In Parashas Vayeishev we learn about the importance of dreams.
Yaakov Avinu, the Torah informs us, “kept the matter” of Yosef’s prophetic dreams, anticipating their future fulfillment. Ultimately, the dreams were realized when Yaakov and his sons were brought before Yosef, after he had been made the Egyptian viceroy.
Later in this parashah as well as in the forthcoming Parashas Miketz, we find dreams of Pharaoh and dreams of his imprisoned ministers, also prophetic dreams that were fulfilled. There are several additional dreams, scattered over Scripture, which indicate the prophetic potential of dreams.
The question we wish to address in this article is the halachic significance of dreams. How significant are dreams, and which halachic ramifications do they have?
Scriptural Visions
As noted above, a number of verses indicate the prophetic potential of dreams. The dreams of Yosef, of Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, and others, demonstrate that dreams can have significance.
Moreover, dreams are sometimes a vehicle for great revelations of Hashem. Yaakov’s great vision of the ladder, chronicled in Parashas Vayeitzei, is a paradigm of this type of dream. Hashem appeared to Yaakov in the course of the dream, promising him the Land and informing him of the Divine providence that will accompany him.
Indeed, the general nature of prophecy, with the exception of Moshe Rabbeinu, is expressed as a dream vision: “In a dream I shall speak to him” (Bamidbar 12:6). King Shlomo’s famous request for wisdom was made in a dream (Melachim 1, Chap. 3), and the Torah mentions non-Jews who had Divine revelations in dreams, such as Avimelech (Bereishis 20:3) and Lavan (Bereishis 31:24).
Yet, by contrast with the generally substantial weight that Scripture gives to dreams, we also find verses warning of over-reliance on dreams. In one place, the pasuk mentions “dreams that speak falsehood” (Zechariah 10:2).[1] In another place, the verse states, “For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are many vanities; but fear God” (Koheles 5:6).
However, these verses can be interpreted as referring to diviners who speak falsehoods, and to false dreams and visions somewhat similar to those referred to by Yirmiyahu (29:8). The verses alone do not demonstrate the general falsity of dreams.
“I Dreamed a Dream”
As we all know, dreams are often influenced by actions and events of the previous day (see Berachos 55b), by moods and dispositions, by how we feel and by what we ate, and by numerous other factors. Clearly, dreams as we know them are not necessarily Divine messages.
We therefore find Chazal (Berachos 55a) stating, “Just as there is no produce without chaff, so there is no dream without nonsense.” The Gemara continues to explain (citing Rav Yirmiyah) that even if part of a dream is fulfilled, the dream is not fulfilled in its entirety. Proof is brought from the dream of Yosef in Parashas Vayeishev: Although the majority of the dream came true, the dreamed presence of Yosef’s mother (the moon in the dream) was not fulfilled (she had already died at the time of the dream).
If even the prophetic dream of Yosef was not free of falsehood, it goes without saying that our everyday dreams can hardly be relied on. Yet, in spite of the suspicion with which we should approach dreams, Chazal do state that dreams are considered “one sixtieth of a prophecy” (Berachos 57b). There can be something to them. Indeed, the Talmud dedicates a significant part of an entire chapter in Tractate Berachos (the final chapter) to issues of dream interpretation.
The general approach to dreams found in Chazal is therefore ambivalent. When the amora Shmuel dreamed a bad dream, he would awaken and state, “Dreams speak falsehood.” But when he dreamed a good dream, he would awaken and declare: “Do dreams speak falsehood? Does it not say: In a dream I will speak to him?”
The apparent contradiction between the two verses was resolved by Rava, who explained that there are two distinct types of dream: one that comes through an angel, and one that comes though a demon. Rava does not offer any insight into how we can tell the difference between the two types of dreams. As we will see below, it is not necessarily easy to differentiate between them.
