1512, 1566; Glassberg, 226; Giid. III, 100; Rabbinowicz, 21.

Weil, § 191, p. 64b; ‘Emek Beracha, Il, 61, p. 76b; cf. Finesinger, HUCA, VIII- IX (1931-32), 201 ff.; Lauterbach, HUCA, XI (1936), 256;—Kol Bo §35—Pes. 109b; Mordecai, Pes. §896, p. 21a; Mah. Vit. 280; Kol Bo, loc. cit.; Or Zarua, II, 56a; Maharil, 6b, 17a-b; Isserles, Orah Hayim 481:2; etc. Prof. Ginzberg has called my attention to a statement in the Mekilta (ed. M. Friedmann, Vienna 1870, p. 16b) which turns the “night of protection” into a night when “all Israel requires protection.” No echo of this view is to be found in the medieval sources.

p. xxv; Briill, fahrbiicher, IX (1889), 40;—Ber. 43b: “A scholar should not go out alone at night,” originally a counsel against inviting gossip, as the Gemara explains, was later given a superstitious interpretation when it was attached to the passage (Ber. 54b) enumerating those who must fear demonic attack. Rashi (Ber. 62a) writes: ‘A scholar needs special protection against demons, because

298 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

they are more envious of scholars than of other men.” Cf. also Testament of Shabbetai Horowitz, §24.

Horowitz, §23; Sha‘are Zion, 67a; etc.;—Ber. 5a; Mordecai, Ber. §6, p. 2a; MGW7, LIX (1915), 242. The literature on the “Keriat Shema‘ at the bed” is too extensive to cite in full. No special insight is necessary to discern the import of its contents even in modern expurgated versions. Prayer, especially in the mystical sense favored by the “practical Kabbalah,” enjoyed a fairly dis- tinctive magical réle, which has not yet been fully investigated. See J. Bergmann, “Gebet und Zauberspruch,” MGW7, LXXIV (1930), 457-463; H. G. Enelow, “Kawwana: The Struggle for Inwardness in Judaism,” Studies in Jewish Litera- ture in Honor of Prof. Kaufmann Kohler (Berlin 1913), 82-107; G. Scholem, “Der Begriff der Kawwana in der alten Kabbala,” MGW7, LXXVIII (1934), 492-518; Major Trends in Fewish Mysticism, Stroock Lectures for 1938, Lecture 4; FE, III, 465; Bischoff, 86 ff.

There is a curious statement that to leave a knife with its cutting edge up- ward is to court trouble. According to a German saying, “When a child falls into the fire, and at the same instant one notices a knife lying on the table sharp edge up, one should turn the knife over before saving the child.” The explana- tion of this superstition is singular: “the blade turned upward cuts the face of the dear Lord and of the angels,”’ who retaliate in consequence. This explanation is not found in the Jewish sources, but the injunction against bringing a knife into a synagogue, or leaving it on the table while grace is being said (it was either removed or covered) was probably based upon some such notion. The reasons that were offered are not very persuasive; “prayer lengthens man’s days, but the knife shortens them” was a popular one; another told a gruesome tale of a man who, while saying grace, was so overcome with grief at the memory of the destruction of Jerusalem that he picked up a knife from the table and plunged it into his breast. But there was an ancient tradition that the Shechinah, the divine presence, hovers over men at prayer, and it is quite likely that we have here a fusion of Jewish and German beliefs. Cf. Gid. III, 129, n. 10; Wuttke, 312; Grimm, III, 454, 8596; Kol Bo 17; Mateh Moshe, 304; Orah Hayim 180:5.

burg (ed. Berlin 1891), 158-9; HaHayim, IV, 7; ms. Ez Hayim, 516 (289 of original);—Marmorstein, 77V, I (1923), 289; FE, V, 347 f.

Die Finger, p. xiv. See also p. 175 above.

10; Blau, 91; Ber. 20a; Raziel, 43a; cf. Elworthy, 3809 ff.

Samter, 67 ff.; Seligmann, Mag. Heil- und Schutzmittel, 110 ff.; Wuttke, 99 f.

n. 4: “Ein Mensch von der Otter gebissen stirbt nicht, wenn er eher als die Otter, tber das nachste Wasser springt”).—Rashi, San. 67b; S. Has. 1453; B 1144; HaHayim IV, 10; Nishmat Hayim III, 20; Shimmush Tehillim, Ps. 15, 29. One is reminded of Washington Irving’s “Headless Horseman” whose wild pur- suit of poor Ichabod was halted at the bridge. Cf. Wuttke, 92 f.

