|
Appendix 12 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 14
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Appendix 13
JEWISH ANGELOLOGY AND
DEMONOLOGY. THE FALL of THE ANGELS.
(See Book III. ch. 1.)
WITHOUT here entering on a discussion of the doctrine of Angels
and devils as presented in Holy Scripture, the Apocrypha, and the
Pseudepigrapha, it will be admitted that considerable progression may be marked
as we advance from even the latest Canonical to Apocryphal, and again from
these to the Pseudepigraphic Writings. The same remark applies even more
strongly to a comparison of the later with Rabbinic literature. There we have comparatively
little of the Biblical in its purity. But, added to it, we now
find much that is the outcome of Eastern or of prurient imagination, of
national conceit, of ignorant superstition, and of foreign, especially Persian,
elements. In this latter respect it is true - not, indeed, as regards the
doctrine of good and evil Angels, but much of its Rabbinic elaboration - that
'the names of the Angels (and of the months) were brought form Babylon ' (Jer.
Rosh. haSh. 56 d; Ber. r. 48), and with the 'names,' not a few of the
notions regarding them. At the same time, it would be unjust to deny that mush
of the symbolism which it is evidently intended to convey is s singularly
beautiful.
I. ANGELOLOGY.
1. Creation, Number, Duration and Location of the Angels.
We are now considering, not the Angel-Princes but that vast unnumbered
'Host' generally designated as 'the ministering Angels' (tr#h yk)lm). Opinions
differ (Ber. R. 3) whether they were created on the second day as being
'spirit,' 'winds' (Ps. civ. 4), or on the fifth day (Is. vi. 2) in
accordance with the words of Creation on those days. Viewed in reference to
God's Service and Praise, they are 'a flaming fire:' in regard to their office,
winged messengers (Pirqé de R. El. 4). But not only so: every day ministering
Angels are created, whose apparent destiny is only to raise the praise of God,
after which they pass away into the fiery stream (Nahar deNur) whence
they originally issued1
(Chag. 14 a; Ber. R. 78). More than this - a new Angel is created to
execute to every behest of God, and then passeth away (Chag. u. s.). This
continual new creation of Angels, which is partly a beautiful allegory, partly
savours of the doctrine of 'emanation,' is Biblical supported by an appeal to
Lament. iii. 23. Thus it may be said that daily a Kath, or company, of
Angels is created for daily service of God, and that every word which proceedeth
from His mouth becomes an 'Angel' [Messenger - mark here the ideal unity of
Word and Deed], (Chang. 14 a).
1. This
stream issued from under the throne of God, and is really the sweat of the
'living creatures' in their awe at the glory of God (Ber. R. 78).
The vast number of that Angelic Host, and the consequent safety
of Israel as against its enemies, was described in the most hyperbolic
language. There were 12 Mazzaloth (signs of the Zodiac), each having 30
chiefs of armies, each chief with 30 legions, each legion with 30 leaders, each
leader with 30 captains, each captain with 30 under him, and each of these
things with 365,000 stars - and all were created for the sake of Israel! (Ber.
32. b.) Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar proposed to ascend into heaven,
and to exalt his throne above the stars, and be like the Most High, the Bath
Qol replied to this grandson of Nimrod that man's age was 70, or at most 80
years, while the way from earth to the firmament occupied 500 years,2
a thickness of the firmament was 500 years, the feet of the living creatures
were equal to all that had preceded, and the joints of their feet to as many as
had preceded them, and so on increasingly through all their members up to their
horns, after which came the Throne of Glory, the feet of which again equalled
all that had preceded, and so on (Chag. 13 a3).4
In connection with this we read in Chag. 12 b that there are seven
heavens: the Vdon, in which there is the sun; Riqia, in which the
sun shines, and the moon, stars, and planets are fixed; Shechaqim, in
which are the millstones to make the manna for the pious; Zebhul, in
which the Upper Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Altar, and in which Michael,
the chief Angel-Prince, offers sacrifices; Maon, in which the Angels of
the Ministry are, who sing by night and are silent by day for the sake of the
honour of Israel (who now have their services); Machon, in which are the
treasuries of snow, hail, the chambers of noxious dews, and of the receptacles
of water, the chamber of wind, and the cave of mist, and their doors are of
fire; lastly, Araboth, wherein Justice, Judgment and Righteousness are,
the treasures of Life, of Peace and of Blessing, the soul of the righteous, and
the spirits and souls of those who are to be born in the future, and the dew by
which the dead are to be raised. There also are the Ophanim, and the Seraphim,
and the living creatures and the ministering Angels, and the Throne of Glory
and over them is enthroned the Great King. [For a description of this Throne
and of the Appearance of its King, see Pirqé de R. Eliez. 4.] On the other
hand, sometimes every power and phenomenon in Nature is hypostatised into an
Angel - such as hail, rain, wind, sea &c.; similarly, every occurrence, such
as life, death, nourishment, poverty, nay, as it is expressed: there is not
stalk of grass upon earth but it has its Angels in heaven (Ber R. 10). This
seems to approximate the views of Alexandrian Mysticism. So also, perhaps, the
idea that certain Biblical heroes became after death Angels. But as this may be
regarded as implying their service as messengers of God. we leave it for the
present.
2. In
Jer. Ber 2 c it is 50 years.
3. See
also Pes. 94 b.
4. Some
add the Cherubim as another and separate class.
2. The Angel-Princes, their location, names, and offices.
Any limitation, as to duration or otherwise, of the Ministering Angels does not
apply either to the Ophanim (or wheel-angels), the Seraphim, the Cayoth (or
living creatures), nor to the Angel-Princes (Ber. R. 78).5
In Chag. 13 a, b the name Chashamal is given to the
'living creatures.' The word is explained as composed of two others which mean
silence and speech - it being beautifully explained, that they keep silence
when the Word proceeds out of the mouth of God, and speak when He has ceased.
It would be difficult exactly to state the number of the Angel-Princes. The 70
nations, of which the world is composed, had each their Angel-Prince (Targ.
Jer. on Gen xi.7, 8; comp. Ber. R. 56; Shem. R. 21; Vayyi. R. 29; Ruth R. ed.
Warsh. p. 36 b), who plead their cause with God. Hence these Angels are
really hostile to Israel, and may be regarded as not quite good Angels, and are
cast down when the nationality which they represent is destroyed. It may have
been as a reflection on Christian teaching that Israel was described as not
requiring any representative with God, like the Gentiles. For, as will soon
appear, this was not the general view entertained. Besides these Gentile
Angel-Princes there were other chiefs, whose office will be explained in the
sequel. Of these 5 are specially mentioned, of whom four surrounded the Throne
of God: Michael, Gabriel, Rephael, and Uriel. But the greatest of all is
Metatron, who is under the Throne, and before it. These Angels are privileged
to be within the Pargod, or cloudy veil, while the others only hear the
Divine commands or councels outside this curtain (Chag. 16 a, Pirqé d.