Money Found in a Dream
Turning now to the halachic significance of dreams, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 30a) records the following ruling:
If one felt distressed over some money which his father had left him, and the dispenser of dreams[2]appeared to him and named the sum, indicated the place, and specified its purpose, saying that it was [for the redemption] of maaser sheini[3]—such an incident once occurred, and they [the Rabbis on that occasion] said: Dreams have no importance for good or for ill.
In spite of the dream being verified as (at least partially) true, the inheritor need not be concerned that the money has the status of maaser sheini, and he could use the money as he pleased.
The Rambam (Zechiah U-Matanah 10:7) cites this halachah, explaining further that even if a dream reveals that the money belongs to somebody else, there is no need to take any notice (see, however, Perishah, Choshen Mishpat 255:14; see also Shut Divrei Yatziv, Yoreh De’ah 122, sec. 3). A similar halachah is ruled by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 255:9), indicating the halachic insignificance of dreams, which “have no importance for good or for ill.”
Distinction between Prohibitions and Monetary Law
A difference source in the Talmud indicates that dreams are a halachic force to be reckoned with. The Gemara (Nedarim 8a) states that somebody who sees himself being excommunicated in a dream must seek redress for his excommunication: “Someone who is excommunicated in his dream, requires ten people to release him from his excommunication.” This halachah is cited by the Rambam (Talmud Torah 7:12), who adds that somebody who does not find ten people to release him can rely on a group of three.
The question is therefore raised: If “dreams have no importance for good or for ill,” why does a person need to be concerned about his dreamed excommunication?
Perhaps the earliest source that addresses this question is the Tashbatz (Vol. 2, no. 128), who bases his resolution on the distinction between two categories of dreams. One type of dream (as noted above), derives from an angel and is true, whereas another type derives from a demon and is false.
We do not know which dream derives from an angel and which from a demon, leading to a doubt: Is the dream (at least partially) true or not? On account of the doubt, a dreamer must act according to the Talmudic principle whereby a distinction is made between monetary matters and other halachic issues. In monetary matters, a doubt has no effect, and the money is left where it is, as it was before the dream. For prohibitions, however, we must be concerned that maybe the dream speaks truth, and act with stringency.
Thus, the money that the dream helped to find could be kept by the finder, who was holding the money after inheriting it from his father. However, somebody who dreams of his excommunication, which is a matter of prohibition (he is prohibited from taking a haircut, from washing, and so on), must seek—out of doubt—to redress his condition (based on this interpretation, one would not have to be stringent in matters of rabbinic prohibitions).
Distinction between Prohibition and Danger
Shut Shivas Tzion (52) offers a different resolution to the contradiction. After mentioning the approach of the Tashbatz (as cited above), he continues to introduce a different distinction between types of dreams, citing Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel. According to Abarbanel, most dreams derive from physical causes, such as food we eat and the condition of our bodies, and these dreams have no meaning and import. However, some dreams are unrelated to physical factors, and these are true dreams that must be treated as instructions from Heaven.
Shut Shivas Tzion continues to explain that because the vast majority of dreams belong to the former category, and only a small minority belong to the latter group, it follows that for all regular matters of halachah, including monetary law and regular prohibitions, we are not concerned about revelations of dreams. The general principle is that we follow the rov, the majority: Because the majority of dreams are false and nonsensical, there is no need to take them seriously.
However, with regard to matters of sakanah, questions of danger, we must be concerned even about a slight chance, in line with the Talmudic dictum: Danger is more severe than prohibition (see Chulin 10a). Thus, concerning Divine excommunication, which is a danger to the person who was excommunicated, one cannot ignore the dream, and must seek release from the possible excommunication.
Seeing a Prohibition in a Dream
The halachic distinction between prohibition and financial affairs has further ramifications.
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Shut Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 20, no. 32) was approached by somebody who saw in his dream that he had marital relations with his wife while she was a niddah. He had the dream on the same night that he had actually cohabited with his wife, and although his wife subsequently ensured that she was not a niddah, he remained shaken, and asked Rabbi Waldenberg if he required some tikkun.
