Interpreting Islamic Dream Books of The

Intellectual History
of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

brill.com/ihiw
Interpreting Islamic Dream Books of the Cairo

Genizah
The Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā and Its Judeo-Arabic Witnesses
Blanca Villuendas Sabaté

Oriental and Islamic Studies, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
blancuji@hotmail.com
Abstract
This article is the result of a first-hand exploration of the relevance of the Cairo Genizah
as a source for Intellectual history of the Middle Ages. It is not only significant for under-
standing Jewish thought, previously documented in numerous studies, but also to the
Islamic world. Whereas S.D. Goitien’s oeuvre and the groundbreaking work of his disci-
ples widely demonstrated the importance of Genizah documents as historical sources
on the Mediterranean region, the relevance of its Islamic/Arabic literature is less often
acknowledged. This topic will be addressed in the light of my doctoral research, which
examined the legacy of dream interpretation preserved in Genizah fragments of dream
books written in Judeo-Arabic during the pre-modern period. After a brief introduction
to the history of dream books—manuals for dream interpretation—in the Near East,
and to the epistemology of Jewish and Islamic dream interpretation, the main findings
of the research will be listed and summarized. Finally, in a detailed case study, a synop-
tic edition of texts representing the Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, a brief dream manual attributed to
al-Kirmānī, demonstrates the importance of Cairo Genizah manuscripts to the literary
history of the composition.
Keywords
Judeo-Arabic – Cairo Genizah – Firkovich – dream interpretation – dream book – Ibn

Sīrīn – Kirmānī – manuscripts – text editions
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/2212943X-20201011

interpreting islamic dream books 307
1 Introduction to the History of Dream Interpretation
The dream experience during sleep has been regarded by many civilizations as
a sphere in which numinous interactions take place. Dreams have been per-
ceived as a source of supernatural knowledge and a realm of communication
with the dead or superior selves. Outcomes of actions, wondrous events, secrets
and solutions to problems are revealed to the dreamer in various ways. Mes-
sages built of words, words suggested by images, and symbols denoting and
connoting, convey meanings which are at times cryptic and at other times man-
ifest.
Belief in the transcendent nature of dreams is well represented in both
sacred and secular literature. Dreams of kings, heroes and religious leaders have
been registered ever since written records have existed; their oneiric experi-
ences could change the course of history. Deciphering the meanings of these
messages was, therefore, a major concern. From the second millennium BC, two
main types of compositions on dream interpretation are attested to in the Mid-
dle East. On the one hand, there are “dream narrations,” stories describing the
contents of a dream, followed by an interpretation provided by a highly percep-
tive individual, such as a sage, a prophet, a dream interpreter or the dreamer’s
mother, usually integrated with other literary compositions. On the other hand,
we find “dream lists,” dream omina (i.e. portentous symbols) and their mean-
ings, generally assembled with conditional clauses and collected in lists. Lists
were the format that mediated scholarly knowledge. Their length and struc-
ture were adapted to the shape of the writing material of the time: clay tablets.
Conditional clauses were the normative style, both for natural laws, such as
prognostics, or for human laws, as in legal rules.1
The first specimens of these two kinds of compositions, dream narrations
and dream lists, have been discussed thoroughly by modern scholarship, most
notably by Adolph Leo Oppenheim, who edited and translated much Mesopo-
1 In addition to these two, although to a lesser extent, there are examples of written incan-
tations or rituals formulated to avoid bad dreams and their outcomes, as well as to achieve
convenient ones (incubation). An early example of this is the prayer of the Hittite king Mur-
sili II (r. 1321–1292BC). While they are not a source for dream interpretation per se, these
formulas are dually associated with the production of the compositions we are referring to.
On the one hand, some dream narrations are featured in the context of incubation performed
in a temple. According to Oppenheim, this explains some characteristics of the paradigm; see
Oppenheim, “Interpretation of Dreams,” p. 190. As for prophylactic formulas, they are some-
times mentioned in dream lists, generally in the introductions. For example, in the Assyrian
dream book, Oppenheim suggests that tablets I, X and XI, where these incantations appear,
were a later addition (in ibid., p. 295).
Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

308 villuendas sabaté
tamian dream literature.2 In relation to their origins, he suggested that the two
types appeared and developed independently from each other:3 the lists of
dream omina appear to be the result of an intellectual endeavour rather than
attempts to register given dream messages and their outcomes.4 Likewise, in
the context of Egyptian dream literature, Scott Noegel suggests that dream nar-
rations and dream omina lists have separate origins. While the former was an
autochthonous creation, the latter likely stemmed from a Mesopotamian tra-
dition.5
Regardless of their origins, since at least the 2nd century CE, we find exam-
ples of the two types of texts combined in a single work. At that time, Greek
scholars produced treatises, books whose aim was to offer comprehensive and
systematic accounts of given topics. Following this trend, Artemidorus of Dal-
danis seems to have been the first to apply this format to dream interpretation,
giving birth to his famous five-volume Oneirocritica.6 In addition to dream nar-
rations and dream lists, he offered, by way of introduction, metaphysical and
physiological explanations of dreams, following previous authors, such as Aris-
totle. However, as the title implies, the primary purpose of the treatise is to
explain the values of dream symbols, as well as the basic rules for interpreta-
tion. His books provide interpretations for a diverse set of subjects, initially in
a thematically organized manner and later as an ad hoc miscellany.7 Despite
the literary character of the book, the phrasing evokes the stylistic and rhetoric
conventions of Mesopotamian dream lists.
The all-encompassing form of the Onirocriticon set a standard. Although
shorter in length, a similar composition was transmitted in the Babylonian
Talmud. The ninth chapter (Ha-roʾeh) of Tractate Berakhot8 includes what
some scholars consider to be a dream book that previously circulated indepen-
dently.9 It combines different elements of Artemidorus’ treatise, and even, at
2 See Oppenheim, “Interpretation of Dreams,” pp. 179–373.

3 “In the written records of the civilizations of the ancient Near East, references to dreams occur
on several clearly distinct literary levels, each subject to its own rigid and consistent stylistic
conventions”. Oppenheim, “Interpretation of Dreams,” p. 184f.
4 Veldhuis, “Divination: Theory and use,” pp. 93–94. Moreover, Oppenheim, “Interpretation of
Dreams,” pp. 210 and 242, who considers the redaction of omina lists an indication of the
transition of the practice from the folkloric level to the academic one.
5 Noegel, “On puns and divination,” pp. 95–119.
6 Harris-McCoy, Artemidoru’s Oneirocritica, p. 20.
7 Although the five volumes represent one book, they came to light separately.
8 See a full study in Weiss, All Dreams Follow the Mouth.
9 Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b,” p. 231; and Weiss, Studies on the Literature of the Amoraim,
pp. 264–270; and Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic literature, p. 177.

times, symbolic values which recall those in the Onirocriticon. Yet, the question
as to whether the coincidences result from scribal or oral transmission or stem
from mutual origins within a common regional cultural environment, remains
unsolved.10
In Byzantium, the creation of dream books was triggered by the advent of
a book with Biblical reminiscences: the Somniale Danielis, composed between
the fourth and the seventh centuries.11 Consisting only of lists of dream visions,
it enjoyed a wide diffusion and was translated into several languages. Later
byzantine Oneirocritic works are largely indebted to it. However, dream book
production in Byzantium was also influenced by Arabic lore, once the Oneiro-
criticon of Achmetis filio Sereimi appeared.12 Created for a despotēs that Maria
Mavroudi proposes to identify with Pope Leo VI (866–912),13 hence dating from
the 9th or the 10th centuries, its anonymous author claimed to have based his
compilation on Achmet filio Sereimi, whom he described as an Arabic dream
interpreter. There can be no doubt that this name refers to Muḥammad Ibn
Sīrīn (33/654–110/728), a second-generation follower (tābiʿ) and transmitter
who attained fame as the author of several dream books, ultimately considered
the founder of Islamic Oneirocriticism. However, most of those book attribu-
tions are fake, and it seems unlikely he ever put his knowledge down in writing
or in any codified form.14 He surely did act as a dream interpreter, which alone
could motivate the ascriptions, although it was not at all an exceptional endeav-
our at the time.
With the new geopolitical unit ruled by Muslims, in which cultural discourse
was conducted in the Arabic language, dreams and dream literature continued
to play a very significant role. For a conception of the proportions, we can point
to the Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿabbirīn by al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥusayn al-Khallāl (d. 439/1047).15
This lost work is summarized in a later dream book, where it is described as ren-
dering fifteen types of interpreters and over 7500 names.16 The importance of
10 See Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b,” pp. 243–244.

11 For a description of the production of dream books in the Byzantine Empire, see Ober-
helman, Dreambooks in Byzantium; Cappozzo “Volgarizzamento trecentesco del Somniale
Danielis,” pp. 77–90.
12 See the English translation in Oberhelman, Oneirocriticon of Achmet. For a thorough study
of the sources of this book, see Mavroudi, Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, pp. 5–
25.
13 Mavroudi, Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, pp. 59–61.
14 Lamoreaux, Early Muslim tradition of Dream Interpretation, pp. 19–25.
15 See Fahd, La divination arabe, pp. 341–343; and Lamoreaux, Early Muslim Tradition of
Dream Interpretation, pp. 17–18.
16 Lamoreaux, Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, p. 17.

dreams stands out, from both religious and legal perspectives. Note that taʿbīr
al-ruʾyā is regarded as a religious science by authoritative texts.17 This concep-
tion emerges from a belief in dreams as a portion of the revelation, present in
both Jewish and Islamic thought. On the prophetic value of dreams, the two
religions offer several parallel opinions:18
Babylonian Talmud Ḥadīth collections
“Five things are a sixtieth part of “The good dream of the righ-
something else: namely, fire, honey, teous man is a forty-sixth part of
Sabbath, sleep and a dream. Fire prophecy”.20
is one-sixtieth part of Gehinnom.
Honey is one-sixtieth part of manna.
Sabbath is one-sixtieth part of the
world to come. Sleep is one-sixtieth
part of death. A dream is one-
sixtieth part of prophecy”.19
17 For instance, in the seventh epistle of the Brethren of Purity, dream interpretation is
included among the religious sciences. In addition, Ibn Khaldūn opens his description of
dream interpretation with the following statement: “This science belongs to the sciences
of the religious law”.
18 Isaac Israeli, a great tenth-century north-African scholar, was well aware of this paral-
lelism as can be seen in the following statement from his Book on the Elements, reproduced
here from Sara Sviri’s translation: “The prophets … armed themselves with those spiri-
tual forms and revealed them to all and sundry in order that their fellow creatures might
know their exalted qualities and their achievements having passed from the flesh to a spir-
itual state, since that which they made manifest transcends the natural order. From this
point of view, there is agreement between all authors of books on religion and all who
believe in prophecy that dreams are a part of prophecy”; see Sviri, “Dreaming Analyzed
and Recorded,” p. 255.
19 Babylonian Talmud (BT), Tractate Berakhot 57b: ‫חמשה אחד מששים אלו הן אש דבש ושבת‬
‫ושינה וחלום אש אחד מששים לגיהנם דבש אחד מששים למן שבת אחד מששים לעולם הבא‬
‫שינה אחד מששים למיתה חלום אחד מששים לנבואה‬. All English Talmud translations are
taken from the “Soncino” edition.
20 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ 6983: ‫الرؤ يا الحسنة من الرجل الصالح جزء من ستة وأر بعين جزءا من النبوة‬. This
is the most extended version of a ḥadīth that appears in many variations: some exclude
the attribute of the dream, or provide a different one (al-ṣāliḥa, al-ṣādiqa), others con-
vey a different quality of the dreamer (al-muʾmin, al-muʾmin al-ṣāliḥ) or do not mention
it (see other examples in Bukhārī 6987–6989, 6994). As for the numerical amount, there
is even greater diversity: one-seventieth in Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 2265, Ibn Māja, Sunan, 3895,
3897; a twenty-fifth in Muslim, 2263, Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, 4476, but also a fiftieth, a forti-

