Thanks Dale for alerting me to this lecture. I believe Rabbi Fohrman is correct in pointing out subliminal messages that were probably at play in Pharoah’s dreams that possibly helped Yosef interpret their meanings. Man is composed of conscious and sub-conscious states of mind. Our intuition draws upon the subconscious to help us understand issues or situations that arise. Given that Yosef’s interpretations appear to have come to fruition, one can possibly conclude that Pharoah’s dreams were prophetic ones and that G-d was instrumental in helping Yosef interpret these dreams in ways that were meaningful to Pharoah. By the same token, Pharoah and Yosef were connected through these dreams and through their future relationship in significant ways. Yosef’s life embodied the spiritual lessons that Pharoah had to learn, just as Pharoah’s lessons were to become significant to Yosef later when he was placed in a position of leadership.

Through the use of parallelisms and chiasms, the Torah appears to be referencing itself all the time. Whereby the first part of the dream – cows – could be seen to reference the Rochel/Leah relationship – in particular as it impacted upon Yaacov – and time (as R’ Fohrman pointed out), the second dream re: ears of corn – seems to be referencing a number of other incidences.

This second dream is chiasmically structured (both the original and Pharoah’s version of it) with an identifical centre: “blasted with the east wind (kadim) sprouting forth after them” (41:23). This centre is framed by the thin, withered ears of corn. The word for withered is dakot. In 12:8 we are informed that Avraham settled in the Eastern Mountain (hahar mi’kedem). Immediately after that we are informed that there is a famine in the land and Avraham goes down to Egypt. He encounters there another Pharoah who asserts his authority over Sarai (abuse of power). After leaving Egypt, we are told he returns to this same land which is between Beth El and Ai. Here we have a parallelism that connects the east wind of the dream directly with a famine and a descent into Egypt. Based upon the wording used in conversation among the key characters in the Torah, I believe, there is reason to assume that they are also referencing the Torah. A second place where the word “east” appears is in reference to Yaacov . We are told that: “Yaacov picked up his legs and went to the land of the children of the East.” – to Charan. It is there that he sees Rochel for the first time and then reveals his prowess by single-handedly picking up the rock that is covering the well.

From the first parallelism, we can perhaps make an assumption that Yosef derived from it his understanding that the dreams predicted the coming of a famine. From the second parallelism, we pick up on a major theme that permeates these dreams and that is self-empowerment (or its lack). There are other places, as well, where kedem appears (e.g. Lot, after leaving Avraham, heads towards the east to settle in Sodom. Reference is made there, as well, to Egypt. The text is implying that Lot’s choice of Sodom is directly connected with Egypt’s fertile basin.)

Another parallelism appears to be indicated by the word dakot (thin). I believe there is only one other place where this word is used in Sefer Bereishis and that is in reference to a name -- Diklah (10:27) which shares the same root. Diklah was the son of Yaktan. Yaktan and Peleg were brothers and they were both the sons of Eber. Yaktan had 13 sons of whom Diklah was the 7th. In contrast, Peleg had only one son Reu, but his claim to fame was that he was the direct ancestor of Avraham. In fact from Reu’s son until Yosef we have 7 generations. Getting back to Diklah, in reference to Yaktan, his having begot 13 sons was distinguished by framing their names with the information that these were the sons of Yaktan. (10:29) The Torah doesn’t do that with any other individual mentioned in this genealogical section including Canaan who also fathered many children. In addition, we are informed that the sons of Yaktan and Peleg lived “from Mesha as you go towards Sephir, onto the mountain of the east (har ha’kedem).” (10:30) We have here a reference to the East that appears to be connected with the issue of fertility (Yaktan’s).

Dreams are usually the property of the dreamer. When one attempts to interpret someone else’s dream, it is best to keep this in mind. Even if you yourself become a character in another person’s dream, the dream is ultimately not about you, but about the psychology of the dreamer; it is what you signify to him/her within the context of the dream that matters, not what this means about you.

