madness and prophecy: dreams, texts, and the power of rabbinic interpretation

Madness and Prophecy: Dreams, Texts, and the Powerof Rabbinic Interpretation

Devorah Schoenfeld

Published online: 11 October 2007# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract To the rabbis, dreams were a serious theological challenge. While in the HebrewBible dreams could be prophetic and therefore a source of authority, rabbinic authority wasbased on textual interpretation rather than direct revelation. This article examines onerabbinic strategy for responding to this challenge: the Talmudic dream ritual of Berakhot55b. Through this ritual the rabbis place the dreamer in the position of a supplicant.Dreaming becomes like an illness or curse rather than a revelation. Instead of telling thedream, the dreamer prays for its healing. This article argues that this ritual itself is a form ofinterpretation, both of the dreamer’s dream and of the biblical texts about dreaming, inwhich the biblical idea of revelation through dreams is retained but the dream itself isstripped of any specific prophetic meaning. Through the performative speech of this ritualthe dreamer places the dangerous dream under the power of rabbinic authority.

Keywords Dreams . Dreaming . Jewish . Talmud . Rabbinic . Midrash . Interpretation

A prophet that has a dream, let him tell the dream, and he that has my word let himspeak my word faithfully. (Jeremiah 23:28)

Pastoral Psychol (2007) 56:223–235DOI 10.1007/s11089-007-0102-1

D. Schoenfeld (*)Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, 18952 E. Fisher Rd,St. Mary’s City, MD 20686-3001, USAe-mail: [email protected]

In the rabbinic world, dreams are like texts: both are shaped by their interpretation.In the Midrash and Talmud, each biblical verse can be interpreted in many ways. Manypossibilities exist for the interpretation of dreams as well, but in the end “all dreams followthe mouth” (Berakhot 55b).1 The act of interpretation is the assertion of power, in whichone meaning is chosen out of a variety of possible meanings by those with authority tointerpret.

The Babylonian Talmud was redacted between the fifth and eighth centuries inBabylon.2 Between the redaction and canonization of the Bible and the formation ofrabbinic literature, the Jewish people had undergone dramatic historical changes. Thebiblical religious system was based on three main elements: the Temple, the connection tothe land and the Davidic kingship. With the exile, none of these were operative.3 Rabbinicliterature began to develop in the second century CE as a way of constructing a Judaismthat could exist in the new reality. (Strack and Stemberger 1991) By the time of theBabylonian Talmud a body of rabbinic literature already existed: the Mishna (third century),the Tosefta (late third or fourth century), the Halachic Midrashim (mostly redacted duringthe late third century) and the Palestinian Talmud (late fourth or early fifth century) (Strackand Stemberger 1991). By this point, then, there was already a developed tradition ofrabbinic textual interpretation. But although as we will see there are statements aboutdreams in earlier rabbinic literature, the most developed discussion of dreams is in theBabylonian Talmud, in Berakhot 55a–57b. This discussion, as well as outlining theories ofdreams, also provides practical advice to the dreamer of a disturbing dream.

The much later Midrash Haggadol on Genesis, which adapts earlier rabbinic exegesis,explicitly makes the case for comparing the interpretation of dreams and the interpretationof biblical texts:

Behold it says: “A dream carries many things” (Eccl. 5:2). Now, can we not learn fromthe lesser to the greater matter: if the contents of a dream, which are not significant,may have many meanings, how much more so should the great words of Torah haveseveral meanings. (Marguiles 1967, p. 39)

But are the contents of dreams so insignificant? To the anonymous compiler of the late(thirteenth century) Midrash Hagadol perhaps, but in the Talmudic section of Berakhot55a–57b they seem to be of great significance indeed.

Saul Lieberman and Maren Niehoff have both discussed at length the parallels betweenrabbinic dream interpretation and rabbinic scriptural interpretation. Lieberman has shownhow certain interpretative tools are common to both kinds of interpretation. Both usesymbols, homonyms, gematria (the derivation of the numerical value of words), reversaland substitution of letters and other means of manipulation of words in order to derive andtransform the meaning of the biblical text. Lieberman even suggests that some of the rulesof midrashic hermeneutics were derived from the rules of dream interpretation (Lieberman1950). Niehoff demonstrates from her analysis of the Pesher Habakkuk that the techniqueof scriptural interpretation used there has one important similarity with dream interpreta-

1 All translations are the author’s own. For editions see list of primary sources that follows. A full Englishtranslation of the Talmudic dreambook of Berakhot 55a–57b is available in Simon (1948, pp. 337–358). AllTalmudic citations are from the Babylonian Talmud (1886) unless otherwise stated.2 The dating of the Babylonian Talmud is very uncertain. Different parts were redacted at different times, andthe redaction process may have continued as late as the eleventh century. For a discussion of the dating of theBabylonian Talmud see Strack and Stemberger (1991).3 This was a long process, and some of these connections may have begun to be severed as early as thedestruction of the First Temple and the first exile in 586 BCE. See Neusner (2006).

224 Pastoral Psychol (2007) 56:223–235

tion: it sees the text as having a coded, secret meaning that the interpreter needs to find(Niehoff 1992).

