Bar-Ilan University
Parashat Vayeshev 5772/December 21, 2011
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A
project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the
Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's
International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center
Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
945
Jonathan Grossman*
Two Dreams and Two Solutions
In this week's portion we read about Joseph's descent to Egypt, step by step, to the very
depths of an Egyptian prison: first his brothers cast him into a pit. Then the Ishmaelites took
him down to Egypt. There, when at long last it appeared that his fate had taken a turn for
the better, working for his master Potiphar who had come to appreciate him especially, he
was once again cast into a pit – this time the dungeon of an Egyptian prison.
The analysis that follows focuses on the last stage in this week's reading, a stage which
initially raises high expectations, as had the story of Joseph in Potiphar's house, but in the
end brings Joseph, and us all, bitter disappointment. The reference is to Joseph's explaining
the dreams of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker (Gen. 40). The chief cupbearer had
become convinced that the young Hebrew in prison with him had a special talent, knowing
to explain the precise significance of dreams, and presumably once the cupbearer was
released from prison he would not quickly forget this. However, at the end of the narrative
we read: "Yet the chief cupbearer did not think of Joseph; he forgot him" (Gen. 40:23). The
Sages, considering the striking gap between the reader's expectations and reality, said that
this act of forgetting was actually punishment of Joseph for putting his trust in flesh and
blood: "'Happy is the man who makes the Lord his trust' (Ps. 40:5) – this refers to Joseph,
'who turns not to the arrogant' (ibid.) – for having said to the chief cupbearer, 'but think of
me' and 'do me the kindness of mentioning me,' two years were added to his term" (Rashi,
loc. cit. and Genesis Rabbah, 89.3). This midrash conveys a poignant message about human
*
Dr. Jonathan Grossman is a Lecturer in the Department of Bible and at Herzog College.
1
efforts and trusting in the Lord, but from an exegetical point of view it is problematic:
Joseph actually perceived the things that happened to him as Divine providence and
precisely for that reason thought it proper to take advantage of them. He behaved similarly
when he met Pharaoh, having understood the golden opportunity that had come his way,
and therefore he proposed: "Let Pharaoh find a man of discernment and wisdom, and set
him over the land of Egypt" (Gen. 41:33). One could hardly assume that the Sages' criticism
of Joseph also extended to this scene, although here too he took advantage of a window of
opportunity that G-d had opened for him.
Thus the question of the chief cupbearer forgetting Joseph must be discussed in a broader
context. I wish, however, to examine the part played by the chief baker in the plot's
unfolding. He, too, dreamed a special dream along with the cupbearer. However, his dream
and its solution raise a difficult question: ostensibly there was no need for his dream. Had
the chief baker not dreamt at all, the development of the plot would not suffer in the least:
the chief cupbearer would have mentioned his dream in prison and its solution to Pharaoh,
and Joseph would have been brought to the king of Egypt to solve his dream.
Of course one could claim that the entire dream of the chief baker served only to reinforce
the impression made on the chief cupbearer; but this explanation is not satisfactory. In the
end the chief cupbearer forgot Joseph, and even though he remembered him two years
later, we can hardly assume this was simply because Joseph had also interpreted the chief
baker's dream correctly. So we are left with the question: what was the significance of the
chief baker's dream appearing alongside the chief cupbearer's dream?
We begin our analysis by comparing the two dreams of Pharaoh's courtiers and Joseph's two
interpretations of them. We observe that each one dreamed about his own profession: the
chief cupbearer dreamed of a vine and wine, and the chief baker of baked goods. This is
sufficient to associate their dreams with their future in their respective professions, as
indeed Joseph did.
Furthermore, as many have noted, the dreams were surprisingly similar to one another.
Both dreamed of three objects related to their profession; Scripture underscores this
connection between the dreams by using the same expression, "And lo…three." The
similarity also extends to Pharaoh's involvement in the dreams: the chief cupbearer
dreamed that he was serving wine to Pharaoh, while the chief baker dreamed of "food for
Pharaoh," i.e. food made for the king.
Nevertheless, there are several important differences between the two dreams, differences
that apparently led Joseph to his different interpretations. Let us consider four such
significant differences:
1.
The chief cupbearer saw a vine in front of him, whereas the chief baker saw baskets
of baked goods on his head (this is emphasized again at the end of his dream: "out
of the basket above my head").