In order to try to understand Pharoah’s dreams it is important to understand that these are essentially power dreams as one would expect the dreams of a Pharoah would be. There is textual reason to assume that Pharoah identified with the first set of cows that are grazing by the river. E.g. Both he and them are standing by the river shore. Also, contained within the name Pharoah is par (cows). As well, Pharoah, in reinterpreting these dreams to Yosef, makes reference to his not having seen “like them in all the land of Egypt.” (41:19). In this way we can see that Pharoah is deeply concerned about himself and about Egypt – probably his position within Egypt.

Why did Pharoah dream these dreams? Because Yosef was able to accurately interpret them, we can assume that they were dreams sent to him by G-d. But, other than to further the story line and to bring Yosef into a position of power, does the Torah suggest any other reasons for them? I believe it does. We are told that these dreams took place “at the end of two full years” (41:1). Two full years from when? -- from when Yosef correctly interpreted the butler’s and the baker’s dreams. There are other parallelisms between these two sets of dreams. For instance, the butler is the one who informs Pharoah about Yosef. He does so by stating: “My sins I mention this day. Pharoah was angered with his servants and put me into the ward of the house … and the chief baker. And we dreamed a dream in one night…” (41: 9-11) which makes reference to the fact that Pharoah had him incarcerated. (Note the emphasis on Pharoah having him incarcerated.) Pharoah also uses the exact same words in asking Yosef for his interpretation of them “I have dreamed a dream and there is none that can interpret it.” (41:15) as did the butler and the baker (40:8). Of course, Yosef being the interpreter obviously connects the two as well.

In this way we are given a great deal of information regarding the purpose why G-d sent these dreams to Pharoah. It would appear that Pharoah’s relationship with his subjects/ underlings – as represented by the baker and the butler – is being called into question. What precisely did the baker do to warrant being killed? We are not told -- but, there is a presumption that whatever he did was not worthy of death. Still, Pharoah had him killed. It is this attitude that must be corrected: in order for Pharoah to continue to govern, he must not continue to abuse his position. Mirroring this, Yosef’s narrative up to that point reflects precisely this kind of abuse. He is thrown into a prison/pit and denied his freedom at the say-so of one power individual, as did his brothers prior to that.

The dreams represented not only a personal warning to Pharoah, but a warning regarding Pharoah’s responsibilities to his people (all his subjects) and to those residing in other countries. Let’s examine the second dream. Ears of corn are valued both for their ability to provide bread (life), but also for their seed. In this regard they represent fertility and the future. (Note as well the birthing/creation symbolism and parallelisms – e.g. these dreams also took place on Pharoah’s birthday). Hence, we also begin to understand the Yaktan parallelism. Through these dreams, G-d alerted Pharoah to what was lacking or abusive in his relationship with his subjects, and warned him that unless he changed, disaster would not only befall him but all the people of the region – all of whom were to become dependent on Egypt’s fertile basin for survival.

Contained within the second dream was information informing him that all was not yet lost. When Pharoah awoke, he became conscious of what was at stake. After Yosef’s interpretation, he relinquished his power to Yosef who was not only a slave, but a hated foreigner as well.

My brother offered an interpretation of Pharoah’s dreams that I believe has a great deal of merit. He noticed that after recounting the cows dream, Pharoah states: “And when they went into them, it could not be known that they had gone into them; and their appearance was bad as at the beginning. So I awoke.” (41:21) At the conclusion of the second dream, he doesn’t add this information. My brother suggests that the issue of Pharoah’s waking at the conclusion of the first dream becomes a significant factor in determining the dreams’ meanings. They seem to be indicating two different scenarios. In the first (cows) there will be complete disaster. But, if Pharoah wakes up and does something about this, then this disaster can be averted (as symbolized by the second dream). This would suggest another reason why Pharoah found it necessary to give absolute control and power over to Yosef. According to the dreams -- in order for Pharoah to save himself and Egypt, it was absolutely necessary for Yosef to become Pharoah’s surrogate, not merely a lowly Minister of Agriculture. In this sense, both explanations play off one another.

The thin cows and the withered stalks of Pharaoh's dreams would suggest the idea of famine to any dream interpeter, but in order for Yosef to conclude that those dreams meant that a famine was actually going to hit Egypt, he would need corrobation. Machla thinks Yosef may have found some corroboration in the Kedem ("East") associations of the second dream's center: it is a famine that makes Avraham leave the Eastern Mountain and go to Egypt.