(cont.)
Babylonian Talmud Ḥadīth collections
“R. Johanan said: If one rises early and “When the prophet was returning
a Scriptural verse comes to his mouth, from the afternoon prayer, he used
this is a kind of minor prophecy”.21 to say: Has any of you seen a dream
last night? And said: After me, no
prophecy is left except the righteous
dream”.22
“A dream which is not interpreted is “The dream hangs from the leg of a
like a letter which is not read”.23 bird as long as it is not interpreted.
When it is interpreted it falls (takes
place)”.24
The promotion of dream interpretation to the rank of scriptural interpretation

is a recurring motif. Consequently, dreams served as prophetic legitimators of
legal practices, a custom attested to in both Jewish and Islamic sources.25 In
eth, a forty-ninth, a twenty-sixth, a seventy-sixth, etc. Ibn Ḥajar summarises them and
collects some explanations. The most suggestive one, although he does not accept it,
establishes that one forty-sixth equals the six first months of the twenty-three total years
of Muhammad’s revelation, since, according to some accounts, during the first six months
the revelation appeared to the prophet in dreams. In Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ
al-Bukhārī, vol. 12, pp. 362–368.
21 BT Berakhot, 55b: ‫א״ר יוחנן השכים ונפל לו פסוק לתוך פיו הרי זו נבואה קטנה‬.
22 Mālik ibn Anas, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, 27710: ،َ ‫طل ْح َة‬
َ ‫ق ب ِْن ع َب ْدِ الل ّ َه ِ ب ِْن أب ِي‬ ٍ ِ ‫و َح َ ّد َث َنِي ع َْن م َال‬
َ ‫ ع َْن ِإْسح َا‬،‫ك‬
:‫ل‬
ُ ‫صلاةَ ِ ال ْغ َد َاة ِ يقَ ُو‬
َ ‫ف م ِْن‬
َ َ ‫ل الل ّ َه ِك َانَ ِإذ َا ان ْص َر‬
َ ‫سو‬
ُ َ ‫نَ ر‬
ّ ‫ َأ‬،َ ‫ ع َْن أب ِي ه ُر َي ْر َة‬،ِ ‫ ع َْن َأبيِه‬،َ ‫صع َة‬
َ ْ ‫صع‬
َ ‫ع َْن ز ُفرَ َب ِْن‬
”ُ َ‫صاِلحة‬
َ ّ ‫ ِإلا ّ َالر ّ ُْؤ ياَ ال‬،ِ ‫ن الن ّ ُبوُ ّ َة‬
َ ِ ‫س ي َب ْقَى بعَ ْدِي م‬َ ْ ‫ “ل َي‬:‫ل‬
ُ ‫ و َ يقَ ُو‬.”‫ل ر َ َأى َأح َدٌ م ِن ْك ُم ُ الل ّ َي ْلةَ َر ُْؤ ياَ ؟‬ ْ َ ‫“ه‬. Also in
al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, 6589: “No prophecy is left except for the glad tidings. They said: and
what are glad-tidings? He said: the righteous dream.”: ‫ وما‬:‫لم يبق من النبوة إلا المبشرات قالوا‬
‫ الرؤ يا الصالحة‬:‫المبشرات؟ قال‬.
ٍ ُ ‫كيِع ب ِْن ع ُد‬ ِ َ ‫ ع َْن و‬،ٍ ‫ن ع َطَاء‬

23 BT Berakhot, 55b: ‫ואמר רב חסדא חלמא דלא מפשר כאגרתא דלא מקריא‬.
24 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, 15842: ،‫س‬ َ ‫ ق َا‬،ٌ ‫ح ََّدث َن َا ه ُشَي ْم‬
ُ ْ ‫ َأخْبرَ َناَ يعَ ْلىَ ب‬:‫ل‬
ِ ْ‫ “ال ُر ّْؤ ياَ ع َلىَ رِج‬:َ ‫س َل ّم‬
‫ ف ِ َإذ َا‬،ْ‫ل َطائرِ ٍ م َا ل َْم تعُ بَ َ ّر‬ َ ِ ‫ل ال َل ّه‬
َ َ ‫صلَ ّى ال َل ّه ُ ع َل َي ْه ِ و‬ ُ ‫سو‬
ُ َ‫ل ر‬
َ ‫ ق َا‬:‫ل‬
َ ‫ ق َا‬،‫ع َْن عمَ ِ ّه ِ َأب ِي ر َزِ يٍن‬
‫ “ل َا يقَ ُ ُص ّه َا ِإ َلّا‬:‫ل‬
َ ‫ ق َا‬،ُ ُ‫سبه‬
ِ ‫ح‬ َ ‫ ق َا‬،”ِ ‫ن ال ُن ّبوَُ ّة‬
ْ ‫ و َ َأ‬:‫ل‬ ِ ‫ “و َال ُر ّْؤ ياَ ج ُْزء ٌ م ِْن‬:‫ل‬
َ ِ ‫س َت ّة ٍ و َ َأْر بعَ يِ نَ ج ُْزء ًا م‬ َ ‫ ق َا‬،”‫ت‬
ْ َ َ‫ت و َقع‬
ْ َ ‫ع ُب ِّر‬
‫ي‬
ٍ ‫”ع َلىَ و َادٍّ َأْو ذِي ر َ ْأ‬.
25 For the Jewish, see Kanarfogel, “Dreams as Determinant of Jewish Law,” pp. 111–143. For the
Islamic, see Kinberg, “Legitimization of the ‘Madhahib’ through Dreams,” pp. 47–79; Kin-

the case of Islam, this phenomenon involved the generation of collections of

dream narrations, each accompanied by their chains of transmitters, such as
the Kitāb al-Manām(āt) by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (d. 281/894).26
The association between dream interpretation and legal thought can be
explained by the fact that most known authors of dream books were ḥadīth or
legal experts: this is the case for the 9th-century judge of Dīnawār, Abū Muḥam-
mad ʿAbd Allāh b. Muslim Ibn Qutayba (Kufa, 213/828-Baghdad, 276/889),
who authored the oldest preserved dream book.27 Likewise, the 10th-century
ḥadīth scholar and Emir of Sijistān, Abū Aḥmad Khalaf b. Aḥmad al-Sijistānī
(326/937–399/1008), who commissioned a 120-volume commentary on the
Qurʾān, was himself the author of a concise and practical dream book.28 Fur-
thermore, the most famous dream interpreter, Ibn Sīrīn, mentioned above, was
a well-credited ḥadīth transmitter and a follower of the prophet Muḥammad
(tabīʿ) who enjoyed a great reputation as an early religious and legal authority.
In the Jewish world, the production of dream books has also been attributed to
dominant personalities in the legal and exegetical fields, such as Hai b. Sherīra
Gaon (939–1038) and Saʿadia b. Yūsuf Gaon (892–942).29 Furthermore, dream
interpretation applies derivational methods typically employed in legal exe-
gesis, particularly analogy (qiyās). This connection is of vital importance in
evaluating the central role that dream interpretation played in the intellectual
scene of the Islamicate world over the centuries, especially during the Middle
Ages.30 In my opinion, underestimation of the scope of this impact is primarily
responsible for the lack of scholarly attention devoted to the Arabic legacy of
dream interpretation.
The state of research on Arabic dream books has benefitted from important
contributions by Toufic Fahd and John C. Lamoreaux.31 In his La Divination
arabe, Fahd elaborated on a comprehensive list of titles (181) and authors (more
berg “Literal Dreams and Prophetic ‘Hadîts’ in Classical Islam,” pp. 279–300; Chaumont,
“Voir Dieu en ce monde,” pp. 213–225.
26 Ibn Abī l-Dunyā, Kitāb al-Manām.
27 On the reliability of this attribution, see Lamoreaux, Early Muslim tradition of Dream Inter-
pretation, pp. 27–28; and Fahd, Divination Arabe, pp. 326–328.
28 See Lamoreaux Early Muslim tradition of Dream Interpretation, pp. 34–37.
29 See, Villuendas, “Dream Interpretation Reinterpreted in the Light of Judaeo-Arabic Frag-
ments Attributed to Hai Gaon”.
30 One of the most important accomplishments in Islamic dream interpretation is the com-
prehensive Taʿṭīr al-anām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām written in 1096/1685 by the theologian ʿAbd
al-Ghanī b. Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī.
31 Fahd, La divination arabe, p. 249 f. Lamoreaux, Early Muslim tradition of Dream Interpre-
tation.

than 120 names), based mainly upon Ḥājjī Khalīfa and his own research into
several Arabic manuscripts collections.32 He was also responsible for the first
scholarly edition of a dream book in Arabic: the Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, an adapted
translation of Artemidorus Oneirocriticon by the Nestorian Christian Ḥunayn
b. Isḥāq. In his edition and study on the work, Fahd attributes a key role to it
in the development of Arabic dream interpretation. However, Lamoreaux, who
only considered Muslim compositions from the early Islamic period, provides
a deeper analysis of the literature and its history. He also ascribes great impor-
tance to the Arabic Onerocriticon. However, it is not featured in his periodiza-
tion of the tradition.33 Instead, he notes the types of authors, distinguishing
between a period of formalism under the authority of the Muḥaddiths, until
the end of the fourth century AH, and the “fracturing of the tradition,” which
other types of specialists participated in. His coverage of “the early Muslim tra-
dition of Dream Interpretation” reaches up to the fifth century of Islam. Out
of the fifty-five Muslim authors listed, he analysed the works of seven of them
in depth: Ibn Qutayba (213/828–276/889), al-Sijistānī (326/937–399/1008), al-
Maʿāfirī (fl. mid-fourth/tenth century), al-Qayrawānī (355/966–437/1045), al-
Dīnawarī (d. after 400/1010), al-Kharkhūshī (d. ca. 406/1015), and Ibn Sīnā
(370/80–428/1037).34 His studies on these works rely upon the examination
of several manuscripts. However, the bulk of information in the list is derived
primarily from indirect sources and includes several uncertain or unidentified
names and titles.
While both studies constitute reliable and valuable guides for research in the
Arabic tradition of dream interpretation, they cannot fill the gap left by the lack
of critical editions of the sources. Despite the enormous size of the literary pro-
duction, we can count just a few studies, including critical editions.35 Printed
versions of dream books appeared early in the Arabic world.36 Since the pub-
32 Fahd, La divination arabe, pp. 247–367.

33 Perhaps Lamoreaux considered that—being the work of a Christian—its relevance in an
account of Islamic dream interpretation should be limited.
34 Lamoreaux also provides a detailed description of a Christian dream book: the chapter
on dream interpretation in the Kitāb al-Dalāʾil of the Nestorian Bar Bahlūl (fl. 4th century
AH). He notes many parallels between this work and Ibn Qutayba’s. See ibid., pp. 154–165.
35 For example, Ibn Isḥāq’s Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā is derived from a unicum but Toufic Fahd compared
it with the Greek editions in his own edition and French introduction, Le Livre des Songes
[par] Artémidore d’Ephèse. Editions produced in the Arab world generally lack any refer-
ence to the source of the text. Exceptions are the editions of Shihāb al-Dīn al-Maqdisī’s
al-Badr al-munīr fī ʿilm al-taʿbīr, ed. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Jumʿa, and Abū Saʿd Naṣr b.
Yaʾqūb al-Dīnawarī’s, Kitāb al-taʿbīr fī l-ruʾyā = al-Qādirī fī l-taʿbīr, ed. Fahmī Saʿd. However,
while they have useful introductions and footnotes, both editors relied exclusively on a
single manuscript source despite their awareness of the existence of other copies.
36 For example, in 1275/1859 Būlāq published a lithographied edition of the Taʿṭīr al-ānām fī

lishers produced them for a popular audience, not only are the books exempt
of introductory studies, but they do not even mention the source of the text
(typically an earlier faulty printed book) and often present false attributions.37
Considering the instability of the genre, critical editions based upon collation
of manuscripts are fundamental scholarly desiderata. With the absence of a sin-
gular defined point of origin, the multiplicity of textual variants is frequent and
significant; it can derive from several compilation processes from oral lore.38
The state of research in the Arabic tradition of dream interpretation is insuf-
ficient to answer many basic questions regarding the Islamic Oneirocritic tra-
dition. To mention just a few: Is it possible to speak of a shift from anecdotes to
formalism (as Lamoreaux put it) or do they represent two independent coex-
isting traditions which converged at times? To what extent are Muslim oneiro-
critics derived from previous or adjoining traditions? What other sources does
the Islamic legacy derives from? Or, in Elizabeth Sirriye’s words: “How Islamic is
Muslim dream interpretation?” Or, how much does it “pretend” to be Islamic?39
The same could be said for Jewish dream manuals. An absence of studies and
editions of medieval works leaves a gap between the Talmudic period, covered
tafsīr al-aḥlām by ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (m. 1143/1731), followed by al-Ishārāt fī ʿilm al-
ʿibārāt by Gars al-Dīn Khalīl Ibn al-Shāhīn (m. 872/1468), with the Muntakhab al-kalām fī
tafsīr al-aḥlām in the margins. See, Yūsuf Sarkīs, Muʿjam al-maṭbūʿāt, vol. 1, col. 132–133.
37 The most paradigmatic example is the Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām, published
under the authority of Ibn Sīrīn, although it belongs to al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥasan al-Dārī. Lam-
oreaux, “Some notes on the dream manual of al-Dari,” pp. 47–52.
38 This is probably the case for the Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, a short dream book commonly attributed
to Ibn Sīrīn. See Fahd, La divination arabe, pp. 355–356.
39 See Elizabeth Sirriyeh, “Arab Stars, Assyrian Dogs and Greek ‘Angels’,” pp. 215–233. This
is, in her own words, a “short examination,” which does not pretend to comprehensive-
ness. It includes examples of concomitances between several Islamic dream books, such
as Ibn Qutayba’s Taʿbīr al-Ruʾyā, and the Akkadian dream book published by Oppenheim.
Another question is whether the transmission of Mesopotamian lore occurred through
Greek mediation, as suggested by Oppenheim, for whom both astrology and dream inter-
pretation were revived in the Islamic milieu through Hellenistic mediation (see Ancient
Mesopotamia, p. 207); or was it through continuity of a tradition native to the region
which preceded the arrival of Islam, as proposed by Guillaume: “Further examination of
the literature of alchemy, astrology, and the occult generally, in Arabic, might possibly
reveal more extensive survivals of ancient Babylonia. Since Chwolsohn’s Die Ssabier [sic]
was published some eighty years ago a vast amount both of Babylonian tablets and Ara-
bic manuscripts has been discovered, and the fact that the names Jeber and the Book of
Nabatean Agriculture are no what they seem, but are forgeries, need not discourage the
student from examining works that make no such extravagant claims,” in Prophecy and
Divination among the Hebrews and Other, p. 220, n. 1. See also, Böck, “ ‘An Esoteric Baby-
lonian Commentary’ Revisited”; Geller, “The Survival of Babylonian Wissenschaft in later
tradition”.