R. El. iv.). It is a slight variation when the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut.
xxxiv. 6 enumerates the following as the 6 principal Angels: Michael, Gabriel,
Metatron, Yopheil, Uriel, and Yophyophyah. The Book of Enoch (ch. xx.) speaks
also of 6 principal Angels, while Pirqé d. R. Eliez. iv. mentions seven. In
that very curious passage (Berakhoth 51 a) we read of three directions
given by Suriel, Prince of the Face, to preserve the Rabbis from the Techaspith
(company of Evil Angels), or according to others, form Istalganith (another
company of Evil Angels). In Chag. 13 b we read of an Angel called Sandalpon,
who stands upon the earth, while his head reaches 500 years' way beyond the
living creatures. He is supposed to stand behind the Merkabah (the throne-chariot), and make crowns for the Creator, which rise of their own
accord. We also read of Sagsagel, who taught Moses the sacred Name of God, and
was present at his death. But, confining ourselves to the five principal Angel-chiefs, we have,
5. According
to Jer Ber. ix. 1, the abode of the living creatures was to an extent of 515
years' journey, which is proved from the numerical value of the word hr#y
'straight' (Ezek. i. 7).
a. Metaron,6
who appears most closely to correspond to the Angel of the Face, or the Logos.
He is the representative of God. In the Talmud (Sanh. 38 b) a Christian
is introduced as clumsily starting a controversy on this point, that, according
to the Jewish contention, Exod. xxiv. 1 should have read, 'Come up to Me.' On
this R. Idith explained that the expression referred to the Metatron (Exod.
xxxiii. 21), but denied the inference that Metatron was either to be adored, or
had power to forgive sins, or that he was to be regarded as a Mediator. In
continuation of this controversy we are told (Chang. 15 a, b) that,
when an apostate Rabbi had seen Metatron sitting in heaven, and would have
interferred from it that there were two supreme powers, Metatron received from
another Angel 60 fiery stripes so as to prove his inferiority! In Targ.
Ps.-Jon. on Gen. v. 24 he is called the Great Scribe, and also the Prince of
this world. He is also designated as 'the Youth,' and in the Kabbalah as 'the
Little God,' who had 7 names like the Almighty, and shared His Majesty. he is
also called the 'Prince of the Face,' and described as the Angel who sits in
the innermost chamber (Chag. 5 b), while the other Angels hear their
commands outside the Veil (Chag. 16 a). He is represented as showing the
unseen to Moses (Siphré, p. 141 a), and as instructing infants who have
died without receiving knowledge (Abhod. Zar. 3 b). In the Introduction
to the Midrash on Lamentations there is a revolting story in which Metatron is
represented as proposing to shed tears in order that God might not have to weep
over the destruction of Jerusalem, to which, however, the Almighty is made to
refuse His assent. We hesitate to quote further from the passage. In Siphré on
Deut. (ed. Freidm. p. 141 a) Metatron is said to have shown Moses
the whole of Palestine. He is also said to have gone before Israel in the Wilderness.
6. On
the controversy on the meaning of the name Metatron, whether it means under the
throne, or behind the throne, or is the same as Metator, divider, arranger,
representative, we will not enter.
b. Michael ('who is like God?'), or the Great
Prince (Chag. 12 b). He stands at the right hand of the throne of God.
According to Targ. Ps.-Jon. on Exod. xxiv. 1, he is the Prince of Wisdom.
According to the Targum on Ps. cxxxvii. 7, 8, the Prince of Jerusalem, the
representative of Israel. According to Sebach. 62 a he offers upon the
heavenly Altar; according to some, the soul of the pious; according to others,
lambs of fire. But, although Michael is the Prince of Israel, he is not to be
invoked by them (Jer. Ber. ix. 13 a). In Yoma 77 a we have an
instance of his ineffectual advocacy for Israel before the destruction of
Jerusalem. The origin of his name as connected with the Song of Moses at the
Red Sea is explained in Bemidb. R. 2. Many instances of his activity are
related. Thus, he delivered Abraham from the fiery oven of Nimrod, and
afterwards, also, the Three Children out of the fiery furnace. He was the
principal or middle Angel of the three who came to announce to Abraham the
birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Rephael at his left. Michael
also saved Lot. Michael and Gabriel wrote down that the primogeniture belonged
to Jacob, and God confirmed it. Michael and Gabriel acted as 'friends of the
bridegroom' in the nuptials of Adam. Yet they could not bear to look upon the
glory of Moses. Michael is also supposed to have been the Angel in the bush
(according to others, Gabriel). At the death of Moses, Michael prepared his
bier, Gabriel spread a cloth over the head of Moses, and Sagsagel over his
feet. In the world to come Michael would pronounce the blessing over the fruits
of Eden, then hand them to Gabriel, who would give them to the patriarchs, and
so on to David. The superiority of Michael over Gabriel is asserted in Ber. 4 b,
where, by an ingenious combination with Dan. x. 13, it is shown that Is. vi. 6
applies to him (both having the word dx), one). It is added that Michael
flies in one fight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and the Angel of Death in
eight flights (no doubt to give time for repentance). c. Gabriel ('the Hero of God') represents rather
judgment, while Michael represents mercy. Thus he destroyed Sodom (Bab. Mez. 86
b, and other places). He restored to Tamar the pledges of Judah, which
Sammael had taken away (Sot. 10 b). He struck the servants of the
Egyptian princess, who would have kept their mistress from taking Moses out of
the water (Sot. 12 b); also Moses, that he might cry and so awaken pity.
According to some, it was he who delivered the Three Children; but all are
agreed that he killed the men that were standing outside the furnace. He also
smote the army of Sennacherib. The passage in Ezek. x. 2, 7 was applied to
Gabriel, who had received from the Cherub two coals, which, however, he
retained for six years, in the hope that Israel might repent.7
He is supposed to be referred to in Ezek. ix. 4 as affixing the mark on the
forehead which is a t, drawn, in the wicked, in blood (Shabb. 55 a).
We are also told that he had instructed Moses about making the Candlestick, on
which occasion he had put on an apron, like a goldsmith; and that he had
disputed with Michael about the meaning of a word. To his activity the bringing
of fruits to maturity is ascribed - perhaps because he was regarded as made of
fire, while Michael was made of snow (Deb. R. 5). These Angels are supposed to
stand beside each other, without the fire of the one injuring the snow of the
other. The curious legend is connected with him (Shabb. 56 b, Sanh. 21 b),
that, when Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, Gabriel descended into the
sea, and fixed a reed in it, around which a mudbank gathered, on which a forest
sprang up. On this site imperial Rome was built. The meaning of the legend - or
perhaps rather allegory - seems (as explained in other parts of this book)
that, when Israel began to decline from God, the punishment through its enemies
was prepared, which culminated in the dominion of Rome. In the future age
Gabriel would hunt and slay Leviathan. This also may be a parabolic representation
of the destruction of Israel's enemies.
