The Concept of ›Ruach Ra‘ah‹ in Contemporary Rabbinic Responsa (1945–2000): Possible Relations between Knowledge of the Physical World and Traditional ... Rabbinic Judaism 3110699788, 9783110699784

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects of the Texts
Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources
Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus
Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus
Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material and the Spiritual World
Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus
Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects
Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks
Literature
Index

Citation preview

Leon Mock The Concept of ›Ruach Ra‘ah‹ in Contemporary Rabbinic Responsa (1945–2000)

Studia Judaica

Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums Begründet von Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Herausgegeben von Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert, Elisabeth Hollender, Alexander Samely und Irene Zwiep

Band 112

Leon Mock

The Concept of ›Ruach Ra‘ah‹ in Contemporary Rabbinic Responsa (1945–2000) Possible Relations between Knowledge of the Physical World and Traditional Knowledge in Rabbinic Judaism

Translated into English by Brian Heffernan.

ISBN 978-3-11-069978-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-069988-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-069989-0 ISSN 0585-5306 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021938000 Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface ‘. . . And man became a living being’ (Gen. 2:7) – through his intellect and capacity for wisdom and acquiring knowledge, some medieval exegetes added. I have long been fascinated by the non-rational that ‘obtrudes’ upon the intellect, because it tries to frame and control the intellect, with all the tensions that this can potentially create. This is a subject that includes magic and mysticism, but also emotions and ideologies with a strong mythical content that possess a certain appeal in modernity. The subject of this book – the Ruach Ra‘ah in orthodox Judaism – is a fascinating phenomenon. On the one hand because of the intangible facets that are ascribed to it, and on the other because of the attempts to ritualise and neutralise these. Without realising it, I began choosing this subject more than ten years ago, when I gave a presentation on the Ruach Ra‘ah and modern Halachah to my colleagues at the University of Amsterdam. It was received enthusiastically – especially by Professor Berger (z.l.) who recognised the scientific potential of this subject. It took a few more years before I could realise this in practice. Years of intensive work on the subject produced my dissertation on the subject, although – even for me – the last word has yet to be spoken. This book would not have been written if it had not been for the inspiring support of my two supervisors of the original dissertation, Professor Marcel Poorthuis and Professor Shlomo Berger (z.l.), both of whom in their own ways made important contributions to the content. I am grateful to the Tilburg School of Catholic Theology for the possibility it gave me of carrying out this research. I also thank my mentors at home and abroad who taught me the knowledge needed to study and understand rabbinic texts. I am also grateful to my friends who stimulated me throughout the years with their friendship and support. My thanks goes to my wife Yael and my children Sarai, Naor, Hadar, and Ronie, who have had to put up with a busy husband and father over the past few years. Finally, I thank my parents for their support and interest in my study and projects during the years but regret the fact that my mother (z.l.) did not see the final version before her sudden passing away on Pesach 5790 / April 2020. Special thanks to: The Stiching Adrianus Fonds (Utrecht) and the Tilburg School of Theology of the Tilburg University for supporting and sponsoring the English translation. The Bar Ilan Responsa Project Leon Mock https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-202

Contents Preface 

 V

 1 Introduction  Defining the Problem   2 Status quaestionis   4 Relevance and Contribution to Scholarship  Methodology and Modus Operandi   7

 5

Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects of the Texts   14 1.1 The Genre of the Responsa   14 1.2 Responsa Literature   16 1.2.1 Definition   17 1.2.2 Internet and Other Media   19 1.3 Form and Presentation of a Responsa Publication   22 1.3.1 Intertextuality and References in Responsa Literature   23 1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus   26 1.4.1 First Phase: “Ruach Ra‘ah” as a Search Term   28 1.4.2 Second Phase: Refining the Search Terms   31 1.4.3 The Final Corpus of Authors from the Bar-Ilan Project   32 1.4.4 Third Phase: Searching for Related Terms   34 1.4.5 Fourth Phase: The Results Described in Detail   35 1.4.6 Fifth Phase: Supplementing the Responsa Project   45 1.4.7 Sixth Phase: The Definitive Corpus   47 1.4.8 Cultural and Ethnic Background   50 1.4.9 Primary and Secondary Sources   52 1.5 Formal and Substantive Aspects of the Corpus Texts   53 1.5.1 Form and Length   53 1.5.2 Style and Use of Language   53 1.5.3 Anonymous vs. Including Addressee   54 1.5.4 Substantive Aspects: Themes   55 1.5.5 Historical Setting   56 1.6 Conclusion   57 Appendix A    58 Appendix B: Combined Searches Using Several Terms   60

VIII 

 Contents

Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources   64 2.1 Ruach in Tanach   64 2.1.1 Ruach Ra‘ah in Tanach   66 2.2 Ruach Ra‘ah in Second Temple Period Literature   68 2.2.1 Dead Sea Scrolls   69 2.2.2 Apocryphal and other Non-canonical Books of the Bible   71 2.2.2.1 Tobit   71 2.2.2.2 Testament of Solomon   72 2.3 The New Testament   73 2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers   74 2.4.1 Ruach in the Talmud   78 2.4.2 Possession   81 2.4.3 Specific Spirits: Personification   82 2.4.4 Ruach Ra‘ah in the Talmud   86 2.5 The Middle Ages: Talmud Commentators, Codices, and Kabbalah  2.5.1 Medieval Talmud Commentators   88 2.5.2 Medieval Codices   89 2.5.2.1 Maimonides   89 2.5.2.2 Tur and Shulchan Aruch    90 2.5.3 Kabbalah and the Ruach Ra‘ah   91 2.6 Conclusion   93 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus  3.1 Babylonian Talmud   94 3.1.1 Berachot 60b   94 3.1.2 Berachot 14b–15a   96 3.1.3 Berachot 51a   97 3.1.4 Shabbat 108b–109a   98 3.1.5 Yoma 77b / Hullin 107b   99 3.1.6 Pesahim 112a   100 3.1.7 Niddah 17a   101 3.1.8 Hullin 105b   104 3.1.9 Shabbat 29b   105 3.2 Talmud Commentators   105 3.2.1 Commentaries on Berachot 60b   106 3.2.2 Commentaries on Shabbat 108b–109a   106 3.2.3 Commentaries on bYoma 77b / bHullin 107b   106 3.2.4 Commentaries on Pesahim 112a   107

 94

 87

Contents 

3.2.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.6

 107 Commentaries on Shabbat 29b  Mystical Sources: Zohar   108 Zohar Introduction 10b   108 Zohar Bereshit 53b   109 Zohar Vayishlach 169b   110 Zohar Vayeshev 184b   111 Zohar Miketz 198b   112 Halachic Codices: Shulchan Aruch   112 Post-Zohar Kabbalistic Sources   115 Vital, Pri Etz Chaim, Sha‘ar Haberachot, Ch. 5   116 Y. Sofer’s Kaf Hachaim on OH. 4, Subsections 1 and 32  Mishnah Berurah (Yisrael Meir Hakohen, 1838–1933)  Conclusion   118 Appendix C   119

 IX

 117  117

Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus   127 4.1 Thematic Categories   127 4.1.1 Food and Drink   127 4.1.2 Inside and Around the Human Body   129 4.1.3 Physical Space and its Status   130 4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus: Object-oriented, Subject-oriented, and Text-oriented   131 4.2.1 The Brisk Analytical Approach   131 4.2.2 Approach 1: The Ruach Ra‘ah as “Object”   136 4.2.3 Approach 2: The Ruach Ra‘ah Viewed from the Perspective of the “Subject”   138 4.2.4 Approach 3: The Ruach Ra‘ah Viewed from the Texts   139 4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories   139 4.3.1 Category of Food and Drink: Object-oriented Approach (20 Texts)   139 4.3.2 Category of Food and Drink: Subject-oriented Approach (19 Texts)   142 4.3.3 Category Food and Drink: Text-oriented Approach (32 Texts)   144 4.3.4 Category (33 Texts) of Space: Object-oriented Approach (10 Texts)   149 4.3.5 Category of Space: Subject-oriented Approach (72 Texts)   160 4.3.6 Category of Space: Text-oriented Approach (77 Texts)   165

X  4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.5

 Contents

Category of the Human Body: Object-oriented Approach (22 Texts)   175 Category of the Human Body: Subject-oriented Approach (Eight Texts)   178 Category of the Human body: Text-oriented Approach (23 Texts)   184 Atypical Texts: the Residual Group   187 Ruach Ra‘ah as a Psychological Factor   189 Ruach Ra‘ah and the Shabbat Laws   191 Conclusion   193

Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material and the Spiritual World   196 5.1 Knowledge Paradigms with Regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah: Revealed Knowledge versus Health Regulations    196 5.1.1 The Talmudic Knowledge Paradigm: Forms of Treatment, Diet, and Human and Animal Anatomy   198 5.1.2 Talmudic Law as Revealed Knowledge    200 5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah    201 5.2.1 Manifestation I: Impure Spirit    203 5.2.2 Manifestation II: Night    205 5.2.3 Manifestation III: Nails (Finger and Toenails)   207 5.2.4 Manifestation IV: Filth and Dirt   212 5.2.5 Spiritualisation: From Physical Dirt to Impurities   213 5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah   215 5.3.1 Contact Theory    216 5.3.2 Type I: Implicit References to Effects   220 5.3.3 Type II: Mishneh Halachot and Divrei Yatsiv: Diseases and Accidents   222 5.3.4 Type III: Spiritual Effects – Yitzchak Yeranen and Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot    227 5.3.5 Type IV: Spiritual and Physical Effects – Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot and Rivavot Ephraim   230 5.4 Atypical Texts from the Corpus: Theory and Remedies   232 5.4.1 “Synthesis” between Ruach Ra‘ah and Modern Science   232 5.4.2 Mastering the Ruach Ra‘ah: Martyrdom, Prayer, and Torah Study   233 5.5 Conclusion   236

Contents 

 XI

Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus   240 6.1 Theoretical Framework   241 6.1.1 Emphasis on the Stricter Opinion (Chumrah)   242 6.1.2 Holistic Approach to Texts: The Mishnah Berurah   243 6.1.3 Halachah and Meta-Halachah   244 6.1.3.1 Magic as meta-Halachah   248 6.1.4 Scientific Knowledge versus Religious Thinking   249 6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature: Different Paradigms for the Ruach Ra‘ah   252 6.2.1 Magical-demonic   252 6.2.2 Rationalistic: Maimonides   254 6.2.3 Pragmatic   256 6.2.3.1 The Tosafists and the Shibta   257 6.2.3.2 The Mordechai and the peeled egg   257 6.2.4 Washing Hands after Rising: Qualifying Observations from Pre-modern Times   259 6.2.4.1 The Yam shel Shlomoh (Shlomoh Luria, Sixteenth Century)   259 6.2.4.2 The Maharam ben Chaviv   260 6.2.5 The Yabbia Omer: An Example   261 6.2.5.1 Reconstruction of halachic praxis from texts   262 6.2.5.2 Magical-mystical elements   264 6.2.5.3 The limits of the discourse: the Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish   266 6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus   267 6.3.1 Modern Means of Transport   268 6.3.2 The Modern Toilet and Bathroom   268 6.3.3 The Modern Food Industry   270 6.3.3.1 Refrigerators   271 6.3.4 The External Side of Modern Science: Technology   271 6.3.4.1 “Changed Nature” and the Corpus   272 6.3.4.2 The magical Talmudic paradigm reaffirmed?   275 6.4 Conclusion   277 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects  7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah   280 7.1.1 The Ruach Ra‘ah and Ritual   282 7.1.2 The Ruach Ra‘ah as a Rite of Passage   286

 280

XII  7.1.3 7.1.4 7.1.5 7.1.5.1 7.1.6 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.1.1 7.2.1.2 7.2.2 7.2.2.1 7.2.2.2 7.2.2.3 7.2.2.4 7.2.3 7.2.3.1 7.2.3.2 7.2.4 7.2.4.1 7.2.4.2 7.2.4.3 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.1.1 7.3.1.2 7.3.1.3 7.3.1.4 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.5

 Contents

The Ruach Ra‘ah as a Ritual of Affliction   289 The Ruach Ra‘ah and Biblical Purity Laws   293 Mary Douglas and Purity and Impurity   295 Purity laws, social order, and cosmology   296 Douglas’s Typologies of Societies   298 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus   301 Internal Boundaries: Children   303 Children and the Ruach Ra‘ah – different points of view   305 Holiness, Purity, and the Boundaries of the Community   306 Gender, Women, and the Ruach Ra‘ah   309 The Male Body as the Point of Departure   310 Women and the Ruach Ra‘ah: Between Traditional Roles and New Perspectives   311 Gender Shift: the Male Perspective   313 “Child” or “Little Boy”?   315 The External Boundaries of the Community: Non-Jews   318 Non-Jews, Purity, and Holiness   319 Holiness as a Physical Jewish Component   321 Jewish, but outside the Community: Seculars, Shabbat Breakers, and Sinners   322 Buying Bread in a Secular Jew’s Bakery (Yabbia Omer)   323 Shabbat Breakers: the Non-religious Jewish Household Assistant   324 Suicide: Transgressing the Boundaries of the Community   326 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah   331 Control Mechanisms   331 Coercive Language   331 Intimidation and Physical Force   333 Visible Place of Washing   334 Minimizing and Maximizing Intensity of Control   337 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture”   339 Habitus and Control   343 Power, Discipline, and Foucault   343 The Place of the Rabbi   346 Conclusion   349

Contents 

 XIII

Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks   353 8.1 Scientific Knowledge versus Revealed Knowledge   355 8.2 Solution Strategies: Mitigating Incompatibility between Rabbinic Discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the Modern Knowledge Paradigm   357 8.3 From Text to Reality?   359 8.4 Social Reality   360 8.5 Power, Control, and Religious Authority   361 8.6 Tradition versus Modernity: Concluding Remarks   362 Literature  Index 

 365

 379

Introduction The human capacity to act physically is a central instrument in humans’ encounter with the world in its widest possible sense, objects, animals, and humans. From what was called the ‘silent world’ (‫ )דומם‬in medieval texts, to the world of ‘he who speaks’ (‫ – )מדבר‬the human. Regulating human actions is a central theme in the Halachah. The actions in question include not only physical, visible actions – emotions and thoughts, too, fall under the remit of the Halacha. Although the concept is not always defined unequivocally,1 recurring elements are the legal, normative character of the Halachah, in comparison to the more general guiding values and ethical principles that are the concern of Aggadah. The Halachah is an important part of the classical literature of rabbinic Judaism and is a dominant factor in the identity formation of orthodoxy in modern times.2 Halachah is an umbrella concept which, for the rabbis, encompasses all facets of life.3 According to the Talmud, since the destruction of the Temple, God has lived ‘in the four cubits of the Halachah’.4

1 See for instance S. Safrai in “Halacha”, in: The Literature of the Sages; First Part: Oral Tora, Halacha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, ed. S. Safrai and P.J. Tomson (Assen/Maastricht, Philadelphia: Van Gorcum / Fortress Press, 1987), 121: “.  .  . the sum total of rules and laws – derived from the Bible, from religious thought and teaching, from jurisprudence and custom – that governs all aspects of Jewish life.”; E. Berkovits, in: Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halacha. (New York: KTAV, 1983), 71: “. . . Halacha is the wisdom of the application of the written word of the Torah to the life and history of the Jewish people”; and L. Jacobs, “Halachah” in: Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd edition, ed. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik, V. 8 (eds., Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 251: “The word ‘halachah’ (from the root halach, ‘to go’), the legal side of Judaism (as distinct from Aggadah, the name given to the nonlegal material, particularly of the rabbinic literature), embraces personal, social, national, and inter-national relationships, and all the other practices and observances of Judaism.” 2 See J. Achitov, “Hearot leShimush beMusag haHalachah beSiach haOrthodoksi”, in: Renewing Jewish Commitment. The Work and Thought of David Hartman [Hebrew], V. 2, ed. A. Sagi & Z. Zohar, (Tel-Aviv: Shalom Hartman Institute / Hakib-butz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd., 2001), 553–596. 3 See for instance S. Safrai, “Halacha”, 125–127; J.B. Soloveitchik, Halachic Man (Philadelphia: JPS, 1983), 94: “The Halachah is not hermetically enclosed within the confines of cult sanctuaries but penetrates into every nook and cranny of life. The marketplace, the street, the factory, the house, the meeting place, the banquet hall . . .”. 4 bBerachot 8a; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 4, no. 212: ‫ הלכה לשון הליכה בין בלימוד‬,‫"כן פירשו במפרשים במה שאמרו אין להקב״ה בעולמו אלא ד' אמות של הלכה בלבד‬ ".‫ שיש ללכת עם רצונו ית' אפילו במשא ומתן שיתנהג הכל כהלכה והיינו לקיים כל הדינים‬,‫ובין בפעולותיו‬ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-001

2 

 Introduction

In the rabbinic world, the learning process contains not only cognitive elements, but also emotional and behavioural aspects.5 This learning process which has the Halachah as its end product ideally takes place in an interchange between teacher – a master of the Halachah and the Torah –, pupil, and doctrine.6 In the course of time, learning from books came to fulfil an important role in the learning process, although it did not lead to the disappearance of learning from and with a teacher. Nevertheless, written – and later printed – books went from being a reflection of the Halachah as it exists in actual life, to being a source of Halachah for new situations. One of these written sources in the halachic process is the responsa literature. This type of literature came to play an important role in the Halachah from the Middle Ages onwards through its original questionand-answer structure, which often represented a concrete decision in a particular case. In orthodoxy, however, a considerable part of the Halachah continues to be created orally, and is then published in written form, for instance as a responsum.

Defining the Problem The concept of ‘Ruach Ra‘ah’ (literally ‘evil spirit’), in this combination of the two words, is extremely rare in the Tanach. It is more common in the Judaism of the Second Temple period, and appears to be linked with the belief in spirits that torment humans and sometimes even penetrate them. In the Babylonian Talmud, the term occurs relatively sporadically to explain physical and psychological anomalies: from rabies to what we would currently classify as psychiatric disorders (strong fear, uncontrolled behaviour). People who encounter this ‘evil spirit’, for instance by consuming certain ‘contaminated’ foods, may suffer physical and/ or psychological damage as a result. It is not fully clear what the Babylonian Talmud’s precise understanding of the Ruach Ra‘ah is. Sometimes it seems as if this ‘evil spirit’, although invisible, belongs to the physical world in respect of certain characteristics – its effects are clearly discernible in the physical world. In the Talmud there seems to exist an ‘intermediate zone’ between the physical and the spiritual world which is inhabited by many different entities: spirits, demons, and wandering souls of the dead. On the one hand, these entities belong to the physical world, because they are in this world and directly influence it. On the other hand, they lack certain physical characteristics required to belong fully to 5 mAvot 6:5. In orthodoxy, the Halachah has remained primarily an affair of men, although many female issues are also discussed. 6 See also Malbim (R. Meir Leibusch, 19th century) on Mal. 2:7.

Introduction 

 3

the physical world (see also mAvot 5:6). The Talmud commentaries already associated two ritual washings with the Ruach Ra‘ah: after rising in the morning, and after eating a bread meal before the prayer of thanksgiving. The Ruach Ra‘ah occurs more frequently in later medieval and premodern texts due to inter alia of the influence of the Kabbalah on Halachah. In the Kabbalah, the Ruach Ra‘ah acquires a more ‘metaphysical’ meaning, from the world of the negative forces and the impure, from the Other Side (sitra achra), which is the mirror image of the Holy World (the Sefirot). The terms “Evil spirit” and “Impure Spirit” are sometimes regarded as interchangeable in kabbalistic sources. The Ruach Ra‘ah as ‘meta-physical’ entity is not physical, but it does exercise direct influence over the human body; it ‘effects’, for instance, a sleeping person and ‘rests’ on the fingernails after waking up in the morning. The concept of Ruach Ra‘ah can be found much more frequently in the rabbinic literature of the past few centuries; in certain canonical works such as the Shulchan Aruch (16th century), the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (19th century) and its commentaries, but also in the responsa literature from the pre-Shoah period that cover the above mentioned Talmudic ritual of the washing of the hands. Both rituals are still performed today by orthodox Jews worldwide, especially the former one. The purpose of this study is primarily to analyse the meaning and role of the Ruach Ra‘ah (‘evil spirit’), an archaic term, in modern, post-1945, rabbinic orthodox responsa. What happens to the term Ruach Ra‘ah in the modern responsa? Does the ritual persist without being associated with the Ruach Ra‘ah, or does the term continue to be linked to the ritual, but has it been reinterpreted? This study will use the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah to give an account of the relation in these texts between the traditional rabbinic paradigm and their perspective on the modern scientific knowledge paradigm. In order to do this, the study will analyse a corpus of 192 modern responsa from the period from 1945 to 2000. The authors of the responsa mainly hail from, or live in, Israel – the most important centre of orthodox Judaism – or from the United States, which is another important Jewish centre in the diaspora. In order to create a representative sample, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic-Oriental authors have been selected. The research question is therefore: What is the meaning of Ruach Ra‘ah in the post-1945 rabbinic responsa literature in its relation to their perspective on the modern scientific knowledge paradigm? This main question can be broken up into five sub-questions: 1. How often does the Ruach Ra‘ah occur in the post-1945 responsa? Sporadically, or frequently? 2. To what extent does the concept play a role in the corpus in the creation of halachic rulings; is it an important element in the discussion, or does it play a marginal role?

4 

 Introduction

3.

To what extent is there a perception of incompatibility between the rabbinic discourse about the Ruach Ra‘ah and their perspective on the modern scientific knowledge paradigm, and if incompatibility is indeed discerned, how is it resolved? 4. To what extent does the discourse about the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus have a bearing on other subjects that involve tension be-tween the traditional rabbinic paradigms and modern knowledge? 5. Does the discourse that can be found in the rabbinic sources of the corpus reflect the way in which the visible world is really experienced, or is it a scholastic discussion within a textual framework that does not directly correspond with the way in which reality is experienced?

Status quaestionis Studies on orthodox rabbinic responsa are relatively scarce. The number of academic studies of modern rabbinic orthodox responsa based on investigation of a corpus consisting of a large number of texts – as this study on the Ruach Ra‘ah does – is small.7 The smaller studies that are being carried out usually deal with subjects such as modern medical science and new technological developments, medical ethical issues, matrimonial law, and legal subjects. In the modern Israeli context, the focus has widened to subjects related to the laws of the land of Israel, the law of war, terror, social issues, the jurisdiction of rabbinic courts, and constitutional issues.8 Research of more day-to-day halachic subjects in modern reponsa literature has focused primarily on the classic subjects of Kashrut, Shabbat and Festivals, the synagogue, and the life cycle. In modern times, gender issues and technological innovations are then often discussed in the context of these classic subjects. Research of the praxis itself – how it is performed – or the materials used in its performance, has usually attracted less attention. There has been much less analysis of day-to-day, recurring praxis in the responsa like praying, putting on Tefillin, Tzitzit, and the washing of the hands in various situations as this 7 See for a recent example: M. Mordhorst-Mayer, Medizinethische Entscheidungsfindung im orthodoxen Judentum. Übersetzung und Analyse von Responsen zum Schwangerschaftskonflikt (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013). 8 See for example J. D. Bleich, Contemporary Halachic Problems, Vol. 1–4 (New York: KTAV Publishing House / Yeshiva University Press, 1977–95) and A. Sagi & Y.Z. Stern (eds.), A Living Judaism: Essays on the Halachic thought of Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute / Bar Ilan University, 2007 [Hebrew]).

Introduction 

 5

study does. Research of praxis in connection with a certain view of humankind and a physical-spiritual world in which the soul, angels, and also demons have their place, is much rarer. Yet in traditional texts some rituals like the particular praxis of washing the hands in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah is connected with the physical-spiritual world.9 Nor has any extensive study been made of the Ruach Ra‘ah itself. As far as I am aware, the only publication that deals with the Ru-ach Ra‘ah is an article by H.  Shy, “ ‘Ruah Ra‘a’ (melancholy) as seen by medieval commentators and lexicographers”.10 Although the concept of ‘Ruach’ itself has been studied, this research mostly concerns the meaning of this concept in a biblical or immediately post-biblical context. Other studies have focused on the ‘Ruach’ (Spirit) in combination with other terms, most frequently the divine names of Elohim, the Tetragrammaton, and the ‘Ruach Hakodesh’ (the Holy Spirit). Here, too, the context is usually biblical, post-biblical, early rabbinic, or medieval. There are also a number of articles on the ‘Ruach Chachamim’ (Spirit of the wise) in rabbinic context. The Ruach Ra‘ah is a subject that relates to magic and mystical worldviews. Although research of magic has expanded enormously over the last twenty years, it has concentrated mainly on the Bible, on Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the early modern period, but much less on halachic subjects in modernity. The Dybbuk, too, has seen intensive research over the last three decades, including by M. Goldish, J.H. Chajes, G. Nigal, R. Elior, and J. Bilu. Again, much of this research has focused on the Middle Ages and the early modern period. Only J. Bilu in his inquiries has examined the dybbuk and comparable phenomena in contemporary, modern Israel and could be relevant for this study on the Ruach Ra‘ah.

Relevance and Contribution to Scholarship The relevance of this research lies in the fact that it focuses on Halachah in the modern period, and on the halachic process. As has been seen, much of the research has concentrated on Late Antiquity – the Talmudic period – and the Middle Ages, and it is often based on the assumption that the Halachah is a rational system. But this is a limited view of Halachah. The current study hopes to

9 The recent published A. Rosenak (ed.), The Halachah as Event (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2016 [Hebrew]) develops this new directions in the study of Halachic texts. 10 Shy, H. in: Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Medicine in the Bible, August 1981, Koroth 8,5–6 (Jerusalem: Institute of Medical History, 1982), 94–105.

6 

 Introduction

fill this lacuna by looking at the rabbinical discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah, which stands at the intersection between empirical and traditional knowledge in its relation to the material world. In this way, it will become possible to assess the rationality of the Halachah more clearly, and also to point to its emotional and social aspects. The subject of the Ruach Ra‘ah is better suited for this purpose than any purely juridical or legal subject would be, as these are indeed often discussed exclusively on the basis of rational arguments. In addition, this research provides in-sight into the extent to which paradigms used in the discourse about an archaic term such as the Ruach Ra‘ah correspond to those used in other responsa on modern technology e.g. and its applications in medicine or in relation to Shabbat. This consideration has also inspired the decision to choose modern responsa dating to the last sixty or seventy years. Recent decades have seen the rapid realisation of modern technological innovations: increased mobility due to air travel and cars, modern means of communication such as radio, television, and the Internet, and sensational medical discoveries (antibiotics, cancer treatment, and genetics). Modern means of communication and the media have disseminated scientific knowledge among a very wide public, so that potential conflicts with traditional knowledge paradigms are difficult to deny. An additional factor is the Shoah, which forms a caesura in the tradition of orthodox Judaism simply because important congregations, institutions, and persons were wiped out. At the same time, there was the possibility after the Shoah of making a new start with the development of a modern Halachah. The Ruach Ra‘ah stands at the intersection between magic (the demonic), religion (ritual), and premodern science (medicine), and is therefore suitable as a  test case for the way in which modern rabbinic responsa deal with other archaic terms and concepts that are related or similar to the Ruach Ra‘ah. This reveals  the  potential tension in rabbinic discourse between traditional knowledge and the modern Halachah. The Ruach Ra‘ah stands at the intersection between magic (the demonic), religion (ritual), and premodern science (medicine), and is therefore suitable as a test case for the way in which modern rabbinic responsa deal with other archaic terms and concepts that are related or similar to the Ruach Ra‘ah. This reveals the  potential tension in rabbinic discourse between traditional knowledge and the modern knowledge paradigm, as well as possible strategies to resolve, to ignore or mitigate this tension. Although a worldview that is based on scientific knowledge cannot confirm or deny the existence of meta-physical aspects, the idea of direct influence on the human body or mind, and the possibility of specifically situating meta-physical powers inside and on the human body do appear to be incompatible with the modern worldview.

Introduction 

 7

The research carried out here is also relevant to the debate on the relation of religion to the modern world. During the last ten to fifteen years, religion in the Western world has begun to play an increasingly visible role in public space. Fundamentalism, neo-orthodoxy, and renewed dogmatism have manifested themselves within various religions. The subject discussed here –  the Ruach Ra‘ah in the modern world – provides insight into the way contemporary believers deal with the modern world, and into the various mechanisms they use to resolve, ignore or integrate potential discrepancies.

Methodology and Modus Operandi In the study of rabbinic Halachic texts, the following approaches can be distinguished:11 1. The dogmatic (or analytical) approach in which the Halachah is described as an autonomous juridical system, describing ‘the exact development of each law in detail from its juridical principles’,12 with an emphasis on analyses and systematization (M. Elon). 2. The historical approach in which the Halachah is described in a historicalcontext ‘each law placed in the correct historical period of its origin’ (M. Elon).13 Other researchers point to a more extended historical analyses that takes social-economic and social-cultural factors in account in relation to the development of the Halachah (Katz, Soloveitchik and others). 3. The philosophical (or ethical) approach that studies the way halachic decisions are made, the values, goals and motives that leads the halachic process towards decisions taken by halachic decisores (poskim).14 4. The comparative approach in which the Halachah as system is compared to other legal systems or a specific juridical concept or law is compared. These four are based on common methodology of analyzing texts in legal studies.15 11 See S. Shilo, “The Contrast Between Mishpat Ivri and Halakah”. Tradition, 20(2), Summer 1982, 91–100; A. Picard, The Philosophy of Rabbi Ovadya Yosef in an Age of Transition (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007), 72–82. 12 Picard. 72. 13 Ibid. 14 See A. Ravitzky & A. Rosenak (eds.), New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2008 [Hebrew]); A. Rosenak (ed.), Halachah, Meta-Halachah and Philosophy (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2011 [Hebrew]). 15 See Shilo, 93–94. See also Picard, ibid., 72–73 in relation to Mishpat HaIvri.

8 

5. 6.

 Introduction

The following two come from other disciplines than legal studies: The social sciences approach. This approach uses concepts, theories and themes from the social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology. The literary science approach. This approach takes theories from the literary science, semiotics and the ‘Law as literature’ school and applies it to rabbinical texts and prioritize the hermeneutical and rhetorical aspects of a text (Haas, Washofsky and others).16

These approaches are not necessarily contradictory, but each of them highlights different aspects, factors, and powers that exert influence on the Halachic process. They can be sees better as complementary and modern studies on Halachic rabbinic texts often combine several approaches. In the past years a new scientific discipline emerged: Philosophy of Halachah. This still developing field of research is not yet clear de-fined in its scope, methodology and goals. Studies that depart from different disciplines are for now grouped under the heading of Philosophy of Halachah: philosophical, sociologicalanthropological, historical and juridical.17 These last are often conducted from the perspective of the school of Mishpat Ivri – Hebrew Law – that studies only that aspects of the Jewish Halachic tradition that regulate the relations between man and his fellow, but not to those precepts who are concerned with the duties between man and God (ritual law).18 The former are the content of modern legal systems and could be applied to a modern secular state like the State of Israel. Studies from a sociological-anthropological perspective may refer to concepts like ‘liminality’,19 ‘performance’, ‘event’, ‘power’ (Foucault) and ‘symbol’ – halachic ritual as ‘rite de passage’, Halachah as ‘event’, Halachah as ‘per-formance’, the halachic discourse as reflecting the conflict between different groups and factions in society or community, the Halachah as a symbolic system.20 Recently the focus of Philosophy of the Halachah has shifted towards the analyses of the process behind halachic decision making, often in the context of Halachah confronting Modernity and modern developments in science and 16 M. Washofsky, “Responsa and Rhetoric: On Law, Literature and the Rabbinic Decision”, in: John C. Reeves & John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 360–409. 17 A. Sagi, “Hirhurim al haMichshalot ve’al haEtgarim beFilosofia shel haHalachah” in: New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], 28–29. 18 Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), V. 1, 146–147, 151. 19 N. Rubin, “Rites of Birth and Marriage: A Critical Reading in Rabbinic Sources.” In: A. Ravitzki & A. Resenak (eds.), New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah (2008), 501. 20 A. Rosenak (ed.), The Halachah as Event, 2016; Picard, ibid., 79–83.

Introduction 

 9

society. An important concept in this is meta-Halachah, originally conceived by Eliezer Goldman, and which has at least three different interpretations in de academic discourse on Halachah.21 These and other conflicting opinions in the field of Philosophy of Halachah are the result of differences in opinion on the nature of the Halachah and its development. A more formalistic view sees the development of Halachah as originating from the system itself through formal rules and categories that are activated by the Halachic decisor. The realistic approach – that seems to be more dominant in recent studies22 – sees a more active role for the Posek, who makes a decision based on moral and ethical preferences or urgent ‘needs’. A not unusual interpretation is to see meta-Halachah as a set of convictions, beliefs, calculations, and perceptions that may influence a Posek towards his decision, while others denounce this interpretation.23 In this book I will use several of the approaches described above, mainly the historical and social sciences approaches, but meta-Halachah and rhetoric (literary science approach) will play an important role in the analyses of the texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah. Although Haas and Washofsky developed a methodology for studying responsa texts, their method is mostly suitable for topics with a clear ethical dimension but less useful for texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah. For this reason, I will use my own method for reading these texts, based on the Brisker analytical method. This research is based on a corpus, drawn from the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, of more than a hundred digitized texts dealing with the Ruach Ra‘ah, selected from the period from 1945 to 2000. This initial corpus was supplemented by texts from other authors, giving the study an even more representative sample. This entire corpus of texts will be analyzed using the historical-philological method. Chapter 1 describes the process of assembling the corpus through the selection of authors who were still alive in 1945, and then establishes which texts they wrote after 1945, or where this may be assumed to be the case without evidence to the contrary. The digitized project makes it possible to search the texts using advanced techniques and to demonstrate interrelations, showing the wider context of the discourse.

21 See A. Rosenak, “Meta-Halachah, Philosophy of Halachah and Joseph Schwab” [Hebrew], in: A. Rosenak (ed), Halachah, Meta-Halacha and Philosopy; A Multi Disciplinary Perspective (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer [Hebrew], 2011), 18–26. 22 See for example N. Zohar, “The Development of an Halachic Theory as an Essential Basis for Philosophy of Halacha”, in: New Streams, 48, I. Altman Doron, Artificial Insemination in the Rabbinic Discussion (Potsdam: Potsdam University, 2016 [PhD Thesis]), 44–45. 23 N. Zohar, Ibid., 47.

10 

 Introduction

Chapter 1 describes the results of the digital search for the term Ruach Ra‘ah. It maps the halachic context in which the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found, and models a more overarching thematic division. Moreover, it compares the Ruach Ra‘ah to the results of other related terms. This shows to what extent the Ruach Ra‘ah is suited as the research term chosen, and it makes the semantic field of the Ruach Ra‘ah visible. In addition, it analyses the role of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the halachic process of a text: is this role primary or secondary? Chapter 1 also describes the genre of the responsa literature, its definition and characteristics, and modern developments such as Internet and SMS responsa. Furthermore, it describes a number of formal and substantive aspects of the corpus of 192 texts, such as length of the responsa, whether they are anonymous or include the addressee, linguistic peculiarities, and the historical context of the modern world. It also looks at the way in which the authors’ religious and cultural background influenced the responsa of the corpus. Chapter 2 examines the meaning of the term ‘Ruach’ and ‘Ruach Ra‘ah’ in the biblical context, that of the Second Temple era, and in the Babylonian Talmud. This historical-philological analysis makes it possible to survey the diachronic development and possible shifts in meaning that the concept of ‘Ruach Ra‘ah’ has undergone. Moreover, it describes and contextualises the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah in medieval Talmud commentaries and codices. Finally, it provides a description of the influence of the Zohar on Ruach Ra‘ah discourse, an influence that is also visible in the corpus. This forms the background to the third chapter, which outlines the role of these texts in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah. This description of the diachronic role of these texts in the corpus is done on the basis of a presentation and analysis of a number of key passages from the Babylonian Talmud, and their influence on the medieval commentaries, the codices – Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch (16th century) in particular is a central focus of chapter three. This codex became a point of reference for the responsa of the last four centuries, and this to a much greater degree than the Tur and Maimonides’ codex (although the latter’s influence on the corpus is greater than that of the Tur). The final part of this third chapter gives an example of the relation between a 16th century kabbalistic text by Chaim Vital about the ritual of the washing of hands in the morning – including both a theoretical and a practical part – and two 19th and 20th century texts from Kagan’s (1838–1933) Mishnah Berurah and Y. Sofer’s (1870–1939) Kaf HaChaim. In particular, this shows the influence of kabbalistic praxis in these two texts, and to a lesser degree that of the theoretical framework from Vital’s original text. Chapter 4 uses the analytical method of reading the Talmud that was developed in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, and which served as a model for

Introduction 

 11

Talmud studies in the orthodox Yeshivot of the 20th century, to identify three different approaches in the texts of the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah: an objectoriented, subject-oriented, and text-oriented approach. Because most of the corpus falls within the threefold thematic division of food and drink, body, and space, nine paradigmatic texts – three from each category – are subsequently subjected to close reading. Particular attention is paid to the halachic process in the text: what is the starting point, what lines of reasoning are developed or discarded, and how does the original conclusion relate to this halachic process? Which texts are placed centre stage in the halachic process in the text, and what effects result from the approach that is chosen in this process: either object-, subject-, or text-oriented? In addition, the chapter describes a residual group of 33 atypical texts that do not conform to any of the three thematic categories, and which focus mainly on the Shabbat laws (sometimes in a magical context) and the Ruach Ra‘ah as a psychological factor. Chapter 5 describes the theoretical framework of the discourse on Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus. It begins by investigating the relation in the Halachah between scientific knowledge and religious, revealed knowledge in the Babylonian Talmud itself, and how this was regarded in the Middle Ages. Almost every halachic question involves a judgement about the physical world – to what extent did rabbis in the Talmud use the scientific knowledge of their time in devising their halachic rulings? It turns out that this question is particularly relevant for medical questions and behavioural questions dealing with the body and with diet, questions that also concern the Ruach Ra‘ah. The chapter also describes the doctrine of ‘changed nature’ which in some cases offered a way of combining the Talmudic paradigm with later observations and scientific insights. How was information on the Ruach Ra‘ah itself regarded – as revealed knowledge or premodern scientific knowledge, and how is this question treated in the corpus of responsa? The remainder of the chapter looks at various causes and manifestations of the Ruach Ra‘ah that can be identified in the corpus, and attempts to formulate an overarching theory that explains them. It also describes the various effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the theoretical framework that emerges from the corpus of responsa. The chapter ends with religious and magical remedies from a number of atypical texts, which, it was believed, were able to control the Ruach Ra‘ah. The way in which the authors of the corpus deal with their sources is the central focus of chapter 6. The chapter therefore describes the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah from the Middle Ages to premodern times, the various paradigms that can be found in earlier texts, and the manner in which earlier texts dealt with the problem of clashing epistemological models in respect of the Ruach Ra‘ah (the role of the concept of ‘changed nature’). The chapter subsequently investigates how the authors in the corpus treated this halachic ‘inheritance’.

12 

 Introduction

What halachic patterns from previous periods were followed and which were discarded, and what was the role of the concept of ‘changed nature’, or other strategies that could resolve or mitigate the incompatibility between rabbinic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the modern knowledge paradigm? These choices in the halachic process made in the corpus are then regarded as a theological stance with regard to the question of the confrontation between orthodoxy and modern technology and science – as a meta-halachic standpoint that influences the discourse of the corpus and which has been at the forefront of attention in contemporary Halachah research.24 The theoretical framework of this chapter is formed by certain developments in post-Shoah (ultra-)orthodoxy: the centrality of texts, the reconstructing of Halachah from texts, the reformulating of halachic discourse concerning praxis that is already known, the influence of kabbalistic texts on the halachic process, the theology of choosing the stricter opinion (Chumrah), the ‘holistic’ reading of texts, and the role of meta-halachic principles in the halachic process. Furthermore, the chapter examines the influence of Kagen’s Mishnah Berurah and the philosophy of the Chazon Ish on the discourse of the corpus. Chapter 7 attempts a sociological and anthropological analysis of the Ruach Ra‘ah as it emerges from the discourse in the corpus. First, it discusses various approaches to ritual, which often contains an actional element. It then investigates the performance aspect – a frequent characteristic of ritual – in the ritual washing of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and it determines to which category of ritual the washing of the Ruach Ra‘ah must be reckoned. This is followed by a comparison between the Ruach Ra‘ah and the biblical purity laws, and by a discussion of Mary Douglas’s theories on biblical purity. She describes how biblical purity laws may have universal application in a society, but can in some cases become instruments of coercion and social control. Her ‘group and grid’ theory in which cosmology, social order, and the place of purity and ritual are correlated, is then applied to the corpus. The characteristics of one type of society in particular – the high group / low grid position, also called enclave culture – are tested against the texts of the corpus. On the basis of the threatened internal and external boundaries of the enclave, the corpus is examined for the manner in which the discourse defines internal and external boundaries in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. On the one hand this is about defining the group vis-à-vis outsiders, in this case non-Jews; on the other, it is to do with social control and coercion, which are potentially enforced

24 A. Picard, Halacha in a New World. Rabbinic Discourse in Modern Society [Hebrew], (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2012), 8–11.

Introduction 

 13

internally by creating artificial internal boundaries in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah: by emphasizing gender, age, and level of commitment to the purity ideal. The chapter therefore examines the corpus for the level of control, coercion, and gender preference in its use of language, and for its attitude towards children. Finally, the level of control and coercion is compared with the specific authority and place that the rabbi has in the corpus, and which thus possibly reflect the kind of community from which these responsa originate: an enclave culture, which as a ‘voluntary community’ has only limited real power and a weak central authority. The conclusion thus assesses whether the enclave culture model can indeed convincingly explain the characteristics of the discourse that have been described before. Chapter 8 presents the concluding remarks of this study, which has interpreted the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah as a confrontation between two paradigms: a modern knowledge paradigm and the rabbinic traditional paradigm. It also answers the research question and the sub-questions, and describes the most important findings.

Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects of the Texts To be able to answer the question what role the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah (evil spirit) plays in modern, post-Shoah rabbinic responsa, it is important to begin by introducing the genre of the “responsum” (1.1), responsa literature (1.2), and the form and presentation of a responsum (1.3). This will be followed by a discussion of the selection of the corpus (1.4), and a number of formal and substantive aspects of the texts in the corpus (1.5).

1.1 The Genre of the Responsa It is helpful in order to clarify the nature of responsa literature to compare it with other genres of Halachic texts. M. Elon1 has distinguished the following genres as sources of Halachah and of “Hebrew Law”: – The more analytical, theoretical treatises that attempt to understand and explain the Halachah (‫)פירושים וחידושים‬ – Halachic works (‫ )ספרי ההלכות‬and codices (‫ )ספרי הפסקים‬that deal with the practical side of the law, but on the basis of an abstract analysis of the Halachic sources. The Halachic works provide a short summary of the arguments, and the codes only contain the rulings. – Responsa literature (‫)שו"ת‬: in this genre, the reader encounters a “living legal reality” which allows him to listen to the different arguments advanced by the parties and to follow the Halachic expert (‫ )חכם ההלכה‬in every step of his legal analysis. It is in this literary genre that experimentation and creativity take place. It shows the hesitations and the search that lead the Halachic expert to solutions “that bring the present and the past together and do justice both to a thorough analysis of objective facts and to certain economic and social aspects”.2 In its basic form, a responsum or Shut (‫ – שו"ת‬literally: “question and answer”) is intended to bridge the gulf that separates the theory and practice of the Jewish (religious) law, the Halachah: how must the theoretical framework of the Jewish 1 Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), V. 3, 1215. For a definition of Hebrew law, see Jewish Law, V. 1, 3–13. 2 Paraphrase of Elon, ibid., 1215. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-002

1.1 The Genre of the Responsa 

 15

law (as explored in the two first genres of halachic literature) be applied to a specific case? This often involves new situations, to which the general principles cannot a priori be applied, or only with great difficulty. The problem is then put to a scholar who has the required knowledge, prestige, and spiritual authority to make a ruling in this specific case. This ruling in a particular case may then subsequently be regarded as jurisprudence3 –casuistry as a source of law – for similar problems that may present themselves in the future, the validity of which can then be verified again by inquiring into the limits of its applicability. Because responsa are (mostly) rooted in questions and situations from real life, their status as a Halachic source is more important than the other two genres listed above and in some ways comparable to the status of a decided case in common law systems.4 The question how the authority of a responsum can be legitimized and whether responsa are binding has been answered in different ways. Some commentators believe that the foundation of the legal authority is the community. The community has accepted the scholar’s Halachic rulings as binding on the basis of the community’s consensus (consent – ‫ )הסכמה‬or ordinances (‫)תקנות‬. These often have a historical character, having been adopted in the foundational phase of a congregation, for instance, or when the congregation was at the height of its growth.5 Others think a responsum does not have to be a specific ruling, but can also be the opinion of an expert whose advice has been sought on the basis of his knowledge (‫)חוות דעת‬.6 Elon et al. consider a responsum as jurisprudence and a source of law but not as a binding precedent that constrains future Halachic experts or rabbinic courts in their decisions.7 Elsewhere, Mark Washofsky shows in an elaborate article that Halachic decisores were in practice much more constrained by rulings of their predecessors than has been

3 See Elon, ibid., V. 2, 795–7 and V. 3, 1225, n. 43, where he does add that “there is cause for further research of the halachic foundation of the authority of the respondents.” See also Elon, ibid., 1219, n. 25, where he argues more emphatically for the need for further research. 4 Ibid., V. 2, 768, 798–800. See also M. Washofsky, “Taking Precedent Seriously: On Halachah as a Rhetorical Practice” in: Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer (eds.), Re-Examining Progressive Halachah (New York: Berghahn, 2002), 1–70. 5 S. Glick, Kuntres Ha-Teshuvot He-hadash. A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature published from ca. 1470, 2000 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem / Ramat-Gan, Bar Ilan University, 2006), V. 1, 27–28. Remarkably, besides the word “community” (‫)ציבור‬, Glick also uses the concept of “the whole of Israel” (‫ )כלל ישראל‬here, which has a much more universal and more absolute significance and which is sometimes even used in a metaphysical sense. 6 For the difference between legal rulings, a responsum (reply), and a psak (public ruling that is published), see Glick, Kuntres, V. 3, 13–16. 7 Elon, ibid., V2, 800–804.

16 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

indicated by Elon and others.8 Contemporary orthodox responsa also tend to see in earlier jurisprudence binding precedents for their own decisions. The genre of the responsum can be found already in the Talmud, in the form of oral questions that students and colleagues put to great teachers and rabbis to seek an answer. In some cases this did not happen during a personal encounter, but by sending in a question. This usually happened in writing, but sometimes orally, for instance through a messenger. Examples of both forms can be found in the Talmud, especially in the contacts between Israel and Babylon, and to a lesser degree with other Diaspora congregations. Questions and answers were also exchanged within Babylon itself between various persons and congregations.9 Thus a responsum was the binding vector of communication between two congregations – one in Israel and one in the Diaspora, or within the Diaspora itself – which permitted the exchange, or even the mutual fine-tuning, of legal knowledge. Because questions and answers arise from specific situations in particular times and places, responsa constitute an important source for the study of the development of the Halachah, but also of Jewish history as such. Initially, the Diaspora looked to Israel as the center of religious authority – that was where the High Court, the Sanhedrin, was based. According to some scholars, after the destruction of the Temple, the court of Yavne regarded itself as heir to the authority previously exercised by the Sanhedrin. From the third and fourth century onwards, however, the center of gravity began to shift towards Babylon – one of the most important centers in the Diaspora, with rabbinic institutions of learning and many famous rabbinic figures. Many of the questions and answers that were obtained in this way were incorporated into the Talmud, and therefore a real genre of separate responsa literature did not emerge until after the Talmudic period.10

1.2 Responsa Literature Responsa literature as a clearly distinct genre first arose in the early Middle Ages – the second half of the seventh century – when the Jewish world became increasingly fragmented, and physical, religious, and cultural distances between the different centers of knowledge made direct contacts difficult. Babylon’s Geonim (heads, leaders) and their institutions of learning were the first to write

8 See M. Washofsky, “Taking Precedent seriously”, 20–23. 9 Elon, Jewish Law, ibid., 1214. 10 Ibid.

1.2 Responsa Literature 

 17

large numbers of responsa in answers to questions from colleagues and congregations across the Diaspora – especially to North Africa and Spain. During the Geonitic period (up to circa the eleventh century), the schools of Babylon and their leaders – especially those of Sura and Pumpeditha – became the center of rabbinic authority, and they regarded themselves as the successors of the former Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.11 Thousands of responsa from the Geonitic period have survived.12 After the eleventh century, the rabbinic centers in Babylon went into decline; their role was taken over by the European centers in France, Spain, and Germany, and those of North Africa. There, great Talmudic commentators and Halachic experts such as Maimonides, Shlomoh ben Aderet, Nachmanides, Tzemach ben Duran, the Or Zarua,13 the Rosh, Maharil, and others answered many questions, answers that were written down and collected, and that were later also codified when quoted in Halachic codices of later periods. The invention of printing saw the definitive breakthrough of the genre of responsa literature. The prestige of a rabbi and Halachic decisor would henceforth depend in large measure on the responsa that he wrote and on how these were received by his colleagues.

1.2.1 Definition There are a number of different definitions of what a responsum is. In his study of rabbinic responsa, for instance, D. Feldman has given the following description: responsa are replies to queries submitted by Rabbis to their more learned colleagues concerning questions not specifically dealt with in the Shulchan Aruch14 or other Codes. They are characterized by personal attention to a specific case at hand. The data are given and the Respondent analyzes the legal literature bearing upon the case at hand, cites analogies and the rulings of previous authorities, and comes up with an answer of “forbidden” or “permitted” or with advice on steps to be taken to resolve the issue or problem.15

11 The Geonim in Israel also wrote responsa, but these did not have the same renown and they were less influential on rabbinic discourse. 12 There is uncertainty as to the number of questions of the Geonim, see n. 33. 13 R. Isaac ben Moses, Vienna, thirteenth century. 14 Feldman’s definition evidently relates to the modern period after the invention of printing, because his point of departure is the sixteenth-century Shulchan Aruch and not for instance the Talmud. 15 D.M. Feldman, Marital relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law (New York: New York University Press, 1974), 18.

18 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Feldman himself has acknowledged, however, that this definition is not perfect.16 Elon, in his description, stresses the fact that responsa are legal texts whose juridical aspect is important, and that they can be compared to other non-Jewish legal systems such as financial issues, law of inheritance, and marital laws, because these are the topics that make up circa 70 to 80 percent of the subjects in responsa up to the eighteenth century.17 According to Elon, responsa literature was a very important foundation and principle of “Hebrew law” (‫משפט‬ ‫ )עברי‬precisely because it arose from practice: the scholar or judge handed down a concrete ruling for a specific case from real life.18 Glick has rightly pointed out that this only covers part of the genre. There are many questions that have nothing to do with practical realities and that are not rulings on specific cases submitted to solve a problem of an individual or a community. Sometimes they are answers to questions concerning the interpretation of obscure passages in the Talmud, or theological problems.19 In addition, the legal status of many Halachic questions concerning ritual – the observance of the commandments and prohibitions (‫ – )איסור והיתר‬differs from that of strictly legal questions.20 In some cases, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable for an enquirer to go and seek a second scholar’s ruling after having received a first responsa from someone else.21 Glick has also pointed to the category of the “didactic responsa”22 or hypothetical responsa23 – responsa that do not deal with specific questions arising from real life, but are Halachic exposés on the subject in question. Sometimes they have a pedagogical aim: this kind of responsa is used for instance to train rabbis how to answer questions. The Oriental learning tradition in particular has examples of exercises in writing and analyzing responsa.24 Others have emphasized the unique nature of the genre, which exists alongside the more theoretical and analytical Talmudic literature and which even as a genre (“responsa literature”) is less uniform and coherent than is often assumed. Responsa come from different times and cultures and contain different kinds of

16 “. . . Further characterization of this unique literature, or even identification of the leading Respondents, is best not undertaken at this time . . .”, ibid., 18. 17 Elon, Jewish Law, V. 3, 1220; after the eighteenth century, the emphasis shifted to issues from Orah Hayyim and Yoreh De’ah and marital law – see Elon, ibid., 1247. 18 Elon, ibid., 1215–1225. 19 Glick, Kuntres, V. 1, 2–3. 20 Ibid., 20, n. 3. 21 Ibid., V. 3, 7, 13–15. 22 Ibid., V. 1, 28. 23 Elon, Jewish Law, V. 3, 1266. 24 Ibid., 38–41.

1.2 Responsa Literature 

 19

discourse.25 Modern responsa research has asked, among other things, to what extent personal conviction, theological principle, and a priori assumptions play a role – some scholars have, somewhat problematically, called this “metaHalachah” 26 – in the Halachic process as it takes shape in the responsa literature. These studies criticize the notion that the scholar simply makes objective assessments of the information and principles contained in the Halachic sources without playing a role himself – the formalistic approach.27 In several recent publications, A. Rosenak has stressed the pedagogical aims of rabbis who answer a responsum.28

1.2.2 Internet and Other Media It is not actually that easy – especially for modern times – to define what a responsum is, and which books or text do, and which do not belong to it. Adopting a broad definition, Glick – following Boaz Cohen in his Kuntres HaTeshuvot (1930) – has included in his own project any title that contains a trace of the question-and-answer format, even if the remainder of the book in question belongs to another genre: novellae, codifying, or otherwise. What is the status of the genre of “letters” of famous orthodox scholars that are published in collected editions (‫ ?)קובץ אגרות‬Glick, for instance, has included the collected letters of the famous twentieth century rabbis Yeshayahu Karelitz (the ‫ )חזון איש‬and the Lithuanian Rabbi Shach in his monumental opus, the Kuntres Hateshuvot Hachadash.29 But where does this leave the circa 30 volumes of collected letters (Igrot Kodesh) answered by the Lubavitcher Rebbe during a period of approximately 45 years, 25 A. Sagi, “Hirhurim al haMichshalot ve’al haEtgarim beFilosofia shel haHalacha”, in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], ed. A. Rosenak and A. Rosenak (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2008), 30. 26 See for instance N. Zohar, “Pituach Theoria Hilchatit”, in New Streams, 44–49. 27 See for instance the articles R. Ir-Shai, “Tefisot migdariot bePiskei Halacha: Sugiot haHapalot kemikreh Mifgan” (gender and feminist approach), New Streams, 417–451; A. Picard, “Psikato shel haRav Ovadyah Yosef beHilchot Niddah: bikoret Tarbut” (sociological / anthropological approach), New Streams, 453–489; and N. Rubin, “Tiksei Ledah veNisu’im: Ma’amad haIsha bekriah bikortit” (anthropological approach), New Streams, 491–519. See also e.g. T. Ross, “Trumat HaFeminism Lediyun HaHilchati: ‘Kol beIsha Erwa’ kemikreh mifgan”, Halachah, Meta-Halachah and Philosophy [Hebrew], ed. A. Rosenak (Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2011), 35–64; see also N. Rubin, “Teoriot Soziologiot-Antropologiot kemisgeret leParshanut Tekstim”, Halachah, Meta-Halachah, 98–121, including at 102, n. 14. 28 A. Rosenak, “Hirhurim al hazika shebein HaFilosofia shel HaHalacha LeFilosofia shel HaChinug”, in New Streams, 65–96; idem, “Meta-Halachah, Filosofia shel Ha-Halachah ve-Josef Schwab”, Halachah, Meta-Halachah and Philosophy, 17–34. 29 Glick, Kuntres, V. 3, no. 3210 and 3211.

20 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

which forms a corpus of its own containing thousands of letters? This is in fact a genuine collection of responsa in the strict sense of the term; but Glick has not included this collection of letters in his responsa project. This question is all the more urgent for modern times, as the publication of Halachic literature has greatly expanded and new media such as the Internet have emerged with their own form of responsa, while the structure of religious communities is different than it was in the past. Many questions are no longer posed by other rabbis, but by educated laypeople, or pupils / students at yeshivas, or by people who have relatively little specialist knowledge of Halachah.30 New criteria will possibly have to be set, for instance: the question has to be real, the answer must contain a certain degree of originality, must contain references to other literature, the answer must have a certain analytical level, the question cannot be totally anonymous, etcetera. Strictly speaking this would exclude a number of classic responsa from the definition, because they do not meet the criteria. The rise of the Internet31 has removed a threshold for posing questions to a rabbi of one’s choosing and has made the process much quicker. Dozens of orthodox websites have a helpdesk called responsa (Shut), where all manner of questions can be put to rabbis. Daily, many people make use of this possibility (see infra). That the gap between digital and “old” forms of publication is narrowing, from Internet responsa to printed and more classic forms, is evident from the responsa of a famous rabbi such as Yuval Cherlow, head of the Hesder yeshiva in Petah Tikva. He has so far published three books32 of his own responsa that previously appeared on the Internet. On the one hand this makes the process more “democratic” – anyone can now ask a rabbi a question from the comfort of their own home –; on the other hand it raises the question which rabbis have authority and which do not. More often than in the past, this question of the scope of authority will be settled individually by the enquirer, instead of collectively by the community. It is likely, moreover, that the focus will shift from juridical-legalistic questions to questions relating to the private sphere.

30 On the identity of the enquirers of responsa, see Glick, Kuntres, V. 1, 19–23. 31 On Internet responsa, see A. Rosenak, Halachah as an Agent of Change. Critical Studies in Philosophy of Halachah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009), 157–162; R. Tsuria , “Discourse of Practice: The Negotiation of Sexual Norms Via Online Religious Discourse”, International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 3595–3613; R. Tsuria and H.A. Campbell, “‘In My Own Opinion’: Negotiation of Rabbinical Authority Online in Responsa Within Kipa.co.il”, Journal of Communication Inquiry (2020): 1–20. 32 Reshut HaRabim (Petach Tikvah: Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikvah, 2002), Reshut HaYachid (Petach Tikvah: Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikvah, 2003), Reshut HaZibbur (Petach Tikvah: Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikvah, 2005).

1.2 Responsa Literature 

 21

Another new phenomenon is that of the “SMS Shut”, where people send a short question to a rabbi, who also answers it by text message. Rabbi S. Aviner from Beth-El (see infra) receives hundreds of questions by SMS on a daily basis. Here, too, we see the interaction with the printed media and the Internet: every week the Shabbat magazine for young people called Olam Katan33 publishes a number of questions submitted to Aviner and his fellow rabbi S. Eliyahu (Chiefrabbi of Tzfat) by SMS. Strictly speaking, one would have to say that the content of the question is too short, and the response too brief to be able to call it a responsum, although they sometimes contain references to rabbinic literature and the Geonim responses were usually very short too. On the other hand, the influence and authority the rabbi exerts over the individual are much more extensive and more direct than in the old classic format of a responsum. Benyamin Brown sees in the SMS-responsa a possibility for a shift towards a softer, less formalistic discourse and more realistic Halachah.34 Responsa also appear in other media, for instance in Shabbat magazines, more than 100 of which are published every week in Israel alone. Some of these have a questions-and-answers section, such as Chabad’s Sichat Hashavua35 (with a weekly print run of tens of thousands of copies). This magazine has been in existence for more than 25 years and its weekly questions-and-answers section is at least a decade old. It is written by Rabbi Joseph Ginsburg, rabbi of Omer (near Be’er Sheva). Does this also belong to responsa literature, even though the questions are always anonymous and possibly have a didactic purpose – i.e. to explain a specific aspect of the Halachah to a reader? Responsa literature is thus a genre without clear boundaries – it is expanding every day. This was already the case in the past and it is currently continuing at a much higher pace. M. Elon, in a publication from 1988, speaks of three thousand titles, or circa 300,000 questions. There are currently as many as four thousand titles in the library of Bar-Ilan University. Glick36 – see infra – has counted “5, 600 books containing responsa up to the year 2000” for his responsa project, that is, 33 http://www.olam-katan.co.il/. 34 B. Brown, “Instant Responsa – towards a halachic Realism?”, lecture for the Association of Hebrew Law at the University of Tel-Aviv, summer 2016, https://www.academia.edu/27003713/Instant_Responsa_Toward_Halachic_Realism_Hebrew. 35 See http://www.chabad.org.il/Magazines/Articles.asp?CategoryID=30. 36 The precise number of titles is not entirely clear: V. 3 has 4,404 as latest figure, but this is followed by 59 pages with c. 160 books that had been omitted from the publication of V. 1 and V. 2, bringing the total to more than 4,560 books. If the 200 or more titles that were published between 2000 and 2010 are added to this, the total is more than 4,750. Elsewhere, Glick mentions that H. Soloveitchik put the number of questions at 800,000 or 8,000 titles! Although Glick dismisses this as “mountains suspended from a hair”, he acknowledges that it is very difficult even today to establish the precise number; see Glick, Kuntres, V. 1, 74–75. The number of questions preserved

22 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

some 500,000 questions. Recently, Glick has put the number of questions at circa 650,000, that is 6,500 titles.37 By way of comparison, it is helpful to quote a number of figures from a large orthodox website on the Internet, which has been maintaining an online database of questions and answers for about a decade, www.moreshet.co.il. More than 100,000 (132,016) questions were asked on these websites over the last ca. ten years.38 Using Elon’s and Glick’s calculations, this means circa one thousand titles in book form. Given the rise of the Internet responsa and the important changes that this has occasioned (changes which have not yet been fully charted), the upper limit of the current study, both qualitatively and quantitatively, was fixed in the year 2000, with a few exceptions which will be explained as they occur.

1.3 Form and Presentation of a Responsa Publication After the invention of printing, many medieval responsa collections were printed for the first time, usually after their author’s death. Initially these collections of questions and answers were not in any particular order, and all kinds of subjects were mixed together. In due course, indices were included at the front or back of these books. These indices (‫ )מפתח‬described the material by giving a short summary of the subject of the question. Later indices categorized the questions according to the four subjects used to categorize the two codices of the Tur (fourteenth century) and the Shulchan Aruch (sixteenth century): – Orah Hayyim: daily rituals, Feasts & Shabbat (hereinafter: OH); – Yoreh De’ah: Kashrut, matrimonial laws (hereinafter: YD); – Even Ha’ezer: family law, matrimony, divorce (hereinafter: EH); – Choshen Mishpat: civil and criminal law (hereinafter: CHM).

from the Geonitic period is also a matter for debate: from low estimates of 2,500 to more than 10,000; see Glick, ibid., 75, n. 358. 37 Another problem arises from books such as Michtav me-Eliyahu, a collection of Musar treatises by Rabbi Dessler (1892–1953) that were disseminated among his students in the form of letters. Sometimes these Musar letters contain a personal answer to a question that was not so much halachic as theological or faith-related; see E. Dessler, Strive for Truth, trans. A. Carmell, V. 1 (Jerusalem / New York: Feldheim Publishers, 2004), 217–225. See for instance the letter dealing with “Faith in the Sages”, 217. This essay in the form of a letter was occasioned by a personal letter to Dressler from someone who asked whether the Shoah might have been avoided if the rabbis of Eastern Europe had called on people to emigrate to Israel. Some classic responsa from the Middle Ages also deal with questions related to faith and theology. 38 Consulted on 24 August 2020: http://shut.moreshet.co.il/advancedSearchResult.asp?i=0&nop= 20&WholeWord=0&aw=&shut=&rabonim=.

1.3 Form and Presentation of a Responsa Publication 

 23

Initially this happened by arranging the questions according to these categories in the index, without adjusting the original numbering in the book itself. The responsa still appeared in their original position in the book, but the index showed the responsa organized into categories. In later editions, the questions were presented according to the categorization of the index, and were also numbered in that order. In modern editions, responsa are even arranged per volume, which is then in its entirety dedicated to one aspect of the Halachah – a whole volume with Orah Hayyim responsa, another volume with Yoreh De’ah responsa, etcetera, including an index and subject index. The responsa containing references to the concept of Ruach Ra’ah are mostly to be found in the Orah Hayyim and Yoreh De’ah volumes of modern responsa collections.

1.3.1 Intertextuality and References in Responsa Literature Responsa literature is a genre in which intertextuality – a term that can be defined in several ways – plays an important role. The person who answers a question usually explicitly formulates his own stance vis-à-vis other texts through references, and also uses quotations and paraphrases from the work of others to answer the question. These references can be divided into the following categories: a. Classic rabbinic literature This category includes the Mishnah, the Talmud (the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud), and occasionally also a Midrash. Although the Talmud forms the basis of the rabbinic Halachah, the average contemporary responsum contains relatively little reinterpretation, because the Talmud enjoys canonical status. The point of entry is more likely to be the level of the medieval Talmudic commentaries that explain these texts, or – more usually – the interpretation in the Halachic literature of the last 500 years, because the commentaries too have (almost) canonical authority. It is rare to find the author of a responsum giving an original interpretation or explanation of a text from the Talmud. b. Medieval rabbinic literature This category includes the medieval Talmud commentaries (Rashi, the Tosafists, Rashba et al.), the medieval codices (Maimonides, Tur), the medieval responsa, and other literature on the Halachah and Minhag (Kol Bo, Machzor Vitri, Or Zarua etc.). Usually the author of a contemporary responsum gives an overview of the various points of view that he has selected from the medieval literature. This does

24 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

not always result in a decision to privilege one text over another: Rashi’s explanation is not considered to be better than the Tosafot; or Ramban than the Rashba. The author is more likely to take stock than to give a real reinterpretation or to choose from the spectrum of commentaries. He then looks at what the medieval codices have to say about the subject. The (almost) canonical status which the orthodox world affords to the medieval literature does hamper an “uninhibited” reading of these sources. It would be possible to demonstrate that later scholars were mistaken in their explanation or use of a text from a medieval rabbi. c. Modern rabbinic literature This category consists of rabbinic literature in the field of Talmud commentaries and Halachah from circa 1500 up to 1945, both in the form of codices (especially Shulchan Aruch) and of responsa – both from the Ashkenazi and from the Oriental world – and other rabbinic writings. This collection of rabbinic literature from the last 500 years or so is often particularly well represented in modern and contemporary responsa. These frequently quote from it, summarize it, or refer to it as a source of authority. The “lower down” in the system one gets, and the closer one approaches the time of the author of a modern responsum, the greater the author’s freedom to develop an original point of view in relation to this kind of text. An author’s freedom to express a strong preference for a particular source is therefore greater for the modern period than for previous periods, at least in theory. The publication of the Shulchan Aruch and the process of canonization that occurred subsequently do, however, prohibit a totally free choice or rejection of certain opinions. Thus the text of the Shulchan Aruch and Isserles’ glosses are not themselves really subject to discussion; at most the debate is about the extent to which they should serve as guides for practical action. In doing so, authors often make use of the interpretations or reinterpretations of these texts, the commentaries, and their supplements, in the (super-) commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which have in the last few centuries always been printed beside (or below) the text of the Shulchan Aruch. Here, too, a process of canonization is in evidence: after the Shoah, Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah has obtained an almost canonical status in orthodox and ultraorthodox circles, which can hardly be ignored anymore in Halachic discourse (see 6.1.2). In the genre of rabbinic responsa, too, a canon of important and less authoritative responsa has emerged over the course of time. Thus in the Ashkenazi world, Rabbi Shlomoh Luria’s sixteenth century responsa, and the seventeenth and eighteenth century responsa of Chacham Zvi and his son Jacob Emden, of Akiva Eiger, and Yechezkel Landau, enjoy important status. For the ultraorthodox, the responsa of Chatam Sofer, the Maharam Shik, and various well-known Hassidic rebbes are

1.3 Form and Presentation of a Responsa Publication 

 25

important. For the later nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Achiezer, the Maharsham, and the Zekan Aharon are important responsa that authors cannot ignore when they are making an authoritative ruling. Oriental rabbinic Judaism has other preferences, for instance the responsa and other writings of the Radbaz (sixteenth century), the Chida (Azulai, eighteenth century), Haim Palagi (eighteenth to nineteenth century), Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad (the Ben Ish Chai, nineteenth to twentieth century), and Yaakov Sofer (twentieth century), who wrote a kind of Sephardic Mishnah Berurah (even the layout of the two books are similar). d. Kabbalistic literature This category mainly includes the Zohar, the writings of Luria, and later rabbinic literature with a Halachic-moralistic tenor that often refers to these texts and develops them further. References to Kabbalistic sources in Halachic literature are particularly prevalent in the Eastern European strands of Ashkenazi Judaism (Hassidism), and in Sephardic Oriental strands. However, there are differences between responsa as to the extent to which they refer to this literature, and the weight that they assign to these texts. Ashkenazi responsa generally give less importance to mystical and Kabbalistic sources. References to these sources are more frequent in Oriental responsa, which appear to give greater weight to them. Given the nature of the subject of “Ruach Ra‘ah”, it is likely that we will come across references to Kabbalistic literature. This is especially so for responsa from those strands of orthodox Judaism that regard the Kabbalah as authoritative literature that must be included in the Halachic process. In some cases, the question under consideration is whether, in establishing the Halachah, there is a hierarchy between the exoteric and esoteric sources within rabbinic Judaism. Much effort is put into demonstrating that the Zohar and the Talmud do not contain conflicting opinions, or attempts are made to harmonize various Kabbalistic sources from different periods and cultural environments, or the primacy of the classic Halachic sources over that of the Kabbalah and mysticism is confirmed.39 e. Contemporary sources This category includes rabbinic literature on Talmudic commentary and Halachah from 1945 to the present. Much has been written, especially during the last few decades; so much so that it is impossible to read everything. Causes of this unstoppable stream of rabbinic publications include the rise of computers, which made it easier to publish books, and the expansion of the world of yeshivas, which promote 39 On the relation between Halachah / Kabbalah, see for instance J. TaShma, Ha-Nigleh SheBanistar. The Halachic Residue in the Zohar [Hebrew] (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001); M. Chalamish, “Mekubalim Le’umat Poskim”, New Streams, 181–210. Both works refer to the influence of Kabbalah on the halachic discourse in relation to the morning washing ritual.

26 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

the ideal of a life given to learning only Torah. It is nevertheless to be expected that clear authorities will emerge within the corpus, authors who are cited more frequently than others, whose opinions cannot be ignored, and who steer and determine the discourse. In the context of this study, it is important therefore to investigate whether or not authors refer to each other’s work. Do they liberally quote each other, or do is there a tendency for authors not to refer to other people’s responsa and formulate their own answer independently? Are certain responsa being ignored because the author is considered lacking in competence or Halachic authority? Or do authors choose to reinterpret the Talmudic sources themselves, so that referring to contemporary fellow rabbis becomes less relevant?

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus The first step towards assembling the corpus of modern orthodox responsa was to use the Bar-Ilan University’s Responsa Project, version 15 (2007). Bar-Ilan’s Responsa Project began as far back as the early 1970s, and it is the most extensive academic project that involves digitizing responsa and basic sources of rabbinic Judaism. In the early years of the project, a number of studies of rabbinic responsa were published based on computer-aided search methods and digitized texts, although these studies were limited in scope. Recently, a number of articles were published that describe the influence of digitized rabbinic texts on the formation of the Halachah, although literature on this subject remains limited.40 The Responsa Project provides the entire text of the original responsa – including the references that also appear in the printed version. This means that the context of the book has been preserved – because it is possible to read a preceding or following question, or to browse through the digital book. Introduction, index, and subject index are sometimes missing, but their incidental absence is amply compensated by the advanced search feature that the digitized 40 See Glick, Kuntres, V. 4, 319–320 who mentions only 21 sources, almost all of which date from the 1970s, and only a few are more recent publications, which, however, are often somewhat limited in scope. Glick mentions the following: O. Duvdevani, “Harav HaMemuchshav – Hashpa’at Ma’agarei Ha-Medah Ha-Memuchshavim veHaMekuvanim al psikat HaHalacha”, Zohar 33 (2008): 63–70; O. Tzur, “LecholShe’elah yesh Teshuva – Project HaShut umetsi’at Medah beidan HaDigitali”, Galileo 89 (2006): 52–56; Ch. Chariv, “Manoa haChipus shekadam le Google”, Chidushim 2 (2007): 4–7; B. Lau, “Aseh Oznecha keAfarkeset – Achrayut, Tzinzurah veLimud HaTorah beidan Ma’agarei HaMedah”, Akdamot 14 (2004): 155–174. These are the only recent publications that Glick includes in his very extensive bibliography (1,847 entries) of publications dealing with rabbinic responsa.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 27

version offers. This makes it possible to discover connections between concepts by entering them in the search tool as search terms (see infra). It is more difficult to compensate for the fact that the introduction has in some cases been omitted, as introductions sometimes offer information about the author and his times and his views on Halachah and responsa. The Responsa Project has recently gained a competitor in the form of the comparable, ultra-orthodox run Otzar HaHochmah. As has been seen, the timeframe for the responsa to be included in the sample for this study runs from 1945 to circa 2000. Of the circa 330 titles in the project, the responsa written after 1945 were then selected. The first step was to use biographical details mentioned on the website of the Responsa Project, and especially in Glick’s Kuntres HaTeshuvot (4 volumes). This produced a list of 29 authors (see Appendix A). It may be asked how representative the list of contemporary responsa selected from the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project is for the entire literature from the 1945–2000 period. Glick’s project listed and described all known responsa – a total of more than five thousand titles of “books containing responsa”. Glick has incidentally acknowledged that his project has not managed to unearth every single existing responsum. Modern digitization has increased the rate of publication of rewponsa in comparison to previous decades. Just to give a sense of the change: the period from 2000 to 2010 saw the publication of more than 230 new titles with responsa, i.e. more than 20 a year.41 During the period from 1470 to 1699, by contrast, only 103 responsa titles were printed, which means not quite one title every two years – a factor 40 less than in our own time. It is inevitable, therefore, that responsa slip by unnoticed. It is usually only the more famous authors whose responsa attract attention because of the authority that they personally command, and because they are often quoted by other rabbis. It is therefore impossible to establish the total number of published responsa for the 1945–2000 period. The rate of publication is likely to have been even considerably lower during this period of more than 50 years than it has been during the last decade. Quantitative representativeness is therefore difficult to prove or disprove, and is perhaps less relevant in any case than qualitative representativeness. There are good grounds to defend the claim that the titles selected from the Responsa Project for this study are qualitatively representative both in terms of authority and of cultural background. The contemporary titles selected for the project represent authoritative rabbis from the orthodox world. Some of them held office as chief rabbis of the State of Israel or as judges in rabbinic courts,

41 Based upon statistical data, Glick referred during a personal mail conversation to his research project.

28 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

or they enjoyed great respect in the entire orthodox world – both in Israel and in the Diaspora. Fellow rabbis of the contemporary period always refer to these authors in their own responsa. When Elon in his Mishpat Halvri gives examples of important responsa writers42 in Israel since 1945, he gives eight examples, all of whom – bar one – appear in the list of the 29 authors.43

1.4.1 First Phase: “Ruach Ra‘ah” as a Search Term The next step was to digitally search the texts of these 29 authors for the term Ruach Ra‘ah. In the Talmud the various passages in which it is used are contexts that stand at the intersection between magic (the demonic), religion (ritual), and premodern science (medicine). The textual context is that of illness and medical-magic remedies, sleep, demons and things that should be avoided because of the danger that such acts pose; dangers that to modern readers appear magical. How does Judaism deal with this type of traditional concept in the light of modernity? Because the Ruach Ra‘ah stands at the intersection of different fields of experience, it is linked to other terms such as demon / demons (‫ שדים‬/ ‫)שד‬, evil spirits (‫)רוחות רעות‬, the Spirit of Impurity – (‫ )רוח טומאה‬another term in the Talmud that possibly points to possession, but is used in the Zohar as an equivalent of the Ruach Ra‘ah. But also amulet (‫)קמיע‬, because amulets in the past played an important role both in exorcising and healing the possessed, and in protection against demons. All this makes the term particularly well-suited for a study of the possible changes in meaning and semantic changes that it has undergone. There is, however, another, methodological, reason to choose Ruach Ra‘ah. Because it is already connected in the Talmud, its commentaries, and in Halachic codices such as Shulchan Aruch, with two rituals: that of washing hands in the morning after rising, and after meals. Throughout the centuries, these two customs have been prescribed as binding rituals in orthodox Judaism. The Shulchan Aruch also forbids the placing of food and drink under a bed “because the Ruach Ra‘ah [then] rests upon them” (YD, 116:5). How do responsa from the 1945– 2000 period deal with this concept, which appeared in older texts as a reason for the practice? Perhaps the ritual of the washing of hands is left intact, but “new”

42 It must be borne in mind that in the ultraorthodox world much Halacha is determined orally, and not everything – possibly only the smaller part – is written down. 43 Elon, Jewish Law, V. 3, 1252. For the US he mentions M. Feinstein who also appears in the list; see also Elon, ibid., 1367.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 29

reasons are given that replace the old concept of Ruach Ra‘ah. Perhaps the practice and the prohibition are maintained, without any clear rationale as to why. Searching the corpus for these other terms yielded hits, but these were significantly fewer in number than for Ruach Ra‘ah. When the list of responsa works by the 29 authors mentioned above was searched for the terms Ruach Ra‘ah, Ruchot Ra‘ot (plural), Lilith,44 demon / demons, amulet and Ruach Tumah, this produced the following results: Ruach Ra‘ah Ruchot Ra‘ot Demon Demons Lilith Ruach Tuma Amulet

385 9 127 124 6 59 218

Thus as a search term, Ruach Ra‘ah is the term that yields the largest number of hits for these 29 authors. That Ruach Ra‘ah has so many hits in these contemporary responsa is all the more striking when its frequency is compared with that in classic rabbinic literature. A search for Ruach Ra‘ah (without prefixes) in the entire Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (that does not contain the combination “Ruach Ra‘ah”), the halachic (Mechilta, Sifra, Sifrei) and Aggadic Midrash collections (about 20) that are included in the Responsa Project results in fewer than 40 hits.45 Admittedly the volume of text of the responsa publications of these 29 authors is greater than all these classic authors together. But not ten times greater, as the proportion would suggest.46 Furthermore, the Ruach Ra‘ah with prefixes occurs only six times in the entire Code of Maimonides (14 volumes), 11 times in the Code of the Tur (fourteenth century), and only 16 times in the entire Shulchan Aruch (sixteenth century), with eight of these concerned with the ritual of washing hands in the morning and after the meal.

44 A female demon, known from rabbinic narrative literature and Jewish magic texts. 45 bTalmud: 9, jTalmud: 3, Midrash Halacha: 1, Midrash Aggadah: 25 (CD version 15). 46 It is possible to make a rather precise estimate on the basis of the number of words in the texts of the Responsa Project. The entire Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, and all halachic and Aggadic Midrashim that the project contains in version 19, add up to more than 8 million words. Ruach Ra‘ah occurs c. 40 times in this entire textual corpus. The total number of words in the corpus of texts by authors after 1945 (29 in total) is approximately 34 million. The number of hits is therefore twice as high as might statistically be expected; the word count ratio is 1:4, but the ratio of Ruach Ra‘ah hits is more than 1:9 (40 vs. 385).

30 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

The great number of hits for the Ruach Ra‘ah in the modern responsa is also remarkable because a certain shift of discourse seems to have taken place in rabbinic literature. The passages about spirits and demons as a source of disease in the Talmud, and the Talmudic remedies for these diseases, do not appear to play any role at all anymore in modern Halachic literature.47 This is possibly correlated with the “exchanging” of Talmudic medicine for medieval medicine, and in modern times for contemporary medicine. Possibly, it reflects the recognition that many things previously ascribed to demons etc. are currently aspects of the medical science of psychiatry, and to a lesser degree of psychology.48 This makes the use of the term Ruach Ra‘ah in contemporary responsa all the more interesting and remarkable. Precisely the fact that older texts regard the Ruach Ra‘ah as the basis for an obligatory practice enhances the importance of finding out to what extent the Ruach Ra‘ah remains a factor in performing, or in revising and reinterpreting these two rituals (washing hands in the morning and after a meal) and concomitant aspects in modern times. Choosing the Ruach Ra‘ah as a search term makes

47 The consensus that the Talmud’s medical treatments that include extra-physical factors such as spirits and demons must no longer be performed appears to be centuries old. It was held that nature and its laws had changed, so that the remedies lost their efficaciousness; for more on this see chapters 5 and 6. 48 See for instance a responsum of the Minchat Yitzchak (V. 5, no. 27), in which he describes a woman who suffers from a “weakness of the nerves” – a term that sounds very nineteenth century, but is certainly not a Talmudic concept. See also the Igrot Moshe, V. 4, no. 74, on contraception for a woman who suffers from a “nervous illness” (he uses the Hebrew ‫ מחלת העצבים‬and the Yiddish-German Nerven  –  ‫)נערווען‬. See also a responsum from 1964 by the Chelkat Ya’akov about a woman with a “nervous illness” who suffers from vaginal loss of blood (YD, no. 92). The Talmudic texts on mental diseases seem predominantly legal in nature: what is their halachic and social status, but they do not offer a medical or clinical-diagnostic model; see S. Aviner, “Psichiatria veHalacha”,  https://www.medethics.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/R0731007a.html#_ ftnref1; and M.M. Farbstein, “Psychiatry and Halacha. Psychotics and Retarded Persons”, Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Medicine, Ethics and Jewish Law, ed. M. Halperin and D. Fink (Jerusalem: Dr. Falk Schlesinger Institute for Medical-Halachic Research, Jerusalem 1993), 257–273. For critical attitudes towards psychology, see i.a. Mishneh Halachot, V. 16, no. 96, who calls psychology “heresy”. See also F. Rosner and M. Tendler, Practical Medical Halachah, 3rd ed. (Hoboken: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists / Ktav, 1990), 99–101, based partly on Igrot Moshe, YD V. 2, no. 57, on counselling therapy by heretics and unbelievers. Incidentally, Preuss has argued that the Talmud mainly associates physical disease, not mental illness, with demons, this by contrast with the New Testament. Mental illness was supposedly caused primarily by spirits rather than demons. This observation seems polemical and difficult to sustain given the affinity between spirits and demons that can be discerned in Josephus J. Preuss (see Chapter 2), Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, trans. and ed. F. Rosner (New York / London: Sanhedrin Press, 1978), 319.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 31

it possible to investigate the Halachic discourse – to see how it did or did not develop over time, and to examine the philological and semantic changes that the terms in discourse on the subject have undergone.

1.4.2 Second Phase: Refining the Search Terms Having obtained more insight into the textual Umwelt of the Ruach Ra‘ah and the semantic field around the Ruach Ra‘ah, the search was refined further during the second phase of selecting the corpus, and after filtering out references that were not relevant. The 385 results discussed above also contained hits that had no relevance to the subject, either because they consisted of nothing more than a reference, a table of contents containing the word Ruach Ra‘ah, or because the specific responsum was written before 1945.49 This left 353 filtered results in the 17 authors of the original list of 29. A search was then carried out for Ruach Ra‘ah using the prefixes (‫– )קידומיות‬ that is, with prefixes and the noun “he” (‫ה‬-) – LeRuach Ra‘ah (‫)לרוח רעה‬, MeRuach Ra‘ah (‫)מרוח רעה‬, SheRuachRa’ah (‫)שרוח רעה‬, and HaRuach Ra‘ah (‫)הרוח רעה‬. This was followed by a search for RUR (‫)רו”ר‬, and finally also for RUR with prefixes. The results were as follows: just Ruach Ra‘ah  353  filtered results50 Ruach Ra‘ah with prefixes  549 filtered results just RUR  355  filtered results RUR with prefixes   706 filtered results At first sight, the differences between the searches with and without prefixes seem significant, both for Ruach Ra‘ah written in full, and for the abbreviation RUR. In fact, however, closer examination of the detailed results showed that this was not the case. A responsum that contains the term Ruach Ra‘ah more than once often also contains the version with prefix or the abbreviated version RUR – with or

49 This was the case with one responsum from the Lev David, dated 1904, one from the Mishpetei Uziel (from 1940), and one from the Yaskil Avdi, which was written no later than 1937, because Rabbi Ben Zion Cuenica is mentioned in an exchange of letters concerning this case, and Cuenica died in 1937. See for the complete list of authors Appendix A. 50 The total is 353, but 5 of these are not relevant because they are references in a book to the responsa in question. Responsa dating from before 1945 were not included, even if their authors were still alive after 1945.

32 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

without prefix. Conversely, it almost never happens that a source contains only the abbreviation RUR – with or without prefix – or only Ruach Ra‘ah with prefix. In eight instances, the spelling Ruach Ra was found in its masculine form (‫ )רוח רע‬rather than in the “normal” feminine form of Ruach Ra‘ah (‫)רוח רעה‬. But this is not a significant finding, nor does it provide information about the reputed (assigned) gender of the spirit, as is the case in certain magic and magic-mystical texts that deal with the driving out, exorcising, or addressing of spirits.51 In our case, in seven instances the responsa in question also spells the concept of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the more conventional manner, indicating that the masculine was not inspired by substantive motives. The rare occurrence of the masculine form in the text is an exception and appears to have been a clerical, typographical or grammatical error. In one case52 the short text of the responsum (eight lines) contains only the masculine form Ruach Ra. This text was not included in the corpus because it was already quite large, because another, longer responsum by the same author was included, and because this single text contributed little. In a very limited number of cases, R ‘R (‫ )ר״ר‬was found in the selected texts as an abbreviation of the Ruach Ra‘ah.

1.4.3 The Final Corpus of Authors from the Bar-Ilan Project The next step was to break down the search results per author and responsa. This was necessary, because one responsum sometimes contains several occurrences of the same search term, or several forms at the same time, for instance the abbreviation, the word written in full, or one of both forms including prefix. Once the results had been broken down in this way and the hits had been traced back to references – shorter text units into which the responsa have been divided in their digitized form – and from references to individual responsa, this produced the following list of 17 authors in whose works the Ruach Ra‘ah was found in various forms in 112 responsa texts:

51 The precise formula and form of address of the spirit or demon is important in these kinds of texts and the accompanying rituals when the demon is being exorcised, addressed, or driven out. In prophylactic, protective rituals, however, it is more appropriate to use language and a vocabulary that are as inclusive as possible, so that all spirits and demons – both male and female – are driven away from the person who is being protected. This can be seen in texts in the magic bowls, many of which were written in the Jewish-Aramaic dialect. 52 VaYa’an Yosef OH, no. 3 (dated 1968) concerning the washing of hands after visiting a hospital on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah (perhaps there are dead people in the building).

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

 33

Chelkat Yaakov, R. Mordechai Yaakov Breach Poland and Switzerland (1895–1977) Har Tzvi, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank Israel (1876–1960) Sho‘el Ve-Nishal, R. Chalfon Moses Ha-Kohen Tunisia (1874–1950) Simchat Kohen, R. Rachamim Chai Chvitah HaKohen Djerba and Israel (1901–1959) Divrei Chachamim, R. Shalom Isaac Halevi Yemen and Israel (1891–1973) Betsel Hachochmah, R. Betzalel Stern Slovakia, Austria, Australia, and Israel (1911–1989) Igrot Moshe, R. Moses Feinstein Lithuania and U.S.A. (1895–1985) Minchat Yitzchak, R. Isaac Jacob Weiss, Munkatsh, England and Israel (1902–1989) Va-Ya’an Yosef, R. Joseph Greenwald Hungary and U.S.A. (1905–1984) Divrei Yatsiv, R. Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam Poland and Israel (1904–1994) Tzitz Eliezer, R. Eliezer Waldenberg Israel (1916–2007) Shevet Halevi, R. Shmuel Halevi Wosner Austria and Israel (1914–2015) Yabbia Omer / Yechaveh Da’at, R. Ovadyah Yosef Egypt and Israel (1920–2013) Mishneh Halachot, Rabbi Menashe Klein Slovakia and U.S.A. (1925?–2011) Ateret Paz, R. Pinchas Zvichi Israel (1960?) Afarkesta deAniya, R. David Sperber Transylvania, Jerusalem (1875–1962) Kol Mevaser, R. Meshulam Rath Romania and Israel (1875–1963)

One single, important responsum that just predates 1945 was included, because the author lived for a long period after writing it – 10 years or more – and thus influenced rabbinic discourse: it is frequently quoted in later responsa by fellow rabbis because it is a relatively early contemporary responsum on the subject in question. The fact that the author never changed the opinion he expressed in this

34 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

responsum in later editions or writings justifies the assumption that it continued to represent his later views. In the (ultra)orthodox world it is quite common to write additions to and revisions of previous responsa or commentaries, a custom that is sometimes continued up to an author’s final days. In a number of cases,53 it will be shown in this study that an early responsum (for instance one from 1948), was expanded or changed when it was later published in book form, up to circa 15 years after it was originally written. By the time that the author’s volume of collected responsa was published, the writer had added many references to publications dating from much later than the original 1948 text.

1.4.4 Third Phase: Searching for Related Terms Once the search terms had been refined, another search was carried out in the responsa of these 17 authors in which the Ruach Ra‘ah occurs, this time of the concepts mentioned above that are closely related to the Ruach Ra‘ah. A comparison with these related terms provides greater insight into the relation between the term Ruach Ra‘ah and these terms – which constitute the Umwelt of the Ruach Ra‘ah – and thus into the semantic field around the Ruach Ra‘ah. One question that arises in the context, for instance, is: is this contextual “environment” of the Ruach Ra‘ah as it was established on the basis of the classic rabbinic texts preserved in the modern responsa? The results were as follows: Lilith: 6 × (cf. also 6 previously) Impure spirits | Ruchot Ra‘ot 7 × in its relevant meaning (i.e. not meaning real wind that is detrimental to agriculture – cf. 9 previously), Impure spirit  |  Ruach Tumah 57 × in its relevant meaning (cf. 59 previously) Demon  |  Shed 80 × in its relevant meaning (cf. 127 previously) Demons | Shedim 92  × in its relevant meaning (i.e. not meaning breasts – “shadayim” – cf. 124 previously) Amulet   | Kamea 179 × in its relevant meaning (cf. 218 previously) Ruach Ra‘ah (only when written in full) 348 × in its relevant meaning (cf. 385 and 353 previously)54 The conclusion that may be drawn from this is that the vast majority of the results of a search for these related terms come from the corpus of authors who also mention the Ruach Ra‘ah, with an overlap of up to 90 percent and more.

53 Particularly in Ovadyah Yosef’s Yabbia Omer. 54 See note 49 and 50.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 35

In other words: most hits for these related terms from the original list of 29 post-1945 responsa authors come from the same collection of 17 authors that also make up the corpus of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Remarkably, the contextual “environment” of the Ruach Ra‘ah appears to remain constant in the corpus (at primary level). Authors who wrote about the Ruach Ra‘ah also wrote about the other related terms – although not always in the same text. Thus not only do the writings of these authors contain frequent references to the Ruach Ra‘ah, but they also often discuss the other terms.55

1.4.5 Fourth Phase: The Results Described in Detail These results already confirm the clear dominance of Ruach Ra‘ah, but this becomes even clearer when they are described in greater detail and are analyzed according to their frequency, context, author, and source. This kind of analysis shows that the Ruach Ra‘ah is more evenly distributed over the authors in the corpus than are the other search terms, and that it occurs in responsa dealing with a wide variety of subjects. This analysis also shows the contextual environment of the Ruach Ra‘ah more clearly: Lilith: six results; number of sources: three;56 number of authors: three. Distribution: a 4, b 1, c: 1 – total 6. Context: A: sleeping alone in a house, in the field, in a train compartment, in a cabin on a ship; B: covering the face of a bride with her veil; the ban on long hair for virgins and married women (“only Lilith grows her hair long”); C: may an Israeli ambassador attend a funeral ceremony in a church or a mosque? Lilith is not a very frequent term. It is clear that in the first two sources, Lilith – a female demon from rabbinic tradition who seeks sexual contact with human beings and wants to “steal” their children – appears in the traditional context:

55 The precise figures are as follows: of the 385 references in the entire post-1945 corpus, only 32 were found outside the specific corpus of the Ruach Ra‘ah, i.e. less than 10%. The score is 0% for both Ruchot Ra‘ot and Lilith. The word demon occurs 14 x outside the specific corpus of the Ruach Ra‘ah – only 14 out of 127, but slightly more than 10%, although many of these results refer to the word for breast. Only one out of 127 results for demons comes from outside the specific corpus (1%), and one out of 59 for Ruach Tumah, c. 2%. Amulet had 13 results out of 218, just under 5%. 56 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 4, no. 76; Divrei Yatsiv EH, no. 80; Yabbia Omer, V. 7 YD, no. 12.

36 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

the danger of sleeping alone in a house because of a possible “visit” from Lilith, and the connection with women’s hair. In the rabbinic tradition, Lilith has long hair which she uses to seduce men. Ruchot Ra‘ot: seven relevant results (total nine). Number of sources: seven,57 distributed evenly 1/1; number of authors: five. Context: may a peeled egg (and garlic) that have been left overnight be consumed in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah? (two sources): in relation to the ban on leaving a dead person overnight, and whether a funeral may be postponed for 24 or 48 hours; laws concerning people in mourning; the ban on walking four paces after waking up without washing one’s hands; on apparent death and the ban in mystical sources on leaving a dead person overnight; food and drink under a bed: may these be consumed in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah? Although Ruchot Ra‘ot is a relatively rare term, Ruchot Ra‘ot, as plural of Ruach Ra‘ah, is clearly related to the singular term Ruach Ra‘ah. The term occurs in the specific context of leaving peeled eggs and garlic overnight, the ritual of washing hands in the morning, and the keeping of food under a bed – the place where the Ruach Ra‘ah dwells. In addition, the context of death and funerals plays a distinct role, as it did in classic rabbinic texts. Ruach Tumah: 57 relevant results. Number of sources: 2458 Frequency / distribution    1 14    2 3    3 2

57 Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 9, no. 46; V. 18, no. 46; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; V. 4 YD, no. 35; Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 3; Ateret Paz, V. 1, part C EH, notes at no. 9. 58 Afarkesta DeAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 145; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 71; ibid., V. 4, no. 85; Igrot Moshe OH, V. 5, no. 43., Ibid., EH, V. 1, no. 120; Divrei Yatsiv EH, no. 118; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 19; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5, 33; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot ,V. 5, no. 123; ibid., V. 6, no. 265; ibid., V. 7, no. 232, 235; ibid., V. 9, no. 221; ibid., V. 11, no. 13; ibid., V. 12, no. 342; ibid., V. 13, no. 136; ibid., V. 16, no. 43, 117; Ateret Paz, V. 1 Vol. A OH, no. 10; ibid., Vol. B YD, no. 2 and notes at 2.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

    4     6   13

 37

 3  1  1

Total: 24 sources /   57 results Number of authors: Igrot Moshe: Divrei Yatsiv: Yabbia Omer: Mishneh Halachot: Ateret Paz: Afarkesta DeAniya: Betsel Hachochmah: Tzitz Eliezer:

8 8 13 9 15 7 1 2 2

Total: 57  occurrences Context: peeled and broken egg, in relation to leaving it overnight and the Ruach Ra‘ah; matrimonial laws: purification and immersion into the Mikvah before sexual relations; is it permitted to take a photograph of someone against their wishes? A question about someone who ordered that his Torah treatises must not be published; about going to graves and praying there (sub-question); bringing food and drink into a graveyard in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah; on mental deficiency (Shoteh) in divorce law; concerning the Sotah (a woman suspected of adultery); aspects of washing hands in various situations; food and drink under a bed in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah; circumcising Arabs according to the Jewish rite; food and drink in the bathroom in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah; praying in the house of mourners (including a liturgical question); touching items of clothing before washing hands in the morning; reading a dictionary written by an Apikorus (heretic) and learning from a magician; a husband’s expressions of jealousy vis-à-vis his wife and Sotah; women consulting a doctor, preference for female doctors; how should a pious man go about marrying a woman: may they see each other beforehand or not, etc.; clearing of graves; touching food and drink without washing hands in the morning in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah; marriage without divorce by men and women (Mechitsah); laws of menstruation; building of balconies in Jerusalem; sorcery and magic (sub-question). Ruach Tumah does not seem to be a trivial term in the responsa – it yields 57 relevant hits. The term occurs in questions concerning purity, chastity (sex, relations between the sexes), and death yet again in the traditional context of the classic texts. The references to the woman suspected of adultery (Sotah) even

38 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

arise from the biblical and Talmudic discourse concerning such women (Ruach Kin’ah, see also a previous chapter on the Ruach Ra‘ah). When the context is examined more closely, it is possible to discern overlap with the specific context of the Ruach Ra‘ah (see infra), especially in relation to rising in the morning, and leaving certain foods overnight. A number of hits for Ruach Tumah occur at the end of a responsum and have no relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah or connected subjects; they are part of a concluding pious phrase: “may God remove the impure spirit from the earth”. A certain connection to magic is also in evidence. Finally, the distribution of the hits shows that one responsum has 13 hits, and another has six. In other words: a quarter of the hits comes from only two responsa. Demon / Shed: 80 relevant. Number of sources: 4659 Frequency / distribution  1 29  2 7  3 6  4 0  5 1  6 1  7 0  8 1 Number of authors: 13 Total: 46 sources / 80 hits Afarkesta DeAniya: Chelkat Yaakov: Har Tzvi: Igrot Moshe: Minchat Yitzchak:

3 5 2 1 3

59 Afarkesta DeAniya V. 3 EH, no. 251; Chelkat Yaakov OH, no. 204, 206, 233; ibid., YD, no. 206; ibid., EH, no. 104; Har Tzvi OH vol. 2, no. 76; ibid., YD, no. 242; Sho‘el Ve-Nishal, V. 2 CHM, no. 28; Kol Mevaser, V. 2, no. 16; Igrot Moshe, EH V. 1, no. 120; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 23; ibid., V. 4, no. 97; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 56, 104; ibid., YD, no. 121; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 1, no. 20; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 OH, no. 41; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 27; ibid., V. 3 YD, no. 12; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1, 5, 21; ibid., V. 6 OH, no. 15; ibid., V. 6 EH, no. 3; ibid., V. OH, no. 1, 5, 37; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 4, no. 24; Mishneh Halachot, V. 3, no. 230; ibid., V. 4, no. 90; ibid., V. 5, no. 160, 217; ibid., V. 6, no. 218, 232; ibid., V. 7, no. 196, 240, 242; ibid., V. 11, no. 6; ibid., V. 12, no. 292, 479; ibid., V. 14, no. 113; ibid., V. 16, no. 30; Ateret Paz, V. 1 vol. A OH, no. 10; ibid., Vol. B YD, no. 2 and notes; ibid., Vol. C CHM, no. 7.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

Divrei Yatsiv: Tzitz Eliezer: Yabbia Omer: Yechaveh Da’at: Mishneh Halachot: Ateret Paz: Kol Mevaser: Sho‘el Ve-Nishal:

 39

3 1 26 2 27 5 1 1

Total: 80 hits Context: Permitting A’gunah (the “chained woman”, chained because her husband is missing or refuses to grant her a divorce certificate); Onen (someone who has yet to bury a relative) in relation to the counting of the Omer; gifts for Purim; a dead person who three times, in a dream to a relative, reveals his wish to be buried in Israel; becoming Bar-Mitzvah or becoming Jewish during the counting of Omer and concerning Second Pesach; redeeming the firstborn; question concerning uninhabited house (attracts demons); responsibility concerning divorce; laws on immersion in Mikvah; on men and women sharing a lift (Yichud); Mikvah for men: no learning of Kabbalah without a ritual bath; sex after using the toilet and breastfeeding babies after sex; a vow made in a dream; use of telephone and electric bell on Shabbat; the book “Responsa from Heaven” as a Halachic source; touching food without washing hands in the morning; food and drink in the bathroom; liturgy on Friday evenings; blessing before learning Torah; unmarried women who pray without covering their head; on speaking in the toilet; on desecrating the Shabbat by using “alternative” remedies (Segulot) and untested remedies for a sick person; fasting for a bad dream; a woman who has sex with a demon: is she still permitted to her husband?; Mezuzah as amulet; reproduction and sex; blessing of the moon; saving Jews in Russia; visits to graves; eating and drinking in a graveyard; sorcery. With 80 hits, demon / shed is an important concept that cannot be called trivial, even though it still yields considerably fewer hits than the Ruach Ra‘ah. Again, the term occurs in those places in the modern responsa where it might partially have been expected to be mentioned on the basis of traditional rabbinic texts: in the context of death, graves, illness and cures, dreams, sex, the toilet. A glance at the context shows that there are clear and specific cross-links and overlaps with the Ruach Ra‘ah (food and drink in the bathroom, touching food without washing hands in the morning, food and drink in a graveyard). There is also a certain connection with magic and sorcery. But it is also mentioned in connection with a number of subjects that do not at first sight seem to have any relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah and the surrounding semantic field. About one sixth of the hits (14) is derived from two responsa.

40 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Demons / Shedim: 92 relevant hits Number of sources: 1860 Frequency / distribution   1 13   2 1   4 1   6 1   8 1  59 1 Total: 18 sources / 92 hits Number of authors: Betsel Hachochmah: Igrot Moshe: Divrei Yatsiv: Tzitz Eliezer: Yabbia Omer: Mishneh Halachot: Ateret Paz:

7 1 1 5 1 9 15 60

Total: 92 hits Context: Healing through the use of a spell or other “supernatural” remedies; on stage magic and medical treatments for asthma patients so that they can attend synagogue; ban on stage magic; dreaming; use of telephone and electric bell on Shabbat; touching food without washing hands in the morning; food and drink in the bathroom; liturgy on Friday evenings; blessing before learning Torah; talking in the toilet; vow in a dream; on divine providence; on Torah study, secular studies, and philosophy; blessing the new moon; removing names from tombstones; visiting graves; food and drink in a graveyard; sorcery. With 92 results, demons / Shedim seems to be even more significant. When we look at the context of the term “demons”, it is clear that the traditional framework is strongly represented here too: graves, dreams, healing and illness, sexuality, sorcery. But the overlaps with Ruach Ra‘ah are also evident – the status of food 60 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 39; Igrot Moshe, YD V. 4, no. 13; Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 57, 122; ibid., EH, no. 36; ibid., Likutim veHashmatot, no. 57; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 1, no. 20; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1, 5, 21; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 160; ibid., V. 7, no. 290; ibid., V. 8, no. 247; ibid., V. 11, no. 6; ibid., V. 12, no. 479; ibid., V. 15, no. 74; ibid., V. 16, no. 112; Ateret Paz, V. 1 dl. A OH, no. 10; ibid., Vol. B YD, no. 2 and notes.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 41

and drink in the bathroom, touching food without washing hands, and issues dealing with graveyards. Once again there is a magic dimension and sorcery (and stage magic) also plays a role. However, 59 results derive from one single responsum from the Ateret Paz. Amulet  /  Kamea: 179 relevant hits.61 Number of sources: 5462 Frequency / distribution  1 34  2 7  3 2  4 4  5 2  7 1  8 1  12 1  33 1  39 1 Total: 54 sources / 179 hits Number of authors: Chelkat Yaakov: Sho‘el Ve-Nishal: Divrei Chachamim: Betsel Hachochmah:

13 3 3 1 35

61 A relatively large number of hits in this case come not from a responsum in the strict sense, but from a text commentary included in a responsum. This is the case for two authors in particular. 62 Chelkat Yaakov OH, no. 10, 155; Sho‘el Ve-Nishal, V. 2 YD, no. 79; ibid., V. 4 YD, no. 45; Divrei Chachamim, YD, no. 1; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 1, no. 50, 67; ibid., V. 2, no. 54; Igrot Moshe, YD V. 1, no. 184; ibid., YD V. 2, no. 140, 141; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 5, no. 44; ibid., V. 6, no. 80; ibid., V. 7, no. 8; ibid., V. 9, no. 136; Divrei Yatsiv, OH, no. 25, 148; ibid., YD, no. 5, 31, 188, 191, 199; ibid., EH, no. 25; ibid., CHM, no. 79; ibid., Likutim ve-Hashmatot, no. 116; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 4, no. 4; ibid., V. 5, no. 24; ibid., V. 8, no. 15; ibid., V. 9, no. 17; ibid., V. 10, no. 25; bid., V. 11, no. 5; ibid., V. 13, no. 1; ibid., V. 16, no. 30; ibid., V. 19, no. 6; Shevet Halevi, V. 1, no. 111; ibid., V. 2, no. 149; ibid., V. 9, no. 221; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 15; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 32; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 37, 55; ibid., V. 8 YD, no. 28; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 6, no. 60; Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 185; ibid., V. 7, no. 195; ibid., V. 8, no. 38, 56; ibid., V. 9, no. 184, 328, 399; ibid., V. 11, no. 271; ibid., V. 15, no. 74, 117; Ateret Paz, V. 1 Vol. B YD, no. 2.

42 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Igrot Moshe: Minchat Yitzchak: Divrei Yatsiv: Tzitz Eliezer: Shevet Halevi: Jabia Omer: Yechaveh Da’at: Mishneh Halachot: Ateret Paz:

10 8 30 15 9 45 1 18 1

Total: 179 Context: Mezuzah – inscriptions added by Ministry for Religious Affairs (“investigated by x”); confirming a Mezuzah for a non-Jewish person; adding verses, divine names, and names of angels to a Mezuzah; protection offered by Mezuzah; may one save someone on Shabbat who tried to commit suicide; can a chemist’s analysis be trusted in Halachic affairs?; amulet with the Tree of Life – what to do with it in the toilet?; may one heal a mentally ill person according to the instructions of an Arab or Christian (alternative / magic) healer?; stunned slaughter; death through circumcision; extending women’s gallery in the synagogue; injections of chickens and problems relating to ritual slaughter; the obligation to procreate when there are medical reasons to discourage pregnancy; Tefillin; bearing of arms by soldiers on Shabbat; police and Shabbat; ritual slaughter; peeled egg kept overnight in view of Ruach Ra‘ah; redeeming of firstborn who is adopted; a woman whose husbands die; how far must one go to save a neighbor; amulets and healings by tsaddikim (pious saint); the chained woman; breaking Shabbat for dubious and “alternative” therapies; obligation to use medicine; bringing Torah notes into the toilet?; playing the Divine names on tape; religious texts recited from outside heard on the toilet; thinking of God’s existence on the toilet; entering the toilet while wearing a necklace with gold ornament with a sacred text; Shabbat laws: skinning an animal and cutting it down to size; wearing a Mezuzah around the neck as an amulet; consecration of a new Torah scroll with a procession, dancing and singing; praying for a non-Jewish father who is ill (writing an amulet to obtain healing); on a Torah scroll that must be written by a king according to Deut.; may a cardiac patient carry his pills on Shabbat? (comparison with amulet from the Mishnah); inducing childbirth through chemical means (cf. inducing childbirth through amulet with the divine name); ban on abortion; learning from secular knowledge; sorcery. With 179 hits, Kamea (amulet) appears to be an important term. But when the context is taken into account, the traditional context of the term becomes evident: the writing of amulets, healing and disease, sorcery, and mysticism. A

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 43

relatively high number of results come from the context of the mezuzah, which in itself is remarkable, because older texts already establish (or deny63) a relation between amulets and the mezuzah. The interest in the status of the toilet also shows an overlap with the Ruach Ra‘ah, as does the specific case of the peeled egg that is kept overnight, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests upon it. A number of subjects have little to do with the context of the Ruach Ra‘ah, because the word “amulet” is used metaphorically there, for instance in an expression of a Torah scholar whose knowledge was tested “as a professional amulet” that had to effect three cures before it could claim to be “professional” (‫)קמיע מן המומחה‬.  Here, too, however, 70 hits – i.e. more than a third – derive from only two responsa. Ruach Ra‘ah: 348 relevant hits. Number of sources: 86 Frequency / distribution  1 42  2 11  3 6  4 3  5 7  6 2  7 3  8 0  9 1  10 0  11 2  12 1  13 1  14 1  18 1  20 1  24 1  27 2

63 Maimonides, for instance, Hilchot Tefillin, H. 5:4.

44 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Total: 86 sources / 348 relevant hits Number of authors:  16 Afarkesta deAniya: Divrei Yatsiv: Har Tzvi: Tzitz Eliezer: Chelkat Yaakov: Shevet Halevi: Simchat Kohen: Yabbia Omer: Divrei Chachamim: Yechaveh Da’at: Va-Ya’an Yosef: Mishneh Halachot: Betsel Hachochmah: Ateret Paz: Igrot Moshe: Kol Mevaser: Minchat Yitzchak:

52 12 21 29 5 14 5 154 1 11 1 14 3 11 6 1 8

Total: 348 hits. Context: Food, drink, and water in the toilet and the bathroom (Ruach Ra‘ah); food and drink under a bed, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests upon them; consumption of peeled eggs, onions, and garlic kept overnight, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests upon them; water kept overnight in metal containers, and water kept uncovered; status of someone who commits suicide (perhaps caused by a Ruach Ra‘ah); saving someone on Shabbat who has carried out a suicide attempt; on psychological suffering; responsibility of and dangerous operations on the mentally ill; water in the vicinity of a dead person – should it be thrown out or may it be consumed?; performing medical therapies on Shabbat; status of modern toilet (at home, public, train); bathroom and mikvah in relation to Ruach Ra‘ah and washing hands upon entering and / or relieving oneself; washing hands after touching feet?; washing hands after touching certain parts of the body; the mezuzah and protection; ban on entering pagan temple; laws on washing hands in the morning; washing hands after the meal and Ruach Ra‘ah; certain matrimonial customs; ban on violating a dead body; status of food, drink, and clothing after being touched by someone who has not washed their hands after waking up (Ruach Ra‘ah); washing of hands in bathroom or toilet? (presence of Ruach

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 45

Ra‘ah and therefore possibly futile); speaking in the toilet; breaking Shabbat for untested and pseudo-magical therapies; taking medicine at night with unwashed hands (Ruach Ra‘ah); prohibited foodstuffs due to danger; visiting graves and the bringing of food and drink into a graveyard (Ruach Ra‘ah); sorcery; use of wet towels on Shabbat. A closer examination of the context reveals that to a large extent the Ruach Ra‘ah appears in the traditional context, as was often also the case for the related terms. Thus the Ruach Ra‘ah is found in the setting of rising in the morning, the ritual of washing hands, the problem of foodstuffs touched by someone who has not washed his hands, the ritual of washing hands after a meal, death and graves, disease and cures – the interest in mental illness and suicide is striking. Finally the status of food and drink placed under a bed, the eating of peeled eggs, onions, and garlic kept overnight, and the status of a toilet in relation to entering, and consuming food and drink in this space. The term Ruach Ra‘ah also appears when the touching of certain parts of the body (feet, the parts normally covered) is discussed. Remarkably, even the context of Shabbat – which already existed in the Talmud64 – is preserved. Further substantive analysis of the corpus in the following chapters will show to what extent modern discourse concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah has nonetheless changed in comparison to the rabbinic period and the Middle Ages.

1.4.6 Fifth Phase: Supplementing the Responsa Project The titles included in the Responsa Project are not, however, beyond criticism. The project has developed somewhat differently than was expected and the digitizing of many titles has not as yet been realized. This may be due to financial reasons, but also to the competition experienced from the ultraorthodox digitization project Otzar HaHochmah that was mentioned before. Thus there are hiatuses in the list of authors whose responsa have been included in the Responsa Project. Certain authors from the contemporary ultraorthodox community, the Religious Zionist movement, and Oriental Judaism are not included in the Responsa Project. Some of these authors, for instance, belong to a younger generation than most of the authors from the Responsa Project, or belong to the more modern variety of the Religious Zionist movement which has so far been underrepresented in the project. For this

64 mShabbat 2:5: “Whoever extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of pagans, of thieves, on account of an Evil Spirit [Ruach Ra‘ah] and for the sick person so that he can sleep – is not liable”.

46 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

study, we have therefore supplemented the authors that are part of the Responsa Project by adding a number of contemporary authors from these movements, The works that were added are as follows: 18. She‘eilat Shlomoh, Rabbi Shlomoh HaKohen Aviner France / Israel (1943-), V. 1–3 19. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch UK / South Africa/Israel (1926-), V. 1–4 20. Chemdat Tzvi, Rabbi Moshe Dov Welner Hungary / US, 1912–2007, V. 1–5 21. Yitzchak Yeranen, Rabbi Yitzchak Barda Israel (c. 1960-), V. 1–5 22. Rivavot Ephraim, Rabbi Ephraim Greenblat Israel / US (?-65), V. 1–8 23. Olat Yitzchak, Rabbi Yitzchak Ratzabi Israel (1953-), V. 1–2 24. Yaskil Avdi, Rabbi Ovadyah Hedaya Syria / Israel (1890–1969), V. 6–8.66 For the Chemdat Tzvi, Yitzchak Yeranen, Rivavot Ephraim and the Yaskil Avdi (20, 21, 22, 24), adding these titles flowed naturally from the data itself: these works are mentioned by some of the 17 authors from the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project in their responsa on the Ruach Ra‘ah – by way of reference to what colleagues had written about the subject before. The Yitzchak Yeranen is the leader of a school in Ashkelon, and is an important rabbi in the Tunisian community – and more widely in the North African tradition, which sets great store by the mystical tradition. References were found in the Yitzchak Yeranen to the Ruach Ra‘ah and the responsa were therefore added to the corpus. Rabbi Aviner – author of the She‘eilat Shlomoh – lives in the settlement of Beth-El, and is regarded as a well-known authority in the Religious Zionist movement, as well as the moderate settler movement. This rabbi has an extensive following, and in addition to these responsa he has written dozens of books on Judaism. He often gives public talks and is a frequent guest in Israeli media. The first three volumes of his She‘eilat Shlomoh contain responsa about the Ruach 65 Glick does not give a date. An article on the Internet in Hamodia dd. 5–1–2014 reports the death of this author, and gives his year of birth as 1932, https://hamodia.com/2014/01/05/haravephraim-greenblatt-ztl/. 66 Of the five texts that were added subsequently, this was clear because of the date of the responsum, or because the person addressed was too young to have been active in the pre-1945 period. The presentation in the Yaskil Avdi is problematic from a chronological standpoint.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 47

Ra‘ah, which were added to the corpus.67 Finally there is the Olat Yitzchak and the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot.68 Rabbi Ratzabi is an important rabbi from the conservative strand in contemporary Yemenite Judaism, which also has great respect for mystical and pietistic literature. As well as the responsa Olat Yitzchak, he is the author of various other books, and he is involved in the publication of a new edition of Yemenite authors of the last few centuries who have a normative status in his movement. Rabbi Sternbuch is one of the religious leaders of the Eidah Chareidis – the ultraorthodox Jerusalem movement that rejects Zionism and modernity. He became one of the most prominent spokespersons for this movement after the death of Rabbi Weiss (the Minchat Yitzchak), and of Halberstamm.

1.4.7 Sixth Phase: The Definitive Corpus The total number of responsa titles examined has now come to 24: 18 from the BarIlan Project, and six from authors that are not part of the Bar-Ilan Project but that were added to ensure that all different religious strands would be represented. The research of these six books took place in part by studying the index or the subject index, and in part digitally, in those cases where a PDF version was available online.69 This was in fact the case for all of the authors added in this phase, except for Aviner. It must be added that the searching and presentation process is different for a PDF document than for the Responsa Project – the former uses individual letter recognition (OCR) rather than the digitization of the text of the book itself. This means that searches of the text are limited by the quality of the scan (straight, or not totally straight, focus etc.) and the quality of the original. Books with Rashi letters, for instance, are difficult to search. In some cases, searching was only possible if the search term was “copy-pasted” into the search box from the text itself. Moreover, the results appear arranged per individual book (it is not possible to search more than one book at a time) in page numbers, and not in the precise notation of the Responsa Project, which also gives title, volume, question, and the relevant section of the text.

67 Not included are the c. 10 responsa on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the context of the washing after getting up in the morning that can be found in Yayin Hatov (1979), by the former Oriental Chief Rabbi of Israel Rabbi Yitzchak Nissim. Only S. Aviner refers to this title in one responsum (She‘eilat Shlomoh, V, 1, no. 4). 68 The four volumes of the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot have since been added to version 19 of the Responsa Project. 69 At www.hebrewbooks.org.

48 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Moreover, searching is much slower and more limited because of the letter recognition technology. To give one example: a search for the word Shed (‫– )שד‬ demon – also generates results where the letters shin / dalet form part of another word. For instance shedavka (‫שדווקא‬, because just . . .), shedayarim (‫שדיירים‬, residents of which), chashad (‫חשד‬, suspicion), sadeh / sadot (‫ שדה‬/‫ – שדות‬field, fields), shadayim (‫שדים‬, breasts), etcetera. Searches of the supplementary titles yielded 80 extra responsa containing the term Ruach Ra‘ah, so that the total number of texts in the corpus is now 192: 112 from the Responsa Project and 80 from the seven (-7 [no. 24]) authors added in this phase. This gave the following distribution of the number of responsa per author: 1. Chelkat Yaakov, R. Mordechai Yaakov Breisch Poland and Switzerland (1895–1977) nine resp.70 2. Har Tzvi, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank Israel (1876–1960) three resp.71 3. Sho‘el Ve-Nishal, R. Chalfon Moses Ha-Kohen Tunisia (1874–1950) one resp.72 4. Simchat Kohen, R. Rachamim Chai Chvitah HaKohen   Djerba and Israel (1901–1959) one resp.73 5. Divrei Chachamim, R. Shalom Isaac Halevi Yemen and Israel (1891–1973) one resp.74 6. Betsel Hachochmah, R. Betzalel Stern Slovakia, Austria, Australia, and Israel (1911–1989) three resp.75 7. Igrot Moshe, R. Moses Feinstein Lithuania and U.S.A. (1895–1985) two resp.76 8. Minchat Yitzchak, R. Isaac Jacob Weiss, Munkatsh, England and Israel (1902–1989) ten resp.77 9. Va-Ya’an Yosef, R. Joseph Greenwald Hungary and U.S.A. (1905–1984) one resp.78

70 V. EH / CHM, no. 63, 88; V. OH, no. 2, 3, 4, 64, 155; V. YD, no. 14, 39. 71 V. OH, no. 50; V. YD, no. 261; Tal Haarim, HaChovel, §1. 72 V. 5 OH, no. 105. 73 V. OH, no. 6. 74 V. OH, no. 65. 75 V. 1, no. 67; V. 2, no. 29; V. 3, no. 11. 76 YD, V. 2, no. 97; YD, V. 3, no. 20. 77 V. 2, no. 68; V. 3, no. 63; V. 4, no. 36, 114; V. 5, no. 96; V. 6, no. 74, 75; V. 9, no. 28, 74; V. 10, no. 68. 78 V. YD, no. 162.

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 49

10. Divrei Yatsiv, R. Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam Poland and Israel (1904–1994) 11 resp.79 11. Tzitz Eliezer, R. Eliezer Wildenberg Israel (1916–2007) 18 resp.80 12. Shevet Halevi, R. Shmuel Halevi Wosner Austria and Israel (1914–2015) four resp.81 13. Yabbia Omer / Yechaveh Da’at, R. Ovadyah Yosef   Egypt and Israel (1920–2013) 23 resp. (22/1)82 14. Mishneh Halachot, Rabbi Menashe Klein Slovakia and U.S.A. (1925?–2011) 14 resp.83 15. Ateret Paz, R. Pinchas Zvichi Israel (1960?-) three resp.84 16. Afarkesta deAniya, R. David Sperber Transylvania, Jerusalem (1875–1962) seven resp.85 17. Kol Mevaser, R. Meshulam Rath Romania and Israel (1875–1963) one resp.86 18. She‘eilat Shlomoh, Rabbi Shlomoh HaKohen Aviner   France / Israel (1943-) seven resp.87

79 V. OH no. 1, 2, 148, 227; V. YD, no. 31, 33, 34, 35, 191, 245; V. Likutim (supplement), no. 74. 80 V. 4, no. 13; V. 7, no. 2, 5; V. 8, no. 15; V. 9, no. 17; V. 10, no. 35; V. 12, no. 33; V. 13, no. 2, 15; V. 14, no. 2; V. 16, no. 1, 42; V. 18, no. 46; V. 19, no. 56; V. 22, no. 4, 40, 41, 42. 81 V. 3, no. 169; V. 4, no. 34; V. 7, no. 5; V. 8, no. 168. In V. 6, no. 111 the author discusses the Ruach Ra‘ah at some length, as well as the possible dangers that are connected with it, but this responsum is not in fact a responsum but a commentary on Shulchan Aruch YD 116, and was therefore excluded from the corpus. 82 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9, 10, 23; V. 2 YD, no. 7, 24; V. 2 EH, no. 7, V. 3 OH, no. 1, 2; V. 3 YD, no. 23; V. 4 OH, no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7; V. 4 EH, no. 10; V. 5 OH, no 1, 2, 32; V. 7 OH, no. 27; V. 8 OH, no 1, 37, 51; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1. 83 V. 3, no. 61; V. 5, no. 2; V. 6, no. 115; V. 11, no. 8, 9, 10, 13; V. 12, no. 20, 21, 22; V. 15, no. 4, 5, 6; V. 16, no. 16. 84 V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; V. 1, vol. B, YD, no. 2 (including additional comment); ibid., vol. 3 CHM, no. 17. 85 V. 1, no. 133, 158; V. 2 YD, no. 144, 145, 146; V. 3 EH, no. 247; V. 4, no. 370. The term Ruach Ra‘ah appears in V. 3 EH, no. 247 in a more metaphorical sense in a question about whether boys and girls may learn together, and it is therefore less relevant for our study. V. 1, no. 158 is concerned with a slaughterer who worked in a Jewish sect, and asks whether he may be permitted to take up his job again in an orthodox community after apologizing. Ruach Ra‘ah occurs here once in the original meaning, but it plays no role in the argument of the responsum, and it is therefore also less relevant. 86 V. 1, no. 32. 87 V. 1 OH, no. 4, 5, 10; V. 2 OH, no. 1, 2, 3; V. 3 OH, no. 2.

50 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

19. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch UK / South Africa / Israel (1926-) 18 resp.88 20. Chemdat Tzvi, Rabbi Moshe Dov Welner Hungary / US (1912–2007) one resp.89 21. Yitzchak Yeranen, Rabbi Yitzchak Barda Israel (c. 1960-) 17 resp.90 22. Rivavot Ephraim, Rabbi Ephraim Greenblat Israel / US (?) 29 resp.91 23. Olat Yitzchak, Rabbi Yitzchak Ratzabi Israel (1953-) three resp.92 24. Yaskil Avdi,93 Rabbi Ovadyah Hedaya Syria / Israel (1890–1969) five resp.94

1.4.8 Cultural and Ethnic Background As has been seen, the corpus consists of the work of 24 authors and is made up of 192 responsa texts. Because the current study also asks whether the ethnic and cultural background of the author can be said to have influenced the frequency and importance of the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah95 in his work, this background has

88 V. 1, no, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 702, 718; V. 2, no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 316, 605; V. 3, no. 256; V.4, no. 186. 89 V. 3, no. 2. 90 V. 1, no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 50; V. 1 (YD part), 3, 4; V. 4, no. 24. 91 V. 1, no. 6, 8, 11, 13, 150; V. 2, no. 6; V. 3, no. 10, 14, 15, 18; V. 4, no. 4, 5, 7, 9, 44, 107, 153, 252; V. 5, no. 5, 8, 9, 509, 523; V. 6, no. 5, 6, 433; V. 8, no. 1, 5, 408. 92 V. 1, no. 44, 49; V. 2, no. 1. 93 Up to version 19, the Responsa Project included only the volumes 1–3 of this author. The responsa on the Ruach Ra‘ah in these volumes all date to before 1945. Later volumes also include post-1945 responsa, but their sequence is not always chronological, so that it is difficult to determine whether undated responsa were written before or after 1945. That these texts were written after 1945 is clear because the responsum was dated or because the addressee was too young to have been active before 1945. 94 Yaskil Avdi, V. 6 OH, no. 11, 13; V. 7, no. 44, subsections 1 and 4; V. 8 YD, no. 14 (subsection 4), a letter to the Rivavot Ephraim. 95 This does raise the theoretical question of whether the Ruach Ra‘ah is not perhaps referred to in the texts with another synonym concept that is specific for a particular cultural area. We therefore also searched the original list of 29 post-1945 authors for the word Dybbuk – a word that occurs frequently both in Eastern European and in Oriental texts, and that means possession. The results were as follows: 110 hits in the total corpus, including three hits in the list of 12 authors of the Responsa Project that did not form part of the Ruach Ra‘ah texts that were studied. The word Dybbuk was not used here in the demonic-magic sense (see infra). One hundred and

1.4 Assembling the Research Corpus 

 51

also been analyzed, to the extent that this was possible. The following categories of cultural background of the authors from the corpus can be distinguished: – Israel (ISR) – Eastern Europe (EE) – Western Europe (WE) – Western world (W) – for instance the US, Australia – Africa / Middle East (AFR-ME) Authors often lived in two separate cultural environments, sometimes even three. This is indicated by code combinations such as WE / ISR, EE / WE, W / ISR, EE / ISR. There were two main causes: the war, and the foundation of the State of Israel. For instance, an author who was born in Eastern Europe and survived the Shoah moved somewhere else afterwards, or an author from Eastern Europe fled just before the war to an area not captured by the Nazis, and spent the rest of his life in a different cultural environment to the one in which he was raised and received his training as a rabbi. Many Shoah survivors went to the US. Another factor is the foundation of the State of Israel. This Jewish environment, where the world of the yeshiva that had been destroyed by the Nazis could be continued as it were, became a place of refuge for many rabbis from Western countries. Similarly, rabbis from an Oriental background often continued their lives in the modern state of Israel, having left the country of their birth in the Middle East or in Africa. For both groups of authors, the world in which they were raised and where they received their religious and cultural heritage no longer exists. The following is a list of the cultural backgrounds of the 24 authors of the corpus: ISR: EE / ISR: EE / W: AFR-ME / ISR: WE / ISR:

5 (author no. 2, 11, 15, 21, 23) 5 (author no. 8, 10, 12, 16, 17) 5 (author no. 6, 7, 9, 14, 20) 4 (author no. 4, 5, 13, 24) 1 (author no. 18)

seven hits in the 17 authors of the Responsa Project provide the lion’s share of the texts for the definitive corpus. Most of these results (106) had no relation at all to the demonic-magic, but used the word in the sense of a tangible sticking or attaching. In this main sense, it plays a role in all kinds of halachic issues – especially that of letters in ritual documents or scrolls whose letters have become “stuck” together. Four hits (three sources) did, however, use the word in the second sense of Dybbuk – the attachment of an (evil) spirit or demon to the soul of a person, leading to all manner of psychosomatic complaints. The Ruach Ra‘ah was not mentioned in these texts, but the word Dybbuk did appear in combination with Ruach Tumah – Dybbuk Ruach Tumah – or in combination with Ruchot: Dybbuk Ruchot or, singular, Dybbuk Ruach.