Both these discussions of dream interpretation focus on the attempt to extract a specificmeaning from a dream and how it relates to attempts to extract meaning from the scripturaltext. Here I propose to show how rabbinic techniques of interpretation inform a differentTalmudic strategy for dealing with dreams, the dream ritual of Berakhot 55b:

One who has dreamed a dream and does not know what it is should stand before thepriests at the time they stretch out their hands, and say thus: Lord of the Universe, Iam Yours and my dreams are Yours. I have dreamed a dream and do not know what itis, whether I dreamed about myself or whether others dreamed about me, or whether Idreamed about others. If [the dreams] are good, strengthen them and fortify them likethe dreams of Joseph, and if they need healing, heal them as [You healed] the watersof Marah through Moses our master, and like Miriam from her leprosy, and likeHezekiah from his sickness, and like the waters of Jericho through Elisha, and as youturned the curse of Balaam to a blessing, so turn all my dreams on me for good.” And[the dreamer] finishes with the priests, when the community answers amen.

The distance between such a ritual and rabbinic techniques of scriptural interpretationmay seem far indeed. It can be difficult to see how this ritual has anything to do withinterpretation at all. The dream is not described or analyzed in any way. Nothing about thecontent of the dream is even stated out loud. In the end, no conclusion is reached aboutwhat the dream means. Still, this ritual is an act of shaping the meaning of the dream and sosheds light on how the rabbis derive or create meaning from biblical texts as well.

All dreams follow the mouth

The dreambook in Berakhot raises three kinds of possibilities for how to understanddreams. One possibility is that dreams can be interpreted according to a fixed set of keys,such as the long list of keys to dream interpretation in Berakhot 56b–57b. These keysconnect each specific item that one could see in a dream with a specific prediction. Forexample, one who sees a hen will have a nice garden, one who dreams of having relationswith his mother will acquire wisdom, and one who dreams of going into a swamp willbecome a head of a yeshiva. Occasionally, the meaning of an item will differ depending onthe circumstances of the dreamer. For example, if one who lives in Babylon dreams that heis standing naked, that means he is naked without merits, and if one in the land of Israel hasthe same dream, that means he is naked without sins (Berakhot 57a).

These interpretations are derived from associations through language, or through versesin scripture that associate the concepts. For example, the hen is associated with a gardenbecause the words sound alike in Aramaic, having relations with the mother is associatedwith wisdom because of the verse “you will call wisdom ‘mother’” in Proverbs 2:3, andentering a swamp is associated with becoming a “head” of a yeshiva because in the swampone stands taller than everything else (see Niehoff 1992). In this approach to interpretation adream can only be interpreted in one way and any two conflicting traditions about how tointerpret must be reconciled. For example, there is one tradition that riding an ox means thatone will rise to greatness, and another that it means that one will die. They are reconciled bysaying that the first tradition must be talking about one who dreams that he is riding an oxand the other about one who dreams the ox is riding him (Berakhot 56b).

Pastoral Psychol (2007) 56:223–235 225

Rav Ashi, who is mentioned in the Tamud as one of the transmitters of the ritual forsomeone with an uncertain dream, is quoted twice in this discussion about the list of keys todream interpretation. He responds to the statement that one who sees a goose in a dream canexpect wisdom and one who has relations with it will become a rosh yeshiva by saying that ina dream he both saw and had relations with a goose and following this strange dream he roseto greatness. Similarly, in response to the association of going into a swamp with becomingthe head of a yeshiva, he says, “I went into a swamp carrying a drum and banging on it,”which is one step better than Rav Huna, who dreamed of going into a swamp without a drum,and Rav Papa who carried a drum but did not bang on it (Berakhot 57a). In both cases, he isrelating to his dreams as accurate predictors of his rise to greatness.

This view of dreams as coded predictors of the future, although it allows for thepossibility of fortelling the future through dreams, does not relate to dreams as prophecy inthe same way they are understood in the Hebrew Bible. All the dreams mentioned inBerakhot are personal and not of national or cosmic relevance. There is no sense thatdreams could reveal secrets that would change the course of history, and the rabbis do notsee dreams as a serious alternative to text study as a way of receiving revelation in thepresent time (Alexander 1995).

A second opinion in Berakhot is that dreams are simply a creation of the mind and have noprophetic ability. “Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: a personis not shown anything except that which his heart thinks about” (Berakhot 55b). Rava’sevidence for this is that a person will not dream about a golden palm tree or an elephant goingthrough the eye of a needle. The discussion continues with two stories about Rabbis provingtheir wisdom to kings by predicting what the kings will dream that night. In each case theypredict very disturbing dreams about the kings losing their kingdom, which the kings thinkabout obsessively all day and then dream about at night (Berakhot 55b–56a).

Some rabbis take a more opportunistic attitude towards the origin of dreams, saying thatdreams can come from either God or the mind. Shmuel, when he had a bad dream, wouldquote a biblical verse saying that dreams are meaningless. When he had a good dream, hewould quote a different verse saying the God speaks through dreams. Rava reconciles thetwo verses by saying that one is about dreams sent by an angel, and the other is aboutdreams sent by a demon (Berakhot 55b).