She also has an interesting hypothesis on why Pharaoh handed over so much power to Yosef: Pharaoh, as shown in his having the imprisoned baker killed (with little or no justification perhaps), was abusing his power, and needed to wake up, recognize that fact and cease (just as ominous happenings made the Pharaoh of Avraham's time realize ("wake up to the fact") that he was wrongly exercising his power in taking Sarai as wife).

It seems that Pharaoh does wake up and successfully stop exercising power abusively by simply transferring lots of power to Yosef who then, as if continuing Pharaoh's old ways, exercises that power abusively(?) in enslaving the vulnerable, starving Egyptians (Genesis 47:15-26; Is there some way to see Yosef's image or character as not being marred by his programs described here?).

------------------------
I wonder if Pharaoh's dreams were prepared by God with Yosef's interpretative methods and inclinations in mind so that Yosef needn't have had any reliable method of interpretation or any non-arbitrary way of deciding what associations would yield a true interpretation. By knowing what method Yosef would employ or what associations Yosef would eventually settle on as being the key, God could have delivered dreams to Pharaoh that would cause Yosef to arrive at an interpretation that happened to coincide with what God had in store for the world. A perfectly clueless Yosef could have blundered into the correct interpretations (thanks to God's "cooking up" the dreams so that, without any element of luck, Yosef will seem to be accurate in his interpretations.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 7/7/2010 @ 4:35 PM *

There are a lot of ways to interpret Yosef's subsequent actions. Did he abuse his position? I've read a theory that suggests that by accumulating the seeds and storing them, this act in itself was responsible for bringing on the famine. After all, if you don't replant these seeds, there will be no harvest. Textually, it would appear that Yosef indeed believed that his interpretation of Pharoah's dreams was accurate and that the region was going to be hit by famine and that action needed to be taken to make certain that an epic catastrophe didn't result. I'm basing this conclusion on what he said to his brothers -- alerting them to the upcoming 5 years of famine.

Regarding Yosef's relationship with the Egyptians -- arguments can be put forth to support both positions -- either he was their saviour or he was their abuser. The Egyptians, though, appear to favour the former position. "You have saved our lives. Let us find favour in the eyes of my lord, and we will be Pharoah's bondmen." 47:25. At this point, rather than enslave the people, he passed a statute that made it compulsory for a tax of one fifth of the land be given to Pharoah. It must be remembered that Pharoahs had absolute power over life and death, as well as property. An argument can possibly be made that Yosef was choosing to limit Pharoah's power at this point. If Yosef recognized these dreams for what they possibly were -- warnings against Pharoah's own abusive actions -- then I would assume that Yosef would not want to follow suite. His actions in regards to his brothers and their families -- taking care of them and not abusing them, would seem to confirm this kind of consciousness on his part -- that he had, indeed, integrated the lessons of the dreams.

-- The dreams themselves appear to be quite straightforward. We have cows that represent an agricultural society. In case we didn't quite get it, we also have ears of corn upon which the entire Egyptian economy depended. Both cows and corn are consumed by themselves. The river, as well, represented not only life, but the source of fertility upon which Egypt depended. The repetitions of the numbers 7 can certainly alert dream interpreters to time. Remember, the butler was already privy to Yosef's interpretation wherein numbers represented precisely this -- although in his case it was days rather than years. So, why were the other interpreters not able to determine an accurate interpretation?

My study-partner Gitel pointed out to me that it was very possible that they were, indeed, able to do that. But what stopped them from doing that? She suggested that it was because they were too frightened to do so. Again, as was apparent with what happened to the baker -- Pharoah's anger had led to the baker's death. In other words, kill the messenger. What Yosef did was preface his interpretation by claiming that it was not he who was doing the interpreting, but G-d. I'm not your messenger, so if you don't like the message - leave me out of it. But, moreover, he also read into the dreams a solution to the impending disaster. This is another element that might have distinguished his interpretations from the others and prevented them from being forthcoming.