Elworthy, 412 ff.;—S. Has. 326, 327; HaGan, ch. 2, end; Testament of Shab- betai Horowitz, §23.

NOTES 299

105d; cf. Blau, 159f.; Seligmann, op. cit., 156 ff.; Elworthy, 221 ff.; Samter, 51; Wuttke, 95 f.; I. Goldziher, “Eisen als Schutz gegen Damonen,” AR, X (1907), 41-6.

f. Volksk., XV (1905), 137-49; Seligmann, op. cit., 266 ff.; Wuttke, 95, 283; Lea, III, 511;—Tos. Ber. 40a; Leket Yosher, 1, 34; Joseph Omez, §88, p. 20; Kizur Shelah, 38; Isserles, Orah Hayim 167:5; Lipez, 50; cf. I. Low, “Das Salz,” Jewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut, N. Y. 1935, 454 ff.

385;—cf. Samter, 153; Grimm II, 877, 923, III, 434, 440, 454; Wuttke, 129.

in comparatively recent times (see I. Low, Die Flora der fuden, II, 147). Cf. Samter, 159 f.; Grimm, II, 902; Scheftelowitz, Stell. Huhnopfer, 32.

Ges. Auf. 106-7); S. Has. 327; Giid. I, 206, n. 5; foseph Omez, 351; Grunwald, MG7FV, V (1900), 35, $55, 40, 881, 66, $225; cf. Gaster, Sword of Moses, 42, S111, 117; Elworthy, 151 ff., 241 ff.; Samter, 109 ff.; Schénbach, Ztschr. Ver. f. Volksk., XII (1902), 7; Low, Die Finger, p. xvii.

before moving into a new home a hen and rooster were domiciled there for a while and then slaughtered on the premises; Scheftelowitz, op. cit., 20-1, 54; Testament of Fudah the Pious, §50; cf. Marmorstein, 77V, II (1925), 361 f.; S. Has. B 1145, 1146; Elworthy, 79 ff.; Strack, 31 f.; Grimm II, 956 f.

Brantspiegel, ch. 66, 105c; Responsa of Maharil, 118; Yore Deah 179:3; Leket Yosher, II, 6; cf. Marmorstein, 77V, II (1925), 364-5; Griinbaum, Ges. Auf., 218; Schorr, HeHaluz, VII (1865), 47-8; Scheftelowitz, Ztschr. Ver. f. Volksk., XXIII (1913), 385 f.; Grimm, II, 949, III, 437, 883, 486, $23. In Austria, a Christian sells his crowing hen to a Jew! Wuttke, 118.

the rite see I. Scheftelowitz, Das stelluertretende Huhnopfer, Giessen 1914; I. Lévi, “Les Jardins d’Adonis, les Kapparot et Rosch Haschana,” REF, LXI (1911), 206-12; M. D. Hoffman, Shibalim, (Vienna 1876), 39-45; I. Low, Die Flora der Ffuden, IV, 336 f.; J. Z. Lauterbach, “The Ritual for the Kapparot- Ceremony,” fewish Studies in Memory of George A. Kohut, N. Y. 1935, 413-22, and HUCA, XI (1936), 262 ff. The essential medieval Hebrew sources are: Rashi, Shab. 81b; Mordecai, Yoma §1181, p. 27¢; Sha‘are Teshubah, ed. Fischel (Leipzig 1858), 8299 (cf. Joel, II, 27); Responsa of Solomon b. Adret (Vienna 1812) §395, p. 47a; Orhot Hayim (Florence 1750), Hil. Erev Kippurim, §1; Tur Orah Hayim 605; Orah Hayim 605 (Venice 1564 ed. of Shulhan ‘Aruch); ms. Ez. Hayim, 289 (155 of original); Toledot Adam veHavah, 7:1, p. 41a. All the codes contain descriptions, which embody minor variations; see, e.g., HaOrah, §95, p. 109; Shibbole HaLeket, 266; Mah. Vit. 373; Kol Bo, 868; Tash- bez 125; Maharil 43b-44a; Tyrnau’s Minhagim, 22b-23a; Leket Yosher, I, 139- 40; etc. For parallel customs from other cultures see Scheftelowitz, op. cit., Samter, 55 f., Grimm, III, 418, §44. Cf. also Aptowitzer, Addenda et Emenda- tiones ad Sefer Rabiah, Jerusalem 1936, pp. 113 f.