by several studies on the dream book in the Babylonian Talmud (55a–57b),40

and the Early Modern period, when the popular treatise of Shlomo Almoli
appeared,41 followed by others.42 My research on the Judeo-Arabic fragments
has partially filled this gap. In addition, Gideon Bohak is preparing a study on
dream manuals represented in Aramaic Genizah fragments. However, dozens
of manuscripts have yet to be explored in order to complete the picture of Jew-
ish production in that period.
2 Arabic Oneirocritic Legacy in the Genizah Collections
Given the significance of dreams and dream interpretation to medieval reli-

gious scholars, it is not surprising to find a considerable number of relevant
fragments in the old paper storage room of a Cairene synagogue. The fragments
include examples of dream narrations, philosophical and physiological expla-
nations of dreams, dream conjurations (sheʾalat ḥalom) and dream books, in
several languages.43 My doctoral dissertation focused on an abundant category,
fragments of dream books composed in Judeo-Arabic.44 The corpus I compiled
includes 82 fragments from various library collections in Cambridge, St. Peters-
burg, New York, London, Oxford, Budapest, Manchester and Philadelphia. The
main goal of the research was the identification of attested works in order to
fill the void of studies on medieval Jewish dream books and to provide a pre-
liminary mapping of the history of this legacy. Therefore, items in the corpus
were limited to those dated before the 15th century.45
Given that the fragments were all unpublished (except for two of them),
they had to be edited individually; however, since they often transmit variants
40 See Weiss, All dreams follow the mouth; Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic literature;
Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b”; Weiss, Studies on the Literature of the Amoraim,
pp. 264–270; Kristianpoller, “Traum und Traumdeutung im Talmud”; Ken Frieden, “All
Dreams Follow the Mouth”.
41 Frajerman, Pitrón Ḥalomot: La Clef des Rêves, pp. 7–11; Yaakov Elman, Dream interpretation
from classical Jewish sources, pp. 1–3; Kuyt, “With one foot in the Renaissance,” pp. 205–211;
Yudlov, “ ‘Pitron Ḥalomot’ le-Rav Hai Gaon,” pp. 107–120; Gruenbaum, “Pitron Ḥalomot,”
pp. 180–201.
42 For general accounts, see Löwinger, Der Traum in der jüdischen Literatur; Covitz, Visions of
the night; Harris, Studies in Jewish Dream Interpretation; and Naor, Bringing down dreams.
43 For a study of dream conjurations in the Genizah, see Bellusci, Dream Requests in the Mid-
dle East.
44 The corrected and updated version is being published under the title Onirocrítica islámica,
judía y cristiana en la Gueniza de El Cairo.
45 This meant setting aside ten of the twenty fragments in the Firkovich collection that I plan
to study later on.

of the same component texts, they were also grouped with others in synoptic
tables. The groupings relied primarily on corresponding contents, and secon-
darily, on matches based upon palaeographic and codicological evidence. In
parallel, a number of dream books which likely circulated in the same time
and region were grouped. They would form a mirror corpus with which the
other texts were compared. Representing the Arabic tradition, the ten compo-
sitions employed lacked from critical editions, making necessary direct con-
sultation of manuscript copies. The selection criteria relied upon the existing
state of research on Arabic Oneirocritic literature. Nevertheless, direct research
in manuscript libraries such as the BnF in Paris, Leipzig University Library, and
the Staatsbibliothek of Berlin provided additional sources. An expanded list of
extant Arabic works was thus compiled to serve as a corpus for comparison.46
This mirror corpus also incorporated six additional works from other linguis-
tic domains because of their religious association or due to their preponderant
role in the field.47 A majority of compositions included in the mirror corpus are
either older or contemporary to the fragments; however, later works were also
considered for their possible reliance on the compositions attested to only in
the Genizah.
When more than one fragment transmitted similar texts, reconstructions
were presented in synoptic editions. Thus, the editions demonstrate compo-
sitions with a strong degree of cohesion represented by the various fragments.
In some cases, they were also remarkably consistent with external manuscripts
outside of the Genizah collections, thus enabling identifications of them with
more or lesser-known dream books. However, other cases exhibit confounding
variations. A list of works identified is provided below, with indications of the
number of fragments representing them, their total number of written pages,
and an estimation of the number of codices the fragments may be derived
from:
46 These are: Kitāb Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā attributed to Ibn Sīrīn and al-Kirmānī, Kitāb Tafsīr al-
manāmāt attributed to Ibn Sīrīn, Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā of Artemidorus (Arabic translation and
adaptation of the Oneirocriticon), Ibn Qutayba’s Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, Bar Bahlūl’s Kitāb al-Dalāʾil
(although it is not a dream book properly speaking, it contains a chapter on dream omina),
al-Dīnawarī’s al-Qādirī fī ʿIlm al-Taʿbīr, al-Dārī’s Muntakhab al-kalām fī Tafsīr al-Aḥlām,
al-Sālimī’s al-Ishāra ilā ʿIlm al-ʿIbāra, Ibn al-Shāhīn’s al-Ishārāt fī ʿIlm al-ʿIbārāt, and al-
Nābulusī’s Taʿṭīr al-Ānām fī Taʿbīr al-Manām.
47 This is the case for Artemidorus’ Oneirocriticon, the dream book in the Talmud, the Som-
niale Danielis, the Oneirocriticon of Achmet, and the two Hebrew pre-modern dream
books that are known to us: the Pitron Halomot attributed to Hai Gaon, and the homony-
mous treatise of Almoli, originally entitiled Mefashsher Helmin (Almoli, Dream interpre-
tation from classical Jewish sources).

Works Fragments Pages Codices
1 Anonymous Tafsīr al-Manāmāt with 12 28 10

Talmudic input
2 Untitled book identified with the Pitron 11 28 9
Ḥalomot attributed to Hai Gaon
3 Untitled book identified with the Kitāb 6 53 5
Tafsīr al-manāmāt, attributed to Ibn
Sīrīn
4 Introduction to a Tafsīr al-manāmāt 2 5 2
manqūl ʿan bin Sīrīn
5 Introduction to a Tafsīr al-manāmāt 2 4 2
li-Ibn Sīrīn
Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā (attributed elsewhere to
al-Kirmānī)
7 Three variants of the same Kitāb Taʿbīr A: 9 24 4+1 rotulus
al-ruʾyā B: 1 4 1
C: 4 12 1
Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā of Ibn Qutaybah
9 Kitāb Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā of Abū Sahl ʿĪsà al- 1 1 1
Masīḥī
Other possible works (not identified): joint fragments from single codices
10 Group 1 3 11 1
11 Group 2 2 12 1
12 Group 3 1 12 1
Single fragments 19 45 19
Total: 82 fragments (=254 pp.) from 60 codices and 1 rotulus

From this table, it is possible to highlight several terminological and method-

ological issues that the student or editor of these materials faces. They arise, on
the one hand, from the nature of this type of composition, and, on the other
hand, from the characteristics of the warehouses of the manuscripts: the Geni-
zot.
The main problem of the nature of dream books is already apparent in the
Mesopotamian lists of dream omens. The textual cohesion of dream books
and dream lists is fragile due to their composite nature. They constitute dif-
ferent elements that often undergo rearrangement or elusion, similar to verses
in poetry corpora. In dream books, four types of elements or units can be distin-
guished. From shorter to longer length, two components form the conditional
clauses: the proteases, containing the symbol, and the apodosis, containing
the interpretation. The second type of unit consists of the conditional clauses
themselves. Thirdly, anecdotes to illustrate or explain the symbols, consisting
usually of dream narrations. In some cases, they reference religious or linguis-
tic authoritative sources (such as Qurʾān, Ḥadīth, poetry, or Arab proverbs).
Finally, the visions are arranged into different thematic chapters or blocks
which represent the fourth type of unit. In comparing several manuscripts,
differences affecting one or more of these units emerge. The absence or dis-
tortion of any of these elements rarely compromises the coherence of the
others. Yet, such changes result in a multiplicity of variants. Therefore, this
phenomenon challenges the concept of what constitutes an individual work.
At what moment should a text be regarded as a unique composition and not
merely as a variant of another work? Is it possible to establish a minimum
percentage of correspondence to define a boundary between variants and dis-
tinct works? Both in the case of the Assyrian Dream Book and the Somniale
Danielis, the editors’ solution has been to gather together versions, creating
their own eclectic reconstruction; hence, yet another new version! For exam-
ple, the Somniale counts up to 70 versions in Latin, and in the three manuscripts
preserved in Greek, out of the 486 entries found, only 120 display correspon-
dence in all three manuscripts. As for Oberhelman’s critical edition, it contains
302 entries.48 In the case of Oppenheim’s Assyrian Dream Book, he does not
attempt to reconstruct a specific work. However, he gathers under one roof
sources representing different regions and periods, over a timespan of more
than a thousand years.49 Nevertheless, not all dream books suffer from this
intangibility. Artemidorus and some authored Arabic compositions enjoy a sta-
ble form with only relatively minor variations in the textual witnesses.
48 Oberhelman, Oneirocriticon of Achmet.

49 Oppenheim, “Interpretation of Dreams”.

Genizah fragments provide examples of this dichotomy. Different degrees

of stability are attested to both in synoptic editions of fragments containing
one same work and in comparison between copies from the Genizah and those
found elsewhere. For example, the dream book attributed to Ibn Sīrīn entitled
Kitāb al-Manāmāt (nº 3 of the list) exhibits only minor variations between the
Judeo-Arabic fragments (mainly but not exclusively from the Firkovich collec-
tion), even when compared to the Arabic manuscript of this work. In contrast,
the Taʿbīr al-Ruʾyā, discussed in depth below, appears to have been widely cir-
culated, possibly transmitted in both written and in oral forms, in parallel,
with sporadic contamination. This hypothesis is based upon the presence of
numerous significant discrepancies between the manuscripts, both Arabic and
Judeo-Arabic, which defy attempts to group them or create a stemma diagram.
The biggest difficulty in attributing the texts is their fragmentary state. The
challenge is even more arduous in the case of dream books, when compound-
ing the aforementioned inherent problematics with the fact that only a small
portion of the preserved Arabic legacy has been critically edited. Furthermore,
the texts preserved in the Genizah do not necessarily represent a single given
work or genre. For example, when evaluating a single folio or bifolio, it is not
always clear if it ever belonged to a codex or if it had been rejected due to a
copying mistake. Other questions arise which one cannot always answer: What
was purpose of the text? Was it a commercial item? Did it belong to a private
library before ending in the Genizah? Did it, rather, serve a didactic function
and/or never left the synagogue? Fragments of texts unattested to elsewhere
are especially difficult to assess. Unable to categorize them in a definite way, all
we can grasp are converging clouds of more or less reasonable assumptions.
Despite these limitations, Arabic Genizah literary fragments remain an in-
valuable source for understanding intellectual history, and not solely in a Jew-
ish sense. Illustrations of how their research contributes to the field of dream
interpretation include direct evidence of the famous dream book of the Chris-
tian Abū Sahl ʿĪsā ibn Yaḥyā al-Jurjānī al Masīḥī (nº 11); proofs of early circula-
tion of undated Islamic compositions (for example, nº 3); and the revelation of
a Judeo-Arabic version of the dream book attributed to Hai Gaon (nº 2), which
most likely predates the Hebrew one.50
In addition, Genizah research revealed several examples of texts which differ
significantly from those commonly found in manuscripts from regular collec-
tions. This holds true for both subjects I have focused my own research upon:
dream interpretation and geomancy. A shared characteristic between them is
50 Villuendas, “Dream Interpretation Reinterpreted”.

