Parshat Miketz

MIKETZ: Inspired Dreams and Prophetic Insights

Decoding dreams and destiny
This parashah opens by continuing a pattern of events in which God manipulates Yosef's
destiny by means of mysterious dreams. Initially it was Yosef himself who was presented
with two dreams which indicated his future rise to authority over his brothers and even his
father. Then, in Egypt, Pharaoh’s servants and eventually Pharaoh himself were troubled by
dreams which only Yosef could interpret. What exactly is the nature of these dreams, and
how are they to be distinguished from standard prophecy?
It appears from various commentaries1 that there are three distinct categories of dreams. First
there are regular 'frivolous' dreams, which are a synthesis of the mind's images and ideas
drawn from the dreamer’s previous conscious states. Then there are 'chalomot tzodekot',
meaningful dreams such as those which were divinely inspired in Yosef's story. Finally,
there are dreams that contain prophecy and which are treated as an entirely different order of
experience.
In his Or Hachaim commentary, R’ Chaim ibn Attar 2 explains that a 'meaningful dream',
which is indicated in the Torah by use of the word "vehineh" (“and look!”), consists of an
extremely vivid and lucid dream-experience. In addition, it must be unambiguously clear to
this dreamer that there exists a deeper, hidden meaning which he will instantly recognise as
correct the moment it is presented to him. This mechanism of instant recognition is seen in
the responses of Pharaoh and his servants to Yosef's proposed interpretations in our parashah,
and even more dramatically by Nebuchadnezzar's reaction when Daniel first related the
content of the dream to him and then proceeded to interpret it. 3 In both of these cases the
dreamer, profoundly disturbed by his experience, enthusiastically embraces the correct
resolution as soon as it is offered.
The deluded and the divine
This distinction between frivolous and meaningful dreams is highlighted in the fascinating
explanation by R’ Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (the ‘Netziv’) of the behaviour of Yosef's
brothers in response to his dreams in an earlier parashah.4 The brothers initially respond with
hatred to what they assume to be 'frivolous’ dreams, reflections of the delusions of grandeur
which they believed Yosef to have been harbouring during his waking hours. However, their
father Ya'akov takes the dreams seriously: an indication that they are divinely inspired. At
this point the brothers’ hatred (“vayisne’u”) gives way to jealousy ("vayekanu") as they are
forced to concede Yosef's superiority but nonetheless struggle to come to terms with it.
A greater challenge is posed by the need to understand the differences between divinely-
inspired dreams and genuine prophecy. In an extensive analysis which spans a full 11
chapters of his Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam5 renders an account of the nature of divine
inspiration and revelation, focusing on the differing roles of the mind and soul. He makes a
crucial distinction between the 'dimyon' (imagination) and the 'sechel' (intellect):6 the
1
For example those of Ramban, Rabbeinu Bachye and R’ Chaim ibn Attar (the Or Hachaim).
2
Or Hachaim, Vayetzei, 28:12.
3
Daniel, Chapter 2
4
Ha’amek Davar, start of parashat Vayeshev.
5
Moreh Nevuchim 2:35-45.
6
This distinction is also adopted by Radak (Yirmiyah 23:28) in his explanation of Yirmiyah’s statement that the
difference between dreams and prophecy is comparable to the difference between “chaff and kernel”. Radak
explains that chaff, which is animal fodder, refers to the fact that dreams emanate from the lower ‘animal’
neshama of the dimyon. The kernel however, which is utilised by humans, refers to the fact the prophecy