7. Gabriel
was also designated Itmon, because he stops up the sins of Israel (Sanh.
45 b).
d. Of Uriel ('God is my light') and Rephael
('God heals') it need only be said, that the one stands at the left side of the
Throne of glory, the other behind it.8
8. The
names of the four Angel-Princes - Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael - are
explained in Bemid. R. 2.
3. The Ministering Angels and their Ministry. The
ministry of the Angels may be divided into two parts, that of praising God, and
that of executing His behests. In regard to the former, there are 684,000
myriads who daily praise the Name of God. From sunrise to sundown they say:
Holy, holy, holy, and from sundown to sunrise: Blessed be the Glory of God from
its place. In connection with this we may mention the beautiful allegory (Shem.
R. 21) that the Angel of prayer weaves crowns for God out of the prayer of
Israel. As to the execution of the Divine commands by the Angels, it is
suggested (Aboth d. R. Nathan 8) that their general designation as ministering
Angels might have led to jealousy among them. Accordingly, their names were
always a composition of that of God with the special commission entrusted to
them (Shem. r. 29), so that the name of each Angel depended in Yalkut (vol. ii.
Par. 797), where we are told that each Angel has a tablet on his heart, in
which the Name of God and that of the Angel is combined. This change of names
explained the answer of the Angel to Manoah (Bemidb. R. 10). It is impossible
to enumerate all the instances of Angelic activity recorded in Talmudic
writings. Angels had performed the music at the first sacrifice of Adam; they
had announced the consequences of his punishment; they had cut off the hands
and feet of the serpent; they had appeared to Abraham in the form of a baker, a
sailor, and an Arab. 120,000 of them had danced before Jacob when he left
Laban; 4,000 myriads of them were ready to fight for him against Esau; 22,000
of them descended on Sinai and stood beside Israel when, in their terror at the
Voice of God, they fled for twelve miles. Angels were directed to close the
gates of heaven when the prayer of Moses with the All-powerful, Ineffable Name
in it, which he had learn from Sagsagel, would have prevented his death.
Finally, as they were pledged to help Israel, so would they also punish every
apostate Israelite. Especially would they execute that most terrible punishment
of throwing souls to each other from one world to another. By the side of these
debasing superstitions we come upon beautiful allegories, such as that a good
and an evil Angel always accompanied man, but especially on the eve of the
Sabbath when he returned from the Synagogue, and that for every precept he
observed God sent him a protecting Angel. This is realistically developed in
Pirké d. R. El. 15, where the various modes and time which the good Angels keep
man from destruction are set forth.
It is quite in accordance with what we know of the system of Rabbinism, that the heavenly host should be represented as forming a sort of
consultative Sanhedrin. Since God never did anything without first taking
counsel with the family above (Sanh. 38 b),9
it had been so when He resolved to create man. Afterward the Angels had
interceded for Adam, and, when God pointed to his disobedience, they had urged
that thus death would also come upon Moses and Aaron, who were sinless, since
one fate must come to the just and the unjust. Similarly, they had interceded for
Isaac, when Abraham was about to offer him and finally dropped three tears on
the sacrificial knife, by which its edge became blunted. And so through the
rest of Israel's history, where on all critical occasions Jewish legend
introduces the Angels on the scene.
9. According
to Jer. Ber. ix. 7 (p. 14 b), God only takes counsel with His Sanhedrin
when He takes away, not when He giveth (Job i. 21) - and it is argued that,
wherever the expression 'and Jehovah' occurs, as in the last clause of 1 Kings
xxii. 23, it means God His Sanhedrin.
4. Limitation of the power of the Angels. According to
Jewish ideas, the faculties, the powers, and even the knowledge of Angels were
limited. They are, indeed, pure spiritual beings (Vayyikra R. 24), without sensuous requirements (Yoma 75 b), without hatred, envy, or jealousy
(Chag. 14), and without sin (Pirqé d. R. El. 46). They know much, notably the
future (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and have part in the Divine Light. They live on
the beams of the Divine Glory (Bem. R. 21), are not subject to our limitations as to movement, see but are not seen (A b. d. R. Nath. u. s.), can turn their
face to any side (Ab. d. R. Nath. 37), and only appear to share in our ways,
such as in eating (Bar. R. 48). Still, in many respects they are inferior to
Israel, and had been employed in ministry (Ber. R. 75). They were unable to
give names to the animals, which Adam did (Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Jacob had
wrestled with the Angel and prevailed over him when the Angel wept (Chull. 92 a).
Thus it was rather their nature than their powers or dignity which
distinguished them from man. No angel could do two messages at the same time
(Ber. R. 50). In general they are merely instruments blindly to do a certain
work, not even beholding the Throne of Glory (Bemidb. R. 14), but needed mutual
assistance (Vayyikia R. 31). They are also liable to punishments (Chag. 16 a).
Thus, they were banished from their station for 138 years, because they had
told Lot that God would destroy Sodom, while the Angel-Princes of the Gentiles
were kept in chains till the days of Jeremiah. As regards their limited
knowledge, with the exception of Gabriel, they do not understand Chaldee or
Syriac (Sot. 33 a). The realistic application of their supposed
ignorance on this score need not here be repeated (see Shabb. 12 b). As
the Angels are inferior to the righteous, it follows that they are so to
Israel. God had informed the Angels that the creation of man was superior to
theirs, and it had excited their envy. Adam attained a place much nearer to God
than they, and God loved Israel more than the Angels. And God had left all the ministering
Angels in order to come to Moses, and when He communicated with him
it was directly, and the Angels standing between them did not hear what passed.
In connection with this ministry of the Angels on behalf of Biblical heroes a
curious legend may here find its place. From a combination of Ex. xviii. 4 with
Ex. ii. 15 the strange inference was made that Moses had actually been seized
by Pharaoh. Two different accounts of how he escaped from his power are given.