Another ambiguity is found in a statement made by Rabbi Yochanan in the name ofRabbi Shimon bar Yochai: “As there is no wheat without straw, so there is no dreamwithout worthless things” (Berakhot 55a). Rabbi Yochanan also said, as we saw above, thata person only dreams what his heart thinks about. Perhaps the above statement was not assweeping as it seems, and only indicates Rabbi Yochanan’s position that there is apsychological element in all dreams, but not that it is the only element in all dreams.

A third position is that all dreams come true in the way in which they are interpreted.This is the principle of “all dreams follow the mouth” (Berakhot 55b). The mouth here isthe mouth of the interpreter alone.4 This principle is illustrated by the lengthy anddisturbing story of Rava, Abaye, and the notorious dream-interpreter Bar Hedya. Rava andAbaye come to Bar Hedya with a series of identical dreams. Abaye pays and Rava does not.In each case Bar Hedya gives Abaye a favorable interpretation and Rava an unfavorableone. Each interpretation comes true and Rava undergoes a series of disasters. Finally, Ravasees Bar Hedya’s book of dream interpretation in which it says that all dreams follow themouth. Rava curses Bar Hedya for bringing all these disasters upon him. Bar Hedya flees toRome, where he is killed by the government for refusing to tell information he got from

4 For how this theory anticipates Freudian theories of dream interpretation, see Frieden (1990).


dreams without payment (Berakhot 56a). This story is followed by one about RabbiYishmael using the power of dream interpretation to help people by giving favorableinterpretations.

The position that “all dreams follow the mouth” is key to the role of rabbinic authority indream interpretation because it maintains that dreams are powerful while simultaneouslysaying that the power to tell the future rests not in the dreamer nor in the postulated dream-sender, but rather in the human dream interpreter. Revelation can still take place through theinterpretation of dreams, but the moment of revelation is the moment of interpretation, notthe moment of the dreaming itself. That means that it is possible for humans to use thepower of dreams for good or for evil. The question of who is permitted to interpret dreams,and by what means, therefore takes on great importance.

Rava takes a number of seemingly contradictory positions in this discussion. He says thata person will only dream something out of his experience, and that dreams are sent by angelsor demons, and (at the end of the Bar Hedya story) that dreams follow the interpretation theyare given. He even contributes to the list of objective interpretations of different dream-symbols, saying that one who sees a well will receive life (Berakhot 56b). Rava is particularlyimportant because he was the primary teacher of Amemar, one of the three Rabbis responsiblefor transmitting the dream ritual of Berakhot 55b. It would seem that all these possibilities forthe meaning of dreams were not rival certainties but various possibilities, and the same personcould at different times believe one, or another, or simply not know.

A rabbinic dreamer was therefore left in a position of great uncertainty. Perhaps thedream is a true message from God. Or perhaps it was sent by a demon. Or perhaps it is onlythe obsessions of one’s mind. Or perhaps, even, its meaning is not fixed, but left up to thepower of the dream-interpreter, who may or may not be working in one’s best interests. Andthere seems to be no way of knowing which of the above it is. Dreams are complicated towork with, because there are so many uncertainties about how to interpret them, and whattheir interpretation could mean.

Rabbinic techniques for interpreting dreams are like rabbinic techniques for interpretingthe biblical text, and the rabbinic uncertainty about dreams is parallel to a similaruncertainty about text. Erik Alvstad points out that the rabbinic polysemy, in which eachverse has many possible meanings, is multiplied in the rabbinic approach to dreams(Alvstad 2005). Scriptural verses are presumed to be of Divine origin and a source ofrevelation, and the only question is what they mean. Dreams, on the other hand, may besimply a creation of the mind. The range of possibilities open to the dream-interpreter iseven greater than the range of possibilities open to the scriptural exegete.

In all this uncertainty, one thing is clear: the power to interpret dreams is in humanhands. It never happens that we get a dream telling us how to interpret a dream, or that aseer or visionary interprets a dream by use of direct mystical knowledge. And, although theidea that all dreams follow the mouth is only one approach, it is never contradicted in thediscussion of dreams in the Babylonian Talmud. We never see a case in which someoneinterprets a dream in a certain way and that interpretation is shown to be false.

In the Palestinian Talmud, this human power of dreams goes even one step further. InMa’aser Sheni 4:6 (Palestinian Talmud 1923), a Samaritan approaches Rabbi Yishmael andasks him to interpret a dream that he never had. Rabbi Yishmael interprets the dream, and itcomes true as it is interpreted. The power of the dream-interpreter is so great that he caninterpret even a non-existent dream.