1
Parshat Miketz

imagination is part of the 'lower neshamah' which governs a person's interactions with the
physical world, while the intellect is the 'tzelem Elokim' — the Godly component through
which human comprehension can transcend the physical world.
The special dreams which feature throughout Yosef's story are divinely-inspired experiences,
emerging primarily from the imagination rather than from the pure intellect. Not only does
divine inspiration provide and influence the details of such an experience; it also creates a
feeling of certainty that the dream is 'true' and requires an explanation 7 (it would seem though
that deciphering the message of the dream lies within the purview of the intellect, which is
why the dreamer requires someone endowed with ruach hakodesh or prophecy to interpret it
for him.)
Rambam and the realm of the imagination
In his commentary on the Torah R' Bachye8 writes that, since a divinely-inspired dream is not
in itself an authentic prophetic experience, it may be visited not only on prophets but can be
received even by children or the wicked. This would appear to be consistent with Rambam's
rule that genuine prophecy can only be experienced by bearers of a strongly developed
intellect and good character (this requirement is discussed below). However, since these
divinely-inspired dreams — unlike prophecy -—are located in the realm of the imagination
rather than the intellect, we can understand why a developed intellect should not be a
precondition for receiving them.
Rambam’s stipulation of this rule, that prophecy can only be received by those with a
strongly developed intellect and good character, requires him to explain that God's
communications to unrighteous recipients such as Lavan and Avimelech were not genuine
experiences of enhanced prophetic understanding. Rather, they were merely the product of a
'bat kol', a personal message delivered within a specific context. Support for this is derived
from the early Torah translator and exegete Onkelos, who renders these events in his Aramaic
version of the text as "words came to him from before God" rather than "God spoke/revealed
Himself to him", his preferred term for referring to genuine prophecy.9 An important
ramification of this distinction is that these divinely-inspired dreams and communications
should be regarded as belonging to the broader category of Divine Providence (discussed
elsewhere10) rather than to the specific phenomenon of prophecy.
To summarise Rambam’s position: genuine prophecy is experienced primarily by the
intellect, providing a profound insight into God's truths and how they relate to His running of
the world. Since God has no physicality, nothing experienced (or imagined to have been
experienced) through the medium of any of the five physical senses can constitute a genuine
'Godly experience'. Rambam describes instead how a person who has developed his intellect
and character becomes a receptacle into which God‘s 'shefa Eloki' (divine overflow) can be
directed.11 By receiving this shefa, the prophet transcends the limitations of the human

belongs to the function of the uniquely human sechel. See also Ralbag, Milchamot Hashem 2:6.
7
Rambam, in his Introduction to Perek Chelek (section 3) states regarding the aggadic passages of Gemara that
some are to be understood literally, some are allegorical and others were experienced as dreams by the great
sages. It may well be that he intended this special category of meaningful dreams.
8
Basing himself on Baba Batra 12a.
9
The great importance placed by Rambam on the translation and commentary of Onkelos is discussed in our
first essay on parashat Beha’alotecha.
10
See our second essay on parashat Vayeshev.
11
Rambam’s understanding of prophecy as a quasi-natural result of the perfection of a person’s intellect and
character traits is much discussed. We simply add that a significant proportion of biblical prophecies, like
biblical miracles, bear strong hallmarks of Divine intervention in the national fate of the Jewish people. The

2
Parshat Miketz

intellect and gains Godly knowledge. In most prophecies recorded in Tanach, this knowledge
relates to God's attitude towards specific events and religious or political aspects of the world,
and the prophet becomes aware of a correct course of action. Absorption of this Godly
knowledge can also allow the prophet knowledge12 of the future, since God's knowledge is
not bound by time.13 Even where the imagination is engaged in a prophecy through the
receipt of prophetic visions, this is merely to assist the prophet's understanding of the truth or
message: thus the explanation of the vision is always the primary component of the prophecy
(in contrast to non-prophetic dreams, the explanation of which must be sought subsequently
from a prophet or scholar).
Prophecy and intellectual perception
Moshe, who reached the greatest possible level of prophecy, was able to perceive God's
message purely with his intellect without any assistance from the 'dimyon'. His prophecy
therefore had the clarity of "peh el peh"14 rather than being transmitted through the medium
of a dream or vision as with the other prophets.15
Moshe's unique level meant that his prophecy could be experienced while he was fully
conscious. Regular prophets, who required the assistance of their imagination, could only
prophesy through a dream or trance so that all of their conscious senses would be suspended.
This ensured that their senses could not interfere with the data which the intellect was
imprinting on the imagination in the course of the prophecy. Since Moshe was able to receive
a clear intellectual perception of God without the assistance of his imagination or physical
senses, his continuing consciousness in no way impeded his ability to prophesy.
To summarise, we are taught16 that dreams are "one-sixtieth of prophecy", a statement which
implies that there is some basis for comparison between the two. As seen in our parashah, a
dream can be the result of God having inspired and manipulated the imagination, troubling
the bearer to seek a man of God with the insight to interpret it. Prophecy is also divinely
inspired, but an experience which primarily involves the intellect. While the delivery of
inspired dreams can be a useful way for God to intervene in the affairs of mankind and to
further His objectives in this world, prophecy represents the pinnacle of human aspiration, a
highly-developed intellect perceiving divine truths.

