14¢; S. Has. 14, 391, 1950; B 33.

21d-22a; Torat Ha‘Olah, II, 2-3; Orhot Zadikim, 94b ff.; Ginzberg, Legends, V, 64, n. 4; Franck, 190 f.; Ginsburg, 156.

passages were frequently repeated by the medieval writers, who, following Tal- mudic precedent, distinguished between the innocent “signs” fixed by Eliezer (Gen. 24:14) and Jonathan (I Sam. 14:9-10), and the taking of omens; cf. also Hagahot Maimuniot to Hil. ‘Akkum 11:5. See Marmorstein, 77V, II (1925), 362 ff. for the Aggadic material. Lebush on Yore Deah 179:4 sums up the medieval view.

14th century German ms., “du solt nit globen an zober... noch an die brawen un der wangen iucken”’; see also II, 934 f.

who sneezed immediately died, was cited by a late writer to point the moral of responding “health!” to a sneeze (Grunwald, 77V, I [1923], 219); cf. Grimm, III, 430; Thorndike, II, 330; etc.;—Ber. 24b; Orah Hayim 103:3; etc.

Grimm, III, 450, 8493; Wuttke, 33: “Die Hunde kiindigen durch ihr Heulen einen Todesfall an u. sehen den Tod.” Longfellow (Golden Legend, VIII, “The Village School’’) has put this belief into verse (cf. B. K. 60b):

In the Rabbinical book it saith,

The dogs howl when, with icy breath,

Great Sammaél, the Angel of Death, Takes through the town his flight!

Gid. I, 201, n. 2;—Ziyuni, 49a, 75b; Nishmat Hayim, III, 22; Marmorstein, MGW#, LXXI (1927), 44-5;—Testament of Judah, 850; Orhot Zadikim, 95b (cf. Suk. 28a and Joel, II, 53 f.).

p. 105¢; foseph Omez, 348; Berliner, op. cit., 83; cf. San. 65b-66a and Rashi.

etc.;—Foseph Omez, 278; S. Has. 395; Blau, 149; S. Has. B 59; cf. Digot, III, 177; Grimm, III, 467, $889.

ga. Kol Bo, 41; Lev Tov, 6:66, p. 63c; Isserles, Orah Hayim 296: 1;—Ker. 6a; Hor. 12a; Teshubot HaGeonim, ed. Musafia, p. 7; Mordecai, beg. Yoma;

NOTES 307

S. Has. B 59; Kol Bo, 64; Or Zarua, II, 257, p. 60c; HaManhig, Hil. Rosh. Hashanah, 1; Isserles, Orah Hayim 583:1, 2; Shelah, Il, 145a; ‘Emek Beracha, II, 61, p. 75a; Giid. III, 136. The custom of eating special foods on Rosh Ha- shanah for their good influence upon the future was probably originally a reflec- tion of Roman usage; it is found in medieval and modern Germany, perhaps derived from the Jewish practice, cf. Krauss, M7V, LIII (1915), 11; Gid. ITI, 131, n. 2; Scheftelowitz, AR, XIV (1911), 387-8; Wuttke, 65.

77£., II, 927 ff.; S. Has. 1139, 1450; even so enlightened a man as Mordecai Jaffe (16th century), who denounced most of the methods of divination as “vain and false things that have no reality,’ was obliged to admit that “‘astrologers and lot-casters sometimes disclose the truth”; see his Lebush on Yore Deah 179:1; see Blau, 45 f., for the Talmudic material.

8325, 448, 8421.

14:9, and Pa‘aneah Raza, ad loc.; S. Has. 1544; Giid. I, 206, n. 3; Kol Bo, 852; Kiyunt, 61d-62a; Marmorstein, MGW7, LXXI (1927), 45; Tyrnau, Minhagim, 28b, §216; Isserles, Orah Hayim 664:1; Mateh Moshe, 8957; foseph Omez, 233, 81051; Yalkut Reubeni, 10d; cf. Elworthy, 78 f.; Von Negelein, AR, V (1902), 19; Digot, III, 182; Grimm, III, 436, 855; Wuttke, 221; Lowinger, M7V, XXXIV (1910), 53.

and B 547; cf. Daiches, 26, 27; Grimm, III, 416; Jacob Weil (Responsa, $191, p. 64a, $192, p. 65b) wondered why “some people recite the Vidduy (‘Confes- sion’) under water” on the eve of Yom Kippur; perhaps this was connected with the divinatory act.

—S. Has. 285;—Berliner, op. cit., 24; Giid. III, 140, n. 1; #Z, III, 202; Wuttke, 144; Steinschneider, Heb. Uebersetz., 868, n. 120.

111-8; Franck, 183; Bischoff, 67 ff.;—Joel, II, 12; Giid. I, 219, n. 2; Orhot Kadikim, 95b; Joseph Omez, §180, p. 41; Kol Bo $41 (cf. Teshubot HaGeonim, ed. Musafia, $49).

Nishmat Hayim, III, 19; ms. Ez Hayim, 992 (581 of original); according to Grimm, III, 321, the Germans also used this device: “Losse mit schwarzen und weissen Stabchen wurden von Slaven gebraucht”; Steinschneider, op. cit., 867 ff.; HB, VI (1863), 121-2; Cat. Munich, $235; cf. also ibid. §228,8; 294,33; 299,5; and Grimn, IT, 929-30, III, 321; Giid. III, 139-40.

ch. 31.

17:5, p. 127b; cf. Albo’s Ikkarim, IV, 4, and especially Husik’s note, IV, 30.