Rabbi Waldenberg’s response was, “Dreams have no importance for good or for ill,” and that there was therefore no need for any action on the part of the dreamer.
However, Rabbi David Oppenheim (Shut Nishal Le-David Vol. 3, no. 18), who was asked a slightly different question, offered a very different response. After mentioning that “dreams have no importance for good or for ill,” and citing the relevant sources, Rabbi Oppenheim cites many sources indicating the great concern of the Sages and authorities for dreams.
Some refer to the following case, as cited by the Tashbatz (no. 352): “Rabbeinu Efraim once partook of a certain fish, which he ruled kosher. The same night, Rabbeinu Efraim saw in his dream an elderly man, with long hair and beard and with a shining countenance, who offered him to eat from a box of insects. Rabbeinu Efraim was taken aback, exclaiming: But they are insects! He told him: These are permitted just as the insects you ate today. Upon awakening, Rabbeinu Efraim knew that Eliyahu had visited him, and from that day and on, he refrained from eating them” (see also Raavan 26; Sefer Chasidim 444; Hagahos Ashri, Avodah Zarah 2:41).
Based on this and other sources, Rabbi Oppenheim concludes that we must return to the aforementioned distinction between monetary matters and other prohibitions. Therefore, somebody who dreams of cohabiting with his wife while she is prohibited, must be concerned about the matter, and make amends.
Halachic Rulings and Factual Revelations
We have thus far mentioned two possible distinctions with regard to the halachic approach to dreams, one that differentiates between matters of monetary law and regular prohibitions, and another that distinguishes between matters of prohibition and matters of physical danger.
The might be room to suggest a third distinction. In two places, the Shach (Choshen Mishpat 333:25; 336:2) cites rishonim who supported their halachic positions with revelations of dreams. In both places, the Shach defers the rulings adding that “dreams have no importance for good or for ill, in this matter.” The word bazeh (in this matter) suggests that in matters of halachic ruling, we do not follow the revelations of dreams.
It is noteworthy that the three occurrences of the Talmudic statement: “Dreams have no importance for good or for ill” (Sanhedrin 30a; Gittin 52a; Horios 13b) are all found with respect to a concrete halachic ruling. It is therefore possible that Chazal’s disqualification of dreams is limited to strictly halachic issues. Concerning matters of halachic ruling the Sages refuse to accept even the direction of a bas kol (a Heavenly voice; see Bava Metzia 59), and it stands to reason that a dream is no more authoritative than a voice from Heaven.
However, concerning matters that are not strictly halachic rulings, such as tidings of the future (for instance somebody who was excommunicated in his dream, which bodes ill for the future), or a general revelation of some general factual matter (which might include defining a species of fish as kosher—a purely factual question, though it has halachic ramifications[4]), one should be concerned that dreams may convey a true message.
Of this message Chazal state that a dream is one sixtieth of prophecy, and Chazal add (Chagigah 5b) that even in times when Hashem hides His countenance from us, he continues to reveal Himself in dreams.
In the light of this suggestion, we can possibly explain the two approaches of the Gemara in Horios concerning heeding the instruction of a dream. The dream, which was dreamed by both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nasan, instructed the two tanaim to apologize to Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel for the offense they had caused. Rabbi Nasan followed the directive, whereas Rabbi Meir refused to do so, claiming, “Dreams have no importance for good or for ill.”
It is thus possible that Rabbi Nasan saw the directive as good advice, rather than as a halachic ruling, and therefore decided that it was prudent to follow it. Rabbi Meir, however, saw the dream as a halachic ruling in the question of who owed whom an apology, and therefore deemed it outside the scope of dreams.
