Daf Ditty Pesachim 110: ‫יוסף שידא‬

1
Yosef the Shed was a shed who would assist the sages by giving them info on
shedim, as Sforno writes:
" ‫חקת עולם תהיה זאת שלא יזבחו לשעירים אף על פי שלא היו מקבלים אותם לאלוה בשום פנים אבל היו‬
‫חפצים בחברתם להיות השדים להם משרתים ומסייעים בעסקיהם או שליחותם אל ארץ רחוקה כמו שהזכירו‬
‫)חולין פרק כל הבשר( על יוסף שידא ועל שידא דהוה שכיח בי רב אשי‬..."

"This shall be to them a law for all time that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-
demons, even if they don't accept them upon them as a god in way whatsoever, but were
interested in their company for the demons to be servants to them and assisting them in their
businesses or their ventures to far-off lands, as they mentioned (Chulin ch. Kol Habasar) about
Yosef Sheida and the sheida that was often at the house of Rav Ashi..."

Sforno to Lev 17:7

2
The Sages taught in another baraita: If one drinks in pairs his blood is upon his head, i.e., he
bears responsibility for his own demise. Rav Yehuda said: When is that the case? When one did
not leave the house and view the marketplace between cups. However, if he saw the
marketplace after the first cup, he has permission to drink another cup without concern.
Likewise, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Ḥananya bar Beivai follow this policy: Upon drinking each
cup, he would leave the house and view the marketplace.

3
And we said that there is concern for the safety of one who drinks in pairs only when he intends
to set out on the road after drinking, but if he intends to remain in his home there is no need for
concern. Rabbi Zeira said: And one who plans to sleep is comparable to one who is setting out
on the road. He should be concerned that he might be harmed. Rav Pappa said: And going to
the bathroom is comparable to setting out on the road. The Gemara asks: And if one intends
to remain in his home, is there no cause for concern? But Rava would count the beams of the
house to keep track of the number of cups he had drunk so as to ensure that he would not consume
an even number.

And likewise, Abaye, when he would drink one cup, his mother would immediately place two
cups in his two hands so that he would not inadvertently drink only one more cup and thereby
expose himself to the danger of drinking in pairs. And similarly, when Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak
would drink two cups, his attendant would immediately place one more cup in his hand, and
if he would drink one cup, the attendant would place two cups in his two hands. These reports
indicate that one should be concerned for his safety after drinking an even number of cups, even
when he remains at home. The Gemara answers: An important person is different. The demons
focus their attention on him, and he must therefore be more careful than the average person.

4
Ulla said: Ten cups contain no element of the danger associated with pairs. Ulla rules here in
accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as Ulla said, and some say it was taught in a
baraita: The Sages instituted that one must drink ten cups of wine in the house of a mourner
during the meal of comfort. And if it could enter your mind that ten cups do contain the element
of danger associated with pairs, how could the Sages arise and institute something that might
bring a person to a state of danger? However, eight cups do contain the element of danger
associated with pairs.

5
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say that eight is also safe from the dangers of pairs,
as the number seven, represented by the word shalom, combines with the previous cups for the
good but does not combine for the bad. The final verse of the priestly benediction reads: “The
Lord lift His countenance upon you and give you peace [shalom]” (Numbers 6:26). The word
shalom, the seventh Hebrew word in this verse, has a purely positive connotation. Rav Ḥisda and
Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore maintain that the seventh cup combines with the previous six only
for good purposes. After the seventh cup, i.e., from the eighth cup and on, the cups constitute pairs
for the good but not for the bad. However, six cups do contain the element of danger associated
with pairs.

6
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that even drinking six cups is not dangerous. The reason is that
the fifth cup, represented by the word viḥuneka in the second verse of the priestly benediction:
“The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you [viḥuneka]” (Numbers 6:25),
combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. However, four
cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.

7
Abaye and Rava both say that even the number four is not dangerous, as veyishmerekha, the
third word in the first verse of the priestly benediction, reads: “The Lord bless you and keep you
[veyishmerekha]” (Numbers 6:24). It combines for the good but does not combine for the bad.

And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava allowed the Sages to
leave after having drunk four cups and was not concerned for their safety. Although Rava bar
Livai was injured on one such occasion, Rava was not concerned that the matter had been
caused by his consumption of an even number of cups, as he said: That injury occurred because
Rava bar Livai challenged me during the public lecture. It is improper for a student to raise
difficulties against his rabbi during a public lecture, lest the rabbi be embarrassed by his inability
to answer.

8
Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demon said to me: Ahmadzai, the king of the demons, is appointed
over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit. A king would
not cause harm. Consequently, there is no reason to fear the harm of demons for having performed
an action in pairs. Some say this statement in this manner: On the contrary, he is an angry king
who does what he wants, as the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in
order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action. Similarly, the king of demons
has full license to harm people who perform actions in pairs.

9
Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we demons kill him; if
he drinks four, we do not kill him. But this person who drank four, we harm him. There is another
difference between two and four: With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so
unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so
intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.

