These lamps are holy

and we are not permitted to make use of them

but rather only to see them

 

And we are not permitted to make use of them, but rather only to see them, etc. And it says that the commandment is to see the Hanukkah lamp. This means that the Hanukkah lamps give light for each Israelite soul so that it will be able to see itself in the manner of self-seeing needed by every human being, as it is said, "Look at three things and you will not come to sin": the miracle of the lamps was to give illumination to everyone whose eyes had grown too dark for seeing. The Gemara states: "Lamp light is good for making an inspection" - i.e., lamps are used for searching out things, for it is written, [Man's soul is the Lord's lamp] which searches out all the innermost parts, and see the first chapter of Pesahim. The innermost parts refers to the point of vitality in each soul that comes from the blessed Lord, as it is written, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life - it searches the holes and cracks in a person's soul, trying to find a proper place to spread out and give light. Thus is exactly like the lamp-light searching for oil in the wick. And in the midrash [Pesikta] [the word hor - "hole"] is explained as deriving from the word herut - "freedom" - as in send him free. For this point [of vitality] - called the Lord's lamp - expels that which masks [the truth]. Even if a person is enslaved to the evil inclination and is unaware of the truth, he shall be able to see with the help of the Lord's lamp, which is the commandments, which are called lamps.

(Sefat Emet Hanukkah 5632)

 

With Eyes Closed and Befetah Einayim - "At the Opening of Eyes"

Dalia Marx

Parashat Vayeshev is bounded by pairs of dreams. It opens with Joseph's two dreams and concludes with the dreams of Pharaoh's chamberlains. Not one of these dreams was born of a sound sleep and their interpretations were all wrought with tension. At the very heart and center of the parasha, interrupting the account of Joseph's adventures - which themselves seem to have been borrowed from some nightmare - we find the story of Tamar and Judah. Tamar waits for her father-in-law Judah befetah einayim, at the cross roads or in some open space, but literally, "at the opening of eyes." She hopes to be granted progeny and she hides herself behind a scarf. Tamar waits hidden befetah einayim and the dream is her inversion; the dream comes to reveal that which is hidden to the dreamer whose eyes are closed.

An article I wrote about parashat Miketz¹ dealt with two other dreams - those of Pharaoh. There I discussed how a dream can open for its dreamer (and for those who are told about the dream) a rare window into the dreamer's inner world. Now I would like to treat a different aspect of dreams and dreaming, that of the dream as an interpretive act which possesses a rhetorical dimension and represents particular interests.

Let us begin by examining the four dreams told in our parasha: Joseph's first dream is naturalistic and it begins by portraying a plausible situation: the brothers are binding sheaves together in the field. Things soon turn surreal and unnatural in a way that invites the brother's enmity: my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves encircled [it] and prostrated themselves to my sheaf (37:7). Collecting sheaves in the field was a part of daily life, but something supernatural happened when Joseph's sheave stood up and the other sheaves bowed down to it. Next Joseph dreams a second dream, one involving the unnatural behavior of heavenly bodies: Behold, I have dreamed another dream, and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me (37:9). How can stars, the sun and the moon prostrate themselves, and to a human being, no less? Joseph relates his dream, but it is his audience which says the stars are his brothers and the sun and moon Jacob and Rachel. We readers are left only to ask why Joseph chose to share his dream and whether he might have done so innocently.

Now come the dreams of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. Their dreams portray seemingly natural and possible events drawn from their respective professional lives. The atmosphere of the dreams is, however, surreal. This is how the chief baker describes his dream: In my dream, behold, there were three wicker baskets on my head. And in the topmost basket were all kinds of Pharaoh's food, the work of a baker, and the birds were eating them from the basket atop my head (40:16-17). The dream contains no impossible detail, but as a whole it seems unreal.

The four dreams of our parasha are not described directly by the biblical narrator, but rather by those who dreamt them, as is also the case with Pharaoh and his dreams. Consequently, we are given - from the very start - the dreamer's interpretation of the dream rather than the content of the dream itself (allowing the contestable assumption that "the thing itself" can be described verbally). Are the dreams described accurately? Many of us find it difficult to put our dream experiences into words; they are evasive and frequently non verbal. When describing our dreams we restrain and limit them to the bounds of language and propriety (it is not always pleasant to relate the details of an embarrassing dream). Sometimes the special feelings that accompanied a dream are lost when it is translated into words. According to psychoanalytic theory, the dream - as remembered by the dreamer - is itself a product of processing and censorship. Even if we assume it is possible to accurately describe dream experiences, could it be that the three dreamers of our parasha exploit the retelling of their dreams for other ends?