According to the one, the sword with which he was to be executed rebounded from
the neck of Moses, and was broken, to which Cant. vii. 5 was supposed to refer,
it being added that the rebound killed the would-be executioner. According to
another account, an Angel took the place of Moses, and thus enabled him to fly,
his flight being facilitated by the circumstances that all the attendants of
the king were miraculously rendered either dumb, deaf, or blind, so that they
could not execute the behest of their master. Of this miraculous interposition
Moses is supposed to have been reminded in Ex. iv. 11, for his encouragement in
undertaking his mission to Pharaoh. In the exaggeration of Jewish boastfulness
in the Law, it was said that the Angels had wished to receive the Law, but that
they had not been granted this privilege (Job xxviii. 21). And sixty myriads of
Angels had crowned with two crowns every Israelite who at Mount Sinai had taken
upon himself the Law (Shabb. 88 a). In view of all this we need scarcely
mention the Rabbinic prohibition to address to the Angels prayers, even
although they bore them to heaven (Jer. Ber. ix. 1), or to make pictorial
representations of them (Targ. Ps-Jon. on Ex. xx. 23; Mechilta on the passage, ed.
Weiss, p. 80 a).
5. The Angels are not absolutely good. Strange as it may
seem, this is really the view expressed by the Rabbis. Thus it is said that,
when God consulted the Angels, they opposed the creation of man, and that, for
this reason, God had concealed from them that man would sin. But more than this
- the Angels had actually conspired for the fall of man (the whole of this is
also related in Pirqé d. R. El. 13). Nor had their jealous and envy been
confined to that occasion. They had accused Abraham, that, when he gave a great
feast at the weaning of Isaac, he did not even offer to God a bullock or a goat.
Similarly, they had laid charges against Ishmael, in the hope that he might be
left to perish of thirst. They had expostulated with Jacob, because he went to
sleep at Bethel. But especially had they, from envy, opposed Moses' ascension
into heaven; they had objected to his being allowed to write down the Law,
falsely urging that Moses would claim the glory of it for himself, and they are
represented, in a strangely blasphemous manner, as having been with difficulty
appeased by God. In Shabb. 88 b we have an account of how Mosses
pacified the Angels, by showing that the Law was not suitable for them, since
they were not subject to sinful desires, upon which they became the friends of
Moses, and each taught him some secret, among others the Angel of death how to
arrest the pestilence. Again, it is said, that the Angels were wont to bring
charges against Israel, and that, when Manasseh wished to repent, the Angels
shut the entrance to heaven , so that his prayer might not penetrate into the
presence of God.
Equally profane, though in another direction, is the notion
that Angels might be employed for magical purposes. This had happened at the
siege of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, when, after the death of that mighty
hero Abika, the son of Gaphteri, Chananeel, the uncle of Jeremiah, had conjured
up ministering Angels, who affrighted the Chaldees into flight. On this God had
changed their names, when Chananee, unable any longer to command their
services, had summoned up the Prince of the World by using the Ineffable Name,
and lifted Jerusalem into the air, but God had trodden it down again, to all
which Lam. ii. 1 referred (Yalk. vol. ii. p. 166 c and d, Par.
1001). The same story is repeated in another place (p. 167, last line of col. c,
and col. d), with the addition that the leading inhabitants of Jerusalem
had proposed to defend the city by conjuring up the Angels of Water and Fire,
and surrounding their city with walls of water, of fire, or of iron; but their
hopes were disappointed when God assigned to the Angel names different from
those which they had previously possessed, so that when called upon they were
unable to do what was expected of them.
6. The Names of the Angels. Besides those already
enumerated, we may here mention,10
the Sar ha-Olam, or 'Prince of the World' (Yeb. 16 b); the Prince
of the Sea, whose name is supposed to have been Rahab, and whom God
destroyed because he had refused to receive the waters which had covered the
world, and the smell of whose dead body would kill every one if it were not
covered by water. Dumah is the Angel of the realm of the dead (Ber. 18 b).
When the soul of the righteous leaves the body, the ministering Angels announce
it before God, Who deputes them to meet it. Three hosts of Angels then proceed
on this errand, each quoting successively one clause of Is. lvii. 2. On the
other hand, when the wicked leave the body, they are met by three hosts of
destroying Angels, one of which repeats Is. xlviii. 22, another Is. 1. 11, and
the third Ezek. xxxii. 19 (Keth. 104 a). Then the souls of all the dead,
good or bad, are handed over to Dunah. Yorqemi is the Prince of hail. He
had proposed to cool the fiery furnace into which the Three Children were cast,
but Gabriel had objected that this might seem a deliverance by natural means,
and being himself the Prince of the fire, had proposed, instead of this, to
make the furnace cold within and hot without, in order both to deliver the
Three Children and to destroy those who watched outside (Pes. 118 a and b)11
Ridya, or Rayda is the Angel of rain. One of the Rabbis professed
to describe him from actual vision as like a calf whose lips were open,
standing between the Upper and the Lower Deep, and saying to the Upper Deep,
Let your waters run down, and to the Lower, Let your waters spring up. The
representation of this Angel as a calf may be due to the connection between
rain and ploughing, and in connection with this may it be noticed that Ryda
means both a plough and ploughing (Taan. 25 b). Of other Angels we will
only name the Ruach Pisqonith, or Spirit of decision, who is supposed to
have made most daring objection to what God had said, Ezek. xvi. 3, in which he
is defended by the Rabbis, since his activity had been on behalf of Israel
(Sanh. 44 b); Naqid, the Angel of Food; Nabhel, the Angel
of Poverty; the two Angels of Healing; the Angel of Dreams, Lailah;
and even the Angel of Lust.12
10. Akhtariel
- perhaps 'the crown of God' - seems to be a name given to the Deity (Ber. 7 a).
11. It
is said that Gabriel had proposed in this manner of deliver Abraham when in
similar danger at the hands of Nimrod. And, although God had by His own Hand
delivered the patriarch, yet Gabriel had obtained this as the reward of his
proposal, that he was allowed to deliver the Three Children from the fiery
furnace.
12. See
also the names of the five angels of destruction of whom Moses was afraid on
his descent from the mount. Against three of them the three Patriarchs were to
fight, God Himself being asked, or else proposing, to combat along with Moses
against the other two (Sanh. R. 41; 44)
It is, of course, not asserted that all these grossly
materialistic superstitious and profane views were entertained in Palestine, or
at the time of our Lord, still less that they are shared by educated Jews in
the West. But they certainly date from Talmudic times; they embody the only
teaching of Rabbic writings about the Angels which we possess, and hence,
whencesoever introduced, or however developed, their roots must be traced back
to far earlier times than those when they were propounded in Rabbic Academies.
All the more that modern Judaism would indignantly repudiate them, do they bear
testimony against Rabbic teaching. And one thing at least must be evident, for
the sake of which we have undertaken the task of recording at such length views
and statements repugnant to all reverent feeling. The contention of certain
modern writers that the teaching about Angels in the New Testament is derived
from, and represents Jewish notions must be perceived to be absolutely
groundless and contrary to fact. In truth, the teaching of the New Testament on
the subject of Angels represents, as compared with that of the Rabbis, not only
a return to the purity of Old Testament teaching, but, we might almost say, a
new revelation.
II.