Dreams always come true as they are interpreted, even if the interpreter is non-rabbinic.The main rabbinic dream-interpreter in Berakhot is Rabbi Yishmael from the Tanaiticperiod (early rabbinic, 200–400). From the Amoraic period (later rabbinic, post-400), the


main dream-interpreter of this passage is Bar Hedya, whom the rabbis take pains to presentas a despicable figure. It is not necessarily true that Bar Hedya is so despised by the rabbisbecause he is not one of them. Bar Hedya appears in legal discussions with rabbiselsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud, for example in Hulin 106b. Another Amoraicrejection of dream interpretation appears in the discussion of Rav Hisda’s statement, “Adream which is not interpreted is like a letter which is not read” (Berakhot 55a). While thisstatement could in itself be understood as either for or against dream interpretation, theTalmudic discussion uses it as a strong statement against dream interpretation. Thediscussion in Berakhot brings this statement of Rav Hisda’s to refute Rav Huna’s receivedtradition that one who has had a distressing dream should interpret it in front of threepeople. In order to reconcile the contradiction the Talmud proposes a ritual in which threepeople will quote biblical verses for the dreamer to tell him he had a good dream. Thisritual is all that is left of the advice to interpret a dream. The rabbinic polemic is not onlyagainst non-rabbinic dream interpreters, but against any dream interpreter who might bewilling to take the risk of giving an unfavorable interpretation (Kalmin 1994). If “all dreamsfollow the mouth” a negative interpretation is simply too dangerous.

The rabbinic dictum that all dreams follow the mouth relates to a similar statement abouttextual interpretation: that it also lies in the mouth of the interpreter. In the well-knownargument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eliezer causes miraculous eventsto occur as proof of the legitimacy of his legal rulings, and Rabbi Joshua denies thelegitimacy of these proofs. Finally, a Divine voice intervenes:

A voice came from the heaven and said, “Why are you arguing with Rabbi Eliezer,since the law is always according to what he says?” Rabbi Joshua got up and said, “Itis not in heaven.” (Deuteronomy 30:12) What does it mean, that it is not in heaven?Rabbi Jeremiah explains that since the Torah was already given we do not listen toheavenly voices, since it is written in the Torah, “follow the majority.” (Exodus 23:2)Rabbi Nathan found Elijah the prophet and asked him, “What was God doing at thatmoment?” He answered, he was laughing and saying, “My sons have defeated me, mysons have defeated me.” (Bava Metzia 59b)

Texts, like dreams, are not in heaven. Just as a dream will come true the way it isinterpreted, so a text will mean what it is interpreted to mean, regardless of the Divine intentin sending each one. This passage makes it clear how to proceed when interpreting the text.One may not look for any supernatural signs but only follow the majority. If God meantsomething different, then God will be defeated, and laugh.

The irony comes from the ending. After establishing that the rabbis are in no need ofDivine revelation in order to understand the Bible, they need Elijah the prophet to tell themthat God approves. They are willing to recognize, and even seek, other methods ofcommunication with the Divine than their own textual interpretation. It is not that vision, ordreams, are unacceptable evidence to these rabbis. But these direct revelations must be keptcarefully under control, transmitted only through the rabbis, and not given too much power.Rabbi Nathan must bring the message, not Elijah himself, and it is Rabbi Nathan whodetermines how it is to be understood. Rabbi Nathan, unlike Rabbi Eliezer, asks for directrevelation not to bring it into conversation or debate, but only to support what had alreadybeen decided by following the majority. Unlike Rabbi Eliezer’s voice from heaven, and likethe dream of the dreamer who prays in Berakhot 55b, Elijah’s revelation to Rabbi Nathan iswithout practical or legal consequences. One wonders how Rabbi Nathan met Elijah, and ifit was in a dream.


Intertextuality and dream (non)interpretation

In his work on intertextuality, Daniel Boyarin demonstrates that the moment of rabbinicinterpretation is the moment of “joining texts to texts” (Boyarin 1990, p. 29). The decisionto read two texts together is an act of rabbinic creativity. The midrashic approach bringstexts together to create both problems and solutions. In doing so, the midrash brings outalternate meanings that were implicit in the biblical text itself.

The creators of the ritual in Berakhot make the interpretative decision to read togetherstories about dreams and stories about healing. These are two sets of stories, which onemight not immediately think to connect. Dreams in the Hebrew Bible are true revelationsfrom God. The dream itself tells the future and the future cannot be changed. It neveroccurs to Joseph to pray to God to heal the 7 years of famine in Pharaoh’s dreams instead ofpreparing for them, or to give the dream a favorable interpretation so that good things willhappen. Interpretation of dreams in the biblical period is not a creative act. It explains whatwill be rather than making something come to pass.

By contrast, while interpretation and even prayer are utterly ineffectual in the case ofBiblical dreams, they are quite effective in the case of illness and suffering. This is mostspecifically true in the cases mentioned by the ritual in Berakhot. The first case is the storyof the waters of Marah in Exodus 15:3. In this story, Moses prays, and God shows himwood to throw into the water to sweeten it. The second is the story of Miriam’s illness inNumbers 12. In this story, God punishes Miriam for her criticism of Moses, and Mosesprays for her to be healed at Aaron’s request. The third is the story of Hezekiah’s illness in 2Kings 20. After Isaiah pronounces him fatally ill, God sends a message to Isaiah that God isgoing to heal Hezekiah because of Hezekiah’s prayers and tears. In the fourth case, in 2Kings 2:19–22, Elisha himself sweetens (ie. “heals”) the water by throwing salt on it andthen relays God’s promise that the waters will always remain sweet.