-- Regarding G-d's methodology in preparing these dreams for Pharoah's and Yosef's consumption -- although I certainly cannot claim to understand G-d's thinking, I am though reminded of a chassidic story that conveys the Rebbe's perspective of how the spiritual structure works. Unfortunately, I don't remember which Rebbe was involved but it goes like this: Prior to the High Holy Days, this Rebbe was visiting a small community. As was the custom, many people came to speak with him to unload their problems and issues and to seek spiritual guidance and blessings. The Rebbe listened intently to each. At one point, an especially despicable individual approached him and the two were secluded for a particularly long period of time. After this individual left, the Rebbe locked the door and refused to come out. One chassid, the story goes, courageously opened the door and peeking inside witnessed the Rebbe in a state of deep grief. He was fasting, beating his chest and praying incessantly to G-d. After about 3 days, the Rebbe opened the door and appeared to be back to himself.

When he was asked what had happened to bring on this condition of mourning, he answered that this particular individual was informing him of acts that were so vile that on the surface they appeared to be way beyond the consciousness and understanding of the Rebbe. Yet, he understood that if G-d sent him this individual, there must be elements of those behaviours within himself -- elements of which he was not conscious. By fasting and praying, he believed, he was finally able to dig them out and confront them. By doing so, he was able to gain mastery over them, rather than have them gain mastery over him.

This story appears to suggest that whatever we experience through our senses are there as information to us regarding our own spiritual states of being -- lessons we must learn about ourselves in order to grow. In this regard, everything is a mirror that reflects back to us ourselves and what is of significance to us. If it were not of significance, we would not be privy to it. In this regard, everything we see, think, hear, etc. is consciousness- raising.

Similarly with dreams. Pharoah's dreams were personal to himself. They were gauged in language that was extremely meaningful to him, as we can see in regards to the way he chose to convey them to Yosef. But, similarly, they were meaningful to Yosef. As Rabbi Fohrman pointed out, they carried within them suggestions that were of a personal nature to him -- perhaps guiding him along. In examining these dreams a while back, I had noticed that the word "pater" (interpretation) occurs 7 times in these segments. What is perhaps being suggested was that it was all in the interpretation. Similarly, how are we choosing to interpret the messages that are being conveyed to us all the time? Is it consciousness-raising for us or are we being dismissive or blind? Are we connecting to our light side or to our dark?

I would hate to think that Yosef was clueless and blundering along -- I think that the dreamer put into intimate contact with the interpreter empowered the interpreter to read the messages accurately and the dreamer to know that these messages were true.

Can there be a method that interprets dreams as predictions which turn out to be true?

When it comes to interpreting dreams as predictions about what will what will happen in the world outside of our personal psychology, I don't see how any interpretation method can arrive at a true prediction unless --

1) it's by luck, or
2) God explicitly tells the interpreter how to proceed with the dream (in which case, as far as the interpreter's abilities are concerned, God might just as well announce the prediction in plain language), or
3) God takes into account the interpreter's inclinations (including any crazy or baseless scheme of interpretation that might be used) to devise a dream that will cause the interpreter to think up and settle on the prediction that God intended to convey, or
4) God takes the prediction I "derive" or invent from the dream and arranges for that prediction to come true.

So, faced with a dream that I think might be a prediction, I'm always going to be unsure about the truth of any interpretation I come up with. I don't think I'm going to be able to distinguish explicit instructions from God from some product of my vivid imagination, unless the instructions are delivered quite dramatically. And as for possibility 3, since I can always think of alternative predictive interpretations for a dream, with my ensuing vacillations and second-guessings I'm always going to be at a loss in trying to pick the one that God thought I would eventually settle on.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 3/10/2010 @ 3:33 PM *

It must indeed be very difficult to determine if a dream is a) prophetic and b) whether you are interpreting it correctly. These dreams that Pharoah and previously, the baker and butler had are unusual in that the text doesn't tell us that G-d sent these dreams to them. There are two other occasions when individuals had visitations from G-d through dreams (other than the Patriarchs) and that was Abimelech and Laban. On both occasions the Torah tells us straight out that this was happening. In neither of those occasions were these dreams prophetic. They were rather warnings to both parties that what they were doing or going to do would not be tolerated by G-d.