OPENING THE FRONT DOOR DURING THE SEDER

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

There is a widespread custom to open the door of one's house during the Pesach Seder when one
recites the verse "Shefoch Chamascha Al ha'Goyim...," after Birkas ha'Mazon. What is the source for
this custom?

The Gemara discusses the problems of one who drinks in pairs ("Zugot"; see Insights to 109b). The
Gemara says that if one "sees the public marketplace" between the cups of wine that he drinks, then
the cups do not join together and are not considered to be a pair. Some Acharonim suggest that this
is the source for the custom to open the door during the Pesach Seder. One who drinks four cups of
wine on Seder night could encounter a problem of Zugot. Therefore, he opens the door in order to
"see the public area" and thereby avoid the problem of pairs. (Even though the Gemara says that there
is no problem of Zugot when one is in his home, the Gemara says that if one plans to go to sleep,

10
then there is a problem of Zugot. Since most people go to sleep after they drink the four cups of wine,
there is a concern of Zugot. Even though the Gemara says that there is no problem of pairs when one
drinks the Arba Kosos, nevertheless the door is opened as a precautionary measure.) (HAGADAS
ZECHER YEHOSEF)

BEIS HA'LEVI suggests another reason to open the door based on the opposite logic.
The REMA (OC 480) writes that one opens the door to show that he is not afraid of any damaging
agents on this night, for it is "Leil Shimurim," the night when everyone receives special Divine
protection (109b). Why, though, is it appropriate to show this near the end of the Seder, as opposed
to earlier in the night?

The answer is that at this point in the night, one is about to end the Seder with two cups of wine. One
opens the door to show that he is not afraid of the potentially harmful effects of Zugot, for this night
is "Leil Shimurim."

BE'ER YOSEF (Rav Yosef Salant zt'l of Yerushalayim), suggests that the Gemara implies that the
houses in Yerushalayim in which the Korban Pesach were eaten were often very crowded, and people
could not wait to finish their Pesach meat and leave. One is not allowed to eat some of the Pesach in
one house and some in another (85b). Therefore, in order to prevent people from leaving the house
before they finished eating the Pesach, the practice may have been to lock the door of the house until
after Birkas ha'Mazon. Afterwards, the door was opened, and the people would leave the house for
the airy and roomy rooftops to recite Hallel (86a). In remembrance of this practice, the doors are
opened after Birkas ha'Mazon.

TAKING "KISHUF" INTO ACCOUNT

The Gemara says that Rava would escort his Talmidim out of his home and give them four cups of
wine, because he understood that anything more than two posed no problem of Zugot.
The RASHBAM asks that Rava earlier implied that there is a problem of pairs with more than two,
when he asserted that the only reason why the Arba Kosos do not constitute Zugot is because "a Kos
Shel Berachah can join only for good, and not for bad." If not for that reason, however, the four
cups would constitute Zugot.

RASHBAM answers that although Rava was not concerned for Zugot with the Arba Kosos,
he was concerned for Kishuf (as the Gemara says on 110b). Therefore, Rava explained that there is
no concern for Kishuf because "a Kos Shel Berachah can join only for good."

If, however, the powers of Kishuf affect pairs in even numbers greater than two, then why did Rava
escort his Talmidim out with four cups? (CHAVOS YA'IR #25 and 26; RASHASH)
In addition, the Gemara proves that since the Rabanan enacted that ten cups of wine be consumed in
a Beis ha'Avel (a house of mourning), it must be that a quantity of ten does not pose a problem of
Zugot. However, there should still be a problem of Kishuf with ten. How could the Rabanan make an
enactment to do something which might lead to a danger of Kishuf? (CHAVOS YA'IR #26, cited by
the DEVAR SHMUEL)

11
CHAVOS YA'IR answers that Rava gave four cups only occasionally when a Talmid would leave.
Something done only on occasion is not a cause for concern about Kishuf, since it is unlikely that a
sorcerer will meet up with that person at random. Similarly, the drinking of wine in a house of
mourning is not a regular occurrence, and therefore there is no fear of Kishuf. The concern for Kashif
applies only to something that is an established practice for everyone, such as the Arba Kosos.

RASHASH answers the first question with a statement of RABEINU YONAH (quoted by
the ROSH 10:25). One of the reasons why the Maror is dipped into Charoses is because pure Maror
can be dangerous to one's health (114b).

However, the Mishnah makes no mention of the need to dip Chazares in Charoses when one eats
Chazares as Karpas, even though Chazares is a type of Maror. Only when one eats the Maror the
second time, to fulfill the Mitzvah of Maror, does the Mishnah say that he must dip it. What is the
difference between the two times that one eats Maror? If it is dangerous to eat it un-dipped, then the
Rabanan should require that it be dipped both times.

