing והנה גפן, “behold there was a vine,” should have written והנה כגפן “and behold there was something like a vine, etc.” In his opinion, the reason the Torah writes the letter כ only when it does, is to portray the development of this vine into fruit and ultimately wine which is offered by the dreamer to Pharaoh’s lips, as something occurring with unreal speed. It is this element that prompted Joseph to foresee fulfillment of the message contained in the dream not as occurring three months or longer after the vine begins to blossom, but as occurring within three days.

כי אם זכרתני אתך, “if only you will remember me, etc.” according to Nachmanides Joseph asks the cupbearer to remember him after he had been reinstated and then bring him to Pharaoh’s attention as another innocent sitting in jail, something he would consider an act of loving kindness on the part of the cupbearer. Another possible explanation of the phrase is that Joseph pleads with the cupbearer to remember him as if he were still in his presence, i.e.אתך. [otherwise the word אתך appears as somewhat redundant. Ed.] Yet another possible meaning is that Joseph said: “the favour you can do me after you have been reinstated and you reminded yourself that I had predicted your reinstatement, is to plead my case before Pharaoh, seeing that I, like yourself, am in jail due to trumped up charges against me.” Still another possibility is that Joseph did not ask the cupbearer to plead his case before Pharaoh but only to mention his name to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh who knew Joseph from the days when he was prominent in Potiphar’s household, would realize that his sitting in jail proved that he was actually free from sin, as otherwise his master would have executed him.

כי גנוב גנבתי, “for I have been twice kidnapped, etc.” Not only was I kidnapped from my homeland, but here too I have not committed any wrong that would justify my being in jail.

מארץ העברים, “from the land of the Hebrews.” Clearly, Joseph did not speak about a state ruled by Hebrews, but he used this adjective to recall that he was descended from Avraham who had been the first עברי to take up residence in the land of Canaan after leaving Mesopotamia.

כי טוב פתר, “that he had interpreted the dream positively;” the fact that Joseph predicted fulfillment of the dream within three days convinced the baker that he was telling the truth as otherwise he would be proven a liar within such a short span of time.

סלי חורי, “baskets of patisserie.” Rashi explains the word חורי as describing the kinds of baskets, i.e. wicker work. Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon explains the word חורי as referring to bread made of white flour, a delicacy reserved for kings. Linguistically, the word would be related to חיור, “ (Arabic word?)

ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head.” The meaning of the word ישא when used in conjunction with the cupbearer is not the same as the same word used by the Torah (Joseph) in connection with the chief of the bakers. In the case of the former, it denotes a promotion, as when the Children of Israel were to be numbered in Exodus 30,12 כי תשא את ראש וגו'. Numbering people means each individual has a distinct value on its own, not only as a member of a larger number. In our context, the meaning of the word נשא as “raising” applies equally to “raising” someone’s head by hanging it from a gallows, instead of by promoting the owner of the head.

ולא זכר שר המשקים, “but the chief of the cupbearers did not remember.” The repetition means that he neither remembered Joseph by mentioning him, nor even by recalling him in his heart. Some commentators claim that the word וישכחהו is meant to tell the reader that the cupbearer did not fail to remember Joseph because of hatred, but only because he really forgot him.