52 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

EE / WE: W / ISR: AFR-ME: E

1 (author no. 1) 2 (author no. 19, 22) 1 (author no. 3) 0 (author no. 0)

When the number of hits is broken down per author, it does not appear to be the case that cultural background is a decisive factor: most responsa from the corpus derive from authors with an Ashkenazi background who are from Israel (no. 11), or from authors with a partially Western background (no. 14, 19, 22), or from Oriental authors who are from Israel or who lived there for most of their lives (no. 13, 21).

1.4.9 Primary and Secondary Sources Having selected the texts on the basis of the procedure described above, the 192 texts of the corpus formed in this way were further sub-divided into primary and secondary sources. A “primary source” was understood to be a text in which: – the term Ruach Ra‘ah appears in the question / header of the question itself, or in one of the sub-questions in a responsa; – the term Ruach Ra‘ah appears only in the answer and constitutes – or is closely related to – the subject of the question; – the term Ruach Ra‘ah, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the question, appears frequently in the reply. A “secondary source” was understood to be a text in which: – the term Ruach Ra‘ah does not appear in the question / header of the question; – the term Ruach Ra‘ah appears in the reply, but is not related to the subject of the question, and plays a (strongly) secondary role in the reply. Excluded from the study were texts in which: – there is no mention of the term Ruach Ra‘ah, either in the question or in the reply section of the responsum; – only the term “Ruach Tumah” appears in place of Ruach Ra‘ah. Ruach Ra‘ah and Ruach Tumah do not appear to be synonyms, even though it seems that some authors do incidentally use both concepts with the same meaning. The texts in which the two terms are used together are in a minority within the corpus of the Responsa Project (seven of more than 100). They possibly

1.5 Formal and Substantive Aspects of the Corpus Texts 

 53

resulted from the influence of mystical texts such as the Zohar, and later Kabbalistic texts, or of the author’s personal jargon, or of semantic changes in the use of the word “impurity” in rabbinic discourse in the last few centuries, or for some other reason. The corpus contains much more primary sources than secondary sources – more than three quarters of the 192 texts are primary sources, and less than a quarter are secondary sources. The current investigation will therefore focus primarily on the corpus’s primary texts, although relevant secondary texts will also be used by way of supplement.

1.5 Formal and Substantive Aspects of the Corpus Texts In this paragraph characteristic features of the responsa texts will be explored. These features relate to the form, content, and historical context of the texts of the corpus.

1.5.1 Form and Length The length of the texts in the corpus varies; from short responsa of less than one page (sometimes no more than a few lines),96 or the average length of one to five pages of A4 paper, to very lengthy responsa running to more than ten pages (A4). The style of writing that is used is the determining factor here. Some authors almost always write short answers – She‘eilat Shlomoh and Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot – while others almost always compose long responsa, with others again alternating between short and long replies. A number of authors in the corpus – for instance Yabbia Omer and Yitzchak Yeranen – almost always prefer longer replies, and their responsa run to ten or even more than 15 pages.

1.5.2 Style and Use of Language The responsa are usually written in rabbinic idiom and style, and often copy the classic model of older responsa literature. This means that they quote or paraphrase many sources, that there is a high degree of intertextuality; in the use of Aramaic words and expressions and the frequent use of abbreviations. Some

96 Especially in the Mishneh Halachot.

54 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

authors provide long quotations from sources that are important to them, while others have chosen just to give a summary of their sources. In a few cases, the author has chosen to give a very long quotation because the source he is using is not widely available in print. His intention in such cases is to give the reader access to less current sources. In the more recent responsa from Israel, the style shows noticeable signs of influence from Modern Hebrew (She‘eilat Shlomoh), while an occasional English loanword appears in some responsa from the Diaspora (Mishneh Halachot). Moreover, the more modern responsa often contain fewer references to other sources, fewer quotations and fewer abbreviations. The author comes straight to the point when formulating the answer, without first displaying Talmudic erudition. Such authors often give a short overview of the important opinions in the past few centuries before making their own choice from these pre-existing opinions.

1.5.3 Anonymous vs. Including Addressee The corpus of texts includes responsa that begin with a question that has been personally addressed to the particular author. The name of the enquirer, the date or some other time indication (Hanukkah Year “X”), and sometimes a place name appear in the salutation, followed by a personal greeting containing the customary blessings or polite formulas, or, to give but one example, an expression of thanks for a new book that the enquirer sent the author. This is usually followed by a reference to the original letter which contained the question. This letter is not normally published in full, but the author quotes, paraphrases or summarizes the question that it contained. Any Halachic-theoretical reflections contained in the original letter are then discussed. If the enquirer is himself a rabbi, he sometimes includes such reflections because he is eager to give an account of his own arguments to the author, whom he views as the expert. This is followed by the author’s answer, sometimes preceded by the word “answer” (‫ )תשובה‬or some other opening formula that indicates that the author is now going to answer the question, and is going to address the arguments advanced by the enquirer. It also shows that the author subsequently forwarded his reply to the enquirer in the form of a letter. This can usually be seen from the conclusion of an authentic reply, which contains a blessing upon the enquirer or a pious wish referring, for instance, to the coming of the Mashiah, followed by the name of the author, usually without any titles (i.e. leaving out “Rabbi”). In other cases, the responsum begins with a question, but does not provide any indication of who the enquirer may have been. These responsa are anonymous, but they do appear to be based on a question that was once actually

1.5 Formal and Substantive Aspects of the Corpus Texts 

 55

asked – this can sometimes be explicitly deduced from formulas such as “one of my students asked me . . .”. In other cases, however, the responsum is more akin to a treatise, and it remains unclear whether it originated in an actual question or is in fact a treatise based on a fictitious or rhetorical question. In a small number of cases, the style and use of language indicate that it is in fact a treatise which the author uses to display his knowledge and to give a ruling on a particular issue, even before the Halachic problem has in fact been submitted to any authority. Because later sources then quoted such fictitious responsa, this type of responsa can over time acquire the status of a “real” halachic ruling on a particular issue, and can come to exercise influence over Halachic practice.

1.5.4 Substantive Aspects: Themes This chapter has presented a very detailed overview of the more than 300 hits that are generated by a search for the term Ruach Ra‘ah and its related words. Most of the responsa that are primary sources (P) deal with the following three categories: 1. food and drink / objects 2. space / location 3. body and ritual May foodstuffs or liquids still be consumed in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah which may rest on them? Does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on objects or garments? Is a particular space susceptible to the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah? This space may be physically situated in or around the home (bathroom, toilet), or outside the domestic sphere (factory, institute, swimming pool). And must someone wash his hands because the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on his body (or on his hands alone)? Should people was their hands after they have touched their feet, even if their feet were themselves washed and clean? A number of responsa in which the Ruach Ra‘ah plays a marginal role (secondary source, S) deal with other aspects of the Ruach Ra‘ah – for instance the possible relation with mental pathology (suicide, depression). In a number of cases, the question is purely Judaic-legal, and the subject has no bearing on the Ruach Ra‘ah (for instance: what healing therapies may or may not be performed on Shabbat), and the Ruach Ra‘ah appears only as part of the argument advanced to answer the question. The predominance of the subjects of food / drink, body and ritual, and space justify an approach that views this cluster as the key to the role that the Ruach Ra‘ah fulfils in modern, contemporary responsa. This question will be further examined in Chapter 7 using theories derived from anthropology and / or sociol-

56 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

ogy. What is – who are – being demarcated and defined by means of the concept of the Ruach Ra‘ah?

1.5.5 Historical Setting The different texts in the corpus can be categorized on the basis of their relation to modernity. Some responsa demonstrate little or no relation to the contemporary world. In other words: the same question could also have been posed in (almost) the same way 100 to 200 years ago. There is no clear temporal dimension to the question or the reply. In other responsa, the question itself arises from modernity, and it is inconceivable that it would have been asked in any other time. In these cases, the reply sometimes evidences a clear relation to modernity. Such responsa, the product of their times, sometimes deal with the influence of modern technology and infrastructure. No house would have a toilet without running water, which raises the question whether the toilet in a modern home or train, or a public toilet, has the same status as the toilets that appear in the Talmud, which were supposedly the dwelling places of demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah. Other examples refer to similar modern technological achievements, such as: to what extent does the invention of refrigerators affect the ban on leaving eggs, garlic or onions overnight? Is modern cooling technology sufficient to repulse the Ruach Ra‘ah which rests upon these foodstuffs if they are peeled and kept overnight? Moreover, the rise of the modern food industry which requires large amounts of peeled eggs, onions, and garlic raises the question of whether the Talmudic prohibition in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah is still relevant. This would mean that it would be impossible to prepare food in large quantities because the required ingredients would have to be fresh and could not be kept overnight once they had been peeled – not even in refrigerated condition. Given that food is increasingly prepared outside the home, and no longer by the woman of the house – a clearly modern development – how much of a problem is it that non-religious Jews (or non-Jews), who do not ritually wash their hands, come to knead the dough in the bakery in the morning, or touch the bread in the bakery as customers? Perhaps this bread has been “polluted” by the Ruach Ra‘ah, thus rendering it unsuitable for consumption. And if the Talmud states that it is forbidden to place food under a bed, does this also count for bunk beds, beds in ship’s cabins, food that was placed under an airplane seat, or under a sleeping baby in a pram? Given this partially modern setting, to what extent do the responsa studied here show signs of theorization that goes beyond what previous texts had to say? To what extent does the authors’ attitude in relation to the historical perspec-

1.6 Conclusion 

 57

tive, and to science and technology, play a role in the way they compose their responsa? These questions will be answered in chapters 5 and 6.

1.6 Conclusion This chapter has described how the corpus of 192 responsa texts that refer to the Ruach Ra‘ah was selected, starting with the Bar-Ilan University’s Responsa Project. It has transpired that the genre of responsa literature has no clear boundaries, because there is no unequivocal definition of which texts can and which cannot be regarded as a responsum, because of the high rate of publication in modern times, and because modern media such as the Internet and text messages now also serve as rabbinic “helpdesks”. The semantic field surrounding the term “Ruach Ra‘ah” has been explored and charted on the basis of related terms such as “amulet”, “demons”, and “Impure Spirit”. The Ruach Ra‘ah has appeared as a term that stands at the intersection of religion, science, and magic, and that can profitably be used to gauge the way modern rabbinic responsa deal with these kinds of archaic terms. It has become clear, surprisingly, that the Ruach Ra‘ah occurs prominently in modern responsa from the 1945–2000 period, and this regardless of the authors’ cultural and religious climate: the term appears frequently both in authors from the West (Ashkenazi) and from the Middle East (Sephardic-Oriental). Finally, the chapter has discussed a number of formal and substantive aspects of the corpus, distinguishing for instance between responsa that name their addressee and anonymous responsa. It has also noted the length of the responsa – a number of prominent authors in the corpus (the Yabbia Omer, Yitzchak Yeranen, and Tzitz Eliezer) wrote long responsa, running to five to ten pages or more. It has observed that responsa sometimes use English loanwords, and that they are sometimes influenced by Modern Hebrew, as well as by the rabbinic style. Thematically, most responsa in the corpus can be categorized into three groups: 1) food and drink / objects; 2) space / location; and 3) body and ritual. The historical dimension of these themes has become evident from their modern setting, which includes the food industry, means of transport, refrigerators, and the modern home: modern toilets and bathrooms.

58 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Appendix A Responsa Authors from the period of 1945–2000 in the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project (Version 15) . 1. Lev David, R. David Feldman Ukraine, Germany, and England (1885–1965) 2. Yismach Levav, R. Yeshua Shimon Chaim Ovadyah Morocco (1872–1952) 3. Divrei Yosef, R. Joseph Konvitz Lithuania and U.S.A. (1878–1944) 97 4. Chelkat Yaakov, R. Mordechai Yaakov Breisch Poland and Switzerland (1895–1977) 5. Har Tzvi, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank Israel (1876–1960) 6. Sho‘el Ve-Nishal, R. Chalfon Moses Ha-Kohen Tunisia (1874–1950) 7. Yaskil Avdi, Rabbi Ovadyah Hedaya98 Syria and Israel (1890–1969) 8. Kol Mevaser, R. Meshulam Rath Romania and Israel (1875–1963) 9. Mishpetei Uziel, Rabbi Ben–Zion Meir Chai Uzziel (Ouziel) Israel (1880–1953) 10. Simchat Kohen, R. Rachamim Chai Chvitah HaKohen Djerba and Israel (1901–1959) 11. Seridei Eish, R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg Germany and Switzerland (1885–1966) 12. Heichal Yitzchak, R. Isaac Halevi Herzog Ireland and Israel (1888–1959) 13. Zichron Moshe, R. Moses Jacobowitz Germany and U.S.A. (1889–1950) 14. Divrei Chachamim, R. Shalom Isaac Halevi Yemen and Israel (1891–1973) 15. Chedvat Yaakov, R. Yaakov Adas Israel (1898–1963) 97 This author has been included for the sake of completeness; he died in 1944, but the book was first published in 1947. 98 Only parts 1–3 of this author were included in the CD-ROM project until the publication of version 19. The responsa dealing with the Ruach Ra‘ah in these parts all dated from before 1945. Later parts also include responsa from 1945 and later, but they are not always in chronological order, so that it is difficult to determine which undated responsa date from 1945 or after.

Appendix A  

 59

16. Betsel Hachochmah, R. Betzalel Stern Slovakia, Austria, Australia, and Israel (1911–1989) 17. Igrot Moshe, R. Moses Feinstein Lithuania and U.S.A. (1895–1985) 18. Beit Mordechai, R. Mordechai Fogelman Katowicz, Israel (1899–1984) 19. Minchat Yitzchak, R. Isaac Jacob Weiss, Munkatsh, England, and Israel (1902–1989) 20. Be’er David, R. David Solomon Frankel Hungary (1903–1945)99 21. Va-Ya’an Yosef, R. Joseph Greenwald Hungary and U.S.A. (1905–1984) 22. Minchat Shlomoh, R. Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach Israel (1910–1995) 23. Divrei Yatsiv, R. Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam Poland and Israel (1904–1994) 24. Tzitz Eliezer, R. Eliezer Waldenberg Israel (1916–2007) 25. Shevet Halevi, R. Shmuel Halevi Wosner Austria and Israel (1914–2015) 26. Yabbia Omer / Yechaveh Da’at, R. Ovadyah Yosef Egypt and Israel (1920–2013) 27. Mishneh Halachot, Rabbi Menashe Klein Slovakia and U.S.A. (1925?–2011) 28. Ateret Paz, R. Pinchas Zvichi Israel (1960?) 29. Afarkesta deAniya, R. David Sperber Transylvania, Jerusalem (1875–1962)

99 This author has been included for the sake of completeness; the author died in 1945 so that he is not relevant for the post-1945 developments – but he was first published in 2000.

60 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

Appendix B: Combined Searches Using Several Terms The nineteenth version of the Responsa Project CD-Rom (2011) gives the option of searching the texts for up to four terms at once, making it possible to see in which texts different expressions100 occur together. This makes it possible to establish the semantic field of the Ruach Ra‘ah even more clearly, because it is possible to search for texts in which the term Ruach Ra‘ah occurs together with other terms, such as Lilith, Ruach Tumah, demon (Shedim / Shed), and amulet, as described above. The results are as follows: Ruach Ra‘ah × Ruchot Ra‘ot: 23 combined101 hits = three combined sources.102 Context: A peeled egg kept overnight; peeled onion and garlic kept overnight in the refrigerator; on food and drink under a bed, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and whether it is still suited for consumption afterwards – and whether it makes a difference whether or not anyone slept on the bed while the food was lying under it? Ruach Ra‘ah × shedim: 31 hits = five103 sources104 Context: What is the law concerning food and drink touched before washing hands, can they still be consumed, or does it help to rinse them; concerning food in a bathroom – does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on this, just as in a bathhouse or a

100 Although this version generates marginally more hits for the different individual search terms – a number of new volumes were added to the responsa titles – the search terms produce the same impression when the list of 17 authors (see supra) is searched: Ruach Ra‘ah is the most frequent term. This confirms the previous impression on the basis of version 15. The joint sources – of Ruach Ra‘ah and other related terms – indicated by version 19 do not in this case contain new texts that were not included in version 15. Although volumes were added to the works of these 17 authors, this did not influence the joint texts, although it did influence the total number of hits in the texts. 101 The hits are combined, meaning that this is the sum of the frequency of both search terms. It is not possible at this stage to see how this number of combined hits is constituted precisely. For instance 23 hits might consist of 20 hits for search term A and 3 hits for search term B; of 10 hits for search term A and 13 hits for search term B; of 22 hits for search term A and 1 hit for search term B, etc. 102 Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9. 103 Derived originally from seven sources, but two sources had in the meaning of breasts. 104 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 1; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no. 2.

Appendix B: Combined Searches Using Several Terms  

 61

toilet?; is it permitted to speak in a toilet if necessary or in the case of financial loss?; on the custom of placing food and drink on graves – is this permitted, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah?; on undoing sorcery through water. Ruach Ra‘ah × shed: 34 hits = six sources105 Context: What is the law concerning food and drink touched before washing hands, can they be consumed, and does it help to rinse them; concerning food in a bathroom – does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on this, just as in a bathhouse or toilet?; is it permitted to speak in a toilet if necessary or in the case of financial loss?: is it permitted to break the Shabbat for supernatural cures; and may the Shabbat be broken for a dangerously ill person for cures that have not been proven?; on the custom of placing food and drink on graves – is this permitted, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah?; on undoing sorcery through water. Ruach Ra‘ah × kamea: 51 hits – seven sources106 Context: Is it permitted to break the Shabbat to save someone who wants to commit suicide?; on keeping a peeled egg overnight and the Ruach Ra‘ah; concerning the position of the mezuzah and the protection which it offers; may someone with severe ear pain have drops of mother’s milk administered to his ear on Shabbat; may the Shabbat be broken for supernatural therapies, and may the Shabbat be broken for a dangerously ill person for cures that have not been proven?; on undoing sorcery through water. Ruach Ra‘ah × Lilith: zero hits = zero sources Ruach Ra‘ah × Ruach Tumah: 52 hits = eight sources107 Context: Status of a peeled egg that is kept overnight (dangerous in view of Ruach Ra‘ah) and the person who finds a broken egg in connection with Ruach Ra‘ah; must small children wash their hands in the morning?; on food and drink kept

105 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 1, 37; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no. 2. 106 Chelkat Yaakov, OH, no. 155; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 1, no. 67; Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31; ibid., no. 191; Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 32; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 37; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no 2. 107 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 145; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 9 OH, no. 108; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no. 2.

62 

 Chapter 1 Responsa Literature, Selection of the Corpus, and Substantive Aspects

under a bed, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah; concerning food in a modern bathroom – does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on this, just as in the Talmudic bathhouse or toilet?; is it permitted to put on / touch clothes in the morning before washing hands?; washing hands of small children; on the custom of placing food and drink on graves – is this permitted in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah?; on undoing sorcery through water. Ruchot Ra‘ot × Kamea: one hit = one source108 Context: A peeled egg kept overnight. Ruchot Ra‘ot × Shedim: zero hits = zero sources Ruchot Ra‘ot × Shed: zero hits = zero sources Ruchot Ra‘ot × Ruach Tuma: zero hits = zero sources Ruach Tumah × Shed: 15 hits = four sources109 Context: responsibility of a man who sometimes acts erratically in the case of a divorce certificate he issued; concerning food in a bathroom – does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on this, just as in a bathhouse or toilet?; on the custom of placing food and drink on graves – is this permitted in connection with the Ruach Ra‘ah?; on undoing sorcery through water. Ruach Tumah × Shedim: 71 hits – three110 sources111 Context: Concerning food in a bathroom – does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest on this, just as in a bathhouse or toilet?; on the custom of placing food and drink on graves – is this permitted in connection with the Ruach Ra‘ah?; on undoing sorcery through water.

108 Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31. 109 Igrot Moshe, EH, V. 1, no. 120 (dated 1939); Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5 – this responsum contains many hits for the term Ruach Ra‘ah; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no 2 (including additional comments [‫]הערות‬, no. 10) – the two latter responsa also contain the Ruach Ra‘ah as a term. 110 Derived originally from four sources, but one source had ‫ שדים‬in the meaning of breasts. 111 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no 2 (including additional comments, no 10) – these three response all also contain the term Ruach Ra‘ah.

Appendix B: Combined Searches Using Several Terms  

 63

Ruach Tumah × Kamea: one hit = one source112 Context: on the undoing of sorcery through water. It is now even clearer that Ruach Ra‘ah and “Ruchot Ra‘ot” are seemingly used as singular and plural forms of the same phenomenon in the modern responsa of the corpus. It has also emerged that there is a substantive overlap primarily with “Ruach Tumah” and “Shed / Shedim”, and to a lesser degree with “Kamea”. Texts containing Ruach Ra‘ah sometimes also contain other terms, which possibly means that their respective meanings are similar.

112 Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B, YD, no. 2.

Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources This chapter explores the meaning of the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah in the various classical sources, both rabbinic and non-rabbinic. The Hebrew word “Ruach” (‫ )רוח‬occurs there in various combinations, of which Ruach Ra‘ah is only one. Before specifically addressing the concept of “evil spirit” (‫ )רוח רעה‬it is necessary to discuss the concept of Ruach in Tanach (2.1), where it appears with several different meanings. The chapter subsequently examines the meaning of the term in Second Temple period literature (2.2), the New Testament (2.3), the Talmud (2.4), the medieval Talmud commentaries and codices (2.5.1–2), and ends with a short description of the Ruach Ra‘ah in Kabbalistic sources, especially in the Zohar (2.5.3). This will reveal the transformations that the concept has undergone from biblical times to the rabbinic period.

2.1 Ruach in Tanach At the very beginning of Tanach (Gen. 1:2), the “Spirit of God” is mentioned as it sweeps over the waters, appearing as an elementary principle of creation before heaven and earth take shape. Together with water, earth, darkness, and the deep (Tehom), the Spirit of God forms the décor upon which Creation is developed.1 But Ruach can also mean “wind”; often in combination with a wind direction: north, south, etcetera2 – or in the negative meaning of empty and vain (especially in Ecclesiastes).3 Tanach often links this with God: God who sends a wind4 which accomplishes a certain result. In these passages, Ruach is a natural phenomenon, which, like all natural phenomena, Tanach ascribes to God.5 Ruach also means breath of life (Ruach in combination with “chayim” – life) which penetrates all living beings and energizes them – comparable to the

1 The discussion of the meanings of Ruach in Tanach is based on F. Brown et al., A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), entry for “Ruach”. 2 See for instance Ez. 42:16–20. 3 Eccl. 1:14; 2:11, 17, 26. 4 See for instance Ex. 10:13; ibid., 14:21. 5 The less “theological” translation of “wind” is also possible for Gen. 1:2, and “Elohim” can be read as “very great”. This would then be a description of the situation before the creation rather than at the beginning of creation. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-003

2.1 Ruach in Tanach 

 65

Greek pneuma – as a spiritual specific element within human beings that comes from God.6 In these instances, the word “Ruach” sometimes occurs in Tanach as a synonym of “nefesh” or the less common “neshama”.7 In addition, “Ruach” can sometimes refer to what are currently called character traits and cognitive functions. In these cases, Ruach often appears in combination with words such as wisdom, insight, knowledge, power, strength, or courage.8 When people act according to unexpected patterns and do things that lie beyond their strength, when they acquire special skills, or special insights, this can be the result of a “ruach” 9 – Joseph who is able to interpret dreams has a “Spirit of God” which rests within / upon him. This is also the context in which it is said of the prophets that the “Spirit JHWH” rests upon them, or the “Spirit of God” (Ruach Elohim). It is this spirit that can also be “passed on” by a prophet to his successor, as Moses did with Joshua, and Eliyah with Elisha.10 In some prophetic texts, the Ruach is associated with a special, more purified state that the redeemed person achieves when God bestows His Spirit upon a human being, and creates a new heart and a new spirit within him.11 The Psalmist

6 Gen. 6:17; 7:22; Ez. 37:5–6, 8–10, 14; Job 27:3. 7 In classical rabbinic texts the neshama is regarded as the human soul, and nefesh and ruach disappear as designations of the soul; see for instance bBerachot 10a (the English Talmud texts in this book are mostly taken from the Soncino-edition or based on it): “What is David referring to in the five verses that begin with ‘Praise the Lord, my soul?’ [‫ברכי נפשי‬, Ps. 103: 1–2, 22; Ps. 104: 1, 34]. He meant only the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the soul [‫]נשמה‬. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, fills the entire world, thus the soul fills the body. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, ‘sees’ but is not seen, thus the soul sees, but is not itself seen. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, feeds the whole world, thus the soul feeds the whole body. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, is pure [‫]טהור‬, thus the soul is pure. And just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, dwells in the innermost part [of creation], thus the soul dwells in the innermost part [of the body]. Let he who possesses these five qualities come, and praise Him who possesses these five qualities.” The two concepts return in medieval philosophical and mystical texts, for instance in the debate about whether human beings have more than one soul (i.e. Nachmanides), or one soul with several functions (Maimonides in his Eight Chapters), inspired by the different words used by Tanach for the soul. In late fragments of the Midrash Rabbah the soul has five names: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Yechidah, and Chayah. The Zohar also mentions these five names, but changes the sequence of the last two names; see Zohar Teruma 158b (Ra’aya Mehemena). The later Kabbalah regards these different names as different souls or parts of the soul, which are connected with the four worlds; see for instance Ch. Vital, Sha‘ar HaGilgulim and G. Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter Pub. House, 1974), 152–165. 8 Ex. 28:3. 9 Jg. 3:10; 11:29. 10 Nb 11:17; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10. 11 Ez. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26.

66 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

also speaks of this when he prays, after having sinned, for a pure heart and a new spirit.12 When he feels the presence of God again, he prays: “Do not take away from me Your Holy Spirit!”13 The concept of the Ruach is also used in connection with the person of the Mashiach – a “spirit of wisdom”, a “spirit of insight” which will rest upon him.14 Conversely, “Ruach” also appears in combination with negative characteristics. For instance in the case of a “spirit of jealousy” (Ruach Kin‘ah)15 which causes a man to suspect his wife of adultery; or as the “destructive spirit” (Ruach Mashit)16 whose task it is to put an end to the Babylonian Empire; or a “spirit of adultery” (Ruach Zenunim)17 and a “spirit of deception” (Ruach Sheker).18 Or in combination with impurity – Ruach Hatumah – the “impure spirit” whom God will wipe off the face of the earth, together with the idols and false prophets, at the end of time, because they seduced humankind into doing evil and committing sin.19 And of course the term Ruach in combination with “evil” as “evil spirit”, Ruach Ra‘ah, the subject of this dissertation. To sum up, Ruach in the Bible can designate a wide range of phenomena: natural phenomena such as wind, psychological, dynamic, and cognitive processes, and the spiritual and metaphysical core of human beings. What these phenomena have in common is that they are experienced by humans, who are unable to control these processes and the direction they take. Nature can only be manipulated to a certain degree, human behavior is sometimes inexplicable – just as the force / spirit of life itself, the vitality that humans experience. Moreover, in the Bible humans are sometimes able to achieve the inexplicable, either physically or spiritually. Tanach tends to describe these processes as directed from outside, by God.

2.1.1 Ruach Ra‘ah in Tanach The combination of “Ruach Ra‘ah” appears only twice in Tanach: once in Judges 9:23 and once in 1 Samuel 16:14. The term occurs a third time with the definite

12 Ps. 51:12. 13 Ps. 51:13. 14 Is. 11:2; 42:1. 15 Nb. 5:14. 16 Jr. 51:1. 17 Hos. 5:4. 18  2 Chronicles 18:22. 19 Zech. 13:2.

2.1 Ruach in Tanach 

 67

article ‘the’ – ‘the evil spirit’ (1 Sam. 16:23).20 In Judges 9:23, the term is used as the cause of a seemingly inexplicable dispute between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, who were previously allies. It is God (Elohim) himself who sends this “evil spirit” and thus intervenes in the events that ultimately lead to Abimelech’s fall, and to the punishment of the inhabitants of Shechem (Judges 9:50–57). In 1 Sam. 16:14, the “evil spirit” plays a role in the famous story of Saul who is tormented by bouts of what we would call despondency and depression. This “evil spirit” does not, however, appear out of nothing: it is clearly contrasted with the early successes that David is then experiencing, while the onset of Saul’s demise is already manifesting itself. It is no coincidence that the “evil spirit” appears just after David is anointed by Samuel (16:13). But more importantly: the “spirit of the Eternal One” (Ruach JHWH) now rests upon David, while this same “spirit of the Eternal One” has abandoned Saul (16 : 13–14). There appears to be a dualism here:21 now that the “spirit of the Eternal One” has abandoned Saul, the “evil spirit” arrives to torment Saul. Even more remarkable is the fact that the story of Saul and the “evil spirit” mentions the “evil spirit” in combination with the name of God: both in “Ruach Elohim Ra’ah” (1 Sam. 16 : 15–16; 1 Sam. 18:10), and in “Ruach JHWH Ra‘ah” (1 Sam. 19:9). This last term in particular seems problematic. Not only does it imply that the spirit in question was sent by God – God who intervenes, as it were, in a particular human situation by sending a spirit – but that it originated from God himself. This becomes less extraordinary when we remember that in certain prophetic texts, Evil itself is in fact described as coming from God, and even as created by Him. Why then would God not also be able to produce evil spirits? This does not involve dualism in the sense of a Good God versus an Evil God, but in the sense of good powers, originating from God, and evil powers. This is entirely in accord with the words

20 CD Bar-Ilan Responsa Project version 15, searched for term “Ruach Ra‘ah”, including the articles. 21 Dualism is a complex term that is difficult to define precisely. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. has pointed to the differences between the way the term is used in the social sciences and in religion, and has himself distinguished between complementary (yin / yang) and eschatological dualism, in which one of the two poles is set to disappear, see: Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, ed. A. Lange et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 19–29. L.T. Stuckenbruck in “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism. The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III: 13–IV:26) in its Tradition-Historical Context” has pointed to N.T. Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God (1992), in which Wright distinguishes between 10 forms of duality (including moral, cosmic, psychological), only three of which are “hard dualism” according to Wright; see Light Against Darkness, 146, n. 3, 145, n. 2.

68 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

of Isaiah: “He forms the Light, and creates the darkness, He makes peace and creates Evil – I, the Eternal One, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).22

2.2 Ruach Ra‘ah in Second Temple Period Literature The rabbinic world as we know it from the rabbinic classical writings evolved out of the Judaism of the Second Temple period. The use of a term such as Ruach Ra‘ah must therefore be understood against this background, although the rabbis – as will soon become evident – gave the term a different meaning. To study the writings from this period – the Dead Sea Scrolls, the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the works of Josephus, and the New Testament – is to discover an “intermediate world”. There is an “ intermediate world ”23 between human beings on earth and God, a world inhabited by all kinds of beings: angels, spirits, demons, bad angels, and personified “supreme beings” of evil. Supreme beings such as Belial, Satan, Mastemah, the Prince of Light, the Angel of Darkness, and Beelzebub. Certain foreshadowings of this can already been found in Tanach, but there the intermediate world is not described in detail, or developed or given a hierarchy. In Tanach, human beings must serve only God – other powers (including astrological powers) do exist, but they are “other gods”, “idols” that should not be served but ignored. Deuteronomy 18:10–11 contains a long list of forbidden mantic and magic acts from which the Israelites must abstain, in contrast to the pagan culture of surrounding peoples where these practices were common.24 It was on account of the “detestable” practices of the heathens that God drove them out of the land of Canaan and gave them this land (Deut.18:13).

22 On dualism in the Bible, see for instance E.M. Myers, “From Myth to Apocalyptic: Dualism in the Hebrew Bible”, in Light Against Darkness, 92–106. See also for instance P. Heger, “Another Look at Dualism in the Qumran Writings”, in Dualism in Qumran, ed. G.G. Xeravits (London / New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 48–57 on this specific passage from Isaiah and biblical dualism. 23 See J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (Cleveland: Meridian, 1961), 25: “At the basic of Jewish magic lay the belief in a vast, teeming ‘middle world’, a world neither of the flesh nor altogether and exclusively of the spirit. Demons and angels, to be counted only in myriads, populated that world; through their intermediacy the powers of magic were brought into operation. . .”. 24 See T.J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); A. Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (Leiden: Brill, 1996); B.B. Schmidt, “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo”, in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 243–259.

2.2 Ruach Ra‘ah in Second Temple Period Literature 

 69

2.2.1 Dead Sea Scrolls The term “Ruach” appears frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls, often in combination with a second concept: “spirit of deception”, “spirit of falsehood”. The word Ruach has different meanings in these texts. Thus Ruach is often used for what could be called the “self” of a person, the formative part of consciousness – his behavior, character, and emotions. This gives rise to expressions such as “spirit of the flesh” (Ruach Basar), “spirit of humility”, “spirit of honesty”. Ruach was also used as an equivalent for intellect (Sechel) and feeling.25 In addition, Ruach is associated with supernatural entities that refer to good and bad character traits and behavior. On the one hand, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain “spirits of evil” (Ruchot Resha) and “spirits of perversion” (ruchot avla), and on the other “spirits of truth” and “spirits of sanctity”. There are also terms such as “spirits of impurity”, “desire”, “licentiousness”, “anger”, and “jealousy”. The War Scroll (1QM) speaks of “spirits of his fate” [‫’]רוחי גורלו‬26 that appear to be identical to “the angels of destruction”, and of “Belial and his spirits”. Finally, Ruach also refers to the Holy Spirit of God, who bestows the gift of prophecy upon humans and cleanses them of their sins.27 A striking feature of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the doctrine of the “two spirits” that guide humankind in its behavior, both for good and for ill, and which is most clearly visible in 1QS. This doctrine has dualistic and deterministic tendencies, but its anthropology is more nuanced than might be expected28 – recent years especially have seen debate among scholars about the role, origins, and definition of dualism in the Qumran writings.29 There are currently scholars who regard this doctrine as a separate theme that has been incorporated into 1QS, and who have distinguished various stages of development in the history of its conceptualization:30

25 See for instance P. Heger, “Another Look at Dualism”, in G.G. Xeravits, Dualism in Qumran, 93–96; 53, n. 52; 72, n. 123. 26 Ibid., 70. 27 QS 4:20–22; on prophecy see for instance 1QS 8:16; see also A.P. Jassen, “Prophets and Progressive Revelation”, in Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 37–62, esp. 49–52, and 62, n. 73. 28 See L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism”, Light Against Darkness, 145–168. 29 See also P. Heger “Another Look at Dualism”, Dualism in Qumran, 39–101; M. Popović, “Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS III 13–IV 26) and in 4Q186”, idem., 148–165; L.D. Stuckenbruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism”, Light Against Darkness, 145–168. 30 See for instance C. Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community”, Dualism in Qumran, 102–120.

70 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all that shall be. . . He created man to rule the world and placed within two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are spirits of truth and of deceit. From the spring of light stem the generations of truth, and from the source of darkness the generations of deceit. And in the hand of the Prince of Lights is dominion over all the sons of justice; the walk on paths of light. And in the hand of the Angel of Darkness is total dominion over the sons of deceit; they walk on the paths of darkness.31

More specifically, descriptions of “psychosomatic” symptoms that occur when a spirit strikes / enters a human being contain the combination of Ruach and a second concept, “evil spirit”. A good example of this can be found in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). The Aramaic version of the story of Abram and Sarai who go to Egypt recounts how Pharaoh takes Sarai with him to his court. The biblical version (Gen. 12:17) only mentions that Pharaoh and his courtiers are punished for this by “severe plagues” (‫)נגעים גדולים‬. 1Q20 specifically ascribes this to an “evil spirit”, and this element plays an important role in the retelling of this biblical story. Column xx recounts how God sends a spirit to punish Pharaoh and the members of his household for a period of two years. After this period of two years has come to an end, Pharaoh attempts to have the spirit driven out, but there is no one in the whole of Egypt who is able to do this. The time has then come for Abraham to free Pharaoh of his tormenting spirit, but first Pharaoh has to give back Sarai. Abraham succeeds in driving off the spirit through prayer and the laying on of hands, thus restoring Pharaoh and the members of his household to good health. The Aramaic text of this passage, in L. 16/17, has the Aramaic ‫ רוח באישא‬for “tormentor” and “evil spirit”,32 the exact equivalent of ‫רוח רעה‬. This appears again as ‫“ רוחא דא באישתא‬this evil spirit”33 in verse 28, and in verse 29 “and the evil [spirit] was driven away from him”34 – ‫ואתגערת ]מנה רוחא[ באישתא‬.35

31 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, ed. F.G. Martinez et al., V. 1 1Q1–4Q27 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 75. 32 Ibid., 772. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., 42.

2.2 Ruach Ra‘ah in Second Temple Period Literature 

 71

2.2.2 Apocryphal and other Non-canonical Books of the Bible Another example of the influence of demonology and spirits on Second Temple period Judaism can be found in the apocryphal Biblical book of Tobit.36 2.2.2.1 Tobit The book of Tobit recounts the story of the main character, Tobit, who will eventually marry Sarah. Sarah, however, is possessed by a demon. Seven men preceded Tobit in an attempt to consummate their marriage with Sarah, but all of them died at the hand of the demon during their wedding night. Tobit learns from the angel how to expel this demon, using the heart and liver of a certain fish, because: “You burn the fish’s heart and liver, and their smoke is used in the case of a man or woman plagued by a demon or evil spirit; any such affliction disappears for good, leaving no trace”.37 Now Tobit can wed Sarah: “Once you are in the bridal room, take the heart and liver of the fish and lay a little of it on the burning incense. The reek will rise, the demon will smell it and flee, and there is no danger that he will ever be found near the girl again”.38 Verse 7 quoted above is particularly important, because the Greek text39 has “demon” and “evil spirit” here: δαιμόνιον ἢ πνεῦμα πονηρόν.40 These words describe the condition of being possessed, the condition that Sarah suffers from. The Greek pneuma and the adjective poneron are the precise equivalent of the Hebrew ‫רוח רעה‬. Aramaic fragments of the book of Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These fragments also provide new insight into the development of the book of Tobit, the original language in which it was written, and the question as to whether the longer or the shorter version is the original one. Where v. 7 had “You burn the fish’s heart and liver, and their smoke is used in the case of a man or woman plagued by a demon or evil spirit”, 4Q 197 fragment 4 (Tob. 5:19–6:12) has the following in

36 On the book of Tobit in the context of Second Temple period Judaism, see for instance J.J. Collins, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit” and I Fröhlich, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, both in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June 2004, ed. G.G. Xeravits and J.Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 23–40, 55–70. 37 Tobit 6:8, New Jerusalem Bible translation. 38 Tobit 6:17. 39 In the Greek LXX version of Tobit this is verse 8. 40 This is the short version. The longer version in the Codex Sinaiticus has: δαιμονίου ἢ πνεύματος πονηροῦ; see Septuaginta Ide st Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 1080.

72 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

Aramaic: “[. . .‫”]ת[אתנה קדם גבר או אנתא נגיעי שד או רוח ]באישא‬, 41 and it is likely that the word ‫ רוח‬was followed by the Aramaic for “evil” – ‫ ; באיש‬F.G. Martinez has in fact added this word in his edition.42 In the other passages from chapter 6 where some English translations have “Evil Spirit”, the Aramaic versions of 4Q196 and 4Q197 have only the word “demon” – ‫ שד‬and ‫( שדא‬The LXX, too, has only δαιμόν). The word ‫ שד‬can also be found often in rabbinic literature, but then mostly in its plural form: ‫שדים‬. Although demons in practice were similar to “spirits”, and Josephus more or less equates them with each other,43 they appear as distinct entities in the Dead Sea scroll texts and in magic bowls.44 2.2.2.2 Testament of Solomon Although the Testament of Solomon45 is more recent (first to third century) and contains Christian interpolations, it is still a good example of demonology, angelology, and magic at the height of their maturity at the end of the Second Temple period, and as they have been preserved in all kinds of (syncretistic) magical handbooks and artefacts (bowls, amulets, lamellae, papyri, and other fragments) from Late Antiquity. Demonology, cosmology, and pathologies are interwoven and the incumbent dangers are controlled through the performance of magic rituals, the pronouncing of spells, the wearing of amulets, ointments, incantations over liquids that are then consumed, anointings, and the magic power of the alphabet.46

41 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, V. 1, 390. 42 Ibid. 43 When Josephus mentions the Baaras plant that is used to expel demons, he writes: “it quickly drives away those called demons, which are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them” (Wars, 7.6.3, W. Whiston’s translation). The Greek here is: “τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια, ταῦτα δὲ πονηρῶν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα. . .” (Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library, 1961), 558. 44 See Amulet 2 in J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), where line 8 says “exorcise the fever and the shiver, the female demons [‫”]שידתא‬, while line 9 has “(and) the spirits [‫ ]רוחתא‬from the body of . . .”, 45. Or Bowl no. 15 in J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993): “By your name I act. May (the following) be sealed and countersealed . . . their sons, their daughters . . . and all evil spirits [‫]רוחין בישין‬, demons [‫]ושידין‬, plagues, devils . . .”, 115. 45 On the Testament of Solomon, see for instance D.C. Duling, “The Testament of Solomon; Retrospect and Prospect”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2 (1988): 87–112; P.S. Alexander, “Incantations and Books of Magic”, in History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, V. III/I, ed. E. Schürer et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986). 46 These remedies are described mainly in chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon.

2.3 The New Testament 

 73

I am called Saphthorael. I put dissensions into the minds of men and I delight when I cause them to stumble. If anyone writes down these words, ‘Iae, Ieo, sons of Sabaoth’, and wears them around his neck, I retreat immediately’.47

The Testament of Solomon, too, associates daimon and pneuma (spirit -  ‫ )רוח‬with each other, as is clear from the fragment in which a demon recounts that when a newborn child is 10 days old, the demon attacks it through its throat as it cries. The demon says of itself: “then I become a spirit and enter into [the child] through the voice”,48 ‘γίνομαι πνεῦμα καὶ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ἐπεισέρχομαι’.49 This strengthens the connection between the evil spirit, demons,50 possession, and exorcism.51

2.3 The New Testament Another important source for early Judaism around the beginning of the Common Era is the New Testament. It is well known that possession, demons, and exorcism play an important role in the New Testament, particularly on account of the prestige that Jesus enjoyed among his followers on account of them, according to the gospels. This theme is so central that Morton Smith has composed a picture of Jesus as a magician52 – a title that opponents already utter in the Talmud by way of accusation, and that also occurs in the New Testament as an accusation. Morton Smith has compared the information from the gospels with what can be found about magicians in Antiquity in texts from the same period (including texts about the figure of Apollonius from Tyana, and the Papyri Graecae Magicae). We will not further consider the merits of Smith’s thesis here; there is an extensive

47 Testament of Solomon, 18:16, Charlesworth edition, V. I (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 979. 48 Ibid., 9:5. “Voice” means throat. 49 The McCown edition (1922) of the Greek text of the Testament of Solomon, 36* 50 N. Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World (London: Routledge, 2001), 32–33: “They could be either souls of the dead . . . ghosts of the wicked . . . or ghosts of the unjustly dead. . . The gods of other people are daimons, according to the Septuagint. . .”. 51 On exorcism in the Jewish context, see for instance D.C. Duling, “The Elazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae 8:42–9”, Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 1–25; M. Bar-Ilan, “Exorcism by Rabbis: Talmudic Sages and Magic” (Hebrew), Da’at 34 (1995): 17–31; B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer & Religious Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 227–272; N. Janowitz, Magic, 27–46; G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 88–117; Idem, “Jewish Exorcism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple”, in Was 70 CE a watershed In Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. D. Schwartz et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 277–300. 52 M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).

74 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

academic debate on this issue.53 It is important to note, however, that the term Ruach Ra‘ah also occurs in the gospels, in Greek in the combination of pneuma and poneros (πνευμα πονηρός) in singular or plural form,54 in those passages that deal with possession and exorcism. One example of this is: And John, summoning two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to expect someone else?” When the men reached Jesus they said, John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, “Are you the one who is to come or are we to expect someone else?”. At that very time he cured many people of diseases and afflictions and of evil spirits, and gave the gift of sight to many who were blind.55

The Greek text has pneumaton poneron (πνευμάτων πονηρων) here for “evil spirits”, the plural of Ruach Ra‘ah – Ruchot Ra‘ot (‫)רוחות רעות‬.

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers The transition to rabbinic Judaism only implied a partial break with ideas from the Second Temple period. To a certain extent, the rabbis made the world of demons and spirits more quotidian: in comparison with the emphasis on exorcism in the earlier sources, the rabbis’ worldview seems less demonized. Demons and spirits could be avoided and kept in check not only through religious rituals, but also through various rules of conduct. It was still a world with many invisible dangers that could, however, be made manageable with the right knowledge. Thus Berachot says of the great number of demons who populate the world and of the consequences: It has been taught: Abba Benjamin says, If the eye had the power to see them, no creature could endure the demons [‫]מזיקין‬. Abaye says: They are more numerous than we are and they surround us like the ridge round a field. R. Huna says: Every one among us has a thousand on his left hand and ten thousand on his right hand.56

53 See for instance H.C. Kee, “Magic and Messiah”, in Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and In Conflict, ed. J. Neusner et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 121–141; G.H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1993). 54 Other combinations include πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτος (Impure Spirit) and πνευμα αστενειας, a spirit of disease or weakness; see Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, ed. G. Kittel et al. (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 139–140. 55 Luke 7:19–21, NJB 1985. 56 bBerachot 6a.

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 75

Yet these large numbers of demons do not necessarily cause physical disease, unstable behavior, or mental illness. Rather, they represent everyday discomforts: Raba says: The crushing in the Kallah57 lectures comes from them. Fatigue in the knees comes from them. The wearing out of the clothes of the scholars is due to their rubbing against them. The bruising of the feet comes from them.58

The demons live so close to human beings that they chafe against them, give them an oppressive feeling through their presence, and cause their clothes to wear. These are not dramatic effects, but rather the small discomforts of everyday life. The message appears to be that demons can only affect the outside – the periphery (clothing and lower organs of the body, e.g. tired feet) – and not the inside, the human core. They are among the people, not inside the people. People who wish to see the demons can do so, so long as they observe the correct procedure: If one wants to discover them, let him take sifted ashes and sprinkle around his bed, and in the morning he will see something like the footprints of a cock. If one wishes to see them, let him take the after-birth of a black she-cat, the offspring of a black she-cat, the first-born of a first-born, let him roast it in fire and grind it to powder, and then let him put some into his eye, and he will see them. Let him also pour it into an iron tube and seal it with an iron signet that they [= the demons] should not steal it from him.59

It is not without danger to approach them in this way, and humans should therefore be careful. Those who do come to harm can be saved through prayer – without magical rituals, incantations or other techniques.60 The message appears to be that the dangers are manageable so long as one knows how to act.61

57 Public lectures during the months of Elul and Adar. 58 Ibid.: ‫ אמר‬.‫ אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד מפני המזיקין‬,‫ אלמלי נתנה רשות לעין לראות‬:‫ אבא בנימין אומר‬,‫"תניא‬ ‫ אלפא משמאליה ורבבתא‬,‫ כל חד וחד מינן‬:‫ אמר רב הונא‬.‫ וקיימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא‬,‫ אינהו נפישי מינן‬:‫אביי‬ ‫ האי דוחקא דהוי בכלה – מנייהו הוי; הני ברכי דשלהי – מנייהו; הני מאני דרבנן דבלו – מחופיא‬:‫ אמר רבא‬.‫מימיניה‬ ".‫דידהו; הני כרעי דמנקפן – מנייהו‬ 59 Ibid.: ‫ וליקליה‬,‫ בוכרתא בת בוכרתא‬,‫"מאן דבעי למחזינהו – ליתי שילייתא דשונרתא אוכמתא בת אוכמתא‬ ‫ ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמיה בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי‬.‫ וחזי להו‬,‫בנורא ולשחקיה ולימלי עיניה מניה‬ ".‫ ולחתום פומיה כי היכי דלא ליתזק‬.‫מניה‬ 60 Ibid.: ".‫ בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי‬.‫"רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי חזא ואתזק‬ “Let him close his mouth lest he come to harm. R. Bibi b. Abaye did so [the experiment with the ashes of the afterbirth], saw them and came to harm. The scholars, however, prayed for him and he recovered.” 61 See also J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic, 25: “This lore served a dual need: it conveyed the power of control, and at the same time of self-protection.”

76 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

Demons were not the only threats to everyday life, however. Other entities could also inflict harm if they were not handled carefully, even something as apparently innocuous as shade: There are five shades: the shade of a single palm-tree, the shade of a Kanda-tree, the shade of a caper-tree, [and] the shade of sorb bushes. Some say: Also the shade of a ship and the shade of a willow. This is the general rule: Whatever has many branches, its shade is harmful, and whatever has hard prickles [or, wood], its shade is harmful. . . R. Ashi said: I saw R. Kahana avoided all shades’.62

Trees themselves can also cause harm because they are breeding places of demons, especially the palm tree, which is often mentioned as a special tree: If one eases oneself on the stump of a palm-tree, the demon Palga [Ruach Palga] will seize him, and if one leans one’s head on the stump of a palm-tree, the demon Zerada [Ruach Zerada] will seize him. He who steps over a palm-tree, if it had been cut down, he will be cut down [killed]; if it had been uprooted, he will be uprooted and die. But that is only if he does not place his foot upon it; but if he places his foot upon it, it does not matter.63

Even an encounter with animals can in some cases have negative consequences, even if the animal in question does not attack the human: Our Rabbis taught: There are three who must not pass between [two men], nor may [others] pass between them, viz.: a dog, a palm tree, and a woman. Some say: a swine too; some say, a snake too.64

If this has happened, however, it is still possible to neutralize the negative effects through religious means derived from the text of Torah: And if they pass between, what is the remedy? – Said R. Papa: Let them commence [a verse] with El [God] and end with El. Others say: Let them commence [a Scriptural passage] with lo [not] and finish with lo . . .65 62 bPesachim 111b, which, however, only mentions four shades: ,‫ אף טולא דארבא‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬.‫ טולא דזרדתא‬,‫ טולא דפרחא‬,‫ טולא דכנדא‬,‫"חמשה טולי הוי; טולא דדיקלא יחידא‬ :‫ אמר רב אשי‬. . .‫ וכל דקשי סילויה – קשי טוליה‬,‫ כללא דמילתא כל דנפיש ענפיה – קשי טוליה‬,‫וטולא דערבתא‬ ".‫חזינא לרב כהנא דפריש מכולהו טולי‬ 63 Ibid.: "‫ והאי מאן דמצלי רישיה אגירדא דדיקלא‬.‫"האי מאן דמפני אגירדא דדיקלא – אחדא ליה לדידיה רוח פלגא‬ – ‫ הני מילי‬.‫ אי איעקר – מיעקר ומיית‬,‫ אי מיקטל – קטיל‬,‫ האי מאן דפסעי אדיקלא‬.- ‫– אחדא ליה רוח צרדא עילויה‬ ".‫ אבל מנח כרעיה לית לן בה‬,‫דלא מנח כרעיה עילויה‬ 64 bPesachim 111a. 65 Ibid.: ‫ ויש‬,‫ אף החזיר‬:‫ ויש אומרים‬.‫ והאשה‬,‫ הכלב והדקל‬:‫ ואלו הן‬,‫ שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין‬:‫"תנו רבנן‬ ".‫ נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא‬:‫ אי נמי‬.‫ נפתח באל ונפסיק באל‬:‫ ואי ממצעין מאי תקנתיה? אמר רב פפא‬.‫ אף הנחש‬:‫אומרים‬

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 77

Some people are a source of danger, and particularly women: If a Menstruant woman passes between two [men], if it is at the beginning of her menses she will slay one of them and if it is at the end of her menses she will cause strife between them. What is the remedy? Let them commence [a verse] with El and end with El. When two women sit at a crossroad , one on one side of the road and one on the other side of the road, facing each other, they are certainly engaged in witchcraft. What is the remedy? If there is another road [available], let one go through it. While if there is no other road, [then] if another man is with him, let them clasp hands and pass through; while if there is no other man, let him say thus: ‘Igrath Izlath, Asya, Belusia have been slain with arrows. . . When one meets a woman coming up from her statutory tebillah66 [immersion in a ritual bath], if [subsequently] he is the first to have intercourse, a spirit of immortality will infect him; while if she is the first to have intercourse, a spirit of immortality will infect her. What is the remedy? Let him say thus [Ps. CVII: 40]: ‘He pours disgrace over the princes, He makes them wander in trackless wastes’.67

Even something as ostensibly trivial as the number of times that an act is performed may be significant – this is a notion that occurs in several responsa from the corpus: . . . it was taught: A man must not eat in pairs,68 nor drink in pairs, nor cleanse [himself] twice [when visiting the toilet] nor perform his requirements69 twice. . .70

In these cases, too, there was usually a solution for any problem, which rendered the difficulties of reality manageable, without the need (in most cases) for recourse to a specialized exorcist, faith healer, sorcerer or amulet writer:

66 Mandatory immersion in a ritual bath after the monthly menses. 67 bPesachim 111 a: ‫ אם סוף נדתה היא – מריבה עושה‬,‫ אם תחלת נדתה היא – הורגת אחד מהן‬,‫"הני בי תרי דמצעא להו אשה נדה‬ ‫ חדא בהאי גיסא דשבילא וחדא‬,‫ הני תרי נשי דיתבן בפרשת דרכים‬.‫ מאי תקנתיה? נפתח באל ונפסיק באל‬.‫ביניהן‬ ‫ ואי‬,‫ מאי תקנתיה? אי איכא דירכא אחרינא – ליזיל בה‬.‫ ומכוונן אפייהו להדדי – ודאי בכשפים עסיקן‬,‫באידך גיסא‬ ‫ ואי ליכא איניש אחרינא‬,‫ אי איכא איניש אחרינא בהדיה – נינקטו לידייהו בהדי הדדי וניחלפו‬,‫ליכא דירכא אחרינא‬ ‫ האי מאן דפגע באיתתא בעידנא דסלקא מטבילת‬.‫ אגרת אזלת אסיא בלוסיא מתקטלא בחיק קבל‬:‫– נימא הכי‬ ‫ אי איהי קדמה ומשמשה – אחדא לה לדידה רוח‬,‫ אי איהו קדים ומשמש – אחדא ליה לדידיה רוח זנונים‬,‫מצוה‬ .". . .‫ שפך בוז על נדיבים ויתעם בתהו לא דרך‬:‫ מאי תקנתיה? לימא הכי‬.‫זנונים‬ 68 The danger of even pairs is possibly due to what Levy-Strauss called binary oppositions, in which one side of the pair is always afforded a negative value. This might also explain the negative role that twins play in various myths; see C. Levy-Strauss, Myth and Meaning (New York: Schocken Books, 1978), 25–33. The uneven number is possibly the third element that mediates between the binary opposites. 69 A euphemism for sexual intercourse. 70 bPesachim 109b: ".‫ ולא יעשה צרכיו תרי‬,‫ ולא יקנח תרי‬,‫ ולא ישתה תרי‬,‫ לא יאכל אדם תרי‬:‫"והתניא‬

78 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

Our Rabbis taught: He who drinks in pairs, his blood is upon his own head. Said Rab Judah: When is that? If he had not seen the street [=gone outside]; but if he has seen the street, he is at liberty [to drink a second cup] (. . .) And if a man forgot himself and happened to go out [after he drank in pairs], what is his remedy? Let him take his right-hand thumb in his left hand and his left-hand thumb in his right hand and say thus: ‘Ye [two thumbs] and I, surely that is three! But if he hears one saying, ‘Ye and I, surely that is four!’ let him retort to him, ‘Ye and I are surely five!’ And if he hears one saying, ‘Ye and I are six,’ let him retort to him, ‘Ye and I are seven. This once happened until a hundred and one, and the demon burst [with mortification]. . .71

2.4.1 Ruach in the Talmud The word Ruach occurs frequently in the Talmud, mostly in its meaning of wind direction – followed often by a modifier such as “north”, “south”, etcetera. Another combination that appears frequently is breath of life, force of life: Ruach Hayim. In various places, however, the word Ruach occurs in a combination that is reminiscent of its use in the Second Temple period literature discussed above. The following gives one example of this: Abaye asked R. Dimi: To what do ye in ‘the West’ relate the following verse [Pr. 25:8,9]: Go not forth hastily to strife, for what wilt thou do in the end thereof when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame. Debate thy cause with thy neighbour, but reveal not the secrets of another? – [He answered]: When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Ezekiel [Ez. 16:3]: Go and say unto Israel, An Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite, the intercessory spirit said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! if Abraham and Sarah came and stood before Thee, wouldst Thou say [this] to them and put them to shame?’ Debate thy cause with thy neighbour, but reveal not the secret of another! But has he so much license? – Yes, For R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: He has three names: Pisakon, Itamon, and Sigaron Pisakon, because he argues against the Most High; Itamon, because he hides the sins of Israel, Sigaron, because when he concludes a matter, none can reopen it.72 71 bPesachim 110a: ‫ אימתי – בזמן שלא ראה פני השוק אבל ראה פני‬:‫ אמר רב יהודה‬.‫ שותה כפלים – דמו בראשו‬:‫תנו רבנן‬," ,‫ מאי תקנתיה? – לינקוט זקפא דידיה דימיניה בידא דשמאליה‬,‫ אי אישתלי ואיקרי ונפק‬. . .‫השוק – הרשות בידו‬ ‫ אתון ואנא הא ארבעה‬:‫ ואי שמיע ליה דאמר‬.‫ אתון ואנא – הא תלתא‬:‫ ונימא הכי‬,‫וזקפא דשמאליה בידא דימיניה‬ .‫ אתון ואנא הא שבעה‬:‫ אתון ואנא הא שיתא – נימא ליה‬:‫ ואי שמיע ליה דאמר‬.‫נימא ליה אתון ואנא הא חמשה‬ ".‫ ופקע שידא‬,‫הוה עובדא עד מאה וחד‬ 72 bSanhedrin 44b: ‫ האי קרא במערבא במאי מוקמיתו אל תצא לריב מהר פן מה תעשה באחריתה בהכלים‬:‫"אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי‬ ‫ לך אמור להם‬:‫אתך רעך ריבך ריב את רעך וסוד אחר אל תגל? – בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא ליחזקאל‬ ‫ אם יבואו אברהם ושרה‬,‫ רבונו של עולם‬:‫ אמרה רוח פסקונית לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא‬,‫אביך האמרי ואמך חתית‬ ‫ – ומי אית ליה רשותא כולי‬.‫ויעמדו לפניך אתה אומר להם ומכלים אותם? ריבך ריב את רעך וסוד אחר אל תגל‬ ‫ פיסקון – שפוסק דברים כלפי‬.‫ סיגרון‬,‫ איטמון‬,‫ פיסקון‬:‫ שלש שמות יש לו‬:‫ דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא‬,‫האי? – אין‬ ".‫ סיגרון – כיון שסוגר שוב אינו פותח‬,‫ איטמון – שאוטם עונותיהן של ישראל‬,‫מעלה‬

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 79

The Aramaic has here ‫ רוח פ)י(סקונית‬or Spirit of Intercession (or, in Soncino’s translation, “the intercessory spirit”),73 an expression with an uncertain meaning. Rashi thinks it is a reference to the Archangel Gabriel, but he gives no explanation for this. What is clear in any case is that it is a spiritual entity of a high order with a positive quality: he has direct access to God and is able to intercede for Israel. Another important aspect is that “Ruach” is used by the rabbis as a non-physical entity that influences the acts and emotions of a human and that “penetrates” him, just as in the Second Temple period literature: Resh Lakish said: A person does not commit a transgression unless a spirit of folly [shetuth] enters into him; as it is said [Num. 5:12]: If any man’s wife go aside. [The word ‫ תשטה‬is] written [so that it can be read] sishteh [= to become a fool]. The School of R. Ishmael taught: A man does not warn his wife unless a spirit enters into him; as it is said [Num 5:14]: ‘And the spirit of jealousy came upon him and he be jealous of his wife’. What is the meaning [of the word] ‘spirit’? – The Rabbis declare, It is a spirit of impurity; but R. Ashi declares, It is a spirit of purity . . .74

This last example particularly is striking, because it seems to show the existence of traces of a form of dualism, with a “pure spirit” (perhaps equivalent to the Holy Spirit or related to it) standing in opposition to the “impure spirit” (Ruach Tumah). This Ruach Tumah can also be found in other places in the Talmud in connection with black magic and mantic capabilities: He who enquireth of an ob – is that not the same as one that consulteth the dead? – As has been taught: Or that consulteth the dead [Deut. 18:11]: this means one who starves himself and spends the night in a cemetery, so that an unclean spirit [of a demon] may rest upon him [to enable him to foretell the future]. And when R. Akiba reached this verse, he wept: If one who starves himself that an unclean spirit may rest upon him has his wish granted, he who fasts that the pure spirit [the Divine Presence] may rest upon him – how much more

73 A reference to this term can also be found in Tanchuma (Buber) at Vezot Haberacha 5:5, and in the Merkavah Rabbah and Shiur Qomah JTS Ms. 8128 it is one of the 70 names of the Angel Metatron. See M.S. Cohen, The Shi’ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 56, 208. 74 bSotah 3a: ‫ תשטה‬,‫ איש איש כי תשטה אשתו‬:’‫ שנא‬,‫ אין אדם עובר עבירה אא״כ נכנס בו רוח שטות‬:‫"ריש לקיש אמר‬ ‫ ועבר עליו רוח קנאה‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ אין אדם מקנא לאשתו אא”כ נכנסה בו רוח‬:‫ תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל‬. . . ‫כתיב‬ ".‫ ומסתברא כמאן דאמר רוח טהרה‬.‫ רוח טהרה‬:‫ רב אשי אמר‬,‫ רוח טומאה‬:‫ מאי רוח? רבנן אמרי‬.‫וקנא את אשתו‬

80 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

should his desire be fulfilled! But alas! our sins have driven it away from us, as it is written [Is. 59:2], But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.75

This last fragment is remarkable for two reasons: first because Rabbi Akiva clearly positions the impure spirit in opposition to the pure spirit in a dualistic system, comparable to what can be found in some Dead Sea Scrolls. But his conclusion at the end is even more striking: in Rabbi Akiva’s day, the evil powers, the impure spirit, are more easily accessible to humans than the pure spirit. He who sleeps in a graveyard will come into contact with impure spirits and other entities that will enable him to perform forms of magic and to predict the future. The reverse should then also be true – as good is stronger than evil – he who truly exerts himself through ascetical practices such as fasting, and perhaps also by staying in holy places, will receive the pure spirit / Holy Spirit.76 But, Rabbi Akiva says, sin has made access to this pure spirit (almost?) impossible. This is reminiscent of the perspective found in certain fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls where the current situation is regarded as standing under the domination of Belial and his accomplices, who are able to lead even the just – “the sons of light” – to sin. This state of affairs will only come to an end in the future, when God himself will come to deal definitively with Belial / Satan / Mastemah, etcetera.

75 bSanhedrin 65b: ‫ ודורש אל המתים – זה המרעיב עצמו והולך ולן בבית‬:‫"שואל אוב היינו ודרש אל המתים! דורש למתים – כדתניא‬ ‫ ומה המרעיב עצמו כדי‬,‫ וכשהיה רבי עקיבא מגיע למקרא זה היה בוכה‬.‫הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה‬ ‫ המרעיב עצמו כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טהרה על אחת כמה‬,‫– שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה – שורה עליו רוח טומאה‬ ".‫ אבל מה אעשה שעונותינו גרמו לנו שנאמר כי [אם[ עונותיכם היו מבדלים ביניכם לבין אלהיכם‬.‫וכמה‬ 76 There is an interesting variant in Pesikta Zutreta (Lekach Tov) Kedoshim 57b: ‫ המרעיב עצמו שתשרה עליו‬.‫"והלא דברים ק״ו ומה המרעיב עצמו שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה הרי היא שורה עליו‬ ".‫רוח טהרה על אחת כמה וכמה‬ This clearly equates Ruach Taharah – the spirit of purity – and the Holy Spirit, because the following passage is as follows: “On this basis, R. Pinchas ben Yair says: Torah leads to good deads . . . and piety [‫ ]חסידות‬to the Holy Spirit.” In the opinion of R. Pinchas ben Yair, the Holy Spirit / the Pure Spirit can certainly still be accessed by humans in the current era, in the absence of the Temple and of prophecy, as long as they choose the spiritual path. Each stage will then lead on to the next step, until the ultimate goal is reached: the Holy Spirit. See also Sifre Devarim 173 (12), which postulates opposition between the Impure Spirit and the Holy Spirit. The quotation ends in the same way as Rabbi Akiva’s Talmud quotation: our sins have cut us off from access to the Holy Spirit. That this separation on account of sin is possibly linked to the destruction of the Temple is evident, among other things, from bBerachot 32b, where the concept of separation, interruption, also plays a role. This fragment states that there has been “a wall of iron between Israel and its Father in Heaven” since the destruction of the Temple. Thus this text casts doubt on the effectiveness of prayer.

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 81

2.4.2 Possession Although certain rabbinic texts perhaps assume the existence of possession, there is no explicit description in the Talmud that links this condition to the Ruach Ra‘ah or Ruach Tumah. In addition, the Ruach Tumah is considered to rest upon humans and not to penetrate them. This appears to be different in Midrash literature, which contains the famous story of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who connects possession with the “spirit of madness” (Ruach tezazit) and the Ruach Tumah – the Impure Spirit. It is a story that appears seven times in almost identical form in older and newer Midrash collections: A pagan once asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: ‘The things that you [Jews] do, are akin to sorcery: You take a cow, slaughter it, burn it, grind it down, and take the ashes. When one of you has become impure through contact with a corpse, you sprinkle two or three drops of the ashes mixed with water over him, and say to him: You have been cleansed.’ Rabban Yochanan replied to him: ‘Have you ever been possessed by a spirit of madness? ‘No’, the man replied. ‘And have you ever seen anyone else who was possessed by a spirit of madness?’ ‘Yes, I have’. ‘And what do you do in such cases?’ ‘We bring [the roots of] plants, and burn them near him, water is thrown over him, and the spirit of madness flees’. Then he [Rabban Yochanan] said to him: ‘Do your ears not hear what your mouth is saying?’ ‘In the same manner, this spirit [through contact with a corpse] is a spirit of impurity, as it is written: “I shall also rid the country of the prophets, and of the Impure Spirit” [Zech. 13:2].77

Rabban Yochanan gives this non-Jew – an outsider – an answer that indicates that the laws of Torah concerning purity and impurity are not sorcery or superstition, but can be compared to existing, accepted rituals that are used to cure people of possession. But the text continues, and shows a different perspective that is presented as an “inside perspective”, but which is actually an innovation that constitutes a real break with previous opinion in Judaism: When the pagan had left, Rabban Yochanan’s students said: ‘Master, you have pushed him away with a straw [a weak answer], but what answer are you going to give us?’ Rabban Yochanan replied: ‘By your lives! The corpse itself does not make unclean, nor does the [purifying] water make pure. But, there is a decree of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, has said: “I have made a law, issued a decision, and you are not permitted to violate my decision. This is the decree [Nb. 19:1]. . .78

77 Pesita deRav Kahana 4:7: ‫ מביאין פרהושוחטין אותה‬,‫ אילין מיליא דאתון עבדין נראין כמן כשפים‬,‫"גוי אחד שאל את רבן יוחנן בן זכיי א’ ליה‬ ‫ושורפין אותה וכותשין אותה ונוטלין את אפרה ואחד מכם מטמא למת ומזין עליו שתים שלש טיפים ואומרין לו‬ ,‫ אמ’ לו ולא ראיתה אחר שנכנסה בו רוח תזוזית‬,‫ א’ לו לאו‬,‫ א’ לו לא נכנסה רוח תזזית באותו האיש מימיו‬.‫טהרתה‬ ‫ א’ לו ולא‬.‫ א’ לו מביאין עיקרין ומעשנין תחתיו ומרבצים עליה מים והיא בורחת‬,‫ א’ לו ומה אתם עושין‬.‫א’ לו הין‬ ".‫ דכת’ וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה וגו‬,‫ כך הרוח הזה רוח טומאה היא‬,‫’ישמעו אזניך מה שפיך מדבר‬ 78 Ibid.

82 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s answer to his students can be interpreted in two ways: 1. The reply he gives is a truly rational and innovative answer to his students: impurity and purity are not ontological powers that exist as such; 2. It is a system that God has commanded in this way, and that is separate from physical reality. But humans must obey the Divine laws that have been imposed upon them, and this is the meaning of the commandment. Perhaps many Jewish contemporaries of the rabbi and his students had the same thoughts as the non-Jew who appears as the enquirer. In fact, it might be said that there is some resemblance between the biblical purity laws and pagan sorcery and rituals. It is just that the former is legal, because it is commanded by God, and is therefore permitted, and the latter is forbidden, and may consequently not be practiced. The two rituals could, however, have identical foundations. But Rabban Yochanan’s opinion delivers a blow to the entire foundation of magic, because it essentially regards even biblical religious rituals as a contract, a convention between God and humankind, not as a real system of powers that can be manipulated or controlled. Once most of the biblical purification rituals disappeared after the year 70, Rabban Yochanan’s paradigm could have put a stop to magical ideas and practices. In fact, the opposite appears to have happened: many magical sources date from the period after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The Talmud itself is an excellent example of this. The laws concerning purity and impurity cannot therefore be compared to possession, magic, and superstition. Although the former do not have any direct foundation in the physical world, they come from God because He has commanded them. It is this Divine commandment that sustains the system, and creates purity and impurity in the physical world, even though there are no identifiable physical factors to which they refer. Explained in this way, something does in fact “happen” whenever a person becomes unclean and is then purified. It is just that this process does not arise from any characteristics or powers inherent in matter itself – a corpse does not in itself have any contaminating characteristics; the water of purification does not have any intrinsic purifying powers – but from God’s commandment: “I have made a law, issued a decision. . .”

2.4.3 Specific Spirits: Personification Interestingly enough, the rabbinic sources sometimes place greater emphasis on specific spirits than on more abstract concepts such as “Ruach Tumah” or “Ruach Tahara” (Pure Spirit). In the example of Rabban Yochanan that was just mentioned, all of the texts have ‫ רוח תזזית‬which means something like “spirit of vibra-

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 83

tion / tremor”. In the jYoma,79 this “spirit of vibration” is regarded as the cause of rabies in a dog, and in Tanchuma (Buber) at Re’eh 9:9 as the cause of the bizarre behavior of a man who breaks his own barrels of wine and oil. In the context of a woman suspected of adultery (sotah), the “spirit of folly” (Ruach Shetut, ‫) רוח שטות‬ is mentioned, a spirit that enters humans and incites them to sin. bPesachim 111b spoke of the Ruach Palga (‫ )רוח פלגא‬and the Ruach Zereda (‫ )רוח צרדא‬that can be found near date palms. The same phenomenon can be observed in relation to demons: specific demons sometimes appear with names and specific appearances, such as the Keteb Meriri, which roams about before noon and looks like “a jar of kamka sauce that is being stirred”.80 And the afternoon demon, the Keteb Yashud Zaharayim looks like a goat’s horn with rotating wings. These demons are observed especially during the first half of the month Tammuz, although they can also be seen near certain plants (hazabe81) in morning and evening shadows that are shorter than an ell, and in the shadow of a toilet.82 In some cases, such entities appear to be the personification of a spirit or demon, who not only has a name, but with whom rabbis also communicate in order to make the demon or spirit in question more controllable. One example comes from the dialogue between the demon Igrath, daughter of Machalat, and R. Hanina ben Dosa: ‘And do not go out alone at night’, for it was taught: One should not go out alone at night, i.e., on the nights of neither Wednesday nor Sabbaths, because Igrath the daughter of Mahalath, she and one hundred eighty thousand destroying angels go forth, and each has permission to wreak destruction independently. Originally they were about a day. On one occasion she met R. Hanina b. Dosa [and] said to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement concerning you in Heaven, “Take heed of Hanina and his learning,” I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’ ‘I beg you,’ she pleaded, ‘leave me a little room.’ So he left her the nights of Sabbaths and the nights of Wednesdays. On another occasion she met Abaye. Said she to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement about you in Heaven, “Take heed of Nahmani

79 yYoma Ch.8, 45b. 80 bPesachim 111b. A kind of sauce of milk and breadcrumbs, according to Rashi’s and Rashbam’s interpretation in the Talmud, which differs from other versions, according to Soncino, ad. loc. n. 14. 81 Thicket. 82 bPesachim, 111b.

84 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

and his learning,” I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’83

Or the demon Yosef who teaches the Talmud scholar Papa all about the dangers of drinking from an even number of cups: R. Papa said, Joseph the demon told me: For two we kill; for four we do not kill, [but] for four we harm [the drinker]. For two [we hurt] whether [they are drunk] unwittingly or deliberately; for four, only if it is deliberate, but not if it is unwitting.84

Finally, there is the story about the demon Ben Temalion and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai85 in the Talmud and the later Midrash Yalkut Shimoni. When the Romans restricted the performance of certain important Jewish rituals, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai86 and another rabbi were sent to the emperor to argue the case of the Jews: For the [Roman] Government had once issued a decree that [Jews] might not keep the Sabbath, circumcise their children, and that they should have intercourse with menstruant women.87 . . . [The Jews] then conferred as to who should go [to Rome] to work for the annulment of the decrees. Let R. Simeon b. Yohai go for he is experienced in miracles.1 And who should accompany him? – R. Eleazar son of R. Jose.’  . . . Then Ben Temalion came to meet them. [He said]: Is it your wish that I accompany you? Thereupon R. Simeon wept and said: The handmaid [Hagar] of my ancestor’s house [Abraham] was found worthy of

83 Ibid., 112b: ‫ מפני שאגרת בת‬,‫ לא יצא יחידי בלילה לא בלילי רביעיות ולא בלילי שבתות‬:‫"אל תצא יחידי בלילה – דתניא‬ ‫ מעיקרא‬.‫ וכל אחד ואחד יש לו רשות לחבל בפני עצמו‬,‫ היא ושמונה עשרה רבוא של מלאכי חבלה יוצאין‬,‫מחלת‬ ‫ אי לאו דמכרזן עלך ברקיע הזהרו בחנינא‬:‫ אמרה ליה‬.‫ זמנא חדא פגעה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא‬,‫הוו שכיחי כולי יומא‬ ‫ במטותא‬:‫ אמרה ליה‬.‫ אי חשיבנא ברקיע – גוזר אני עליך שלא תעבורי ביישוב לעולם‬:‫ אמר לה‬.‫ובתורתו – סכנתיך‬ ‫ אי‬:‫ אמרה ליה‬:‫ חדא זמנא פגעה ביה באביי‬,‫ ותו‬.‫ שבק לה לילי שבתות ולילי רביעיות‬.‫ שבק לי רווחא פורתא‬,‫מינך‬ ‫ אי חשיבנא ברקיע – גוזרני עלייכי שלא‬:‫ אמר לה‬.‫לאו דמכרזי עלך ברקיע הזהרו בנחמני ובתורתו – הוה סכנתיך‬ ".‫תעבורי ביישוב לעולם‬ 84 Ibid., 110a: ‫ בתרי – בין בשוגג בין‬.‫ בארבעה – מזקינן‬,‫ בארבעה – לא קטלינן‬,‫ בתרי – קטלינן‬:‫ אמר לי יוסף שידא‬,‫"אמר רב פפא‬ .". . .‫ בשוגג – לא‬,‫ בארבעה במזיד – אין‬,‫במזיד‬ 85 For this specific story as an example of rabbis and exorcism, see M. Bar-Ilan, “Exorcism by Rabbis: Talmudic Sages and Magic” (Hebrew), Da‘at 34 (1995), 17–31. 86 According to the Talmud, he was chosen because the rabbi was used to work miracles. Thus he miraculously sojourned in a cave during the years that he was wanted by the Romans; see bShabbat 33b. 87 The middle part remarkably describes the rituals of circumcision and the observance of matrimonial laws that prohibit sexual contact with an unclean menstruating woman as physically enfeebling and detrimental to fertility, although this point of view is ascribed to the non-Jewish Romans. In the demonic context of the passage, it possibly hints at the use of the blood of a menstruating woman as potent matter in magical rituals; see N. Janowitz, Magic, 92–93.

2.4 Talmud: Demons, Spirits, Shadows, and Other Dangers 

 85

meeting an angel thrice, and I not even to meet him once. However, let the miracle be performed, no matter how. Thereupon he [= Ben Temalion] advanced and entered into the Emperor’s daughter. When [R. Simeon] arrived there, he called out: ‘Ben Temalion leave her, Ben Temalion leave her’, and as he proclaimed this he left her. He [= the Emperor] said to them: Request whatever you desire. They were led into the treasure house to take whatever they chose. They found that bill [containing the anti-Jewish laws], took it and tore it to pieces. . .88

Controlling demons and neutralizing their harmful influence by entering into direct contact with them appear to be skills exclusively reserved for rabbis.89 Ordinary people had to make do with rules of life and certain rituals that made the dangers manageable – often simply by avoiding them. The identifying and naming of demons or spirits is less trivial than it seems. During an exorcism procedure, or during the writing of a protective amulet, precise identification is important – this is also a recurring element in the Testament of Solomon whenever a demon must be subdued. Solomon asks the demon “who are you?”, followed by the question of what power would be strong enough to master the demon in question.90 The demon or spirit is addressed by name and is commanded to leave the body of the person in question, or to stay away from that person. Some magical texts aim for certainty and include a list of entities, to be certain that the demon has been mentioned and can therefore

88 bMeila 17a-b: ‫ הלך רבי‬.‫ ושיבעלו את נדות‬,‫ ושלא ימולו את בניהם‬,‫"שפעם אחת גזרה המלכות גזרה שלא ישמרו את השבת‬ ‫ אמר‬,‫ עני‬:‫ מי שיש לו אויב יעני או יעשיר? אמרו לו‬:‫ אמר להם‬,‫ והלך וישב עמהם‬,‫ראובן בן איסטרובלי וסיפר קומי‬ ‫ מי שיש‬:‫ חזר ואמר להם‬.‫ ובטלוה‬,‫ ליבטל‬,‫ טבית אמר‬:‫ אמרו‬,‫ לא יעשו מלאכה בשבת – כדי שיענו‬,‫ אם כן‬:‫להם‬ ‫ טבית‬:‫ אמרו‬,‫ ימולו בניהם לשמונה ימים – ויכחישו‬,‫ אם כן‬:‫ אמר להם‬,‫ יכחיש‬:‫לו אויב יכחיש או יבריא? אמרו לו‬ :‫ אמרו‬,‫ אם כן – לא יבעלו נדות‬,‫ יתמעט‬:‫ מי שיש לו אויב ירבה או יתמעט? אמרו לו‬:‫ חזר ואמר להם‬.‫ ובטלוה‬,‫אמר‬ ‫ ילך ר’ שמעון בן יוחאי שהוא‬.‫ מי ילך ויבטל הגזירות‬:‫ אמרו‬.‫ הכירו בו שהוא יהודי – החזירום‬.‫ ובטלוה‬,‫טבית אמר‬ ‫ יכולין אתם לומר‬,‫ ואילו היה אבא חלפתא קיים‬:‫ אמר להם רבי יוסי‬.‫ ואחריו מי ילך – ר״א בר ר’ יוסי‬,‫מלומד בנסים‬ ‫ יכולין אתם לומר לו תן בנך להריגה? אמר‬,‫ אילו היה יוחאי אבא קיים‬:‫לו תן בנך להריגה? אמר להם ר’ שמעון‬ .‫ אפילו הכי ענשיה‬,‫ קביל עליה דלא ליענשיה‬.‫ אנא אזלין דלמא עניש ליה ר’ שמעון דקא מסתפינא‬:‫להו רבי יוסי‬ :‫ מנין לדם השרץ שהוא טמא? עקם פיו ר’ אלעזר בר רבי יוסי ואמר‬:‫כשהיו מהלכין בדרך נשאלה שאלה זו בפניהם‬ ‫ אל יחזור הבן‬,‫ מעקימת שפתיך אתה ניכר שתלמיד חכם אתה‬:‫ אמר ליה ר’ שמעון‬.‫ וזה לכם הטמא‬+‫ויקרא י״א‬+ ‫ מה שפחה של בית אבא – נזדמן לה‬:‫ רצונכם אבוא עמכם? בכה ר’ שמעון ואמר‬:‫אצל אביו! יצא לקראתו בן תמליון‬ :‫ אמר‬,‫ כי מטא התם‬,‫ על בברתיה דקיסר‬,‫ קדים הוא‬.‫ ואני לא פעם אחת; יבא הנס מכל מקום‬.‫מלאך שלש פעמים‬ ‫ שאילו כל מה דאית לכון למישאל! ועיילינהו‬:‫ אמר להון‬.‫בן תמליון צא! בן תמליון צא! וכיון דקרו ליה – נפק אזל‬ ".‫ שקלוה וקרעוה‬,‫ אשכחו ההוא איגרא‬.‫ לשקול כל דבעו‬,‫לגנזיה‬ 89 See also M. Bar-Ilan, “Exorcism by Rabbis”, 17–31. 90 For the question as to identity, see for instance Testament of Solomon, 3:6; 7:3; 9:2; 13:3 – and for the question as to who is more powerful than the demon, for instance “By what angel are you thwarted” (Charlesworth ed., 1983), or the variant “if I hear: angel X, subdue entity Y, then I withdraw”: 6:8; 13:6; 16:6; 18:1–15.

86 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

be controlled. Thus it is possible to find a demon, a spirit, and Lilith alongside each other – a phenomenon that occurred already in the Qumran texts, for instance in 4Q510, a hymn sung to protect the person against all kinds of harmful entities: (4) And I, the instructor, proclaim the majesty of his beauty to frighten and ter[rify] (5) all the spirits of the destroying angels, and the spirits of the bastards, the demons, Lilith, the howlers, and [the yelpers. . .]91

2.4.4 Ruach Ra‘ah in the Talmud The combination Ruach Ra‘ah does not occur very often in the Talmud: only 10 times in total.92 This appears to reflect the relatively weak emphasis on possession in rabbinic literature. Although the Talmudic world was also populated with all manner of entities – both good and evil – the rabbis appear to have believed that the consequences of this were limited to everyday life. Moreover, people who knew the rules of the game had little reason to fear that they would come to harm. The rabbis almost always gave information on how negative consequences of contact with these entities might be reduced to a minimum. Sometimes these Talmudic remedies look very much like premodern medicine; sometimes they are religious rituals. Magic methods and rituals were used in other cases: uttering a spell or incantation, an amulet, or seemingly bizarre incidents. Remarkably, none of this is generally deemed to be prohibited magic (‫ )כישוף‬in the Talmud. Sometimes a rational framework was applied in relation to dealings with this world: “he who pays no attention to the demons, will not himself become the object of their attention.”93 In other words: human beings themselves conjure up these negative phenomena by giving them excessive attention. Although possession probably did not disappear immediately, it does seem to be the case that the emphasis on possession evident in earlier texts weakened. A relatively small number of psychosomatic symptoms or pathological behaviors was ascribed to a demon or a spirit, and then a remedy for a cure was also provided. For everyday life, certain rules of life, religious rituals, and faith in God sufficed.

91 B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 237, 240. 92 CD Bar-Ilan Responsa Project version 15, searched for “Ruach Ra‘ah”, including articles. 93 bPesachim 110.

2.5 The Middle Ages: Talmud Commentators, Codices, and Kabbalah 

 87

The references in the Babylonian Talmud to Ruach Ra‘ah all relate to a number of categories (most of the pertinent examples will be quoted explicitly in the next chapter): 1) The Shabbat laws: what does the law say when someone extinguishes a lamp because he is afraid of a Ruach Ra‘ah, or when a person under the influence of the / a Ruach Ra‘ah goes beyond the distance that he may walk on Shabbat,94 and whether it is permitted for an individual to fast on Shabbat if he is in danger – for instance as the result of the actions of a Ruach Ra‘ah?95 2) Food and drink: certain foodstuffs and liquids are best not consumed in certain situations because a Ruach Ra‘ah rests on them. The following situations are described: a. food and drink placed under a bed; b. the drinking of water on Wednesday and Friday nights;96 c. the eating of certain foodstuffs (such as garlic) if they have been kept overnight in a peeled state. 3) A dog with rabies, a Ruach Ra‘ah rests on it.97 4) A person who has to go to the toilet, but does not go, the Ruach Ra‘ah rests upon him.98 5) It is necessary to wash one’s hands after the meal, but the water must not be drained onto the ground, because a Ruach Ra‘ah rests upon this water.

2.5 The Middle Ages: Talmud Commentators, Codices, and Kabbalah None of these Talmudic fragments seem to mention any specific name of the evil spirit. Nor do they explain exactly what the Ruach Ra‘ah is and what the precise consequences will be for those who ignore the admonitions and which explanatory mechanisms are involved. Ruach Ra‘ah seems rather to function as an somewhat abstract concept. These powers are thus situated at somewhat greater distance from humans, outside humans, and manageable as given facts; just as gravity and other natural phenomena that must be respected. If you abide by the rules – for instance by not keeping food and drink under the bed, or not draining the water used to wash your hands onto the ground – you have nothing to fear. 94 bEruvin 41b. 95 bTa’anit 22b. 96 bPesachim 112a. 97 bYoma 83b. 98 bShabbat 82a.

88 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

But there is a drawback to this approach. Precisely by leaving the Ruach Ra‘ah undefined and unexplained, there is the danger that it will obtain an even heavier, absolute significance. Moreover, there is scope for post-Talmudic generations of commentaries and interpreters to assign new meanings to the concept – meanings that might well resemble older layers of pre-rabbinic literature, such as that from the Second Temple period; literature that the rabbinic texts were eager to distance themselves from. A good example is the ritual of washing hands in the morning, the subject of a large number of texts in this dissertation. The concept of Ruach Ra‘ah does not appear in the original Talmudic texts, as will be demonstrated later; in fact, it returned in post-Talmudic texts.

2.5.1 Medieval Talmud Commentators The medieval Talmud commentators who composed their explanations of the Talmud referred to the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah from the Talmud in their writings. They either simply quoted the passages in the Talmud that explicitly mention the concept, or sometimes interpreted certain passages in such a way as to give the Ruach Ra‘ah an explicit role in them. For example, one Talmudic text (bYoma 77b) that has left traces in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah states that a woman must wash one hand on Yom Kippur, and may then with her washed hand give her child bread to eat. The Talmud gives no immediate reason; in fact the Talmud itself asks for one and then quite cryptically replies: “because of Shibta”. The medieval interpreter Rashi ad loc. identifies Shibta as the name of a demon.99 Another Talmudic core text, bShabbat 108b–109a, strongly advises against touching bodily orifices with one’s hand. The context is once again unclear, although the Talmud says that touching the eye can lead to blindness, touching the ear to deafness, and touching the nose to polyps. In the same passage the Talmud comments (bShabbat 109a) that “she is a free person until the hands are washed three times”. It was precisely because the Talmud remained vague that the original apparent demonic context disappeared, only to make a comeback in the medieval commentaries. Thus Rashi places it all in the context of unwashed hands in the morning upon which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests, and informs the reader that Bat-Chorin (and implicitly Bat-Melech) are spirits.100

99 Rashi op. loc.: ".‫ ושם השד שיבתא‬,‫"לפי שרוח רעה שורה על הלחם הנלקח בידים שלא נטלן שחרית‬ 100 Rashi op. loc.: ".‫ "בת חורין היא – הרוח השורה על הידים לפני נטילה‬, "‫"מעביר בת מלך – אם הזיקה לעיניו‬

2.5 The Middle Ages: Talmud Commentators, Codices, and Kabbalah 

 89

2.5.2 Medieval Codices By means of the Talmud, the Talmud commentaries, and the responsa literature,101 the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah also found its way into three important codices: Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (twelfth century), the Tur (thirteenth to fourteenth century), and the Shulchan Aruch (sixteenth century). These Halachic texts influence the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah of later centuries although not all of them in the same way and to the same extant. 2.5.2.1 Maimonides Maimonides’ position vis- à-vis the Ruach Ra‘ah in his Code is complex: on the one hand he quotes cases from the Talmud that explicitly mention the Ruach Ra‘ah,102 while on the other hand Maimonides keeps silent in cases where others do mention a Ruach Ra‘ah in their commentary, or where the Talmud itself mentions it. Thus Maimonides makes no mention of the person who extinguishes a lamp on Shabbat on account of a Ruach Ra‘ah,103 and of the danger of eating peeled garlic and onions that have been kept overnight. As regards the consumption of food and drink that have been kept under a bed Maimonides also advises against it, but not because of a Ruach Ra‘ah. Nor does he mention the Ruach Ra‘ah in the context of rabies, the drinking of water at certain times such as Friday evening, the washing of hands after the meal or in the morning after rising. On the other hand, even though the Talmud text does not explicitly mention it, Maimonides explicitly adds a Ruach Ra‘ah to the status of someone who slaughters an animal while being under the influence of a Ruach Ra‘ah,104 or to someone who orders the writing of a divorce certificate for his wife while being under the influence of a Ruach Ra‘ah.105 Another remarkable feature is his treatment of four defects that could make the priest unsuited for Temple service:106 deafness which also prevents him from speaking (‫)חרש‬, madness or psychologically deviant behavior (‫)שוטה‬, epilepsy (‫)נכפה‬, and someone who

101 For instance Rashba, V. 1, no. 191. 102 For instance the case of a person who goes beyond the territory on Shabbat, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Shabbat 27:12–13, and that on fasting on Shabbat by a person in danger – Hilchot Ta‘anit 1:6. 103 Although he does discuss this case in this Mishnah commentary. 104 Hilchot Shechitah 2:12. 105 Hilchot Gerushin 2:14. 106 Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 8:16.

90 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

is tormented by a Ruach Ra‘ah.107 This last example is particularly interesting, because the Mishnah108 – Maimonides’ source for this ruling – does not mention a Ruach Ra‘ah here, but a Ruach Kotzrit (‫ – )רוח קוצרית‬originally probably also a personalized demon109 or other entity, and also an illness (or its symptoms)110 that makes the priest unsuited for his function in the Temple. The Talmud explains the Ruach Kotzrit 111 as follows: ‘The spirit of Ben Nephalim comes upon him”, again probably a reference to a personalized demon or spirit.112 In his Mishnah commentary, Maimonides comments the following about that: And [a] Ruach Kotzrit – one of the symptoms of [excessive] black bile, such as those whose senses are disturbed and those who are lethargic [‫]המשועממים‬, in whom the excessive black bile has led to the loss of bodily functions and [physical] powers.113

Remarkably, despite this physiological explanation, the Ruach Kotzrit returns as Ruach Ra‘ah in Maimonides’ Code. 2.5.2.2 Tur and Shulchan Aruch The Tur includes these cases of explicit references to Ruach Ra‘ah from the Talmud and codifies them, but adds a few to the list to a total of 11 results:114 Ruach Ra‘ah on hands in the morning after rising: must be washed three times;115  Ruach Ra‘ah on water used to wash hands after meal – this may not therefore be drained away onto the ground;116  Ruach Ra‘ah on bread (not on hands!) when this is given to

107 Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 8:16: "‫"מי שרוח רעה מבעתתו תמיד או בעתים ידועים‬. 108 mBechorot 7:5; bBechorot 44b. 109 Rashi explains the Ruach Kotzrit as follows: “a Ruach of a demon” (‫)רוח שד‬. In another place on the Talmud folio – according to the interpretation “Nala”, which precedes Ben Nephalim – Rashi writes: “A spirit of madness [Ruach Shetut] by a demon, that is the Ben Nephalim, nuiton in French.” In the printed editions, Rashi appears to have the interpretation “Na‘alat” instead of “Nala”. 110 Translated in the Soncino edition and by Ph. Blackman as asthma, but see n. 3 in the Soncino ad loc: “Aliter: ‘a spirit of Kazrah (Al. Kazruth or Kazrith) comes on him’; a demon believed to be responsible for this ailment.” 111 Some printed editions have Ruach Katzra (‫)קצרה‬. 112 Following other editions, Soncino also has “Nala” (‫ )נאלא‬as first description of Ruach Kitzrit. See also J. Preuss’ Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, 302. 113 From Kapach edition of the Mishneh Torah, op cit. 114 Searched for Ruach Ra‘ah with article. 115 OH 4. 116 OH 181.

2.5 The Middle Ages: Talmud Commentators, Codices, and Kabbalah 

 91

a child to eat with unwashed hands – may the hands be washed on Yom Kippur, when their washing is prohibited?;117  concerning a mezuzah on a house of learning: Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg affixed a mezuzah there because he was tormented by a Ruach Ra‘ah – the tormenting spirit then disappeared;118  and the status of a divorce certificate written by someone under the influence of a Ruach Ra‘ah.119 The Shulchan Aruch’s120 additions consist primarily of the use of the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah in laws concerning the washing of hands in the morning in OH 4, and details – influenced mainly by the Zohar – about how the ritual should be carried out (the total number of hits is 16).121 These additions subsequently became the subject of new commentaries written by generations after publication of the Shulchan Aruch, with new questions emerging that were treated in Halachic literature and responsa. This continued up to modern times and is the subject of this dissertation: to what extent does the term Ruach Ra‘ah play a role in the contemporary, post-1945 responsa?

2.5.3 Kabbalah and the Ruach Ra‘ah The concept of Ruach appears frequently in the Zohar with various meanings: from humanity’s spiritual principle and spiritual entities in the heavenly palaces (Hechalot) to powers from “the other side” that influence human beings and incite them to negative behavior, and that can be found for instance in the toilet, in non-permitted animals, and in the air. The Zohar and later Kabbalistic writings (especially by Luria) played a large role in the development of Halachic practice concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah, a role that continues to this day – especially in Hassidic and Oriental forms of Judaism.

117 OH 613. 118 YD 286. 119 EH 121. 120 The subjects are arranged in the same order in the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur, whereas Maimonides’ Code has its own system. 121 Searched for Ruach Ra‘ah with article. The references are: Orach Hayim (OH) 4 (washing of hands in the morning, six hits); OH 181 (washing of hands after meal); OH 288 (praying and imploring on Shabbat for people in danger, two hits); OH 328 (Remah-Isserles, prohibitions on curing someone who has a Ruach Ra‘ah by sprinkling mother’s milk on them); OH 405 (walking area on Shabbat); OH 571 and 576 – (praying, imploring, blowing of shofar, and fasting for someone in danger on Shabbat); OH 613 (washing hands in the morning on Yom Kippur in relation to ban on washing on Y. Kippur); YD 116 (food and drink under the bed): EH 121 (man with Ruach Ra‘ah who writes divorce certificate).

92 

 Chapter 2 The Ruach Ra‘ah in Premodern Sources

Remarkably, however, the key passages in the Zohar that play an important role in Halachic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and that are quoted or referred to as such do not strictly speaking even mention this term. Examination of the relevant Zohar texts shows that they use the Aramaic term Ruch(a) Mesa’ava122 (‫)רוח]א[ מסאבא‬, which literally means “Impure Spirit”. This is not the direct Aramaic equivalent of Ruach Ra‘ah; that is Rucha Bisha (‫)רוחא בישא‬, a term that occurs already in the Qumran fragments and in the Targum on I Samuel, for instance. Remarkably, the term Ruach Bisha123 (‫ )רוח]א[ בישא‬does in fact occur in the Zohar. We must assume that the two terms are not entirely identical, precisely because they both occur with the same frequency. Moreover, there is only one instance in the Zohar of the composite term Rucha Bisha Mesa’ava (‫)רוח]א[ בישא מסאבא‬. If the terms Rucha Bisha and Rucha Mesa’ava were entirely identical and interchangeable, it is likely that this composite term would have occurred more frequently than it does. The Zohar’s use of “impure spirit” and not “evil spirit” has given the term a more abstract, universal connotation somewhat removed from the original Second Temple discourse, in which a spirit or another entity penetrates a human being, and can also be driven out again and neutralized through forms of exorcism. It also seems that the use of the term “impure” adds a moral connotation to the discourse. Impurity can be remedied relatively easily by performing the prescribed purification rituals, which are extremely simple in this case (washing hands thrice). Not carrying out the washing is therefore reprehensible and is a sin – this will be discussed extensively later.124 Yet it is in the writings of the later Kabbalah that accounts of more classical forms of exorcism, the so-called Dybbuk, can be found.125

122 The term ‫ רוח מסאבא‬appears much more frequently in the Zohar than ‫רוח בישא‬. 123 By contrast, however, the term ‫ רוחא בישא‬is used more frequently than ‫רוח בישא‬. 124 On the other hand use of the term “impure” could also mean a return to Temple discourse, as can be seen, for instance, in the Middle Ages concerning the impurity of menstruating women and the synagogue – see J.R. Woolf, “Medieval Models of Purity and Sanctity”, in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M.J.H.M Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 263–280. 125 Most written accounts of dybbuk exorcisms date to the period from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. See for instance Sha’ar Hagilgulim (1875), 8–17; J. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists and early Modern Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). For an anthropological-sociological analysis of the phenomenon of dybbuk, see for instance J. Bilu, “The dybbuk in Judaism: mental disturbance as cultural resource” [Hebrew], Mechkerei Yerushalayim beMachshevet Yisrael 2, no. 4 (1983), 529–563.

2.6 Conclusion 

 93

2.6 Conclusion This chapter has explored the meaning of Ruach – specifically in the composition Ruach Ra‘ah (or sometimes in its Aramaic equivalent) – in Tanach, Second Temple period literature, the Talmud, and medieval literature. It has explained how this term described both natural phenomena and psychological-physical processes such as possession. Although many of the ideas about demons, spirits, and possession also found their way into the Talmud, it appears that the Talmud cautiously detached Ruach Ra‘ah from its demonic context. Thus there is no explicit exorcism for a Ruach Ra‘ah in the Talmud. Rituals and certain rules of life have replaced this; they give individuals a certain degree of influence over these negative entities, without requiring the services of a specialized exorcist or magicians, and this even for people who do not belong to the rabbinic elite. Medieval rabbinic literature has largely adopted this Talmudic discourse, although Maimonides used an even more rationalistic framework. At the same time, however, the medieval sources – both Halachic and Kabbalistic – also confirmed or expanded the demonic. Kabbalistic literature contains both a more abstract notion of “Ruach” and Ruach Ra‘ah, and a specific one, which is, however, linked to possession and exorcism (dybbuk). In later rabbinic literature, therefore, the term Ruach Ra‘ah occurs with increasing frequency. A following chapter will investigate to what extent modern responsa adopted, adjusted or revised this Talmudic approach, or offered other solutions altogether.

Chapter 3  Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus This chapter will examine a number of central texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah to which many responsa from the corpus refer, or which offer background information that is necessary to understand the modern responsa in the corpus (the Hebrew or Aramaic texts can be found in Appendix C at the back of the book). This analysis will show to what extent these responsa simply copied the classical sources without making changes, offered reinterpretations, or provided a truly innovative paradigm. In order to do this, the chapter will discuss a number of passages from the Talmud (3.1) and medieval Talmud commentators (3.2), from the Zohar (3.3) and the Shulchan Aruch (3.4); passages that occupy an important place in the corpus. It will also demonstrate the influence of a number of Kabbalah-inspired modern rabbinic texts (3.5) on the corpus.

3.1 Babylonian Talmud Many modern responsa deal with the ritual of the washing of hands after rising. This ritual appears in several places in the Talmud.

3.1.1 Berachot 60b Berachot 60b describes the order of events after waking up in the morning: what prayers and blessings must be said, and when, what garments must be put on and in what order, and nearly at the end – when dressing is complete – the washing of hands. This Talmudic source does not contain any explicit reference to the Ruach Ra‘ah as a motive for the washing of hands. It is also clear that the washing of hands is mentioned only towards the end of the ritual – after dressing is nearly complete and the prayer straps and the prayer shawl (tallit) have been put on, and there is no trace of a magical / mystical meaning:1

1 The Talmud texts in this chapter are taken from the Soncino edition, or based on it. The other translations are mine, unless otherwise stated. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-004

3.1 Babylonian Talmud 

 95

When he wakes he says: ‘My God, the soul which Thou hast placed in me is pure. Thou hast fashioned it in me, Thou didst breathe it into me, and Thou preservest it within me and Thou wilt one day take it from me and restore it to me in the time to come. So long as the soul is within me I give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, my God, and the God of my fathers, Sovereign of all worlds, Lord of all souls. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who restorest souls to dead corpses’. When he hears the cock crowing he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has given to the cock understanding to distinguish between day and night’. When he opens his eyes he should say: ‘Blessed is He who opens the eyes of the blind’. When he stretches himself and sits up he should say: ‘Blessed is He who looseneth the bound’. When he dresses he should say: ‘Blessed is He who clothes the naked’. When he draws himself up he should say: ‘Blessed is He who raises the bowed’. When he steps on to the ground he should say: ‘Blessed is He who spread the earth on the waters’. When he commences to walk he should say: Blessed is He who makes firm the steps of man’. When he ties his shoes he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has supplied all my wants’. When he fastens his girdle, he should say: ‘Blessed is He who girds Israel with might’. When he spreads a kerchief over his head he should say: ‘Blessed is He who crowns Israel with glory’. When he wraps himself with the fringed garment he should say: ‘Blessed is He who hast sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to enwrap ourselves in the fringed garment’. When he puts the tefillin on his arm he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to put on tefillin’.

The sequence in the opening passage is somewhat contrived: first there is mention of waking up, then of the cock’s crows, and only then of opening the eyes. Does this mean he says the earlier blessings with his eyes shut? It possibly indicates that two sources / traditions were merged together. Some responsa debate the question as to whether the Talmud passage gives the real sequence here or whether it simply lists the various elements; see also the section on Talmud commentaries in this chapter. The text continues:

96 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

[When he puts it (= the tefillin)] on his head2 he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandment of tefillin’. When he washes his hands he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the washing of hands’. When he washes his face3 he should say: ‘Blessed is He who has removed the bands of sleep from mine eyes and slumber from mine eyes. And may it be Thy will O Lord, my God, to habituate me to Thy law and make me cleave to Thy commandments, and do not bring me into sin, or into iniquity, or into temptation, or into contempt, and bend my inclination to be subservient unto Thee, and remove me far from a bad man and a bad companion, and make me cleave to the good inclination and to a good companion in Thy world, and let me obtain this day and every day grace, favour, and mercy in Thine eyes, and in the eyes of all that see me, and show loving kindness unto me. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who bestowest loving kindness upon Thy people Israel’

3.1.2 Berachot 14b–15a The following two sources illustrate the importance which the Talmud attaches to the washing of hands prior to the reciting of the Shema or the Eighteen Benedictions. This gives the prayer the status of a sacrifice – possibly on account of the parallel with the priests who washed their hands in the Temple before serving there – and completes the “accepting of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven”. The Talmud does not apparently suppose, incidentally, that the washing of hands should occur only before morning prayer; it seems to be a universal law before every prayer: morning, noon, or evening. And this is how it is presented in Maimonides’ Halachic Code, which makes the washing of hands compulsory prior to prayer.4 Here too there is no trace of any demonic or magical-mystical context for the washing of hands:

2 It seems somewhat illogical to put on a kind of headscarf (the sudra) first and only then to lay the tefillin on the head. It would be more logical to put on this headscarf after the prayer, not least because of halachic problems concerning the fact that there is no contact between the scalp and the tefillin because of this headscarf (chatzizah) , which some think was worn by the rabbis as a kind of status symbol to show that they were authorized to be rabbis. 3 Here too it seems illogical to wash one’s face after the tefillin have been laid on the head. Again, it seems as if two sources / traditions (or even more?) have merged together. The manuscript known as Heb. 671 in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has both different content and a different sequence. For an extensive analysis of these morning blessings, see D. Marx, “The Morning Ritual in the Talmud: The Reconstitution of One’s Body and Personal Identity through the Blessings”, HUCA 77 (2006): 103–129. 4 Maimonides, Hilchot Tefillah 4:1–4.

3.1 Babylonian Talmud 

 97

R. Johanan also said: If one desires to accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven in the most complete manner, he should consult nature and wash his hands and put on tefillin and recite the Shema and say the tefillah: this is the complete acknowledgment of the kingdom of heaven. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If one consults nature and washes his hands and puts on tefillin and recites the Shema and says the tefillah, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written [Ps. 26:6.], I will wash my hands in innocency and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord. Said Raba to him: Does not your honour think that it is as if he had bathed himself, since it is written, ‘I will wash in purity’ and it is not written, ‘I will wash my hands’ [in innocency]. 5 Rabina said to Raba: Sir, pray look at this student who has come from the West [Palestine] and who says: If one has no water for washing his hands, he can rub his hands with earth or with a pebble or with sawdust. He replied: He is quite correct. Is it written, I will wash in water? It is written: In cleanliness – with anything which cleans. For R. Hisda cursed anyone who went looking for water at the time of prayer.6 This applies to the recital of the Shema’, but for the tefillah one may go looking. How far? – As far as a parasang.7

3.1.3 Berachot 51a This source places the washing of hands in a demonic and magical-mystical context. R. Ishmael b. Elisha claims to have knowledge concerning this that was imparted to him by a very high Angel – the Angel (or better: Prince) of the Face (‫)הפנים שר‬. He gave the rabbi three admonitions, all of which seem to be of a magical-mystical nature, and transgressions of which will be punished mercilessly by negative entities (demons / destructive angels / Ruach Ra‘ah). The magical-mystical aspect is evident for instance in the presumed transference of negative forces between people who have not washed their hands and items of clothing, the water that is used in the purification ritual, or a cup of asparagus drink.8 The text resembles the style of Hechalot literature: knowledge is derived from revelations by angels, and the rabbi who is identified as the transmitter of this tradition is a well-known figure in this literature. The source is possibly a later addition to the Talmud, deriving from circles around this magical-mystical literature:

5 Rashi explains here that Raba “proves” that washing (‫ )ארחץ‬can also be interpreted here as “washing oneself”, as washing the whole body, and not just the hands. Otherwise it might have said ‫ארחיץ‬. 6 One might miss the time of prayer because of this. 7 4 mil, and 1 mil is equal to 2000 amah (ells) = c. 1 km, i.e. shorter than a Roman mile. 8 According to Jastrow, this beverage was consumed in the morning.

98 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

R. Ishmael b. Elisha said: Three things were told me by Suriel the Officer of the [Divine] Presence. Do not take your shirt from the hand of your attendant when dressing in the morning, and do not let water be poured over your hands by one who has not already washed his own hands, and do not return a cup of asparagus brew to anyone save the one who has handed it to you, because a company of demons (according to others, a band of destroying angels9) lie in wait for a man and say, When will the man do one of these things so that we can catch him.

3.1.4 Shabbat 108b–109a The following source is often read in the context of the harm that the Ruach Ra‘ah can inflict on the human body, and the harmful influence on foodstuffs, when it is not rinsed off the hands after rising. The Talmudic source itself is rather cryptic; the explicit link with the Ruach Ra‘ah derives from the Talmudic commentaries of the Middle Ages. The context of this source is that of physical eye diseases – a subject that immediately precedes it – and the question as to which treatments may be performed on the Shabbat. The admonitions appear originally to have been more of a medical nature, rather than the ritual magical-mystical atmosphere of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the hands and causes harm to humans and to food. He [R. Muna] used to say: If the hand [be put] to the eye, let it be cut off; the hand to the nose, let it be cut off: the hand to the mouth, let it be cut off; the hand to the ear, let it be cut off; the hand to the vein [opened for bloodletting], let it be cut off; the hand to the membrum, let it be cut off; the hand to the anus, let it be cut off; the hand to the vat [with beer or wine], let it be cut off: [because] the [unwashed] hand leads to blindness, the hand leads to deafness, the hand causes a polypus.

The continuation of the Talmudic discourse does evoke the atmosphere of demons, but it can still be interpreted from a medical perspective. In ancient medicine and also in the Talmud, demons are often viewed as the cause of both physical and psychosomatic ailments: It was taught, R. Nathan said: It is a free agent,10 and insists [on remaining on the hands] until one washes his hands three times. R. Johanan said: Stibium removes [cures] the Princess,11 stops the tears, and promotes the growth of the eye-lashes. It was taught likewise, R. Jose said: Stibium removes the Princess, stops the tears, and promotes the growth of the eye-lashes.

9 Some manuscripts have Ruach Ra‘ah instead of demons. 10 Literally: “she is a free person [Bat Chorin – ‫”]בת חורין‬, etc. The female form possibly refers to this entity who is afterwards called “Bat Melech”, “Daughter of the King”. 11 Literally: Daughter of the King [‫]בת מלך‬.

3.1 Babylonian Talmud 

 99

This passage is the first to draw an explicit connection between unwashed hands,12 a certain entity that attaches itself to them, and this entity’s disappearance after one has washed one’s hands three times. It is not clear that the passage speaks specifically about hands in the morning after waking up. The original context can still, however, be interpreted as medical, as the immediate continuation illustrates.13

3.1.5 Yoma 77b / Hullin 107b The following two sources are partially parallel sources, although they appear in different contexts. The context in bHullin 107b arises from a discussion about washing hands before eating bread – and possibly also before eating other foods that required prior washing of hands according to the rabbis (as a relic of the purity laws of the Second Temple period). The Yoma passage also discusses the washing of hands, but in the context of the prohibition on the washing of the body on Yom Kippur. Neither source contains an explicit reference to the Ruach Ra‘ah , although they both have a magical-mystical context. A medical-hygienic context is likely here too: we still think it is hygienic to wash one’s hands before eating. The discussion in bHullin 107b begins with the question as to whether someone who will not be directly touching his bread (or his food) with his hands must still wash his hands. The discussion then continues with the question as to whether someone who gives someone else bread to eat must still wash his own hands, even though he will not eat himself: Come and hear: It was taught in the school of Manasseh: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says. A woman may wash one hand in water and give some bread to her small child. It was said of Shammai the Elder that he would not feed a child even with one hand, and the Sages ordered him that he feed it with both hands! – Abaye answered: There it was on account of evil spirits14

12 Other manuscripts do not have the words “until he washes his hands” (i.a. MS-München). See also R. Chananel’s explanation of this passage. 13 “Mar Ukba also said in the name of Samuel: ‘Leaves do not have medicinal properties’. R. Joseph said: ‘Coriander does not have medicinal properties’. R. Sheseth said: ‘Cuscuta [a kind of parasitical plant] does not have medicinal properties’. R. Joseph remarked: ‘Coriander is not even beneficial to me’. R. Sheseth remarked: ‘Eruca is even good for me’ [R. Sheseth was blind].” 14 The Talmud literally has: “because Shibta [‫”]שיבתא‬. It is not clear what this is, but it is plausible that it refers to an evil spirit (Ruach Ra‘ah) or a demon: demons are regularly called by specific names, as Rashi and Tosafot ad loc. imply.

100 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

Thus R. Simeon b. Gamaliel teaches that a woman may wash only one hand if she gives her child bread to eat. The old Shammai did not even do that – he obviously believed that it was not enough to wash one hand, but that both hands should be washed. In order to suppress this deviant opinion he was ordered to give a child to eat with both hands – probably with unwashed hands (or at least with one unwashed hand). The conclusion at this stage seems to be that there is no need to wash both hands when one is giving someone else bread to eat.15 Then there is the statement by Abaye which gives the discussion a demonicmagical context. From the perspective of the purity laws there is no need even to wash one hand, but now a different reason is given to do this: “Shibta”: a demon or evil spirit that rests upon the hand and that might harm the child.16 The passage about the woman who feeds her child and washes one hand also occurs in bYoma 77b, but there it is situated in the context of the Day of Atonement.17 In the corpus, it is mainly this source that has been used as reference, not the one from Hullin. The medieval Talmud commentators asked the question of how this passage about the washing of one hand before giving bread to a child to eat could be reconciled with bShabbat 108b–109a about the Bat Melech and the Bat Chorin. Many medieval commentators associated the passage in bShabbat 108b–109a with the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning.

3.1.6 Pesahim 112a This source deals with contamination by the Ruach Ra‘ah of food and drink that are placed under a bed. The text appears among several pages in the Talmud on the danger of demons and spirits, and what must be done or avoided to prevent

15 The conclusion of the Talmud in this place is: He who is fed by someone else must wash his hands. He who feeds someone else does not need to wash his hands. 16 Why the old Shammai had no reason to be afraid of this Shibta does not become fully clear. Perhaps washing one’s hand is sufficient to avert the danger of Shibta, even if one touches the food with the hand that was not washed. 17 Our Rabbis taught: “It is forbidden to wash a part of the body [on the Day of Atonement], just as it is [forbidden] to [wash] the entire body [on that day]. But if it is dirty, because of mud or excrement, he may wash himself personally, and without fear [of transgression]. It is forbidden to anoint a part of the body [just as it is forbidden] [to anoint] the entire body. But if one is ill or has scabs on one’s head, one may anoint as usual, and without fear [of transgression]. The school of R. Menashe taught: ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: ‘A woman may wash one of her hands with water to give bread to her young child, and she does not have to fear [a transgression]. It was told about the old Shammai that he did not want to feed with one hand, which caused the rabbis to order him to feed with both hands. Why? Abaye said: because of Shibta.”

3.1 Babylonian Talmud 

 101

either from inflicting harm. As there is mention of a bed, it is easy to make the association with sleeping – there is also the washing of hands in the morning after waking up – but there is no explicit statement to this effect in the Talmud. Here, too, a hygienic-medical context cannot be excluded: there is dirt under the bed and vermin that spread diseases – with demons / spirits seen as intermediaries for the spreading of these diseases: It was taught: If food and drink [are kept] under the bed, even if they are covered in iron vessels, an evil spirit [Ruach Ra‘ah] rests upon them.

Immediately preceding this passage (112 a) there is the following exhortation: He who lets blood without washing his hands will be afraid seven days. He who trims his hair and does not wash his hands will be afraid three days. He who pares his nails and does not wash his hands will be afraid one day without knowing what affrights him.

The suggestion created is that there is also a connection between the cutting of nails and hair, and bloodletting on the one hand, and the Ruach Ra‘ah on the other, so that subsequent washing is required. The two latter subjects appear in the responsa of the corpus.

3.1.7 Niddah 17a This source deals with the ban on leaving certain foodstuffs overnight because of the Ruach Ra‘ah which rests on them. This source presents five different acts as dangerous. People who carry out these acts regardless will have themselves to blame for the consequences, according to the Talmud. In the most extreme case, they will be responsible for their own death. The five acts all deal with what goes in and out of the body, or things with which the body comes into contact, and they stand in the context of other acts that are of a demonic-magical nature. Three issues are concerned with what happens at night. A demonic context seems logical in these cases, because the night especially is seen as the domain of spirits and demons. The two other acts deal with diminishing the body: by cutting nails – an extremity of the body – and by bloodletting: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, There are five things which [cause the man] who does them to forfeit his life and his blood is upon his own head: Eating peeled garlic, a peeled onion or a peeled egg, or drinking diluted liquids that were kept over night; spending a night in a graveyard; removing one’s nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare; and bloodletting followed immediately by intercourse.

102 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

The Talmud continues by explaining the harmful effects of these five acts, but simultaneously nuances the dangers and describes circumstances that may avert the harmful effects in the case of peeled egg, onion, and garlic: ‘Eating peeled garlic etc.’ Even though they are deposited in a basket and tied up and sealed, an evil spirit rests upon them. This, however, has been said only where their roots or peel did not remain with them, but if their roots or peel remained with them there can be no objection.

The addition that even foodstuffs that are entirely closed off18 are dangerous to eat strengthens the demonic context. Who else would be able to reach food that is totally closed off in a basket? If some of the skin or the roots have been left on the peeled goods, then they are not dangerous. Elsewhere in the Talmud, the consumption of liquids (Gilui) left uncovered is regarded as harmful – even during the day and not only at night – because possibly a snake came to drink from it and deposited his venom in the liquid.19 This danger of uncovered liquids returns in the responsa of the corpus, because the medieval Tosafists compared the danger of the Shibta, the consuming of uncovered liquids, and eating and drinking in uneven pairs (Zugot). ‘Spending a night in a graveyard’, in order that a spirit of uncleanness may rest upon him. [This should not be done] since in consequence he might sometimes be exposed to danger.20

People who hang around a graveyard at night run the risk of coming into contact with forces that they can no longer control and that can inflict harm on them. The Talmud continues to discuss the issue of cutting nails and throwing them away in the public space: 18 Note the duplication: tied up and sealed; a theme in a number of responsa from the corpus, see for instance Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144 and Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5. 19 See bAvodah Zarah 30a: “The maidservant of R. Hiyya discovered that there was some boiled wine left. And she went to R. Hiyya to ask him what to do, and he said to her that it was said that boiled wine does not become undrinkable when it is left uncovered. The servant of R. Adda b. Ahaba discovered that diluted wine had not been covered. But [his master] told him that it was said that diluted wine does not become undrinkable when it has stood uncovered. R. Papa said: This is said only [of wine] that is well diluted; but if it is diluted only a little bit, [a snake] can certainly drink it.” The prohibition on drinking uncovered liquids was also included in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 116:1) and Maimonides’ Code (H. Rotzeach uShemirat Hanefesh, 11:6). The Shulchan Aruch remarks that ‘it is permitted nowadays, as there are no longer any snakes among us’. It is remarkable that – similarly to the Ruach Ra‘ah – later rabbis’ rulings are stricter; see for instance the Kaf Hachayim (Sofer) on this section in the Shulchan Aruch. This stricter interpretation was sometimes inspired by the Kabbalah, see for instance Ateret Paz, V. 1 vol. C, EH, no. 12 and Shevet Halevi, V. 6, no. 63. 20 A better translation is: “because sometimes they inflict harm on him”.

3.1 Babylonian Talmud 

 103

‘Removing one’s nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare’. [This is dangerous] because a pregnant woman passing over them would miscarry. This, however, has been said only of a case where one removes them with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, this has been said only of a case where one removes the nails of both hands and feet. Furthermore, this has been said only in the case where one did not cut anything immediately after cutting them but if something was cut immediately after they were cut there can be no danger. This, however, is not [to be relied upon]. One should be on his guard in all the cases mentioned.

It is unclear what connection there might be between nail clippings that are thrown away and a miscarriage. It might be said, first, that throwing away nail clippings symbolizes the opposite of an embryo’s nesting in the womb. Casting away a part of the body as refuse can cause a similar result in a woman who treads on nail clippings; she too will reject her embryo, as it were, and “throw it out” as if it represents excess human tissue. This is of course a negative effect that the pregnant woman will try to prevent from happening. In addition, hairs and nails are mysterious objects in many old cultures.21 They are both extremities of the body that appear to be dead matter, but that nonetheless grow in volume, and can moreover be regarded as symbols of the body in its entirety (pars pro toto).22 The Torah contains various passages where hair (and nails) had to be cut or shaved, or indeed not shaved, for certain rituals.23 These texts on the cutting of nails do not appear often as quotations in the corpus, but their influence can be felt in the Talmud’s prescription of washing hands after cutting one’s nails24 – a washing codified in the Shulchan Aruch OH 4: 18 and which is sometimes connected with the Ruach Ra‘ah in later texts.25 The last part of the text deals with the danger of having sexual intercourse immedi-

21 See for instance J. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 229–237; The Greek Magical Papyri in translation, including the Demotic Spells, ed. H.D. Betz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992 [2nd ed.]), PGM I. 4–5, 3: “Take [together, therefore] two of your own fingernails and all the hairs [from] your head. . .”, and PDM xiv. 1183– 1184, 249: “[Spell to] make mad any man or any woman. You should take the hair of the man whom you wish together with the hair of a dead man. . .”. For the Jewish context, see for instance J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 40–41, 127–129, 255–256. 22 C.R. Hallpike, “Social Hair”, in On Primitive Society: And Other Forbidden Topics (Bloomington: Author House, 2011), 280–295, who discusses the magical use of hair (and nails), the meaning of letting hair grow and shaving it, and who also briefly addresses the biblical context of hair. 23 See for instance Lev. 14:8–9: Num. 6:5; Deut. 21:12. 24 bPesahim 112a: “He who has a bloodletting from his shoulder and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for seven days. He who cuts his hair / shaves and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for three days. He who cuts his nails and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for one day, and will not know what he is afraid of”. 25 See for instance Sha‘arei Teshuvah on OH 4:18.

104 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

ately after a bloodletting, which is, however, also nuanced and linked to certain conditions:26 “(. . .) and bloodletting immediately followed by intercourse”. [This must be avoided]”.

3.1.8 Hullin 105b The next source deals with washing hands after the meal. The Talmud distinguishes three moments that hands must (or can) be washed: before the meal, during the meal, and after the meal. This source associates the Ruach Ra‘ah in connection with the washing of hands after the meal (‫)מים אחרונים‬: ‘The last washing must be With cold Water only’, and not with hot water. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Jannai. They said this only of [hot] water wherein the hand is scalded, but one may wash the hands with water wherein the hand is not scalded.

This rule concerning the temperature of the water is followed by a discussion about the exact reason for the rule that hands must be washed after the meal: (. . .) R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: Why did [the Rabbis] say that it was a bounden duty to wash the hands after the meal? Because of a certain salt of Sodom which makes the eyes blind. Said Abaye. One grain of this is found in a kor of ordinary salt. R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What is the rule if one measured out salt? – He replied: Undoubtedly [one should certainly wash one’s hands].’

It is not entirely clear whether this is a purely physiological reason. Blindness plays a clear role in the story of the angels who come as guests to Lot in Sodom: the inhabitants of Sodom are punished with blindness when they attempt to violently remove the men from Lot’s house in order to have sex with the men. The message appears to be – apart from the empirical fact that salt in the eyes pricks unpleasantly – that part of the curse of Sodom (including blindness) has passed onto the salt that is mined in the area surrounding this city. The Talmud continues by stating that salt always contains “something” of the salt from Sodom: one grain per kor, and a kor is approximately 400 kilograms. Despite the fact that ordinary table salt contains a very small quantity of salt from Sodom, one must still fear being blinded by this because the salt sticks to one’s hands.

26 “When someone has intercourse immediately after a bloodletting, he will have weak children; when both the man and the woman had a bloodletting and have intercourse, their children will have ‘Ra‘athan’ [A skin disease that is accompanied by neurological disorders]. Rab said: ‘This is only the case when they did not eat anything after the bloodletting, but if they ate something afterwards then it is not harmful’”.

3.2 Talmud Commentators 

 105

That there is more at stake here than just a physical reason becomes apparent in the following passage, where Abaye addresses why the water used to wash hands after the meal may not be poured under the table, and where the demonicmagical component of the Ruach Ra‘ah is introduced: Abaye also said: At first I thought the reason why one pours off [a little water] from the mouth of the jug [before drinking therefrom] was the fear of scraps [that may be on the surface], but now my Master has told me: It is because of evil waters.27

The Talmud continues with a series of statements by Abaye on all kinds of acts that are best avoided and in which magic and demons play an important role. To give one example by way of illustration: Abaye also said: ‘Initially I thought that the reason that it was forbidden to sit below a drainage pipe was because [waste] water came out of it. But my Master told me: ‘it is because of the demons that can be found there’. . .

3.1.9 Shabbat 29b This Talmudic source – actually a Mishnah – discusses the extinguishing of a candle on Shabbat. Although the lighting of a fire on Shabbat is forbidden in the Bible, the putting out of fire (usually) is not, but it is only a rabbinic prohibition. This Mishnah deals with cases where fire may be put out. One of the permitted reasons is someone who is afraid of a Ruach Ra‘ah: If one extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of gentiles, robbers, or an evil spirit [Ruach Ra‘ah], or for the sake of an invalid, that he should sleep, he is not culpable. If [because] he would spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is culpable. R. Jose exempts him the person who extinguish the lamp] in all cases, except in respect of the wick, because he makes charcoal [which makes the next lighting of the lamp easier].

3.2 Talmud Commentators The following section examines relevant standpoints of medieval commentators in relation to the Talmudic sources described above.

27 Literally: Because an Evil Spirit (Ruach Ra‘ah) rests on them.

106 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

3.2.1 Commentaries on Berachot 60b (3.1.1) There are various medieval interpretations in relation to this source: does the Talmud list the exact sequence of the acts, or is it simply a literary sequence? It is important to answer this question so as to be able to determine the Talmudic position in relation to touching clothes with unwashed hands, the moment that the washing must be carried out – immediately upon waking up, or later, and the reciting of blessings before the washing. The Zohar (see 3.3.1 and 3.3.4) does not want people to recite a blessing while the Ruach Ra‘ah still rests on their hands, nor does it want people to touch their clothes before they have washed their hands. If this passage from the Talmud conveys the actual sequence, then this means it is permitted to recite a blessing before washing one’s hands, and there is no objection to touching one’s clothes before washing one’s hands, because the list mentions the washing of hands after the putting on of clothes and the reciting of the blessings.