In the first three cases a bad situation is changed by God as a result of a prayer. In thesecond case someone else prays for the sick person, and in the third case the sick personprays for himself. Similarly, this prayer is intended to cover dreams that one has aboutothers and dreams that others have about the speaker, as well as dreams that one has aboutoneself. In all these cases, a prophetic figure intervenes to heal the bad situation.

In the fifth and final case, the bad dream is analogous to Balaam’s curse, which is turnedinto a blessing in Numbers 22–24. Here, God does not allow Balaam to curse and thensimply not allow the curse to take effect, but rather intervenes to prevent the cursing fromtaking place and to force Balaam to bless Israel instead. This part of the prayer does not askGod to heal the bad dream, but rather to turn it into something good. This places the baddream in the category of powerful speech, parallel to curses or blessings, and at the sametime subject to the rule of God. A prophecy spoken in a dream might have power, but Godhas the power to change, if not the effects of the dream, then the dream itself, by turning thebad dream into one that is positive.

Bringing together stories about curses, dreams, and healing in the same ritual is anexample of “joining text to text” that allows for the substitution of the implications of onetext with another. If dreams are a revelation they cannot be healed, but if they are an illnessthey can, and if they are a curse they can be changed into a blessing. Placing these textstogether allows the reader to see an ambiguity in the biblical view of dreams, even if it is anambiguity that only this juxtaposition has created. The ritual then resolves the ambiguitywith a prayer. If it is a good dream, may it be like a predictive dream, like the dreams of theHebrew Bible. If it is a bad dream, may it be like a curse or an illness and subject to


healing. The community and priests then assent, and give their authority to this“interpretation.” If good, the dream is like a dream. If bad, it is like an illness. But goodor bad, it is like a text, and the rabbis have authority to interpret it.5

Rabbinic power and creativity

What is the motivation for this creative decision to juxtapose biblical texts about dreamswith biblical texts about curses and healing? Philip Alexander explains the threat thatdreams and dreamers could have posed to rabbinic power. He argues that dreams are an“acute theological problem” for the rabbis because in the Bible dreams function as achannel for direct revelation from God, while the rabbis see the chains of tradition andinterpretation that they are part of as the sole human access to the will of the Divine in thepost-Biblical world (Alexander 1995, 245). In other words, dreams – even those of therabbis themselves – are a threat to rabbinic power. Alexander explains that the differentways that dreams are related to in this Talmudic section to be ways of neutralizing thisthreat. They trivialize dreams by considering them personal rather than cosmic and byasserting rabbinic power as the authoritative dream interpreters. This ritual belongs in thecontext of a power struggle between the rabbis and professional dream interpreters (such asBar Hedya) who were undermining their authority.

Alexander’s theory underlines the use of power that is present in the dream ritual ofBerakhot 55b. Declaring a dream to be analogous to an illness or a curse is an act of powerover the dreamer, one that places the dream under the authority of the interpreters ratherthan the reverse. The dreamer is placed in the position of supplicant, relying on the powerof the priests and the community for healing, with no space for telling the dream or askingwhat it could offer.

But the context of the ritual complicates the power dynamics. This ritual was transmittedin a conversation between Amemar Mar Zutra and R. Ashi, in which they each challengedthe other to say something that the others had not heard. It is represented as secret rabbinicknowledge rather than directed outward at a non-rabbinic audience. If there is a powerstruggle, it must therefore be a struggle that exists within the rabbinic world view itself, andnot a confrontation with non-rabbinic dream interpreters.

Erik Alvstad suggests that the rabbinic struggle over dreams is with the nature ofrevelation itself. Dreams, if accepted as prophetic, could threaten the idea that after the timeof Ezra revelation takes place only through exegesis (Alvstad 2005). We see something ofthat same struggle in a Talmudic discussion about scholars and prophets:

R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecyhas been taken from the prophets and given to the sages. But is a sage not also aprophet? What he meant was this: although it has been taken from the prophets, it hasnot been taken from the sages. Amemar said: A sage is even superior to a prophet, asit says: And a prophet has a heart of wisdom. (Psalms 90:12). Who is compared withwhom? Is not the lesser compared with the greater?

5 Ken Freiden makes the ingenious suggestion that the possibility that dreams follow the interpretation isalready implicit in Biblical stories about dreams. Regarding Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams ofPharaoh’s cupbearer, the text has the cupbearer say, “As he interpreted for us, so it was.” The implicationhere may be that the dream came true the way it was interpreted because it was interpreted that way. If so,this strengthens the argument that the rabbinic joining of texts to texts draws out a meaning that was alreadypresent, if underemphasized, in the Biblical text. See Frieden (1990).


Said R. Ashi: The proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that thesame rule was given to Moses at Sinai. But perhaps the sage was no better than a blindman groping through a window? But, does he not give reasons? (Bava Bathra 12a–b.)

The text here gives us a number of options. Are the sages perhaps the authentic heirs ofthe prophets? Or are they something else, something greater? The last option gives thesages authority almost equal to Moses, because by their reasoning they are able to uncoverrevelations that have been lost.