Rabeinu Yonah answers that, as the Gemara says, the first time that one eats the Maror at the Seder
is not to fulfill the Mitzvah, but only to motivate the children to ask questions. Even though un-
dipped Maror poses a danger to one's health, people nevertheless often eat it plain and are not harmed.
In addition, the practice to eat Karpas is not obligatory, and thus the Rabanan did not institute any
particular way to eat it. The Mitzvah to eat Maror later in the Seder is obligatory, and thus the
Rabanan decreed that one fulfill the Mitzvah in a way that poses no risk of danger to one's health.

The same reasoning might apply to the Mitzvah d'Rabanan of Arba Kosos. Kashif is not a common
problem, and people are normally not concerned with it. Rava did not protect his students from Kashif
when he escorted them out, because those four cups were not an object of a Mitzvah; had they wanted,
they could have consumed only three cups. Since it involved no Mitzvah, Rava had no need to be
concerned for Kashif.

In contrast, the Arba Kosos is a Mitzvah, and therefore the Rabanan had to be concerned for
everyone's well-being when they instituted it. They instituted the Mitzvah only when they determined
that there was no concern for Kashif.

Danger in Pairs
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

The Me’iri points out that during Talmudic times there were popular beliefs in destructive forces,
amulets, etc. – ideas that today would be considered superstition. As long as these beliefs did not
involve Avoda Zara or actual witchcraft, the Sages made no attempt to convince the people that
they were untrue. This was certainly true in cases where these beliefs were so strong that the
psychological belief would cause a physiological reaction to a given circumstance. The Gemara’s
formulation of this appears at the end of the discussion here, which recognizes that those who are

1
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim110/

12
concerned about such things should be concerned, but those who are not particular about them do
not need to worry.

One of these beliefs was the danger of zugot – that is to say, that doing things in pairs was
hazardous. This concern leads to a question being raised about the Seder night. How can the Sages
obligate participants to drink four cups of wine, when doing so would be involving oneself
in zugot?

Rav Nahman said that the verse said: “It was a night of watching to the Lord” (Ex 12:42), which
indicates that Passover night is a night that remains guarded from demons and harmful spirits of
all kinds. Therefore, there is no cause for concern about this form of danger on this particular
night.

Rava said a different answer: The cup of blessing for Grace after Meals on Passover night is used
in the performance of an additional mitzva and is not simply an expression of freedom.
Therefore, it combines with the other cups for the good, i.e., to fulfill the mitzva to drink four
cups, and it does not combine for the bad.

The lengthy discussion of zugot in our Gemara includes a conversation between Rav
Pappa and Yosef the Demon [Shida] about the respective dangers of one set of zugot (two) and two
sets of zugot (four).

The identity of Yosef Shida, who appears in a number of stories throughout the Gemara, is not
clear. Rashi brings two possible explanations, one which sees him as a person who was an expert
in shedim (demons) and the occult, while the second suggests that he was, himself, a demon with
whom the Sages developed a relationship to the extent that they discussed issues of shedim with
him. Either one of these explanations can be supported by the various stories about shedim that
appear in the Gemara.

Understanding the dangers of destructive forces

It appears that at least some of these popular beliefs were based on experience and diagnosis that were not
fully understood centuries before microscopic germs had been seen through a lens. Thus, the Gemara
informs us that the creature who is responsible for food is called "Nakid" (perhaps a play on the word naki -
clean), while the creature responsible for poverty is called "Naval," and that a house where crumbs are left
on the floor is visited by Naval, while a house where proper care is taken with food is visited by Nakid. As
the Arukh points out, the Gemara is not only "introducing" us to metaphysical forces that lurk in the house,
but is also teaching basic rules of cleanliness. Homes where basic rules of sanitation are kept will be "ruled"
by the Lord of Food, while places where hygiene is lacking, and food is not treated in a clean, respectful
manner will be governed by the Lord of Poverty.

Other recommendations made by the Gemara on our daf include Rav Yosef's admonition about activities
that lead to a loss of vision (note that Rav Yosef, himself, was blind). The first such activity is combing
hair when it is dry. This may refer to a brief period of vision loss when vigorous combing - particularly of
dry hair that is stuck together - may affect the scalp and create a nerve reflex that may cause partial loss of

13
sight for a short time. The second activity that he mentions is drinking in a manner that he call "tif tif." This
may refer to someone who drinks the dregs of a wine barrel, where the alcohol level is higher than normal.
The high alcohol level may cause a slight poisoning that can lead to partial blindness. Rav Yosef's final
recommendation is to avoid putting on shoes when your feet are still wet. This, too, may be explained by
suggesting that rheumatic damage can affect the optic nerve, causing visual disorders.

Our Daf mentions the rule of being oblivious to the damage of zugos. The question is whether
ignoring other harmful forces also serves to allow one to be protected from those forces.2

The Gemara (Nedarim 32a) states this rule in reference to sorcery. “Anyone who practices sorcery,
‫—לו חש‬sorcery will affect him.” The ‫ ר”ן‬explains that this is due to the rule we find in our daf .

Igros Moshe (E.H. 3:26) writes that this concept also works in regard to being protected from the
possible damage which is inflicted by ‫ הרע עין‬.