Here, we have dreams that are being interpreted to the interpreter. Pharoah is qualifying these dreams by conveying his own personal responses to them. Yosef was able to determine that they were prophetic dreams and not simply dreams that represented Pharoah's emotional or psychological frame of mind. How did he know that? Also, how did Pharoah know that these dreams were so significant?

In regards to Pharoah -- I'm only guessing -- but I'm assuming that these must have been dreams that were way out of the ordinary for him. Unlike the butler and the baker who were deeply concerned about their fate -- why should Pharoah have been so concerned? Therefore, these dreams must have literally come out of nowhere. And, moreso, they came on his birthday. They literally must have frightened him to the core.

Being Pharoah, as well, his reference to Egypt, appears to indicate that on some subliminal level, he connected the welfare of Egypt with these dreams.

So, how did Yosef know that they were prophetic? I had pointed out a while back an interpretation that I had read somewhere that suggested that his original dreams could possibly have alerted him to the prophetic nature of these kinds of dreams (e.g. the doubling, etc.) If we apply the same interpretive rules to Yosef's original dreams, we have the following. Dream #1: brothers' sheaves bowing to Yosef's sheave. How many sheaves are there? The assumption is either 10 or 11 -- 10 brothers or 11 brothers (does this include Binyamin's sheave?) Interestingly, there are no numbers given. Let's assume there are 11. So we have 11 X 1 (Yosef's sheave which is distinguished). 11 sheaves = 11 years. Dream #2: 11 stars plus 1 sun and 1 moon bowing to Yosef. The sun and the moon are larger than the stars and are thus distinguished. 11 X 2 (sun and moon) = 22. What happened 11 years after Yosef had those dreams? At the age of 28, the butler and baker's dreams came up. What happened 22 years after those original dreams? The brothers came down to Egypt (and he possibly brought the family down to Egypt as well). Could the baker's and butler's dreams have alerted Yosef to the fact that these kinds of dreams are prophetic ones and there is a specific methodology to interpreting them?

Once he determined that they were indeed prophetic, he possibly learned the methodology of their interpretation through these other dreams. Single items distinguished by amounts signify time -- and whether days or years are involved must be considered in context of the circumstances. His interpretations of the butler and baker's dreams had proven to be accurate. (I'm presuming that his interpretations were not directly responsible for their fates.) Also, the language used by Pharoah to convey the dreams appeared to be significant to both of them. There was not only one meaningful reference, but quite a number of them that were being conveyed to Yosef. Given the unusual circumstances of a Hebrew slave standing before Pharoah who was seeking his expertise -- that alone must have alerted him to the significance of the encounter and these dreams in regards to both Pharoah's and his fate.

Why didn't G-d just appear to Yosef and tell him that Pharoah was to have a dream and this is what it meant? Was Yosef up to having a G-dly visitation? I don't believe G-d appeared to Yosef at all, so I'm assuming there was a reason for this. If G-d chose not to appear to him via a dream, then how else could He choose to communicate with Yosef? It seems to me only through these kinds of inferences that were extremely meaningful to Yosef.

How does G-d choose to speak with any of us? What is the nature of inspiration? When are we certain that thoughts or ideas come from G-d or merely from a higher source within ourselves? Is it possible to be certain?
* Last updated by: machla on 3/17/2010 @ 8:28 AM *

A majestic dream, treated roughly

What is the meaning of Yaakov's dream of an angel commenting on parti-colored goats going up on the flock? (Gen. 31:10-13)
It seems to be assurance to Yaakov from God that the offspring of the flock's copulations will be parti-colored and so they will belong to Yaakov (rather than Laban). The angel delivers a message at the end of the dream -- "I am God of Bethel where you anointed a pillar and made a vow" --which points to the time and place of Yaakov's earlier dream about the stairway to heaven with angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:13-15) One thing that the majesty of the stairway dream does is distract us from the dim awareness that we don't know what that dream means. But, based on that allusion in the mating goats dream to the time and place of the stairway dream, I think there is going to be a connection between the two dreams, and possibly a connection so close that they give us another instance of a dream pair.