that Genizah copies appear older than other manuscripts (like Talmudic liter-
ature in the Genizah). For example, regarding dream interpretation, the three
most circulated Arabic dream books: 1) the Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-
aḥlām of Al-Ḥusayn b. Ḥasan b. Ibrāhīm al-Khalīlī al-Dārī (fl. 13th century); 2)
the Ishāra ilā ʿilm al-ʿibāra of Ghars al-Dīn Khalīl Ibn al-Shāhīn (d. 872/1468);
and 3) the Taʿṭīr al-anām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām of ʿAbd al-Ghanī b. Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī
(d. 1143/1731), are all absent in the Genizah, presumably because they had not
yet been written during the period of the Genizah’s Golden Age. Furthermore,
critical textual analysis suggests that some Genizah items represent more prim-
itive stages of a given literary genre. This is, in my opinion as explained below,
also the case for Oneirocritic texts, where the contents appear in a condensed
style, as in the Akkadian dream lists, in contrast to the elaborate form of classi-
cal Islamic dream books. Faced with these two versions of dream books, mod-
ern scholarship has been inclined to consider shorter versions to be abridged
forms of the larger ones. While this possibility is plausible, the results of this
research suggest that, at times, the opposite effect is also likely,51 if not more
probable, as the following example demonstrates.
3 A Study Case
The case of the Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā (texts number six and seven in our aforemen-
tioned list of works found the Genizah) exemplifies the intricate ways in which
dream manuals are produced and reproduced, and demonstrates the relevance
of the Genizah copies.
During my research, I identified manuscript fragments that represent copies
of the same work. They were divided in two groups, since the unions between
the fragments indicated that they corresponded to two different codices, a
smaller one made of paper (folio size: 165 ×135mm.), with wide margins and
51 In addition to the aforementioned composition by Almoli, Al-Ishārāt fī ʿilm al-ʿibārāt by

Ibn al-Shāhīn, is an extension (adding thirty chapters to the fifty existing ones) of Al-
Ishāra ilā ʿilm al-ʿibāra by Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿUmar al-Sālimī. This
author has remained unknown and located around the year 800 (=1397), following infor-
mation provided by Fahd (Divination Arabe, p. 352), which he probably derived from Ibn
Khaldūn’s Muqaddima, which referred to his work as “one of the most useful and mod-
ern books” (min anfaʿ kutub wa-aḥḍarihā). However, I suggest identifying this author with
Abū l-Ḥasan (or Abū ʿĀmir) Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿĀmir/ʿUmar al-Sālimī (d. 559/1163)
of Tortosa, given the name similarity and considering that he authored a Kitāb al-ʿibāra.
According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Mālik al-Marrākushī, who consulted a copy in the author’s own
handwriting, it contained fifty chapters. See, Carmona “Al-Sālimī, Abū ʿĀmir,” pp. 280–283.

large, clear square script, of which a total of ten pages were preserved (Cam-
bridge University Library: T-S Ar.29.47, T-S NS 220.11, Mosseri VI.27.1, and Oxford
Bodleian Ms. Heb. e.100/44); and a larger size (240×400mm.) parchment codex
of which two big bifolios are preserved (eight pages in total). In addition, a small
fragment belongs to a third folio that seems to have been lost (Cambridge Uni-
versity Library: T-S Ar.50.223, T-S NS.339.68 and T-S NS.339.78). The beautiful
and delicate square script and the quality of the support material indicate a
particularly old and precious copy, whose date I estimate at before the eleventh
century.
None of the groups preserved either the beginning or the end of the book
and their contents do not overlap. The identification of the work came after
realising that they each agreed (with minor differences) with a manuscript
from the Universtätsbibliothek Leipzig (Ms. or. 359), which I found by chance
while searching electronic archives. Due to its late acquisition date (1996), nei-
ther Fahd nor Lamoreaux were aware of it. At first glance, this manuscript
does not seem particularly interesting; it is rather late (around 16th century),52
acephalous, and ending in medias res. Moreover, its final binding left some
pages out of order. However, the text of the manuscript is attributed to Abū
ʿAbd Allāh al-Kirmānī, whom we could identify with Ibrāhim b. ʿAbd Allāh al-
Kirmānī, sometimes Abū Isḥāq, the author of what is believed to be the first
Islamic dream book, no longer extant.
Little is known of this author.53 As Lamoreaux has pointed out, he is men-
tioned by later authors, such as al-Qayrawānī and Ibn Shāhīn, as an interpreter
for the caliphs al-Mahdī (r. 158–169/775–785) and Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 170–
193/786–809). According to legendary accounts, he was trained by the prophet
Yūsuf (Josef).54 Also, Lamoreaux extracted from one of the riwāya’s that the
muḥaddith Isḥāq b. ʿĪsā (d. ca. 214/829) had met him in Kirmān and copied
the book.55 Furthermore, I believe he could be identified as the father of Abū
Hishām Ḥassān b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Kirmānī, al-ʿAnzī, a ḥadīth transmit-
ter mentioned in both Muslim and al-Bukhārī. He was also the cadi of Kirmān,
and a jurist of the ḥanafī school, born in the year 86/705 and died in 186/802.56
The dream book of al-Kirmānī was employed extensively by later dream man-
52 Following Nuria Martínez de Castilla and François Déroche, who kindly provided their
opinions on the dating of the manuscript in a private communication.
53 See Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, pp. 25–26; and Fahd,
Divination Arabe, p. 345.
54 See Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, p. 26.
55 See Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, pp. 122–129.
56 See, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 2, p. 245, nº 447.

uals, of Ibn al-Qutayba, al-Dīnawarī, and others; several commentaries and

summaries were composed for it, especially in the Islamic West.57 It is known
under two names, al-Dustūr fī l-taʿbīr and Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā.58
In the Leipzig manuscript, the reference to al-Kirmānī appears in two places:
on the title page and in a page attached to the back of the title page. The
attached page exhibits a script that we could describe as a rather modern Taʿlīq,
with some traits of Ruqʿa, definitely later than the Naskhī hand responsible for
the rest of the manuscript. It provides an incomplete table of chapters, pre-
ceded by the identification of the book with the following presentation: Kitāb
fīhi Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā taʾlīf Abī ʿAbd Allāh al-Kirmānī raḥimahu Allāh wa-ghafara
li-ṣāḥibihi wa-li-kātibihi wa-l-nāẓir fīhi wa-li-mustamiʿihi (Book containing the
Dream Interpretation, a composition by Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Kirmānī, may God
have mercy upon him and grant pardon to his author, his copyist, his reader
and his listener). The information on the front of the title page is very late, for
it is written in blue ink with a ballpoint pen in a modern Ruqʿa. It is proba-
bly taken from the book’s introduction, but adds a date of death, 328/940; this
information was taken erroneously from Fahd, where it simply represents the
terminus ante quem of al-Kirmānī’s book, actually the date of an early reader’s
death.59 After the title page, an uncertain number of pages is missing (probably
a few), and the text begins somewhere in the introductory chapter of the book,
where it discusses methodological aspects of dream interpretation.
Although the authenticity of the attribution was not very promising, I de-
cided to compare the manuscript with the Judeo-Arabic fragments and was
astonished by the high degree of concordance. I then compared it with later
dream books that claim to have utilized al-Kirmānī, focusing upon locations
where he is cited as a source for specific dream symbols. These results were
also positive. Yet, before reaching a conclusion, I find it necessary to compare
the texts more systematically, and to attempt to locate other copies of the text.
Recently, I realized that this same manuscript had been edited in a PhD the-
57 See Lamoreaux, Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, pp. 26, and 124–127, on
the riwāya of Ibn Khayr.
58 Both Fahd and Lamoreaux chose al-Dustūr fī l-taʿbīr as the main title, as it appears in Khal-
īfa, who took it from the introduction of the dream manual of Ibn Shāhīn (d. 872/1468).
Ḥājjī Khalīfa gave the two titles separate entries as different books, an assumption not sup-
ported by any reference. See Kashf, III, 227, nº 5071 and V, 63, nº 9979. However, I prefer
Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, because it is the title given by Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 438/1047), an earlier source
(Fihrist, 316, 1.26). Also, such titles were a trend of the early period, considering the books
of Ibn Qutayba, Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and Ibn Sīnā.
59 See Fahd, Divination Arabe, p. 345.

sis.60 The author, Umberto Cicchetti, considers the attribution and observes
that, while a decisive conclusion would require a large comparative study with
the passages quoting al-Kirmānī in other dream books, it is supported prelim-
inarily by two factors.61
First, the titles and some long passages of al-Kirmānī concord with those
in Ibn Qutayba, whose introduction refers to al-Kirmānī as one of his sources.
Without going into detail, Cicchetti mentions four chapters where the compar-
ison is especially clear, describing a general tendency towards concision and
clarity in Ibn Qutayba, as a deliberate attempt to mend Kirmānī’s prolixity. He
cites as his only example the meanings of the goat. There, while Ibn Qutayba
simply says it is interpreted like sheep, Kirmānī repeats most of the information
concerning the sheep.
Cicchetti’s second argument focuses on the dream manual of al-Dārī, the
Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām. This book has been widely reproduced
since the Publishing House Būlāq printed it in the margins of ʿAbd al-Ghanī
b. Ismāʿīl al-Nābulusī’s Taʿṭīr al-anām fī taʿbīr al-manām in 1275/1859.62 The
book of al-Dārī is largely based on Al-Bishāra wa-l-nidhāra fī ʿilm al-ʿibāra,
the well-known, yet unpublished, dream book of al-Kharkūshī.63 However, the
Muntakhab contains two introductions, the first of which can be distinguished
from Kharkūshī’s book. Fahd translated this first introduction from the point
where Ibn Qutayba is quoted for the first time.64 Fahd cautiously assumed that
from that point on all content was attributed to that author. Cicchetti realized
that the entire introduction was not found in Ibn Qutayba. Rather, some sec-
tions from the last pages coincided with the text of al-Kirmānī. Since al-Dārī
claimed to have employed the book of al-Kirmānī, among others, Cicchetti con-
sidered it a proof in favour of the identification.
60 Cicchetti, Ibn Qutayba et l’islamisation de la science de l’interprétation des rêves en Islam.

61 Cicchetti, Ibn Qutayba et l’islamisation de la science de l’interprétation des rêves en Islam,
pp. 256–259.
62 In this early print and ever since, the Muntakhab has been attributed to Muḥammad Ibn
Sīrīn, despite the fact that in the same volume where it appeared, Nābulusī already men-
tioned this book among his sources authored by al-Dārī. See also: Lamoreaux, “Some notes
on the dream manual of al-Dari”.
63 As Lamoreaux described it: “About 99 per cent of it being nothing more than a summary
of Kharkūshī’s dream manual” (Lamoreaux, “Some notes on the dream manual of al-Dari,”
p. 52). However, after partial comparison of both books, my own preliminary conclusion
is that the Muntakhab is longer, and it combines the book of Kharkūshī with that of Ibn
Qutayba, present in a proportion larger than 1 %, although it does follow to the chapter
division of the former.
64 This corresponds to BNF Arabe 2749, fols. 9v–13v, the source of his translation. Fahd, Div-
ination Arabe, pp. 317–326.

In my opinion, the two arguments are solid but not yet conclusive. In relation
to the second argument, one problem is that the extant book of Ibn Qutayba is
not complete. The two manuscripts known to us are Hebrew University, Yahuda
ar. 196, and Ankara University, Ism. Saib Sincer I, 4501, fols. 180a–217b. While the
first one appears to be complete, it has larger gaps than the second one, consist-
ing only of the introduction, cut off in medias res.65 The portion of text lost at
the end of the introduction is difficult to assess, because gaps in the copy that
seems complete are very large.66 Hence, the possibility that the “Kirmanian”
contents in al-Dārī come from Ibn Qutayba cannot be utterly refused, especially
if we take into account that the beginning of the manuscript attributed to al-
Kirmānī is also missing. However, the fact that the passages found in al-Kirmānī
appear only at the end of al-Dārī’s introduction indicates that he utilised a dif-
ferent source, which he placed after Ibn Qutayba. Thus, it is not clear why he
does not cite the author of this source as he did with Ibn Qutayba.
To further complicate the issue, another work was attributed to Ibn Sīrīn
that can be linked with the Kirmanian text. It was first published under the
title of Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā li-Ibn Sīrīn in Cairo by Muṣṭafà Bābī al-Ḥalabī in 1281/1864
(probably the same text published by his son ʿAlī Bābī al-Ḥalabī, s.d), and
again shortly thereafter as an 1874 lithographed handwritten edition in Luc-
know, India. Today, it enjoys great diffusion after being translated into English,
French, Italian, Spanish, and German.67 This short dream manual attributed
65 The longer one with lacunae is Hebrew University, Yahuda ar. 196. Mutilated but more
complete is Ankara University, Ism. Saib Sincer I, 4501, fols. 180a–217b. The edition based
on the Jerusalem manuscript was prepared by Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ. Despite omitting the sec-
ondary copy, it is a resourceful edition, with alternative readings, comparing Ibn Qutayba’s
quotations with his sources, such as Artemidorus. In the case of Dārī’s book, there is no
critical edition or study.
66 See the description of both with an account of the missing parts in Lamoreaux, “The
early Muslim tradition of dream interpretation,” pp. 27–28, and Kister, “The interpreta-
tion of dreams,” p. 69. In my own comparison of the two manuscripts, I found other gaps
in the Jerusalem manuscript than the ones Kister signalled out. Leaving aside small para-
graphs, a big portion of the content of Ankara fol. 214a–218a is missing in the Jerusalem
manuscript. I am deeply grateful to Maria Mavroudi, who kindly provided me with copies
of both manuscripts.
67 The source of the Spanish translation (El libro de la interpretación de sueños, ed. Guijarro),
seems to be the French one (L’interprétation des rêves, ed. Penot), which has also been
translated into English (The interpretation of Dreams, ed. Dar al-Taqwa). The Italian (Ibn
Sirin. Il libro del sogno veritiero, ed. Grandi) is based, according to the translator’s intro-
duction, on the Cairene editions and a manuscript from Salé, Ṣbihī Library n. 666 alif,
dated to 1294/1877. The Cairo edition also seems to have served as the basis for another
English translation (Interpretation of Dreams, ed. Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission), in which
I notice some censoring. Meanwhile, the German text (Das arabische Traumbuch des Ibn