3.2.2 Commentaries on Shabbat 108b–109a (3.1.4) The best known Talmud commentators associate this passage with the Ruach Ra‘ah who rests on the hands in the morning after waking up. One of the first to mention this is the Halachot Gedolot (Shimon Kayara, ninth century), quoted in the Aruch, entry “Shibta” (see 3.1.5 and 3.2.3). It is rare, however, to find an explicit connection being made between sleeping and the appearance of the Ruach Ra‘ah; this first happens explicitly in the Zohar. Some see the Ruach Ra‘ah in this case as a personified Ruach Ra‘ah called Bat Chorin; others the Bat Melech. The Aruch and Rabenu Chananel regard the Bat Chorin and Bat Melech as a Ruach Ra‘ah which rests on the eye, and not on the hands.

3.2.3 Commentaries on bYoma 77b / bHullin 107b (3.1.5) The medieval commentaries contain roughly two approaches to the question as to whether and how bShabbat 108b–109a and bYoma 77b (bHullin 107b) can be harmonized with each other. Do both texts refer to the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning who rests on the hands and can be transmitted to food – as Rashi and other exegetes stated? Or does bYoma 77b (or bHullin 107b) refer to another Ruach Ra‘ah, called Shibta, who rests on food / bread that is given to a child, as the Tosafists contended? In that case the context bears no relation to rising in the morning or to the prescribed washing of the hands. The Tosafists wrote the following about this:

3.2 Talmud Commentators 

 107

And Shibta here [in our sugya] is something else, because she rests on food, when one wants to give bread to a child that is 4–5 years old. And she [Shibta] suffocates him if one has not washed one’s hands at that time [of feeding], even though one has washed one’s hands in the morning.28

The Aruch gives a different explanation which associates the Shibta with the use of the toilet: an evil spirit who grabs the little children by the neck/throat, by the joint; by the tendons that run along the back of the back, and lets them dry out and weaken until it dies . . . and her time [the period that she is dangerous] is from two months on, and a little child should fear this until it is seven years of age. And why is this? Because when the mother comes out of the toilet or the river29 and immediately suckles her son.30

Rashi on bYoma 77b moreover describes the Shibta as a demon with this name.

3.2.4 Commentaries on Pesahim 112a (3.1.6) Rabenu Gershom on bBaba Batra 58a contends that in addition to foodstuffs and liquids, no objects must be placed under the bed either.

3.2.5 Commentaries on Shabbat 29b (3.1.9) An evil spirit who is chasing someone – or is already within someone or rests upon someone – is apparently a situation that is (potentially) dangerous and that justifies the extinguishing of a source of light, as Rashi states in bTa’anit 22b.31 The calming effects of darkness on people with a certain psychological disorder could be observed, it was sometimes believed, and this in contrast with the irritating effects that light had on such persons, as is clear from Maimonides’ commentary on this Mishnah: 28 Tosafot bYoma 77b: ‫"ד' וה' שנים וחונקתו אם לא נטל ידיו באותה שעה אף על פי ושיבתא דהכא ענין אחר הואי ששורה על האוכל‬ ".‫כשבא ליתן פת לתינוק בן שכבר נטלן שחרית‬   bHullin 107b has almost the same words. 29 To relieve herself or for a ritual immersion? 30 Aruch, entry for “Shibta”. 31 “‘On account of a Ruach Ra‘ah’ – because a spirit of a female demon entered into him, and he is running around, and “perhaps he will drown [because of this] in a river or he will fall and die. . .”.

108 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

All diseases that are called ‘melakonia’32 in Arabic are called Ruach Ra‘ah . There is a disease of this kind where the sick person flees and hides from the normal human nature [=civilisation] when he sees light, or when he is together with people. And his spirit / psyche then calms down and enjoys the darkness and loneliness during such periods of alienation. And this happens a lot with people with [problems] with their humours [‫מרות‬, probably black bile].33

3.3 Mystical Sources: Zohar Especially Halachic literature concerning the ritual of washing hands in the morning was influenced by mystical literature – especially by the Zohar, but also the writings and traditions surrounding Luria. The Shulchan Aruch (OH 4) itself contains echoes of this mystical literature in its description of the laws concerning the washing of hands after waking up in the morning. For many rabbis of the last three decades – especially Oriental and Eastern European rabbis – mystical literature was similarly a source of inspiration and authority. The following texts from the Zohar all address the rule of washing hands in the morning, but add elements to this that are not in the Talmud.34

3.3.1 Zohar Introduction 10b In this source on the washing of hands after sleep, this custom is first described as belonging to a clearly identifiable group of the Pious. The context is that of a group used to rising at night – around midnight – to learn Torah, because of the special quality of the moment of midnight: . . .This was the way of the pious men of old: they had a cup of water standing beside them, so that when they awoke at night, they first washed their hands, then rose and studied the Torah, after they had first recited the blessing [on this]. Once the cock crows, it is exactly midnight and then the HOLY ONE, Blessed be He, dwells in the company of the Righteous in the Garden of Eden. And it is forbidden to recite the blessing with impure, dirty hands. And thus at any time. Because when a man sleeps, his spirit [Ruach] flies away from him – and when his spirit flies away from him, an Impure Spirit is waiting to rest upon his hands and

32 From the Greek “melancholia”. 33 ‫ ויש מהן מין שהחולה בורח ויוצא מגדרו כשרואה אור או כשהוא‬,'‫ קורין לכל מיני 'אלמאלנכוליאת‬,‫"רוח רעה‬ ‫ וזה מצוי הרבה בבעלי‬,‫נמצא בין בני אדם וימצא נחת רוח ותשקוט נפשו בחושך ובבדידות ובמקומות השוה ממין‬ ".‫המרה‬ 34 The translations are mine.

3.3 Mystical Sources: Zohar 

 109

contaminates them. And this is why one may not recite a blessing without [first] washing them. And if one might ask, why then is it forbidden after a visit to the toilet, during the day – when he does not sleep and his spirit did not leave him, and no Impure Spirit rests on him – to recite a blessing and to learn a word of Torah until he washed his hands? And if they were to say: ‘because they [the hands] are dirty’. This is not the case, because how did they become dirty? But, woe to those who do not know to pay heed to their Master’s honour, and do not realise what the world is founded upon. In every toilet in the world there is a spirit that feeds on this dirt and excrement, and immediately it rests upon the fingers of a man’s hand. . .

The Zohar adds an element of spiritual “dirt” that is lacking in the Talmudic vision of the Ruach Ra‘ah, which focuses on physical dirt. This spiritual impurity that rests on the hands is the cause of the ban on reciting blessings until one has washed one’s hands. The Zohar then outlines the doctrine that the soul departs during sleep, leaving the body soulless and therefore vulnerable to impure spirits and other entities. The resulting vacuum is immediately filled by an impure spirit that rests upon the body / the hands (the Zohar speaks explicitly of the hands) during sleep.35 The Zohar then asks why even during the day it is forbidden to utter holy words upon entering a toilet (i.e. not after relieving oneself) until one has washed one’s hands? Surely the soul does not depart from the body at this time, causing impure spirits to rest on the body / the hands? The Zohar answers that there is a spirit in toilets which feeds on the dirt there, and that this spirit also attaches itself to human fingers. This conclusion of the Zohar passage plays a role in some responsa from the corpus on the status of the toilet or the bathroom, also in relation to food and drink left in such a place – may these be consumed or not, in view of this Impure Spirit? This last question does not appear in the Shulchan Aruch, but it does in the corpus.

3.3.2 Zohar Bereshit 53b This fragment is also concerned with the impurity that is caused by sleep and that spreads further by touching clothes – for instance – with one’s hands. In a preceding passage, the Zohar first speaks of the impurity caused by death, and people who sleep partake in a fraction of the impurity caused by death:

35 Cf. the Zohar quotation below which states that the impure spirit rests on the body during sleep, and not on the hands only.

110 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

. . . All people, when they lie in their beds at night and night spreads its wings, taste something of the taste of death. And because they are tasting the taste of death, this Impure Spirit wanders through the world, and makes the world impure. And she rests mainly upon man’s hands and contaminates him. And therefore, when he wakes up and his soul is returned to him, everything he touches with his hands becomes impure – because the Impure Spirit rests upon them. And this is why a person should not take any garment to dress himself with from anyone who has not washed his hands, because this is how he attracted an Impure Spirit and becomes contaminated. And this Impure Spirit has permission to rest anywhere where there is the slightest trace of his ‘side’ [from which it appeared]. This is why a person must not permit that someone who has not yet washed his hands should pour water over his hands, because he draw this Impure Spirit to himself in this way, because he will beget her from the contact with the person who pours out the water over him – because she has permission to rest upon him. . .

This fragment illustrates the ease with which the impure spirit can be transmitted, and the recommendation to prevent this transmission. According to the conclusion of this Zohar passage, this impurity will not totally disappear until the End of Time.

3.3.3 Zohar Vayishlach 169b The next Zohar text is about what happens to people during sleep. Here it seems that there are several other (impure) entities – in addition to a / the impure spirit – who attach themselves to people and engage in (sexual) contact with them, and who give birth to progeny that look like people, but are spirits and demons. Humans must protect themselves against these entities who disturb them in their sleep and manipulate them, by “following the path of the Torah”: . . .and it is said, that when someone dreams and is not in charge of his body, and his body becomes powerless, an Impure Spirit comes and rests upon him. And sometimes it happens that a number of impure female spirits approach him and pull him towards them, they become aroused by him and give birth afterwards to spirits, demons, plagues of humans. These sometimes appear in the form of humans, except that their heads have no hair. Therefore a man has to keep himself from all of them and not to allow himself to be contaminated by them, but to follow the ways of the Torah. Because there is no one who sleeps in his bed at night who does not have the foretaste of death, since his soul leaves him. And because his body remains without the holy soul [neshamah], an Impure Spirit is ready and rests upon him and he becomes impure. It has previously already been said that a human must not pass his hands across his eyes in the morning, because of the Impure Spirit that rests upon them. . .

This text also adds the element that sleep and death are somehow linked. This source continues by stating that an impure spirit comes to rest upon a person,

3.3 Mystical Sources: Zohar 

 111

filling the vacuum as it were – after his soul has departed. This is followed by a reference to a previous statement in the Zohar that one must consequently refrain from brushing across one’s eyes with one’s hands in the morning, because they are impure. The Talmudic statement that one should not touch one’s eyes with one’s hands is thus placed in an unambiguously demonised context: that of the impure spirit or impure spirits that rests or rest upon the hands.

3.3.4 Zohar Vayeshev 184b The following source develops the aspects of sleep and impurity that have already been discussed. In addition, it focuses on the way in which the hands must be washed, with the use of two objects – one from which the water is poured over the hands, and one that collects the impure water. It is also important to ensure that the impure water is not recklessly thrown out after the ritual, or used for sorcery: Rabbi Shimon began and said: it is written [Ps. 26:6]: ‘I will wash my hands in innocence and join the procession round your altar O Lord’. This verse has already been explained, but come and see the inner meaning of this verse here: Because there is no one in the world who does not taste a foretaste of death during the night, and the Impure Spirit rests on this body. What is the reason? Because the holy soul leaves man’s body and ascends. And because the holy soul departs from him and ascends, an Impure Spirit rests on that body and he becomes impure. But when the soul returns to the body, the contamination disappears. But it has been said that an unclean dirtiness continues to rest on the hands. This is why a man must not pass his hands over his eyes because this Impure Spirit rests on him until he has washed them. But once he has washed his hands as it befits, he becomes sanctified and is called holy. And how should one sanctify himself? Two vessels are required: one above and one below, so that he may be sanctified by [the water from] the one above, and the one below in which the dirt of Impurity is collected. So one [vessel] collects the contamination, and by the other one is sanctified; the one is blessed, the other is cursed. And the [contaminated] water must not be thrown out in the house, so that no one can come near to them; because it is a gathering place for their [impure] side, which can cause harm through these impure waters. Nor must anyone recite a blessing before the filth is removed from his hands as has been explained. This is why a man is called impure before he has sanctified his hands in the morning, afterwards he is called pure. And this is the reason why one should not allow water to be poured over his hands save by [one with] hands that were purified before. As it is written: ‘And the clean one will sprinkle the unclean’ [Num. 19:19] – one is called clean, the other unclean. And this is the reason for the two vessels, one above and one below: one holy and the other impure. Nor is it permitted to use the water for something, or to keep it at home overnight, but it must be thrown out in a place where people do not walk. Because after they have been poured out onto the earth an Impure Spirit is present there, and she may harm. And if he has arranged it that the [water] can run away along a slope under the ground and is no longer visible, it is surely permitted. And the water must not be given to

112 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

witches, because they can harm people with it, because it is cursed water. And the HOLY ONE-BLESSED-BE-HE wishes to purify Israel so that they may be holy, as it is written [Ez. 36:25]: ‘I shall pour clean water over you and you will be cleansed; I shall cleanse you of all your filth and of all your idols.’

Great care must be taken with the impure water after the ritual – it may not be kept at home, but must be thrown out in a place where people do not walk. In addition, this text adds an interesting aspect: water must be poured out over the hands by another clean person – who has already washed his hands. The reference here is to the ritual of the Red Heifer (a ritual that could not be performed anymore after the destruction of the Temple), where a clean person sprinkles the water of purification over an unclean person, thus purifying him – no one can purify himself of this uncleanness, just as the unclean person who needs the water of purification cannot do this himself. The statement that the person who has been cleansed obtains the status of “holy” after the purification (and not “clean”, as one would expect) is also striking.

3.3.5 Zohar Miketz 198b The following source adds the symbolism of the right / the left in pouring water over the hands in the morning after rising. Here, too, the Zohar appears to argue that the ritual ideally must be received from someone else. The right is considered as more important and more dominant, while the left must “serve” and purify the right. Because according to the Kabbalah it is precisely the left side that is vulnerable as a point of entry for evil powers: .  .  .Furthermore a person must wash his right hand with his left, so that the right rules over the left, and the right is washed by the left; this is the purpose of the washing. Thus someone who washes his hands [in the morning] must wash his right hand from his left hand, to give the Evil Tendency no place to prevail at all . . .

The Zohar thus adds a much stronger demonic framework and also places greater emphasis on the dangers than the Talmud itself did. But it is precisely this Kabbalistic discourse that has had an impact on the Halachic Code, the Shulchan Aruch.

3.4 Halachic Codices: Shulchan Aruch The following sections of the chapter briefly discuss how the passages from the Talmud and the Zohar described above have influenced the Shulchan Aruch.

3.4 Halachic Codices: Shulchan Aruch 

 113

I. Concerning bBerachot 14b–15a and 60b (3.1.1 and 3.1.2) SA OH 4:1 “One washes the hands and recites the blessing formula ‘on the washing of hands’. (Water that is not suitable for the washing of hands before a [bread] meal, is suitable for the washing of hands before prayer. There are those, however, who say that one does not recite the blessing over this).” OH 4:6 “The [measure] of a ‘fourth’ [log of water] is not necessary for the washing of hands before the prayer.” OH 4:23 “The washing of hands was instituted only for the reading of the Shema and the prayer, but the ‘blessing of the morning’ can also be recited before the washing. . .” II. Concerning bBerachot 14b–15a and Shabbat 108–109a (3.1.2 and 3.1.4) SA OH 4:12 “If he moves his hands back and forth in an object with water, then this washing is sufficient for the reading of the Shema and the prayer, but not for the Ruach Ra‘ah on them. If he moves his hands back and forth three times in different water, it is doubtful whether this is sufficient to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah.” OH 4:13 “If someone was awake the whole night, it is doubtful whether he must wash his hands in the morning for the prayer and to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah from the hands.” OH 4:22 “If someone has no water, then he must rub his hands clean with stones or sand or anything that cleanses and then say the blessing: “before the washing of hands”, and that is enough for the prayer. But not to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah from them.” III. Concerning bBerachot 51a, Zohar Bereshit 53b, Vayeshev 184b (3.1.3, 3.3.2–4) SA OH 4:11 “He should not take water from / permit water to be poured over his hands by someone who has not himself washed his hands yet in the morning.” IV. Concerning Shabbat 108b–109a (3.1.4) SA OH 4:2, 3, 5, 14 “. . . (3) One must make sure to pour water over them three times, to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah who rests upon them.” “. . . (5) One should not touch the mouth, the nose, the ears, or the eyes with the unwashed hand.”

114 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

“One must not touch a barrel with beer [alcoholic beverage], because the touch of the hand spoils the beer.” “. . . (14) He who rose early, before the dawn [‫ ]עמוד השחר‬and then washed his hands, it is doubtful whether he has to wash his hands again when it becomes light, to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests upon the hands.” V. Concerning Pesahim 112a (3.1.6) SA YD 116:5 “And one must not place any dish or beverages under the bed, because the Ruach Ra‘ah will then rest upon them.” VI . Concerning Shabbat 108b–109a, Pesahim 112a, Niddah 17a (3.1.4, 3.1.6–7) SA OH 4:18, 19 “The following situations necessitate a washing [of the hands] with water: he who rises from the bed . . . and he who cuts his nails . . . and some say: also he who walks between the dead [in a graveyard], and he who touches a dead person . . . and he who finds himself in such a situation and does not wash his hands, if he is a learned man he will forget his knowledge; if he is not a learned man, then he will go mad.” “He who undergoes a bloodletting in his shoulder and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for seven days. He who cuts his hair / shaves and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for three days. He who cuts his nails and does not wash his hands, will be afraid for one day, and he will not know what he is afraid of.” VII. Concerning Niddah 17a (3.1.7) There is no codification concerning leaving peeled onions, eggs and garlic overnight in the three codices of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and Maimonides. VIII. Concerning Hullin 105b (3.1.8) SA OH 181:1, 2 “The water for the washing after the meal is obligatory. One does not perform the washing after the meal above the ground, but in an object, in view of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the water. And if one does not have an object, then one washes above thin sticks and suchlike.” IX. Concerning Zohar Introduction 10b (3.3.1) SA OH 4:18 “The following situations necessitate a washing [of the hands] with water: he who comes from the toilet, or from the bathhouse . . .”.

3.5 Post-Zohar Kabbalistic Sources 

 115

X. Concerning Zohar Introduction 10b and Zohar Bereshit 53b (3.3.1, 3.3.2) SA OH 4:15 “He who sleeps during the day, it is doubtful whether he must pour water over his hands three times.” XI. Concerning Zohar Vayishlach 169b and Zohar Vayeshev 184b (3.3.3, 3.3.4) SA OH 4:16 “[King] David made sure not to sleep for 60 breaths, so that he would not taste the taste of death.” XII. Concerning Zohar Vayeshev 184b (3.3.4) SA OH 4:8, 9 “The washing in the morning is not performed above the ground, but in an object.” “Nothing may be enjoyed from the water used to perform the washing in the morning. And one must not throw this [water] away in the home, nor in a place where people walk past.” XIII. Concerning Zohar Miketz 198b (3.3.5) SA OH 4:10 “One must take the object with the water with the right hand, and pass it to the left hand, so that the water is first poured out over the right hand.” The influence of the Zohar is most noticeable in the triple washing required to make the Ruach Ra‘a disappear, and in the strict regulations on what to do with the water after the washing. The paradigm of the departure of the soul during sleep at night is also visible.

3.5 Post-Zohar Kabbalistic Sources Finally, this chapter will examine a number of later texts that developed ideas derived from Zohar texts that ended up in Halachic discourse. It will give only a few examples, given the large number of texts that have been produced in the last three to four centuries in the different genres: responsa, commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, and other codices. Three interrelated fragments have been selected; together they form a discourse. The first fragment is derived from the writings of the Kabbalist Luria, written down by his pupil Chaim Vital. This fragment gives a good impression of the Kab-

116 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

balistic framework that has influenced the later responsa and commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, and that has ultimately also influenced the corpus.36

3.5.1 Vital, Pri Etz Chaim, Sha‘ar Haberachot, Ch. 5 ‘The blessing over the washing of the hands is the first blessing, and this blessing [must be recited] when a man awakes from his sleep. He must immediately wash his hands before he even touches his clothes, and it is also forbidden to walk four ells without this washing in the morning, as the Zohar writes on the verse “for him who has his idol in his hand”. And the meaning of this washing is to wash off the spirit of impurity from them [=the hands]. In this way: first you take the object [used for the washing] with your right hand, and then you pass it to your left hand. And then you pour water onto your right hand with your left hand. And then you take the object with your right hand, and you pour onto your left hand. And thus you must do three times. Until the result is that you have alternately [‫ ]בדילוג‬washed the right hand three times and also the left. And thus it is explained in a manuscript of the Zohar. And the reason is that a bad spirit [‫ ]רוח רעה‬who is Shibta rests on the hands, and she is a Daughter of the King, and she makes certain [to disappear only] after three times. And that it must be done alternately, and if it is not, she will not go [away]. But the reason for this washing has been explained already before, to remove the shells [‫ ]הקליפות‬from the outside of netzach-hod-yesod [eternity-beauty-foundation]37 of the [world of] Making [‫]עשיה‬. And through this, their interior light [‫ ]אור פנימי‬is restored, and through the blessing ‘over the washing [lit. raising] of the hands’ the embracing light [‫אור‬ ‫ ]מקיף‬of them is restored. . .’ (. . .) And it is necessary that the hands are raised during the blessing, upwards, and at least until they are across from the face which also falls under the ‘head’ . . . (. . .) And you must stretch out both palms during the blessing, as someone who wishes to receive something in them [in the palms], and this is a reference to the receiving of purity in them [= the hands]. . .’

This fragment describes both the practical side of performing the washing in the morning as the Zohar describes it, and its mystical effects. Central elements from the Lurian Kabbalah are in evidence, such as the two kinds of Divine light: embracing and interior light, which refer to transcendence and immanence. There is also a reference to the doctrine of the “breaking of the vessels”, which caused matter to become mixed with negative powers, the shells that contain sparks of Divine light. By performing the ritual in the right way, these shells are separated from the physical world, so that the embracing and interior light is

36 See Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31, subsection 11. 37 This refers to the Tree of Life and the doctrine of the Ten Sephirot, of which these three are the seventh to ninth Sephirot, on the bottom of the Tree.

3.5 Post-Zohar Kabbalistic Sources 

 117

restored (Tikkun). The world that is mentioned is the lowest, fourth world, the world of Making, from which humans receive their life force.

3.5.2 Y. Sofer’s Kaf Hachaim on OH. 4, Subsections 1 and 32 The influence of the traditions surrounding Luria and his pupils has continued into modern times,38 for instance through the writings of famous Oriental rabbis such as Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer (1870–1939) – the Kaf Hachaim – and Rabbi Yosef Chaim – known also as the Ben Ish Chai (1834–1909), after his most famous work. Both books have great authority in the eyes of Oriental Jews. The following are fragments from the Kaf Hachaim on the Shulchan Aruch OH 4, in which he himself refers to the Ben Ish Chai. (1) It says in the book Tola‘at Yakov that it says in the Zohar that he who walks four ells in the morning without having washed his hands, is mortally guilty . . . [see also] Ben Ish Cha parshat Toledot, subsection 6 . . . And this is why everyone must take care to place the object [with water] near his bed so that he does not have to walk four paces [with unwashed hands], and similarly the Ben Ish Chai has written, ibid. [‫ ]שם‬. . . (32) And nor may you keep the water [used to wash the hands] at home overnight (the holy Zohar, ibid. . . .) Also you must take care that when sometimes the object in which one washes [one’s hands] is full to the brim because of the many people in the home, that when one washes [one’s hands] afterwards, the water of necessity falls on the ground. And if it happens that the water of the washing of hands falls on the ground, then you must pour a lot of clean water over that spot, to offset the water of the washing of hands that flowed away there (Ben Ish Chai, ibid. subsection 8).

This text codifies what can be found already in the Zohar and the fragment of Luria / Vital, and extends it to situations from everyday life.

3.5.3 Mishnah Berurah (Yisrael Meir Hakohen, 1838–1933) OH. 4, Subsections 9 and 10 The following fragment from the commentary of the Mishnah Berurah OH. 4 illustrates the strong influence of the Zohar and Lurian mysticism on the Eastern European Halachic literature of the last few centuries. This commentary has played an important role as a Halachic Code in ultraorthodox and orthodox Judaism and in the corpus, especially after the Shoah: 38 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1.

118 

 Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus

(9) . . . And you must spread out the palms of your hands as if you wish to receive something and you raise them [the hands] up until they are across from the head. . . (10) And even if you pour out much water [over the hands] at once, then [still] it does not help, because the spirit [‫ ]רוח‬does not go [away] until [it has been done] three times, i.e.: once over the right hand, and then over the left hand – up to three times alternately. And the book Ma‘aseh Rav39 writes four times – three times to remove the evil spirit, and the fourth to remove the impure water.

The mystical and Halachic approaches do not conflict with each other in the case of the Ruach Ra‘ah. The mystical approach points in the same direction as do the Talmudic texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah, and as do most medieval commentaries, but it has made it heavier by applying certain emphases – both genres have influenced each other. It is important to realise this as we carry out a closer analysis of the corpus in the next chapters.

3.6 Conclusion This chapter has discussed a number of central texts about the Ruach Ra‘ah that constitute the background to the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah, texts which appear in references in the corpus, or play an implicit role in it. The chapter has presented and explained these Talmudic texts and the way they were developed in the medieval Talmud commentaries, the influence of Zohar passages, the inclusion of these earlier sources in the Shulchan Aruch, and finally the impact of more modern Halachic sources influenced by the Kabbala. The original Talmud passages that play an important role in the corpus contain no – or very few – specific references to the Ruach Ra‘ah, and can be largely explained as health and hygienic regulations – although they do sometimes contain a magical-demonic component, which was not unusual in Late Antiquity. The medieval commentators and the Zohar especially were a major influence on the interpretation of these Talmudic texts, and they emphasized the central role of the Ruach Ra‘ah sometimes from a magical-mystical paradigm. This is particularly the case for the morning ritual of the washing of hands after rising, and after entering a toilet. The question as to whether food and drink in a toilet may be consumed also appears to have been inspired mainly by the Zohar passages on the Impure Spirit of the toilet. The impact of this can be clearly discerned in the Code of Karo, the Shulchan Aruch. The influence of the Kabbala’s magical-

39 A book written by or ascribed to the Gaon of Vilna. A reference to this in Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6.

‫‪ 119‬‬

‫ ‪Appendix C‬‬

‫‪mystical paradigm is also visible in a number of Ashkenazi and Oriental Halachic‬‬ ‫‪authors from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. They play a signif‬‬‫‪icant role as points of reference and orientation in the corpus’ discourse on the‬‬ ‫‪Ruach Ra‘ah .‬‬

‫‪Appendix C‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף ס עמוד ב‬ ‫כי מתער‪ ,‬אומר‪ :‬אלהי‪ ,‬נשמה שנתת בי טהורה‪ ,‬אתה יצרתה בי‪ ,‬אתה נפחתה בי‪ ,‬ואתה משמרה‬ ‫בקרבי‪ ,‬ואתה עתיד ליטלה ממני ולהחזירה בי לעתיד לבא‪ ,‬כל זמן שהנשמה בקרבי מודה אני‬ ‫לפניך ה' אלהי ואלהי אבותי רבון כל העולמים אדון כל הנשמות‪ ,‬ברוך אתה ה' המחזיר נשמות‬ ‫לפגרים מתים‪ .‬כי שמע קול תרנגולא‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך אשר נתן לשכוי בינה להבחין בין יום ובין‬ ‫לילה‪ .‬כי פתח עיניה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך פוקח עורים‪ .‬כי תריץ ויתיב‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך מתיר אסורים‪ .‬כי‬ ‫לביש‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך מלביש ערומים‪ .‬כי זקיף‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך זוקף כפופים‪ .‬כי נחית לארעא‪ ,‬לימא‪:‬‬ ‫ברוך רוקע הארץ על המים‪ .‬כי מסגי‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך המכין מצעדי גבר‪ .‬כי סיים מסאניה‪ ,‬לימא‪:‬‬ ‫ברוך שעשה לי כל צרכי‪ .‬כי אסר המייניה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך אוזר ישראל בגבורה‪ .‬כי פריס סודרא על‬ ‫רישיה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך עוטר ישראל בתפארה‪ .‬כי מעטף בציצית‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו‬ ‫וצונו להתעטף בציצית‪ .‬כי מנח תפילין אדרעיה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח‬ ‫תפילין‪ .‬ארישיה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות תפילין‪ .‬כי משי ידיה‪ ,‬לימא‪:‬‬ ‫ברוך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת ידים‪ .‬כי משי אפיה‪ ,‬לימא‪ :‬ברוך המעביר חבלי שינה‬ ‫מעיני ותנומה מעפעפי‪ ,‬ויהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שתרגילני בתורתך ודבקני במצותיך‪ ,‬ואל תביאני‬ ‫לא לידי חטא ולא לידי עון ולא לידי נסיון ולא לידי בזיון‪ ,‬וכוף את יצרי להשתעבד לך‪ ,‬ורחקני‬ ‫מאדם רע ומחבר רע‪ ,‬ודבקני ביצר טוב ובחבר טוב בעולמך‪ ,‬ותנני היום ובכל יום לחן ולחסד‬ ‫ולרחמים בעיניך ובעיני כל רואי‪ ,‬ותגמלני חסדים טובים‪ ,‬ברוך אתה ה' גומל חסדים טובים לעמו‬ ‫ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף יד עמוד ב‪ -‬טו עמוד א‬ ‫ואמר רבי יוחנן‪ :‬הרוצה שיקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים שלמה – יפנה ויטול ידיו‪ ,‬ויניח תפילין‬ ‫ויקרא קריאת שמע ויתפלל‪ ,‬וזו היא מלכות שמים שלמה‪ .‬אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן‪:‬‬ ‫כל הנפנה ונוטל ידיו ומניח תפילין וקורא קריאת שמע ומתפלל – מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו בנה‬ ‫מזבח והקריב עליו קרבן‪ ,‬דכתיב‪ :‬ארחץ בנקיון כפי ואסובבה את מזבחך ה'‪ .‬אמר ליה רבא‪ :‬לא‬ ‫סבר לה מר כאילו טבל? דכתיב‪ :‬ארחץ [בנקיון[ ולא כתב‪ ,‬ארחיץ [כפי[‪ .‬אמר ליה רבינא לרבא‪:‬‬ ‫חזי מר האי צורבא מרבנן דאתא ממערבא ואמר‪ :‬מי שאין לו מים לרחוץ ידיו – מקנח ידיו בעפר‬ ‫ובצרור ובקסמית! אמר ליה‪ :‬שפיר קאמר‪ ,‬מי כתיב‪ ,‬ארחץ במים? בנקיון כתיב – כל מידי דמנקי‪.‬‬ ‫דהא רב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא‪ ,‬והני מילי – לקריאת שמע‪ ,‬אבל לתפלה –‬ ‫מהדר‪ .‬ועד כמה? עד פרסה ‪.‬‬

‫‪ Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus‬‬

‫ ‪120‬‬

‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף נא עמוד א‬ ‫אמר רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע‪ ,‬שלשה דברים סח לי סוריאל שר הפנים‪ :‬אל תטול חלוקך בשחרית‬ ‫מיד השמש ותלבש; ואל תטול ידיך ממי שלא נטל ידיו; ואל תחזיר כוס אספרגוס אלא למי שנתנו‬ ‫לך‪ ,‬מפני שתכספית‪ ,‬ואמרי לה‪ :‬אסתלגנית של מלאכי חבלה מצפין לו לאדם ואומרים‪ :‬אימתי יבא‬ ‫אדם לידי אחד מדברים הללו וילכד‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קח עמוד ב‪ -‬קט עמוד א‬ ‫הוא היה אומר‪ :‬יד לעין – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לחוטם – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לפה – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לאוזן – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד‬ ‫לחסודה – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לאמה – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לפי טבעת – תיקצץ‪ ,‬יד לגיגית – תיקצץ‪ .‬יד מסמא‪ ,‬יד‬ ‫מחרשת‪ ,‬יד מעלה פוליפוס‪ .‬תניא‪ ,‬רבי נתן אומר‪ :‬בת חורין היא זו‪ ,‬ומקפדת עד שירחוץ ידיו‬ ‫שלש פעמים‪ .‬אמר רבי יוחנן‪ :‬פוך מעביר בת מלך‪ ,‬ופוסק את הדמעה‪ ,‬ומרבה שיער בעפעפים‪.‬‬ ‫תניא נמי הכי‪ ,‬רבי יוסי אומר‪ :‬פוך מעביר בת מלך‪ ,‬ופוסק את הדמעה‪ ,‬ומרבה שיער בעפעפים‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף קז עמוד ב ‪ /‬תלמוד בבלי מסכת יומא דף עז עמוד ב‬ ‫ת"ש‪ ,‬דתני דבי מנשה‪ ,‬רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר‪ :‬אשה מדיחה את ידה אחת במים ונותנת פת‬ ‫לבנה קטן‪ ,‬אמרו עליו על שמאי הזקן שלא רצה להאכיל בידו אחת‪ ,‬וגזרו עליו שיאכיל בשתי ידיו‪.‬‬ ‫אמר אביי‪ :‬התם משום שיבתא‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף קיב עמוד א‬ ‫דמסוכר ולא משי ידיה – מפחיד שבעה יומי‪ ,‬דשקיל מזייה ולא משי ידיה – מפחיד תלתא יומי‪,‬‬ ‫דשקיל טופריה ולא משי ידיה – מפחיד חד יומא ולא ידע מאי קא מפחיד ‪ . . .‬תנא‪ :‬אוכלין‬ ‫ומשקין תחת המטה‪ ,‬אפילו מחופין בכלי ברזל ‪ –.‬רוח רעה שורה עליהן‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדה דף יז עמוד א‬ ‫אמר ר"ש בן יוחי‪ :‬ה' דברים הן שהעושה אותן מתחייב בנפשו ודמו בראשו‪ :‬האוכל שום קלוף‪,‬‬ ‫ובצל קלוף‪ ,‬וביצה קלופה‪ ,‬והשותה משקין מזוגין שעבר עליהן הלילה‪ ,‬והלן בבית הקברות‪ ,‬והנוטל‬ ‫צפרניו וזורקן לרה"ר‪ ,‬והמקיז דם ומשמש מטתו‪ .‬האוכל שום קלוף כו'‪ :‬ואף על גב דמנחי בסילתא‬ ‫ומציירי וחתימי – רוח רעה שורה עליהן‪ .‬ולא אמרן אלא דלא שייר בהן עיקרן או קליפתן‪ ,‬אבל‬ ‫שייר בהן עיקרן או קליפתן – לית לן בה ‪ . . .‬והלן בבית הקברות‪ :‬כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה‪.‬‬ ‫זימנין דמסכנין ליה‪ .‬והנוטל צפרניו וזורקן לרשות הרבים‪ .‬מפני שאשה מעוברת עוברת עליהן‬ ‫ומפלת‪ .‬ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל בגנוסטרי‪ ,‬ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל דידיה ודכרעיה‪ ,‬ולא אמרן אלא‬ ‫דלא גז מידי בתרייהו‪ ,‬אבל גז מידי בתרייהו – לית לן בה‪ .‬ולא היא‪ ,‬לכולה מילתא חיישינן‪.‬‬

‫‪ 121‬‬

‫ ‪Appendix C‬‬

‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף קה עמוד ב‬ ‫אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בצונן‪ ,‬אבל בחמין – לא‪ ,‬אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי ינאי‪ :‬לא‬ ‫שנו אלא שהיד סולדת בהן‪ ,‬אבל אין היד סולדת בהן – נוטלין ‪ . . .‬אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי‬ ‫חייא‪ :‬מפני מה אמרו מים אחרונים חובה – שמלח סדומית יש‪ ,‬שמסמא את העינים‪ .‬אמר אביי‪:‬‬ ‫ומשתכח כי קורטא בכורא‪ .‬אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי‪ :‬כל מלחא מאי? אמר ליה‪:‬‬ ‫לא מבעיא‪ .‬אמר אביי‪ :‬מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא משו מיא בתראי על ארעא – משום זוהמא‪,‬‬ ‫אמר לי מר‪ :‬משום דשריא רוח רעה עלייהו ‪ . . .‬ואמר אביי‪ :‬מריש הוה אמינא‪ ,‬האי דלא יתבי‬ ‫תותי מרזיבא – משום שופכים‪ ,‬אמר לי מר‪ :‬משום דשכיחי מזיקין‪ .‬הנהו שקולאי דהוו דרו חביתא‬ ‫דחמרא‪ ,‬בעו לאיתפוחי‪ ,‬אותבוה תותי מרזיבא – פקעה‪ ,‬אתו לקמיה דמר בר רב אשי‪ ,‬אפיק‬ ‫שיפורי שמתיה‪ ,‬אתא לקמיה‪ ,‬אמר ליה‪ :‬אמאי תעביד הכי? אמר ליה‪ :‬היכי אעביד‪ ,‬כי אותביה‬ ‫באונאי? אמר ליה‪ :‬את בדוכתא דשכיחי רבים מאי בעית? את הוא דשנית‪ ,‬זיל שלים! אמר ליה‪:‬‬ ‫השתא נמי ליקבע לי מר זימנא‪ ,‬ואפרע‪ ,‬קבע ליה זימנא‪ .‬כי מטא זימנא – איעכב‪ ,‬כי אתא אמר‬ ‫ליה‪ :‬אמאי לא אתית בזמנך? אמר ליה‪ :‬כל מילי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני – לית לן רשותא למשקל‬ ‫מיניה‪ ,‬עד דמשכחינן מידי דהפקרא‪.‬‬ ‫תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף כט עמוד ב‬ ‫משנה‪ .‬המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני נכרים ומפני ליסטים‪ ,‬מפני רוח רעה‪ ,‬מפני‬ ‫החולה שיישן – פטור‪ .‬כחס על הנר‪ ,‬כחס על השמן‪ ,‬כחס על הפתילה – חייב‪ .‬רבי יוסי פוטר‬ ‫בכולן‪ ,‬חוץ מן הפתילה‪ ,‬מפני שהוא עושה פחם‪.‬‬ ‫זוהר – הקדמה דף י עמוד ב‬ ‫‪ . . .‬הכי הוו עבדי חסידי קדמאי נטלא דמייא הוו יהבי קמייהו ובזמנא דאתערו בליליא אסחן‬ ‫ידייהו וקיימי ולעלאן באורייתא ומברכי על קריאתה‪ ,‬תרנגולא קרי וכדין פלגות ליליא ממש‬ ‫וכדין קודשא בריך הוא (ס' ב) אשתכח עם צדיקייא בגנתא דעדן ואסיר לברכא בידין מסואבות‬ ‫ומזוהמות‪( ,‬ומברכין)‪ ,‬וכן כל שעתא‪ ,‬בגין דבשעתא דב"נ נאים רוחיה פרחא מניה ובשעתא‬ ‫דרוחיה פרחא מניה רוחא מסאבא זמין ושריא על ידוי ומסאב לון ואסיר לברכא בהו בלא נטילה‪,‬‬ ‫ואי תימא אי הכי הא ביממא דלא נאים ולא פרח רוחיה מניה ולא שריא עליה רוחא מסאבא‬ ‫וכד עאל לבית הכסא לא יברך ולא יקרא בתורה אפילו מלה חדא עד דיסחי ידוי‪ ,‬ואי תימא בגין‬ ‫דמלוכלכים אינון לאו הכי הוא במה אתלכלכו‪ ,‬אלא ווי לבני עלמא דלא משגיחין ולא ידעין ביקרא‬ ‫דמאריהון ולא ידעי על מה קיימא עלמא‪ ,‬רוחא חדא אית בכל בית הכסא דעלמא דשריא תמן‬ ‫ואתהני מההוא לכלוכא וטנופא ומיד שרי על אינון אצבען דידוי דב"נ ‪. . .‬‬ ‫זוהר כרך א (בראשית) פרשת בראשית דף נג עמוד ב‬ ‫כל בני עלמא בשעתא דניימי על ערסייהו בליליא וליליא פריש גדפהא על כל בני עלמא טעמי‬ ‫טעמא דמותא ומגו דטעמי טעמא דמותא האי רוחא מסאבא שטיא על עלמא וסאיב (על) עלמא‬ ‫(ד"א ל"ג בגו קפטירא דיליה) ושריא על ידוי דב"נ ואסתאב וכד אתער ואתהדר ליה נשמתיה בכל‬

‫‪ Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus‬‬

‫ ‪122‬‬

‫מה דיקרב בידוי כולהו מסאבי בגין דשריא עלייהו רוח מסאבא ועל דא לא יסב ב"נ מנוי לאלבשא‬ ‫ממאן דלא נטיל ידוי‪ ,‬דהא אמשיך עליה ההוא רוח מסאבא ואסתאב ואית ליה רשו להאי רוח‬ ‫מסאבא לשריא בכל אתר דאשכח רשימו מסטריה‪ ,‬ועל דא לא יטול ידוי בר נש ממאן דלא נטיל‬ ‫ידוי בגין דאמשיך עליה ההוא רוח מסאב' וקביל ליה אי דנטל מיא מני' ואית ליה רשו לשרי' עלוי‪. . .‬‬ ‫זוהר כרך א (בראשית) פרשת וישלח דף קסט עמוד ב‬ ‫‪ . . .‬כד בר נש בחלמיה ולא שליט בגופיה וגופא אשתכך רוח מסאבא אתייא ושריא עליה ואית‬ ‫זמנין דרוחי נוקבין מסאבין אתיין וקרבן בהדיה ומשכין ליה בהדייהו ומתחממן מניה ואולידו לבתר‬ ‫רוחין ומזיקין (נגעי בני אדם נ"א כגוונא בני נשא) ולזמנין אתחזיין כחיזו בני נשא בר דלית לון‬ ‫שערי ברישא‪ ,‬ובכלא אית ליה לב"נ לאסתמרא מקמייהו בגין דיהך בארחי דאורייתא ולא יסתאב‬ ‫בהדייהו דהא לית לך מאן דנאים בליליא בערסיה דלא טעים טעמא דמותא ונפקת נשמתיה מניה‬ ‫וכיון דאשתאר גופא בלא נשמתא קדישא רוח מסאבא זמין ושריא עליה ואסתאב והא אוקימנא‬ ‫מלה דלית ליה לבר נש לאעברא ידוי על עינוי בצפרא בגין דהא רוחא מסאבא שריא עלייהו‪. . .‬‬ ‫זוהר כרך א (בראשית) פרשת וישב דף קפד עמוד ב‬ ‫ר"ש פתח ואמר (תהלים כ"ו) ארחץ בנקיון כפי ואסובבה את מזבחך יי'‪ ,‬האי קרא אוקמוה‪,‬‬ ‫אבל ת"ח רזא דמלה הכא דהא לית לך בר נש בעלמא דלא טעים טעמא דמותא בליליא ורוח‬ ‫מסאבא שריא על ההוא גופא מאי טעמא בגין דנשמתא קדישא אסתלקת מניה דבר נש ונפקת‬ ‫מניה‪ ,‬ועל דנשמתא קדישא נפקת ואסתלקת מניה שריא רוחא מסאבא על ההוא גופא ואסתאב‬ ‫וכד נשמתא אתהדרת לגופא אתעבר ההוא זוהמא והא אתמר דידוי דבר נש זוהמא דמסאבו‬ ‫אשתאר בהו ועל דא לא יעבר ידוי על עינוי בגין דההוא רוח מסאבא שריא עלוי עד דנטיל לון‬ ‫וכד נטיל ידוי כדקא חזי כדין אתקדש ואקרי קדוש‪ ,‬והיך בעי לאתקדשא‪ ,‬בעי חד כלי לתתא וחד‬ ‫כלי מלעילא בגין דיתקדש מההוא דלעילא וההוא דלתתא דיתיב בזוהמא דמסאבו ביה ודא כלי‬ ‫לקבלא מסאבו ודא לאתקדשא מניה דא ברוך ודא ארור ולא בעיין אינון מין דזוהמא לאושדא‬ ‫לון בביתא דלא יקרב בהו בר נש דהא בהו מתכנשי סטרא דלהון יכיל לקבלא נזקא מאינון מיין‬ ‫מסאבין‪ ,‬ועד דיתעבר זוהמא מן ידוי לא יברך ואוקימנא‪ ,‬ובגין כך בר נש עד לא יקדש ידוי בצפרא‬ ‫אקרי טמא כיון דאתקדש אקרי טהור ובגין כך לא יטול אלא מן ידא דאדכי בקדמיתא דכתיב‬ ‫(במדבר י"ט) והזה הטהור על הטמא דא אקרי טהור ודא אקרי טמא בגין כך כלי לעילא וחד‬ ‫כלי לתתא דא קדישא ודא מסאבא ומאינון מיין אסיר למעבד בהו מידי אלא בעי לאושדא לון‬ ‫באתר דבני נשא לא עברין עלייהו ולא יבית לו בביתא דהא כיון דאתושדן בארעא רוחא מסאבא‬ ‫אשתכח תמן ויכיל לנזקא ואי חפר לון מדרון תחות ארעא דלא יתחזון שפיר ולא יהיב לון לנשי‬ ‫חרשיא דיכלון לאבאשא בהו לבני נשא בגין דאינון מיין דאתלטיין וקודשא בריך הוא בעי לדכאה‬ ‫לון לישראל ולמהוי קדישין דכתיב (יחזקאל ל"ו) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל‬ ‫טמאותיכם ומכל גלוליכם אטהר אתכם‪.‬‬

‫‪ 123‬‬

‫ ‪Appendix C‬‬

‫זוהר כרך א (בראשית) פרשת מקץ דף קצח עמוד ב‬ ‫הא תנינן דכד בר נש קם בצפרא בעי לאסחאה ידוי מגו (לעיל נ"ג א) נטלא דמיא דאיהו מאנא‬ ‫ליטול מניה מיא מגו מאן דאסחי ידוי בקדמיתא כמה דאוקמוה‪ ,‬ות"ח בגין נטלא דא אוקימנא‬ ‫מלה ותו דבעיא ליה לבר נש לנטלא ידא ימינא בשמאלא בגין לשלטאה ימינא על שמאלא ויסתחי‬ ‫ימינא מן שמאלא ובגין כך איהו נטילא ועל דא מאן דנטיל ידוי יטול ימינא בשמאלא לאשלטא‬ ‫ימינא על שמאלא בגין דלא יהיב דוכתא ליצר הרע לשלטאה כלל והא אוקימנא‪.‬‬ ‫שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות הנהגת אדם בבקר סימן ד‬ ‫סעיף א‬ ‫ירחץ ידיו ויברך‪ :‬על נטילת ידים ‪ . . .‬מים הפסולים לנטילת ידים לסעודה‪ ,‬כשרים לנטילת ידים‬ ‫לתפלה‪ ,‬מיהו יש מי שאומר דלא מברך עלייהו‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ב‬ ‫ידקדק לערות עליהן מים ג"פ‪ ,‬להעביר רוח רעה ששורה עליהן‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ג‬ ‫לא יגע בידו‪ ,‬קודם נטילהלפה ולא לחוטם ולא לאזנים ולא לעינים‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ה‬ ‫לא יגע בגיגית שכר‪ ,‬שמשמוש היד מפסיד השכר‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ו‬ ‫אין צריך רביעית לנטילת ידים לתפלה‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ח‬ ‫נטילת ידים שחרית‪ ,‬אין נוטלים על גבי קרקע‪ ,‬אלא לתוך כלי‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ט‬ ‫מים של נטילת ידים שחרית‪ ,‬אסור ליהנות מהם‪ ,‬ולא ישפכם בבית ולא במקום שעוברים שם בני אדם‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף י‬ ‫נוטל כלי של מים ביד ימינו‪ ,‬ונותנו ליד שמאלו‪ ,‬כדי שיריק מים על ימינו תחילה‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף יא‬ ‫לא יטול ממי שלא נטל ידיו שחרית‪.‬‬

‫‪ Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus‬‬

‫ ‪124‬‬

‫סעיף יב‬ ‫אם שכשך ידיו לתוך כלי של מים‪ ,‬עלתה לו נטילה לק"ש ולתפלה‪ ,‬אבל לא לרוח רעה שעליהן;‬ ‫אם שכשך ידיו בשלש מימות מחולפים‪ ,‬יש להסתפק אם עלתה לו להעביר רוח רעה שעליהן‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף יג‬ ‫אם היה נעור כל הלילה‪ ,‬יש להסתפק אם צריך ליטול ידיו שחרית‪ ,‬להתפלל ולהעביר רוח רעה מידיו‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף יד‬ ‫השכים קודם עמוד השחר‪ ,‬ונטל ידיו‪ ,‬יש להסתפק אם צריך ליטול ידיו פעם אחרת‪ ,‬כשיאור היום‪,‬‬ ‫להעביר רוח רעה השורה על הידים‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף טו‬ ‫ישן ביום‪ ,‬יש להסתפק אם צריך לערות מים עליהם ג"פ‪( ,‬ויטלם בלא ברכה)‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף טז‬ ‫דוד היה נזהר שלא לישן שיתין נשמין‪( ,‬פי' ששים נשימות)‪ ,‬כדי שלא יטעום טעם מיתה‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף יח‬ ‫אלו דברים צריכין נטילה במים‪ :‬הקם מהמטה; והיוצא מבית הכסא ומבית המרחץ; והנוטל‬ ‫צפרניו; והחולץ מנעליו; והנוגע ברגליו; והחופף ראשו‪ .‬וי"א אף ההולך בין המתים; ומי שנגע במת;‬ ‫ומי שמפליא כליו; והמשמש מטתו; והנוגע בכנה; והנוגע בגופו בידו‪ .‬ומי שעשה אחת‬ ‫מכל אלו ולא נטל‪ ,‬אם תלמיד חכם הוא‪ ,‬תלמודו משתכח; ואם אינו תלמיד חכם‪ ,‬יוצא מדעתו‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף יט‬ ‫המקיז דם מהכתפים‪ ,‬ולא נטל ידיו‪ ,‬מפחד ז' ימים‪ .‬המגלח‪ ,‬ולא נטל ידיו‪ ,‬מפחד ג' ימים‪ .‬הנוטל‬ ‫צפרניו‪ ,‬ולא נטל ידיו‪ ,‬מפחד יום אחד ואינו יודע ממה מפחד‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף כב‬ ‫אם אין לו מים‪ ,‬יקנח ידיו בצרור או בעפר או בכל מידי דמנקי‪ ,‬ויברך‪ :‬על נקיות ידים‪ ,‬ויועיל‬ ‫לתפלה‪ ,‬אבל לא להעביר רוח רעה שעליהן‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף כג‬ ‫לא תיקנו נטילת ידים‪ ,‬אלא לק"ש ולתפלה‪ ,‬אבל ברכות דשחרית יכול לברך קודם נטילה‪ ,‬אא"כ‬ ‫הוא ישן על מטתו ערום‪ ,‬שאז אסור להזכיר את השם עד שינקה אותם‪.‬‬ ‫שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות בציעת הפת‪ ,‬סעודה‪ ,‬וברכת המזון סימן קפא‬ ‫סעיף א‬ ‫מים אחרונים‪ ,‬חובה‪.‬‬

‫‪ 125‬‬

‫ ‪Appendix C‬‬

‫סעיף ב‬ ‫מים אחרונים אין נוטלים על גבי קרקע אלא בכלי‪ ,‬מפני רוח רעה ששורה עליהם; ואם אין לו כלי‪,‬‬ ‫נוטל ע"ג עצים דקים וכיוצא בהן‪.‬‬ ‫שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות מאכלי עובדי כוכבים סימן קטז‬ ‫סעיף ה‬ ‫ולא יתן תבשיל ולא משקים תחת המטה‪ ,‬מפני שרוח רעה שורה עליהם ‪. . .‬‬ ‫פרי עץ חיים‪ ,‬שער הברכות – פרק ה‪.‬‬ ‫ברכת על נטילת ידים‪ ,‬היא ברכה ראשונה‪ ,‬וברכה זו היא כאשר מתעורר האדם משנתו‪ ,‬תיכף‬ ‫צריך ליטול ידיו‪ ,‬קודם שיגע כלל במלבושיו‪ ,‬וגם אסור לילך ד’ אמות בלא נטילה זו של שחרית‪,‬‬ ‫כמ"ש בזוהר על פסוק לאשר הביא אלוה בידו‪ .‬וענין נטילה זו היא‪ ,‬כדי להעביר רוח הטומאה‬ ‫שעליהן‪ ,‬באופן זה – תחלה תקח הכלי בידך הימנית‪ ,‬ואח"כ תתנהו לידך השמאלית‪ ,‬ואז תשפוך‬ ‫בידך השמאלית מים על ידך הימנית‪ .‬ואח"כ תקח הכלי בידך הימנית‪ ,‬ותשפוך על ידך השמאלית‪.‬‬ ‫וכן תעשה ג' פעמים‪ ,‬עד שנמצא‪ ,‬שרחצת הימנית ג"פ בדילוג‪ ,‬וכן השמאלית‪ .‬וכן נתבאר בזהר‬ ‫כתיבת יד‪ .‬והטעם‪ ,‬כי רוח רעה הנקראת שיבת"א שורה על הידים‪ ,‬ובת מלך היא‪ ,‬ומקפדת עד‬ ‫ג"פ‪ .‬ושיהיו בדילוג‪ ,‬ואם לאו אינה הולכת ‪ . . .‬ואמנם טעם הנטילה כבר נת"ל‪ ,‬שהוא להסיר‬ ‫הקליפות מחיצונית נה"י דעשיה‪ ,‬ובזה נתקן א"פ שלהם‪ ,‬וע"י ברכת ענ"י נתקן א"מ שלהם‪. . .‬‬ ‫והנה צריך להגביה הידים בעת הברכה למעלה‪ ,‬ולפחות יגביהם עד כנגד הפנים כי גם הם בכלל‬ ‫הראש‪. . .‬‬ ‫וצריך לפשוט ב' כפות הידים בשעת הברכה‪ ,‬כמי שרוצה לקבל בתוכה איזה דבר‪ ,‬והוא רמז‬ ‫לקבלת הטהרה בהם‪.‬‬ ‫כף החיים או"ח ס"ד‪ ,‬ס"ק א‬ ‫ירחץ ידיו וכו׳ כתב בס' תולעת יעקב דבזוהר איתא דההולך שחרית ד״א ולא נטל ידיו חייב מיתה ‪ . . .‬בן‬ ‫א״ח פ׳ תולדות או׳ ו’ ‪ . . .‬ולכן יזהר כל אדם להכין הכלי סמוך למטתו באופן שלא יצטרך לילך ד"א וכ״כ‬ ‫בן א״ח שם ‪. . .‬‬ ‫כף החיים או"ח ס"ד‪ ,‬ס"ק לב‬ ‫ולא ישפכם בבית וכן לא ילינם בבית‪ .‬זוה"ק שם ‪ . . .‬גם צריך ליזהר דלפעמים מתמלא הכלי‬ ‫שנוטלים לתוכו על גדותיו מחמס ריבוי בני הבית ואז כשנוטלים בו עוד מוכרח שישפך ממנו על‬ ‫הקרקע ואם נזדמן שנשפכו מי הנט״י בקרקע אז ישפוך על הקרקע ההיא מים טהורים הרבה כדי‬ ‫לבטל מי הנט"י שנשפך שם ‪.‬בן א׳׳ח שם אות ח׳‪.‬‬

‫‪ Chapter 3 Central Texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the Responsa of the Corpus‬‬

‫ ‪126‬‬

‫משנה ברורה סימן ד ס"ק ט‬ ‫וצריך לפשוט הכפות כמי שרוצה לקבל דבר ויגביהם כנגד הראש ‪. . .‬‬ ‫משנה ברורה סימן ד ס"ק י‬ ‫ואפילו שופך הרבה בפעם אחד אינו מועיל כי אין הרוח הולך אלא בג' פעמים דהיינו פ"א על יד‬ ‫ימין ואח"כ על יד שמאל עד ג"פ בסירוגין ובספר מעשה רב כתב ד' פעמים ג"פ להעביר רוח רעה‬ ‫והד' להעביר המים שנטמאו‪.‬‬

Chapter 4  Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus This chapter will offer a more detailed description of the corpus of responsa from the 1945–2000 period in thematic categories (4.1), and in a subdivision according to the different conceptual ways of reading that distinguish the texts: the object-, subject-, and text-oriented approaches (4.2). This is followed by an extensive analysis of nine paradigmatic texts from the thematic categories (4.3). Finally, the chapter will examine a residual group of atypical texts (4.4).

4.1 Thematic Categories As has been said, the vast majority of texts in the corpus (158 texts, c. 83%) are concerned with three themes, apart from a residual group which is difficult to categorize: 1. Food and drink (73 texts) 2. Physical space and its status (33 texts) 3. Inside and around the human body (53 texts) Within these three themes, the corpus of the responsa also shows a number of conceptual approaches: the object-oriented, subject-oriented, and text-oriented approach. The following sections of this chapter will present these three approaches as they appear in nine paradigmatic texts from the extensive corpus of responsa. These paradigmatic texts therefore serve to examine both the three themes and the different conceptual approaches. The nine paradigmatic texts will thus be analyzed as representative of the material of the entire corpus, by choosing one dominant subject from each group and discussing it on the basis of the three approaches.

4.1.1 Food and Drink The most important subjects to appear in the corpus in relation to this theme are as follows:

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-005

128  –

–

–

–

–

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

The status of food and drink that have been touched by hands on which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests1 (primarily after sleep or after going to the toilet – overlap with themes 2 and 3: in a domestic context and outside it: in bakeries and institutions where employees do not wash their hands).2 The status of water after it has been poured over the hands and the hands have been purified of the Ruach Ra‘ah3 (is it permitted to learn Torah and / or pray in the presence of this water, what may and may not be done with this water?).4 The status of water that is going to be used for the ritual of the washing of hands to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah (is it allowed to keep this under the bed, for instance, or to take it from the toilet or the bathroom – overlap with theme 3).5 The status of eggs, garlic, or onions that have been kept overnight, both in a domestic context6 and in the food industry where eggs, onions, and garlic are peeled in large quantities and processed to extend their shelf life7 (e.g. as powder, in liquid form, or dried form). The status of food and drink that have been placed under the bed,8 both for consumption9 and for ritual use (most texts deal with the Etrog on Sukkot).10

1 Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 9, 11, 13; ibid., V. 15, no. 4; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1; ibid., V. 2, no. 3; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6 (preparing bottle for baby at night); ibid., V. 4, no. 252 (feeding child at night). 2 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 13, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1. 3 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 22, no. 4; ibid. V. 16, no. 1. 4 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 2. 5 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 11; ibid., V. 2, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 4. 6 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46; ibid. V. 19, no. 56; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 9, no. 28; Afarkesta deAniya, Vol. 2 YD, no. 145, 146; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 227; ibid. YD, no. 31, 33; Mishneh Halachot, V. 12, no. 20; ibid., V. 15, no. 6; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5, no. 523; YaskilAvdi, V. 7 OH, no. 44, q. 4; ibid., V. 8 YD, no. 14, subsection 4. 7 Minchat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 68 (subsection 12 and 13); ibid., V. 6, no. 74, 75; Shevet Halevi, V. 3, no. 169; Chelkat Yaakov, V. 3 YD, no. 14; ibid., V. 3 YD, no. 39; Igrot Moshe, YD V. 3, no. 20; Va-Ya’an Yosef YD, no. 162; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 7; Mishneh Halachot, V. 12, no. 21, 22; ibid., V. 16, no. 16; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 3, no. 256; ibid., V. 4, no. 186; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5, no. 523; ibid., V. 6, no. 433. 8 This is where the issues of bunkbeds, beds in ships’ cabins, a pram, and an airplane chair are discussed; see for instance Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 9,10 (pram). 9 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1 YD, no. 3, 4 (under the hose); Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9, 10; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 35; ibid. V. 17, no. 35; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 8, Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 8; ibid., V. 3, no. 18; ibid., V. 4, no. 7 (under the pillow); ibid., V. 5, no. 8; ibid., V. 6, no. 6 (falling asleep on a bed with medication in one’s pocket). 10 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5, no. 9; ibid., V. 4, no. 153 (section 25); Chelkat Yaakov, V. 1 EH, CHM (and various items), no. 88; Yabbia Omer, V. 8 OH, no. 51; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 316.

4.1 Thematic Categories 

–

 129

The status of food and drink that have been in the toilet11 or bathroom12 or that are currently there (overlap with theme 3).

4.1.2 Inside and Around the Human Body The most important subjects discussed in the corpus in relation to this topic are: the washing of hands after various activities or situations: before and after sexual intercourse,13 after sleeping,14 after going to the toilet (overlap with 3), after touching parts of the body that are normally covered by clothes,15 after touching parts of the body that are sweaty or dirty: the head (hair) and the beard,16 the touching of the feet (whether they are washed or not),17 the removing or touching of shoes,18 after a visit to a graveyard or in the presence of a dead body,19 the touching of clothes before washing one’s hands,20 the washing of hands after the meal (Mayim Acharonim),21 the touching of orifices (and wounds) before the hands have been washed after sleeping,22 the washing of hands after cutting nails23 and hair,24 performing rituals (including learning Torah) with unwashed hands after sleeping,25 washing before prayer.26

11 Minchat Yitzchak, V. 3, no. 63; Har Tzvi, OH V. 1, no. 50. 12 Divrei Chachamim, OH, no. 65; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 9, no. 74; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 11. 13 She’eilat Shlomoh, V. 2, OH no. 3; Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 49. 14 She’eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, OH no. 4; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 2; Divrei Yatsiv, OH no. 1; Sho’el Ve-Nishal, V. 5 OH, no. 105 (Yom Kippur); Tzitz Eliezer, V. 22, no. 42; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4; ibid., V. 2, no. 2; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 (sleeping with gloves), 10, 50 (Yom Kippur); Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 13 (sleeping while wearing gloves); ibid., V. 3, no. 14. 15 Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 114; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 4; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4 no. 9. 16 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 5; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2. 17 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 4; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5 no. 5; ibid., V. 8, no. 1. 18 She’eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, OH no. 10; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 3, no. 15. 19 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 11; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 3, no. 10 (walking under a tree growing out of a graveyard). 20 Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1; Divrei Yatsiv, OH, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 1; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 3. 21 Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 44; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 22, no. 42. 22 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 11; ibid., V. 4, no. 252. 23 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 4, no. 24; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6. 24 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 6; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 5 (beard). 25 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2, 4; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 12; Yaskil Avdi, V. 6, no. 11; Shevet Halevi V. 7, no. 5. 26 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 6, no. 5.

130 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

4.1.3 Physical Space and its Status The most important subjects discussed in the corpus in relation to this topic are the status of a bathroom with only bath or shower in a private house,27 of a modern toilet room in a private house,28 of a space containing both a toilet and a bath / shower in a private house29 or in public (combined) washing, bath, and toilet spaces,30 of a toilet cubicle in an airplane or train,31 of a space containing a ritual bath,32 a swimming pool,33 and the status of a graveyard (overlap with themes 1 and 2).34 “Status” in this context usually means two things: I. May rituals be performed in this space or is it permitted to think of sacred things? II. To utter sacred words (learning, prayer) Does the Ruach Ra‘ah rest in that space, so that the food and drink that are there should not be consumed, should people who enter this space wash their hands, and may they do this in the same space, or should it be done outside? These themes overlap with each other, sometimes these three themes even occur in the same text: what is the status of food that someone was carrying in their pocket as they entered a toilet room? If someone has been to the toilet and has not yet washed his hands, and touches food or drink, may this then still be consumed?

27 Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 2, 3; Divrei Yatsiv, YD no. 34, 35; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 36; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid. V. 4 OH, no. 5; ibid. V. 7 OH, no. 27; She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1 OH, no. 5; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 3, 11. 28 Shevet Halevi, V. 8, no. 168; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 2; ibid. V. 8 OH, no. 1; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 14, no. 2; She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 2 OH, no. 1; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 6 (hands only in toilet, not the rest of the body); ibid., V. 4, no. 107; ibid., V. 8, no. 408 (one hand in a toilet room); Yaskil Avdi, V. 7 OH, no. 44. 29 Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 2; Simchat Kohen, OH no. 6; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 5; She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 2 OH, no. 2; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 4; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5; Yaskil Avdi, V. 6 OH, no. 13. 30 Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 2; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 36. 31 Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 4; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6 (subordinate subject in response). 32 Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 3; Igrot Moshe, YD V. 2, no. 97. 33 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 8, no. 5. 34 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 11; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10.

4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus 

 131

4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus: Object-oriented, Subject-oriented, and Text-oriented The following section will discuss three possible approaches to the concept of Ruach Ra‘ah and the way they are developed in the responsa of the corpus and which may be useful for analyzing other responsa too.35 This is followed by a discussion of three questions from the three themes of food and drink, body, and space on the basis of one paradigmatic text from each category – a total of nine paradigmatic texts, as was explained at the beginning of the chapter. At first sight, it seems difficult to subdivide the responsa of the corpus into clear categories or approaches. The responsa are of very varied length – some consist of only a few lines or a page, others run to more than ten pages. Similarly, the sources used in the longer responsa are very varied. Although the emphasis in the vast majority of the responsa is on the rabbinic literature of the last 500 years, rabbinic texts of different genres, historical periods and cultural-ethnic backgrounds feature as well, from purely Halachic sources to mystical-Kabbalistic sources. Ashkenazi and Sephardic-Oriental texts are used interchangeably, regardless of the author’s background, even though the author often does have a certain preference (which can be discerned on the basis of the quantitative use of certain sources). The different approaches are therefore ideal types: a responsum can include elements deriving from more than one approach. Furthermore, sometimes the approach is visible only implicitly because it is “superimposed” upon the text from outside, and is not made explicit by the author. Some responsa are difficult to categorize at all into one of these three approaches.

4.2.1 The Brisk Analytical Approach Two of the approaches discussed below use existing theories in analytical Talmudic studies, theories developed by Rabbi Chayyim Soloveitchik (called the GaRACH, 1853–1916) from Brisk and his son, and which have grown into what Solomon has called the Analytic School. This analytical approach is used espe-

35 These three approaches are somewhat similar to Avi Sagi’s three models of halachic discourse: the realistic model, the anthropological model, and the authoritative model; see A. Sagi, The Open Canon: On the Meaning of Halachic Discourse (London / New York: Continuum, 2007), 71–87. The realistic model is somewhat similar to what is here called the object-oriented approach; the authoritative model to the text-oriented model, and the anthropological model can be compared – though to a lesser degree – to the subject-related model.

132 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

cially in Lithuanian yeshivas, and has been described by Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, for instance in his Halachic Man. The method is based on conceptual analysis of Halachic subjects by dissecting them, often into two opposing components. This binary approach highlights certain details or formulas in texts, or in the development of a legal aspect of the Halachah, that at first seem to be contradictory. Often this approach uses the text of the codex of Maimonides for this form of analysis. This conceptual analysis also offers the possibility of conducting thought experiments by demonstrating what the theoretical outcomes might be of the two different components (the so-called Nafka Minah). Solomon has distinguished seven forms of contradictory components that are used in the analytical method, only one of which is used in the different approaches distinguished in the corpus: the division into object-related (Chefzah) and subject-related (Gavrah) components of a law, commandment or ritual.36 Among rabbis who have drawn inspiration from it there are different views as to how this division into subject and object – which derives from the Talmud itself and from the medieval commentators – must be understood precisely. The first involves the simple translation in the context of prohibitions: is a prohibition a prohibition of the object (Chefzah), or a prohibition that rests upon a human – the subject (Gavrah)? Conversely, the same can be said in relation to the positive commandments: does the prohibition in question impose an obligation on the person or in relation to an object?37 A different approach to object-subject analysis is the difference between an obligation that rests on a person on the one hand, and the acts of the subject on the other. The subject here can be either the person upon whom the obligation falls, in which case the acts of the subject can in some cases be regarded as the object, as Ch. Soloveitchik did himself for instance. Yet another approach regards the relation between subject and object as a relationally connected one. Sometimes a person is limited in relation to what he can do with an object, sometimes an object is forbidden to the person. If the object becomes subject to a negative norm, this object is forbidden to humans. In that case, humans are forbidden (Gavrah) to eat the object in question, for instance, because this would degenerate the human in relation to the object, which enjoys a lower status. Conversely, an object can also become subject to a positive norm – it is sacred, it belongs to

36 For studies on the Brisk method, see for instance N. Solomon, The Analytic Movement: Hayyim Soloveitchik and his circle (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); The conceptual approach to Jewish learning, ed. Y. Blau (New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 2006). 37 Solomon, The Analytic Moment, 124.

4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus 

 133

the Temple / to God – and this is why humans are “forbidden” for this object, because the special status of the object would otherwise be violated and desecrated.38 Finally, there are scholars who make a distinction between biblical and rabbinic prescriptions. Anything prohibited by the Torah is always an object-related prohibition (Chefzah), because only the Torah can ban something in its essence. A prohibition in the Torah “really” changes something. Conversely, the rabbis can only prohibit the subject from consuming certain foods or omitting certain actions (Gavrah), but this does not “change” anything in the object itself. Several of these possible approaches to the model seem to appear already in the writings of the founder of this method.39

38 This explanation comes from Shimon Shkop – counted by Solomon among the Analytic School – and is contained in a Sefer Zikaron in commemoration of Chayyim Shmulevitz of Mir, ed. Y. Bucksbaum (Jerusalem: Moriya, 2010), 397–398. Brought also in J.M. Peni’el, Bi’uré Shemaitetot (2005), 62–63. 39 The difference between rabbinic and biblical comes for example from I.Z. Melzer – counted by Solomon among the Analytic School – in Even haEzel, Chamets and Matza, 1–7. Chidushe HaGraCh al HaShas (no year, co-author: HaGrlZ, Soloveitchik) contains several examples of this. In the example below of the added time of Yom Tov, even something as abstract as time is regarded as an object in relation to the subject. The contrast between rabbinic versus biblical also appears to play a part in this. The difference between rabbinic and biblical appears to be that the added time is a time determined by humans, and that the status of this time is rabbinic in relation to the prohibition on labor and on the keeping holy of this time. On the other hand it is only the Torah that can impose a “real” obligation on the subject – the evening of the fifteenth in relation to matzah and sukkah, humans cannot do this. See also 160 on the distinction between Oneg and Kibbud Shabbat (the enjoying and honoring of the Shabbat) in relation to lighting lamps on Shabbat. Oneg Shabbat is an aspect of the Shabbat itself and is object-oriented, while Kibbud Shabbat is human-oriented (subject). This is why the Kibbud Shabbat is already in force before Shabbat and the Oneg Shabbat only on Shabbat itself. The formula from Maimonides that this treatise is based on also suggests a more active role for the subject in relation to the Kibbud than in relation to the Oneg Shabbat: )‫ חייבים להיות בבתיהם נר דולק‬vs. ‫וצריך לתקן ביתו מבעוד יום מפני‬ ‫(כבוד שבת ויהיה נר דלוק‬. See also 163–164 in the treatise on leaning on Pesach during the Seder, and a problematic passage in Maimonides. On the one hand it is necessary to lean during the eating of the 10 olives’ bulk of matzah, on the other hand he who leans throughout the entire meal is to be praised. The GaRACH’s explanation is that obligatory leaning is not a legal aspect in fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah, but in the eating of the first olive’s bulk of matzah the (object-oriented), where eating, as the act of the subject, is the object that the Torah has a priori made obligatory. There is no obligation on the person – the subject – to lean during the meal for the rest of the duration of the meal, but if he does so, then this is worthy of praise. Here, too, this explanation is based on Maimonides’ formula. See also 160–161 in the treatise on chametz on the day before Pesach (by the GaRIZ).

134 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

Example: Adding to the Yom Tov Time (Tosefet Yom Tov) This example involves a dissection into two components, which Rabbi Soloveitchik does not explicitly interpret as object- or subject-related, but these terms are there implicitly. The treatise addresses the Midrash Mechilta (Mesechta dePischa 17) that asks the rhetorical question that you could in fact already begin reciting the Exodus story on Rosh Chodesh (“. . . ‫)”יכול מראש חדש‬, a text that is part of the Haggadah. The Midrash continues that “you could have thought that you could have started during the day” (“‫)”יכול מבעוד יום‬, even before nightfall and the beginning of fifteenth Nisan in the Jewish calendar: You could have thought that one could have started [reciting the Exodus story] during the day . . . ’. [this is why it is written:] at the moment that matzah and maror are lying in front of you. And this merits [further] exploration [‫ ]וצריך עיון‬: how could one have thought that one had done one’s duty by reciting the Exodus from Egypt on the fourteenth – surely it is written that ‘on that day’ [Israel left Egypt, surely the Exodus was on the fifteenth and not on the fourteenth)?40

The GaRACH replied to this using an argument from Tosafot on Pesahim (99b): And in the Tosafot on Pesahim [the question can be found] whether one may fulfil the obligation of eating matzah in the ‘added time’ of Yom Tov [the Feast Day].41 And they write that one cannot then fulfil this obligation, because the matzah is compared to the sacrifice of Pesach [it must be eaten together]; just as the sacrifice of the Pesach must be eaten at night, so must the matzah.42

However, the GaRACH questions this answer from Tosafot: And the words of Tosafot themselves deserve [further] exploration. Let it be said indeed [as they do] that the sanctity of Yom Tov can indeed be applied to the added time.43 For the things for which the time is fixed [specifically] on the 15th, how does the added time apply to this, and how can one have fulfilled the [mitzvah] of matzah, which requires the [date of the] 15th?44 40 Ibid.,165: ‫וצ״ע דאיך הוה ס״ד דיהא יוצא בסיפור יצי״ם‬,‫" יכול מבעוד יום וכו‘ בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך‬ .". . . ‫בארבעה עשר הלא כתב ביום ההוא‬ 41 Feasts begin with darkness, but it is forbidden to work at dusk because of the doubt as to whether the dusk is part of the day or the night. This is why the feast must already begin sometime before dusk, which is called “Tosefet Yom Tov”, that part of the day which is added to the Yom Tov. It is possible to add a longer period, but certainly not more than an hour and a quarter before nightfall. 42 Ibid.: ‫"והנה בתוס' פסחים אם יוצא באכילת מצה בתוספת יו״ט וכ' דאינו יוצא משום דאיתקש מצה לפסח מה‬ ".‫פסח בלילה אף מצה בלילה‬ 43 Hence the question of whether the matzah can already be eaten at this time. 44 Ibid.: ‫"ובגוף דברי התוס' צ״ע דנהי שיש על התוס' דין קדושת יו״ט מ״מ למה שקבוע זמן ליל חמשה עשר מה שייך‬ ".‫ ואיך יצא ידי מצה דבעינן לזה ליל חמשה עשר‬,'‫תוס‬

4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus 

 135

This is followed by an exposé on the status of the time added to Yom Tov, by dissecting the concept into two components: 1. the sanctity of Yom Tov and the corresponding ban on work; and 2. the obligation to perform certain rituals at a certain time, which coincides with the feast day: . . . Because [the idea] of the ‘time added to Yom Tov is only applicable to the sanctity and the prohibition of work, but what does this addition have to do with the special commandments such as matzah and sukkah? These are not part of the laws of [the concept of] Yom Tov [itself], but they are specific commandments that are prescribed to be performed at that time by the Torah, which has fixed a time for them [i.e. the beginning of the day in the Jewish calendar].45

The explanation appears to be that here, too, there are the familiar two elements, an object-oriented one (the added time before the real start of Yom Tov and the date fixed by the Torah), and a person-oriented one in relation to the rituals of the feast day. Because humans have decided to let the time of Yom Tov begin earlier, this period becomes an object, as it were, in relation to which something happens. On the one hand the sanctity of Yom Tov now applies to this time, as well as the prohibition of work. Both are new creations by humans, because the real Yom Tov only begins on the basis of processes that are not influenced by humans. On the other hand, this time that has become a (Halachic) object does not have the power to impose the obligations on humans, as the time fixed by the Torah does. It is therefore necessary that the subject waits until night has really fallen, without having been able to influence this. Once night has fallen, the specific obligations that must be performed that night come to rest upon the subject. In this example, the Yom Tov (and the added time) should be regarded as object, upon which sanctity and the prohibition of work rest. The person – the subject – has the obligation to perform certain actions at the specific time that has been fixed for them. The GaRACH does not, incidentally, intend sanctity to mean that this time somehow has a metaphysical quality of sanctity. He means that this time acquires the status of “holy” in relation to the subject, who has himself made this time object. As soon as the subject has declared this extra time to be Yom Tov, a relation emerges in which this sanctity should be reflected. This means that it is now no longer suitable to perform a certain activity, which may not be forbidden (Melachah46), but is not in accordance with the sacred character of this time, as

45 Ibid.: ‫"דתוספת יו״ט אינו ששיך אלא לקדושת יו״ט ולאיסור מלאכה אבל מה שייך תוספת למצוות מיוחדות כגון‬ ".‫מצה וסוכה שאין להם שייכות לדין יו״ט ורק מצוות פרסיות שחייבה התורה אז לקיימם וקבעה להם זמן‬ 46 Prohibited work.

136 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

would also be true of Yom Tov itself. Or on account of the obligation to reflect the special character of the day in clothing, speech, and thought. What is at stake in this analytical method is the question what has been given a priori: the object-related (Chefzah) situation from which the relation with the subject subsequently emerges, or the subject from which a relation emerges with the object and its related aspects. These two components – object versus subject – are used as a model for the first two approaches in the responsa on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus. As has been said, these approaches are typologies that cannot always be found in pure form, because authors sometimes emphasize more than one aspect and because the material that they use is not uniform in its approach. The third approach, the text-oriented, will also be discussed below.

4.2.2 Approach 1: The Ruach Ra‘ah as “Object” In this approach, the Ruach Ra‘ah, as an object, is an a priori fact. The Ruach Ra‘ah exists, it is an entity that exists. The various relations that the Ruach Ra‘ah has with other objects – food and drink, physical objects47 – and the subject, the human, follow from this fact. The question as to whether the Ruach Ra‘ah itself can be known, either through knowledge obtained in an empirical way, or through the intellect, is apparently answered in the negative. Our information about this object comes from the sacred or canonical texts. This is why each new situation, or each detail that was not previously disclosed in the texts – i.e. anything that cannot be directly traced back to the text – does not necessary have a solution, and “refers back” to the Ruach Ra‘ah as a given, as a negative entity. The place that is assigned to the intellect and to hermeneutics is seemingly very restricted whenever an entirely new situation emerges. Under these circumstances, when one is faced by unclear situations, one is likely to point to the negative and potentially dangerous character of the Ruach Ra‘ah as it is outlined in the texts, and therefore to adopt a strict attitude. Precisely because the Ruach Ra‘ah cannot be “known” apart from the texts, and its influence is impossible to quantify. To avoid risk, the choice is made to adopt a strict attitude, by prohibiting food or drink in doubtful cases, or to oblige people to wash their hands in the prescribed manner just to be sure.

47 In 5 cases, the responsum deals with the question – as the main question or as a subordinate detail of a main question on a different subject – of whether the Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on objects that were placed under the bed; see Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 8; Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 3, no. 18; Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1.

4.2 Three Approaches in the Corpus 

 137

This approach is often influenced by ideas from the Kabbalah48 (as was shown before by texts influenced by the Zohar and the Lurian Kabbalah) that often take an essentialist approach to rituals, prohibitions, and permitted matter, places, and persons. Purity, impurity and sanctity then become essentialist characteristics of matter, places, or persons. Thus the prohibitions in relation to certain foodstuffs in the food laws are explained by arguing that these foods are “nourished” in their life energy by the three impure “shells” [Kelipot] – existing evil and impure entities – from which they derive their existence. The same is true with regard to prohibited sexual relations – these also spring from a connection with these impure shells. Transgressions in these two fields are therefore difficult to cancel out through repentance.49 Conversely, sanctity is a truly existing substance / existence that is connected to certain material things, to specific people, and to certain times. Tarnishing this sanctity by acting against the prescriptions is an important crime, because it has real, ontological consequences.50

48 On the relation between Kabbalah and Halachah, see for instance J. Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands. Case Studies in Haiachic Flexibility (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998), 9–87; M. Chalamish, Kabbalah in Prayer, Halakah and Custom [Hebrew] (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2002). 49 Likutei Amarim-Tanya, bi-lingual edition (New York: Kehot, 1980), Ch. 7, 29: “Such is not the case, however, with forbidden foods and coition, which derive from the three kelipot [shells] that are entirely unclean. These are tied and bound by the Extraneous Forces forever, and are not released until the day comes when death will be swallowed up forever, as is written: “And I will cause the unclean spirit to pass from the land or until the sinner repents to such an extent that his premeditated sins become transmuted into veritable merits, which is achieved through ‘repentance out of love, coming from the depths of the heart, with great love and fervour, and from a soul passionately desiring to cleave to the blessed G-d, and thirsting for G-d like a parched desert soil.” 50 Tanya, Ch. 46, ibid., 247: “Thereby will be understood the severity of the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of work on the Sabbath or that of unleavened bread on Passover, which [prohibition] equally applies to all. For even in the soul of an uncultured and completely illiterate person shines the light of the sanctity of Sabbath or Festival; hence he faces capital punishment by karet [literally: cutting off (rejection?) from the congregation] or stoning, for the profanation of this sanctity. Similarly, [transgression involving] the slightest amount of leaven, or the handling of muktzeh [things that may not be touched on Shabbat or Feasts] tarnishes the sanctity which rests on his soul, just as it would the sanctity of the soul of a tzaddik, for we have all one Torah.”

138 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

4.2.3 Approach 2: The Ruach Ra‘ah Viewed from the Perspective of the “Subject” This approach regards the Ruach Ra‘ah from the perspective of the subject. It is less important whether the Ruach Ra‘ah belongs to the world of ideas – which reach the subject through sacred sources, tradition, or culture – or is a phenomenon that can be experienced. In both cases the subject has the possibility of adjusting his actions to the Ruach Ra‘ah, whether through experiential knowledge from everyday life or through the hermeneutics of sacred and canonical texts. On this basis the subject has greater liberty to decide whether or not to consume certain foods or drink that have been in touch with the Ruach Ra‘ah, or whether or not to perform a certain purification ritual after having been in a situation that could have a connection with the Ruach Ra‘ah, and the extent to which he avoids these situations that are connected to the Ruach Ra‘ah in the first place. This approach gives greater freedom to people to decide how to deal with comparable situations / dangers. What have people done in the past, and what are people doing nowadays? It also gives freedom to individuals to choose their own attitude themselves. A long Talmudic passage described above dealing with all kinds of dangers relating to demons and sorcery – such as drinking from an even number of cups of drink, relieving oneself between a palm tree and a wall, walking over water that has been poured out onto the street, drinking borrowed water, or walking between two women – already gives a general rule: it is relevant for those who attach great importance to this; it is less relevant for those who do not attach great importance to it. But a certain degree of alertness is always necessary.51 In other words, the subject can choose his own position in situations of this kind. However, it is good to be always alert. This recommendation is not entirely irrational – even if one does not pay attention to it oneself, there are many other people who do, on the basis of pretended or proven incidents where people possibly experienced harm and ascribe this to demonic influence or sorcery. On the basis of a study of knowledge that is present in society, and of texts, the subject can reach a considered, responsible choice on how to act. These two approaches – the object-oriented and the subject-oriented approach – are complemented by the text-oriented approach. 51 bPesahim 110b: “This was said [in general] if someone is very careful with this [and is afraid of it [‫]קפיד‬, then they [the demons] also pay attention to him [in order to harm him], [but] if someone does not pay it much attention [to be afraid of it], then they [the demons] do not pay attention to him either [and they leave him alone]. Yet one must be alert [and not blatantly flout the rules [‫”]למיחש‬, in accordance with Rashbam’s statement.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 139

4.2.4 Approach 3: The Ruach Ra‘ah Viewed from the Texts In this approach, the parameters used to determine what the correct behavior is for the subject, and to determine the status of matter vis-a-vis the subject in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, are derived from texts hallowed by tradition themselves. Of course this approach also acknowledges the existence of an object and a subject, but the texts and their interpretation give these their rightful place and determine the interaction between them. This approach allows for the role of human behavior in specific situations or conventions (Minhag),52 empirical knowledge or theories53 on object or subject in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, but the importance of each of these facets is determined by the texts themselves. This happens through rules and norms that have been devised for this in the Halachah itself. These three approaches make it possible to discuss the responsa texts – previously subdivided into three categories – on the basis of nine exemplary texts.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories In the first category of food and drink (73 texts), the following text from the responsa collection Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot can be regarded as a paradigmatic text for the object-oriented approach to the Ruach Ra‘ah.

4.3.1 Category of Food and Drink: Object-oriented Approach (20 Texts) In this responsum by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot (V. 2, no. 3) which exemplifies the 20 texts54 in this category, the author replies to a question about a secular household assistant who works in the home of strict orthodox Jews. The question arises in the setting of Israeli society, where secular and orthodox Jews live together in a single society, but have largely become segregated over the course of

52 J. Roth, The Halachic Process: A Systemic Analysis (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986), 205–230. 53 Ibid., 231–304. 54 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1, 8, 9, 10; ibid., V. 2, no. 1, 3; ibid., V. 3, no. 256; V. 4, no. 186; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6; ibid., V. 1 (YD), no. 3, 4; Mishneh Halachot, V. 12, no. 21; ibid., V. 16, no. 16; Divrei Yatsiv, YD no. 31, 33; Divrei Chachamim, OH, no. 65; Har Tzvi, YD, no. 261; ibid., OH, V. 1, no. 50; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD; no. 144, 145; Yaskil Avdi, V. 7 OH, no. 44, subq. 4; ibid., V. 8 YD, no. 14, subsection 4.

140 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

time. A secular household assistant gives rise to problems that do not normally occur during chance encounters in the public space: Question: a secular assistant has touched food; whether it is fitting to forbid this out of fear [‫]לחשוש‬, because she did not wash her hands three times in the morning? See what is said in V.1, no. 1 [of the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot] where it was said that the Gaon and Tzaddik Rabbi Mordechai Progremanski ZTS’L55 were very cautious in this matter [‫]מאד הקפיד‬. But most of the House of Israel do not have the habit of being careful in this matter, even though the secular people [‫ ]חפשיים‬touch food and do not wash [their hands] three times with a vessel in order to remove the Impure Spirit. It must therefore be said that it is not necessary to be cautious in this matter a posteriori [= afterwards], as the Mishnah Berurah explains . . . 56

On the one hand, the author emphasizes the importance of very pious individuals acting strictly in the matter of the Ruach Ra‘ah. At the same time he sees that the average orthodox believer [“House of Israel”] does not do this in practice. In order to justify this praxis, it must therefore be the case that they are acting a posteriori on the basis of the less severe judgement of the Mishnah Berurah. This means that societal reality is not a reality in its own right, but is the result of a legitimate Halachic opinion, although the author does have his doubts in respect of this milder opinion: And although we have our doubts about this, another motive for a milder judgement may perhaps be added: that in relation of public violators of the Shabbat who are regarded as idolaters, this is also the case in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. And the law regarding them is like that of a heathen [=non-Jew] who sleeps and in whose vicinity no Ruach Ra‘ah is to be found. For the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only upon a holy place, i.e.: a holy soul. And violators of the Shabbat, although they do generate [real] impurity of death [after they die], their Ruach Ra‘ah is not very powerful and it does not rest in them as it does in an Israelite in order to contaminate [the food or drink] . . . 57

55 Also note the role of oral tradition surrounding contemporary rabbis in this ultraorthodox responsum. 56 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3: ‫ עוזרת חפשיה נגעה באוכלין אם ראוי לחשוש ולאסור כיון שלא נוטלת ידים ג״פ בבוקר עיין בדברינו בח״א‬:‫"שאלה‬ ‫ אבל רוב בית ישראל לא נהגו‬,‫(סימן א) שהבאנו שהגאון וצדיק רבי מרדכי פרוגרמנסקי זצ״ל הקפיד מאד ע״ז ע״ש‬ ‫ וצ״ל שבדיעבד לא קפדינן וכמבואר‬,‫ אף שחפ שיים נוגעין באוכלין ולא נוסלין בכלי ג״פ להעביר רוח הטומאה‬,‫להקפיד‬ ".)‫במ״ב (סימן ד' ס״ק י״ד‬ 57 ‫ אולי נוכל לצרף לסניף להתיר שבמחללי שבת בפרהסיא שהם כעכו״ם גם לענין רוח‬,‫"ואף שפקפקנו בזה שמה‬ ‫ שאינו שורה הר״ר אלא במקום‬,‫רעה לא שורה בהם וכשישנים לא נטמאים ודינם כמו בעכו״ם שישן ואין אצלו רו״ר‬ ‫ הרוח רעה לא אלים ולא שורה בהם כמו‬,‫ ומחללי שבת אף שמסמאין בסומאת מת‬,‫קדושה והיינו נשמה קדושה‬ ".‫ ומיהו ד״ז חידוש וצ״ע טובא‬,‫בישראל לטמא‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 141

The author reaches a far-reaching conclusion in respect of secular Jews – he himself calls it a novelty that necessitates further study: secular Jews are possibly similar to non-Jews who do not generate a Ruach Ra‘ah, perhaps because they lack a sacred component of the soul – an argument that corresponds to an objectoriented approach. At the same time, the author acknowledges that this creates a problem: it has never been shown that a “heretic” or non-law-abiding Jew does not generate impurity after he dies. This is why the author nuances his judgement: although secular Jews do generate impurity after they die, they only generate a lighter form of Ruach Ra‘ah after waking from sleep, a Ruach Ra‘ah that has no consequences when food and drink are touched. The author continues the responsum with the story of an encounter that he witnessed himself, between the Tzaddik Rabbi Amram Blau58 and the Gaon of Brisk59 about an institution where the children were not learning properly. Blau did not think it was worthwhile maintaining the institution, but the Gaon of Brisk wanted to know whether all the children washed their hands in the morning according to the rules. Blau replied that they did, and the Gaon of Brisk answered that this alone was enough reason to maintain the institution. The message is clear: the washing of hands in the morning is a very important part of domestic religious life, and certainly in an educational institutional framework. The author continues by emphasizing once again the importance of observing the prescriptions because of possible negative effects: And see the explanation of the Amudei Kesef [no. 11:2] . . . who quotes [the opinion] . . . that even  if the vessel one uses to wash one’s hands after the meal [‫ ]מים אחרונים‬or in the morning is used for food and drink, that this will cause all kinds of weakening [of the body, ‫]חולשות‬. And all the more so when one eats something with the Ruach Ra‘ah, who incites to sin, to bad thoughts and illnesses, God preserve us.60

The author then formulates the responsum’s conclusion: And a priori it certainly seems right to me that if one has a secular household assistant [at home] who is able to touch foods, that one should oblige her to pour water three times over her hands before she starts working, in accordance with the prescription. A posteriori, however, my opinion is that one does not need to judge strictly and ban the food; not even for a ‘guardian of the Torah’.61 This is because of the conclusion of the Mishnah Berurah that

58 Leader of the Neturei Karta. 59 I.e. Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (1886–1959), the GRI’Z, the author’s mentor. 60 ‫"ועיין בפירוש "עמודי כסף" על שו״ת מן השמים שמביא מהגה״ק רבי משה מפשעווארסק זצ״ל שאפילו בכלי‬ ‫ וכ״ש לאכול דבר עם רוח רעה‬,‫דמים אחרונים או נטילת שחרית אם משתמש בו לאוכלין ומשקין מביא הרבה חולשות‬ ".‫מחטיא ומביא מחשבות רעות ומחלות ח״ו‬ 61 A devout orthodox Jew who always abides closely by the law.

142 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

the food is not prohibited and that it must be rinsed three times, in ‘differing’ water [‫]מחולפים‬.62

A priori it should be agreed at the start of the employment that the assistant will wash her hands in the morning according to the prescription (three times, and using an object from which the water is poured) before she begins work. A posteriori it is not forbidden to eat the food, but it should be rinsed three times, in the following way: “I.e. in differing water . . . and from the water tap it differs by definition [because it flows]”.63 Finally the author gives the general advice to rinse all foodstuffs that have been touched by secular people: And this is why it is a beautiful and fitting custom, to rinse all foodstuffs well that have been touched by secular Jews without washing their hands – and this helps against this fear [= the consuming of foods that have been touched by unwashed hands].64

In this conclusion, the author ultimately seeks to justify the approach of the pious Rabbi Mordechai Progremanski whom he venerates – in his case the food in question was bread, which cannot be rinsed. In the case of this kind of food or drink there is certainly good reason to judge more strictly if one is a pious person (Tzaddik) – in accordance with the object-oriented approach that generally tends towards stricter opinions.65

4.3.2 Category of Food and Drink: Subject-oriented Approach (19 Texts) The following text from the Rivavot Ephraim responsa collection (V. 5, no. 523) can serve as a paradigmatic text for the subject-oriented approach to the Ruach Ra‘ah.66 The responsum consists of a short treatise on the problem of peeled eggs that have been kept overnight. The responsum begins with a quotation from a

62 ‫ יש לחייבה לפני התחלת העבודה‬,‫"ונראה שלכתחילה בודאי כשיש לו עוזרת חפשיה ועלולה לנגוע במאכלים‬ ‫ ובדיעבד אין דעתי להחמיר לאסור המאכל אפילו בשומר תורה שנגע דהא מסיק במ״ב דאין‬,‫ליטול ידיה ג״פ כדין‬ ".‫ והיינו במים מחולפים‬.‫לאסור המאכל אלא ידיחנו ג״פ‬ 63  .". . .‫ ומברז מים ממילא מחולפין‬,[‫"והיינו במים מחולפים [עיין בשו״ע סימן ד' סעיף י״ב ובמ״ב ס״ק כ״ה‬ 64 ".‫"ומהאי טעמא מנהג נאה ויאה בכל אוכל כשחפשיים נוגעין בו בלי נטילה להדיחו יפה יפה ויועיל גם לחשש זה‬ 65  ".‫ היינו בלחם דלא שייך כ״כ הדחה ג״פ‬,‫"והגאון רבי מרדכי זצ״ל שהחמיר‬ 66 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 316; Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 7; ibid., V. 5, no. 523; ibid., V. 6, no. 433; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 8, 10, 11, 13; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 13, no. 2; ibid., V. 17, no. 35; ibid., V. 22, no. 40, 41; Shevet Halevi, V. 3, no. 169; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 7; Va-Ya’an Yosef YD, no. 162; Igrot Moshe, YD, V. 3, no. 20; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 3, no. 63; ibid., V. 6, no. 75.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 143

book called HaKashrut kaHalacha by Rabbi Amram Edery67 that deals with peeled eggs kept overnight, and that gives a short overview of the Talmudic discussion about this in bNiddah 17a. Ostensibly on the basis of this Talmud passage alone, Edery rules that peeled eggs, onions or garlic that have been kept overnight should not be consumed. A second quotation from this book by Edery deals with the question of the industrial use of eggs that are peeled and preserved for processing. Edery rules that there is no problem with this, because they are mixed with other foodstuffs (and the situation is not entirely identical to the Talmudic prohibition) and because they are mixed with salt – which lifts the ban.68 Following this quotation from Edery, the Rivavot Ephraim gives his own opinion: And it seems to me that if it is in a closed pan or in the fridge, that the law of the peeled egg does not apply to this. And the proof for this is that it is made before Shabbat and kept in the fridge [for the next day]. And at first sight this seems logical [‫]פשוט‬. And let he who has a different opinion inform me of it. And then I will change my opinion, without promising this explicitly [‫]בלי נדר‬69

The Rivavot Ephraim gives proof for his opinion – which is not yet fully fixed, given that he is [possibly] prepared to change his opinion – from the context of everyday life. This is how it is routinely done, and no one sees any problem with it. In another responsum70 the Rivavot Ephraim returns to this subject and gives his colleague Rabbi Abraham Levi’s reaction to this ostensibly logical decision on the part of the author. In this long reaction, Levi first challenges the idea that this is actually how it is routinely done. He has never come across the custom of peeling eggs on Friday and then placing them in the fridge for the meal on Saturday. He then gives a long overview of the various sources on the problem of the peeled egg. His conclusion appears to be that it is permitted a posteriori, but that the egg should then really be mixed with something – with mayonnaise or salt. But this is followed by the Rivavot Ephraim’s short reaction: And to me it seems that given that it is the custom to leave the peeled egg in the fridge . . . it is allowed to continue with this [‫]הנח להם‬. And I am finding it difficult to change my opinion and to forbid it. Because in most Yeshivot eggs are peeled before Shabbat [for consumption the day after]. And given that this is so, one must conclude from this that the dispensation

67 4th ed., 1985. 68 Edery bases this ruling on two responsa from the corpus of the Minchat Yitzchak, V. 6, no. 74 and 75. 69 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5, no. 523: .‫ והריא' שמלפני שבת מכינים ושמים במקרר‬,‫"ולי נראה אם זה נמצא בסיר מכוסה או במקרר אין לזה דין ביצה קלופה‬ ".‫ ומי שבא לחלוק נא להודיעני ואשנה דברי בל״נ‬,‫ולכאורה זה פשוט‬ 70 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 6, no 433.

144 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

[‫ ]היתר‬for this is sound. And although the criticism of me in this matter is correct, it does seem to me that the halacha is that one may rely on this, as we71 wrote before. And may the Merciful One save us from errors, and he who disagrees with me has a good reason for this.72

The Rivavot Ephraim acknowledges on the one hand that the criticism of his colleagues is not unjustified on the basis of what the texts say. He nonetheless chooses to approach the issue from the perspective of the subject: what people usually do and what feels good and safe in this case. In the environment of the Rivavot Ephraim, no one sees any problem with peeling eggs and keeping them in the fridge for the day after. Although people are aware of the texts from the Talmud – he cites what happens in the Yeshivot as proof – no one regards this as dangerous. And this means there actually is no danger, and it is logical that everything is fine, according to the Rivavot Ephraim.

4.3.3 Category Food and Drink: Text-oriented Approach (32 Texts) The following responsum by the Tzitz Eliezer (V. 18, no. 46) is a paradigmatic text for the text-oriented approach.73 It deals with a question that is almost identical to the two texts in the preceding approaches. Instead of an egg, it is peeled garlic and onions that have been kept overnight. This responsum makes no reference at all to custom or to people’s experiences, nor to scientific knowledge that comes from outside the Halachic system. This might have been expected, as the author Eliezer Waldenberg is an expert in the field of medical ethics: On garlic and onion that are peeled, over which the night has passed . . . [date: Pesach 1989] [name and opening salutation of enquirer] 71 The author means his own statement that placing eggs in the fridge helps against the problem of keeping them overnight. 72 Ibid., ‫ וקשה לי לשנות דעתי ולאסור כי ברוב‬,‫"ונ״ל דהיות שנוהגים להשאיר קלוף במקרר וכו' א״כ הנה להם‬ ‫ ואף שהערות עלי הן נכונות מ״מ להלכה נראה דאפשר‬,‫ישיבות מקלפים לפני שבת וא״כ משמע דההיתר הוא טוב‬ ".‫ והרחמן יצילנו משגיאות ומי שיצא לחלוק יש לו טעם נכון‬,‫לסמוך בזה כמו שכתבנו‬ 73 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 8; ibid., V. 3, no. 18; ibid., V. 4, no. 153, section 25; ibid., V. 5, no. 8, 9; ibid., V. 6, no. 6; Mishneh Halachot, V. 3, no. 61; ibid., V. 11, no. 9; ibid., V. 12, no. 20, 22; ibid., V. 15, no. 5, 6; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 35; ibid., V. 18, no. 46; ibid., V. 19, no. 56; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 227; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9,10, 23; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 2; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 51; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 68, #12,13; ibid., V. 6, no. 74; ibid., V. 9, no. 28,74; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 11; Chelkat Yaakov, V. EH, CHM and var. items, no. 88 and V. 3, YD, no. 14, 39; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 1, no. 133; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 146.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 145

On what he asked me about peeled garlic and onion over which the night has passed, and where he stated his opinion that they may be eaten and that [he] does not have to throw [them] away if they have been properly covered and closed off in the fridge. Because this sometimes means heavy financial loss, in addition it shows contempt for food.74

The author continues by rejecting this train of thought because the Talmud bNiddah 17a states explicitly that even when they are tied and wrapped up (literally: tied together and sealed – ‫)ומציירי וחתימי‬, the Ruach Ra‘ah still rests on them. He then refers to a ruling by the Rivavot Ephraim75 that being placed in the fridge counts as being wrapped up and does help, but he rejects this ruling, because colleagues have already rejected it too. He continues by advancing his own argument: . . . this statement from the Talmud was not recorded, either in [the codex of] Maimonides, or the Tur, or the Shulchan Aruch, but only by some [rabbis] who came after these. It can therefore be said that Maimonides and the writers of the Shulchan Aruch have decided in their greatness that the halacha is not such. Or that these very reverend scholars were of the opinion that this no longer applied to our time, because nature and circumstances have changed, as can be found [in rabbinic literature] in relation to certain rulings on things that have changed in this same way.76

Whether nature has really changed, and the circumstances are now different than they were in the time of the Talmud is not relevant to the author – some texts advance this notion and therefore it is valid. It is similarly unimportant whether people really observe that certain things had different consequences in the past than they do now, and act accordingly in everyday situations. Of course no rabbi

74 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46: ‫ ירושלים עיה״ק‬.‫ יום ועש״ק פסח שני תשמ״ט לפ״ק‬.‫"אודות שום ובצל קלופין שעבר עליהם הלילה ב״ה‬ ‫ ע״ד ששאלני‬.‫תובב״א לכבוד הרה״ג רב פעלים הרב ר' ראובן סיני שליט״א רב בשכונת צפון ירושלים שו״ב‬ ‫ ורצה לצדד ולומר דאם מכוסים היטב וסגורים במקרר‬.‫אודות שום ובצל קלופין שעבר עליהם הלילה‬ ".‫ ויש בזה גם ביזוי לאוכלין‬,‫שיועיל שיוכל לאוכלם ולא יצטרכו לאבדם אשר לפעמים זה מסתכם בהפסד רב‬ 75 V. 3, no. 495. This responsum was not included in the corpus because the term Ruach Ra‘ah does not appear in it, and because the question is formulated slightly differently, and in fact deals with the prohibition on eating something that has been kept uncovered (gilui). The Rivavot Ephraim’s ruling deals with the wrapping up of an onion in tinfoil and then placing it in the fridge, which he does not think is a problem, on the basis of a reference to the problem of gilui. As has been seen, this dealt mainly with leaving liquids uncovered, because snakes may have drunk from it and deposited their venom in it. It is precisely this mixing of jargon – the keeping overnight of onion, egg, and garlic, and the prohibition on leaving liquids uncovered, that colleagues are criticizing. 76 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46: ,‫ והוזכר זה רק בכמה מהבאים אחריהם‬,‫"שמימרא זאת שבגמ' נדה לא הובאה כלל לא ברמב״ם ולא בטור ושו״ע‬ ‫ או דקסברי הנהו מרנן רבנן שזה לא נהוג בזמנינו‬,‫וניתן לומר שהרמב״ם ובעלי השו״ע סברו בגדלותם שאין הלכה כן‬, ".‫ כפי שמצאנו על עוד כמה דברים מעין אלה שנאמרו ונתחדשו בכזאת‬,‫כי נשתנו הטבעיים והמסיבות‬

146 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

will say that the knowledge of the rabbis in the Talmud was founded a priori on erroneous premises and is therefore not applicable. He continues with a gloss of the Mordechai77 on behalf of Meir from Rothenburg – that no attention was paid to the Talmud’s admonition in respect of keeping peeled eggs overnight “because possibly the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer found among us”. In other words, the Tzitz Eliezer perhaps accepts the idea that something has changed, but only because a medieval text says so: “And these words of the Mordechai are the basis for many great decisors to judge less strictly in this matter . . .”78 Waldenberg continues with examples from the rabbinic literature of the last few centuries where Mordechai’s view is used to permit the use of mixtures of whisked eggs in bakeries, for instance, and the custom of making salads containing garlic and to keep these overnight, or to preserve vegetables using garlic. It is remarkable that Waldenberg does not refer to the usual way of making salad or of pickling, but he reconstructs these human activities from the texts. He then connects texts that use the absence of this Talmudic prohibition in the codices of Maimonides and Karo to formulate a milder ruling, so that there is no danger in keeping the types mentioned in bNiddah 17a overnight. The rest of the responsum explains that even if we still had reason nowadays to fear the Ruach Ra‘ah on peeled onions, garlic, and eggs, it would nevertheless be possible to find ways in which it would be permitted. Waldenberg again uses precedents from other texts for this: And look at the Sefer Mitzvot Katan, section 171, who writes [in respect of eating peeled and crushed garlic on Shabbat] ‘that there are people who are not afraid [to eat the garlic that was prepared on Friday] because it is mixed with bread; and there are those who place the skins of the [peeled] garlic in it’.79

According to the author, this source teaches us that if other things have been mixed into it, such as bread, or if the skins are left in it after peeling, the Ruach Ra‘ah has no power over it. Whether this is actually true is of no relevance – there is a precedent from a text that qualifies the general prohibition from the Talmud. Waldenberg further expands the observation of the Sefer Mitzvot Katan to turn it into a general rule: the entire prohibition of the Talmud only applies when the

77  78 Ibid.: 79 Ibid.:

.‫מרדכי מסכת שבת הגהות מרדכי (פרק המוציא) רמז תסא‬ ".‫"ודברי מרדכי אלה שימשו למקור בית אב לכמה וכמה גדולי פוסקים לדון להתיר עפי״ז‬

‫ שום קלוף ובצל קלוף וביצה קלופה שעבר עליהם‬:‫"יעוין בסמ״ק סימן קע״א (יום רביעי) שכותב וז״ל‬ ‫ ויש שאינם חוששים מאחר שלחם‬,‫ יש בני אדם שאינם אוכלים שומים קלופים שחוקים בשבת שחרית‬,‫הלילה‬ ".‫ ויש שמשימים קליפת השומין לתוכם‬,‫מעורב בתוכם‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 147

onion, garlic, and egg are unmixed with other things. As soon as they have been mixed with something else, then the danger of the Ruach Ra‘ah disappears, as several rabbis from the last two centuries have also written. Then he presents yet another solution: There is also another way of permitting it, by putting salt into it. As I have seen this in the book Mat’amim, under the entry for ‘Yayin, Se’uda, ve-Achila’, subsection 18, who writes the following on behalf of the book Tosefet Hayim: ‘the reason [that], if there is peeled garlic or egg left in the evening, so that when the night passes over it, it is dangerous to it eat – [the reason that] this is put in salt, is that the salt annihilates [‫ ]מבטל‬the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on it.80

On the basis of the Ta’ame HaMinhagim, Waldenberg concludes that this means that even if the peeled onion, garlic or egg have already been kept overnight, it is still possible a posteriori to make them suitable again by placing them in salt: “Because it has the power to make the Ruach Ra‘ah disappear and to lift it”.81 Again it is of no importance whether this is actually true, the texts say that the Ruach Ra‘ah causes danger in certain situations, and other texts say that it causes no danger in certain situations – e.g. after using salt. In different situations actions can therefore be adapted in accordance with what can be found in the texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the way of dealing with it. Finally, Waldenberg further extends the number of exceptions, again on the basis of a text: “ . . . .but after preserving in vinegar, or salt water, or after boiling it, it is no longer dangerous”.82 The original text only mentioned placing it in salt. This is then extended in other texts to acidic substances (vinegar), salt water or boiling – these are all ways of preserving food that were known to have a protective effect and make it last longer. Waldenberg adopts this, because they are mentioned in a text, and even goes a step further: And even if he does this [one of the treatments mentioned above] after they have been kept overnight, and he does not eat them as they are [in their natural state].83

Waldenberg then gives two further arguments as to why a milder judgement is in order in this matter, even if the Ruach Ra‘ah does still pose a threat in our time: 80 Ibid.: ‫ כדראיתי בספר מטעמים ערך יין סעודה ואכילה אות י״ח שכותב‬,‫"יש גם דרך היתר לשים בתוכם מלח‬ ‫ טעם כשנשאר שום קלוף או בצל קלופה בלילה שאם יעבור עליהם הלילה סכנה לאכול‬:‫בשם ספר תוספת חיים וז״ל‬ .". . .‫ כי המלח מבטל את הרוח רעה ששורה עליו‬,‫מהם נותנים אותו למלח‬ 81 Ibid.: ‫ דכחו‬.‫"ומשמע לכאורה ששימת המלח מועילה אפילו אם ישים זאת בתוכם לאחר שעבר עליהם הלילה‬ ".‫אתו להעביר ולבטל את הרוח רעה‬ 82 Ibid.: ".‫"אבל אחר כבישה חומץ או במי מלח או אחר בישול אינו מזיק‬ 83 Ibid.: ".‫ ואינו אוכלו כמו שהוא‬.‫"והיינו אפילו אם יעשה בכזאת לאחר שעבר עליהן הלילה‬

148 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

Moreover there are [rabbis] who are of the opinion that the whole danger is linked only to raw foods, not to cooked foods; and there are those who say the opposite: that the whole danger is linked only to cooked foods, but not to raw foods . . . Therefore this means for us that in whatever way it is done [consuming], there always exists a double doubt [‫]ספק ספקא‬ to permit it, i.e.: perhaps the whole danger no longer exists in our time, and even if it still exists, perhaps it only exists in the second manner, but not in the way in which he wishes to consume it [i.e. raw vs. cooked].84

Rav Waldenberg uses a general Halachic principle of “double doubt”, which is used in many rulings. A single doubt is usually not sufficient to permit something, certainly not if a biblical prohibition is at stake. A “double doubt” is often sufficient to permit it, but whether this is also true in the case of danger remains the question. A danger counts for more in the Halachah than something that is ritually forbidden. This is why even a double doubt is often not sufficient to permit something that is forbidden because of danger. In this case, however, it is,85 as: it is not a precaution against a tangible danger [‫ ]מוחשת‬. . . but one that is supernatural and not further defined [‫]סגולתי ומופשט‬.86

In passing, Waldenberg does give empirical proof for this last point: “and of which many who have not observed it have eaten, and not experienced any harm.” Waldenberg concludes with a reference to a responsum by the Yad Meir (no. 19), who proposes a different solution, i.e. to rinse the foodstuffs with water three times. After all, this also helps to cleanse one’s hands of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning after rising. And although this has not been suggested anywhere before, it helps according to the Yad Meir because the principle is that the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer among us in contemporary times. His conclusion therefore is: In essence, there is room in this case for a milder ruling in any situation whatsoever [‫]בכל גוונא‬ and he who acts in this way, should not be regarded as rash [‫]אין מזחיחין אותו‬, and this especially if he also rinses it, and all the more so if he puts skins [of the onion or garlic] into it. And

84 Ibid.: ‫ וישנם סוברים להיפך שהחשש הוא רק במבושלים‬,‫"כמו״כ ישנם סוברים שהחשש הוא רק בחיין ולא במבושלים‬ ‫ ויוצא איפוא מזה שלדידן על‬,‫ ובשו״ת יד מאיר שם וכן בדרכ״ת שם אות ע״ד עיין שם‬,‫ יעו״ש בזבחי צדק‬,‫ולא בחיין‬ ‫ ואפילו אם‬,‫ שמא לא שייך כלל החשש בזה״ז‬,‫ והוא‬.‫ להתיר‬,‫כל אופן מהאופנים אם נרצה יש לנו ספק ספקא‬ ".‫שייך שמא הוא דוקא על האופן השני ולא על האופן שרוצה כעת לאכול‬ 85 Others in the corpus use the same argument, about the difference between a tangible danger and a potential danger that is not further defined [‫ מופשט‬and ‫]סגולתי‬, such as the Yabbia Omer. 86 Ibid.: .‫ אלא על חשש סגולתי ומופשט‬,‫"והרי הספק הוא לא על חשש סכנה מוחשת שנטעון פירוקא לסכנתא‬ ".‫ואשר רבים כבר עברו ואכלו ולא ניזוקו‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 149

how much more so if it has been mixed with something else, or even salt has been put in/over it, or it has been preserved in vinegar and / or salt water.87

In this case, the text-oriented approach actually leads to a different point of view – and a milder judgement – than the object-oriented approach.

4.3.4 Category (33 Texts) of Space: Object-oriented Approach (10 Texts) Having addressed this first category of food and drink from the perspective of the three approaches, we now pass to the second category, space (33 texts), such as the toilet or the bathroom. This category, too, can be addressed from the perspective of the three approaches. The following text from the Yitzchak Yeranen (V. 1, OH, no. 5) can be regarded as a paradigmatic text for the object-oriented approach in relation to the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah in certain rooms,88 in this case the toilet and the bathroom, or a combined toilet / bathroom. It must be noted that the status of the modern water closet and the bathroom was already the subject of several responsa before the Shoah,89 particularly that of toilets in trains. It is remarkable that our corpus includes a relatively high number of responsa dealing with the status of the toilet room – or the combined toilet/bathroom. The Yitzchak Yeranen discusses the question whether it is permitted to wash one’s hands in a combined toilet/bathroom – for instance before a bread meal or after waking up – and what the status is of food and drink brought into this room. Are these still permitted for consumption? In this long responsum, the Yitzchak Yeranen combines the Halachic casuistic approach with the object-oriented approach, influenced here by the Zohar which he uses in addition to Halachic sources, and which tends towards a more ontological approach to the Ruach Ra‘ah. In addition, he frequently debates responsa from the corpus of the Yabbia Omer.

87 Ibid.: ‫ ומה גם כשיעשה‬,‫ דמעיקרו של דבר יש מקום להתיר בכל גוונא והנוהג כן אין מזחיחין אותו‬,‫"העולה מכל האמור‬ ‫ ועל אחת כמה שמותר כשיערב זה עם איזה דבר‬,‫ וביותר יש להתיר כשישימו מהקליפות לתוכם‬,‫גם הדחה‬ ".‫ או אפילו כשישים בתוכם מלח או יכבשם בחומץ ובמי מלח‬,‫אחר‬ 88 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 3; ibid., V. 2, no. 4; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5, 11; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 8, no. 5; Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 34, 35; Simchat Kohen OH, no. 6; Yaskil Avdi, V. 7 OH, no. 44, q. 1; Yaskil Avdi, V. 6, no. 13. 89 Zekan Aharon, V. 1, no. 1 – a responsum from 1930, the book in which the responsum is included was first printed in 1932: Shem MiShimon, no. 9 – a responsum from 1926, printed in 1932; Eretz Tzvi, no. 110 and 111, printed in 1938; Levushe Mordechai, V. 3, no. 18, printed in 1922; see also Chazon lsh, OH, no. 17, subsection 4.

150 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

In the first section, the Yitzchak Yeranen discusses the status of the toilet bowl – can this be compared to the pot (made of non-absorbent material) and the toilet chair as it is described in Halachic literature? This is a chair with an opening in the seat, where a pot was sometimes placed, and removed after use. Both cases were judged more leniently than a real toilet; the pot because it is mobile, is frequently emptied and cleaned; the toilet chair because the pot is not permanently there, because it is also used as an ordinary chair, and because it covers the pot under it. Then the author compares the modern toilet with the Talmud’s so-called “Persian toilet” – a kind of opening with an undulating trajectory which causes excrement to pass down immediately without resting in the toilet (room). In modern toilets, excrement is also flushed down immediately after defecation, but by contrast with the Persian toilet, it does remain in the toilet bowl for a while. And although the material that the toilet bowl is made of is normally smooth and non-absorbent – not like the wood or earthenware mentioned as materials that cannot be cleaned properly – it does sometimes become dirty with excrement. Moreover, by contrast with a pot or toilet chair, the modern water closet is fixed to the wall and the floor of the toilet room, which gives this space the permanent status of a toilet. The author therefore contends in subsection 2 – following the example of the Chazon Ish (H. Keriat Shema §17) for instance – that in cases of doubt a toilet room, even if it is also used for other purposes, has the more consequential status of a Talmudic toilet. So far all this appears to be in accordance with the text-oriented approach. But in his discussion (subsection 2), the Yitzchak Yeranen connects the issue of the status of a room with the actual presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah. In the middle of the Halachic discussion, as he considers the argument that the modern toilet is comparable to the toilet chair, which means that the entire room does not have the status of a toilet room (and it is only necessary to observe a certain distance from the chair when the pot has been removed), he contends: . . . And it is clear from this that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah in this room in which the toilet chair stands. And the same law would then apply in our case, of a bathroom with a toilet in it, that the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest in the entire room. And it would therefore also be permitted to wash one’s hands from the tap fixed to the washbasin.90

But the texts which the author quotes do not in fact discuss the Ruach Ra‘ah and its presence – nor do they mention the question of whether one must wash one’s 90 Yitschak Yeranen, V. 1, OH, no. 5, sec. 1 (31): ‫ וה״ה בנייד שחדר האמבטיא שיש בו אסלא אין רו״ר‬,‫ אין בו רו״ר‬,‫ומשמע ודאי שחדר זה שנמצא בו הספסל‬. . ." ".‫שורה בכל החדר וממילא מותר ליטול ידיו בברז המים הקבוע בכיור‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 151

hands when entering this room. They deal with the issue of whether it is permitted to utter sacred words in the presence of something that is used by humans to relieve themselves, in this case the toilet room (or a bathroom). The author directly links these two things with each other: the Ruach Ra‘ah is present in a room that is “dirty” and where no sacred words may be uttered (or rituals performed). The author does the same thing a few lines down, when he explains why a modern toilet is possibly not comparable to the toilet in the Talmud: . . . And from this it may be [deduced] in our case, that in a bathroom where there is a porcelain toilet – which is earthenware that has been covered [=glazed] – that this has the status of a pot, but not of a toilet. And therefore it would be permitted to wash one’s hands in this room, because no Ruach Ra‘ah rests in that room.91

It is obviously clear to the author that the prohibition of performing rituals in “dirty” spaces is not so much a law that directly addresses the subject in order to increase the status of the rituals and to show an attitude of respect, but is the result of the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Because there usually is dirt in a toilet room, the Ruach Ra‘ah rests there and it is forbidden to perform a ritual. This would make the subject himself unclean through the Ruach Ra‘ah, and this uncleanness would also be passed on to food and drink in this room. This is why water from a tap in this room cannot be used for a purification ritual. This is clearly an object-oriented line of argument. Having discussed the Chazon Ish’s doubt in relation to our modern toilet, the Yitzchak Yeranen begins to formulate his own view: And to me it seems – in my humble opinion – that our toilets must be regarded as real toilets (of Talmudic times), and [particularly] also according to the Zohar (Genesis 10b), which says: ‘There is a spirit [‫ ]רוחא‬in every toilet in the world, which rests there and enjoys that dirt and filth’, that is his formulation. So, it is possible that because the name Toilet is applicable to her, and she [the Ruach Ra‘ah] enjoys this filth when one relieves oneself, it must be said that the Ruach Ra‘ah is present there. Although it might be said [and objected] that it is only in the case of a ‘fixed toilet’92 which is certainly a toilet according to the law, that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests there; but not in our toilets, because they possibly do not even have

91 Ibid., 32: ‫ בחדר אמבטיא שיש גם אסלא מפורצליין שהוא חרס מצופה דינו כגרף אבל לא כבית‬,‫ומינה לנ״ד‬. . ." ".‫ וממילא מותר ליטול הידיים בחדר זה שאין רו״ר שורה בחדר‬,‫כסא‬ 92 Because the toilet bowl is cleaned with water every time and the excrement never remains there for long, it is possibly not a “fixed toilet” as this is described in the Talmud. A “fixed toilet” is a toilet room that is used permanently for the purposes of relieving oneself. A non-fixed toilet is a space (or object) that is not regularly used as a toilet.

152 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

the status of a pot – because they are covered [=glazed]. In any case there is doubt [about this] and one must therefore judge more strictly by regarding it as a real [Talmudic] toilet.93

The author in this passage refers to the Zohar (Genesis 10b), which contends that the Ruach Ra‘ah is present in a toilet room, where it “feeds” on the dirt that can be found there. Again the author makes a clear connection between the Halachic status of a toilet room and the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah as a concrete, objective fact. As has been said before, mystical texts in particular tend to develop an essentialist, object-oriented approach. The Yitzchak Yeranen continues with a treatise on a toilet room that also has a bath / or shower facility. According to the Chazon Ish if a toilet room is also used for purposes other than to relieve oneself, it is possibly permissible to judge less strictly. The use of the room for other purposes “improves” the low status that attaches to rooms that are used exclusively as toilets. The author therefore concludes: because the status of such a room has improved, the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer present. The author then himself rejects this earlier conclusion, because the fact that the toilet bowl is fixed to the wall and the ground gives the space a fixed status of toilet room; by contrast with a pot or mobile toilet chair. That the same room also serves other purposes can do little to change this. There is in any case doubt about this, the author reiterates.94 This means it is necessary to judge strictly in respect of the Ruach Ra‘ah, precisely because the author sees the Ruach Ra‘ah as a real entity that has a negative influence on humans, food, and drink. It is remarkable that although the Yitzchak Yeranen states further down in the text that a combined bathroom and toilet “without a doubt” has the status of a fixed toilet, there is in fact a Halachic solution to use the water from this room to wash one’s hands before a meal or to rinse off the Ruach Ra‘ah after rising. This consists of making a partition at least ten hand widths high (c. 80–100 cm) – a fixed minimum measurement in the Halachah for partitions – that separates the toilet from the washbasin and the tap – a purely Halachic solution that uses the rabbinic concept of partitions.[‫]מחיצות‬.95 93 Ibid., 33: ‫ רוחא חדא‬:‫ וגם להזוהר (בראשית ד״י ע״ב) דאיתא‬,‫נלע״ד דבתי כסאות דידן יש לדונם כבית כסא גמור‬. . ." ,‫ אפשר דכיון דשם בית כסא עליו‬.‫אית בכל בית כסא דעלמא דשריא תמן ואתהני מההוא לכלוכא וטינופא עכ״ל‬ ‫ ממילא י״ל דרו״ר נמצאת שם והגם די״ל דדוקא ביכ״ס קבוע דע״פ‬,‫ואתהני מההוא לכלוכא בשעה שעושים צרכים‬ ‫ מ״מ מידי ספק לא פלטינן‬.‫הדין חשיב ביכ״ס אז רו״ר שורה שם משא״כ דידן דאפשר דל״ח כלל גרף כיון שמצופין‬ ".‫ומחמירים בהם לדונם כביכ״ס גמור‬ 94 Ibid., 34. 95 Ibid., 35a: .‫ אז יועיל ליטול ידים שם‬,‫"ורק אם יעשו מחיצה גבוהה עשרה טפחים המבדילה בין האסלא לבין ברז המים‬ ".‫כנלע״ד בס״ד‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 153

But, because the Halachah acknowledges the principle of a partition – even if it is more symbolic than anything else (the space above 80–100 cm is open), it actually works and is more than just a symbol. In other words: by making the partition – even if in our human eyes this is not fully closed, or rather largely open up to the ceiling – the Ruach Ra‘ah is “confined” to the space around the toilet, and no further. It does not serve to heighten humans’ awareness that the space around the toilet has a different status than that of the washbasin and the tap, so that he can adjust his actions accordingly. Instead, it has a real, object-oriented effect. The Yitzchak Yeranen continues (subsection 2) with the question concerning the status of bathhouses in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. The author begins with a treatise on the basis of a responsum from the Yabbia Omer96 that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah in a bathhouse. However, he rejects the latter’s contention that even if one acknowledges that there might in fact be a trace [‫ ]נידנוד‬of the Ruach Ra‘ah there, this does not have the “power” to make food and drink unsuitable. According to the author, this argument does not have merit: either there is no Ruach Ra‘ah, and then there is no problem, or there is a Ruach Ra‘ah, and then this has consequences. He supports his words on the basis of a responsum from the Yaskil Avdi97 who states that there is in fact a Ruach Ra‘ah in the bathhouse. This then also has consequences for everything that is inside a bathhouse, and “even if he were to wash himself with all the water of the world, the Ruach Ra‘ah would not leave him . . . until he leaves the bathhouse”.98 According to the author, these words are “correct as to their reasons” (‫ולענ״ד דבריו נכונים‬ ‫)בטעמם‬, i.e. according to the opinion that there is a Ruach Ra‘ah in a bathhouse/ bathroom.99 The Yitzchak Yeranen, however, is of the opinion that bathhouses, much less bathrooms, do not have a Ruach Ra‘ah, as long as there is no toilet there. Then the author again quotes the Zohar text mentioned before, but this time he gives the entire passage, and he concludes from this that even entering a toilet room, i.e. without relieving oneself, is reason to wash one’s hands upon leaving it, because the Ruach Ra‘ah dwells there:

96 Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1. 97 Yaskil Avdi, V. 7, OH, no. 2. 98 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, OH, no. 5, 35: ,‫א״כ כל שהוא נמצא בבית המרחץ שבו שורה הרו״ר ועוד ישנה שם גם אם ירחץ בכל מימות שבעולם‬. . ." ‫ והיא לא סרה עד שיצא מבית המרחץ ויתרחק מהרו״ר ויטול‬,‫לא תסור ממנו הרו״ר שהרי בבחינת טובל ושרץ בידו‬ .". . .‫ידיו בחוץ וינגב אותם‬ 99 Ibid.

