ft. Ch. V; p. 7a.

considers the statement “they are more God-fearing than men are” to be essen- tially Islamic; Giid. I, 207, n. 3; HaHayim, IV, 10; Nishmat Hayim, III, 27.

two walking together are safe, though they must be on guard; three walking together need have no fear at all; a torch may be considered the equivalent of one companion; Judah b. Bezalel’s commentary, Derech Hayim, on Abot III, 5.—Ms. S. Gematriaot, 65b; Netivot ‘Olam, 40c-d; foseph Omez, 94, 8455; Testament of Fudah the Pious, §43-4; cf. Grimm, III, 435, §14; Kizur Shelah, 75-7 (Inyane Tefilat HaDerech).

239, 468, 939; Maharil, 86b; Solomon Luria, quoted in B’er Heteb on Yore Deah 116:5; Nishmat Hayim, III, 27;—Derech Hayim on Abot III, 5;—Mah Vit. 734; Toledot Adam veHavah, 15:30, p. 112c; Abrahams, Ethical Wills, 48; Isserles, Yore Deah 116:5;—Semak 171; Yore Deah 116:53; Orhot Zadikim, 32a; —Hochmat HaNefesh, 8c-d; Leket Yosher, 11, 84; Responsa of Jacob Weil, 74a; cf. Samter, 131 ff.

306, cites an early source which adds 3) 5}? ‘x¥i1N2) Nay NsiMI1; see also H. Gollancz, Clavic. Sal., 39;—-cf. Ber. 6a and Tos., ad loc.; Rashi, Shab. 24b; Semag, II, 19; S. Has. B 1170; HaTerumah, 94b-c; Rabiah, §10, p. 8, and $196, pp. 240-1; Mordecai, Shab., §564, p. 13c; Kol Bo, §35; Mah. Vit., 280; Ha- Pardes, 22a; Tyrnau, Minhagim, 4b. The original reason for introducing a short- ened ‘Amidah in the Friday night service, as Prof. Ginzberg pointed out to me, was that at first this was the only evening service during the week; it was given this superstitious explanation when the Ma‘arib became a daily service.

a bridegroom and a bride. Another version has it: an invalid, a woman in con- finement, a bride and a groom. Some add, also a mourner.” Cf. also Rashi, ad loc.

VI, 341, n. 118.

282 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

g. “Testament of Solomon,” 7QR, OS, XI (1899), 20; Marmorstein, 77V, IT (1925), 355 f.

7b, §61; Nishmat Hayim, II, 26; Lebush, Yore Deah, 179: 14; Grimm, II, 698 f., Samter, 79.

knowledge the earliest story about a Dibbuk, which is first met with in the writings about Luria and his pupils. The nearest to that given in the Ma‘aseh Book is the one told about Luria and Vital in the different versions of Shibhe HaAri, which, however, were published later than the M. B.” See, however, Scholem, Ef, V, 1099, where mention is made of a Safed protocol of 1571 containing reference to a Dibbuk. On Kabbalistic metempsychosis see Franck, 200 ff.; C. D. Ginsburg, 124 f.; Bloch, MGW7, XLIX (1905), 160.

who ate a lettuce-leaf without making the sign of the cross, and was immediately possessed of a demon, which had been sitting on the leaf. (Lea, III, 381, Thorn- dike, I, 639.) The belief in demonic possession was so strongly held that the Catholic Church has a rite of “Ordination of Exorcists,”” De Ordinatione Exor- cistarum, and a “Form of Exorcising the Possessed” (Summers, 207 ff., 211 ff.). This far the Synagogue certainly never went, though we have records of exorcisms utilized by individual Jews (cf. Scholem, loc. cit., 1099-1100). For the Talmudic view see Blau, 13, 31, 34, 55-

IV, 10; Menasseh b. Israel (Nishmat Hayim, III, 10) again says the final word in the matter: “This is one of those traditions which require no proof.”

technique of exorcism among Jews and Gentiles shows a close relationship, even to such fine points as the requirement that the spirit make its exit through a specified spot on the body (in the case mentioned, the little toe of the right foot), and leave a sign of its departure, either on the body, or as here, in a tiny hole which it was to bore in the window-pane to permit egress. Cf. De Givry, 164 f.

spread in medieval Christendom, and was accepted as literally true by the Church. In fact, physical relations between spirits and humans were believed to be the most characteristic feature of the witch-cults, and some medieval writers at- tributed the alarming development of witchcraft to the attractions of such a rela- tionship. See Lea, III, 383 ff.; Summers, go ff.

mystics and appears often in the writings of the Horowitz family, e.g., ‘Emek Beracha, II, 852, p. 60b, note by Isaiah; also p. 61b of the same work; Yesh Nohalin, 18b, n. 17. It is because of this view that the avoidance of keri occupies such a prominent place in the mystical hygiene of this group.

