Personal Introduction
I first encountered Dr. Martin Cohen’s Catalog of Practical Kabbalah Manuscripts in the JTS Library in the Seminary’s Rare Book Room while doing research on the angel Kaphtziel and the transportation spell known as kephitzat haderekh (jumping of the road) in 2003. I had been studying kabbalah iyunit (speculative kabbalah)1 and doing an independent study on the book Berit Menuchah2 where a jumping of the road spell appears. In general Berit Menuchah contains material similar to the sefirotic theosophy of the Zohar and material that resembles descriptions of Heikhalot literature.3 I was surprised to discover that this work of speculative kabbalah also contains magical spells.
In connection with my research, I discovered a paper by Mark Verman and Shulamit Adler in Jewish Studies Quarterly4 which contains a general outline of the history of the jumping of the road spell. A few of their examples of kephitzat haderekh spells utilize the name of the angel Kaphtziel, while others do not.
In the Jewish Theological Seminary’s (JTS) rare book room, I researched the spells cited in Verman and Adler’s article. I hoped to uncover other texts containing kephitzat haderekh spells and the name of the angel Kaphtziel. Dr. David Wachtel directed me to Cohen’s index, a handwritten tome which catalogues an enormous number of Jewish magical texts. Though I was aware that Gershom Scholem, Moshe Idel5 and Elliot Wolfson6 each advocated for increased study of kabbalah ma’asit I was particularly impressed by the breadth of the JTS collection. I had thought that the use of kabbalah ma’asit was relatively uncommon. I wondered why academic scholarship on the substantial literature of practical Kabbalah in the Medieval period had been all but abandoned by scholars except for Joshua Trachtenberg in his work Jewish Magic and Superstition.7 An insightful article by Moshe Idel8 presents several working theories as to why the field of Jewish magic has been under-explored.
I learned that the kephitzat haderekh spell itself is extremely common throughout the books in the catalog. However, at the time, my interest was not primarily in the spell itself, or in the books it was derived from, but in the confluence of the spell and the name of the angel Kaphtziel. The Russian literary critic Bakhtin stressed the importance of etymology and diachronic linguistics. Through researching the history of the word, I hoped to gain insight into the history of those who originally utilized it. I obtained copies of several versions of the spell, and referenced them in the paper on Kaphtziel.
After the discovery of Cohen’s catalog, I became intrigued with the contents of the manuscripts. I thought they might shed light on why the world of Jewish academia had for so long been loathed to discuss them. I began making frequent visits to the rare book room, flipping through Cohen’s catalog, and perusing texts that piqued my interest.
Each book in the JTS collection is a beautiful artifact. Some are bound with leather. Some have been rebound recently with cardboard. Many have holes in them. Some of the holes are made from testing pens and bookmaking tools. Others are from age. Some manuscripts’ pages are crumbling. Some are written on parchment, and some on animal skin. Each has a different Hebrew script from a different land. Some contain several different styles of script, indicating that that the book’s owner had changed several times. Many of them have explanatory notes in their margins.
When I looked at these books, I could not help thinking that these were extraordinary pieces of Jewish folk culture. This is true not only of the books themselves but also of their contents. They are filled with magical spells written in Hebrew. Each spell gives us another clue into the dreams and desires of the Jewish people in the Medieval and early Modern periods. All of this, I discovered when perusing the pages of these manuscripts in the rare book room at JTS.
While exploring these manuscripts, I would often return to Dr. Cohen’s catalogue. This book was also a bit of a mystery. The penned title on the cover of the spiral bound handwritten volume indicated that it had been written in 1981 and 82. Why had Cohen written it by hand? Why had so few in the scholarly community seen the significance of the catalog or the books it referenced? Why had no one even taken the time to transcribe this important reference tool for the benefit of any with an interest in the field of practical kabbalah? At the core of my inquiry lay a central question. What is it about this literature that obscured it from the probing scientific eye of the scholarly community?
In the summer of 2005, I continued my study of the material in order to see if one of the texts of practical kabbalah in the JTS collection would be suitable for a doctoral dissertation. I returned to an intensive study of the secondary literature related to Jewish magic. The majority of scholarship I found dealing with the subject of magic focused primarily on its prominence in the Antique and Late Antique periods. The only book length work which discussed magic in the Medieval period was Joshua Trachtenberg’s Jewish Magic and Superstition.9 However, the analysis of this work, though more in depth than any previously performed, was still lacking. It provided an extremely broad overview of the topic, and paid little attention to many of the texts of kabbalah ma’asit which were contained in Cohen’s index.
Though I was disappointed that there was so little secondary literature on kabbalah ma’ait, I resolved to begin my own scholarly analysis on the subject. The difficulty in conducting this analysis was the inaccessibility not only of the texts themselves, but also of Dr. Cohen’s catalog. There were only three copies of the work in existence. One was housed in the rare book room, one in the office of Rabbi Schwartzbard10, and one belonged to Dr. Cohen. I requested a copy from the JTS rare book room, and offered to work on keying the text into a computer for easier reference in scholarly work. In transcribing the catalogue, I would gain a familiarity with the library’s collection of practical kabbalah manuscripts in order to develop a topic for a future dissertation in the field of kabbalah ma’asit. Dr. Cohen has been extremely encouraging of my effort both in transcribing and in deepening my understanding of the material. He is also serving as my advisor for the current analysis which I will be submitting along with my work on transcribing the material as my final project for AJR’s rabbinic program.
Throughout my work with the catalog and the manuscripts I discerned several key issues related to kabbalah ma’asit which have yet to be thoroughly discussed in the academic literature. They include: 1) the relationship between halakha and magic. Not only does the existence of magic seem to contradict Jewish law, but also the desired effect of many of the spells do not seem in the spirit of halakha,11 and many of the ingredients called for in magic spells are considered “impure” according to halakha; 2) the role of syncretism in the magical literature12; 3) the participation13 of women in magic14 and gender issues in general in magical literature; 4) the relationship between kabbalah ma’asit and the emergence of modern science and medicine. There are many other interesting issues that arise when considering practical kabbalah in general and these manuscripts in particular. Perhaps those issues mentioned above are enough to pique the readers’ curiosity and prompt him or her to seriously consider this voluminous literature.
Before I can write a dissertation on any of these topics, I will need to begin to contextualize the material. The questions I will take up include the following: What is kabbalah ma’asit? What characterizes these texts and what kind of material do they contain? Are they a separate body of literature? Are there distinct categories of magical spells? Who produced them and who used them? By presenting this analysis I will lay a foundation on which future scholars can build.
