ORAL LAW, ORAL MAGIC: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON TALMUDIC MAGIC

L. Mock Universiteit van Amsterdam

The last decades have seen a rising interest in the study of Jewish magic. Various studies were published on Jewish amulets; magic bowls; magic in the Talmud; and correlations between Jewish magic and pagan magic. And indeed, a closer look at the Talmud shows that magic abounds: in stories on Talmudic figures; in exegesis on biblical themes; in halakhic matters; and in ‘magical science’ in the form of advise on healing, on medicine and with explanations on how nature works. This article will focus on one hitherto neglected aspect: the fact that nearly all Talmudic magic has an oral perfor- mance, mostly in combination with certain rituals or actions. I would like to illustrate this point with some examples of Talmudic magic.

Amulets are frequently mentioned in the Talmud. In connection with the laws on the Shabbat, the question rises whether amulets are per- mitted to be carried on Shabbat like certain jewels or clothes. The Mishnah explicitly states that a man may go out on Shabbat with an amulet. From the Talmudic discussion on the Mishnah it is clear that it refers to a written amulet: ‘Our Rabbis taught: What is an expert’s amulet? One that has healed [once], a second time and a third time; whether it is an amulet in writing or an amulet of roots...’.1 The Talmudic discussion further elaborates on the sanc- tity of written amulets which appears from three rulings: saving them from a fire on the Shabbat; putting them in the genizah after they are worn; and entering a toilet while carrying one on your body— an action possibly forbidden because of the quotations from Scripture and the sacred names contained in amulets. Different sources are brought into the discussion that focus on the written aspect of amulets. For example: ‘Our Rabbis taught: Benedictions and amulets, though they contain letters of the [Divine]

1 bShab 61a (Soncino ed.). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 ZUTOT 5.1 Also available online – www.brill.nl 10 l. mock

Name and many passages from the Torah, must not be rescued from a fire but must be burnt where they lie, they together with their Names.’2 However, it is allowed to go into a privy with an amulet, since its sacred contents are covered by its leather case.3 The fact that the Talmudic discussion elaborates mainly on aspects that are relevant to written amulets, suggests that for the Rabbis of the Talmud—and not necessarily for those of the Mishnah4—the aver- age amulet was a written one. In fact, written amulets were fre- quently used by people in antiquity—Jews and pagans. Several Jewish amulets on thin metal plates (lamellae)5 from late antiquity were found, as well as more than 1500 magical bowls from Babylonia (now Iraq), a significant number of them in the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic dialect and roughly from the same period as the Talmud.

2 Ibid., 115b. 3 Ibid., 62a. 4 The Mishnah in Shabbat 60a leaves both possibilities open, i.e., whether a writ- ten or a non-written amulet is referred to. An interesting case though is posed in another Mishnah in 78a-78b. This Mishnah deals with minimum sizes of different textiles and materials which are forbidden to take out on Shabbat from a private property to a public property: ‘paper, large enough to write a tax-collector’s receipt on it (. . .); erased paper, as much as is required to wrap round a small phial of spikenard oil; skin, for making an amulet; parchment, for writing thereon the short- est passage of the tefillin, which is “Hear O Israel”; ink, for writing two letters . . .’ The interesting point here is that the Mishnah refers to the amount of skin in rela- tion to making an amulet, not writing one. This is all the more striking since other materials are specifically connected by the Mishnah to writing: paper, parchment and ink. This suggests that for the Mishnah a standard amulet is not a written one, but one of roots, stones or other materials or items covered in a leather case. And in respect of this case the Mishnah states ‘skin, for making an amulet’. Another interesting source is bShab 79a: ‘Come and hear: For R. Hiyya b. Ammi said on ‘Ulla’s authority: There are three [kinds of ] hide: mazzah, hippa, and diftera. Mazzah is as its name implies, neither salted nor treated with flour or gall-nut. And what is its standard? R. Samuel b. Rab Judah recited: As much as is required for wrapping a small weight therein. And how much is that? Said Abaye: A quar- ter of a Pumbedithan quarter. Hippa is a skin that is salted but not treated with flour and gall-nut. And what is its standard? Even as we learnt: “skin, as much as is required for making an amulet”. Diftera is skin that has been dressed with salt and flour but not treated with gall-nut. And what is its standard? As much as is required for writing a divorce.’ So we see that diftera was used for writing a bill of divorce—and according to 79b also for writing a mezuzah—while hippa was used to make a case for an amulet —but not for writing the amulet itself. To assume that amulets were written on parchment (kelaf ) like tefillin (see 79b) is unlikely since an amulet has no fixed (minimum) length, the minimum measure of an amulet would be smaller than ‘to write the shortest passage of the tefillin, which is “Hear O Israel”’. So, the Mishnah should have mentioned as minimum size of parchment ‘the size of writing an amulet’ and not ‘to write the shortest passage of the tefillin’. 5 There are—as far as I know—no references in Talmudic literature to amulets written on metal lamellae, see also the previous note at the end.