16) discusses this question at some length, and with considerable erudition: one opinion has it that the demons, themselves without physical attributes of any kind, gather up the semen and use it to impregnate women and themselves; another, that demons do possess sex organs and are capable of physical union with men and women; a third admits of such a possibility only when demons temporarily assume human forms and seduce the children of men. Menasseh b. Israel draws here on Christian as well as Jewish sources; he forbears to commit himself to one or another of these views, but does not question the possibility of such unnatural carnal relations. These views find striking expression in medieval Christian thought. Thomas Aquinas explains how by acting alternately as succubus and

NOTES 283

incubus, the demon could bear man offspring, while William of Auvergne “re- gards demons as incapable of sexual intercourse with human beings, but he thinks it possible that they may juggle with nature so as to produce the effects of sexual intercourse.” The views of these two outstanding teachers of the thirteenth cen- tury were accepted and often repeated by their successors. Cf. Lea, III, 385, Thorndike, II, 358, IV, 310.

in his notes that this seems to be a German folktale, but the essential element, a demon marrying a girl, is as Jewish as it is German, or, indeed, of any other nationality.

logical phenomenon that when members of two races mate, their offspring are regarded as belonging to that race which is socially inferior, while within this group they tend to arrogate to themselves a superior position.

haram) of Lublin, 116.

passage is faithful to the beliefs of an earlier period. An interesting parallel to the episode of the forced separation between the demon and her human lover is afforded in an early Aramaic incantation in which a magical get (a bill of divorcement) achieves a like result; cf. Montgomery, 159.—That the proper habitat of demons is the desert and the mountain is an ancient and widely held belief (cf. Mat. 12:43). The banning of demons into these places occurs often in Babylonian-Assyrian, Hellenistic, and post-Talmudic Aramaic incantations and exorcisms. Cf. Montgomery, 78, n. 60.

des Auges und das Berufen, Hamburg, 1922; cf. also Elworthy, The Evil Eye, London 1895; Wuttke, 162 ff.; Bischoff, 50 ff.

Menorah, IV (1926), 551-69; Griinbaum, loc. cit.; R. Lilienthal, “ ‘Ayin Hara‘,” Yidische Filologye, I (1924), 245 ff.; Montgomery, 89.

work havoc with the merest glance,” and also animals “whose roar spreads death a bow-shot away.”

(cf. II Sam. 24:1 ff.); S. Has. 534; Netivot ‘Olam, 107d;—Rokeah 296; Kol Bo 874; Gaster, Studies and Texts, III, 228;—Tashbez, 190; Leket Yosher, II, 38; Orah Hayim 141:6;—Isserles, Eben Ha‘Ezer 62:3; Rashi, B.B. 2b. Since the seventeenth century belief in the evil eye has become very prominent in Jewish superstitions; the expressions “‘unbeschrieen,” ‘‘unberufen,” or, in Hebrew, “no evil eye,” have become automatic accompaniments on Jewish lips of the slightest compliment. See Lilienthal, op. cit., for a detailed account of East-European Jewish beliefs.

S. Has. 981, 1823.

II, 95; Blau, 61 f.; Yore Deah 402:12; Kol Bo 114; Landshuth, p. xxxi; Rashi, Ket. 28a; Kol Bo 30; Tashbez, 551; Yore Deah 335:1 and Ned. 40a; S. Has. 1446.

betai Horowitz, §11; Landau and Wachstein, Fiidische Privatbriefe, passim; etc.

284 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

Leket Yosher, II, 83. Not all rabbis were obsessed by this superstition. This same Isserlein, replying to a query as to whether the statement, “‘I’ll be baptised before I let my mother-in-law put foot in my house!” was to be regarded as a vow, limited himself to the immediate question, and passed up an excellent oppor- tunity for a homily on the evils of making such remarks (Pesakim Uketabim, §192).

cf. Yesh Nohalin, 816 and n. 51, p. 39a;—Ber. 56a; B.K. 93a; Lea, III, 382; S. Has. 129, 1436, 1439, 1727; foseph Omez, 354.

was Customary not to call anyone to the Torah by name when the Tochahah was to be read, but the invitation was extended to “whoever wished” to accept it. In Mainz the practice was to stipulate, when employing a sexton, that he must read the chapter when no one else was willing to do so; cf. Maharil, Hil. Keriat HaTorah, Isserles, Orah Hayim, 428:6; FE, XII, 175; E. N. Adler, Jews in Many Lands, Phila. 1905, p. 178. Reifmann wrote in 1841 (Zion, I, 184) that he him- self saw a man refuse to eat bread which had been placed before him while he was reading the “chapter of maledictions.”

Spiegel, ch. 56, p. 100c.

dissimilar in purport and content; cf. 7E, VII, 539 ff.