complex topic of hashgachah (divine providence) within Rambam’s worldview is discussed at length in our
second essay on parashat Vayeshev.
12
On which see n 5 above.
13
See our second essay on parashat Vayeshev. The fact that prophecy can grant the prophet knowledge of
hidden and future matters (this is a major theme of Yeshaya Chapter 48 as well as Moreh Nevuchim 2:38), as
well as Rambam’s assertion that access to prophecy is controlled by God, indicate that, even within Rambam’s
worldview, it is not merely a natural result of personal perfection. See our endnote for further discussion.
14
For a fuller discussion of “peh el peh” see our discussion in parashat Vezot Haberachah.
15
Bemidbar 12:6-8. See further Chapter seven of Shemonah Perakim and in our chapter on Vezot Haberachah.
16
Berachot 57b.

3
Parshat Miketz

ENDNOTE
Rambam: the Prophet is mightier than the Philosopher
Rambam’s assertion that prophecy can grant a person access to knowledge of hidden and
future matters is of great significance in the broader debate as to how he balanced conflicting
conclusions from Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition. The Greek philosophers, as
explained by Rambam,17 viewed prophecy as a fully natural process, through which people
with a perfected intellect can connect and receive an overflow from a Higher Intellect.
There are several ways in which Rambam departs from this purely natural theory of
prophecy. First, Rambam states that the process of receiving prophecy is not fully natural: a
person can be suitably prepared and developed yet God can withhold prophecy from him 18. In
addition, Rambam also understands that the content of prophecy transcends the standard
intellectual comprehension of philosophical truths:
“Know that the true prophets can certainly grasp speculative matters, which, through
speculation alone, man is unable to comprehend the causes from which this
knowledge is generated. This has a counterpart in their giving information regarding
matters with respect to which man, using only common conjecture and divination, is
unable to give information.”19
This advantage held by the prophet over the philosopher applies not only to the extended
scope of prophetic knowledge to hidden and future matters,20 but also to the manner in which
it is comprehended. Whereas the philosopher employs standard methodologies of
experimentation and analysis, the prophet apprehends these truths intuitively and
immediately, in a non-inferential manner.
Rambam’s efforts to distinguish his religious conception of prophecy from the natural
phenomenon of the Greek philosophers in these areas appears to support the position 21 of
those who argue that Rambam, while working within a conceptual framework of Greek
philosophy, subordinated its rational conclusions to the revealed teachings of Judaism
whenever the two conflicted.

17
Moreh Nevuchim 2:32.
18
At 2:32. Rambam draws biblical support for this assertion from the specific case of Yirmiyah’s disciple,
Baruch ben Neriah, whose prophecy was withheld even though he had undergone the necessary preparations
(Yirmiyah, chapter 45). Rambam then applies the principle more broadly based on a verse in Eicha (2:9) that
prophecy was generally to be withheld in exile (although the exile also gradually created conditions which
prevented prophets from achieving the pre-conditions for receiving prophecy: 2:36).
19
2:38 and Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:1. A major theme of Micah Goodman’s Maimonides and the Book That
Changed Judaism is the assertion that Rambam lacked decisive proofs for key theological propositions. These
propositions however were all known and understood by the prophets. One prominent example of this may be
regarding Creation of the world. See further our second essay on parashat Vayeshev.
20
See footnote 13 above and the main text discussion to which it refers.
21
See our second essay on parashat Bereishit and our final essay on parashat Ha’azinu..