I wondered if the elements of the stairway dream's imagery were correlated with the parts of the Lord's message that followed the imagery. The message consisted of three parts:
(1) The ground you are now on will be given to you and your seed.
(2) You will have a great number of descendants.
(3) I am with you (wherever you go) and will not leave you.

What I noticed is that the verbal message interprets the imagery of the dream:
(1) The stairway is set on the ground.
(2) On the stairway which stretches off into the distant sky, angels are ascending and descending.
(3) The Lord stood beside Yaakov.

The correlations of the (1)'s and of the (3)'s are obvious, and the image of millions of angels correlates with the eventual millions of Yaakov's descendants. That leaves the stairway itself to be explained, as well as the angels' motions of ascending & descending.

The angels are ascendingand descending on the stairway. Notice that in the mating goats dream that the goats go up on (i.e., mount) the flock - the word is ascend, as in ascending. Think of the stairway as a flock of steps, and the activity of the angels on it as symbolic of the activity the mating goats are engaged in. The stairway symbolizes copulation, as is obviously required to produce the millions of progeny promised to Yaakov. So there is a little more meaning to be extracted from the image of the stairway's being set on the ground than I've said above; it does more than point out the promised land by touching it. That endless stairway, symbol of copulation, is set on the land that is promised to Yaakov and his seed; that is to say, without symbols, it will be on that land that Yaakov's progeny will produce more progeny for him. Of course, to possess the land forever there must be an endlessly reproducing population on the land.

Freud rediscovered that a stairway is a symbol for copulation and explained the symbolism as being based on the breathlessness experienced on mounting a long flight of stairs. It seems that the author of Genesis was aware of the symbolism.

The two dreams share a large theme and might count as a dream pair. The copulations explicitly depicted in the mating goats dream and symbolized in the stairway dream produce offspring that belong to Yaakov.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 3/11/2010 @ 6:31 AM *

Dale, as always, I greatly appreciate your creativity. In regards, though, to equating the angels’ ascent and descent with the copulation of the he-goats in Yaacov’s Haran dream, I don’t think you make your case. Firstly, the word “sulam” is somewhat vague in meaning. Although the Davidson Lexicon does refer to its meaning as “ladder”, Koehler and Baumgartner translate it as "stepped ramp, flight of steps, and tower with steps.” My friend Carla mentioned that in Biblical Hebrew it can also be seen as an edifice of sorts -- somewhat like a ziggurat. Hence Yaacov’s naming this place “Beth El” (House of G-d). Modern Hebrew has expropriated this word to refer to a ladder.

Also, I don’t believe the symbolism centering on man’s exertion in climbing a ladder works in regards to the ascent of the angels upon a series of stone steps. From what we know of angels, they are not human and, therefore, I don’t think they would be exerting themselves physically in doing this. The word “olim” used in regards to the he-goats, is significant in that it lies in the outskirts of a small chiasm that frames Yaacov’s “hineni” response (31: 10 – 12) , and that acts as a reiteration of what Yaacov, in fact, saw. If you notice, this word is also used in Pharoah’s dream in regards to the bad cows. The matter of “ascending” certainly appears to be significant when placed in juxtaposition to the descriptive adjectives: “speckled, streaked and grizzled”.

To my mind there is no question that the Torah is connecting these two dreams. For one, G-d Himself does so by introducing Himself as the G-d who appeared to Yaacov at that place and reminding him of his promises. Also, these two dreams are paralleled to each other within a broad chiasm that goes like this:

A: Yaacov’s ESCAPE from Esau and leaving of father’s house
B: First Dream
C: Fertility – children
Centre: Yaacov’s negotiations with Laban
C: Fertility – livestock
B: Second Dream
A: Yaacov’s ESCAPE from Laban and leaving his father-in-law’s house

We can also stretch out this chiasm further by placing it within the context of Yaacov’s estrangement from his brother that took place at the time of his cheating him out of the first-born blessings and ending with a seeming reconciliation of sorts between Yaacov and Esau following his escape from Laban. Note also that Yaacov’s essentially bought Esau off through the livestock which he acquired from Laban.