What, then, happens to prophecy? The previous discussion continues:

R. Johanan said: Since the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken fromprophets and given to fools and children.

The sage takes the place of the prophet, while a prophet is placed in the same category asfools and children. These fools and children are capable of authentic prophecy: the textgoes on to tell the story of a lunatic who correctly prophesied the future head of theAcademy and a child who correctly prophesied that she would be widowed. What they arenot capable of is reason. If they find a piece of true knowledge, it is likely to be trivial, forthey truly are no better than a blind man groping through a window.

What we have here is a collision between two ways of looking at the relationshipbetween human and Divine, which are typical of two different historical periods. JonathanZ. Smith sets up a distinction between locative cosmologies, in which the emphasis is onknowing one’s place in the cosmic hierarchy, and utopian cosmologies, in which theemphasis is on transcending this world (Smith 1978). In a locative cosmology, the Divine isever present in the material world. In a utopian cosmology, the Divine is distant, and thematerial world is what keeps the Divine distant. The emphasis is on breaking through,cracking the code, finding the secret knowledge that will help the believer bridge the gapbetween human and Divine realms. These two cosmologies correspond to the world viewsof biblical and late antique Judaism (Smith 1978).

In the late antique cosmology, Jewish or not, it was considered inappropriate for theDivine to intervene directly in human affairs. Apuleius connects this specifically to dreamswhen he says in a statement typical of late antique thinking (Janowitz 2001), that the Godscould not have sent a dream to Hannibal because “It is not becoming that the Gods ofheaven should condescend to things of this nature” (On the God of Socrates, 7). The rabbismay express the same thought differently, being somewhat less concerned with God’sdignity, but as we have seen above, they also tell stories of a God who remains in heavenwhile matters important to human affairs are decided elsewhere.

In the case of an unexplained dream, the two world views collide. Dreams and dreaminterpretation remind one of Joseph, of Jacob’s ladder, and of the very many other casesin the Bible where dreams are a form of prophecy. These are the most immediateassociations for any Jewish dreamer. But the late antique world view cannot allow for anexperience of the Divine that is so direct and so unmediated. So the dream-interpreterbecomes the creator of the meaning rather than the one who deciphers it, and dreamsbecome trivial.

Dreams are dangerous because they can bring hope of a revelation that cannot be, apossibility so seductive, as in late antiquity, it must be false. This ritual does not force thedreamer to renounce that hope. At least on the face of it, it leaves open the possibility thatthe dream will be like the dreams of Joseph. But by surrounding the dream and the dreamerwith a great deal of ritual, while at the same time allowing no discussion of the dream’scontent, it sends a quite different message. The gulf between the human and the Divine can


be breached by ritual and prayer, by the Divine name and the priestly blessing, and by thecommunal amen—not by dreams.

Silence, speech, and words of power

The Talmudic discussion of dreams quotes the biblical text: “A prophet that has a dream lethim tell his dream, and he that has My word let him speak My word faithfully.” (Jeremiah23:28). That would seem to imply, if not to state outright, that there is a positive value inthe telling of dreams. As if fearing that we might think this, it immediately quotes the endof the verse: “What has straw to do with wheat, says the Lord?” Reading the end of theverse as commentary on the beginning, the Talmud concludes that just as there is straw inall wheat, so there is nonsense in all dreams (Berakhot 55a). An ambiguity that may havealready have existed in the biblical text is emphasized and strengthened. There is anobligation to speak God’s word, but none to speak nonsense, and so perhaps dreams do notneed to be spoken at all.

Rav Hisda says: A dream which is not interpreted is like a letter which is not read. Thiscould be understood in different ways, but it is always used by this Talmudic section asproof that dreams should not be interpreted and should not even be spoken aloud.

R. Huna b. Ammi said in the name of R. Pedath who heard it from R. Yohanan: If onehas a dream which makes him sad he should go and have it interpreted in the presenceof three. Have it interpreted? Has not R. Hisda said: A dream which is not interpretedis like a letter which is not read? Rather, he should have it called good in the presenceof three. Let him bring three and say to them: I have had a good dream; and theyshould say to him: good it is, and good may it be. (Berakhot 55b)

In this ritual, there is some need to tell the dream so that it can be interpreted well. Butsince it was a sad dream, there is a danger that its interpretation might be unpleasant, so it isbetter to leave it as a letter unread. The dreamer speaks the dream, but not its content. All hecan say is: I have had a good dream.

This ritual of interpreting in the presence of three takes a dream which the dreamerexperiences as bad and tells him to say that it was good. The ritual of praying over thedream in during the priestly blessing goes a step farther even than this. Here the dreamerdoes not say anything at all about his dream. He makes no conclusions about what kind ofdream it was, either to himself or to others.

In our ritual, the dreamer speaks at the same time the priests are saying the priestlyblessing. This means that the attention of the congregation will be elsewhere. Thecongregation will answer amen to his prayer, but only because he tricks them into doing soby concluding his prayer at the same moment that the priests conclude their blessing.

