book, XLII (1932), 316-60; Ber. 7b; Hag. 3b-4a; S. Has. 363, 364, 366, 375,
377, 1118, 1551, 1552, 1871; S. Has. B 477; Testament of Judah, 26, 28, 61;
Hochmat HaNefesh, 24c; Ziyuni 17b; cf. Landshuth, p. xiif., for Biblical and
Talmudic references; also Bischoff, 32 ff.
I, 403-47. Methusaleh advised Lamech, father of Noah, to delay naming his
son “‘because the people of that generation were sorcerers, and they would have
bewitched him if they had known his name” (Da‘at Zekenim on Gen. 5:28).
practice; cf. Ziyuni, 22a: wary 9992 729n [8501 Hipwa woanwnd sw 1s 1D AS
3331p AX mowen. Even the invocation of angels involves a measure of coercion
288 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION
upon God, who is ultivately responsible for their actions; cf. Lebush on
Orah Hayim 584:1: nywo and tn) ’n) owny son yo meneNn miypswan nmdsap
most gw 85a gy awen aT Iwyrw oxo pind.
p. 81.
7a. Bischoff, 192f., 195, offers an ingenious Hebrew derivation for this
word.
S. Has. 1458 (cf. Kid. 71a); Foseph Omez, 279. The practice of altering the
names of God in one way or another when writing them, or of substituting short-
hand forms, grew up at a very early time. Eighty-three written substitutes for the
Tetragrammaton have been listed. For fear of writing even the particle Yah
proper names were abbreviated, so that Jehudah became Judah, the final “h”
of Elijah and Isaiah was dropped, the number 15 was written 3” instead of n“»,
etc. See Lauterbach, Proc. Amer. Acad. for few. Research, 1931, 39-67; S. W.
Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, N. Y. 1937, III, 48 ;—Raziel,
2a.
1444, 1448, 1449. Nishmat Hayim III, 28, contains a general discussion of the
powers that reside in the holy names, with quotations and proofs.
on the same verse; cf. Giid. I, 169.
Chayim Bloch, The Golem, Vienna 1925; cf. Shelah, III, 65a. In the seventeenth
century the question was raised whether a Golem could be counted as one of a
minyan (FE, loc. cit.).
Die Golemsage und thre Verwertung in der deutschen Literatur, Breslau 1934.
Moses killed the Egyptian (Ex. 2:11) by merely speaking God’s name; the name
of God, engraved on Moses’ staff, caused the sea to divide (Blau, 50, 60). The
words ehyeh asher ehyeh yah YHVH zebaot amen amen selah, written on a staff,
caused a stormy sea to subside (B.B. 73a).
Ashkenazi, 54 ff. Cf. also J. Mann, Texts and Studies, II, 90 ff.
wsipmam ow concerning which there is considerable difference of opinion, see
Griinbaum, Ges. Auf., 190 and 238 ff.; Blau, 125; Grunwald, MG7V, V, 35
and X, 95; 7E, XI, 262 ff.; L. Geiger, Kebuzat Maamarim, ed. Poznanski, Warsaw
1910, p. 98, and Ginzberg’s note, p. 394; H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber,
Tubingen 1930, 53 ff. This term was applied in post-Talmudic times not alone
to the Tetragrammaton, but also to the longer names; cf. Hai Gaon in Ashkenazi,
NOTES 289
loc. cit.; Rashi, San 60a, Suk. 45a, Erub. 18b, etc. Raziel, 7a, has a shem hame-
forash which altogether defies classification.
the name of 42 letters. The only other reference to this latter name in Talmudic
literature is in Lekah Tov to Ex. 3:15, p. 10a, ed. Buber. The name of 72
letters (or elements) is not mentioned in the Talmud, but does occur in one
frequently repeated passage of the Midrash: Gen. R. 44:19, Lev. R. 23, beg.,
Nu. R. 1:11, etc.: MMs ows o yaw nav“apm Sw inwyw. Cant. R. to 2:2 has:
In minw 3”y n“apn Sw inww. Blau, 137 ff., suggests that the oldest mystical
name is that of 12 letters; 42 and 72 developed out of it later. The name
of 72 was known, at the latest, by the first half of the third century. The
Talmudic literature, however, gives us no information about these names, what
they were, what were their component elements, or how they were constructed.
the list given in the ms. S$. Gematriaot, 72b ff.