2. The chief cupbearer dreamed of the source of the grapes ("vines") and their entire
process of growth, whereas the chief baker dreamed of the storage place for various
2
baked goods ("openwork baskets" and not an oven, for example) and made no
mention whatsoever of the process of baking.
3. The chief cupbearer played an active role in his dream: he himself held Pharaoh's
cup, pressed the grapes into it, and handed it to Pharaoh. The chief baker, in
contrast, was passive throughout his dream.
4. Of course the most striking difference is how the different sorts of food reached
their destination: the chief cupbearer served the wine to Pharaoh, whereas in the
chief baker's dream the baked goods filled the bellies of birds circling over his head.
In his interpretation, Joseph used both the similarities and the differences between the two
dreams. The similarities of language in Joseph's interpretation of the dreams are so great
that it seems Joseph was deliberately playing with the chief baker, giving him the initial
feeling that indeed the interpretations would be alike and that he, too, would have the good
fortune of returning to serve his master, as Joseph had foretold would happen to the chief
cupbearer. First he interpreted the number three as symbolizing the same thing, and
expressed this in the same words: "are three days." Then he began with the same words,
"In three days," and proceeded with the same words: "Pharaoh will lift your head." We can
just imagine the smile beginning to spread over the chief baker's face: indeed, his dream
was about to be interpreted the same way as the chief cupbearers! But then Joseph added
just one more word: "Pharaoh will lift your head off"! Unlike the chief cupbearer, who
would return to his office, the poor chief baker was destined to be hanged.1
The two aspects previously mentioned are reflected by formulating the interpretation in a
manner which at first appeared to be the same and only changed at the very end. On the
one hand these were very similar dreams, yet on the other hand they contained certain
differences by which Joseph arrived at varying interpretations. Now we must ascertain
whether indeed there is a connection between the differences mentioned and the varying
interpretations at which Joseph arrived.
We preface our analysis by noting that interpretation of dreams can be of two kinds. One is
the symbolic approach, such as that which Jacob applied to Joseph's dreams at the
beginning of this week's reading: the sun and the moon bowing down to Joseph symbolized
"I and your mother," and the eleven stars symbolized "your brothers" (Gen. 37:10). In
contrast, there are dreams in which the objects and characters reflect what they actually
are; such was the understanding of most commentators in interpreting Jacob's dream when
he was fleeing to Haran (Gen. 28): the angels ascending and descending the ladder did not
symbolize something else, rather what they actually were, and their ascending and
descending at this place was to hint to Jacob that this was the "gateway to Heaven," as
Jacob indeed said upon waking from his dream.
1
The different meanings of the Hebrew verb used here, yisa, reach a climax the third time they
appear in the narrative, namely when Pharaoh commands his courtiers (Gen. 40:20): "On the third
day – his birthday – Pharaoh made a banquet for all his officials, and he singled out [va-yisa, lit. "lifted
the head of"] his chief cupbearer and his chief baker from among his officials." Rashi comments on
this that va-yisa denotes taking account of.
3
In the story at hand Joseph distinguished between the two dreams and interpreted each one
differently. The interpretation given the chief cupbearer related to the reality of the objects
in the dream (save for the three vines, which were said to allude to three days). The chief
cupbearer dreamed that he was pressing wine for Pharaoh and serving him, and Joseph said
that this would indeed happen; his dream would come to pass in reality and he would once
more give Pharaoh his drink as he had in the past.2 In the interpretation of the chief baker's
dream, in contrast, the various baked goods eaten by the birds symbolized the baker
himself, his flesh being destined to be eaten by the birds, and the basket containing the
baked goods (which in the dream was on the baker's head) symbolized the tree on which the
chief baker would be "placed."
The differences mentioned above were apparently what intimated to Joseph that two
different types of dreams had been told him. The dream of the chief cupbearer contained
events in which the dreamer himself took part, whereas the dream of the chief baker had
the dreamer be passive, with the action taking place "above his head." In any case, for the
dream to be significant to the dreamer, one must consider the symbolism of the objects
appearing in it.