154 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

. . . Because the Ruach Ra‘ah rests there, and he who goes in, the Ruach Ra‘ah immediately rests on his fingers . . . and similarly the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on food and drink that were brought into the toilet.100

In a long discussion of the correct interpretation of the Zohar passage mentioned above, he rejects the Yabbia Omer’s101 view that, according to some rabbis, merely entering a toilet room does not incur the obligation to wash one’s hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that is present there: “The text of the Zohar does not support this interpretation at all, and this argument should not even be made, not even as a subordinate argument”.102 The Zohar states in that passage (Introduction 10b) that it is not permitted to utter a blessing after entering a toilet, or read Torah – not even one word – until one has washed one’s hands: The Zohar continues: And if it is said: because they [=the hands] are dirty, this is not so – because how would they be dirty? [He did not go to the toilet]. But, there is a spirit in every toilet in the world, which rests there and enjoys the dirt and the filth there, and immediately he rests on the fingers of a person’s hands.103

Once again it is striking that the Kabbalistic Zohar is used as a Halachic text, and is subjected to all kinds of different possible interpretations, only the most plausible of which are valid (the Yitzchak Yeranen continues with a short treatise on someone who only holds his hands in the toilet room, or only one hand).104 The rest of the responsum is dedicated to the status of food and drink that have been brought into a toilet room. The author begins subsection 3 with a passage from the Yam shel Shlomoh. This says that if someone, after going to the toilet, touches water in a barrel outside with unclean hands, this water does not become unclean, and can be used for the washing of hands. The Yitzchak Yeranen 100 Ibid., 36: ‫ אבל אם יש גם ביכ״ס לא מועיל כלל דהכי איתא בזוהר‬,‫"וכל זה כשאין בית כסא בבית המרחץ‬ ‫ ואי תימא‬,‫ וכד עאל לבית הכסא לא יברך ולא יקרא בתורה אפילו מלה חדא עד דיסחי ידוי‬: )‫ע״ב‬ )‫יו״דע״ב‬ ‫דףיו״ד‬ ‫(בראשיתדף‬ ‫בראשית‬ ‫ אלא רוחא חדא אית בכל בית כסא דעלמא דשריא תמן ואתהני‬,‫במאי אתלכלכו‬, ‫ לאו הכי‬,‫בגין דמלוכלכים אינון‬ ‫ ומשמע דגם הנכנס לביכ״ס אפי׳ לא עשה‬.‫ עכ״ל‬.‫מההוא לכלוכא וטינופא ומיד שרי על אינון אצבעאן דידוי דבר נש‬ ‫ כי הרו״ר שורה שם והנכנס לשם מיד הרו״ר שורה על ידו וכמו שהוא מדוייק‬,‫צרכיו רו״ ר שורה על ידיו וצריך נט״י‬ ‫ וה״נ אוכלין‬.‫ דאיירי אנכנס דלעיל ודו״ק‬,‫בלשון הזוהר ״וכד עאל לביכ״ס וכוי ומיד שרי על אינון אצבעאן דידוי דב״נ״‬ ".‫ומשקין שנכנסו לביכ״ס רו״ר שורה עליהם‬ 101 Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1. 102 Yitschak Yeranen, V. 1, OH, no. 5, 37: ".‫ אין לצרף סברא זו (במחכ״ת) אפי׳ לסניף‬,‫ומכיון שלשון הזוהר אינו סובל פירוש זה כלל‬ 103 Ibid., 36: ‫ אלא רוחא חדא אית בכל בית כסא דעלמא דשריא תמן ואתהני ואי תימא בגין דמלוכלכים‬,‫"במאי אתלכלכו‬ ".‫ לאו הכי מההוא לכלוכא וטינופא ומיד שרי על אינון אצבעאן דידוי דבר נש‬,‫אינון‬ 104 Ibid., 37.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 155

does not understand this – how does this differ from the case where someone with the Ruach Ra‘ah on his hands touches food and drink in the morning after waking up? According to the Yitzchak Yeranen, such food may not be consumed. Someone who emerges from a toilet also has the Ruach Ra‘ah on his hands, and therefore makes food and drink unsuited. On the basis of his object-oriented approach which regards the Ruach Ra‘ah as a single real entity, the Yitzchak Yeranen rejects the idea that there is a difference between the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning after sleeping, and that of the toilet: And one cannot object that it is different in that case [after rising] because this concerns the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning who is powerful, and that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet, on the contrary, is lighter [=less powerful]. The name of the Ruach Ra‘ah is one and the same105 and she pollutes according to her measure / strength . . . 106

This is also true therefore of water in a toilet itself (subsection 4): It seems to me therefore – in my humble opinion – that the Ruach Ra‘ah always rests on the water in the toilet, because that is the ‘dwelling place’ [‫ ]משכנה‬of that dirty Ruach Ra‘ah [‫של‬ ‫]הטינופת הרוח הרעה‬, just as the Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on food and drink under the bed on which one slept . . . 107

He then rejects the opinion of the Shalmei Zibbur (18b) that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on humans, and not on objects or food. The Shalmei Zibbur argues that it would otherwise be necessary also to clean one’s clothes after going to the toilet and relieving oneself. The Yitzchak Yeranen does not think that this is proof, because even in the morning, when the Ruach Ra‘ah is strong, it only rests on the hands, and not on clothes or the blanket used to cover oneself while sleeping.108 But the Ruach Ra‘ah does rest on food and drink. The author gives proof of this from the Torat Hayim (Baba Bathra 58b), who argues that if food or drink are placed under a bed, they become forbidden because a certain degree of the impu105 In other words: they fall under the same heading. 106 Ibid., 38: ‫ כיון‬,‫"ואין לדחות דהתם שאני דמיירי ברו״ר דשחרית דתקיפא משא״כ ברו״ר דביהכ״ס דקילא טפי‬ ".‫דשם רו״ר חד הוא ומטמא לפי מדתה‬ 107 Ibid., 40: ‫ כשם שהרו״ר‬,‫"ומ״מ לעד״ן דלעולם הרו״ר שורה על המים בביכ״ס שהוא מקום משכנה של הטינופת הרו״ר‬ .". . .‫שורה על אוכלים ומשקים שתחת המטה שישנו עליה‬ 108 Although the author acknowledges that this leaves one problem unresolved, because the Zohar states that it is not permitted to take clothes handed by someone who has not washed his hands, which would appear to imply that the Ruach Ra‘ah does rest on clothes, although there is no one who argues that this means that clothes should also be washed; see ibid., 40.

156 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

rity of death is encountered during sleep. By sleeping above this food and drink, one “roofs” them with this impurity, and passes the impurity on to them. This “roofing” (‫ )טומאת אוהל‬connected in rabbinic literature with biblical impurity, for instance in the Mishnah treatise Ohalot, which is almost entirely devoted to it. Apparently it is also true for food and drink in the toilet: It is necessary to conclude that the rabbis know that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on food and drink, and even if the Ruach Ra‘ah is not very strong [e.g. in the toilet compared to that of the morning]. And this is a simple line of reasoning [‫]סברא פשוטה‬, that every impure thing pollutes according to its capacity [according to the measure of its impurity].109

For further support for this, he refers again to the Yaskil Avdi110 who contends that the Ruach Ra‘ah desires food and drink because: . . . people enjoy it, and they [food and drink] have a certain status of sacred things, because they are enjoyed after the pronouncing of a blessing, and because human life depends on it. And the Ruach Ra‘ah wishes to snatch this holiness and enjoy it itself.111

The Yitzchak Yeranen once again rejects the view of the Yabbia Omer, who argues that the Ruach Ra‘ah on the toilet is too weak to have any impact on food and drink: How is it possible to make a distinction between the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning [after sleeping] who is strong, and that of the toilet who is weak? It is surely simpler to say that despite the fact that it is not very strong – who says that she does not rest on it at all, not even according to her measure of impurity? And so, water that contains even a small amount of impurity of this weak Ruach Ra‘ah, one must certainly not wash one’s hands with this to purify oneself of the impurity of the toilet.112

The author concludes the section by remarking that although the impurity of death – which is much stronger than the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning – cannot be 109 Ibid., 41: ‫ וסברא‬.‫"אלא על כרחך דקי״ל לרבנן שהרו״ר שורה על אוכלין ומשקין ואפי׳ אין הרו״ר חזקה כל כך‬ .". . .‫ מטמא לפי מדתו באשר הוא שם‬,‫פשוטה היא דכל דבר טמא‬ 110 Yaskil Avdi, V. 7 OH, no. 44, subsection 1. 111 Yitschak Yeranen, V. 1, OH, no. 5, 41: ‫"שעל מאכלים ומשקים הרו״ר שורה עליהם שיש לה חשק בהם כיון שנהנים מהם בני אדם והם בבחינת דבר‬ .". . .‫ והרו״ר רוצה לעשוק הקדושה וליהנות ממנה‬,‫שבקדושה שנהנים מהם בברכה ובהם תלויין חיי האדם‬ 112 Ibid.: ‫ י״ל בפשיטות דאע״פ שאינה‬,‫"ולכאורה מ״ש לחלק בין רו״ר דשחרית שהיא חזקה לבין של ביה״כ דקלישא‬ ,‫ וא״כ מים הטמאים אפי׳ קצת‬,‫חזקה כל כך מ״מ מאן לימא לן דלא שורה כלל ואפי׳ לא לפי מדת טומאתה‬ .". . .‫ ודאי שאין ליטול בהם ידים לטהר מטומאת בית הכסא עצמו‬,‫מרו״ר קלישא כזו‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 157

washed away anymore because the required Temple rituals are no longer available, this does not mean that it is therefore no longer necessary to purify oneself of the Ruach Ra‘ah. There is not a single Halachic decisor who thinks that the ritual of the washing of hands in the morning is superfluous in practice – rather than as a theoretical possibility. It is quite the reverse: all decisors permit the washing of hands on Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, even though it is forbidden on those days to wash the body or parts of it. This proves that this form of impurity of the Ruach Ra‘ah can be rinsed off, in contrast with the more serious form that is caused by death.113 The same is true for foods that one has touched with hands on which the Ruach Ra‘ah rested, or because one has brought them into the toilet – they have to be rinsed three times.114 In subsection 5, the author once again rejects the view of the Yabbia Omer115 in the paradigmatic text discussed below, which argues that there is no problem if food and drink have been brought into the toilet covered, and that it is even permitted a priori to bring them there in certain situations. Uncovered, the Yabbia Omer contends that there is no great problem a posteriori either – if possible, the foodstuffs should be rinsed three times. The Yabbia Omer again bases this judgement on the argument that the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet is weak, and that there are many who say that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on humans, and not on lifeless matter such as food and drink. In addition, there are scholars who say that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah anymore in the contemporary time. The author once again rejects all these views: If the Ruach Ra‘ah rests in this space, then she also rests on the food and drink, according to her strength [measure], and what is then the difference between strong or weak? . . . And that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet is weaker than the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning, is relevant only for [the fact] that it is not necessary to rinse the hands three times and that any form [‫ ]בעלמה‬of washing suffices. Or [for the fact] that one need not avoid walking 4 ells before having washed one’s [hands], as one does in the morning.116

113 According to the author, the rabbis in the Talmudic period knew this through the Holy Spirit which rested on them; see 42. This is an argument that cannot, obviously, be proven rationally: .". . . ‫"וחז״ל ידעו ברוח קדשם שיש בידינו כח ליטהר מאותה טומאה לכן הצריכו אותנו ליטול ידינו וליטהר ממנה‬ 114 Ibid.: (.‫ שראינו לרבנו טודרוס בחי׳ ליומא (עז‬,‫"וה״ה למי שנגע בידיו באוכלין כשקם משינתו שחרית שמטמאם‬ .". . .‫שהצריך להדיח האוכלין ג״פ‬ 115 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5. 116 Yitschak Yeranen, V. 1, OH, no. 5, 42: ‫ דמכיון שהרו״ר‬,‫ מה יתן ומה יוסיף‬,‫ מ״ש בתחלה שרו״ר של ביכ״ס קילא מרו״ר דשחרית‬.‫"ולפע״ד י״ל ע״ד א׳ לא׳‬ ‫ וכאמור ומה שהשמיעונו‬.‫שורה בבית אזי תשרה גם על אוכלין ומשקין לפי מדתה דמה לי מועטת ומה לי מרובה‬ ‫ או לענין‬,‫חז״ל שרו״ר דביכ״ס קילא מרו״ר דשחרית הוא רק לענין שאינה צריכה נט״י ג״פ ודיה רחיצה בעלמא‬ ".‫שא״צ ליזהר לילך ד״א בלי נטילה כבשחרית‬

158 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

Moreover, whether something is covered or not is irrelevant, because there is no difference between strong and weak Ruach Ra‘ah. He who sleeps above food and drink and “roofs” these makes them unsuited, even if they were sealed and covered.117 And even if the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet does not rest on food and drink as the Shalmei Zibbur contends – an opinion which the Yitzchak Yeranen rejects – then the water that can be found there would still be “unsavoury” and it should not be used for food and drink, and therefore not either to perform the ritual of the washing of hands.118 In addition, the opinion that the Ruach Ra‘ah no longer currently exists must be totally rejected, nor must it be used even as a subordinate argument in the Halachic considerations.119 The Yitzchak Yeranen’s argument in sum is as follows: – A bathroom with a toilet has the status of a toilet, and therefore one may not wash one’s hands there in the morning after waking up, or before a bread meal, or to purify oneself from going to the toilet itself. The water is impure and not capable of washing away the Ruach Ra‘ah, not even if the water is brought outside to be used there. – He who has entered a toilet must wash his hands, even if he has not relieved himself, and even if he only put one hand into the toilet room, because the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on him, or his hand. – He who accidentally brings food and drink into the toilet must – if possible – rinse them outside, even if they were fully covered and sealed. If this is not possible, for instance in the case of drink, they are banned. Even if large quantities are involved.120 In a postscript, the Yitzchak Yeranen requests information from Rabbi A.D. Auerbach of Tiberias, of whom the author has heard that he permitted the washing of hands in the morning in a bathroom containing a toilet.

117 Ibid.:

118 Ibid.:

‫ הנה לפי האמור‬.‫ דכ״ש אם הם צרורים וחתומים שיש להתירם בדיעבד‬:‫"וממילא גם מ״ש היבי״א נר״ו‬ ".‫שאין חילוק בזה בין רו״ר דביה״כ לבין של שחרית אזלא לה הך ק״ו‬

‫ הנה כבר כתבנו‬,‫"ומ״ש לסמוך ע״ד הש״צ הנ״ל שאין הרו״ר שורה שורה על המים האוכלין ומשקין‬ ‫ דהגם דנימא שרו״ר לא מ״מ אין ליטול בהם מחמת המיאוס כשם שהם מאוסים לאכילה ושתיה ושכן דעת‬,‫בעניותי׳‬ .". . .‫הרמב״ם‬ 119 Ibid.: ‫ הנה בעניי דחיתי סברא מכל‬.‫ שבצירוף ד׳ הסוברים דבזה״ז אין הרו״ר מצויה בינינו‬,‫"ומ״ש ביבי״א עוד‬ ".‫וכל ושאין לצרף סברא זו אפילו לסניף‬ 120 Ibid., 43.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 159

Auerbach confirms that there is no problem as long as one washes one’s hands inside and then goes outside with wet hands and dries them outside:121 [Since there] is no logical reason [‫ ]סברא‬to suppose that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet would hinder the Ruach Ra’a of the morning to leave [the hands], because why should they interfere with each other? And the whole case surely is about the obligation to wash one’s hands when leaving the toilet? And given that the Magen Avraham ruled that it is not necessary to wash [the hands] with an object122 nor to do it three times . . . for this reason he is purified by the water that is on his hands, now that he is outside [the toilet].123

Auerbach clearly has a different approach than our author’s object-oriented approach, and looks at every situation separately, from a text-oriented or subjectoriented approach – Auerbach’s appeal to sound logic (Sewara) means it is plausible he is adopting a subject-oriented approach. For him, however, the texts are the purveyors of the information used by the subject to come to a decision on how to act. In new situations, logical argumentation also suffices even if it cannot be derived directly from a text. This is followed by a reply from the author to Auerbach’s letter. This clearly illustrates their different approaches, because the author, from his object-oriented approach to the Ruach Ra‘ah as a real entity, is unable to understand Auerbach’s argument: Even if one were to say that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet does not prevent the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning to disappear – but this is only the case if one washes one’s hands with pure water, because then the washing ‘counts’ both ways . . . But in this case surely the water is water from the toilet which is already unclean . . . that is not suitable for the washing of hands.124

And the opinion that the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest on the water – as the Shalmei Zibbur contends – is an opinion without validity that has already been rejected by 121 Ibid.: ‫ אויירבאך שליט״א (אב״ד בטבריא) מורה‬.‫"שמעתי שידי״ן הרב הגאון חו״ב סוה״ר וכו׳ ר׳ אברהם ד‬ ‫ מטעם שהניגוב מעביר את הטומאה וכסברת מהר״ם ניגרין שהביאו‬,‫ובא ליטול הידים בחדר אמבטיא שיש בו ביכ״ס‬ ".)‫החיד״א במחב״ר (סי׳ ד אות א‬ 122 A kli (‫)כלי‬. 123 Ibid.: ‫ וחילא‬.‫או לאכילה) יצא בידים רטובות וינגב‬-‫"אמנם נכון הדבר שכך אני מורה ובא דהנוטל ידיו באמבטיא (שחרית‬ ‫דידי לא (מהברכ״י) [מהמחב״ר[ שהביא מעכ״ת אלא משום שאין סברא לומר שהרו״ר שיש בביהכ״ס אינו נותן‬ ‫ וכיון דהמג״א הכריע‬,‫ וכל הנדון רק משום חובת נטילה ליוצא מביהכ״ס‬.‫ ומה ענין זה לזה‬,‫לרו״ר של שחרית לרדת‬ ".‫ א״כ המים שע״ג ידיו בהיותו בחוץ מטהרים אותו‬,)‫ ובסי׳ ז סק״א‬,‫שאין צורך בכלי ולא ג״פ (סי׳ ה ס״ק י״ז במחה״ש‬ 124 Ibid., 44: ‫ מ״מ זה דוקא כאשר נוטל ידיו במים‬,‫"דאפילו תימא שהרו״ר דביהכ״ס אינו מעכב בעד הרו״ר דשחרית לרדת‬ ‫ אבל‬.).‫ ודו״ק‬.‫ (וע׳ בשבלי הלקט סי׳ קלה‬,‫טהורים שאז הנטילה עולה לכאן ולכאן ובכלל מאתיים מנה ופשוט‬ .". . .‫בנ״ד מיירי במים שנמצאים בבית הכסא והם טמאים כבר והו״ל כשופכין ואין ראוי עוד ליטול בהם‬

160 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

others. This is also true of the opinion that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah anymore in our time.125 Similarly, the contention that it helps to wipe and dry one’s wet hands outside, and thus to rinse off the uncleanness, is incorrect according to the Yitzchak Yeranen. This is the opinion of the MaHaram Nigrin (brought by the CHiDA in Machazik Berachah on OH 4:2), who argues that the Ruach Ra‘ah only disappears from the hands after fully drying the hands, even when they have been washed three times as prescribed. All other authorities state, however, that the Ruach Ra‘ah disappears after washing the hands three times, even if the hands are still wet. “Therefore”, drying one’s hands outside the toilet does not make any difference, while the hands themselves are not made clean by pouring impure water over them in a space where the Ruach Ra‘ah itself rests.126 The Yitzchak Yeranen’s object-oriented approach in this paradigmatic text thus leads to a strict opinion, which is sometimes supported on the basis of the mysticalontological arguments of the Zohar. Neither human intention, nor changing times or hygiene, make a decisive difference in his view.

4.3.5 Category of Space: Subject-oriented Approach (72 Texts) In practice it is not always easy to distinguish the subject-oriented approach from the text-oriented approach. A high degree of intertextuality and hermeneutics are characteristic of the rabbinic genre. It is possible, however, to discover through close reading where the focus lies, either on the subject or on the texts. Does the author’s argument move from the text to the subject, or does the Halachic process begin with the subject, who seeks support for his actions in the texts, or, as has been seen, in his own logic (Sevara)? One paradigmatic text of a subject-oriented

125 Ibid.: ‫ ממ״ש ה' שלמי צבור (די״ח ע״ג) שאין רו״ר בביהכ״ס שורה על‬,‫"ולכאורה היה מקום לדברי כת״ר נר״ו‬ ‫ ומבואר‬. . . ‫ אלא שאין דבריו מוסכמים להלכה‬.‫ וא״כ יוציא המים משם ויטול בחוץ ושפיר דמי‬,‫ ע״ש‬.‫המים אשר שם‬ ‫ אולם גם זה לנ״ד אינו נכון להלכה‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫דלשיטתיה אזיל דס״ל (שם סי׳לא) שרו״ר אינה מצויה בינינו כיום‬ ‫ מ״מ העיקר לענ״ד כדעת כל הראשונים‬,‫ ואע״פ שבשו״ת יביע אומר בכ״ד הביא סברא זו לסניף וסמך עליה‬,)‫(במחכ״ת‬ .". . .‫והאחרונים ומרן ז״ל שקבלנו הוראותיו דס״ל שרו״ר מצוייה בינינו גם היום‬ 126 Ibid. ‫"הנה כת״ר מגיע ישירות לסברת מהר״ם ניגרין שהביא מרן החיד״א במחב״ר שהזכרתי לכת״ר בריש אמיר‬ .‫ כי רק לסברת מהר״ם ניגרין לבד אתי שפיר שהרו״ר השורה על הלחלוחית סרה אחר הניגוב בחוץ‬,)‫(במכתבי הקודם‬ ‫) והראשונים והאחרונים ורבנו האר״י‬.‫ אבל לדידן קי״ל כפשט הש״ס (שבת קט‬,‫ומ״מ זה רק לסברת מהר״ם ניגרין ז״ל‬ .". . .‫דס״ל שרו״ר סרה מיד אחר הנטילה השלישית כמ״ש בתשובה בס״ד [וראה להלן סי׳ ז[ ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 161

approach to space127 and the Ruach Ra‘ah is the responsum of the Chelkat Yaakov128 on the status of the bathroom and modern toilets in trains and in the home – the subject of a number of responsa by this rabbi. The responsum’s approach can be deduced from the way in which the question is presented and described: Whether it is helpful to wash one’s hands in a washbasin in the bathrooms . . . currently in the homes of distinguished [people], and in the toilets in trains or in homes, that currently work with a flow of water that immediately flushes away excrement.129

The starting point appears to be the practice of everyday life – this is simply the way people do it, and the question is whether this is “effective” from a Halachic perspective. The question is not whether or not it is permissible, but whether it “helps” (‫)מהני‬. The responsum begins with a reference to the Shulchan Aruch130 which says that one must wash one’s hands when leaving a toilet or a bathhouse. On the basis of an earlier commentary by the Pri Megadim (on OH 227:2), the Chelkat Yaakov then distinguishes between two reasons for the washing of hands: 1. on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah; and 2. to clean one’s hands if they have become dirty on account of the use of the toilet or because of hygiene (‫)נקיות‬: And the Pri Megadim states that [one must wash one’s hands] also when one has not touched [the parts of the body that are normally covered] or relieved oneself. This is why it is of no help with regard to this to wash one’s hands there [in the bathroom or the toilet]. Because he must subsequently wash his hands in accordance with the rule for someone who leaves the toilet or the bathhouse. As regards the uttering of a blessing – that he is permitted to utter whichever blessing – the Pri Megadim explains there that although the person who leaves a toilet or bathhouse must wash his hands, this is only on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, but uttering the blessing may be done before this washing.131

127 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 11; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 6; ibid., V. 8, no. 408; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10; Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 2; Tsiets Eliëzer, V. 7, no. 5; ibid., V. 14, no. 2; Shevet Halevi, V. 8, no. 168; Yabbia Omer, V. 8 OH, no. 1; Igrot Moshe, JD V. 2, no. 97; Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 2. 128 Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 2. 129 Ibid.: ,‫"אם מהני מה שנוטלין את הידים בכיור שבבתי אמבטאות (באדעציממער) אשר כעת בבתים החשובין‬ ".‫ העשוין כעת עם קילוח מים השוטף תיכף את הצואה‬,‫ובבתי כסאות שעל הרכבת או שבבתים‬ 130 OH, 4:18. 131 Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 2: ‫ כיון‬,‫ א״כ ממילא לא מהני מה שנוטל ידיו בשם‬,‫ומבואר בפמ״ג א״א סי' רכ״ז דאף בלא נגע ולא עשה צרכיו‬. . ." ‫ והנה לענין ברכה שיהי' מותר לברך איזה ברכה מבואר שם‬.‫דיצטרך אח״כ ליטול את ידיו כדין יוצא מביה״כ ומרחץ‬ .". . .‫ זה רק מטעם ר״ר אבל הברכה יוכל לברך אף קודם הנטילה‬,‫בפמ״ג דאף דיוצא מביהכ״ס ומרחץ צריך ליטול ידיו‬

162 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

The Chelkat Yaakov continues by applying this distinction between the two reasons for the washing of hands in an everyday context: If this is so, then there is an important difference in practice, [for] people who travel by rail and the time for prayer has come, or they wish to say a blessing over the food, and they have to wash their hands [for this] because they have relieved themselves [earlier]. That the washing of their hands in the washbasin in the toilet suffices in this case. And even if they have to wash their hands later because leaving a toilet or bathhouse, this is only on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. And if they have access to [suitable] water, then they can wash [their hands]. But according to everyone it is permitted to pray or to utter the blessing, because this washing [on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah] is no impediment with regard to the uttering of sacred words. The washing after relieving oneself, on the contrary, is done to be clean [hygiene, ‫]נקיות‬.132

The Ruach Ra‘ah is not an entity that subdues the subject; quite the contrary: the Ruach Ra‘ah is incorporated into the subject’s everyday life and activities. If there is no water to perform the washing for the Ruach Ra‘ah, then the washing must be postponed. What is more important is what people themselves experience as “dirty” after going to the toilet. This is why a washing for reasons of hygiene and as a special attitude to the sacred can also take place in the toilet. The responsum continues with a discourse on the bathroom: And in relation to the bathrooms mentioned before, it certainly seems [to me] to be permitted. It is known that this [room] is also used for other purposes. And only once or twice [a month]133 when one wishes to bathe, one fills the bathtub with water and washes oneself. And during the time that one does not bathe, one uses it for other purposes, including the bathtub itself – one puts [all kinds of] things into it as one pleases.134

Again it is important what people do in a bathroom. Only subsequently does the author look at how this can be situated in a Halachic context. The responsum observes an analogy with laws concerning the toilet, where it is also said that its use in a human context is the decisive factor.135 The Chelkat Yaakov continues by

132 Ibid.: ‫ בני אדם הנוסעים על הבאהן והגיע זמן תפלה או רוצה לברך על איזו אכילה והם‬,‫"וא״כ יש נמ״נ גדולה‬ ‫ שפיר מהני נטילת ידיהם בכיור שבביה״כ ואף דיצטרכו אחר כך נטילה משום‬,‫צריכים נטילה אחר עשיית צרכיהם‬ ‫ דנטילה זו לא‬,‫ אבל לע״ע מותר להתפלל ולברך‬,‫ זה רק משום ר״ר ולכשיגיע למים יטול‬,‫היוצא מביה״כ ומבית המרחץ‬ .". . .‫ לא כן נטילה שלאחר עשיית צרכיו שהיא משום נקיות‬,‫מעכבת לענין אמירת דבר קדושה‬ 133 This seems the most logical interpretation; otherwise he means sporadically. 134 ‫ ורק פעם או‬,‫"והנה בבתי אמבטאות הנ״ל נראה ודאי להתיר דידוע אשר משתמשים בשם אף גם שאר תשמישין‬ ,‫ ובכל זמן שאין רוחצים משתמשים בשם תשמישים אחרים‬,‫פעמים כשרוצין לרחוץ הם נותנים מים בהאמבטי ורוחצים‬ .". . .‫ואף בהאמבטי בעצמו מניחים שם דברים אשר תאוה נפשם‬ 135 He refers to a text concerning the use of the walls of a toilet, a private mikvah in a room that is only used as mikvah once or twice a month, and that is otherwise used for living in, a pot that

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 163

describing the everyday context of the use of a bathroom where it is difficult to tell that this room is sometimes also used for bathing: But our bathrooms, if one is not bathing there – there is no sign at all [for its use as a bathroom], except that there is a bathtub, and often there are all kinds of things in the bathtub . . . 136

The Chelkat Yaakov’s point appears to be that the Halachic status of a room is determined primarily by the way humans use it. In addition, the perception of the room plays a role: in the case of the modern bathroom, the objective observer who does not know of its purpose beforehand will not be able to see what its use is. The context of dirt and humidity that was readily observable in the old bathhouse, or the connection with the naked human body – which is an impediment to the sacred – cannot be made a priori. The author therefore concludes that the washing of hands in a bathroom from the available tap is sufficient even for the Ruach Ra‘ah, and that it is not necessary to wash one’s hands again afterwards, because one is leaving a bathroom / bathhouse. Because “it [the Ruach Ra‘ah] has no biblical basis [de’oraita], so that it is certainly permitted a priori [to wash one’s hands from a tap].”137 Whether the Ruach Ra‘ah is really present in a bathroom is not relevant – what is relevant is how the subject deals with the Ruach Ra‘ah in any given situation. The conditions of the modern bathroom ensure that a washing performed there is certainly sufficient to fulfil the obligation to wash one’s hands after leaving a bathhouse. But this is an obligation that is supported in the sources, by reference to the Ruach Ra‘ah. The author continues with the case of the toilet in the train. He begins with an observation on how these toilets in trains actually work: If they are made in such a way that the excrement falls down through the opening [onto the tracks] immediately, then it is similar to the Persian [toilet from the Talmud].138 is sometimes also used for other purposes, and the home of someone who heats the bathwater of the bathhouse and whose room – if the bathhouse is in use – is also in use as a dressing room. 136 Ibid.: (‫אבל בהבאדעצימער שלנו בשעה שאינם רוחצים אין שום זכר רק מה שעומד בשם האמבטי (וואנע‬. . ." .". . .‫וכמה פעמים אף בהאמבטי מונח דברים שונים‬ 137 Ibid.: ‫מכש״כ לענין שיהני נטילה בשם מן הברז שלא יצטרך אח״כ עוד הפעם נטילה משום ר״ר דהוי אין לו‬..." .". . .‫עיקר בדאורייתא ודאי דמותר אף לכתחילה‬ 138 Ibid. ‫ובבתי כסאות שעל הרכבת אם נעשים באופן שהצואה נופלת תיכף דרך החור למטה א״כ דמי ממש להאי‬ .". . . ‫דפרסאי‬

164 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

This does not mean, however, that it is permitted to read Torah in such toilet rooms: Because we do not know exactly whether they are truly similar to the Persian [toilet from Talmudic times], and we must fear a possible transgression of a biblical prohibition . . . 139 but in any case in respect of the obligation to wash one’s hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah which certainly is only [a] rabbinic [obligation], and which has no biblical foundation whatsoever . . . it must be said that they [the toilets] are certainly like the Persian ones.140

In this case the Chelkat Yaakov uses a well-known rabbinic principle: in cases of doubts of a biblical nature, the stricter opinion must be followed; in cases of doubts of a rabbinic nature, the milder opinion may be followed. The washing of hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah is only a rabbinic prohibition, and in a toilet on a train where the excrement falls directly onto the tracks, it must therefore be said that this is similar to the Persian toilet from the Talmud. It is permitted in these toilets to read the Shema, provided that there is no bad smell and there is no excrement or urine present.141 The Ruach Ra‘ah is thus treated as any other Halachic subject. Finally, the responsum addresses the status of modern toilets at home: And toilets that are in homes, with a stream of water that immediately flushes away the excrement . . . these are not like the Persian [toilet], where the excrement immediately slips away.142 This is not the case with these toilets, where the excrement stays for a [certain] period of time; they must be compared more with the [mobile] toilet chair . . . This is why it is difficult to permit the washing of hands there. Because one is obliged in any case to wash one’s hands again on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah as has been said [before]. But as regards the blessing, whether [he] is permitted to utter a blessing, as far as that is concerned one has nothing to lose [by washing one’s hands].143

139 I.e. that rituals may only be performed in pure and clean surroundings, which could possibly be deduced from Deut. 23:15 – “And your camp must be a holy place . . . ”, in combination with a prescription to cover up excrement. 140 Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no 2: ‫ כיון דאין לנו ידיעה על בוריו אם הם דומים ממש להני דפרסאי ויש‬,‫ואף דלענין לקרות בשם ממש קשה להתיר‬. . ." ‫ ועוד דהוי ספק ידיעה‬,‫חשש איסור תורה כמבואר ברבינו יונה ברא״ש שם דאף באין בו צואה בישן יש חשש תורה‬ ‫ מכ"מ לענין דצריך נטילה משום ר״ר דזה הוי ודאי רק דרבנן ואין לו עיקר דאורייתא‬,‫כיון דאנו אין לנו ידיעה בזה‬ .". . . ‫ אמרינן ודאי דהוי כהאי דפרסאי‬,‫ א״כ ה״נ לענין ר״ר‬. . . ‫כלל‬ 141 bBerachot 26a, and mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch 83:4. 142 To a distance of at least four ells. 143 Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 2: ‫ כבר כתבתי בתשו’ א' דזה לא דמי להאי‬,‫"ובתי כסאות העשויין בבתים עם קילוח מים השוטף תיכף את הצואה‬ ‫ ודמי יותר להאי‬,‫ לא כן בהני בתי כסאות דהצואה מונחת כך איזה שעה‬,‫ דמתגלגל הצואה תיכף למרחוק‬,‫דפרסאי‬ ‫ וא״כ קשה להתיר ליטול בשם ידיו כיון שיצטרך בכל אופן אח״כ עוד הפעם נטילה משום‬,‫דספסל נקוב שבסי' פ״ג ס״ה‬ .". . .‫ אבל מכ״מ לענין ברכה שיהי' מותר לברך לזה לא מפסיד מידי‬,‫ר״ר וכאמור‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 165

The responsum ends, once again, with the practical implications of this for the subject: [Therefore], if one is travelling by rail, and there are sometimes toilets where the excrement does not immediately fall down through the opening, but that have been made in such a way that they are flushed away by a stream of water – like at home – and that therefore do not resemble the Persian [toilet]; then, as regards whether he is permitted to utter sacred words, it is permitted [to wash one’s hands there].144

This subject-oriented approach is able to integrate modern situations easily into religious rules. In addition, what people think themselves, what their habits are, is an important factor in the determining of rules. The rules themselves are generally less strict.145

4.3.6 Category of Space: Text-oriented Approach (77 Texts) In the text-oriented approach, the argument revolves around quoting, interpreting, and connecting texts. Of course this approach also involves object and subject components, but these are subordinate to the texts and to the hermeneutical process. A longer responsum from the Yabbia Omer146 can serve as a paradigmatic text in this category,147 the author whose responsa on the status of toilets and bathrooms was questioned by the Yitzchak Yeranen. Although the Yabbia Omer wrote several responsa on this subject, we will here discuss only one text, which forms a lengthy responsum in its own right and which gives a good impression of the Yabbia Omer’s text-oriented approach. The responsum begins with the author’s paraphrasing of a fellow rabbi’s question concerning the status of food and drink that have been brought into a bathroom. However, the text of the question can also be read to mean that the enquirer’s initial intention was to ask about the storing of food in the bathroom,

144 ‫"והנמ״נ כשנוסעים על הבאהן ויש לפעמים בשם בתי כסאות כאלו אשר אין הצואה נופלת תיכף דרך החור‬ ‫ ואפה״כ לענין שיהי' מותר לומר‬,‫למרחוק רק עשוי ע״י שטוף וקילוח מים כמו שבבתים ולא דמי להאי דפרסאי‬ ".‫דבר קדושה יהי' מותר וכנ״ל‬ 145 Admittedly the author himself, in V. 2 OH no. 4, explains this responsum in a slightly different way – suddenly he is also speaking of people who intend to eat a bread meal and must perform the ritual washing before the meal. 146 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5. 147 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1 OH, no. 5; ibid., V. 2 OH, no. 1, 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 107;Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; ibid., V. 7 OH, no. 27; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 36; Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 4.

166 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

and not just about entering this room with food.148 But the Yabbia Omer has understood the question as referring to entering the room with food, not to storing food there. The question appears to have been asked initially in relation to a room that has both a toilet and a bath/shower. The author starts his reply with a reference to Talmud Shabbat 108b-109a, which includes the passage “a hand in the cask – let it be cut off” and other exhortations concerning the touching of the eyes, the mouth, and the penis. Most medieval Talmud commentaries situate these passages in the context of the Ruach Ra‘ah after rising – although a previous chapter has already noted that there is no compelling reason to do so. The Yabbia Omer quotes Rashi’s traditional explanation on Shabbat 109b that it is forbidden to touch a cask / tub of beer149 with one’s hands before one has washed them. This would then also show that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on food and drink, and therefore also in a toilet room or bathhouse where the Zohar (and other sources that are mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch) say that the Ruach Ra‘ah is present.150 The Yabbia Omer rejects this analogy because the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet or bathroom is weaker than in the morning, given the accepted manner of the washing of hands in these two situations: pouring of water over the hands three times in the morning, but only once after going to the toilet.151 The Yabbia Omer continues by adducing other texts that support this distinction between these two forms of Ruach Ra‘ah, between the strong form in the morning and the weaker in the toilet or bathroom: the Elya Rabbah (Eliyahu Wolf Shapira), the Mekor Chayyim (MahaRach HaKohen), the Solet Belulah (Yudah Leib Pukhovitser). Then he quotes the ChiDA – Chayyim David Azulai, an important Oriental rabbi of the eighteenth century, who also makes this distinction, but adds an observation which in practice negates it again:

148 The question reads: "‫"אם יש איסור לתת אוכלין בחדר האמבטיא משום רוח רעה‬. If it had been concerned only with entering, one would have expected the following: ‫אם יש איסור להכניס אוכלין לחדר האמבטיא‬ 149 The Talmud does not mention that it is a cask of beer. 150 The list of things mentioned in connection with the washing of hands also includes a person who is leaving a bathhouse or toilet. The commentators differ as to the reason for this, some saying it is to do with hygiene, others the Ruach Ra‘ah, which rests in the toilet and also the bathhouse (see the Zohar quotation above) – because both are compared in relation to the obligation of the washing of hands. 151 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫"וכדאמרינן (שבת קט) בת חורין היא ומקפדת עד שירחוץ ידיו ג' פעמים ואילו היוצא מבית הכסא דעת כמה‬ '‫ יטול ב‬,‫ העושה צרכיו ורוצה לאכול‬,)‫ וכמ״ש מרן בש״ע (סי' קסה ס״א‬.‫אחרונים שא״צ נט״י אלא פעם אחת‬ ‫ וז״ל‬.‫ ומוכח שא״צ נט״י ג״פ בצאתו מבהכ״ס‬.‫ עכ״ל‬,‫ על הראשונה מברך אשר יצר ועל השניה מברך ענט"י‬,‫פעמים‬ ‫ ומיהו דוקא ברו״ר דשחרית‬.‫המג״א (סי' ז סק״א) כתוב בס' היכל הקדש היוצא מבהכ״ס צריך לערות עליהם ג״פ‬ .". . .‫אמרי' בת חורין היא ומקפדת על ג״פ‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 167

. . . but we saw older rabbis who pour water over their hands three times after leaving the toilet.152

Although the Ruach Ra‘ah is indeed weaker in the toilet than in the morning, this has no practical consequences for the way in which the ritual must be performed. Even this weaker form only “leaves” the hands after they have been washed three times. The Yabbia Omer then refers to three other authors who support this stricter opinion. This contradiction in opinions is “solved” by the author by quoting two later authoritative Oriental rabbis153 – Chaim Palagi (nineteenth century) and Yaakov Chayyim Sofer (nineteenth to twentieth century) – whose writings support the opinion that only one washing of the hands is sufficient after going to the toilet: It therefore seems plausible that it is correct that the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning is heavier than other (forms of) Ruach Ra‘ah. And I have also seen this in the Tevu’ot Shor . . . 154

The responsum continues with a discussion, based entirely on texts, of the status of food and drink that have been brought into a toilet room. Like the Yitzchak Yeranen, the Yabbia Omer also includes the Zohar and its interpretations in the Halachic debate. He begins with the abovementioned quotation from the Zohar to the effect that there is a spirit in the toilet which rests on the hands of the person. Just as the Yitzchak Yeranen did earlier, he then quotes the opinion of the Shalmei Zibbur; who contends precisely on the basis of this Zohar passage that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on the fingers, and not therefore on the water in the toilet room. This is why one may in certain cases wash one’s hands with water that was first in the toilet room. The Yabbia Omer then points to other authors who have confirmed this Zohar interpretation in practice as a Halachic ruling, and therefore argue that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet does not rest on liquids155 which can be found in the toilet. The Yabbia Omer then continues by quoting the responsum of the Lev Chayyim (Chayyim Palagi), who has a stricter view concerning food and drink that have been in the toilet, and who rejects the Shalmei Zibbur’s opinion:

152 Ibid.: .". . . ‫"ומיהו חזינן לרבנן קשישאי שרחצו ידיהם ג״פ אחר יציאתם מבה״כ‬ 153 There is a principle in the halacha that later opinions have greater authority (Halachah Kebatrai), because they have been able to read earlier opinions and are able to make a better judgement as they have obtained a more complete picture; see for instance A. Sagi, Open Canon, 37–40. 154 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫וע' בשו״ת לב חיים ח״א (סי' עב) ובכה״ח (סי' ד ס״ק סא) שכמה אחרונים ס״ל כמהקו״ח להלכה שא״צ נט״י אלא‬. . ." .". . .‫ וכיו״ב ראיתי להתבואות שור‬.‫ ועכ״פ נראה דקושטא הוא דרו״ר שחרית חמיר טפי משאר רו״ר‬.‫פ״א‬ 155 It is not clear whether this is their own conclusion, or the Yabbia Omer’s. Perhaps water has a different status than other liquids, because it functions as the medium of purification rituals.

168 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

. . . because they [the food and drink] enter the mouths of humans, and also with regard to the water that come to purify the hands, it is correct to judge more strictly [and not to use water that has been in the toilet to purify the hands after going to the toilet].156

Palagi refers here to an analogy with the touching of food and drink in the morning before the hands have been washed, something the Talmud already advised against, and food and drink that have been placed under a bed that someone slept on. The uncleanness caused by sleep “roofs” the food and drink and makes them unsuitable. The Yabbia Omer then advances an important insight, and rejects this equation of different forms of the Ruach Ra‘ah. The Talmud states157 that a loaf of bread that has lain on a dead person – the highest possible form of uncleanness – does not thereby become unsuitable for consumption. The author therefore continues by saying that: . . . one may only state that which the Scholars said in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, and one must not compare one thing with the other, in this kind of spiritual [‫בעיניינים רוחניים‬, perhaps better translated as metaphysical] cases. So let us not add to this.158

In the matter of the Ruach Ra‘ah, one must necessarily be hesitant to develop new rules for everyday practice, precisely because it concerns intangible things that cannot be understood logically. We only have what the Scholars – especially those from the Talmud – stated explicitly, but nothing more. They did not say that the Ruach Ra‘ah rested on food and drink in the toilet, and that it is therefore forbidden to consume these. However, in subsection 3 of the responsum, the Yabbia Omer then refers to ten works which support Palagi’s opinion, arguing that it is necessary to judge strictly concerning food and drink that have been brought into a toilet, or concerning the use of water for the washing of hands when they come from the toilet. In addition, the Shalmei Zibbur limited his milder opinion to situations of scarcity of water on account of a lengthy period of drought. But certainly not a priori. The Yabbia Omer then discusses the storing of food and drink in a toilet, which, according to one source, is not permissible even according to the milder opinion (they may only be consumed if they end up incidentally in the toilet). But the

156 Ibid.: ‫ והעלה שאין‬,‫"ברם חזי הוית למהר״ח פלאג'י בשו״ת לב חיים ח״א (סי' סו) שחולק על השלמי צבור בזה‬ .". . .‫ וכן במים הבאים לנט״י לטהר ראוי להחמיר‬,‫ כיון שבאים לתוך פיו של אדם‬,‫להקל בזה גם לגבי אוכלין ומשקין‬ 157 bShabbat 20b. 158 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫ ולא לדמות מילתא למילתא בענינים רוחניים אלו והבו‬,‫"הא אין לנו לומר אלא מה שאמרו חכמים משום רו״ר‬ ".‫דלא להוסיף עלה‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 169

Yabbia Omer adds to this that it is not necessarily reprehensible in a bathroom, because it says in the Talmud that water was drunk in the bathhouse. This means that liquids that can be found in the bathhouse were consumed. Subsection 4 of the responsum seemingly discusses details, but the author uses it to posit an important insight, i.e. that there is supposedly a distinction in relation to food and drink in the toilet between an uncovered and covered condition. The treatise analyzes the abovementioned passage from Palagi, who judges more strictly about consuming food and drink that were brought into a toilet, and the use of water from the toilet for purification rituals outside. The text focuses on the custom of the time to bring a container of water into the toilet to use it to clean oneself while one was relieving oneself. The water that remained was then brought outside again, giving rise to the question of whether this water could be used there to purify one’s hands after using the toilet, or possibly before a meal. Palagi states that the container that is brought in should not be made of earthenware, but should be made of metal and have a lid. Evidently, the Yabbia Omer concludes, the lid helps to protect the water against the Ruach Ra‘ah. The responsum continues by referring to a different example where a cover helps against the Ruach Ra‘ah, i.e. the custom that is attested in texts of sleeping with gloves so that one can learn Torah immediately after waking up – when the Ruach Ra‘ah is stronger than in the toilet – without washing one’s hands with water (time loss). In a passage of the text between brackets, the Yabbia Omer also addresses the question of the impurity that rests on the hands after a visit to the toilet. To what extent does this impurity make food and drink unsuitable, if one touches these before purifying one’s hands outside the toilet? The author refers to the abovementioned opinion of the Talmud commentator Shlomoh Luria that it is permitted to scoop water out of a reservoir with both hands after going to the toilet, so that this cleanses the hands. The remaining water is suited for the purification of the hands later, for instance to be able to eat a bread meal. Luria does not see how hands might pollute the water, if the water, on the contrary, is suited to rinsing and purifying hands after a visit to the toilet. The Yabbia Omer refers to the opinion of Later Decisors (Acharonim), who all follow Luria’s opinion. But the author spends a lot of time discussing Palagi’s dissenting, stricter opinion, as Palagi is a very important authority in his eyes,159 whose opinions he also respects in his other responsa. 159 He uses the expression ‫תנא ופליג‬, an expression in the Talmud for important rabbis who – even though they lived later – were still regarded as a kind of Tanna, and who are entitled to express opinions that diverged from the Tannaitic discourse. In the same way, Palagi is a single voice who, for Yosef, outweighs the other rabbis of the last few centuries. That Palagi also bases himself on the mystical teaching of the Zohar probably also plays a role, because Yosef ascribes

170 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

In subsection 5, the author returns to the theme of the covered / uncovered condition of food and drink in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. He begins with the Talmudic source on eating a peeled egg, union, and garlic that have been kept overnight.160 The Talmud states there that even if they have been tied into a basket (wrapped) and sealed,161 these foods are still dangerous to consume, because the Ruach Ra‘ah still rests on them. This would imply that the covering of food and drink does not affect the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah. But this contradicts the distinction made previously between covered / uncovered in respect of food and drink that were brought into the toilet, and for which the author used the text by Palagi where he distinguished between an earthenware container and a metal container with a lid, which did not make the water unsuitable. The Yabbia Omer then harmonizes the Talmud and Palagi’s responsum – although they are two different genres of literature, from two very different periods – to confirm the precept he advanced before: And so one must say that the aspects of the Ruach Ra‘ah must not be compared, because the spirits are not identical. And this is why this [the toilet] must not be compared with Pesahim 112 on food and drink under the bed, [where it says] that Wen if they are covered by an iron object, the Ruach Ra‘ah [still] rests on them. See at that place. And [this is] because the Ruach Ra‘ah of the night [which causes the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the food under the bed]162 is heavier than that of the toilet.163

The author continues with examples of covering that does work against demonic entities that are comparable to the Ruach Ra‘ah. He gives one example from rabbinic literature in relation to the time that the seasons change, which was regarded as a dangerous moment with negative influence, especially for water. There was a custom to place an iron object in the water to ward off danger. The author then refers to another text, by Isserles (Darchei Moshe) who states that if the water is covered with a cloth, there is no problem. Covering therefore does help as a protection against negative influences from certain quarters. Others argue, however,

Palagi’s opinion to the Zohar: “on the basis of the opinion of the Zohar that there is a Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet”, that there is a Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet does not appear explicitly in the Talmud as a reason for the washing of hands. 160 bNiddah 17a. 161 ”‫”ואע”ג דמנחי בסלתא ומציירי וחתימי‬, translated by Soncino (ed.) as: “Even if they have been stowed away in a basket, tied together and sealed.” 162 Because, as has been seen, the person sleeps. 163 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫ ולכן אין לדמות ד״ז גם למ״ש בפסחים (קיב) אוכלין‬.‫ שאין כל הרוחות שוות‬,‫"וצ״ל שאין לדמות עניני רו״ר זו לזו‬ ‫ ומשום דרו״ר של לילה חמורה יותר מרו״ר‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ומשקין שתחת המטה אפי' מחופין בכלי ברזל רו״ר שורה עליהם‬ .". . .‫של בהכ״ס‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 171

that a cloth over the water is not sufficient, but that a “seal of iron” should also be made to cover it, in other words two covers are necessary.164 This is the beginning of a treatise on a passage from the Talmud165 which states that anything that is tied together and sealed is protected against the influence of demons. This formula implies a double cover. The Yabbia Omer then asks whether this is also applicable to the Ruach Ra‘ah – perhaps demons cannot penetrate a double protection, but the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on it in any case, whether it is covered or not. The other passage on peeled egg, onion, and garlic does in fact imply this, as tying together and sealing there does not help. The Yabbia Omer then refers to yet another example from rabbinic literature about the consumption of uncovered water in the proximity of a dead person. It was believed that the Angel of Death cleaned his sword in water near the person he had just killed. This is why this kind of water was not drunk but thrown out. But, if the water was covered and sealed before the person died, then there was no danger to drink this water afterwards. But the Yabbia Omer quotes another text166 which in certain circumstances permitted covered water in the proximity of a dead person. Not because the water was covered – that only helps to the extent that the demons cannot take anything tangible from it, although they can possibly inflict invisible damage to the covered water, but because of the fact that the water had a strongly acidic taste, and no longer bore the “name” of water.167 The section concludes with six references to

164 In my opinion, it is also possible that the literal meaning was a magical symbol of iron. The word seal [‫ ]חותם‬is also used for amulets or magical symbols and magical names of angels. 165 bHullin 105b: “Abaye also said: ‘Initially I thought that the reason that it was forbidden to sit below a drainage pipe was because [waste] water came out of it. But my Master told me: ‘it is because of the demons that can be found there’. Certain carriers once carried a barrel of wine. As they wanted to rest, they placed it below a drainage pipe, after which the barrel burst open. Then they went to Mar the son of R. Ashi. He took out trumpets and persuaded the demon [to leave], who appeared before him. And he said to him [the demon]: ‘Why did you do this?’ And he answered: ‘What else could I do when they put it on my ear?’ the other [= Mar, son of R. Ashi] objected: ‘What business did you have there, a public place? You deviated, and must pay [for the damage]’. He [the demon] replied: ‘Can the Master give me a period in which [the debt] must be paid?’ And they agreed a date. When the agreed day had come, he did not turn up. When he eventually arrived, he [Mar b. Ashi] asked him: ‘Why did you not come at the appointed hour?’ He answered: ‘We may not take anything that is tied together and sealed, weighed or counted; but only when we find something that has no owner.’ ” 166 Responsa Kenaf Ra‘anana OH, no. 3. 167 This fear exists only in relation to water. What the acidic water means is unclear. The author does mention that this water “was worth a lot of money”. Perhaps it is a reference to mineral-rich water.

172 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

other responsa that deal with the drinking of water that has stood in the proximity of dead people (including saltwater). The following section (no. 6) continues the theme of “tied together and sealed” in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. The Yabbia Omer once again mentions the passage from bPesahim 112a about food and drink under the bed. The Talmud states “that even if they are covered with a metal object”, this will not help against the Ruach Ra‘ah. The Yabbia Omer concludes that tying up and sealing – i.e. two covers – does help. This is so, because the passage in bNiddah 17a says explicitly that there is still danger if they are “tied up and sealed”, meaning that it does not help in that case. It does in other cases, as the Talmud says in bHullin 105b: tying up and sealing does help against demons. The Yabbia Omer then makes the following important observation, again entirely on the basis of texts: And demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah are one and the same affair. Just as can be found in Rashi’s commentary on Rosh Hashanna 28a on he who blows (the shofar) on account of a demon has not fulfilled his obligation, Explanation [‫]פירוש‬: ‘this means, to chase the Ruach Ra‘ah away from him’. And so the Meiri also explains this there, see in that place. And in Chagiga 3b on ‘he who sleeps in a graveyard so that the Impure Spirit rests on him’ . . . And Rashi explains there: ‘Impure Spirit’, A spirit of demons who helps him to be a sorcerer’. And also in Sanhedrin 65b: ‘And he who turns to the dead’, that is someone who starves himself and sleeps in a graveyard so that the Impure spirit rests on him’. And Rashi explains there: ‘this means, the demon of the graveyard so that he might be favourable to him and help him with sorcery.’168-169

The author continues with other Talmud commentators who equate the Ruach Ra‘ah with demons, and then refers to a number of responsa that confirm this idea: And now, because a sealing] helps against demons, it also helps against a Ruach Ra‘ah under the bed. And the [passage] on peeled garlic and egg, etc. . . . where ‘tied up and sealed’ does not help – this is different, because the Ruach Ra‘ah is very strong . . . 170 168 In Hebrew it says "‫ "שיהא אוהבו‬which means literally: so that he will love him, will be his friend. 169 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫ פי' להבריח רוח‬,‫ וכדאשכחן בפרש״י ר״ה (כח סע״א) התוקע לשד לא יצא‬,‫"ושדים ורוח רעה חדא מילתא נינהו‬ ).‫ שרוח רעה שורה תחתיהם‬,‫ (פרש״י ורשב״ם‬.‫) ה' טולי הוו‬:‫ ובפסחים (קיא‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ וכ״ה במאירי שם‬.‫רעה מעליו‬ ‫ ובחגיגה (ג סע״ב) הלן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ ושם דבי זרדתא שדים שמם‬,'‫טולא דזרדתא וכו‬ ‫) ודורש אל‬:‫ וכן בסנהדרין (סה‬.‫ רוח שדים שיסייעוהו להיות מכשף‬,‫רוח טומאה הוא דקעביד ופרש״י רוח טומאה‬ ‫ דהיינו שד של בית‬,‫ ופרש״י‬.‫ זה המרעיב עצמו והולך ולן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה‬,‫המתים‬ ." . . . ‫הקברות שיהא אוהבו ומסייעו בכשפיו‬ 170 Ibid.: ‫ וההיא דהאוכל שום קלוף ובצל‬.‫ ה״נ מהני לגבי רו״ר שתחת המטה‬,‫"ומעתה כיון דמהני חותם לגבי שדים‬ ‫ שאני התם דהרו״ר תקיף טובא עד שאמרו שהאוכלם‬,)‫ (נדה יז‬.‫ ולא מהני בהו צייר וחתים‬,‫קלוף וכו' דמו בראשו‬ .". . .‫דמו בראשו‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 173

He mentions a number of authors who in fact permit, a priori, food that has been covered and sealed to be placed under the bed without any fear of the Ruach Ra‘ah. But then he refers again to a number of responsa that are prepared to admit theoretically that, if there is no explicit statement to the contrary, covering and “sealing” also help against the Ruach Ra‘ah, but who still prohibit it in practice, including on the basis of a reference to bNiddah 17a where it is said of a peeled egg and onion that even tying up and sealing do not help. The Yabbia Omer disagrees: And the truth is that this passage from Niddah 17 does not compel us to compare all aspects of the Ruach Ra‘ah with each other. Just as the Artzot HaChayyim (no. 4, subsection 32) explains that one may distinguish between one Ruach Ra‘ah and another Ruach Ra‘ah . . . And see also the responsa Lev Chayyim V. 1 (no. 66) . . . which also distinguishes between the passage in Niddah and another Ruach Ra‘ah . . . 171

The section concludes with a discussion of a passage in the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman from Liady (eighteenth century) on the status of food and drink under the bed (CHM, Shemirat Guf veNefesh, §7). Contrary to what a different text from the corpus states, it cannot be discerned from this passage that Sheniur Zalman contends that covering and sealing does not help in this case. He only states this in relation to the peeled egg, onion, and garlic, but that is in accordance with the Talmud itself. Although the subject of the responsum is food and drink in the toilet, the author finds it necessary to issue a halachic ruling in relation to covered and sealed food and drink that are placed under the bed: And in relation to practice: it seems to me that one must a priori certainly be careful with this, to fear the stricter opinions. But a posteriori permit food and drink that were covered and sealed under the bed. Because there are many Later Decisors who judge less strictly on this matter in this case [even not covered and sealed] . . . Even small financial loss in this case [when they are covered and sealed] is sufficient to permit it . . . 172

In the last section of the responsum (subpar. 7), the author returns to the subject: food and drink that have been brought into the toilet. Although the Scholars stated

171 Ibid.: ‫ וכמבואר בארצות החיים (סי' ד ס״ק‬.‫"ובאמת שאין הכרח מההיא דנדה (יז) לדמות כל עניני רו״ר זל״ז‬ ‫ משא״כ‬,‫ ולכן התיר רבינו טודרוס הלוי להדיח אוכלין שנגעו בהם קודם נט״י שחרית‬,‫לב( שיש לחלק בין רו״ר לרו״ר‬ ‫ וע״ע בשו״ת לב חיים ח״א (סי' סו) ד״ה‬.‫ ע״ש‬.)‫ (וכ״ה בשו״ת יד מאיר סי' יט‬.‫בשום קלוף ובצל קלוף דל״מ להו הדחה‬ ".‫ שג״כ כ' לחלק בין ההיא דנדה לשאר רו״ר‬,‫אלא‬ 172 Ibid.: ‫ ובדיעבד יש להתיר באוכלין‬,‫"ולענין דינא נראה לי דלכתחילה בודאי שיש ליזהר בזה לחוש לד' המחמירים‬ ‫ וכמש״כ בס״ד‬.‫ משום שרבו האחרונים המקילים בזה בדיעבד בלא״ה‬,‫והמשקים שהיו צרורים וחתומים תחת המטה‬ ‫ בזה שנתוסף עוד‬,‫ ונהי דהתם פסקינן שאין להקל אלא בהפסד מרובה‬.)‫בשו״ת יביע אומר ח״א (חיו״ד סי' ט‬ ".‫ אפי' בהפסד מועט יש להתיר‬,‫סניף להקל בהיותם צרורים וחתומים‬

174 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

in relation to food and drink under the bed that the Ruach Ra‘ah also rested on it covered,173 this does not mean that this is also the case for the toilet – different situations of Ruach Ra‘ah cannot simply be equated with each other. If the food and drink were covered, there is no reason why the judgement should be stricter. Certainly not if we consider what was posited at the beginning of the responsum in Palagi’s name, that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet is weaker than that in the morning after waking up. A posteriori they may therefore always be consumed. But even a priori, food and drink may sometimes be brought into the toilet: If the foodstuffs are covered in a paper bag or in the pocket of his clothes, then one may judge more lightly, even a priori if it is necessary for such a person to enter the toilet, and he has no other place to put them . . . but if they can be put somewhere outside, then it is good to decide more strictly a priori and not to bring them into the toilet, even if they are properly closed and covered.174 And if the foods were not covered175 and they were brought into the toilet, if they are foodstuffs that can be rinsed, they must be rinsed three times . . . and if they cannot be rinsed, then in my humble opinion it seems possible to judge less strictly and to trust in the [aforementioned] Shalmei Zibbur and his supporters, [i.e.] that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet does not rest on food and drink. To this may be added the opinion of those who state that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah among us in the contemporary time.176

The conclusion refers to a series of texts that adopt the solution of rinsing the food three times, a solution first proposed by Rabenu Todros Halevi (thirteenth century). Although this solution of rinsing originally referred to food that had been touched with unwashed hands in the morning after rising, the Yabbia Omer also applies this solution to the case of food that has been brought into the toilet. He had already

173 A pan, for instance, or a pot. 174 This wording "‫ "אפילו הם  מחופים ומכוסים‬appears to imply that a priori the food should not be brought into the toilet either with two covers. This is a somewhat illogical conclusion given the rest of the responsum’s conclusion, which a posteriori even takes into account the opinion that there is no such thing as a Ruach Ra‘ah in contemporary times. It seems to us that this is caused precisely by the Yabbia Omer’s text-oriented approach, because this does not apply a clear hierarchy to the texts introduced in the discussion. All seem to have more or less the same weight, and the decision consequently looks more like a kind of large common denominator of the opinions than a real development of one conceptual approach. 175 I.e. not even with one cover. 176 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫"ונראה שאם האוכלים מכוסים בשקית ניר או בכיס בגדו יש להקל בזה אף לכתחלה אם יש לו צורך להכנס לבית‬ ‫ אבל היכא דאפשר להניחם בחוץ טוב להחמיר לכתחלה‬.‫ דשעת הדחק כדיעבד דמי‬,‫ ואין לו מקום להניחם‬,‫הכסא‬ ‫) ואם אין‬.‫ ע״ש‬.)‫ ובאו״ח (סי' מג ס״ז‬,)‫שלא להכנס בהם לבהכ״ס אפי' הם מחופים ומכוסים היטב (וע' ברכות (כג‬ ‫ ואם אי אפשר להדיחן‬. . . ‫ יש להדיחן ג' פעמים‬,‫ אם הם אוכלין שראויים להדיחן‬,‫האוכלין מחופין והוכנסו לבהכ״ס‬ .‫נלע״ד שאפשר לסמוך להקל על השלמי צבור וסיעתו דפשיטא להו שאין רו״ר דבהכ״ס שורה על המאכלין ומשקין‬ .".‫בצירוף דעת הסוברים דבזה״ז אין רוח רעה מצויה בינינו‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 175

argued that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet was weaker than that of the morning. In accord with the responsum’s text-oriented approach, two sources from the responsa literature are then adduced in support of the conclusion, sources that essentially say the same thing as the Yabbia Omer. The final passage is remarkable, because the Yabbia Omer stops short of committing himself fully as he states: But certainly, he who judges more strictly [and decides] not to eat from it and to give it to the children – this must be preferred, and blessing is upon him.177

A more subject-oriented approach would possibly have led to a different conclusion, i.e. that there are several reasons to believe that there is no problem, certainly a posteriori, and that even a priori it is possibly permitted if necessary – even without a single or double cover.

4.3.7  Category of the Human Body: Object-oriented Approach (22 Texts) In the category of the “human body” (52 texts),178 the responsum of the Rivavot Ephraim is a paradigmatic text for the object-oriented approach.179 The responsum addresses the question whether a woman who rises at night to breastfeed her child must first wash her hands even though she will not touch the food – the breast milk – with her hands. A woman who suckles her son or daughter at night – must she wash her hands? During the weekly lesson I give to women on the laws of prayer, someone asked me whether a woman who suckles her son or daughter at night and does this several times must wash her hands each time? Or not? – because she does not touch the food. I answered that she must [wash her hands], and I said this on the basis of logic [‫]סברא‬.180

177 Ibid.: ‫ וכמו שראיתי‬.‫"והא ודאי שהמחמיר שלא לאכול ממנו ונותנו לקטנים עדיף טפי ועליו תבא ברכת טוב‬ .‫ ששמע מהגאון הק' מהר״ש מבעלז שהוא מקפיד שלא לאכול מאכל שהיה בבהכ״ס‬,)‫בשם ס' דברי יצחק (אות קב‬ ‫ וע״כ המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו‬.)‫ (וע״ע בשו״ת ויצבור יוסף שווארץ סי' כג‬.‫ ומוכח דמעיקר דינא שרי לאינשי דעלמא‬.‫ע״כ‬ ‫ דינא יתיב כאמור לעיל דהיכא דאפשר להדיח‬,‫ וכן היוצא מבית הכסא ונגע בידיו באוכלין ומשקין‬.‫והמיקל לא הפסיד‬ .". . .‫ יש להתיר‬,‫ וכן משקין שא״א להדיחן‬,‫ ואם לא‬,‫האוכלין ידיחם ג״פ‬ 178 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4; ibid., V. 2, no. 2, 6; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 50; ibid., V. 4, no. 24; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6; ibid., V. 4, no. 252; Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 44, 49; ibid., V. 2, no. 1; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 2; Yaskil Avdi, V. 6 OH, no. 11. 179 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252. 180 Ibid.: ‫ איך הדין באשה המניקה את בנה או את‬.‫"נשאלתי בשיעור השבועי שאני נותן לפני נשים בדיני תפלה‬ ‫בתה באמצע הלילה כמה פעמים הצריכה כל פעם נטילת ידים או לא כי לא נוגעת המאכל והשבתי דצריכה ומן‬ ".‫הסברא אמרתי כך‬

176 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

The author obviously thinks it is a matter of logic that the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on humans during sleep also rests on the mother’s milk.181 The washing of the hands definitively removes the Ruach Ra‘ah from her body, and therefore also from her mother’s milk. The human body itself is the object here over which the Ruach Ra‘ah exercises its influence as an entity, and which causes the Ruach Ra‘ah to be transmitted, through the medium of the breast milk, to the child, which it might possibly harm. In this case, the human body is a stronger source of transmission of the Ruach Ra‘ah than food. This is in accordance with other texts that state that there is an inversely proportional relationship between the Ruach Ra‘ah and sacredness – the more sacred something is or can become, the greater the Ruach Ra‘ah’s influence over it. This is why a sleeping human is a greater source of Ruach Ra‘ah – often described in these sources as impurity – than food, drink, or objects.182 An alternative interpretation of the opening passage of the responsum could be that the author simply regards the washing of hands as a duty after rising, apart from the question of whether food is or is not touched. The responsum continues with the reply from a friend, a fellow rabbi, to whom the author submitted the same question. This colleague points to a text that supposedly shows that the Ruach Ra‘ah also exercises its influence in the middle of the night,183 and that analogously the woman in question should indeed wash her hands every time before feeding her baby. This is followed by a discussion of the answer of yet another fellow rabbi, who concurs with the author that a woman who feeds at night should pour water over her hands three times before she begins feeding. The colleague does not offer any arguments, and pos-

181 This interpretation appears to be justified in view of a gloss by Rabbi Akiva Eger on the Talmud (in the name of the medieval Aruch) which says that the Ruach Ra‘ah seizes the child as a result of the fact that the mother suckles her child immediately after having gone to the toilet. According to a responsum of the Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no 11 from the corpus, it follows from this “that the milk that was in her breasts while she was on the toilet harms her child because of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on it”: ‫ והרוח רעה אוחזת התינוק וכו‘וממה היא בשעה שאמו באה מבית הכסא או מנהר ומינקת לבנה לאלתר‬,'‫ שכ‬. . ." ." . . . ‫ מבואר כי החלב שהי' בדדיה בהיותה בביהכ״ס מזיק להתינוק מפני רוח רעה ששורה עליו‬.‫עכ״ל‬ 182 This theory is often propounded by mystically-influenced texts, but a first outline of it can already be found in the Mishnah, mYadayim 4:6: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: “Do [arguments] against the Pharisees serve no other purpose than this?” – “See, they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, but the bones of Yochanan the High Priest are unclean!” They answered them: “the uncleanness is in relation to the measure of affection”. A donkey is less loved than a person like the High Priest, this is why he renders unclean, but the donkey does not. 183 The assumption is that the Ruach Ra‘ah primarily exercises its influence at the beginning of the night and at the end of the night.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 177

sibly follows the author’s logic described above. The Rivavot Ephraim decides on the basis of these answers to instruct the women again to wash their hands every time before they feed.184 However, he then continues with a third reply given to him by a fellow rabbi: I have not found this explicitly anywhere, and she must in any case be careful not to touch the opening of the nipple.185

The object-oriented approach, when confronted with a situation that is unclear and that cannot be traced back directly to a text, proceeds on the basis of an almost mechanical influence that the Ruach Ra‘ah exercises over humans and their environment. The colleague’s observation that the woman must in any case avoid touching the opening of her nipple is based on the fact that this comes into contact with the baby’s mouth, and the breast milk comes out of it. By not touching the opening of the nipple, she avoids transmission to her baby – via the hands. The responsum then continues with two remarks made by this colleague which show that the Ruach Ra‘ah possibly no longer exists in our time, but these are more intended as theoretical possibilities and not as directives for practical application. In a passage consisting of a number of lines between brackets, the author refers to a responsum by the Yaskil Avdi186 in which the latter emphasizes the importance of washing the hands of very small children that are still in the cradle, “so that they grow in purity” (‫)כדי שיגדלו בטהרה‬. The author wants to stress that it is important to protect even very small children against the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah. This also explains his ruling that the woman must wash her hands every time before feeding her baby at night. In the conclusion of the responsum, the author once again mentions a fellow rabbi whose opinion he sought on this case. This rabbi appears to propose a somewhat milder approach than the author himself, just as the other colleague who stated that the woman may suckle her child as long as she does not touch her nipple. This colleague points to the obligation that women have to wash their hands after waking up, on account of the negative influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah when it comes into contact with the mouth, nose, ears or eyes (there is no mention of the opening of the nipple). This is why it is desirable – but not really obligatory, as the author argued earlier – that she should wash her hands before feeding, so that she can touch not only her own orifices, but also her baby’s.

184 Rivavot Ephraim. V. 4, no. 252: 185 Ibid. 186 Yaskil Avdi, V. 5 OH, no. 1.

.". . . ‫ ולפי״ז אמרתי להן שוב ההלכה דצריכה כל פעם ליטול‬. . ."

178 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

But if she is careful not to touch the organs mentioned above, neither her own, nor her baby’s, she can be confident in this [that there is no danger] . . . 187

This colleague gives the woman greater leeway: if she is certain that she will not touch her own bodily orifices or those of her baby with the hands upon which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests, there does not seem to be any impediment to her feeding her baby without having first purified her hands of the Ruach Ra‘ah. This opinion is not, however, the author’s own. The author only quotes it to show that there are rabbis who answer this question differently than he does. This is also clear from what the author writes after referring to the opinion of another colleague, who – just as the author – insists that the woman must always wash her hands first: On the basis of this I have once again told them [=the women whom the author teaches] the halacha, that they must wash their hands every time.188

4.3.8 Category of the Human Body: Subject-oriented Approach (Eight Texts) It is not easy to find an example in the corpus of the subject-oriented approach in this category.189 Many texts in this category use an objective approach that views the Ruach Ra‘ah as a given fact that exercises its influence over human beings almost mechanically, on what goes into the body, and what happens to the body – sleep, cutting hair and nails, and sexual intercourse – these cause the Ruach Ra‘ah to rest on humans, and there is little the latter can do about it – apart from pouring water over their hands. The subject-oriented approach is best expressed in a number of texts that deal with the ostensibly trivial question of whether sleeping with gloves on helps against the “Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands”. By sleeping while wearing gloves, the subject can exercise a certain influence over the powers of the Ruach Ra‘ah and make them more easily manageable in his everyday life. As the paradigmatic text we have chosen the responsum of the Mishneh Halachot,190 which addresses the specific question what someone must do who rises at night to take a pill – must he wash his hands before doing so or not?

187 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252: .". . .‫ מותר לה לסמוך על הבוקר‬,‫"פשוט דאם היא תזהר שלא לנגוע בכל האבתם הנ״ל שלה ושל התינוק‬ 188 Ibid.: .". . .‫"ולפי״ז אמרתי להן שוב ההלכה דצריכה כל פעם ליטול נטילת ידים‬ 189 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1 OH, no. 4; ibid., V. 2 OH, no. 3; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 3, no. 15; Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Divrei Yatsiv, OH, no. 1; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 5, no. 96. 190 Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4.

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 179

Title: he who takes pills in the middle of the night – whether he must wash his hands [date, blessings and greetings to addressee in Philadelphia] In relation to the question whether someone who has to take pills ( . . . ) in the middle of the night, whether he must first wash his hands? And if he does, can he then also take the pill by means of something else, so that he does not touch the pill with his hands, and also the cup because he drinks water with the pill.191 The argument begins with a reference to the Talmudic passage bHullin 107b192 concerning the washing of hands before eating bread.193 The Talmud deduces from this the halachic rule that anyone who is being fed by someone else must still wash his own hands, but the person who feeds does not. Analogously, the author infers that he who is obliged to wash his hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, because his hands would otherwise ‘pollute’ the food and drink by touching them – that it does not matter for this person whether he takes the pill with or without touching it with his hand.

The responsum continues with a distinction between the two ritual washings: . . . these washings however are different in nature. Because the washing of the hands before a [bread] meal is on account of hygiene [or cleanness, ‫]נקיות‬, purity [‫]טהרה‬, and holiness [the author refers here to a commentary by Nachmanides on the washings of the priests in the Temple] . . . and similarly the rabbis established a washing prior to prayer . . . But the washing of the hands for those who sleep at night is on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah who rests on the hands. And this is why it is possible that if he wears gloves or something similar, that the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest [on the hands].194

191 Ibid.: ‫"נוטל כדורים באמצע הלילה אי צריך נט״י זאת חנוכה התשנ״ט בנ״י יצו״א מע״כ האי צורב עוסק בחוקי‬ ‫חורב כמר שמואל ישעי' יפה נכד להאי גברא רבה ויקירא ת״ח ובע״מ ירא״מ הרה״ח ר' שמואל ישעי' טענענבוים ז״ל‬ ‫ בדבר השאלה במי שצריך ליקח כדורים (פילין בלע״ז) באמצע הלילה אם‬.‫ אחדשה״ט בידידות‬.‫בישיבה פילאדעלפיא‬ ‫ אם יכול ליטול הכדור ע״י דבר אחר באופן שלא יגע בכדור בידיו וכן בכוס‬,‫צריך קודם ליטול הידים ואם כן צריך‬ ".‫שותה מים עם הפיל‬ 192 bHullin 107b: “Samuel’s father once found his son crying, and asked him: ‘why are you crying?’ ‘Because my teacher hit me,’ he answered. ‘But why?’ ‘Because he said: “You were giving my son food to eat, but you did not wash your hands first.” ‘And why did you not wash them?’ [He answered:] ‘Surely it was he who was eating, so why should I wash [my hands]?’ [Samuel’s father] said: ‘Is it not enough that he [your teacher] does not know the law, that he should also hit you?!”. 193 Although the context of the Talmud passage deals with the eating of bread, the passage just mentioned does not explicitly state that it could also be a washing before eating any food that enters the mouth on the basis of the priestly purity laws, which some rabbinic groups possibly practiced even after the destruction of the Temple. In that case it is a statement in general terms that originally applied not only to the eating of bread. 194 Mishneh Halachot, V. 15. no. 4: '‫ דנט״י לסעודה הוא מדין נקיות וטהרה וקדושה כמ״ש הרמב״ן עה״ת (שמות ל‬,‫"איברא דהני נטילות תרי מיני נינהו‬ ‫ שהוא רמז ליספירות‬,‫י״ט) ורחצו אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם ופי' דדין קידוש ידים שהוא מדין קדושה‬ ‫ ומן הענין הזה תקנו רבותינו נטילת ידים בתפלה ע"ש אבל נט"י לישן‬.‫והרחיצה הזאת לקדושה תרגם אותה אונקלוס‬ .". . .‫בלילה הוא מדין רוח רעה השורה על הידים ולכן אפשר שאם לובש כפפות וכיוצא בו אין הרוח רעה שורה‬

180 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

The author then illustrates this by referring to a passage from the Nimukei Orach Chayyim195 which recounts the story of Rabbi Zalman from Vilnius (a pupil of the Gaon), who slept with gloves on, so that he could begin to learn immediately after waking up without having to wash his hands first. The proof that the two washings are different is also evident from the status of the person who feeds: he who gives someone else some bread does not have to wash his hands, but he who eats the food does. He who has not washed his hands in the morning may a priori not give anyone food to eat, even if the person who eats has washed his hands. The responsum continues by addressing a discussion from the Halachic literature of the past few centuries on a situation from everyday life that is similar to the theme of the question. He who wakes up in the middle of the night and is thirsty, is he obliged to go and look for water and pour water over his hands three times, which is more trouble (and possibly disturbs the rest of his sleep) – or is there some other solution? The following solutions were suggested in the Halachic literature: – He meditates the blessing in his heart and drinks, and then goes back to sleep (the Taz) – He wipes his hands clean and then says the blessing, drinks, and goes back to sleep (Elya Rabbah, and possibly Karo) – He wipes his hands clean three times, says the blessing, drinks, and goes back to sleep (Birkat Avraham, also mentioned by the Elya Rabbah) – One must go and look for water, wash one’s hands three times, drink, and go back to sleep (Sha‘arei Teshuva in the name of MaHaraCH Lonzani). The differing opinions on this subject result from the question whether simply wiping one’s hands can also drive off the Ruach Ra‘ah, or whether it is sufficient only to give the hands the status of “clean” in relation to the saying of a blessing. On the basis of the Zohar (Introduction 10b), some Later Decisors ruled that no blessing or prayer may be uttered with hands that are physically clean but upon which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests. The author then proffers his own, “fifth” solution: to take the pill and drink from the cup using a glove or a cloth – it was established earlier that if someone sleeps with gloves on at night, the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest on his hands (or at least to a lesser extent). The author himself is not content with this solution which he dismisses with “but this does not seem to be right” )‫(ולא נראה כן לכאורה‬. It is not made clear why he rejects this possibility, but perhaps the author on second thought sees a difference between this solution [drinking with a glove or using a cloth] and sleeping with gloves on, which he mentioned before. Perhaps

195 Nimukei Orach Chayyim (no. 4), a halachic commentary on Orach Chaim of the Munkatscher Rebbe, Chayyim Elazar Shapiro (1868–1937).

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 181

gloves only help to prevent the Ruach Ra‘ah from resting on the hands when one goes to sleep wearing gloves. But if one has gone to sleep without gloves, the Ruach Ra‘ah has already come onto the hands, and then putting on gloves possibly does not have the same effect because the Ruach Ra‘ah may perhaps (partially) penetrate them. That the Ruach Ra‘ah is able to pass through matter seems plausible, because in the wording of the question the author assumes that touching a cup on the outside makes the content – water in this case – impure. This is why the option of the glove was introduced; the question itself implies it in the wording of the opening: . . . .can he then also take the pill by means of something else, so that he does not touch the pill with his hands, and also the cup because he drinks water with the pill.196

Instead, the author prefers to introduce a relevant responsum from the Radbaz (David b. Zimri, sixteenth c., no. 38) which, to the author’s astonishment, has so far not played any role whatsoever in the discussion, and which can be harmonized with the earlier opinion of the Birkat Avraham [solution 3 (see supra)] that wiping one’s hands also helps to make the Ruach Ra‘ah disappear: . . . But, I have already pointed before . . . to a responsum by the Radbaz . . . who was asked about someone who wanted to drink water at night, and ‘ordinary hands’ [‫ ]סתם ידים‬are always busy [i.e. always touching the body in places that are normally covered] – how can he then utter the blessing? and if he drinks without the blessing then he has ‘stolen’? [‫]מעל‬197 Reply:198 If it is possible for him to ‘guard’ his hands so that he does not bring them to places that are [normally] hidden or to the places where there is sweat – then this is to be preferred, and then he can utter the blessing and drink. And although ‘ordinary hands’ are normally ‘busy’, this does not mean that if he attends to them [=the hands], that it is not possible to guard them. Because it is said ‘ordinary hands’, and these hands are not ‘ordinary’ but guarded, And so it seems logical to me, that if someone sleeps in his tunic and in his trousers, that his hands normally have the status of ‘guarded’. And if he cannot ‘guard’ his hands, then the Rashba Z”L has already written that he can wipe them clean with anything that cleans, and rubbing the hands against the wall already suffices. And the same is true of a dry cloth, which he can use to clean well. And I do this myself too, by rubbing them clean very carefully in a rough cloth, and then I utter the blessing.199 196 Even without directly touching the water inside. 197 An ethical dilemma about enjoying the world without blessing. This is like enjoying the sacred – that has been prohibited to a stranger, non-priest. It is only after uttering the blessing that the world is open to be enjoyed by humans. 198 By the Radbaz (David b. Zimra, fifteenth to sixteenth century). 199 Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4: ‫"ברם זה זמן רב שציינתי על גליון ט"ז שלי לשו״ת רבינו הגדול הרדב״ז ז״ל סי' ל״ח שנשאל במי שצריך לשתות‬ ‫ תשובה אם אפשר לו לשמור‬,‫מים בלילה וסתם ידים עסקניות הן היאך יזכיר את השם ואם ישתה בלא ברכה מעל‬ ‫את ידיו שלא יכניסם לבית הסתרים או למקום שיש מלמולי זיעה מוטב והרי שותה ומברך ואף על גב דסתם ידים‬ ,‫עסקניות הן לאו למימרא שאם נזהר בהם שלא יוכל ליזהר דהא סתם ידים אמרו ואלו אינם סתם אלא שמורות‬ ‫ ואם אי אפשר לו לשמרם כתב הרשב״א ז״ל‬,‫ומסתברא לי שאם אדם ישן בחלוקו ובמכנסיו סתם ידיו שמורות הן‬

182 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

Here the quotation from the Radbaz‫ ׳‬responsum ends. The author continues by analyzing this passage, and the practical consequences that result from it: These words from the Radbaz make it clear . . . that if someone guards his hands – even when he sleeps – his hands do not obtain the status of ‘ordinary hands that are busy’, because his thought / intention is to guard them.200

The author here introduces the concepts of “intention and thought” (‫)דעתו‬, which give the subject control over his own autonomous body. He is speaking here of someone who is able to control the behavior of his body, even during sleep. The author interprets the Radbaz text in such a way that the person in question, before going to sleep, makes the intention not to let his hands touch his body in places that are covered during the day, where one normally transpires and becomes dirty. That this interpretation is correct is evident from the rest of the responsum by the Radbaz, which speaks about physical protection of the body against it being touched during sleep, by sleeping in (night) clothes. The first part of the responsum must therefore concern someone who, from the desire and intention before going to sleep, makes the intention not to touch those places during sleep that make the hands unsuited for the uttering of a blessing – irrespective of the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands. The author continues: . . . In addition we are able to deduce from . . . the Radbaz a new principle, that he who sleeps in his shirt and trousers, his hands in any case have the status of ‘guarded‫ ׳‬And therefore, in our time when most people sleep in pyjamas, their hands always already have the presumed status of ‘guarded’, even if he has not thought about guarding them. And this all the more so when he goes to sleep, and thinks about guarding them that there are two reasons in this case for the positive status [of his hands]. One: he had the intention [‫]כיוון‬to guard them, which [already] helps [also] according to the Radbaz. And two: he slept in his garment. Thirdly:201 that he [=the Radbaz] prescribed the following in practice [and acted accordingly himself], that if both [options mentioned above] are not possible, that he then cleans his hands with anything that cleans: the wall, or a rough cloth or dry rag, as the Radbaz practiced this himself. And this is a ‘precedent done by a superior’, [‫ ]מעשה רב‬that may not be doubted. God preserve us.202

‫שישפשף בכל מידי דמנקה ואפי’ לחכך ידיו בכותל סגי וה״ה במטלית יבש מנקה יפה יפה וכן אני נוהג לשפשפם‬ ".‫במטפחת קשה יפה יפה ומברך עכ״ל‬ 200 Ibid.: ‫"והמבואר מדברי הרדב"ז כמה ספיקות חדא דאם אדם שומר ידיו אפי' ישן לא נעשו ידיו סתם ידים‬ .". . .‫עסקניות כיון שדעתו לשמור עליהם‬ 201 He mentioned two aspects before, but obviously decided to add a third. 202 Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4: ‫"והמבואר מדברי הרדב״ז כמה ספיקות חדא דאם אדם שומר ידיו אפי' ישן לא נעשו ידיו סתם ידים עסקניות כיון‬ ‫ ולפ״ז‬,‫ עוד חידש לן רבינו הרדב״ז דבר חדש דהישן בחלוקו ובמכנסים סתם ידיו שמורות הן‬,‫שדעתו לשמור עליהם‬ ‫ לעולם ידים שלהם הם בחזקת שמורות אפי' לא חשב לשמרן וכ״ש שאם הולך‬,‫בזה״ז שרוב העולם ישנים בפיזאמאס‬ ‫ והשלישית‬,‫לישן וחושב לשמרן דאיכא תרתי למעליותא חדא שכיון לשמרם שמהני להרדב״ז והשנית שישן בחלוק‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 183

The author clearly explains what the subject’s three practical possibilities are for dealing with impurity on the hands caused by touching the body in places that are regarded as impure and dirty. But what about the Ruach Ra‘ah? In the concluding passage, the author returns to this, when he summarizes once again what the conclusion is in his opinion: . . . The Halachah seems to me to be that, first, it is to be preferred that he prepares water and washes his hands. If this is not possible, or if the water has fallen and he cannot leave the bed, or if he is ill – may God prevent this – and he has been forbidden to leave the bed, [then] the second option [applies], that when he goes to sleep, he has the intention to guard his hands against touching [the body], so that they are no [longer] ‘ordinary’ hands. And this all the more so if he sleeps wearing clothes. Third [option]: if none of this is possible, then he must rub his hands clean with any object, and do this three times and this also helps against the Ruach Ra‘ah . . . 203

What is remarkable about this interpretation is that the author introduces the concept of thought (‫ )מחשבה‬and intention (‫ )כוונה‬in his explanation of the Radbaz responsum,204 although the Radbaz does not himself mention this very explicitly.205 This is remarkable, because almost no text in the corpus discusses the categories of intention and thought, while this does happen in Halachic questions.206 But in doing so, the author gives power over the Ruach Ra‘ah back to the subject – it does not simply rest on the body, but can be diminished or removed in various ways. By wearing gloves, for instance, or by rubbing one’s hands clean without using water after waking up. In addition, the subject can exercise influence over the measure of impurity on his hands caused by touching impure and dirty places of the body. By wearing night clothes or by having the intention to guard his hands, the subject can diminish the impurity of his hands to a degree that is at least (according to some) sufficient to be able to utter a blessing.

‫שכתב הלכה למעשה דאם אי אפשר בהני אז ינקה ידיו במידי דמנקה בכותל או במטפחת קשה ובמטלית יבש וכן‬ ".‫עשה הרדב״ז הלכה למעשה ומעשה רב ואין להרהר אחריו ח״ו‬ 203 Ibid.: ‫ ואם א״א או שנשפכו המים‬,‫"לדידן ממילא להלכה נראה כי ודאי הראשון שיכין לעצמו מים ויטול ידיו‬ ‫ השנית כשילך לישן יכוין על הידים לשומרן מנגיעה שלא‬,‫וא״א לו לירד או שהוא חולה ח״ו שאסור לו לירד מהמטה‬ ". . .‫ והג' אם א״א בכל זה ישפשף בכל מידי דמנקה ויעשה ג״פ ויועיל גם לר״ר‬,‫ וכ"ש שישן בבגדו‬,‫יהיו סתם ידים‬ 204 Although this interpretation is plausible, it is doubtful that this is the only interpretation. 205 In other words: it is not explicitly clear that the Radbaz means that guarding the hands has to do with having this intention before going to sleep, which then continues to be effective during sleep, so that after waking up the person has clean hands in respect of the uttering of a blessing or a prayer. It is conceivable that the Radbaz meant that the person had been guarding his hands from the moment of waking up to the uttering of the blessing. 206 See for instance H.L.M. Ottenheijm, Disputen omwille van de Hemel: rol en betekenis van intentie in de controverses over sjabbat en reinheid tussen de Huizen van Sjammai en Hillel (Amsterdam: Amphora Books, 2004).

184 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

4.3.9 Category of the Human body: Text-oriented Approach (23 Texts) A striking example of the text-oriented approach in the category of responsa on the body and the Ruach Ra‘ah207 is the responsum by Betsel Hachochmah that will be discussed as a paradigmatic text.208 The responsum addresses the question of whether it is necessary to wash one’s hands after touching one’s feet if these had been washed previously. The idea that touching one’s feet is a reason to wash one’s hands can already be found in the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch209 includes a list of activities and situations that are related to the body and its functions and that are a reason to wash one’s hands. For instance after leaving the toilet, after cutting one’s nails, after sexual intercourse, he who has had a bloodletting, and he who touches his feet. The responsum of the Betsel Hachochmah does not, however, only discuss the everyday touching of the feet: The law concerning the washing of hands for those who touch their feet if they have been washed properly: Concerning his pupil’s210 question about that which is said (Zevahim 19b) in relation to the sanctifying211 of the hands and feet [of the priests], ‘he lays his right hand on his right foot, and his left hand on his left foot and sanctifies both’. And he212 asked: is it not so that he who touches his foot must wash his hands? And how could the priests then touch their foot, and still be sanctified? And the honourable one213 [‫ ]מע“כ‬had no response to this. And it must be seen on the basis of this whether the person who touches his foot if it is properly washed must wash [his hands]. And I will answer him – with help from Heaven, at his request.214

The approach to this question is a text-oriented one. The question refers on the one hand to an everyday practice – the touching of one’s feet – but on the other 207 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1 OH, no. 10; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 11, 13; ibid., V. 3, no. 10, 14; ibid., V. 4, no. 4, 5, 9; ibid., V. 5, no. 5; ibid., V. 6, no. 5; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 13, no. 15; ibid., V. 16, no. 1; ibid., V. 22, no. 4, 42; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2, 4, 7; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 114; Sho’el Ve-Nishal, V. 5 OH, no. 105; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29; Shevet Halevi, V. 7, no. 5. 208 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29. 209 OH 4:18–19. 210 Apparently the enquirer’s pupil, whose name is not given. 211 This means the washing of hands and feet, which is indicated by the term “the sanctifying of hands and feet”. The term “to sanctify” already indicates the purpose of the washing. 212 The pupil mentioned above. 213 ‫ מעלת כבודו‬is a respectful title for the enquirer. 214 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29: ‫"דין רחיצת ידים לנוגע ברגליו כשהן רחוצות יפה ע״ד קושית תלמידו בהא דאמרי' (זבחים י״ט ב) לענין קידוש ידים‬ ‫ והקשה הנ״ל הא הנוגע ברגלו‬,‫ורגלים מניח ידו הימנית ע״ג רגלו הימנית וידו השמאלית ע״ג רגלו השמאלית ומקדשן‬ ‫ אם נוגע‬,‫ ויש לדון מזה‬,‫צריך נטילה והאיך הכהנים נגשעו ברגליהם ועלתה להם לקידוש ולא מצא מע״כ תי' ע״ז‬ ".‫ ואשיב לו בס״ד כבקשתו‬,‫ צריך נטילה‬,‫ברגל רחוצה יפה‬

4.3 Paradigmatic Texts from the Three Categories 

 185

hand it places this in the priestly tradition of the washing of the hands and feet from the washbasin, as the beginning of the daily service in the Temple.215 But the details concerning the service in the Temple are derived from a rabbinic text, which claims to have known the traditions of the Temple216 and to have sought to safeguard them for later generations. The classical rabbinic texts, however, were redacted at a time that the Temple was no longer a reality in Judaism. The author continues with an overview of several responsa that deal with this matter: This was already observed in the Pekudat Eleazar . . . which states on these grounds [the priests’ manner of washing] that if someone touches his feet when they have been properly washed and are clean, without any dirt, it is not necessary to wash [the hands]. And this is why, in the sanctifying of the hands and feet, if the feet were washed properly, it was not necessary for them to wash [the hands] afterwards. But, see also in the Mor Uketzia . . . which simply states that there is always dirt on feet, even if they have been washed. And according to his words, the previous answer is therefore not valid. But I saw in the Yafeh Lalev . . . who also noticed this . . . and who gave the following remark there in the name of his father – the Gaon Rabbi Chayyim Palagi - . . . and in [the name of] the Petach Devir . . . who replied that what is said ‘he places his right hand on his right foot’ etc., does not mean that he really touched his foot. But, that the intention is that he brings his hand very close to his foot and ‘sanctifies’ [=washes] both at the same time. And the Yafeh Lalev questioned this on the basis of the Abarbanel’s explanation of the Parasha [Kil] Tisa . . . who wrote that he rubs his hands over his feet when he sanctifies [=washes] himself. See also Levushe Mordechai . . . [where] the enquirer pointed to the Talmud Zevahim mentioned above, and the very honourable and learned217 writer answered him immediately with the answer of the Petach Devir. I.e., that ‘on his foot’ means: near his foot, but that he did not touch his feet with his hands, see there.218 215 See Ex. 30: 17–19. 216 The relevant passages from the Bible do not specify how the washing of hands and feet by the priests was to take place, and there are no biblical grounds as such for the rabbinic tradition that hands and feet must be washed at the same time – one of the principles underlying this responsum. 217 Gaon. 218 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29: ‫"כבר העיר בזה בספר פקודת אלעזר (לשו״ע או״ח סימן ד' סעיף י״ח סימן ה') והוכיח מינה שאם נגע ברגליו כשהן‬ ‫רחוצות יפה ונקיות מכל לכלוך וזיעה שא״צ נטילה ולכן בקידוש ידים ורגלים שרחצו רגליהם היטב ל״ה צריכים‬ ‫ אמנם עיין במור וקציעה להגריעב״ץ ז״ל (סימן ד') דפשיטא ליה דברגלים אפילו הם רחוצים‬.‫אח״כ נטילה ע״ש‬ '‫ קונט״א או״ח סימן ד‬,‫ אמנם ראיתי בספר יפה ללב (ח״ב‬.‫זוהמא דבקה בהן ולדבריו לא עלתה תשובה הנ״ל יפה‬ ,‫אות ד') שהעיר ג״כ בזה וציין לספרו חלק א' (שאינו תח״י) ושם מביא הערה זו משם מר אביו הגר״ח פלאג'י זצ״ל‬ ‫ומס' פתח הדביר (ח״ג דף פר״ח ע״א) שתי' דמש"א מניח ידו הימנית ע״ג רגלו הימנית כו' לאו למימרא שנגע ברגלו‬ '‫נגיעה ממש אלא הכונה שמקרב ידו סמוך לרגלו ומקדש שתיהן בבת אחת וביפ״ל העיר עליו מדברי האברבנאל פ‬ ‫ ועיין שו״ת‬.‫ וכן ממש״כ הרע״ב (פ״ב דזבחים מ״א) שכתב שמשפשף רגליו בידיו בשעה שהוא מקדש ע״ש‬,‫תשא‬ ,‫לבושי מרדכי (חאה״ע סימן ע״ז) שהעיר ג״כ השואל מגמ’ זבחים הנ״ל והגאון המחבר השיב לו כתי' פתה״ד הנ״ל‬ ".‫דע״ג רגלו ר״ל על בסמוך ולא נגע רגליו בידיו ע״ש‬

186 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

There are therefore at least three opinions on the manner in which the priests washed their hands and feet: one that the hands were placed on the feet, a second in which the feet are rubbed clean with the hands, and a third in which the hands were placed very near the feet, but without touching them. Again, the reality in the Temple is being reconstructed on the basis of the texts, in order to serve as a guideline for acting in situations in current, everyday life where one touches one’s feet with one’s hand. Having established the different views on the Temple ritual, the author returns to the topic of the touching of the feet, and why this is a reason to wash one’s hands: And to all appearances, the opinion of a number of Later Decisors [Acharonim] is that he who touches his feet, must wash [his hands] on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on his feet. And therefore, even if his feet are clean, the washing is still necessary when they are touched, see the Atzei Haya’ar . . . and see also the Yaveh Lalev . . . And therefore it must be said that the Ruach Ra‘ah did not apply [‫ ]לא שייך‬to the Temple. And certainly that if he [the priest] has sanctified his feet according to the rule, that the Ruach Ra‘ah has disappeared. And therefore if the feet have been washed and were clean, it was not necessary for he who touches them to wash [his hands]. And see the responsa Yosef Ometz . . . and the Zerah Yitzchak on the Mishnah . . . and the responsa Maharasham . . . and see also in Notzer Chessed (I just also saw a long treatise on the question whether there was Ruach Ra‘ah in the Temple, in Bené Zion . . . ).219

The author refers to a number of Later Decisors who thought that the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah had nothing to do with the presence of tangible dirt or sweat. This is why the Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on feet that have been washed. The uncleanness or impurity that attaches to the feet seems to be more metaphysical, and it cannot be washed away with water. In the Temple, however – the most holy place on earth – there was no Ruach Ra‘ah. This is why, if the feet had been washed by the priest, he could touch them. The author concludes the responsum with a discussion of how one must act on the basis of the arguments advanced:

219 Ibid.: ‫"וכפי הנראה דעת קצת אחרונים דנוגע ברגליו צריך נטילה משום רוח רעה השורה על הרגלים ולכן‬ ‫ ועל כן י״ל‬,‫אפילו רגליו נקיות צריך נטילה כשנגע בהן עיין ס' עצי היער (סימן ד' אות ס״ז) ועיין גם ביפה ללב הנ״ל‬ ‫ ולכן כשהיו רגליו רחוצות ונקיות אין‬,‫ ובפרט כשקידש רגליו כדין שנסתלק ממנו הרו״ר‬,‫דבמקדש דלא שייך רו״ר‬ '‫ בחי‬,‫ ועיין שו״ת יוסף אומץ להגאון חיד״א ז״ל (סימן ל״ז) ובס' זרע יצחק על משניות‬.‫להצריך נטילה להנוגע בהן‬ ‫ ועיין בספר נצר חסד (אבות פ״ה‬.)'‫ במפתחות לחיו״ד סי' ח‬,‫ ועיי' גם בשו״ת מהרש״ם (ח״ב‬.)‫למס' תמיד (פ״ז מ״ב‬ .".[‫ [כעת ראיתי אריכות דברים בענין אם שייך רו״ר במקדש בס' בני ציון‬.)‫מ״ה‬

4.4 Atypical Texts: the Residual Group 

 187

But, for us – even if one touches feet that have been washed, he must wash [his hands] on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the feet. And that is an extra reason for the decision of the Mor Uketzia which I mentioned before.220

The decision to pour water over the hands after manually touching feet that have been washed is based on two considerations: 1. Feet cannot really be cleaned, there is always some dirt stuck to them (Mor Uketzia). 2. The Ruach Ra‘ah always rests on the feet, and this Ruach Ra‘ah has nothing to do with physical dirt. Whether this is true in practice is irrelevant: nor is there anyway of confirming or refuting it. Both standpoints are mediated to the author by means of texts. It is characteristic that the author is not overly interested in why the Ruach Ra‘ah might be resting on the feet, what the mechanism behind this might be, and whether there really is nothing the subject can do about it. The author keeps well away from ontological speculations about the Ruach Ra‘ah and is therefore far removed from an object-oriented approach. Texts and texts alone determine the decision, even if the actual routine, for instance in the Temple, is no longer really known.

4.4 Atypical Texts: the Residual Group A careful analysis of the substance of the responsa in the corpus has shown that the subjects that are discussed in the modern responsa are virtually identical to those discussed in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah in earlier Halachic literature – especially in the Shulchan Aruch and to a lesser extent in the Talmud. The Ruach Ra‘ah has thus been maintained across a wider spectrum as a term in the responsa, comparable to Halachic literature that is almost 500 years older. This is all the more remarkable because a lot of literature was written over the course of these 500 years on the subtopics with which the Ruach Ra‘ah was traditionally connected. However, this leaves 33 responsa (more than 17 percent) of the corpus that cannot easily be grouped into the three themes distinguished above,221 some-

220 ‫ צריך נטילה משום רו"ר השורה על הרגלים וזה טעם נוסף להוראת‬,‫"אבל לדידן גם בנגע ברגלי כשהן רחוצות‬ ".‫הגאון בעל מור וקציעה שהזכרתי‬ 221 The questions concerning someone who has committed suicide, or is about to do so – a total of five responsa: Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 150. Discussion of making Kiddush, subsection 3 concerns taking the cup, with which hand?, which makes the connection with the washing of hands in the morning.

188 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

times fall outside this categorization altogether,222 have an unusual setting,223 or where the Ruach Ra‘ah plays a very subordinate role in the discourse of the reply.224 Eight of these225 deal with the Ruach Ra‘ah in the context of what might possibly have been described as possession in older texts such as the Talmud and non-rabbinic literature. However, in the modern responsa the topic of possession does not usually play this classical role.226 222 See for instance Yabbia Omer, V. 2 EH, no. 7 concerning the question of if a bridegroom has the same name as his father in law, or the bride the same name as the mother-in-law, the marriage is advisable in view of the directives of Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid, who advises against this in his testament. A similar question can be found in Yabbia Omer, V. 4 EH, no. 10 – concerning the directives in the Testament of R. Yehudah HaChassid, that two brothers should not marry two sisters. In both responsa, the Ruach Ra‘ah plays a very minor role in the argument. Or Afarkesta deAniya, V. 3 EH no. 247, where the Ruach Ra‘ah is not interpreted in the traditional way. The question why the name Zalfonit is no longer used also belongs to this category, Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 44, subsection 55: see also the following note. 223 The question of whether it is necessary to hold a wake for a little girl of c. seven weeks old who has died and is being kept in a fridge at home (!), Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 605. The demonic context of death is evident in this responsum. 224 See for instance Rabbi Z. Frank, Tal Harim, “Choveel”, section. 1; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 1, no. 158 – concerning a slaughterer who held a position in a non-Orthodox congregation, and now wants to come back, is he still trustworthy? Or Yabbia Omer, V. 3 YD, no. 23 concerning the use of lenses and cornea from dead people for a transplantation for a blind person. And Tzitz Eliezer, V. 12, no. 33; Divrei Yatsiv, OH no. 148; ibid., YD, no. 191 – concerning the mezuzah; ibid., no. 245 concerning the custom not to visit a grave any longer if one has not been there for seven or 10 years. Although this responsum does have a demonic-magical character, the Ruach Ra‘ah only occurs in it once; Divrei Yatsiv, Likutim veHashmatot, no. 74; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 718 (concerning immersing a dead person in the mikvah (purification bath) prior to the funeral). 225 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 4 (various items), no. 370; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 9, no. 17; Shevet Halevi, V. 4, no. 34; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 24; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 702; Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 155. 226 With the possible exception of the following three responsa: Rivavot Ephraim V. 4, no. 44, subsection 55; ibid., V. 5, no. 509; and Ateret Paz, V. 1 part B YD, no. 2 and notes at 2. The two responsa by the Rivavot Ephraim deal with the name of Zalfonit, the name of Simson’s mother according to the rabbinic tradition. This name was reputed to offer protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah, and the author asks why it is no longer in use. In the second responsum, he mentions a tradition that the Rebbe of Ostrovtza (R. Meir Yechiël Halevi, 1890–1971) used this name as an incantation (‫ )לחש‬against the Evil Eye for a woman who had a difficult labor. The whole context has a magical connotation, including the use of the archaic lachash. The responsum by the Ateret Paz at length addresses the question of whether water cancels out sorcery, and whether it is therefore helpful to bring a person who has felt unwell for a longer period – his family suspect that he is the victim of sorcery or a spell – to the sea or a river (it is not entirely clear whether the person should be led to or into the water). Given the fact that this was a real question, and considering the author’s lengthy reply, it appears that the author is clearly referring to a magical worldview on the part of the enquirer (and the author?). Another remarkable responsum is the Minchat Yitzchak, OH no. 148, on the warning not to walk between two women. In the Talmud,

4.4 Atypical Texts: the Residual Group 

 189

The context in which these older elements from the Talmud currently function serves more as an argument for considering psychological factors and for giving a milder interpretation to the law. The Ruach Ra‘ah is mainly found in these responsa of the corpus in the context of suicide.227

4.4.1 Ruach Ra‘ah as a Psychological Factor Suicide is strongly taboo in orthodox Judaism. People who committed suicide were buried separately, the family did not sit Shiva (seven days of mourning), and the dead person was regarded as a great sinner. The emphasizing of the Ruach Ra‘ah happens therefore in the context of mental competency, not in itself a modern concept, but a concept that has become increasingly important in legislation in modern times. Persons who are not mentally competent during their actions are not acting as autonomous beings and are therefore not fully responsible. Because it cannot be excluded that the person in question committed suicide at the prompting of the Ruach Ra‘ah, the law must be interpreted less strictly, so that it is possible to say Kaddish or to make a Keria in one’s clothes. This does not mean that the writer of the responsum believes in possession by the Ruach Ra‘ah – he uses an old concept from the Talmud and other sources to add a psychological dimension to the Halachah, which is in fact a modern point of view. Incidentally, incorporating psychological elements into the Halachah is not originally a modern phenomenon, as it can be found already in the Talmud and the medieval commentators, and it is continued in the work of the Later Decisors (Acharonim). There are also two responsa228 that connect the concept of mental competency with the Ruach Ra‘ah in relation to succession law and a divorce case. In both cases, the Ruach Ra‘ah serves as a way of explaining someone’s behavior so that it becomes possible to interpret the law less strictly. The divorce case is about a man who accuses his wife of adultery and divorces her with her permission. After a while the man and the woman return to the rabbinic court requesting a remarriage. This is forbidden if the husband really believed that his wife cheated –

this has a clear magical-demonic connotation, which, surprisingly, remains almost entirely intact in the conclusion of this responsum. 227 See for instance Afarkesta deAniya, V. 4, var. items, no. 370; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 24; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 702. 228 Kol Mevaser, V. 1, no. 32; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 16, no. 42 (on a man who suspects his wife of adultery; the erroneous / unproven claim is ascribed to the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, thus making it possible to solve the problem between the husband and his wife. Otherwise they would have had to seek a divorce).

190 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

he declared her to be forbidden to him, and this makes a remarriage impossible. In this responsum, the author uses many arguments from Halachic literature to show that remarriage is possible in this case – if the Ruach Ra‘ah was present. The Ruach Ra‘ah plays a minor role in this, as a Halachic model229 for a husband who accuses his wife of all kinds of things and seeks a divorce under the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and later regrets this – in modern terms: the man has an impulsive character. In these cases a rabbinic court must attempt to urge the man to calm down, and explain to him that it is a figment of his imagination so that peace can be restored. For this, too, a precedent can be found in the Shulchan Aruch, which speaks of a man seized by (ochazo) a Ruach Ra‘ah, when he gives the instruction to issue his wife with a divorce certificate. In this condition, the husband is not mentally competent (bedato), and the certificate is not written, not even if he is subsequently cured.230 The responsum on succession law deals with a will made on the deathbed of the deceased person which raised questions concerning the wording and concerning mental competency. The author uses the Ruach Ra‘ah only as a subordinate argument in his discussion of mental competency, and of the fact that this can only be determined after a period of diminished mental competency or paralysis (nishtatek) has been diagnosed. Here again there is a precedent in the Shulchan Aruch about the legal status of transactions performed by a person whose mental competency is sometimes diminished (shoteh), and who sometimes acts normally (shafui).231 One responsum by the Chelkat Yaakov232 deals with sperm tests in the case of people with fertility problems. The Ruach Ra‘ah serves there as an example of a psychological factor that was already regarded as an illness in old sources, and that justifies a milder interpretation of the law (e.g. Shabbat). Rabbi Breisch points to the spiritual and psychological importance of reproduction for men and women, and the psychological stress of childlessness. This stress may cause a harm comparable to the condition of being overcome by a Ruach Ra‘ah – in which case it is permitted to set aside certain laws for the safety and well-being of the person in question. In this case, what is at stake is not therefore possession or demonic influence, but finding a precedent for great psychological suffering, which makes it possible to interpret the law less strictly.

229 The Tzitz Eliezer refers in this case to a responsum by the Chatam Sofer EH, no. 25. 230 EH 121:1 231 CHM 235:21 – this mentions epileptics as an example (nigfeh). 232 Ibid., V. 1 EH, CHM and several items no. 63.

4.4 Atypical Texts: the Residual Group 

 191

4.4.2 Ruach Ra‘ah and the Shabbat Laws In this residual group of responsa in the corpus, the Ruach Ra‘ah is also used in the context of the Shabbat laws. Here, too, this usually happens in order to justify a milder approach to the law, and to include psychological disorders and suffering, or extreme fear (for instance of a woman in labour)233 in the concept of “illness”, so that treatment on Shabbat is permitted.234 This is possible because the Mishnah permits the extinguishing of a lamp on Shabbat for someone with a Ruach Ra‘ah – which is regarded as dangerous. Again it is not belief in possession that is the central focus, but the purpose is to interpret the law more broadly and also to admit psychological problems and afflictions as legitimate reasons for treatment on the Shabbat, even if the treatment in question is not medical, but calms the person down. For instance listening to music on the radio for someone who suffers from depression, even if this happens on the Shabbat.235 Then there is the question in the Yabbia Omer of whether supernatural remedies (segulot) may be used on the Shabbat – older texts also addressed this question236 – if their effectiveness cannot be proven or verified through natural means. For instance the administering of drops of mother’s milk to the ear in case of ear pain,237 or the plucking of rue against the Evil Eye, sorcery or an epidemic,238

233 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 12, no. 33. 234 The exception is the responsum of the Ateret Paz, V. 3, CHM, no. 17 which addresses the issue of using wet wipes for babies on Shabbat in relation to the prohibition on wringing out on Shabbat (shechitah). He connects this with the remarks by Isserles in the Shulchan Aruch OH 328:32 that it is forbidden for those who are “under the inspiration” (nashaf bo) of a Ruach Ra‘ah to splash breast milk on a Shabbat. Letting breast milk flow other than for a baby is regarded by some as a form of squeezing out, on account of the “freeing” of liquid from its natural place (comparable to the squeezing out of fruit). The Ateret Paz also introduces the opinion of the Magen Avraham of Isserlies’ comments mentioned above in the debate about the possible wringing out of the lotion in baby wipes. The Magen Avraham states that if there is much pain (tza’ara yetera) it is permitted to perform the remedy with breast milk. 235 Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 64. 236 See for instance J. Jakobovits, Mishnat HaSar, ed. S. Jakobovits (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1997), Ch. 5: ‘De’ot refu’iot i-ratzionaliot’, 133–150. Yosef’s responsum on alternative / supernatural therapies itself uses older sources, for instance on the question concerning the writing of an amulet on Shabbat – which the medieval Rashba already discussed in his responsa (V. 4, no. 245) – or the breaking of the dietary laws by someone who has (temporarily) gone mad. The person might be cured by eating a certain dead chicken (i.e. not slaughtered), or by giving him soup made of this chicken. This can be found for instance in the responsa writings Admat Kodesh YD, no. 6, and the Pri Ha’aretz, V. 3, YD, no. 2. 237 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 32. 238 Ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 37.

192 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

which may be done by a non-Jew. The Ruach Ra‘ah appears here in the discussion about what constitutes a serious illness – the Talmud / Mishnah and Shulchan Aruch consider someone with a Ruach Ra‘ah as a sick person for whom the Shabbat may be broken, even for therapies that do not directly cure in a rationalnatural manner.239 Although the responsum can be read as an academic treatise, it seems, partly on account of the conclusion where the plucking of rue by a non-Jew is specifically permitted, as if Yosef was attempting to use this responsum to define the limits of what popular circles inter alia (possibly of the same ethnic background as Josef himself, i.e. Sephardic-Oriental) regard as therapies, even though they do not appear to be such from an empirical-objective perspective, and are sometimes at odds with the Halachah. Incidentally, the Tzitz Eliezer has a similar question on the use of alternative therapies/magical medicine on Shabbat, connected with the question of to what extent it is permitted to break the Shabbat to ask a tzaddik to pray for a sick person on Shabbat.240 Some of these responsa also ask whether the Shabbat may be broken for someone who has made a suicide attempt.241 As a sinner, such a person has possibly placed himself outside the community and has forfeited the right to life that permits the breaking of the Shabbat laws by endangering his own life. Here, too, the Ruach Ra‘ah serves to make a milder judgement possible: it is permitted to break the Shabbat even for someone who has attempted suicide, because of the possibility that this person was not fully mentally competent on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. The psychologically unstable person is part of the community and must not be ostracized. The modern responsa again uses a possibility here that was rooted already in the Shulchan Aruch. “He who is being pursued by a Ruach Ra‘ah is as sick as a person in danger”, the Shulchan Aruch had already ruled.242 One responsum addresses the question of whether dangerous operations for seriously ill psychiatric patients may be performed forcibly.243 What is entirely absent in the responsa is the topic of someone who, because of the Ruach Ra‘ah, ventures beyond the limits of the area that may be walked on

239 Thus the Talmud permits the lighting of a lamp for a blind woman in labor to calm her down, even though she cannot herself enjoy the light, bShabbat 128b. 240 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 9, no. 17. 241 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 1, no. 67; Chelkat Yaakov, V. 2 OH, no. 155. 242 OH 288:10. 243 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 4, no. 13 (Ruakh Ra‘ah only has a subordinate role in the arguments advanced here).

4.5 Conclusion 

 193

Shabbat (techum), a topic that can be found in Maimonides,244 the Talmud,245 and the Shulchan Aruch itself,246 as was described in a previous chapter. The reason for this is probably that this no longer has any practical application in modern times, when most people live in urban areas, given that it is permitted to walk in urban spaces.247

4.5 Conclusion Chapter 4 began with a specific method of late nineteenth century Talmudic analysis, which gave rise to three different approaches – the object-, subject-, and text-oriented approach – and then used these to analyze the corpus according to the thematic division into the three categories of food and drink, space, and inside and around the body. It presented and analyzed the nine paradigmatic texts that were found in this way. The chapter demonstrated that these different approaches to the nine paradigmatic texts from the corpus chosen in this way produced different outcomes. The object-oriented approach regards the Ruach Ra‘ah as a fact that exercises an almost mechanical influence over humans and their environment. There is little the subject can do about it. New situations will generally be judged conservatively on the basis of this approach, by pointing to the potential danger that they involve, and often this will mean that the activity is abandoned. An object-oriented approach often – but not always – corresponds to influence from Kabbalistic sources, because of the essentialist discourse that usually characterizes the latter. This interest in Kabbalistic sources is certainly not limited to the Oriental authors in the corpus. Ashkenazi authors with an Eastern European orientation such as the Minchat Yitzchak,248 the Divrei Yatsiv,249 the Tzitz Eliezer,250 and the Mishneh Halachot251 show clear evidence in their answers to a responsum of influence from the Zohar in particular. A Kabbalah-influenced discourse does not always

244 Maimonides, Laws on the Shabbat, Ch. 27, §11 [12 in other editions]. 245 bEruvin 41b. 246 OH 405:5. 247 The measure of 2000 ells that one may walk into the four wind directions starts from the limits of the built-up urban area. In modern cities this area often extends over many square miles, so that it is not easy to go beyond this limit. 248 E.g. Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 36. 249 E.g. Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31. 250 E.g. Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no 2. 251 E.g. Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 2.

194 

 Chapter 4 Nine Paradigmatic Texts from the Corpus  

lead to a stricter outcome. Thus the opinion of the Shalmei Zibbur was that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on humans and not on objects or food, but this opinion was one of the opinions used by the Yabbia Omer to come to a milder ruling. The corpus has other examples of opinions of Kabbalistic authors that lead to a milder judgement.252 The subject-oriented approach often has greater regard for the autonomy of the subject, the way in which this defines and assesses situations, and offers a wider spectrum of possibilities for action. New situations are not by definition dangerous and therefore prohibited, but are solved by the subject by means of human logic, conventions, customs, or by tradition which offers principles that can be used to deal with the Ruach Ra‘ah in an everyday context – without reducing the world of the subject to a text. In addition, the aspect of intention also plays a role in this approach, as we have discussed in the case of the paradigmatic text of the Mishneh Halachot (4.3.8). In the text-oriented approach, situations are defined primarily on the basis of sacred or canonical texts and traditions, and possibilities of dealing with situations are derived from these texts. Whether the Ruach Ra‘ah is an actual reality is irrelevant to this approach. In its extreme form, this approach can lead to the imprisonment of the subject in the text, because its reality is equated with the text. In practice this does not happen in the corpus – the texts themselves that make up the intertextual discourse are so varied as to make various approaches possible and to leave some freedom for the subject. A strictly text-oriented approach, even though it may appear rigid, can in fact serve to invalidate certain details of the law. If not all details in the situation correspond to those mentioned in the Talmud, the law in question may not be applicable.253

252 See the Yafeh Lalev by Rachamim Nissim Palagi (1813–1907) who states in Yafeh Lalev, V. 3, YD §116, subsection 6, in relation to the placing of food and drink under the bed, that the Ruakh Ra‘ah rests only on naked ground, but not on a tiled floor or on other floor coverings. This opinion is also advanced by the Kaf HaChayyim of the kabbalist Sofer, YD, V. 2, §116, subsection 42. This functions as a “subordinate argument” – i.e. in addition to other mitigating factors – for some authors in the corpus to justify a milder ruling. See Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 35; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10. 253 See for a clear example of this Igrot Moshe YD, V. 4, no. 20, who addresses the issue of peeled eggs that are processed in large volume for use in the food industry. The Igrot Moshe judges that in this modern setting, the eggs are peeled beforehand in order to use and consume them later – and sometimes much later. This is not identical to what the Talmud has in mind, because the Talmud was accustomed to a situation where one or several eggs were peeled in order to be consumed as soon as possible. If an egg is left over, this must not be kept for consumption the day after, on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the egg (and garlic and onion). Thus, in

4.5 Conclusion 

 195

In practice, the same author sometimes shows traces of more than one approach in his responsa. Sometimes the same responsum contains a discourse that uses the different approaches at the same time.254 Sometimes the discourse moves from one extreme position of an approach to another.

these matters that cannot be understood rationally, the Talmud must be followed precisely, and everything that deviates from this – even in a matter of detail – is therefore permitted. 254 See for instance Igrot Moshe, YD, V. 3, no. 20, the word “reality” (‫ )המציאות‬in relation to the Ruakh Ra‘ah, or the halakhic discourse in the Yitzchak Yeranen V. 1, OH, no. 5, alongside the kabbalistic object-oriented approach.

Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material and the Spiritual World This chapter analyzes the explanatory models used by the texts of the corpus in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah. First, it employs the possible knowledge paradigms that underlie the Talmudic commandments regarding the Ruach Ra‘ah: do these refer to revealed knowledge or to pre-modern scientific insights? (5.1). The chapter subsequently describes the various perspectives on the origins and nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah (5.2). It also inventories the different types of text in the corpus in relation to the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah (5.3). Finally, it addresses a number of atypical texts in the corpus that contain specific theory formation concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah, texts that describe remedies to master the Ruach Ra‘ah (5.4).

5.1 Knowledge Paradigms with Regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah: Revealed Knowledge versus Health Regulations It is relevant to ask the question of what knowledge paradigm is used with regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah, because this can explain how prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah must be interpreted. If the Ruach Ra‘ah is regarded as belonging to the spiritual world, this kind of information is more likely to be assigned universal significance and eternal value, comparable to God’s revealed Word, by means of rabbinic Oral Teaching. Conversely, those who consider the Ruach Ra‘ah to be part of the physical world will conceivably take a less exalted view, because it becomes possible to verify the information against empirical observation and theory formation. What was prescribed in one period can be regarded as no longer relevant in another. That the Halachah does not operate purely in a religious domain but is also shaped through dialogue with knowledge about the physical world is evident, for instance, from the rabbinic attitude regarding medicine. When deciding whether someone is in danger of death – which justifies the transgression of the law in order to save the person in question – they give scope to the doctor (‫ )רופא‬or to a person of knowledge (‫)בקי‬. The classical example comes from the bYoma treatise, where a doctor’s or an expert’s opinion – even if he is a Gentile – is used to

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-006

5.1 Knowledge Paradigms with Regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 197

decide whether someone is permitted to break the fast on the Day of Atonement.1 And although the medieval commentators disagreed about how the Talmudic discussion on the Mishnah should be interpreted – should a majority opinion ultimately prevail,2 or should both positions have the same authority, regardless of how many adherents they have3 – the Shulchan Aruch4 and later authorities decided that as soon as two doctors judge that there is danger, the opinion that there is no danger must be disregarded, even if the latter group is larger in number (the sources discuss the hypothetical case of two versus one hundred). In other words, although Halachic rulings are certainly based on internal rules and principles, opinions of a situation are formulated on the basis of (secular) knowledge and expertise. This is germane to the discussion about the Ruach Ra‘ah, because in the corpus the Ruach Ra‘ah is described in terms of danger (‫)סכנה‬. It might therefore seem logical to involve secular knowledge in respect of the Ruach Ra‘ah as well, and if modern scientific opinion and/or experience show that the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer an explanatory model for certain pathologies, to abandon it as such. This could give rise to the question of why the Ruach Ra‘ah is still present in the modern responsa, given that nothing we know about the physical world appears to indicate that the Ruach Ra‘ah actually forms a known danger to us. Some rabbis did indeed conclude in certain cases that the Ruach Ra‘ah was no longer relevant to their time. Chapter 6 will address this subject at greater length.

1 bYoma 8:5 (Soncino): “[If] a pregnant woman has [smelled] food, she will have food until her soul returns again [=has become calm again]. A sick person will be given food on the authority of an expert [‫]בקיאין‬. And if there are no experts present, then he will be given food on the basis of what he says himself, until he says ‘enough’. The commentary of the Talmud (bYoma 83a) appears to interpret expert (‫ )בקי‬explicitly as medical doctor, as the following discussion shows: ‘A sick person will be given food on the authority of an expert’ – R. Yannai says: ‘If the sick person says: “I need [food]’, while the doctor says: “He does not need it”, then we will listen to the sick person’. What is the reason? ‘The heart knows its own grief’ [Pr. 14:10]. But surely this is logical? One might think: ‘The doctor’s knowledge is more reliable’, this is why there is this teaching [that the sick person’s own judgement should prevail]. If the doctor says: ‘He needs [food]’, but the sick person says: ‘I do not need it’ – then we listen to the doctor. What is the reason? [It is to be feared that] he has been affected by insanity.” 2 Rashi, Rambam et al. 3 Ran, Rosh et al. According to opinion 1) if two doctors say that the person must eat and a 100 say no, then the opinion of the 100 is adopted. According to opinion 2) it is immaterial how many doctors there are in each camp, and the situation is approached as if the votes were split 50-50, a pure doubt in mathematical terms. As the sick person’s life is in danger in this case, the decision must always favor the opinion that states that there is danger. 4 OH 618:4.

198 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

5.1.1 The Talmudic Knowledge Paradigm: Forms of Treatment, Diet, and Human and Animal Anatomy The Talmud often contains medical advice on the treatment of all kinds of disease, body care and nutrition. In the Talmudic Geonim, the status of Talmudic remedies was already a matter for discussion. Should these still be applied in the Middle Ages, or were medieval remedies better than the Talmud’s? The Geonim avoided making any definitive ruling on this but they did state that the Talmudic therapies should no longer be practiced: And know that we practice remedies not like the remedies that previous generations used. And there are a number of things that previous generations knew in relation to certain nutrients that are no longer known today. And today we should not trust in these remedies [from the Talmud], because we do not know anymore how to use them to cure people.5

In the Geonim’s view, there is nothing wrong with the Talmudic remedies per se – the problem is that we are no longer able to interpret this illustrious knowledge, with inevitable negative consequences if we were nonetheless to try to apply these remedies. Despite the great reverence in which the Talmud was held, in practice it was sidelined in this respect. Another example of how discrepancies between Talmudic knowledge and new knowledge paradigms could be solved is the concept of changed nature (called ‫ נשתנו הטבעים‬in some texts). In using this notion, the Tosafists went one step further than the Geonim. A gloss on bMoed Katan 11a also states that the Talmudic remedies should no longer be used. But, by contrast with the Geonim’s responsum, this is not due to any lack of knowledge among contemporary people, but to the fact that the remedies themselves are no longer satisfactory: “. . . like the remedies from the Talmud, which are no longer good in / for this time.”6 Josef Karo (sixteenth century) – the author of the Shulchan Aruch – mentioned a similar opinion in the Kesef Mishnah, his commentary on the codex of Maimonides. In the fourth chapter of Hilchot De‘ot – laws concerning behavior – Maimonides (himself a doctor) gave medical advice that in some cases diverged from that of the Talmud, for instance in the case of bloodletting.7 Another commentator, the

5 Teshuvot HaGeonim (Harkavi), no. 394: ‫ ויש כמה דברים שהיו הראשונים יודעים שיש‬.‫"דע כי לא כענין רפואות שהיו הראשונים עושין רפואות שלעכשו‬ ".‫ ואין לסמוך עכשו על אותן רפואות לפי שאין אנו יודעין היאך רפואה בהן‬.‫במאכל זה שאין יודעין אותו עכשיו‬ 6 ".‫ “כמו הרפואות שבש״ס שאינן טובות בזמן הזה‬:‫תוספות מסכת מועד קטן דף יא עמוד א‬ 7 H. De‘ot, Ch. 4:18.

5.1 Knowledge Paradigms with Regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 199

Hagahot Maimoni, therefore remarked8 that Maimonides diverged from the Talmud with regard to bloodletting. Karo does not think it is an argument against Maimonides that his medical advice differs from the Talmud’s: And on the basis of these words [from the Talmud], our teacher cannot be questioned, because the remedies and customs of the land of Babylon where the Wise Men of the Talmud lived, deviate [‫ ]משונה‬from other lands.9

According to this approach, Talmudic knowledge concerning medication and remedies was connected with the reality of Babylon and had no universal value even at the time. It is doubtful whether this was really Maimonides’ view. He possibly had a more radical knowledge paradigm of growing insight, in which the Talmud’s medical knowledge – itself based on Greco-Roman medical knowledge – was no longer relevant. In later rabbinic literature, the concept of “changing nature” can be found primarily in relation to dietary advice and medical knowledge of the human body and the animal world that is relevant in ritual contexts: the laws of circumcision, kashrut, meals, ritual slaughter, matrimonial law – menstruation, and childbirth.10 The use of the concept of “changed nature” is relevant in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah in the context of the current study. A literal reference to this concept can be found in a commentary by the Magen Avraham (seventeenth century) on the Shulchan Aruch, which in passing also addresses the Ruach Ra‘ah. It is a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch that prescribes – on the basis of earlier medieval sources – that one must wash one’s hands between eating meat and fish, a rule that can supposedly be deduced from the Talmud,11 because this exposes persons to the risk of “another issue”. This “other issue” is a euphemism for leprosy (‫)צרעת‬. It is necessary to be very careful of this, because “a danger counts for more than a (ritual) prohibition”. The Magen Avraham then writes: And it is possible that there is no longer any great danger of this in our time. We see that various things mentioned in the Talmud that are supposedly dangerous on account of the

8 This was apparently Karo’s interpretation. In our text, he only refers to the passage on bloodletting in the Talmud, without the words “and not like our teacher, the author”. 9 Kesef Mishneh, H. Deot, Ch 438: ".‫"אין מדברים אלו קושיא על דברי רבינו שרפואת והנהגת מלכות בבל שבה היו חכמי הגמרא משונה משאר ארצות‬ 10 For an overview see for instance N. Guttel, Hishtanut haTevi’im beHalachah (Jerusalem: Yachdav, 1995). 11 bPesahim 76b.