So, what would be the connections between these two dreams? To begin with, there are obvious differences that exist between them. In regards to the first – it took place at night while Yaacov was sleeping. This first dream was essentially a night vision – and it resulted in leaving him in awe: “Surely the Lord is in this place; and I KNEW IT NOT. And he was afraid and said: How full of awe is this place.” (28: 16 – 17) The emphasis appears to be on the place itself which he perceived now as being awesome. That doesn’t appear to be the case regarding his second dream. As well, this second one appears to be presented as a day vision of sorts that confirms what Yaacov is himself seeing. Note the wording in 31:10 – 12 which comprises a classic chiasm. The angel essentially reiterates Yaacov’s words and confirms the action of the he-goats and their outcome as being divinely ordained. Yaacov’s “seeing” is then juxtaposed with G-d’s “seeing” – “for I have seen all that Laban does to you.” As well, the place in which the dream took place holds no awe or fear for Yaacov and he doesn’t anoint it in any way. Rather, as a result of the second dream, Yaacov is left feeling angry and self-justified in asking his wives to leave their father’s home.

Another difference is that in the first dream there are three “hinei’s” that appear in reference to a “sulam”; angels ascending and descending; and G-d standing near him (whatever that means). It is following this third “hinei” that G-d begins to communicate with Yaacov. I believe that when the Torah uses the word “ve’hinei” (behold) it means to bring us directly into the consciousness of the individual doing the beholding. Likewise, there are three “hineis” in Pharoah’s dreams. In contrast,in Yaacov’s Haran dream, there are no “hinei’s” and the dream itself is divided into two sections: confirmation of Yaacov’s sight and a directive from G-d that it is time for him to move on. One can argue that the timing may also be either contingent upon or influenced by what Laban has done to Yaacov.

So what connects these two dreams on an organic level? The ascent of the angels upon this edifice is, no doubt, a form of communication. Symbolically, Yaacov is obviously being informed that there is a bridge connecting the earth to the heaven - the physical realm with the spiritual. And this is a connection that appears to be ongoing – at least at that spot. Similarly, in this second dream, the material is also connected to the spiritual – the insinuation being that all these streaked, speckled and grizzled he-goats that are ascending upon the sheep have taken on those physical characteristics because “I have seen all that Laban does to you.” When G-d sees injustice, He acts -- as He did with Leah.

Notice that the theme of sight asserts itself by the repetition of the word “re’eh” three times within this chiasm, but also through the image of the streaked, etc. he-goats. This mixture of black and white takes on symbolic meaning given that the Torah might be trying to communicate through this the reality that post Eden there is no black or white but only streaks of such which abound in each of us – light found in darkness and vice versa (a mixture of good and evil).

This plays itself out particularly in the Laban/Yaacov relationship. Both view their positions in very black and white terms. Yaacov knows Laban and what he is capable of doing – yet, he continues to work for him after his 14 years are over rather than leave. An assumption can be made that Yaacov possibly knew that using these kinds of rods would be a means of protecting him from Laban’s machinations and guile. He clearly sees himself as the victim and by continuing to work for Laban has essentially placed himself in a situation where he must rely on his own guile in order to succeed.

G-d, though, assures Yaacov that it was not the sticks that brought on these results, but G-d Himself and that by doing so He essentially played along with Yaacov’s choice to continue working for Laban. Laban, on the other hand, later argues rightly that all Yaacov owns in regards to wives, children and livestock is essentially his – as Yaacov would have none of this if it hadn’t been for him. The word "natan" to give, occurs 7 times in the Yaacov/Laban negotiation sequence which marks the centre of this broad chiasm. Perhaps it was this reality -- the ascension of the speckled over the white that was being communicated to Yaacov – as a means of characterizing the earthly realm and Yaacov's precarious position within it if not for G-d's aid?

As well, the issue of “place” may also hold some significance. What G-d communicates to Yaacov is that now is the time for him to move on – to change places. G-d is revealing Himself to be a G-d who keeps his promises, now Yaacov must prove himself to be one who keeps his – and return to the land of his nativity and to his father’s house.

In this way and in others, this narrative can perhaps be viewed as another creation story.

Had Yaacov decided to leave after his 14 years were over, he would have left with nothing - financially -- as,at that point, everything belonged to Laban. How then would he have been able to support his family? This is a factor that significantly impacted on the morality of Yaacov's decision to stay on and work for Laban knowing full well who this man was.