The Dangers of Categorization
Before beginning to examine Kabbalah Ma'asit, I would like to briefly discuss one of the main pitfalls of academic analysis. Post-Modern philosophy and literary theory teaches us the remarkable extent which bias plays in any academic undertaking. It would seem that bias is inevitable whenever one develops a scientific theory.
As an example: Jorge Luis Borges presents an absurd taxonomy from China in an article about “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins” in which he concludes that, “…it is clear that there is no classification of the Universe not being arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what the universe is.”15 Borges contends that there is always a degree of arbitrariness when attempting to classify a phenomenon. He attributes this conjecture to the limits of human understanding of the universe and consequently warns of the danger of categorization. Thus the task of classifying the literature of practical kabbalah will be difficult. Each manuscript is in itself a unique object. Each one is an artifact, so to speak.
This brings us to a new issue: Whether this body of literature can even be considered a single corpus deserving of analysis. This is the primary question in need of consideration. This must be done before one can write an essay on any specific aspect of kabbalah ma’asit. My heuristic will be to apply the theories regarding kabbalah ma’asit of several thinkers such as Gershom Scholem, Moshe Idel, Yosef Dan, Joshua Trachtenberg, to the contents of the manuscripts in the JTS collection.
There are many similarities among the manuscripts cataloged by Cohen. In this essay I will begin the project of establishing kabbalah ma’asit as its own literary corpus. I will now focus on the two essential questions: What are these manuscripts and what is contained within them? Who wrote them and who used them?
What is Jewish Magic, and what are these books?
According to Idel, there are three models of Kabbalistic thought:16 ecstatic, magical-talismanic, and theosophical-theurgical. Of the three, the theosophical-theurgical model is the most common. Theosophy involves describing the architecture of the divine realm. Theurgy is the practice of effecting changes in the divine realm through one’s own actions in the earthly sphere.
The ecstatic model is concerned with the attainment of devekut (attaching oneself to the Divine). The ecstatic mystic attempts through various practices to unify himself with God especially through hitbodedut (solitary meditation) and hishtavut (equanimity).17 The central figure in ecstatic kabbalah is the thirteenth century mystic, Abraham Abulafia. In ecstatic kabbalah, unifying with God is for the sake of attaining prophecy.
The magical-talismatic model utilizes “ astral, philosophic and linguistic techniques”18 to produce a positive effect for the individual practitioner. Though each model has its own philosophy, there is often an intermingling of the three types in the literature and in practice.19 Indeed, Idel states that the magical talismanic model does not have its own independent body of literature.20 In my view, though there are theosophical-theurgical and ecstatic elements in the manuscripts of kabbalah ma’asit, the magical-talismanic model should be considered a corpus of literature in its own right. Through analysis of specific elements of the oeuvre contained in Cohen’s catalogue of magical manuscripts, I will support this contention.
Defining Kabbalah Ma’asit:
Beginning in the 14th century, a distinction developed between two types of kabbalah, kabbalah iyunit (speculative kabbalah) and kabbalah ma’asit (practical kabbalah).21 The speculative kabbalah, as its name implies, dealt with theoretical and philosophical concepts, while practical kabbalah addressed how to apply mystical knowledge to create positive effects for the mystic. What is kabbalah ma’asit? Perhaps the simplest and most elegant theory is presented by Moshe Idel. He writes: “By Jewish magic I mean a system of practices and beliefs that presupposes the possibility to achieve material gains by means of techniques that cannot be explained experimentally; these topics are part of Jewish traditions that were conceived of as transmitted and as relying on the authority or the experiments of others…”22
According to Idel Jewish magic is characterized by the utilization of techniques for “material gain.” Perhaps if we take the words “material gain” very broadly, we could include the entire corpus of kabbalah ma’asit in this definition. However, I am not sure if the goal of magical procedures is always to produce some physical material gain for the magician or others. Sometimes the gain may be non-physical, but nonetheless a “material gain” of sorts. For example one of the manuscripts presents a “segulah to evade conscription.”23 Sometimes the gain may be psycho-spiritual rather than strictly “material.” For example, one text presents a segullah “to calm fear.”24 Other genres of spells promise to exorcise demons,25 or to tell the meaning of a dream. Some contain prayers which are to be inserted into one’s own recital of the daily liturgy.26 Therefore, I would expand Idel’s definition somewhat by saying that Jewish magic is “a system of practices and beliefs that presupposes the possibility to achieve material [or psycho-spiritual!] gains by means of techniques that cannot be explained experimentally…”27
A more comprehensive (but vague) definition of magic, and magical literature in particular is presented by Dr. Hagit Matras. Dr. Matras claims regarding Sifrei Segulot U’ Refuot, “Most of these books contain recipes and formulas for addressing problems that human beings face and try to overcome in daily life.”28 Dan puts forth a slightly different definition of magic, and in particular magic in the Medieval period. He writes: “Medieval man, as reflected in the literature on magic, did not clearly differentiate between magic and other branches of knowledge, especially between medicine and magic.”29 In Dan’s estimation, magic for the Medieval Jew, represented a type of science or “technology.” To me, this definition is the simplest and most all-encompassing. Distinguished science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke notes that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."30
The Manuscipts
The kabbalah ma’asit manuscripts in Cohen’s catalog are from various time periods from the Middle Ages through the early Modern. Many such books are also available in print versions in the Contemporary era. Kabbalah ma’asit literature is so large that only a small portion of it is contained in the JTS rare book room collection and an even smaller portion fit into Cohen’s voluminous catalogue. Two examples of excluded kabbalah ma’asit manuscripts in the JTS collection are Hochmat Shelomo,31 and Tserufe shemot ha-kodesh.32 Some of the other great repositories of kabbalah ma’asit literature reside in Jerusalem, London, the Vatican, and Heidelberg. While all kabbalah manuscripts can be analyzed as a genre, the manuscripts that Cohen chose to catalogue may be described as a sub-genre.
What are these manuscripts? Why should they be considered an independent literary genre? The answer to this question seems simple—they are manuscripts of practical kabbalah. Upon closer analysis, however, the answer becomes more complex. As a compilation of Sorcerers’ private notebooks,33 medical reference manuals, and cookbooks,34 there are unique elements not found in the literature of the other two models of kabbalah. It is conceivable that the magical spells were never actually used. Indeed, they may have also been sold as profitable novelty items written by scribes. However, there are personal notes on the margins of many manuscripts describing the proper performance of some of the spells contained therein indicating that their owners in fact used them. All of the above supports the idea that the texts served a different function than the texts of the other two models of kabbalah.
