Prophetic
dreams contain elements of the imagination
And he told
it to his father and
to his brothers. His father
scolded him and said to
him, "What is this
dream that you have dreamt?
Will I, your mother and
your brothers, come to bow
down to you to the
ground?" (Beresheit 37:10)
The Torah relates two dreams
that occurred to Yosef. In the first, Yosef and his brothers are in a field
binding sheaves of wheat. Yosef's sheaf
rises up and is surrounded by the sheaves of his brothers. The brothers'
sheaves then bow to Yosef’s sheaf. In the second dream, Yosef sees the sun, the
moon and eleven stars bowing to him.
The first dream he shared with
his brothers. The second dream he told to his brothers and to his father.
Yaakov rebuked Yosef for attributing any significance to these fantasies. He
pointed out that Yosef’s mother –Rachel – had passed away. The second dream, in
which the moon represented Rachel, was therefore clearly inaccurate and was not
prophetic.
Rashi comments that, in fact,
Yaakov took these dreams very seriously. Although he pointed out that the
second dream was inaccurate, he felt that the dreams could nonetheless be
prophecies.[1] Rashi also
explains that even a prophetic dream inevitably contains nonsensical elements.[2]
The inclusion of inaccurate
and even fantastic elements provides an insight into the phenomenon of the
prophetic dream. In a normal dream such elements are not at all unusual. Modem
psychology theorizes that the typical dream reflects the fantasies and deep
desires of the dreamer. Often the dream utilizes a representational format to
express such thoughts.
The inaccuracies and
nonsensical material in the prophetic dream indicate that these inspired
visions contain the elements of the typical dream. The basic theme of the dream
is prophetic and inspired. However, ridiculous or fantastic elements,
expressing the personal wishes of the dreamer, are also present.
Yaakov recognized that Yosef s
dream, although prophetic, indicated an inflated sense of self-importance. This
was dangerous. The leader of the Jewish people must be humble. He or she must
place the interests and needs of the Jewish people before personal needs.
Therefore, Yaakov quickly pointed out to Yosef the egotistical element within
his dream. He encouraged Yosef to recognize his fantasies and to work towards
achieving humility.
Yosef’s
brothers reacted differently to his two dreams
And his brothers were jealous of him. And his father studied the issue. (Bersheit
37:11)
Yosef
had two dreams. In the first dream he and his brothers were in a field. They were binding grain into sheaves. Yosef’s sheaf arose and stood. The brothers’ sheaves surrounded Yosef’s
sheaf and bowed to it. Yosef told his
brothers of his dream. The Torah tells
us that the brothers’ hatred for Yosef was heightened by this dream.
Yosef’s
second dream involved the sun, moon and eleven stars. Yosef envisioned these bodies bowing to him. Again, he related the dream to his brothers. He also retold the dream to his father. The Torah tells us that after hearing this
second dream the brothers were jealous of Yosef.
Apparently,
the brothers had different reactions to the two dreams. They hated Yosef after
the first dream. After hearing the
second dream, they were also jealous.
Why did the dreams evoke these different reactions?
Rabbaynu
Avraham ben HaRambam addresses this issue.
The brothers understood the first dream as an expression of
ambition. Yosef’s dream reflected a
desire to dominate his brothers. They
rebuked Yosef for his ambition. They
accused him of wishing to rule over them.
They hated him for this desire. However, they believed that the dream
was only an expression of Yosef’s fantasies.
They did not believe that the dream was prophetic or a harbinger of the
future. Therefore, they had no reason to actually feel jealousy toward Yosef.
The
second dream produced a different reaction in the brothers. Now they became jealous. Jealousy implies an actual fear. The brothers suspected that the second dream
represented more than a mere fantasy.
They detected some element of truth in the second dream. Their hatred was now accompanied by
jealousy.[3]
Our pasuk tells us that Yaakov studied the
issue suggested by the dream. This indicates that Yaakov also suspected that
the second dream was prophetic.[4]
In
addition, the Torah implies that even Yosef distinguished between the two
dreams. Yosef retold both dreams. The Torah uses different verbs for the two
instances. In Yosef’s retelling of the
first dream, the Torah uses the verb vayaged. This term means to tell or impart
information. It does not indicate that
the speaker has any particular expectation from the audience. In the second instance, the Torah uses the
verb vayesaper. This term also means to tell. However, it is used in the Torah in a
completely different manner. It
indicates that the speaker expects the audience to carefully consider the
material. A few examples will
illustrate this point.