200 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

Ruach Ra‘ah and other issues, [that these] are no longer harmful today. Because the natures have changed. And also, everything is according to the locality / nature of the land.12

The Magen Avraham essentially says two things: nature has changed, reality now is different, and medical knowledge always depends on where one is (Karo’s argument). This last source is particularly relevant, because it explicitly mentions and qualifies the Ruach Ra‘ah. This source is by no means the only one to do this; there are several medieval rabbinic texts that question and qualify the presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, as chapter 6 will show.

5.1.2 Talmudic Law as Revealed Knowledge An alternative approach regards certain Talmudic rules handed down by the rabbis as revealed knowledge, which cannot be invalidated on the basis of empirical observation. A classic example in rabbinic literature can be found in a responsum by the Rashba (Spain, seventeenth century). It addresses the subject of the defects that make animals unsuited for slaughter (‫)טריפה‬. There is a difference of opinion in Talmud Chullin 42a about these defects, about whether they are lethal or not. What to do if you observe that an animal with a defect mentioned in the Talmud does not die? Several medieval Talmudic scholars harmonized the dispute and contended that both opinions agree that the animal will be dead within 12 months. Others argued that the Talmudic rule is based on the majority of the cases, but that there are observable exceptions, which do not, however, change the law. But the Rashba says in a responsum (V. 1, no. 98) that it is absolutely forbidden to judge more mildly on the basis of the observation that an animal is viable, and he uses the argument of revelation for this. In this case, the rabbis of the Talmud have revealed knowledge handed down by Moses and the prophets. This means that observation must yield to revealed knowledge in this case, rendering observation false by definition.13

12 Magen Avraham, OH 173, subpar. 1: ‫"ואפשר דבזמן הזה אין סכנה כ”כ דחזינן כמה דברים המוזכרים בגמ’ שהם סכנה לרוח רעה ושאר דברים והאידנא‬ ".‫הכל לפי טבע הארצות‬ 13 See for an extensive treatment of this issue E. Westreich, “Refu’a uMada’eh haTeva bePesikat Batei haDin haRabbani’im”, Mishpatim 26 (1996): 425–492, esp. 433–436.

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 201

A number of later rabbis extended this approach to other cases.14 It is critical of the “changed nature” argument,15 as will be demonstrated in Chapter 6. Its influence can also be seen in those responsa in the corpus that state that it is necessary to be cautious in adding rules concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah in new situations, precisely because these are not based on logical, human knowledge, but on revealed knowledge.16 As was explained in Chapter 4 in relation to the paradigmatic text from the Yabbia Omer on the status of toilets and bathrooms: . . . one may only state that which the Scholars said in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, and one must not compare one thing with the other, in this kind of spiritual cases. [‫בעיניינים רוחניים‬, perhaps better translated as metaphysical] So let us not add to this.17

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah A study of the responsa on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus reveals that they make little or no attempt at independent theory formation concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. This is a feature of the genre, which has a strongly casuistic approach. But many responsa simply ignore the question of the precise character of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and regard the Ruach Ra‘ah as a Halachic category, handed down by the tradition of Halachic sources – the text-oriented approach discussed in Chapter 4. The information that is present in the system and is selected and assessed determines how the Ruach Ra‘ah should be handled in practice. This kind of responsum is not a very useful source for the question addressed in this chapter. Nor are the responsa written from a subject-oriented perspective – according to them the Ruach Ra‘ah can be controlled by humans, so that they generally do not

14 See for instance a responsum by the Maharam Shik, YD, no. 244 on oral suction at circumcision (‫(מציצה‬. 15 See for an extensive treatment of this issue E. Westreich, ibid., 425–492. See also the responsum Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 25, chapter 4 on the criterion of life and death: is this respiration and cardiac activity as the old rabbinic texts write, or brain activity as modern medicine has it? The context is a heart transplant from a person who is brain dead to a person who needs a donor heart. The Tzitz Eliezer refers to a well-known fragment from a responsum by the Rivash (no. 447), which states that the Halachah is not determined by scientific knowledge, but by the revealed Oral Teaching which goes back to Moses. 16 See also for instance Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31; Yabbia Omer, V, 8 OH no. 51. 17 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: ‫ והבו דלא‬.‫ ולא לדמות מילתא למילתא בענינים רוחניים אלו‬,‫"הא אין לנו לומר אלא מה שאמרו חכמים משום רו״ר‬ ".‫להוסיף עלה‬

202 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

stress the danger and effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Our interest is mainly in those responsa from the corpus that do theorize about the Ruach Ra‘ah. However, even responsa that do make statements about the character of the Ruach Ra‘ah rarely reveal much about the individual author’s own opinion. The author quotes another source from tradition that presents an opinion on the nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah, an opinion which he subsequently adopts or reinterprets. There is little in the line of theory formation concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus itself. Often what is presented is an eclectic collection of pronouncements on the Ruach Ra‘ah, some of which address the nature and character of the Ruach Ra‘ah, others its effects on and consequences for humans and physical objects – particularly food and drink. The following is an example from the She‘eilat Shlomoh’s responsa. It has little to say about the cause and effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah and is typical of many others in the corpus.18 It addresses the question whether it is necessary to wash one’s hands one time or three times after touching one’s shoes: Reply: there are cases where it is necessary to wash the hands one time, and there are cases where washing thrice is necessary [reference to the Mishnah Berurah]. But washing hands after touching one’s shoes is on account of hygiene [reference to the Mishnah Berurah] and not of Ruach Ra‘ah. This is why [washing] once suffices and there is no need for an object [to wash the hands with]. Nor is it necessary to [wash the hand] from the wrist, only so that it becomes clean.19

Examination of the more specific statements on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the responsa of the corpus shows that it is possible to distinguish between: 1. The exact nature / origin of the Ruach Ra‘ah 2. Effects and consequences of the Ruach Ra‘ah

18 Other examples are for instance the responsa in the corpus by the Minchat Yitzchak which contain no tangible information about the theory or mechanism that causes the Ruach Ra‘ah and what its effects are – Minchat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 68, subsection 13; V. 3, no. 63; V. 4, no. 36, 114; V. 5, no .96; V. 6, no.75; V. 9, no. 28, 74. In V. 6, no. 74 and V. 10, no. 68, close reading can uncover the existence of implicit and weak suggestions concerning spiritual causes of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Similarly, the responsa by She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 4 and V. 2, no. 2 contain no tangible information about the nature and cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah. This is also true of the Igrot Moshe’s two responsa, Igrot Moshe YD V. 3, no. 20 and YD V. 2, no. 97, and of Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 11; Chelkat Yaakov YD, no. 39; ibid., EH, no. 88; Divrei Chachamim OH, no. 65; Shevet Halevi, V. 3, no. 169; ibid., V. 8, no. 168; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 8, 9; ibid., V. 12, no. 21, 22. 19 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 10: ‫ ויש דברים שמצריכים שלוש פעמים (מ״ב סי’ ד ס״ק לט) אמנם נטילת‬,‫"יש דברים שמצרכים נטילה פעם אחת‬ ‫ על כן די בפעם‬,‫ ) ולא משום רוח רעה‬. . . ‫ידיים אחרי נגיעה בנעליים היא משום נקיות (כהכרעת המשנה ברורה‬ ".‫ רק שיהיה נקי‬,‫ ואין צורך שיהיה מפרק היד‬,‫אחת ואין צורך בכלי‬

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 203

The many different texts quoted and their interpretations in fact all advance one dominant theory on the origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah, a theory influenced inter alia by the medieval Kabbalah: the Ruach Ra‘ah emerges as the residual product of something holy, as the residue of holiness that has disappeared, has become separated.20 This theory appears in various guises in the responsa of the corpus in explanation of the Ruach Ra‘ah in her concrete manifestations in the physical world of humans. As has been seen, this often happens on the basis of older texts that are either partially or fully quoted or paraphrased. The following sections will discuss the various manifestations of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the responsa of the corpus, which serve to explain the origins and nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah.

5.2.1 Manifestation I: Impure Spirit The Ruach Ra‘ah is an Impure Spirit which rests on the hands of humans after they wake up, because during sleep, the soul – divine and holy in nature – leaves the body. The resulting “vacuum” is filled by the Impure Spirit. After waking up, the soul returns and the Impure Spirit departs, except from the fingers. Thus the Ruach Ra‘ah forms part of the powers of the Other Side (Sitra achra) or the Impure Side which take possession of humans when body and soul are separated from each other.21 The most important source for this is the Zohar, especially the passage which explicitly deals with the ritual of the washing of hands,22 and which is quoted or referred to by the Yabbia Omer, the Yitzchak Yeranen, and the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot among others.23

20 See also Scholem, Kabbalah, 123: “During the process of differentiation of these forces . . . evil became substantified as a separate manifestation . . . made possible by the substantification and separation of the quality of judgment from its customary union with the quality of loving kindness. Pure judgment, untempered by any mitigating admixture, produced from within itself the sitra achra . . . the domain of dark emanation and demonic powers, is henceforth no longer an organic part of the World of Holiness and the Sefirot . . . According to . . . the Zohar . . . there exists a complete hierarchy of the ‘emanation of the left’ . . . the power of uncleanliness that is active in creation.” 21 E.g. Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31, subsection 15; Yabbia Omer, V. 4, OH no. 1, subsection 4; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144, subsection 6. 22 Zohar, Introduction 10b. 23 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., 4 OH, no. 2; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1, 3, 10, 12; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1.

204 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

Sleep as cause for the Ruach Ra‘ah to rest on humans is also the reason that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on food and drink kept under a bed, according inter alia to a text of the Torat Chaim24 which is often cited in the corpus.25 As he sleeps, the human “roofs” the food and drink and makes them unclean, because he himself is unclean during sleep (V. 4 OH, no. 5). This uncleanness is a certain degree of “uncleanness through death”, because sleep is a very light form of death, described in the Talmud as one sixtieth of death, and in a Zohar passage as the “taste of death” (‫ )טעמא דמותא‬26. A discussion about this text from the Torat Chaim can be found in the paradigmatic responsum of the Yabbia Omer (V. 4 OH, no. 5) discussed earlier, about the question concerning the consumption of food and drink that have been brought into a toilet. The Yabbia Omer rejects the analogy that some make27 between transmission through the principle of “roofing” of the uncleanness of the sleeping human to the food and drink under the bed, and that of the Ruach Ra‘ah present in the toilet to any food and drink brought into this space.28 Remarkably, this notion of the Ruach Ra‘ah as caused by an Impure Spirit which rests on humans during sleep leads in some responsa in the corpus to the suggestion that the “Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning” therefore does not rest on a number of categories of persons, or only in reduced form. The categories in question are violators of essential laws of Judaism (‫ )מומר‬and public breakers of the Shabbat,29 the uneducated (the Am Ha’aretz), though it is stipulated that the Talmudic definition of the Am Ha’aretz is intended here, and not the simple 24 bShavu’ot 16b and bBaba Batra 58b. 25 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 19, no. 56; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9, 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH, no. 10. 26 For instance Zohar Bereshit 53b, 169b, and 184b, quoted in two responsa by the Yabbia Omer V. 5 OH, no. 2; ibid. V. 8 OH, no. 2. 27 See Chaim Palagi, Lev Chaim (1823), V. 1 no. 66. 28 The Yabbia Omer rejects this analogy by referring that a dead person himself does not make food placed on his or her body impure: ‫ וכ״ה‬.‫ וכדאמרינן בשבת ככר או תינוק וטלטלנו‬,‫ דאמאי ככר הנוגע במת עצמו לא נאסר משום רו״ר‬,‫"טעמא בעי‬ ".‫ היה חוזר להיות מוקצה בעצמו‬,‫) ועוד בכ״מ ואילו היה הככר נאסר משום רו״ר‬:‫שם (מג‬ He continues by saying that “. . .we should not say more than that which the Scholars said in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, and must not compare one thing with the other, in this kind of spiritual case [‫]בעיניינים רוחניים אלו‬. So let us not add to this”: ‫ ולא לדמות מילתא למילתא בענינים רוחניים אלו והבו דלא‬,‫"הא אין לנו לומר אלא מה שאמרו חכמים משום רו״ר‬ .". . . ‫להוסיף עלה‬ 29 Ibid., V. 1 JD, no. 10, subpar 4, 7, and 10 (subpar. 4): ’‫ והובא בב״י ובהגה (סי‬,’‫ וכמ״ש הרשב״א בתשו‬,‫"והנה אם כי אפי’ מומר ומחלל ש״ק בפרהסיא מטמאים באהל‬ .". . . ‫ כטומאת אהל דאורייתא‬,‫ מ״מ אין כח הרו״ר‬.)‫שעב‬ Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3:

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 205

person who has a pure faith,30 young children,31 and non-Jews.32 The assumption appears to be that these persons by definition have a lower degree of holiness33 and are as yet unable to attain a higher level. The process of the soul’s entering and leaving therefore does not cause any uncleanness – or diminished uncleanness – in these persons. Conversely, some responsa from the corpus contain the idea that the Ruach Ra‘ah is more likely to rest on the Talmid Chacham (the learned). This notion already appears in the Talmud in relation to the demons who search out the learned man and attempt to harm him.34 And the implication appears to be that it is he in particular who must be especially careful in meticulously performing the religious prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah.35

5.2.2 Manifestation II: Night In parallel, the corpus also contains the notion that the Ruach Ra‘ah belongs to the night. It is the night that causes the Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands of a sleeping person. In this view, according to some, the Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on the hands of a person who is awake at night – it is the night itself that causes the Ruach Ra‘ah36 – and the

‫ אולי נוכל לצרף לסניף להתיר שבמחללי שבת בפרהסיא שהם כעכו״ם גם לענין רוח רעה לא שורה בהם‬. . . " ‫ שאינו שורה הר״ר אלא במקום קדושה והיינו נשמה‬,‫וכשישנים לא נטמאים ודינם כמו בעכו״ם שישן ואין אצלו רו״ר‬ ‫ ומיהו‬,‫ הרוח רעה לא אלים ולא שורה בהם כמו בישראל לטמא‬,‫ ומחללי שבת אף שמטמאין בטומאת מת‬,‫קדושה‬ .". . . ‫ד״ז חידוש וצ״ע טובא‬ 30 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10, subsection 4; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 51; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2, YD, no. 144. 31 Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 1; ibid., YD, no. 33; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 5; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1. 32 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 1; Teshuvot veHanhagot, V. 1, no. 9. 33 A child is not yet obliged to carry out the commandments and therefore has a lower spiritual status. 34 See for instance the passage quoted above from bBerachot 6a on the wear of the Scholar’s clothes. 35 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31 (a slightly different variant – neglecting an instruction of danger is possibly more harmful for a Talmid Chacham than for an ordinary person); Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1. 36 Originally this theory can already be found in the Shulchan Aruch OH, 4:13 on the basis of his earlier commentary Beth Josef on the Tur. In Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4 the author takes this opinion into account even though he opposes the opinion of certain kabbalists and of the Zohar.

206 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

darkness can be seen as the residue of daylight. Although it is not made explicit, this theory also explains why the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on peeled egg, onion, and garlic that have been kept overnight. There is, furthermore, discussion in the responsa of the corpus whether or not sleeping during the day causes the Ruach Ra‘ah.37 The night as the cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found in the responsum of the Rivavot Ephraim,38 one of the paradigmatic texts discussed in the previous chapter (the object-oriented approach). This responsum addresses the question about a woman who rises at night to breastfeed her child. Should she first wash her hands even though she is not going to touch the food – the breast milk? After the Rivavot Ephraim has first solved this himself on the basis of logic and analogy – sewara39 – he then mentions a second answer from a fellow rabbi, which points to the night as the cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah.40 The author supports this theory, because he writes subsequently – having also quoted another reply from a fellow rabbi: On the basis of this I have once again told them [= the women whom the author teaches] that the Halachah is that they must wash their hands every time [they breastfeed their baby].41

A number of variants of this theme that can be found in the responsa of the corpus are: 1. The end of the night (again) causes a form of Ruach Ra‘ah because the negative powers disappear at dawn and the “watches” in heaven are changed (‫)משמרות‬.42 2. The middle of the night is the crucial point to determine whether the Ruach Ra‘ah does or does not rest on a sleeping person. He who sleeps before midnight and rises at midnight – there is no Ruach Ra‘ah on him. In any case it is only a weaker form of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on a person who was not asleep at midnight – even if he then goes to sleep until the morning.43

37 Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 33; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 5; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 9, 10; ibid., V. 1 (YD), no. 3; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 11. 38 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252. 39 " . . . ‫ והשבתי דצריכה ומן הסברא אמרתי כך‬. . .". 40 ‫"הנה מלשון הדרכי משה אור״ת סימן ו׳ אות ד׳ כתב בשם האבדרהם וגם בשם אור״ח דאף אם נטל בלילה הרוח‬ ."‫ משמע שיש רוה רעה גם באמצע הלילה‬,‫רעה חוזר ושורה על הידים בסוף הלילה‬ 41 ".‫"ההלכה דצריכה כל פעם ליטול נטילת ידים ולפי״ז אמרתי להן שוב‬ 42 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4. 43 For instance Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1 no. 1; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4.

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 207

Because the Ruach Ra‘ah is connected in this theory from the corpus with sleeping and the night, it is understandable that some authors44 have also argued that the Ruach Ra‘ah belongs to the world of the demons and is similar or related to this (on the basis for instance of older medieval Talmud commentators). In the Talmud already, the night particularly is the setting for the activities of the demons, and the sleeping human is their victim of choice.45 With the authors in the corpus, however, this identification takes place entirely on the basis of the textual approach: the Ruach Ra‘ah is synonymous with demons, because certain Talmud commentaries from the Middle Ages say so. This connection between demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah has been observed already in the paradigmatic texts of the Yabbia Omer46 – a clear representative of the text-oriented approach – where he equates demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah with each other.47 However, in this case the equation of the Ruach Ra‘ah with the demons leads to a milder judgement in practice: in this text the Yabbia Omer concludes that because demons do not have power over things that have been “closed off and sealed”, food under the bed that has been “closed off and sealed” and food and drink that have been brought into a toilet but were “closed off and sealed” do not pose a problem and may be consumed. In this case, the introduction of an archaic element, i.e. demons, in the Halachic discussion leads to a milder outcome. At the same time, however, the introduction of demons in the Halachic discourse reactivates older strata of rabbinic texts, which stimulates and legitimates the (re)introduction of these elements in contemporary rabbinic discourse.

5.2.3 Manifestation III: Nails (Finger and Toenails) This manifestation of the Ruach Ra‘ah is caused by cutting nails – both fingernails and toenails – and touching of the feet themselves, the extremities of the body.48 The residual idea described above is also clearly visible here: the nails 44 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5; Ateret Paz, Vol. 1, vol. B, YD no. 2; Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 1, no. 8. 45 E.g. bBerachot 5a and bSotah21a. 46 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 5, esp. subsection 6, 7. 47 ‫ פי’ להבריח רוח‬,‫ וכדאשכחן בפרש״י ר״ה (כח סע״א) התוקע לשד לא יצא‬,‫"ושדים ורוח רעה חדא מילתא נינהו‬ .)‫ שרוח רעה שורה תחתיהם‬,‫ (פרש״י ורשב״ם‬.‫) ה’ טולי הוו‬:‫ ובפסחים (קיא‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫רעה מעליו” וכ״ה במאירי שם‬ ‫ ובחגיגה (ג סע״ב) הלן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ ושם דבי זרדתא שדים שמם‬,’‫טולא דזרדתא וכו‬ ,‫) ודורש אל המתים‬:‫ וכן בסנהדרין (סה‬.‫ רוח שדים שיסייעוהו להיות מכשף‬,‫ ופרש״י רוח טומאה‬.‫טומאה הוא דקעביד‬ ‫ דהיינו שד של בית הקברות שיהא‬,‫ ופרש״י‬.‫זה המרעיב עצמו והולך ולן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה‬ ".‫אוהבו ומסייעו בכשפיו‬ 48 The connection between the uncleanness of the hands and the feet and the nails attached to them is explicitly made in the Ben Ish Chai, Parashat Toledot (year I, subsection 1), and is linked

208 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

were initially part of the body and were separated from it by being cut. In the Shulchan Aruch49 the washing after cutting nails and hair or touching the feet is included in a longer list of activities and situations that are related to the body and its functions, and which necessitate a washing: going to the toilet, sexual contact, a bloodletting, and touching a dead person. This same residual idea can be seen as the cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah in all of these situations mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch as causes for the washing of hands, and which are connected with the Ruach Ra‘ah in the responsa of the corpus.50 But not all responsa contend that all of these situations generate the Ruach Ra‘ah, and some give other reasons for the washing, such as hygiene or cleanness (‫)נקיון‬. This theory can also be found in the Betsel Hachochmah’s responsum described above – a paradigmatic, text-oriented approach in the category of responsa on the body and the Ruach Ra‘ah.51 The responsum addresses the question of whether the hands must be washed after touching the feet, even if the latter had already been washed and are therefore – from the perspective of hygiene – clean. The author summarizes his conclusion as follows: But, for us – even if one touches feet that have been washed, he must wash [his hands] on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the feet.52

there with the idea that the hands and the feet – and the nails themselves – are the extremities of the body, and are therefore impure. The idea of extremity is a variant of the idea of separation: they are the furthest away from the source of holiness – the soul in the head: ‫ ובאדם מתפשטין חמשה גבורות‬,‫"והטעם שהנטילה היא רק על הידים מפני כי הידים והרגלים הם סוף וסיום הגוף‬ ,‫ וזהו בין בידים בין ברגלים‬,‫ וכנגדן הם חמש אצבעות בימין וחמש בשמאל‬,‫מנצפ״ך שהם אותיות כפולות חמש וחמש‬ ‫ כי אין להם כח לינק מן הקדושה מלמעלה אלא‬,‫וידוע כי אין אחיזה לחיצונים אלא בסיומי הגבורות והדינין ובקצותיהן‬ ‫ ויש יכולת לחיצונים להתאחז‬,‫ ולכן בלילה בעת שינה שורה רוח רעה על הידים ששם הוא סיום‬,‫רק בסיום שלה למטה‬ ‫ וע״י מתמתקים ה״ג מנצפ״ך הכפולות שהם‬,‫ ולכן צריך שיטול ידיו במים שהם בחינת החסד הכולל חמשה חסדים‬,‫שם‬ ,‫בחמש אצבעות ימין וחמש אצבעות שמאל ואז הקליפות שהיו נאחזים שם המה נדחים ומסתלקים משם ע״י החסדים‬ ‫ ודע כי לולא הצפורנים שהושמו בראשי האצבעות היו הידים טמאות אפילו ביום‬,‫כי לעולם החסד דוחה את הקליפות‬ ‫ ואם‬:‫ואפילו בלא שינה אך עתה ע״י הצפרנים אין רוח רעה שורה אלא בלילה בעת שינה או בכל עת שנכנס לבה״כ‬ ‫ על זה תירץ הרב יפה שעה ז״ל דברגלים נאחזים יותר‬,‫תאמר א״כ למה אין עושין נטילה לרגלים כיון דחד טעמא להם‬ ‫ ורק הכהני’ בזכות המקדש והעבודה היה להם כח‬,‫מן הידים ולכן לתוקף אחיזתם אין לנו כח לדחותם משם בנטיל״י‬ ‫ ובזה תבין טעם חיוב רחיצת‬,‫לדחות’ גם מן הרגלי’ ולכך כתיב בהו ורחצו אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם‬ ".‫ כי זכות שבת יכולה היא שתגין עכ״ד‬,‫ערב שבת פניו ידיו ורגליו‬ 49 OH 4:1–19. 50 In addition to the cutting of nails, the corpus mentions particularly touching shoes (dirt / filth) or feet, touching sweaty places on the body (sweat as waste product), cutting hair, and performing the sexual act (secretion / discharge, and the idea of holiness which is usually not materialized and realized in fertilisation). 51 Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29. 52 ."‫ צריך נטילה משום רו״ר השורה על הרגלים‬,‫ אבל לדידן גם בנגע ברגליו כשהן רחוצות‬. . ."

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 209

Although the author does not mention explicitly according to what mechanism the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on washed feet, he does refer to other texts – influenced by mysticism – that explain this in greater detail. Just as it rests on the hands, the Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on the feet. At the time of the temple, the uncleanness that rests on the feet was removed by the priests in the Temple – the center and location of holiness – by a washing, which made the feet clean. After the destruction of the Temple, this possibility no longer exists, and therefore the Ruach Ra‘ah rests permanently on the feet. And this is the reason why today one does wash one’s hands, but not one’s feet. By contrast with the hands, the impurity of the toenails cannot be rinsed off through a ritual washing, not even if it is performed three times – as can be found in several responsa in the corpus.53 Only in the Temple was it possible to wash away this high degree of impurity, because of the holiness of that place. In the world without the Temple this cannot be done, and the Ruach Ra‘ah always rests on the feet, as the Betsel Hachochmah says in the conclusion of this responsum: Therefore [on the basis of older sources to which the author refers] it must be said that in the Temple, where the Ruach Ra‘ah does not [apply], and particularly if he [=the priest] has sanctified [=washed] his feet in the correct manner, that the Ruach Ra‘ah has left them. And therefore, when his [=the priest’s in the Temple] feet were washed and clean, it was not necessary to wash [the hands] when one touches them . . . But for us [who live without the Temple and are not priests], even if one touches feet that are clean and washed, it is necessary to wash [the hands] on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the feet.54

53 See for instance Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 7 in the name of R. Yosef Chaim: ‫ שברגלים נאחזת הרו״ר יותר מן הידים ואין בנו כח‬.‫ הובא בשו״ת רב פעלים ח״ב (חאו״ח סי ד) ד״ה ואם‬. . ." ".‫ ורק הכהנים בבית המקדש הי״ל כח לדחות את הרו״ר ע״י קידוש ידים ורגלים‬,‫לדחותה‬ Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 1 gives a long excursus on the uncleanness of feet, shoes, and socks. In this responsum, he mentions many sources that were inspired by the Kabbalah, but he concludes by choosing the halachic approach. This connects the washing of hands with hygiene and dirt, and not with a spiritualized Ruach Ra‘ah which always rests on the feet – clean or otherwise; washed or unwashed. He who touches his feet after they have been washed therefore is under no obligation to wash his hands. For a reinterpretation of this responsum by Yosef himself, in the sense that it is necessary to wash one’s hands after touching washed feet, see Yalkut Yosef (Jerusalem, 1985), 17 and the Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1 no. 4 which already points to a shift in the index to this responsum where the revised opinion is given. 54 ‫ ולכן כשהיו רגליו רחוצות‬,‫ ובפרט כשקידש רגליו כדין שנסתלק ממנו הרו״ר‬,‫"על כן י״ל דבמקדש דלא שייך רו״ר‬ ‫ צריך נטילה משום רו״ר השורה‬,‫ אבל לדידן גם בנגע ברגליו כשהן רחוצות‬. . . ‫ונקיות אין להצריך נטילה להנוגע בהן‬ ".‫על הרגלים‬

210 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

It is also clear that the author is guided here primarily by mystical ideas that he has found elsewhere,55 and that he does not indicate himself what the precise mechanism is through which the Ruach Ra‘ah remains attached to clean feet – even though the Zohar Vayakel 208b states explicitly56 that the Other Side – with which the Ruach Ra‘ah is associated – rests around the nails of hands and feet. In the conclusion of his responsum, however, the author has chosen these mystical texts, and he argues that it is necessary to adopt a stricter point of view: he who touches his washed foot must wash hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. A responsum by the Yitzchak Yeranen57 provides more insight into the mechanism that causes the cutting of nails and the touching of feet to be a source of the Ruach Ra‘ah. The author deals at length in this responsum with the uncleanness that results from the cutting of nails on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, which can also explain why the feet are unclean: the impurity is primarily attached to the toenails (although the same is true for the impurity of the hands after sleeping). This author is the most pronounced in using Kabbalistic texts in his responsa and he is at pains to establish a synthesis between exoteric Halachic sources and mystical sources. In sum, this text of the Yitzchak Yeranen says the following, on the basis of sources such as the Zohar,58 Vital (Sha’ar haKavanot), the Chida (Azulai), the Ben Ish Chai (Yosef Chaim, Baghdad 1834–1909), and the anonymous Chemdat Yamim59: because the nails originally contain holy material that covered

55 The author quotes the Yafeh Lalev, V. 2, Kuntres Acharon OH 4:4: “. . .But after the destruction [of the Temple] we no longer have the power to wash the impurities [ ‫ ] זוהמה‬off our feet. But when the Temple was still standing, we had the [spiritual] power and the possibilities to separate the uncleanness that attaches to the feet. And this is the reason that the Torah commands the priests to wash their hands and feet. . .”. He also points to the Atzei Hayar §4, subsection 67: “. . .According to the kabbalists Z’L the Ruach Ra‘ah on the feet is very strong, and it cannot be got rid of – and therefore, even if they [the feet] are clean he who touches them must still wash his hands”: ‫"לדברי המקובלים ז״ל דהרו״ר שברגלים היא קשה עד מאד ולא תזוז ממקומה ולכך אפילו מנוקים נוגע בהם צריך‬ ".‫נט״י‬ 56 ‫"כיון דחב ואתעדו מניה אינון לבושין (ס״א ואתלבש בלבושין דחול ממלין כו’) דחיל ממלין בישין ורוחין בישין‬ ‫ואסתלקו מניה אינון משריין קדישין ולא אשתארו ביה אלא אינון ראשי טופרי דאצבעאן דסחרין לון לטופרין סחרנו‬ ".‫דזוהמא אחרא‬ 57 V. 4. no. 24. 58 Vayakhel 208b. 59 This book is ascribed by some to the philosophy of Sabbatians (followers of the pseudo Mashiah Shabtai Zvi, second half of seventeenth century). See for instance M. Fogel, “The Sabbatian Character of Hemdat Yamim: A Re-examination” [Hebrew], in The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, V. 17, ed. R. Elior (Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 2001), 377–394. On the popularity of Chemdat Yamim, see also M. Halamish, haKabbalah, 186ff. Ovadyah Yosef frequently uses the Chemdat

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 211

Adam over his entire body before his sin, after the sin, it remained only on the fingers (and toes) – the residual idea. The nails themselves thus are of a sacred nature, and they are therefore points of attachment for the negative forces of the Other Side: the part of the nail that protrudes beyond the flesh of the finger. Remarkably, the author also assigns holiness to the activity of the cutting of the nails itself,60 so that he prohibits doing this in the toilet. Nor is it allowed to throw the cuttings into the toilet, because this is not a respectful way of throwing away. The cuttings must be wrapped into a piece of paper or put into a plastic bag and then thrown into a waste bin. The author contends that even that part of the nail that is unclean because it protrudes beyond the flesh of the finger must be treated respectfully. This is because in practice, when cutting nails, a bit of nail from the side of the flesh is always cut off too, and this – as has been said – possesses holiness. It is clear that this author is reasoning from his object approach, in which the theory corresponds directly with the physical reality. This is why it can be established precisely which part of the nail is holy, and which is a point of attachment for impure forces. Furthermore, the author refers to the mystical work Chemdat Yamim, which contends that it is possible to “observe all kinds of things on the nails” after taking a ritual bath (Mikvah), from Friday afternoon to the end of Shabbat (on Saturday evening).61 The Kabbalistic explanation of the impurity of the nails that protrude beyond the flesh, and the lights that emit from the nails, also play a modest role in a responsum by the Tzitz Eliezer.62 Here, too, the theme of the residue and the separation is clearly visible: the nails as remnants of Adam’s “skin of light” (‫ –כותנות אור‬literally: garments of light) Yamim in his responsa and other works, although it was regarded in some orthodox circles as a Sabbatian text. See also O. Yosef, Chazon Ovadyah. Arba Ta’aniyot (Jerusalem: Mechon Me’or Yisrael, 2007), 11–12 where he confirms the sacred character of the book Chemdat Yamim. 60 The author quotes the Chemdat Yamim for this (1763), Ch. 3, “the cutting of nails on Friday afternoon”, 21, that “he who has clear vision, can see light emitting from each finger during the cutting of nails”, which is why this may not be done on the toilet. According to the Chemdat Yamim, these are light beings that are shaped like luminous guardian-angels, but they also “resemble the sparks that fly off cotton wool when this is combed”: ‫ והם בדמות הנצוצות‬,‫ ואם מזכי הראות הוא יראה בעת קציצת הצפרנים כמה גרדיני טהירין יוצאים מכל אצבע‬. . ." ".‫ והם בדמות אנשים לבנים‬,‫הנפרדים מהצמר כשמנפצים הצמר גפן‬ 61 Ibid.: ”. . .‫”אך בערב שבת אחר הטבילה הארתן מצד הקדושה עד מוצאי שבת ועל כן נכרים בהם דברים רבים‬ 62 V. 7, no 2. In this responsum he briefly refers to several texts by Yosef Chaim on the importance of cutting of that part of the nails that protrudes, and to the more explicitly kabbalistic Olat Tamid (there are several books with this title, including Chaim ben R Yosef Vital, Eliyahu Benamazough, and Rabbi Moshe Abilda) which also speaks of “lights that emit from underneath [the flesh] of the nails”. However, the quotation originated from the Pri Etz Chaim by Vital, Sha’ar haBerachot, Ch. 5:

212 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

are both holy and a source of uncleanness, as points of attachment for the Ruach Ra‘ah. Particularly that part of the nail that extends beyond the flesh (extremity = protrudes) and must be cut off – separated.

5.2.4 Manifestation IV: Filth and Dirt In this theory, the Ruach Ra‘ah is caused by filth. It is this cause that is identified in the responsa63 of the corpus as the reason that the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found in the bathhouse or Mikvah (warm spaces used by many people), the toilet because of the presence there of dirt / waste products, or touching of the places of the body that are usually covered on account of the perspiration that is present there. And, according to some, also under the bed, because there is dirt there.64 In relation to the toilet, reference is sometimes made in this context to a passage from the Zohar that states that “there is a spirit (Ruach) in every toilet that feeds on the dirt that is present there”.65 This impure spirit attaches itself to hands that are in the toilet – according to some because hands can also be dirty, or at least not clean, because one uses a hand or hands to clean oneself of the waste products. The mechanism of separation and residue is easily discerned here also, in the form of the excretion of waste products in excrement and the rinsing off of dirt from the human body. And physical cleaning is related to ritual cleaning and sanctification of the body – the opposite of the impure and the things that have been excreted. This passage from the Zohar can be found in two paradigmatic texts that were discussed in Chapter 4: the text-oriented one from the Yabbia Omer (4.3.6) and the object-oriented one from the Yitzchak Yeranen on the subject of toilets and bathrooms (4.3.4).The significance that these two authors afford to the Zohar passage and other mystical sources can be clearly seen in their conclusions: the Yitzchak Yeranen advocates a strict opinion that results from his object-oriented ‫ ויניקתן מאותן האורות הבוקעים‬,‫ שם הוא אחיזת הקליפות‬,‫ ואמנם העודף מצפרנים מכנגד בשר האצבע‬. . . " ‫ על כן צריך‬,‫ ולהיות כי שם אחיזת הקליפות‬.‫ ולכן צריך לחתוך אותם הצפרנים שגדלו יותר מדאי‬,‫מתחת הצפרנים‬ .". . . ‫ הכולל ה’ חסדים‬,‫ שהם בחי’ החסד‬,‫ליטול הידים במים‬ 63 Har Tzvi OH, V. 1, no. 50; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 3, no. 63; ibid., V. 4, no. 114; Betsel Hachochmah, V. 2, no. 29; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 5; ibid., V. 14, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid., V. 7 OH, no. 27; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1. 64 Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2. 65 Full or fragmentary quotations can be found in: Afarkesta deAniya, V. 1, no. 133 (other authors often refer to this responsum); Yabbia Omer, V. 8 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5; Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 49 (very fragmentary); Rivavot Ephraim, V. 8, no. 1.

5.2 Origins of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 213

approach in which the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet is seen as a reality. This is why even someone who has only entered the toilet must wash his hands, even if he has not used the toilet, and Yitzchak Yeranen judges strictly in cases where food and drink were brought into a toilet: these may not be consumed unless they can be cleansed by being rinsed thrice,66 even if this involves considerable financial loss and even if they were closed off and covered (in a bag). Nor is it permitted to wash one’s hands in a toilet in order to cleanse them of the Ruach Ra‘ah – for instance in the morning or after going to the toilet – nor before a bread meal. The Yabbia Omer assigns greater importance to the exoteric texts and arrives at a milder conclusion: a posteriori, foodstuffs that were brought into a toilet (or a bathroom with a toilet in it) are suited for consumption. If they are covered and sealed they may even be brought into a toilet a priori if there is a reason to do so. Yet the Yabbia Omer does not fully abandon the mystical paradigm. In his conclusion, he leaves scope for individuals to judge more strictly in their own case, which will call down a blessing upon them.67 In addition, he states that it is perhaps necessary to rinse the food three times before consuming it. Chapter 6 will deal more extensively with the ambiguous stance of the Yabbia Omer (and other authors), who attempt to chart a course between exoteric and esoteric sources (6.2.5).

5.2.5 Spiritualisation: From Physical Dirt to Impurities In some responsa, there appears to be a shift of the concept of dirt and filth, usually designated with ‫( זוהמה‬filth, impurity) and ‫ליכלוך‬, dirt. In most classical texts, it is used in the literal, physical sense – sweat on the body and filth, or certain places that are dirty (bathhouses and toilets). But the concept of “dirt” appears sometimes to have been spiritualized in the corpus.68 This is the case for instance in the paradigmatic responsum of the Betsel Hachochmah69 that was discussed above, on the question of whether touching washed (clean) feet is a reason to wash one’s hands. The question is answered from the context of the

66 For instance liquids and bread, and other foodstuffs that become unsuited for consumption through contact with water. 67 ."‫ ועליו תבא ברכת טוב‬. . ." 68 It is important to note that the word ‫ זוהמא‬itself is also used to denote filth (impure substance) in a spiritual sense, in addition to physical dirt, in rabbinic texts. See for instance bShabbat 145b–146a: “because when the snake came over Eve (= sexual contact), it introduced dirt [‫]זוהמא‬ into her. . .”. 69 V. 2, no. 29.

214 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

Temple: how could priests wash their hands every morning as a way of purification if they touched their feet? According to the rabbinic tradition, priests washed their hands and feet at the same time prior to the Temple service. But touching one’s feet is itself a reason to wash one’s hands. In the first reply, the author concludes that a clean foot may indeed be touched, without this causing the requirement to wash the hands – this is so because there is no dirt on them. But he then quotes Yaakov Emden’s Mor Uketzia, which contends that “dirt is attached to [feet], even if they have been washed”.70 Apparently the conclusion is now that feet are difficult to clean and dirt is still attached to them even after they have been washed. So far the author appears to be discussing physical dirt. Feet are difficult to clean, especially in a time when it was usual to go barefoot. But in the last paragraphs of the responsum there appears to be a shift – the author then mentions the opinion of Later Decisors (Poskim) that “he who touches his feet must wash his hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the feet. And therefore, even if the feet are clean, [one] must still wash [the hands].”71 Thus Emden’s statement that “dirt is attached to [feet], even if they have been washed” was first interpreted by the author in a physical sense (feet are difficult to clean, washing with water is not enough), but is later reinterpreted72 for an explanation in which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests even on a foot that is physically entirely clean. Seen in this way, the Ruach Ra‘ah has little to do anymore with the physical state of the body – a foot can be entirely clean and washed, and yet be “dirty” (unclean) because of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Another example of the spiritualization of the discourse concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found in a responsum by the Yitzchak Yeranen, an author who often prefers mystical texts. This responsum (V. 1, no. 4) also addresses the question of whether one must wash one’s hands after touching one’s washed feet: is hygiene the reason for this (on account of ‫ – זוהמה‬filth) or is it because of the Ruach Ra‘ah? The difference is evident in the different ways of washing: once (hygiene) or thrice (Ruach Ra‘ah). This is relevant in cases where the feet in question have been washed and are clean. Is there no reason to wash one’s hands at

70 ".‫"דברגלים אפילו הם רחוצים זוהמא דבקה בהן‬ 71 ." . . . ‫"דנוגע ברגליו צריך נטילה משום רוח רעה השורה על הרגלים ולכן אפילו רגליו נקיות צריך נטילה‬ 72 ".‫ – "וזה טעם נוסף להוראת הגאון בעל מור וקציעה שהזכרתי‬This interpretation seems more correct if the quotation is read in its context. Emden speaks about a ‫( רוח זוהמא‬see bShabbat 82a on someone who needs to relieve himself but does not, where ‫ רוח זוהמא‬and ‫ רוח רעה‬appear to be closely connected), a spirit of dirt – that rests on the foot. And this “spirit of dirt” attaches itself to the shoe – hence it is necessary to wash one’s hands after touching shoes. For an alternative interpretation of Emden, see also Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 4.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 215

all (because they are clean), or must they be washed once, or three times because of the Ruach Ra‘ah? The concept of ‫ – נקיות‬which can be translated as purity, hygiene – which the author uses in this responsum acquires what appears to be a double meaning, so that a washing on the basis of ‘‫ ’נקיות‬can mean both cleansing of real, visible filth and of invisible dirt (in both a physical and a spiritual sense). He who touches his shoes or unwashed feet must wash his hands once according to the author, on account of ‫נקיות‬. But he who touches his washed foot must also wash his hands once on account of ‫נקיות‬. The possibility that the Ruach Ra‘ah was initially caused by tangible dirt (people in the past walked either barefoot or on sandals) is thus pushed to the background. This is also clear from the conclusion of the responsum, where the author states that he who touches his clean feet washes his hands on account of ‫נקיות‬, but where he simultaneously links this to uncleanness: Because it is [comparable to] touching various forms of uncleanness that we can no longer remove [currently in the absence of the Temple], so that one must wash [the hands] only on account of hygiene [perhaps better translated as purity, ‫]נקיות‬. And as we similarly said in relation to touching a dead person or he who walks in a graveyard, that the rule is that one must wash one’s hands on account of hygiene [once].73

As uncleanness is introduced into the discourse, the concept of “hygiene” also obtains a spiritualized meaning74 and is divorced from physical dirt in this case since it is related to the presence or absence of a Temple.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah Many responsa in the corpus (especially those written from the text-oriented perspective) do not address the precise relation between the Ruach Ra‘ah and the physical world. The Ruach Ra‘ah as a phenomenon belonging to the knowable world that explains certain physical processes, as it can be found in the Talmud (and the medieval exegetical tradition), appears to have receded into the background. Often, little or nothing at all is said about the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah on the person – the case is reduced to the question of whether one is required to wash one’s hands in certain situations – and if so, how often – or whether certain foods may be eaten and certain liquids drunk even though they have been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah. Sometimes the authors add that there is 73 .". . . ‫"דנוגע ברגליו צריך נטילה משום רוח רעה השורה על הרגלים ולכן אפילו רגליו נקיות צריך נטילה‬ 74 See also responsum no. 11 in the same part of the Yitzchak Yeranen where he discusses the touching of a dead person and visiting a graveyard at greater length.

216 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

“danger” (‫ )סכנה‬according to tradition – it is not specified what kind of danger. These responsa are not very relevant for the description of the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and they will be set aside in the following discussion. The following four categories can be distinguished in the corpus in relation to the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah: 1. Responsa that suggest certain effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah. 2. Responsa that point to the physical effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah on humans. 3. Responsa that point to the spiritual effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah on humans. 4. Responsa that point to a combination of physical and spiritual effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah on humans. Before these four categories are discussed further, it is necessary first to turn to a theory that possibly forms the basis for these four effects that can be distinguished: contact theory.

5.3.1 Contact Theory Examination of the responsa in the corpus suggests that the dominant mechanism used to explain the way the Ruach functions is contact theory. This is a principle that is also used to account for interactions between power and matter in the physical world. It is this principle that explains most of the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah that appear in many questions of the responsa in the corpus, and these are developed according to the four different manifestations of the Ruach Ra‘ah that were discussed above. a. The Ruach Ra‘ah as an Impure Spirit The Ruach Ra‘ah as an Impure Spirit that rests on the hands immediately after waking up comes into direct contact with the human, physical body. In the Talmudic version – or rather: the medieval commentaries on certain passages from the Talmud – it is not entirely clear how precisely the Ruach Ra‘ah comes to rest on the hands after waking up. In one passage from the Zohar (Bereishit 53b), it appears as if the Ruach Ra‘ah wanders through the world and rests on the hands of sleeping humans. This passage is quoted almost in its entirety in the Yitzchak Yeranen,75 but only partially in a responsum by the Yabbia Omer,76 who leaves out the beginning of the fragment quoted here:

75 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1. no. 3. 76 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 1.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 217

. . .Come and see, all the people – when they sleep on their beds at night, and the night spreads its wings over all people in the world – then they taste the taste of death. And because they taste the taste of death, the Impure Spirit wanders through the world and pollutes the world and she [the Impure Spirit] rests on the hands of the humans and pollutes the human . . . 77

Once the hands have been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah, the latter’s negative characteristics are transmitted onto other matter: food and drink that are touched with unwashed hands. This all happens through the contact model: the Impure Spirit subtly “touches” the hands, causing the hands to become unclean. If one subsequently uses these hands upon which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests to touch food and drink, it (the Ruach Ra‘ah) is directly transmitted, and the food and drink become unclean. According to some, there is a similar kind of touching when food and drink are placed under the bed, because they treated the theory that a sleeping human becomes unclean, because he is in touch with the Impure Spirit, after his holy and clean soul has left him. This is comparable to a mild form of the biblical uncleanness caused by death. This Ruach Ra‘ah / uncleanness of the food and drink is caused by a human sleeping above the food (or drink), thus “roofing” them – a known form of transmitting uncleanness (‫)טומאת אוהל‬78 in rabbinic literature – so that the Ruach Ra‘ah is passed on through subtle contact to the food and drink. The Talmud itself already possibly implies the more subtle contact by contending that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on “food and drink, even if they are covered in an iron object”.79 This issue of more subtle contact is also present in the few questions that deal with food and drink in graveyards. The Ruach Ra‘ah / demon of the graveyard / uncleanness present in the graveyard is passed on to the food and drink as soon as they are physically in the graveyard. b. The Night as the Cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah The responsa that contend that the night itself also causes the Ruach Ra‘ah are more difficult to explain unequivocally. They obviously assume some kind of subtle contact between the night and the human body. Similarly, the responsa on the keeping overnight of peeled eggs, onions or garlic can possibly be explained on the basis of the contact model. The night transmits the Ruach Ra‘ah to the

77 ‫ טעמי טעמא‬,‫ וליליא פריש גדפהא על כל בני עלמא‬,‫ כל בני עלמא בשעתא דניימי על ערסייהו בליליא‬,‫"ותא חזי‬ ".‫ וסאיב ושריא על ידוי דבר נש ואסתאב‬,‫ האי רוחא מסאבא שטיא על עלמא‬,‫ ומגו דטעמי טעמא דמותא‬,‫דמותא‬ 78 Literally: uncleanness of the [presence] in the tent – a reference to Num. 19 which deals with the laws concerning someone who dies in a tent. All objects in the tent are unclean, even though they were not in direct physical context with the dead person. 79 bPesahim 112a: ".‫ רוח רעה שורה עליהן‬,‫ אפילו מחופין בכלי ברזל‬,‫"אוכלים ומשקים תחת המטה‬

218 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

peeled egg, onion, and garlic, because these products are apparently particularly susceptible to this. Possibly there is also a more subtle transmission inspired by the Talmud itself when it says that “even if they are [lying] in a basket,80 tied up and sealed”,81 the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on them. c. The Ruach Ra‘ah through the Cutting of Nails82 The contact theory can also explain the effects in this case: the nails were once attached to the part of the flesh from which the nails grows out, and which is holy according to mysticism. Once the nail has become divorced from the place where it naturally grows, uncleanness occurs that remains on the nails and causes negative effects for humans. Moreover, a subtle contact with the body is assumed even after the nails have been physically separated from the body, a contact that is also known in magic: “contagious magic”.83 In this case – and in the case of cutting hair – the effects are described in the Shulchan Aruch itself, on the basis of the Talmud:84 “. . . He who cuts his nails and does not wash his hands – he will be afraid for one day, and he does not know what he is afraid of . . .”.85 d. Ruach Ra‘ah Caused by Filth and Dirt Touching normally covered places on the body, cutting hair of the head and beard,86 after sexual intercourse, touching a dead person, or touching a foot, the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet or bathhouse. These responsa on body-related activities or processes can all be explained through direct contact with dirt, sweat, and other bodily fluids. According to one medieval interpretation the reason that the hands must be washed after waking up is that the hands have touched the (naked) body in all kinds of places where the body is not clean (sweat, dirt, orifices): “because they [=the hands] touch [during sleep] the places [on the body]

80 The logical interpretation here would be: hanging up high. 81 bNiddah 17a: .". . . ‫"ואע״ג דמנחי בסילתא וציירי וחתימי רוח רעה שורה עליהן‬ 82 This was presented as a separate category above because there are a number of questions in the corpus that deal specifically with this issue. 83 This is a concept of J. Frazer’s in The Golden Bough (New York: Macmillan, 1922). Objects and persons who used to be in contact with each other can continue to influence each other even after this contact has been physically broken off. This is also the case for nails and hair that have been separated from the body. 84 bPesahim 112a; see 3.1.6. 85 OH 4:19: ." . . . ‫"הנוטל צפרניו ולא נטל ידיו מפחד יום אחד ואינו יודע ממה מפחד‬ 86 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 6; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no 5, 9.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 219

that are dirty [‫”]שמשמשות במקום הטנופות‬.87 The parts in question include the anus, the penis, the armpit, or other places where the body is not clean (e.g. the feet). This case too seems to imply a contact model, although the Ruach Ra‘ah is not mentioned in this specific text. In the case of the Ruach Ra‘ah after cutting the hair of the head or of the beard, there is contact with the sweaty scalp, which is transmitted to the hands of the person, comparable to the nails. The Ruach Ra‘ah that is supposedly on the hands after a visit to the toilet or the bathhouse can also be explained through direct physical contact with human excrement and other organic material, and filth that settles everywhere on walls and objects through the warm vapours of the bathhouse. If the Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands after going to the toilet is ascribed to the Spirit that dwells in the toilet and feeds on the dirt that is present there (Zohar), then the contact in question is more subtle. In this view, the Ruach Ra‘ah fills the space of the toilet (and, according to some, of the bathhouse), and the person who enters this room comes into contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah which subsequently rests on this person’s hands. Some responsa deal with the question of whether further transmission is possible, for instance when such a person emerges from the toilet and then touches food and drink. Or is this kind of transmission possible only in the morning because that Ruach Ra‘ah is strongest?88 The contact model is also in evidence in the question of whether food and drink that are brought into the toilet are “contaminated” by the Ruach Ra‘ah:89 the Ruach Ra‘ah is present in the entire room of the toilet (or bathhouse/bathroom), and food and drink in the toilet come in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah that is present there. According to others, transmission through contact with this Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet is only possible with people (living matter), but not with lifeless objects such as food and drink.90 Others again state that food and drink are similar to humans, because they form humans’ life force, as humans extract energy from them for their life force by incorporating them into their bodies (this is in itself also a form of contact theory).91 87 Responsa by the Rosh, Klal 4, section 1. 88 Yabbia Omer, V. 3, OH, no. 1: ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 5; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6. 89 The question of whether food and drink that have been brought into a toilet or bathroom may still be consumed can be found in various responsa in the corpus. E.g. in Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 34; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 14, no. 2; Teshuvot Vehanhagot, V. 2, no. 4; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5. 90 This is the opinion of the Shalmei Zibbur, quoted for instance in Har Tzvi, OH V. 1, no. 50; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 14, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1; ibid., 4 OH, no. 5; Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 2. 91 The opinion of R. Chaim Palagi is that food and drink come into the human body, and that it is therefore wrong to follow the milder opinion mentioned for instance in the Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5 and Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A, OH no 10. The Yaskil Avdi does not agree with the Shalmei Zibbur either, “. . . The Ruach Ra‘ah also rests on food and drink, because they [=the impure forces of evil]

220 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

The same contact model has also influenced the situation of food and drink that are kept under the bed (or possibly in some similar circumstance).92 The Ruach Ra‘ah dwells under the bed because it is dirty there, and food and drink placed under the bed are in direct contact with this Ruach Ra‘ah.

5.3.2 Type I: Implicit References to Effects A number of responsa have little specific to say about the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah, but they contain some implicit suggestions. This subtle way of suggestion is particularly evident in responsa written from a text-oriented approach that advocate a lenient attitude towards the Ruach Ra‘ah. It is the case for instance in the paradigmatic text of the Yabbia Omer93 discussed above (4.3.6). On the basis of the Talmud and of predominantly Halachic texts, the Yabbia Omer concludes that food and drink that were brought into a toilet may a posteriori be consumed. The Yabbia Omer bases this view inter alia on the opinions that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah anymore in our time, and on a Kabbalistic text that states that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet only rests on humans and not on lifeless objects such as food and drink.94 Yet the conclusion of the responsum does seem to imply that “something” happens when this kind of food and drink is consumed. Thus the author encourages people who are so inclined to adopt a stricter opinion: But this is certain: that he who wishes to act more strictly and does not eat these products and give them to children – that this is better, and the blessing of the good be upon him.95

The fact that the author thinks that this kind of food (and drink) is best given to children points to a certain opinion on the effect on the person who eats. This effect is obviously stronger for people who have attained a fuller spiritual awareness than for (religiously) under-age children who as yet have a limited

desire this as they are beneficial to people, who pronounce the blessing over them etc.”, mentioned for instance in Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5 and Ateret Paz, V. 1, Vol. A, OH no. 10: ‫"והעיר ע״ז הרב ישכיל עבדי דהרי על מאכלי להם חשק בהם כיון שנהנים מהם בני אדם ומברכים שורה רו״ר שיש‬ .". . . ‫ומשקים נמי עליהם וכו‬ 92 Airplane chairs, prams. 93 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5. 94 ‫ נלע״ד שאפשר לסמוך להקל על השלמי צבור וסיעתו דפשיטא להו שאין רו״ר דבהכ״ס על המאכלין ומשקין‬. . ." ".‫בצירוף דעת הסוברים דבהכ״ס דבזה״ז אין רוח רעה מצויה בינינו‬ 95 ".‫"והא ודאי שהמחמיר שלא לאכול ממנו ונותנו לקטנים עדיף טפי ועליו תבא ברכת טוב‬

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 221

spiritual level.96 He therefore continues with an example of a person of a high spiritual level who avoided this kind of food.97 The author concludes with a discussion of the case of someone who touches food or drink outside a toilet but after going to the toilet. If possible, such a person must rinse the foods in question thrice to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah. If this is not possible, nothing needs to be done. The triple rinsing betrays the fact that this is not for reasons of hygiene, but it implies spiritual effects. There is no benefit to be had from washing thrice from the perspective of hygiene.98 A different example from a similar author who does not discuss the precise nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah in his responsa, but who does implicitly point in a certain direction, is that of the She‘eilat Shlomoh (V. 1, no. 4). The responsum deals with the question of whether one may wash one’s hands in the morning in the washbasin, or whether it is necessary to place water beside the bed every night so that one can wash one’s hands immediately without having walked four paces – as the Zohar and the Kabbalists prescribe.99 Although Aviner prefers preparing water beside the bed every day in a hand washing cup (“natlah”) and a receptacle to catch the water, he does mention the less strict opinion in his responsum – which had already been quoted by the clas96 The theory here is that the soul and the good inclination are not fully present in children that have not reached adulthood yet from a religious point of view. This also explains why children generate less impurity (for instance during sleep) and are also less susceptible to it. See on this for instance the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman from Lyadi (second version), OH, 4:2. In the corpus, this subject is addressed for instance by Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 1; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10. 97 ‫ ששמע מהגאון הק' מהר״ש מבעלז שהוא מקפיד שלא לאכול‬,)‫"וכמו שראיתי בשם ס› דברי יצחק (אות קב‬ ‫ וע״כ‬.)‫ (וע״ע בשו״ת ויצבור יוסף שווארץ סי כג‬.‫ ומוכח דמעיקר דינא שרי לאינשי דעלמא‬.‫ ע״כ‬.‫מאכל שהיה בבהכ״ס‬ .". . . ‫המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו‬ 98  ‫ דינא יתיב כאמור לעיל דהיכא דאפשר להדיח האוכלין‬,‫"וכן היוצא מבית הכסא ונגע בידיו באוכלין ומשקין‬ .". . . ‫ יש להתיר‬,‫ וכן משקין שא״א להדיחן‬,‫ ואם לא‬,‫ידיחם ג״פ‬ 99 On the basis of his text-oriented approach, Aviner quotes Kagen’s Mishnah Berurah, which states that “one must wash one’s hands immediately after waking up and when one does not want to sleep any longer, even if you remain lying [on the bed]. And all the more so that he will not walk 4 ells without having washed his hands. And it is necessary to be very careful with this. And the holy Zohar therefore makes the punishment for this [=for walking 4 ells with unwashed hands] very heavy because he leaves the Spirit of Impurity on him [and does not immediately wash it off after waking up: ‫ ומכ״ש שלא‬.‫ ומיד כשיתעורר משנתו ואינו רוצה לישן יטול ידיו אף שנשאר מושכב‬:‫"משנה ברורה סימן א ס״ק ב‬ ‫ ובזוה״ק מפליג עבור זה בענשו למאד כי הוא משהה על עצמו רוח‬.‫ וצריך מאד ליזהר בזה‬.‫ילך ד״א בלי נטילת ידים‬ ".‫הטומאה‬ Aviner does not spell out what exactly the result will be of the fact that one leaves the Ruach Ra‘ah on one’s hands and does not immediately rinse it off. What is clear is that it is no small matter: the quotation mentions the words “punishment” and “Spirit of Impurity”.

222 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

sical commentators on the Shulchan Aruch100 and later sources – that it is alright to wash one’s hands in the washbasin in the bedroom or elsewhere in the home. This qualifying statement is then followed by a ruling that intends the stress the seriousness of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Inspired by the Zohar, he adds to this that “he must go to the tap directly via the shortest route, without dealing with other affairs on the way there”.101 Again the consequences for someone who does not comply with this and does not go “directly” are not spelled out.102

5.3.3 Type II: Mishneh Halachot and Divrei Yatsiv: Diseases and Accidents The responsa that point to the physical effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah and that are written from a predominantly object-oriented approach are from a second category. They do not content themselves with simply quoting an earlier, older source that does this, but it is also important that the author should concur with this source. Or the author himself argues that there is a health aspect that has been previously overlooked. What is important in these responsa is the direct way in which the reader is addressed. Some authors emphasize the physical effects of 100 Various answers have been given to this, including: 1) it is not in our versions of the Zohar; 2) the entire house counts as four ells; 3) the entire room one is in counts as four ells; 4) it is too much trouble to prepare this everyday (not viable); 5) Maimonides and others know nothing of a Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning; 6) The Talmud does permit the walking of four ells, and we follow the Talmud and not the Zohar. 101 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 4. 102 The same thing happens in another responsum by the same author, She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 7. The responsum deals with the question how a mother must take care of or feed her baby in the (early) morning or night, and should she first wash her hands before she attends to the baby or not. A priori the author thinks that she should prepare a large mug with water and a bucket or bowl, and pour water three times over each hand before she approaches the child, because it is necessary not to touch the orifices such as the ears, mouth, eyes, nose or the anus before this washing. This means that it is almost impossible to look after children before the washing. Similarly, one must not touch food to give it to the child without the washing. In this last case, a posteriori one should rinse thrice if possible, if not then it should be eaten – but if it is something small and there is no financial loss, it should be thrown out. He concludes with the exhortation that “all this is only a posteriori, but a priori one must be extraordinarily careful with this )‫(ליזהר במירב הזהירות‬.” If one must be so careful with this a priori, how can it be that there is no problem a posteriori? What are the consequences if one were to consume food and drink that have been “contaminated” with the Ruach Ra‘ah? This remains unclear. Both responsa navigate between a strict halachic, exoteric approach which is emphasized on the one hand, and a more object-oriented, mystical approach in which the Ruach Ra‘ah is a concrete and real phenomenon on the other – this is why one “must be extraordinarily careful with this a priori”.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 223

the Ruach Ra‘ah, mainly103 the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, the Divrei Yatsiv, and the Mishneh Halachot – all authors who usually adopt an object-oriented approach. The Mishneh Halachot appears primarily to emphasize the physical danger of the Ruach Ra‘ah: the notion of “Spirit of Impurity” plays no role in his discourse. This possibly explains his use of the term “danger” (‫ סכנה‬/ ‫ )סכנתא‬and the expression “danger counts for more than a ritual prohibition” (‫חמירא סכנתא‬ ‫)מאיסורא‬. This author also states that the concept that the presence of a substance can be removed by diluting it in a larger concentration (‫ – ביטול‬a term that is usually used in Jewish ritual food laws) is not valid in case of danger.104 One responsum in the category of food and drink – written from an object-oriented approach – addresses the use of peeled onions and garlic in the food industry that have been kept overnight. In this responsum, he writes to a colleague that the latter should also have mentioned the stricter opinion of the Divrei Yatsiv.105 The Mishneh Halachot concludes with the following words that clarify his view: . . . It amazes me . . . that we see many new diseases in recent times because of our sins. And the diseases have increased so strongly that our predecessors would not have been able to imagine it. We are surprised – ‘what is God doing to us, on account of our sins?’. And who knows whether all this is not because of the dangers that our scholars warned us against, and against which our ancestors were on their guard, especially in the context of food. And in particular keeping things overnight, although the harmful beings [‫ ]מזיקין‬are present. 103 Two responsa by the Betsel Hachochmah could be added to this, although they have little new to add to what is described above. In one responsum, the author appears to clearly disconnect the Ruach Ra‘ah from physical dirt and hygiene – this is why it is necessary to wash one’s hands after touching washed feet (V. 2, no. 29) and why there is no Ruach Ra‘ah in the holiest of places, the Temple. In another responsum (V. 3, no. 11) he addresses the status of foodstuffs that have been brought into a bathhouse / bathroom or toilet. Although he reaches a milder conclusion that the foodstuffs etc. are permitted, he concludes the responsum with a reference to the Aruch mentioned above, which states that Shibta is caused when a woman breastfeeds her child immediately after coming out of the toilet or the river. This proves, according to the Betsel Hachochmah, that the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the milk in her breasts causes physical harm to the child. Although he ends with the cryptic remark “that a distinction can be made [between both examples – eating in the toilet and the woman who breastfeeds her child after going to the toilet] and we will not expand on that here”, the same mechanism is visible: the Ruach Ra‘ah as a negative force on the one hand, but one that has physical consequences for the child on the other – the Shibta that grabs the child by the neck etc. and causes a kind of paralysis. 104 Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 8: ‫"וכרגע נפל מילתא בליבי דקצת י״ל אמאי לא חיישינן ליקח מע״ה מאכל עכ״פ שמא הניח תחת המטה והוא אסור‬ ".‫משום סכנה ובסכנה לא סמכינן ארובא‬ 105 The Divrei Yatsiv also regards the weakening of the praxis surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah as the source of inexplicable diseases and accidents in modern times; see Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31, subsection 4.

224 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

When we eat it – then this causes harm – God preserve us. And the Torah says about holy sacrificial meat that this must be eaten during one day and a night – up to midnight . . . and the Magen Avraham quotes the Zohar, which states that no food may be kept overnight at all, and that keeping it overnight makes [food] unsuited, and that it should not be eaten anymore, regardless of what kind of food [i.e. not specifically egg, onion, and garlic] . . . 106

Nevertheless, Gombiner in his Magen Avraham also appears to allude to a more spiritual negative effect of the Ruach Ra‘ah, because he writes in one responsum that “the God-fearing” may be more strict in his own case, and not consume the food that has been touched by unwashed hands in the morning.107 It is also remarkable that this author who describes the consequences of the Ruach Ra‘ah particularly in terms of physical complaints and diseases simultaneously advocates the opinion that a sleeping non-Jew cannot pass on any Ruach Ra‘ah to food. He quotes a text from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman from Lyadi (Russia, 1745–1812) – the writer of the Tanya and founder of Chabad Hassidism – which is often used in the corpus: . . . But there is no need to fear the touch of non-Jews, because this Spirit of Impurity only desires to rest on a holy object – on a holy place from which she [=holiness] has departed. Such as the bodies of the Jews, when they sleep and their holy soul has departed from their bodies – and then the Spirit of Impurity rests on their bodies. And when the soul returns again to the body, then the Spirit of Impurity disappears from the whole body, and remains only on the hands . . .’ And see the responsum Teshurat Shai, YD section 116, that it is not necessary to be careful [‫ ]אין חשש‬with food that has been standing under the bed of a nonJew, because they do not know the aspect of the Ruach Ra‘ah . . . 108

Here, too, a mystical theory about the differences between Jews and non-Jews leads to a milder judgement. However, this opinion is remarkable: if a Jew and a non-Jew were to consume the exact same food that is “contaminated” with

106 Ibid., V. 16, no. 16: ‫"בכלל אני תמה וכבר דברתי וכתבתי מזה אשר בזמן האחרון בעונ״ה ראו ראינו כמה מיני מחלאות שמתחדשין ונתרבו‬ ‫מחלאות אשר לא שערום אבותינו ותמהין מה זה עשה לנו אלקים בעונ״ה אבל מי יודע שאם אין זה בשביל הסכנות‬ ‫שהזהירו לנו רבותינו והיו נזהרין בהם אבותינו בכל מיני מאכל ובפרט בלינת דברים ומזיקין שכיחי וח״ו כשאוכלין הר״ז‬ ‫מזיק ח״ו ואם התורה אמרה בקדשים אכילתן ליום ולילה עד חצות ובקק״ל לשני ימים ולילה אחד ובזוהר הקדוש הובא‬ .". . . ‫במג״א א״ח ששום מאכל לא תלון לילה ולינת לילה פוגמת ולא תאכל עוד אפילו סתם מאכל‬ 107 Ibid., V, 11, no. 9. 108 Ibid., V. 11, no. 13: ‫"הנה בש״ע הגרש״ז סי' ד' ס״ב כתב וז״ל וצריך להזהיר הנשים ע״ז ביותר כי רוב תיקון המאכלים הוא על ידן אבל‬ ‫לנגיעת הנכרים אין לחוש כי רוח טומאה זו אינה מתאוה לשרות אלא בכלי של קודש במקום קדושה שנסתלקה‬ ‫משם שהם גופות ישראל כשהם ישנים ונשמתם הקדושה מסתלקה מגופם ואזי רוח הטומאה שורה על גופם‬ .‫וכשהנשמה חוזרת לגוף מסתלקת רוח הטומאה מכל הגוף ונשארת על הידים ונשארת על הידים בלבד וכו' ע״ש‬ ".)‫(ועיין שו״ת תשורת ש״י יו״ד סי' קט״ז דמאכל שהי' תחת מטת גוי אין חשש דלהם אין ענין של ר״ר‬

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 225

the Ruach Ra‘ah, it would make a religious Jew ill, but not the non-Jew. This undermines the possibility of a medical science that cures both Jew and nonJew, because the reasoning advocated here suggests that Jews and non-Jews do not process food in the same way and that their bodies apparently do not work according to the same mechanisms. This forms a sharp contrast with other sources109 that do not distinguish between the religious status of the owner of the bed / the person who slept on the bed,110 on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah on foodstuffs that were kept under the bed. In the Divrei Yatsiv – the text that the Mishneh Halachot referred to – however, the physical aspect predominates. In this author’s nine responses in the corpus, the term “danger” (‫ סכנה‬/‫ )סכנתא‬and the expression “a danger counts for more than a ritual prohibition” (‫ )חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא‬occur frequently. For him, the Ruach Ra‘ah is a physical danger with physical consequences, as he argues in a responsum on the keeping overnight of a peeled egg: In any case, it seems logical that in our case, of which Our Wise Ones Z”L said: ‘he is guilty of his life and his blood (guilt) rests on his head’111 – that the Ruach Ra‘ah will kill him, in the most concrete sense. And they [the forces of the Ruach Ra‘ah] are alike robbers and wild animals, and they must be regarded as a natural danger. Because the Ruach Ra‘ah and demons exist and surround us as a ditch around a wall with young plantings . . . 112–113

This causes him to make far-reaching pronouncements on the physical effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah: . . . and although the danger is not immediately visible, just as with a snake’s venom etc., it is logical that in matters of lethal danger no difference is made between immediate and in the long run – even in relation to the breaking of the Shabbat and Yom Kippur [in order to save someone from danger]. Therefore it is entirely forbidden on the basis of the Torah that anyone should bring himself to this a priori . . . and it is clear to me that all these harmful and rare diseases, accidents and unnatural deaths – God preserve us – that we hear about

109 For instance Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2, subsection 2. In Hitorerut Teshuvah (S. Sofer of Erloi), V. 1, no. 220 the author is content to leave the answer to this question undecided (‫)צריך עיון‬. 110 Some argue that the place is what matters – the Ruach Ra‘ah in any case rests on food under the bed. Others contend that the Ruach Ra‘ah only rests on food and drink under the bed if someone slept on the bed. 111 bNiddah 17a. 112 Quotation concerning demons from bBerachot 6a. 113 Divrei Jatsiev, JD, no. 31, subpar. 4: ‫"מ״מ נראה פשוט שבנ״ד שאחז״ל מתחייב בנפשו ודמו בראשו שהרו״ר ממית אותו בפועל ממש והם כלסטים‬ ".‫ והוי סכנה טבעית כיון שרו״ר ושדין שכיחי וקיימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא‬,‫וחיות טורפות‬

226 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

nowadays, at home and outside – at sea and on land; that all this is because of the Ruach Ra‘ah which is inflicting harm following an extended period.114

In a note in the responsum, some third party refers to a public address delivered by the Divrei Yatsiv (J.J. Halberstamm, 1904–1994) on Lag Be’Omer (1976), in which he primarily ascribed cancer – “the famous disease” (‫ )מחלה הידועה‬and other incurable diseases to the Ruach Ra‘ah: . . . And my heart tells me, that it is crystal clear that this is because people no longer take care not to eat peeled eggs that have been kept overnight, as they had traditionally been accustomed to be careful with this . . . and concerning the danger that Our Wise Ones Z”L spoke about, that the intention was to get this disease [=cancer] . . . and also other rapidly spreading diseases – may they not come over us – that have no medicine – they are caused by the Ruach Ra‘ah . . . 115

Just as the Mishneh Halachot, the Divrei Yatsiv rules against the possibility of “Bittul” – the lifting of a prohibition because there is more permitted matter than there are prohibited substances, as is the case in kashrut laws (at a ratio of 1:60 or sometimes the majority – anything over 50 percent). This does not apply to peeled eggs that have been kept overnight. On the other hand, he also continues to allude to a more spiritual aspect of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Thus in one responsum, the Divrei Yatsiv writes after quoting a text by the Beth Shlomoh: And who can fathom the secret of the great [= great rabbis], such as the formidable Halachic authority, the Beth Shlomo, according to his holy insight into such matters that are hidden from us.116 But this [=Bittul] only applies to a natural danger, where it can be said that the taste of the snake’s venom or the taste of the [mixture] of meat and fish is cancelled at

114 Ibid.: ‫ פשיטא שאין לחלק בסכנת נפשות בין תיכף ובין לאחר‬,‫"ואף שאין נראה הסכנה על אתר כמו ארס נחש וכדומה‬ ".‫ הכל מאותם רו״רל מזיקין לאחר זמן‬,‫זמן ותאונות ומיתות משונות רח״ל ששומעים היום מבית ומבחוץ בים וביבשה‬ 115 Ibid.: :‫"בענין הזה יש להעתיק מתוך מה שהאריך בזה כ״ק מרן המחבר זי״ע בשיחת קודש בסעודת ל״ג בעומר תשל״ו‬ ‫ שאנשים נחלים במחלה הידועה ל״ע שאין‬,‫ישבתי והתבוננתי בסיבת הדבר של מקרים מזעזעים הנשמעים לדאבוננו‬ ‫ שזה מחמת שאין נזהרים מאכילת‬,‫ ולבי אומר לי שזה ברור כשמש‬,‫לה רפואה ובהתבונני בזה הגעתי למסקנא‬ ‫ והגם שזקה״ק בשו״ת דברי חיים ח״א‬.‫ כפי שהיו נזהרים בזה מאז ותמיד‬,‫ביצים קלופים שעברה עליהם הלילה‬ ‫ מ״מ‬,‫אהע״ז סי' ח' קרא תגר על המפלפלים בכוונת צוואות רבינו יהודה החסיד שאין מבוא לשכלנו להשיג עיי״ש‬ ‫ שהכוונה שעי״ז באים לידי מחלה זו‬,‫שלא בדרך הלכה אולי הרשות ניתנה להתבונן בענין הסכנה שאמרו חז״ל‬ ‫ שכידוע התהוות המחלה היא ע״י גידולים רעים שבפנים שהולכים ומתפשטים ומערערים כל בסיס חיות האדם‬,‫ל״ע‬ ‫ וכן שאר‬,‫ כיון שמקילים ראשם בזה במענות וסיבות שונות‬,‫ ודין גרמא להתפשטות מחלה זו בזמנינו‬.‫ וד״ל‬,‫וקיומו‬ ".‫מחלות ממאירות ל״ע שאין להם מזור ותרופה הם ע״י הרו״ר שנשנו כאן‬ 116 Ibid., JD no. 31: ‫"ומי יעמוד בסוד גדולים כהפוסק האדיר בעל בית שלמה לדעת קדשו בענינים טמירים‬ .". . . ‫מאתנו‬

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 227

[a ratio of 1 to] 60. But in something that its banned on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah – who has said that the Ruach Ra‘ah flees when one adds 60 [times the amount]? . . . 117

5.3.4 Type III: Spiritual Effects – Yitzchak Yeranen and Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot This type can be seen in the paradigmatic text of the Yitzchak Yeranen118 (category of space), who wrote a responsum from his object-oriented approach on the status of a room containing a toilet, and the consumption of food and drink that had been brought in to this room. Unsurprisingly, the Yitzchak Yeranen’s conclusion concerning this matter was stricter than the Yabbia Omer’s answer, which he frequently quoted and rejected in this responsum. That the Yitzchak Yeranen’s concern is more for the spiritual effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah is evident from his attitude towards the opinion of the Shalmei Zibbur. This mystic and Halachist contended that food and drink that had been brought into a toilet might a posteriori be consumed, because the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on living humans who are a locus of holiness, and not on lifeless objects such as food and drink – which he described as “wood and stones”.119 Whereas the Yabbia Omer uses this opinion – in addition to other arguments – to formulate a milder a posteriori answer, the Yitzchak Yeranen rejects this.120 Instead, he refers to the opinion of the Yaskil Avdi, who states that:

117 Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31: ‫ אבל בדבר‬,‫ דשייך לומר שטעם הארס של נחש או טעם הבשר ודג בטל בששים‬,‫"אך כל זה לענין סכנה טבעית‬ ".‫האסור משום רו״ר מאן יימר שהרו״ר בורח כשמוסיפין עליו ששים‬ In Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31 he responds in the negative to the question of whether mixing chopped onion with peeled eggs helps to save them from the Ruach Ra‘ah, after being kept overnight in a peeled state: “And we must not simply compare one case with another, in these cases that lie beyond our understanding”. In responsum OH, no. 1 he also writes that although it is written that he who walks four ells in the morning without having washed his hands is guilty of death according to the Zohar, this is (only) “the teaching of the Pious” (‫ – )משנת חסידים‬in other words, it is not a mortal sin for the ordinary man: ‫"וראיתי פעם מכתב בכי״ק אא״ז מצאנז זי״ע שמונה מעלות החסידים אשר בזמננו ובין השאר כתב שאין הולכים‬ ".‫ הרי שרק משנת חסידים שנו כאן ולא חיוב מיתה ודו״ק‬,‫ד״א בבוקר בלי נט״י עכל״ק‬ But if there is physical danger, why would there be a difference between the “ordinary” man and the Pious? 118 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5. 119  ‫ דמה יש לרוח רעה בעצים ובאבנים והיא אינה‬,‫ מ״מ אינה שורה על המים‬,‫"שאע״פ שרו״ר שורה על הידים‬ ." . . . ‫רודפת רק אחר מקום שיש בו קדושה ליהנות ממנו‬ 120 ‫ אלא על כרחך דקי״ל לרבנן שהרו״ר שורה‬. . . ‫"ומ״מ גבי אוכלין ומשקין י״ל דלעולם הרו״ר שורה עליהם‬ ‫ מטמא לפי מדתו באשר הוא שם‬,‫ וסברא פשוטה היא דכל דבר טמא‬.‫על אוכלין ומשקין ואפילו אין הרו״ר חזקה כל כך‬ ".)‫מא‬-‫(עמ’ מ‬

228 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

. . . the Ruach Ra‘ah (also) rests on food and drink, because she longs for this, because humans enjoy them. And they [food and drink] fall into the [category of] holy things because one enjoys them, pronounces a blessing over them, and because the life of humans depends on them. And the Ruach Ra‘ah wishes to steal the holiness and enjoy it . . . 121

He who consumes such food and drink will therefore have to face the spiritual effects, because the Ruach Ra‘ah attempts to take away the holiness that is intrinsically present in the food and drink, making the person who consumes them a point of attachment for negative forces. That the effects are primarily spiritual is also evident from the fact that the responsum addresses the question whether the Ruach Ra‘ah can or cannot rest on clothes. The Yitzchak Yeranen points to a passage from the Zohar that shows that the Ruach Ra‘ah can indeed rest on clothes, and that one should therefore not take clothes from someone who has not yet washed his hands.122 He also refers to another Kabbalistic text123 that states that one should not touch any clothing either until one has washed one’s hands in the morning. This is another proof that the Ruach Ra‘ah does in fact rest on lifeless matter. It is clear in any case that the consequences of wearing clothes on which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests are also spiritual in nature, and not physical. Just as the Yitzchak Yeranen, the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot often approaches the subject of the Ruach Ra‘ah from an object-related perspective. But in this approach he chooses to regard the Ruach Ra‘ah as a metaphysical force that causes mainly spiritual effects, although he does also mention physical effects. This author’s texts often show both effects and therefore exemplify both type 3 and type 4 when it comes to describing the effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah. The paradigmatic text124 by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot discussed in Chapter 4, on the touching of food by a secular household assistant, shows that he describes both effects – physical and spiritual – of the Ruach Ra‘ah, although the emphasis in his discourse is on the spiritual effects (the central focus on uncleanness, the story of the institution for boys, and explicit references to sins and bad thoughts). The physical effects – diseases and weakness – are mentioned in this responsum when it refers to an older text that advised against using the object in which the washing of hands was performed (or more probably: in which the water was 121 ‫"שעל מאכלים ומשקים הרו״ר שורה עליהם שיש לה חשק בהם כיון שנהנים מהם בני אדם והם בבחינת דבר‬ ".‫ והרו״ר רוצה לעשוק הקדושה וליהנות ממנה‬,‫שבקדושה שנהנים מהם בברכה ובהם תלויין חיי האדם‬ 122 ‫"בכל מה דיקרב בידוי כולהו מסאבי בגין דשריא עלייהו רוח מסאבא ועל דא לא יסב ב״נ מנוי לאלבשא ממאן‬ ‫ דהא אמשיך עלייהו רוח מסאבא ואסתאב ואית ליה רשות להאי רוח מסאבא לשריא בכל אתר דאשכח‬.‫דלא נטל ידוי‬ .". . . ‫רשימו מסטריה וע״ד לא יטול ב״נ ידו ממאן דלא נטל ידוי‬ 123 ‫ ובדפו״י דטו״ב ע״א) כתב כאשר מתעורר האדם משינתו תכף צריך‬,‫"מהרח״ו בס׳ עולת תמיד (דף יג ע״ב‬ .". . . ‫ליטול ידיו קודם שיגע במלבושיו כלל‬ 124 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 229

caught)125 in the morning and after the meal, for food or drink. Both cases involve the transmission of the Ruach Ra‘ah to the water used to wash the hands, from the water to the object, and subsequently from the object to food and drink that came into contact with the object. This leads to weakness (Chulshot –‫– )חולשות‬ this probably means physical weakness,126 or both.127 According to the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, consuming this kind of product leads to bad thoughts and diseases.128 Other responsa by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot show a similar pattern, of a description of both spiritual and physical effects, although the emphasis appears to alternate between one of these two effects – physical or spiritual.129 Some of

125 The water could not be poured onto the ground because the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on it and might cause harm to people. 126 A responsum in V. 2 contends on the basis of an earlier source that foodstuffs that are placed under the bed cause a great deal of harm to the soul – even if there are no discernible negative effects for those who consume it: ".‫ מ״מ פוגם מאד‬,‫"ואף אם נראה לכאורה בחוש שלא מזיק‬ 127 In yet another responsum in the corpus by this author (V. 2, no. 316) he states that the Vilna Gaon was very careful in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah on food that had been placed under the bed. The Gaon “strongly feared danger for the body and the soul – ‫ היינו‬,‫"ואף לדעת הגר״א שאוסר בדיעבד‬ "‫"שחושש מאד לסכנה לגוף ונפש‬. This shows that there was danger for both body and soul. 128 That the Ruach Ra‘ah can also cause diseases (i.e. apart from the negative spiritual effects) can also be found in a responsum in V. 4, no. 186 – on the use in bakeries of opened eggs that have been kept overnight. The Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot refers there to a responsum by another author from the corpus and writes: “And danger [as reason for a prohibition] counts for more than something that is forbidden [from a ritual perspective], and it is difficult to deal more lightly in this in practice. And in the responsa Divrei Yatsiv . . . he is very strict in the matter of this prohibition [of an opened egg that has been kept overnight], and is afraid that possibly all kinds of diseases that occur nowadays – [caused] by our many sins – are the result of carelessness with regard to this danger [of the Ruach Ra‘ah]”: ‫ ובשו״ת דברי יציב מהגה״ק מקלויזנבורג זצ״ל (יו״ד סי› לא) מחמיר מאד‬,‫"וחמירא סכנתא מאיסורא וקשה להקל‬ ".‫באיסור זה וחושש שאולי כל מיני מחלות המצויות היום בעו״ה הן תולדה של אי זהירות בסכנה זו‬ 129 See Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1 on the status of foodstuffs that one touches before one has washed one’s hand in the morning, where the author initially supports the stricter opinion on the consumption of foodstuffs that have been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah. The Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot emphasizes this by referring both to the Talmud and to the Zohar. The emphasis appears to lie here on the physical effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah, given the centrality of the danger argument. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 4 (on foodstuffs etc. that are brought to the fridge on a kind of extension / balcony through the bathroom) presents a mixed impression, where the emphasis is neither explicitly on one effect or the other (although the explicit reference to “strange thoughts about immorality and heresy” suggests a spiritual effect). Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 8 (on foodstuffs that have been placed under a bed, without anyone sleeping on it) demonstrates a clear emphasis on the spiritual effects, given the quotation from Nachalat Avot, on the Vilna Gaon. This clearly highlights the spiritual effect: “Even if one can demonstrably observe

230 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

this author’s texts appear to defend the opinion that no one knows exactly what the Ruach Ra‘ah is.130 This means it is impossible to determine precisely when the Ruach Ra‘ah does and does not rest on something or cause danger.

5.3.5 Type IV: Spiritual and Physical Effects – Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot and Rivavot Ephraim Apart from in the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, this type can also be found in the paradigmatic text of the Rivavot Ephraim (category of the body) that was discussed above.131 This object-oriented responsum addresses the question whether a woman who rises at night to breastfeed her child must first wash her hands. The responsum starts with an approach that regards the Ruach Ra‘ah mainly as a spiritual phenomenon. For this reason the author emphasizes that the woman does not touch her own milk directly, which does not, however, prevent the transmission of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the milk in her breasts. Why would she otherwise need to wash her hands? In the author’s own answer and that of the first two colleagues, the issue as to whether or not the woman touches the food does not play any role. The transmission does not take place in a directly physical manner, but in a more subtle way in which physical touch plays a subordinate role.

that these foodstuffs [that were lying under the bed] do not harm anyone [one must still abide by the regulations concerning them]. But know, my son, that this was not only said in relation to the body, because fear for the soul [‫ ]נפש‬is greater than that for the body, and for the soul this is very harmful and it is in danger”: ‫ אבל דעו בני שלא על הגוף לבד אמרו כי החשש הנפש‬,‫"אף אם תראו הדבר בחוש שאין מזיק לשום אדם האוכלין‬ ‫ כי כל‬,‫ כי דבריהם כגחלי אש בוערים מגוף עד הנפש‬,‫ ולנפש הוא מזיק ביותר ומסתכן‬,‫היא ביותר מחשש הגוף‬ ".‫מעשינו ותנועתנו הן לטוב או רע היו פוגמים או מתקיימים בעולמות העליונים‬ Cp. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3: ‫ וכ״ש‬,‫"שאפילו בכלי דמים אחרונים או של נטילת שחרית אם משתמש בו לאוכלין ומשקין מביא הרבה חולשות‬ ".‫לאכול דבר עם רוח רעה מחטיא ומביא מחשבות רעות ומחלות ח״ו‬ 130 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 9 deals with foodstuffs that have been placed in a pram, under the seat. There is a space to carry items between the seat and the wheels. If a child is asleep in the pram, and this food is placed in this area under the seat, may this food then be consumed, or is it comparable to food that has been placed under the bed, upon which, according to the Talmud, the Ruach Ra‘ah rests? The author decides that it is necessary to be stricter when the child has actually slept. He bases this view on witnesses in rabbinic literatureof the Vilna Gaon, who was very strict in these matters, and also gives as a reason for this stricter opinion that “the root [=reason] for this [=the Ruach Ra‘ah] is hidden and not known to us, we cannot decide what the nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah is: ".‫ לא נוכל להכריע ברוח רעה מה טיבו‬,‫"וכיון דשורשו סתום ואין ידוע לנו‬ 131 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252.

5.3 Effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah  

 231

The third rabbi’s answer introduces physical touch, which is why he exhorts the woman not to touch the opening of her nipple before she has washed her hands. Direct physical transmission thus plays a role here, as it does in the fourth answer by a colleague to the author’s question. According to this last rabbi, the answer to the question depends on whether the woman touches her own or her child’s orifices. If she is certain that she will be careful not to do this, then she does not need to wash her hands. Only when she finally rises in the morning does she have to wash her hands. That this last rabbi does not think only in terms of transmission through physical contact, but also of physical effects, becomes evident when he uses the words “danger” (‫ )סכנה‬and “fear” (‫ )חשש‬when mentioning the touching of orifices.132 However, that he has also weighed spiritual effects is clear from the fact that he points the reader to the opinion of some rabbis who think that the hands of very young children should already be washed – even when they are still in the cradle. In fact, according to this opinion, the woman should also wash the hands of her young child. The reason for this is that they will then “grow up in purity” (‫(טהרה‬. The purpose is not only that the daily washing of the hands purifies them of the Ruach Ra‘ah, but much more so the long-term effect: the preserving of a state of purity, and not falling prey to the forces of evil, represented by uncleanness. As the Tzitz Eliezer explains in a responsum133 from the corpus on this passage: “So that not even the least presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah will be upon him, and he will grow up in holiness and purity. . .”.134 Another indication for the fact that the author uses a predominantly spiritual explanatory model for the nature and effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah is that he appraises us, through a colleague’s letter, of the remarkable oral tradition concerning the Vilna Gaon (1720–1797) with regard to the Ruach Ra‘ah. According to this tradition, which is historically disputed (and which will be discussed in greater detail later), the harmful effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning are entirely cancelled out135 by the martyrdom of the proselyte Avraham ben Avraham Pototski (1700–1749, also Potocki) in the eighteenth century. This aristocrat who converted to Judaism was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church. And although the colleague himself refers to this oral tradition as follows: “and these words are

132 ‫ ומה גם שיש חשש שתיגע בכל‬. . . ‫ שיש בזה סכנה‬,‫"וכיון דיש חשש שתיגע בפה בחוטם באזניים או מעינים‬ ".‫"האברים הנ״ל של התינוק‬ 133  Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2. 134 ". . . ‫"שלא יהא עליו שום משהו דמשהו של רו״ר ויגדל בקדושה ובטהרה‬ 135  I.e. not only mitigated, but totally removed: ".‫"שמעת שהגר״ף פוטוצקי מסר נפשו על קדוש השם נפסק הרוח רעה של שחרית‬

232 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

wondrous and need further explanation . . .”,136 the Rivavot Ephraim does not a priori appear to be dismissive of the tradition that the harmful effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah have been cancelled out by Potocki’s martyrdom.

5.4 Atypical Texts from the Corpus: Theory and Remedies In addition to the four types discussed above, there is atypical theory formation on the nature and cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah and its effects in some of the responsa of the corpus. In some cases, they also give possibilities for protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah. The following sections will examine a number of examples.

5.4.1 “Synthesis” between Ruach Ra‘ah and Modern Science A remarkable responsum in this category is that by the Chemdat Tzvi.137 On the one hand, this author is the most advanced in offering a scientific explanation for the Ruach Ra‘ah and demons, but at the same time he uses this to confirm the paradigm of the classical texts. This synthesis means that he describes the effects mainly in a physical sense, as might also happen in a scientific approach. It is a rather long passage, but it is interesting enough to quote here almost in full. The Chemdat Tzvi refers to a text from the Talmud from bBerachot 6a,138 which says that the human eye cannot see the many harmful beings (‫ )מזיקין‬that surround him, because the human would otherwise perish: And in our time . . . now some of the mysteries of nature and science have been revealed, the eye can see many things through all kinds of scientific devices–even from one side of the world to the other, and hear too. It is currently also possible to see the harmful beings: bacteria, bugs and viruses too, etc., that fill the air. And humans can also see how polluted the air is and how this endangers their health. And ‘they surround us truly as a ditch around a wall with young plantings’ [quotation from bBerachot 6a], i.e. that they always and everywhere surround human beings. And H.K.B.H.139 in his great mercy and love has kept this concealed for humans, and has given the healthy human body strength to keep these harmful bacteria at bay and to protect itself from them.

136 ".‫"והדברים נפלאים וצריכים ביאור‬ 137 Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2. 138 bBerachot 6a: Abba Benjamin says: “If the eye had the power to see them, then no creature would be able to persist against the demons of harm [‫]מזיקין‬.” 139 Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One blessed be He.

5.4 Atypical Texts from the Corpus: Theory and Remedies  

 233

The Chemdat Tzvi continues his explanation of the Talmudic text bBerachot 6a on demons in this (semi-)scientific vein.140 He connects the “bustle” during the public Kallah lectures141 with the higher concentration of harmful bacteria wherever many people congregate, pain in the knees with higher concentrations of bacteria that are an indication of illness. He also explains the wear of the scholars’ clothes as the lack of clean air and hygiene, which causes mould that affects the cloth and the skin. For the rabbis, all this is called “mazikin” (literally: harmful beings), demons. He also gives a (semi-)scientific explanation for the evil eye by referring to hypnosis which permits exercising influence over others. The Ruach Ra‘ah that supposedly rests under the bed is caused because it is dark, dank, and dirty there; and this is why food placed there goes off more quickly. In rabbinic language: “the Mazikin rule there”. The Chemdat Tzvi then continues by explaining exhortations concerning danger in rabbinic literature, all of which he explains rationally. His sensational conclusion is that “we cannot therefore say that there are no sorcery and harmful beings / demons [Mazikin] in our time”. This is also why the Ruach Ra‘ah exists, although the author adopts a consistently strict attitude. In this case, the use of scientific insights leads to a confirmation of the existence of demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah, rather than to the conclusion that the Ruach Ra‘ah belongs to a pre-scientific past. The latter view is a conclusion that certain medieval rabbis did adopt, as chapter 6 will show (6.2.3). For the Chemdat Tzvi, the effects are primarily physical, which is logical given his synthesis between science and the traditional paradigm.

5.4.2 Mastering the Ruach Ra‘ah: Martyrdom, Prayer, and Torah Study Two responsa from the corpus – the She‘eilat Shlomoh and the Rivavot Ephraim – advocate a striking theory, which addresses not the effects that the Ruach Ra‘ah might have on humans, but that of humans on the Ruach Ra‘ah. The She‘eilat Shlomoh’s responsum142 deals with the question where the washing for the Ruach Ra‘ah must be performed, given the Kabbalistic prohibition on walking more than four ells without washing one’s hands. Because of this, ideally, one washes one’s hands while still in bed, using the water that has been placed beside the bed the 140 Ibid.: “Raba says: The full feeling at Kallah [lessons] comes from them. Tiredness of the knees comes from them. The wear of the scholars’ clothes comes because they chafe against them. Legs that hit each other comes from them.” 141 Kallah lectures refers to the series of lectures that Talmud scholars (and laymen) attended in the months of Elul and Adar in the Babylonian period. 142 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 3, no. 2.

234 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

night before.143 Aviner mentions the milder opinions from rabbinic literature, but adds to this an oral tradition in the name of the Vilna Gaon, which was handed down to rabbis from this time (Shlomo Zalman Auerbach): There is an oral tradition of the Vilna Gaon, that after the Christians had burned the proselyte Avraham ben Avraham Pototski144 – Count Pototski – [in flames] at the stake, the power of the Spirit of Impurity145 was diminished. A curious case. But HRH”G Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [1910–1995] also handed down, that the Ruach Ra‘ah became weaker from that time on. This meaning of this is, not that one should reject the laws from the Talmud on the Ruach Ra‘ah, but only the things that were added to this that can be found in the Zohar . . . 146

In this text, the Ruach Ra‘ah has become a negative metaphysical power that can however be influenced by great spiritual acts – Kiddush Hashem (martyrdom) – that serve to diminish its power. The curious aspect of this story is that this diminution through the martyrdom of this one individual is said to have a lasting effect on following generations.147 The same spiritual-metaphysical effect of the martyrdom of Count Pototski / Potocki on the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found in the object-oriented responsum by the Rivavot Ephraim from Chapter 4 (category of

143 Another solution that can be found in the texts is to have someone else bring water. In relation to this, the Zohar states that the person who brings the water must first have washed his hands himself, in reference to the purification ritual of the Red Heifer where “the pure” sprinkle the water of purification over the pure; see Num. 19. 144 According to tradition, this Polish aristocrat converted to Judaism and became a great scholar. He was denounced to the government and given the choice of renouncing Judaism and returning to Christianity, or dying a martyr’s death. Avraham ben Avraham Pototski chose the latter. There are diverging opinions in the academic world on the historicity of this person and his martyrdom, which supposedly took place in 1749. See for instance: J. Prouser, Noble Soul: The Life And Legend Of The Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki (2005); M. Teter, “The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reasurance”, AJS Review 29, no. 2 (2005): 237–263. 145 Some texts use Ruach HaTumah and Ruach Ra‘ah interchangeably. 146 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 3, no. 2. Aviner refers here to a “kuntres” (booklet) in which Rabbi J. Nebenzahl mentions this tradition. A more recent written source for this is the publication of the Mishnah Berurah with glosses by J. Nebenzahl, beYitzchak Yikareh, which says the following in relation to the washing of hands: ’‫ שמסורת מהגר״א שמאז שנשרף על קדוש השם גר‬,‫"אדמו״ר [הרש״ז אוירבך[ זללה״ה שמע מהרב דוד בהר״ן זצ״ל‬ ‫ דהיינו רק לענין‬,‫ ופירש אדמו״ר זללה״ה‬.‫ בטלה הרוח הרעה על הידים‬,‫הצדק ר” אברהם בן אברהם הגרף פוטוצקי‬ ‫ כגון דאין צריך להקפיד שלא ילך ד' אמות קודם הנטילה‬.‫ ולא לגבי דברים הנמצאים בגמרא‬,‫דברים שמקורם מהזוהר‬, ".‫דמקורו מהזוהר ולא מדינא דגמרא‬ 147 Incidentally this argument from the story / legend concerning Count Potocki, who is said to have died at the stake in Vilna in 1749, is somewhat reminiscent of Christian motives that assign a purifying effect to the crucifixion of Jesus; see J. H. Prouser, Noble Soul, 195–197.

5.4 Atypical Texts from the Corpus: Theory and Remedies  

 235

the body, 4.3.7).148 He mentions this tradition in his responsa and refers to a letter by a colleague, Yechiel Zilberberg, which quotes this tradition: . . . and incidentally I [=R. Yechiel Zilberberg] have heard of the very learned rabbi Abraham J. Zelnick – May God keep him alive and protect him – who heard from his father Z”L that there is a tradition of the GR”A – the memory of the just be a blessing – that from the moment that the Count Potocki gave his life to sanctify the name of God – the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning was stopped. And these words are marvellous and need further explanation . . . 149

In other cases, too, an object-oriented, mystical-magical discourse leads to different outcomes than one might expect at first sight. Several responsa in the corpus that argue on the basis of this discourse contend that the Ruach Ra‘ah can be (temporarily) kept at a distance by pronouncing prayers or learning Torah. Precisely a more magical-mystical perspective leads to greater control over the Ruach Ra‘ah, through prayer and learning Torah. He who says petitionary prayers150 (selichot) or learns Torah151 before daybreak, and washed his hands during the night, before daybreak – he does not have to stop at daybreak to wash his hands again. In consideration of the opinion that the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on the hands again at daybreak, because he is occupied with holy things, the Ruach Ra‘ah is not given any opportunity to rest again on the hands.152 Finally there are a number of responsa in the corpus that make use, in various ways, of the statement by the Kabbalist Shalom Sharabi (RaSHaSH; Yemen eighteenth century),153 that he who is awake at midnight, and pronounces the morning blessings from the liturgy and learns Torah, no Ruach Ra‘ah rests on him – not even if he subsequently goes to sleep until the morning. Paradoxically, this magical-mystical discourse returns to the individual some manner of control over his own body: he who has the right knowledge knows what he must do to master the Ruach Ra‘ah. In addition there are a number of responsa that have an explicitly magical character, and that give the impression that the Ruach Ra‘ah

148 V. 4, no. 252. 149 ‫ זלזניק הי״ו ששמע מאביו ז״ל שיש קבלה מהגר״א זצ״ל שמעת‬.‫"אגב שמעתי מפי הרב הגאון ר׳ אברהם י‬ ".‫שהגר״ף פוטוצקי מסר נפשו על קדוש השם נפסק הרוה רעה של שחרית והדברים נפלאים וצריכים ביאור‬ 150 Special prayers that are said for instance on days of fasting and before High Feasts before the regular morning prayers. 151 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 2. The author recommends here that when someone changes from learning Torah (before daybreak) to saying the regular morning prayer, he should wash his hands again three times. 152 Ibid., V. 1, no. 4. 153 Primarily in: Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1, 6, 9, 10; ibid, V. 1 (YD), no. 3.

236 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

can be controlled through magic. The most pronounced examples are a responsum by the Yabbia Omer154 and one by the Ateret Paz.155 The Yabbia Omer permits the use of amulets on Shabbat and the use of rue against the “evil eye”, and the Ateret Paz allows a magical water ritual156 that can cure someone of sorcery. The Ateret Paz does emphasize that he is permitting the ritual because it is used in earlier rabbinic sources and because learning Torah and laying the tefillin also have a protective effect and that they are preferable.157

5.5 Conclusion This chapter started with the problem of how some Talmudic rules must be interpreted: as behavioral rules based on pre-modern scientific knowledge, or as revealed knowledge. This distinction is relevant in relation to the question of whether these prescriptions are subject to change. A knowledge paradigm that recognizes that the Talmudic rabbis used observations and knowledge from their own time is more likely to accept the changeable nature of these prescriptions than a paradigm that regards revealed knowledge as their source. Both knowledge paradigms – the rules change over time and the immutability of revealed knowledge – have influenced the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah.

154 Yabbia Omer, V. 8 OH, no. 37. 155 Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. B., YD, no. 2. 156 He describes that someone who has come to harm through sorcery should walk along the sea or a river (beginning of section 4, ‫)ענף ד‬. Elsewhere in the responsum it becomes clear that actual physical contact with the water is required, although the presence of water itself can also have a protective effect in some cases: ‫ וחוש ששים בני‬,‫ כי יש במקומכם יהודי יקר הי״ו אשר בכל עת אינו חש בטוב‬,‫"ובאשר שאל מעכ״ת שליט״א‬ ‫ טוב‬,‫ ושמעו דכדי לבש טל הכישוף‬.‫ רח״ל‬,‫ עוד בהיותם בחו״ל‬,‫משפחתו כי פגעו בו בצעירותו ע״י לחש וכישוף‬ ‫ ואם יש לזה מקור‬,‫ אם יש ממש בדברים אלו אשר שמעו‬,‫ ושואל כת״ר‬,‫שיעבירוהו על הים או על מקום נהרות מים‬ ".‫ואחיזה בדברי רבותינו ז״ל‬ On the other hand he states: ‫ וכמתבאר להדיא‬,‫"אלא מבואר דבעינן שיגע במים עצמם ללא שום חוצץ‬ ".‫ ומדברי רבינו החיד”א‬,)‫מדברי ספר חסידים הנ”ל (סי’ תתשמד‬ 157 See the previous footnote with a reference to Sefer Hassidim and the ChiDA. On Torah and tefillin: ‫ והוי מים חיים וזכים‬.‫ ואגוני מגנא ואצולי מצלא על העוסקים והעמלים בה‬,‫"הרי דתורת ה’ תמימה משיבת נפש‬ ‫ ואמרינן נמי בתנא דבי אליהו‬.‫ וכדאמרו חז״ל (בב״ק יז ע״א) אין מים אלא תורה‬,‫לבטל ולהעביר כל רוח טומאה‬ ‫ וראה גם‬.‫ בין לעוה״ב‬,‫ בין לימות בן דוד‬,‫ אינו רואה מידת פורענות בין בעוה״ז‬,‫רבה (פרק יח) כל העוסק בתורה‬ ‫במדרש רבה (דברים פ״ד ד) מאי “אם שמור תשמרון” אמר הקב״ה אם שמרתם דברי תורה אני משמר אתכם מן‬ ‫ וע״ש עוד כיו״ב דזכות לימוד התורה הקדושה ושמירת מצוותיה אגוני מגנא ואצולי מצלא לשמור‬.‫ יעו״ש‬.‫המזיקין‬ ".‫ ע״ש‬.‫את האדם מן המזיקין וכל כיו״ב‬

5.5 Conclusion  

 237

However, many responsa in the corpus do not address the precise nature and effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah, or do this only implicitly, possibly arising from the tension that hard statements on the physical world can produce in contemporary times. The responsa of the corpus that do address this issue use different explanatory models that explain the origins and nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah and its effects on humans. The Ruach Ra‘ah usually originates as a residual product of something holy, as a residue of the holy thing that has disappeared, with negative spiritual powers attaching themselves to this residue. The effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah can be ascribed to a form of contact theory, a theory that the anthropologist Frazer believes also explains many magical phenomena. Some texts use a physical explanatory model for these effects, others a spiritual one – some authors use a combination of both. There is almost no trace of independent theory formation in the corpus, nor is a synthesis attempted between modern science and the explanatory models – with the exception of one author. This is particularly remarkable in the cases that use a physical explanatory model with physical effects. Most responsa in the corpus – especially those that fall within the thematic classification explained in detail in Chapter 4 – appear to play a mediating role between the more mystical texts about the Ruach Ra‘ah and the exoteric, halachic texts. The more mystically oriented authors of the corpus arrive at more spiritualized explanatory models, although the effects for them are not limited to the spiritual domain. They often presuppose physical effects – conceived from an object-oriented approach, sometimes in combination with spiritual effects. The Yitzchak Yeranen strongly incorporates the mystical paradigm in his responsa, thus attempting to create a synthesis between the Talmud and mysticism. In some cases, however, it can be observed that precisely a more mystical-magical paradigm leads to a milder attitude towards the Ruach Ra‘ah, because humans are more able to exercise influence over the Ruach Ra‘ah by observing the correct acts and rules that afford control over the situation. A number of non-paradigmatic texts described even more remarkably observations concerning the effects and nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah: thus an individual act of martyrdom in the eighteenth century is said to have removed or diminished the Ruach Ra‘ah. Even in this extreme example, a human is able to exercise influence over the Ruach Ra‘ah through martyrdom. However, there is no modern scientific epistemological model that could accommodate the Ruach Ra‘ah as the cause of certain physical effects. Even in the one case of the Chemdat Tzvi, the connection between a more modern paradigm and the classical theories does not lead to the replacement of the “older” revealed knowledge paradigm by the new paradigm that depends on scientific research. Many questions in the responsa in the corpus would possibly become superfluous if the situations in question were to prove not to be dangerous – a

238 

 Chapter 5 Ruach Ra‘ah: Explanatory Models between the Material

concept that occurs frequently in the corpus (‫ סכנה‬or ‫)סכנתא‬158 – or harmful to health according to modern insights. The attempt to combine the more modern insights on the role of bacteria and viruses (the hygiene paradigm) as pathogens with what traditional texts say about the Ruach Ra‘ah – as the Chemdat Tzvi explicitly attempts to do and others implicitly159 – is intellectually problematic. It does not offer any explanation for the specific performance of the ritual of the washing of hands (washing thrice and alternating right-left) or for the specific descriptions in the Talmud texts themselves: the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on food and drink under the bed, even if they are closed off. And the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on peeled egg, onion, and garlic that are kept overnight – even if they are wrapped and closed off. These principles return in almost unchanged form in the authors of the corpus, certainly from the perspective of the a priori position. Similarly, there is no good explanation from a modern perspective of hygiene for the cautious attitude that can be found in the corpus regarding the washing of hands in the morning or before a meal in a modern toilet, or the question of whether just entering a toilet is enough reason to wash one’s hands. On the other hand, the emphasis on washing hands in itself, or of food that has been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah,160 and the milder attitude towards food that has been brought into a toilet (or another space) in a closed or covered condition,161

158 See for instance Simchat Kohen, V. 1 OH, no. 6; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 1, no. 133; Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31, Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; Mishneh Halachot, V. 12, no. 22. 159 The observations that salt, sugar, and vinegar help against the Ruach Ra‘ah are perhaps inspired by the fact that these products have a preserving effect and slow down the growth of bacteria. Implicitly, a hygiene-oriented explanatory model is also present in the responsa in the corpus that state that washing off foodstuffs helps to cleanse them of the Ruach Ra‘ah and make them suited for consumption again (see for instance Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3). Similarly, the proposition that even an ordinary washing of the hands from a hygiene point of view after rising in the morning has a diminishing effect on the Ruach Ra‘ah, and that it is therefore permitted to eat bread purchased from a baker with secular employees, appears to imply the same paradigm (as in Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1). The responsa on the industrial use of peeled eggs and onions processed in the food industry also appear to imply that the conditions under which they were prepared prevent them from perishing (e.g. pasteurisation and lyophilization). Almost always, however, these arguments are regarded as a posteriori arguments. 160 See for instance Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3 who offers the novel insight that what could be achieved in the past by rinsing food three times can currently be achieved by rinsing under the tap, because this provides running – and therefore always fresh – water: ‫"ובדיעבד אין דעתי להחמיר לאסור המאכל אפילו בשומר תורה שנגע דהא מסיק במ״ב דאין לאסור המאכל אלא‬ ,‫ ומברז מים ממילא מחולפין‬,[‫ והיינו במים מחולפים [עיין בשו״ע סימן ד' סעיף י״ב ובמ״ב ס״ק כ״ה‬.‫ידיחנו ג״פ‬ ".‫ומהאי טעמא מנהג נאה ויאה בכל אוכל כשחפשיים נוגעין בו בלי נטילה להדיחו יפה יפה ויועיל גם לחשש זה‬ 161 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 14, no. 2; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A OH, no. 10 (concerning food and drink in a graveyard).

5.5 Conclusion  

 239

possibly reflect a more hygiene-oriented paradigm from a modern perspective. It is also possible to point to the spiritualization of the concept of “dirt” (‫)זוהמה‬, which possibly also arises from the internalization of a modern hygiene paradigm. On the other hand, the emphasis on the triple washing of hands in certain situations162 or the triple rinsing of food163 that has been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah, and the emphasis on the exact performance164 of the ritual according to the prescribed manner, all point to a more magical-mystical paradigm. The more religious remedies – saying prayers and learning Torah in the early morning as a temporary protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah165 and the question of whether the performance of a religious commandment offers protection (using food on which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests in a Shabbat meal) – belong to a discourse that attempts to mitigate the originally magical-demonic tendencies of the Ruach Ra‘ah and tries to incorporate them into a religious model. It is true, however, that performing a ritual for the purposes of neutralizing a certain force has a magical character. The various remedies can sometimes be found together in the authors.

162 See for instance Minchat Yitzchak, V. 5, no. 96; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no.1: ‫"אם נגע בו‬ "‫ שלא נטלו בבוקר ידים ג״פ לסרוגין‬,‫ איש או אשה יהודים‬She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 4; ibid., V. 2, no. 1 where the author discusses, inter alia, the way in which the hands must be washed after going to the toilet: should this happen with a hand washing cup or not, and should the hands be washed once or thrice; see also Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2 on the question of what someone should do who has only put his hands in the toilet room, but did not enter with his entire body; see also Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5 on food that has been placed in a bathroom or toilet, where the author discusses the number of times that hands must be washed after going to the toilet or a bathroom (and / or the use thereof). 163 E.g. Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5: "‫ ;"דהיכא דאפשר להדיח האוכלין ידיחם ג״פ‬Teshuvot veHanhagot, V. 2, no. 1. 164 See for instance Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3: ‫ עיין בדברינו בח״א‬.‫ עוזרת חפשיה נגעה באוכלין אם ראוי לחשוש ולאסור כיון שלא נוטלת ידים ג״פ בבוקר‬:‫"שאלה‬ ‫ אבל רוב בית ישראל לא נהגו‬,‫(סימן א’) שהבאנ שהגאון וצדיק רבי מרדכי פרוגרמנסקי זצ״ל הקפיד מאד ע״ז ע״ש‬ ." . . . ‫ אף שחפשיים נוגעין באוכלין ולא נוטלין בכלי ג״פ להעביר רוח הטומאה‬,‫להקפיד‬ 165 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 2.

Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus This chapter explores the way in which authors from the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah have treated their texts, and investigates the implicit theological positions that are involved. A Halachist is not always guided by conscious choices from the texts that he has at his disposal, either in assigning weight to a particular text from the discourse, or in the conclusions that he eventually draws. Modern research has pointed to the importance in Halachic literature of individual motives and meta-Halachic factors of which authors may not even be conscious. Thus, in the specific example of the texts of the corpus, other approaches could have been chosen, and these would have led to different conclusions. Is it possible to discern a theological1 orientation in the choices made? It is, moreover, justified to speak of a “general theology” of the corpus, given certain explicitly theological statements confirmed by the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah: the existence of the soul, the daily migration of the soul during sleep and its return to the body at the moment of rising, a type of the resurrection in Messianic times (the Techiyat haMetim); the difference between Jews and non-Jews interpreted as spiritual election. These theological opinions are also embedded in the existing liturgy – in prayers such as Modeh Ani, Elohai Neshamah,2 and the Amidah, whose second blessing Mechayeh haMetim – “he who makes the dead revive” – explicitly deals with the resurrection.

1 Although the term “theology” is controversial particularly in relation to Orthodox Judaism, many authors use it in academic publications in their description of Judaism and its various strands, e.g.: L. Jacobs, A Jewish Theology; S.B. Lubarsky et al., Jewish Theology and Process Thought; N. Gillman, Doing Jewish Theology: God, Torah & Israel in Modern Judaism; J. Neusner, Understanding Jewish Theology: Classical Issues and Modern Perspectives; B.L. Sherwin, Faith Finding Meaning: A Theology of Judaism; E.N. Dorff et al., Contemporary Jewish Theology: A Reader; M. Fishbane, Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology; B.Z. Bokser, Judaism and Modern Man: Essays in Jewish Theology; E.B. Borowitz, Renewing the Covenant: A Theology for the Postmodern Jew; D. Hartman, Love and Terror in the God Encounter: The Theological Legacy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik; M. Seidler, Rabbinic Theology and Jewish Intellectual History. The Great Rabbi Loew of Prague; D. Halivni, Breaking the Tablets: Jewish Theology After the Shoah; M. Schleicher, A Theology of Redemption: An Analysis of the Thirteen Tales in Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav’s Sippurey Ma’asiyot; S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology; M. Ben-Horin, Transnature’s God: Studies in Mordechai M. Kaplan’s Theology; S. Kajewski et al., Abraham Joshua Heschel: Philosophy, Theology and Interreligious Dialogue. 2 See for instance M.J.H.M. Poorthuis: “Gott, die Seele und der Leib: Kernfragen religiöser Anthropologie im Spiegel eines jüdischen Morgengebetes”, in Identität durch Gebet. Zur gemeinhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-007

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 241

This chapter begins with a discussion of the theoretical framework (6.1), and then describes the way in which the authors in the corpus treat the various paradigms from rabbinic literature on the Ruach Ra‘ah (6.2), before addressing the influence of modern technology and science on the corpus (6.3).

6.1 Theoretical Framework The theological dimension of the way the corpus deals with rabbinic texts acquires even greater significance when it is regarded in the context of post-War Orthodox Judaism. Although textual study has traditionally been an extremely important pillar of rabbinic Judaism, an important new trend has emerged in the post-War period, as Chaïm Soloveitchik3 and M. Friedman4 have contended. These scholars have observed a trend in which lived rituals, practices, and trends are being subordinated to the texts. This process is the consequence of a rupture in tradition itself, as the “old word” and its specific way of transmitting knowledge through daily life has disappeared as a result of the Shoah, migration, and the encounter with the modern world. In this view, the centrality and authority of the text is a way of artificially recreating tradition once this has disappeared in its natural form. Two prominent rabbis have played an important role in this process: Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (1838–1933) and the Chazon Ish (Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878–1953).5 According to Soloveitchik, Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah has become an almost canonical source in post-Shoah ultra-orthodox Judaism: This dual tradition of the intellectual and the mimetic, law as taught and law as practiced, which stretched back for centuries, begins to break down in the twilight years of the author of the Aruch ha-Shulchan, in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. The change is

schaftsbildenden Funktion institutionalisierten Betens in Judentum und Christentum, ed. A. Gerhards et al. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2003), 413–428. 3 Ch. Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction: the Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Tradition 28 (1994): 64–130. 4 M. Friedman, “Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Development of Ultra Orthodox Judaism”, in Judaism From Within and Without: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. H. Goldberg (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), 235–255. 5 See B. Brown, haChazon Ish. Haposek, Hama’amin uManhig haMahapecha haCharedit (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2011), 460–469. Brown qualifies the Friedman’s and Soloveitchik’s findings in relation to the Chazon Ish – Brown regards the Chazon Ish’s mistrust of the minhag (custom) as a source of Halachah as typical of the Lithuanian tradition (e.g. the Vilna Gaon) and thus as a pre-Shoah phenomenon. He has cautioned against labelling all kinds of phenomena in contemporary Orthodoxy as “a reaction to modernity”.

242 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

strikingly attested to in the famous code of the next generation, the Mishnah Berurah. This influential work reflects no such reflexive justification of established religious practice . . .6

Soloveitchik has pointed to the existence of an extensive post-Shoah halachic literature dealing with everyday subjects (such as laying phylacteries and prayer); issues that most people previously would presumably have been familiar with on the basis of existing Halachic literature and the lived religious life.7 It is precisely because these texts deal with everyday situations and rituals, such as the ritual washing on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, that they receive this level of attention. Moreover, retaining archaic terms or reintroducing old topics into a new discourse can be a reaction to modernity – or a rejection of it, as Chajes8 has demonstrated for an earlier period in relation to reports of possession by a dybbuk. Chajes regards the dybbuk reports as a negative response to rising rationalism,9 which supposedly undermined the existence of the soul and belief in hell.10

6.1.1 Emphasis on the Stricter Opinion (Chumrah) A second observation of the researchers mentioned above is that the post-Shoah Halachah shows a inclination to emphasize the stricter opinion. Friedman et al. have used the term “voluntary community” in relation to ultra-orthodoxy, 6 Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction”, 67. 7 Ibid.: “One of the most striking phenomena . . . is the explosion of halachic works on practical observance. I do not refer to . . . works on Sabbath laws, as these can be explained simply as attempts to determine the status . . . the permissibility of use, of many new artifacts of modern technology, similar to . . . recent works on definition of death and the status of organ transplants. Nor do I have in mind the halachic questions raised by the endless proffer of new goods in an affluent society. I refer rather to the publications on tallit and tefillin, works on the daily round of prayers and blessings in synagogue and home, tomes on High Holiday and Passover observance . . . The vast halachic corpus is being scoured, new doctrines discovered and elicited, old ones given new prominence, and the results collated and published.” 8 J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (2003). 9 See R. Elior, Dybbuks and Jewish Women, 61, which associates the original phenomena of the dybbuk and exorcism with the Early Modern period, as a reaction to the great and drastic changes of that time. See also Elior, 95. n. 44. 10 Ibid., 62, n. 12: “. . . stories on possession as well as other evidence of supernatural appearances, such as spirits and demons, were abroad in the Christian community as well as in the Jewish community, serving as weaponry in the great seventeenth-century combat against rationalistic tendencies and the move to abandon belief in the eternity of the souls and punishment after death”.

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 243

meaning that membership is voluntary and does not, by definition, have to reflect the entire spectrum of religious life in a society.11 The community instead is a reflection of one form of Judaism: strict orthodoxy with its emphasis on isolation, text-oriented piety and praxis, and a specific form of historiography in which hagiography and anachronistic idealisation of the past are important elements. Friedman regards this as initially primarily an Ashkenazi phenomenon, strongly oriented towards Eastern European pre-Shoah Judaism, although comparable developments can be observed in Oriental orthodox Judaism in imitation of the Ashkenazi form. One of the causes of this imitation is the fact that many Oriental orthodox Jews studied in Ashkenazi institutes of learning, or in institutes modeled on the Aschenazi example.12 In the last few decades, certain elements from ultra-orthodox Judaism have spread to segments of the religious Zionist movement, such as the emphasis on the segregation of the sexes, women’s modesty in behaviour and dress,13 and preferring learning Torah above the secular professions.14

6.1.2 Holistic Approach to Texts: The Mishnah Berurah The holistic approach to texts means that they are studied in conjunction with each other as much as possible, and are integrated into a single paradigm, instead of a clear choice between different approaches. Thus integration of the different texts into one paradigm follows the a priori / a posteriori model, so that a more lenient and a stricter opinion continue to coexist alongside each other. Another possibility is to differentiate according to piety – the more lenient opinion may apply on the basis of the law, but those who wish to go beyond the letter of the law and act more strictly in their own case are encouraged to do so. The result is a rather conservative Halachic discourse, which minimizes the influence of the historical and cultural-religious context. An important modern example of this holistic-conservative approach to the Halachah is the Mishnah Berurah by Kagan, already mentioned. The Mishnah Berurah uses earlier sources without qualifying (in any noticeable way) the world

11 M. Friedman, “Life Tradition and Book Tradition”, 238–241. 12 Ibid., 252, n. 12. 13 As far back as the 1980s, Rabbi S. Aviner – one of the authors in the corpus – wrote two books on modesty and purity, Gan na’ul – Pirke Tzeni’ut (1985) and Chesed ne’urayig – Tenu’at Noar veTzeni’ut (1985), on the problem of mixing boys and girls in youth organisations. 14 Tendencies in this direction can be observed for instance in S. Aviner’s Chaye Olam (2010) on the importance of Torah study.

244 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

view from which they were written, or interrogating it from a contemporary knowledge paradigm. The Mishnah Berurah’s approach is therefore comparable with another conservative nineteenth century Halachic codex, Ganzfried’s Kitsur Shulchan Aruch. This gives a summary of Karo’s Shulchan Aruch and Ashkenazi commentaries, but does so by adopting its principles (almost) integrally, without any further discussion.15 The difference between the Aruch Hashulchan codex by Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829–1908) and Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah – a source to which several authors from the corpus refer – is that16 the former surveys the entire literature and then shows that the practice is plausibly justifiable in terms of that literature. . . within the bounds of the reasonable. And the legal coordinates upon which the Mishnah Berurah plots the issue are the written literature and the written literature alone. With sufficient erudition and inclination, received practice can almost invariably be charted on these axes, but it is no longer inherently valid.17

The Mishnah Berurah’s approach results in the pursuit of consensus of the majority of the texts, or of the most authoritative among them, supplemented by the stricter opinion.

6.1.3 Halachah and Meta-Halachah The term “Meta-Halachah” is much-used in contemporary academic research of the development of the Halachah and the analysis of halachic texts. Its precise definition is open to interpretation.18 Meta-Halachah described as “the personal convictions, theological principles, and a priori assumptions of the halacha”19 covers one definition proposed by A. Rosenak (see also 1.2.1). Various meta-

15 On the strict opinions of this codex, see for instance D.M. Feldman, Marital Relations, 15. See also n. 18. On the undiminished popularity of the Kitzur and its new editions with comments, see J.E. Friedman, “Rabbi Ganzfried’s two million Kitzurs”, Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, V. 46, no. 4 (1997): 465–471. 16 E.g. Betsel Hachochmah, V. 3, no. 11; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 4, no. 36, 114; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no 2; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 9; ibid., V. 12, no. 22; ibid., V. 16, no. 16; She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 4, 5; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1, 4; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1. 17 Ch. Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction”, 67. 18 For a brief overview of this see A. Kaye, “Eliezer Goldman and the Origins of Meta-Halachah”, Modern Judaism 34, no, 3 (2014): 309–333, esp. n. 2, 4.; A. Rosenak, haHalachah, 107–129; idem., “Hirhurim al hazika”, Iyunim, 65–96; and idem., “Meta-Halachah”, Halachah, Meta-Halachah, 17–34. 19 A. Rosenak, “Meta-Halachah”, 24–25.

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 245

Halachic principles can influence the selection of texts included in the discourse, and the way in which different genres are assessed, and then point the Halachic process in a certain direction. The great value that post-Shoah Judaism attaches to written texts, as opposed to other sources of the Halachah – such as living tradition and the customs of previous generations – is also a theological meta-Halachic consideration.20 The centrality of text says something about how the development of the Halachah is regarded. The notion that the Halachah contains a dynamic component finds fewer and fewer adherents as the confrontation with modernity and with reform movements in Judaism unfolds. Instead, the Halachic imposition of a stricter rule (the Chumrah)21 has become an act of faith in itself for some in post-Shoah Judaism, as a sign of sacrifice22 and faith that removes all possible doubt.23 One of the important founders of contemporary Haredi Judaism is the Chazon Ish (Abraham Y. Karelitz, 1878–1953), who can also be found in the corpus.24 This conservative Talmudist25 is the figurehead of the ultra-orthodox (non-Hasidic) yeshiva world, and a major proponent of the strict approach in the Halachah (the chumrot).26 A recent monograph on the Chazon Ish by Benjamin Brown describes the Chazon Ish’s religious development as a transition from pre20 On custom (minhag) versus text, see Brown, haChazon Ish, 424–469. 21 On the role of the Chazon Ish and the chumrah, see for instance M. Friedman, “The Market Model and Religious Radicalism”, in Jewish Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective:Religion, Ideology, and the Crisis of Modernity, ed. L.J. Silberstein (New York: New York University Press, 1993), 192–215; idem., “The Lost Kiddush Cup: Changes in Ashkenazic Haredi Culture – A Tradition in Crisis”, in The Uses of Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), _175–187; idem., HaChevrah HaCharedit:Mekorot, Megamot, veTahalichim (Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1991), e.g. 88–95. 22 Including “imposition of the stricter rule out of love”, see Brown, haChazon Ish, 472. Brown’s Chapter 4 of the section dealing with the Halachah is entirely dedicated to the chumrah, 479–496. 23 Brown mainly regards the Chazon Ish as an exponent of the chumrah to remove doubt, although he also sees a religious way to permit the intellect to rule emotion and control the Evil Inclination in the concept of dikdukei haDin (the details of the law); see 149–150. 24 E.g. Tzitz Eliezer, V. 14, no. 2; ibid., V. 22, no. 41; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 2; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; V. 7 OH, no. 27; Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5. 25 For instance in his rejection of the use of newly discovered manuscripts, text editions of the Talmud such as Dikdukei Soferim, and his criticism of the Mussar movement and the analytical method of Talmud studies such as that practiced by the Brisk dynasty, his resistance against alternative military service for women, and his aversion to halachic innovation through takkanot; see for instance Z.A. Yehuda, “Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and Halachah”, Tradition 18, no. 2 (1980): 172–180; L. Kaplan, “The Hazon Ish: Haredi Critic of Traditional Orthodoxy”, in The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, ed. J. Wertheimer (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 145–173. 26 Friedman, “Life Tradition and Book Tradition”, 235–238; Brown, haChazon Ish, 470–496.