145b (Mas. Rosh Hashanah);‘Emek Beracha, II, 61, pp. 75a-b; cf. JE, XII, 66-7; Scheftelowitz, AR, XIV (1911), 383-4; Reifmann, Zion, I (1841), 184; H. Bodek, ibid., II (1842), 48, 54-7; Briick, 23-4; Grunwald, 77V, I (1923), 20; Samter, 65f. Prof. J. Z. Lauterbach has treated this subject exhaustively in

300 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

his essay, ““Tashlik—-A Study in Jewish Ceremonies,” HUCA, XI (1936), 207- 340.

178:3; Orah Hayim 180:2;—Lebush on Yore Deah 178:3; Kizur Shelah, Inyane Shabbat, p. 119;—Bergmann, MGW7, LXXI (1927), 170-1; Reifmann, Zion, I (1841), 184;—Leket Yosher, II, 15; Hul. 105b and Rashi;—Joel, II, 28-9; Mordecai, beg. Yoma; Lev Tov, VI, 66, p. 63c; Mateh Moshe, 306, 504; Leket Yosher, I, 57-8; cf. Grimm, I, 370, 422 f., II, 843 f.; Wuttke, 37, 67-8; MGW, loc. cit., 168.

III eee 126.

also A. Geiger, tid. Ktschr., V (1867), 139 f.

I, 182a (Mas. Hullin).

149, 179);—Glassberg, 65; Ma‘aseh Rokeah, 54; HaManhig, Hil. Milah, 129; Yore Deah 265:12; Perles, Graetz Fubelschrift, 23; Giid. III, 103; B‘er Heteb on Yore Deah 178:3;—cf. Bergmann, MGW7, LXXI (1927), 167; Goldberger, HaZgofeh, XI (1927), 166-7; FE, XII, 454.

MGW, loc. cit., 169-70.

berger, JV, I (1923), 327.

Responsa of Israel Bruna, 93, p. 40b; Mateh Moshe, 107b; Lauterbach, HUCA, II, 360; J. Reifmann, Kochve Yizghak, XXXII (Vienna 1865), 31; cf. Grimm, III, 487, §31.

331-2; Isserles, Eben Ha‘Ezer 64:1; S. Has. 375.

A similar custom is observed by some Oneatl communities.

the interesting essay already cited, ““The Ceremony of Breaking a Glass at Wed- dings,” HUCA, II (1925), 351-80; the sources are all painstakingly examined there. See J. Perles, “Die jiidische Hochzeit in nachbiblischer Zeit,” reprint from MGW#, IX (1860), for Talmudic material; cf. also Schudt, II, 25:6, p. 53 Grotte, MGW7, LXVI (1922), 2; Grunwald, 77V, I (1923), 21; Glassberg, 149; Samter, 39 ff., 58 ff.; Grimm, IIT, 451, $514, 466, $884.

of Moses Minz, p. 101b;—Rokeah 352, 353; Mah. Vit. 589; Raben, loc. cit.; Maharil, loc. cit.; Lauterbach, op. cit., 359; cf. A. Biichler, ““Das Ausgiessen von Wein und Ol,” MGW, XLIX (1905), 12-40; Bergmann, ibid., LXXI (1927), 166; Samter, 171 ff.; Scheftelowitz, 14 ff., ch. 3; Digot, III, 177.

NOTES 301

Minz, 79a, 99b; Leket Yosher, I, 113; Lauterbach, 359-60; Giid. III, 121 f. Mitron is a Hebraization of the French mitre, mitra (J. Perles, Beitradge, 59); the sarganes (a word which Prof. Ginzberg believes to be derived from saracen, denoting a wide, flowing garment) was originally worn on the Sabbath and holidays (Rabiah, I, 245-6), but came later to be identified as a mark of mourn- ing; it was worn at weddings “to remind one of the day of death,” in the words of Moses Minz. Seligmann, Mag. Heil- und Schutzmittel, 135, points out that ashes, the product of fire, are often employed as a means of protection.