What further complicates matters from a moral perspective is that Laban was essentially stealing from his own children. This irony is depicted in pasuk 30:35. After Yaacov clearly set out the terms of his employment where he stated: "I will pass through all your flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire." (32) we are told immediately following Laban's vague confirmation of this agreement: "And HE removed that day the he-goats, that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep and gave them into the hand of HIS sons." (35) Who is the "he" --is it Yaacov or Laban? And whose sons are these? Upon reading this for the first time, one would assume given Yaacov's previous setting of terms that it would be Yaacov doing this. But no, the next posuk makes clear that "And Yaacov fed (shepherded) the rest of Laban's flocks."(36) In this regard the "sons" referred to in posuk 35 are Laban's immediate sons. But Yaacov's sons are essentially Laban's sons as well (as Laban points out prior to the covenant later made between the two). The Torah, in this way connects both Laban's and Yaacov's sons through the use of this pronoun-related purposeful ambiguity. The same is done in regards to connecting Laban and Yaacov (but I'm not quite certain at this point what the significance of this is).

My study partner also noted that contained within Laban's name are the words "le'ben" (for the son). In this regard Laban's name points us here in two directions. According to Yaacov's offer, Laban (meaning white) would be left with all the cattle that were completely white. In this way Laban's cattle are completely identified with their owner. But, further, the matter of inheritance emerges, as Rochel and Leah point out -- what do we leave to our children? Not only financially -- but in regards to moral and ethical lessons.

Laban being the father and Yaacov and the others being the children creates a vertical relationship. Later, during the covenant segment, the Torah refers to them all as "brothers". The Torah places them on an even footing -- the relationship becomes horizontal.

Also, Gilead (that marks the place where this covenant between Laban and Yaacov took place) emerges very significantly during the actual sale of Yosef. We are told that the Ishmaelite merchants' point of departure was Gilead. I believe it is at Gilead and in the actions that informed the relationship between Laban and Yaacov where Yehudah learned the lesson that it is ok to exploit a brother financially. This appears to be one of the lessons that Yehudah inherited from his fathers and which later impacted significantly on Israel's (tribe) destiny.

Now, The Contrasts in Majesticalness

The he-goat mating dream (Gen. 31:10-13) and the stairway dream (Gen. 28:12-15) have the form: Purely Visual Image + Verbal Message. Last week I pointed out some little noticed thematic connections between them, and since then I've noticed a number of contrasts that also seem to connect the dreams, but now as a pair of opposites -- a dream of very limited scope v. a dream of sweeping scope.

(a) The talking character: An angel of God v. The Lord himself.
(b) The extended name of God: God of a random place chosen by Yaakov ("God Bethel") v. God of patriarchs chosen by God ("God of Avraham and of Yitzhak").
(c) The Characters & their Activity: Irregularly-colored goats engaged in a biological function v. Flawless human-form individuals in stately procession and recession.
(d) Beneficiaries: Yaakov (and his family) alone is being made better off in a private grievance with Lavan v. All families of earth are made better off (i.e., blessed).
(e) Inheritance: Yaakov's wives question whether they have an inheritance left in the house of their father v. Land inheritance is promised to Yaakov radiating out from the spot he called House of God.
(f) Reach into the Future: In the near future Yaakov is to return to the land of his birth v. In the wide-open future millions of Yaakov's descendants will be born on this land.
(g) Time/Place Setting of Dream: Time when flocks conceive v. Place called House of God and Gate to Heaven.
(h) Number of Directions (Indicative of Scope): One direction (ascend up on the flock) v. Six directions (up and down the stairway; north, south, east and west).
(i) Chronological Placement of Dream and Directness of its Recounting: Yaakov tells his wives that he once had such a dream v. Dream presented as part of straightforward history.

Maybe not relevant, but interesting -
(j) Outside the Dreams (Genesis 31:7 & 41 and 28:22): Yaakov's receives (at any given time) one out of ten different wage rates v. Yaakov promises he will give a tenth of what he receives.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 7/7/2010 @ 4:36 PM *