to Ibn Sīrīn is a synthetic composition. It begins with a brief introduction on

the modes of interpretation. The remaining 24 chapters (or 30, depending on
the edition), contain visions and their meanings divided into topics, which
match the Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, not in their order but in their contents. The chap-
ters also include a few dream narrations where Ibn Sīrīn acts as an interpreter
whose purpose is to illustrate specific symbolic values. Despite its popularity,
this book has remained unnoticed by scholars, except for vague references to
the existence of several manuscript copies and the indication that it is consid-
ered a summary of Dārī’s Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām.68 However, this
assumption is wrong, since as we shall see in the following table, the Taʿbīr al-
ruʾyā attributed to Ibn Sīrīn is a summary of the homonymous book attributed
to al-Kirmānī. On the other hand, Maria Mavroudi, in her quest for the Arabic
sources of the Byzantine Onerirocriticon of Achmet filio Sereimis, examined
the book, but rejected its inclusion among the Arabic books she compared
with the Greek text, probably due to the presence of a dream narrative involv-
ing Alfonso IV (1065–1109), which provides a terminus post quem too late for
it to serve as a source of the Byzantine book, dated to the ninth century by
Mavroudi.
I would like to compare the three Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā (i.e. one by Ibn Qutayba, one
attributed to Ibn Sīrīn and one to al-Kirmānī), as well as one of the Genizah frag-
ments from the first group identified with the Kirmanian text, in the portion
relative to the vision of the ram.69 The aims of the comparison are to estab-
lish possible borrowings between different compositions and to determine the
degree of coherence between the Judeo-Arabic and the Arabic copies of the
Kirmanian text, as well as the variant readings. The visions are distributed into
cells to facilitate the comparison, with the cells enumerated for reference pur-
poses.70 In the few cases where the sequence of visions in the texts differs,
the contents have been rearranged in correspondence with each other, with
a pointer in the original location to the number of the paragraph to which it
has been moved. A pointer in the original location provides the number of the
paragraph that has been relocated.
Sirin, ed. Kopfler, with an introductory essay by Michael Lackner) differs from the others at
various loci, as it is based on a single manuscript dated 855/1451 that the translator claims
to have purchased in Ankara in 1958, and whose current location is unknown to me.
68 See Sarkīs, Muʿjam al-maṭbūʿāt, vol. 1, col. 126–127.
69 I present the Judeo-Arabic fragment transliterated into Arabic script in order to facilitate
the comparison. A transcription in the original alphabet can be found in Villuendas, Onir-
ocrítica islámica, judía y cristiana en la Gueniza de El Cairo.
70 The first paragraphs, whose contents are missing in the Genizah fragment, are not enu-
merated because they will not be used for the commentary.

‫‪326‬‬ ‫‪villuendas sabaté‬‬
‫‪Ibn Qutayba, MS‬‬ ‫‪Ibn Sīrīn (attr.), Taʿbīr‬‬ ‫‪Al-Kirmānī (attr.),‬‬ ‫‪Judeo-Arabic frag-‬‬ ‫§‬
‫‪Hebrew Univer-‬‬ ‫‪al-ruʾyā, (Nawalkishūr:‬‬ ‫‪Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, MS‬‬ ‫‪ment (untitled), MS‬‬
‫‪sity, Yahuda ar. 196,‬‬ ‫–‪Lucknow, 1874), 51‬‬ ‫‪Leipzig University‬‬ ‫‪Cambridge University‬‬
‫‪fol. 52b–53a.‬‬ ‫‪52.‬‬ ‫‪Library, Ms. Or. 359,‬‬ ‫‪Library, T-S Ar. 50.223,‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫الـكبش الرجل ضخم‬

‫مذكور منظور إليه من‬
‫بين الرجال غني منيع شجاع‪،‬‬
‫من أصاب كبشا أصاب‬ ‫فمن رأى أنه أصاب كبشا‬ ‫من رأى أنه أصاب كبشا‬
‫أو ملـكه فإنه يصيب سلطانا سلطانا ومالا وقهر رجلا‬ ‫فإنه يصيب سلطانا أو مالا‬
‫ضخما واستمكن منه‪.‬‬ ‫ومالا و يقهر رجلا ضخما‪.‬‬ ‫و يقهر رجلا ضخما واتمكن‬
‫منه‪.‬‬
‫فإن ذبحه لغير اللحم أو قتله‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه ذبحه لغير‬ ‫فإن ]رأى[ أنه ذبحه لغير‬
‫ظفر برجل عز يز ضخم منيع‪.‬‬ ‫اللحم أو قتله فإنه يظفر‬ ‫سكين اللحم أو قتله فإنه‬
‫برجل عز يز منيع‪.‬‬ ‫يظفر برجل عز يز منيع‪.‬‬
‫قال رسول الله صلى الله‬

‫عليه وسلم‪” :‬أر يت فيما يرى‬
‫النائم كأني مردف كبشًا‬
‫وكان ظبة سيقي انكسرت‬
‫فأولت أنى أقتل كبش‬
‫القوم‪ .‬وأولت كسر سيقي‬
‫قتل رجل من عشيرتي“‪.‬‬
‫فقتل حمزة وقتل رسول‬
‫]‪ [53a‬الله صلى الله عليه‬
‫وسلم طلحة وكان صاحب‬
‫لواء المشركين‪.‬‬
‫فإن سلخه فرق بين رجل‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه سل ّخه وفرق‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه سل ّخه وفرق‬
‫عظيم و بين ماله‪.‬‬ ‫بين جلده ولحمه فإنه يأخذ‬ ‫بين جلده ولحمه فإنه يأكل‬
‫ماله و يفرق بيته ]‪ [sic‬و بينه‬ ‫من ماله‪.‬‬
‫وإن لحمه فإنه يأكل من ماله‪.‬‬
‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫‪interpreting islamic dream books‬‬ ‫‪327‬‬
‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫ومن رأى أنه راكب كبشا وإن ركبه استمكن منه إذا‬ ‫وإن راكبه وهو يطيعه‬
‫رآه ذلولا له‪.‬‬ ‫يصرفهكيف يشاء فإنه‬ ‫و ينصرف له حيث شاء‬
‫يصيب من ذلك خيرا‪.‬‬ ‫فإنه يتمكن من رجل ضخم‬
‫عز يز منيع يصرفه حيث‬
‫شاء‪.‬‬
‫فإن كان غير ذلول في‬
‫ركو به فإنه يصعب عليه‬
‫ذلك الرجل‪ .‬فإن قهره حين‬
‫استقام له ملك ذلك الرجل‬
‫الضخم‪.‬‬
‫فإن احتمله على ظهره‬ ‫وإن رأى أنه حمله على‬ ‫فإن رأى حمله على ظهره‬
‫احتمل مؤنته‪.‬‬ ‫ظهره فإنه يحمل مؤنة رجل‪.‬‬ ‫فإنه يحمل مؤنة رجل ضخم‪.‬‬
‫فإن ركبه الـكبش من غير‬ ‫فصل‪ :‬فإن ركبه الـكبش‬

‫أن يكون هو الذي حمله فإنه‬ ‫من غير أمره فإنه يركبه‬
‫يركبه ]‪ [sic‬رجل ضخم بأمر يركبه الرجل و يقهره‪.‬‬
‫يكون لهكارهاً ‪.‬‬
‫ش م َنعَ تَ هُ ُ وقوَُ ّتهُ ٌ‬

‫وإن رأى أنه نكته فإنه يقهر وقرَ ْنُ الـكب ِ‬ ‫فإن رأى أن لهكبش له‬
‫وتذهب قوته ومنعته‪.‬‬ ‫قرنين أو أحدهما فإنه يقهر‬
‫ذلك الرجل بدهنه وقوته‬
‫ومنعته‪ .‬فإن ز يد في صوفه‬
‫كانت الز يادة في مال ذلك‬
‫الرجل الضخم‪.‬‬
‫وكذلك يجري على مجهول‬
‫المعز والضأن لا على‬
‫معروفها‪.‬‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫ش‬
‫ك جَماعة ً من الك ِبا ِ‬
‫فِإن م َل َ َ‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه ملك جماعة‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه ملك جماعة‬ ‫)…( من الكباش ملك‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫جماعة من الأشراف‬
‫ن ال َن ّا ِ‬
‫س‬ ‫ك َأشرافا ًم ِ َ‬
‫م َل َ َ‬ ‫من الكباش فإنه أسراف‬ ‫من الكباش فإنه يملك‬
‫الناش ]‪ [sic‬وعظمائهم‬ ‫جماعة من أشراف الناس‬
‫وعظمائهم‬
‫ف ِ َإن ر َعاها و َل ِ ّي َ ع َليهم‬ ‫وكذلك إذا كان يرعاهم‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه يرعاها فإنه يلي‬ ‫وإن رعاهم ولي عليهم‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫عليهم‬
‫فإن كان واليا ًفإن سلطانه‬ ‫فإن رأى ذلك والي فإن‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫يبقى عليهم بقدرِ عدد‬ ‫سلطانه يبقى له بقدر‬
‫الكباش سنين و يكون في‬ ‫الكباش سنين‬
‫مملـكته رجال لهم شرف‬
‫وحسب‬
‫‪§4‬‬ ‫والكباش هو الرجل المنظور والـكبش هو الرجل‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫إليه الضخم والغني الشجاعة الضخم الشر يف الحسيب‬
‫لأن الـكبش صفوة الله من المنيع المنظور إليه من بين‬
‫الرجال الشجاع وذلك أن‬ ‫بهائمه‬
‫الـكبش والضأن صفوة‬
‫الله من بهائمه فلذلك شرفه‬
‫وحسبه من صوفه وقرونه‬
‫فإن رأى أنه ذبح‪ 71‬ليأكل‬ ‫وذبحه وأكل لحمه فما‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫من لحمه فإن ذلك يجري‬ ‫وصفت في غيره‬
‫على ما وصفت من التأو يل‬
‫اللحم واختلافه‬
‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪, both here and in the remaining instances.‬دبح‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫و َاْلُأ ْ‬
‫ضح ِيةَ ُ ف ُ ّ‬
‫ك ال َر ّق َبةَ ِ‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه ذبح كبشا ً‬ ‫فإن ضحى به في أيام الضحية فصل فإن رأى أنه ذبح‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ليضحي به أو ذبح أضحية غير‬ ‫كبشا ًلأضحيه يضحِي به ِ‬ ‫فهو فكاك رقاب وخلاص‬
‫الـكبش فإن ذلك فكاك‬ ‫في أيام النحر أو غير ِ أيام‬ ‫أسير كمثل خلاص بن‬
‫رقبة واستنفاد أسيرا وشفاه‬ ‫النحرِ فإن تأو يل الأضحى‬ ‫إ برهيم‬
‫مرض أو قضاء دين أو غنى‬ ‫فكاك الرقاب وخلاص‬
‫ب ع د فقر‬ ‫الأسير ِ كما كان خلاص‬
‫إسحاق‪ 72‬من الذبح خيرا ً‬
‫أراد ذبحه إ براهيم خليل الله‬
‫عليه السلام‬
‫ض ّحا بأِ ُ ْ‬
‫ضح ِيةَ ٍ وك َانَ ع َبدا ً‬ ‫ف َم َْن َ َ‬ ‫فمن رأى أنه ضحى بأضحية‬ ‫فمن ضحى وكان عبدا عتق‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ق‬
‫ع َت َ َ‬ ‫فإن كان ]‪ [76a‬عبدا ًأعتق‬
‫نج َا‬
‫َأو َأسيرا ً َ‬ ‫وإن كان أسيرا ًنجا‬ ‫وإن كان أسيرا نجا‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫ن‬
‫أو خ َائفِ ا ً َأم ِ َ‬ ‫وإن كان خائفا ًنجا وأمن‬ ‫وإن كان خائف‪ 73‬أمر‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫أمن‬
‫َأو م ُْدينِا ًق ُض ِيَ ع َن ْه ُ ال َد ّي ْ ُ‬

