Kgs. 22:19, Job 25:3: “Is there any number of His armies?” etc. The Talmudic literature accepts unquestioningly this doctrine of an infinitude of angelic beings, which remained the prevailing view throughout the Middle Ages. Cf. Schwab, Vocabulaire, 6; FE, 1, 583 f.; Rokeah, 362.

aswy) awy 55 35:as 1925p main Nd xm x5w; Eleazar of Worms wrote (Kam- melhar, 53): ovSN9ON 3 112bY OOyI MID 7 pI) Osi DN st OD Sy ninipiwn. Cf. also Giid. I, 162, n. 2, 169, and Hochmat HaNefesh, 18a. This notion was not unknown in contemporaneous German thought, as witness this statement from a sermon by Berthold of Regensburg (ed. Kling, p. 16), quoted by Giid. (loc. cit.): “Er [Gott] hat zu ieglichem kiinigriche einen engel gesetzet, der des kiinigriches da hiitet, und danne zu ieglichem

286 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION

hertzogetiime und zu ieglichem lande, daz ein lant mit siinderm namen ist, und danne zu ieglichem bistiime einen, und zu ieglicher stat einen, die in den landen und in den bistiimen sint, und danne zu ieglichem dorfe einen, und zu ieglichem kloster einen, und zu ieglichem hiise einen, und zu ieglichem menschen einen siinderlichen, ez si jiing oder alt, getauft oder ungetauft, einem ieglichen christen menschen siinderlichen einen hiiter und einen engel gegeben, und halt ieglichem heiden und ketzer und iiiden und slafenen [Slav] und tatanen [Tar- tar]; ez sin iene oder diese, die nach menschen gebildet sind, der hat iegliches sinen engel, der sin hiitet.”” Medieval Christianity shared with Judaism a very rich angelology, and put it to similar magical use in the so-called ‘“‘Notory Art,” which was not the most prevalent form of Christian magic. The specific concept of the “deputy,” however, though intimated in the above quotation, seems to have made no inroads into Christian mysticism.

even in the time of the Messiah God will not punish any nation until he shall have first punished its heavenly prince.—Ziyuni, roc: Sy nys.ann qxoem STpn own; S. Has. B 1157: noyed poy anisa mx 1d qd mwipy oTNY poy Joy. The terms “star” (mazal), “angel” (malach), “prince” (sar) and “deputy” (memuneh) are often used synonymously in this connection.

cf. Hochmat HaNefesh 16d, 18a, 29d; S. Has. B 1162; Ziyuni 5c; Giid. I, 207, n. 2. William of Auvergne (thirteenth century) offered a similar explanation of such phenomena, with the important difference, however, that he attributed them not to angels but to the demons whom the sorcerer had invoked; cf. Thorn- dike, II, 350.

G. F. Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” Harvard Theological Review, XV (1922), 41-85. Kaufmann Kohler’s article (¥E, I, 589 ff.) is especially valuable for its discussion of the early non-rabbinic sources. The Talmudic “princes” to whom particular provinces were assigned appear often in the mysti- cal literature of the first Christian centuries, as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers (see Thorndike, I, 343, 453 f.) and were accepted by the medie- val Church and Synagogue. See also E7, VI, 626 ff.; Giid. I, 162 f.

9g. 7. Ber. 13a: “If trouble befall a man, let him not cry to Michael or Gabriel, but let him cry to Me and I will answer him at once.” See, however, Echah R., Il, 6, and FE, VI, 203, for a Midrashic account of conjuration of angels.

of grass which does not have its star in heaven,” the younger (Mid. Tehillim, ed. Buber, Vilna 1891, 104, p. 440) has, “Every single thing has its appointed angel (memuneh) over it.’ These quotations, with the substitution of a newer concept for an old, give us the clew to the confusion and combination of the two which I have noted. I don’t think Ginzberg (Legends, V, 110, 159) is justified in reading the sense of the second into the first. The connotation of the one is astrological, of the other, theosophical. A closer rendition, in theosophical terms, of the Platonic concept is to be found in this Geonic statement: “There are those who maintain that for each species of living creature [that He was about to create] God first created a corresponding species of angel in heaven and asked them, ‘How would you like it if I should create a replica of you on earth?’ And according to their opinion and their wish did He go about the work of

NOTES 287

creation.” B. M. Lewin, Otzar haGaonim, V (Jerusalem 1932), Part II, p. 22 (cf. Hul. 60a).

angels are “Intelligences,” ibid. (cf. More Nebukim, II, 6).

Moses Taku, Ozar Nehmad III, 61; Giid. I, 207, n. 1; Kammelhar 52; and Giid. I, 169, citing a ms. work of Eleazar of Worms.

58a-b; Yore Deah 335:5; Sheloh Il, 146a; S. Has. B 32, 1134. HaPardes 22d accounted for the Aramaic invitation to participate in the Passover meal, which serves as an introduction to the Seder service, on the ground that the demons, like the angels, speak Hebrew (cf. Hag. 16a), and an invitation in that language would overwhelm the proceedings with a host of these unwelcome guests.

with Mah Vit., loc. cit.; Teshubot HaGeonim, ed. Harkavy, $373, 188 ff.

classes of angels, the angels (or messengers) proper, and the servants of God: Vw spss 1939p Sw ons) OTs 1329 oO Nowan Ons O NIps ODN, Kammel- har, 53. The medieval Kabbalah distinguished ten classes of angels, but aside from one or two bare references to such a classification (cf. Ziyuni, 49a; H. Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. 411) they do not enter into North European speculations. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, V, 23, n. 64, and 70, n. 22; 7E, I, 591.

p. 189; Pa‘aneah Raza, 23a and Ginzberg, Legends, V, 237, n. 154.

bana Taku, Ozar Nehmad III, 67:n) 5x59 noo “apn 72 1913 DiyA BIN 25 OY.

on Orah Hayim 584:1; Kol Bo 867; Yeven Mezulah, 20. See FE, I, 592, for parallels in the apocalyptic and rabbinic literature.

logical Review, XV (1922), 62 ff., for discussion of Metatron.