V, 5, n. 10. There were several theories as to just which name of God was re-
sponsible for the creation of the universe. The one most often advanced is that
it was the Tetragrammaton alone, or in conjunction with the particle yah, that
did the job. See Eleazar of Worms, Commentary on S. Yezirah, 1c; Jellinek,
33; Grunwald, 77V, I, 388, n. 4. Raziel, 12b, offers an interesting and original
hypothesis: God had 73 of His names inscribed at His right hand when He was
about to commence the work of creation. Out of the first name there came forth
three drops of water which filled the universe; the second provided light; the
third, fire; and so forth. When His task was completed He set the name of 42
to keep the celestial waters apart from the terrestrial; it was the removal of this
name that caused the flood (p. 14a).
iow 555 sas nwiy inws; Blau, 102 f.; Wohlstein, 30; Montgomery, 60; Jellinek,
33; Grunwald, MFV, XIX (1906), 112; etc.
29, <iyuni 11a, 30b; see also Raziel, 24a-b, 33b.
go. An effort has been made by some scholars to reconstruct the three
names known in Talmudic times, those of 12, 42 and 72, on the assumption
that they were not the same as those employed in later times. Bacher (Agada
der babylonischen Amorder, 17-20) suggests that the 12-letter name was based
on the three creative potencies myt m313n msn; and the 42 on the full ten:
Dn TON wewr pI¥ Mpa AIA MD Myt m312n ADIN with the addition of the
Tetragrammaton. Franck (Kabbalah, 71) derives the name of 42 from the
ten Sefirot (cf. also Bischoff, 35 ff., 107 ff.), which, as Ginsburg (Kabbalah,
183) points out, is an obvious anachronism. Robert Eisler (RE7, LXXXII
[1926], 157-9) bases the names of 42 and 72 on the thirteen Middot of Ex.
34:6-7. Blau (p. 144), on the analogy of the Greek magical papyri, in which
the seven Greek vowels play a great rdle, works out a triangular anagram which,
beginning with one YHVH builds up by the addition of one letter at a time to
three—this, he maintains, contains the 4-letter name in the first line, the 12 in
the last, the 42 in the last four, and the 72 in its totality. Finally, A. Haffer
(Hagofeh, II [1912], 127 ff.) derives the 12-letter name from the first three
names of God that occur in the Shema‘,myn» 339nd5s 5x, and to make up the
42-letter name he adds the final two words of the Shema‘ and the doxology
sys odiyS inis5 T1259 ow 7192. The name of 72 he derives from Deut. 4:34.
See also Schwab, Vocabulaire, 28 ff.
290 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION
These theories ring false, and certainly bear no relation to what was con-
sidered a potent magic name in the post-Talmudic period; in any event, such
efforts are entirely a matter of conjecture and invention, which can in no way
be substantiated from the available facts. It seems to me that there is a strong
probability that the names of 42 and 72 employed in the Middle Ages were che
same as those in use during the first few centuries of the Common Era. Hai
Gaon (1oth-11th century) (Ta‘am Zekenim, 57) spoke of them in words which
imply that they had been well known for a long time, and the tenacity of tradi-
tional lore, especially in a field such as that of mysticism and magic, in which
letter-perfection is one of the prime requisites, is a well-known phenomenon.
Nwiy 8? Jona) ow ninw; <iyuni, 6ob:n“apm Ow iaw 4a) JINwss 7A DID) OND
ney sae ery te phe a") Ts Nin socks Li -Zunz, Die tsynagogate
Poesie des Mittelaliers, Berlin 1855, p. 146.
33- Ms. S. Gematriaot, 74b: pips. nian wowe ssi minis 3”) 1 Dy
omspow muenisa miponnm minis 7) on) mim? ums mA? om ON? prow.
intercalated between the second and third verses of the Priestly Blessing. The
other three were probably originally included in the text, but dropped out
before it was printed in the eighteenth century).
J. Perles, MGW7, XXI (1872), 259-60; ibid., LXXVII (1933), 246; Schwab,
op. cit., s. v.; Cordovero’s Pardes, 21:14 (ed. Lemberg 1862, p. 113a), vocalizes
the name as I have given it.
(1908), 251-2; Nathan Hanover’s Sha‘are Zion, Vienna 1817, 34b, 35a, 28a, 60a,
63a; REF, LXV (1913), 59-60, where Aptowitzer cites acrostics containing this
name which are somewhat older than those in Sha‘are Zion.
Mytd 8) Jews) mA D2) om minis a“> yy Mian wen Nxin1; <iyunt,
6od: miips 1) Sy Jona xvi (a“> read) 3”) Sw ow 9D ATIAYR 19y2 MON
ony yt woip oN on > Tmos (85) owsnb) O99) 8799 AnD NPONT O53 DAN
435) ONDE 13w~m) OnpsN yiwsin minw />. An incantation in a sixteenth-century
manuscript employs “‘the 22-letter name of the Priestly Benediction” to conjure
a divinatory spirit (Grunwald, M7V, XIX [1906], 106). By means of this name
the dead will be recalled from their graves at the resurrection; cf. Gaster, Studies
and Texts, III, 230; Gollancz, Clavic. Sal., 42. The “Jerusalem” type of amulet-
mezuzah (see p. 150 above) includes both benediction and name in a manner
indicating their close relationship; cf. Aptowitzer, REF, LXV (1913), 59. An
additional item of evidence is provided by a late Italian ms. entitled Sefer Ha-
Razim (Ms. D 146, J. T. S. Library) which (p. 18a) combines the name and
the blessing in an amulet.