Therefore, someone who remains indifferent to it will, in fact, not be harmed by it. Kehillas
Yaakov, however, writes that ‫ הרע עין‬is always a threatening factor, and one must be alert to stay
clear of its harm.

Sefer HaChasidim writes that the reason these forces threaten those who are wary of them is based
upon the verse (Yechezkel 7:25): “‫—בא קפדא‬A cutting is coming, they will seek peace, but there
will be none.” ‫” ה של‬explains that a person who is concerned about the harm of these forces
demonstrates via his anxiety that he is less trusting of Hashem’s protection.

Accordingly, Hashem indeed leaves that untrusting person to the whims of those forces. Rashbam
notes that if the rule is actually that one who ignores zugos is safe, it is surprising that the Gemara
spends so much time delineating the various cases of zugos. It should have simply stated that one
should ignore this issue.

2
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20110.pdf

14
Rather, says Rashbam, everyone is subject to this problem. However, one who is overly concerned
about it will be more susceptible to its harm, but even those who are indifferent should still exercise
caution in this regard.

Interestingly enough, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch make no mention of the laws of
“pairs.” It would seem that this stems from the opinion of the Rambam (2) that the entire concept
of demons, sorcerers (and powers of avodah zara) are nothing but false lies that the Torah
commands us not to practice. Indeed, this is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch (3).

[In their opinion the apparent power that these sources seem to have to bring or remove afflictions
(4) is all orchestrated by Divine Providence to test people and tempt them to desire these sinful
forces.]

However, the opinion of Tosafos (5) and other Rishonim is that these characters are to be
understood on their most basic level. The Gra (6) is of a similar opinion. [This is apparently the
opinion of the Mishna Berura (7) as well.]

Note: This entire discussion revolves around the aforementioned characters. In regard to the
damage incurred by the ayin hara however, all Poskim (8) are in agreement that this force can
cause harm. For when one is excited about the success of someone else (9) it puts that person in
danger. The Aruch HaShulchan (10) even says that one who damages someone else through ayin
hara is obligated by the Heavenly courts to compensate for the loss.

15
Demonology3
References are made to a belief in demonology during the tannaitic period.
The mazzikim ("harmful spirits") are said to have been created on the eve of the Sabbath of
creation (Avot 5:6) but this late reference is the only one made to demons in the entire Mishnah.
Among the accomplishments of both Hillel (Sof. 16:9) and his disciple R. Johanan b. Zakkai was
their knowledge of "the speech of the shedim" ("devils," Suk. 28a). The latter also gave the analogy
of a ru'ah tezazit ("the demon of madness") entering a man and being exorcised, in order to explain
to a heathen the anomaly of the laws of the red heifer , although he agreed with his wondering
disciples that it was but "putting him off with a straw" and that he himself did not accept it (PR
40a; Num. R. 19:4). Although these statements refer to Erez Israel, the Jerusalem Talmud is
markedly free from demonology, and in fact mentions only three general names for them
– mazzikim, shedim, and ruhot. A passage in the Babylonian Talmud specifically states that
various beliefs connected with demons which were current in Babylon were ignored in Erez Israel.
Whereas in Erez Israel they translated shiddah and shiddot (Eccles. 2:8) as "carriages," in Babylon
they rendered them "male and female demons" (Git. 68a). The Palestinian R. Johanan stated that
the mazzikim which used to hold sway in the world disappeared with the erection of the sanctuary
in the wilderness (Num. R. 12:30). Demonology, however, is more prominent in the Palestinian
Midrashim than in the Jerusalem Talmud. On the other hand, the Babylonian Talmud is replete
with demonology, obviously under the influence of the belief in demons which was widespread in

3
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/demons-and-demonology

16
Babylonia. In fact, in a responsum (published in Lewin, Ozar, p. 20; cf. Assaf, Geonim, p.
262) Hai Gaon states that the belief in demons was widespread in Sura, since it was near to
(old) Babylonia and to the house of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas in the more distant Pumbedita they
were far from such ideas. The Babylonian Jews lived in a world which was filled with demons and
spirits, malevolent and sometimes benevolent, who inhabited the air, the trees, water, roofs of
houses, and privies. They are invisible; "If the eye could see them no one could endure them. They
surround one on all sides. They are more numerous than humans, each person has a thousand on
his left and ten thousand on his right" and they are responsible for various inconveniences. Yet, by
taking certain steps, in the morning one can see their footprints in the shape of those of a cock (Ber.
6a). Whereas in the Kabbalah there is an attempt to systematize demonology (see below) there is
no sign of such an attempt in the talmudic literature. The material is vast and inchoate, scattered
in profusion and without system throughout the whole Talmud and in the Midrashim. The
following details, taken except where otherwise indicated from one passage of the Talmud (Pes.
110a–112b), may be taken as indicative.

Asmodeus is the king of the demons.