SATANOLOGY AND FALL OF THE ANGELS.
The difference between the Satanology of the Rabbis and of the
New Testament is, if possible, even more marked than that in their Angelology.
In general we note that, with the exception of the word Satan, none of
the names given to the great enemy in the New Testament occurs in Rabbinic
writing. More important still, the latter contain no mention of a Kingdom of
Satan. In other words, the power of the evil is not contrasted with that of
good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy of man,
than of God and of good. This marks a fundamental difference. The New Testament
sets before us two opposing kingdoms, or principles, which exercise absolute
sway over man. Christ is 'the Stronger one' who overcometh 'the strong man
armed,' and taken from him not only his spoils, but his armour (St. Luke xi.
21, 22). It is a moral contest in which Satan is vanquished, and the
liberation of his subjects is the consequence of his own subdual. This implies
the deliverance of man from the power of the enemy, not only externally but
internally, and substitution of a new principle of spiritual life for the old
one. It introduces a moral element, both as the ground and as the result of the
contest. From this point of view the difference between the New Testament and
Rabbinism cannot be too much emphasised, and it is no exaggeration to say that
this alone - the question here being one of principle not of details - would
mark the doctrine of Christ as fundamentally divergent from, and incomparably
superior to, that of Rabbinsim. 'Whence hath this Man this wisdom?' Assuredly,
it may be answered, not from His contemporaries.
Since Rabbinism viewed the 'great enemy' only as the envious
and malicious opponent of man, the spiritual element was entirely eliminated.13
Instead of the personified principle of Evil, to which there is response in us,
and of which all have some experience, we have only a clumsy and - to speak
plainly - often a stupid hater. This holds equally true in regard to the
threefold aspect under which Rabbinism presents the devil: as Satan (also
called Sammael); as the Yetser haRa, or evil impulse personified;
and as the Angel of Death - in other words, as the Accuser, Tempter, and
Punisher. Before explaining the Rabbinic views on each of these points, it is
necessary to indicate them in regard to -
13. An
analogous remark would apply to Jewish teaching about the good angels, who are
rather Jewish elves than the high spiritual beings of the Bible.
1. The Fall of Satan and of his Angels. This took place,
not antecedently, but subsequently to the creation of man. As related in
Pirqé de R. Eliezer, ch 13, the primary cause of it was jealously and envy on
the part of the Angels.14
Their opposition to man's creation is also described in Ber. R. 8, although
there the fall of man is not traced to Satanic agency. But we have (as before
stated) a somewhat blasphemous account of the discussions in the heavenly
Sanhedrin, whether or not man should be created. While the dispute was still
proceeding God actually created man, and addressed the ministering Angels: 'Why
dispute any longer? Man is already created.' In the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, we are
only told that the Angels had in vain attempted to oppose the creation of man.
The circumstance that his superiority was evidenced by his ability to give
names to all creatures, induced them to 'lay a plot against Adam,' so that by
his fall they might obtain supremacy. Now of all Angel-Princes in heaven
Sammael was the first - distinguished above. Taking the company of Angels
subject to him, he came down upon earth, and selected as the only fit
instrument for his designs the serpent, which at that time had not only speech,
but hands and feet, and was in stature and appearance like the camel. In the
language of the Pirqé de R. Eliezer, Sammael took complete possession of the
serpent, even as demoniacs act under the absolute control of evil spirits. Then
Sammael, in the serpent, first deceived the woman, and next imposed on her by touching
the tree of life (although the tree cried out), saying, that he had actually
'touched' the tree, of which he pretended the touch had been forbidden on pain
of death (Gen. iii. 3)15
- and yet he had not died! Upon this Eve followed his example, and touched the
tree when she immediately saw the Angel of Death coming against her. Afraid
that she would die and God give another wife to Adam, she led her husband into
sin of disobedience. The story of the Fall is somewhat differently related in Ber.
R. 18, 19. No mention is there earlier of Sammael or of his agency, and the
serpent is represented as beguiling Eve from a wish to marry her, and for that
purpose to compass the death of Adam.
14. As
a curious illustration how extremes meet, we subjoin the following from Jonathan
Edwards. After describing how 'Satan, before his fall, was the chief of all
the angels . . . nay, . . . the Messiah or Christ (!), as he was the Anointed,
so that in the respect, Jesus Christ is exalted unto his place in heaven;' and
that 'Lucifer or Satan, while a holy angel . . . was a type of Christ,' the
great American divine explains his fall as follows: 'But when it was revealed
to him, high and glorious as he was, that he must be a ministering spirit to
the race of mankind which he had seen newly created, which appeared so feeble,
mean, and despicable, of vastly inferior not only to him, the prince of the
angels, and head of the created universe, but also to the inferior angels, and
that he must be subject to one of that race which should hereafter be born, he
could not bear it, This occasioned his fall' (Tractate on 'The Fall of the
Angels,' Works, vol. ii. pp. 608, 609, 610). Could Jonathan Edwards have
heard of the Rabbinic legends, or is this only a strange coincidence? The
curious reader will find much quaint information, though, I fear, little help,
in Prof. W. Scott's vol. 'The Existence of Evil Spirits,' London, 1843.
15. The
Rabbis point out, how Eve had added to the words of God. He had only
commanded them not to eat of the tree, while Eve added to it, that they
were not to touch it. Thus adding to the words of God had led to the
first sin with all the terrible consequences connected with it.
Critical ingenuity may attempt to find a symbolic meaning in
many of the details of the Jewish legend of the Fall, although, to use moderate
language, they seem equally profane and repulsive. But this will surely be
admitted by all, that the Rabbinic account of the fall of the Angels, as
connected with fall of man, equally contrasts with the reverent reticence of
the Old Testament narrative and the sublime teaching of the New Testament about
sin and evil.
2. Satan, or Sammael, as the accuser of man. And clumsy,
indeed, are his accusations. Thus the statement (Gen. xxii. 1) that 'God
tempted Abraham' is, in Jewish legend, transformed (Sanh. 89 b) into a
scene, where, in the great upper Sanhedrin (Ber. R. 56), Satan brings
accusation against the Patriarch.16
All his previous piety had been merely interested; and now when, at the age of
one hundred, God had given him a son, he had made a great feast and not offered
aught to the Almighty. On this God is represented as answering, that Abraham
was ready to sacrifice not only an animal but his own son; and this had been the
occasion of the temptation of Abraham. That this legend is very ancient, indeed
pre-Christian (a circumstance of considerable importance to the student
of this history) appears from its occurrence, though in more general form, in
the Book of Jubilees, ch. xvii. In Ber.R. 55 and in Tacchuma (ed. Warsh p. 29 a
and b), the legend is connected with a dispute between Isaac and Ishmael
as to their respective merits, when former declares himself ready to offer up
his life unto God. In Tanchuma (u. s.) we are told that this was one of the
great merits of man, to which the Almighty and pointed when the Angels made
objection to his creation.