246 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

Shoah rationalism to a phase of “simple faith” in the later phases of his life. The Chazon Ish had great admiration for Kagan, already mentioned (the Chofetz Chaim), whose halachic rulings have the same status for him as those of the erstwhile Sanhedrin.27 For example, Brown has traced the Chazon Ish’ doctrine of ‘simple faith’ to the Chofetz Chaim.28 The emphasis on simple faith has led, for instance, to a conservative stance on the text-critical approach to the Talmud and (to a lesser degree) to medieval authors. Before the Shoah it was an accepted practice in certain strands of orthodoxy to use other manuscripts of the Talmud – such as the Munich Talmud manuscript – for comparison, as Rabinovitch’ Dikdukei Soferim (second half of the nineteenth century) did, and, earlier the Vilna Gaon. The Chazon Ish generally disapproved of the use of manuscripts that deviated from the printed version of the Talmud, and the use of medieval authors whose works had been not been copied and printed for some time.29 According to Brown, arguments on the level of faith and doctrine played an important role in this.30 This conservative perspective on the doctrinal tradition is not conducive to Halachic renewal, although Brown has shown remarkable examples of innovation in the Chazon Ish’ work.

27 Chazon Ish, Kovetz Iggrot, V. 2 (Jerusalem: haMesorah, 1957), no. 41, 47. 28 Brown, haChazon Ish, 171, and n. 1. The Chazon Ish is not the only rabbi in post-war (ultra-) orthodox Judaism to emphasise the importance of Kagan for the yeshiva world. Rabbi Shach – the undisputed leader of Lithuanian Judaism in Israel from the mid-1970s to the early twenty-first century, and long-term head of the prestigious Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak – spoke the following almost mythologizing words on the Chofetz Chaim: “‘My comprehension of gedolei Torah [great Torah scholars] extends only as far back as the Chafetz Chaim. Beyond that I have no comprehension at all” (in Harav Shach, The Rosh Yeshiva Remembers, ed. A. Bergman (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1999), 149). Shach was personally also a conservative: he opposed alternative military service for women, the reading of secular newspapers, the listening to and viewing of modern media such as radio and television, the inclusion of secular knowledge and skills in the yeshivot and other institutes of learning, and halachic compromise. See Michtavim uMa’amarim meMaran Hagaon Rav Shach, V. 1–2 (Bne Berak, 1988), 111–112, 126–130, 167, 169; ibid., V. 3, 31, 36–38, 53–55, 75, 120, 130. 29 Brown has demonstrated that the Chazon Ish’s opinions are more complex than is usually acknowledged, see haChazon Ish, 385–387 and 392–396. See also S.Z. Havlin, “haYachas leShe’elat Nusach besifrei Chazal”, in Beth haVa’ad learichat kitvei Rabenu, ed. J. Katan and A. Soloveitchik (2003), 13–35, esp. 18–20. 30 Brown gives three reasons (387–389): 1. the scholars took great care in preparing a pure edition of the Talmud; 2. faith in the edition of the Talmud handed down is an aspect of faith in the authority of the scholars (‫ ;)אמונת חכמים‬and 3. Divine providence has ensured that the Torah was handed down and preserved intact, so that great errors are impossible.

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 247

The holistic approach to texts also opens the door to greater influence of mystical elements on the Halachic discourse, an aspect not discussed by Soloveitchik. The ontological approach of Kabbalistic literature – characteristic of the object-oriented approach – and the emphasis on the metaphysical effects of good deeds and sin gives rise to a discourse that tends towards imposing the stricter opinion. This has been demonstrated specifically in relation to the Halachic discourse on sexuality and birth control.31 Kabbalistic influences enter Halachic discourse through various channels, from purely Kabbalistic literature such as the to Halachic authors who have been influenced by mysticism, such as the Mishnah Berurah itself. This influence of the mystical-Kabbalistic discourse must also be reckoned as one of the meta-Halachic principles. Another channel perhaps has been ethical-moralistic literature, which has been adopting Kabbalistic elements in its discourse since the sixteenth century, and which has had implicit influence on Halachic discourse.32

31 F. Feldman, Marital Relations, 115–118, and: “But it was the Mystic tradition in Judaism, chiefly through . . . the , which crystallized and reinforced the sense of horror at hash-hatat zerah and exerted profound influence on the populace and legal authorities alike . . .”, 114. 32 The influence of the ethical-moralistic discourse is particularly evident in the influence of the Mussar rabbis on leading yeshivot in the post-war period, such as Rabbi Chaim Shemulevich’s (1901–1978) on the Mir-yeshiva, and Rabbi Eliyahu Dressler (1892–1953) on the prestigious Ponevezh yeshiva in Bnei Brak, where he became the spiritual leader (‫ )משגיח‬in 1947. Dressler is regarded as an influential spiritual leader in contemporary (ultra-) orthodox Judais; see M. Rosenak, “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israeli Education”, in Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education, ed. M. Marty et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 389: “an acknowledged leader in the midcentury haredi yeshiva world”. His Michtav me’Eliyahu is a frequent object of study in Orthodoxy up to the current time. In Great Britain, he was one of the most influential persons in the ultra-orthodox centre in Gateshead, where he taught pupils such as Louis Jacobs; see L. Jacobs, Beyond reasonable doubt (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999), 182–183. The influence of kabbalistic thinking on Dressler is very clear, as indeed the entire Mussar movement was influenced by the Kabbalah; see Garb, The Chosen Will Become Herds: Studies in Twentieth Century Kabbalah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 34: “. . . although the study of Kabbalah penetrated the world of the Mussar movement . . .”. See also 139, n. 89, where Garb somewhat minimises the influence of the Kabbalah on Dressler: “some kabbalistic themes”. This influence was in fact very great, such as the mystical terms that appear throughout the various volumes, the references to the , to Satan, the Dark Side or the Other Side (Sitra Achra) show; see Strive for Truth, transl. A. Carmell (Jerusalem / New York: Feldheim, 2004), V. 2 (part 3), 221–222: the cancelling out of “sacred sparks”, V. 2, 53, 57, 66; the Shechina that is in exile, “female water” and “male water” (influx from below vs. influx from above), ibid. 150.

248 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

6.1.3.1 Magic as Meta-Halachah The growing influence of the Kabbalah on Halachic discourse has also caused the increasing presence of magical elements, as will be demonstrated below. Attitudes towards magic can be regarded as a meta-Halachic theological standpoint, because magic gives rise to the question of which acts are legitimate from a theological perspective, and which constitute breaches of the natural order established by God, or even idolatry. This distinction has often been made: the ethnographer Frazer mainly situated the distinction between religion and magic in submission to the will of God versus enforcing certain results.33 The distinction between magic and religion is, however, notoriously difficult, both from a scientific point of view and from an internal religious perspective. The social sciences use the terms etic and emic34 – terms derived from linguistics (phonetic / phonemic), with the first one meaning the outsider’s perspective, and the second that of the insider (native perspective). Although it is not always clear from the outside where the dividing line between magic and religion runs, a very clear distinction is often made within a particular culture. A strongly normative emic view attributes magic to other religions and reserves purely religious-ritual acts for one’s own religion. Research of Jewish magic in recent decades has produced a varied picture, as publications on Jewish magical texts on magic bowls, amulets, medieval Geniza fragments, the magical-mystical Hechalot texts35 (by scholars such as Shaked, Levene, Schäfer, Bohak, Harari, Idel et al.), and the research of Bar-Ilan, Seidel and others of magical tendencies in the Talmud show.36 It transpires that relations between rabbis, mystical, and magical texts were much more intense than was previously assumed.37 It has also become clear that the attitude of rabbinic Judaism towards magic was varied and pragmatic: some forms of praxis were

33 See for instance R. Styers, Making Magic. Religion, Magic, and Science in the Modern World (Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), e.g. 79–81. 34 E.g. Bohak, ibid., 3–4. 35 It would be remiss not to mention G. Scholem’s research of Jewish mysticism as a catalyst for academic research of Jewish magic. 36 A good survey of research of Jewish magic and the development of this field of study as a serious discipline can be found in Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), introduction and Ch. 1. 37 See for instance S. Shaked, “Form and Purpose in Aramaic Spells: Some Jewish Themes”, in Officina Magica – The Working of Magic, ed. S. Shaked (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–30; M. Bar-Ilan, “Magic Seals on the Body among Jews in the First Centuries C.E.” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 57 (1988): 37–50; idem., “Exorcisms Performed by Rabbis: Something on the Talmudic Sages’ Dealings with Magic” [Hebrew], Daat 34 (1995): 17–31; M. Bloom, Jewish Mysticism and Magic – an anthropological perspective (London / New York: Routledge, 2007); Bohak, Ancient, 339–341, 351–425.

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 249

prohibited, others were tolerated, or approved.38 Although magic is banned in the Bible – a prohibition that is further developed in rabbinic classical literature – even biblical laws, biblical stories, and rabbinic literature from Antiquity provide some room for legitimate magical practices.39 This also demolished a separate, all too rigid distinction between religion and magic: the distinction between “high culture” (religion) and “low culture”. Whereas in the past magic was primarily associated with folklore and the religions of primitive peoples (ethnography), it has become evident that this distinction is of little use, at any rate in the case of Jewish magic – Talmud and Kabbalistic literature are often the product of the rabbinic elite.40 However, scholarly research of Jewish magic in the last few decades and its development into a full academic discipline have not so far led to any intensive research of the magical elements in the praxis of orthodox Judaism. And even less so to research of the magical elements in modern, orthodox rabbinic texts such as those on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus.

6.1.4 Scientific Knowledge versus Religious Thinking It is not the intention here to define at length the tension between modern science and the Halacha, or to discuss possible approaches of this issue in the rabbinic literature of the last few centuries, or known Halachic cases where the problem is particularly visible.41 Discrepancies between empirical and contemporary scientific paradigms on the one hand and the Talmud on the other were already observed in earlier periods. Some medieval rabbis pointed to the Talmud’s undisputed religious authority and the status of the information it contains on

38 See for instance J. Goldin, “The Magic of Magic and Superstition”, in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schuessler Fiorenza (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1976), 115–147; Bohak, Ancient, 351–425, esp. 422–423. 39 See for an extensive discussion Bohak, Ancient, 8–69. 40 See also Bohak, ibid., 38, where he argues that viewing Jewish magic as folk religion “is not without value”, but that it does not apply to many “inside sources”. 41 See on this for instance: S. Rosenberg, Torah uMaddah (Jerusalem: Misrad haTabut vehaTarbut, 1988), esp. 23–58; N. Lamm, Tora uMaddah (Jerusalem: Misrad haChinug, 1996); Brown, haChazon Ish, 602–651; N.M. Guttel, Hishtanut haTeva’im beHalachah (1995); M.Kislev, “hahoreg Kina beShabbat, kehoreg Gammal beShabbat?”, Shana beShana (2002), http://www. daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shana/hahoreg-4.htm; J. David Bleich, “Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature: “Spontaneous Generation and Halachic Inerrancy””, Tradition 44, no. 4 (2011); F. Rosner, “Eating Fish and Meat together: is there a Danger?”, Tradition 35, no. 2 (2001): 36–44.

250 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

secular knowledge, such as medicine42 and other fields of knowledge that are amenable to correction – an opinion formulated in these terms as late as the nineteenth century by Rabbi S. Hirsch. E. Westreich has extensively studied the problem of Halachah, medicine, and science,43 and the way in which it emerged in the rulings of rabbinic courts in Israel on the subjects of genetics, fertility, and pregnancy from the 1940s to the 1980s. In two of the three approaches he distinguishes, he has observed a conservative tendency in modern orthodox Judaism, a tendency dating as far back as the nineteenth century. It is connected with processes of emancipation and secularization in modernity that threatened the traditional rabbinic world, processes in which science played an important role. As a result, the earlier opinion, expressed in an older debate, that Halachic conclusions should be revised on the basis of scientific discovery, was totally rejected.44 According to Westreich, resistance initially emerged against new science in the form of genetics and research of blood groups, but much less so against experience- and skillbased medicine, such as for instance medical knowledge concerning fertility and pregnancy.45 In his research, Brown has therefore been particularly attentive46 to the Chazon Ish’s attitude to the problem of Talmudic statements that conflict with contemporary scientific insights. Brown has used various examples – for instance the date line, autogenesis in worms, physical deformations in animals and their status with regard to ritual slaughter (‫ – )שחיטה‬to show that, although the Chazon Ish’ standpoint is more complex than the epithet conservative suggests,47 the Chazon Ish generally sides with the paradigm of the Talmud and the medieval Talmud commentaries – even if these conflict with contemporary scientific knowledge. Meta-Halachic arguments such as Divine providence,48 the indisputable

42 Guttel, Hishtanut, 43–46, on the use of medical knowledge and treatments from the Talmud, whose effectiveness was already doubted by the Geonim, and 177–180 with Maimonides’ and his son Avraham’s opinion, which widens the scope beyond the field of medicine. 43 E. Westreich, “Refu’a uMada’e haTeva bePesikat Batei haDin haRabbani’im”, Mishpatim 26 (1996): 425–492. 44 See also Brown, haChazon Ish, 611. 45 A somewhat artificial distinction between the exact sciences and a science that also includes aspects of craft and art. 46 Ibid., 602–651. 47 His opinion on the treatment of small children on Shabbat, where he adopts a more lenient and subjective point of view; see Brown, ibid., 545–549. 48 The Chazon Ish’s explanation why only those deformations that are mentioned in the Talmud are normative, even if it transpires in later generations that these are not always lethal within 12

6.1 Theoretical Framework 

 251

authority of the rabbis from the Talmud, and esotericism49 all play their part in this. The increased influence of the Kabbalistic-magical discourse on the Halachah as described above can also constitute a meta-Halachic explanation for the partial rejection of the modern scientific paradigm. By contrast, Soloveitchik in his article has argued that the imposition of the stricter opinion in Halachic discourse is due to the internalizing of modern science by Orthodoxy, and to the disappearance of the “animistic and symbolic universe” that characterized the Kabbalistic world view: In the world now inhabited by religious Jewry, however, the material environment has been controlled by a neutral technology, and an animistic, value-driven cosmos replaced by a mechanistic and indifferent one. Modernity has thus defoliated most of these practices and stripped the remaining ones of their significance . . . As religion ceased to be called upon to control directly the natural world, many vital areas of activity lost their religious coloration, and, with it, their differentiating force . . . as large spheres of human activity were emptied of religious meaning and difference, an intensification of that difference in the remaining ones was only natural. . .50

The corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah can also be regarded as a theological answer to the encounter with the modern world – another meta-Halachic theme. The questions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah that appear in the corpus, in its prescriptions on food and the body, touch on the possible tensions that exist between science and religion. Many aspects of the Ruach Ra‘ah have a physical component: anyone who argues that the Ruach Ra‘ah causes physical effects will have to deal with modern science, which can serve both to corroborate and to refute the physical effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah. In any case, modern science does not leave any space for the Ruach Ra‘ah – other than as hygiene – in its paradigm on disease and health. After the theoretical framework that has been outlined above, the remainder of the chapter will analyze how the authors use earlier paradigms from Talmudic, medieval, and pre-modern literature. The focus will be on the question of how and if the theoretical framework described above is expressed in the corpus. months, or that there are other deformations that are lethal but were not mentioned before; see Brown, ibid., 640–641. 49 See for instance his explanation concerning the distance of 500 years between the various heavens, which is “a mystery” (‫ ;)ענין סודי‬Brown, ibid., 607. 50 Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction”, 76–77. See also n. 19, 110: “One of the salient characteristics of contemporary religious society is the disappearance among them of the animistic and symbolic universe that had nurtured this ritual impetus”, etc.

252 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature: Different Paradigms for the Ruach Ra‘ah The longer texts of the corpus often use the Talmud, medieval commentaries and codices, and pre-modern halachic texts in their answer to a question. The Talmudic texts that are relevant to the Ruach Ra‘ah and that play a role in the Halachic discourse in the corpus largely have an implicitly rational character. They deal with health prescriptions: some acts are detrimental to the eyes (blindness), the nose (polyps), or the mouth (bad odour). And certain foodstuffs are harmful if they are kept overnight, such as peeled eggs, onions, and garlic. There is no explicitly magical-demonic context of the Ruach Ra‘ah, as there was in Antiquity, but this context is possibly assumed (‫ בת חורין‬,‫)בת מלך‬. The medieval discourse developed the Talmudic passages in different directions.

6.2.1 Magical-demonic Some medieval authors explicitly associate the Ruach Ra‘ah with demons, emphasizing not only the demonic aspect, but also possession. A clear example of this approach is the Talmud commentator Rashi (1040–1105). In one of his commentaries, he contends that the Ruach Ra‘ah is a demon that dwells inside persons: On account of a Ruach Ra‘ah’ – because a spirit of a female demon has entered him, and he runs around, and perhaps he will drown [because of this] in a river, or he will fall and die. . .51

What is remarkable here is that Rashi speaks of a female demon (‫)שידה‬52 who enters a person – a possible reference to the medieval belief in demons who have sexual intercourse with humans, with the human encountering a demon of the

51 Rashi on bTa’aniet: ".‫ ושמא יטבע בנהר או יפול וימות‬,‫ ורץ והולך‬,‫ שנכנס בו רוח שידה‬: ‫"מפני רוח רעה‬ Rabenu Nissim used almost the same terms in this passage from his commentary on the RiF : ".‫שד ורץ והולך שמא יטבע בנהר או יפול וימות‬. ‫"שנכנסה בו רוח‬ See also the commentary by Rabenu Yehonatan of Lunil (twelfth century), who said of someone who goes beyond the permitted area on Shabbat on account of a Ruach Ra‘ah that a demon has entered him and his spirit is confused and he went beyond the area: ."‫ שנכנס בו שד ונטרפה דעתו ויצא חוץ לתחום‬:‫"או רוח רעה‬ 52 See previous footnote.

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 253

other sex (the “incubus” and “succubus”).53 This motif can be traced back to the old Lilith myth,54 – the female demon who has sexual intercourse with men and is intent on killing their physical children – and the dybbuk from later Kabbalistic literature. In the latter case, it is a male spirit of a deceased person who enters the body of a woman (often through the female sex organ).55 There are further similarities in the Jewish context with texts from the Second Temple period, from c. the third century before the Common Era, and in the New Testament.56 The quotation from Rashi57 mentioned above is quoted or referred to in the corpus together with other medieval texts that draw a connection between the Ruach Ra‘ah and demons.58 Some authors from the corpus appear (in part) to subscribe theoretically to the medieval identification of the Ruach Ra‘ah and demons, without attaching to this the practical consequences that might be expected from a demonological paradigm (magical protection, incantations etc.). In short, the texts from the corpus can be divided into three categories with regard to their attitude towards the magical aspects of the Ruach Ra‘ah: a. Texts where the magical-mystical dimension of the Ruach Ra‘ah is absent, or is minimized. Texts in this category were often written from a text-oriented or subject-oriented perspective. The Chelkat Yaakov’s paradigmatic text (cat. space, text-oriented approach) is a clear example of this category, which comprises the majority of the texts in the corpus. b. Texts where the magical-mystical dimension of the Ruach Ra‘ah is confirmed, or extended to other situations of Ruach Ra‘ah. Texts in this category were often written from an object-oriented perspective, and the Yitzchak Yeranen’s paradigmatic text (cat. space, object-oriented approach) is a good example. A number of texts written from the text-oriented perspective also show a similar

53 See also Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic, 51–54. An extensive discussion of sexual intercourse with demons in rabbinic literature can be found in M.J.H.M. Poorthuis, “Eve’s Demonic Offspring. A Jewish Motif in German Literature”, in Eve’s Children. The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. G.P. Luttichuizen (Leiden /  Boston: Brill, 2003), 57–74. 54 See for instance G. Scholem, Kabbalah, 356–361; Trachtenberg, 35–36; 101; 277–278. 55 See for instance a number of dybbuk reports in Menashe ben Israel’s Nishmat Chaim, third essay, Ch. 10 and 14. 56 See G. Bohak, Ancient Magic, 70–114. 57 Yabbia Omer, V. 3, YD, no. 23; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 37. 58 See also Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., no. 5; ibid., V. 8, no. 37; Ateret Paz, V. 1 vol. A (OH), no. 10; ibid., V. 2 vol. B (YD), no. 2.

254 

c.

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

tendency, such as the Yabbia Omer’s paradigmatic text (cat. space) and a number of other texts by this author that fall between these two categories.59 Texts where the discourse on the magical-mystical dimension of the Ruach Ra‘ah is connected with wider magical praxis. This category consists of a small number of texts, sometimes but not always written from the objectoriented perspective. The text-oriented approach can produce a wide-ranging discourse that shows crosslinks with other areas. These texts from the corpus are more strongly magical in content and deal with the writing of an amulet on Shabbat for someone whose life is in danger,60 a remedy against the Evil Eye,61 the cure of a suspected victim of sorcery,62 and the curing of ear pain with mother’s milk.63

6.2.2 Rationalistic: Maimonides A second meta-halachic paradigm from the Middle Ages is rationalism. Maimonides was strongly opposed to anything that smacked of superstition, magic, and demonology. He gives his view on such things in his codex after a long list of magical and mantic practices: . . . All deceitful and false things, and the first idolaters misled the various peoples with such things, so that they followed them in this . . . Anyone who believes in such things, and who thinks in his heart that they are true and a sign of wisdom, but believes that the Torah has prohibited them – is nothing but a fool and an unschooled person. He is counted among the women and children whose intelligence is not perfect. But people of knowledge and those whose intelligence is perfect, they know with clear proofs that all these things that the Torah has prohibited, are not forms of wisdom, but nonsense and vanity.64 59 E.g. Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1 on whether it is permitted to buy bread in a Jewish bakery, if it must be assumed that the employees there do not wash their hands in the morning according to the prescriptions. 60 Yabbia Omer, V. 8 OH, no. 37. 61 Ibid.. 62 Ateret Paz, V. 1 part B, YD, no. 2. 63 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 32. Another example is the very short responsum by the Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 44, section 55 on the use of the name “Zalfonit” as a strong magical-mystical remedy against the Ruach Ra‘ah (see also again in V. 5, no. 509), which is regarded here more in its old meaning of possession or dybbuk. 64 Maimonides, Laws concerning Idolatry, Ch. 11:16: ,‫"ודברים האלו כולן דברי שקר וכזב הן והם שהטעו בהן עובדי כוכבים הקדמונים לגויי הארצות כדי שינהגו אחריהן‬ ‫ שנאמר כי לא‬,‫ואין ראוי לישראל שהם חכמים מחוכמים להמשך בהבלים אלו ולא להעלות על לב שיש תועלת בהן‬ ‫ ונאמר כי הגוים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו ואתה‬,‫נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל‬ ‫ כל המאמין בדברים האלו וכיוצא בהן ומחשב בלבו שהן אמת ודבר חכמה אבל התורה אסרתן אינן‬,’‫לא כן וגו‬

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 255

Maimonides does not mention the Ruach Ra‘ah in his treatment of the laws on the washing of hands in the morning. He places the washing in the context of the pronouncing of the Shema and the Eighteen Benedictions, which must be preceded by the washing of hands.65 Nor does he give exhortations in his codex to wash one’s hands three times, or not to touch orifices and food with unwashed hands after waking up. Similarly, there are no particular prescriptions concerning the water to be used for the washing of hands, and he does not mention the Ruach Ra‘ah in relation to the washing after the meal.66 The Talmudic passage on the Shibta67 is transformed under Maimonides’ hands. He leaves the Talmudic behavioural rule unchanged: a woman should wash her hands before she gives bread to her child. But Maimonides omits the reference to the Shibta and the identification of the Shibta with the Ruach Ra‘ah.68 Similarly, he changes the meaning of the Talmudic passage on the Ruach Ra‘ah under the bed and the corresponding advice not to place any food under the bed: No dish [‫ ]תבשיל‬should be placed under the bed – although he is busy [preparing] the meal. Because perhaps something harmful will fall into it, and he will not see it.69

Maimonides entirely ignores the Ruach Ra‘ah here and follows the Jerusalem Talmud70 which says nothing about a Ruach Ra‘ah but only about a cooked dish (‫ – )תבשיל‬not about raw food. This has nothing to do with the fact that people have slept above the food and have “roofed” the food with their Ruach Ra‘ah / impurity of sleep. Nor can the exhortations not to keep peeled eggs, peeled onions, and garlic overnight be found in this way in Maimonides. He only writes that “garlic that has been ground and (water)melon that has been cut open and has been lying open – are prohibited, and similarly anything that can be compared with this”.71 Maimonides uses this law in the context of uncovered food and drink eaten by vermin that might deposit its poison in the food or the drink.

‫ אבל בעלי החכמה ותמימי הדעת ידעו‬,‫אלא מן הסכלים ומחסרי הדעת ובכלל הנשים והקטנים שאין דעתן שלימה‬ ".‫בראיות ברורות שכל אלו הדברים שאסרה תורה אינם דברי חכמה אלא תהו והבל‬ 65 Maimonides, Laws concerning the Blessings, Ch. 6:2; Laws concerning Prayer, Ch. 4:2 and 7:4; Laws concerning the Shema Ch. 3:1. 66 Laws concerning the Blessings, Ch. 7:11–13. 67 bYoma 77b and bChullin 107b. 68 Laws concerning the Day of Rest of the Tenth (Yom Kippur), Ch. 3:2. 69 Laws concerning Murder and the Preservation of Life, Ch. 12:5: ".‫"לא יתן התבשיל תחת המטה אף על פי שהוא עוסק בסעודה שמא יפול בו דבר המזיק והוא אינו רואהו‬ 70 yAvoda Zarah 2:3. 71 Laws concerning Murder and the Preservation of Life, Ch. 11:8: ." . . . ‫ וכן כל כיוצא בזה‬,‫"השום שנתרסק ואבטיח שנחתך ונתגלה אסור‬

256 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

What remains are a number of references in the codex of Maimonides72 to persons who are under the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, sources that come from a Talmudic source. But according to Maimonides73 this must be regarded as a psychological condition that makes the victim extra sensitive to sensory experience (light) and temporarily mentally incompetent. Maimonides has exchanged the Talmudic explanatory model, which postulated possession in this case, for a medieval medical model that is better able to pass the test of reason and in which there is no role for demons and spirits. On the basis of Maimonides’ approach many questions in the responsa of the corpus would lose all or much of their relevance. References to the opinions of Maimonides’ approach (and the Meiri)74 can indeed be found in the corpus, but the authors from the corpus have not attached any practical consequences to it.

6.2.3 Pragmatic In the Middle Ages there were already rabbis who contended that the Ruach Ra‘ah was partly no longer a relevant category. They argued that the Ruach Ra‘ah could no longer be found in their time or their region. They apparently concluded that the Talmudic exhortations were less relevant because they observed no detrimental effects for people who failed to observe these prescriptions, although no general statements were made to the effect that the Talmud’s standpoint was mistaken or outdated. One example is the Tosafists’ commentary on the Shibta. The central relevant text here is a ruling by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel that a woman may75 wash her hand when she is giving bread to her child to eat.76 Although it is not immediately clear what the original context of this ruling was, bYoma 77b associates it with the 72 Laws concerning the Shabbat, Ch. 27:12–13; Laws concerning the Days of Fasting, Ch. 1:6; Laws concerning divorce legislation, Ch. 2:14; Laws concerning slaughter, Ch. 2:12. 73 Maimonides referred previously to “melancholia” in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, a condition believed to have been caused by too much (black) bile which made the person in question sensitive to light. This is why such persons calmed down when the lamps were extinguished for them on Shabbat; see Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, mShabbat 2:5 and mEruvin 4:1. 74 E.g. Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9 (Maimonides and Meiri’s position). 75 Or: must. 76 ".‫ מדיחה אשה ידה אחת במים ונותנת פת לתינוק‬:‫"רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר‬ In the Chullin treatise the sequence of the words is slightly different: ".‫ אשה מדיחה את ידה אחת במים ונותנת פת לבנה קטן‬:‫"רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר‬ In addition one version mentions a small child, the other a young son.

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 257

ban on washing on the Day of Atonement.77 Although it is normally not permitted to wash one’s hands on Yom Kippur, it is permitted in this case on account of Shibta. In the Chullin treatise, this text fragment is mentioned in a debate about whether someone who is feeding someone else must nevertheless wash his own hands.78 6.2.3.1 The Tosafists and the Shibta According to the Tosafists79 in their commentaries on bYoma 77b and Chullin 107b, the Ruach Ra‘ah of Shibta is no longer relevant in their time: And [the reason for this] is that people currently no longer take any notice of this, because this Ruach Ra‘ah is not present in these lands. Just as they no longer pay attention to leaving liquids uncovered [gilui] and [eating and drinking in] pairs.80

It is also remarkable that the Tosafists extend the observation that there is no Shibta in their lands and their regions to Talmudic exhortations of a comparably magical nature, such as the prohibition on eating and drinking in pairs. Some authors in our corpus quote or refer to the opinion of these Tosafists, but they do not unequivocally conclude from it that the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer a relevant Halachic category in modern times.81 6.2.3.2 The Mordechai and the Peeled Egg A different example of an early source that pragmatically qualifies the Ruach Ra‘ah is the commentary of the Mordechai (Germany – thirteenth century). He discussed the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests upon peeled eggs, garlic, and onions accord-

77 This also explains the addition of “and she does not have to fear” (‫ )ואינה חוששת‬to the original words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel to violate the washing ban. 78 It therefore seems probable that this was the original context of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel’s words. In both treatises, however, it is the later Amora (Talmud scholar) Abaye who introduces the concept of Shibta as an explanation, without incidentally explaining what it means precisely. 79 Tos. bYoma 77b: ‫"ומה שהעולם אין נזהרין עכשיו בזה לפי שאין אותה רוח רעה שורה באלו המלכיות כמו שאין נזהרין על הגילוי ועל‬ ".‫הזוגות‬ This can also be found in almost the same words in the Tosafot commentary on Chullin 107b: ‫"ומה שאין אנו נזהרים עכשיו מזה לפי שאין אותה רוח רעה מצויה בינינו כמו שאין אנו נזהרין על הזוגות ועל‬ ".‫הגילוי‬ 80 On eating and drinking in pairs, see bPesahim 110a-b. 81 Chelkat Yaakov, YD, no. 39; Shevet Halevi, V. 3, no. 169; Divrei Yatsiv, YD, no. 31; Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 7; ibid., EH, no. 7; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 2; ibid., V. 4, no. 1, 10; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 51.

258 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

ing to Niddah 17a. In his commentary, the Mordechai mentions a responsum by his mentor, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (the Maharam): And in relation to a peeled egg that you were asking about – why people have no fear of the Ruach Ra‘ah that can be found in Perek Kol Hayad [bNiddah 13b],82 you have written [= asked] correctly. [But] perhaps it [the Ruach Ra‘ah] is not present among us. Or [one might answer] that the holy texts on it [the egg] protect [litt. save]. Greetings, the humble [litt. poor] Meir.83

According to the first answer, this form of the Ruach Ra‘ah too can no longer be found “among us” in the Middle Ages. The phrase that the Ruach Ra‘ah can “no longer be found among us” (‫ )לא שכיח בינינו‬is strongly reminiscent of that used by the Tosafists when discussing the Shibta in Chullin 107b: “because this Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer found among us” (‫)שאין אותה רוח רעה מצויה בינינו‬. Meir of Rothenburg appears to be extending the Tosafists’ remark to another form of the Ruach Ra‘ah – i.e. that on peeled onion, egg, and garlic that have been kept overnight – and also concludes in this case: that Ruach Ra‘ah can no longer be found among us. The Maharam evidently regarded this as a logical principle that may be applied in other applicable cases to. There are references to the Mordechai in the responsa of the corpus,84 but none of the authors attaches the same practical consequences to it that Meir of Rothenburg does. The discussion in the corpus85 concerns the question of whether this formula “perhaps it [=the Ruach Ra‘ah] is not present among us” must be regarded only as a hypothesis or that the Maharam truly believed that the Ruach Ra‘ah was no longer there. In that case, the introductory “perhaps” would be rabbinic jargon to indicate humility.86 What the discussion appears to ignore, however, is that even if the first answer contains a doubt (“perhaps”) and only formulates an assumption, this is already sufficient grounds87 for the

82 This reference is wrong. 83 ‫ "ומביצה קלופה ששאלת אמאי לא חיישינן לרוח‬: ‫מרדכי מסכת שבת הגהות מרדכי (פרק המוציא) רמז תסא‬ ‫רעה כדאיתא פרק כל היד [נדה דף יג ב[ יפה כתבתם דדילמא לא שכיח בינינו אי נמי כתבי הקדש שעליהן מצילין‬ ".‫ושלום העני מאיר‬ 84 Chelkat Yaakov, YD, no. 39; Minchat Yitzchak, V. 6, no. 75; Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46; Shevet Halevi, no. V. 3, no. 169; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 7; Afarkesta deAniya, YD, no. 145. 85 Afarkesta deAniya, YD, no. 145; Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 7. 86 Yabbia Omer, V, 2 YD, no. 7: ‫ וכמו שהאריך בזה השד״ח‬.‫ הוא רק דרך ענוה ואינו ספק‬,‫"וכמ״ש בעלי הכללים שאע״פ שהפו’ כותבים בל’ אפשר‬ . " . . . ‫כללי הפוסקים‬ 87 The second answer does in fact assume an existing Ruach Ra‘ah that can be averted by placing holy texts on the egg.

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 259

Maharam to justify the custom of disregarding the Talmudic rule. And this even though the passage in Niddah uses very explicit words to describe the danger that consuming peeled egg, onion, and garlic entails: “he is guilty of his life, and his blood [guilt] rests on his [own] head” 88 – in other words, it can even lead to death and he himself would be to blame because he did not observe the rule. But the authors from the corpus have chosen not to simply permit similar issues regarding egg powder and peeled eggs in the modern food industry on the basis of this Maharam – in combination with the opinions of the Tosafists and Maimonides. Here, too, the modern responsa from the corpus a priori prefer the stricter opinion.

6.2.4 Washing Hands after Rising: Qualifying Observations from Pre-modern Times No examples have come to light from the pragmatic approach that qualify the Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands in the morning in general, and argue that “this is no longer found in our regions”. On the contrary, the same Tosafists who contend that the Ruach Ra‘ah can no longer be found among them in relation to certain aspects (as described above) also regard the Ruach Ra‘ah as certainly present on the hands in the morning.89 There is no question of abolishing the ritual, because the Talmud already prescribes the washing of hands in the morning as a preparation for prayer and the reciting of the Shema.90 Yet even pre-modern texts had qualified the Ruach Ra‘ah also in relation to the ritual of the washing of hands, a qualification clearly inspired by the Tosafot’s earlier statements. 6.2.4.1 The Yam shel Shlomoh (Shlomoh Luria, Sixteenth Century) In his Talmud commentary on the Chullin treatise, the Yam shel Shlomoh writes the following:

88 bNiddah 17b: "‫"מתחייב בנפשו ודמו בראשו‬. 89 They even think this is a reason to pour water over the hands three times on Yom Kippur – even though there is a prohibition on washing the body on that day. According to the Tosafists Yoma 77b, this is comparable to cases in which the body has become dirty through mud or faeces. Hands with the Ruach Ra‘ah on them are even dirtier than hands that are dirty through mud or faeces: ‫"ור״ת מפרש דב לא נתינת פת לתינוק מותר ליטול ידיו שחרית ביום כפורים דלא גרע ממלוכלכות בטיט ובצואה‬ ".‫דאמרינן שרוחץ כדרכו ואינו חושש ואין לך מלוכלך בטיט ובצואה יותר מזה שלא נטל ידיו שחרית‬ 90 bBerachot 15a.

260 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

. . . and also that which he91 wrote previously that it is necessary to [wash] twice in the morning on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah – today the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer to be found among us [‫]אין רוח רעה מצויה בינינו‬. But, they [=the hands] do require purification [‫ ]טהרה‬on account of impurities [‫]זוהמה‬, just as with the [bread] meal. But because the hands are clean [as such], [washing] two times suffices. . .92

Luria is the first to extend the Tosafists’ observation to the ritual of the washing of hands in the morning. This affects the details of the ritual: instead of washing three times, washing twice now suffices, as is usually also the case for washings that must be performed for purity (‫)טהרה‬. There is no question of abolishing the ritual altogether. In the responsa of the corpus, various authors point to this commentary by Luria,93 again without attaching any practical consequences to it – i.e. that the Ruach Ra‘ah is no longer a category relevant to the Halachah in modern times. 6.2.4.2 The Maharam ben Chaviv Another late Talmud commentary, by the Maharam ben Chaviv (Moses ibn Chaviv, seventeenth century), the Tosefet Yom Hakipurim, also draws the conclusion in a discussion of the Shibta text (Yoma 77b) that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning is no longer “found among us”: . . . in our time we have never seen or heard that anyone who touched his eyes before he washed his hands went blind? This means that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning is no longer found among us either. . .94

91 The author previously cited by Luria. 92 Yam shel Shlomoh, Chullin, Ch. 8, no. 31. 93 E.g. Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 18, no. 46; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 7, 24; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 1, 2; Mishneh Halachot, V. 16, no. 16; Ateret Paz, Vol. 1, vol. B, YD no. 2. 94 ‫ "מדיחה אשה ידה א’ במים ונותנת פת לתינוק כו’ משום‬:‫תוספת יום הכיפורים מסכת יומא דף עז עמוד ב‬ ‫שיבתא הרמב״ם פסקה לזו פ״ג מהלכות שביתת עשור וחזינן ליה פ״ז דתפלה שכתב ביוה״כ ובט״ב שאין שם רחיצה‬ ‫אינו מברך ענ״י אם כן הטעם שמדיחה ידה היינו מפני שלא נטלן שחרית וכשיטת רש״י ומשמע דבהדחה אחד עובר‬ ‫רוח רעה וקשה דבפ״ח שרצים דף ק״ט תניא רנ״א בת חורין היא ומקפדת עד שירחץ ידיו ג’ פעמים יש לומר דס״ל‬ ’‫להרמב״ם ורש״י דחכמים פליגי אר״נ דר״נ ס״ל דצריך ליטול ג״פ וחכמים פליגי עליה ולכך קתני הכא מדיחה ידה א‬ ‫דבהדחה א’ סגי וה״ט דלא הזכיר הרמב״ם פ״ד וז’ דתפלה גבי נ״י שחרית דצריך ג״פ משום דמשמע ליה דברחיצה‬ ‫א’ הולך הרוח רעה ולא בעי ג״פ אמנם תימה איך הרמב״ם ורש״י ס״ל דאינו נוטל ידיו שחרית ביה״כ וט״ב הלא רוח‬ ‫רעה שורה עליהן ואם נגע בעיניו מסמ’ את העינים כדאיתא פ”ח שרצים יש לומר דס״ל דההיא דקתני יד לעין תקצץ‬ ‫כו’ יחיד הוא דקאמר לה ולית הלכתא כההיא ברייתא דהרי הכא לא הקפידו אלא אם יתן פת לתינוק בלא נ״י שחרית‬ ‫אלמא דבלא נתינת פת לתינוק אין לחוש לסכנה שמא יסמא את עיניו באופן דדעת הרמב״ם ורש״י דרוח רעה השורה‬ ‫על הידים שלא נטלן שחרית אינו מזקת אפילו יגע בעינו ואינו מזקתאלא אם יחן פת לתינוק דאז הרוח שורה על הלחם‬ ‫כנ״ל להליץ בעד הרמב״ם ורש״י ועיין בל״מ עי״ש ולשיטת התוספות דהם שני מינים א’ דשורה על הידים וההיא צריך‬ ‫ליטול ג״פ כדאיתא פ״ח שרצים ויש מין רוח רעה דשורה על האוכל כשבא ליתן פת לתינוק וזה הרוח נדחה בהדחה‬

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 261

Maharam ben Chaviv’s reasoning is mainly empirical: no one actually experiences the consequences that are described in the Talmud – blindness, deafness, polyps – because they touched their eyes, nose, and ears with unwashed hands in the morning. But Maharam ben Chaviv’s conclusion is apparently merely theoretical: he concludes the commentary with “and this requires further analysis” (‫וצריך‬ ‫)עיון‬. One might imagine, however, that this commentary would strongly qualify the relevance of the questions on the Ruach Ra‘ah in our corpus. Quotations of and references to this opinion of the Maharam ben Chaviv’s can be found in two authors from the corpus: the Yabbia Omer and the Yitzchak Yeranen.95 Whereas the Yabbia Omer interprets the words of the Maharam ben Chaviv as a denial of the existence of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning,96 the Yitzchak Yeranen simply understands this as a theoretical possibility, given the concluding “and this requires further analysis”. The following section will discuss a responsum by the Yabbia Omer – one of the paradigmatic texts of 4.3.6 – that illustrates the text-oriented approach, and exemplifies the holistic use of texts in the corpus of contemporary texts.

6.2.5 The Yabbia Omer: An Example The Yabbia Omer’s97 paradigmatic text deals with the status of food and drink that have been brought into a toilet;98 it has already been discussed at some length in Chapter 4. The question is relatively new: the question on transmitting this form of Ruach Ra‘ah to food is not mentioned in the Talmud or in the Shulchan Aruch – although the possible transmission of Ruach Ra‘ah to food and drink is implied by the Shibta or Bat Melech texts in the Talmud. Soloveitchik’s remarks are clearly borne out here: the entire responsum on food and drink that have been brought

‫א’ והעולם לא נהגו להדיח ידיהם כשנותנים פת לתינוק לפי שאין אותו רוח מצויה בינינו קשה דאם כן מ״ש דנהגו לטול‬ ‫ידיהם שחרית אפילו ביוה״כ וט״ב לדחות הרוח רעה הלא בזמן הזה מעולם לא ראינו ולא שמענו דמי שנגע בעיניו‬ ‫טרם יטול ידיו דנסמאו עיניו אלמא דגם רוח רעה של שחרית אינו מצוי בינינו וא״כ איך מתיר ר״ת ל״י שחרית הלא‬ .". . . ‫אין ר״ר מצוי בדורות הללו וצ״ע‬ 95 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 9; ibid., V. 3 OH, no. 2; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 7, no. 27; ibid., V. 8, no. 1; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 2. 96 The Yabbia Omer also mentions the opinion of the Elya Rabbah (in the name of Damesek Eliezer) who also contends that there is no longer any Ruach Ra‘ah in his time. This opinion did not cause him to draw further conclusions concerning the relevance of the Ruach Ra‘ah in modern times either. See for instance Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 1. 97 V. 4 OH, no. 5. 98 Although the original question mentioned a bathroom and not a toilet.

262 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

into the toilet rests mainly on rabbinic texts of the Later Decisors (Acharonim) of the last 300 years, as has been seen in Chapter 4. The influence of the stricter opinion is clearly in evidence here: even before he reached his final conclusion, the author contends that it “is right to judge more strictly”, or “he who judges more strictly, blessing rests upon him”.99 In the conclusion, this preference for the stricter opinion is expressed even more explicitly, although he had argued earlier that the food might be consumed a posteriori: But certainly, he who judges more strictly [and decides] not to eat from it and to give it to the children – then this must be preferred, and the blessing rests upon him . . . From this it is clear that strictly on the basis of the law, it is permitted for ordinary people. He who wishes to be strict, must be strict for himself, and he who judges more leniently, will not lose anything on account of it.100

Not only does this underline the stricter point of view, it even extends it to another situation that was not explicitly the subject of the responsum. It no longer applies only to food and drink that were brought into the toilet itself, but also to food and drink that were touched outside the toilet by someone who just came from the toilet: And the same is true for he who comes from the toilet and touches food and drink with his hands . . . if it is possible to rinse them then he must rinse them three times, and if [this] is not [possible], as for instance in the case of beverages that cannot be rinsed, then it is permitted [without washing].101

6.2.5.1 Reconstruction of Halachic Praxis from Texts Another phenomenon that can be observed in this responsum is that the Halachic praxis is reconstructed from the texts themselves rather than from customs that can be observed in everyday life (minhag). In his answer to the question, the Yabbia Omer uses the argument that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet is a weaker version than that after waking up in the morning. This can be observed from the

99 V. 4 OH, no 5, end of subsection 3 and 4. 100 Ibid.: ‫ וכמו שראיתי‬.‫"והא ודאי שהמחמיר שלא לאכול ממנו ונותנו לקטנים עדיף טפי ועליו תבא ברכת טוב‬ .‫ ששמע מהגאון הק’ מהר״ש מבעלז שהוא מקפיד שלא לאכול מאכל שהיה בבהכ״ס‬,)‫בשם ס’ דברי יצחק (אות קב‬ ‫ וע״כ המחמיר יחמיר לעצמו‬.)‫ (וע״ע בשו״ת יצבור יוסף שווארץ סי’ כג‬.‫ ומוכח דמעיקר דינא שרי לאינשי דעלמא‬.‫ע״כ‬ ".‫והמיקל לא הפסיד‬ 101 Ibid.: ‫ דינא יתיב כאמור לעיל דהיכא דאפשר להדיח‬,‫"וכן היוצא מבית הכסא ונגע בידיו באוכלין ומשקין‬ ".‫ יש להתיר‬,‫ וכן משקין שא״א להדיחן‬,‫ ואם לא‬,‫האוכלין ידיחם ג״פ‬

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 263

manner of washing: only once after going to the toilet, three times in the morning. But this is not an observation from lived practice, but is distilled from texts: As it is said in bShabbat (109a): ‘she [the Ruach Ra‘ah on the hands in the morning] is a distinguished entity [or more probably in the context of the Talmud: personage], and [she] takes care102 that [water] is poured over the hands three times’.103 But he who comes from the toilet, the opinion of some later decisors (Acharonim) about him is that one must wash one’s hands only once. As it says in the Shulchan Aruch (165:1): ‘he who relieves himself and wants to eat, [only] washes his hands twice’; he blesses Asher Yatsar104 over the first [time] . . . and over the second he says the blessing over the washing of hands . . . This proves that it is not necessary to pour [water] over the hands thrice after leaving a toilet. And this is what the Magen Avraham says about that: ‘In Heichal Kodesh it says: He who comes from a toilet must pour [water] over his [hands] three times. But that is only the case for the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning, of which it is said that ‘she takes care’ that [water] has indeed been poured over them thrice [and she only leaves then]. . .

The Halachic position that the Ruach Ra‘ah of the toilet is weaker than that of the morning is a tenable position, because it can be found in the rabbinic discourse of the Later Decisors (the Yabbia Omer also mentions authors who argue that it is always necessary to wash one’s hands three times after going to the toilet). One possible factor here is that these more lenient opinions are defended by the Kaf HaChaim and Ch. Palagi 105 – authoritative authors for the Yabbia Omer (particularly Palagi) 106 – although their opinion does not necessarily serve as a conclusion for practical action.107 If the Yabbia Omer refers at all to a practical example to support the stricter opinion not to eat any food that has been in a toilet, then this is a textually constructed practice, the practice of an isolated pious case far removed from the

102 Perhaps: she is tenacious, or: she is malicious. 103 This phrase is difficult to translate: .‫ בת חורין היא ומקפדת עד שירחוץ ידיו ג’ פעמים‬It could also mean: she is a freely acting person. 104 The blessing after going to the toilet. 105 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5, subsection 1: ‫"וע’ בשו”ת לב חיים ח”א (סי’ עב) ובכה״ח (סי’ ד ס״ק סא) שכמה אחרונים ס״ל כמהקו״ח להלכה שא״צ נט״י אלא‬ ." . . . ‫ ועכ״פ נראה דקושטא הוא דרו״ר שחרית חמיר טפי משאר רו״ר‬.‫פ״א‬ 106 See for instance the conclusion of subsection 4: ‫"וכעת מצאתי להמהר”ח פלאג’י עצמו בשו”ת נשמת כל חי ח״ב (דצ״ב ע״ד) שנתעורר מד’ האחרונים שהם היפך‬ ‫ שאין לו ליטול המים‬,‫ ולפעד״נ דה״ה נמי ליוצא מבהכ״ס שידיו טמאות ברוח רעה‬,‫ וסיים‬.‫ממ״ש בלב חיים הנ״ל‬ ‫ נמצא דרב תנא ופליג ע״ד האחרונים הנ״ל עפ״ד הזוה״ק שיש רו״ר‬.‫ ע״כ‬.‫ והוא ברור‬.‫בחפניו מהחבית וכיו״ב‬ .‫ שאע״פ שמן הדין היה אפשר להקל כד’ רש״ל וסיעתו‬,)‫ והוא כעין מה שסיימתי בשו״ת יביע אומר (שם‬.‫בבהכ״ס‬ ".‫מ״מ נכון להחמיר לכתחלה‬ 107 The Kaf HaChaim contends in his conclusion that it is necessary to wash one’s hands thrice after going to the toilet, OH 4, subsection 61.

264 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

Yabbia Omer’s cultural and religious milieu: one of the Belzer Rebbes. The Yabbia Omer has heard of this tradition in the name 108 of the Divrei Yitzchak,109 and it is possibly a second-hand story: a text by someone else that was cited by this Divrei Yitzchak.110 6.2.5.2 Magical-mystical Elements Finally, this paradigmatic text contains magical-mystical elements. At the start of this responsum, the Yabbia Omer quotes the passage (Bereshit 10b) on the toilet, which explicitly associates the toilet with the Ruach Ra‘ah: There is a Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet who ‘lives’ there, and who derives enjoyment from the filth and dirt that are there – and she immediately rests on the hands of the person [who is in the toilet]. . ..111

Incidentally, this passage in the about the toilet follows immediately after the passage about the Impure Spirit on the hands of a person after waking up. It is logical therefore that a connection should be made between the “spirit” (Ruach) that dwells in the toilet, the Impure Spirit (‫ )רוחא מסאבא‬mentioned above on the hands after sleep, and the Talmudic Ruach Ra‘ah. In this way, different situations that generate Ruach Ra‘ah are linked to each other in this magical-mystical perspective, and aggravating conditions are transferred from the one to the other. Thus the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet also rests on food and drink that have been brought there. The influence of this stricter magical-mystical perspective has also influenced the Yabbia Omer’s conclusion concerning food that has been brought into the toilet, where, as has been seen, a priori he prefers the stricter opinion. This is notwithstanding the fact that he uses the qualifying opinion “that there no longer is a Ruach Ra‘ah in our time” in his discourse. The discourse also contains other clearly magical elements, for instance in the debate about whether covering helps against the Ruach Ra‘ah: covered food and drink brought into the toilet, or covered food and drink placed under the bed. The Yabbia Omer distinguishes between single and double covers (described as wrapped and sealed), and wrapped and sealed with an iron seal. Sealing as a

108 I.e. not in the Divrei Yitzchak itself. 109 It is unclear which book with this title is meant. 110 ‫ ששמע מהגאון הק’ מהר״ש מבעלז שהוא מקפיד שלא לאכול‬,)‫"כמו שראיתי בשם ס’ דברי יצחק (אות קב‬ ".‫מאכל שהיה בבהכ״ס‬ 111 Beginning of subsection 2: ‫ ומיד שרי על אינון אצבעאן דידוי דבר‬,‫ ואתהני מההוא לכלוכא וטינופא‬,‫"רוחא חדא אית בבית הכסא דשרי תמן‬ . " . . . ‫נש‬

6.2 The Authors of the Corpus and Rabbinic Literature 

 265

form of protection in addition to ordinary wrapping points to the magical context of this seal. The question is whether covering, or covering and sealing, helps against the Ruach Ra‘ah?112 On the basis of Talmudic texts and medieval commentaries, the Yabbia Omer argues that the Ruach Ra‘ah and the demons are the same, and that wrapping and sealing therefore helps. However, he also points to stricter opinions that state that wrapping and sealing does not help against the Ruach Ra‘ah. That this treatise is more than a theoretical Halachic exploration of the different opinions is evident from the conclusion where he states that, a priori, one must give heed to these stricter opinions in the case of food and drink that have been placed under the bed.113 This responsum appears to refute the idea that the Yabbia Omer tends to minimize magical and Kabbalistic influences, as Picard has argued.114 The position adopted by the Yabbia Omer in this responsum seems much less innovative and nuanced than Picard suggests.115 The question concerning the identification of demons and the Ruach Ra‘ah appears to produce a pre-modern discourse in both of the possible positions: identification confirms belief in demons; denial of the identification makes the Ruach Ra‘ah even more frightening because regular protection will not work. If a priori fear for the Ruach Ra‘ah in the toilet is necessary – the Yabbia Omer does not simply permit the consumption of food that has been

112 The Yabbia Omer refers to various negative influences that are neutralized by wrapping and sealing: astral negative influences at the changing of the seasons (tekufah), the influence of the angel of death after a death in the vicinity, and as a protection against demons. 113 Conclusion of subsection 6: ." . . . ‫"ולענין דינא נראה לי דלכתחילה בודאי שיש ליזהר בזה לחוש לד’ המחמירים‬ 114 A. Picard, Mishnato shel Harav Ovadyah Yosef beIdan shel Temurot (Ramat Gan: University Bar Ilan, 2007), 195–243; A. Picard, “Pesikato shel Harav Ovadyah Yosef beHilchot Niddah: bikoret Tarbut”, in Iyunim, 453–489. 115 The status of the modern toilet is not discussed in this responsum, for instance. The Yabbia Omer could have made a construction of triple doubt, which it certainly permits: 1. who says that there is a Ruach Ra‘ah in our time? And even if it does exist, 2. the Shalmei Zibbur’s ruling is correct that the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest on food and drink in the toilet, but only on people. And even if it is said that it does rest on food and drink, 3. perhaps the status of a modern toilet is identical to a Persian toilet, meaning that there is no Ruach Ra‘ah in such toilets at all? This would be a more authentic argument and would make the casuistry developed in this text redundant, e.g. the distinction or similarity between the Ruach Ra‘ah and demons; the difference between covered and uncovered and sealed; the difference between a priori and a posteriori; the difference between rinsable and non-rinsable foods and drink; and the difference between great and small financial loss that the Yabbia Omer posits in passing. And all this even though the entire problem concerning food and drink in the toilet is mentioned neither in the Talmud, nor in the Shulchan Aruch. It can be found primarily in the rabbinic literature of the last three centuries.

266 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

brought into a toilet – then fear of demons and their influence is necessary too.116 Lau’s conclusion in his study of Ovadyah Yosef, entitled MiMaran ad Maran,117 that Yosef attempted to limit the influence of the Kabbalah in the Halachic discourse, is not supported in this responsum,118 quite the opposite in fact. 6.2.5.3 The Limits of the Discourse: The Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish The responsum largely shows the a priori limits of the discourse, shaped as it is by the opinions of the Mishnah Berurah and the Chazon Ish; limits that can also be observed in other texts of the corpus.119 Kagan’s Halachic discussions on the toilet are based on the stricter opinion: he who comes from the toilet must always wash his hands, even if he has not relieved himself but only entered the room. And similarly, he who enters the bathhouse – even without washing himself – must

116 In another responsum, too, the Yabbia Omer’s position appears much less original and innovative than Picard makes it seem. See Picard, Mishnato shel, 214–216 on the opinion in Yabbia Omer V. 1 YD, no. 9 concerning food and drink that have been placed under the bed. But if this responsum is read carefully and is compared with what Rabbi Sofer’s Kaf HaChaim says on the same subject, it becomes clear that the Yabbia Omer says the same as the Kaf HaChaim in YD 116, §44. 117 B. Lau, MiMaran ad Maran, 271–324, 370. See also B. Lau, for instance, in “Mekoma shel haKabbalah bepsikato shel Harav Ovadyah Yosef ”, Daat 55 (2005): 131–152. 118 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 8 OH, no. 37. 119 In the Mishnah Berurah, the washing of hands after waking up is described primarily from the stricter, mystical perspective: it is necessary to wash hands immediately after waking up, and a priori not to walk four ells with unwashed hands (OH:1, MB §2), women and children too must wash their hands (ibid.). Kagan regards preparing water by the side of the bed as the best halachic choice. If this has not been done, then one can: either walk a distance that must always be shorter than four ell, rest a while, and then continue, or run to the water as quickly as possible. The least desirable option is to regard the entire house as an area of four ells and to walk normally to the water. This third option is only acceptable if there is an urgent necessity (ibid.). In relation to the touching of food and drink with unwashed hands, his conclusion is that a priori it is necessary to be very careful, but if one has touched it, then the food is not prohibited. However, it must be rinsed three times before consumption (but only if this is possible, OH:4, MB §14). At the conclusion of the laws concerning the washing of hands in the morning, the Shulchan Aruch (OH: 4,18) also mentioned several other situations that necessitate the washing of hands, such as someone who comes from the toilet or from the bathhouse, who cuts his nails, or takes off his shoes. The Mishnah Berurah places the different opinions alongside each other and then tries to harmonise them, for instance by distinguishing between washings on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah and of hygiene. Washings on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah should be carried out as quickly as possible with water, with a single washing sometimes sufficing, and a triple one in other cases. A purification on account of hygiene may be deferred (by contrast to that for the Ruach Ra‘ah), and can sometimes also be performed by rubbing one’s hands clean (Ibid., MB §39). All of these positions are discussed in the corpus.

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus 

 267

wash his hands “on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah that rests in these spaces [toilet and bathhouse]”.120 And although Kagan does not give any direct ruling in his Mishnah Berurah on the status of food and drink that have been brought into the toilet, the object-oriented passage quoted above does suggest that he considers them (at least a priori) unsuited for consumption. This is because the Ruach Ra‘ah present in the toilet or the bathhouse attaches itself to this food and drink. The influence of the Chazon Ish is visible in the stricter opinion121 concerning the modern toilet, which, as the matter is in doubt, should be assigned the status of the Talmudic toilet – and this potentially also means that all the Talmud’s regulations on the toilet apply. In sum it can be said that neither the purely rationalistic, nor the magical approaches from earlier rabbinic texts have found much of a following in the responsa in the corpus. Although the qualifying, pragmatic approach of medieval and pre-modern commentators does receive ample attention, in practice the authors from the corpus do not attach much authority to these medieval texts, which would simply permit many cases under discussion. They stop short of these texts’ conclusions and thus reject the possibility of regarding the Ruach Ra‘ah as a non-relevant Halachic category in modern times. The stricter opinions, on the contrary, are adopted for instance through the a priori / a posteriori construction. Soloveitchik’s thesis on post-Shoah (ultra-)orthodox Halachic discourse, i.e. that there is a tendency towards stricter interpretation, appears to be confirmed.

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus This chapter has so far demonstrated that elements of a pre-modern world view can be identified in some authors in the corpus. This gives rise to the question how the modern world is represented in the corpus and to what extent this can be viewed as a theological reading of the encounter with the modern world. To what extent does modern technology as a product of modern science influence the Halachic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah?

120 Ibid., MB §40. 121 ‫ סימן י״ז אות ד‬,‫ הלכות קריאת שמע‬,‫חזון איש‬.

268 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

6.3.1 Modern Means of Transport Four responsa122 from the corpus present a modern variant of the placing of food and drink under a bed: under an airplane seat or a seat in a bus. The everyday reality of modern means of transport is seamlessly harmonized with the older paradigm supplied by the texts. The new scientific insights that have made possible the invention of modern means of transport do not constitute a reason to regard the Ruach Ra‘ah as non-relevant. The object-related question whether the Ruach Ra‘ah actually has any influence over moving objects is rarely even mentioned in the replies.123 Admittedly, we are not aware either of any older text on the Ruach Ra‘ah discussing, for instance, the status of food and drink under a seat in a horse-drawn carriage. In this respect, despite the constructed continuity with older texts, the questions in the corpus are still “modern”.

6.3.2 The Modern Toilet and Bathroom The opinion that modern toilets are different from the Talmudic toilet, which rendered users susceptible to demons and sorcery, can already be found in premodern authors from the sixteenth century. There was no longer any fear of witchcraft in the toilets of the post-Talmudic period, which were located not in the field but near the home. This observation – which made reference to the subject-oriented argument “go and see what the people say” 124 – also dispelled their demonic-magical 125 character.126 The same argument could be used to answer the questions concerning the status of the modern water closet. Yet almost no responsum has done this:127 instead they formulate a stricter judgement in the a priori case. This can also be observed in the two paradigmatic texts by the Yitzchak Yeranen and the Yabbia Omer. In his reply to the question concerning the status 122 Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 10; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 8; ibid., V. 2, no. 316; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6. 123 On the Ruach Ra‘ah and moving objects, see a question on food and drink under a bed in a ship’s cabin, Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 35. 124 Reference to the Talmudic saying ‫פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר‬, which states that if one is unsure of how to act, one should observe what the ordinary people do, i.e. what is customary. 125 OH 3:11: ‫ שהמקנח בדבר שהאור שולט בו שיניו‬,‫ ולא בעשבים יבשים‬,‫ משום כשפים‬,‫"לא יקנח בחרס‬ .". . . ‫התחתונות נושרות‬ 126 ‫ וכן נהגו לקנח בדבר שהאור שולט בו ואינו‬,‫ נהגו לקנח בחרס‬,‫ שבתי כסאות שלנו אינן בשדה‬,‫ ועכשיו‬:‫"הגה‬ ".‫ ופוק חזי מאי עמא דבר‬,‫מזיק‬.“ 127 The text by the Tzitz Eliezer V. 14, no. 2 mentioned earlier does do this.

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus 

 269

of food and drink brought into a (bathroom or) toilet, the Yabbia Omer (V. 4 OH, no. 5) does not discuss the status of our modern toilet compared to the Talmudic toilet. The Yitzchak Yeranen’s responsum128 does make a comparison between the modern toilet and the famed Persian toilet of the Talmud, but in a very formal way. He does not really look at the practical-sanitary aspect of the Persian toilet, i.e. that the excrement fell down directly, causing less odour and dirt, so that without a doubt the modern toilet is comparable to it – is in fact superior to it. Most of his attention goes to the procedural, Halachic-technical aspect: the room is specifically allocated for use as a toilet and is not necessarily superior or comparable to the Persian toilet, because there the excrement directly disappeared into the ground along an undulating pit.129 In the modern toilet, the excrement remains in the toilet bowl during a visit to the toilet, and is only flushed down afterwards,130 and residue sometimes remains attached to the bowl. This gives the entire room the status of a toilet room.131 One factor in this discourse is possibly the fact that the Chazon Ish already contended that the modern toilet has the status of doubt, which means in his view that it is necessary to judge more strictly.132 Bathrooms also appear often in the responsa on the toilet, because modern bathrooms almost always have a toilet. The universal fitting of homes with a

128 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5. 129 Rashi on bBerachot 26a, on Persian toilets: " . . . ‫"בחפירה היו ופיהם ברחוק מן הגומא והוא בשיפוע והרעי מתגלל ונופל לגומא‬ 130 The same argument is incidentally advanced by the Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 2: ‫ אלא מיד נופל הוא ברחוק‬,‫ דשאני התם שאין הרעי נשאר בפי הגומא כלל‬,‫"אכן המעיין יראה דרב המרחק ביניהם‬ ‫ עד שהוא‬,‫ אבל כאן שהטינופת נמצאת בקערת ביהכ״ס כל זמן משך שבתו לעשות צרכיו‬,‫ד’ אמות מפי הגומא‬ ‫ והו״ל כבית הכסא שפינהו שאסור‬.‫קם ומושך בית יד הסילון של המים מכיון שירד עליו תורת ביהכ״ס תו לא פקע‬ ." . . . ‫לקרות כנגדו‬ The dissimilarity with the Persian toilet is also discussed in Yechaveh Da’at, V. 3, no. 1: ,‫ אלא מיד נופל הוא בריחוק ארבע אמות מפי הגומא‬,‫ ששם אין הרעי נשאר בגומא כלל‬,‫"שהחילוק מבואר למעיין‬ ,‫ עד שהוא קם ולוחץ על הסילון של המים‬,‫אבל כאן שהרעי נשאר זמן מה באסלה כל משך זמן שבתו לעשות צרכיו‬ ‫ הילכך אין ליטול שם‬,‫ שרוח רעה שורה שם‬,‫ ולכן יש על זה דין של בית הכסא‬.‫והמים זורמים ומנקים את האסלה‬ ." . . . ‫ידים‬ The Simchat Kohen gives a similar argument OH, no. 6: ‫ דהתם שאני דאין מקום לצואה כלל לנוח בו כיון שעשוי במדרון ורק עוברת בו דרך‬,‫"ואין הנדון דומה לראיה‬ ‫ אבל כאן דבכל פניה ופניה הצואה נחה בו רק דאח״כ דוחים אותה ע״י המים מסתברא דדמי‬,‫העברה בעלמא לרגע‬ ‫ ולא דמי כלל לנפנה בגרף בתוך ביתו דהגרף‬,‫ דמ״ל נחה בו זמן גדול או קטן‬,‫לבית הכסא ישן שפינו ממנו הצואה‬ ." . . . ‫הוא מטלטל ואין לו קביעות מקום משא״כ כאן שהוא במקום קבוע‬ 131 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5, 34: ‫ אלא מיד נופלת למדרון ומתרחקת ד״א מפי‬,‫"אין לדמותו לבי״כ דפרסאי ששם אין הצואה מתעכבת שם אפילו רגע‬ ." . . . ‫ ולכן קנה לו שם‬,‫ משא״כ בנ״ד שהצואה מתעכבת כל זמן עשיית הצרכים‬.‫הכסא‬ 132 Chazon Ish, OH §17:4.

270 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

bathroom containing a bathtub and a shower obviously reflects the trend in modern housing of the second half of the twentieth century.133 It is entirely compatible with modern urban infrastructure and recreational culture to find one responsum dealing with visits to the swimming pool, and whether it is necessary to wash one’s hands when leaving the swimming pool, just as it is when leaving the bathhouse.134

6.3.3 The Modern Food Industry When answering questions about keeping peeled egg, onion, and garlic overnight, the corpus also often ignores the difference between the preparing of food at home in the past and large-scale production in the modern food industry, where sterile and hygienic practices are in place. One responsum by the Mishneh Halachot135 addresses the question on garlic and egg that have been dried and powdered. What happens physically or chemically with such foodstuffs in relation to perishability is not relevant. The author applies an internal-Halachic discourse that appears to be at a remove from the specific physical characteristics, but focuses on intention: “. . . but egg, onion and garlic powder that are dried a priori to preserve them as food, these have never fallen within the category of ‘suitable food’. . .”136 Whenever the author is interested in the physical attributes, he uses a pre-modern Halachic paradigm: if something becomes dust  /  earth, it stops existing in its previous capacity.137 This is probably viewed from the old doctrine of the elements, where earth is one of the basic components of physical substances, and of the biblical notion that human beings return to dust after they die.138 To prove that garlic, eggs, and onion continue to exist in their old capacity even after the drying process, and do not “return to dust”, he provides the following practical observation: “. . . and the powdered egg must be boiled just like an egg itself, and the dried garlic and onions that are put into a sauce similarly become immediately active. . .” 139 That there are all kinds of chemical processes at play 133 Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no. 2. 134 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 8, no. 5. 135 Mishneh Halachot, V. 16, no. 16. 136 ‫"אבל אבקת ביצים ובצלים ושומים שלכתחילה מיבשים אותם ע״מ להחזיקם כמאכל ומעולם לא יצאו מדין מאכל‬ ".‫הראוי מעולם‬ 137  . . . ‫"ולפענ״ד מדברי הדרכ״ת אין ראי’ דהרי התם דייק שנתייבשה הביצה ונעשית כאפר וכוונתו דהו״ל נפסל‬ .". . . ‫ וגם טומאה פקעה ממאכל שנפסל מאכילת כלב‬. . . ‫מאכילת אדם‬ 138 Gen. 3:19 – “for dust you are and to dust you shall return” (The New Jerusalem Bible). 139 ‫"והאבקת ביצים הוא צריכה בישול כמו ביצה עצמה וכן השומין והבצלים היבשים מניחין אותם ברוטב והם מיד‬ ". . . ‫פועלים‬

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus 

 271

that permanently change the matter in question and give it new attributes is not relevant to this – the old rabbinic criterion of “returning to dust” retains its normative force. 6.3.3.1 Refrigerators In another paradigmatic text, the Rivavot Ephraim allows an egg in a refrigerator to be consumed – the modern refrigerator renders peeled eggs unsusceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah (the author appears to apply the modern hygiene paradigm).140 In another responsum by the same author from the corpus, he mentions objections raised by a colleague who did not think that storing in a refrigerator was relevant in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, because the Talmud says that even if the egg, onion or garlic are in a basket, tied up and sealed, the Ruach Ra‘ah still rests on it. The same therefore also applies to refrigerators, because modern technology does not impact on the Talmudic regulations concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. However, these regulations on food are not supported by contemporary science – which has made this technology possible – and they are possibly even contrary to it.

6.3.4 The External Side of Modern Science: Technology The modern world often appears in the corpus in the form of neutral technology and infrastructure, which in principle do not pose any theological or Halachic problems – as opposed to television, the Internet, and advanced mobile telephony.141 On the other hand, the new physical conditions that have made modern technology possible do not necessitate a review of the Halachah, despite precedents for this in rabbinic literature (e.g. concerning the toilet).142 Improved sanitary circumstances (hygiene), cooling technology, and chemical processes in the food industry have

140 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 5, no. 523: “And it seems to me that if it is in a closed pan or in the refrigerator, that the law of the peeled egg does not apply to it. And the proof for this is that it is prepared before Shabbat and placed in the refrigerator [for the following day]. And at first sight this also seems logical [‫]סברא‬. And he who has a different opinion on this, let him tell me about it and then I will change my opinion, without having explicitly promised this [‫]בלי נדר‬.” 141 See for instance N. Deutsch, “The Forbidden Fork, the Cell Phone Holocaust, and Other Haredi Encounters with Technology”, Contemporary Jewry (2009), no. 29: 3–19; M. Friedman, HaChevrah, 131. 142 See the ReMA’s gloss on OH 3:11 on sorcery and toilets in the post-Talmudic period, where he distinguishes between the Talmud’s field toilet and urban toilets: ,‫ וכן נהגו לקנח) בדבר שהאור שולט בו ואינו מזיק‬,‫ נהגו לקנח (בחרס‬,‫ שבתי כסאות שלנו אינן בשדה‬,‫"ועכשיו‬ ".‫ופוק חזי מאי עמא דבר‬

272 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

no or very limited influence on the Halachic prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. In this respect the corpus appears to conform to the prevailing orthodox paradigm concerning modern science, which adopts only the practical externals – technology – but does not regard the modern scientific paradigm as “true” in cases where it appears to contradict the Talmudic paradigm. Thus the tendency in the corpus to incorporate stricter opinions into a paradigm of a priori / a posteriori, of the letter of the law / doing more than the law requires, or through the emphasis on non-physical consequences of the Ruach Ra‘ah, is a theological stance. It serves to preserve the authority of the Talmud as much as possible, even in fields where there are no strictly religious rules but rather pre-modern scientific knowledge and observations on nature and on humanity. This creates greater continuity between the Talmud and contemporary Judaism, so that technological innovation can be simply integrated into the older paradigm. By contrast, medieval texts qualified the Ruach Ra‘ah for their time by arguing that it could no longer be found, thus prioritizing post-Talmudic scientific insights over the authority of the Talmud. 6.3.4.1 “Changed Nature” and the Corpus As has been seen, medieval and pre-modern texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah adapted the Talmudic rules by stating that the Ruach Ra‘ah / that particular form of Ruach Ra‘ah no longer existed in their time, or could no longer be found in their regions – a variant of the concept of “changed nature” (‫)נשתנו הטבעים‬. The approach of “changed nature” makes it possible on the one hand to continue to regard the canonized Talmud as authoritative, while on the other to formulate a different rule of conduct in practice in the interaction with the physical world. Not because the information in the old texts does not comply with scientific insights, but because they refer to a different reality. In the responsa of the last few centuries the concept of “changed nature” can be found in the context of questions on the validity of Talmudic prescriptions on medical care, food and kashrut (physiology and anatomy of animals), and the classification of species, focused on the theme of autogenesis versus biogenesis (e.g. the prohibition on the killing of animals on Shabbat)143 – a Talmudic point

143 bShabbat 107b: R. Eliezer says: “‘He who kills a louse on Shabbat, is like he has killed a camel’. R. Yosef objected: ‘The Rabbis only have a difference of opinion with R. Eliezer with regard to a louse because it does not reproduce sexually, but not with regard to other insects and crawling animals that have sexual reproduction’. Both learn it from the rams [that were slaughtered for the building of the Tabernacle]. R. Eliezer is of the opinion: ‘comparable to the

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus 

 273

of view that was definitively no longer tenable after the new developments in the second half of the nineteenth century.144 The fact that this doctrine is used in the corpus can therefore be regarded as a theological answer to the attitude to modern science. The concept of “changed nature” can be found in eight145 texts in the corpus, not many given the intersection with food, hygiene, and the human body – subjects that have a clear physical component. Moreover, the concept itself was used already by the Magen Avraham (seventeenth century) in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch to neutralize the danger of the Ruach Ra‘ah.146 Not all

rams – as a soul was lost with the rams [when they were killed], thus all [animals] where a soul is lost [are forbidden].’ And the rabbis are of the opinion: ‘comparable to the rams – as with the rams who have sexual reproduction, thus everything that has sexual reproduction [but not therefore a louse].” Medieval commentators explain this “because they do not reproduce sexually” by pointing on the origins of lice from human sweat (autogenesis instead of biogenesis). See Rabenu Tam in the Tosafot on bShabbat 12a (initial words “shema yaharog”) on the white head louse, and Maimonides, Hilchot Shabbat, Ch. 11:3. Close observation of the text of Ch. 11 shows that he distinguishes four categories: 1) animals that reproduce sexually; 2) animals that originate from the dust of the earth; 3) animals that originate from excrement or rotting food; and 4) animals that originate from human sweat. 144 Criticism of the Talmudic statement that lice do not reproduce sexually can already be found in the eighteenth century in the Pachad Yitzchak (Yitzchak Chizkia Lampronti). He thought that given the new insights, it was necessary to adopt a stricter view, entry “hunting” (‫)צידה‬. The theme of the status of lice returns in a number of contemporary responsa, particularly in the context of the Shabbat laws and the prohibition on eating vermin (some worms are also considered to have originated in autogenesis and are permitted for consumption), and they appear to uphold these Talmudic norms. See for instance Heichal Yitzchak OH, no. 29 (from 1945) on the “killing” of bacteria; Minchat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 11 on Shabbat laws; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 166 (from 1981) on whether it is permitted to worm a child on Shabbat; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 9, no. 22 on whether it is permitted to spray insecticide in the home on Shabbat. See also Guttel, Hishtanut, 182–186. S. Aviner, author from our corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah, has also written the following on this subject: “Because our eyes cannot see the reproduction of lice, this is why they are not regarded as living beings [in relation to the Shabbat]. Although they are living beings scientifically speaking, but they are not from a halachic perspective . . .”, S. Aviner, “Torah uMaddah”, Itureh Kohanim 69: 1–7; M. Kislev, “Hahoreg Kina beShabbat, kehoreg Gammal beShabbat?”, Shana beShana (2002), http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shana/hahoreg-4.htm. 145 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 1, no. 133; ibid., V. 2 YD, no. 145; Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 13, no. 2; ibid., V. 18, no. 46; ibid., V. 22, no. 4, 40; Mishneh Halachot, V. 3, no. 61. 146 Magen Avraham on OH:173:2 concerning the washing of hands between eating fish and meat: ‫"ואפשר דבזמן הזה אין סכנה כ״כ דחזינן כמה דברים המוזכרים בגמ' שהם סכנה לרוח רעה ושאר דברים והאידנא‬ ".‫אינו מזיק דנשתנו הטבעיות וגם הכל לפי טבע הארצות‬

274 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

of these eight texts concur with the use of this concept in the case of the Ruach Ra‘ah that they address in their responsum.147 There consequently appears to be a certain reticence in the corpus on using the concept of changed nature to solve questions about the Ruach Ra‘ah. And although the texts of the corpus do not explicitly reject the concept of “changed nature”, this tendency is clearly visible in other texts written by authors from our corpus on other subjects.148 Thus the corpus appears to show a moderately anti-modern tendency that is possibly not an isolated trend, but forms part of the theology of orthodox Judaism in the last few centuries. Guttel’s Hishtanut haTevi’im beHalacha (on the concept of “changed nature in the Halacha”) and the authoritative Nishmat Avraham on medical questions have described several restrictions on the use of the concept in the Halachic discourse of the past 100–150 years, which make it practically impossible to use it.149 Guttel has listed no fewer than seven150 conditions or restrictions, including: it may not be based on the Torah itself or be a tradition of Sinai,151 it may not involve a matter of life or death,152 it must involve a real and undisputed scientific fact,153 and the change

147 The Afarkesta V. 2 YD, no. 145 and Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31 are skeptical of using the concept of changed nature in the responsum on the Ruach Ra‘ah in question. 148 The Mishneh Halachot, V. 5, no. 148 discusses the question whether a pregnant woman should take the possibility into account that she may menstruate during the first three months of her pregnancy. This means that it is forbidden in any case to have intercourse on the expected day of the menstruation. The question arises because older texts contend that menstruation does not stop until three months after conception, by contrast with the scientific and empirical observation that menstruation stops immediately – with one or two exceptions. The Mishneh Halachot totally rejects the use of changed nature in this responsum. See also Yabbia Omer, V. 3 EH, no. 1, a responsum on a divorce case in which the wife is pregnant, and the spouses disagree as to who the father is. This responsum refers for instance to the Talmudic ruling (e.g. bNiddah 27a) that when a woman gives birth to a child in the ninth month, this means that this ninth month has always been fully to term, and not only partially (‫)יולדת לט‘ אינה יולדת למקוטעין‬. According to the Tosafists (Avoda Zarah 24b) this is at variance with observation, and they contend that “nature has changed”. On the basis of an earlier responsum by the Rivash, the Yabbia Omer thinks that this does not apply here. 149 An overview of this can also be found in A. Sofer-Avraham, Nishmat Avraham, Hilchot Refu’a (Jerusalem: Machon Schlesinger, 1984), OH, 176–181 (Ch. Shabbat, section 328, subsection 6). 150 Guttel, Hishtanut, 197–217. 151 See also Nishmat Avraham, ibid., 179–80. 152 Ibid., 180. 153 These conditions can largely be traced back to positions of earlier scholars, sometimes even from the Middle Ages. The question of the status for instance of medical and astronomical knowledge is discussed for instance by Maimonides, his son Avraham, the Geonim, the Rashba, the Rivash (Yitzchak b. Sheshet, 1326–1408). The Rashba and the Rivash regard the knowledge in the Talmud as revealed knowledge, the others do so to a much lesser degree or not at all.

6.3 Technology, the Modern World, and the Corpus 

 275

must be irreversible. The combining of these conditions154 has strongly restricted the viability of the concept in modern Halachic literature.155 6.3.4.2 The Magical Talmudic Paradigm Reaffirmed? The corpus appears partially to reconfirm the Talmudic paradigm and the corresponding world view by problematizing questions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. The qualifying paradigm of the medieval and pre-modern texts and the changes that modern technology have wrought in the physical environment have not led to more lenient decisions in a priori cases. It is particularly striking that this reconfirming of the Talmudic paradigm closely corresponds to the thought of the Chazon Ish and his world view, who is a major protagonist of the more conservative strands of post-Shoah orthodoxy. According to Brown, the Chazon Ish may have rejected the practical Kabbalah,156 but he simultaneously appears to have partially incorporated the magical-mystical world view – which is partially derived from the Talmudic discourse. This is evident for instance from his more positive attitude towards the so-called “remedies” that often have a magical-religious character (the segulot).157 Brown has also demonstrated for instance that the Chazon Ish believed in the Evil Eye, and that he refrained from eating certain foods of which the Talmud says they cause one to forget what one has learned.158 The impression becomes even stronger when halachic-biographical information about the Chazon Ish is examined.

154 The placing alongside each other of the restricting positions from earlier writings thus stimulates an even more restrictive tendency. 155 The influence of ethical-moralistic discourse on the Halachah is possibly expressed in Dressler’s resistance against the doctrine of “changed nature”. Editor A. Carmell has addressed Dressler’s critical view of the concept of “changed nature” in a footnote to the text of Michtav me’Eliyahu, V. 4, 355, n. 4: “And our lord, Teacher, and Superior [‫ ]אדמו“ר‬ZTS”L said that in this case and similar situations the law [‫ ]דין‬will never change, even if the reason does not appear to us to be intelligible. But we must accept the law with two hands, whether it be heavy or light . . . and the reason is, as our lord, Teacher, and Superior ZTS”L said, that the Halachah as known to Our Wise Ones Z”L as it was handed down from generation to generation . . . and as the natural reasons are concerned – this reason is not the cause of the law, but the reverse: the law requires an explanation. The reason mentioned in the Talmud is not the only possible explanation for this. If they sometimes give explanations that are based on the knowledge of nature of their time, then it is our duty to seek different explanations that ensure that the law remains founded on its basis, according to the knowledge of nature that we have.” 156 Ibid., 174–176. 157 Ibid., 186–192. 158 Brown, haChazon Ish, 188.

276 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

Good examples are the Chazon Ish’ standpoint on “eating or drinking in pairs” (‫ )זוגות‬and the problem of drinking of liquids that have been left uncovered (gilui), which are associated in some texts from the corpus with the rules concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah (e.g. the opinion of the Tosafists that the exhortation on eating or drinking in pairs and the consumption of uncovered liquids was no longer relevant in their time).159 Brown mentions160 that according to some the Chazon Ish did not eat eggs, nuts, and cucumbers in pairs, because the Talmud calls this “a law of Moses on Sinai” (‫)הלכה למשה מסיני‬, meaning that it has a high status as Halacha.161 Written testimonies handed down on the Chazon Ish’s religious way of life, the so-called Hanhagot (‫)הנהגות‬, which often have a pietistic-ascetical slant, further complement the picture. In Shemaryahu Kanievsky’s Ta’ama deKra, mention is made twice of the way in which the Chazon Ish dealt with liquids that were left uncovered: He was very careful with uncovered [liquids] . . . and [in this] he was also careful with tea and leben [sour milk] that had been standing uncovered. And he said that if there is a skin on the milk, and this is intact, there is no longer any reason to fear ‘uncovering’ [gilui ]– because if the snake had bitten into it this would be visible from the skin . . . and he was strict in relation to uncovered [liquids] even if they had been left uncovered only for a short time. . ..162

It also says that he burned his nail cuttings163 and that he “. . . was very careful that he / one did not walk between two women,164 and that one woman did not walk between two men”.165

159 Tosafot bYoma 77b: ‫"ומה שהעולם אין נזהרין עכשיו בזה לפי שאין אותה רוח רעה שורה באלו המלכיות כמו שאין נזהרין על הגילוי‬ ".‫ועל הזוגות‬ 160 Brown, ibid., 191. 161 Based on bPesahim 110b: “When R. Dimi came he said: ‘Two eggs, two nuts, two cucumbers and something else – [all this is] a halachah of Moses from Sinai’; the Rabbis [however] were in doubt as to what ‘and something else’ was, and therefore the Rabbis prohibited [all] ‘pairs’ because of this ‘and something else’”. 162 Shemaryahu J. Ch. Kanievsky, Ta’ama deKra, Hahangot (Bne Berak 2008 – the last three pages of the book), subsections 27 and 47: ‫"נזהר מאד בגילוי (ועי׳ מעשה רב סי׳ צ״ה) והקפיד גם על טה״א ולב״ן מגולה ואמר שאם יש על החלב קרום שלם‬ ." . . . ‫ החמיר בגילוי אף אם הי׳ מגולה משהו זמן‬. . . ‫מלמעלה אין לחוש לגילוי שאלו הגחש הי’ מנקר הי׳ ניכר בקרום‬ 163 Ibid., subsection 9. This is on the basis of bNiddah 17a: our Rabbis taught: “Three things have been said about [cut] nails. He who burns them is a Pious One; he who buries them is a Just One. And he who throws them away is a sinner”. 164 bPesahim 111a: “There are three who may not [go] in the middle [between two men], nor may [others] pass in the middle between [two of them], namely: a dog, a palm tree and a woman. Some say: also a boar; others say: also a snake”, etc. 165 Kanievsky, Ta’ama, subsection 29: ". . .‫"הקפיד מאד שלא יעברו בין ב׳ נשים ושאשה לא תעבור בין ב' אנשים‬

6.4 Conclusion 

 277

Finally, there is also mention of how he treated the specific case of the Ruach Ra‘ah on food placed under the bed – a subject that returns frequently in the corpus: Food under the bed: although one is careful in one’s [own] home not to eat this, he gave the order to give it to the poor. And he said that it may not be destroyed because strictly according to the law it is permitted. . .166

Magical elements can constitute a traditional continuation of an older discourse, a neo-orthodox rejection of modernity, as Chajes has argued in relation to the dybbuk, but they can incidentally also be part of the post-modern world view. Whereas the Enlightenment involved the “disenchantment of the world”, D. Houtman and others have recently averred a “re-enchantment” of the world.167

6.4 Conclusion This chapter has described the tendency in the corpus of only partially accepting earlier qualifying approaches, and instead regarding the regulations concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah as still (almost) unchanged and valid. Whereas in the Middle Ages and the pre-modern era some voices already claimed that there was discontinuity between the Talmudic time and their own, the corpus, by contrast, appears to wish to integrate the modern world into the old Talmudic paradigm. Although the Ruach Ra‘ah is also qualified in the corpus, some medieval and pre-modern texts went much further than the authors from the corpus do. This tendency in the corpus is consistent with a wider theological understanding of the modern world within orthodoxy, where the Talmudic paradigm is reappraised and placed above the modern knowledge paradigm. Modern sanitary facilities, airplanes, and bathrooms are no reason to review or reconsider the Talmudic and medieval paradigm.

166 Ibid., subsec. 28: ".‫"אוכלין שתחת המטה אף שבביתו הקפידו שלא לאכול צוה ליתנם לעניים ואמר שאין לאבדם כיון שמדינא מותרים‬ 167 D. Houtman, “Moderniteit, technologie en individuele vrijheid: Een hertovering van de wereld?”, in In werkelijkheid is ‘t anders: Sociologische opstellen voor Jan Berting, ed. J. van Beveren en P. van der Parre (Amsterdam: St. Interuniversitair Instituut voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Amsterdam, 1995), 79–97; idem., “Wetenschap, religie en emotie in een onttoverende wereld”, in Gevoel voor kennis: Jaarboek Kennissamenleving – Deel 5 (Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers, 2009), 49–66. See also S. Aupers and D. Houtman, “Beyond the Spiritual Supermarket: The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality”, Journal of Contemporary Religion 21, no. 2 (2006): 201–222.

278 

 Chapter 6 Theologies of the Corpus

As Chaim Soloveitchik has argued, the discourse concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus appears to have been reformulated in the post-Shoah period. A new literature is seemingly in the making on the Ruach Ra‘ah, even though the Ruach Ra‘ah is known from older texts and a clear praxis has been available for centuries. It is a way of applying Halachah in which texts hold center stage, and the experience of people is relegated to the background. These theologicalideological developments also influence the way in which texts are treated in contemporary times. As has been seen, this process was already under way before the Shoah, and the ideas of the Chazon Ish and Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah have been an important factor in this. They have shaped the contours of the Halachic discourse in the corpus – the stricter opinion – although there are possibilities within this context to judge more leniently. The holistic approach, which places texts alongside each other as much as possible and integrates them into a single discourse without making a clear choice, has ensured that pre-modern elements continue to play a role in the background. In the Yabbia Omer’s paradigmatic text, and in several other texts from the corpus, these pre-modern magical elements have returned actively to the forefront – a phenomenon some believe is itself a modern phenomenon. In some cases168 the magical tendencies in the corpus seem to result from the mediating role that the responsa wish to play between mystical-Kabbalistic and more legalistic-normative forms of Judaism, where popular-folkloric customs – to the extent that they are not prohibited – can be incorporated into normativeHalachic Judaism. The authors of the corpus seemingly do not incorporate the modern scientific world view at all, or only to a small degree. Although the corpus itself does not contain any responsa of an explicitly anti-scientific nature, this attitude can be found in the responsa of some authors in the corpus that are not part of our corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah.169 Soloveitchik’s thesis that the imposition of the 168 The use of rue (Yabbia Omer), the water ritual (Ateret Paz) to break the spell over a young man, the name Zalfonit as a magical protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah (Rivavot Ephraim), and mystical details concerning the washing in the morning (Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 4 and Divrei Yatsiv YD, no. 31, subsection 11). 169 See the responsum Tzitz Eliezer, V. 10, no. 25, Chapter 4 on the criterion of life and death: is this respiration and cardiac activity as the old rabbinic texts write, or brain activity as modern medicine has it? The context is a heart transplant from a person who is brain dead to a person who needs a donor heart. Because this is done on the basis of brain death alone, the Tzitz Eliezer calls the doctors who perform these kinds of operations murderers. The Tzitz Eliezer refers to a well-known fragment from a responsum by the Rivash (no. 447), which states that the Halachah is not determined by scientific knowledge, but by the revealed Oral Teaching which goes back to Moses. See also Mishneh Halachot (V. 16, no. 6) which states that science cannot be trusted in

6.4 Conclusion 

 279

stricter opinion in the Halachic discourse is the result of the internalization by orthodoxy of modern science and the disappearance of the Kabbalistic world view170 appears to be (at least partly) disproved by the texts from this corpus. In the corpus, the imposition of the stricter view apparently involves a mild rejection of modern science and its world view rather than a way of committing to it. Some authors’ attempts to add a non-physical and spiritual, non-measurable component to the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah can be seen as a way of alleviating this conflict between Halachah and modern science. By stating that the danger posed by the Ruach Ra‘ah is not – or not only – physical, the issue is withdrawn from the realm of empirical verification, and the conflict with modern science is (partially) solved.

relation to the laws of Torah. The reading of scientific books is also forbidden according to him, and people who do this will have no share in the Coming World. 170 See Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction”, 110, n. 19 – where he mentions the “intensification of ritual” as a “counterbalance” to the diminishing of the kabbalistic, theurgic ritual and its worldview in favor of the acceptance of the scientific view on the cosmos and its technology. See also n. 34 (115–116) on the belief in demons and ghosts that according to Soloveitchik is “evoking unease” even among Charedim – although this is different in Sefardic Judaism. See also n. 103 (129–130). See also 98–103 on the religious worldview in daily life by the orthodox and Charedim in which Soloveitchik states that they have adopted the scientific modern paradigm of the world. See also n. 103 (129–130).

Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects Sociological-anthropological discourse – which has influenced disciplines such as theology and Ritual Studies  – has proposed various definitions of ritual. Relations between magic, religion and science often come into play here: rituals are regarded as magical-symbolic acts or as technical-purposeful acts, despite the problems that may attend attempts to differentiate between magic and religion.1 Precisely because rituals are normally regarded as distinct from instrumentalfunctional acts – washing hands as ritual versus physical cleaning – this opens the way to an approach that is not limited to the physical alone. This makes it possible to place the washing of hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the wider perspective of studies on ritual. This chapter first offers a theoretical framework (7.1), then applies this theoretical framework to the corpus (7.2), and describes the function observed in the responsa of creating boundaries and control by means of the Ruach Ra‘ah (7.3), as well as the discourse of the Ruach Ra‘ah as reflecting a “enclave culture” (7.4), the aspect of control and coercion and the theories of Habermas and Foucault (7.4.1, 7.4.2), and the place of the rabbi (7.4.3).

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah In modern theories, the definition of ritual has been expanded beyond the realm of the strictly religious, to include rituals in secular contexts, from private rituals (birth, death) to community rituals, such as political and national rituals. This is also evident from the alternative descriptions used: rituals as (symbolic)

1 See for instance V. Neckebrouck, Denken over religie – Deel II Van Hugo Winckler tot Clifford Geertz (Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2011), e.g. 174–175; J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology of Religion (New York: Routledge, 2007), 109–133; C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), e.g. 70–74; idem., Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), e.g. 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-008

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 281

communication,2 as text,3 as act – but then in a specific form (“practice”)4 – as “performance”5 where the interaction between performer and audience takes center stage,6 or as an “interaction code”7 between people. According to C. Bell, the ritual itself creates meanings in the form of values and norms, social relations and power structures.8 In the field of studies of Judaism, social scientists have done much research of biblical Judaism and its rituals,9 but less so of rabbinic rituals. One exception is Gruenwald,10 who has applied his perspective on ritual to rabbinic Judaism and the Halachah as well, although he rejects a symbolic meaning of ritual and ritual theory. He has emphasized the behaviorist character of rituals as “autonomous expressions of the human mind”11 – often in situations of threat or danger.12 Ritual theory is “embedded” – as an internal logic “that turns the various segments into a single Gestalt”.13 Thus Gruenwald pays great attention to the details of rituals,

2 F. Bird and M. Douglas, see for instance: F.B. Bird, “Ritual as Communicative Action”, in Ritual and Ethnic Identity: A Comparative Study of the Social Meaning of Liturgical Ritual in Synagogues, ed. J.N. Lightstone and F.B. Bird (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995), 23–52; S. Fishbane, Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 33–34, who follows Bird’s analysis of the ritual of the Nazirite. On M. Douglas, see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, 43–44 and M. Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London / New York: Routledge, 2002), 21–22, 38. 3 C. Geertz. Intended is of course the “living” ritual that must be deciphered by the anthropologist who observes. Geertz linked this idea with the ritual of cockfights on Bali which he studied intensively. See for instance C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 448–453; C. Bell, Ritual Theory, 43–46. 4 In P. Bourdieu, see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, 69–93. 5 See for instance V. Turner, The anthropology of performance (New York: PAJ Publications, 1988) and J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 128–132. 6 And according to Geertz, also in dialogue with the anthropologist who observes, see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, 27–28. 7 Skorupski, see J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 112: “The point of interaction code behavior is to establish or maintain (or destroy) an equilibrium, or mutual agreement, among the people involved in an interaction as to their relative standing or roles, and their reciprocal commitments and obligations.” See also 113. 8 C. Bell, ibid., 196: “.  .  . it is a major reversal of traditional theory to hypothesize that ritual activity is not the ‘instrument’ of more basic purposes, such as power, politics, or social control . . . ritual practices are themselves the very production and negotiation of power relations.” 9 See for instance the recently published Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect, ed. S.M. Olyan (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 10 I. Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 11 Ibid., 13. 12 Ibid., 16. 13 Ibid., 2.

282 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

the sequence of the acts, place, time, and other conditions.14 A study that also focuses on ritual and rabbinic sources is Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature (2007) by S. Fishbane, who discusses anthropological and sociological aspects of a number of cases in rabbinic literature.15 Other studies that must be mentioned are Judaism. Viewed from Within and from Without (H.E. Goldberg ed., 1987) and M. Bloom’s Jewish Mysticism and Magic. An Anthropological Perspective (2007). The subject of Goldberg’s collection is the relation between text and ritual: texts are both a conservative, structuring factor, and a dynamic factor in the performance of rituals; textual study and anthropological field research are therefore complementary in ritual research. Bloom deals with the relation between sacrificial ritual and liturgical, mystical, and magical texts, and the relation between the various rituals that are described in this genre. The sacrificial ritual of the Temple forms the paradigm for prayer and liturgical texts, where – once again – mystical and magical texts use the power of the spoken word and of prayer formulas. Rituals in modern Judaism and the relation between individual and community are also discussed for instance in Jewish Passages – Cycles of Jewish Life (2004) by H.E. Goldberg, who has already been mentioned, and in Rethinking Modern Judaism (1998) by A.M. Eisen, who focuses primarily on the US. Both books point to the important role that the family and the domestic setting play in contemporary Judaism, and view this as the central component of ethnic and religious identity. There is no thoroughgoing study of daily recurring rituals – as described in rabbinic literature – in contemporary orthodox Judaism on the basis of responsa texts from a wide range of authors similar to the corpus used here.

7.1.1 The Ruach Ra‘ah and Ritual A number of elements recur in the many definitions of ritual: action, repetition, and a fixed form.16 According to these definitions the washing of hands after contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah is certainly a ritual, given that it clearly contains these characteristic elements. There is, moreover, a clear correlation between the praxis and a

14 Ibid., 8–12, 22–23, 30–31. 15 For instance his discussion on ritual in relation to the Nazir, 33–35; on impurity and Douglas’s theory, 54–56, and on Douglas’ group / grid theory, e.g. 55–56. 16 J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 111: “.  .  . these definitions .  .  . evince a few recurrent features. They emphasize action (although not always ‘practical’ or ‘instrumental’ action), patterning, and communication . . . Catherine Bell . . . points out that these theories tend to offer ‘formality, fixity, and repetition’ as central aspects.”

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 283

particular world view, especially in the (magical-) mystical tradition – which influenced the Halachic performance of the ritual. Ritual Theory regards this last aspect as the mythical character of the ritual. In the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah, for instance, this involves views on the dualism between clean and unclean powers that influence matter and humans, and on the dualism within human beings themselves, represented by the departure of the soul from the body during sleep.17 As has been seen, performance has been an important element in theory formation on ritual since the 1970s. Performance normally includes an expressive, communicative, and active aspect (and speaking) – even though it is not easy to define precisely what performance is.18 Theories that emphasize the performance aspect often do this on the basis of an analysis of rituals that are performed in the presence of, and together with, others. They are not therefore immediately applicable to the ritual of the washing of hands on account of the presumed presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, as this is a ritual that can be performed alone and that is generally performed alone. It is nevertheless relevant also, albeit to a lesser degree, to rituals that are performed by a single person alone, without the presence of others. Goffman was one of the first to discuss how people present themselves to others in their social lives. He wrote the following about this in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959): . . . a performer may be taken in by his own act, convinced . . . that the impression of reality which he fosters is the . . . only reality. In such cases . . . the performer comes to be . . . performer and observer of the same show. Presumably he introcepts or incorporates the standards he attempts to maintain in the presence of others so that even in their absence his conscience requires him to act in a socially proper way . . . an individual may be his own audience or may imagine an audience to be present.19

Others, too, have regarded rituals performed in the sole presence of the performer himself as performance20; this is also true of the rituals on the basis of the Ruach Ra‘ah.21 By carrying out the ritual of the washing of hands, and by observing the restrictions surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah, the ideas of purity and holiness in the

17 See for instance C. Bell, Ritual Theory, 19. 18 See for instance R. Schechner, Performance Studies: An Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), 28–51. 19 E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), 49–50. 20 R. Schechner, Performance Studies, 192; R. Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 102–104; see also C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives, 165 on “The White Tiger”. 21 See specifically Bell, ibid., 193 (n. 58) where she quotes a study by S. Poll on Hassidim in Williamsburg and calls the ritual of the washing of hands a performance.

284 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

individual are confirmed. The individual connects with the faith community that also observes these rituals and thus becomes a “holy people of the Covenant”. The idea of the individual performing his ritual in the presence of God can also be regarded as a performance,22 just as the observing of the restrictions and the washing of hands after contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah. This element of the other as a presence – and possible supervisor – also plays a certain role in the corpus. This means that the performance aspect highlighted in ritual theories adds to our understanding of the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. Thus one text in the corpus contains a reference to performing the washing of hands in the institutional setting of a learning school for young children (or adolescents). This responsum by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot,23 chosen in section 4.3.1 as paradigmatic text and written from an object-oriented approach, addresses the status of food touched by a secular Jewish household assistant – someone who is not in the habit of washing her hands three times in the morning even though this is the prescription. In passing, the responsum also offers a reflection on the pedagogical significance of washing hands in the morning after rising: .  .  . And I experienced myself that when the Tzaddik Rabbi Amram Blau ZTS”L came to complain to the Gaon of Brisk24 ZTS”L about a certain institution where the children were not learning properly, and that it was not worthwhile to maintain the institution. And our Master ZTS”L [=the Gaon of Brisk] replied to this and asked whether all the children washed their hands in the morning according to the prescriptions. And he [=Amram Blau] replied that they could be trusted to do this, and that they certainly washed [their hands] there in the morning at their beds, in accordance with the prescription. And our Master ZTS”L was pleased and said: ‘If this is so, then it is worthwhile to maintain the institution even on account of this alone. And now we should talk and see what we can do to improve the situation there [=in the institution]. But it is certainly worthwhile maintaining the institution’. These were his words . . .25

As this incident involves an institution where the pupils live as boarders rather than sleeping at home (otherwise they would have washed their hands at home), this means that the pupils normally perform the ritual of the washing of hands 22 Thus Wuthnow shows in Meaning and Moral Order how modern media such as television create a collective sense of participation and active viewing on occasions of state ceremonial. 23 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3. 24 The author means Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (1886–1959), the GRI”Z. 25 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3: ‫מיהו ענין נטילת ידים וטומאתה לא מלתא זוטרתי היא ואנא עובדא ידענא והייתי נוכח כשהצדיק רבי עמרם‬. . ." ‫ ולא כדאי‬,‫בלויא זצ״ל בא להתרעם למרן הגאון דבריסק זצ״ל על איזה מוסד עם ילדים שלא לומדים שם כראוי‬ ‫ ובודאי‬,‫ וענה שעל זה לא חשודים‬,‫ וע״ז ענה מרן זצ״ל ושאלה אם כולם נוטלים שם ידים בבוקר כדין‬,‫להחזיק המוסד‬ ‫ ועכשיו‬,‫ ומרן זצ״ל שמח ואמר אם כן כדאי כבר להחזיק המוסד לדבר זה בלבד‬,‫נוטלים שם בבוקר סמוך למטה כדין‬ ".‫ אבל להחזיק המוסד בודאי כבר כדאי עכ״ד‬,‫נדבר ונשמע מה נוכל לעשות עוד לתקן שמה‬

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 285

in the presence of others (they lived in dormitories for more than one pupil), who can be regarded as spectators and passive participants. The presence of others in institutional settings is an important factor in the socialization of an individual in the wider collective faith community. Religious institutions that form young pupils according to the norms of the community must therefore be particularly vigilant to ensure that these rituals are performed in the right way, by making them visible and verifiable, in this case by having the ritual performed at the bedside and not in the seclusion of a toilet or bathroom.26 Moreover, it demarcates (ultra-) orthodox identity against groups that have a more lenient approach to the rules. The supervision aspect will be discussed at greater length below. Field research will be able to clarify what difference the presence of the other makes to the performance of the ritual. The performative aspect of rituals concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah is not absent altogether, but it does not appear to play a dominant role. Another aspect of performance theory in relation to rituals emphasizes the ritual as an “event”: an activity that is more than a cultural expression or a symbolic act, an experience that really changes the perception of persons and the way they interpret their reality.27 In this context, the use of the words purity (‫ )טהרה‬and holiness (‫)קדושה‬28 obtains an extra dimension – the washing of hands permits the person who has been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah and who performs the ritual to experience a feeling of purity and sanctification.29 At least one responsum from the corpus quotes a different author who pays much attention to the mystical components of the ritual – again on the basis of earlier sources – and thus affords the ritual a more performative character:

26 An institution is halfway between private and public. On the one hand it shares the physical seclusion of the domestic environment and thus creates a measure of uniformity and supervision. On the other hand, the scale is much larger than that in a family home, and this makes it more difficult to supervise in practice. One responsum by the Tzitz Eliezer (V. 13, no. 2) deals with an institution where the kitchen staff fails to wash its hands in the morning on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah before beginning to prepare the meal. The responsum appears to describe an a posteriori situation – possibly it is proving difficult to find specialized kitchen staff from the institution’s own religious community – and argues that there is not enough reason for an open and public protest, and the proclamation of a real prohibition (a kind of boycott of the institution by people from ultra-orthodox circles). 27 C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives, 74–75. 28 E.g. in Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2, 5 (receiving purity – ‫ ;)לקבל טהרה‬Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1 (eating in purity – ‫ ;)ואוכל בטהרה‬ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 2. 29 In cases where a very young child is mentioned this is possibly more complicated, because the performer is not conscious in such cases on account of his young age; he does not perform the ritual but undergoes it.

286 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

And he must take the object with water in his right hand, in order to connect with ‘the waters of mercy’ [or: affection, charity],30 to purify himself. . . . And during this washing, all ten fingers must be pointed [diagonally?] upwards, i.e. not according to the opinion that says that it is correct to point them downwards and to pour water over them from the level of the arm . . . And after the washing he must raise the ten fingers upwards, to indicate that his hands have been sanctified and are once again an image of the Upper World. And he must raise the right hand higher – while uttering the blessing – to ensure that mercy is stronger than fear [= strictness]31. . .32

In the current study of the Ruach Ra‘ah and its most important corresponding act – the washing of hands –, it is also relevant to determine to what category of ritual these actions belong. This makes it possible to map very precisely the specific ritual and social functions of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Similarly, descriptions of rituals that clearly differ from those of the Ruach Ra‘ah can also be helpful to distinguish what is specific to the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. Once we have determined to what category the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah should be counted, we will select an appropriate anthropological theory that can provide deeper understanding of the texts of the corpus. We will subsequently investigate what type of society corresponds to the image that emerges from this analysis of the corpus.

7.1.2 The Ruach Ra‘ah as a Rite of Passage Catherine Bell has distinguished33 six categories of ritual,34 two of which are relevant to the Ruach Ra‘ah: rites of passage (transitional or initiation rituals according to Van Gennip’s threefold division), and rituals of affliction – rituals for (the protection against) misfortune (purification rituals also belong to this category).35

30 Right is connected in Jewish mysticism with the positive Chessed, which can be translated as mercy, affection, charity, and left with strictness or judgement – din. 31 In the Kabbalah din (judgement) is also called pachad, fear. 32 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 4, 44–45, quoted from Piskei Maharitz (ed. Ratzabi): ,‫ בנטילה זו יהיו כל העשר אצבעות למעלה‬. . .‫"ויקח הכלי של מים בימינו להמשיך עליו מימי החסד לטהר את עצמו‬ ‫ולא כמי שאומר שראוי להשפילם למטה ולערות עליהם מלמעלה מצד הזרוע (סדה״י) ואחר שיטול יגביה עשר‬ ‫ ויגש ביה יד ימין להגביר החסד על הפחד‬,‫אצבעותיו למעלה לרמוז כי כשנתקדשו ידיו חזרו להיות דוגמא לעליונים‬ ".‫(היכל הקדש) והיינו בשעת הברכה‬ 33 C. Bell, ibid., 93–137. 34 Another characterization is by Wallace “who divided rituals into technical, therapeutic/antitherapeutic, salvation, ideological, and revitalization”, see J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 116. 35 C. Bell, ibid., 118–119.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 287

The categories of calendar, feast, political rituals, and rituals of exchange and communion – the other four categories – are not relevant to the analysis of the Ruach Ra‘ah: the Ruach Ra‘ah has nothing to do with specific dates, seasons, or political systems. Nor is the concept of exchange or communion applicable. Rites of passage are normally one-off rituals performed at moments of transition and transformation where a person receives a new identity, or is reconfirmed in his existing identity. The usefulness of this theoretical framework for the current study of the Ruach Ra‘ah is limited. To a lesser extent, the washing of hands in the morning on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah could possibly be seen as an element of a rite of passage. According to the ethnographer / anthropologist Van Gennip, rites of passage have three phases: separation, marginalization / liminality, and reintegration into the new situation or identity.36 The conditions during which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests on someone could to a certain extent be seen as corresponding with the liminal phase where a certain situation is brought to an end, but before the person in question is able to return to the ordinary course of events. Thus the Ruach Ra‘ah is generally generated during sleep, sexual intercourse, and a visit to the toilet – situations that are preceded by physical separation. These situations can be described as liminal and are therefore dangerous and attended with taboos.37 In an article, Dalia Marx has convincingly analyzed38 the Morning blessings, of which the blessing of the washing of hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah is one. She has concluded that these blessings can be regarded as a rite of passage that lead the individual from the liminal phase of sleeping as a type of death to being awake and returning to full daily activity, thus reconfirming his identity. A number of responsa39 from the corpus refer to the mystical idea from the Zohar of the departure of the soul during sleep, and the danger that then emerges in the form of the Ruach Ra‘ah, who – resting on the sleeping person – is regarded in the Zohar primarily as an impure power:

36 C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives, 36–38, 95; J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 126–127. 37 Ibid., 127: “. . . the liminal condition is a lowly one, virtually outside of society altogether. In another way, though, it is a sacred condition – special, powerful, and perhaps dangerous . . . all sustained manifestations of communitas must appear as dangerous and anarchical, and have to be hedged around with prescriptions, prohibitions, and conditions.” 38 D. Marx, “The Morning Ritual in the Talmud: The Reconstitution of One’s Body and Personal Identity through the Blessings”, HUCA 77 (2006): 103–129. 39 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 2; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1, Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1, 3, 10, 12.

288 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

. . . There is no one who sleeps in bed at night and who does not taste the taste of death, because his soul departs from him. And as his body remains without his soul, a Spirit of Impurity stands ready, and rests upon him and he becomes unclean . . .40

During sleep, this uncleanness is not dangerous – but a precarious situation arises precisely when the person returns to ordinary life (after rising). The transition from night to day that takes place during sleep is apparently a liminal phase. This is also possibly related to the liminal status of dawn, neither day nor night41 – an observation that also occurs in the corpus itself. Various responsa discuss the moment of dawn (‫ (עלות השחר‬when the Ruach Ra‘ah is sometimes reactivated, even if the person in question had risen earlier and had then already washed his hands.42 However, even in these texts the Ruach Ra‘ah appears in very ordinary situations whose routine character makes it difficult to regard them as real crises or transformations, as Marx initially acknowledged herself.43 The liminality involved is only brief and can easily be lifted – in contrast to certain rituals surrounding biblical uncleanness, where there is a clear liminal phase that is not resolved until a sacrifice is made and  /  or some other ritual is performed, comparable to that in the case of the “leper” (‫ )מצורע‬and the childbirth (Lev. 12 and 14). Marx incidentally does not discuss the Ruach Ra‘ah in her article, nor the ritual washing itself. It seems therefore that seeing the ritual as a rite of passage does not shed much light on the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. But it appears that a comparison between these rituals and biblical purity and uncleanness rituals can yield other similarities.

7.1.3 The Ruach Ra‘ah as a Ritual of Affliction The ritual associated with the Ruach Ra‘ah can at first sight best be categorized as a “ritual for the protection against misfortune” (a ritual of affliction), which also includes 40 Zohar Vayishlah 169b, quoted in Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 10, subsection 2: ‫ רוח‬,‫ וכיון דאשתאר גופא בלא נשמתא‬,‫"לית לך מאן דנאים בליליא דלא טעים טעמא דמותא ונפקת נשמתיה מיניה‬ ".‫מסאבא זמין ושריא עליה ואסתאב‬ 41 See “The cultural anthropology of Mary Douglas”, in Cultural Analysis: The work of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault, and Jürgen Habermas, ed. R. Wuthnow et al. (London / New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 99–102: “Danger in the margins: dawn and dusk”, and dawn and dusk as “in-between times” (101). 42 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 4; ibid., V. 2, no. 2. 43 D. Marx, “The Morning Ritual”, 107–108: “The attempt to apply the theory of rites de passage . . .”, etc.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 289

purification rituals. In other cultures, purification rituals often work on spirits that could bring misfortune to people, for instance in the form of disease.44 These rituals are consequently performed whenever there is a crisis, or to prevent a crisis from occurring in certain situations (prophylaxis). The washing of hands on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah could be regarded as similar, because it is done to prevent “contamination” by the Ruach Ra‘ah, as this is harmful to the body and / or the soul. There is, however, an important difference between these rituals to protect against misfortune and the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. The situations in which the Ruach Ra‘ah is contracted are ordinary, frequently recurring situations that do not involve any crisis or periodical situation that would justify the taking of prophylactic measures. The difference is best illustrated by examining an example from the corpus of a real crisis situation, which the author surprisingly does not view as really threatening. This responsum from the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot45 asks whether the traditional wake should be held for an infant 50 days old who has died, and has been laid out in a room until the funeral. The author first investigates the reason for a wake, and distinguishes three of these: 1. on account of the fear that mice and rodents might get to the body; 2. as a sign of honor; 3. as a protection against the evil demonic powers that attack the body now that the soul has departed. The author argues that a wake is necessary on the basis of the first reason. There is doubt in this case with regard to the second reason, because honor is related to the keeping of the commandments, something that a baby cannot do.46 But nor does the third reason apply here, the one that takes account of the demonic powers that can exercise influence over the dead person  – the old context of demons and spirits is clearly in evidence here. The author quotes an opinion that contends that holding a wake is necessary, only to subsequently reject it: And in the book Ma’avar Yabok47 he mentions the reason for holding a wake, [i.e.] that harmful demons and the spirits will not torment the dead person. And according to this reason too it might be said that this applies when someone is under the obligation to carry out the commandments. But this reason does not apply to a young child as in this case – comparable to what the explainers give as the reason why children of a very young age are not obliged to wash their hands in the morning after waking up. Because at this age the

44 C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives, 115: “Following Victor Turner . . . rites of affliction seek to mitigate the influence of spirits thought to be afflicting human beings with misfortune.” 45 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 605. 46 Ibid.: ".‫אכתי יש להסתפק שמא בתינוקת כי האי שלא טעמה טעם מצוות אין חיוב כיבוד כ״כ להצריך שמירה‬. . ." 47 Ma’avor Yabok, Rabbi A. Berachia (sixteenth to seventeenth century, first edition 1626 in Mantua). The book addresses all kinds of rituals for diseases, the dead, and funerals, and also gives theological-mystical discussions of illness, death, and the fate of the soul after death.

290 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

‘external powers’ [‫]החיצוניים‬48 do not yet attach themselves [‫ ]מתדבקים‬to a child that young. See also the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman49 in relation to the washing of the hands of young children on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah: ‘. . . because the most important moment on which the soul enters holiness is at 13 years, or when it has reached the age of ‘initiation’50 in the commandments [‫[שהגיע לחינוך‬. . .51

In this passage, the author compares possible demonic activity near a dead young child with the susceptibility of very young children to the Ruach Ra‘ah after rising in the morning. Just as a very young child is not yet susceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah, the dead body of a young child is not susceptible to the torments of demons. On the one hand, there is mention here of the demonic context of the Ruach Ra‘ah, which would mean that it is a ritual for the protection against misfortune, but on the other hand, the author adopts a relatively relaxed attitude in this situation, which he does not judge to be a crisis situation because a young child is not susceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah. If this situation had been a crisis situation, one would expect a young child to require more rather than less protection. There is in fact one opinion that argues along these lines, but this is almost never quoted as authoritative by the Later Decisors.52

48 A kabbalistic expression for demonic powers that exercise negative influence over human bodies and souls. Sometimes the dybbuk is called “dybbuk min haChitzonim”. The first to use this term was Rabbi Yakob Emden who called Shabtai Zvi a “dybbuk min haChitzonim”; see J. Bilu, “Aslai, Dibbuk, Zar. Nivdalot Tarbutit vehemshechi’yut Historit Bemachalot Ichuz beKehillot Yisrael”, Peamim 85 (2000): 136, n. 14. 49 The Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman of Liady (1745–1813), founder of Chabad Hasidism. 50 Also in the sense of education. 51 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 605: ‫ וגם לטעם זה יש לומר‬,‫"והנה בספר "מעבר יבק" מביא הטעם לחיוב שמירה כדי שלא יתעללו בו המזיקין ורוחות‬ ‫ וכעין שפירשו המפרשים טעם שבגיל‬,‫ אבל בתינוקת כי האי לא שייך טעם זה‬,‫דהיינו דוקא לאחר שהוא בר מצוות‬ ‫ עיין בש״ע הגרי״ז לענין נט״י‬,‫ דבגיל זה לא מתדבקים החיצוניים בתינוק כזה‬,‫כזה אין חיוב נטילה בשחרית כשישן‬ ‫ מיהו אם נזהר מיום המילה והלאה‬,‫ או שהגיע לחינוך‬,‫לקטנים מפני רו״ר שעיקר כניסת הנפש לקדושה בי״ג שנה‬ ".‫קדוש ייאמר לו ע״ש‬ 52 In the Migdal Oz’s (Shem Tov ben Abraham Ibn Gaon, thirteenth to fourteenth century) commentary on Maimonides’ decision that hands must not be washed in the morning on Yom Kippur (Laws concerning Prayer, Ch. 7, halachah 8), he argues by contrast that a young child is more susceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah – even on Yom Kippur, when Satan and his accomplices (among whom the Ruach Ra‘ah) have no power. This latter point is only true for people who fast (and have reached religious adulthood), which offers them protection, because Satan does not in any case have much power on that special day. This is not true, however, for small children: because they only possess an Evil Inclination, from before they were born, but do not yet have a Good Tendency (this comes only when they have reached religious adulthood), they are more susceptible than others to Shibta. This is the reason that the Talmud advises a woman to wash her hands on Yom Kippur on account of Shibta if she wants to give her small child bread to eat.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 291

Our author follows a different line of reasoning: those who are able to keep the commandments are susceptible both to the holiness of the commandments (and their prophylactic effect) when they are carried out, and to evil powers when the commandments are broken. When someone is unprotected by the commandments, it is as if a spiritual “vacuum” has arisen – e.g. during sleep, when the soul departs from the body and there is no active keeping of the commandments. Someone who is as yet unable to keep the commandments – e.g. the dead child – is therefore unsusceptible, or susceptible to a reduced degree, to the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah and associated negative powers. The paradox is, however, that an ordinary activity such as sleeping is regarded to a certain extent as a crisis, through the departure of the soul and the resulting susceptibility to the Ruach Ra‘ah. The rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah cannot, therefore, simply be characterized as rituals to protect against misfortune in a crisis situation. Neither can they be simply compared with rituals to protect against demons, as will be seen below. This discussion does shed light on the specific nature of the rituals associated with the Ruach Ra‘ah: they are associated more with everyday life, the everyday lives of people who have reached the age that they must keep the commandments. On the one hand, therefore, the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah appear to lessen fear. It has been demonstrated already that in the Second Temple period (possibly as a continuation of the biblical paradigm) and also in the Talmudic period, the Ruach Ra‘ah was associated with demons and spirits, who are able to take possession of people and who were held responsible for psychological and physical disorders and behavior. This notion was retained in the kabbalistic tradition from pre-modern times to the contemporary time,53 in the form of the dybbuk and related terms used to describe these phenomena (see infra). By contrast, the Talmudic perspective and its continuation in medieval commentaries, and the later normative Halachic literature, made the Ruach Ra‘ah manageable as a daily routine, and divested it of its acute, dangerous dimension. Someone who performs the right washing in the right situation, and refrains from certain acts in other situations, has nothing to fear. Nor is it necessary to engage a specialist in the form of an expert in exorcism or kabbalistic ritual, although the rabbi does play a background role – as will be seen below. Some responsa also qualify the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah by arguing that there is no problem a posteriori, and that certain forms of the Ruach Ra‘ah are no

53 See J.H. Chayes, Between Worlds, 12–13, and 165, the report of the Damascus dybbuk in Sefer haChezhonot. This can also be found in Shivhe R. Chaim Vital (Lemberg, 1862?), 11ff. The Hebrew term ‫ רוח רעה‬can be seen clearly on 12.

292 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

longer relevant in post-Talmudic times, as was discussed in 6.2.3. This probably explains why the situation of someone who is brought by a Ruach Ra‘ah beyond the limits that may be walked on the Shabbat – an example that can still be found in the Shulchan Aruch and Maimonides’ codex, and which implies a change of behavior under the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah – no longer plays any role in the corpus. Even the texts from the corpus that ascribe suicide (or attempted suicide) to the Ruach Ra‘ah, although they assume an acute, one-off crisis situation, do not as such constitute evidence for the widespread continuation of the old paradigm of demonic possession. Rather, these texts are inspired by the desire to regard the person who has committed suicide (or has attempted suicide) as part of the community, as will be explained in 7.2.4.3. This attenuation of the notion of demonic possession has not, however, led to the disappearance of the Ruach Ra‘ah, quite the contrary. In carrying out all kinds of daily and normal activities, the individual is time and again confronted with the Ruach Ra‘ah: when rising in the morning, when relieving himself on the toilet (or, according to some, even when entering the toilet), when cutting hair or nails, when engaging in sexual intercourse, or when encountering a dead body. The Talmudic perspective remains almost entirely unchanged in all of these situations, and it is even seamlessly integrated into modernity and modern technology.54 Whereas the Ruach Ra‘ah was previously limited to crisis situations or certain specific conditions, it has now been “spread out” as it were across everyday life, for the entire duration of the individual’s life. In this way, the Ruach Ra‘ah permeates the consciousness of the orthodox Jew. The Jewish person himself – and not an exorcist – must constantly perform these rituals as a daily routine. Thus it is not always true that religious rituals lessen fear, as some sociologists have argued – Radcliffe-Brown and others have already observed this.55 It is also the case for the Ruach Ra‘ah: fear definitely continues to play a role, but not fear of an acute and unexpected danger, but rather of a permanent, diffuse, and elusive menace, as the frequent recurrence of the word for “danger” (‫ סכנה‬or ‫ )סכנתא‬in the corpus also demonstrates.

54 E.g. in the questions on modern toilets and bathrooms, airplanes, prams, and refrigerators, as was discussed above. 55 See J.D. Eller, Introducing Anthropology, 23–24: “Radcliffe-Brown astutely realized that religious beliefs and actions sometimes actually increase fear and stress . . . There is the fear of performing a ritual wrong and suffering the effects. . . the fear of the shaman or witch or sorcerer who can use spiritual power for good or ill . . .”, etc.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 293

7.1.4 The Ruach Ra‘ah and Biblical Purity Laws Because the Ruach Ra‘ah is a purification ritual (a subgroup of the rituals of affliction), there is some justification for a comparison between the corpus and the biblical purity laws. In addition, there are other conceptual similarities with these biblical laws that are already evident in the Talmudic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah: the often quotidian, domestic setting, the mechanism of transmission through touch, the localisation in / around the human body and certain bodily functions, the use of water as a means of purification, and a sense of urgency with regard to washing off the Ruach Ra‘ah that has been contracted. Moreover, certain responsa from the corpus also use the concept of “impurity” in their discourse, and additionally describe the Ruach Ra‘ah as Ruach Tumah (impure spirit).56 Yet a comparison between the Ruach Ra‘ah and the biblical purity laws also reveals many differences that must not be overlooked: – Terminology: the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah has specific terms of its own: Ruach Ra‘ah, and the more demonic names Bat Melech and Shibta, especially from the Talmud, names which moreover appear to be separate from the biblical discourse on purity.57 – The laws of the Ruach Ra‘ah are independent of any one particular physical location, such as the Temple, Jerusalem or the Land of Israel.

56 See also the “borrowing” (mentioned above) of the idea of “impurity through roofing” (tumat ohel) as an explanation for the Ruach Ra‘ah on food and drink that have been placed under the bed. But this explanation is of late provenance (seventeenth century) and was first suggested by the Torat Chaim, and it is not supported by all of the authors in the corpus. On “tumat ohel” see for instance H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: the ritual purity system and its place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 13–29; idem., “The corpse in the Tent”, JSH 28, no. 2 (1997): 195–209; H.L.M. Ottenheijm, Disputen, 281–292; V. Noam, “Ritual Impurity in Tannaitic Literature: Two Opposing Perspectives”, JAJ 1, no. 1 (2010): 74–86. 57 An exception is Rabbi Shalom Hedaya (1864–1945) who saw the Ruach Ra‘ah as a biblical form of impurity, mentioned by his son Ovadyah Hedaya in the Yaskil Avdi, V. 4, 101b, She’elat Shalom, OH, no. 1: ‫מובן הדבר מאיליו ההבדל שבין טומאה זו לטומאת מי רגלים דשם במי רגלים אין כאן טומאה מדאוריתא כלל רק‬. . ." ‫ והשתא דאתינן להכי שפיר מובנים צדדי‬,‫גזירה דרבנן וטומאה זו היא טומאה מדאורייתא מעין אותה טומאה של המת‬ ‫הספק שעלו ובאו בספיקו של מרן אבא שליט״א (זצוק״ל) אם מי נט״י שחרית מתבטלים ברביעית דוגמת מי רנליס מי‬ ‫נימא כיון שטומאתן מסרך סרכא בטומאה דאורייתא כאמור א״כ לא בטילי ברביעית דלא מצינו ביטול בטומאה‬ .". . .‫דאורייתא‬ This opinion is explicitly rejected by the Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10: ‫ והובא בב״י ובהגה‬,’‫ וכמ״ש הרשב״א בתשו‬,‫והנה אם כי אפי’ מומר ומחלל ש״ק בפרהסיא מטמאים באהל‬. . ." ,‫ [ומ״ש בשו״ת ישכיל עבדי ח״ד (בקונט’ שאלת שלום‬.‫ כטומאת אהל דאורייתא‬,‫ מ״מ אין כח הרו״ר‬.)‫(סי’שעב‬ .". . .[‫ תמוה‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ מעין טומאת המת‬,‫חאו״ח סי’ א דק״א ע״ג) שהרו״ר היא טומאה מה״ת‬

294  –

–

–

–

–

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

Only water is required for purification: there is no time aspect involving a kind of liminal intermediate status (as in the Tevul Yom), or an additional ritual (such as the sacrifice – the Mechusar Kapara status). Already in the Talmud, no functionary (priest or rabbi) or layperson was required for the purification.58 It could be performed by any individual himself in his own everyday  / domestic environment. The system of transmission is much more limited: primarily from humans to themselves, and to food and drink – the consensus is that other people cannot be contaminated; and there is no transmission from “contaminated food” to other food or drink. Moreover, the consensus is that objects are immune to the Ruach Ra‘ah – only their content can be “contaminated” by the Ruach Ra‘ah. The Ruach Ra‘ah is also generated by other factors than biblical impurity, as is evident from the Ruach Ra‘ah on food and drink placed under a bed,59 and the keeping overnight of a peeled egg, onion, or garlic. Although the Ruach Ra‘ah is often referred to a priori as dangerous, most authors do not think there is any physical consequence a posteriori – the Ruach Ra‘ah does not have any irreversible effects on matter. This forms a contrast with biblical impurity, which can lead in some cases to vessels becoming unusable or food becoming inedible. By contrast with the rabbinic development of the biblical purity laws, the concept of intention plays only a very modest role in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus.