The queen is Agrath bat Mahalath , who has 10,000 demon attendants, each of whom can do harm.
She haunts the air. Originally she held sway at all times, but Hanina b. Dosa, threatening to ban
her from populated areas, relented in answer to her pleas and permitted her to be active on
Wednesday nights and Sabbath eves. The Babylonian amora Abbaye later banished her from
populated areas but she still lurks in the narrow alleys. Doing things in pairs, especially drinking
an even number of cups, invites the malevolent activities of demons; an exception is the four cups
enjoined in the seder on Passover for which reason that occasion is called "a night of
guarding" (Ex. 12:42), i.e., of protection from demons. Demons are especially harmful in and
around palm trees, and their malevolent attention is invited by easing oneself between a palm tree
and the wall, by passing between two palms, or by sleeping in the shadow of a palm tree. The
demon Palga will affect a man easing himself on the stump of a palm tree; the demon Zereda him
who leans his head on one. In general one should avoid many-branched or prickly trees, but there
are special trees which are the favorite haunts of the spirits. In the caperbush there resides the
eyeless Ruhe. Every sorb tree harbors demons in its shade and is especially dangerous when it is
in the vicinity of a town. At least 60 demons haunt it, and they can be exorcised only by a "60
demon amulet." Demons called Rishpe live in the roots of trees. The demon Ketev Meriri (Deut.
32:34) is active in the mornings. It was seen by Abbaye when he was in the company of Papa and
Huna b. Joshua. In the afternoon, its place is taken by Ketev Yashud Ẓohorayim (Ps. 91:6) which
looks like a goat's horns, and has wings. Both these demons are particularly active from the 1st to
the 16th of Tammuz.

According to the Midrash, however, Ketev Meriri is active during the period of mourning from the
17th of Tammuz to the Ninth of Av, between the fourth and ninth hours of the day. As late as the
13th century Zedekiah Anav reports that in Rome pupils were not punished during these days and
hours because of Ketev Meriri which held sway then (Shibbolei ha-Leket, 1:203). It is covered
with scales and hairs; it has one eye in its heart and rolls like a ball between the sunlight and the
shade. Whoever sees it, collapses and falls to the ground (Mid. Ps. 91:3; from the context however
it appears that the reference should be to the Ketev Yashud Ẓohorayim). R. Joseph and R. Papa had
friendly conversation with a demon called Joseph.

17
Demons are prone to infest food and drink left under the bed, and one should refrain from drinking
water on Wednesday and Sabbath eve or from pools and rivers at night. The demon Shabriri
("blindness" – cf. Targum Onkelos, Gen. 19:11) wreaks harm on those so doing, but an incantation,
consisting of an abracadabra whereby the word is repeated, successively deducting one letter from
the word (Shabriri, briri, riri, etc.), is an effective antidote. Solomon made use of male and female
demons to build the Temple (Git. 68b) and to bring him water from India with which he was able
to grow all kinds of exotic plants not otherwise growing in Erez Israel (Eccles. R. to 2:5). Scholars
were immune to the evil machinations of demons while they were engaged in study, but Rashi
explains a passage of the Talmud to mean that, on the contrary, they are in need of special
protection since the demons are envious of them (Ber. 62a). Psalm 91 is called "the Psalm of
[protection against harmful] visitations." Moses is stated to have recited it when he ascended
Mount Sinai "because of his fear of mazzikim… and angels of destruction." It is enjoined to be
recited "because the whole world is full of evil spirits and mazzikim" (Tanh., Mishpatim, end) and
the midrashic interpretations of this Psalm are a veritable treasure store of demonology lore (e.g.,
Mid. Ps. 91; Tanh., Mishpatim, end; Num. R. 12:3–4). The power of demons over man and his
helplessness in face of it is illustrated by the fact that the talmudic metaphor for an act performed
through force majeure is "as though a devil [shed] had compelled him" (e.g., RH 28a). The
talmudic commentators and codifiers accepted the belief in demons; Maimonides alone opposed
it.

Emil G. Hirsch, Richard Gottheil, Kaufmann Kohler, Isaac Broydé write:4

King and Queen of Demons

The demons were believed to be under the dominion of a king or chief, either Ahmadzai (Targ. to Eccl. i. 13; Pes.
110a; Yer. Shek. 49b; Lev. R. v., where is a corruption of ) or, in the older Haggadah, Samael ("the
angel of death"), who kills people by his deadly poison ("sain ha-mawet"), and is called "head of the devils" ("rosh
saṭanim"; Deut R. xi.; Pirḳe R. El. xiii.). Occasionally a demon is called "saṭan": "Stand not in the way of an ox when
coming from the pasture, for Satan dances between his horns" (Pes. 112b; compare B. Ḳ. 21a). The name "mashḥit"
("destroyer," Ex. xii. 23) seems to refer to the head of the demons in the sentence: "When permission is given to the
destroyer to do harm, he no longer discriminates between the righteous and the wicked" (Mek., Bo, 11; B. Ḳ. 60a).