Eliezer
returns with Rivka. He tells Yitzchak
of the wondrous events that resulted in the selection of Rivka. He wants Yitzchak to listen carefully so he
can appreciate the providence involved in his marriage to Rivka. The Torah uses the verb vayesaper to describe Eliezer’s retelling of the events.[5]
Yitro,
Moshe’s father-in-law, joins Bnai Yisrael in the wilderness. Moshe tells Yitro of all the miracles
experienced by Bnai Yisrael. He wants
to impress Yitro with these events and their implication. Again, the verb vayesaper is used.[6]
Apparently,
Yosef did not attach tremendous importance to the first dream. He viewed it as an interesting
curiosity. However, the second dream
made an impression upon him. He felt
this dream had meaning. He carefully
described it to his listeners. He asked
them to consider it carefully and help him interpret its meaning.
This
leaves one question. What property of
the second dream indicated its prophetic nature? Both seem to be expressions of ambition. Why did Yosef, his bothers and his father
suspect the second dream contained, at least, an element of prophecy?
This
is a difficult question to answer.
However, there are two crucial elements in the second dream that may
suggest a response. In the first dream,
only Yosef and his brothers were represented.
The brothers had a long-standing suspicion of Yosef’s desire to dominate
them. This dream only confirmed their
critique of Yosef’s personality. The
second dream included Yosef’s father and mother. Yaakov had dotted over Yosef.
They shared a loving relationship.
The brothers did not ascribe to Yosef any desire to dominate
Yaakov. This indicated that the dream
was not merely an expression of personal wishes. Yaakov reinforced this interpretation. He pointed out that the message of the dream was that the Yosef’s
brothers, father and mother would bow to him.
The dream did not imply that Yosef would assert himself over the
family. It indicated that the family
would acknowledge Yosef’s leadership.
In other words Yaakov did not assume that the dream expressed a desire
to dominate. Instead, in foretold that
future events would somehow conspire to place Yosef in a position of
authority. The brothers realized that
this was not an absurd possibility.
Second,
in the first dream the brothers were represented by sheaves. In the second dream the brothers were
represented as stars. Yaakov was the
sun and Yosef’s mother was the moon.
This dream venerated the brothers, Yaakov and Yosef’s mother. This representation was not consistent with
mere rivalry and a desire to overcome the brothers. Perhaps, these characteristics of the second dream distinguished
it from the first. As a result it was
not as easily dismissed.
They took him
and threw him into the
pit. The pit was empty;
there was no water in it.
They then sat down to
eat bread, and they lifted
their eyes and saw a caravan
of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead,
their camels carrying wax, balsam
and resin to take down
to Egypt. (Beresheit 37:24-25)
Our parasha discusses the conflict that developed between Yosef and his
brothers. Ultimately, this conflict led
the brothers to sell Yosef into slavery in Egypt. The parasha begins by
describing the tension that existed among the brothers. Yosef believed that he would be the future
leader of the family. The brothers
distrusted Yosef’s motives and resented his aspirations. When the brothers were presented with the
opportunity to eliminate Yosef as a threat, they took advantage of it. How did this opportunity arise?
Yosef and his brothers were
shepherds. On this occasion, the
brothers were shepherding Yaakov’s flocks in the vicinity of Shechem. Yaakov had some concern regarding their
welfare and sent Yossef to Shechem to check on the brothers and to report back.
Yosef found his brothers. At
first, they considered killing Yosef.
However, Reuven suggested a more indirect approach. He advised the brothers to place Yosef in a
pit from which he would not be able to escape. As they were eating, they saw a caravan. Yehudah suggested that rather than letting
Yosef die, they should sell him to the merchants. His advice was accepted by
his brothers. Eventually, the merchants
brought Yosef to Egypt.
Our pasuk tells us that while their brother was imprisoned, they sat
down to eat a meal. What is the
significance of this detail?
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah
Berlin – NeTZiV – suggests that this pasuk
reflect the righteousness of the brothers.
They were not at ease with their decision to kill Yosef or allow him to
die in the pit. They were sitting on
the ground and eating a meal. From
their position, it should have been difficult for them to see very far. Yet, they observed a caravan
approaching. This suggests that they
were looking around and seeking an alternative course of action. When the caravan appeared they seized the
opportunity and formulated a less drastic solution to their problem.[7]
However, Rabbaynu Ovadia
Sforno suggests that in order to answer this question, we must consider two
issues. First, the brothers were
willing to adopt extreme measures to rid themselves of Yosef. Initially, they considered killing him. They spared his life because they felt that
selling him into bondage would eliminate him as a threat. What was their fear and how did they justify
the actions that they took against their brother?