In one case Scripture almost explicitly reveals the way a dream is manipulated in its telling: it was only after the chief baker heard Joseph's optimistic interpretation of the chief cupbearer's dream that he decided to tell his own story: Now the chief baker saw that he had interpreted well. So he said to Joseph... (40:16). The style of his account mimics that of his predecessor, the chief cupbearer, apparently in expectation that this might help him receive a favorable interpretation of his dream as well. That expectation was, of course, dashed.

While Joseph interprets other people's dreams, he seems incapable of interpreting his own. The meaning of his first dream is obvious; Joseph explicitly stated that his brothers' sheaves prostrated themselves before his own. However, the meaning of his second dream is far from clear. Jacob scolds Joseph, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground? (37:7), but is Jacob's albeit likely identification of the eleven stars, the moon, and the sun really incontestable? And on the other hand, can we imagine Joseph innocently and tangentially relating the dream to his family at the dinner table? Did he really count the stars as he dreamt? What was the point of his sharing the dream? In other words - what is the connection between what we see dreaming with our eyes shut and that which we see awake and open-eyed? What is the connection between our experiences in the enigmatic world of dreams and that which we choose to tell about our dreams (or are able to tell about them) after we awaken?

Leaving aside the psychological issues and the significance of how dreamers may interpret their own dreams, what might be the rhetorical function of telling a dream to a particular audience, and what might be the point of telling it in a certain way? Joseph could have talked about "many stars" prostrating themselves before him, thus avoiding the implication that his own family members would serve him. Are dreams simply the "royal road to the unconscious," as Freud stated, or do the telling, hearing, and interpretation of dreams also have social and even political significance? Do dreamers exploit the telling of their dreams in order to influence their audience in an apparently innocent fashion ("That's not what I think, just what I was shown in a dream")? Is there something inherently manipulative in the way a dream is told and in the way the dreamer chooses to remember it? Do dreamers have control over the way they remember their dreams and do they shape the way dreams are told? Can a dream's meaning be changed through its retelling?

For the moment let us leave aside the political aspects of dream-telling and the way dreamers manipulate their audiences when relating their dreams and instead turn to the way dreamers manipulate themselves via their dreams. The Sages gave confused or frightened dreamers tools with which to process their dreams. A millennium and a half before Freud, a dictum presented in the name of R. Yonatan states: "A person is only shown [in a dream] things from his own thoughts" (b. Berakhot 55b). At night people see the things which they think about during the day; if they change their thoughts they can change their dreams.²

Anyone who has ever awakened from a frightening dream knows how troubling it can be. Sometimes the dream continues to haunt the dreamer after its particular details have been long forgotten and any chance of its realization has passed. The Babylonian Talmud suggests a remedy for scary dreams, a ritual called hatavat halom [literally, "the betterment of a dream"] that is performed before three people: "R. Pedat said that R. Yohanan said: One who sees a dream and is distraught should have it deciphered before three [people]" (Berakhot 55b).³ Three people and the dreamer perform a ritual in which they repeat a formula that is supposed to turn the dream into a good one. In it, the dreamer says, "I saw a good dream" and the others say:

It is good and it will be good. May the All-Merciful make it good. Let it be decreed seven times by Heaven that it shall be good, and it will be good... (El-Am translation)

The goal of this dialogic text, which consists entirely of a system of speech and response by the dreamer and the three attendees, is to transform the dream's meaning and to make it good in the eyes of the dreamer. In their discussion of dreams and their interpretation, the Sages offer an alternative method for dealing with such predicaments; today, we would call it "positive thinking." That is, as soon as one awakes one should link the dreamt scene to a positive biblical verse before any alternative interpretations bubble up from the subconscious. For example:

R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees a river in a dream should rise early and say: Behold I will extend peace to her like a river (Isaiah 66:12); lest another verse come to him first: for distress will come in like a river (59:19).

One who sees a bird in a dream should rise early and say: As birds hovering, so will the [Lord of Hosts] protect (31:5), lest another verse occur to him first: As a bird that wanders from her nest, etc (Proverbs 27:8). (Berakhot 56b, El-Am translation)

Many people dismiss these instructions as expressing a kind of magical thinking that is inappropriate for rational people, but it seems there is really something to them since our perception of the world is itself an important part of our world. Even if we may criticize the banality of the sentence "Think positively and things will turn out positively," we cannot say it misses the mark. Those who have the wisdom to interpret their experiences (both dreamt and wakeful) positively are happier and healthier for it. Countless studies and personal anecdotes have proven that "positive" people make there way through life's difficult events better than those who do not share that attitude. It is not just a matter of auto-suggestion, but rather a refusal to accept arbitrariness and determinism in our lives and retention of the feeling of that we control our own lives.