16. In
Ber R. 56 the accusation is stated to have been brought by the ministering
angels.
3. Satan, or Sammael, as the seducer of man. This
statement in Baba B. 16 a which identifies Satan with the Yetser
haRa, or evil impulse in man, must be regarded are a rationalistic attempt
to gloss over the older teaching about Sammael, by representing him as a
personification of the evil inclination within us. For, the Talmud not only
distinguishes between a personal Satan without, and evil inclination within
man, but expressly ascribes to God the creation of the Yetser haRa in
man as he was before the Fall, the occurrence of two `y `y in the
word rcyyw ('and He formed,' Gen. ii. 7) being supposed to indicate the
existence of two impulses in us - the Yetser Tobh and the Yetser haRa
(Ber. 61 a). And it is stated that this existence of evil in man's
original nature was infinite comfort in the fear which would otherwise beset us
in trouble (Ber. R. 14). More than this (as will presently be shown), the
existence of this evil principle within us was declared to be absolutely
necessary for the continuance of the world (Yoma 69 b, Sanh. 64 a)
Satan, or Sammael, is introduced as the seducer of man in all
the great events of Israel's history. With varying legendary additions the
story of Satan's attempts to prevent the obedience of Abraham and the sacrifice
of Isaac is told in Sanh. 89 b, Ber. R. 56, and Tanchuma, p. 30 a
and b. Yet there is nothing even astute, only a coarse realism, about the
description of the clumsy attempts of Satan to turn Abraham from, or to hinder
him in, his purpose; to influence Isaac; or to frighten Sarah. Nor are the
other personages in the legend more successfully sketched. There is a want of
all higher conception in the references to the Almighty, a painful amount of
downright untruthfulness about Abraham, lamentable boastfulness and petty spite
about Isaac, while the Sarah of the Jewish legend is rather a weak old Eastern
woman than the mother in Israel. To hold perversions of the Old Testament by
the side of the New Testament conception of the motives of lives of the heroes of old, or the doctrinal inferences and teaching of the Rabbis by those of
Christ and His Apostles, were to compare darkness with light.
The same remarks apply to the other legends in which Satan is
introduced as seducer. Anything more childish could scarcely be invented than
this, that, when Sammael could not otherwise persuade Israel that Moses would
not return from Mount Sinai, he at last made his bier appear before them in the
clouds (Shab. 89 a), unless it be this story, that when Satan would
seduce David he assumed the form of a bird, and that, when David shot at it,
Bath-Sheba suddenly looked up, thus gaining the king by her beauty (Sanh. 107 a).
In both these instances the obvious purpose is to palliate the guilt whether of
Israel or of David, which, indeed, is in other places entirely explained away
as not due to disobedience or to lust (Comp. Ab. Zar. 4 b, 5 a).
4. As the Enemy of man, Satan seeks to hurt and destroy him;
and he is the Angel of Death. Thus, when Satan had failed in shaking the
constancy of Abraham and Isaac, he attacked Sarah (Yalkut, i. Par. last lines
p. 28 b). To his suggestions, or rather false reports, her death had
been due, either from fright at being told that Isaac had been offered (Pirqé
de R. El. 32, and Targum Ps.- Jon.), or else from the shock, when after all she
learned that Isaac was not dead (Ber. R. 58). Similarly, Satan had sought to
take from Tamar the pledges which Judah had given her. He appeared as an old
man to show Nimrod how to have Abraham cast into the fiery oven, at the same
time persuading Abraham not to resist it, &c. Equally puerile are the
representations of Satan as the Angel of Death. According to Abod. Zar. 20 b,
the dying sees his enemy with a drawn sword, on the point of which a drop of
gall trembles. In his fright he opens his mouth and swallows this drop, which
accounts for the pallor of the face and the corruption that follows. According
to another Rabbi, the Angel of Death really uses his sword, although, on
account of the dignity of humanity, the wound which he inflicts is not allowed
to be visible. It is difficult to imagine a narrative more repulsive than that
of the death of Moses according to Deb. R. 11. Beginning with the triumph of
Sammael over Michael at the expected event, it tells how Moses had entreated
rather to be changed into a beast or a bird than to die; how Gabriel and
Michael had successively refused to bring the soul of Moses; how Moses, knowing
that Sammael was coming for the purpose, had armed himself with the Ineffable
Name; how Moses had in boastfulness recounted to Sammael all his achievements,
real and legendary; and how at last Moses had pursued the Enemy with the
Ineffable Name, and in his anger taken off one of his horns of glory and
blinded Satan in one eye. We must be excused from following this story through
its revolting details.
But, whether as the Angel of Death or as the seducer of man,
Sammael has not absolute power. When Israel took the Law upon themselves at
Mount Sinai, they became entirely free from his sway, and would have remained
so, but for the sin of the Golden Calf. Similarly, in the time of Ezra, the
object of Israel's prayer (Neh. vii.) was to have Satan delivered to them.
After a three day's fast it was granted, and the Yetser haRa of idolatry, in
the shape of a young lion, was delivered up to them. It would serve no good
purpose to repeat the story of what was done with the bound enemy, or how his
cries were rendered inaudible in heaven. Suffice it that, in view of the
requirements of the present world, Israel liberated him from the ephah covered
with lead (Zech. v. 8), under which, by advice of the prophet Zechariah, they
had confined him, although for precaution they first put out his eyes (Yoam, 69
b). And yet, in view, or probably, rather, in ignorance, of such
teaching, modern criticism would derive the Satanology of the New Testament and
the history of the Temptation from Jewish sources!
Over these six persons - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron,
and Miriam, with whom some apparently rank Benjamin - the Angel of Death, had
no power (Baba. B. 17 a). Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Chileb (the son of
David) are said to have died (only) through 'the sin of the serpent.' In other
cases, also, Sammael may not be able to exercise his sway till, for example, he
has by some ruse diverted a theologian from his sacred study. Thus he
interrupted the pious meditations of David by going up into a tree and shaking
it, when, as David went to examine it, a rung of the ladder, on which he stood,
broke, and so interrupted David's holy thoughts. Similarly, Rabbi Chasda, by
occupation with sacred study, warded off the Angel of Death till the crackling
of a beam diverted his attention. Instances of the awkwardness of the Enemy are
related (Kethub. 77 b), and one rabbi - Joshua, actually took away his
sword, only returning it by direct command of God. Where such views of Satan
could even find temporary expression, superstitious fears may have been
excited; but the thought of moral evil and of a moral combat with it could
never have found lodgment.
III. Evil
Spirits (Shedim, Ruchin, Rucoth, Lilin).