Shut Min HaShamayim
In this context, it is important to mention an entire sefer, which was written by one of the Ba’alei Ha-Tosafos in France, Rabbi Yaakov of Merosh, named Shut Min Ha-Shamayim. In this sefer, the author published a great number of responses to questions, which were revealed to him from Heaven in dreams. The very existence of this sefer sharpens the issue of relying on dreams for halachic guidance: Can such halachic rulings be authoritative?
Some authorities have relied on the rulings of Shut Min Ha-Shamayim. The Chida, for instance, relied on one of the published teshuvos to permit women to recite a blessing on taking the lulav and esrog (Yosef Ometz 82). Moreover, he writes that if the Shulchan Aruch would have seen the teshuvah, he would not have ruled that women cannot recite a berachah. As to the claim that the Torah cannot descend from Heaven, the Chida writes that where there is a dispute in the matter, a revelation can serve to decide the case.
This reasoning does not appear to concur with the famous statement of the Gemara, whereby even a voice from Heaven cannot decide a halachic dispute between two Sages (Bava Metzia 59b). Thus, although the Chida is not alone in accepting the rulings of Shut Min Ha-Shamayim,[5] a number of authorities, such as the Shibolei Ha-Leket (157) and others, write that one cannot rely on the rulings (see at length Yecheveh Daas, Vol. 1, no. 68).
In this spirit the Noda Biyhuda (Tinyana, Yoreh De’ah 30) stresses that even the dream of a great person cannot be relied upon, even for stringency, and the more so for leniency. As noted above’ the Shach likewise rules out reliance on dreams for matters of halachah. Yet, we also find accepted halachos that are entirely based on the revelation of a dream, a notable example being holding the esrog together with the other minim (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 651:9, based on a dream of the Rekanati).
As a general rule, therefore, it can be said that dreams are not reliable halachic sources. However, this rule has numerous exceptions, where poskim do give dreams halachic significance.
Dreams as Proof of Death
Shut Meshivas Nefesh (Rabbi Aryeh Leib Tzintz, no. 38) relates a case in which three married Jews sailed on a river. Their ship sunk, and their bodies were not found, so that the question of permitting their wives to marry arose. Among other considerations, Rabbi Tzintz discusses the testimony of the mother of one of the victims, who dreamed that her son had drowned, and also saw a number of details that identified his possessions.
Rabbi Tzintz writes that although dreams cannot generally be relied on, in this case there is room to give a degree of halachic credence to the dream. The reason for this is that the level of testimony required for permitting a woman to marry when a boat is shipwrecked on the high seas is less than the required level of testimony for other matters (such as monetary cases). Because the required level of testimony is lower, even the testimony of a dream can be accepted.
In a different case, Rabbi Tzedakah Chutzin (Shut Tzedakah U-Mishpat, Even Ha-Ezer 48) writes that the revelation of a dream cannot be relied on to permit a woman to marry, where nothing is known of the man in question.
This second case is different from the case above, because in a known case of shipwreck, the chances that the person who drowned is alive are slim, and Chazal were therefore more lenient in the required level of testimony.
Relocating a Grave to the Land of Israel
Shut Chelkas Yaakov (Rabbi Mordechai Breisch, Yoreh De’ah 206) discusses the question of somebody who saw a recently deceased relative in his dream, the latter asking him to transfer his remains to the Land of Israel. Initially, the dreamer paid no attention to the dream, but after the dream repeated itself time and again, he became alarmed, and consulted Rabbi Breisch concerning his obligations.
Rabbi Breisch replies that there is certainly no prohibition against relocating the grave to the Land of Israel, for it is a great merit for a person to be buried in the Holy Land. However, with regard to an obligation to relocate the grave, he writes that because doing so involves financial expense, the dream cannot be the foundation for an obligation. This ruling is based on the distinction made by the Tashbatz, which states that dreams have no halachic impact concerning monetary matters.