246, 351-2.
1931), Hagigah, 20f. In connection with this name Maimonides launched a
bitter denunciation of all these mystical names of God (cf. More Neb. I, 61, 62)
which aroused only the faintest echo in Northern Europe. —
niny 2”) on} IN8 ow xsi) own. There were other versions of the name
NOTES 291
of 42, such as that which the Zohar constructed out of the ten divine names
mentioned in the Bible (see Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 186-7), and the mnemotechni-
cal signs for the ten plagues in the Passover Haggadah which a sixteenth-century
ms. designated as this name because their numerical sum (by mispar katan) is 42
(Grunwald, M7V, XIX [1906], p. 119; see also FE, IX, 164); but these were
“sports” which never challenged the position of the true name.
This prayer was made much of by the Kabbalists, who also composed other such
prayers containing this name in.acrostic; cf. Landshuth, p. xxv; EF, II, 857.
vans Sw pippas mowsnas ssi minis. (See also Bacher, REF, XVIII [1889],
292-3, whose interpretation of this statement is far wide of the mark.) Raziel, 24b:
2 Sw 73 Jy mows Ow /a Te sin mnlw rw piper 19 NSU), own nt;
Kiyuni, 2c: 1 Ow nwa nnis wy wy miain> niwena pips ; Ms. S. Gematriaot,
74b:nsins /n siwnn sym. Sw /n oy miwsoa pipse Nyame a“ 72 ow
mnin Sw; I may add that while the other works cited do not specify that the name
of 42 to which they refer is the one of which I have been speaking, Raziel makes
it clear that this is so. Cordovero (Pardes, 21:13, ed. Lemberg 1862, p. 112b)
offers a complete exposition, through alphabetical permutations, of the derivation
of this name from the opening verses of the Bible.
12 f., woefully misunderstood this passage when he stopped at the word 155 and
translated it literally as “vessel,” thus making the use of a vessel (he had in mind
the many clay vessels that have been found inscribed with Aramaic incantations)
obligatory upon the magician. The sentence quoted, and the context, make it
unmistakably clear that the “vessel” or “tool” referred to is the name of 72.
40b; ms. §. Gematriaot, 35a, 74b; Seance Kabbalah, 133 ff.; FE, TX, 164.
Tie TeRo tm hes lee Base ad Olio, | OL Ono): IIe DIN T3py>%
read: pwp 127 959 ON Uy wes Tipyd on wd 3%) Donn.
XIV (1874) 6-8, 33; Kizur Shelah, Inyane Limmud, p. 150. I have not at-
tempted, by any means, to be exhaustive in this presentation of angelic and
godly names, Hebraic and foreign. The material is far too vast to permit of any-
thing more than a sampling here. Schwab has made the largest collection of
such names, and if his etymologies are as often as not dubious, he presents a
good survey of the entire field. The purpose of this discussion has been solely
to illustrate the type of material under consideration.
sary Volume, Leipzig 1909, p. 345; Gaster, Sword of Moses, p. xiv, 1. 25;
Raziel, 5a; Grunwald, M7V, XIX (1906), 112, and fahrb. fiir jiid. Gesch.
und Lit., IV (1901), 130-31.
292 JEWISH MAGIC AND SUPERSTITION
Lauterbach, Proc. Amer. Acad. Few. Research, 1931, 40, n. 3; M. Gaster, The
Samaritans, London 1925, p. 67.
200, 201; Gaster, MGW7F, XXIX (1880), 554 ff., Folk-Lore, XI (1900), 157 f.,
Sword of Moses, 19; cf. however, Grunwald, M7V, XIX (1906), 107, where
these three terms are invoked not against Lilit, but to gain inspiration for the
preparation of an amulet. See also Grunwald, MGW7, LXXVII (1933), 241.
Krauss, ibid., LVI (1908), 253-4; Heller, ibid., LVII (1909), 107-8; Brill, Fahr-
biicher, I (1874), 154 ff.; Gaster, Studies and Texts, III, 228; Montgomery, 99.
MG7V, V (1900), 79-84; E. Lévy, REF, LXXXII (1926), 401 ff.; Stein-
schneider, Cat. Munich, p. 109.