Here also, as throughout, we mark the presence of Parsee
elements of superstition. In general, these spirits resemble the gnomes,
hobglobins, elves, and sprites of our fairy tales. They are cunning
and malicious, and contact with them is dangerous; but they can scarcely be
described as absolutely evil. Indeed, they often prove kind and useful; and may
at all times be rendered innocuous, and even made serviceable.
1. Their origin, nature, and numbers. Opinions differ as
to their origin, in fact, they variously originated. According to Ab. 12 b,
Ber. R. 7, they were created on the eve of the first Sabbath. But since that
time their numbers have greatly increased. For, according to Erub. 18 b,
Ber. R. 20 (ed Warsh. p. 40 b), multitudes of them were the offspring of
Eve and of male spirits, and of Adam with female spirits, or with Lilith (the
queen of the female spirits), during the 130 years that Adam had been under the
ban, and before Seth was born (Gen. v. 3):17
comp. Erub. 18 b. Again, their number can scarcely be limited, since
they propagate themselves (Chag. 16 a), resembling men in this as well
as in their taking of nourishment and dying. On the other hand, like the Angels
they have wings, pass unhindered through space, and know the future. Still
further, they are produced by a process of transformation from vipers, which,
in the course of four times seven years, successively pass through the forms of
vampires, thistles and thorns, into Shedim (Bab. K. 16 a) -
perhaps a parabolic form of indicating the origination of Shedim through
the fall of man. Another parabolic idea may be implied in the saying that Shedim
spring from the backbone of those who have not bent in worship (u.s.).
17. From
the expression 'a son in his own likeness,' &c., it is inferred that his
previous offspring during the 138 years was not in his likeness.
Although Shedim bear, when they appear, the form of
human beings, they may assume any other form. Those of their number who are
identified with dirty places are represented as themselves black (Kidd. 72 a).
But the reflection of their likeness is not the same as that of man. When
conjured up, their position (whether with the head or the feet uppermost)
depends on the mode of conjuring. Some of the Shedim have defects. Thus,
those of them who lodge in the caper bushes are blind, and an instance is
related when one of their number, in pursuit of a Rabbi, fell over the root of
a tree and perished (Pes. 111 b). Trees, gardens, vineyards, and also
ruined and desolate houses, but especially dirty places, were their favourite
habitation, and the night-time, or before cock-crowing, their special time of
appearance.18
Hence the danger of going alone into such places (Ber. 3 a, b; 62
a). A company of two escaped the danger, while before three the Shed did
not even appear (Ber. 43 b). For the same reason it was dangerous to
sleep alone in a house (Shabb. 151 b), while the man who went out before
cock-crow, without at least carrying for protection a burning torch (though
moonlight was far safer) had his blood on his own head. If you greeted anyone
in the dark you might unawares bid Godspeed to a Shed (Sanh. 44 a). Nor
was the danger of this inconsiderable, since one of the worst of these Shedim,
especially hurtful to Rabbis, was like a dragon with seven heads, each of which
dropped off with every successive lowly bending during Rabbi Acha's devotions
(Kidd. 29 b). Specially dangerous times were the days of Wednesday and
of the Sabbath. But it was a comfort to know that the Shedim could not create
or produce anything; nor had they power over that which had been counted,
measured, tied up and sealed (Chull. 105 b); they could be conquered by
the 'Ineffable Name;' and they might be banished by the use of certain
formulas, which, when written and worn, served as amulets.
18. The
following Haggadah will illustrate both the power of the evil spirits at night
and how amenable they are to reasoning. A Rabbi was distributing his gifts to
the poor at night when he was confronted by the Prince of the Ruchin
with the quotation Deut. xix. 34 ('Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's
landmark'), which seemed to give the 'spirit' a warrant for attacking him. But
when the Rabbi replied by quoting Prov. xxi. 14 ('a gift in secret appeaseth
wrath'), the 'spirit' fled in confusion (Jer. Peah viii. 9, p. 21 b).
The number of these spirits was like the earth that is thrown
up around a bed that is sown. Indeed, no one would survive it, if he saw their
number. A thousand at your right hand and ten thousand at your left, such
crowding in the Academy or by the side of a bride; such weariness and faintness
through their malignant touch, which rent the very dress of the wearers! (Ber.
6 a) The queen of the female spirits had no less a following than 180,000
(Pes. 112 b). Little as we imagine it, these spirits lurk everywhere
around us: in the crumbs on the floor, in the oil in the vessels, in the water
which we would drink, in the diseases which attack us, in the even-numbered
cups of our drinking, in the air in the room, by day and by night.
2. Their arrangement. Generally, they may be arranged
into male and female spirits, the former under their king Ashmedai,
the latter under their queen Lilith probably the same as Agrath bath
Machlath - only that the latter may more fully present hurtful aspect of
the demoness. The hurtful spirits are specially designated as Ruchin, Mazziqin
(harmers), Malakhey Chabbalath (angels of damage), &c. From another
aspect they are arranged into four classes (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Numb. vi.
24): the Tsaphriré, or morning spirits (Targ. on Ps. cxxi. 6; Targ. Cant. iv.
6); the Tiharé, or midday spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Deut. xxxii 24; Targ.
Cant. iv. 6); the Telané, or evening spirits (Targ. Cant. iii. 8; iv. 6; Targ.
Eccles. ii. 5); and the Lilin, or night spirits (Targ. Pseudo-Jon. on
Deut. xxxii. 34; Targ. Is. xxxiv. 14). (According to 2 Targ. Esther ii. 1, 3,
Solomon had such power over them, that at his biding they executed dances
before him.)
a. Ashmedai (perhaps a Parsee name), Ashmodi,
Ashmedon, or Shamdon, the king of the demons (Gitt. 68 a, b;
Pes. 110 a). It deserves notice, that this name does not occur in
the Jerusalem Talmud nor in older Palestinian sources.19
He is represented as of immense size and strength, as cunning, malignant, and
dissolute. At times, however, he is known also to do works of kindness - such
as lead the blind, or to show the road to a drunken man. Of course, he
foreknows the future, can do magic, but may be rendered serviceable by the use
of the 'Ineffable Name,' and especially by the signet of King Solomon, on which
it was graven. The story of Solomon's power over him is well known and can here
only be referred to in briefest outline. It is said, that as no iron was to be
used in the construction of the Temple, Solomon was anxious to secure the
services of the worm Shamir, which possessed the power of cutting stones
(see about him Ab. z. 12 a; Sot. 48 b; Gitt. 68 a, b).