It is noteworthy that Rabbi Breisch, though ruling that there is no obligation to follow the instructions given in the dream, notes that it might nonetheless be advisable to follow the instructions. He bases this assertion on a story mentioned in Sefer Chasidim (no. 727), where a person’s refusal to heed instructions given in a dream brought him to the point of physical danger. Only when the instructions, which were issued by a deceased individual in a dream, were carried out, did the person in question recover.
The Burial of Rabbi Mordechai Benet
The question of relocating graves based on revelations in dreams is sharpened when the relocation does not involve a move to the Land of Israel. In principle, it is forbidden to relocate a person’s remains, unless there is a special reason for doing so. Can a revelation in a dream overcome this prohibition?
A famous case in which a dream was of central importance was of the renowned Rabbi Mordechai Benet, the Rabbi of Nikolsberg. He died and was buried in Lichtenstadt, where he had been visiting. The citizens of Nikolsberg demanded that his remains be brought to their cemetery, where he had officiated for many years as rabbi and where his family was buried. The residents of Lichtenstadt, however, claimed that it was forbidden to relocate his remains, and they must remain in their place of burial.
The Chasam Sofer, one of three rabbonim to whom the question of what to do was addressed, initially ruled that, out of doubt, the remains should not be touched. Later, however, he changed his mind, and the remains were relocated to a burial plot in Nikolsberg.
The Chasam Sofer’s son, the Kesav Sofer, revealed the reason for his father’s change of heart: Rabbi Benet had appeared to him in a dream, and instructed him to exhume his body and bury it in Nikolsberg. As a young man, he had broken an engagement with a girl from Lichtenstadt, which had caused the girl much distress. In order to atone for this, a half-year period of burial in Lichtenstadt was required. Now, however, the time was up, and his remains could be returned to their proper burial place.
In a different case, Rabbi David Sperber (Shut Afraksasa De-Eina, Yoreh De’ah 147) ruled, for a quite different reason, that instructions given in a dream could be relied on for exhuming a person’s remains and reburying them. A certain lady’s son had died and, following his death, he regularly appeared to his mother in her dreams, demanding that his body be relocated. The demand was accompanied by a sinister threat: If she would not comply, he would strangle her.
Rabbi Sperber replied that beis din should send ten men to the grave and ask forgiveness as well as command the deceased to cease harassing his mother. However, if this fails, since the dread she experiences itself can be dangerous, it is correct to follow the instructions of the dream and relocate the remains.
Vows and Oaths
An additional question that is raised in connection with dreams is vows and oaths: Does a person who makes a vow or oath in his dream need to take any action to release himself from them, or can he simply ignore the dream? This question involves a dispute of rishonim, and on a practical level the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 210:2) rules that a person must seek release from the vow (by the process of hatarah). The Shach (5) adds that this is the common custom.
The particular halachic impact of a vow or oath that was dreamt can be explained by the potential danger associated with vows. The Gemara teaches, “On account of the sin of vows children die” (Shabbos 32b), and perhaps this is the reason why vows—even those in dreams—carry special stringency.
The Chasam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah 222) offers an alternative explanation, based on the assumption that a person usually dreams about events that actually occurred during the day. Dreaming about vows raises the suspicion that the dreamer actually made a vow or oath during the day and forgot about it. Therefore, out of concern that a vow was made, a person should seek halachic release.
Poskim likewise rule that somebody who makes a vow in his dream to fulfill a particular mitzvah, such as giving charity, must fulfill the vow (Shut Chaim Be-Yad 52; Shut Mishnah Halachos 5:160). However, somebody who makes a vow, in his dream to do something that is prohibited (such as fasting on Shabbos), should not take it seriously: “Surely he will not be instructed to transgress the Torah, and this vow has no substance” (Shut Divrei Malkiel, Vol. 2, no. 72).
Fasting for a Dream
Somebody who has a bad dream, and is concerned about the ill tidings that the dream bodes, can go some way to avert the potential decrees by fasting. The fast should be accompanied by repentance and by giving charity, as well as Torah study and prayer (Mishnah Berurah 288:7).
