Throughout the
Yosef narratives, we (and Yosef) encounter three pairs of dreams. The first set
are Yosef's own dreams, dreamt whilst still a youth in his father's home. In
the first dream, his brothers' sheaves bow down to his sheaf; in the second
dream, the sun, moon and stars bow down to him. Whilst the allusion of the
dreams may seem self-evident to the characters involved, we must wait and see
how they play out in the long run.
Yosef
encounters the next pair of dreams whilst in prison. This time it is not his
own dreams, but the dreams of his fellow inmates, the butler and baker. The
butler dreams that he is pressing grapes into Pharaoh's cup and the baker
dreams that birds are partaking of the bread in the basket upon his head. This
time the interpretations are provided explicitly, and their fulfilment immediately
follows. Yosef correctly predicts that the butler will be restored to his
former position, whilst the baker will be executed.
The arena of
the final pair is the king's palace, and the dreamer is none other than Pharaoh
himself. In the first dream, the king sees seven lean cows emerge from the
river to consume the fat cows. In the second dream, the seven thin ears swallow
the seven full ones. This time Yosef announces that the message of the two
dreams is one and the same. Seven years of plenty will be followed by seven
years of severe famine.
The central question
I want to address is: what is the purpose of the second dream of each pair? In
each case, the same sequence of events could have progressed without the need
for the second dream, as I will now explain.
The
redundancy of the second dream
Regarding the
first pair, the brothers had already reacted with utter disdain after the first
dream. No further reaction of the brothers is recorded following the second
dream. It is therefore reasonable to assume that their hatred had already
peaked after the first dream. Furthermore, the first dream about the sheaves
seems to actualise when the brothers bow down to Yosef as viceroy over Egypt
and they are dependent on him for sustenance. The second dream featuring celestial
bodies, on the other hand, seems less relevant to the ensuing story and altogether
more difficult to decipher. Even if the eleven stars (anonymous in the dream)
represent the eleven brothers, the inclusion of sun and the moon are confusing.
Not only because, as Rashi points out, Yosef's mother is no longer alive, but
also because Yaakov himself never bows to Yosef.[1] Even if we follow Rashi's
lead and accept that dreams always contain some red herrings, this merely
strengthens the question: what is the premium of the second dream?
With respect
to the second pair involving the baker and butler, would it not have been
sufficient for Yosef to correctly interpret the butler's dream? Why did Yosef
have to kill the baker to prove himself? Though one might argue that the
butler's dream on its own was relatively simple to interpret, this could have
been tackled by complicating the butler's dream rather than introducing a new
character who is never seen again. Perhaps interpreting two dreams was
necessary to build Yosef's credentials as a master interpreter of dream pairs,
yet this simply shifts the question over to the significance of the next pair.
In the case of
Pharaoh, the second dream's solution is an anti-climax altogether. Whilst the
Torah expends effort to detail two dreams with different symbols and subtle
wording changes, Yosef seems to dismiss all the nuance and declares them to be
the same ('one dream'). All this is after the butler had stressed Yosef's
ability to distinguish between similar dreams. What was in fact the purpose of
the repetition, according to Yosef?
וְעַל
הִשָּׁנוֹת הַחֲלוֹם אֶל־פַּרְעֹה פַּעֲמָיִם כִּי־נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר מֵעִם
הָאֱלֹהִים וּמְמַהֵר הָאֱלֹהִים לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ׃ (מ"א:לב)
Yosef declares that the significance of the pair is that events will certainly
come to pass and commence shortly. Yet if this was the entire point, would it
not have made more sense for the same dream to repeat? Why the need for different
dreams?
To summarise
the problem. In each case, it is difficult to discern the added value of the
second dream as it appears to have no narrative significance. The principle of Chekhov's
gun tells us that if a gun features in a scene, we must expect it to be fired or
used at some point. Otherwise, it should not be there. What, therefore, is the purpose
of the second dream or the ulterior reason for the pairing of the dreams?
Baker and
butler – one word separating life and death
The endings of
the baker and butler could not be more different. Yet it is critical to stress
that their disparate outcomes arrive as an unexpected twist. When they first
appear on the scene, the baker and the butler are grouped together as an
inseparable pair:
וַיְהִי
אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה חָטְאוּ מַשְׁקֵה מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וְהָאֹפֶה
לַאֲדֹנֵיהֶם לְמֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם׃ וַיִּקְצֹף פַּרְעֹה עַל שְׁנֵי סָרִיסָיו עַל
שַׂר הַמַּשְׁקִים וְעַל שַׂר הָאוֹפִים׃ (בראשית מ':א-ב)
The Torah does not provide any hint as to the nature of their crime and whether
they transgressed separately in two unrelated acts or conspired together.
