The Talmud's Dream Interpretation Manual

Dreams occupied a unique space in Jewish tradition—neither fully trusted nor fully dismissed, they hovered between divine communication and meaningless noise. The Talmud devotes extensive passages in tractate Berakhot (55a-57b) to dream interpretation, and medieval Jewish authorities took these discussions with profound seriousness. SAFE0 Trachtenberg showed how an elaborate dream culture flourished in medieval Ashkenazi life, complete with interpretation manuals, protective rituals, and even a formal prayer to neutralize bad dreams.

The central question was always: where do dreams come from? The Talmud offered multiple answers. Some dreams are divine messages delivered by angels. Some are demonic deceptions. Some are simply the residue of daytime thoughts. Hai Gaon, the 11th-century Babylonian authority, acknowledged the tradition that each person has a personal "genius of dreams"—an angel who appears as an old man to one person, a youth to another—though he admitted he had never personally encountered such a being. Simon Duran (d. 1444) went further, defending dreams as reliable even in scientific matters, noting that the physicians Galen and Ibn Zohr had solved medical problems through dream-visions.

The timing of a dream mattered enormously. Dreams in the early hours of the night were considered unreliable, influenced by digestion and bodily humors. Dreams near dawn carried greater authority—the soul, having rested, was more receptive to genuine messages. The Sefer Hasidim and Hochmat HaNefesh (the vital soul) both discuss these timing distinctions in detail.

Meir of Rothenburg, the great 13th-century Ashkenazi authority, was renowned as an expert dream interpreter. The tradition of seeking divine guidance through dreams reached its most remarkable expression in the She'elot U'teshuvot Min HaShamayim (Responsa from Heaven)—a collection of halakhic questions supposedly answered through dreams, attributed to SAFE0 of Marvège (12th century). The work was controversial but influential, suggesting that heaven could deliver legal rulings while a rabbi slept.

Bad dreams required ritual action. The Talmud prescribed a dream-annulment ceremony (<i>hatavat halom</i>) performed before a panel of ten men, in which the dreamer declared the dream good and the panel affirmed it three times. Fasting after a bad dream was standard practice—the codes permitted fasting even on Shabbat (the Sabbath) for this purpose, a remarkable exception that revealed how seriously the tradition took the threat of an evil dream.

Judaica, 20; Nishmat Hayim, Introd.; see 7E, IV, 654 ff. and A. Kristianpoller, “Traum und Traumdeutung,” Monumenta Talmudica, IV, for the Biblical and Talmudic data on dreams; Bischoff, 63 ff., 158 ff.

Introd. to Krakau ed. of She’elot Uteshubot min HaShamayim (see also Shelah, II, 2014) ; ibid., Livorno 1818 and Krakau 1895; HB, XIV (1874), 131; Malter, Dreams, 201-2; Giid. I, 81, n. 5; Léwinger, Der Traum, 20; Simon Duran (d. 1444) defended at length the reliability of dreams even in questions of strict science, as medicine and mathematics. Many questions in the science of medi- cine, he asserted, have been solved in dreams by the famous physicians Galen, Ibn Zohr, and others (Malter, op. cit., 203) ; cf. also Isidore Epstein, The Re- sponsa of Rabbi Simon b. Zemah Duran, London 1930, 23 f., 39, 99.

310 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

by ten men is found in the Talmud, Ned. 8a; cf. Leket Yosher, Il, 80; Pitron Halomot, III, 3, p. 101; Léwinger, 34. The same provision affecting a dream vow was ascribed to the Geonim: Kol Bo, 109d; Yore Deah, 210:2.

Pitron Halomot, Introd., p. 3, and I, 2, pp. 14 ff.; cf. also S. Has. 634, 1522, etc.; Nishmat Hayim, IIl, 5.

op. cit., 8, for a similar opinion of Saadia. The spiritus theory of dreams was popular in Europe, cf. Thorndike, II, 298.

Responsa of Hayim b. Isaac Or Zarua, §164; Lowinger, op. cit., 20; Ma‘aseh Book, Il, 517, cf. Shab. 152a, b; Ta‘anit 24b; S. Has. 591, etc.

