Parasha: Miketz · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, It happened at the end of two years, etc. The reason the Torah introduces this paragraph with the word ויהי, a word indicating an unhappy event, is that as of now the exile of the Jewish people begins to unravel. Even though this exile had been decreed almost two hundred years previously, it had not been decreed anywhere that this exile had to be in Egypt. Moreover, the exile turned out to be more cruel than necessary in order to satisfy G'd's decree as we know from Tossaphot on Shabbat 10 and as the ראב׳ד has written in a glossary on Maimonides's Hilchot Teshuvah chapter six. He explains that the Egyptians behaved in an abnormally cruel manner as indicated by Genesis 15,13.

An additional reason for introducing this paragraph with the word ויהי is that G'd announced that there would be a famine and G'd always shares the pain He inflicts on His world (compare Megillah 10 on Exodus 14,20).

The word ויהי also reflects the mental anguish Joseph endured during the two years after the chief butler was released from jail. Originally, it had been intended that Joseph should be released at that time (Bereshit Rabbah 89,2). He had to endure two additional years in jail because he had put his trust in a human being. The Midrash there understands the words ויהי מקץ as indicating an end to darkness. קץ is also a word which describes the evil urge, i.e. קץ כל בשר. Accordingly, the Torah uses this word to allude to the reason that Joseph had to stay in jail another two years. These two years during which Joseph experienced mental anguish are counted as part of the Jewish people's exile experience because the chief butler had neglected to remember Joseph favourably. The reason that not one but two additional years were decreed was because Joseph said both כי אם זכרתני and והזכרתני. He wanted to be remembered and to be mentioned favourably.

The wording מקץ שנתים also means that it was on the second anniversary of the day the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had their dreams. When Joseph's fortunes took a turn for the better this was to be related directly to the dreams, showing that the dream had correctly forecast what would happen.

ופרעה חולם, and Pharaoh had a dream. Inasmuch as the Torah here begins with the introduction of a new episode, we would have expected either the word חלם, or ויחלום, he dreamt, not חולם, he was dreaming. The latter word would only be appropriate if the Torah told us about the continuation of something that we knew had begun previously. Actually, the Torah uses this present tense in this case to show that Pharaoh's dream was a direct continuation of events which had begun when the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had had their dreams. The Torah wanted to show us that even though the chief butler did not want to help Joseph get out of jail, G'd had other means at His disposal to help Joseph get out of jail. It is therefore best to imagine the last verse of the previous chapter and the first verse in this chapter as being continuous, thus: "since the chief butler did not remember Joseph and forgot him Pharaoh had a dream at the end of two years." This eventually forced the chief butler to speak up and mention Joseph as a successful interpreter of dreams.

It is also possible that during the two years Pharaoh repeatedly kept dreaming the same dream without recalling it in the morning. Now that two years had elapsed he suddenly had a vivid recollection of this dream.

The words "and Pharaoh was dreaming" may also have been intended to tell us that even Pharaoh personally felt during his dream that he was dreaming. The reason he felt that way was that the events that occurred during the dream were so totally unlikely. The Torah wishes to teach us a lesson here about how to determine if a dream has meaning as a message to the person who dreams it. When a person feels during his dream that he must explore the meaning of what has appeared to him in the dream, this is a clear sign that the dream cannot be dismissed as being of no consequence but that it presages something that will occur in the future.

מן היאור עולות, from the river there were rising, etc. The Torah should have written: עולות שבע פרות מן היאור, "seven cows were rising from the river." Why was the river mentioned first? Perhaps the Torah wanted us to appreciate that the existence of those cows was entirely due to the river, as if the river itself had produced them. To this end the Torah first had to mention who it was that created these cows. What the river produced became of secondary importance. Had the Torah employed the normal syntax we would have thought that the cows crossed the river and rose on the far bank but not that they were a product of the river itself. This very fact also made Pharaoh aware that it could only be a dream. In real life rivers do not produce cows. The reason he was given such a vision was to alert Joseph to the fact that two separate products emanated from the river, i.e. the years of plenty and the years of famine. The river was the key to the ability of the cows to rise or not to rise.

עולות אחריהן מן היאור, rising behind them from the river. This description corresponds to what we explained on the previous verse, that the cows' existence was due to the river. Although in this instance the river is not mentioned first, i.e. מן היאור עולות, the word אחריהן, behind them, makes it plain that both categories of cows had an identical origin.

וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום, Pharaoh awoke and it had been a dream. It is possible that when Pharaoh dreamed the section about the ears of corn he had not noticed during the dream that he was only dreaming. He may have thought that he was awake due to the extreme clarity with which he saw that scene. After he got up from his sleep, however, he realised in retrospect that he had been dreaming. This is why the Torah had to add: "Pharaoh awoke."

ואין פותר אותם לפרעה. And no one could give a satisfactory explanation for them to Pharaoh. The reason the Torah speaks of "them" is that they were in fact two dreams. Even though the Torah insists that the dream was one, writing את חלומו, when it came to describing the interpretation the Torah speaks of אותם, meaning there was no interpretation for the two dreams.

The Torah added the apparently unnecessary words לפרעה. The Torah therefore may use the word פרעה as the name of the kingdom, as opposed to it being his personal name. This maybe the reason that when the chief butler addressed Pharaoh, he said: "Pharaoh was angry, etc." It would be most inappropriate for the chief butler to address his king by using his personal name. It is clear therefore that it refers to the kingdom itself. The king was identified with the state. Our view has been confirmed by Rashi on Psalms 34,1. We can now understand why Pharaoh was unwilling to accept the interpretations offered to him by his advisors. Inasmuch as the dream addressed itself to Pharaoh the head of state and not Pharaoh the individual, any interpretations which did not take this fact into consideration did not satisfy him. He felt sure that the dream contained a message of importance for his people. According to one view expressed in Bereshit Rabbah 89 their interpretation was not acceptable "to him;" this interpretation overlooks the fact that the word לו, "to him, does not appear in the text" [I have not found this statement in Bereshit Rabbah 89, Ed.].

וידבר שר המשקים את פרעה, The chief butler said to Pharaoh saying, etc. The reason the Torah had to add the word לאמור as well as the word את פרעה instead of אל פרעה, maybe that the chief butler did not address the King personally but his advisers. He asked the king's advisers to relay his words to the king. This is the reason that his entire speech is in the third person.

Another reason he said לאמור את חטאי "to relate my sins," maybe the following. He wanted Pharaoh to be sure not to understand his words as a complaint for having been wrongfully incarcerated, but rather stressed his own insignificance. This is why he emphasised that he had indeed committed a sin. The chief butler added the word היום, "today," to explain that the reason he had come forward now was that there was an overriding need for the information he had to impart. Had this not been the case he certainly would not have brought up his own incongruous past. The reason the chief butler spoke about his sins in the plural, i.e. את חטאי, was that he wanted to convey the impression that although he had committed only one sin, this fact weighed as heavily on him as if he had committed several sins. Perhaps he simply considered that his tardiness in coming forward was an additional sin.