According to Scholem, “what came to be considered practical Kabbalah constituted an agglomeration of all the magical practices that developed in Judaism from the talmudic period down through the Middle Ages.” 35 There has recently been a spate of scholarship36 on Jewish magic in late antiquity. However, the manuscripts in Cohen’s catalogue are largely from the Medieval and early Modern periods. The scope of miraculous results promised throughout these manuscripts is so extensive that it is difficult to convey an idea of their breadth. Though all of the books in the JTS collection cataloged by Cohen belong to the general category of kabbalah ma’asit manuscripts, they are extremely diverse in genre and variable in content. Most written by hand, the manuscripts on the whole contain specific actions, or to use an anachronistic metaphor “programs” which were intended to cause a supernatural effect. This included such diverse outcomes such as; turning invisible, miraculously transporting from place to place, avoiding transcription, winning at the race track, killing one’s enemy, gaining love, predicting the future, exorcising demons, and healing disease. Spells generally include a series of tasks that one must perform in order to produce a given output. Some of those tasks may involve preparing ingredients, such as horse hoofs or animal skin. Others may involve the writing or utterance of magical names or formulae. Some of these names are divine epithets. Some are names of angels or demons, and others are either nonsensical or highly difficult to discern. The effect produced by these spells can either be tangible (i.e. visible in the physical world) or intangible (having an effect on the supernal world).
In the word of Matras, “The instructions [in sifrei segulot] often include the combinations recommended [of ingredients], their quantities, the way of preparing them, and the method of using the finished remedy. These instructions often mention special or holy times, places, or historical events, and references to sacred heroes.”37 Though Matras accurately describes the magical procedure for some examples, there are also many spells which do not include any ingredients, aside from a quill and paper, or the faculty of speech. These spells simply state a logical procedure for which to achieve an intended outcome. For example, in JTS MS 8120 the following segullah is recorded “to determine sexual compatibility”:
To determine for a man and a woman who want to couple if their coupling will go well: Consider the name of the man and the name of the woman, and combine their numerical totals [in gematria] together. Then add 16 [to the total] and subtract 18. Then, see what is left over in your hand. If the number is 1, it will be fortuitous, bright and good for them. If the number is 2, this is Mars, which portends hatred and animosity....38
This spell does not require any materials beyond a pen and paper, or facility with calculating mathematical sums. There is no special time or place specified for this operation. This numerical technique can be performed at any time by anyone familiar with gematria.
The mechanical, recipe-like style of the magical spell above is emblematic of each spell in Cohen’s catalog.
While scholars have yet to categorize these spells, I will illustrate how one might do so in an effort to support my contention that kabbalah ma’asit deserves to be considered an independent body of literature.
According to Josef Dan,
Magic was, however, discussed in medieval Hebrew literature, but surreptitiously, under the guise of different names, such as segullot ("remedies" or "charms"), kame'ot ("amulets"), refu'ot ("cures"), goralot ("destinies" or "fortunes"), simanim ("signs" or "omens"), and refafot ("bodily itches as a portent"). The medieval writer thus was able to circumvent the term "magic" and eschew a direct confrontation with the biblical prohibition. 39
Though I largely agree with Dan, I would add pe’ulah (“action”), shemirah (“protection”), lachash (“incantation”), she’elat chalom (“dream question”), tefillah (“prayer”),40 and several other41 words to this list of names for magical operations. There also seem to be several types of spell, which are unique categories of their own, such as kephitzah or kephitzat haderekh. Sometimes this spell is performed on a reed, sometimes on a cloud, sometimes even on a horse.42 The genre of shemirah (protection) spells contain yet another category of spells termed shemirat haderekh (protection on the road).
A segulah can be a medical remedy without being called a refu’ah, but a refu’ah never has a magical purpose such as kefitzah or invisibility. Refu’ot are exclusively medical, while segulot are sometimes medical, and sometimes miraculous. Lengthy analyses could be written on each and every manner of spell in the manuscripts.
Beyond the spells, many of the texts within the catalog are miscellanies. They contain not only magic operations,43 but also sections of esoteric44 and exoteric45 literature, instructions for different versions of pronouncing the divine name, and many other fragments of Jewish textual references relevant to the practice of magic.46
The content of these books derives from a long evolutionary process of many generations and many different countries. Scholem47 is correct to describe this literature as an agglomeration of many different sources. Some spells are clearly attributed to famous Jewish sages, while other spells, though less explicit, are drawn from Talmudic lore, such as a spell to grasp fire without pain. For example, many sections of the texts are attributed to or are actually written by famous Jewish sages, such as the rabbis of the Talmud,48 Rashi,49 Amram Gaon, Ibn Ezra,50 Nahmanides,51 Maimonides,52 Solomon b. Aderet,53 and others. Some are attributed to non-Jewish sages, for example Galinus.54 As for the variety of cultures in which magic developed,55 sections of the texts are composed in Jewish dialects, such as Ladino,56 Judeo-Italian, Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Arabic57. The manuscripts contain sections non-Jewish languages, such as Polish,58 Italian,59 and Arabic.60 However, there are some manuscripts that are not agglomerations of varied sources. For example, the goralot texts attributed to Ibn Ezra (JTS MS 1558) and Sefer ‘Urim ve-Tummim (JTS MSS 1679 and 1682)) seem to be derived from a singular source. Such texts are often also found as a module within another larger manuscript.
The sheer number and diversity of magical actions implies that for each and every human need and desire there is a magical antidote. Many manuscripts were likely to have been personal logbooks, notebooks of spells, and compendiums61 of magical, mystical, and religious lore and practice.62 Widely circulated among the Jewish folk,63 they provide an extraordinary window into the desires, interests, practices and culture of the manuscripts’ owners, authors, and those who benefited from the “care” of magicians. This brings us to another important issue. We cannot truly understand what these books are all about until we discern the answer to the question of who wrote and used them.
Who Wrote These Texts, and Who Used Them?
A description of a 16th century German town relates how the itinerant student, traveling from one community to another, displayed “strange looking phials, covered with cabalistic signs, a crystal globe and an astrolabe, followed by an imposing scroll of parchment inscribed with mysterious Hebraic-looking characters,” and he “would probably drive a roaring trade amongst townsmen in love-philters, cures for the ague and the plague, and amulets against them, horoscopes, predictions of fate…”64
The manuscripts include much more than spells. They also contain excerpts from a variety of other Jewish esoteric and exoteric sources 65 serving as practical manuals for both professional magicians and the masses in their every day life. The authors of the Torah,66 the Apocrypha,67 the Talmud,68 and later commentaries express a disdain for certain types of magic. Nonetheless, they recognize the efficacy of magic, and permit its practice to certain types of very righteous Jews.69 While the rabbinic elite was making proclamations on Jewish law, the culture folk were concerned with a different cultural narrative.70 The love-hate relationship between the rabbinic authorities and magic may have contributed to the development of euphemisms to describe magical phenomena in Judaism.
