Tafsir of Yusuf 12:43

When the relief of Yusuf drew near, the King of Egypt (al-Rayyan ibn al-Walid) saw a wondrous vision that terrified him. He saw seven fat cows emerging from a dry river, and seven lean ones, and the lean ones devoured the fat ones. He also saw seven green ears of grain that had formed their kernels, and seven others that were dry and had reached their harvest and maturity. The dry ones twisted around the green ones until they overcame them. He sought their interpretation, but found no one among his people who could interpret them.

{Fat (simān)}: The plural of samīn (masculine) and samīnah (feminine). The same applies to kirām (noble) for men and women.

If you ask: Is there a difference between making simān an adjective for the mumayyiz (the specified noun, i.e., baqarāt) rather than the tamyīz (the number, i.e., sab‘)—as opposed to saying sab‘u baqarātin simānan?

I say: When you make it an adjective for baqarāt, you intend to specify the seven by a type of cow—the fat ones among them—not by their genus. If you had described the seven with it, you would have intended to specify the seven by the genus of cows, not a type among them, and then returned to describe the specified noun by the genus with "fatness."

If you ask: Why was it not said sab‘u ‘ijāfin (seven lean ones) using the genitive construction (idāfah)?

I say: The tamyīz is intended to clarify the genus, and ‘ijāf (lean) is an adjective that does not provide clarification on its own.

If you ask: But they say thalāthatu fursānin (three horsemen) and khamsatu aṣḥābin (five companions)?

I say: Fāris (horseman), ṣāḥib (companion), rākib (rider), and their likes are adjectives that have taken the place of nouns, thus assuming their status and permitting what is not permitted for others. Do you not see that you cannot say: "I have thalāthatu ḍikhāmin (three bulky ones) and arba‘atu ghilāẓin (four thick ones)"?

If you ask: That is problematic, but what we are discussing has no such problem. Do you not see that he did not say baqarātun sab‘un ‘ijāfun (cows, seven lean ones), because it is known that the intended meaning is the cows?

I say: Abandoning the original rule is not permissible when there is no need for what is not original. Sufficiency has already been achieved by your saying sab‘u ‘ijāfin (seven lean ones) instead of the specification by adjective you propose. ‘Ajaf is the extreme emaciation beyond which there is nothing. The reason ‘ijāf is used as the plural for ‘ajfā’—even though af‘al and fa‘lā’ do not usually form the plural fi‘āl—is that it was modeled after simān, because it is its opposite. It is their habit to model the counterpart after the counterpart and the opposite after the opposite.

If you ask: Is there evidence in the verse that the dry ears were seven, just like the green ones?

I say: The speech is built upon its focus on this number regarding the fat and lean cows and the green ears. Therefore, it is necessary that the meaning of the "others" encompasses the seven, and his saying {and others, dry} is equivalent to "and seven others."

If you ask: Is it permissible to make his saying {and others, dry} a conjunction to {green ears}, making it genitive in position?

I say: This leads to a contradiction. Conjoining it to {green ears} would require it to enter into their ruling, making it—along with them—a specification for the mentioned seven. However, the word ukhar (others) requires them to be other than the seven. The proof is: you say, "I have seven men, standing and sitting" (in the genitive), which is correct because you specified the seven by men described as standing and sitting, meaning some are standing and some are sitting. If you said, "He has seven men standing and others sitting," it would be contradictory and corrupt.

{She said, "O assembly"}: It is as if he meant the notables among the scholars and the wise.

The lām in his saying {for the vision} is either for clarification, like his saying {and they were of those who were indifferent to him} (Yusuf: 20), or it is added because when the ma‘mūl (the object) precedes its ‘āmil (the governor), it does not have the same strength to govern it as it would if it followed it. Thus, it is reinforced by the lām, just as the active participle is reinforced by it when you say, "He is an interpreter (‘ābir) for the vision," due to its lower strength compared to the verb. It is also possible that {for the vision} is the predicate of kāna, as you say, "So-and-so is for this matter," meaning he is capable of it and empowered over it. And {you interpret} is another predicate, or a state (ḥāl), or that {interpret} is imbued with the meaning of a verb that takes the lām, as if it were said: "If you are volunteering for the interpretation of the vision."

The reality of "I interpreted the vision" (‘abartu al-ru’yā) is to mention its consequence and the end of its affair, just as you say, "I crossed (‘abartu) the river" when you traverse it until you reach the end of its width, which is its ‘abr (crossing). Similarly: "I interpreted (awwaltu) the vision" means I mentioned its outcome, which is its return point.

‘Abartu the vision with the light ba is what the authorities relied upon; I have seen them reject ‘abbartu with the doubled ba, as well as ta‘bīr and mu‘abbir. I have come across a verse cited by al-Mubarrad in al-Kāmil by one of the Bedouins: I saw a vision, then I interpreted it, And I was an interpreter of dreams.

{They said, "Jumbled dreams, and we are not learned in the interpretation of dreams."}