By advice of the Sanhedrin, Solomon conjured up for this purpose a male and a female
Shed, who directed him to Ashmedai. The latter lived at the bottom of a deep
cistern on a high mountain. Every morning on leaving it to go into heaven and
hear the decrees of the Upper Sanhedrin, he covered the cistern with a stone,
and sealed it. On this Benayah, armed with a chain, and Solomon's signet with
the Ineffable Name, went and filled the cistern with wine, which Ashmedai, as
all other spirits, hated. But as he could not otherwise quench his thirst,
Ashmedai became drunk, when it was easy, by means of the magical signet, to
secure the chain around him. Without entering on the story of his exploits, or
how he indicated the custody of Shamir, and how ultimately the worm (which was
in the custody of the moor-cock20)
was secured, it appears that, by his cunning, Ashmedai finally got released,
when he immediately hurled Solomon to a great distance, assumed his form, and
reigned in his stead; till at last, after a series of adventures, Solomon
recovered his signet, which Ashmedai had flung away, and a fish swallowed.
Solomon was recognised by the Sanhedrin and Ashmedai fled at sight of the
signet. [Possibly the whole of this is only a parabolic form for the story of
Solomon's spiritual declension, and final repentance.]
19. Hamburger
ascribes this to the anxiety of the Palestinians to guard Judaism from Gnostic
elements. We are, however, willing to recognise in it an indirect influence of
Christianity.
20. The
Tarnegol Bera - a mythical animal reaching from earth to heaven (Targ.
on Ps. 1, 11) - also called Naggar Tura (Gitt. 68 b) from his
activity in cleaving mountains.
b. Lilith, the queen of female spirits - to be
distinguished from the Lilin or night-spirits, and from Lela or Laila,
an Angel who accompanied Abraham on his expedition against Chedorlaomer (Sanh.
96 a). Here we recognise still more distinctly the Parsee elements. Lilith
is 'the queen of Zemargad' (Targ. on Job i. 15) - 'Zemargad'
representing all green crystals, malachite, and emerald - and the land of
Zemargad being 'Sheba.' Lilith is described as the mother of Hormiz or Hormuz21 (Baba B. 73 a). Sometimes she is
represented as a very fair woman, but mostly with long, wild-flowing hair, and
winged (Nidd. 24 b; Erub. 100 b). In Pes. 111 a we have a
formula for exorcising Lilith. In Pes 112 b (towards the end) we are
told how Agrath bath Machlath (probably the Zend word Agra - 'smiting, very
wicked' - bath Machlath 'the dancer') threatened Rabbi Chanina with serious
mischief, had it not been that his greatness had been proclaimed in heaven, on
which the Rabbi would have shown his power by banning her from all inhabited
places, but finally gave her liberty on the eve of the fourth day and of the
Sabbath, which nights accordingly are the most dangerous seasons.
21. Hamburger
renders it Ahriman, but it seems rather like Hormuzd. Perhaps the
Rabbis wished to combine both. Ahriman is written Ahurmin, Sanh.
39 a, in that very curious notice of a controversy with a Mage.
3. Character and habits of the Shedim. As many of the
Angels, so many of the Shedim, are only personifications. Thus, as diseases were
often ascribed to their agency, there were Shedim of certain diseases, as of
asthma, croup, canine rabies, madness, stomachic diseases, &c. Again, there
were local Shedim, as of Samaria, Tiberias, &c. On the other hand,
Shedim might be employed in the magic cure of diseases (Shabb. 67 a). In
fact, to conjure up and make use of demons was considered lawful although
dangerous (Sanh. 101 a), while a little knowledge of the subject
would enable a person to avoid any danger from them. Thus, although Chamath,
the demon of oil, brings eruptions on the face, yet the danger is avoided if
the oil is used out of the hollow of the hand, and not out of a vessel.
Similarly, there are formulas by which the power of the demons can be
counteracted. In these formulas, where they are not Biblical verses, the names
of the demons are inserted. This subject will be further treated in another
Appendix.
In general, we may expect to find demons on water, oil, or
anything else that has stood uncovered all night; on the hands before they have
been washed for religious purposes, and on the water in which they have been
washed; and on the breadcrumbs on the floor. Demons may imitate or perform all
that the prophets or great men of old had wrought. The magicians of Egypt had
imitated the miracles of Moses by demoniacal power (Shem. R. 9). So general at
the time of our Lord was the belief in demons and in the power of employing
them, that even Josephus (Ant. viii. 2. 5) contended that the power of
conjuring up, and driving out demons, and of magical cures had been derived
from King Hezekiah, to whom God had given it. Josephus declares himself
to have been an eye-witness of such a wonderful cure by the repetition of a
magical formula. This illustrates the contention of the Scribes that the
miraculous cures of our Lord were due to demoniac agency.
Legions of demons lay in waiting for any error or falling on
the part of man. Their power extended over all even numbers.22
Hence, care must be had not to drink an even number of cups (Ber. 51 b),
except on the Passover night, when the demons have no power over Israel (Pes.
109 b). On the other hand, there are demons who might almost be
designated as familiar spirits, who taught the Rabbis, Shed Joseph (Pes. 110 a)
and the Shed Jonathan (Yeb. 122 a). Rabbi Papa had a young Shed to wait
upon him (Chull. 105 b). There can, however, be no difficulty in making
sure of their real existence. As Shedim have cock's feet, nothing more is
required than to strew ashes by the side of one's bed, when in the morning
their marks will be perceived (Ber. 6 a; Gitt. 68 b). It was by
the shape of his feet that the Sanhedrin hoped to recognise, whether Ashmedai
was really Solomon, or not, but it was found that he never appeared with his
feet uncovered. The Talmud (Ber. 6 a) describes the following as an
infallible means for actually seeing these spirits: Take the afterbirth of a
black cat which is the daughter of a black cat - both mother and daughter being
firstborn - burn it in the fire, and put some of the ashes in your eyes. Before
using them, the ashes must be put into an iron tube, and sealed with an iron
signet. It is added, that Rabbi Bibi successfully tried this experiment, but
was hurt by the demons, on which he was restored to health by the prayers of
the Rabbis.23
22. The
superstition 'There's luck in odd numbers' has passed to all nations.
23. Dr.
Kohut's comparison of Rabbinic Angelology and Demonology with Parseeism (Ueber
d. jud. Angelol u. Damonol. in ihrer Abhang. vom Parsismus) is extremely
interesting, although not complete and its conclusions sometimes strained. The
negative arguments derived from Jewish Angelology and Satanology by the author
of 'Supernatural Religion' are based on inaccurate and uncritical information,
and do not require detailed discussion.
Other and kindred questions, such as those of amulets, &c.,
will be treated under demoniac possessions. But may we not here once more and
confidently appeal to impartial students whether, in view of this sketch of
Jewish Angelology and Satanology, the contention can be sustained that the
teaching of Christ on this subject has been derived from Jewish sources?
Appendix 12 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 14
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