It has not yet been conclusively determined who produced these manuscripts and who used them. There are, however, several prevailing theories on the matter. Perhaps the most common term used throughout history to describe the Jewish magician or folk-healer is “ba’al shem.” (master of the Name). According to scholars, this appellation is first attested to in the Geonic period.71 It would seem that “master of the name” was a professional distinction for a class of people that performed a variety of very specific functions. According to Dan,“The ba’alei shem practiced magic and popular medicine, used amulets, drove away demons and prophesied. Due to the power inherent in the names they knew to use, they could discover thieves, retrieve lost articles, purify houses from evil spirits, etc…” It is clear that the ba’alei shem performed these professional functions not simply for themselves and their families, but also in a fee-for-service capacity.
Dan contends that it was only in “…the 17th and 18th centuries in Eastern Europe the position of magicians ("ba’alei shem") began to emerge on the Jewish social scene.”72 However, several sources, both primary and secondary call this into question. Scholem relates that after the term’s Geonic period attestation, there are a few other periods and places where this appellation appears before the pre-modern era:
Abulafia himself, however, was well aware of the distinction and in many of his books he fiercely attacked the "masters of names" (ba’alei shemot) who defiled themselves with magical practices. The anonymous author of a text once attributed to Maimonides … who himself belonged to the Abulafian school, differentiates between three kinds of Kabbalah, "rabbinic Kabbalah," "prophetic Kabbalah," and "practical Kabbalah." The latter is identified with theurgy, the magical use of Sacred Names, which is not at all the same thing as the meditation on such names. Before the term "practical Kabbalah" came into use, the concept was expressed in Hebrew by the phrase hokhmat ha-shimmush, which was a translation of the technical Greek term (praxis) used to denote magical activity. The Spanish kabbalists made a clear distinction between traditions that had come down to them from "masters of the doctrine of the Seferot" (ba alei ha-sefirot) and those that derived from magicians or "masters of the names." Also known to them were certain magical practices that were referred to as "great theurgy" (shimmusha rabba) and "little theurgy" (Shimmusha zutta; see Tarbiz, 16 (1945), 196-209). Unlike Abulafia, however, Gikatilla, Isaac ha-Kohen, and Moses de Leon all mention such "masters of the name" and their expositions without holding them up to reproach.73
From Scholem’s statement, we can confirm that the word ba’al shem had existed as a professional moniker, from the time of Abulafia (13th c.). We can also verify that the title was in general use during the time of the flowering of Spanish kabbalah (13th and 14th centuries). At least at the time of Gikatilla (also 13th c.), we can corroborate that the designation ba’al shem began to lose any negative connotation. The existence of JTS MS 1885, written in the early 15th century in northern Italy lends credence to the idea that at least by the 15th century there were professional Jewish magicians who were likely widely accepted if not respected. It is unclear exactly what Dan means by “began to emerge on the social scene,” but it seems to me that ba’alei shem were actively plying their trade in their communities at least by the 13th century, if not earlier. In another article, Dan claims the following:
In the 17th and 18th centuries the number of ba’alei shem who were not at all talmudic scholars increased. But they attracted a following by their real or imaginary powers of healing the sick. Such a ba’al shem was often a combination of practical kabbalist, who performed his cures by means of prayers, amulets, and incantations, and a popular healer familiar with segullot ("remedies") concocted from animal, vegetable, and mineral matter. The literature of that period teems with stories and testimonies about ba’alei shem of this kind, some of which, however, were written in criticism of their characters and deeds. It was generally thought that the ba’alei shem were at their most efficacious in the treatment of mental disorders and in the exorcism of evil spirits…74
Perhaps this is what Dan meant by the 17th and 18th century being the time when ba’alei shem emerged onto the social scene. According to Dan, the number of ba’alei shem who were “not…scholars” increased, as did their following among the folk. I am not sure, however, what evidence Dan has to make this claim. However, it seems that Dan believes that ba’alei shem were important in the growth and transmission of Shabbetianism and Hasidism.75 There may be a correlation problem inherent in Dan’s claim. Both movements garnered many followers, and fashioned novel approaches to Jewish practice. If there truly was an increase in ba’alei shem and their client base during the 17th and 18th century, perhaps this was due to the generative nature of these movements.
Despite compelling documentary evidence, Trachtenberg proposes that “magician” did not exist as a profession at all, and that magic may have been practiced simply as part of the folk culture. He writes: “Nor was Jewish magic the exclusive skill of the ‘magician’—it is hazardous to assert even that there were such people as magicians, by profession. One may define the Jewish magician as a scholar by vocation, a practitioner of the mystical-magical arts by avocation. Every mystic, properly trained, could practice magic as a side-line.”76 If Trachtenberg’s contention is correct then this would contradict the claims previously presented by Dan, as well as the historical account presented above which asserts that a ba’al shem “…would probably drive a roaring trade amongst townsmen in love-philters, cures for the ague and the plague, and amulets against them, horoscopes, predictions of fate…”77 The claim that ba’al shem did not exist as a profession is also challenged by the existence of modern day Jewish folk healers.78
Trachtenberg also claims that women could not have been ba’alot shem due to the high educational requirements of the material.79 On the contrary, it is highly possible that women were involved in plying the magical trade. In the JTS collection there is a kabbalah ma’asit manuscript, which lists its owners at the bottom, two of whom are clearly women.80 Thus, it seems clear that the users of these texts were both the professional magicians who administered to the common folk as well as the common folk.
In general, compilers of these texts do seem to have been fairly well educated.81 However, one wonders what their relationship was to the rabbinic hierarchy, as so many of the texts regularly contain content which is clearly antinomian. Many authors, such as Eliyahu de Vidas of the Early Modern period, claim that these ba’alei shem were wholly righteous and pure people.82 If this is the case, either the authors of these texts are not the ones to whom de Vidas is referring, or, perhaps de Vidas used some standard to prove righteousness other than strict obedience to Jewish law. The following statement from Matras seems to shed some light on this matter through discussing the requirements of modern day Jewish folk healers. Her description of the role of professional Jewish folk magicians is compelling in that she considers both past and present accounts of the phenomena. She writes:
The folk healer must have special knowledge and social status.