It should be noted that the fast is not obligatory (see Shut Ha-Rashba no. 132), and if the person is not concerned about the dream and considers it nonsense, he does not have to fast (Shulchan Aruch Harav 288:7). This is especially true today, when dreams have less import than in earlier generations.
The fast is observed the day following the dream. In the event that the person is very distressed by the dream, he may fast on that day even if it is Shabbos or Yom Tov—though according to one opinion cited by the Shulchan Aruch (288:5) it is only permitted to fast for certain dreams. Somebody who fasts on Shabbos must fast again, on another day, to atone for having fasted on the holy day.
If one had a bad dream in the course of a daytime nap, and wishes to fast, he should do so from the moment he arises for the following twelve hours (Shulchan Aruch 288:4).
It should be noted that fasting for bad dreams is rare, in particular today, when the great majority of dreams can be safely assumed to be nonsense.
Hatavas Chalom
Another way of transforming a possible bad decree implied by a dream is to perform a ceremony called hatavas chalom (“making a dream good”) on the day following the dream. The principle behind the ceremony is that the fulfillment of dreams depends, to a large degree, on their human interpretation. The positive interpretation in the ceremony therefore has the power to influence the dream’s realization (based on Berachos 55b).
The ceremony calls for the one who dreamed to go to three friends, and recite various verses and prayers responsively (Berachos 55; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 220). The prayer is printed in various siddurim.
If somebody had a disturbing dream but does not remember its details, he can transform the dream during the Priestly Blessing, by saying the following: “O Strong One on high, who dwells in might: You are Peace, and Your Name is peace. May it be Your will that You should place peace upon us” (Berachos 55b). A slightly longer version is found in most siddurim.
In Israel, (See Orach Chaim siman 130) where the kohanim recite the blessing on a daily basis, this prayer can be recited on the morning immediately following a bad dream which he cannot recall. One should finish the prayer together with the kohanim’s blessing, so that the final amen of the congregation is in response also to his prayer. If one lives outside of Israel, where the kohanim only recite the blessing on the holidays, the prayer can be recited when the chazzan says the words of sim shalom during the repetition of the Amidah.
An extended prayer is recited while the kohanim sing during their blessing on Yom Tov. It is customary for everybody to recite this prayer, for we presume that from one Yom Tov to the next everyone probably had a bad dream which they forgot.
Conclusion
We have seen a number of different ways in which halachah relates to dreams. It is clear that both the words of Chazal, and the words of later authorities, reveal a complex relationship to dreams. On the one hand, dreams certainly do not possess concrete halachic authority. On the other hand, in numerous questions poskim, based on precedents found in Chazal, do give certain halachic weight to dreams.
[1]
Note, however, that the simple interpretation of the words is that the diviners “speak dreams that are false.” See also below.
[2]
Or “the Master of Dreams,” representing a personification of the dream.
[3] The “Second Tithe.” Maaser sheini can be redeemed onto money, which is then taken to Jerusalem, and used to purchase food which must be consumed therein.
[4] This is not similar to the case in Sanhedrin concerning whom the money belongs to. Though dependent on factual clarification, the question of to whom the money belongs is a concrete halachic question that requires resolution. The question of the fish, however, is a general factual question of whether the fish possesses fins and scales, and although the question has specific ramifications, it is possible that this will not be considered a halachic ruling beyond the scope of dreams.
[5] For more sources on this matter, see the introduction of Rabbi Reuven Margalios to Shut Min Ha-Shamayim, pp. 6-13. See also Shut Ha-Tashbatz, Vol. 2, no. 159, who relies on a dream for deciding a halachic question. This is in line with the distinction made by the Tashbatz between monetary matters on the one hand, and general prohibitions on the other (cited previously). See also Mahari Asad, Orach Chaim 220, who draws a distinction between a ruling for an individual (for which dreams are not a reliable source), and a ruling for the general congregation.