The queen of demons is Lilith, pictured with wings and long flowing hair, and called the "mother of Ahriman"
( B. B. 73b; 'Er. 100b; Nid. 24b). "When Adam, doing penance for his sin, separated from Eve for 130 years,
he, by impure desire, caused the earth to be filled with demons, or shedim, lilin, and evil spirits" (Gen. R. xx.; 'Er.
18b), and according to Pseudo-Sirach ("Alphabetum Siracidis," ed. Steinschneider, p. 23) it was Lilith, as Adam's
concubine, who bore them (compare "Chronicles of Jerahmeel," ed. Gaster. xxiii. 1). Whether identical with Lilith or
not, a more familiar personage, as queen of the demons, is Igarat bat Maḥlat (Num. R. xii.; Pes. 112b), with herchariot
and her train of eighteen myriads of demons. According to Yalḳuṭ, Ḥadash, Keshafim, 56, she dances at the head of
478 ( ), and Lilith howls at the head of 480 (= ), companies of demons. The cabalists have as a third
queen of the demons and wife of Samael, "Na'amah," the sister of Tubal Cain and the "mother of Ahmadzai" (Gen.
iv. 27; see Beḥai's commentary, and Yalḳuṭ, Reubeni, ad loc.). Agrat bat Maḥlat seems to be "the mistress of the
sorceresses" who communicated magic secrets to Amemar (compare Pes. 110a, 112b). Yoḥane bat Reṭibi, who,
according to Soṭah 22a. prevented women by witchcraft from giving birth to their children, seems to be the same

4
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/contribs/510

18
mythical person mentioned by Pliny as "Iotape" or "Lotape" in "Historia Naturalis" (xxx. 1, 2), together with Jannes
(Jambres) and Moses (see Reinach, "Texte d'Auteurs Grecs et Romains," 1895, p. 282).

Pre-Talmudic Demonology
Upon pre-Talmudic demonology new light has been thrown by the "Testament of Solomon," translated by Conybeare
in "Jew. Quart. Rev." (1898, xi. 1-45), a work which, notwithstanding many Christian interpolations, is of ancient
Jewish origin and related to the "Book of Healing" ("Sefer Refu'ot") ascribed to King Solomon (see Pes. iv. 9;
Josephus, l.c.; Schürer, "Geseh." iii. 300). In this "Testament" it is told that by the help of a magic ring with the seal
of Pentalpha, Lilith-like vampires, Beelzebub, and all kinds of demons and unclean spirits were brought before
Solomon, to whom they disclosed their secrets and told how they could be mastered (see Solomon, Testament of). It
contains incantations against certain diseases, and specifies the task allotted to each of the chief demons in the erection
of the Temple. The latter was a favorite theme of the Haggadists (Pesiḳ. R. vi.; Soṭah 48b; Giṭ. 68a). The later
Haggadah ascribed to Moses this power to make the demons work at the erection of the Sanctuary (Pesiḳ. R. iv. 6b;
Num. R. xii.); and Solomon's "sword against the fear of the spirits at night" (Cant. R. to iii. 8) was transformed into
the Magic "sword of Moses" (Pesiḳ. 140a; Pesiḳ. R. 15; Cant. R. iii. 7; Num. R. xi., xii.). Henceforth the magic books
of Moses and the "Sword of Moses" (see Dieterich, "Abraxas," 1891, pp. 155,169 et seq.; Gaster, "Sword of Moses,"
London, 1896) took the place of "Solomon's Testament" in the magic lore of the Jews.

Cosmic Demons
In the main, demonology among the Jews preserved its simple character as a popular belief, the demons being regarded
as mischievous, but not as diabolical or as agencies of a power antagonistic to God. Even Ahmadzai, or Asmodeus,
the king of demons (Tobit iii. 8, vi. 14, Aramaic version), who kills the seven successive bridegrooms of Sara before
their marital union, is but a personification of lust and murder; but there is nothing Satanic—that is, of the spirit of
rebellion against God—in him; he is driven out by the recipe prescribed by the angel Raphael and sent to Egypt and
bound by Raphael (Tobit viii. 3). It was only at a certain period and within a certain circle that demonology received
its specific character as part of the cosmic power of evil, and in opposition to angelology as part of the cosmic power
of good.