He must go through a transition which prepares him to perform as
a mediator: He must help the ailing by performing the acts pre-
scribed by the Books and restore them to health and harmony. The
qualifications of a healer are based on special physical peculiarities
such as congenital marks and other characteristics such as family
and social status, knowledge of the natural and magical materials
and experience in performing the ritual.
The folk healers in Israel today who still use Sifrei Segulot as
part of their practice are few and hard to find. Their work requires
a great knowledge of the sources anchored in the general world
view of the books, and also long experience and "knowledge of .
the people." The instructions listed in the books regarding such
a specialist mention, among the requisite qualifications, that:
i) he must be morally blameless, knowledgeable in Jewish sour-
ces, and aged forty years or over; and
ii) he must perform the activities related to the Segula in purity
(after a ritual bath), fasting, dressed in white, and after prayer
(Toldoth Adam, par. 173).
Few of the practitioners who were interviewed indicated that in fact they fulfill all these requirements and instructions; but most agreed that the characteristics important for success in this role include:
a) family status and background (zekhut avot), purity, and
modesty;
b) knowledge of both sacred and mystical sources; and
c) special abilities and insights in encountering and under-
standing people (see note 3 above).
One of the signs of their profession is knowledge of the litera-
ture of the Sifrei Segulot (and, also, the Goralot, the so-called
"Fate- Books"). Their importance and status are partly related to
the ownership of Sifrei Segulot, their editions and antiquity, and
whether they are in manuscript copy or in printed form. Most
such healers have their own "manual" comprising Segulot which
they have culled from a variety of sources and which they view as
authoritative in their own practice (Bilu, 1978, pp. 476-9). This
is eminently legitimate in view of the fact that most of the Sifrei
Segulot manuscripts, whether contemporary or older, as well as
the printed versions are either eclectic works of editors or printers,
or else entirely anonymous.83
If we assume that the modern Jewish folk magician about whom Matras writes parallels the early Modern ba’al shem, then we have learned several things. First, we have learned that there is a large gap between the lofty ethical standards placed upon magicians and the reality of their lives. Second, we have learned that knowledge of the sources was important according to the authoritative tradition, as was family status and capacity for empathy. Third, we have gleaned that ownership of the manuscripts themselves (and the segulot they contain) is important. Finally, we confirm the general idea that these manuscripts are Jewish magicians’ personal notebooks.
The accounts of Eliyahu de Vidas’ and Hayyim Vital confirm the existence of early Modern ba’alei shem. They require that the magician have an inordinately high level of purity in order to perform magic. De Vidas writes:
Another type of man who deserves attention is the expert in Kabbalah
and in the study of Divine Names and their different functions, as for instance
it is true that not everyone is worthy of using the holy Names, for, who can
make use of the King's scepter other than those who are close to Him? We
know beyond the shadow of a doubt though, that one who knows how to use
them is worthy of doing so, and when he does, will achieve awesome wonders,
as I have seen and heard from someone who has made use of them.84
Here we see that de Vidas’ assertion that a ba’al shem is required to be of a certain level of ethical purity. He also affirms that he has in fact met ba’alei shem in the past. Vital’s account is much more specific than that of de Vidas. It also puts a much larger ethical burden on the ba’al shem:85
I once asked my master the reason why the Practical Kabbalah is forbidden in all the later Kabbalistic texts. How did Rabbi Ishmael, Rabbi Akiba and the other sages of the Hekhalot make use of fearsome Names to open their hearts He replied that at that time, the ashes of the [Red] Heifer were available, through which they could purify themselves of all defilement. Now, however, we are all defiled by the dead, and we do not have the ashes of the [Red] Heifer, which is the only means of removing this defilement. It does not help when we purify ourselves from other defilement when that resulting from contact with the dead remains as it was. We are therefore no longer permitted to make use of these Holy Names, and one who does so can be punished very severely. Rabbi Eliahu di Vidas told me that he had also asked my master this question, "How did earlier generations make use of the Divine Names?" He replied that one may use them if he can fulfill in himself the verse, "Maidens (Alamot) love you" (Song of Songs 1 :3). The Talmud says, do not read Alamot (maidens), but Al mot (over death), [making the verse read, 'The one over death loves you.''] This means that one must be so righteous that he is even loved by the Angel of Death. If a person does not have any sin the Accuser cannot come before the Blessed Holy One and say, "Behold this person is making use of Your Names, and on that day he committed such a sin." [When such an accusation is made] that person is punished from heaven for making use of God's Names. But if he is totally without sin, then there is no way in which he can be denounced. The Angel of Death [who is identified with the Accuser] becomes his friend. Such a person can make use of Divine Names and not be punished. This is alluded to in the Hekhalot, which states that one should not enter the Orchard (Pardes) unless he has never violated any negative commandment of the Torah. We also see a case when Rabbi Nehunia ben HaKana was meditating (hitboded) and gazing into the Orchard (Pardes). Rabbi IshmaeI and Rabbi Akiba touched him with the gown of a woman who was only questionably unclean, and he was dismissed immediately from before the Throne of Glory. We therefore see proof to both of my master's replies. On another occasion, this same [Rabbi Eliahu di Vidas] received a somewhat different reply from my master. He said that the names and amulets that are now found in various manuscripts all contain errors. Even names and amulets that have been tested and found effective are still full of errors. It is therefore forbidden to make use of them. If we knew the names correctly, however, then we would also be permitted to use them. [One who makes use of the Practical Kabbalah therefore blemishes his soul.] His penitence is to roll nine times in the snow. …
When a person articulates such Divine Names and pronounces them with his lips, then he is punished in the Gehinom of Snow…. When a person makes use of Divine Names, he causes great evil for himself. [Through these Names,] he binds angels by an oath, coercing them to do his will These same angels then come and cause him to sin, destroying him completely Since he uses God's name incorrectly,] they will cause him to take God's name in vain in other matters, such as blessings, since one sin brings on another.
We have discovered here that de Vidas and Vital likely require such a high level of purity for magicians because they believed that in order to perform magic one has to interact with supernatural beings, who bring about a number of dangers, including apostasy. Performing magic for them places a blemish, so to speak, on the soul, and therefore one needs to be friendly with the angel of death in order to avoid inevitable disaster. Maybe pious Jews disavowed antinomian magic because they believed that it worked; perhaps they practiced it for the same reason.