The priestly blessing is of biblical origin, in Numbers 6:22–27. In this passage, God tellsMoses to command Aaron to bless the people of Israel according to the liturgy of thepriestly blessing: “The Lord will bless you and guard you, the Lord will light his facetowards you and be gracious to you, the Lord will turn his face towards you and give youpeace” (Numbers 6:24–26) The future tense as used here can also be a strong commandform, and then the translation is: The Lord must bless you, etc. Through this blessing, God asksthe priests to “put My name upon the people Israel, and I will bless them” (Numbers 6:27).

This biblical blessing is surrounded by the rabbis with a great deal of ritual. The Talmudrequires that the congregant be in front of the priests (Sotah 38b), but not look at them,


under threat of blindness (Hagigah 16a). The blessing must be said in Hebrew (Sotah 38a).The priests should wash their hands and take off their shoes, as if they were in the Temple(Sotah 40a). The rabbis were concerned that the form of the priestly blessing not give theimpression, either to the congregation or to the priests themselves, that the blessing comesfrom the priests. Rather, the priests are participants in a ritual in which they ask God tobless both them and the congregation (Horowitz 1966, Naso, 43). The power of the priestsis subject to rabbinic direction.

The priestly blessing is the only Temple ritual that remained almost intact in thesynagogue service. Already in the times of the Temple, this ritual was performed both in theTemple and outside of it (Tosefta Sotah 7:8), but in origin it was connected to the sacrificeservices in the Temple (Mishna Ta’anit 4:1).

Another significant element of the priestly blessing is its use of the Divine Name. Thetetragrammaton appears as the second word of each line of the three-line prayer. In theTemple, this name was said explicitly (Mishna Sotah 7:4). This was seen by the rabbis asfulfillment of the command to the sons of Aaron to “place My name on the children ofIsrael and I will bless them” (Numbers 6:27). The discussion then goes on to connect‘placing’ with ‘place,’ and to indicate that the full placing of God’s name on the children ofIsrael can only be done in the Temple (Babylonian Talmud Sotah 38a). Later sources alsofind in this blessing the 12-letter name of God, and the more widely used 22-letter name ofGod (Trachtenberg, 1961). Rabbinic sources also understand the word ‘shalom’ (peace),which closes the blessing, to be a name for God (Horowitz 1966, Naso, 42).

The second-century midrashic collection Sifri gives a line by line interpretation of thisblessing. In interpreting the first line, it gives several different understandings of the wordveyishmerekha (and will guard you) and of what one is asking to be guarded from(Horowitz 1966, Naso, 40). One might be asking for protection of one’s property,protection from dominion by others, and protection in the next world. One which isparticularly interesting for our purposes is the understanding that it is asking for protectionfrom the mezikin—one of the names for harmful demons or damaging spiritual forces(Trachtenberg, 1961). Interpretations of veyihunekha (and will show you grace) include thatGod will grant us favor in the eyes of others, wisdom, Torah, and free gifts. In thediscussion of the final verse, “may God raise up his face to you” (Numbers 6:26), this verseis contrasted with Deuteronomy 10:17: “(God) who shows no favor” (lit. will not raise uphis face). There are two opinions given to resolve this contradiction. One is that God willshow favor to the children of Israel when they do God’s will, and when they do not, Godwill be impartial. The other, which seems more relevant for our purposes, is that before thepunishing decree is sealed, God will show favor, and after the punishing decree is sealed,God will be impartial (Trachtenberg, 1961).

There is no evidence for the ritual under discussion prior to the destruction of the Templein 70 CE, and so there is no evidence that this was a ritual that took place in the context ofthe priestly cult, although still the priestly blessing was something that only took place inthe context of communal prayer. The ritual is arranged so that the entire congregation saysamen to the dreamer’s prayer but does not necessarily hear it or know what it is. So thevarious different representatives of the community are involved in this prayer: the dreamer,the priests, and the entire community that answers amen to it, with the rabbis involved asthe authors of the ritual that give each of these their roles.

Whatever the specific connotations of this blessing, in biblical terms it is effectivespeech, a group of words that can do things (Austin 1980). It is the closest a human beingcan come to speaking Divine speech, which always comes true. It uses language in whichGod specifically delegates power to the priests. It mentions the Divine name repeatedly and


in multiple forms. Finally, it uses the form of the blessing. In the Bible, blessings and cursesare always fulfilled. But then, so are dreams.

Ritual is a powerful way of making words do things. In Tambiah’s performativeapproach to ritual (Tambiah 1979), ritual speech cannot be judged true or false. It is onlylegitimate or illegitimate. When a religious authority pronounces a couple married, it doesnot matter what the couple’s reasons are for getting married, as long as the conditions thatlegitimate marriage in that society are met. Some intentionality is required, but only theintention to participate in the ritual.

The Talmudic dream ritual makes the radical move to dream interpretation asperformative speech. It does not argue that the dream was good. It declares that the dreamwas good, and by doing so makes it become good.

Ritual speech is predictable speech, it will be the same no matter what (Tambiah 1979).Therefore, it does not reflect a varying reality, but rather transforms it to fit certain patterns.The Talmudic dream ritual does not ask at all about the content of the dream and does notchange at all based on the nature of the dream. Rather than developing an interpretation forthe dream it imposes an interpretation on it, an interpretation which is completely lacking incontent and so can fit any dream at all.