Nevertheless, since they are imprisoned together for an unspecified crime against
the king, the unbiased reader would assume (at this stage at least) that they also
acted together.[2]
As the Talmud (TB
Megilla 13b) notes, the scene parallels that of Bigtan and Teresh in Megillat
Esther who jointly conspired against the king.[3] Just like in the Megillah
the two servants conspired together, the same appears to be the case here. The
equating of the two servants advances further when they even seem to dream
together, jointly referring to their dream in the singular:
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו חֲלוֹם חָלַמְנוּ וּפֹתֵר אֵין אֹתוֹ.. (מ':ח)
If indeed they
are assumed to have plotted together, we would expect their fate to be one and the
same, as was the case for Bigtan and Teresh. But here their paths unexpectedly
diverge.
The butler
relays his dream to Yosef who predicts that the butler will be restored to his
former glory.
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יוֹסֵף זֶה פִּתְרֹנוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַשָּׂרִגִים
שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים הֵם׃ בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת
יָמִים יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת־רֹאשֶׁךָ... (מ':יב-יג)
Upon hearing
of the butler's good fortune, the baker is keen to share his dream as well. On
the surface, the dreams are indeed similar, and Yosef's interpretation begins
with identical words. One word though is added which signifies the difference
between life and death.
וַיַּעַן יוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר זֶה פִּתְרֹנוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַסַּלִּים
שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים הֵם׃ בְּעוֹד שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים יִשָּׂא פַרְעֹה אֶת־רֹאשְׁךָ ...
מֵעָלֶיךָ (מ':יח-יט)
Whilst the butler's head will be raised in the sense of ascendancy, the baker's head will be removed from upon him, meaning he will be hanged. Apart from a masterful but cruel twist, what is gained by this mode of presentation? I would like to suggest that an important life lesson is imparted to Yosef via the dreams, specifically the fact of the pair.
From an
identical starting point, two very different paths emerge, one leads to life
and the other leads to death. What determines the path each one will follow? The
difference between the two is that in butler's dream he was actively squeezing
the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, whereas in the baker's dream he was passive.
Instead of serving the bread, the birds came to feed whilst he was stationary. It
was the passivity of the baker which indicated to Yosef that he was dead.[4] One might go as far to say
that it is only by way of contrast to the butler's dream that Yosef understood
the implication of the baker's dream. Precisely because everything was so
similar, the difference became apparent.
The
all-important lesson Yosef derives is that someone who is passive cannot serve,
and someone who does not serve cannot be a master (sar).[5] Like the baker, such a
person is a dead man walking, either literally or metaphorically. We do not
know whether the dreams represented the character traits of the baker and
butler which might explain their different verdicts, but it is not relevant. At
the end of the day, these are secondary characters. It is the messaging which
Yosef absorbs through the dreams which is the real story.
Pharaoh's second
dream – corroboration or subversion?
The
distinction Yosef draws between the baker and butler's dreams is of supreme
importance when it comes to Pharaoh's dreams. Many scholars are surprised by
Yosef's audacity to provide unsolicited advice to the king on how to manage his
kingdom in light of the dreams. Equally astounding though, is that the advice
itself undermines the veracity of the dream. In Pharaoh's first dream, the
seven lean cows consume the fat cows, yet their appearance remains unchanged as
though nothing happened. This symbolises that the famine will be of such severity
that the years of plenty will be entirely forgotten. This is precisely what Yosef
ensures does not happen. By storing the grain through the years of plenty he
ensures that the good years are preserved. On the contrary, the years of plenty
will supply the years of famine.
We need only
be surprised, however, if we focus exclusively on the first dream of the cows.
The second dream about the ears of grain does not share this ominous allusion. In
the second dream, the thin ears engulf the full ears and then the dream ends.
If we focus on this dream instead, then the consumption of the full ears need
not be seen in a negative light. Rather, it can be seen as suggesting exactly
what Yosef proposes. The years of plenty will sustain the years of famine. The
consumption featured in the dream represents sustenance rather than
displacement. This can be discerned from the second dream which uses grain as
the symbol for famine instead of the more indirect and obscure symbol of the cows.
Grain can be gathered and stored, whereas cows cannot.[6]
The tragic
conclusion of the first dream is therefore averted in the second dream. Yosef
declares it is 'one dream' in the sense of a single event but, like the 'one
dream' of the butler and baker, it may conclude in two very different ways.
Which way is dependent on the interpretation adopted and the chosen course of
action. If they act proactively and with responsibility, the outcome of the
second dream can prevail over the first dream. Hence Yosef's advice is an
organic part of the interpretation of the dreams which sets out the alternative
ending suggested by the second dream.
Back to
Yosef's dreams
This sets the
stage for the reevaluation of Yosef's own dreams. Yosef's character clearly
develops as his life unfolds. Like Yehudah, the Yosef at the end of the story
is not the same Yosef as at the start. In his youth, he is slandering his
brothers, dreaming of greatness, and lacking sensitivity and self-awareness in
relaying the content of the dreams to his jealous brothers. At least these are
the characteristics which the Torah chooses to highlight to us. By the end, he
is responsible, sensitive and forgiving. Unlike the personal story of Yehudah, though,
it is difficult to pinpoint a precise turning point in Yosef's life as he
experiences a number of false starts. Through the dreams, however, we are
provided with a window into Yosef's evolving mindset.