It is possible that Vital and de Vidas believed that magic led to apostasy because sifrei segulot contained so much syncretism. However, why would someone who lives up to de Vidas and Vital’s level of purity read a book with so much syncretism? It is also possible that many Jews used magic independently of the professional ba’alei shem, for their own purposes, and did not necessarily live up to this level of purity.
Returning to the complex question of who compiled these manuscripts, the evidence confirms86 the existence of a class of people called ba’alei shem, who were especially active throughout the early Modern period, in which many of the manuscripts in the JTS collection were written. It is likely that ba’alei shem were not the only group of individuals attempting to perform segulot. Many ordinary Jews had notebooks of the magical variety and would often dabble with spells. Trachtenberg states that “…every Jew whose desire led him [sic.] thither essayed a little magic in a small way.”87
In addition, women may have written as well as owned these texts.88 It seems that if one desired to actually perform spells, she would have needed to be literate and capable of understanding simple Hebrew texts. Though often illiterate, I do not think it is such a stretch to maintain that women were among the ranks of the ba’alei shem.
Conclusion
There are many questions regarding these manuscripts that I would still like to consider. For example, what is the relationship between halacha and magic’s antinomian elements? Perhaps there was a different approach toward Jewish law (halacha) among the folk who practiced magic than among the rabbinic elite who prohibited its use. However, my primary concern in this paper was not the relationship between halacha and magic, but rather to show evidence that kabbalah ma’asit in its own right comprises a body of literature independent of the theosophical-theurgical and ecstatic models of kabbalah which was used extensively by both professional ba’alei shem and the common folk. Herein I have presented evidence that this body of literature had its own important function in Medieval and early Modern Jewish society independent of other types of Jewish literature. The large quantity and variety of spells that accumulated in these texts over the centuries as well as the evidence presented showing that ba’alei shem and the common people used them lend credence to the sui generis nature of kabbalah ma’asit literature.
Humans in every age and across cultures share a deep longing for the miraculous, and a belief in the power to overcome their troubles. Practical Kabbalah is the response of the ba’alei shem and the Jewish folk to this universal human need. Many in our time are drawn to the supernatural, but may suppress this need, or redirect it into various disciplines of intellectual inquiry. However, perhaps the tolerance of certain forms of magic in Judaism throughout the ages has indeed been a part of the secret of our peoples’ survival and constant evolution.
“Restriction, dilution and multiple meaning are some of the cultural strategies that enable the mutual coexistence of magic and its limitation in the larger framework of Jewish culture. The blurred boundaries, in this and in other cases, are one of the mechanisms that enhance the cultural flexibility that enables Jewish culture to function over long periods of time, in various places and in the context of different surrounding cultures.”89
Once kabbalah ma’asit is accepted as an independent corpus, there will be further development in the understanding of its role in the evolution of Jewish culture and religion.
I would like to thank Dr. Martin Cohen for his guidance and support in this endeavor. As my advisor, he has inspired me to delve into the mysteries of these texts. I hope to continue this work, and contribute to the understanding of this neglected subject.
I would also like to thank the faculty at AJR, and particularly Rabbi David Greenstein for his helpful comments as well as Rabbi Dr. Joel Hecker.
1 According to Elliott Wolfson, “Those texts that are of an almost purely magical sort are referred to in the traditional literature itself as practical kabbalah (qabbalah ma'asit), to be distinguished from the more theosophical or speculative kabbalah (qabbalah 'iyyunit).” Wolfson, Elliot. "Jewish Mysticism: A Philosophical Overview," in History of Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, published by Routledge, a member of the Taylor & Francis Group (1996).
2 Attributed to Abraham of Granada.
3 See Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah. Penguin Books, New York, 1978, p. 185: “Among earlier kabbalistic works that are especially rich in material taken from practical Kabbalah are the Zohar, the writings of Joseph b. Shalom Ashkenazi and Menahem Ziyyoni, and the Berit Menuhah, while in the post-Lurianic period the Emek ha-Melekh is outstanding in this respect.”
4 See Adler and Verman’s article “Path Jumping in the Jewish Magical Tradition,” in JSQ 1 (1993/4). pp. 133-135.
5 See Idel, Moshe. “On Judaism, Jewish Mysticism and Magic,” in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, edited by Peter Schafer and Hans. Kippenberg, published by Brill (1997), p.198. For example, Idel writes: “In other words, scholarship of Jewish mysticism, which become acceptable in some academic circles, those of Buber’s and of Scholem’s, tended, and still is inclined to marginalize the importance of magic.”
6 For example, Wolfson writes: “It must be noted, however, that important theosophical elements are often found in these more practical texts, the study of which has been grossly neglected by scholars.” From: Wolfson, Elliot. "Jewish Mysticism: A Philosophical Overview," in History of Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, published by Routledge, a member of the Taylor & Francis Group (1996). Idel writes: “This model [the magical-talismanic model of kabbalah] has long been underestimated by scholars and is deserving of increased attention and study.” From: “Kabbalah: A Short Introduction with an Emphasis on Its Magical Aspects,” in Kabbalah: Mysticism in Jewish Life, An exhibition at The Herbert & Eileen Bernard Museum of Judaica Congregation Emanu-El, (companion volume to the exhibit) Curator, Elka Deitsch, Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, Robert Lehman Foundation, Inc., (2003), p. 19.
7 Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion, Behrman’s Jewish Book House Inc., (1939)
8 Ibid., Idel.
9 Ibid., Trachtenberg.
10 Jerry Schwarzbard, Henry R. and Miriam Ripps Schnitzer Librarian for Special Collections at the JTS library.
11 A quite provocative example of this occurs (arguably) in an Italian manuscript where a spell appears which promises to provide the caster the ability to “stimulate homosexual or heterosexual love.” (JTS MS 8120). "אחר לאהבה מזכר לזכר ומנקבה לנקבה או מזכר לנקבה" Or in the same manuscript another two examples which skirt the boundary of halakha: “to summon up a demon (female) to sleep with”; and “for forcing a woman to flee naked from the bath house.” However, perhaps there was a limit to this Italian magician’s desire to violate the nomos, as in MS 8120 also is listed a spell “to prevent conversion to other religions.” In another Italian manuscript the author relates the procedure for conducting a séance with the dead despite the fact that the practice was forbidden in the Tanakh. Examples of spells which violate Jewish law are in fact too numerous to cite in this short analysis. Also see Scholem, Kabbalah (p.183): “The ostensible lines drawn by the kabbalists to set the boundaries of permissible magic were frequently overstepped and obscured, with the consequent appearance in practical Kabbalah of a good deal of "black" magic - that is, magic that was meant to harm others or that employed "the unholy names" (shemot ha-tum ah, Sanhedrin 91 a) of various dark, demonic powers, and magic used for personal gain.”