Yereim, 96; cf. Samter, 90 ff.; Grimm, II, 983 f.; Elworthy, 427 ff.; Prof. Ginz- berg (REF, LXVII [1914] 149 f.) interprets the transfer of the groom’s garments to the bride as a token of possession.

Maharil, 65a.

II, 96; S. Has. 315, 317, 3183 Isserles, Yore Deah, 339:1; cf. Grimm, III, 443, $281, 454, $593; Samter, 61 f. See, especially, “Beliefs, Rites and Customs of the Jews Connected with Death, Burial and Mourning,” by A. P. Bender, 7QR, OS, VI (1894), 317 ff., 664 ff., VII (1895), ror ff., 259 ff.; and 7£, III, 434 ff.; also Landshuth; J. Perles, ““Die Leichenfeierlichkeiten im nachbibl. Judenthume,” MGW, X (1861), 345-55, 376-94; and J. Rabbinowicz, Der Todtenkultus bet den Fuden, Frankfort 1889.

xxxli; Shelah, II, 24b;—Nishmat Hayim, III, 26; 8S. Has. 1542; Testament of Judah the Pious, §7; Rokeah, 316; Low, Die Finger, pp. xiv ff.; cf. Samter, 1 ff., 45 f., 80 f.; Bender, 102-3.

veHavah, 28:1, p. 182b (cf. Wuttke, 214, 215); Rabbinowicz, 27.

Raza on Nu. 20:2; Shibbole HaLeket, p. 171; Mordecai, Pes. 8896, p. 21a; Tashbez, 442, 447; Or Zarua, 56a; Maharil, 6b; Brantspiegel, ch. 74, p. 11443 Digot, III, 180; Cecil Roth, History of the Marranos, Phila. 1932, 1013; A.Z. 20b. See also Rabbinowicz, 11; Landshuth, p. xxx; Bender, 106 ff.; Giid. I, 210; Grimm, III, 408, 422; Wuttke, 465; Samter, 83 ff.; Sartori, Ztschr. Ver. f. Volksk., XVIII (1908), 362 f.; Seligmann, op. cit., 104.

of Judah, §8; Rokeah, loc. cit.; foseph Omez, 326; Isserles, Yore Deah 358: 3;— San. 20a; Rabbinowicz, 31; Tashbez, 447; foseph Omez, 327; Yore Deah 359:1;3 Yesh Nohalin, 38a, n. 48; cf. Ber. 51a.

Horowitz, §3.

HaLeket, 814, p. 3453; Or Zarua, Il, §422, p. 86b; Mah. Vit. 247; Tashbez, §447; ms. Ez Hayim, 542 (308 of original); Rokeah, $316, p. 82b; Responsa of Israel Bruna, §181, p. 66b; cf. Giid. I, 211, n. 2; JE, XI, 599; Samter, 96, 150, 153-43 Seligmann, op. cit., 148 ff.; Grimm, ITI, 444, 446; Blau, 73.

Mateh Moshe, loc. cit.; Isserles and Lebush on Yore Deah 376:4; Kizur Shelah, 61.

cit.; Maharil, 84b; Foseph Omez, loc. cit.; Mateh Moshe, loc. cit.; Kizur Shelah, loc. cit.; cf. Bender, op. cit., 109 f.; Landshuth, p. Ixviii; Sartori, op. cit., 368 ff.

302 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

—Maharil, 83; Tyrnau’s Minhagim, 23b, n. 155; Responsa of Jacob Weil, 75b; Kizur Shelah, 61;—Foseph Omez, 329, Leket Yosher, 11, 96-7;—Siddur Rashi, S981, p. 281; Shibbole HaLeket, 353; Maharil, 83b-84a; Yore Deah, 386:1, 393:4. The custom of covering mirrors or turning them to the wall, which pre- vails among Jews nowadays, is not mentioned in the medieval sources, and is evidently a late borrowing. It is observed almost universally, arising, according to Frazer (The Golden Bough, I, 146), from the fear “that the soul projected out of the person in the shape of his reflection in the mirror, might be carried off by the ghost of the departed, which is commonly supposed to linger about the house till the burial.” Cf. Bender, 117; Ta‘ame HaMinhagim, III, 93b; Von Negelein, AR, V (1902), 22; Samter, 134.