‫ن َأو‬ ‫وإن كان عليه دين قضاه ُ‬ ‫‪ 10‬وإن كان عليه دين قضاه‪74‬‬
‫ص َر ُورة ً َ‬
‫حج ّ‬ ‫الله عنه ُ‬
‫شفاه ُ الله ُ‬
‫أو م َر يضا ً َ‬ ‫وإن كان مر يضا شفاه ُ الله‬ ‫‪ 11‬وإن كان مر يض شفع‬
‫تعالى‬
‫‪72‬‬ ‫‪.‬اسحق‬
‫‪73‬‬ ‫‪֗. Case of scriptio defectiva, a common phenomenon in Judeo-Arabic manuscripts. See,‬כיף‬
‫‪Blau, Diqduq ha-Aravit ha-Yahudit, §8.‬‬
‫‪74‬‬ ‫‪, another common trait of Judeo-Arabic manu-‬ظ ‪ and‬ض ‪. Confusion between‬ק֗טאה‬
‫‪scripts, as well as in Arabic dialects. See, Blau, Diqduq ha-Aravit ha-Yahudit, §23.‬‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫س‬
‫ك ِإن ر َ َأى الن َا َ‬
‫و َك َذ َل ِ َ‬ ‫فصل فإن رأى يوم العيد‬ ‫‪ 12‬وإن رأى يوم الأضحى فإن‬
‫جوا يوَ م َ َأضحا َأو يوَ ْم َ‬
‫ق َْد خ َر َ ُ‬ ‫الأضحى فأن كان الناس‬ ‫كان في خوف أو كـ]ان[‬
‫ف ِْطٍر فِإَّنهم ي َصيرونَ ِإلى فرَ َحٍ‬ ‫في خوف أمنوا وإن كانوا‬ ‫كشف عنه وكذلك يوم‬
‫وخ َي ْرٍ‬ ‫ب كشف عنهم‬
‫في حر ٍ‬ ‫الفطر لمن رأى لنفسه أو‬
‫للعامة يخرجون من ضيق أو وكذلك يوم عيد الفطر لمن‬
‫رآه لنفسه أو للعامة فإنهم‬ ‫سعة‬
‫يخرجون من ضيق إلى سعة‬
‫ومن قحط إلى عيب‬
‫والنعَ ج َة ُ ا ِمرَ َأة ٌ ش َر يفة ٌ وقد‬ ‫فصل والنعجة امرأة شر يفة النعجة امرأة شر يفةكر يمة‬ ‫‪ 13‬والنعجة امرأة محصنة‬
‫ن الن ِساء‬
‫ك َناَ الله ُعَز وجل ع َ ِ‬ ‫مخطية‬ ‫مخصبةكر يمة‬ ‫شر يفة‬
‫ج في ق َ ّ‬
‫صة ِ د َاو ُد َ ع َل َي ْه ِ‬ ‫بالن ِعا ِ‬
‫ال َ ّ‬
‫سلام‬
‫فإن رأى أنه أصاب نعجة‬ ‫فمن رأى أنه أصاب نعجة‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫أو ملـكها فإنه يصيب امرأة‬ ‫أصاب امرأةكذلك‬
‫فإن رأى أنه يحلبها فإنه ُ‬ ‫‪ 15‬وحلبها مال حلال من‬

‫يصيب مالا ًحلالا ًمن‬ ‫امرأة مثلها‬
‫امرأة ٍ‬
‫كذلك فإن رأى أنه ذبحها‬ ‫‪ 16‬فإن ذبحها ليأكل من لحمها‬

‫ليأكل من لحمها ينال خيرا‬ ‫نال حاجته منها‬
‫منها‬
‫ح ا ِمرَ َأة ً‬
‫ك َ‬
‫و َم َْن ذ ََبح نعَ ج َة ً ن َ َ‬ ‫فإن ذبح النعجة من غير أن‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه ذبحها من غير‬ ‫‪ 17‬فإن ذبحها لغير أكل نكح‬
‫ير يد الأكل منها فإن ينكح‬ ‫أن ير يد أن يأكل لحمها فإنه‬ ‫امرأةكذلك‬
‫امرأة‬ ‫ينكح امرأةكذلك‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫ب‬
‫ج الع َر َ ُ‬
‫وسود الن ِعا ِ‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫جم ُ‬
‫وع ُفر ُها الع َ َ‬
‫ل الله ِ صلى الله‬
‫قال رسو ُ‬
‫ت ع َلىَ غ َن ٍَم‬‫سل َم و َر َد َ ُ‬
‫ع َل َيه ِ و َ َ‬
‫سوٍد فَأَّول ْ ُ‬
‫ت الع ُْفر َ‬ ‫ع ُفر ٌو َ ُ‬
‫ب‪75‬‬
‫جم والس ُود َ الع َر َ َ‬
‫ال ع َ َ‬
‫‪[see Genizah fragment‬‬
‫]‪§40‬‬
‫ومن رأى نعجته خرجت‬ ‫وكذلك لو رأى نعجته‬ ‫‪ 19‬وكذلك إن رأى أن نعجته‬
‫خرجت من بيته أو ضاعت من بيته أو ضاعت أو‬ ‫خرجت أو ضاعت كان‬
‫أو سرقت فإن ذلك بامرأته سرقت فإنه يقع له في‬ ‫لامرأتهكذلك‬
‫زوجته ما يسوءه‬
‫ج‬‫ش والن ِعا ِ‬‫ش وم ُ الكبا ِ‬ ‫و َ حُ‬ ‫شحوم الغنم ولحومها وجلدها‬ ‫‪ 20‬وشحم الـكبش والنعجة‬
‫وج ُلود ُها و َأصوافهُ ا و َألبْ انُها‬ ‫وإلبانها وإصوافها وإروائها‬ ‫وجلده وصوفه ولبنه خير‬
‫ب م ِن ْه ُ شيئا ً‬
‫صا َ‬
‫خ َير ٌ لمن َأ َ‬ ‫وجميع ذلك فإنه مال‬ ‫من مثل ذلك‬
‫وغنيمة إن نال منها شيئا‬
‫ب‬ ‫ت له َُسخ ْلة ٌ َأ َ‬

‫صا َ‬ ‫و َم َْن و َهبَ َ ْ‬ ‫وسخلة ولد‪ ،‬فإن رأى أنها‬ ‫فأن وهبت له سلخة فإنه‬ ‫‪ 21‬وإن وهبت له سخل من‬
‫و َلدَ ا ًم ُبار َكا ً‬ ‫وهبت له فيولد له ولد‬ ‫يرزق ولدا ًمباركا ًشر يفا ً‬ ‫سخالها وضع ولدا مباركا‬
‫شر يفا‬
‫فإن ذ ََبح َ َسخ ْلةَ لً غيَ ر ِ لَح ٍْم م َا َ‬

‫ت‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه ذبح سلخة لغير ومن رأى أنه ذبح سخلة‬ ‫‪ 22‬وإن ذبح سخلة لغير اللحم‬
‫ض َأهلهِ ِ و َلدَ ٌ‬
‫له ُ َأو ل ِبعَ ِ‬ ‫لغير اللحم فيموت له ولد‬ ‫يموت له ولد أو لبعض أهله اللحم مات ولده ُ أو أو ولدا‬
‫أوالبعض من أهله‬ ‫و بعض أهله‬
‫‪75‬‬ ‫‪See Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, nº 23691.‬‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫ل لَح ِم َ َسخ ٍ‬
‫ل‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه يأكل من لحم فِإن كانَ َأك َ َ‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه يأكل لحم‬ ‫‪ 23‬وإن أكل لحم سخل يصيب‬
‫ب‬
‫ب م َالا ًقليلا بً ِس َب َ ِ‬
‫أصا َ‬ ‫السخلة فإنه يصيب مالا‬ ‫مال بسبب ولد إلا أنه قليل سلخ فإنه يأكل مالا ًقليلا ً‬
‫و َلدَ ٍ‬ ‫بسبب ذلك الولد‬ ‫من بسبب ذلك الولد‬ ‫وتح‬
‫فإن رأى أنه يعالج جماعة‬ ‫‪ 24‬وإن عالج من جماعة سخلها‬

‫سخال فإنه يصيبه هم بكون‬ ‫يصيبه هم له فيه شرف‬
‫له فيه شرف وذكر‬ ‫وذكرة‬
‫كبشا ً‬
‫ل َ‬
‫وم َن ر َأى َأنهَ ُ قات َ َ‬ ‫فمن رأى أنه يقاتل نوعين‬ ‫‪ 25‬وإن قاتل كباشا نازع رجلا‬
‫ل‬
‫ن الر ِ ّجا ِ‬
‫ضخما ًم ِ َ‬
‫ف ِ َإنهَ ُ ي ُنازِع ُ َ‬ ‫مختلفين فإن ]‪ [76b‬الغالب‬ ‫ضخما فمن غلب منهما‬
‫ب‬
‫ب م ِنه ُما فهَ و َ الغال ُ‬
‫ف َم َْن غ َل َ َ‬ ‫هو يغلب الحالف الرجلين‬ ‫هو الغالب لأنهما نوعان‬
‫ن‬
‫]‪ [53b‬لأِ َ نَه ُم َا نوَ ع َا ِ‬ ‫إذا اقتتلا فإن الغا ه ُو َ‬ ‫مختلفان‬
‫ن‬
‫مخت َلفا ِ‬
‫ُ‬ ‫لمغلوب فأفهم‬
‫وكذلك جميع الدواب‬ ‫‪ 26‬وليس ذلك مثل السخلين‬

‫والطيور وغيرهم على ما‬ ‫يتصارعان في المنام الذي‬
‫المصروع منهما هو الاعـداء وصفت‬
‫في التأو يل لأن لما كان‬
‫الـكبش في أمثال الرؤ يا‬
‫رجلا فإن دليله أن رجلـ‪.‬‬
‫ينازعه‬
‫‪ 27‬ولو رأى كبشين يصطرعان فصل فإن رأى أنه راكب‬

‫شيأ من الضأن فإنه يصيبه‬ ‫لكان المصروع منهما أعلى‬
‫خصبا ًوخيرا ً‬ ‫على الصارع لأنهما نوعا‬
‫واحد‪76‬‬
‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪, another case of scriptio defectiva.‬וחד‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫و َما كانَ من ذلك ال َن ّوعينِ‬ ‫‪ 28‬وكذلك حماران وفرسان‬

‫الم ُت ّف ِق َي ْنِ‪ ،‬مثل الـ َ‬
‫كب ْشين‬ ‫طيران المصروع أحسن‬
‫والح ِمار َين‪.‬‬ ‫حال‬
‫ل لَح ْمهَ ُ‬
‫ك ِإن َأك َ‬
‫وكذل َ‬ ‫‪ 29‬وكبش من الضأن خصب فإن أكل من لحمه شيُأ من‬
‫م َطبوخا‪ً.‬‬ ‫طبوُ خا نً ال سرورا ًأو غنيمة ً‬ ‫وسمنه سرور‬
‫وخضب‬
‫سلوخ‪:‬‬
‫ل ب َي ْتهَ ُ م َ ْ‬
‫فِإن د َخ َ َ‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه دخل بيته‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه أدخل في بيته‬ ‫‪ 30‬وإن أدخلت بيته مسلوخة‬
‫ضـِع‬
‫ك المو ِ‬
‫ت ف ي ذل َ‬
‫ما َ‬ ‫ن فإنه شاة مسلوخة أو محله فإنه‬
‫ضأن يموت واحد في ذلك كبشا ًمسلوخا ًمن ضأ ٍ‬
‫ن‪.‬‬
‫إنسا ٌ‬ ‫يموت إنسان في ذلك‬ ‫يموت له إنسان‬ ‫الموضع‬
‫الموضع‬
‫ضْخم ُ من َأعضاء ِ‬
‫فصل وإن كان اللحم بعض إن كان بعض أعضاء الشاة وكذلك ال َ ّ‬ ‫‪ 31‬وإن كان اللحم بعض‬
‫ال َ ّ‬
‫شاة ِ‪.‬‬ ‫فيموت من ينسب إليه‬ ‫أعضاء الشاة فإنه يموت‬ ‫أعضاء الشاة فإنه ]يـ[موت‬
‫العضو‬ ‫إنسان هناك أيضا‬ ‫إنسان هناك‬
‫وإن أكل رجل الشاة أو‬ ‫‪ 32‬الرجل موت بعض عشيرته فصل فإن كان اللحم رجل‬
‫أعضاها فيموت بعض‬ ‫شاة فإنه يموت بعض‬ ‫وفخده‬
‫عترته‬
‫عشيره وصاحب الرؤ يا‬
‫وإن كان المقدم من الجنب وإن كان جنبها أو ضلعها‬ ‫‪ 33‬والمقدم من الجنب موت‬
‫فتموت امرأة من هناك‪،‬‬ ‫من النساء فإنه يموت‬ ‫امرأة لأنها من ضلع وهذا‬
‫كل هذا إذا كان اللحم‬ ‫صاحب الرؤ يا فصل إن‬ ‫إن كان طري دون أن‬
‫طر يا‬ ‫المرأة خلقت من ضلع‬ ‫يكون صاحب المنام ممن‬
‫أعوج كل ذلك إذا كان‬ ‫طبيعته‬
‫اللحم طر يا و يكون صاحب‬
‫الرؤ يا ممن طبيعته‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬
‫‪fols. 76a–76b.‬‬ ‫‪fol. 1a (left).‬‬
‫إذا رأى اللحم في المنام فهو‬ ‫‪ 34‬إذا رأى اللحم في المنام فهو‬
‫اللحم كهيئته يأكل و يصيب اللحم كهيئتهكما رأى يصيبه‬
‫و يأكل في اليقظة‬ ‫في اليقظة‬
‫ل لَح ْما ًَطرِ ي ّا نً ي ِّئا‪ً:‬‬