Babylonian cosmogony describes the combat of Bel-Marduk with the chaos-monster Tiamat, the sea-dragon, the
power of darkness whose defeat is the beginning of the world of light and order. The same monster appears in various
Biblical passages as Rahab, the sea-monster; Tannin, the dragon of the sea; and Leviathan, the "crooked serpent" slain
by Yhwh "with his sure and great and strong sword" (Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ps. lxxxix. 10, 11; Job xxvi. 12; Gunkel,
"Schöpfung und Chaos," 1895, pp. 30-46 et seq.). While this mythological figure became in the course of time a
metaphor symbolizing nations like Egypt (Ezek. xxix. 3; Ps. lxxxvii. 4), the monster remained a real being in the
popular belief; and inasmuch as this conflicted with the monotheistic system, the battle of God or His angel Gabriel
with Leviathan and Behemoth was transformed into a great eschatological drama which ended in the perfect triumph
of divine justice (B. B. 75b). The Babylonian Tiamat, as Behemoth and Leviathan, became on the one hand infernal
monsters devouring the wicked, and on the other food and cover for the righteous in heaven (see Leviathan).
Nevertheless, the Mandæan and Gnostic heresies maintained the belief in these cosmic monsters (Brandt, "Mandäische
Schriften," 1893, pp. 144 et seq.), and many descriptions of Gehenna in Jewish and Christian literature preserve traces
of these. "Tartarus-holding" or "watching" demons of the lower regions (see Dieterich, l.c. pp. 35, 76 et
seq.; Eschatology; Gehenna). In fact, the hosts of demons punishing the wicked in Gehenna are in the service of angels
of divine justice, and though called "saṭanim" (Enoch xl. 7 et al.), belong to the category of angels rather than of
demons. According to the Book of Jubilees, Noah learned from the angels (Raphael) the remedies against these
diseases, and wrote them in a "Book of Healing", similar to the one ascribed to King Solomon (x. 5-12; Jellinek, "B.
H." iii. 155 et seq., xxx. et seq.). The host of demons under Satan's direction accordingly seduce all heathen people to
idolatry (Jubilees, vii. 27, x. 1, xi. 5, xv. 20, xxii. 17), but the end of Satan will be the healing and resurrection of the
servants of the Lord (xxiii. 30).

The speculation regarding the nature and origin of these demons and their leaders led as early as the second pre-
Christian century, in those fragments preserved under the name of the Book of Enoch, to the story of the fall of the

19
angels (Enoch, vii.-viii.; lxix.). Like Beelzebub, or Lucifer (Isa. xiv. 12; compare Slavonic Enoch, xxix. 4), two
hundred 'Irin or "watchers" fell, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 4); only tradition obviously
differed as to the leader of the rebellious host, whether it was Azazel or Shamḥazai. At any rate, they acknowledged
the supremacy of Satan (liii. 3, liv. 6), though occasionally many satans are mentioned (xl. 7 et al.), and these fallen
angels became "the evil spirits" (xv. 8, xix. 19) who taught mankind all the arts of deception, witchcraft, and sin (vii.-
viii., lxix.). But their children, the offspring of this mixture of an earthly and a celestial race, became, when slain, the
hybrid race of disembodiedspirits or demons doing the work of destruction until the Day of Judgment (xvi. 1). Belial
is another name for Satan found in the Book of Jubilees (xv. 33), in Sibyllines (iii. 63), and in Ascension of Isaiah (ii.
4), where he is also called "the prince of injustice" (Sar ha-Masṭemah), who rules over this world. Belial (or Beliar)
occurs most frequently in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. He has "seven spirits of deception" in his service
(Reuben, 2), and as author of all evil, "the spirit of hatred, darkness, deception, and error," he is the opponent of God,
the "Father of Light," and of His Law (Simeon, 5; Levi, 19; Issachar, 6; Dan, 5; Zebulun, 9; Naphtali, 8; Gad, 4;
Joseph, 20), and when "he and his evil spirits are crushed the heathen world will be converted to the belief in the Lord"
(Simeon, 7; Zebulon, 9). Under this aspect the world appeared as the arena in which Satan contends with the Lord,
the God of life everlasting, until "the great dragon, the old serpent, he that is called Devil and Satan, the deceiver of
the whole world, shall be cast down and his angels with him" (Suk. 52a; Assumptio Mosis, xi.; Matt. xxv. 41; Rev.
xii. 9).

SARA RONIS WRITES:5

Eruvin 43 features a discussion about whether the laws about Sabbath travel limits apply if one is
somehow more than ten handbreadths above the ground. As part of this discussion, the rabbis cite
a tradition that someone had once taught on Shabbat morning in the rabbinical academy at Sura
and on Shabbat afternoon in the academy at Pumbedita.

According to Google maps, it would take 37 hours to walk from Sura to Pumbedita, two ancient
cities in what is today Iraq. We can imagine that it might have taken even longer in the time of the
rabbis. But according to this story, the same teacher taught rabbinic law in both centers on the
same day. And to complicate things further, it was Shabbat, when travel of such a distance is
prohibited. So how was it possible?

Some say that it was Elijah who said them, which proves that the law of Sabbath limits does
not apply above ten handbreadths.
In the Bible, we learn that the prophet Elijah ascended to heaven in a fiery chariot, which the rabbis
imagine he then uses to get around in his long and storied afterlife. But the rabbis also raise a
second possibility about the identity of the teacher:

No, perhaps the demon Joseph said them.

Wait, what? Who is Joseph the demon and why would he be teaching Torah in rabbinic centers on
Shabbat?!

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-43/

20
This question is one that readers of today’s daf have asked for hundreds of years. Some medieval
commentators suggested that Joseph was not actually a demon but a human, and that this name –
the demon – was just a nickname. But that doesn’t really help clarify matters: How could a human
have traveled 37 hours in a single day?