Graetz Fubelschrift, 34; ms. Raziel, 21bf., 47a ff., ed. of Amsterdam 1701, 34b.

Gaster, Sword of Moses, 39, 865).

Mélusine, II (1884), 483; Elworthy, 443 f.; Summers, 184-5; Daiches, Baby- lonian Oil Magic in the Talmud and in the later Fewish Literature, London 1913.

308 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

are some minor differences between these two readings of the text; I have left the word which Grunwald reads as “‘Gerte” untranslated; Giidemann could not make it out. Grunwald took it to be the German word for “rod,” that is, the hazel-rod which the Germans regarded as holy and which served so often as the magician’s wand. But since the text speaks of no “rod” the word is best left in its obscurity. Passages in Dr. Johann Hartlieb’s book on forbidden sciences, written in 1455, are strikingly similar to the text here translated: When the reflective medium (of which Hartlieb mentions several) has been prepared, ‘“‘darnach nimbt er ain rain kind, und setzt das uf ainen schénen stul [elsewhere he writes, “etlich maister... setzen das kind in ir schoss’]... so stat der zaubermaister hinder im und spricht im etliche unerkante wort in die oren... und haisst im das rain kint die wort nachsprechen... so haisst er in sehen was er sech... darnach fragen sie den knaben, ob er icht sech ainen engel? wan der knab spricht ja, so fragen sie was varb er anhab? spricht der knab rott, so sprechen die maister ie, der engel ist zornig, und baten aber mer... wan dan der tiiifel bedunkt, das er dienst geniig hab, so lasst er erscheinen den engel in weiss, so ist den der maister fro... so fragt er dan so lang bis er sicht puchstaben. die selben puchstaben sambent dan der maister und macht daruss wort, so lang bis er hat darnach er gefragt hat.” Grimm, III, 428, 431-2; cf. alo Giid. III, 130-1. It might almost seem from these selections that one is a copy of the other, or that both are derived from a common source. It is probable, however, that they are inde- pendent accounts of a rite whose details were fixed and unvarying. The versions from late Oriental, North African and Spanish Jewish mss. which Daiches (14.ff.) printed differ very little from the medieval accounts. Rashi, in the eleventh century (San. 67b), mentions that a black-handled knife is required in invoking the “princes of the thumbnail”; three mss. from Spain, Tunis and the Orient, dating from the 16th to the 18th centuries (Daiches, 14, 18, 22), do not fail to include the black-handled knife! So tenacious and unalterable were the elements of the magic act! Other references to this method of divination are to be found in: Hochmat HaNefesh, 16d, 18a, 20c, 28d, 29a; Ziyuni, 10c; Redak on Ezek. 21:26; Nishmat Hayim, III, 19.

of Rothenburg (ed. Budapest) §498; Tashbez, §580; cf. Yore Deah 179:16. Daiches (p. 32) has suggested that the custom of looking at the nails during Habdalah, as well as other practices affecting finger-nails, may be connected with the frequent evocation of the “princes of the nail.” The ceremony of looking at the nails can by no means be regarded as an act of onychomancy, as finger-nail divination is called (cf. Giid., MGW, LX [1916], 137). However, the late prac- tice of enclosing the thumb within the other fingers during the course of this rite (cf. Ta‘ame HaMinhagim, I, $415, p. 53a) may have been influenced by the belief that the ‘“‘princes” inhabit the thumbnail in particular, since this nail was most often used in divination, and the finger should therefore be hidden from view. A medieval ms., giving directions for throwing lots, warns that one should not hold them with the thumb, “‘because demons, called ‘princes of the thumb,’ have power over that finger” aad will defeat the purpose of the lot-caster; Stote schneider, HB, VI (1863), 121; cf. Orah Hayim 179:6.

Rashi; Rashi on I Sam. 28: 12; Pa‘aneah Raza on Lev. 19:30, p. g1b; Lev. RK. ch. 26; cf. also Nishmat ea 11,:7.

NOTES 309

90; Yore Deah, 179:14 and comment of Lebush; J. Hansen, 208; Ziyuni, roc.

ms. Raziel, 24b f.; cf. San. 65b, which speaks of spending the night on a grave “so that a spirit of uncleanness may rest on one’; Rashi interprets this “the spirit of the grave.” Myrtle, hazel and hawthorn are the woods favored in magic, and most often prescribed for the indispensable magician’s staff, the divining-rod, the witches’ broomstick, etc.; cf. Summers, 121; Samter, 73 f.; A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, London 1920, p. 18, n. 61.

Giid. II, 333-7; see also Perles, op. cit., 36 and Grimm, II, 8193 ff. for German parallels. Prof. Ginzberg considers the only parallel in older Jewish literature to be the account of the raising of Joseph’s coffin by Moses (see his Legends, III, Bt.)

172; see also Neubauer and Stern, 67.

mat Hayim, Ill, 3; foseph Omez, 351;—S. Has. 291; Gaster, Exempla of the Rabbis, $391, p. 150; G. A. Kohut, “Blood Test as Proof of Kinship in Jewish Folklore,” Journal Amer. Or, Soc., XXIV (1903), 129-44; according to Franz M. Goebel (Fiidische Motive im Marchenhaften Erzahlungsgut, Gleiwitz 1932, pp. 160 ff.) the legend of the blood-test in German folklore was derived from Jewish sources. The sympathy that prevails between close relations is further exemplified by the fact that when one twin is in pain, the other also suffers (Hochmat HaNefesh, 30c).

Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 377; MGW7, X (1861), 264-5; Zunz, Kur Geschichte, 173 f.