4a-b, 6b; Orhot Zadikim, 63a; cf. Hai Gaon’s remark (Ta‘am Zekenim, 58): “Concerning what you have said, that every man has his own genius of dreams who appears as an old man to one, as a youth to another, we have heard that this is so, but we have not ourself beheld such an apparition, nor have we spoken with anyone who has.”

Similar explanations of the causes of dreams are to be found in medieval Christian works; see Thorndike, II, 412, where the theories of Bartholomew of England (13th century) are given; he believed that dreams are produced by divine inspira- tion, by angelic administration, by diabolic illusion, or by natural and bodily causes. See also Lowinger, op. cit., 8, and Pitron Halamot, I, 1:1, pp. 6-7, for slightly different analyses of the causes of dreams, and Thorndike, I, 358, for the view of Philo Judzus.

Ancienne Altération de Texte dans le Talmud,” REF, XXVII [1893], 141 ff.), Ber. 55a; S. Has. 1189, 1522; Mah. Vit., 48.

HaShamayim, §22; S. Has. 389; B 440. According to Tyrnau, Minhagim, 22a, §133, Meir of Rothenburg was “expert in interpreting dreams.”

buch Daniels und die Oneirokritische Litteratur des Mittelalters,’ Serapeum, XXIV (1863), 193-201, 209-16; FE, I, 433; Pitron Halomot, Introd. to Part IT, p. 56.

for Christian parallels see De Givry, 324; Thorndike, II, 290 ff., IV, 303, etc.; Grimm, II, 958 f.

cf. S. Has. 180, 1550, 1563, etc.

Hochmat HaNefesh, \oc. cit.; HaHayim, II, 6; as to the determination of the reliability of dreams according to the time of night, see Ber. 55b; S. Has. 390, 958; Hochmat HaNefesh, 4b; Loéwinger, op. cit., 8-9; Thorndike, II, 330, III, pee 18. I Sam. 28:6; Léwinger, op. cit., 22; Ta‘am Zekenim, 57-8 and Introd. to Krakau ed. of She’elot Uteshubot min HaShamayim, p. 3;— S. Has. 211, 80; Giid. I, 207, n. 4; She’elot, etc., 89; Maharil, 63b; cf. also S. Has. B 949; A. Neu- bauer, REF, XII (1886), 92.

NOTES BII

§90; Yore Deah, 179:14; S. Has. 324; Grimm, III, 425, ll. 237 ff.

153; She’elot, etc., $5, 3, etc.; Shimmush Tehillim, passim; ms. S. Gematriaot, 68a, 75a; Nishmat Hayim, III, 6; Lowinger, op. cit., 23 f.

MGV, V (1900), 82; Raziel, 40a-b; ibid., 33b, 40a, 3a-b; cf. also Grunwald M7FV, XIX (1906), 106, 108.

401; Kizur Shelah, Inyane Shabbat, p. 130; see also S. Has. 1522.

original).

429:2; Leket Yosher, I, 41, 42; S. Has. 1521; cf. also Tashbez, 3; Raben, 179; S. Has. 281; Orah Hayim 220:2; 7E, V, 348; Lowinger, op. cit., 32 f.

15a, 32a; Leket Yosher, I, 41; Mateh Moshe, 760; foseph Omez, 944, p. 210; Shelah, II, p. 7b (Mas. Shabbat) ; cf. Orah Hayim 288:5; S. Has. 1776.

Leket Yosher, I, 42, 104, 124; Tyrnau, Minhagim, 23a, 25b, 32a; Orah Hayim 288: 4, 418:1, 5, 597:3; cf. S. Has. 281, 287.

the three-fold repetition attributed to R. Isaac, which is also found in Tos. Ber. 55a and Mah. Vit. 48; Leket Yosher I, 24, 42; Toledot Adam veHavah 13:2, p. 83c; Pitron Halomot, III, 2:1, pp. 93-5; cf. also Mateh Moshe, 368.