12 In Yosef Dan’s words: “Literature on magic is universal in its character, its methods, and its structure. Each society, each language, and every period contributed toward magic literature enriching it or modifying it in the light of the particular characteristics of the society, the culture, and the times. The main themes and methods in magic were, however, transmitted from country to country, from language to language throughout the ages without any basic changes being wrought. In the Middle Ages, Jewish magic literature differs very little from the magic literature of other nations.” (From The Encyclopedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition, on “Magic” by Yosef Dan)
13 Several manuscripts in the JTS collection list women as their owners.
14 According to Trachtenberg,: “According to ancient Jewish tradition, which was heartily seconded in the Middle Ages, women are inordinately prone to the pursuit of the magical arts…We must regard women, then, as the folk-magicians, healers of wounds, prescribers of love-potions, but in no sense ‘witches.’” (Ibid. Trachtenberg, pp. 16-7). See also Dan’s statement (Ibid., Dan): “The Romans, too, were familiar with Jewish names of God used in exorcism. Many Jewish prisoners in Rome, especially women, earned their livelihood by practicing magic (see Juvenal, Satires, 6:542–7).”
15 Borges, Jorge Luis. “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins,” This translation is from the following website: http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/wilkins.html. A different translation by Levine and Weinberger can be found in Jorge Luis Borges: Selected Non-Fictions, Penguin (2000).
16 Idel, Moshe. “Kabbalah: A Short Introduction with an Emphasis on Its Magical Aspects,” in Kabbalah: Mysticism in Jewish Life, An exhibition at The Herbert & Eileen Bernard Museum of Judaica Congregation Emanu-El, (companion volume to the exhibit) Curator, Elka Deitsch, Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, Robert Lehman Foundation, Inc., pp. 12-30 (2003.)
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid, p. 20.
19 Ibid., p.12.
20 Idel writes “ …the magical talismanic model , rarely constitutes a literature of its own; instead, it is usually found in a variety of writings belonging to the other two models.”(Ibid., p.19).
21 Ibid., p. 19.
22 Idel, Moshe. “On Judaism, Jewish Mysticism and Magic,” in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, edited by Peter Schafer and Hans. Kippenberg, published by Brill (1997), p.198, p. 195.
23 JTS MS 1703.
24 JTS MS 1867
25 E.g.- Sefer ha-Ne’elavim contained (among other places) in JTS MS 8120.
26 E.g.- JTS MS 1802, F. 64b.
27 Ibid., Idel, addition mine.
28 Matras, Hagit. “Wholeness and Holiness in Sifrei Segulot,” in Korot Vol. 9, Special Issue, pp. 96-107 (1998).
29 Ibid. Dan.
30 Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law in Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible, 1984, p. 26.
31 JTS MS 1870
32 JTS MS 1967
33 Perhaps the fact that it is not uncommon to find doodling (e.g.- JTS MS 8614 p. 6a “assorted doodling”, and JTS MS 8630, F. 1a) in many of these books lends credence to the idea that these were the private notebooks of magic practitioners.
34 Amusingly, one of the manuscripts contains “a grocery bill” (MS 2135 F. 76b-77b.)
35 Scholem, Kabbalah, Meridian, (1978), p. 185.
36 See Idel (Ibid.) p. 198 for a short list of these.
37 Matras, Hagit. “Wholeness and Holiness in Sifrei Segulot,” in Korot Vol. 9, Special Issue, pp. 102-103 (1998).
38 F. 41b, translation mine.
39 Ibid. Dan.
40 Many of the manuscripts include prayers. For example JTS MS 1867 contains several tefillot haderekh (Ff., 1a, 4a). See also JTS MS 2057 for another example.
41 Such as: shemot (JTS MSS 1802, 2133 F. 38b); chotamot (JTS MSS 1802, 2130 Ff., 95a-97b); hashba’ot (JTS MSS 1959 F. 39a); sheviti texts (2059 F.75a); magic squares (JTS MS 2130); tikkunim (JTS MS 2134, F. 71a); baqqashot (JTS MS 8119); bibliomancy (JTS MS 1636 F. 14a); niflaot (JTS MS 1729). This list is nowhere near exhaustive of the examples of general categories of magical operation. Once an index is created for Cohen’s catalog, the reader can refer to this as a more comprehensive list.
42 E.g.- JTS MS 2097, F. 8a. Also see Verman and Adler.
43 The majority of which can be placed in the general category of segulot.
44 Many are mixtures of speculative and magic kabbalah ( see for example MS 1885, from 1413CE northern Italy)
45 E.g.- Sefer Middot Yesharim (on Mussar) (JTS MS 2066 F. 20a-22a), and sections from Pirkei Avot (JTS MS 2135, F. 75a.)
46 Scholem, Kabbalah: “In many popular anthologies, which were widely circulated, both practical Kabbalah and folk medicine. were combined together.” (p. 184)
47 Scholem, Kabbalah (p. 185).
48 JTS MS 8120
49 E.g.- JTS MS 2128
50 JTS MS 2092, JTS MS 2148 F. 89a.
51 JTS MS 2116
52 JTS MS 5317 F. 87a and 179a.
53 JTS MS 5317
54 JTS MS 9348, F. 62a.
55 Dan writes: “There is thus no essential difference in the basic magic formulas and the attitude toward magic between the various nations, countries, and periods. The same fusion of ancient and medieval sources is to be found in each of these works, all of which contain Arab, European, and authentic Jewish elements.” (Dan, EJ: CD-ROM Edition, article on magic.)
56 E.g.-JTS MS 1877 F. 41a; JTS MS 2135 F. 52b.
57 E.g.- JTS MS 2010
58 JTS MS 2066 contains “some notes in Polish…”
59 E.g.- JTS MS 2070 and JTS MS 1868 F. 6a.
60 E.g.- JTS MS 5317, JTS MS 8632.
61 Matras asserts: “…most of the Sifrei Segulot manuscripts, whether contemporary or older, as well as the printed versions are either eclectic works of editors or printers, or else entirely anonymous.” Ibid., Matras, p. 104.
62 Matras writes of modern day Jewish folk healers that, “Most such healers have their own ‘manual’ comprising Segulot which they have culled from a variety of sources and which they view as authoritative in their own practice.” Ibid. Matras, p. 104.
63 See Matras (Ibid.): “The many editions of these books, whether in manuscript or in printed form, since the eighteenth century, are an evidence of wide circulation.”