The differences and similarities are important when examining existing theories on purity and impurity. Klawans and others  – on the basis of insights of Hoffmann, Büchler, and Neusner for instance  – have distinguished two types of purity  /  impurity, each with their own terminology: ritual impurity and moral impurity.60 These form two parallel systems in the Bible whose rules in practice are not mixed. Ritual impurity is described primarily in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19, has a temporary character, is transmissible, can be cancelled out through ritual, 58 Cf. for instance the praxis that emerged from Karaite influence that a clean woman splashes water over another woman whose menstruation has ended, as described by Maimonides in a responsum (no. 242); see for instance S.J. Cohen, “Purity, Piety, and Polemic: Medieval Rabbinic Denunciations of ‘Incorrect’ Purification Practices”, in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law, ed. R. Wasserfall (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1999), 82–100. 59 There is no indication in the early rabbinic sources that this form of the Ruach Ra‘ah has anything to do with “uncleanness through roofing”. 60 C.E. Hayes has distinguished a third genealogical form; see Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 295

and takes place in everyday situations and is consequently unrelated to sin. Moral impurity involves impurity incurred by transgressing laws – in the Torah: sexual laws, murder, and idolatry – and therefore has a primarily intentional character; it is permanent and cannot be lifted through any ritual (but it can by punishment and exile), while it is non-transmissible to other persons or objects – except the Temple (and the Land of Israel) which it can even make unclean at a distance.61

7.1.5 Mary Douglas and Purity and Impurity The work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas on biblical purity laws is also relevant to our research, despite the differences identified between the Ruach Ra‘ah and biblical purity and impurity. She did not develop her theory specifically for the framework of those purity laws, but on the basis of anthropological research in various cultural settings, and her earlier work addressed the purity laws from a more universal perspective than her later work. Douglas was one of the first62 to study subjects such as the Bible’s purity laws (including the dietary restrictions, the kashrut) in Leviticus and Numbers, together with comparable systems in other, non-biblical cultures, and she did this intensively for more than 30 years.63 Douglas’s ideas have been extremely influential in biblical scholarship64 and in the academic study of Judaism.65 It is not our intention here to address Douglas’s complex view of the biblical purity laws at length.66

61 See J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 62 See H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of. Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 17: “.  .  . Thanks to Douglas’s work, the Israelite dietary restrictions have entered anthropological discourse and have had an important impact on anthropological theory . . .”, see also 75. 63 Especially: M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966); “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus”, JSOT 59 (1993): 3–23; “Deciphering a meal”, Daedalus (1972), 61–81 (esp. 70–80); In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 64 See for instance M. Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals”, 7, n. 4. 65 See for instance V. Noam, “Ritual Impurity in Tannaitic Literature”, 66, n. 2; J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); idem., Impurity and Sin; H. Maccoby, Ritual and morality; H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism; S. Haber, “They Shall Purify Themselves”: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism, ed. A. Reinhartz (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008). 66 See for instance C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 311–312, 324–329 on Douglas’s theory on the cleanness and uncleanness of animals.

296 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

Douglas revised her views on several occasions67 since Purity and Danger, and this makes it difficult to summarize an already complex author like her.68 7.1.5.1 Purity Laws, Social Order, and Cosmology One important observation that Douglas made in relation to the biblical purity laws is that they appear to have universal validity,69 and are not used to marginalize or exclude certain groups of people.70 Impurity arising from sexuality, for instance, is valid for everyone; both priest and bastard (mamzer). The same is true for the touching of dead animals, abnormal discharge from the sex organs, contact with a dead person or a leper. Social rank and standing are not relevant. In her earlier observations on biblical impurity (and the dietary laws),71 Douglas therefore emphasized that the prescriptions concerning unclean animals had nothing to do with danger or the use of control and coercion, in contrast to taboos in other cultures:

67 Despite these revisions Douglas’s older work is useful for this study of rabbinic rituals, for instance because of its emphasis on ritual as a regulatory principle; see for instance Purity and Danger, 117. On the implications of these revisions, see for instance: J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 18–19. In this book, Klawans criticizes the usefulness of Douglas’s older work for biblical and early Jewish studies. He appears to be less emphatic in Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: “. . . may not apply”, 109. See also Klawans, “Rethinking Leviticus and Rereading Purity and Danger: A Review Essay”, AJS 27, no. 1 (2003): 90 and 96: “General pollution theory still stands, but its application to the Bible is limited”. In Gentile Impurities, C. E. Hayes refers to Douglas’s older insights on the regulatory role of purity laws, 223, n. 2. In n. 3 she mentions Klawans’ opinion in Impurity and Sin and concludes: “The focus of the biblical purity laws is, therefore, external.” But see also S. Haber: “Although some of Douglas’s ideas have been refuted and sometimes even proven to be erroneous, many of her original assertions have endured”, They Shall Purify Themselves, 13. See also Douglas herself in her later work on purity laws as (external and internal) identity markers, “Sacred contagion”, in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed. J.F.A. Sawyer (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1996), 86–106. 68 See also Klawans, “Rethinking Leviticus”, 91: “In his recent intellectual biography of Mary Douglas . . . Richard Fardon has demonstrated how difficult it can be to extract . . . or . . . to summarize a complete book by Mary Douglas.” 69 Douglas explicitly rejects an interpretation of these Biblical laws as a mechanism of exclusion of outsiders (as found in other religious systems): “On the traditional reading . . . the defiler is taken to be the outsider .  .  . the doctrine is thought to be exclusionary .  .  . However close attention to . . . Numbers and Leviticus gives a very different slant. These books never use the principle of ritual purity to separate classes of races, foreigners or natives . . . Everybody is liable to be defiled or to delete”, In the Wilderness, 25. 70 See also H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 197; M. Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus”, 7–8; idem., “Atonement in Leviticus”, JSQ 1, no. 2 (1993/94): 113–114. 71 In the passages on the dietary laws in Lev. 11, dietary laws and purity laws merge – there is mention both of food and the touching of unclean animals. See for instance 11:8, 11:39 ff.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 297

. . . yet no one has leveled the main and obvious objection, the lack of equivalence between taboo as understood in the rest of the world and the rules of Leviticus. Everywhere else taboo is specifically tied to behavior in such a way as to protect valued social and moral standards. The connection with danger allows ideas to organize society by persuading, justifying, warning, mustering moral pressure. Yet the unclean animals in Leviticus do not serve these uses. No danger is attached to contact with them.72

Her early work underlines that purity laws express certain ideas held by the group (at a symbolic level)73 on cosmology,74 morality, or relations between certain groups, which can be symmetrical or hierarchical. Society types and purity laws are thus correlated: the “social body” is connected with the “physical body” 75 – to which most purity laws are applicable. The body’s orifices and the liquids that enter these or are discharged from them,76 often the source of impurity, symbolize the boundaries and margins of a society that interacts with the environment, or whose social and moral order77 is under threat; from within or without (anomalies).78 In doing

72 M. Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals”, 7. See also 8: “In effect, biblical defilement is a cerebral creation, it has no philosophical uses, it does not accuse.” 73 For a readable discussion of Douglas’ theories in Purity and Danger, see J. Van Wiele, “Mary Douglas Purity and Danger revisited”, Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 23 (Groningen: Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, 2007), 177–209. 74 In a biblical context: the theme of classification and fertility from Genesis; death as the antithesis of life and therefore as the source of uncleanness in Leviticus. 75 M. Douglas, Natural Symbols, 65–81. 76 The Talmudic and later rabbinic exhortations on touching the orifices with hands on which the Ruach Ra‘ah rests are consonant with the role of orifices in Douglas’s earlier work, as referring to the (social) boundaries: “. . . The dangers to it will come . . . from failure to control the quality of what it absorbs through the orifices; fear of poisoning, protection of boundaries, aversion to bodily waste products and medical theory that enjoins frequent purging . . .”, Natural Symbols (London / New York,: Routledge, 2002 ed.), xxxvi. See also Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge Classics, 2002 ed.), 153 where she applies this especially to the anxiety of a minority group of protecting its political and cultural unity. 77 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (1966 ed.), 129–139; idem., “Deciphering a Meal”, 61–81. In this work Douglas emphasizes the connection between the biblical dietary laws and morality. 78 Her definition of dirt as “matter out of place” which she has also applied to impurity (for a critique of this see S. Haber, They Shall Purify Themselves, 14 and n. 26) by regarding it as an anomaly that threatens the social order, can be used in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah given the fact that some texts in the corpus also portray the Ruach Ra‘ah as “dirt” (‫)זהומה‬, as a previous chapter has described. Douglas partially revised her views on anomalies inter alia in Purity and Danger as initiator of impurity and dietary laws (these animals breach the classification of animals as land-sky-water, or propel themselves in a manner that does not conform to this) in Leviticus as Literature.

298 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

so, Douglas incidentally rejected all too neat interpretations,79 psychologizing tendencies,80 and “piecemeal interpretations”.81 On the other hand, a complex mechanism underlies the purity laws: thus Douglas observed the instrumental use of purity laws to enforce socially acceptable behavior, an instrument to operationalize social control.82 The biblical purity laws, too, contain a certain degree of stratification, because the same details do not apply to the priest and the Israelite. In some cases, the more universal use of the purity laws is jettisoned, and they serve as an instrument of social coercion and control.

7.1.6 Douglas’s Typologies of Societies Douglas also linked the use of purity laws with the type of society where this happens, describing them in her earlier work with the parameters “group” and “grid” (later developed as Cultural Theory by Douglas, Wildavsky, Thompson et al.).83 “Group” points to the closedness of the boundaries in relation to the outside world that constrain the individual; “grid” points to the order, stratification and control within the group’s inner world. She derived this idea from Basil Bernstein’s language theory. Bernstein initially studied the influence of the modern world on family upbringing. He distinguished two language codes that correlate with forms of authority and control within a family: the “restricted” and the “elaborate” code, which respectively characterize the “positional”, hierarchical family, and the “personal”, more individually oriented family.84 Douglas went on to use the concepts of group  /  grid in different ways in her oeuvre.85

79 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (1966), 114–128, esp. 122: “If anal eroticism is expressed at the cultural level we are not entitled to expect a population of anal erotics. We must look around for whatever it is that has made appropriate any cultural analogy with anal eroticism . . .”. 80 Ibid., 138 on the Bemba who “believe that pollution of adultery is conveyed through fire”: “. . . we would need to approach the systematic interrelation of the symbols themselves in more detail than is at present possible.” 81 Ibid., 41. 82 Douglas sees the period of Ezra as “enclave culture” in her later work: as a period in which the purity laws functioned as a mechanism of internal control; see for instance Into the Wilderness, 49. 83 See for instance D. Douglas Caulkins “Grid-group analysis” in Handbook of Social Capital. The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics, ed. G.T. Svendsen et al. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009), 57–72. 84 Natural Symbols (2002 ed.), 21–36. 85 See J. V. Spickard, “A Guide to Mary Douglas’s Three Versions of Grid/Group Theory”, Sociological Analysis 50, no. 2 (1989): 151–170.

7.1 Theoretical Outlines of the Ruach Ra‘ah 

 299

Using ritual also as a kind of language and communication inspired Douglas to describe four typologies86 of societies or groups,87 depending on the strength of these two parameters: individualistic (low group  /  low grid), hierarchical or positional (high group  /  high grid), isolated (low group / high grid), and egalitarian (high group  / low grid). A priestly, hierarchical society is dominated by the universal aspect that assigns to each member his or her place in the system.88 The enclave type – Ezra and Nehemiah’s Second Temple society – by contrast is dominated by the exclusive aspect, and compliance with the system is used to enforce the loyalty of members and to exclude dissidents from the group.89 In addition to their attitude towards ritual, these typologies also differ for instance in their cosmology, their view of nature, culture, personal relationships, justice, the use of space, and a wide range of subjects from cooking and medicine to gardening and illness.90 This theory’s high group / low grid position and its attendant social order and cosmology – which she and others later called “enclave” – are particularly relevant here because this model of “enclave culture” has been applied with some success to peripheral groups in modern Western societies (e.g. environmental activists). In addition, it is used by some in the Jewish context for the early Second Temple period, sectarianism from the second century BCE onwards, medieval Judaism, and the conservative orthodox Judaism of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.91

86 Isolates, Individualist, Hierarchist, Enclavist; see M. Douglas In the Wilderness (1993), 45. In Natural Symbols (1970), 54–64 these types do not yet have clear names, not even in the diagrams included to clarify the theory. 87 See for instance M. Douglas, Natural Symbols (1970), 54–64. 88 See for instance In the Wilderness, 43: “. . . the priestly editors as a hereditary priestly caste would been imbued with hierarchical tendencies which would put them at variance with the generally sectarian environment of their congregations.” 89 Ibid., 49: “In the enclave the main source of pollution is the evil of the outside world. Preoccupied with a frail consensus and without formal authority or effective power, the enclave tends to use defilement to accuse and reject unruly members and to mobilize loyalty.” See also all of chapter 2 of In the Wilderness, “The politics of Enclaves”, 42–62. 90 See “Cultural Bias”, in M. Douglas, In the Active Voice (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982), 183–254. 91 Douglas herself used enclave culture in In the Wilderness, for instance in the title of chapter 2, “The politics of enclaves”, 42–62. A.I. Baumgarten used the concept in several publications as an explanatory model for the rise of sects in the last two to three centuries of the Second Temple period, interpreting the concept of “sect” in a wide sense to include all kinds of religious groups with a recognizable identity. See for instance A.I. Baumgarten, “How Do We Know When We Are On To Something?”, in Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History, ed. S.D. Stern (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 12–13, n. 23, and “Information Processing in Ancient Jewish Groups”, in Sectarianism in Early Judaism:

300 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

According to Douglas, sectarian groups / enclaves92 often emphasize the “goodness, equality, and purity of heart and spirit” that reign “inside”, versus the evil, corruption and inequality “outside”.93 The problem of the enclave is its voluntary nature, in the absence of a real authority that can impose sanctions on people who leave the group or engage in deviant behavior.94 This therefore often leads to a discourse of morality and purity to persuade potential defectors not to leave the group and to strengthen internal unity.95 Douglas also contended in relation to the enclave / high group – low grid position that the body is regarded as vulnerable, which corresponds with a perception that the “social body” is vulnerable to external intruders and internal renegades. As far as cosmology is concerned, Douglas described this in the first edition of her Natural Symbols (1970) as “dualistic, irrational, magical and dominated by practices of counterwitchcraft”.96 Accusations of sorcery, witchcraft, and the Evil Eye are much more

Sociological Advances, ed. D.J. Chalcraft (London: Equinox, 2007), 246–255. In “Finding Oneself in a Sectarian Context: A sectarian’s food and its Implications”, Self, Soul, and Body in Religious Experience, ed. A.I. Baumgarten et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1998); Baumgarten, too, appears to use the concept in a wide sense for the entire Second Temple Judaism (“The national enclave culture”, 143 and “larger national enclave”, 146). E. Sivan uses “enclave culture” as an explanatory model for fundamentalist groups in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the modern period; E. Sivan, “The Enclave Culture”, in Fundamentalisms Comprehended, ed. M. Marty et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 11–68. The term applies for instance to the ultra-orthodox Haredim, Chabad, and the right wing of the religious Zionist movement. Medieval Judaism and early modern Judaism are also described by them as forms of “enclave culture”, see 21: “In Judaism, an enclave social context existed throughout medieval and early modern times . . .”, etc. For the use of “enclave culture” in relation to the ultra-orthodox Yeshiva world, see also Y. Hakak, Young Men in Israeli Haredi Yeshiva Education: The Scholars’ Enclave in Unrest (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 92 Douglas uses the terms sects and enclaves synonymously; see Natural symbols (2002 ed.), Introduction, xxi: “. . . and this is the point to look for the explanations of enclave culture, otherwise called sectarianism.” 93 According to Douglas, sectarian groups commit to three principles: “human goodness, equality, and purity of heart and spirit”; see M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982), e.g. 10–11. 94 Douglas, Natural symbols (2002 ed.), Introduction, xxi: “The big organizational problem . . . of the enclave is about defection. If discipline is threatened against challengers, the latter can threaten to move out . . . There can be no show of power, and authority has to be exerted with great care . . .”. 95 E. Sivan, “The Enclave Culture”, 17: “. . . The only control to be deployed in order to shore up the boundary is moral persuasion.” 96 See M. Douglas, Natural Symbols (1970), diagram 9 on 105 (Douglas speaks of the high group / low grid as “dominated by witches using magical objects”, and counter-witchcraft also uses magic) and the entire following chapter (The Problem of Evil) in which she discusses what she calls “witchcraft cosmology” more extensively.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 301

frequent in an egalitarian community with a weak authority, such as enclave culture, than in more hierarchical groups with clearly defined and centralized sources of authority.97 The question arises whether or not the universal tendency that Douglas observed in relation to purity laws can also be found in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus – and thus constitutes another similarity with the purity laws from the Bible. To what extent can her group-grid be used for an analysis of the texts of the corpus? The following sections will apply Douglas’s observations to the Ruach Ra‘ah as it is presented in the corpus. They will firstand foremost examine the possible relation between the responsa and the society that produced them, the correspondence with the social order within the group (symmetrical versus hierarchical), and the role that boundaries play in identity definition, both within the group itself – what do the responsa say about gender views within that particular faith community and vis-à-vis outsiders?

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus As has been seen, in some respects the Ruach Ra‘ah looks like ritual impurity; in others it is like moral impurity. The merging of these two genres has been demonstrated before in some sect-like Second Temple groups, while the early rabbis generally kept the two genres separate as much as possible. This was possibly related to the type of society that Douglas identified.98 According to Frymer-Kensky, moral impurity is connected with danger and taboo99 (she therefore prefers the term “danger-beliefs” to moral impurity)  – it has been argued previously that danger also played an important role in the corpus. According to Klawans, ritual

97 M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (ed. 1966), 99: “. . . Where the social system requires people to hold dangerously ambiguous roles, these persons are credited with uncontrolled, unconscious, dangerous, disapproved powers – such as witchcraft and evil eye.” See also further discussion by Douglas on 100–109. However, see also 105, where Douglas says about the hierarchical high group / high grid (model C) that it is “energised by other powers, by witchcraft and evil eye.” 98 M. Douglas, In the Wilderness, 49. 99 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 15–16; S. Haber et al., They Shall Purify, 21–24. Frymer-Kensky writes the following on these danger beliefs in “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel”: “Some forms of pollution could be eradicated by rituals . . . the performance of certain deeds, however, could not be eradicated by rituals; Israel believed that the person intentionally committing these acts would suffer catastrophic retribution”, quoted in Haber, 22 and Klawans, 15.

302 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

impurity is more gender-egalitarian than moral impurity.100 The gender aspect of the menstruation laws (Niddah) – the only biblical purity ritual that is still currently practiced – has been studied extensively by Fonrobert in Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. The use of the biblical purity laws as a demarcation of group identity – both internally and externally – has already been discussed above. Given certain similarities between the Ruach Ra‘ah and these purity laws it must be asked whether the more universal framework of Douglas’s theory – where classifying reality (dirt and uncleanness as “matter out of place”) plays an important role in defining interior and exterior boundaries of identity (group / grid) – can also be used for the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah. According to Hayes101 both forms of (im)purity – ritual and moral impurity – were used in the Second Temple period and rabbinic Judaism to demarcate the community’s own identity vis-à-vis the non-Jewish outsider, and therefore also vis-à-vis the fellow Jewish “insider”. The role of the Ruach Ra‘ah in maintaining and defining the various boundaries within the community will be analyzed in the following sections, as well the way in which the gender aspect is represented in the corpus. Different identity aspects can be identified in the corpus – some are related to the internal boundaries (grid), others to external boundaries (group). The first category includes children102 and women. The second category includes the role of the outsider, the non-Jew. Sinners fall between these two categories, but are sometimes counted among the outsiders.103

100 O. Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 38–40; C.E. Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 43–47. 101 This is her real thesis in Gentile Impurities: the degree of demarcation between Jews and non-Jews can be determined depending on which form of impurity is ascribed to non-Jews, specifically in situations of marriage and proselytism. See for instance 7–8, 19–34. Although Hayes contends that it was not common to question each other’s Jewish identity, the status of children from contested relationships was a matter for debate. The exterior boundary is thus at the same time an interior boundary. See Hayes, 193–198. 102 Halachic and rabbinic texts often also include the category of handicapped people (and others with some impairment), in addition to children, and sometimes women and slaves. See for instance mEruvin 3:2, mMegillah 2:4, mGittin 2:5, mMenachot 9:8. See for instance T. C. Marx, Disability in Jewish Law (2004). No questions concerning people with physical disabilities can be found in this corpus. 103 See C.Hayes, “The “Other” in Rabbinic Literature” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. C. E. Fonrobert and M. S. Jaffee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 243–269.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 303

7.2.1 Internal Boundaries: Children Several responsa from the corpus104 discuss whether small children should also wash their hands in the morning, or whether sleeping children can transmit the Ruach Ra‘ah to food and drink (for instance if these were kept in a compartment of the pram underneath a sleeping child), and to what extent they must be protected against transmission of the Ruach Ra‘ah to them by adults. The corpus offers different answers to this problem, ranging from strict to more lenient solutions. At first sight there is nothing unusual about this: the Mishnah, Talmud, and later Halachic codices often regard children as a separate category of persons, usually exempt from religious obligations, and unable to preside over communal celebrations.105 They do recognize the rabbinic obligation to teach children to observe the commandments and prohibitions, so that they will be able to do this themselves once they reach adulthood. There is no specific age for this in the Talmud, and there are different opinions about this in rabbinic literature: the age of six,106 nine,107 or when a child reaches a certain cognitive development that has to be ascertained in each individual case.108 Yet it is nevertheless surprising that children appear to form a separate category in the responsa of the corpus, and the questions about children in the corpus are less obvious than they seem: there is nothing in the context of the Ruach Ra‘ah’s appearances in the Talmud or in the way the Shulchan Aruch describes the ritual of the washing in the morning in OH:4 to suggest that this also applies to children. On the contrary; the context is often that of prayer and the reciting of the Shema – prescriptions concerning rituals that clearly apply only to those who have reached religious adulthood, and to a lesser extent to children who have already reached the “age of understanding”. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch describes the Ruach Ra‘ah in the context of situations that refer to the lives of religious adults: sexual intercourse, bloodletting, cutting hair, touching a dead person or a barrel of beer. Similarly, the exhortation that the scholar will lose his knowledge if he does not wash his hands clearly implies that this is a rule for adults.

104 Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 1; ibid., YD, no. 33; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 11; Ibid., V. 15, no. 5; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1, 9, 10; ibid., V. 2, no. 1, 605; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6; ibid., V. 3, no. 18; ibid., V. 4, no. 252; Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3, no. 2; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6, 8. 105 See for instance mTerumah 1:3; mBerachot 3:3; mMegillah 2:4; OH 17:3; OH 37:3. 106 See for instance Mishnah Berurah on OH 269:1, subsection 1. 107 bYoma 82a. 108 See for instance Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2.

304 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

The same is true for the Talmudic material used in the responsa. There is only one source in the Talmud that explicitly mentions a child: the text on the Shibta,109 a demon who is regarded as a form of Ruach Ra‘ah in medieval Talmud commentaries. Precisely the fact that there is explicit mention of a child makes it all the more plausible that the other sources do not envisage children. Moreover, what is at stake here is fear of transmission of the Ruach Ra‘ah of Shibta from an adult to a child, and not the other way around. The exhortation that a mother must wash her hand before feeding the child is intended to protect the child, but does not imply that a young child itself generates the Ruach Ra‘ah, which it might then in turn transmit to food and drink. Finally, the prescription of the ritual of the washing of hands already presumes that the subject is old enough to carry out this ritual independently himself. Why then is the relation between the Ruach Ra‘ah and the child articulated so prominently in the corpus, given that there seems to be so little reason for this? A first point is the intertextuality of the rabbinic texts. The context of the child and the Shibta is possibly transferred to the other Talmudic texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah – a process that can be clearly identified in the Halachic literature of the last few centuries, which gives rise to the notion that small children should also wash their hands in the morning. This first happens in the commentary Pri Megadim (eighteenth century) on the laws of the washing of hands (OH 4),110 and can already be seen in the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman111 of the eighteenth century, as will be seen below. But Ben Ish Chai,112 Sofer’s Kaf HaChaim113 (both influenced by the Kabbalah), and Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah114 also include the exhortation concerning young children in their works of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The responsa from the corpus also include this jurisprudence written after the Shulchan Aruch in their deliberations when replying to this question.

109 bYoma 77b: “It was taught in the school of Menashe: ‘R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says: a woman washes one hand in water and gives some bread to the young child. It was said of Shammai the Elder that he even refused to feed [a child] with one hand, and [the Wise] compelled him to feed with both hands! What is the reason?’ – Abaye replied: the Shibta.” 110 Subsection 7: ." ‫ כי חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא‬,‫ וראוי לרחוץ ידיהם בכל בוקר‬,‫"גם קטנים איני יודע למה אין נזהרים בזה‬ 111 OH §4, subsection 2 in the Mahadura Tinyana (New York: Kehat, 2001), 12–13. 112 Parashat Toledot (Year I), subsection 10. 113 OH 4, subsection 22. The Kaf HaChaim is more nuanced than the Ben Ish Chai; he mentions the more lenient opinion of the Shulchan Aruch of Sheniur Zalman in addition to the two stricter opinions advanced by the Ben Ish Chai and the ChiDA. The fact, however, that he mentions two strict opinions and only one lenient one does show that Sofer’s own preference is for the former (he concludes with the stricter opinion of the Ben Ish Chai). 114 OH 4, subsection 10. Kagan’s Sha’ar haZiun also refers here to the Pri Megadim as his source.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 305

7.2.1.1 Children and the Ruach Ra‘ah – Different Points of View What are the social implications of this emphasis on the relation between children and the Ruach Ra‘ah, and what role does the Ruach Ra‘ah play here in demarcating social structure, the boundaries between those who belong to the in-group and those who belong to the out-group? A number of examples on children and the Ruach Ra‘ah from the corpus shed light on this question. Particularly relevant here is the age shift that can be seen with some authors: from “children” to very young children and infants. The passage on the Shibta is clearly not about infants – there is mention of giving bread to a child. The Tosafists contended that the child in question must have been around four, five years old115; other sources even have seven years.116 The stricter opinion, which extends the obligation to wash hands in the morning to very young children, can be found inter alia117 in a responsum by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot,118 on food that has been touched by someone who had not washed his hands in the morning: . . . Thus one must be careful in the morning that small children wash their hands for fear of a danger [arising] when one touches food with unwashed hands. And this is why it is an important obligation [‫ [חובה רבה‬to wash the children’s hands, because they walk around and touch food without having washed their hands, as the Pri Megadim already wrote. And even according to the opinion of the Gaon Sheniur Zalman, that the most important moment is that of initiation [into the commandments before reaching actual religious majority], because he then receives a holy soul – yet he also writes that he who is careful from circumcision on will be called holy. And certainly from the moment that he fulfils the religious commandment of ‘saying Amen’, it seems to me that one must be very cautious and careful to wash his hands, before he touches food. And one must not have a more lenient opinion and not wash his hands . . .119 115 Tosafot bYoma 77b and in bHullin 107b: ‫"ושיבתא דהכא ענין אחר הואי ששורה על האוכל כשבא ליתן פת לתינוק בן ד‘ וה‘ שנים וחונקתו אם לא נטל ידיו‬ ".‫באותה שעה אף על פי שכבר נטלן שחרית‬ 116 Aruch, in the entry for Shibta: “[Shibta is] An evil spirit that seizes the little children by the neck / throat, by the weight; by the tendons that run along the back of the neck, and causes it to dry out and weaken until it dies – and her time [the period during which she is dangerous] is from two months, and a small child must fear this until it is seven years of age. And why is this? Because when the mother comes from the toilet or the river and immediately suckles her son . . .”. 117 See also the Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no 8, who goes even further and prohibits the consumption of food and drink after being touched by a small child. 118 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1. 119 Ibid.: ‫ ולפי זה חובה‬.‫"וכן יש ליזהר בשחרית שיטלו הקטנים ידיהם כי הוא חשש סכנה שנוגעים במאכלים בלא נטילה‬ ‫ ואף לדעת הגרש״ז דעיקר‬,‫ שמסתובבים ונוגעים במאכלים בלי נטילת ידים כמש״כ הפמ״ג‬,‫רבה ליטול ידים לילדים‬ ‫משעה שהגיע לחינוך שאז מגיע לו נפש הקדושה מ״מ כתב דהנזהר משעת מילה קדוש יאמר לו ובפרט מעת‬ ‫שמקיים מצוה שעונה אמן נראה שצריכים ליזהר מאוד לדקדק וליטול ידיו לפני זה אם נוגע במאכלים ובודאי אין‬ ".‫להקל שלא ליטול ידיו‬

306 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

Another author who expresses the stricter opinion is the Yitzchak Yeranen, who sets the age limit for children at the moment that they learn to walk or are able to bring food to their mouth themselves.120 The corpus also contains a more lenient opinion, which appears to be the consensus, and is articulated for instance by the Tzitz Eliezer in a long section of one of his responsa (V. 7, no. 2). His conclusion is that from a purely Halachic perspective only adults have the obligation to wash their hands, but that the stricter opinion should be taken into account for children who have reached “the age of education”.121 This responsum will be discussed at greater length elsewhere in this chapter (7.2.2) in relation to the role of “gender”. 7.2.1.2 Holiness, Purity, and the Boundaries of the Community There is one text on children and the Ruach Ra‘ah that is often quoted in the corpus: a passage from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman (eighteenth century). The context of this text is the touching of food and drink by non-Jews, which Sheniur Zalman does not think is a reason for fear: . . . And for this reason it is customary to deal leniently with the touching [of food etc.] by small children who have not yet reached the age of ‘initiation’ [‫ –חינוך‬education].122 Because the most important accomplishment of [the process] of entry of the holy soul into the human occurs at 13 years and 1 day for men, and 12 years for women – for it is because of this that they are obliged from this point on, from a biblical perspective, to keep the commandments and they can be held accountable. And the beginning of [the process] of entry of this holy soul is at the moment of the [age] of education, when one is initiated to keep the Torah and the commandments, because the rabbis require that [a child] be initiated [in the commandments and doctrine even before the biblical requirement enters into force]. (And [something of the entry of the holy soul begins] also at the commandment of circumcision and therefore he who is careful in touching [food etc.] by a child from circumcision on, he will be called holy123).124

120 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 8. 121 He also contends that the age for this is relative and depends on cognitive development: .". . .‫"ושיעור שהגיע לחינוך ההלכה היא שזה תלוי בכ״א לפום חורפיה‬ 122 It is not clear from the text what age this is. Usually rabbinic halachic literature accepts the age of six years or c. nine years as the age of initiation  /  Chinug. 123 This section appears between round brackets in the edition, see the following note. 124 Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, OH §4, subsection 2 in the Mahadura Tinyana: 12–13: ‫"ומטעם זה נהגו להקל בנגיעת הקטנים שלא הגיעו לחינך לפי שגמר ועיקר כניסת נפש הקדושה באדם הוא בי״ג‬ ‫שנים ויום א’ לזכר וי״ב לנקבה שלכן נתחייבו אז במצות מן התורה ונעשו בני עונשים ותחלת כניסת נפש זו הקדושה‬ ‫היא בחינוך לתורה ולמצות שחייבו חכמים לחנך (גם במצות מילה ולכן הנזהר מנגיעת הקטן מיום המילה ואילך‬ ".)‫קדוש יאמר לו‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 307

It can be seen here how the entry of the soul into the human body is regarded as a gradual process,125 that is connected to the measure in which the person is obliged to keep, and capable of keeping, the commandments. This in turn is related to the susceptibility of the person in question to the Ruach Ra‘ah. Hence the remark between brackets that “something” happens already at the moment of circumcision of a young male child, and that he who protects such a child from that moment on against contamination by the Ruach Ra‘ah is praiseworthy (he protects the small child against ingesting food that has been “defiled” with the Ruach Ra‘ah through the child’s own touch). It is also possible to regard this concluding remark as a recommendation to pour water over a small child, on account of the very weak form of Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on the hands of the infant and has a negative influence over his soul. The washing of the infant serves to let the child grow in purity and holiness – an opinion that is explicitly mentioned for instance in the Ben Ish Chai126 and that is quoted in the corpus by the Tzitz Eliezer.127 This is because there is the danger that the child will not develop into a holy individual if it is (repeatedly) “contaminated” by the Ruach Ra‘ah. And although this is not explicitly argued in the responsum discussed above by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, which was clearly written from the object-related approach, it is implied by the important role that the concept of “impurity” plays.128 Avoiding the least trace of the Ruach Ra‘ah in

125 This is also how the Tzitz Eliezer explains this in his responsum on the subject in V. 7, no. 2: ‫ שנית נראה מדבריו שסובר כי רו״ר ממש שדברו חז״ל מזה אינו מתחיל לשרות על האיש הישראלי כי אם רק מבן‬. . ." ‫י״ג שנה ויום א’ לזכר וי״ב ויו״א’ לנקבה דאז בא עליו גמר ועיקר כניסת נפש הקדושה ולכן מתאוה אליו גם רוח‬ ‫ ולפני זה מתחיל לשרות עליו רק מקופיא וקימעא במגביל לכניסת נפש הקדושה בו שמתחילה‬,‫הטומאה להדבק בו‬ ‫מעת שמתחיל להתחנך לתורה ולמצות ולכן יש כבר אז להקפיד עליו בנ״י שחרית כדי לגרש כל רו״ר שבא עליו עם‬ ‫ דבהיות כן דרוה״ט מתחיל לשרות במגביל לכניסת נפש הקדושה בו לכן בהיות דתחילת כניסת‬,‫ ושלישית‬.‫השינה‬ ‫נפש הקדושה מתחילה ליכנס באדם הישראלי גם כבר מיד עם קיום מצות המילה בו לכן אף שאין עוד במגביל חלות‬ ".‫של ממש מרוה״ט עד שיש לחייב מדינא בנט״י מ״מ כל הנזהר מנגיעת הקטן מיום המילה ואילך קדוש יאמר לו‬ 126 Parashat Toledot (Year I), section 10: .". . .‫גם מנהג זה הוא סגולה טובה לקטנים כדי שיגדלו בטהרה ויהיו גדולי קדש‬. . ." 127 V. 7, no. 2. 128 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1: ‫ שאינו עובר‬,‫ לכאורה אין דבריו מוכרחים שאין לדמות רוח רעה דקנה לרוח רעה דטומאה בבוקר לפני נטילה‬. . ." ,‫ וכמו שאמרו בשבת (קט א) דר״נ אמר בת חורין היא זו ומקפדת עד שירחוץ ידיו ג״פ‬,‫אלא בנטילה ג״פ לסירוגין‬ ‫ ודלא כרו״ר אחרים שאינם רק לענין איסור‬,‫ואמרו שם יד לחוטם תקצץ יד מסמא יד מחרשת ועוד נזקין טובא‬ ‫ ועל‬,‫ וכמבואר בב״י (בא״ח סימן ד’) שהביא מהזוה״ק וז״ל‬,‫ וזהו כעין רוח הטומאה שעלול להזיק לאדם‬,‫אכילה‬ ‫ בהו [במים‬,’‫ ודא ארור וכו‬,’‫ וכו‬,‫דנשמתא קדישתא נפקת ואסתלקת מיניה שריא רוחא מסאבא על ההוא גופא‬ ‫ יעוש״ה דברים נוראים‬,’‫הטמאים[ מתכנשין סטרא דלהון (כוחות הטומאה) ויכול לקבל נזקין מאינון מיין מסאבין וכו‬ ‫ למילף מרו״ר דעלמא על רו״ר דידים שאינם נטולות שהם טומאה‬,‫ והיאך ניקל במילי דסכנה‬,‫בחומר הטומאה‬ ".‫חמורה וכמ״ש‬ And: ".‫ אבל במאכל מתפשטת הטומאה במאכל גופא ואסורה באכילה גם בדיעבד‬. . ."

308 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

the individual’s younger years thus ensures that the child will later grow out to be a holy and pure member of the community, uncorrupted by even the smallest influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah during his childhood. This argument of “education to purity / holiness with a view to the future” for the individual who will become a member of a pure and holy collective corresponds with the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot’s responsum mentioned above which points to the importance of the washing of hands in institutional settings,129 and his opinion that the Ruach Ra‘ah leads to impurity of the soul and sinful deeds and thoughts.130 The emphasis on the purity and holiness of the community is possibly also expressed in yet another perspective on the very young child that can be found in the corpus, but which remains marginal and is even rejected.131 The Migdal Oz argued that the reason for the washing of the hands of a very young child was that it needs protection and is highly susceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah, because it does not yet perform any religious practice. Protection of the child against the physical dangers of the Ruach Ra‘ah appears to be the most important focus, not the community. The marginalization of this opinion in the corpus possibly points to a strong urge to subordinate the individual to the collective. This could also explain why the reason for the washing of the hands of young children is seen as a condition to growing up in holiness and purity – a purpose that is primarily oriented towards the future and which has a communal goal – rather than as a form of protection of the child itself.132 A possible parallel in this context is the dybbuk. The Israeli anthropologist Yoram Bilu has contended that the dybbuk “was not only a journey to the past,133 129 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3. 130 See for instance V. 1, no. 1:"‫שזה לדעתו עלול לטמא הנפש ולהביאו לידי חטא‬. . ." , see also chapter 5. 131 This opinion of the Migdal Oz’s has not influenced the discourse of the corpus – not even the responsa written from the subject- or text-oriented approaches. The Yabbia Omer (V. 4 OH, no. 10) also thinks that small children should a priori have their hands washed, but this on account of the potential danger for adults. If the hands of these young children are not washed, then their touch will defile all the food and drink. The Tzitz Eliezer (V. 7, no. 2) also rejects the Migdal Oz’s opinion because it is not regarded as authoritative. See also note 52. 132 See Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2 who explicitly states this: “And one must therefore ensure that the vigilance to [wash the hands] of young children of the male sex from the moment of circumcision on, is not because they transmit Ruach Ra‘ah on food [which is then eaten by others]. Because it can be said about this that the measure of Ruach Ra‘ah that rests on him is not sufficient to transmit it to something else. But it is primarily a protection of the child itself, that not the least trace of Ruach Ra‘ah will rest on him and he will grow up in holiness and purity . . .”. 133 Bilu means: the constructing of a collective past as well-known characters from the Bible or notorious sinners from Jewish history announce their return to the community in the guise of a dybbuk, and are then driven away after their sinful souls have to a certain extent changed for the better (tikkun), in “Aslai, Dybbuk, Zar”.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 309

but also a journey to the interior, to strengthen the boundaries of the Jewish community.”134 He has pointed to the effects of dybbuk exorcisms within the context of the Jewish community where they take place, i.e. a massive strengthening of faith and penance in the community.135 In a similar way it has been demonstrated that the recommendation to wash the hands of young children points back to the same community, strengthening it by encouraging the faithfulness of its members to their religious principles. We may conclude by recognizing a tendency to extend the texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah to children. The harmonization of various Talmudic passages into a single paradigm is certainly one cause of this. In addition, several authors from the corpus want to extend the laws on the Ruach Ra‘ah to very young children – infants and babies in their cradle. All this to ensure that the community can retain its holy and pure character, and can form the individual according to its ideals of purity by protecting it from a very young age against even very light traces of the Ruach Ra‘ah. This extension to children may, incidentally, also be a reflection of the more central place that children occupy in modern times in general. On the other hand, other authors argue that the child is less susceptible to the Ruach Ra‘ah and is therefore in a certain sense equivalent to the non-Jew, the outsider. Thus the question as to who generates Ruach Ra‘ah within the community becomes a question of who enjoys full membership of this community.

7.2.2 Gender, Women, and the Ruach Ra‘ah In order to determine the role of gender in the discourse of the Ruach Ra‘ah, this section will examine the way in which women feature in the corpus. Gender can be regarded as an internal boundary when clear distinctions are made between men and women: women are “others in the in-group”. In orthodoxy, women sometimes appear to play a subordinate role in relation to men: they are exempt from commandments that are time-bound136 and of Torah study – the two most important identity-defining characteristics of rabbinic Judaism. Women are furthermore largely excluded from playing a leading role in rituals that have a communal character (or from rabbinic functions): they cannot be part of the required ten people for a prayer service, they may not preside at prayer, and are not called 134 Y. Bilu, ibid., 139: ".‫ לחיזוק גבולות הקהילה היהודית‬,‫ אלא גם מסע פנימה‬,‫שהדיבוק לא היה רק מסע לעבר‬. . ." 135 Ibid., 140: ‫ הניע רבים מן הנוכחים‬,‫ מחזה המוסר שסיפקו הרוחות במהלך טקס הגירוש‬,‫ לא ייפלא אפוא שלפי הדיווחים‬. . ." ".‫להתחזק באמונתם ולעשות תשובה‬ 136 mKiddushin 1:7.

310 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

up to the Torah. At the same time, they do participate in many daily rituals and special days – Shabbat and feast days (these count as exceptions to the rule just mentioned on “time-bound” rituals), especially in the domestic context, and many commandments are binding on both men and women. 7.2.2.1 The Male Body as the Point of Departure Fonrobert has also shown that rabbinic classical literature generally takes the male body as its point of departure.137 She has demonstrated in her study of menstruation laws – the only biblical purity laws that are still observed and have a quotidian character – how the discourse relating to these laws is determined by a male gender perspective. One example of this male orientation in Talmudic texts is the following: It was taught: A child – from when does he have access to the Future World? – R. Chiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi [have a difference of opinion on this]: One says ‘from his birth’; the other says: ‘from the moment he can talk’ . . . It was [also] taught: ‘Rabina says: ‘from conception’ . . . R. Nahman b. Isaac said: ‘from the moment he is circumcised.’138

The opening question in this fragment is about the moment a child (‫ )קטן‬obtains a share in the Future World. There is nothing to show that the child in question is male. The first three answers by the Talmudic scholars also bear this out – the moments they mention are irrespective of the sex of the child: birth, being able to speak, or the moment of conception. But in the last opinion, of Rabbi Nahman bar Isaac, the gender aspect suddenly becomes important – a child obtains a share in the Future World from the moment of circumcision. The rabbi leaves the question unresolved at what moment girls obtain a share in the Future World.139

137 See for instance Fonrobert on mOhalot 1:8, a Mishnah that describes the human body: “What the Mishnah . . . implies is that the ‘normative’ human being possesses this fixed number of limbs. In light of our baraita this Mishnahic normative human being is clearly gendered and is male”, Menstrual Purity, 58–59. 138 bSanhedrin 110b: ‫ משעה‬:‫ וחד אמר‬,‫ משעה שנולד‬:‫ חד אמר‬,‫ קטן מאימתי בא לעולם הבא? רבי חייא ורבי שמעון בר רבי‬,‫"אתמר‬ – ‫ ומאן דאמר משעה שסיפר‬.‫ מאן דאמר משעה שנולד – שנאמר יבא ויגידו צדקתו לעם נולד כי עשה‬.‫שסיפר‬ :‫ רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר‬.‫ דכתיב זרע יעבדנו‬,‫ משעה שנזרע‬:‫ רבינא אמר‬,‫ אתמר‬.‫דכתיב זרע יעבדנו יספר לה’ לדור‬ ". ‫ דכתיב עני אני וגוע מנער נשאתי אמיך אפונה‬,‫משעה שנימול‬ 139 Other passages in classical rabbinic literature also show that “small child” (‫ )קטן‬is used for a boy rather than a girl. See for instance mTerumot 1:3, mShabbat 16:6, mShabbat 19:5, mShekalim 1:3 and 6 – see for instance the medieval commentators Maimonides and Bertinoro who explain this word as “small boy” – the plural “small boys” (‫ )קטנים‬is also used: mSukkah 2:8, and Maimonides’ commentary: mSukkah 3:15; mMegillah 4:5.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 311

The Talmud passage then continues with a fifth opinion: “It was taught in the name of R. Meir: ‘From the moment he says ‘Amen’”. The Talmud texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah and on the washing of hands in the morning also seem to point in the direction of men: one of them appears in the context of prayer / liturgy and prayer straps,140 while this is followed by an explicit reference to the male member in the second Bat Melech passage.141 The two parallel passages142 on the Shibta in Hullin and Yoma admittedly deal with a woman, but the discussion there emphasizes that the woman is feeding her child. The reason that the mother must wash her hands is the young child that must be protected against the Ruach Ra‘ah; if she was not feeding her child, there would not have been any reason to wash her hands. 7.2.2.2 Women and the Ruach Ra‘ah: Between Traditional Roles and New Perspectives Women are described in different situations in the corpus: at the prescription on the washing of hands in the morning,143 or after sexual intercourse.144 The consensus in the corpus is that the ritual of washing hands in the morning on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah is also binding on women. Other situations are less routine: the Talmudic exhortation not to walk between two women on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah,145 may a woman splash breast milk on someone who has a Ruach Ra‘ah146 or ear pain on the Shabbat,147 and the use of the name Zalfonit (the mother of the

140 bBerachot 60b; similarly the passage on the washing of hands in bBerachot 14b-15a appears in the context of the reciting of the Shema and the Eighteen Benedictions  – obligations from which women are exempt as they are time-bound. 141 bShabbat 108b: ‫ ומקפדת עד שירחוץ‬,‫ בת חורין היא זו‬:‫ רבי נתן אומר‬,‫ תניא‬,‫יד לאמה – תיקצץ‬. . .‫ יד לעין – תיקצץ‬:‫"הוא היה אומר‬ ,‫ תניא נמי הכי‬.‫ ומרבה שיער בעפעפים‬,‫ ופוסק את הדמעה‬,‫ פוך מעביר בת מלך‬:‫ אמר רבי יוחנן‬.‫ידיו שלש פעמים‬ ". ‫ ומרבה שיער בעפעפים‬,‫ ופוסק את הדמעה‬,‫ פוך מעביר בת מלך‬:‫רבי יוסי אומר‬ 142 bYoma 77b and bHullin 107b. 143 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1 – this is a quotation from an earlier source which exhorts women to pour water over their hands thrice in the morning because of food preparation; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 2, no. 6 – similarly, a quotation from an earlier source which exhorts women to pour water over their hands three times in the morning because of food preparation; the same in Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144. 144 Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 49. 145 Minchat Yitzchak, V. 10, no. 68. 146 Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. C CHM, no. 17. 147 Yabbia Omer, V. 5 OH, no. 32.

312 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

biblical figure of Shimshon) against the Ruach Ra‘ah, for a woman who is having a difficult labor (the sporadic references in secondary responsa from the corpus have not been included here). In the corpus, women primarily appear in the traditional context of mothers and carers, given the references to mother’s milk, labor, feeding a child at night,148 and food preparation that is a partial continuation of the Talmudic setting. On the other hand, the corpus uses an inclusive model that assumes that everyone is equal before the law – by contrast with the Talmudic passages on the Ruach Ra‘ah. The corpus is more ambiguous in relation to the washing of hands by women after sexual intercourse. An extensive responsum by the Olat Yitzchak in the corpus addresses the question of whether women must wash their hands after intercourse as well. He mentions sources from ethical literature with a mystical tendency149 that prescribe this washing for women. In addition, the author thinks it is logical that all situations that are mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch as reasons for the washing of hands apply equally to men and to women. A responsum by the She‘eilat Shlomoh on the other hand ignores the washing of hands by women after intercourse, and only writes from a male perspective.150 On the one hand, the corpus thus mainly regards women in their traditional role. On the other, these responsa from the corpus confirm that rituals and laws in domestic settings apply equally to men and to women. On the one hand there is thus a tendency to exempt no one from the law, or at least there is the advice that everyone should observe the law. Classical rabbinic texts usually still exempted these persons – women, slaves, and children form a category of people that are dispensed from many prescriptions.

148 Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 252. 149 Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 49: ‫ והיסוד ושורש‬.”‫ כמבואר מלשון השל״ה שכתב “ויטלו‬,‫"ודע שבכל ענייני נטילות אלו השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש‬ ‫ יטול‬,‫ וכן בבן איש חי‬.)‫העבודה שכתב בהדיא “יטלו הוא והיא” וכדלעיל אות ב׳ (ועיין להלן בסמוך ד״ה אמנם‬ ".‫ וכן בפלא יועץ וכדלקמן‬.‫ וכדלעיל אות ג׳‬.‫ וכן האשה תטול ג״פ‬,‫אח״כ ג׳ פעמים‬ 150 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 2, no. 3. The male perspective is evident for instance in the following fragment: ‫ שממילא הוא חייב ליטול‬,‫חכם על לימוד הזכות על אדם שקשה לו ליטול ידיים אחרי תשמיש המיטה‬-‫"העיר תלמיד‬ ‫ ‘ויקרא קריאת שמע סמוך‬:‫ ואכן פסק הרמ״א בשולחן ערוך‬,)‫ידיים כדי לברך ברכת המפיל (הג״ר אביגדור נבנצל‬ ,‫ ואין אוכלים ושותים ולא מדברים אחר קריאת שמע שעל מיטתו אלא ישן מיד' (שו״ע או״ח סי רלט סעיף א‬,‫למטתו‬ '‫ ירחץ עצמו מהשכבת זרע שעליו ויטול ידיו ואחר כך יקרא‬,‫ 'ואם צריך לשמש מטתו‬:‫ והוסיף המשנה ברורה‬.)‫הגה‬ ". ‫ עכ״ד‬.‫ לפי זה נפל לימוד הזכות‬,)‫(מ״ב שם ס״ק ה‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 313

7.2.2.3 Gender Shift: the Male Perspective On the other hand a tendency can be discerned in the corpus that introduces a more masculine gender perspective into the discourse. This tendency is partly visible already in the Talmud texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah. Thus there is a subtle difference between the two parallel passages in the Talmud on the Shibta: some editions have “a young child” (‫ )תינוק‬in the Yoma passage – a woman washes one hand to give her young child bread on Yom Kippur on account of the Shibta – while the parallel passage in bHullin 107b has ‫לבנה הקטן‬,151 which should be translated more as “her young son”. Some editions have harmonized the two parallel texts and therefore have in both cases ‫לבנה הקטן‬, which has a more masculine connotation.152 Although most of the authors in the corpus speak about “small children” without any further gender specification, there are nevertheless a number of remarkable responsa that show a shift towards a more masculine gender perspective. The ambiguous character of the Shulchan Aruch of Sheniur Zalman,153 a source that is frequently quoted in the corpus, has possibly been influential in this. On the one hand, this text speaks of both boys and girls: “Because the most important accomplishment of [the process] of entry of the holy soul into the human occurs at 13 years and 1 day for men, and 12 years for women . . .”. On the other hand, the fragment appears to conclude from a male perspective: “(And [something of the entry of the holy soul begins] also at the commandment of circumcision and therefore he who is careful in touching [food etc.] by a child from circumcision on, he will be called holy”.

151 This passage from Hullin does not necessarily deal with Yom Kippur, but with the question of whether someone who puts food in someone else’s mouth must still wash his hands. The conclusion of the discussion in Hullin is that normally only the person who eats must wash his hands, and not the person who puts the food into his mouth. The exception to this rule is a woman who feeds her son and who does have the obligation to wash her hands on account of the Shibta. The passage in Hullin appears to refer to a small boy in all readings: the passage on the Shibta goes on to speak about Samuel, who gave a small boy to eat before first having washed his hands, and who was beaten on account of this by his teacher. 152 E.g. Rabenu Tam, Sefer Hayashar, no. 52b and Ba’al Halachot Gedolot, “Laws concerning Yom Kippur”: ‫"ואיתתא דאית לה ינוקא שרי לה למימשא חדא ידא ומיתן ריפתא לינוקא משום שיבתא דתנא ר' מנשה אשה‬ ".‫מדיחה ידה אחת במים ונותנת פת לבנה קטן‬ See also Dikdukei Soferim on both passages and the added notes there. 153 Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, OH §4, subsection 2 in the Mahadura Tinyana, 12–13.

314 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

Does this mean that it is necessary to wash only the hands of male infants, because women are not circumcised154 and there is therefore no early beginning of the process of the entry of the soul, and the corresponding weak form of the Ruach Ra‘ah? According to the Tzitz Eliezer (V. 7, no. 2) – who uses a text-oriented approach – this is indeed the case. After quoting the entire passage from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, he concludes: We can also learn from this that in the case of girls there is no reason to be careful [that they may touch food and therefore to wash their hands] before the time of ‘initiation’ / education, as is understandable.155

The Tzitz Eliezer stresses the importance of the washing of the hands of young children so that they may grow up in holiness and purity, and then explicitly limits this to infants of the male sex.156 The Yitzchak Yeranen  – who uses a mystical, object-oriented approach  – reaches a different conclusion.157 He argues that the washing of hands is necessary for both boys and girls, following on from an earlier responsum by the Yaskil Avdi. According to the Yitzchak Yeranen, the duty to be careful with little children touching food and drink, and the washing of their hands for the same reason, begins from the moment that children begin to touch food themselves (i.e. from the moment they begin to be mobile), or to take food themselves with their hands to put it into their mouth. He makes no distinction between boys and girls. This age is, however, a long time before the normal definition of “the age of initiation / education”, which is usually taken to be around six. This will permit the children

154 See the Talmud passage quoted above on the circumcision of the child and the Future World. 155 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2: .". . .‫ כמובן‬,‫גם נלמד מזה דבנקבות אין מקום לנזהר לדקדק מלפני הזמן שהגיעו לחינוך‬. . ." 156 Ibid.: ‫ אלא‬. . . ‫"וביותר י״ל שענין הזהירות בקטנים זכרים מיום המילה ואילך הוא לא בגלל העברת רוה״ט על המאכלים‬ ‫הוא ביותר ובעיקר בתורת שמירה של הקטן בעצמו שלא יהא עליו שום משהו דמשהו של רו״ר ויגדל בקדושה‬ ‫ ובכה״ג ראיתי בספר חסד לאלפים על או״ח סי’ ד’ סעי’ י״ג דאחרי שכותב הדין דצריך להזהיר לנשים‬.‫ובטהרה‬ ‫ מוסיף וכותב בלשון זה ומה טוב ומה נעים לרחוץ ידי‬,‫שיזהרו בנט״י שחרית ג״פ בסירוגין שלא יטמאו המאכלים‬ ‫ כתב טעמא אחרינא כדי שיגדלו‬. . . ‫הקטנים המוטלים בעריסה כדי שיגדלו בטהרה גדולי הקדש הרי דהבעל חסד‬ ‫בטהרה גדולי הקדש והיינו דר״ל בזה דנהי שלגבי קטנים אין כלל חששא דנגיעת מאכלים דאף אם יגעו אין בהם‬ ."‫ מ״מ יש בזה משום עצמות גידול הקטנים שיגדלו על טהרת הקדש נקי מכל שמץ של רו״ט‬,‫בכדי לטמאותם‬ 157 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 8: . . . ‫ להגר״ע הדאיא זצ״ל וראיתי שם בסימן א׳” הנ״ל‬,‫"שה״ד הגר״ז בש״ע כעת נדפס שו״ת ישכיל עבדי חלק שמיני‬ ‫דטעם הנטילה היא להסיר הרו״ר ששורה על האדם בלילה בשינה ונקראת שיבתא בת מלך ומקפדת שאינה ניתקת‬ ‫ ועל כן כל‬.‫ הרי גם לקטן אם לא יטלו לו ידיו ג״פ לא תינתק הרו״ר ממנו כל הזמן‬,‫מאדם עד שיטול ג״פ בסירוגין‬ ".‫ עכת״ר‬.‫הזריז גם בנקבות ליטול ידיהם כדין ה״ז משובח שיהיה גידולו קודש‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 315

to grow up in holiness and later to become holy and pure adult members of the community, people who did not come into contact with food contaminated by the Ruach Ra‘ah in their childhood. This more mystical, object-oriented approach thus applies to both boys and girls. The Yitzchak Yeranen does appear to believe that there is a gender difference in relation to even younger children: extra care must be taken only in the case of boys from the moment of circumcision, of which there is no female equivalent in Judaism: Small children (boys and girls)158 who begin to touch food with their hands, or who are already able to put some food into their mouth [which they are allowed to eat or suck on], their parents should wash their hands, thrice alternating according to the prescription. And he who judges more strictly and washes their hands from the day of circumcision, blessing be upon him, and he will be called holy.159

7.2.2.4 “Child” or “Little Boy”? In some responsa, this shifting gender perspective is connected with the significance given to the world “small child” in singular and plural (‫קטנים‬-‫)קטן‬. Again there appears to be a link with the use of the fragment from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman. This text initially speaks clearly about young children of both the male and the female sex, using the word “small children” (‫)קטנים‬, which includes both. It also uses the Hebrew word “human” (‫)אדם‬160 which also includes both men and women.161 However, towards the end of this quotation, the author uses the word for small child (‫ )קטן‬in its exclusively male meaning: “(And [something of the entry of the holy soul begins] also at the commandment of circumcision

158 The author’s addition. 159 Yitzchak Yeranen in the point-by-point conclusion of his responsum in V. 1, no. 8: ‫ צריכים‬,‫"ילדים קטנים (בנים ובנות) שמתחילים לנגוע בידיהם באוכלים או שנותנים להם איזה מאכל בידיהם‬ ‫ וקדוש‬,‫ והמחמיר ליטול מיום המילה תבא עליו ברכה‬.‫ההורים ליטול את ידיהם שלש פעמים לסירוגין כדין‬ ".‫יאמר לו‬ 160 See also how the Tzitz Eliezer turns this ‫ םדא‬into a male perspective (V. 7, no. 2): , ‫לכן בהיות דתחילת כניסת נפש הקדושה מתחילה ליכנס באדם הישראלי גם כבר מיד עם קיום מצות המילה בו‬. . ." .". . . ‫לכן‬ 161 Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, OH §4, subsection 2 in Mahadura Tinyana, 12–13: ‫"ומטעם זה נהגו להקל בנגיעת להקטנים שלא הגיעו לחינך לפי שגמר ועיקר כניסת נפש הקדושה באדם הוא בי״ג‬ ‫שנים ויום א’ לזכר וי״ב לנקבה שלכן נתחייבו אז במצות מן התורה ונעשו בני עונשים ותחלת כניסת נפש זו הקדושה‬ ‫היא בחינוך לתורה ולמצות שחייבו חכמים לחנך (גם במצות מילה ולכן הנזהר מנגיעת הקטן מיום המילה ואילך‬ ".)‫קדוש יאמר לו‬

316 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

and therefore he who is careful in touching [food etc.] by a child [‫ ]קטן‬from circumcision on, he will be called holy).”162 The influence of this in the corpus can be found in a responsum by the Yabbia Omer. It deals with the form of Ruach Ra‘ah caused by placing food and drink under a bed.163 This responsum addresses the question of the status of food / drink placed under the bed of a non-Jew, or of a young child. There is nothing in the discussion of this question to indicate that he is dealing specifically with children of the male sex. He mentions the cradle of a young child (‫ )תינוק‬and food placed under it, and a parallel with the touching of food with unwashed hands by small children (‫ )תינוקות‬not yet at the age of education. In his reply, the Yabbia Omer refers to the fragment, already mentioned, from the Code by Sheniur Zalman, which refers to both boys and girls, and initially it appears as if he is adopting this perspective, because he quotes Sheniur Zalman and adds: . . . because from that moment on they are obliged from a biblical perspective to keep the commandments and they can be held accountable.

But at the conclusion of the responsum an exclusively masculine gender perspective appears to have slipped in: To summarise: if there are factors to come to a more lenient judgement – for instance food and drink placed under the bed of a non-Jew (and possibly under the bed of a Jewish heretic and public Shabbat-breaker), and also under the bed of a child that is not yet Bar-Mitzvah, then we answer [in such cases] to judge more leniently a posteriori [and to declare the food and drink permitted]. . .164

The combination of a small child with Bar-Mitzvah  – where Sheniur Zalman’s original text spoke of boys and girls who had reached adulthood (“13 years and 1 day for men, and 12 years for women”) – appears to point to a masculine gender perspective. Consciously or unconsciously, a shift has occurred towards

162 Ibid.. 163 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10. 164 Ibid.: ‫ (ואפשר אף תחת מטת ישראל‬,‫ כגון אוכלין ומשקין שהונחו תחת מטת גוי‬,‫"כללא דמילתא שאם יש סניפין להקל‬ ‫ ומכ״ש כשנוסף‬.‫ אורויי מורינן להקל בדיעבד‬,‫ וכן תחת מטת תינוק פחות מבר מצוה‬,)‫ ומחלל ש״ק בפרהסיא‬,‫מומר‬ ".‫ שאפשר להקל‬,‫ אינו קרקע ממש‬,‫ע״ז היה הקרקע שתחת המטה מרוצף באבנים או קורות‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 317

the masculine gender perspective,165 which can incidentally also be seen in a responsum by the Tzitz Eliezer.166 We may conclude that, apart from possible influences of cultural-religious views of women, the dominance of the male gender perspective is caused by the way in which Talmudic passages on the various forms of Ruach Ra‘ah are interpreted and harmonized, such as that on the Shibta with that on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the morning. From an intertextual perspective, this is the basis for the question – formulated generally – on young children and the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning in the Halachic literature of the last few centuries. As has been seen, as one of the passages on the Shibta appears to deal specifically with boys, the connection between the different passages on the Ruach Ra‘ah may have led here to a discourse focused primarily on male children. A new element in the corpus, on the other hand, is the explicit extension by some authors of the laws on the Ruach Ra‘ah to young girls, and the advice, inspired by mystically influenced sources, to apply the laws on the Ruach Ra‘ah to very young male children  – infants and children in the cradle.

165 See also the responsum in the corpus by the Divrei Yatsiv (OH, no. 1) on the question of whether even (very) young children who are still in the cradle must have their hands washed in the morning. The rabbi’s conclusion is that it is permissible to judge more leniently in the case of children under the age of education. But because of the gender emphasis that the author adds, the question seems to deal exclusively with small boys. He mentions the passage from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman which has already been discussed several times, but with one important difference: he has omitted the part about girls who reach adulthood at 12 years and one day and must then keep the commandments. This strengthens the impression that the source only mentions boys. The same is true for the conclusion of the responsum which uses the term for “young schoolchildren” (‫)תינוקות של בית רבן‬, which in classical rabbinic texts also refers to schoolchildren of the male sex. 166 Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2, where he concludes that there is no reason to wash the hands of young girls who have not yet reached the age of education on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah after sleeping. He regards the advice to wash the hands of male infants as a condition for growing up in purity and holiness, which is evidently not an ideal for very young girls in this community. The way in which the Tzitz Eliezer incorporates quotations from other rabbinic halachic literature into his responsum by focusing explicitly on male children and infants gives the impression that the question had been entirely focused on boys from the start. The duty for girls who have reached the age of education to wash their hands does not appear to play any role at all. Yet the original source from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman does speak of girls.

318 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

7.2.3 The External Boundaries of the Community: Non-Jews Thus the rules concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah determine the internal boundaries (grid) and identity of the congregation, by defining who does and who does not generate Ruach Ra‘ah. But to what extent do the rules on the Ruach Ra‘ah define the external boundaries, and determine who is an outsider? The first category of outsiders is the non-Jew, who is by definition outside the community. Only in cases where a non-Jew becomes a proselyte would he belong to the community [beforehand he is an absolute outsider]. Three responsa in the corpus discuss the relation between non-Jews and the Ruach Ra‘ah at some length,167 with the Yabbia Omer’s (V. 1 YD) being the most extensive. In addition there are four other responsa that address the holiness of the Jewish body, which extends to clothing168 and food,169 and there are a few more that refer only briefly to the question of non-Jews and Ruach Ra‘ah.170 The fragment mentioned above from the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman plays an important role in these three responsa, and the small number that have only brief references. Another important source is the Torat Chaim, which pointed to the light form of the “impurity of death” generated by sleep as the cause of the Ruach Ra‘ah on food and drink placed under a bed. Because the soul departs from the body during sleep, this causes a form of Ruach Ra‘ah comparable to the biblical “uncleanness through roofing” (‫ – )טומאת אוהל‬this is so because sleep is 1/60th of death. To what extent does a non-Jew generate “uncleanness through roofing”? The Talmud mentions several opinions in relation to this biblical form of impurity, and the medieval Talmud commentators were equally divided on the issue.171

167 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 2 YD, no. 144; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; Mishneh Halachot, V. 11, no. 13. 168 Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1. 169 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 5; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 5; Ateret Paz, V. 1, vol. A OH, no. 10 (subsection 9). 170 Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1; ibid., V. 4 OH, no. 1; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 7, no. 2. 171 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10: ‫) רשב״י אומר קברי עכו״ם אין מטמאין‬:‫ וכדאיתא (בב״מ קיד‬,‫"הנה ידועה מחלוקת חז״ל אם עכו״ם מטמאין באהל‬ ‫ (וע״ע בזוה״ק פרשת חיי שרה דף קלא‬.‫ אתם קרויין אדם ואין עכו״ם קרויין אדם‬,'‫ שנא' ואתן צאני וכו‬,‫באהל‬ .‫ אלא כרשב״ג דמתני' דאהלות דמדורות העכו״ם טמאים משום אהל‬,‫ והתוס' כ' דלא קי״ל כרשב״י בזה‬.)‫סע״א‬ ‫ אך יש לדחות די״ל‬.‫ לכאו' מוכח כד' התוס' שמטמאין באהל‬.‫ וסימנך קברי עכו״ם‬,‫ קבר נונא אסור‬,)‫ ובע״ז (לט‬.‫ע״ש‬ ‫ קבר נונא‬,‫ ובתוס' ע״ז (שם) ג״רסי בשם הר״ח‬.‫ ודוחק‬.)‫ וכמ״ש ביבמות (סא‬.‫משום דמטמאין במגע ובמשא לכ״ע‬ ‫ וכ״פ הרמב״ם (פ״א מה' טומאת מת הי״ג) שאין עכו״ם מטמא‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫ וסימנך קברי גוים אין מטמאין באהל‬,‫שרי‬ )‫ וע״ע בחי' הרמב״ן והרשב״א והריטב״א יבמות (סא‬.)‫ סי' קנא‬,‫ וע״ע בשו״ת הרמב״ם (ירוש' תרצד‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫באהל‬ ".‫ והם פסקו כר״ש‬,‫שדחו ד' ר״ת שפוסק דעכו״ם מטמאין באהל‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 319

According to Maccoby, the biblical purity laws do not apply to non-Jews, but he believes this has nothing to do with morality: 172 . . . It is simply the protocol for entry into the palace of the King. The priestly people of God is privileged to have his residence in their midst, and must consequently comport themselves in accordance with the prescribed etiquette. There is not a single precept of ritual purity that has anything to do with morality . . . The Israelites have this privilege of service in the portal of God, and must therefore be careful to wipe their feet before entering. Only instead of wiping their feet, they must cleanse their whole body of impurities which, outside the Temple, have no negative meaning. Those (i.e. the rest of mankind) do not have to concern themselves with this etiquette at all. It does not apply to them. They are not unclean in the special sense of Temple-uncleanness; only Israelites can incur this uncleanness, because only they are chosen house-servants of God.173

The Yabbia Omer (V. 1 YD) gives an extensive account of the discussion on the degree to which non-Jews generate impurity, and also shows that the Jerusalem Talmud states that non-Jews can indeed cause the biblical form of impurity through “roofing”.174 The Yabbia Omer also discusses the question of impurity through touching and lifting up a dead person (‫)טומאת מגע ומשא‬, of which at least one text from the Talmud says that it also applies to the dead body of a non-Jew.175 7.2.3.1 Non-Jews, Purity, and Holiness It appears that the influence of the Kabbalah has shifted the discourse towards a position where non-Jews generate no impurity at all, and therefore do not generate Ruach Ra‘ah either (in the case of food placed under the bed).176 The passage from

172 He disagrees with Douglas on this issue; see Maccoby, Ritual and morality, 193–208, esp. 203–4. 173 Ibid., 206. 174 Yabbia Omer, V. 1 JD, no. 10, section 2: ‫ ואשר יקריבו שם טמא‬,'‫ דהא דכתיב (חגי ב) כן העם הזה וכו‬,‫איברא דבירושלמי (פ״ה דסוטה ה״ב) קאמרינן‬. . ." ‫ וע' בירושלמי (פ״ט דפסחים ה״א‬.‫ אלמא דעכו״ם מטמא באהל‬.‫ שגלגלתו של ארנן היבוסי מצאו תחת המזבח‬,‫הוא‬ ‫ שמצאו גולגלתו של ארונה היבוסי תחת‬,‫ובפ״ק דסנהדרין ה״ב) שחזקיהו המלך עיבר את השנה מפני הטומאה‬ ‫ וע' במשנה למלך (פ״א מה' בית‬.‫ וכבר העירו המפרשים בסתירה זו‬.‫ והובא בתוס' סנהדרין (יב) ע״ש‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫המזבח‬ .". . .‫ שהירוש' סובר שקברי עכו״ם מטמאים באהל‬,)‫הבחירה הי״ג‬ 175 Ibid., sect. 1: .". . .‫ מטמא במגע ובמשא‬,‫) שאף מת עכו״ם שאינו מטמא באהל‬:‫שהרי אמרו ביבמות (סא‬. . ." 176 The Yabbia Omer refers in this discussion to the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, which had still stated that a priest should a priori try not to tread on the graves of non-Jews: ‫ ואף על פי שיש מקילין נכון‬,‫ ובהגה‬.‫"ולשון מרן בש״ע (יו״ד סי‘ שעב ס״ב) קברי גוים נכון לכהן ליזהר מלילך עליהם‬ ."‫להחמיר‬

320 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

the Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman – himself a Kabbalist – discussed above in the context of the Ruach Ra‘ah and children possibly plays a crucial role here, because it is very frequently quoted in the corpus: But there is no need to fear the touch of the non-Jews [‫]הנכרים‬, because this Impure Spirit desires only to rest on a holy vessel – on a holy place from which she [=holiness] has disappeared. This is to say the bodies of Israel, when they sleep and their holy soul departs from their body – then the Impure Spirit rests on their body.177

Those who are farthest removed from the community paradoxically pose the least threat – they do not generate Ruach Ra‘ah, and their touching of food and drink with unwashed hands after waking up has no consequences. At the same time such people obviously live in proximity to Jews, because they have the opportunity to touch the food and drink of the latter. On the one hand the observation that non-Jews fall outside this system of rules on the Ruach Ra‘ah is not in itself negative – these laws are only relevant to those who are within the faith community. But if the restriction of the rules concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah to Jews is based on an intrinsic spiritual distinction between Jews and non-Jews, this does imply a negative judgement: the Ruach Ra‘ah of the morning after waking up has no influence over them because non-

Although the majority of the medieval decisors concluded that impurity through “roofing” does not apply to non-Jews, it was the Kabbalah that emphasized the aspect of the soul, and that gave this a more general meaning, for instance by extending it to the rules concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. This can be seen clearly in the texts that are mentioned by the Yabbia Omer, all influenced by mysticism – this is evident through the references to the Zohar or concepts such as “klipot” (scales): ‫ דעכו״ם י״ל שאינו‬,‫ וכ' הפמ״ג ע״ז‬,‫וכיו״ב ראיתי להפמ״ג (סי' ד מש״ז סק״ז) במ״ש לא יטול ידיו ממי שלא נטל‬. . ." ):‫ והעד ע״ז קברי עכו״ם למ״ד (ביבמות סא‬,‫ ולטעם הזוהר מאן דנאים שריא עליה רוחא מסאבותא‬,‫מקבל טומאה‬ .)‫ וע״ע למהר״ח פלאג'י בשו״ת לב חיים (סי' סח‬.‫ ע״כ‬.‫ והעולם באמת אין נזהרים מזה‬,‫שאפילו במגע אינו מטמא‬ ‫ כי רוח טומאה זו‬,‫ שאין לחוש לנגיעת העכו״ם‬,)‫ והובא בכף החיים (שם ס״ק כג‬,)‫וכ״כ בש״ע הגאון ר״ז (שם ס״ב‬ ‫אינה מתאוה לשרות אלא בכלי קדש במקום קדושה שהם גופות ישראל כשהם ישנים ונשמתם הקדושה מסתלקת‬ ‫ שע״י שקבלו‬,'‫ שכ‬,)‫) וכיוצא בזה מצאנו באור החיים (ר״פ חקת‬. . .( '‫ וכו‬.‫מגופם ואז רוח הטומאה שורה על גופם‬ ‫ להיותם חטיבה של קדושה‬,‫ נעשו לדבר שהרוחניים השפלים (הקליפות) תאבים להדבק בהם‬,‫ישראל את התורה‬ ‫ אתם קרויין אדם ואין עכו״ם קרויין‬,‫ כאמרם ז״ל בפ' אדם כי ימות באהל‬,‫ ולכן במותם תתרבה הטומאה‬,‫עליונה‬ ‫ דה״ט דת״ח מקפידים שלא להניח אוכלים ומשקים תחת‬,'‫ וכ‬,)‫ והובא בשו״ת פרי השדה ח״א (סי' ד‬.‫ ע״ש‬.‫אדם‬ ‫ אבל‬,‫ וכשהוא ישן רוצים הקליפות להתדבק בו ושורה עליו רו״ר‬,‫ שהת״ח יש בו קדושה יתירה‬,‫ משא״כ ע״ה‬,‫המטה‬ .". . .‫ע״ה שאין בו משורש הקדושה אין לרו״ר להאחז בו‬ 177 Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman, OH §4, subsec. 2, Mahadura Tinyana, 12: ‫"אבל לנגיעת הנכרים אין לחוש כי רוח טומאה זו אינה מתאוה לשרות אלא בכלי של קדש במקום קדושה שנסתלקה‬ ‫משם שהם גופות ישראל כשהם ישנים ונשמתם הקדושה מסתלקת מגופם ואז רוח הטומאה שורה על גופם‬ ".‫וכשהנשמה חוזרת לגוף מסתלקת רוח הטומאה מכל הגוף ונשארת על הידים בלבד‬

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 321

Jews lack a certain component of the soul. They have no higher component of the soul that leaves the body during sleep and generates the Ruach Ra‘ah.178 7.2.3.2 Holiness as a Physical Jewish Component Finally there are two responsa in the corpus that ascribe to holiness a more physical component than Sheniur Zalman’s Code does.179 The first, by the Yitzchak Yeranen (V. 1, no. 5), contains the idea already discussed in chapter 4 (4.3.4) that regards food and drink that enter the body as something holy. This is so because physical food is transformed in the body into spiritual food.180 It can therefore be seen that the holiness of the soul initially extends to “the bodies of Israel”, and subsequently also to the food that enters this body and gives it life force. In a second responsum, by the Olat Yitzchak, the holiness of the body even extends to the clothes that people wear, especially the important clothes that are worn during the day. The responsum addresses the question of whether it is permitted to touch clothes in the morning before washing one’s hands: And in my humble opinion a distinction must be made, i.e. that she rests only on important things. Because this spirit that is called Shibta is a Daughter of the King181 and therefore she is proud [and chooses only distinguished things to rest upon] . . . Thus the object [with which one washes one’s hands] is not important in her eyes. Nor are the pillow and the blanket etc. [she does not rest on these], because these are only for sleeping [and are therefore not important]. And thus the clothes in which one sleeps, these are not distinguished [and therefore the Ruach Ra‘ah does not rest on them]. But the clothes that the male member of Israel wears during the day – she does desire those, because they are beautiful

178 See for instance the Tanya by Sheniur Zalman of Liady, the end of chapter 1: “The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done from selfish motives. So the Gemara comments on the verse, ‘The kindness of the nations is sin,’ – that all the charity and kindness done by the nations of the world is only for their own self-glorification, and so on” (New York: Kehot, Hebrew-English ed. 1980, 5). This passage is (partially) nuanced in Lessons in Tanya, transl. Y. and L. Wineberg (New York: Kehot, 2002), 46: “Called ‘the pious ones of the nations of the world,’ these righteous individuals are benevolent not out of selfish motives but out of a genuine concern for their fellow.” See also E.R. Wolfson, “The Status of the (Non)Jewish Other in the Apocalyptic Messianism of Menahem Mendel Schneerson”, in Kabbalah and Modernity. Interpretations,Transformations, Adaptations, ed. B. Huss et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 221–257. 179 This Code already called the bodies of Israel “a holy vessel”. 180 ‫"שעל מאכלים ומשקים הרו״ר שורה עליהם שיש לה חשק בהם כיון שנהנים מהם בני אדם והם בבחינת דבר‬ ".‫ והרו״ר רוצה לעשוק הקדושה וליהנות ממנה‬,‫שבקדושה שנהנים מהם בברכה ובהם תלויין חיי האדם‬ 181 According to the passage in bShabbat 109a on the Bat Melech.

322 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

and are connected to a holy body. And also the food and drink that the human permits to enter his body. And the glasses in front of his eyes must be compared to clothes. This is why it is advisable to act more strictly in this matter, and that one does not touch these before washing [one’s hands].182

7.2.4 Jewish, but outside the Community: Seculars, Shabbat Breakers, and Sinners It has become clear that, in relation to children and women, the Ruach Ra‘ah functions as a marker as to who is and who is not (yet) a full member of the community. Children [particularly boys] will become members of the community if they are successfully socialized and they internalize the norms and values of this community. Women, too, participate in certain rituals and prescriptions, just as their male counterparts do. It is different for the category of Jews who are outside the community, because they do not share the community’s norms and values. In the corpus, the Ruach Ra‘ah can be found in situations where the identity of certain Jews – secular Jews and Shabbat breakers183 – is being questioned in the context of Halachic problems that arise through interaction with this group of people who do not observe the prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah. In addition, there is a separate group of five responsa184 where the Ruach Ra‘ah plays a secondary role in the context of suicide, as will be demonstrated below (7.2.4.3). The references to secular Jews and sinners in the primary sources appear mainly in the context of the status of food and drink produced by these people in (Jewish) bakeries, are related to a grocer who sells groceries, or to food preparation in an institution whose employees do not wash their hands. These are not necessarily domestic situations, but they take place in the public sphere, which

182 Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1: ‫ בת מלך היא לפיכך בעלת‬,‫ שרוח זה ושבתא שמה‬.‫"ולענ״ד אולי יש לחלק דאינה שורה אלא על דברים חשובים‬ ‫ וכן הכר והסדין וכו׳ שהם מיועדים רק לישן וה״ה בגדים שישנים בהן אינם‬,‫ כמו כן אין הכלי חשוב בעיניה‬. . .‫גאוה‬ ‫ וכן מאכל‬,‫ להיותם נאים וגם דבקים בגוף קדוש‬,‫אך הבגדים שילבש האיש הישראלי ביום חפיצה בהם‬.‫מכובדים‬ ‫ לכן נראה שגם בהם יש‬,‫ דמו למלבושים‬,‫ ובתי עיניים שנקראים היום משקפיים‬.‫ומשקה אשר יכניס האדם לגופו‬ ".‫להחמיר שלא ליגע בהם קודם נטילה‬ 183 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1: Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1; ibid., V. 2, no. 3; Yabbia Omer, V. 1 YD, no. 10; Ibid., V 4 OH, no. 1; Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6; Tzitz Eliezer, V. 13, no. 2. 184 Afarkesta deAniya, V. 4 (Collected items), no. 370; Chelkat Yaakov, V. OH, no.155; Yabbia Omer, V. 2 YD, no. 24 (the Ruach Ra‘ah plays such a minor role in these three responsa that they hold no further relevance for our research); Betsel Hachochmah, V. 1, no. 67; Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 702 .

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 323

those who belong to the faith community are forced to share with secular people and sinners, and the problems that arise from this in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah on food and drink. 7.2.4.1 Buying Bread in a Secular Jew’s Bakery (Yabbia Omer) The most extensive responsum on this subject is one which the Yabbia Omer185 wrote in Cairo in 1948, which deals with the status of food that has been touched by people who have not washed their hands. The title turns the employees of the bakery into “people of whom it may be presumed that they do not pour water over their hands as they should”.186 The responsum also deals with grocers who sell groceries and do not wash their hands either. They are called “free”187 and “free in their opinions”,188 an expression used for secular Jews who have cast off the yoke of the Torah, meaning that it is a negative label. It seems to suggest that the problem is not their laxity, but that it arises from erroneous opinions and views. Moreover, it creates the impression that the clients were more observant of the traditions than these (small) vendors of groceries – possibly a correct description of the social and religious conditions in Cairo. In the conclusion, the author adds: And currently the ‘rash of mind’ have increased in number – because of our many sins – who act carelessly in relation to the washing of hands in the morning. And one must also fear that there are among the sellers unworthy people189 who touch the bread and other food with their impure / dirty hands. It is nonetheless not forbidden to buy food [in such shops] for fear of their touch, on the basis of everything that has been explained [above].190

Despite the unflattering terms used to describe people who are lax in performing the prescriptions concerning the washing of hands, or even live a wholly secular lifestyle, the Yabbia Omer sees no reason to forbid the consumption of bread and other food purchased there. The reasons for this have little to do with the status of the people who have touched the food, but with Halachic considerations that

185 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1. 186 .". . . ‫שהפועלים שלה אינם מוחזקים בכשרות שיטלו ידיהם שחרית נט״י כדת‬. . ." 187 .". . .‫ מבעל חנות מכולת חפשי שמסתמא אינו נוטל ידיו שחרית‬. . ." 188 .". . .‫מחנות מכולת וצרכניה שבעליה חפשיים בדעות‬. . ." 189 ."‫"אינשי דלא מעלו‬ 190 ‫ ויש לחוש ג״כ שמתוך הקונים איכא אינשי דלא מעלו‬,‫"וכיום רבו בעוה״ר קלי הדעת המזלזלים בנט״י שחרית‬ ‫ ע״פ‬,‫ ובכל זאת אין לאסור לקנות צרכי מאכל מחשש מגען‬,‫שמשמשו ידים מסואבות בלחמים ושאר צרכי אכילה‬ .". . .‫כל המבואר‬

324 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

depend on the weighing of the various texts from different periods of rabbinic Judaism. Perhaps, too, it was not conceivable in practice to come to different rulings – secular and religious lived together in the same public space, and full segregation was regarded as impossible and undesirable. This explains why the Yabbia Omer states in his conclusion that it is necessary to act more strictly in the domestic setting, if one is certain that someone who has not washed his hands has touched food or drink. The focus shifts from human interactions in the public space to the private context of the family, where everyone is ideally equally committed to the religious rituals and prescriptions, and where all strive as much as possible for purity: And when one is certain that the food has been touched before [water] was poured over the hands [in the morning], for instance if this accidentally happens in one’s own home, then: if the foodstuffs in question are dry, e.g. fruit etc. that can be rinsed three times, then they must be rinsed thrice and they then become permitted . . . But soft foodstuffs that cannot be rinsed without the water seeping through; and also liquids touched before the washing of hands in the morning – strictly according to the law they are permitted . . . But he who acts more strictly – if there is no great financial loss involved – and does not eat from this food and drink, blessing be upon him.191

7.2.4.2 Shabbat Breakers: the Non-religious Jewish Household Assistant In addition to questions on the public space and institutions,192 the corpus also contains a question on a secular household assistant  – she touches food and drink without having poured water over her hands three times in the morning, according to the prescription. In this paradigmatic responsum by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, already discussed above, the author makes a number of far-reaching statements about secular fellow Jews. The responsum begins with a reference to an earlier responsum by the author (V. 1, no. 1). There he described the custom of the famous Rabbi Mordechai Progemanski,193 who did not eat bread sold in

191 ‫ אם הם דברים יבשים כגון פירות‬,‫ כגון שנעשה כן באקראי בביתו‬,‫"וכשידוע בבירור שנגעו באוכלין קודם נט״י‬ ‫ אבל אוכלים רכים שא״א לרחצם מבלי שיחדרו‬. . . ‫ יש להדיחם ג״פ ולהתירם בזה‬,‫וכדומה שאפשר לרחצן ג״פ‬ ‫ מעיקר הדין יש להתירם בדיעבד (וכ״ש בנגיעת‬,‫ וכן משקים שנגעו בהם קודם נט״י שחרית‬,‫המים אל תוך האוכלים‬ ‫) ומ״מ המחמיר במקום שאין הפסד מרובה שלא לאכול מאוכלין ומשקין כאלה‬.‫קטנים שיש להקל יותר בדיעבד מיהא‬ ".‫תע״ב‬ 192 See the previous fragment from the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot (V. 2, no. 3) on the Gaon of Brisk, in the footnote there, in relation to the responsum by the Tzitz Eliezer (V. 13, no. 2). 193 This appears to be a typographical error or a variant of Pogremanski. The Teshuvot veHanhagot is most likely referring to Rabbi Mordechai Pogremanski, the “Illui of Telz” (The Genius of Telz).

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 325

secular bakeries and shops, because this bread had been touched by persons who had not poured water over their hands thrice after waking up according to the prescription. This strict approach was inspired by the rabbi’s conviction that consuming this kind of food defiled the soul and led to sin.194 Our author from the corpus – who writes from the object-oriented perspective – sympathizes with this strict attitude. The question therefore emerges what the policy should be vis-à-vis a secular household assistant at home? The Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot offers a radical solution, after first stating that the more lenient opinion – that there is no problem with consuming food and drink that have been touched – is followed a posteriori: Perhaps we can add another reason for a more lenient judgement: that with public Shabbat breakers – who are counted as idolaters – in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah, who therefore does not rest on them [just like non-Jews]. And when they sleep they do not become impure and their status is like that of a Gentile [=non-Jew] who sleeps and where no Ruach Ra‘ah can be found. For the Ruach Ra‘ah rests only on a holy place, that is: a holy soul. And Shabbat breakers, even though they do generate [real] uncleanness of death [after they die], their Ruach Ra‘ah is not very powerful and does not rest in them as it does in an Israelite to contaminate [the food or drink]. . .195

The author does mitigate this by contending that this is something new that requires further study196, and then gives the exhortation that one should a priori arrange with the household assistant that she will pour water over her hands three times according to the prescription before she begins her work.197 The author, who uses an object-oriented approach, then concludes with the comment that it is therefore: . . . a beautiful and fitting custom that all food that has been touched by secular Jews without washing their hands should be rinsed well, and this helps against this fear [raised by the

194 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1: ‫"ועובדא ידענא אצל הגאון וצדיק רבי מרדכי פרוגמנסקי זצ״ל שהקפיד מאד לא לאכול לחם שמכרו אצל חפשיים‬ ‫מפני שנוגעין בו בלי נטילה ג״פ בסירוגין כדין ומוכן היה להקל לאכול פת עכו״ם שהוכשר תוך כ״ד שעות שההיתר‬ ‫ שזה לדעתו עלול לטמא הנפש ולהביאו לידי חטא [ע״ע מש״כ‬,‫רפיא ובלבד לא ליכשל לאכול לחם שנגע בו חפשי‬ .". . .‫לקמן סימן ח‘[ והעולם לא נהגו ליזהר בזה כ״כ‬ 195 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 3: ‫"אולי נוכל לצרף לסניף להתיר שבמחללי שבת בפרהסיא שהם כעכו״ם גם לענין רוח רעה לא שורה בהם וכשישנים‬ ‫ שאינו שורה הר״ר אלא במקום קדושה והיינו נשמה קדושה‬,‫לא נטמאים ודינם כמו בעכו״ם שישן ואין אצלו רו״ר‬, .". . .‫ הרוח רעה לא אלים ולא שורה בהם כמו בישראל לטמא‬,‫ומחללי שבת אף שמטמאין בטומאת מת‬ 196 ."‫ומיהו ד״ז חידוש וצ״ע טובא‬. . ." 197 ‫ יש לחייבה לפני התחלת העבודה‬,‫"ונראה שלכתחילה בודאי כשיש לו עוזרת חפשיה ועלולה לנגוע במאכלים‬ .". . .‫ליטול ידיה ג״פ כדין‬

326 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

eating of food that has been touched by unwashed hands].198 At home, one must certainly rinse  thrice all food that has been touched by the secular household assistant so that the evil influences of the Ruach Ra‘ah are cancelled out. But also everything one buys outside the home from secular Jews must a priori be rinsed thrice before consumption at home. This is why Rabbi Mordechai Progemanski preferred not to buy bread outdoors, from secular Jews; because bread cannot be rinsed.199

The author’s goal is to have a way of dealing with food that is as pure as possible: first and foremost in the domestic setting which can be controlled, and then also in the public space, where food can be touched by people who are not considered to be part of the faith community. This leads to a paradox: on the one hand there is a clear dividing line between the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot’s strictly orthodox faith community and the secular world. On the other hand, real segregation between the two groups in modern Israel is not possible – this responsum discusses an example of physical proximity. Precisely the proximity of the secular world in one’s own home leads this strictly orthodox author to the far-reaching conclusion that these secular Jews have the same status as non-Jews who do not keep the commandments (especially the Shabbat) either.200 7.2.4.3 Suicide: Transgressing the Boundaries of the Community Earlier on in this chapter we discussed the attitude in the corpus with regard to different categories of people who do not observe the rules concerning the Ruach

198 ‫"ומהאי טעמא מנהג נאה ויאה בכל אוכל כשחפשיים נוגעין בו בלי נטילה להדיחו יפה יפה ויועיל גם לחשש‬ .". . .‫זה‬ 199 The conclusion of the responsum, between round brackets: .''. . .‫ היינו בלחם דלא שייך כ״כ הדחה ג״פ‬,‫והגאון רבי מרדכי זצ״ל שהחמיר‬. . .'' 200 The same argument on Shabbat breakers is also used by the Yabbia Omer in the responsum discussed above (V. 1 YD, no. 10) on food and drink placed under a bed. The conclusion is as follows: “To summarise: if there are factors to come to a more lenient judgement – for instance food and drink that have been placed under the bed of a non-Jew (and possibly also under the bed of a Jewish heretic and public Shabbat breaker), and also under the bed of a child that is not yet Bar-Mitzvah, then our reply [in such cases] is to judge more leniently a posteriori [and to declare the food and drink permissible] . . .”. See also A. Picard, Mishnahto shel haRav Ovadyah Yosef, 116–119 on comparable statements by Ovadyah Yosef (who is usually described as a moderate) in his other responsa. He makes a distinction there between lawbreakers who still have a link with Jewish identity and the modern Israeli secular world which he regards as an ideological rejection of the tradition. The Yabbia Omer places these lawbreakers outside the faith community: they are alike to non-Jews and do not generate Ruach Ra‘ah: see also B. Lau, miMaran, 156–162, on two early texts by Yosef in which he is sharply critical of the secular character of the young state and of the negative influence of the secular lifestyle.

7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus 

 327

Ra‘ah, and some of whom are (almost) regarded as outsiders, comparable to nonJews. To what extent does the Ruach Ra‘ah play a role in the responsa on suicide in the corpus, the ultimate act through which the individual places himself outside the community? There is a great taboo on suicide in classical orthodox Judaism  – he who commits suicide places himself outside the community by doing so. Thus all kinds of mourning rituals are omitted for them and they are buried in a separate part of the cemetery.201 Five responsa from the corpus discuss suicide, but the Ruach Ra‘ah usually plays only an indirect role. Only two responsa from the corpus can be used to obtain a deeper insight into the status of someone who commits suicide. The Stricter Halachic Perspective The Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot202 discusses the case of someone who has committed suicide on account of mental suffering. He begins by stating that there is no reason to treat suicide from melancholia differently than a normal suicide (the opinion of the Chatam Sofer). Everyone who commits suicide must be under the influence of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and yet even that is no reason to consider it an offence committed in a condition of “madness” (‫ )שוטה‬or force majeure203 (‫)אונס‬. The author still (partly) regards mental illness leading to suicide as an effect of the Ruach Ra‘ah – there is not a single mention in the responsum of the concepts of “psychology” and “psychiatry”. In addition, he uses the archaic word “melancholia” (‫)מרה שחורה‬, and not the Hebrew word for “depression” (‫)דיכאון‬ that is used by some modern rabbis in orthodox responsa.204 In some medieval rabbinic texts, the Ruach Ra‘ah is equated with melancholia, as was explained in 3.2.5.205 In this specific case, the author nevertheless reaches a more lenient judgement because the person in question was not himself to blame for this condition of the

201 See for instance Maimonides, Laws concerning Mourning, Ch. 1:11; Shulchan Aruch YD 305. 202 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 702 (A). 203  ‫הנה בעיקר הדין במאבד עצמו לדעת מרוב צרותיו דאגות ויסורים הוכיח בחת״ס יו״ד סי’ שכ״ו דדינו‬. . ." ‫ שכל מאבד עצמו‬,‫ לכאורה לא נקרא שוטה ליפטר מחומר האסור‬,‫ וכאן אף שהיה במרה שחורה‬,‫כמאבד עצמו לדעת‬ ‫ כיון שעבר‬,‫ גם אין להניחו במקום משפחתו לקבורה‬,‫ ומ״מ דינו שאין מתאבלין עליו‬,‫לדעת ע״כ תפסו רוח רעה ר״ל‬ .". . .‫באסור חמור דמאבד עצמו לדעת והוא רוצח‬ 204 See for instance the responsum from the corpus by the Betsel Hachochmah that will be treated below (V. 1, no. 67); Shevet Ha-Levi, V. 9, no. 75; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 YD, no. 31; Heichal Yitzchak, EH, no. 2. 205 See Maimonides’ commentary on mShabbat 2:5, mentioned in chapter 3.

328 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

Ruach Ra‘ah206 – there was a family history of melancholia,207 and the person in question went to see a doctor for treatment,208 and was not therefore negligent. In this responsum, too, the Ruach Ra‘ah appears in the context of the status of sinners and the boundaries of the faith community, comparable to the earlier responsum on the secular household assistant. It does appear to be the case here, however, that a concession is made to the person who committed suicide: in this case it is permitted to mourn for him. The difference between the two responsa is possibly the distance to the community at which the person considered to be an outsider stands. In the earlier responsum, the person in question is active in the faith community as a household assistant. It is precisely this proximity that causes her to be regarded as an outsider because she breaks the Shabbat laws. The person who has committed suicide has literally placed himself outside the community and is no longer a threat to social order. A concession can be made to him so that he can be buried according to the funerary rituals of the community. In this way, his departure still confirms the social order of the faith community. The More Lenient Halachic Perspective The other relevant responsum concerning suicide is that by the Betsel Hachochmah209 on the status of someone who has committed suicide because of his bad financial situation. This author does use the modern word for depression (‫)דכאון‬ to describe this person’s condition.210 Despite the fact that he uses the modern word for depression the Ruach Ra‘ah nevertheless plays an important role in his argument: the author refers to the Ruach Ra‘ah three times in reaching his conclusions. They are that: 1. The death must be presumed to be a suicide only if the person explicitly says he is planning to end his life, and immediately afterwards commits an act that leads to his death. Even if someone is found in a closed room and there is a suspicion that it was suicide, one can still say that the person in question was not mentally capable and was tormented by the Ruach Ra‘ah who put him up to this “foolish deed” (‫)תונבא‬.211 206 For instance by breaking the rabbinic prescriptions that offer protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah. 207 ‫ ושאלתי רופא מובהק ואישר‬,‫שדרשתי וחקרתי היטב ונתברר לי שבמשפחתו ישנם לקויים במרה שחורה‬. . ." .". . .‫שכן הדברים והמחלה במשפחה גורם‬ 208 .". . . ‫ ויש גם לקויים במרה שחורה במשפחה‬,‫וכ״ז מפני שהיה בטיפול רפואי‬. . ." 209 V. 1, no. 67. 210 .". . . ‫וכל אותו הזמן התהלך בעצבות ובדכאון‬. . ." 211 ‫ דבזה ניהו דאיכא הוכחה‬,)‫"ומה שנמצא הדלת סגור מבפנים ג״כ אינו הוכחה וכמש״כ בהדיא בשו״ת ח״ס (שם‬ ‫ וכ״כ בהדיא גם בשו״ת פרשת‬.‫שאיבד עצמו בידו מ״מ תלינן שלא עשאה בדעת כי רוח רעה ביעתתו ותונבא נקט לי‬ ".‫מרדכי להגאון מהר״ם בנעט ז״ל (חיו״ד סי’ כ״ו) ע״ש‬

‫‪ 329‬‬

‫ ‪7.2 Applying the Theoretical Framework to the Corpus‬‬

‫‪Although the author first mentions opinions to the effect that the Shabbat‬‬ ‫‪may not be broken to try to prevent a suicide attempt, his conclusion is that‬‬ ‫‪the Shabbat must be broken for this. He finds support for this primarily in a‬‬ ‫)‪responsum by the Maharil Diskin (Yehoshua Yehuda Leib Diskin, 1817–1898‬‬ ‫‪who permits saving a person who is attempting suicide.212 In practice reasons‬‬ ‫‪can always be found to ascribe the cause of death to external factors: others‬‬ ‫‪have brought him to this physical state, or he was tormented by the Ruach‬‬ ‫‪Ra‘ah and driven to this deed.213‬‬ ‫–‪It is shameful to say the full 12 months of Kaddish for a deceased person ‬‬ ‫‪both for the deceased one and for the mourners. This rule therefore only‬‬ ‫‪applies when there is no doubt according to the Halachah that someone has‬‬ ‫‪committed suicide. Because doubt is almost always possible (albeit perhaps‬‬ ‫‪only as a theoretical possibility), the saying of Kaddish for 12 months would‬‬ ‫‪confirm to the outside world that it was certain that the death had been a‬‬ ‫‪suicide.214 Although the author does not explicitly refer to the cause of doubt,‬‬ ‫‪it does seem clear that he is repeating the same argument used before: either‬‬ ‫‪some third party has put him in this position, or it was the Ruach Ra‘ah.‬‬

‫‪2.‬‬

‫‪3.‬‬

‫‪Contextual Factors‬‬ ‫‪When the two responsa on suicide are compared, it is clear that the concession‬‬ ‫‪that the Betsel Hachochmah makes is substantially greater than that made by‬‬ ‫‪the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot. Whereas the former regards the Ruach Ra‘ah as a way‬‬ ‫" ‪ . . .‬וכן מצאתי הדבר מפורש בשו״ת מהרי״ל דיסקין (ח״ב קונט’ אחרון סי’ ה’ אות ל״ד) באמצע דבריו דרך אגב ‪212‬‬ ‫שכ’‪ ,‬אפי’ מי שרוצה לאבד עצל״ד מצווים אנו להצילו אפי’ בשבת‪.". . .‬‬ ‫''אלא שנלענ״ד פשוט דכל שלא נתברר לנו בודאות שזה שאנו דנין עליו אם להצילו אם לאו‪ ,‬הוא עפ״י דין בכלל  ‪213‬‬ ‫מאעצל״ד ויש לתלות הדבר עדיין בסיבות שונות וכגון שאחרים שלטו בו ותלוהו‪ ,‬או אפי‘ כשברור שהוא בעצמו‬ ‫שלט בנפשו אלא שיש לתלות שרוח רעה ביעתתו וכל כה״ג‪ ,‬בודאי דלכו״ע מותר לחלל שבת עבור הצלתו דעכ״פ‬ ‫מידי ספק פקו״נ לא נפיק דשמא לא פשע בנפשו כלום ומחוייבים אנחנו להצילו‪ .‬ואפי‘ כשיותר קרוב לתלות שהוא‬ ‫עשה כן לעצמו ומדעת מ״מ יש להצילו‪ ,‬כדין המבואר בשו״ע (או״ח סי‘ שכ״ט סעי‘ ג‘) בנפל עליו מפולת דאעפ״י שיש כמה‬ ‫ספיקות מפקחין ע״ש וה״ה בנד״ד‪".‬‬ ‫"לענין אם בניו יאמרו אחריו קדיש כל י״ב חודש‪ ,‬הנה בשו״ת ח״ס (שם סוד״ה אודות אמירת)‪ ,‬מבואר שבנו של  ‪214‬‬ ‫המאעצל״ד יאמר קדיש י״ב חודש דטעמא מאי אינו אומר רק י״א חודש דלא לשוי‘ לאביו רשע‪ ,‬האי גברא שוי‘ נפשי‘‬ ‫רשיעא וניחא לי‘ דתהוי לי‘ כפרה ע״ש‪ .‬מ״מ נראה פשוט דהיינו דוקא כשהוחזק למאעצל״ד וכגון שאמר הריני עולה‬ ‫כו‘ וכה״ג (עיי‘ אות א‘)‪ ,‬אבל כשהוא ספק אם הוא בכלל מאעצל״ד אסור לבניו לומר קדיש בחודש הי״ב‪ ,‬והוא חמור‬ ‫משאר אינשי כי יאמרו בודאי יודעי‘ הבנים כי אביהם הרשיע לאעצל״ד על כן הם אומרי‘ קדיש כל י״ב חודש‪ ,‬ונמצא‬ ‫משוים לאביהם רשיעא‪ .‬ועיי‘ בס‘ מליצי אש לאבא מארי הגאון זצ״ל הי״ד (סיון אות פ״ח) כי באדם שאינו מפורסם‬ ‫לא לצדיק ולא לרשע גם אם צוה לבניו לומר אחריו קדיש כל יב״ח לא יצייתו לו כי יתלו שבניו יודעים שרשע הי‘‪ ,‬ואין‬ ‫לך בזיון גדול מזה לפי מנהגנו שאין אומרים קדיש רק י״א חודש ע״ש‪ .‬ומכש״כ בנ״ד שלא צוה האב כן וכיון שמצאוהו‬ ‫תלוי וחנוק ויש מקום לומר שלכן אומרים בניו קדיש גם בחודש הי״ב יען יודעים הם כי אביהם אעצל״ד וכמש״כ‪ ,‬על‬ ‫כן לא יאמרו קדיש רק י״א חודש‪".‬‬

330 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

of confirming doubt on the status of the suicide, the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot holds the exact opposite opinion: the Ruach Ra‘ah in itself is not a strong argument to cancel out the status of suicide. The difference between the two approaches could be explained from contextual factors: the Betsel Hachochmah works as a rabbi in Australia (Melbourne), a Western society where relations between secular and orthodox are freer and where suicide is less of a taboo subject; the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot writes primarily for the strict orthodox community in Israel. That the social environment plays a role is evident from the Teshuvot veHanhagot’s remark on the family of the deceased person: And therefore one may judge more leniently, so that the law of the suicide does not apply to him, because he is like a person confronted with force majeure [‫]אונס‬, and he must not be buried outside the confines of the graveyard. And all the less so because his relatives are Shabbat breakers, and we could not therefore bury him among the ultra-orthodox [‫[חרדים‬ anyway – therefore my opinion is that he may be mourned and the family must not be put to shame. But they must observe all the mourning customs and must bury him with the family as they wish. And they must say Kaddish for eleven months, and his status is like that of any other deceased person among [the People of] Israel.215

The small concession that the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot makes can be explained from the secular context where the suicide took place and the segregation between secular and ultra-orthodox Jews. If this had happened within the strict orthodox community in Israel, then there possibly would have been fewer options to show consideration. Within the strict orthodox community itself, an appeal to the Ruach Ra‘ah in this kind of situation is less important compared to the strict group norms that must be confirmed, of which suicide is the ultimate rejection. Social cohesion and control count for more than individual exceptions where the Ruach Ra‘ah can play a role as the initiator and explanation for certain undesirable forms of behavior. In the Betsel Hachochma’s Melbourne, secular and orthodox Jews live more closely together, and possibly even within the same community. This kind of social structure means the door is always slightly open to non-religious fellow Jews anyway.

215  ‫ וביותר שבני משפחתו הם‬,‫ כהוי כאנוס ואין לקוברו מאחורי הגדר‬,‫"ולכן יש להקל שאין דינו כמאבד עצמו לדעת‬ ‫ רק ינהגו‬,‫ ולא לבייש המשפחה‬,‫ לפיכך דעתי שראוי להתאבל עליו‬,‫ וממילא אין קוברים אותו בין החרדים‬,‫מחללי שבת‬ ".‫ככל דיני אבילות ויקברו אותו בין המשפחה כרצונם ויאמרו קדיש י״א חודש ודינו ככל מת בישראל‬

7.3 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah  

 331

7.3 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah As was demonstrated above, the demarcating of internal and external boundaries is an important function of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus. Douglas’ group / grid model discussed earlier is essentially about two kinds of control and pressure exercised over individuals, which in fact indicate the internal and external boundaries: one as a result of belonging to a group that defines its identity visà-vis the outside world (group), and the other a form of control that individuals exercise vis-à-vis each other (grid). How are these boundaries maintained? The following sections will discuss a number of control mechanisms from the corpus.

7.3.1 Control Mechanisms As has been seen, various authors from the corpus emphasize the necessity of washing the hands of (small) children. We will now examine these texts again, and analyze the measure of coercion and control exercised. 7.3.1.1 Coercive Language One of the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot’s216 responsa speaks about fear of danger [‫ [חשש סכנה‬that arises when children touch food with unwashed hands, with the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot taking an earlier source as his base.217 The coercive character of the language is striking: And therefore it is a great obligation [‫ [חובה רבה‬to wash the children’s hands, because they run around and touch food without having washing their hands . . ..

The original source that he uses speaks of how “one must take care” (‫)יש ליזהר‬, but the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot changes this to the more imperative “a great obligation”. There is also a subtle difference between the original source that says “that the small children wash their hands”, and the responsum’s expression: “to wash the children’s hands”. The original source speaks of children who wash their own

216 V. 1, no. 1. 217 He refers to a quotation from the Derech haChaim (Commentary by R. Yakov of Lisa on the prayer book), in which the latter exhorts his readers to “take care” that the children wash their hands.

332 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

hands; the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot envisages others pouring water over the hands of children if they neglect or refuse to do this themselves.218 The author’s coercive tone is also in evidence further on in the text, when he situates the age threshold for the obligation to wash the hands of small children at the answering of Amen: . . . from the moment that he fulfils the religious commandment of ‘saying Amen’, it seems to me that one must take great care and be careful to wash his hands before he touches food. And one must not decide more leniently and not wash his hands . . .219

Thus according to the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, parents are obliged to wash the hands of their small children. If they do not do this, this will sometimes have consequences when the child can already talk and can reply Amen, thus becoming part of the faith community.220 The same coercive language can be found in the Yitzchak Yeranen221 in relation to washing the hands of small children: And in any case one must be careful at home of the touching of food with unwashed hands in the morning or after going to the toilet. And he who is careful about this, blessing be upon him – because it is known that he who deals more leniently with this kind of case, that this affects his intellectual abilities [‫]שכל‬, God preserve us. And therefore we wrote in another responsum [infra, no. 8]222 that the hands of children who already touch food must be washed in the morning. And also when they have been to the toilet. And one must take care of this with all power and might.223,224

218 Or the difference is caused by his stricter approach: the Derech haChaim speaks of children who can wash their own hands; the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot of children who are too young to do this themselves. 219 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1: ‫ וז״ל וכן יש ליזהר בשחרית שיטלו הקטנים ידיהם כי הוא חשש סכנה שנוגעים במאכלים בלא‬.‫ וכ״ה בדרה״ח‬. . ." ‫ ואף‬,‫ שמסתובבים ונוגעים במאכלים בלי נטילת ידים כמש״כ הפמ״ג‬,‫ ולפי זה חובה רבה ליטול ידים לילדים‬.‫נטילה‬ ‫לדעת הגרש״ז דעיקר משעה שהגיע לחינוך שאז מגיע לו נפש הקדושה מ״מ כתב דהנזהר משעת מילה קדוש יאמר‬ ‫לו ובפרט מעת שמקיים מצוה שעונה אמן נראה שצריכים ליזהר מאוד לדקדק וליטול ידיו לפני זה אם נוגע‬ ".‫במאכלים ובודאי אין להקל שלא ליטול ידיו‬ 220 See also Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 1 where the author refers to an oral tradition of the Rav of Brisk (the GRI”Z) as an authoritative source: ‫ ולא מלתא זוטרתי‬,‫ וכן שמעתי פעם מפי הגאון דבריסק הגריז״ס זצ״ל חינוך הבנים ובנות מתחיל ליטול ידם לטומאה‬. . ." .". . .‫היא ליזהר בכך‬ 221 V. 1, no. 6. 222 The square brackets were inserted by the author. 223 The word ‫ עוז‬has been lost here, but the expression is: ".‫"ברוב עוז ותעצומות‬ 224 V. 1, no. 6: .‫"ועכ״פ כל אדם בביתו יזהר מנגיעה באוכלים בידים שלא נטלו שחרית או אחר יציאה מבית הכסא‬ ‫ ולכן כתבנו‬,)‫ כי ידוע שכל המיקל בענינים אלו חלילה מטמטמים את השכל (ב״מ‬,‫והנזהר בכל זה תבא עליו ברכה‬ ‫ וכן‬,‫בתשובה אחרת בס״ד [להלן סימן ח[ שילדים שמתחילים לנגוע באוכלין כבר צריך ליטול את ידיהם שחרית‬ ".‫ ויש לעמוד על המשמר בזה ברוב עוז ותעצומות‬,‫כשיוצאים מביהכ״ס‬

7.3 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah  

 333

The normally more lenient attitude of the Yabbia Omer also uses coercive language when discussing washing the hands of young children.225 7.3.1.2 Intimidation and Physical Force That there is sometimes more at issue when children do not wash their hands than coercive rhetoric on the dangers that the Ruach Ra‘ah can produce226 is demonstrated by the following fragment from the corpus by the Tzitz Eliezer,227 who discusses the obligation of washing the hands of small children, and suggests that fathers use physical force and intimidation against small children: . . . I have further been asked whether there is an obligation to wash the hands of small children in the morning . . . and how important this obligation is. Because there are fathers who fear defilement of food and [therefore] come to demand this [=that the children wash their hands] in an explosive way.228 And the small children are often frightened by this and cry when they are taken to the water tap against their will to wash their hands.229

In his conclusion, he emphasizes the importance of a friendly approach, without coercion: . . . And one should not come to any intimidation in the domestic sphere, and towards the children who are frightened when they are picked up against their will to wash their hands. But everything should be carefully weighed and with friendly words. And it does not matter if – until they are used to it – they do not wash their hands a number of times. And if they touch food then they have absolutely not defiled this.230

225 He uses the same expression here as the Yitzchak Yeranen – ‫ברוב עוז ותעצומות‬, “with all power and might”. The parent must supervise (‫ )להשגיח‬that the small children do not touch food with unwashed hands, and that they wash their hands before they touch the food and drink; see Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1, subsection 11: ‫ ולעמוד על המשמר שגם‬,‫ומ״מ לכתחלה יש להזהר בכל עוז ותעצומות להשגיח לבלתי יגעו במאכלים לפני נט״י‬. . ." )‫ וכמ״ש הפמ״ג (סי' ד מש״ז סק״ז‬.‫הילדים הקטנים יטלו ידיהם לפני איזה נגיעה שהיא במאכלים או במשקים‬ ‫ וקצת סיוע לדבריהם מד‬.)‫ ומהר״ח פלאג'י בשו״ת לב חיים ח״א (ס״ס סז‬.)‫'והחיד״א במורה באצבע (סי' ב אות ס‬ ".‫ ע״ש‬.‫המגדל עוז (פ״ז מה' תפלה ה״ח) דבקטנים חיישינן טפי‬ 226 See for instance Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 1: Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 6. 227 V. 7, no. 2. 228 Literally: like a storm and a hurricane. 229  ‫ ואם גם הם מטמאים‬,‫''לשאלות ד’ וה’ עוד נשאלתי אם יש חיוב ליטול ידי הקטנים בנט״י [=בנטילת ידים[ שחרית‬ ‫ ומהו גודל החיוב בזה כי ישנם מהאבות שחוששים לטומאת המאכלים ובאים‬.‫המאכלים אם נוגעים בהם בידיהם בלי נט״י‬ ‫על כך בסופה ובסערה והילדים הקטנים בהרבה פעמים נבהלים ובוכים מזה שלוקחים אותם בע״כ אל ברז המים בכדי ליטול‬ ".‫ידיהם‬ 230  ‫היוצא מדברינו להלכה דמעיקרא דדינא יש מקום לומר דאין חיוב נט״י שחרית כי אם בגדולים ממש שהגיעו‬. . ." ,‫ אך כמה וכמה מגדולי הפוסקים סברי דאיכא חיובא כבר כל שהגיעו לחינוך ובודאי יש להחמיר בזה‬,‫כבר למצוות‬ ‫ אמנם יש מקום‬,‫ וכל שעוד לא הגיעו לחינוך ליכא חיובא כלל מעיקרא דדינא‬.‫ואיכא בזה עכ״פ משום גדר מצות חינוך‬

334 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

In addition to a more lenient approach regarding young children, there is thus also a more strict opinion, which uses controlling and coercive language and requires the father of the house to supervise the washing of the hands of children, sometimes of very young age. This is not limited to controlling use of language: some people intimidate and force their children to wash their hands against their wishes. 7.3.1.3 Visible Place of Washing In the domestic sphere parents  – specifically primarily fathers  – have the responsibility to ensure that even (very young) children do not touch food and drink with unwashed hands, and that they wash their hands three times in the morning according to the prescription. But how does one know whether someone has washed his hands, and whether he has kept to the letter of the prescription? The question concerning the place where the ritual must be performed – a point of discussion in the corpus – possibly fulfils this task of control. In the Halachic literature of the last few centuries, there are two opinions on where the ritual must be performed: 1. at home or any other place; 2. near the bed, immediately after rising and preferably before getting dressed. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention that the washing of hands in the morning should happen immediately, when still in bed. It is true that the prohibition on touching the body’s orifices before the washing of hands231 implies that there will not be much time between the washing of hands and rising itself. What is clear is that the hands must be washed at home  – hence the exhortation not to throw out the water used in the house,232 but not necessarily at the bedside after rising.233 However, several

‫ אבל אין לבוא‬.‫ ולא משום נגיעה במאכלים‬,‫של הידור בזה ובעיקר משום הרגלת גידולו של התינוק על טהרת הקודש‬ ‫ אלא צריכים לכלכל‬,‫על כך בהטלת אימה כל שהיא בבית ועל הקטנים שנבהלים כשתופסים אותם בע״כ ליטול ידיהם‬ ‫ ואם יגעו‬,‫הדברים במשפט ובאמירה נעימה ואין כל קפידא ועיכוב אם עד שירגילום לא יטלו בכמה פעמים את ידיהם‬ ".‫ ופשוט‬,‫במאכלים לא יטמאום כלל וכלל‬ 231 OH 4:3:4; see also OH 4:17 – there is a suggestion here of a sequence of washing hands first, and then attending to the rest of the body. 232 OH 4:9. 233 OH 4:23 even suggests explicitly that Karo does not think it is required to have water prepared by the bedside to wash one’s hands after rising. This subsection discusses the question of whether the morning blessings may be recited without having washed one’s hands. The morning blessings may be recited without having washed one’s hands, as the Talmud already mentions. This by contrast with the Eighteen Benedictions and Shema, which may only be said after one has washed one’s hands. Karo makes a clear distinction here between washing in sanctification before prayer, which is the most important, and the secondary reason of the kabbalists on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. This is why he states that the morning blessings may be recited before the washing of hands, except if one has slept naked, because then the hands are unclean be-

7.3 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah  

 335

commentaries234 refer to the opinion of the Zohar that it is not permitted to walk four ells without having washed one’s hands. He who does do this is guilty of death.235 A number of responsa in the corpus discuss the details of the performance of the ritual connected with this: must it be performed by the side of the bed, or at a wash basin elsewhere in the home; on the status of the prohibition on walking four paces without washing one’s hands, what should be done if one has omitted to place water by the bedside, and what if one wakes up at night and wants to drink water, how should the blessing over this be pronounced.236 The insistence of some texts that the hands should ideally be washed at the bedside makes it easier to control this visible washing. But the questions in the corpus on the status of a bathroom and toilet in relation to the washing of hands in the morning after rising237

cause they have unconsciously touched parts of the body where there is sweat or other impurities during sleep. If the water has already been placed by the side of the bed the night before, then this entire treatise is superfluous – then one can wash one’s hands immediately after waking up while still in the bed, and then recite the morning blessings with washed hands. 234 See for instance the Ba’er Hetev OH 1, subsection 2; Sha’arei Teshuvot OH 1, subsection 2; Birke Yosef OH 1, subsection 1; Shulchan Aruch by Sheniur Zalman OH 1:7; Mishnah Berurah OH 1, subsection 2. 235 This is first ascribed to the Zohar in Meir Ibn Gabbai’s Tola’at Yakov. The Birke Yosef OH 1, subsection 1 addresses the fact that this statement cannot be found in our text of the Zohar. He concludes that there were two editions, and that he himself has seen the variant which states that it is forbidden to walk more than four ells without having washed one’s hands. This variant was supposedly also discussed in Ohr haLevana – glosses on the Zohar. 236 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1; Divrei Yatsiv OH, no. 1; She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1, no. 4; ibid., V. 3, no. 2; Rivavot Ephraim, V. 4, no. 4; Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4; Yitzchak Yeranen , V. 1, no. 1; Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2, 4; see also Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 2, no. 1 on the status of water that has been placed under the bed for the next morning’s washing. 237 Or is at least not excluded because the question specifically deals with a washing before a bread meal or before the prayer (this does not necessarily have to be the morning prayer, because the washing of hands is also prescribed before the other daily prayers – in the morning and the evening). See for instance Maimonides, “Laws for Prayer”, Ch. 4, subsection 1–3, which clearly shows that the hands are washed before all three daily prayers: ‫ ודברים‬,‫ וטהרת מקום תפלה‬,‫ וכיסוי הערוה‬,‫ טהרת ידים‬,‫"חמשה דברים מעכבין את התפלה אף על פי שהגיע זמנה‬ ‫ היה מהלך בדרך והגיע זמן‬,‫ טהרת ידים כיצד רוחץ ידיו במים עד הפרק ואחר כך יתפלל‬.‫ וכוונת הלב‬,‫החופזים אותו‬ ‫תפלה ולא היה לו מים אם היה בינו ובין המים ארבעה מילין שהם שמונת אלפים אמה הולך עד מקום המים ורוחץ‬ ‫ במה דברים אמורים‬.‫ היה בינו ובין המים יותר על כן מקנח ידיו בצרור בעפר או בקורה ומתפלל‬,‫ואחר כך יתפלל‬ ‫ אבל אם עבר מן המים יותר‬,‫לפניו אבל אם היה מקום המים לאחוריו אין מחייבין אותו לחזור לאחוריו אלא עד מיל‬ ‫ במה דברים אמורים שאינו מטהר לתפלה אלא ידיו בלבד בשאר תפלות‬,‫אינו חייב לחזור אלא מקנח ידיו ומתפלל‬ ‫ ואם היה רחוק מן המים מקנח ידיו בלבד‬,‫חוץ מתפלת שחרית אבל שחרית רוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ואחר כך יתפלל‬ ".‫ואחר כך יתפלל‬

336 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

(as opposed to before prayer, a bread meal, or for lighter238 forms of Ruach Ra‘ah), and the questions as to whether clothes may be touched before the washing of hands in the morning, possibly also reflect this emphasis on control. The washing of hands in a toilet or bathroom is less visible than a washing performed by the bedside. And he who permits clothes to be touched with unwashed hands will attach less importance to the visible washing by the bedside immediately after rising (otherwise the entire question becomes hypothetical).239 It is easiest to check whether someone has washed their hands if the ritual is performed immediately after rising at the bedside – the washing takes place in a way that is visible to others. It is also immediately visible whether someone has performed the washing precisely according to the rules. This is different to when the washing is carried out in a toilet or a bathroom – the seclusion of these rooms makes it difficult to ascertain whether someone has washed his hands according to the rules. Moreover, both the ban on walking more than four ells before the washing and the prohibition on touching clothes and getting dressed imply far-reaching regulation of the mobility of the body and a restriction of acts surrounding the body. 7.3.1.4 Minimizing and Maximizing Intensity of Control The various positions found in the corpus can therefore be interpreted as degrees of control, and possibly reflect the measure to which social reality is regulated.240 The corpus roughly shows two tendencies: a maximizing and a minimizing tendency, which can possibly be related to the measure of control exercised over the

See SA OH 233:2 which also prescribes a washing before the Afternoon Prayer without a blessing. 238 The form of Ruach Ra‘ah after rising is regarded as the heaviest form and is attended with most prescriptions / taboos  – such as the requirement to wash one’s hands alternately three times, a priori the use of a hand washing cup, the prohibition on walking more than four ells, the possibility of contaminating food and drink, and not touching clothes before this washing (which is important according to the mystics). 239 Har Tzvi OH, V. 1, no. 50 (deals mainly with an a posteriori case and is less relevant); Simchat Kohen OH, no. 6; Shevet Ha-Levi, V. 8, no. 168; Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid., V. 5 OH, no. 1, 2; ibid. V. 7, no. 27 (She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 2, no. 2 admittedly speaks of a washing in a bathroom containing a toilet on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah, but does not indicate whether it is a washing in the morning or whether it is about many other situations that generate Ruach Ra‘ah. This responsum is therefore less relevant). Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 3, 5; Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1. 240 See also H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism, 191 concerning the biblical purity laws: “Religious cultures are powerful to . . . intrude into the affairs of daily life. Control over the body is one of the ways in which abstract ideals of social life are turned into practical realities.”

7.3 Maintaining Boundaries: Control, Coercion, and Ruach Ra‘ah  

 337

individual. There is a maximizing tendency which requires that water should be prepared in advance so that the hands can be washed immediately after waking up,241 which forbids the touching of clothes242 and also requires that people should wash their hands when they wake up at night before drinking water, for instance, or engaging in sexual intercourse.243 And conversely, there is a minimizing tendency that does not make it obligatory to prepare water by the bedside,244 permits the touching of clothes, and takes a lenient approach to situations where people wake up at night and want to drink water,245 or after intercourse. There is therefore a correlation with the division proposed of responsa written from an object-related approach and from a subject-related approach (the text-oriented approach is less relevant here as a contrast). The responsa that maximize control are written from an object-related approach; those that minimize from a subject-related approach. Authors who regard the Ruach Ra‘ah from an object-related approach – as an ontological fact – will be more likely to subscribe to the stricter opinion, with an emphasis on the dangers that the Ruach Ra‘ah can cause, and on the precise observance of the rules so that these dangers can be averted. Authors that look at the Ruach Ra‘ah from the perspective of the subject, however, will produce a discourse that also gives scope to human experience, physical circumstances, and everyday life. The rules are then integrated into the “ordinary” life of the subject, and subjects also have a certain degree of influence over the Ruach Ra‘ah and the approach that should be chosen in any given situation. Example 1: High Control Intensity One example of high control intensity is how the prohibition from the Zohar on walking more than four ells without washing is interpreted. The Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot not only prescribes that water be prepared by the bedside for the daily washing, and that one must run to the nearest source of water if this has not been done – he also refers to even stricter texts by other authors. Thus it is

241 Yitzchak Yeranen, V. 1, no. 1; Teshuvot ve-Hanahagot, V. 1, no. 4 (see also V. 1, no. 2 where the author deals with the prohibition in the Zohar on walking four paces and “being guilty of death”, but this responsum is not part of the corpus because it does not mention the Ruach Ra‘ah). 242 Olat Yitzchak, V. 2, no. 1. 243 Ibid., V. 2, no. 1. 244 She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 1 OH, no. 4; ibid., V. 3 OH no. 2. 245 Mishneh Halachot, V. 15, no. 4. In fact the Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2, 4 also tend towards a subjective approach, but the textual element predominates – especially because V. 4 OH 2, 3, and 4 form a single whole (the numbering of the subsections shows this) of more than 35 pages (A4).

338 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

forbidden not only to walk four ell without washing, but also to stand beside the bed without washing, even if one does not walk any further.246 Example 2: Low Control Intensity One example of a lower control intensity is the responsum by the Yabbia Omer (V. 4, no. 2) on the question what one should do if one wakes up at night and wants to drink water. The Yabbia Omer states that it is permitted after waking up to lie in bed with unwashed hands and think about the Torah in order to try to fall asleep again.247 Thus the Yabbia Omer comes to a more subject-oriented approach that integrates the law into the behavior of the subject – smoking a cigarette, the necessity of going to the toilet at night, or lying awake in bed – instead of the other way around.248 He bases this on a commentary by the Eshel Avraham (eighteenth to nineteenth century) which entails far-reaching relaxation of most restricting behavioral rules surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. This is so because the prohibition on walking four paces before washing, on touching orifices and clothes, only applies if someone has stopped sleeping altogether and is planning to get

246 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 2: ‫ ועיין בזוהר חי (וישב קפ״ד) בשם הצדיק ר’ זושא שאסור לעמוד כי בזה משלים קומתו שנאמר זוקף כפופים והוא‬. . ." ‫ וכן “בשולחן הטהור” (סימן‬,‫ וכן באגרא דפרקא (ט) שבהציג רגלים ועומד הטומאה רודף אחריו להסיתו‬,‫בטומאה‬ ".‫א – ב) שלא לעמוד על רגליו וע״ש בהערות וציונים‬ See also Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V. 1, no. 3, 8, 9; ibid., V. 2, no. 3. Not only is food under a bed forbidden, but others also think food under a sofa or in a chest on which someone has slept is forbidden. Not only is it problematic to sleep on a bed with food underneath it at night, but also during the day. This is not only restricted to sleeping – even simply placing the food under the bed itself can be a problem according to some sources. The loss of Torah knowledge because one has omitted to wash one’s hands is not just an annoyance, but is possibly even the result of a biblical offence according to the Chazon Ish – on the basis of Deut. 4:9. 247 Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 2, subsection 13: ‫ ממו״ח נ״י שמעתי שהקפידא שבזוה״ק שלא יהלך‬,‫ ובפרט לפמ״ש הגאון מבוטשאטש באשל אברהם (סי' ד) וז״ל‬. . ." ‫ משא״כ ההולך בלילה‬.‫ היינו דוקא בעת שקם ממטתו בשחרית ע״מ שלא לישון עוד‬,‫ד״א בשחרית בלי נטילה‬ .‫ ולא יהא אלא ספק נראה דבכה״ג שומעין להקל‬.‫לצרכיו ע״מ לחזור לישון תיכף אין קפידא בזה בלכתו בלי נט״י‬ ‫ שהרי כל אדם דרכו‬.‫וכן בנגיעה בנקבים שהזהירונו חז״ל נראה ג״כ שאין זה אלא בקומו ע״מ שלא לישן עוד וכנ״ל‬ ‫ וכן במ״ש האחרו' שלא ליגע במלבושיו ושלא לעמוד על רגליו בלי‬.‫להתהפך בשינתו וליגע בנקבים ובמקומות שונים‬ ".‫ וכן י״ל לענין השוהה על מטתו ומהרהר בד״ת והוא מקוה לישון שאין בזה איסור‬.‫ ע״ש‬.'‫נט״י כו‬ 248 Another example is Yabbia Omer, V. 3 OH, no. 1, subsection 11 where he allows the smoking of a cigarette before the washing of hands in the morning, despite the exhortation from the Talmud (bShabbat 108b-109a) which states that it is not permitted to touch the orifices, such as the ear, the eye, the nose, and the mouth, before one has washed one’s hands. However, this is only a comment in passing in a larger responsum on the question of whether one may wash one’s hands in a bathroom in the morning or before a bread meal, or whether it is necessary to fear the Ruach Ra‘ah of the bathhouse. The decision appears to have been formulated very cautiously.