Sforno writes that Yosef’s
brothers did not sin in the actions that they took against him. They looked
upon Yosef as a devious, egotistical foe, determined to destroy them. He had
admitted to dreams of grandeur and dominance. On numerous occasions he had
attempted to undermine their position with their father. Yosef used his
relationship with Yaakov to accuse his brothers of wrongdoing. The brothers saw
in these actions and fantasies a consistent and determined plan to destroy
them. The Torah tells us that if one is
accosted by someone who wishes to take his life, then the threatened person may
take the life of his pursuer. In
capturing Yosef and ridding themselves of their enemy, they acted to protect
themselves.[8]
But were the brothers correct
in their conclusions or were they deceived by their own jealousy into thinking
the worst of Yosef? Sforno points out
that it seems that even years later – after the brothers had ample time to
reconsider their actions toward Yosef – they still believed that they had made
the proper decision. Years latter, the
brothers did conclude that they had acted improperly. However, they did not conclude that their analysis of the danger
posed by Yosef was incorrect. Neither
did they conclude that the action that they had taken against Yosef was
improper. Instead, they were critical
of themselves for being callous towards Yosef.[9],[10]
This leads to the second issue
we must consider. The reaction of the
brothers is difficult to understand. In
what way were the brothers insensitive?
What did they do that indicated this insensitivity? Sforno explains that our pasuk provides the answer to this
question. The brothers sat down to eat
a meal while they were contemplating and planning the destruction of their
brother.[11]
However, Sforno recognizes
that this explanation presents a second, more difficult problem. The brothers remained convinced that their
analysis of Yosef was justified. If
this is the case, why was their eating a meal an act of insensitivity? They had no reason to question their
decision. They were confident that they
were acting properly. Why should they
have refrained from eating?
And his sons and
daughters rose up to comfort him. And
he refused to be comforted. And he
said, “I will go to my grave mourning my son.”
And his father cried for him.
(Bereshiet 37:35)
Sforno suggests that the
answer lies in appreciating another incident in our parasha. The brothers
deceive their father into believing that Yosef was killed by a wild
animal. Yaakov refuses to be
comforted. He declares that he will
mourn Yosef for the remained of his life.
It seems that Yaakov’s
reaction was unreasonable. We are
required to mourn the loss of a relative.
But we are also required to limit our mourning to appropriate boundaries. Why did Yaakov insist that these boundaries
did not apply to him?
Rashi seems to suggest that
Yaakov was not completely convinced that Yosef was dead. When we know we have lost a loved one, we
mourn the person and eventually come to terms with our loss. However in order for this process to take
place, we must be certain that the person has been taken from us. If we merely conclude that his death is
likely – but remain unsure – it is difficult to move on. We cannot completely abandon hope. With this lingering hope comes the continue
pain of separation.[12]
Rashi’s explanation is
somewhat difficult to reconcile with the actual wording of the passage. Yaakov seems to say that he is justified in
mourning Yosef for the rest of his life.
He does not allude to any doubt as a justification. Instead, he seems to assert that his
attitude is justified by the gravity of the tragedy. But it is difficult to understand this justification. Of course, the loss of a son is a terrible
tragedy. But are we not required to
eventually end our mourning and move on?
Sforno suggests that Yaakov
was deeply bothered by his role in this tragedy. He had instructed Yosef to travel to his brothers. He believed that Yosef had been killed by a
beast while fulfilling these instructions.
In other words, he had – to some extent – played a role in Yosef’s
death. Sforno explains that although
tragedies do occur, the righteous do not want to be the cause of these
tragedies. Ideally, Hashem’s providence
protects the righteous from such roles.
Yaakov concluded that his role in this tragedy was a reflection on his
own shortcomings. He had not received
the benefit of Hashem’s providence in this instance. He had not been spared playing a role in this disaster.[13]
Sforno contrasts Yaakov’s
reaction to the attitude of the brothers.
He explains that the sin of the brothers was that they did not realize
the tragedy of these events. They may have felt compelled to sell Yosef into
slavery, but they did not grasp that this act of violence against their brother
should be a source of sorrow and mourning. Rather than bemoaning the tragedy
that had befallen them, the brothers indulged in their afternoon meal.
The brothers should have
recognized that Hashem's displeasure with them was implicit in their situation.
How could He allow the children of Israel to destroy one of their brothers? How
could Hashem allow fraternal strife among Yaakov's children? Certainly, He had
turned his back upon them, and was punishing them for some sin. Yet, the
brothers showed no introspection or regret.[14]
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 37:11.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 37:10.
[3] Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit
37:11.
[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer
Beresheit 37:11.
[5] Sefer Beresheit 24:66
[6] Sefer Shemot 18:8.
[7] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), Commentary Hamek Davar on Sefer Beresheit 37:25.
[8] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 37:18.
[9] Sefer Beresheit 42:21.
[10] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 37:18.
[11] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 37:24.
[12] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 37:35.
[13] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 37:35.
[14] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 37:25.