Our lives are just like the parasha: they begin with a dream and end passing like a dream. May the petah ha'einayim - the "opening of eyes" - which we have been granted be valid and worthy.

1. Dalia Marx, "To be of troubled spirit - and to talk about it," Shabbat Shalom, Miketz issue, 5768.

2. We cannot here go into the Sages' theory (or theories) of dreams; I will just mention that a wide variety of opinions appears in the discussion from which I have drawn the Talmudic quotations, ranging from "the dreams speak falsely" (based upon Zachariah 10:2) to the idea that dreams are a kind of minor prophecy. In any case, it appears that the editor of the Talmud held that "all dreams follow the mouth" (b. Berakhot 55b), that is to say; their significance is determined by how they are interpreted. That is the position I take here.

3. The Jerusalem Talmud contains a similar formulation, but there it seems to be intended to serve as a petitionary prayer that is recited privately (Berakhot 5:1; 9a)

Dr. Dalia Marx teaches liturgy and midrash at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem

 

 

 The Leader Must Not Have Delusions of Perfection: King David (and, subsequently, the Messiah), Descendent of Peretz and of Ruth the Moabite.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he was domineering.

(Berakhot 55b)

 

R. Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because they were without blemish, for Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One is not appointed leader over the public unless he has a basket of impurities hanging behind him, so that should he become self-satisfied, he can be told: "Look behind you."

(Yoma 22b)

 

Amram took himself Yokheved, his aunt, for a wife - The Holy One acquiesced that a great person such as Moses should descend from a relationship which was destined to be prohibited, because one is not appointed leader over the public unless he has a basket of impurities hanging from his neck, lest he be arrogant towards the people, as we found in the case of David.

(Hizkuni, Shemot 6:20)

 

It is proper to appoint as public official only one who is known to be modest, humble, and patient. This is because he must deal with different people in different and changing ways. He must love each according to his character. If such [leaders] are not to found, but in any case brave and arrogant persons must be appointed, they should be careful not to appoint people so authoritarian as to feel that the appointment is theirs forever, that they are more deserving than their neighbors because of their might; their realization that they are assisted by their father's qualities causes their conceit and arrogance to increase. [Rather, chose] people who know that there are persons more deserving [to be leaders] in their society. If they deny this, someone should be found to tell them the truth and to recall the past. As it is said in a light and exaggerated vein, "One is not appointed leader over the public unless there is a sack of impurities hanging behind him." This means, that even though he himself is decent, should he become light-headed and behave haughtily towards the public not for the sake of Heaven, we tell him, "Return and judge yourself, and look behind you." Similarly, they said: "Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because it was without blemish." - meaning a family blemish, and because of this they would behave arrogantly toward the public - not necessarily for the sake of Heaven.

(From Beit HaBehira of Rabeinu Menahem Hameiri, (1249-1315), on Yoma 22b).

 

And he answered and spoke to me, saying, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying: 'Not by military force and not by physical strength, but by My spirit,' says the Lord of Hosts.

(Zechariah 4:6, from the haftarah for the first Shabbat of Hannukah)

 

Just as you saw This means: that the stone was hewn from the mountain by itself and not by human hands, and the iron was broken up, etc.; so too will be the kingdom of the Messiah; it will not come by military force and not by physical strength, but of its own self when the time comes.

(Metzudat David Daniel 2:45)

 

And he answered...'Not by might and not by force...' - Just as you saw the Menorah stand before you by its own accord, without any person setting up the lamps or pouring oil into them, so too the Temple shall be built without human effort but rather by God's spirit and will, and the vision will be further explained to you in detail.

(ReDaK ad loc)

 

Peace is not just a matter of an ethical tendency. Working for peace is a constant cultural effort, sublime and powerful, work towards which all the most productive forces of the nation should be directed.

(Iggrot HaRAYaH of Rav Kook, zt"l, letter 671)

 

Therefore the pure righteous ones do not complain about wickedness but rather increase justice; they do not complain about heresy, but rather increase faith; they do not complain about ignorance, but rather increase wisdom.

(Harav Kook Ztz"l, Arpelei Tohar 27-28)

  

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.