‫وم َن َأك َ‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه يأكل لحما‬ ‫فإن رأى أنه يأكل لحما ً‬ ‫‪ 35‬فإذا رأى أنه يأكل لحما‬
‫س‪.‬‬
‫ب الناّ َ‬
‫اْغتا َ‬ ‫نيئا أو يضرب به إنسانا فإنه‬ ‫طر يا نيا فإنه يغتاب الناس‬ ‫طر يا فإنه يغتاب الناس‬
‫يغتاب إناسنا و يأكل من‬ ‫و يضر بهم بلسانه‬ ‫و يأكل لحومهم‬
‫لحمه أو يضر به بلسانه‬ ‫وإن ر]أى[ أنه يضرب‬
‫إنسان بلحم طري فإنه‬
‫يغتابه و يضر به بلسانه‬
‫ومن رأى أنه يأكل لحما‬ ‫فإن أكله مشو يا ًفإنه رزق‬ ‫‪ 36‬فإن أكله مشوي رزق في‬
‫مشو يا أصاب رزقا فيه‬ ‫فيه خير وشعب لقوله تعالى‬ ‫حزن وشغب لأن العجل‬
‫حزن وتعب لما فيه من‬ ‫حينئٍذ أي مشوي فالحزن‬ ‫الحنيذ‪ 77‬في كتاب إنه‬
‫الناس‬ ‫والشعب لما مسته النار‬ ‫المشوي فهو رزق كذلك‬
‫لمـ]ا مسته[ النار ولا يكون‬
‫بينهما ستر فهو شغب‬
‫وخلاس‪78‬‬
‫§‪30, 31, 32, 33‬‬ ‫‪§30, 31, 32, 33‬‬
‫ل من‬ ‫وسَمينُ الَّلح ِْم‪َ ،‬أف ْ َ‬

‫ض ُ‬ ‫والسمين من اللحم خير من‬ ‫‪ 37‬وسمين اللحم خير من‬
‫م َه ْزولهِ ِ‪.‬‬ ‫المهزول‬ ‫مهـ]زول[‬
‫ومن ر َعى ٰ غ َن َما‪ ً:‬و َل ِي َ ناسا‪ً.‬‬ ‫ومن رأى أنه يرعي غنما ً‬ ‫]فإن[ رأى غنما سوداء يلي فإن رأى أنه يرزق غنما ً‬
‫فإنه يلي على الناس ولاية‬ ‫ولي ولاية‬ ‫على ناس من العرب‬
‫]‪[see Ibn Qutayba §18‬‬
‫‪77‬‬ ‫‪, roasted.‬الحنيذ ‪, a corruption of the Arabic‬אלחביד ‪In the original:‬‬

‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪.‬كلام ‪Or‬‬

(cont.)
Ibn Qutayba, MS Ibn Sīrīn (attr.), Taʿbīr Al-Kirmānī (attr.), Judeo-Arabic frag- §
Hebrew Univer- al-ruʾyā, (Nawalkishūr: Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, MS ment (untitled), MS
sity, Yahuda ar. 196, Lucknow, 1874), 51– Leipzig University Cambridge University
fol. 52b–53a. 52. Library, Ms. Or. 359, Library, T-S Ar. 50.223,
fols. 76a–76b. fol. 1a (left).
‫ً َأو‬،‫ب غ َن َما‬
َ ‫وم َن َأصا‬ ‫ وإن أصابها فإنها خير‬.‫لـ‬..… ‫ وإن ملـكها غنم غنيمة‬38
.ً ‫ب غ َنيمة‬
َ ‫ أصا‬:‫م َلـك َها‬ ‫وغنيمة والله أعلم‬ .… ‫على‬
The shortest composition is Qutayba’s Taʿbīr, nearly half the length of al-
Kirmānī’s. As Cicchetti pointed out, Ibn Qutayba is indebted to al-Kirmānī,
considering how he summarises some contents while neglecting more repet-
itive parts. Paragraphs 25 and 28 are examples which sum up Kirmānī’s §25,
26, 27 and 28. Also, this part of the text, including §29, shows that he is not
relying upon the composition attributed to Ibn Sīrīn, since that one does not
include this specific part; however, confirming this would require examining
other copies of the book to verify that the lacunae are not limited to versions
at our disposal. On the other hand, Ibn Qutayba makes his own contribution to
the text by providing references to the Qurʾān and the Ḥadīth (§13, 18), rein-
forcing, rather than justifying, the validity of the correspondences found in
al-Kirmānī.
As for the Taʿbīr attributed to Ibn Sīrīn, the second shortest one, it is clearly
related to the Kirmanian one. It could be an abridgement, consisting of a selec-
tion of contents. However, further comparison and research on the existing
witnesses would be needed to confirm this hypothesis. Interestingly, the Ger-
man translation of this text, based on a single manuscript which I had no access
to, differs notably from the others, and includes a quote from al-Kirmānī on the
principles of dream interpretation, while Ibn Sīrīn is quoted by al-Kirmānī in
his role as a dream interpreter, but not as a codifier.
Comparison between the Arabic and the Judeo-Arabic manuscripts reveals
that they represent variants of the same textual model, with only minor differ-
ences in the wording. They are both characterized by the same style of use of
the first person. Furthermore, in a few instances, we find that they each include
additional sentences missing in the other which should be considered part of
the original text given that the additions appear in the related compositions of
Ibn Qutayba and Ibn Sīrīn. Therefore, the two copies are each essential for the
reconstruction of the text. Furthermore, in several loci, lexical differences can
be most simply explained as the result of copying mistakes. In those cases, the

Genizah fragment provides a more plausible reading, thus, revealing itself as a

closer rendering to the original. For example:
§13, in the Genizah copy (G), says: “wa-l-naʿja imraʾa muḥṣina wa-sharīfa”
(and the ewe—female sheep—is a chaste and noble woman).
The Leipzig copy (L) reads: “wa-l-naʿja imraʾa mukhṣiba karīma” (and the ewe
is a plentiful, generous woman).
While each of the two meanings makes sense on its own, in contrast to
the common use of muḥṣina, the term mukhṣib/-a is generally applied only to
lands, meaning fertile lands, and only seldom to people that inhabit them. Note
that this difference in the readings depends only on two dots determining the
Arabic letters.
§21 and 22, in fragment G, a section devoted to the lamb, sakhla, begins a
theme that runs on for another two visions. In L, these first two visions refer to
the skin of a goat with the word salkha, clearly the result of metathesis between
the two middle letters, for the text continues with additional visions of the lamb
(sakhla).
The difference between sources in §35 could be the result of amending the
original contents. In G, we read: “However, if he (the dreamer) saw that he is
eating raw meat, he will kill people and eat their meat. And if he sees that he
beats a person with raw meat, he will kill and beat him with his tongue (insult
him)”. In L, the prediction of eating someone’s meat has been removed, perhaps
because such an action violated the sensitivities of people at the time.
§36 offers three different versions in the three examples preserved based on
small differences in the letterforms. Here again, the first version appears to be
the most meaningful and closest to the original:
In G: “If he ate it (the meat of the calf) grilled, (it signifies) a livelihood (when
seen) with sorrow (ḥazan) and trouble (shagb), because the roasted calf (al-
ʾajl al-ḥanīdh) in a book is grilled, and therefore it is provision. So, when [the
fire touches it] and there is no separation between the two (the fire and the
calf), therefore, it is trouble and snatching (khilās, another supported reading
is kalām, “word”)”.
The word al-ḥanīdh is the best reading for what in the original is rendered as
al-ḥabīd. The absence of a diacritic dot to distinguish the letter dāl from dhāl
occurs throughout the manuscript. Confusion between bāʿ and nūn reveals that
the text is based on an Arabic source, where the distinction between these two
letters depends on a diacritic dot that is often missing too, especially in early
manuscripts.79
79 I would like to thank my colleague Samer Rashwani for examining this section and pro-
viding me with this revealing alternative reading.

In L: “If he ate it roasted, [it signifies] a livelihood with goodness (khayr)

and disunion (shaʿb), for His saying, almighty, roasted (ḥanīdh, although the
manuscript reads ḥīnaʾidh: at that time), or grilled, for the sadness and disunion
when the fire touched him”.80
In Ibn Sīrīn: “If he ate it grilled, will receive a livelihood with sorrow and
tiredness (taʿb) for what is in it from the people”.
Here, the Judeo-Arabic version veils the reference to the Qurʿān (introduced
in L by allusion to the “Word of God”), by simply mentioning “a book”.
Another interesting difference in religious terms appears in §6, where the
sacrifice of the ram is compared to the sacrifice of the son of Abraham, when
seen in the context of the Feast of the Sacrifice. While the Judeo-Arabic text
avoids specifying whether the son in question was Isaac or Ismail, referring to
him as “the son of Abraham,” the Arabic text explicitly identifies him with Isaac,
contradicting the most established position within Islam that favours the iden-
tity of Ismail.81
Furthermore, several instances (§26–28, §18) demonstrate that both texts
can offer abridged versions of the contents of the other. While further com-
parison is needed to fully understand the evolution of the text attributed to
al-Kirmānī and of the compositions related with it, it can be concluded prelim-
inarily that the Judeo-Arabic copies found in the Genizah are essential textual
witnesses for the reconstruction of a work that can be regarded as a founda-
tional stone of Arabic, and hence Islamic, Oneirocriticism. This conclusion is
clear, despite the aforementioned challenges with Genizah fragments and the
ambiguities that arise from the great quantity of allographs in Judeo-Arabic.
4 Conclusions
These observations concerning the books of Ibn Sīrīn and al-Kirmānī result
from digging into a remote stratus of the tradition represented by manuscript
fragments of the Cairo Genizah. In several cases, the texts of these fragments
80 11:69 “And certainly did Our messengers come to Abraham with good tidings; they said,
“Peace.” He said, “Peace,” and did not delay in bringing [them] a roasted calf,” Tr. Ṣaḥeeḥ
International.
81 Interestingly, one of the defenders of the identification of Isaac as the sacrificed son, dur-
ing the early period of Islam, is Saʿīd Ibn al-Musayyab (14/637–94/715), a second generation
member of the tābiʿūn, and a renowned figure in the field of dream interpretation. On this
discussion, see Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands, p. 135f. On the role of Ibn al-Musayyab
as a dream interpreter, see Fahd, Divination Arabe, p. 310.

are clearly primary and in other cases their primacy is distinctly possible. Thou-
sands of manuscript fragments entered the Genizah of the Ben ʿEzra synagogue
as early as the 9th century, increasing in flow until the mid-13th century; they
remained there in peace (although in pieces), and largely untouched until the
19th century. Furthermore, and probably because the Genizah was the paper
bin of a book production centre, its manuscripts often reveal preparatory stages
of compositions. In contrast to the majority of Arabic manuscript collections,
Genizah holdings did not necessarily enter broad channels of circulation. It
abounds in drafts, cases of unfinished works or interrupted copies, and other
“fossils”. In consequence, these manuscript fragments are not always “finished
products” and have not gone through as many recensions as later complete
books and codices. As such, they should be considered crucial witnesses in the
elaboration of critical editions of Arabic works and the study of their develop-
mental history. Genizah sources provide a unique “behind the scenes” glimpse
beyond the curtain of the medieval book into the mysterious zone of intellec-
tual prehistory.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S., “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b: The Talmudic Dreambook in Context,”
Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995), pp. 230–248.
Babylonian Talmud, ed. I. Epstein, London: Soncino 1935–1948.
Bellusci, Alessia, Dream Requests in the Middle East: The History of the Sheʾelat Ḥalom
from the Medieval Era back to Late Antiquity, forthcoming in the Brill series “Magical
and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity”.
Blau, Joshua, Diqduq ha-Aravit ha-Yahudit, Jerusalem: Magnes Press & Hebrew Univer-
sity, 1980.
Böck, Barbara, “ ‘An Esoteric Babylonian Commentary’ Revisited,” Journal of the Amer-
ican Oriental Society 120:4 (2000), pp. 615–620.
Cappozzo, Valerio, “Un volgarizzamento trecentesco del Somniale Danielis nel cod.
Laurenziano Martelli 12,” Medioevo Letterario d’Italia 11 (2014), pp. 77–90.
Carmona González, Antonio, “Al-Sālimī, Abū ʿĀmir,” Biblioteca de al-Andalus, vol. 7,
ed. Jorge Lirola, Almeria: Fundación Ibn Tufayl de Estudios Árabes, 2012, pp. 280–
283.
Chaumont, Éric, “Voir Dieu en ce monde au regard de la Loi révélée selon Ibn Ḫaldūn,”
Autour du Regard: Mélanges Gimaret, ed. Éric Chaumont, Leuven: Peeters, 2003,
pp. 213–225.
Cicchetti, Umberto, Ibn Qutayba et l’ islamisation de la science de l’ interprétation des
rêves en Islam suivi d’une traduction de l’ oneirocriton d’Ibn Qutayba (m.276/889) et

une présentation inédite du texte intégral arabe de l’ oneirocriton attribué à Ibrāhīm b.