Bearing this in mind, let us return to our initial question: what did the baker's dream signify
in the development of the plot concerning Joseph in Egypt? The Torah stresses time and
again that we are dealing with a pair of courtiers and a pair of dreams. The very beginning
of the story establishes this: "Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of
Egypt gave offense to their lord the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two courtiers,
the chief cupbearer and the chief baker" (Gen. 40:1-2). The marked lengthiness of the text
focuses our attention on the fact that we are dealing with "two courtiers," with a pair who
are not to be separated one from the other. Further on, again the Torah stresses that we
are dealing with a double dream by both of them: "both of them – the cupbearer and the
baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison – dreamed in the same night,
each his own dream and each dream with its own meaning" (Gen. 40:5).
Of course this emphasis is not incidental. Surprisingly, when the chief cupbearer later stands
before Pharaoh and recalls Joseph's precise interpretation of his dream, again it is stressed
that these were a pair of dreams of two courtiers (Gen. 41:10-13). What does this signify?
The key to the matter actually lies in our surprise at this repeated emphasis. Pharaoh's
dream, too, was double: first he dreamed of seven sturdy cows and seven scrawny cows,
then of seven full ears of grain and seven shriveled ears. The double aspect of the dream
was what jarred the memory of the chief cupbearer, making him recall the double dream
that he and his fellow had had in prison. The great impression Joseph made on the chief
2
The Sages further elaborated Joseph's interpretation in their homiletic literature, viewing the chief
cupbearer's dream as having symbolic significance: "'There was a vine in front of me' – this refers to
Israel, for it is written, "You plucked up a vine from Egypt" (Ps. 80:9). 'On the vine were three
branches' – these are Moses, Aaron and Miriam. 'It had barely budded' – this refers to the
Redemption of Israel. 'Out came its blossoms' – this is the onset of the Redemption of Israel"
(Genesis Rabbah 88.5).
4
cupbearer stemmed primarily from his ability to discern between two dreams which at first
glance appeared quite similar. Presumably this is what the chief cupbearer sought to stress
to the king: "Perhaps both your dreams foretell of the same thing; or perhaps a subtle
distinction needs to be drawn between them – such as can be discerned by the young
Hebrew servant of the chief steward." This might also have been what persuaded Pharaoh
to have Joseph "rushed from the dungeon." Henceforth we can understand the function of
the chief baker's dream: it was not a question of the number of dreams that Joseph
correctly interpreted, rather of his fine discernment of the differences between one dream
and another, between Pharaoh "lifting" the chief cupbearer's head and "lifting off" the chief
baker's head.3
Ironically, in the final analysis, Joseph did not take advantage of this special discernment
when he stood before Pharaoh, rather he interpreted Pharaoh's double dream identically –
"Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same" (Gen. 41:25) – and the repetition of the dreams as
indicating that the events of which Pharaoh dreamt would not be longing in coming. At this
stage, however, his ability to make fine distinctions was no longer important, for Pharaoh
had already been sufficiently impressed by the person standing before him as to make him
regent over all of Egypt.
Thus we find that Joseph's two dreams of his brothers were bowing down to him caused him
to be thrown into the pit (in the land of Canaan), while the two dreams of the king's
courtiers, which lay the ground for Pharaoh's two dreams, caused him to be taken out of the
dungeon. We have left but to wonder whether Joseph's two dreams in the land of Canaan,
about his family bowing down to him, carried one and the same message, or whether they
too must be approached with his special discernment of the fine differences between two
things which appear so much alike.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
3
Scripture hints at a parallel between the courtiers' response to their dreams and Pharaoh's response
to his own. The courtier's response became evident the next morning: "When Joseph came to them
in the morning he saw that they were distraught" (Gen. 40:6). Pharaoh's response was similar: "Next
morning, his spirit was agitated" (Gen. 41:8). Pharaoh's courtiers said to Joseph: "We had dreams,
and there is no one to interpret them" (Gen. 40:8), and Pharaoh said to Joseph: "I have had a dream,
but no one can interpret it" (Gen. 41:15). Rabbi Joseph Bekhor-Shor adds to the explanation of the
courtiers' words, "If we had not been in custody, we would have gone to the magicians," just as
Pharaoh had done. Nahmanides suggests that they had indeed sent for the magicians and requested
their help, but that just like Pharaoh they had not been satisfied with their explanations. Similarly,
further on, Joseph's remark to the courtiers, "Surely G-d can interpret," is mirrored in what he says to
Pharaoh, "Not I! G-d will see to Pharaoh's welfare" (Gen. 41:16).
5