VaYeshev answers

Parashat VaYeishev 5724

בראשית פרק מ

(טז) וירא שר האפים כי טוב פתר ויאמר אל יוסף אף אני בחלומי...	(ט) ויספר שר המשקים את חלמו ליוסף ויאמר לו בחלומי...
...והנה שלשה סלי חרי על ראשי:	...והנה גפן לפני:
(יז) ובסל העליון מכל מאכל פרעה מעשה אפה...	(י) ובגפן שלשה שריגם והיא כפרחת עלתה נצה הבשילו אשכלתיה ענבים:
...והעוף אכל אתם מן הסל מעל ראשי:	(יא) וכוס פרעה בידי ואקח את הענבים ואשחט אתם אל כוס פרעה ואתן את הכוס על כף פרעה:
(יח) ויען יוסף ויאמר זה פתרנו שלשת הסלים שלשת ימים הם:	(יב) ויאמר לו יוסף זה פתרנו שלשת השרגים שלשת ימים הם:
(יט) בעוד שלשת ימים ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך ותלה אותך על עץ ואכל העוף את בשרך מעליך:	(יג) בעוד שלשת ימים ישא פרעה את ראשך והשיבך על כנך ונתת כוס פרעה בידו כמשפט הראשון אשר היית משקהו:

יחזקאל פרק יז

(ג) ואמרת כה אמר אדני יקוק הנשר הגדול גדול הכנפים ארך האבר מלא הנוצה אשר לו הרקמה בא אל הלבנון ויקח את צמרת הארז:

יחזקאל פרק יז

(ז) ויהי נשר אחד גדול גדול כנפים ורב נוצה והנה הגפן הזאת כפנה שרשיה עליו ודליותיו שלחה לו להשקות אותה מערגות מטעה:

רד"ק

(ז) ויהי נשר אחד - זה משל למלך מצרים ואע"פ שהיה תקיף לשעתו לא היה כמו הראשון ולא תארו בתוקף ובהדר כמו הראשון:

לא כתוב בפירוש מה היה חטאתם.

בראשית פרק מ פסוק א

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאפה לאדניהם למלך מצרים:

תולדות יצחק בראשית פרק מ פסוק א

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה לאדוניהם למלך מצרים. היה ראוי שיאמר למלך מצרים, או לאדוניהם מלך מצרים, ועוד למה קראם בכאן משקה ואופה ואחר כך קראם סריסים ושרים, והשיב החכם רבי אפרים קארו אחי זצ"ל, שדרך הוא שאע"פ שיש לשר גדול מינוי בבית המלך, אינו עובד הוא עצמו המינוי, אלא ממנה אחרים תחתיו לעבוד, וכן עשו השרים האלה, אבל החוטאים לא היו השרים, שהם אינם עובדים, ואינם משקה ואופה, אבל חטאו המשקה והאופה, ולמי חטאו לאדוניהם, כל אחד לאדוניו, ובמה חטאו לאדוניהם במה שחטאו למלך מצרים, ופרעה לא קצף על העובדים, שלא מינה אותם המלך, רק על השרים לפי שמנו אנשים בלתי ראויים לעבוד, ונכון הוא.

רש"י בראשית פרק מ

חטאו - זה נמצא זבוב בפיילי פוטירין שלו, וזה נמצא צרור בגלוסקין שלו:

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשה פח

ב רבנן אמרי שר המשקים זבוב נמצא בתוך פיילי פוטירין שלו, שר האופים צרור נמצא בתוך גלוסקין שלו, הה"ד חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה לאדוניהם, בתשמיש אדוניהם,

רבי אביתר אמר בקשו להזדווג לבתו של מלך, נאמר כאן "חטאו" ונאמר להלן (ברא' לט:ט) "ואיך אעשה וגו' וחטאתי לאלקים."

Alef 1 א:

"מהכרתם ומהתחלפות שררתם" From his recognizing them and from the difference of their service.

"שמהשערת הפתרון הוא הכרת החולם" From the assumptions inherent in the solution is the recognition of the nature of the dreamer.

ב:

Grapes vs. white bread. The former are unprocessed, raw materials; the latter is processed. Consequently the baker has more personal involvement in the production of the product and needs to be more careful re what he does.