64 Pollack, Herman. Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806): Studies in Aspects of Daily Life. The M.I.T. Press (1971), p. 118.
65 There are, of course manuscripts in this collection which contain sections of some more narrative, theosophical, theoretical, philosophical, and ethical material, such as quotes from Zohar (JTS MS 2262), Sefer Raziel HaMalakh (JTS MS 2130), Berit Menuhah (JTS MS 2077 Ff. 45a-53a), Sefer Middot Yesharim (on Mussar) (JTS MS 2066 F. 20a-22a), sections from Pirkei Avot (JTS MS 2135, F. 75a), and many others from a variety of different genres.
66 According to Dan: “While repudiating the power of sorcery, biblical religion at times utilizes means and methods which were borrowed from magical practice, but were subordinated to the new faith and hence not regarded as acts of sorcery. Notable examples are healing with the aid of the copper serpent (Nehushtan) and the examination of the woman suspected of infidelity (Adultery; Ordeal).”- (Ibid, Dan.)
67 According to Dan, “The apocryphal books do not contain a uniform attitude toward magic.” However, one interesting tome which contains a wealth of magic and legend is the Sefer Mafte’ach Shel Shlomo which contains mythical stories of King Solomon performing various acts of magic. The legend surrounding this book gave rise to many versions of the text. One interesting late 18th century illustrated version is one of the texts not included in Cohen’s index but belonging to the JTS collection, which could be considered practical kabbalah (JTS MS 1870). This manuscript contains a short account of the Solomon legend in the beginning of the text, and then presents a series of spells for adjuring the 100 kings of the tribes of demons.
68 Ibid,: “Yet in spite of the denunciation of magical practices by the spiritual leaders and the existing religious prohibitions, there was considerable preoccupation with magic in the talmudic period. To some degree, this was the result of the Persian influence upon the Jews.”
69 Also, in some cases, it would seem that magic could be used by anyone, but only in cases of extreme emergency. For example, JTS MS 1729’s title reads: “In this book is recorded secrets and wonderous treasures which were found in the hand of the early sages (may their memory be a blessing). However- it is forbidden to use them accept for in times of great need and great danger...” However, as quoted above, Scholem notes: “The ostensible lines drawn by the kabbalists to set the boundaries of permissible magic were frequently overstepped and obscured, with the consequent appearance in practical Kabbalah of a good deal of "black" magic - that is, magic that was meant to harm others or that employed "the unholy names" (shemot ha-tum ah, Sanhedrin 91 a) of various dark, demonic powers, and magic used for personal gain.” (Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 183)
70 Herman Pollack recounts that “A query submitted to Samuel Meseritz implies that it was the practice ‘to consult sorcerers’ in instances of illness and theft. Rabbinic authority saw no objection to seeking the opinion of a sorcerer or magician, ‘even if there is no serious illness,’ providing that the sorcerer did not resort to astrology or divination (Deut. 18: 10-11; 2 Kings 17:17).”
71 Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 184: “As early as the geonic period the title ba’al shem or ‘master of the name’ signified a master of practical Kabbalah who was an expert at issuing amulets for various purposes, invoking angels or devils, and exorcising evil spirits who had taken possession of a human body. On the whole such figures were clearly identified with white magic in the popular mind, as opposed to sorcerers, witches, and wizards.” Dan (The Encyclopedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition, article on “Ba’al Shem”) writes: “The designation ba’al shem did not originate with the kabbalists, for it was already known to the last Babylonian geonim. In a responsum, Hai Gaon stated: ‘They testified that they saw a certain man, one of the well-known ba’alei shem, on the eve of the Sabbath in one place, and that at the same time he was seen in another place, several days' journey distant.’ It was in this sense that Judah Halevi criticized the activities of the ba'alei shem (Kuzari, 3:53).”
72 Dan, Yosef. The Encyclopedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition, article on “Magic.”
73 Ibid., Scholem, pp. 182-3.
74 Dan, Yosef. Encyclopedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition, article on “Ba’al shem”.
75 Ibid.
76 Trachtenberg (Ibid.) p. 17.
77 Pollack, Herman. Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806): Studies in Aspects of Daily Life. The M.I.T. Press (1971), p. 118.
78 See Matras (Ibid.) and also Shapiro, Marc. “A Note on Practical Kabbalah in Early 20th Century Jerusalem,” in Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 7 (2002), pp. 47-49.
79 Trachtenberg, p. 16: “Knowledge of the names, through which Jewish magic worked, was inaccessible to women, for it required not only a thorough training in Hebrew and Aramaic, which most of them lacked, but also a deep immersion in mystical lore, from which they were barred.” [emphasis nime]
80 JTS MS 1714. The names of the owners are listed at the end of the manuscript as: “Baki son of Bibi, Tarfah daughter of Sa’atdat, and Abaidah daughter of Bibi Meirs.”
81 Why else would a spell profess to help one deliver “a good derasha (JTS MS2084 F. 9b)?”
82 Reishit Chochmah sha’ar ahavah, 6:39-40: “
83 Matras, Hagit. “Wholeness and Holiness in Sifrei Segulot,” in Korot Vol. 9, Special Issue, pp. 104-106 (1998).
84 De Vidas, Eliyahu. Reishit Chokhmah, Ahavah 6:39-40, Translation adapted from. Benyosef, Simchah H. The Beginning of Wisdom, Ktav Publishing House Inc (2002.) pp. 157-8.
85 Sha’ar Ruach Ha-Kodesh – Vital tikkin 3, 41. Translation, Kaplan, Aryeh. Meditation and Kabbalah. Samuel Weiser Inc. (1982) pp. 231-2.
86 Jacob Coblenz, a Jewish folk healer confirms his existence and success, when he writes,”From others I have heard of prescribed remedies and cures that have been tried many times, and with the help of God many individuals were healed through me…” (Ibid., Pollack, p. 114)
87 Also see Matras who confirms this when she writes the following: “The Sifrei Segulot have an audience and following much wider than those of healers alone…In the past, they were popularly used as first aid manuals in remote communities. It is claimed that they are real “bargains:” for the price of a single remedy in a pharmacy, many remedies of various kinds can be obtained in a Sefer Segulot. These books were kept on the shelves amidst the holy books alongside the Zohar and other Cabalistic texts.”-Matras, pp. 104-5.
88 JTS MS 1714, see above.
89 Avriel Bar-Levav, “Death and the (Blurred) Boundaries of Magic: Strategies of Coexistence.” From Kabbalah: Hournal for the Study of Jewish Mysticism 7 (2002) p. 64