As he matures
and learns from the other dreams, Yosef understands that his own dreams
represent two alternative paths rather than two predetermined events. Both
dreams predict that he will assume a position of power, the question left open
relates to its scope and nature. In the first dream, Yosef is actively working
alongside the brothers in the field. His sheaf rises up over the others and the
other sheafs bow down. The dream predicts economic supremacy on the one hand,
and dependency on the other. The power is limited and purposeful. Yosef
can utilise his position to sustain and save others.
But as we
know, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the second
dream, Yosef is not active and not represented by any symbol. It is not just
eleven stars (which would parallel the first dream), but also the sun and the
moon. These celestial bodies – the same ones which God assigned to 'rule' in
the day and the night (see Bereishit 1:18) - are bowing down to Yosef. That is
suggestive of a higher order of power bordering on omnipotence. This is a major
and concerning development, yet it is a potential outgrowth of the first dream.
At the end of the day, Yosef is presented with two models of leadership, and he
must determine which one will define him.
The sheaf of
Yosef rises up as he becomes viceroy over Egypt charged with the allocation of
grain across the region. Like everyone else, the brothers become economically dependent
on him during the famine and even bow down to him. The first dream has been fulfilled.
At the end of Sefer Bereishit, the opportunity to realise the second dream now presents
itself. The brothers offer themselves as slaves due to their guilt for what
they did, and the fear of what Yosef can now to do to them:
וַיִּרְאוּ
אֲחֵי־יוֹסֵף כִּי־מֵת אֲבִיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוּ יִשְׂטְמֵנוּ יוֹסֵף וְהָשֵׁב
יָשִׁיב לָנוּ אֵת כׇּל־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר גָּמַלְנוּ אֹתוֹ׃
...וַיֵּלְכוּ
גַּם־אֶחָיו וַיִּפְּלוּ לְפָנָיו וַיֹּאמְרוּ הִנֶּנּוּ לְךָ לַעֲבָדִים׃ (נ':טו-יח)
But Yosef has no interest in domination. Instead of exploiting his power, Yosef
focuses on his responsibility:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף אַל־תִּירָאוּ כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים
אָנִי׃ וְאַתֶּם חֲשַׁבְתֶּם עָלַי רָעָה אֱלֹהִים חֲשָׁבָהּ לְטֹבָה לְמַעַן
עֲשֹׂה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְהַחֲיֹת עַם־רָב׃ וְעַתָּה אַל־תִּירָאוּ אָנֹכִי
אֲכַלְכֵּל אֶתְכֶם וְאֶת־טַפְּכֶם... (נ':יט-כא)
If Yosef's inflated
self-perception in the second dream put him in God's place, then this
possibility is now firmly rejected in the rhetorical response '…am I in place
of God?'. Another point Yosef seems to have internalised in Pharaoh's house is
that there is always a king above him and he is only ever 'second in command'.
'Power is not
about control; it's about service' a wise man once said. Yosef determines that
he will follow the path of the first dream and not succumb to the allure of power
promised by the second dream. He has learnt that not all dreams need to come
true.[7]
[1] Many commentators consider the bowing of Yaakov in 47:31 as expressing
gratitude towards God rather than Yosef (see Ibn Ezra, Seforno; cf. Rashi,
Rashbam).
[2] Jonathan Grossman, Yosef: Sippuram Shel Chalomot (Yediot Ahronoth, 2021), p172.
[3] This is one of dozens of parallels
between the Megillah and the story of Yosef. This specific example continues
when, in both stories, the sin/conspiracy of the two servants is recalled when
the king is unable to sleep.
[4] Grossman (p174) makes the point that
birds in Egyptian mythology were strongly associated with the pharaohs. Horus, for
example, usually depicted as a falcon or as a man with a falcon's head, was the
divine protector of the reigning pharaoh, and the pharaohs were considered to
be the living embodiments or incarnations of Horus.
[5] The baker and butler are introduced as
'the baker and butler, the courtiers of Pharaoh'. Yet, in the very next verse
they are referred to as masters/chiefs. This discrepancy is pointed out by many
commentators and various solutions are offered. In any event, the tension between master
and servant is very much relevant to Yosef's own life. Perhaps already here is
an allusion to the fact that the role of a true master is to serve (Grossman, p182).
[6] It should be noted that the objective
narrative of the original dream (as opposed to Pharaoh's recall) does not include
this element of the unchanged appearance of the cows. I wrote about the
differences between Pharaoh's subjective recall and the objective narrative in
a prior post. I wish to add that the symbol of cows may have been used because
of the linguistic proximity between 'Parah' and 'Pharaoh'. This would also shed
light on why Pharaoh is more anxious over the first dream with its possible
allusion to his strong kingdom being overthrown by a weaker one.
[7] In a slightly different vein, Grossman (p602) suggests this scene shows how Yosef reinterprets the second dream in light of the first dream. In other words, the two dreams are one dream like the dream pair of Pharaoh, and not different dreams like the baker and butler.