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” 

 339

up249 – i.e. not if he is just drinking some water before going back to sleep again. This insight returns much control to the individual, who can thus effortlessly fit in the rules on the Ruach Ra‘ah, so that ordinary daily life can take its course as much as possible. Many questions in the corpus could be decided according to the more lenient point of view, but in fact this does not happen.

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” It has been argued above that the regulations in the corpus concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah function as a marker of gender, with the male perspective seemingly predominant in some texts, and also include a delegitimization of people at the fringes of the faith community – or more or less outside it already: sinners and seculars. They are regarded as persons who may defile the food of the faithful within the community. They are already (partially) outside the community and are equivalent to non-Jews, so that their touch has no consequences, because they stand outside the system of the rules. Incidentally, this is an ambiguous claim in relation to non-Jews, one that can be interpreted both neutrally and negatively. Furthermore, a controlling and coercive discourse has become visible in the corpus that sometimes even includes intimidation and physical force. Moreover, the prescriptions surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah appear to have more in common with the anthropological taboo that Douglas herself described,250 in their emphasis on the harmful effects that will occur if the rules are not observed, and in the almost mechanical operation of the Ruach Ra‘ah – independent of any moral component. They seem to be like a mechanism of contamination where the touch of unwashed hands causes physical negative effects, in addition to other ideas about holiness and undesired spiritual effects. It is striking that the taboo expressed in physical effects appears to be present even more strongly in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah than in the biblical purity laws, which only have a weak

249 Eshel Avraham, OH 4: ‫ היינו דוקא בעת שקם ממטתו‬,‫ ממו״ח נ״י שמעתי שהקפידא שבזוהר הק׳ שלא יהלך ד׳ אמות בשחרית בלי נטילה‬. . ." ‫ מה שאין כן ההולך בלילה לצרכיו על מנת לחזור למקומו תיכף לישן אין קפידא‬,‫בשחרית על מנת שלא לישן עוד אז‬ ‫ וכן בנגיעה בנקבים שהזהרונו‬. . .‫בזה בלכתו בלי נטילה ולא יהיה אלא ספק נראה שבכהאי גוונא שומעין להקל‬ .". . .‫חז״ל בש״ס נראה גם כן שאין זה רק בקימו על מנת שלא לישן עוד אז‬ 250 M. Douglas, “Taboo”, in Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural, ed. A. Lehmann et al. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005), 72: “A taboo . . . is a ban or prohibition; the . . . means a religious restriction, to break which would entail some automatic punishment.”

340 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

taboo character.251 Thus the Torah does not explicitly discuss the consequences of uncleanness itself – only contact with the sanctuary and with holy food must be avoided. Impurity itself is not a sin (certainly not for an ordinary Israelite), but a natural consequence of ordinary physical life, or of certain anomalous physical pathologies.252 An emphasis on the physical and spiritual effects of failing to perform the ritual of the washing of hands has become visible in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah, as well as the exhortation to carry out the washings after waking up (or after sexual intercourse) as quickly as possible.253 These findings highlight important differences between the biblical purity laws and the Ruach Ra‘ah in the responsa of the corpus. The tendencies in the corpus that have been described appear to be at odds with the universal tendency of the biblical purity laws – with which the Ruach Ra‘ah has certain similarities – that Douglas has identified: the latter are not used to exercise control, or portray certain sections of the community (sinners, children, and to a lesser degree women) as potential disseminators of impurity, and they differ from the anthropological taboo. However, the differences can largely be explained through Douglas’ group  /  grid model, with the responsa of the corpus (partially) reflecting the discourse of an “enclave culture” that has been described above. Given the strictly orthodox background of the authors of the corpus, it seems justified to apply the concept also to our corpus of texts. This also explains the sometimes magical 254 character of the regulations concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah that can be found in the corpus (in addition to the other magical practices and ideas in the corpus that are only

251 See M. Douglas, In the Wilderness, 23: “For the Bible. . . the destructive effect of impurity is physical . . . Nothing less than divinely instituted rites of purification will defend against it.” At the same time the biblical purity laws are more logical than a taboo, 24: “It is a highly cerebral philosophy of existence, much more systematically expressed than most taboo ideas.” In addition, Leviticus and Numbers do not propose the purity laws as a mechanism to distinguish classes, races, strangers, and inhabitants from each other; see 25–26. 252 See for this Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 182–208. On the rejection of Milgrom’s theory on a wider context for the purity rules, outside the sanctuary, and the concept of “miasm” which makes it possible to transfer impurity to the Temple from a distance (especially relevant here are Lev. 11:8 and 15:31), see 165–181. 253 See Olat Yitzchak, V. 1, no. 49 (by contrast with She‘eilat Shlomoh, V. 2, no 3 who first mentions the opinion that the washing of hands should be performed immediately, but then gives arguments to the effect that one may also wait until the following morning if one goes to sleep immediately). Given the length of these arguments, it appears that this is also his conclusion, all the more so because he refers to fellow rabbis who support the more lenient opinion. 254 The diagram on 45 of C. Bell, Perspectives shows Douglas’s four types of society and their corresponding attributes. The high group / low grid position has at “ritual”: “ritualistic; ritual focused upon group boundaries, concerned with expelling pollutants (witches) from social body.”

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” 

 341

indirectly related to the Ruach Ra‘ah):255 because the enclave has a weak central authority, Douglas thinks this leads to a cosmology that assumes magical and dualistic features, or even to metaphysical dualism which is even closer to the Kabbalistic influences in the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah.256 Similarly, the identity- and gender-confirming role of the Ruach Ra‘ah becomes intelligible given the voluntary character of the enclave culture and the absence of real power. 257 The controlling discourse that can be found in the corpus must then be seen as an attempt to establish a more direct form of control that confirms, or even creates, the differences between man and woman, adult and child, Jew and non-Jew, pious and secular.258 This form of control is more akin to indoctrination and manipulation than the more subtle mechanism of “ritual power” that Bell describes as the interplay of consent, resistance, and adaptation.259 The emphasis on holiness and purity in the corpus and its moral undertone can also be explained in this way. It creates the image of purity “inside”, versus the impure world outside  – the world of non-Jews and secular Jews  – where people ignore the prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah.260 A world that is so far removed from God, that the Ruach Ra‘ah is in fact impotent to cause any effects.261 Seen in this perspective, the Ruach Ra‘ah is a factor that keeps the ranks closed vis-à-vis both the outside world,262 and those who are on the verge 255 For instance the warning not to walk between two women, the remedy of splashing mother’s milk over someone who has a Ruach Ra‘ah, the protective effects of the name Zalfonit against the Ruach Ra‘ah and the Evil Eye, the protective effect of the rue plant, and the wearing of an amulet against the Ruach Ra‘ah. 256 M. Douglas, Natural Symbols (2002 ed.), 118: “common to small bounded communities [is] . . . a form of metaphysical dualism. For its doctrine of two kinds of humanity, one good, the other bad, and the association of the badness of some humans with cosmic powers of evil is basically similar to . . . dualist religions . . .”. 257 Ibid., Introduction, xxi. See earlier in this chapter n. 94. 258 C. Bell describes this as the “definition of reality thesis” by Geertz, Lukes, Douglas et al., in which “rituals model ideal relations and structures of values”, and “They tend to see ritual as a symbolic modeling of the social order, with this imaging or iconic quality as the basis of its efficacy”; see Ritual Theory, 175ff. 259 Ibid., 207 ff. 260 E. Sivan “The Enclave Culture”, 17: “. . . The only control to be deployed in order to shore up the boundary is moral persuasion.” 261 This claim is generally made in the corpus with regard to non-Jews and by the Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot V. 2, no. 3 also with regard to secular Jews who break the Shabbat, as well as by the Yabbia Omer in a comment that he does not develop further, V. 1 YD, no. 10, subsection 4: '‫ והובא בב״י ובהגה (סי‬,'‫ וכמ״ש הרשב״א בתשו‬,‫"והנה אם כי אפי' מומר ומחלל ש״ק בפרהסיא מטמאים באהל‬ .". . .‫ כטומאת אהל דאורייתא‬,‫ מ״מ אין כח הרו״ר‬.)‫שעב‬ 262 “Defilement in the Bible would follow the typical pattern of the enclave community . . . separating the pure faithful from the impure outsiders . . .”, M. Douglas, In the Wilderness, 49.

342 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

of leaving the group, and no longer conform to the group’s norms and values.263 Strictly observing the protocol on the Ruach Ra‘ah then becomes a distinguishing sign of piety and loyalty.264 It is also against this background that we must place the admonishing and controlling language addressed in the corpus to certain categories of people  – women, persons with lax religious praxis, and children.265 Seen from the ideal of the community, it is no coincidence that precisely these three categories are addressed, because all three fail to reflect the image of the ideal enclave member: male, learned, and loyal to dogma and praxis. Paradoxically, it is especially people within the enclave who are a source of contamination or who break the group’s rules: secular or non-law abiding Jews, because they do not wash their hands or wash them without regard to the rules; children because they are still too small to perform the ritual themselves, or lack the required knowledge and praxis, but still touch food; and women266 because they are in daily contact with food during food preparation and child care.

263 Ibid.: “. . . the enclave tends to use defilement to accuse and reject unruly members and to mobilize loyalty.” 264 See also E. Sivan, “The Enclave Culture”, 28: “The observance is strict, if not punctilious, because of the gravity of the outside danger.” See also A. Baumgarten on the role of purity laws as social markers vis-à-vis the outside world in The flourishing of Jewish sects in the Maccabean era. An Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1997), e.g. 8: “Observing purity rules was not what made ancient Jewish sectarians special: rather, it was employment of purity mechanisms as a means of expressing disapproval of the life of one’s neighbor.” See also 6–7, and the observation, ascribed there to M. Douglas, that “any sect tends to define itself by purity rules”, where Baumgarten and Douglas apparently intend “sect” to mean enclave culture, because purity laws are used to distinguish oneself from other members of one’s own group / religion. See also 100 on the Pharisees as example of “a sect erecting purity barriers concerning food .  .  . differentiating between its members and other Jews.” 265 In the high group / low grid (enclave) and high group / high grid (hierarchy) position “. . . animals and children if they are to be domesticated have to be disciplined. . . using . . . arguments to justify inflicting physical pain on them in their own interest”; “Cultural Bias” in M. Douglas, In the Active Voice, 213. 266 See Yabbia Omer, V. 4 OH, no. 1, subsections 2 and 9: ‫ ואם‬,‫ כי רוב תיקון המאכלים שלנו על ידיהן‬,‫"איברא דבעטרת זקנים (ר״ס ד) כ‘ להזהיר הנשים ביותר על הנט״י ג״פ‬ ‫ גם הפמ״ג‬.‫ ע״ש‬.)‫ וכ״כ השל״ה והובא במנחת אהרן (כלל א אות יב‬.‫לא תגורש הרו״ר מידיהן יטמאו את המאכלים‬ ‫ כי חמירא סכנתא‬,‫ והוסיף שכמו כן צריך להזהיר הקטנים על זה‬,‫(סי‘ ד מש״ז סק״ז) הביא דברי העטרת זקנים‬ ".‫מאיסורא‬

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” 

 343

7.4.1 Habitus and Control The sociologist Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus” can possibly offer an alternative explanation for the coercive and controlling discourse. A habitus is “a collection of schematic ways of perceiving, thinking, judging and acting .  .  .”267 It is initially acquired within the domestic setting and then formed in other educational frameworks, and in a wider sense through new experiences. The habitus itself is both something that is formed and something that forms. The coercive language of the corpus is formed according to the (sometimes) coercive and controlling language of the Tanach and the rabbinic writings. The corpus attempts to embed and confirm a certain praxis in the community, which simultaneously corresponds with ideas on holiness and election. In addition, for the reader the corpus is an exercise in internalizing rabbinic authority, an important theme in the rabbinic texts themselves (“anyone who transgresses against the words of the Wise is guilty of death”,268 “even if it seems that they are calling left right and right right – listen to them”).269 Thus the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah underlines for the reader the importance of the rabbinic commandments, the unity and indivisibility of the tradition, and prepares the performance of other rituals.

7.4.2 Power, Discipline, and Foucault The aspects of the discourse described above make them relevant for a short “Foucauldian contemplation”. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975), Foucault examines the changes in the Western criminal justice system in the ways it punishes crime and disobedience of law. One moves from the visible punishment of the body (corporal punishment, torture, execution) in the Middle Ages and early modernity, to the punishment of the “soul” from the eighteenth century and on, for the purpose of moral improvement and the displaying of productive and desirable behavior in economic and political terms. This is closely related to the changes in the way power was shaped – from initially concentrated in (the body) of one person, the sovereign monarch  – to the modern invisible, diffuse, and anonymous form of power embedded in the entire social system (e.g. 267 See “Habitus: A cultural Theory of Action” in D. Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 95–116. 268 bBerachot 4b: in slightly different form – “scribes” [‫ – ]סופרים‬in bEruvin 21b. 269 Sifre Devarim 154 and other variants in the genres of Midrash. Or including all rabbinic prescriptions in the biblical commandment “you will not deviate to right or to left from the verdict which they have given you” (Deut. 17:11), see bShabbat 23a and bSukkah 46a.

344 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

educational institutions, hospitals, factories and other workplaces), its laws, rules, and physical modalities (e.g. buildings). One of the characteristic features of this power is its permanent presence everywhere in the form of what Foucault calls discipline, and its continuous exercise of control (surveillance) on the subject. This discipline creates “docile bodies” (and minds) and in fact recreates the individual into a new subject). The prison model – which contained elements of former religious institutions and the army – has spread throughout society. In addition, this modern power creates new forms of knowledge discourses, especially in the human sciences, which are then used to control, monitor, and discipline the individual in a disciplinary society. Before proceeding to a more substantive discussion of the relevance of Foucault’s discipline to the corpus, a few comments are needed. First of all, the concept of power may apply in far lesser degree to rabbinic authority in modern times. Rabbinic authority is largely the result of voluntary acceptance of this authority as a condition of membership in a rabbinic society or group (see also below in 7.4.3). In modern times, however, it lacks real, physical means of power to induce the individual to the desired behavior. This may be true though to a lesser extent for the State of Israel where rabbinic courts have been given by law a certain degree of real, physical power. However, it mainly extends to subjects relating to the personal status of the individual, in particular marriage and divorce (Family Law). When it comes to purely ritual legislation, rabbinal authority lacks real authority that can be imposed and enforced as other forms of law could. For in Foucault’s analysis, power may have become largely invisible to the subject, but it is real and tangible when laws or rules are violated. So we are mostly dealing with self-discipline. When it comes to control too there is usually no way for a respondent to a question on ritual law (like in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah) to know whether the addressee complies to his ruling or not. The control too seems to be mostly a control exercised by the subject itself on itself out of chosen compliance (although social control may play a relevant role in this).270 Furthermore, the explicit references to control and even physical force may seem less relevant from a Foucauldian point of view – due to their explicit visibility, they are also potential sources of resistance for the subject(s). Despite this, remarks the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah show an intensive concentration on the body and its functions (touching, defecating, sexual intercourse, sleeping, cutting one’s hair or finger nails) and the respective attempt of

270 On the influence of the subject on a set of relations in a given discourse see also S. Miller, “Foucault on Discourse and Power”, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 76 (1990): 115–125.

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” 

 345

controlling these aspects in certain ways by requiring the washing of the hands after (or before) performing one of them. The specific aim of the corpus is one of disciplining the individual body – forming it in a docile body that “. . . may be subjected, used, transformed and improved”271  – although this discipline itself is the result of the interaction between the text of the responsum (powerknowledge) and the addressee (the first reader) and future readers of the responsum (second readers)  – whether in its original form or through other sources (oral or written).272 Moreover, the specific interaction between body, space and time and its role in disciplining the individual body as outlined by Foucault,273 is present in the corpus. Its Halachic details describe the disciplining attitude towards the body (covered versus uncovered parts) in its moving through different spatial areas (e.g. the bathroom / bath house versus other areas) and time sequences (night-day, sleep-awake). By prescribing the ritual of handwashing in relation to different actions and situations, these texts themselves become the tools to enhance rabbinical forms of power and control (the right way of sleeping, eating, having intercourse etc.).274 The discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah creates a docile subject that complies to rabbinic authority and practices and enables the possibility to differentiate, measure, and qualify the individual through this discourse in and through its performance of the ritual of the handwashing (‘normalization’). It creates and reiterates the categories of adult, minor, male and female, Jewish and non-Jewish, vis-à vis norm275 of the Jewish male adult (body), as created by the corpus itself. And 271 M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, A. Sheridan, transl. (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 136. Foucault himself makes a connection between the disciplined man, subjected to disciplinary institutions, and the religious disciplined individual, the “true believer”, in the importance they give to detail. See ibid., 139–140: “. . . ‘detail’ had long been a category of theology and asceticism . . . in the sight of God, no immensity is greater than a detail, nor is anything so small that it was not willed by one of his individual wishes . . . For the disciplined man, as for the true believer, no detail is unimportant . . . for the hold it provides for the power that wishes to seize it.” 272 See also R. Tsuria, “Discourse of Practice: The Negotiation of Sexual Norms Via Online Religious Discourse”, International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 3595–3613, who shows that paradoxally the open discourse on the Internet does not lead necessarily to a more open debate – on the contrary. The discourse fosters an even more strict approach towards sexuality. 273 Ibid., 137–156. 274 See also N.S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), who shows that the narrative discourse the Rabbis use in the Mishnah to describe Temple ritual and the compound itself – with a strong focus on the Temple Court and its procedures – fosters their claim for rabbinic authority in Judea vis-à-vis other competing narratives and presents them as experts of ritual. 275 Ibid., 177–184.

346 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

even among Jews it differentiates between the sinner and faithful, and the faithful who follows the law and he who acts more pious. From a pure Halachic debate on the permissible and forbidden, the requested or voluntary, the shift is towards the individual itself and its personal (religious) qualities.276 Moreover, the focus on children277 and women in the corpus compared to earlier sources, has a dual character: it makes the visible as part of the community, but on the other hand subjects them to the same rules and disciplinary regime as man. In addition, their position is determined in relation to the norm of the adult man, and emphasizes their potential as a source of contamination by the Ruach Ra‘ah. Finally, in the discussion about the place of the washing of the hands and its visibility when done by the bed in the morning something of the aspect of the “Panopticon” as a technic of control becomes visible (especially in the setting of an educational institute).278

7.4.3 The Place of the Rabbi The question concerning the place of the rabbi in the rituals of the Ruach Ra‘ah must now be addressed, to determine whether the ritual has an egalitarian character – a characteristic of the enclave – or, on the contrary, a hierarchical character. The performance by a rabbi of any Jewish ritual, or his presence, are not necessary as such. This is true both for liturgical rituals and for life rituals. The only exceptions are the contracting of marriage and the drafting of a divorce certificate,279 a stipulation that also appears in the Shulchan Aruch. But the emphasis 276 See for example ibid., 17–22. 277 Ibid., 193: “In a system of discipline, the child is more individualized than the adult, the patient more than the healthy man, the madman and the delinquent more than the than the normal and the non-delinquent. In each case, it is towards the first of these pairs that all the individualising mechanisms are turned . . .”. 278 Ibid., 200–209. See also the source quoted earlier in n. 25: “. . . And I experienced myself that when the Tzaddik Rabbi Amram Blau ZTS”L came to complain to the Gaon of Brisk ZTS”L about a certain institution where the children were not learning properly, and that it was not worthwhile to maintain the institution. And our Master ZTS”L [=the Gaon of Brisk] replied to this and asked whether all the children washed their hands in the morning according to the prescriptions. And he [=Amram Blau] replied that they could be trusted to do this, and that they certainly washed [their hands] there in the morning at their beds, in accordance with the prescription. And our Master ZTS”L was pleased and said: ‘If this is so, then it is worthwhile to maintain the institution even on account of this alone. And now we should talk and see what we can do to improve the situation there [=in the institution]. But it is certainly worthwhile maintaining the institution.’” 279 The Talmud states in bKiddushin 6a: “He who is not familiar [with the halachic details] of divorce certificates and betrothal [‫ ]קידושין‬should not involve himself in this.” See also the formu-

7.4 Ruach Ra‘ah: the Discourse of Douglas’s “Enclave Culture” 

 347

there is more on having sufficient knowledge so that no situations are created with far-reaching Halachic consequences, and it does not in itself relate to the performance of the matrimonial ritual or the putting into effect of the divorce certificate. Many Jewish rituals are performed by laypersons themselves in a domestic or otherwise quotidian context, in a non-liturgical setting without necessarily requiring the presence of anyone else. Exceptions are matrimonial laws, such as the ritual submersion of a woman after her menstruation, which is also carried out in a (domestic) everyday setting, and which a priori requires the presence of another woman.280 The rabbi does play an active role in the determining of the status of a woman in relation to these matrimonial laws. The washings on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah fit into this scheme, and are performed by the layperson himself in domestic, everyday situations, without intervention by a rabbi. It may help to illustrate this by drawing a comparison with dybbuk exorcisms. The texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth century sometimes literally mention the Ruach Ra‘ah, drawing on the meaning of the Ruach Ra‘ah in pre-Talmudic times, particularly the Second Temple period.281 But in these stories there is always a rabbi and kabbalist to cast out the Ruach Ra‘ah through an exorcism, a person who has specialist knowledge and charism to do this. Rabbis can have a direct role in the performance of rituals if individuals from the faith community place a particular question before their spiritual leader. A rabbi must then determine the validity of the ritual. In a more indirect way, the texts of the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah themselves constitute a source of this rabbinic authority.282 This is true both for the direct readers and for those who accept the directives that are contained in these texts as binding on their praxis. In the modern period, it is an individual’s choice to present a certain question to a rabbi and to accept his answer as binding and to commit himself, in a more general sense, to rabbinic Halachic literature (the Halachah’s consent model283, and spe-

lation of this in the Shulchan Aruch (EH 49:3). However, the Taz on EH 49:3 distinguishes between a betrothal – for which knowledge is sufficient – and the drafting of a divorce certificate which requires a halachic expert because of the many details and possible complications. 280 The presence of another woman at the submersion of a woman in a mikvah after her menstruation is required if possible (see Shulchan Aruch YD 198:40). 281 See J.H. Chayes, Between Worlds, 12–13, and 165  – the report in Sefer haChezhonot of the Dybbuk in Damascus. It can also be found in Shivchei R. Chaim Vital (Lemberg, 1862?), starting on 11. The term Ruach Ra‘ah in Hebrew is clearly visible on 12. 282 On rabbinic authority, see for instance A. Sagi, The Open Canon, 192–217. 283 Ibid., 203–204.

348 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

cifically in the context of modern society: the “voluntary community”).284 Thus by constructing the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah itself,285 the rabbis assert their authority and control – the texts determine how the ritual must be performed, and whether a ritual is valid or not. In this discourse, they decide which source is invested with authority and which tendencies are elided or, on the contrary, emphasized (magical versus ethical, legalistic versus Kabbalistic etc.). In the enclave, authority is constructed partially through texts, especially through the doctrine of the infallibility of texts.286 This is an important observation, because ideology and texts can play an important role in the adaptive capacity of a society type from Douglas’ group / grid theory, and enable a more dynamic system. Hakak has convincingly demonstrated in relation to the enclave culture of the Lithuanian yeshivot of the past decade that the discourse of text and ideology has been used to largely maintain the status quo of social relations, as well as to formulate and justify changes imposed upon the enclave through pressure from outside. In this way, the most important threat  – individuals leaving the enclave  – is countered, and internal and external boundaries are variable to a certain degree.287

284 See for instance M. Friedman, “Halachic Rabbinic Authority in the Modern Open Society”, in Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality, ed. Jack Wertheimer, Vol. 2 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2004), 757–770, esp. 765 ff.; idem., “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate”, The Jerusalem Quarterly (1982), 79–99; idem., “Life Tradition and Book Tradition”, in Judaism From Within, 235–255. 285 A comparative example is the rabbinic discourse on the matrimonial laws (Niddah). Here, too, the Talmudic discourse constructs the rabbis as male experts of the female body, and women’s own empirical knowledge of their bodies is subjected to this. See for instance C.E. Fonrobert, “Yalta’s Ruse: Resistance against Rabbinic Menstrual Authority in Talmudic Literature”, in Women and Water, 60–81. See also S.J.D. Cohen, “Purity, Piety, and Polemic. Medieval Rabbinic Denunciation of ‘incorrect’ Purification Practices”, in ibid., 82–100, esp. 97: “. . . Menstrual practices were the preserve of women, taught by . . . woman to woman . . . but even here (male) rabbinic authority was to be supreme. Women’s traditions were wrong if they conflicted with the norms established by the (male) rabbis. Women must consult rabbis to know what to do.” 286 See for instance E. Sivan, The Enclave Culture, 50: “The enclave .  .  . is predicated upon voluntary membership and upon the equality of the virtuous insiders (circumscribed by grids of gender and age). Yet these characteristics . . . hamper decision-making and render authority ambiguous . . . The solution . . . lies . . . in the doctrine of the inerrancy of the authoritative text . . .” See also A. Sagi, The Open Canon, 197–199 on the question of whether this authority is based on the person of the scholar, or can be found in the texts. He points to a shift towards the text as the source of authority, because of the increased facility of accessing texts, for instance through book printing. 287 See for instance Y. Hakak, Young Men, 143–170, 17–174.

7.5 Conclusion 

 349

In this corpus, however, the discourse used appears to be more conservative, containing as it does no or almost no changes and adaptations to the outside world.

7.5 Conclusion This chapter began with an overview of different approaches to ritual. Many of these approaches contain an actional element, supplemented by a fixed structure and repetition. The chapter then surveyed the relatively scarce literature on rituals in rabbinic Judaism, before addressing the performance aspect that is a facet of many rituals, and that can also be demonstrated in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah: both in respect of the subject who performs the washing individually, and of others who happen to be present or witness the performance of the washing on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. Of the six categories of rituals that Catherine Bell has distinguished, it transpired that only two are relevant in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah: rites of passage and rituals of affliction – rituals for (the protection against) misfortune, including purification rituals. The Ruach Ra‘ah and the related washing are similar in certain respects to a rite of passage because they involve transitional situations: from night to day, from non-sanctifiable space to sanctifiable space. The discourse in the corpus on the washing of hands after entering certain spaces, and the space where a washing on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah may or may not be performed, are in practice more or less synchronous with the spaces where it is permitted or forbidden to learn Torah, to perform rituals, or even to have holy thoughts.288 The chapter has also pointed to the aspect of danger that also occurs in the liminal phase of rites of passage. On the other hand, the ritual is concerned with a quotidian, recurring situation rather than the great identity transitions that rites of passage usually attend. There are also certain similarities between the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah and rituals of affliction – rituals for (the protection against) misfortune that also include purification rituals. Thus there are the recurring elements of danger, the demonic context, and the negative effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah that can be averted through the washing. The association with a purification ritual is strengthened, furthermore, by the context of the Ruach Ra‘ah  – toilet, sexuality, the uncontrollable condition of sleep, and dirt  – in combination with concepts such as “Impure Spirit”, “cleanness”, and “holiness” that can be found in the corpus.

288 See for instance Shulchan Aruch OH:83, 84, 85, 87.

350 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

In addition, clear parallels can be drawn between the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus and biblical purity laws, such as the everyday domestic setting, the mechanism of transmission through touch, the localization in/around the human body and certain bodily functions, and the use of water as a means of purification. Yet there are also important differences: the specific terminology used in the case of the Ruach Ra‘ah, the Ruach Ra‘ah is generated by factors other than biblical uncleanness, and intention plays little or no role. As a ritual of purification that has certain similarities with the biblical purity laws, a comparison between the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah and Mary Douglas’ theory on the biblical purity laws is fruitful. Her observation on the basis of comparisons with other societies and cultures was that the biblical purity laws differ from taboos and are universal – they apply both to priests and to ordinary people. Moreover, she drew a link between cosmology, social order, and the place of purity and corresponding rituals. Her group / grid theory created four (ideal) types of society, with their corresponding cosmology, social order, and degree of importance afforded to purity. The attention to purity, often focused on orifices, symbolizes the perception of the “social body” as something that is vulnerable and must be protected against attacks from outside, and sometimes from inside (it sometimes involves an image of the body itself as weak and vulnerable). Douglas recognized in other publications that in one of the four societies she distinguished, the biblical purity laws can become instruments of coercion and social control: “enclave culture” (high group – low grid), which is associated for instance with Second Temple Judaism, but also with contemporary (ultra-) orthodoxy, from which the responsa in the corpus are derived. These observations by Douglas have proven to be useful in relation to the corpus. Thus Douglas’ prediction on the demarcation of space in the high group / low grid position (enclave culture) could be demonstrated in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah. Most prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah in fact focus on the kitchen (food preparation), the toilet / bathroom, and the bedroom (rising after sleeping and sexual intercourse).289 The group and grid theory was particularly useful here as a model of how purity laws can be used in enclave culture against outsiders and “enemies” from within. In addition, it became clear that the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah confirms in-group identity vis-à-vis outsiders (group)  – non-Jews  –, but also causes stratification within the group itself (grid) in the categories of gender and

289 M. Douglas, “Cultural Bias”, 214: “In the society at D we would expect the small closed group to use a recursive patterning of external boundaries at all levels . . . Within the house, bed, lavatories, kitchens are likely to be segregated by rules which protect individual privacy.”

7.5 Conclusion 

 351

age (child/adult). Moreover, it makes an internal distinction between the faithful and sinners, who are regarded “as if they were”290 outsiders in certain respects. As far as gender is concerned, the corpus shows two tendencies: on the one hand there are authors who develop the Talmudic line, primarily emphasizing the male perspective. On the other, there is the tendency to extend the law to include women. This perspective is especially present in the opinion on the washing of hands for young children  – some think this is mainly relevant for small boys, others think there is an obligation for boys and girls equally. In the case of very young infants, there is a consensus that the washing is obligatory only for small boys, because of the argument of growing up in holiness. Furthermore, the place of adult women was also ambiguous in relation to the Ruach Ra‘ah: on the one hand there was the traditional setting of women as child carers, and of their responsibility for food preparation. On the other, it is stressed that she too must wash her hands in the morning after waking up  – something that cannot be deduced from the Talmudic texts, which have a predominantly male perspective. It also became evident that the texts in the corpus reflect a certain degree of control and coercion. Influenced by the object-oriented approach (although a text-oriented approach can also copy a controlling discourse from another text), several texts from the corpus emphasize that some parents ensure that even (very) young children wash their hands at home. This points to a high level of control in the domestic setting, and the exercise of this control is not always without difficulties (children who are frightened and cry). This coercive discourse is also articulated more generally in the emphasis on the dangers of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and on the notion that the washing must be performed without delay. It has also proved possible to explain this aspect of control with the concept of enclave culture: authority in this type of group is naturally weak, and membership is voluntary. The latter point also explains the discourse of holiness and purity in the corpus – it always remains necessary to convince people of the value involved in membership of the enclave. At the same time, elements of high grid can also be identified in the corpus – it has this in common with the more hierarchical position (high group / high grid)  –291 such as belief in the effectiveness of the

290 See E. Sivan, “The Enclave Culture”, 21–23. 291 In practice, it is possible to find hybrid forms; see also E. Sivan, ibid., 58 ff. where he shows how the intensity of group and grid always fluctuates. See also C. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives, 186– 188, and the conclusion on 190 that “ritual density” can be related to different types of worldviews, but: “We should also conclude that religious cultures are complex. . .”, etc.

352 

 Chapter 7 The Ruach Ra‘ah: Sociological and Anthropological Aspects

ritual of purification itself, which is apparently not normally a feature of enclave culture.292 In the enclave, authority is delegated to the texts, and the rabbis themselves are able to exert influence through discourse. The rabbi does not personally play a direct role in the rituals concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah, but his authority is present to the extent that he is consulted as a Halachic expert in questions on the Ruach Ra‘ah, and the influence that these answers to real and hypothetical questions – turned into texts – exert over the community. But this form of control and authority partially results from the consent of the individual himself, and leads to a degree of self-coercion, to the exercise of control, and to a certain level of coercion of others. Y. Hakak has shown, however, that the internal and external boundaries within the enclave of the ultra-orthodox yeshiva world can still vary depending on the ideology adopted. In the corpus, the boundaries do not appear to be variable, but static. This, too, can be the result in part of a meta-Halachic choice, to keep a certain distance from modernity. If cosmology and ideology are the result of the experience and perception of social relations, as Douglas contended, then these must also be recognized as important meta-Halachic factors that influence the Halachic process. The Foucauldian analysis provided a deeper insight in power, control, and authority as reflected in the corpus. When it comes to control too it seems to be mostly a control exercised by the subject itself on itself out of chosen compliance (although social control may play a role in this) – the explicit references to control and even physical force probably less relevant from a Foucauldian point of view. The discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah creates a docile subject that complies to rabbinic authority and practices and creates and reiterates the categories of adult, minor, male and female, Jewish and non-Jewish, faithful and sinner vis-à vis the norm of the Jewish male adult (body) and reflects a shift towards the individual itself and its evaluation. The earlier mentioned focus on children and women in the corpus as compared to earlier sources makes them on the one hand visible as part of the community, but on the other hand subjects them to the same disciplinary regime as men in creating docile individuals.

292 C. Bell, ibid., 45 where she describes the high group / low grid position in the diagram as: “purification ritual ineffective”, which does not seem to be correct in relation to rabbinic Judaism. On confusion in the diagrams in the various version of the grid / group theory, see also R. Fardon, Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography (London / New York: Routledge, 1999), 218–225.

Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks The purpose of this study has been to answer the research question: What is the meaning of “Ruach Ra‘ah” in the post-1945 rabbinic responsa literature? Although the Talmud and Talmud commentaries already connect with the Ruach Ra‘ah two ritual washings still performed today in orthodoxy – i.e. after rising in the morning, and after a bread meal –, the hypothesis was that there would be little attention in modern responsa for the Ruach Ra‘ah as an archaic term. All the more so as a praxis can easily continue to exist without any clear reference to its original cause, and initial motivations can change over time as the praxis is reinterpreted. In fact, however, it transpires that the Ruach Ra‘ah plays an important role in the responsa from the 1945–2000 period. It has proven difficult to typify the use of certain terms, arguments or practices in Judaism as either ‘archaic’ or ‘modern’. Even an ostensibly minor detail such as the rinsing of food that has been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah (as a remedy), demonstrates that a modern hygiene paradigm has been integrated in the corpus, even if only partially, alongside the magical aspect of the triple washing. The custom of rinsing food as a remedy against the Ruach Ra‘ah goes back to the medieval rabbi Todros Halevi (13th century), but it only entered the halachic discourse of the responsa in the 19th and 20th century. Even the magical dimension of the corpus – a number of texts refer to sorcery, demons, and amulets – can be regarded as a postmodern phenomenon: part of a process that the Leuven sociologist of culture and religion Professor D. Houtman and others have described as the ‘re-enchantment’ of the world. Research of modern rabbinic orthodox responsa on day-to-day subjects and praxis is relatively scarce. Studies of rabbinic responsa have focused on technology, ethics, and modern medicine. The current dissertation has demonstrated the importance of researching subjects and praxis that akin to the Ruach Ra‘ah. One possible research approach would be whether these follow the same pattern as the corpus in this study. More research is also necessary of everyday orthodox praxis. It appears that halachic discourse has been reformulated since the Shoah, creating a new literature on everyday topics that are well-known from older texts and that have been the subject of a clear praxis for centuries – as Ch. Soloveitchik and others have pointed out. This is a conception of the Halachah where texts play a central role, and the world of human experience is relegated to the sidelines. Further research would be able to show how this development has unfolded in other areas of the Halachah that have a quotidian character, and also whether this discourse, too, involves a struggle with the modern world. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-009

354 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

The answer to the research question has both a quantitative and a qualitative aspect. The quantitative part measured the frequency of the term ‘Ruach Ra‘ah’ in the corpus, the semantic field of the Ruach Ra‘ah, the form and structure of the responsa in the corpus, the themes and connections with other subjects, and the extent to which the Ruach Ra‘ah plays a central role in the text (primary and secondary sources). Ruach Ra‘ah emerged as a significant term, the frequency of which in the corpus is about twice that in classical rabbinic literature. The presence of the Ruach Ra‘ah turned out to be independent of the author’s cultural-religious climate. The semantic field has also been identified: Ruach Ra‘ah is related primarily to the terms ‘demons’, ‘Ruach Tumah’, and, to a lesser degree, ‘amulet’ in the texts of the corpus. It became clear that the original Talmudic context of the Ruach Ra‘ah has remained largely intact in relation to the following themes: body, food and drink, space, Shabbat laws, suicide, mental competency, and psychological suffering, with some texts having a magical component. The qualitative part of the thesis addressed the subquestions of the introduction, and analysed the philological significance of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus. It also thematised the halachic process and the theological and socialanthropological aspects of the corpus. These last two aspects, especially, situate the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah in a wider framework: the relation of religion to the modern world. The corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah offers insight into how believers from a traditional orthodox faith community perceive the modern world, and what mechanisms they use to approach possible discrepancies between different paradigms – the modern knowledge paradigm and the religious paradigm. The modern paradigm approaches reality from a rational framework of controlled observations, which are then used to develop a theory and a world view. The body and its functions are approached from the knowledge paradigm of biology, chemistry and physics, with a primary focus on the difference between healthy functioning bodies and pathology. Hygiene, a healthy lifestyle, and counteracting harmful micro-organisms are key concepts. The modern paradigm divides space and time into rational, functional units that create a whole of segmented spheres of life, such as private versus public, leisure time versus work time, and individual versus collective. The religious paradigm acknowledges the existence of a physical component of the body and its functions, but sometimes regards these as a dual entity where a spiritual component supplements the physical component. Time and space are also divided into sacred and profane, into holy and profane space. The religious paradigm uses ritual praxis to attempt to integrate reality – which is experienced as differentiated – into a higher unity, at the centre of which stands God or some other higher entity. Body, time and space are ritualised into an experiential unity.

8.1 Scientific Knowledge versus Revealed Knowledge 

 355

Body, time and space are central concerns of the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus. Hands are washed after everyday biological functions, as a symbolic cleansing that reintegrates these bodily functions into a higher religious order – having first set them aside. Food and drink that enter the body are protected against the Ruach Ra‘ah, or can be washed three times after contact before being consumed. It is also possible to distinguish a temporal and spatial dimension in the analysis of the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus, even though the washing of hands does not necessarily have to take place in a sacred space, or at a fixed hour. The day is begun and concluded with a ritual washing (if one has engaged in sexual intercourse before going to sleep). This separates the day – as a potentially sacred time dedicated to the service of God – from the night, when you lack control over the body. The ritual reconnects the two again through the washing the next morning. In the religious myth of the departure of the soul during sleep and the return of the soul after waking up, the washing separates the time of sleep from the time of waking, when humans must be at the service of God and his commandments. The nocturnal condition of sleep and unawareness, when humans are unable to serve God by studying Torah and keeping the commandments, is reintegrated into the religious order through the preceding and subsequent washing, together with the prayer that is recited before sleeping and during the morning liturgy after the washing. In practice, the discourse on the washing of hands after entering certain spaces, and on the spaces where washings on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah may or may not be performed – are more or less identical to the spaces where it is permitted or not permitted to learn Torah, to perform rituals, or even to have holy thoughts. Thus entering a toilet, bathroom, or swimming pool first and foremost means changing religious modes, between ‘forbidden’, profane and sacred: between spaces where no ritual may be performed – not even in thought (toilet), spaces where it is permitted to wash your hands and think of Torah (bathroom or swimming pool), and spaces where the sacred can be fully present if a human sanctifies them.

8.1 Scientific Knowledge versus Revealed Knowledge Chapter 5 has described the struggle that is evident in the corpus with the question how the Talmudic prescriptions on the Ruach Ra‘ah must be interpreted from the religious paradigm itself: as behavioural rules founded on pre-modern scientific knowledge, or as revealed knowledge? It is possible to identify the existence of both knowledge paradigms in the corpus of the Ruach Ra‘ah: in texts that credit

356 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

the argument that the ‘Ruach Ra‘ah can no longer be found among us’, and in texts that argue that the Ruach Ra‘ah belongs to a separate field of knowledge that is not accessible to human logic. But many responsa from the corpus do not address the precise nature and effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah, or they do this only in implicit terms, although certain responsa in the corpus do offer insight into the alleged effects of the Ruach Ra‘ah. There are a number of crosslinks in the corpus with other subjects that also touch on the tension between the modern knowledge paradigm and rabbinic discourse – the most important being: 1. Drinking liquids that have been left uncovered (gilui), drink and eating in pairs (zugot), discussed in chapters 2 and 3. Drinking liquids that have been left uncovered is mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 116), as is the prohibition on consuming cooked food and drink that have been lying under a bed, on account of the Ruach Ra‘ah. These admonitions are part of ‘things forbidden on account of danger’. See also 2.4, 3.1.7, 6.2.3.1, and 6.3.4.2. 2. Magical practices. The most obvious examples in the corpus are: the wearing and writing of amulets, equating the Ruach Ra‘ah with demons, and references to sorcery. See also 4.4.2, 5.4.2, 6.2.1. 3. Shabbat laws, dealing with the sick. The dissertation highlighted the link between the Shabbat laws and the Ruach Ra‘ah in the corpus, mainly via the Talmud passage bShabbat 29b on extinguishing a candle on Shabbat for someone who is being tormented by the Ruach Ra‘ah. This led to the discussion as to who qualifies as a sick person for whom the Shabbat may be broken – as the Ruach Ra‘ah also has a psychological dimension – and what remedy is effective and may be applied on the Shabbat. This touches on the tension between modern definitions of sickness and effective medicine, and definitions found in the rabbinic sources – e.g. in the case of killing a louse on Shabbat. See 1.4.5, 2.4.4, 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.2, 3.1.9, 4.4.2, and 6.3.4.1. 4. Mental competency: The concept of mental competency occurs in various atypical responsa on suicide, succession law and divorce law, and in one case of psycho-somatic suffering caused by sorcery. In these cases, the Ruach Ra‘ah does not serve as a diagnostic instrument to ascertain mental competency from a halachic point of view. See 4.4.1 and 7.2.4.3.

8.2 Solution Strategies 

 357

8.2 Solution Strategies: Mitigating Incompatibility between Rabbinic Discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the Modern Knowledge Paradigm Although the corpus does not mention explicit experiences of incompatibility between the rabbinic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the modern knowledge paradigm, the texts of the corpus do contain sufficient clues to accept the existence of an implicitly experienced incompatibility. There are a number of strategies in the corpus to mitigate this implicitly experienced incompatibility: 1. Absence of precise definition: remaining silent on the precise nature of the Ruach Ra‘ah can itself be a strategy to reduce this tension, because of the realisation that making hard claims about the physical world is likely to cause tension in the modern world. The absence of a precise definition turns the prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah into a normative-legal and ritualistic subject: what is, and what is not permitted; when has one fulfilled one’s obligation and when has one not? 2. Spiritualising the discourse: this can be observed in the corpus both in relation to situations that generate Ruach Ra‘ah, and the measures to be taken to counteract its influence. This spiritualisation can be explained through the influence of the Kabbalah on the halachic discourse, but it can also be seen as a strategy to mitigate the tension between physical effects and the modern hygiene paradigm that has rendered the Ruach Ra‘ah superfluous. The emphasis on washing hands three times, or on rinsing food that has been in contact with the Ruach Ra‘ah thrice evinces magical-mystical tendencies, but it also highlights the fact that these washings are not performed to rinse off physical dirt. The more religious remedies suggested in the corpus – reciting prayers, study of Torah, carrying out a religious prohibition – as (temporary) means of protection against the Ruach Ra‘ah, are consistent with a discourse that endeavours to diminish the original magical-mystical tendencies of the Ruach Ra‘ah, and to incorporate them in a religious model. At the same time, it is made clear that what is at stake are not hygiene rules and physical effects, as these are disproved by the modern scientific knowledge paradigm. 3. The doctrine of ‘the changed nature’: the use of this doctrine is a strategy to diminish the experiential incompatibility between the rabbinic discourse and later insights. The influence on the corpus of the doctrine of ‘the changed nature’ was slighter than might have been expected when compared with earlier rabbinic literature (chapter 6), but it points nonetheless to experiential incompatibility between the rabbinic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the modern knowledge paradigm, an incompatibility which this strategy solves.

358 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

4. A mild anti-scientific discourse: the reluctance to use the doctrine of ‘the changed nature’ in the corpus can be interpreted as a mild anti-scientific discourse that questions the modern knowledge paradigm. It does this by averring that there is possibly no incompatibility, because the modern paradigm itself only possesses temporary validity, or is incomplete. Many diseases cannot yet be cured, and the paradigm is still unable to explain all cases – such as accidents, unnatural deaths, and new diseases that seem to spread quickly. This strategy demonstrates the relevance of meta-halachic considerations (chapter 6); the use of the doctrine of the ‘changed nature’ can be regarded in orthodoxy as a way of reforming the Halachah, something to be avoided at all costs. Rejecting the general use of the doctrine of the ‘changed nature’ in the corpus reduces experiential incompatibility by challenging the modern knowledge paradigm without abandoning the older rabbinic paradigm. 5. A synthesis between the rabbinic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the modern knowledge paradigm: the ‘old’ paradigm can be explained using the modern knowledge paradigm, because the modern and the ‘old’ paradigm are not incompatible. The Chemdat Tzvi was the only one to devise a synthesis between the modern knowledge paradigm and rabbinic discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah, by proving on the basis of the existence of bacteria, viruses, bugs, fungi, and hypnosis that the Talmudic paradigm still has validity, and is even consistent with the modern paradigm. Or at least is not incompatible with it. 6. Reconfirming the Talmudic paradigm: the tendency in the corpus to only partially follow previous qualifying tendencies, and instead regard the prescriptions on the Ruach Ra‘ah as still (almost) entirely relevant. This is consistent with a wider theological understanding of the modern world, of which Chumrah (choosing the stricter opinion), the centrality of texts, and the holistic reading of texts are important aspects – as Ch. Soloveitchik and others have pointed out. In this interpretation, the Talmudic paradigm is revalued and placed above the modern knowledge paradigm. Modern sanitary facilities, airplanes, refrigerators, modern means of transport, and the food industry do not make it necessary to review or reconsider the Talmudic and medieval paradigm. Yet rabbinic literature is sometimes reticent in extending old rabbinic ordinances (‫ תקנות‬or ‫ )תקנה‬to new cases that were not envisaged in the original ordinance, or in issuing new ordinances. Rejecting these approaches described that qualify the prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah is possibly a choice inspired by a conservative meta-halachic consideration which integrates the modern world in the older paradigm and neutralises any possible incompatibility.

8.3 From Text to Reality? 

7.

 359

Curtailing the magical-mystical dimensions of the corpus: there is a tendency in the corpus to curtail magical-mystical influences. Most responsa in the corpus appear to adopt a mediating role between the more mystical texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah and the exoteric halachic texts. Of the 158 responsa that address the three topics of food and drink, space, and the human body, the largest number (65 responsa) consist of responsa written from the textoriented approach. On the one hand, these responsa attempt to incorporate the mystical texts, without, however, arriving at the same strict conclusions that the object-oriented approach would produce (although in some cases it is precisely the more magical-mystical paradigm of the object-oriented approach that leads to a more lenient judgement). On the other hand, the holistic reading of texts leads to the enduring presence of magical-mystical elements. Precisely because no clear choice is made between the various approaches and points of view, pre-modern elements continue to play a background role, and continue to exert their influence (a priori / a posteriori). This also partially explains the magical dimensions in several texts of the corpus, with their references to sorcery, demons, and amulets.

8.3 From Text to Reality? It is not easy to determine the relation between the discourse in the corpus and the way in which reality is experienced – despite the fact that the genre of the responsum often addresses real situations. The corpus is partly the reflection of a (scholastic) discussion within a textual framework that does not correspond directly with the way in which reality is experienced. The three different approaches of the corpus possibly relate in different ways to this experiential reality. The object-oriented approach is possibly clearest in regarding the Ruach Ra‘ah as a fact of reality – since it views the Ruach Ra‘ah as an object, as something tangible that has noticeable effects (spiritual or physical) – that influences people and their environment through an almost mechanical process, and that the subject can control only to a very limited degree. An object-oriented approach often – but not always – coincides with influence from kabbalistic texts, through the essentialist discourse that these often employ. The subject-oriented approach often leaves greater scope for the way in which the subject defines and values certain situations. This creates a greater range of possibilities to act on the basis of human logic, conventions, customs, or tradition that offer methods of dealing with the Ruach Ra‘ah in an everyday context. Interaction with an experiential reality is therefore present and real. Both the object- and the subject-oriented approach assign a spiritual dimension to expe-

360 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

riential reality, a dimension that can specifically be identified in the corpus in the presence of magical-mystical conceptions and practices. The approach with the weakest correlation between text and experiential reality is the text-oriented approach, which defines specific situations primarily on the basis of partly canonised texts and traditions, and which derives options for dealing with certain situations only from these texts. It is not really relevant in this approach whether or not the Ruach Ra‘ah is actually a reality. In its extreme form, this approach can lead to the imprisonment of the subject in the text, because his reality is equated with the text. An indication that there are nevertheless intersections between this approach and experience of reality comes from a number of authors who write from this perspective (particularly the Yabbia Omer and the Tzitz Eliezer) and who have included the object-oriented approach in their replies (through a priori / a posteriori constructions, or by distinguishing between ordinary people and the pious).

8.4 Social Reality Chapter 7 placed the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah in a sociological-anthropological context, in order to connect it with a possible social reality. Mary Douglas’s groupand-grid theory proved particularly useful as a model of how purity laws are used in the enclave culture to which (ultra-) orthodox Judaism – which has produced the responsa – belongs. The discourse in the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah confirms the experiential fragility of the social body (an enclave culture also perceives the physical body itself as weak), which is under threat from outsiders and ‘renegades’ from within. The Ruach Ra‘ah confirms boundaries and identity vis-à-vis outsiders (group) – non-Jews – and also creates stratification within the group itself (grid) according to the categories of gender and age (child / adult, woman / man). The corpus additionally makes an internal division between the faithful and sinners, the latter viewed ‘as if they were’ outsiders in certain respects. Enclave culture is a voluntary community (in itself a modern phenomenon), and is thus vulnerable to departures. The confirming of identity and boundaries through the discourse are important tools to try to convince those inside to stay in the enclave. Douglas’s prediction about the demarcation of space in enclave cultures also seems to apply to the corpus on the Ruach Ra‘ah. Most prescriptions concerning the Ruach Ra‘ah do indeed focus on the kitchen (food preparation), the toilet / bathroom, and the bedroom (rising after sleeping and sexual intercourse). The distinction discerned in the corpus between private and public space bears this out, and shows a modern form of religiosity located mainly in the domestic

8.5 Power, Control, and Religious Authority  

 361

setting which strives primarily for purity and holiness in the home itself. This also explains the intensely controlling aspect of the discourse, mainly within the manageable domestic context, and to a lesser degree to the public space which is beyond control. The religious discourse of the corpus has thus partly adopted the modern distinction between private and public. The corpus shows a mixed picture as regards gender: on the one hand there are authors who continue to take the Talmudic line, which mainly emphasises the male perspective. They continue to interpret texts from this perspective. On the other hand, there is a tendency to extend the law to women and girls. This latter perspective is particularly evident in opinions on whether the washing is obliged for young children – some think it mainly applies to small boys, others think there is an equal obligation on both boys and girls. The place of adult women is also ambiguous: on the one hand women are mentioned in connection with the Ruach Ra‘ah mainly in their traditional capacity of carers of children and preparers of food. On the other hand it is stressed that they must wash their hands in the morning after waking up as well – something that cannot be found neither in the Talmudic texts or in the Shulchan Aruch, with their predominantly male outlook. This matches the place of women in contemporary orthodox Judaism: they are more involved in religious life and visible than they were in the old traditional world, but they are on the other hand not fully equal to men.

8.5 Power, Control, and Religious Authority Authority is relatively weak and diffuse in the enclave. Authority is mostly delegated to texts, and it is in this way that the rabbis are able to exercise authority: through the discourse itself – although this influence is dependent on the individual’s cooperation and consent; as membership of the enclave is voluntary. Authority is naturally weak in enclave cultures, and this explains the controlling character of the discourse, as well as its admonitory tone – there is no real (physical) power. This is consistent with modernity, where authority is weak and not self-evident. On the other hand, the high control intensity and the strict demarcation of social boundaries partly clashes with modernity. At the same this form of control and authority is partly depends on the consent of the individual himself; yet another modern feature. A Foucaldian analysis may provide a deeper insight in power, control and authority as reflected in the corpus. Although some the concept of power may apply in far lesser degree to rabbinic authority in modern times, due to the voluntary acceptance of this authority as a condition of membership in rabbinic

362 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

society or group (see also 7.5), it lacking real, physical means of power. When it comes to control too it seems to be mostly a control exercised by the subject itself on itself out of chosen compliance (although social control may play a role in this) – the explicit references to control and even physical force probably less relevant from a Foucaldian point of view. The discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah creates a docile subject that complies to rabbinic authority and practices and creates and reiterates the categories of adult, minor, male and female, Jewish and non-Jewish, faithful and sinner vis-à vis the norm of the Jewish male adult (body) and reflects a shift towards the individual itself and its evaluation. Finally, the focus on children and women in the corpus as compared to earlier sources, has a dual character: making them visible as part of the community, but on the other hand subjects them to the same disciplinary regime as men. In addition, their potential as a source of contamination by the Ruach Ra‘ah is emphasized. The rabbi himself plays no direct role in the performances of the rituals surrounding the Ruach Ra‘ah. The rabbi’s authority functions at a different level: in the extent to which he is consulted as a halachic expert in the questions on the Ruach Ra‘ah, and in the influence that his replies – turned into texts – to real and hypothetical questions have on the individual in the community. The image that emerges from the corpus is possibly a real reflection of rabbinic authority in modern times: on the one hand it is weak, because the rabbi lacks real ‘hard’ power, on the other there is a strong onus on the believer to conform to his authority – as the believer is a ‘member’ on the basis of his own free will. Additionally, the themes of holiness and purity in the discourse of the corpus are intended to convince people in the enclave of their moral superiority vis-à-vis the outside world, attempting to persuade them to stay inside and guarantee their reluctance to leave the enclave.

8.6 Tradition versus Modernity: Concluding Remarks Some concluding remarks about the relation between modernity and tradition in the discourse of the corpus should be made here although all this remarks are somehow tentative. This relation is a complicated one as already stated above, modernity and tradition are not presented as mutual exclusive or a dichotomy. It would be helpful to present the discourse as some kind of counter-narrative to the modern narrative. As is shown in this book – especially in chapter 4, 5 and 6 – presents the discourse in most texts on the Ruach Ra‘ah us with a narrative that claims that the authority of these traditional texts remains relevant.

8.6 Tradition versus Modernity: Concluding Remarks 

 363

Their content cannot be rejected bluntly by modern scientific explorations; in fact, things are reversed. Modern inventions like cars, plains, refrigerators and industrial foods are being incorporated in the traditional paradigm. At first sight purity rules may be interpreted as a negative attitude to embodied existence. Our research has shown, however, that the ritual of washing hands to eliminate the (influence of) the evil spirit could be interpreted as an integration of religion and embodiment. The same can be said about gender topics. Obviously, our sources do not coincide with an egalitarian approach to gender. Still, especially in the field of purity, the male and female body play a central role, both in their distinctions and in their similarities. Hence the dichotomy between tradition and modernity should not be exaggerated: both embodied existence and gender are in the center of research into modernity. In that respect our highly traditional corpus may add important and surprising vistas to this debate about modernity. Moreover, the view of the body in the corpus seems not a pure negative one since a simple washing of the hands is enough to remove the Ruach Ra‘ah and its possible effects. The limited focus on intention (kavanah) places the act of hand washing in some way in the modern category of ‘selfcare’. An intensive concentration on the body and its functions and the respective attempt of controlling these aspects by requiring the washing of the hands after (or before) performing one of them may reflect the strong emphasize on embodiment in modernity. The integration of new physical spaces and activities into the discourse of the Ruach Ra‘ah may reflect this stronger focus on the body and its activities, besides. The specific interaction between body, space and time and its role in creating a docile body as outlined by Foucault, is present in the corpus as it describes the disciplining attitude towards the body in its moving through different spatial area’s and time sequences. On a deeper level though the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah upholds important elements of the religious and traditional view on (ideal) man, the world and God. Its discourse describes man as a dual entity and postulates the existence of a non-physical soul in the human physical body. This not only upholds the belief in a metaphysical world, but confirms fundaments of traditional Judaism. The existence of a non-physical entity in man points to another, more magnificent and transcendent Being: God. A resemblance or correspondence between the human soul and God is after all already made in the Talmud and Midrash.1 It also points to the belief in Creation versus evolution – who else than God could have

1 See bBerachot 10a: “. . ..Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole world, so the soul fills the Body”, et cetera and a parallel in Midrash Lev. Rabbah 4:8.

364 

 Chapter 8 Concluding Remarks

placed this soul in man’s body? It also forms the foundation of the doctrine of free choice – a necessary condition for another fundamental pillar of faith, the belief in divine retribution in Paradise and Hell. Last but not least it points to the fundamental faith in the Resurrection of man after the Messianic Era – without a soul that resists decay and death, this belief would be futile. And with the mundane rhythm of sleeping and waking up being a ‘foretaste’ of this Resurrection of man in the Eschaton.2 This bring us to the last metaphysical claim in some texts of the corpus: the inherent spiritual difference between a Jew and a non-Jew depending on the possession of a holy / higher soul (‫)נשמה‬. In modern times where real boundaries between Jews and non-Jews are becoming more and more absent and irrelevant, the claim to some inherent, essential identity of chosenness seems to be a immutable statement of identity. In medieval times this view on the chosenness of the Jewish people already existed by Yehudah Halevi and Jewish mystics. Parallel to this though existed the view of Maimonides and others who explain chosenness as an assignment that should be accomplished or not.3 This seems at first glance to contradict an earlier observation that the discourse on the Ruach Ra‘ah creates in a modern way the individual and its categories of identity. On the other hand at least some texts reflect a more dynamic and hence modern use of this essentalistic concept of Jewish identity that leave sinners, the ignorant and the very young child outside this holy community. Further research of contemporary response texts will complete the picture as drawn in this book.

2 See for example Bereishit Rabbah, Vayishlach 78:1 on Lam. 3:23. 3 See for example D. Hartman, Israelis and the Jewish Tradition: An Ancient People Debating Its Future (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

Literature Primary Sources All Hebrew and Aramaic texts are derived from The Responsa Project, Bar-Ilan University, cd-rom, version 15 & 19, unless otherwise indicated.

Tanach, Bible Translations and Commentaries Tanach The New Jerusalem Bible. Londen: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990.  Malbim, Meir Leibusch, on Malachi. Rahlfs A, Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 1979.

Second Temple Literature Josephus, Flavius War of the Jews. Book 7, in Whiston, William, transl. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged: New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987. Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War. Book 7, in Thackeray, Henry St. John, transl. Josephus: The Jewish War (Books I-VII), Loeb Classical Library, II-III. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Testament of Solomon, in Charlesworth, James H, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, V. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 935–987. New York: Doubleday, 1983. McCown, C. C. The Testament of Solomon. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922.

Mishnah & Talmud Mishnah (Vilna ed.) Mishnah: Berachot, Terumot, Shabbat, Eruvin, Yoma, Sukkah, Shekalim, Megillah, Gittin, Kiddushin, Menachot, Bechorot, Ohalot, Yadayim. Mishnah commentary by Maimonides. Mishnah commentary by Bertinoro. Blackman, P., Mishnayoth, V. 5, Order Kodashim. London: Mishnah Press, 1954. Talmud (Vilna / Steinsalz ed.) Jerusalem Talmud: Yoma, Avodah Zarah. Babylonian Talmud: Berachot, Shabbat, Eruvin, Pesahim, Yoma, Sukkah, Rosh Hashannah, Ta’anit, Mo’ed Katan, Sotah, Kiddushin, Baba Bathra, Sanhedrin, Avodah Zarah, Hullin, Bechorot, Meila, Niddah. Epstein, I. (ed(, The Soncino Talmud. London, 1948. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-010

366 

 Literature

Dikdukei Soferim, R. Rabinovitch, V. 4, Rosh Hashannah / Yoma. München: Huber,1872. Dikdukei Soferim, R. Rabinovitch, V. 13, Menachot / Hullin. München: Huber, 1886.

Midrash Sifre Devarim. Pesikta Zutreta (Lekach Tov). Pesikta deRav Kahana. Midrash Tanchuma (Buber). Zohar

Talmud Commentaries Medieval Talmud commentaries (Rashi, Tosafists, Rosh, Mordechai, etc.) Yam shel Shlomoh, S. Luria, Hullin. Hiddushei HaGraCh al HaShas, Ch. Soloveitchik (co-author: I.Z. Soloveitchik, s.l., s.a.).

Medieval Halachic Literature, Codices and Commentaries Sefer HaYashar, Rabenu Tam. Ba’al Halachot Gedolot, R. Moshe from Coucy. Mishneh Torah, M. ben Maimon. Mishneh Torah, J. Kapach edition, V. 12, Kedushah I. Kiryat Ono: Machon Mishnat HaRambam, 1991. Kesef Mishneh, J. Karo. Migdal Oz, Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon. Arba’a Turim, Rabenu Asher. Beth Yosef, J. Karo, Orach Chaim. Even haEzel, I.Z. Melzer, V. 8. Jerusalem: Ha’amanim, 1969.

Shulchan Aruch, Commentaries and Works Related to the S.A. Shulchan Aruch, J. Karo. Magen Avraham, A. Gombiner Be’er Hetev, Yudah ben Shimon Ashkenazi, Orach Chaim. Sha’arei Teshuvah, Ch.M. Margoliot, Orach Chaim. Birke Yosef, Ch. J.D. Azulai, Orach Chaim. Pri Megadim, J. Teumim, Orach Chaim. Eshel Avraham, A.D. Wahrman, Orach Chaim. Buczacz, 1906. Taz, D. Halevi, Even Ha’ezer.

Primary Sources 

 367

Sha’ar haZiun, J.M. Kagen. Shulchan Aruch Harav, Sh. Zalman of Liady, Orach Chaim, V. 1, (Mahadura Tinyana, New York: Kehot, 2001. Atzei Haya’ar, E. E. ben Rahamim. Baghdad, 1911. Nishmat Avraham, A. Sofer-Avraham, Hilchot Refu’a – Orach Chaim. Jerusalem: Machon Schlesinger, 1984. Ben Ish Chai, J. Chaim. Jerusalem: Merkaz Hasefer, 1986. Kaf HaChaim, J.  Ch. Sofer. Jerusalem, 1965–1969. Mishnah Berurah, J.  M. Kagan. Chazon Ovadyah. Arba Ta’aniyot, O. Yosef. Jerusalem: Machon Me’or Yisrael, 2007.

Responsa Admat Kodesh, N.Ch.M. Mizrachi, V. 1. Salonika, 1758. Afarkesta deAniya, D. Sperber, V. 1, V. 2 YD, V. 3 EH, V. 4. New York, 2002. [first ed. Satumare, 1940]. Ateret Paz, P. Zvichi, V. 1, vol. A, OH, V. 1, vol. B, YD (and supplementary notes), V. 1, vol. C CHM, 1990–1998. Betsel Hachochmah, B. Stern, V. 1, V. 2, V. 3, V. 5. Jerusalem, 1998. Chazon Ish, J. Karelitz, Orach Chaim-Mo’ed. Bnei Brak, 1994. Chelkat Yaakov, M.J. Breisch, V. OH, V. YD, V, EH/CHM. Tel Aviv, 1992. Chemdat Tzvi, V. 3. s.l., 1981. Divrei Chachamim, Sh.  I. Halevi, V. OH. Jerusalem, 1972. Divrei Yatsiv, J.  J. Halberstam, V. OH, V. YD, Likutim. Netanya, 1996–2001. Eretz Tzvi, A.Z. Frummer. Lublin, 1938. Har Tzvi, T.P. Frank, V.  OH / Tal Haarim, V. YD. Jerusalem, 1964–1976. Heichal Yitzchak, J.  E. Halevi Herzog, V. OH. Jerusalem, 1972. Hitorerut Teshuva, S. Sofer of Erlau, V. 1. Jerusalem, 1974. Igrot Moshe, M. Feinstein, YD, V. 2, YD, V. 3, EH, V. 4. New York, 1959 Bnei Brak, 1981–1985. Kol Mevaser, M.Rath, V. 1. Jerusalem, 1973. Kovetz Igrot, J. Karelitz, V. 2. Jerusalem, 1957. Lev Chaim, Ch. Palagi, V. 1. Izmir, 1823. Levushe Mordechai, M.L. Winkler, V. OH. 3rd ed., Budapest, 1938. Maharam Shik, M. Shik, V. YD and ChM. New York, 1961, Munkatch 1841. Michtavim uMa’amarim meMaran Hagaon Rav Shach, V. 1–2. Bnei Brak, 1988. Minchat Shlomoh, S.Z. Auerbach, V. 1. Jerusalem, 1986. Minchat Yitzchak, I.J. Weiss, V. 2, V. 3, V. 4, V. 5, V. 6, V. 9, V. 10. London  / Jerusalem, 1958–1985. Mishneh Halachot, M. Klein, V. 3, V. 5, V. 6, V. 11, V. 12, V. 15, V. 16. New York, 1961–2000. Olat Yitzchak, J. Ratzabi, V. 1, V. 2. Bnei Brak, 1989, 1992. Pri Ha’aretz, J.M. Mizrachi, V. 3. Jerusalem, 1905. Rivash, J. bar Sheshet. Vilna, 1879. Rivavot Ephraim, E. Greenblat, V. 1, V. 2, V. 3, V. 4, V. 5, V. 6, V. 8. Memphis, 1975–1998. Simchat Kohen, R.Ch.Ch. HaKohen, V. OH. Jerusalem, 1996. She‘eilat Shlomoh, Sh. (HaKohen) Aviner, V. 1 OH, V. 2 OH, V. 3 OH. Beth–El: 1983, 2006. Shem MiShimon, S. Pollack. Sani, 1932.

368 

 Literature

Shevet Halevi, S. Halevi Wosner, V. 3, V. 4, V. 6, V. 7, V. 8, V. 9. Bnei Brak, 1982–2002. Sho’el Ve-Nishal, Ch.M. HaKohen, V. 5 OH. Netivot, 1980. Teshuvot HaGeonim [Harkavi ed.]. Berlin, 1887. Teshuvot HaRashba, S. ben Aderet, V. 1, V. 4. Bnei Brak,1958 and St. Petersburg, 1883. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, M. Sternbuch, V. 1, V. 2, V. 3, V.4. Jerusalem, 1992–2002. Tzitz Eliezer, E. Waldenberg, V. 4, V. 7, V. 8, V. 9, V. 10, V. 12, V. 13, V. 14, V. 16, V. 18, V. 19, V. 22. Jerusalem, 1945–1996. Va–Ya’an Yosef, J. Greenwald, V. YD. New-York (Brooklyn), 2004. Yabbia Omer, O. Yosef, V. 1 YD, V. 2 YD/EH, V. 3 OH/YD, V. 4 OH/EH, V. 5 OH, V. 7 OH, V. 8 OH. 1956–1995. Yechaveh Da’at, idem., V. 3. Jerusalem, 1977–1984. Yafeh Lalev, R.N.J., Palagi, V. 2, V. 3. Izmir, 1876–1880. Yaskil Avdi, O. Hadayah, V. 6 OH, V. 7, V. 8 YD. Jerusalem, 1951–1982. Yitzchak Yeranen, J. Barda, V. 1, V. 4. Bnei Brak, 1981, 1991. Zekan Aharon, A.Walkin, V. 1, no. 1. New York, 1958.

Kabbalah Sha‘ar HaGilgulim, Ch. Vital, Przemyl, 1875. Pri Etz Chaim, Ch. Vital, V. 1, A. Brandwein (ed.), Tel-Aviv: 1966. Likutei Amarim Tanya, Sh.Z. of Liady, bi-lingual edition, N.Y.: Kehot,1980. Lessons in Tanya, V. 1, Y. and L. Wineberg New York, Kehot: 2002. Nishmat Chaim, Menashe ben Israel, Jerusalem: Yedid Hasefarim, 1995. Shivchei R. Chaim Vital Lemberg: 1862?.

Dictionaries Ha’Aruch, Nathan ben Yechiel. Lemberg, 1865. F. Brown, E. Robinson, S.R. Driver, W. Gesenius, Ch. A.Briggs, A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906. Jastrow, M. A., Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature. London: Luzac & Co, 1903. Kittel, G., Friedrich G., Bromiley, G.W., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Secondary Sources Achitov, Josef. “Hearot leShimush beMusag haHalacha beSiach haOrthodoksi” [Hebrew], in Renewing Jewish Commitment. The Work and Thought of David Hartman [Hebrew], Vol. 2, edited by Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, 553–596. Tel-Aviv: Shalom Hartman Institute / Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House Ltd., 2001.

Primary Sources 

 369

Alexander, Philip S. “Incantations and Books of Magic”, in Emil Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, V. III/I, edited by Fergus Millar, Geza Vermes, Martin Goodman, 342–379. Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1986. Altman Doron, Ilana. Artificial Insemination in the Rabbinic Discussion (Potsdam: Potsdam University, 2016 [PhD Thesis- Hebrew]). Aviner, Shlomoh. Gan na’ul – Pirké Tzeniut [Hebrew], rev. ed. Jerusalem: 2003. Aviner, Shlomoh. Chesed ne’uraich – Tenu’at Noar veTzeniut. Jerusalem: 1991. Aviner, Shlomoh. “Psichiatria veHalachah” [Hebrew]. https://www.medethics.org.il/ wp-content/uploads/2020/02/R0731007a.html#_ftnref1 Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Exorcism by Rabbis: Talmudic Sages and Magic” [Hebrew]. Da’at 34 (1995): 17–31. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Magic Seals on the Body among Jews in the First Centuries C.E.” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz 57 (1988): 37–50. Brown, Benjamin. The Hazon Ish. Halachist, Believer and Leader of the Haredi Revolution [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2011. Brown, Benjamin. “Instant Responsa – towards a halachic Realism?”, lecture for the Association of Hebrew Law at the University of Tel-Aviv, Summer 2016, https://www. academia.edu/27003713/Instant_Responsa_Toward_Halachic_Realism_Hebrew. Baumgarten, Albert I. The flourishing of Jewish sects in the Maccabean era. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Albert I. “How Do We Know When We Are On To Something?” in Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History, edited by Shasha Stern, 3–19. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Information Processing in Ancient Jewish Groups” in Sectarianism in Early Judaism: Sociological Advances, edited by David J. Chalcraft, 246–255. London: Equinox 2007. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Finding Oneself in a Sectarian Context: A sectarian’s food and its Implications”, in Self, Soul, and Body in Religious Experience, edited by Albert I. Baumgarten, Jan Assmann and Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, 125–147. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Bergman, Asher. ed. The Rosh Yeshivah Remembers. New York: Mesorah Publications, 1999. Berkovits, Eliezer. Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halacha. New York: KTAV, 1983. Betz, Hans D., ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in translation, including the Demotic Spells. Chigaco: University of Chicago Press, 1992 [2nd ed.]. Bilu, Joram. “The dybbuk in Judaism: mental disturbance as cultural resource” [Hebrew] in Mechkerei Jerushalajim beMachshevet Jisrael 2, 4 (1983): 529–563. Bilu, Joram. “Aslai, Dibuk, Zar: Nivdalut Tarbutit veHemshechiyut Historit beMahalot Ihuz beKehilot Yisrael” [Hebrew]. Peamim 85 (2000): 131–148. Bird, Frederick B. “Ritual as Communicative Action” in Ritual and Ethnic Identity: A Comparative Study of the Social Meaning of Liturgical Ritual in Synagogues edited by Jack N. Lightstone and Frederick B. Bird, 23–52. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995. Blau, Yosef., ed. The conceptual approach to Jewish learning. New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 2006. Bleich, J. David. Contemporary Halachic Problems, Vol. 1–4. New York: KTAV Publishing House / Yeshiva University Press, 1977–1995.

370 

 Literature

Bleich, J. David. “Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature: ‘Spontaneous Generation and Halachic Inerrancy’”. Tradition 44, 4 (winter 2011): 55–75. Bloom, Maureen. Jewish Mysticism and Magic – an anthropological perspective. London–New York: Routledge, 2007. Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Bohak, Gideon. “Jewish Exorcism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple” in Was 70 CE A Watershed In Jewish History?, edited by Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss eds., 277–300. Leiden: Brill 2011. Buksbaum, Yosef., ed. Sefer Zikaron in commemoration of Chaim Shmulevitz of Mir. Jerusalem: Moriah, 2000. Caulkins, Douglas D. “Grid–group analysis”, in Handbook of Social Capital. The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics, edited by Gert T. Svendsen and Gunnar L.H. Svendsen, 57–72. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009. Chajes, Jeffrey H. Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists and early Modern Judaism. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 2003. Chalamish, Moshe. Kabbalah in Prayer, Halakah and Custom [Hebrew]. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2002. Chalamish, Moshe. “Mekubalim Le’umat Poskim” [Hebrew] in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 181–210. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008. Cohen, Martin S. The Shi‘ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Cohen, Shaye J.D. “Purity, Piety, and Polemic: Medieval Rabbinic Denunciations of ‘Incorrect’ Purification Practices” in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law. Edited by Rahel R. Wasserfall, 82–100. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1999. Cohn, Naftali S. The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Collins, John J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengeler, 23–40. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Dessler, Eliyahu. E. Strive for Truth, Vol. 2. Translated by Aryeh Carmell. Jerusalem / New York: Feldheim Publishers, 2004. Deutsch, Nathaniel. “The Forbidden Fork, the Cell Phone Holocaust, and Other Haredi Encounters with Technology”, Contemporary Jewry 29 (2009): 3–19. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols. London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1970. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London / New York: Routledge, 2002. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo; with a new preface by the author. London / New York: Routledge Classics, 2002. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Douglas, Mary. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Sheffield: JSOT Press: 1993. Douglas, Mary and Wildavsky, Aaron. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley / Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982.

Primary Sources 

 371

Douglas, Mary. “Taboo” in Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural, edited by Arthur C. Lehmann, Pamela A. Moro, and James E. Myers, 72–76. Boston: McGrawHill, 2005. Douglas, Mary. “Cultural Bias” in Mary Douglas: In the Active Voice, 183–254. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. Douglas, Mary. “Sacred contagion” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, edited by John F.A. Sawyer, 86–106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Douglas, Mary. “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus”, JSOT 59 (1993): 3–23. Douglas, Mary. “Deciphering a meal”, Daedalus (1972): 61–81. Douglas, Mary. “Atonement in Leviticus”, JSQ V. 1, 2 (1993/94): 113–114. Duling, Dennis C. “The Testament of Solomon; Retrospect and Prospect”, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2 (1988): 87–112. Duling, Dennis C. “The Elazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae 8:42–49”, Harvard Theological Review, 78 (1985): 1–25. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of. Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Elior, Rachel. Dybbuks and Jewish Women in Social History, Mysticism and Folklore. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2008. Eller, Jack D. Introducing Anthropology of Religion New York: Routledge, 2007. Elon, Menachem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew]. Vol. 1–3. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. Feldman, David M. Marital relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law. New York: New York University Press, 1974. Fishbane, Simcha. Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature : A Collection of Socio-Anthropological Essays. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fogel, Moshe. “The Sabbatian Character of Hemdat Yamim: A Re-examination” [Hebrew], in The Sabbatian Movement and Its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, V. 17. Edited by Rachel Elior, 377–394. Jerusalem: Institute of Jewish Studies, 2001. Fonrobert, Charlotte E. Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Stanford: Stanford: Standford University Press, 2000. Fonrobert, Charlotte E. “Yalta’s Ruse: Resistance against Rabbinic Menstrual Authority in Talmudic Literature”, in Women and Water: Menstruation in Jewish Life and Law, edited by Rahel R. Wasserfall, 60–81. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1999. Foucalt, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, A. Sheridan, translator, New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Frazer, James. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1922. Friedman, Jack F. “Rabbi Ganzfried’s two million Kitzurs”, Judaism: a Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, V. 46, no. 4 (1997): 465–471. Friedman, Menachem. The Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Society – Sources, Trends and Processes Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1991. Friedman, Menachem. “Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Development of Ultra Orthodox Judaism” in Judaism From Within and Without: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Harvey E. Goldberg, 235–255. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. Friedman, Menachem. “The Market Model and Religious Radicalism” in Jewish Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective: Religion, Ideology, and the Crisis of Modernity, edited by Laurence J. Silberstein, , 192–215. New York: New York University Press, 1993

372 

 Literature

Friedman, Menachem. “The Lost Kiddush Cup: Changes in Ashkenazic Haredi Culture – A Tradition in Crisis” in The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, edited by Jack Wertheimer, 175–187. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Friedman, Menachem. “Halachic Rabbinic Authority in the Modern Open Society” in Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality, Vol. 2, edited by Jack Wertheimer, 757–770. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2004, Friedman, Menachem. “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate”, The Jerusalem Quarterly 25 (1982): 79–99. Fröhlich, Ida. “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books,Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004, edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengell, 55–70. Brill: Leiden, 2005. Garb, Jonathan. The Chosen Will Become Herds: Studies in Twentieth Century Kabbalah. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Glick, Shmuel. Kuntres haTeshuvot haChadash. A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature published from ca. 1470–2000 [Hebrew]. Vol. 1–4 . Jerusalem / Ramat–Gan: 2006–2010. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Goldin, Judah. “The Magic of Magic and Superstition” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza, 115–147. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1976, Gruenwald, Itamar. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Guttel, Neriya. M. Hishtanut haTevi’iem beHalacha [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Yachdav, 1995. Haber, Susan and Adele Reinhartz, ed. ‘They Shall Purify Themselves’: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Hakak, Yohai. Young Men in Israeli Haredi Yeshiva Education: The Scholars’ Enclave in Unrest. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Hallpike, Christopher R. “Social Hair” in On Primitive Society: And Other Forbidden Topics. Bloomington: Author House, 2011. Hartman, David. Israelis and the Jewish Tradition: An Ancient People Debating Its Future New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Havlin, Shlomoh Z. “haYachas leShe’elat Nusach besifrei Chazal” in Beth haVa’ad learichat kitvei Rabenu, edited by Joël Katan and Eliyahu Soloveitchik, 13–35. Jerusalem: 2003. Hayes, Christine. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hayes, Christine. “The “Other” in Rabbinic Literature” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, 243–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Heger, Paul. “Another Look at Dualism in the Qumran Writings” in Dualism in Qumran, edited by Géza G., Xeravits, 39–101. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community” in Dualism in Qumran, edited by Géza G., Xeravits, 102–120. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Houtman, Dick. “Moderniteit, technologie en individuele vrijheid: Een hertovering van de wereld?” [Dutch] in In werkelijcheid is‘t anders: Sociologische opstellen voor Jan Berting,

Primary Sources 

 373

edited by Jacintha van Beveren en Peter van der Parre, 79–97. Amsterdam: St. Interuniversitair Instituut voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, 1995. Houtman, Dick. “Wetenschap, religie en emotie in een onttoverende wereld” [Dutch] in Gevoel voor kennis: Jaarboek Kennissamenleving – Deel 5, 49–66. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers, 2009. Houtman, Dick & Auper, Stef. “Beyond the Spiritual Supermarket: The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality”, Journal of Contemporary Religion, V. 21, no. 2 (2006): 201–222. Ir-Shai, Ronit. “Gender Perspectives in Halachic-Decision Making: Abortion as a Test Case” [Hebrew] in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 417–451. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008. Jacobs, Louis. Beyond reasonable doubt. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999. Jacobs, Louis. “Halachah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica. Second edition. Vol. 8. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Jakobovits, Yisrael. Mishnat HaSar [Hebrew]. Edited by Shmuel Jakobovits. Jerusalem: Machon Harav Kook, 1997. Janowitz, Naomi. Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians. London / New York: Routledge, 2001. Jassen, Alex. P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jeffers, Ann. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kanievsky, Shemaryahu. J. Ch. Ta’ama deKra [Hebrew]. Bnei Brak: 2008 [4th ed]. Kaplan, Lawrence. “The Hazon Ish: Haredi Critic of Traditional Orthodoxy ”in The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, edited by Jack Wertheimer, 145–173. New York: JTS, 1992. Katz, Jacob. Divine Law in Human Hands: Case Studies in Halachic Flexibility. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998. Kaye, Alexander. “Eliezer Goldman and the Origins of Meta–Halacha”, Modern Judaism 34, 3 (2014): 309–333. Kee, Howard C. “Magic and Messiah” in Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and In Conflict, edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs and Paul V. McCracken Flesher, 121–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Kislev, Mordechai.. “HaHoreg Kina beShabbat, keHoreg Gammal beShabbat? ,”Shana beShana (2002), 155–166. http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shana/hahoreg–4.htm Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Klawans, Jonathan. “Rethinking Leviticus and Rereading Purity and Danger: A Review Essay”, AJS 27:1 (2003): 89–101. Lamm, Norman. Tora uMaddah. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, 1996. Lau, Binyamin. MiMaran ad Maran. Tel-Aviv: Yediot Aharonot, 2005. Lau, Binyamin. “Mekomah shel haKabbalah bepsikato shel Harav Ovadja Yosef”, Daat 55 (2005): 131–152. Levy-Strauss, Claude. Myth and Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and Morality: the ritual purity system and its place in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999.

374 

 Literature

Maccoby, Hyam. “The corpse in the Tent”, JSH 28,2 (1997): 195–209. Martinez, Florentino G. and Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition, V. 1: 1Q1–4Q27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Marx, Dalia. “The Morning Ritual in the Talmud: The Reconstitution of One’s Body and Personal Identity through the Blessings”, HUCA 77 (2006): 103–29. Marx, Tzvi C. Disability in Jewish Law. London / New York: Routledge, 2002. McCarter, P. Kyle. Jr. “Dualism in Antiquity” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, edited Armin Lange, Eric M. Meyers, Bernie H. Reynolds III , Randall Styers, 19–35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Miller, Seumas. “Foucault on Discourse and Power”. Theoria: a Journal of Social and Political Theory 76 (1990): 115–126. Myers, Eric M. “From Myth to Apocalyptic: Dualism in the Hebrew Bible” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, edited by Armin Lange, Eric M. Meyers, Bernie H. Reynolds III , Randall Styers, 92–106. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 2011. Mordhorst-Mayer, Melanie. Medizinethische Entscheidungsfindung im orthodoxen Judentum. Übersetzung und Analyse von Responsen zum Schwangerschaftskonflikt. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013. Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987. Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul. Magic Spells and Formulae. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993. Neckebrouck, Valeer. Denken over religie – Deel II Van Hugo Winckler tot Clifford Geertz. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2011. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Nitzan, Bilhah. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Noam, Vered. “Ritual Impurity in Tannaitic Literature: Two Opposing Perspectives”. JAJ 1, 1 (2010): 74–86. Ottenheijm, H.L.M (Eric). Disputen omwille van de Hemel: rol en betekenis van intentie in de controverses over sjabbat en reinheid tussen de Huizen van Sjammai en Hillel. Amsterdam: Amphora Books, 2004. Olyan, Saul M., ed. Social Theory and the Study of Israelite Religion: Essays in Retrospect and Prospect. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Peni’el, Jisrael M. Bi’uré Shemaitetot. Bnei Brak, 2005. Picard, Ariel. The Philosophy of Rabbi Ovadya Yosef in an Age of Transition [Hebrew]. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007. Picard, Ariel. “Psikato shel haRav Ovadja Josef beHilchot Niddah: bikoret Tarboet” in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 453–489. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2008. Picard, Ariel. Halacha in a New World. Rabbinic Discourse in Modern Society [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2012. Poorthuis, Marcel  J.  H.  M. “Gott, die Seele und der Leib : Kernfragen religöser Anthropologie im Spiegel eines jüdischen Morgengebetes ”in Identität durch Gebet. Zur gemeinschaftsbildenden Funktion des institutionalisierten Beten in Judentum und Christentum, edited by Albert Gerhards, Andrea Doeker and Peter Ebenbauer, 413–428. Paderborn: F. Schüningh, 2003.

Primary Sources 

 375

Poorthuis, Marcel  J.  H.  M. “Eve’s Demonic Offspring. A Jewish Motif in German Literature.” Eve’s Children. The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by Gerard P. Luttichuizen, 57–74. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Popović, Mladen, “Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the Two Spirits (1QS III 13–IV 26) in 4Q186” in Dualism in Qumran, edited by Géza G., Xeravits, 148–165. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Prouser, Joseph. Noble Soul: The Life And Legend Of The Vilna Ger Tzedek Count Walenty Potocki. Piscataway: Gorgias Press 2005. Rosenak, Avinoam. Halachah as an Agent of Change. Critical Studies in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009. Rosenak, Avinoam. “Hirhurim al hazikh shebein HaFilosofia shel HaHalachha LeFilosofia shel HaChinug” in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 65–96. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2008. Rosenak, Avinoam. “Meta-Halacha, Filosofia shel HaHalacha we–Josef Schwab”] in Halachah, Meta-Halacha and Philosopy; A Multi Disciplinary Perspective [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2011. Rosenak, Avinoam (ed.), The Halachah as Event. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute , 2016. Rosenak, Michael. “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israeli Education” in Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences,the Family, and Education, edited by Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Chigaco: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Rosenberg, Shalom. Torah uMaddah beHagut haYehoedi haChadashah [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1988. Rosner, Fred, ed. and transl. J. Preuss’ Biblical and Talmudic Medicine. New York / London: Sanhedrin Press, 1978. Rosner, Fred. “Eating Fish and Meat together; is there a Danger?”, Tradition 35:2 (2001): 36–44. Ross, Tamar. “The Contribution of Feminism to the Halachic Discourse: ‘A Woman’s Voice Is Nakedness’ as a Test Case” [Hebrew] in Halachah, Meta-Halachah and Philosophy [Hebrew] edited by Avinoam Rosenak, 35–64. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2011. Roth, Joel. The Halachic Process: A Systemic Analysis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1986. Rubin, Nissan. “Rites of Birth and Marriage: A Critical Reading in Rabbinic Sources.” in A. Ravitzki & A. Resenak (eds.), New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah (2008), 501. Rubin, Nissan. “Te’oriot Soziologiot–Antropologiot kemisgeret leParshanut Tekstim” in Halachah, Meta-Halachah and Philosophy [Hebrew] edited by Avinoam Rosenak, 98–121. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2011. Safrai, Shmuel. “Halacha” in The Literature of the Sages; First Part: Oral Tora, Halacha, Mishnahh, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates, edited by Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson, 121–209. Assen / Maastricht and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum / Fortress, 1987. Sagi, Avi and Y.Z. Stern., (eds.), A Living Judaism: Essays on the Halachic thought of Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute / Bar Ilan University, 2007 [Hebrew]). Sagi, Avi. The Open Canon: On the Meaning of Halachic Discourse. London / New York: Continuum, 2007.

376 

 Literature

Sagi, Avi. “Hirhurim al haMichshalot we’al haEtgariem beFilosofia shel haHalachah” in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 27–41. Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Van Leer Institute, 2008. Schechner, Richard. Performance Studies: An Introduction New York, 2013. Schmidt, Brian B. “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, edited by Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer, 243–259. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Scholem, Gershom. Kabbalah. New York: Meridian, 1978 Shaked, Shaul. “Form and Purpose in Aramaic Spells: Some Jewish Themes” in Officina Magica – The Working of Magic, edited by Shaul Shaked, 1–30. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Shilo, Shmuel. “The Contrast Between Mishpat Ivri and Halakah”. Tradition, 20(2), Summer 1982: 91–100. Sivan, Emmanuel. “The Enclave Culture” in Fundamentalisms Comprehended , edited by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, 11–68. Chigaco: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. Solomon, Norman. The Analytic Movement: Hayyim Soloveitchik and his circle. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Soloveitchik, Haym. “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Tradition 28 (1994): 64–130. Soloveitchik, Joseph B. Halachic Man, translated from the Hebrew by Lawrence Kaplan. Philadelphia: JPS, 1983. Spickard, James V. “A Guide to Mary Douglas’s Three Versions of Grid / Group Theory”, Sociological Analysis 50, 2 (1989): 151–170. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism. The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS III :13–IV:26) in its Tradition-Historical Context” in Light Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, edited by Armin Lange, Eric M. Meyers, Bernie H. Reynolds III and Randall Styers, 145–168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Styers, Randall. Making Magic. Religion, Magic, and Science in the Modern World Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Swartz, David. Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. TaShma, Yisrael. Ha-Nigleh She-Banistar. The Halachic Residue in the Zohar [Hebrew]. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001. Teter, Magda. “The Legend of Ger Zedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reasurance”, AJS Review 29, 2 (2005): 237–263. Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition. Cleveland: Meridian 1961. Tsuria , Ruth. “Discourse of Practice: The Negotiation of Sexual Norms Via Online Religious Discourse”, International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 3595–3613. Tsuria , Ruth and Heide A. Campbell. “‘In My Own Opinion’: Negotiation of Rabbinical Authority Online in Responsa Within Kipa.co.il”, Journal of Communication Inquiry 0 (2020): 1–20. Turner, Victor. The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications, 1988. Twelftree, Graham. H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993. Washofsky, Marc. “Responsa and Rhetoric: On Law, Literature and the Rabbinic Decision”, in John C. Reeves & John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion

Primary Sources 

 377

Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 360–409. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Washofsky, Marc. “Taking Precedent Seriously: On Halachah as a Rhetorical Practice” in Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer (eds.), Re-Examining Progressive Halachah, 1–70. New York: Berghahn, 2002. Westreich, Elimelech. “Refu’a uMada’e haTeva bePesikat Batei haDin haRabbani’im” [Hebrew], Mishpatiem 26 (1996): 425–492. Wiele, Jan van. “Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger revisited”, Jaarboek voor liturgie-onderzoek 23, 177–209. Groningen: Instituut voor Liturgiewetenschap, 2007. Wolfson, Elliot R. “The Status of the (Non)Jewish Other in the Apocalyptic Messianism of Menahem Mendel Schneerson” in Kabbalah and Modernity. Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, edited by Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi, Kocku Von Stuckrad, 221–257. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Woolf, Jeffrey R. “Medieval Models of Purity and Sanctity: Ashkenazic Women in the Synagogue” in Purity and Holiness, edited by M.J.H.M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, 263–280. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Wuthnow, Robert. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Wuthnow, Robert, Hunter, James D., Bergesen, Albert. J. and Kurzweil, Edith., eds. Cultural Analysis: The work of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault, and Jürgen Habermas. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Yehuda, Zvi A. “Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and Halachah”, Tradition 18.2 (1980): 172–180. Zohar, Noam “The Development of an Halachic Theory as an Essential Basis for Philosophy of Halacha”, in New Streams in Philosophy of Halachah [Hebrew], edited by Aviezer Ravitsky and Avinoam Rosenak, 43–63. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2008.

Index Abarbanel, Rabbi Yitzak 185 Abaye, Rabbi Bibi ben 74, 75 Abilda, Rabbi Moshe 211 Abortion 42 Acharonim (Decisors) 146, 157, 169, 173, 180, 186, 189, 214, 262, 263, 290, 320 Achiezer 25 Achitov J. 1 Adas, Rabbi Yaakov 58 Aderet, Shlomoh ben 17 Admat Kodesh 191 Afarkesta deAniya 33, 36–38, 44, 49, 128, 139, 144, 188, 189, 203–205, 212, 238, 257, 258, 273, 311, 318, 322 Aggadah 1 Aggadic Midrashim 29 A’gunah, (chained woman) 39 Ahaba, Rabbi Adda ben 102 Aha, Rabbi; son of Raba 104 Alexander, P.S. 72 Am Ha’aretz (uneducated people) 204 Amudei Kesef 141 Amulet 28, 29, 34, 35, 41–43, 57, 72, 77, 85, 86, 171, 191, 236, 248, 254, 341, 353, 354, 356, 359 Angel of Darkness 68, 70 Angelology 72 Angel(s) 5, 42, 68, 69, 71, 83, 85, 86, 97, 98, 104, 171, 211, 265 Anti-scientific discourse 358 Apollonius from Tyana 73 Arba Ta’aniyot 211 Aruch 3, 10, 17, 22, 24, 28, 29, 49, 89–91, 94, 102, 103, 106–109, 112–118, 145, 161, 164, 166, 173, 176, 184, 187, 190–193, 197–199, 205, 208, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 244, 261, 263, 265, 266, 273, 290, 292, 303–306, 312–315, 317–320, 327, 334, 335, 346, 347, 356, 361 Asher Yatsar 263 Ashi, Rabbi 76, 79, 104, 171 Ashkenazi 3, 24, 25, 52, 57, 119, 131, 193 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110699883-011

Ateret Paz 33, 36–42, 44, 49, 102, 129, 130, 161, 188, 191, 204, 219, 220, 236, 238, 253, 254, 260, 278, 311, 318 Atzei Haya’ar 186 Auerbach, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman 59, 234 Aviner, Rabbi Shlomo HaKohen 21, 30, 46, 47, 49, 221, 234, 243, 273 Babylonian Talmud 2, 10, 11, 23, 29, 66, 87, 94–105 Barda, Rabbi Yitzchak 46, 50 Bar-Ilan Responsa Project 9, 27, 46, 67, 86 Bar-Mitzvah 39, 316, 326 Bathhouse 114, 153, 161–163, 166, 169, 212, 218–219, 223, 266, 267, 270, 338 Bathroom 37, 39–41, 44, 55, 109, 128, 130, 149–153, 158, 161–163, 165, 166, 169, 213, 219, 223, 229, 239, 261, 268–270, 285, 335, 336, 338, 345, 350, 355, 360 bBerachot 6a 74, 205, 225, 232, 233 Beelzebub 68 Be’er David 58 Beit Mordechai 58 Belial 68, 69, 80 Benamazough, Eliyahu 211 Bené Zion 186 Ben Ish Chai, Rabbi Yosef Chaim 25, 117, 207, 210, 304, 307 Berachot 14b-15a 96–97, 113, 311 Berachot 51a 97–98, 113 Berachot 60b 94–96, 106, 113, 311 Berkovits, E. 1 eEruvin 41b 87, 193 Betsel Hachochmah 33, 35–37, 40, 41, 44, 48, 129, 144, 176, 184, 185, 192, 202, 208, 209, 212, 213, 223, 244, 322, 327–330 bHullin 105b 171, 172 bHullin 107b 99, 106, 107, 179, 305, 311, 313 Bilu, J. 5, 92, 290 Birkat Avraham 180, 181 Blau, Amram 141, 284, 346 Blau, Y. 132 bMoed Katan 11a 198

380 

 Index

bNiddah 17a 143, 145, 146, 170, 172, 173, 218, 225, 276 bPesahim 76b 199 bPesahim 110b 138, 276, 310 bPesahim 111a 76, 276 bPesahim 112a 87, 103, 172, 217, 218 Breisch, Rabbi Mordechai Yaakov 48, 58, 190 bShabbat 109a 88, 321 bTalmud 29 Bucksbaum, Y. 133 bYoma 8:5 197 bYoma 77b 88, 100, 106, 107, 255–257, 276, 304, 305, 311 Chabad 21, 224, 290, 300 Chajes 242, 277 Chalamish, M. 25, 137 Chananel, Rabenu 99, 106 Chariv 26 Chashad 48 Chatam Sofer 24, 190, 327 Chazon Ish 12, 150, 152, 241, 245, 246, 250, 266, 267, 269, 275, 276, 278, 338 Chedvat Yaakov 58 Chelkat Yaakov 33, 38, 41, 44, 48, 128, 130, 144, 161–165, 188, 190–192, 202, 253, 257, 258, 270, 322 Chemdat Tzvi 46, 50, 128, 138, 142, 207, 212, 225, 232, 233, 237, 238, 303, 358 Chemdat Yamim 210, 211 Chesed ne’urayig– Tenu’at Noar veTzeni’ut 243 Cherlow, Yuval 20 ChiDA 25, 160, 166, 210, 236, 304 Childbirth 42, 199, 288 Choshen Mishpat 22 Chumra 12, 242–243, 245, 358 Civil law 22 Cohen, Boaz 19 Collins, J.J. 71 Court of Yavne 16 Criminal law 22 Cuenica, Rabbi ben Zion 31

Dead 2, 32, 36, 39, 44, 68, 69, 71–73, 79, 80, 95, 103, 114, 129, 168, 171, 172, 188, 189, 191, 200, 201, 204, 208, 215, 217, 218, 240, 278, 289–292, 296, 303, 319 Dead Sea scrolls 68–72, 80 Decisors. See Acharonim Demon(s) 2, 5, 6, 28–30, 32, 34, 35, 38–40, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 60–63, 68, 71–86, 88, 90, 93, 96–102, 105, 107, 110, 112, 118, 138, 170–172, 188–190, 203, 205, 207, 217, 225, 232, 233, 239, 242, 252, 253, 256, 265, 266, 268, 279, 288–293, 304, 305, 349, 353, 354, 356, 359 – female demon 29, 35, 72, 107, 252, 253 Demonology 71, 72, 254 Dessler, Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer 22 Diaspora 3, 16, 17, 28, 54 Didactic responsa 18 Dikdukei Soferim 245, 246, 313 Dimi, Rabbi 78, 276 Dirt and filth 151, 208, 212, 213, 215, 218, 264 Diskin, Rabbi Moshe Yehoshua Yehuda Leib 329 Divorce 22, 37, 39, 89, 91, 189, 190, 215, 218, 256, 274, 344, 346, 347, 356 Divrei Chachamim 33, 41, 44, 48, 129, 139, 202 Divrei Yatsiv 33, 35–42, 44, 49, 116, 128–130, 139, 144, 149, 175, 178, 188, 193, 201, 203, 205, 206, 219, 221–223, 225–227, 229, 238, 257, 258, 260, 273, 274, 278, 303, 317, 335 Divrei Yitzchak 264 Divrei Yosef 58 Doctrine of ‘the changed nature’ 11, 357, 358 Domestic sphere 55, 333, 334 Dosa, Rabbi Hanina ben 83 Douglas, Mary 12, 281, 282, 288, 295–302, 339–342, 348, 350, 352, 360 Duling, D.C. 72, 73 Dybbuk 5, 50, 51, 92, 93, 242–254, 277, 290, 291, 308, 309, 347 Dybbuk Ruach / Dybbuk Ruchot 51

Daily ritual(s) 22, 310 Darchei Moshe (Isserlies) 170 Darkness 64, 68, 70, 107, 108, 134, 206

Earth 38, 64, 66, 68, 95, 97, 111, 186, 270, 273 Edery, Rabbi Amram 143

Index 

Eidah Chareidis (movement) 47 Eiger, Avika 24 Elisha, Rabbi Ishmael ben 65, 97, 98 Eliyahu, Rabbi S. 21 Elon, M. 7, 8, 14–16, 18, 21, 22, 28 Elya Rabbah 166, 180, 261 Emden, Jakob 24 Epstein, Yechiel Michel 244 Eretz Tzvi 149 Eshel Avraham 338, 339 Even Ha’ezer 22 Factory 1, 55 Family law 22, 344 Feinstein, Rabbi Moses 28, 33, 48 Feldman, Rabbi D. M. 17, 18, 244 Female demon. See Demon(s) Feminine form 32 Financial issues 18 Fingernails. See Nails Fink, D. 30 Fogelman, Rabbi Mordechai 59 Food and drink 11, 28, 36, 37, 39–41, 44, 45, 55, 57, 60–62, 87, 89, 91, 100, 101, 109, 118, 127–131, 136, 139, 141, 142, 144, 149, 151–158, 165–170, 172–174, 179, 193, 194, 202, 204, 207, 213, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 227–229, 238, 255, 261, 262, 264–269, 293, 294, 303–306, 308, 314, 316, 318, 320–326, 333, 334, 336, 354–356, 359 Frankel, Rabbi David Solomon 59 Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon ben 256, 257 Gan na’ul – Pirke Tzeni’ut 243 Gaon of Brisk 141, 284, 324, 346 Garlic 36, 44, 45, 56, 60, 87, 89, 101, 102, 114, 128, 143–148, 170–173, 194, 206, 217, 218, 223, 238, 252, 255, 257–259, 270, 271, 294 Genesis 70, 151, 152, 297 Geniza fragments 248 Geonim 16, 17, 21, 198, 250, 274 Gershom, Rabenu 107 Gilui (uncovering) 102, 145, 257, 276, 356

 381

Ginsburg, Rabbi Joseph 21 Glick, Rabbi S. 15, 18–22, 26, 27, 46 Graveyard 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 80, 101, 102, 114, 129, 130, 172, 215, 217, 238, 330 Greenblat, Rabbi Ephraim 46, 50 Greenwald, Rabbi Joseph 33, 48, 59 HaChassid, Rabbi Yehuda 188 HaChazon Ish 241, 245, 246, 249 HaChevrah HaCharedit 245 Hagahot Maimoni 199 Ha-Kohen, Rabbi Chalfon Moses 33, 48, 58 HaKohen, Rabbi Rachamim Chai Chvitah 33, 48, 58 Hakohen, Yisrael Meir 117–118 Halachah 1–3, 5–9, 11, 12, 14–17, 19–21, 23–27, 132, 137, 139, 148, 152, 153, 183, 189, 192, 196, 201, 241–251, 260, 271, 275, 276, 278, 279, 281, 302, 329, 347, 353, 358 – halachic authority 26, 226 – halachic codes 96, 112, 117 – halachic discourse 8, 12, 24, 25, 31, 92, 115, 131, 207, 243, 247, 248, 251, 252, 266, 267, 270, 274, 278, 279, 353, 357 – halachic expert 14, 15, 17, 347, 352, 362 – halachic exposés 18 – halachic ‘inheritance’ 11 – halachic literature 15, 20, 23, 25, 30, 91, 108, 117, 150, 180, 187, 190, 240, 242, 275, 291, 304, 306, 317, 334, 347 – halachic patterns 12 – halachic practice 55, 91 – halachic process 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 25, 139, 160, 245, 352, 354 – halachic ruling 3, 11, 15, 55, 167, 173, 197, 246 – halachic sources 14, 15, 19, 25, 39, 118, 131, 149, 201, 210 Halberstam, Rabbi Yekutiel Yehuda 33, 49, 59 Halevi, Rabbi Meir Yechiel Halevi 188 Halevi, Rabbi Shalom Isaac 33, 48, 58 Halperin, M. 30 Har Tzvi 33, 38, 44, 48, 58, 129, 139, 212, 219, 336

382 

 Index

Hassidism 25, 224 Hayyim, Yosef 25 Hebrew law 8, 14, 18 Hechalot texts 248 Hedaya, Rabbi Ovadyah 46, 50, 58 Hedaya, Rabbi Shalom 293 Heger, P. 68, 69 Heichal Yitzchak 58, 273 Hempel, C. 69 Herzog, Rabbi Isaac Ha-Levi 58 Hilchot De‘ot 198 Hishtanut haTevi’im beHalacha 274 Hiyya, Rabbi 97, 102 Hullin 105b 104–105, 114, 171 Human capacity 1 Ibn Gaon 290 – Shem Tov ben Abraham 290 Igrath, daughter of Machalat 83 Igrot Kodesh 19 Igrot Moshe 30, 33, 36–38, 40–42, 44, 48, 59, 62, 128, 130, 142, 161, 194, 195, 202 Incantations 72, 75, 86, 188, 253 Inheritance 11, 18 Intertextuality 23–26, 53, 160, 304 Israel (State) 3–5, 8, 15–17, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 39, 46–52, 54, 58, 59, 79, 80, 95, 112, 140, 245, 246, 250, 253, 293, 295, 301, 320, 321, 326, 330, 344 Isserles’ glosses 24 Isserlies, Rabbi Moshe 191, 170 – Darchei Moshe 170 Jacobowitz, Rabbi Moses 58 Jacobs, L. 240, 247 Janowitz, N. 73, 84 Jassen, A.P. 69 Jewish law. See Halachah Jewish Magic and Superstition 68, 103 Jewish mysticism 248, 282, 286 Joseph, Rabbi Isaac ben 104 Josephus 30, 68, 72, 73 Jose, Rabbi son of Rabbi Hanina 78 jTalmud 29 Judah, Rabbi 78, 104 – son of Rabbi Hiyya 104 Kabbalah

– kabbalistic elements 247 – kabbalistic literature 25, 93, 247, 249, 253 – kabbalistic sources 3, 25, 64, 115–118, 131, 193 – kabbalistic text 10, 12, 53, 210, 220, 228, 359 Kaf HaChaim (Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer) 10, 25, 102, 117, 167, 263, 266, 304 Kagan, Rabbi Israel Meir 10, 24, 241, 243, 244, 246, 266, 267, 278, 304 Kahana, Rabbi 76 Kallah lectures 75, 233 Kamea. See Amulet Kanievsky, Rabbi Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim 276 Karelitz, Rabbi Yeshayahu 19, 241, 245 Karo, Yosef 10 Kashrut 4, 22, 199, 226, 272, 295 Kayara, Shimon 106 Kee, H.C. 74 Kenaf Ra‘anana 171 Kesef Mishneh 199 Kitsur Shulchan Aruch 244 Kittel, G. 74 Klein, Rabbi Menashe 33, 49, 59 Kol Bo 23 Kol Mevaser 33, 38, 39, 44, 49, 58, 189 Konvitz, Rabbi Joseph 58 Kuntres Acharon 210 Kuntres Hateshuvot Hachadash 19 Kyle McCarter, P. 67 Landau, Yechezkel 24 Later Decisors 169, 173, 180, 186, 189, 214, 262, 263, 290 Lau, B. 26, 266, 326 Learning process 2 Legal authority 15, 247 Legal subject 4, 6 Legal texts 18 Lev David 31, 58 Levushe Mordechai 149, 185 Levy-Strauss, C. 77 Lewis, T.J. 68 Likutim veHashmatot 40, 41, 49, 188 Lilith (female demon) 35, 253 Luria, Rabbi Shlomoh 24, 25, 108, 115, 117, 169, 259, 260

Index 

Machzor Vitri 23 Magen Avraham 159, 191, 199, 200, 224, 263, 273 Magic acts 68 Magical practices 249, 340, 356 Magical remedies 11 Magical texts 85, 248, 282 Magician 37, 73, 93 Magic-mystical 32 Magic power of the alphabet 72 MaHaraCH Lonzani 180 Maharam ben Chaviv 260–261 Maharam Shik 24, 201 Maharil Diskin. See Diskin, Rabbi Moshe Yehoshua Yehuda Leib Maharsham. See Schwadron, Rabbi Sholom Mordechai Maimonides 10, 17, 23, 43, 65, 89–91, 93, 96, 102, 107, 114, 132, 133, 145, 146, 193, 198, 199, 222, 250, 254–256, 259, 273, 274, 290, 292, 294, 310, 327, 335, 364 Mamzer (bastard) 296 Mantic arts 68, 79, 254 Mar b. Ashi (Mar, son of Rabbi Ashi) 171 Marital laws 18 Martinez, F.G. 70, 72 Marx, D. 96, 287, 288 Marx T. 302 Matrimonial laws 4, 22, 37, 84, 199, 347, 348 Matrimony 22 Mechilta 29, 134 Medical science 4, 30, 225 Medicine 6, 28, 30, 42, 45, 86, 98, 192, 196, 201, 226, 250, 278, 299, 353, 356 Medieval codices 23, 24, 89–91 Medieval medicine 30 Meir from Rothenburg 146 Mental illness 30, 45, 75, 327 MeRuach Ra‘ah 31 mEruvin 3:2 302 mEruvin 4:1 256 Meta-Halachah 9, 19, 244–249 – meta-halachic principles 12, 247 – meta-halachic standpoint 12 Meyer, M. 68 Mezuzah 39, 42–44, 61, 91, 188

 383

Middle Ages 2, 5, 11, 16, 22, 45, 87–92, 98, 198, 207, 254, 256, 258, 274, 277, 343 Midrash Aggadah 29 Midrash Halacha 29 Migdal Oz 290, 308 Mikvah 37, 39, 44, 188, 211, 212 Minchat Shlomoh 59, 273 Minchat Yitzchak 30, 33, 41, 47, 48, 59, 128–130, 142–144, 165, 178, 184, 188, 193, 202, 239, 244 – Rabbi Weiss 47 Mirecki, P. 68 Mishnah 23, 90, 105, 107, 156, 191, 192, 197, 303 Mishnah Berurah 10, 12, 24, 25, 117–118, 140, 241, 243–244, 247, 266–267, 278, 304 Mishnat HaSar 191 Mishneh Halachot 33, 49, 54, 59, 178, 193, 194, 222–227, 270 Mishpat Halvri 28 Mishpatim 200, 250 Mishpetei Uziel 31, 58 mMegillah 2:4 302, 303 Modern halachic literature 30, 275 Modern knowledge paradigm 6, 12, 13, 277, 354, 356–359 Mordechai, medieval Rabbi Mordhorst-Mayer, Melanie 4 Mor Uketzia 187, 214 mShabbat 2:5 45, 256, 327 Muna, Rabbi 98 Munkatscher Rebbe 180 – Chayyim Elazar Shapiro mYadayim 4:6 176 Mystical-kabbalistic discourse 247 Mysticism 25, 42, 117, 209, 218, 237, 247, 248 Nachalat Avot 229 Nachmanides 17 Nails 3, 101–103, 114, 129, 178, 184, 207–212, 218, 219, 276, 292, 344 Nathan, Rabbi 98 Naveh, J. 72 Neo-orthodoxy 7 Neshamah 65

384 

 Index

New Testament 64, 68, 73–74, 253 Niddah 17a 101–104, 114, 258 Nimukei Orach Chayyim 180 Nishmat Avraham 274 Nishtatek, paralysis 190 Nissim, Rabbi Yitzchak 47 Non-Jews 12, 141, 205, 224, 225, 240, 306, 318–322, 326, 327, 339, 341, 350, 360, 364 Non-religious Jews 56 Ohalot 156 Ointments 72 Olat Tamid 211 Olat Yitzchak 46, 47, 50, 312, 321 Ometz, Yosef 186 Onions 44, 45, 56, 60, 89, 102, 114, 128, 143, 144, 146, 147, 171, 173, 206, 217, 218, 223, 238, 252, 255, 257–259, 270, 271, 294 Orach Hayim 91 Ordinances 15, 358 Oriental Judaism 45 Orthodox Judaism 3, 6, 25, 28, 117, 189, 241, 243, 246, 249, 250, 274, 282, 299, 327, 360, 361 Or Zarua 17, 23 Ottenheijm, H.L.M. 183, 293 Otzar HaHochmah 27, 45 Palagi, Haim 25 Papyri Graecae Magicae 73 Parashat Toledot 207, 304, 307 Peeled eggs 36, 42–45, 56, 60, 61, 102, 142, 146, 170, 171, 173, 206, 217, 218, 225, 226, 238, 252, 255, 257–259, 270, 271, 294 Pekudat Eleazar 185 Pesach Frank, Rabbi Tzvi 33, 48, 58 Pesahim 112a 100–101, 107, 114 Petach Devir 185 Physical world 2, 3, 11, 82, 116, 196, 197, 203, 215, 216, 237, 272, 357, 363 Picard, A. 7, 12, 265 Piskei Maharitz 286 Pneuma 65, 71, 73, 74 Pneumaton poneron 74

Poneron 71, 74 Poneros 74 Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. 92, 240, 253 Post-Shoah 12, 14, 241, 242, 245, 267, 275, 278 Pototski (Potocki), Avraham 231, 232, 234 Premodern science 6, 28 Preuss, J. 90 Pri Ha’aretz 191 Prince of Light 68 Progremanski, Rabbi Mordechai 140, 142 Pronouncing of spells 72 Psychiatry 30, 327 Psychology 30, 327 Pumpeditha 17 Qumran writings 68, 69 Ra’aya Mehemena 65 Rabbinic discourse 4, 6, 12, 17, 33, 53, 207, 263, 348, 356–358 Rabbinic Halachah 23 Rabenu Tam 273, 313 Rabenu Yehonatan of Lunil 252 Radbaz (Rabbi David ibn Zimra) 181 Rambam. See Maimonides Ramban. See Nachmanides RaSHaSH. See Sharabi, Rabbi Shalom Rashi, (Yitzchaki, Rabbi Shlomo) 23, 24, 47, 79, 83, 88, 90, 97, 99, 106, 107, 166, 172, 197, 252, 253, 269 Rath, Rabbi Meshulam 33, 49 Ratzabi, Rabbi Yitzchak 46–47, 50 Religious authority 16, 249, 361–362 Religious Zionist movement 45, 46, 243, 300 Resh Lakish 79 Ritual of washing hands 28, 29, 30, 36, 45, 88, 108, 280, 311, 363 Rivavot Ephraim 46, 50, 128–130, 136, 142–145, 149, 161, 165, 175, 177, 178, 184, 187, 188, 206, 207, 212, 218, 230, 232–234, 254, 268, 270, 271, 278, 286, 303, 311, 312, 335 Rosenak, A. 5, 7–9, 19, 20, 244 Rosner, F. 30, 249 Ross, T. 19 Rubin, N. 8, 19

Index 

Safrai, S. 1 Sagi, A. 1, 4, 8, 19, 131, 167, 347, 348 Sanhedrin 16, 17, 30, 78, 80, 172, 246, 310 Satan 68, 80, 247, 290 Schmidt, B.B. 68 Schneerson, M. Mendel 321 Scholem, Gerschom 65, 203, 248, 253 Schürer, E. 72 Schwadron, Rabbi Sholom Mordechai 25 Schwartz, D. 73 Scientific knowledge 3, 4, 6, 11, 144, 201, 236, 249, 250, 272, 278, 355–357 Second Temple period 2, 64, 68–72, 74, 78, 79, 88, 93, 99, 253, 291, 299, 302, 347 – Second Temple period literature 64, 68–71, 78, 79, 88, 93 Secular knowledge 42, 197, 246, 250 Sefer Hassidim 236 Sefer Mitzvot Katan 146 Segulot (supernatural remedies) 39, 40, 191, 275 Semantic field 10, 31, 34, 39, 57, 60, 354 Sephardic-Oriental 3, 57, 131, 192 Sephirot 116 Seridei Eish 58 Sewara (logic of analogy) 159, 206 Sha‘arei Teshuvah 103 Sha‘ar Haberachot 116 Shabbat 4, 6, 11, 21, 22, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 55, 61, 87, 89, 91, 98, 105–107, 113, 114, 133, 137, 140, 143, 146, 166, 190–193, 204, 211, 225, 236, 239, 250, 252, 254, 256, 271–274, 292, 310, 311, 316, 322, 324–326, 328–330, 341, 354, 356 Shabbat 29b 105, 107 Shabbat 108b-109a 98, 106, 113, 114, 166 Shabbat laws 11, 42, 87, 191, 192, 273, 328, 354, 356 Shach, Rabbi Elazar 19, 246 Shaked, S. 72, 248 Shalmei Zibbur 155, 158, 159, 167, 168, 174, 194, 219, 227, 265 Shapiro, Chayyim Elazar 180 Sharabi, Rabbi Shalom 235 Shechitah (wringing out on Shabbat) 191 Shed/Shedim. See Demon(s)

 385

She‘eilat Shlomoh 46, 47, 49, 53, 54, 130, 165, 178, 184, 202, 221, 222, 233, 234, 239, 244, 312, 335–337, 340 She’elat Shalom 293 Shema  (pryer) 96, 97, 113, 164, 255, 259, 273, 303, 311, 334 Shem MiShimon 149 Shemulevich, Rabbi Chaim 247 Sheniur Zalman of Liady 290, 321 Shevet Halevi 33, 41, 42, 44, 49, 59, 102, 128–130, 142, 161, 184, 188, 202, 257, 258 Shik, Maharam 24, 201 Shimon bar Yochai, Rabbi 84 Shoah 6, 22, 24, 51, 117, 149, 240, 241, 246, 278, 353 Sho‘el Ve-Nishal 33, 38, 39, 41, 48, 58 Shoteh, diminished 37, 190 Shulchan Aruch 3, 10, 17, 22, 24, 28, 29, 49, 89, 90, 91, 94, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112–118, 145, 161, 164, 166, 173, 184, 187, 190–193, 197–199, 205, 208, 218, 221, 222, 224, 244, 261, 263, 265, 266, 273, 290, 292, 303, 304 Shy, H. 5 Sichat Hashavua (magazine) 21 Sifra/Sifrei 29 Simchat Kohen 33, 44, 48, 58, 130, 149, 238, 269, 336 Sitra Achra (the Other Side) 3, 203, 247 Smith, Morton 73 SMS responsa, internet responsa 10, 20–22 Sofer, Chatam 24, 190, 327 Sofer, Y. 10, 117 Solet Belulah 166 Solomon, N. 132 Soloveitchik, H. 21, 132 Sorcery 37, 39–42, 45, 61–63, 81, 82, 111, 138, 172, 188, 191, 233, 236, 254, 268, 271, 300, 353, 356, 359 Sotah 37, 83 Soul 2, 5, 51, 65, 73, 95, 109–111, 115, 137, 140, 141, 197, 203, 205, 208, 217, 221, 224, 229, 230, 240, 242, 273, 283, 287–291, 305–308, 313–315, 318, 320, 321, 325, 343, 355, 363–364 Sperber, Rabbi David 33, 49, 59

386 

 Index

Spirit of God 64, 65, 69 Spirit of Impurity 28, 79, 81, 116, 221, 223, 224, 234, 288 Sternbuch, Rabbi Moshe 46, 47 Stern, Rabbi Betzalel 33, 48 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 67, 69 Suicide 42, 44, 45, 55, 61, 187, 189, 192, 292, 322, 326–330, 354, 356 Swimming pool 55, 130, 270, 355 Ta’ame HaMinhagim 147 Tal Harim 188 Talmid Chacham 205 Talmud 1–3, 10–11, 16–18, 23–25, 28–30, 45, 56, 64, 65, 73–108, 112, 118, 132, 143–146, 150, 151, 163, 164, 166, 168–173, 176, 179, 187–189, 192–195, 197–200, 204, 205, 207, 215–218, 220, 222, 229, 230, 232–234, 237, 238, 245, 246, 248–252, 256, 257, 259–261, 263, 265, 267, 271, 274–276, 290, 293, 294, 303, 304, 311, 313, 318, 319, 334, 346, 353, 356, 363 Talmudic commentary 23, 25, 98 Talmudic medicine 30, 90 Talmudic paradigm 11, 272, 275–277, 358 Talmudic period 5, 16, 157, 291 Techiyat haMetim 240 Technological innovations 4, 6, 272 Tendler. M. 30 Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot 1, 46, 47, 50, 53, 128–130, 139, 140, 142, 149, 161, 175, 188, 189, 203–206, 218, 219, 223, 227–232, 235, 238, 239, 268, 284, 287–290, 303, 305, 307, 308, 322, 324–327, 329–333, 335, 337, 338, 341 Testament of Solomon 72–73, 85 Tetragrammaton 5 Tevu’ot Shor 167 Tobit 71–72 Toilet 39, 40, 42–45, 55–57, 61, 62, 77, 83, 87, 91, 107, 109, 114, 118, 128–130, 149–170, 173–176, 184, 201, 204, 207, 208, 211–213, 218–221, 223, 227, 238, 239, 261–271, 285, 287, 292, 305, 332, 335, 336, 338, 349, 350, 355, 360

Torah 1, 2, 26, 37, 39, 40, 42, 76, 80, 81, 103, 108–110, 128, 129, 133, 135, 137, 141, 154, 164, 169, 210, 224, 225, 233–236, 239, 243, 246, 254, 274, 279, 295, 306, 309–310, 323, 338, 340, 349, 355, 357 – Torah scholar 43, 246 – Torah scroll 42 Torat Chaim 204, 293, 318 Tosafists 23, 102, 106–107, 198, 256–260, 274, 276, 305 Tosafot 24, 99, 134, 257, 259, 273 Trachtenberg, J. 68, 75, 103, 253 Tur 10, 22, 23, 29, 89–91, 114, 145, 205 Twelftree, G.H. 74 Tzaddik (pious person) 142 Tzitz Eliezer 33, 36–42, 44, 49, 57, 59–61, 128–130, 142, 144–146, 178, 184, 188–194, 201, 204, 205, 211, 212, 218, 219, 221, 231, 238, 239, 244, 245, 258, 260, 268, 273, 278, 285, 303, 306–308, 314, 315, 317, 318, 322, 324, 333, 360 Ultraorthodox 24, 28, 45, 47, 117, 140 Uzziel, Rabbi Ben–Zion Meir Chai 58 Va-Ya’an Yosef 33, 44, 48, 59, 128, 142 Vayakhel 208b 210 Vital, Chaim Rabbi ben Yosef 211 Waldenberg, Rabbi Eliezer 33, 59, 144, 146–148 Wandering souls 2 Washing hands 3–5, 10, 28–30, 32, 36, 37, 39–41, 44–45, 60–62, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99–101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 113, 114, 116–118, 128, 129, 141, 154, 157–164, 166–170, 176, 177, 179, 184–187, 202, 203, 208, 209, 228, 231, 234, 238, 239, 255, 259–261, 263, 266, 273, 280, 282–287, 289, 304, 308, 311, 312, 314, 321–325, 331–336, 338, 340, 345, 346, 349, 351, 355, 357, 363 Washofsky, M. 8, 9, 15, 16 Weinberg, Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov 72 Weiss, Rabbi Isaac Jacob 33, 47, 48, 59 Welner, Rabbi Moshe Dov 46, 50 Whiston, W. 72 Wosner, Rabbi Shmuel Halevi 33, 49, 59

Index 

Yabbia Omer 33–41, 44, 49, 53, 57, 59–62, 102, 128–130, 136, 142, 144, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 157, 161, 165–175, 184, 188, 189, 191, 194, 201, 203–207, 209, 212, 213, 216, 219–221, 227, 235, 236, 238, 239, 244, 245, 253, 254, 256–258, 260–269, 274, 278, 285, 287, 293, 303, 308, 311, 312, 316, 318–320, 322–324, 326, 327, 333, 335–338, 341, 342, 360 Yad Meir 148 Yafeh Lalev 185, 194, 210 Yalkut Yosef 209 Yam shel Shlomoh 154, 259–260 Yannai. Rabbi 197 Yaskil Avdi 31, 46, 50, 58, 128–130, 139, 149, 153, 156, 175, 177, 219, 227, 293, 314 yAvoda Zarah 255 Yayin Hatov 47 Yechaveh Da’at 33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 49, 59, 130, 165, 203, 212, 244, 245, 269 Yismach Levav 58 Yitzchaki, Rabbi Shlomo. See Rashi Yitzchak Yeranen 46, 50, 53, 57, 117, 118, 128–130, 139, 149–156, 158, 160, 165, 167, 175, 195, 203, 206, 209, 210, 212–216, 219, 220, 227–230, 235, 237, 245, 253, 261, 268, 269, 287, 288, 303, 305, 306, 314, 315, 318, 321, 322, 332, 333, 335–337

 387

Yochanan ben Zakkai (Rabbi) 81, 82 Yoma 77b/Hullin 107b 99–100 Yom Kippur 88, 91, 99, 129, 157, 225, 255, 257, 259, 290, 313 Yoreh De’ah 18, 22, 23 Yosef, Rabbi Akiva ben 80 Yosef, Rabbi Ovadyah 7, 33, 34, 49, 59, 210, 211 Zalfonit 188, 254, 278, 311, 341 Zekan Aharon 25, 149 Zelnick, Rabbi Abraham 235 Zerah Yitzchak 186 Zevahim 19b 184 Zichron Moshe 58 Zilberberg, Rabbi 235 Zohar 10, 25, 26, 28, 53, 64, 65, 91, 92, 94, 106, 108–118, 137, 149, 151–155, 160, 166, 167, 169, 170, 180, 193, 203–205, 210, 212, 219, 221, 222, 224, 227–229, 234, 287, 320, 335, 337 – Zohar Bereshit 109–110, 113, 115, 204 – Zohar Miketz 112, 115 – Zohar Vayeshev 111–113, 115 Zohar, N. 9, 19 Zohar Vayishlach 110–111, 115 Zvi, Chaham 24 Zvichi, Rabbi Pinchas 33, 49, 59 Zvi, Shabtai 210, 290