By joining the dream ritual with the priestly blessing, the rabbis use the effective powerof the priestly blessing and transfer it to the context of dreams. The perceived power ofdreams can only be countered by something equally powerful. In this ritual, it is.

Conclusions

A dream which is not interpreted is like a letter which is not read. A text that is notinterpreted is also like a letter that is not read. So, does the act of reading discover meaningor invent it? Here, the answer seems to be both. By juxtaposing the statement “I am yoursand my dreams are yours” with the priestly blessing and its connotations of pre-rabbinicauthority, the ritual suggest that there is meaning inherent in the dream. Even an unreadletter carries one message: a sender is trying to say something to the recipient. To find outwhat the sender is trying to say requires reading, and to find out what message the dreammay have requires interpretation. So while a meaning is inherent, reading and interpretationcreate almost all of its content.

To the rabbis, scriptural verses, unlike dreams, are unquestionably from God. This doesnot necessarily make them any more clear. The role of an interpreter is to create meaning. Ifall dreams follow the mouth of the interpreter, so too all texts follow the mouth of theexegete. The text is a letter which has yet to be read, but which has already been sent. Therevelation takes place, and the meaning is created, at the moment of interpretation.

This ritual shows the incomplete transition from a religion based on revelation to onebased on interpretation, and from one in which the Divine is personally accessible to one inwhich access to the Divine must be mediated. It demonstrates the distance between thespiritual world of the Bible and the spiritual world of the rabbis. Instead of a true revelation,dreams are at best partially true. Instead of the Temple rituals, there is only the memory ofthe Temple in communal prayer. Instead of prophecy and sacrifice connecting the humanand Divine world, we have interpretation, and rituals focusing on powerful speech. Bothrequire the leadership, the possessor of the key to interpretation, the rabbi.

And yet, the worlds are not so different. The Bible gives the rabbis the precedent ofillness, as something sent by God that still can be healed, and of cases where prayer is


effective. By making an analogy between dreams and illness, the rabbis place their newunderstanding of revelation within the options for understanding offered by the Biblical text.

This ritual is not primarily about establishing rabbinic power over an outside threat. Thedreamers in our Talmudic section are rabbis as well, and this ritual is transmitted as secretknowledge. Rather, it is part of their way of coming to terms with the consequences of theirbelief that God is in heaven but that they and their Torah and their dreams are not. To theextent that dreams are not from God, then they are dangerous, and not the least danger isthat we might believe that they are. To the extent that dreams are from God, they are a letterthat remains unread but still conveys a message. The ritual reminds the dreamer that whiledreams may have something of the Divine in them they are not a source of propheticauthority. The consolation that it offers is that the gulf between the human and the Divinecan still be breached, if by other means.

Acknowledgements This article is based on research conducted under the supervision of Naomi Janowitzand I remain grateful for her assistance. I would also like to thank Christopher Ocker, Naomi Seidman, DavidBiale, Stuart Schoenfeld and Evan Mayse for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Alexander, P. (1995). Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b: The Talmudic Dreambook in context. Journal of JewishStudies, 46, 231–248.

Alvstad, E. (2005). Oneirocritics and Midrash. In H. Trautner-Korman (Ed.), From Bible to Midrash:Portrayals and interpretative practices. Lund: Arcus.

Austin, J. L. (1980). How to do things with words (2d ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Boyarin, D. (1990). Intertextuality and the reading of Midrash. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Frieden, K. (1990). Freud’s dream of interpretation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Horowitz, H. S. (Ed.) (1966). [Numbers]. Jerusalem: Warman.Janowitz, N. (2001). Magic in the Roman world: Pagans, Jews and Christians. New York: Routledge.Kalmin, R. (1994). Sages, stories, authors and editors in Rabbinic Babylonia. Atlanta: Scholars Press.Lieberman, S. (1950). Rabbinic interpretation of scripture. In H. A. Fischel (Ed.), Essays in Greco-Roman

and related Talmudic literature (pp. 289–324). New York: Ktav.Margulies, M. (Ed.) (1967). Bereshit [The great midrash on Genesis]. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook.Neusner, J. (2006). How important was the destruction of the second temple in the formation of Rabbinic

Judaism? Lanham: University Press of America.Niehoff, M. (1992). A dream which is not interpreted is like a letter which is not read. Journal of Jewish

Studies, 43, 58–94.Simon, M. (1948). Berakoth: Translated into english with notes, glossary and indices. London: Soncino Press.Smith, J. Z. (1978). Map is not territory: Studies in the history of religion. Leiden: Brill.Strack, H. L., & Stemberger, G. (1991). Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: T&T Clark (M.

Bockmuehl, trans.).[Babylonian Talmud]. Vilna: Romm, 1886. Reprint, Jerusalem, n.d.[Palestinian Talmud]. 1923. Venice.Tambiah, S. (1979). A performative approach to ritual. Proceedings of the British Academy, 65, 113–169.

Devorah Schoenfeld is the Ike Wiener Chair of Jewish Studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.


madness and prophecy: dreams, texts, and the power of rabbinic interpretation

Documents