Grapes growing as one watches vs. the bread being fully made. A natural process not requiring human intervention vs. already-made product.

Grapes that are not designated for a particular purpose vs. bread specifically designated for Pharoah. The production of the latter product was with a specific purpose in mind, i.e., for the royal table, in contrast to the grapesà wine.

Pharoah’s filled cup is placed in Pharoah’s hand vs. the basket of bread remaining on the baker’s head. In the latter case, the food is never transferred to its intended recipient (unless one accepts the idea that the bird is a symbol of Pharoah himself. Then the implication is that rather than handing the bread to Pharoah, he takes it himself without the agency of the baker.) The implication is that the baker does not fulfill his role, while the butler does.

The butler holding Pharoah’s cup, squeezes the grapes into it, puts the filled cup into Pharoah’s hand vs. bird coming and eating the bread from the basket. There is a suggestion of negligence on the part of the baker, allowing the royal bread to be stolen right out from under his nose.

2. Ibn Ezra: Parallels the approach of Akeidat Yitzchak in the sense that Yosef used his logic to explain the symbolism of the number “3”, i.e., since in three days Pharoah would celebrate his birthday, and on such a day typically various amnesties and pardons would be declared, it was logical to assume that this was the meaning of “3”, similar to the logic of determining the meaning of the other symbolisms in the dreams.

   Abrabanel: Yosef did not rely on personal logic at all, but rather was informed by God (as he suggests in 40:8) of the meaning of the dreams. Consequently the margin of error from the points of view of Akeidat Yitzchak and Ibn Ezra was much greater than that of Abrabanel. Of course, from the point of view of evaluating Yosef’s personal abilities, the position that he was relying on logic is more revelatory, although to qualify as a Navi does require significant personal Middot.

It is possible that the views do not contradict since perhaps the meaning of “3” is a different issue than the interpretation of the other symbols. Whereas “3” could be somewhat open ended in terms of days, weeks, or months, the symbolism of the other elements could be said to be more self-apparent, and therefore God did not Need to reveal these elements to Yosef.

Beit.

The question is why should the dreams have taken place just three days before the amnesty? Meshech Chachma answers that the time that Yosef spent with these ministers was incredibly valuable in order to prepare him for his eventual duties re running the entire country. Consequently, the dreams took place at the latest possible moment, three days before the release of the butler in honor of Pharoah’s birthday. (This parallels Ibn Ezra’s suggestion [Shemot 2:3] that the reason why Moshe had to be raised in Pharoah’s palace as opposed to among the Jews, was in order to prepare him for the leadership role that he was eventually to assume.)

(In order to continue on the theme of dream interpretation, we are going to now study the beginning of Gilayon VaYeishev 5711.)
Alef 1

In 40:8 and 41:15 the Egyptians refer to a פוטר, i.e., ,a person who is skilled in interpreting dreams. Yosef continually insists that no human being is in a position to successfully do this, but only those who merit God’s Assistance will be able to interpret the dreams properly.

2 

      At the end of 40:8 as well as in 41:25, Yosef  says as much.

Beit

1.

    The basic difference between the Midrash and the Targum is whether these individuals had intended to harm Pharaoh (Targum Yonatan) or not (Midrash.

2.

    It is possible that RaShI chose the approach of the Midrash because the word חטאו usually connotes sins committed inadvertently בשוגג rather than on purpose, במזיד.

3.

    RaDaL (commentary on Midrash Rabba) suggests that whereas not much bodily harm could be caused by the fly in the cup, stones in the bread could result in the eater’s choking. Since the butler is pardoned while the baker is executed, that indicates that the level of threat was considerably higher due to one of the mistakes in contrast to the other. If both cases would have been stones or flies, there would not have been any basis for comparison  between the two protagonists and the consequences meted out to them for their respective errors.

Gimel (Same as 5724 Alef. See above)
Daled

1. In 40:1,2 the others in the prison with Yosef have already been identified. Consequently the language in 40:7 is superfluous.
2. RaMBaN understands the repetition as reflective of Yosef’s courage and confidence, since these two individuals are so much his superiors and could have done him harm had they thought him too forward.  Furthermore, had he been wrong in the baker’s case, i.e., as opposed to Yosef’s prediction that the butler would be hanged, had he been exonerated instead, there was a good possibility that the baker would have avenged himself upon Yosef since the latter had caused him so much aggravation and fear, and subsequently had him killed.