ʿAbdullāh al-Kirmānī (~m. 184/800), Ph.D. dissertation, Université Concordia Mon-
tréal, 2011.
Cohen, Mark R., The Voice of the Poor in the Middle Ages: An Anthology of Documents
from the Cairo Geniza, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Covitz, Joel, Visions of the night: a study of Jewish Dream Interpretation, Boston: Shamb-
hala, 1990.
al-Dīnawarī, Abū Saʿd Naṣr b. Yaʾqūb, Kitāb al-taʿbīr fī l-ruʾyā = Al-Qādirī fī l-taʿbīr, ed.
Fahmī Saʿd, Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1997.
Elman, Yaakov, Dream interpretation from classical Jewish source, New Jersey: KTAV Pub.
House, 1998.
Fahd, Toufic, Le Livre des Songes [par] Artémidore d’Ephèse. Traduit du grec en arabe
par Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq, Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1964.
Fahd, Toufic, La divination arabe: études religieuses, sociologiques et folkloriques sur le
milieu natif de l’ Islam, Paris: Sindbad, 1987.
Firestone, Reuven, Journeys in Holy Lands: the evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael leg-
ends in Islamic exegesis, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.
Fishbane, Simcha, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic literature, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007.
Frajerman, Réouven, Pitrón Ḥalomot: La Clef des Rêves, Jerusalem: Éditions Salomon,
2001.
Frieden, Ken, “ ‘All Dreams Follow the Mouth’: The Dream-Interpreter as Prophet,”
Criticism and Lacan: Essays and Dialogue on Language, Structure and the Uncon-
scious, ed. Patrick C. Hogan and Lalita Pandit, Athens: University of Georgia Press,
1990.
Geller, Mark J., “The Survival of Babylonian Wissenschaft in later tradition,” Proceed-
ings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage
Project. Held in Tvärminne, Finland, October 8–11, 1998, ed. Sanna Aro and R.M. Whit-
ing, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project 2000, 1998.
Goitein, Shlomo Dov, A Mediterranean Society: the Jewish communities of the Arab world
as portrayed in the documents of the Cairo Geniza, 6 vols., Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press, 1967–1993.
Goitein, Shlomo Dov, and Mordechai A. Friedman, India Traders of the Middle Ages:
Documents from the Cairo Geniza, Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Goitein, Shlomo Dov, and Mordechai Akiva Friedman, with the assistance of Amir
Ashur, Halfon The Traveling Merchant Scholar: Cairo Geniza Documents, Jerusalem:
Ben Zvi Institute, 2013.
Gruenbaum, Aharon, “Pitron Ḥalomot: Korot ve-Mekorot,” Areshet 4 (1966), pp. 180–
201.
Guillaume, Alfred, Prophecy and Divination among the Hebrews and Other Semites, Lon-
don: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938.

Harris, Monford, Studies in Jewish Dream Interpretation, New Jersey: Jason Aronson,
1993.
Harris-McCoy, Daniel E., Artemidoru’s Oneirocritica: Text, Translation and Commentary,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Ibn Abī l-Dunyā, Kitāb al-Manām (Morality in the Guise of Dreams), ed. Leah Kinberg,
Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. Ibn ʿAbd al-Bāzz, Beirut:
Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1959.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 2, ed. s.n., Hyderabad: Dāʾira al-Maʿārif
al-Niẓāmiyya, 1325/1907.
Ibn Qutayba, Muḥammad, Kitāb Taʿbīr al-ruʾyā, ed. Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ (Damascus: Dār al-
Bashāʾir, 2001).
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, Tafsīr al-aḥlām al-kabīr: Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām,
ed. al-Sayyid, Beirut, Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyya, 1993.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, El libro de la interpretación de sueños (Kitāb tafsīr al-aḥlām),
trans. Andrés Guijarro, Barcelona: Siro, 2008.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, L’ interprétation des rêves: Manuel d’ oniromancie musulmane,
trans. Dominique Penot, Lyon: Alif, 1992.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, The interpretation of Dreams, trans. s.n., London: Dar al-Taqwa,
1994.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, Ibn Sirin. Il libro del sogno veritiero, trans. Ida Zilio Grandi Turin:
Einaudi, 1992.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, Interpretation of Dreams, trans. s.n., Lagos: Ahmadiyya Muslim
Mission Nigeria, 1979.
Ibn Sīrīn, Muḥammad, Das arabische Traumbuch des Ibn Sirin, trans. Helmut Kopfler,
Eugen Diedrichs Verlag: München, 1989.
Kanarfogel, Ephraim, “Dreams as Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in North-
ern Europe during the High Middle Ages,” Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and
Social History. Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan, ed. D. Engel, L.H. Schiffman and
E. Wolfson, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012, pp. 111–143.
Kinberg, Leah, “The Legitimization of the “Madhahib” through Dreams,” Arabica 32
(1985), pp. 47–79.
Kinberg, Leah, “Literal Dreams and Prophetic “Hadîts” in Classical Islam: A Comparison
of Two Ways of Legitimation,” Der Islam 70:2 (1993), pp. 279–300.
Kister, Meir Jacob, “The interpretation of dreams: An unknown manuscript of Ibn
Qutayba’s ʿIbārat al-Ruʾyā,” Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974), pp. 67–103.
Kristianpoller, Alexander, “Traum und Traumdeutung im Talmud,” Monumenta Talmu-
dica 4:2 (1923).
Kuyt, Annelies, “With one foot in the Renaissance: Shlomoh Almoli and his Dream
Interpretation,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 6:3 (1999): 205–211.

Lamoreaux, John C., “Some notes on the dream manual of al-Dari,” Rivista degli Studi
Orientali 70 (1996), pp. 47–52.
Lamoreaux, John C., The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation, New York:
SUNY Press, 2002.
Löwinger, Adolf, Der Traum in der jüdischen Literatur, Leipzig: Kaufmann, 1908.
al-Maqdisī, Shihāb al-Dīn, Qawāʿid tafsīr al-Aḥlām, al-musammā, al-Badr al-munīr fī
ʿilm al-taʿbīr, ed. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Jumʿa, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Rayyān, 2000.
Mavroudi, Maria, A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation: The Oneirocriticon of Ach-
met and its Arabic Sources (Boston/Leiden/Cologne: Brill, 2002).
al-Nābulusī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī, Taʿṭīr al-ānām fī taʿbīr al-manām, ed. s.n., Beirut: Dār al-
Warrāq, 2001.
Naor, Bezalel, Bringing down dreams: exploring the lost art of Jewish dream interpreta-
tion, New York: Spring Valley, 2002.
Nögel, Scott, “On puns and divination: Egyptian dream exegesis,” Through a Glass
Darkly: Magic, Dreams & Prophecy in Ancient Egypt, ed. Kasia Szpakowska, Swansea:
Classical Press of Wales, 2006, pp. 95–119.
Oberhelman, Steven M., The Oneirocriticon of Achmet: A Medieval Greek and Arabic
Treatise on the Interpretation of Dreams, Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1991.
Oberhelman, Steven M., Dreambooks in Byzantium: Six Oneirocritica in Translation, with
Commentary and Introduction, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
Oppenheim, Adolph L., “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a
Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book,” Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, New Series 46:3 (1956).
Sarkīs, Yūsuf, Muʿjam al-maṭbūʿāt al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-muʿarraba, Cairo: Maṭbaʿ Sarkīs,
1928.
Sirriyeh, Elizabeth, “Arab Stars, Assyrian Dogs and Greek ‘Angels’: How Islamic is Mus-
lim Dream Interpretation?,” Journal of Islamic Studies 22:2 (2011), pp. 215–233.
Sviri, Sara, “Dreaming Analyzed and Recorded: Dreams in the World of Medieval Islam,”
Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming, ed. David
Shulman and Guy G. Stroumsa, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 252–
273.
Veldhuis, Niek, “Divination: Theory and use,” If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyrio-
logical Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty (Cuneiform Monographs 31), ed. Ann
K. Guinan, Leiden: Brill, 2006, pp. 493–494.
Villuendas Sabaté, Blanca, “Dream Interpretation Reinterpreted in the Light of Judaeo-
Arabic Fragments Attributed to Hai Gaon,” Jewish Divinatory Practices among Jews,
ed. J. Rodríguez-Arribas, Leiden: Brill, in press.
Villuendas Sabaté, Blanca, Onirocrítica islámica, judía y cristiana en la Gueniza de El
Cairo: edición y estudio de los manuales judeo-árabes de interpretación de sueños,
Madrid: CSIC, in press.

Weiss, Abraham, Studies on the Literature of the Amoraim, New York: Horeb Yeshiva Uni-
versity, 1952, pp. 264–270.
Weiss, Haim, All dreams follow the mouth: a reading in the Talmudic dreams tractate
[Hebrew], Or Yehuda: Zmora-Bitan Dvir Publishing House, 2011.
Yudlov, Yitzhak, “ ‘Pitron Ḥalomot’ le-Rav Hai Gaon,” Alei Sefer 6–7 (1979), pp. 107–120.

Interpreting Islamic Dream Books of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interpreting Islamic Dream Books of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intellectual History

of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Interpreting Islamic Dream Books of the Cairo

Blanca Villuendas Sabaté

Judeo-Arabic – Cairo Genizah – Firkovich – dream interpretation – dream book – Ibn

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/2212943X-20201011

1 Introduction to the History of Dream Interpretation

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

2 See Oppenheim, “Interpretation of Dreams,” pp. 179–373.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

10 See Alexander, “Bavli Berakhot 55a–57b,” pp. 243–244.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Babylonian Talmud Ḥadīth collections

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Babylonian Talmud Ḥadīth collections

The promotion of dream interpretation to the rank of scriptural interpretation

ٍ ُ ‫كيِع ب ِْن ع ُد‬ ِ َ ‫ ع َْن و‬،ٍ ‫ن ع َطَاء‬

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

the case of Islam, this phenomenon involved the generation of collections of

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

32 Fahd, La divination arabe, pp. 247–367.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

by several studies on the dream book in the Babylonian Talmud (55a–57b),40

2 Arabic Oneirocritic Legacy in the Genizah Collections

Given the significance of dreams and dream interpretation to medieval reli-

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Works Fragments Pages Codices

1 Anonymous Tafsīr al-Manāmāt with 12 28 10

Total: 82 fragments (=254 pp.) from 60 codices and 1 rotulus

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

From this table, it is possible to highlight several terminological and method-

48 Oberhelman, Oneirocriticon of Achmet.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Genizah fragments provide examples of this dichotomy. Different degrees

50 Villuendas, “Dream Interpretation Reinterpreted”.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

51 In addition to the aforementioned composition by Almoli, Al-Ishārāt fī ʿilm al-ʿibārāt by

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

uals, of Ibn al-Qutayba, al-Dīnawarī, and others; several commentaries and

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

60 Cicchetti, Ibn Qutayba et l’islamisation de la science de l’interprétation des rêves en Islam.

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

to Ibn Sīrīn is a synthetic composition. It begins with a brief introduction on

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342

‫الـكبش الرجل ضخم‬

‫قال رسول الله صلى الله‬

‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫فإن ركبه الـكبش من غير‬ ‫فصل‪ :‬فإن ركبه الـكبش‬

‫ش م َنعَ تَ هُ ُ وقوَُ ّتهُ ٌ‬

‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫‪§4‬‬ ‫والكباش هو الرجل المنظور والـكبش هو الرجل‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪, both here and in the remaining instances.‬دبح‬

‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫َأو م ُْدينِا ًق ُض ِيَ ع َن ْه ُ ال َد ّي ْ ُ‬

‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫فإن رأى أنه يحلبها فإنه ُ‬ ‫‪ 15‬وحلبها مال حلال من‬

‫كذلك فإن رأى أنه ذبحها‬ ‫‪ 16‬فإن ذبحها ليأكل من لحمها‬

‫‪Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 8 (2020) 306–342‬‬

‫ب‬ ‫ت له َُسخ ْلة ٌ َأ َ‬