Seforno places emphasis upon 40:4 where the Tora states that Yosef’s master had charged him with serving the two officials.  Had there not been an official relationship established by the owner of the prison who also happened to be Yosef’s master, then Yosef would never have been so forward as to inquire regarding the two men’s apparent emotional upset.

Heh.

Yosef appears to see his present circumstance as a continuation of the troubles that began to beset him back in Canaan when his brothers placed him in a literal pit (Beraishit 37:24). From a psychological point of view, Yosef’s being restrained first in a pit and then in prison did contribute to a change in his overall attitude of self-absorption and haughtiness. His noticing his fellow prisoners’ distress and reaching out to them reflected a difference in his overall approach to life.

(Going back to section Daled on Gilayon VaYeishev 5724 for additional details regarding this theme.)
Daled 1

            א. Re 40:4 From the previous verse, it has already been established that the two officials are placed in the same prison to which Yosef had previously been sent. Consequently, what is being added in this verse is a greater specificity, i.e., not only would they be in the same structure, but they would spend time together with Yosef waiting on them.

Re 24:18, we had been told that when Rivka originally came to the well, her pitcher was on her shoulder (24:15) and that she had filled it up (16). At this point we do not know exactly where the pitcher is—in her hand (perhaps now that it is heavy she can’t set it back on her shoulder) or on her shoulder. Consequently when the text states that she lowered the pitcher, RaShI states that we should assume that she had placed it back on her shoulder and therefore this is the context of lowering which is being noted.

Re Shemot 3:3 we had been told in 3:1 that Moshe was deep in the desert, as opposed to following a particular road or path. Therefore when the text states that he wishes to “turn aside,” it is unclear where he originally was that now he must leave that place. RaShI notes that going from one place in order to get to another can be referred to as “turning aside.”

In all three instances, a specificity of location is involved, and phrases that appear to be superfluous in fact are to be understood as indicating achieving greater proximity by means of movement.

ב. In Beraishit 38:16, the text notes that Yehuda “turned to her by the way”. Some sort of movement is being described, but it is unclear. RaShI clarifies by saying that wherever he was previously, he is now going to where she was, and therefore was substituting her דרך for his.

2.      Siftei Chachamim points out VaYikra 25:29 as establishing that ימים can mean a year.

ויקרא פרק כה

(כט) ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה והיתה גאלתו עד תם שנת ממכרו ימים תהיה גאלתו:

    3 א . Shouldn’t the term have been חלומות if each dreamt his own separate dream?

       ב.  The simple meaning of v. 16 is that the baker saw that Yosef offered a “favorable” interpretation of the butler’s dream and he therefore hoped to receive a similar interpretation for his own dream. But if we assume that the baker actually was given insight into his colleague’s dream and then saw that this interpretation was corroborated  by Yosef, then it accounts for both of them dreaming not only his own dream but also the meaning of the other’s dream, suggested by the Derash interpretation quoted by RaShI, which in turn convinced him to confide in Yosef.

       ג.  If in verse 5 it is stated that each one dreamt the solution to his own dream, then why in v. 16 does it say that the baker saw that Yosef had solved the butler’s dream in a good way—he wouldn’t know what the meaning of the butler’s dream would be. However, if it is assumed that each one dreamt the meaning of the other’s dream as pointed out by the second interpretation in RaShI on v. 5, then we can understand why the baker was impressed with Yosef’s rendition of the dream of the butler.

        ד.  The meaning of v. 16 is not that Yosef solved the butler’s dream accurately, but rather optimistically, and this was the type of solution that the baker wished to receive for himself, not knowing at all what his colleague had either dreamt or the dream’s interpretation.

4.         According to Be’er Yitzchak, the proof is in v. 20 where it states that their heads were lifted up בתוך עבדיו. Nevertheless in v. 21 it states that the baker was hung, leading to the conclusion that the previous verse is not talking about their restoration to their previous status, but rather on Pharoah’s birthday they were numbered among his servants; however subsequent to that the baker was executed.