Many of the modern English translations of today’s daf, including the one we usually use in this
series, find the idea of a demon teaching Torah in these rabbinic centers so weird that they explain
the matter this way: As a demon, Joseph does not observe Shabbat and so could travel long
distances with impunity. But if Joseph is not bound by Jewish law, then why is he teaching it in
rabbinic communities? And why are his teachings welcomed by the great sages of the day?

But the original text of the Talmud doesn’t include this idea, as you can see from the more literal
translation above.

Joseph the demon actually appears elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Pesachim,
where we encounter two of his teachings. We also have evidence of Joseph from a non-talmudic
source from the same time period – a clay bowl inscribed in Aramaic with an incantation against
danger, including dangerous demons. On this one bowl, the scribe lists a number of powerful rabbis
who historically fought against the threat of demons. One of those listed is none other than Rabbi
Joseph the demon.

Apparently, Joseph the demon is a rabbinic informant and a teacher of rabbis, and perhaps even a
rabbi himself! In their discussion of the laws of Sabbath limits, then, the rabbis are so confident in
the amazing power and welcome of the rabbinic community that they assume that everyone in the
world – human and otherwise – would want to be part of it. Now that’s a big tent!

How do demons fit into the Jewish world? How do they fit into the rabbinic world?

Our daf shows us how the rabbis think about these questions. As a reminder, on yesterday’s daf
we learned that a beraita prohibits doing many things in pairs for fear of provoking demons. The
discussion now continues to explore that prohibition in more depth.

The Gemara first allows someone to drink two cups of wine if they go for a walk between cups.
Other rabbis then permit drinking in pairs if one is intending to stay home, but not if they are going
to go to sleep or to the bathroom — activities that make one more vulnerable to demon attack.
Then a number of rabbis explore the question of whether it is all even numbers, or just doing
something twice (and twice alone) which is harmful. Creatively interpreting the priestly
blessing in Numbers 6:24-26, the Talmud eventually limits the danger to doing something twice.

To support this claim, the Talmud then cites a remarkable set of teachings:

Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demon said to me: Ashmedai, the king of the demons, is appointed
over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit (a pun on the
word for “demon,” mazzik, which means “harmer”) . Some say this statement in this manner:
On the contrary, he is an angry king who does what he wants, as the halakhah is that a king

21
may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may
protest his action.

Yosef the demon (speaking to Yosef the rabbi) tells us that the demons are organized into a
monarchy, with their King Ashmedai, who has the power to set the tone for how demons react to
even numbers.

Rav Yosef’s informant should be familiar to us — we’ve already met him inEruvin 43. There,
Yosef the demon is a rabbinic teacher who teaches Torah in the major rabbinic centers of Sura and
Pumbedita on Shabbat. Today too he is teaching the rabbis, this time about how the demons
calculate danger. After all, who better to teach us about how demons think than a demon himself?!

Yosef the demon continues, this time talking to Rav Pappa:

Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we kill him; four, we
do not kill him. Four, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so
unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so
intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.

This teaching is even more remarkable. The idea that liability changes depending on whether one’s
behavior is intentional or accidental is rooted in the Torah’s teachings about both ritual and
criminal law. Thus, for example, according to Numbers 35, one who murders someone is put to
death, but one who accidentally kills someone may flee to a city of refuge and be spared. What do
you know, demons think in exactly this way too!

The Talmud also tells us what demons think. Demons, according to today’s daf, are capable of
keen observation and can discern our intentions — whether to go for a walk, go to sleep, or even
to go to the restroom.

They know when we are doing something on purpose or by accident and can take these legal
complexities into account when deciding how to react. And they seem to be relatively unwilling
to actually kill human beings — otherwise, why would Yosef the demon bother telling the rabbis
all their secrets?

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:

In order to make sense of our daf we must begin by taking a moment to reflect on the theology of
dualism – the Zoroastrian belief that there are opposing forces of good and evil within the universe
- each aided by an army of demons.

As Rabbi Sacks explains in his book ‘Not in God’s Name’6, ‘it is not easy to see God as the source
of bad as well as good, judgement as well as forgiveness, justice as well as love’ (ibid p. 53). Given

6
Schocken, Feb 07, 2017

22
this, as Jeffrey Russell observes, dualism ‘denied the unity and omnipotence of God in order to
present his perfect goodness’ (ibid p. 48).

But while dualism was a belief held by a number of small sects, including those who wrote the
Dead Sea scrolls found in Qumran, over time the theology of dualism began to influence and
spread into other faiths. As such, ‘dualism entered Judaism and Christianity when it became easier
to attribute the sufferings of the world to an evil force rather than to the work of God.’ (ibid p. 49).

Having explained this, we can now turn to a Beraita found in yesterday’s daf (Pesachim 109b)
which itself lays the foundation for much of the discussion found in today’s daf. There we are
taught that, ‘a person should not eat or drink in pairs’ (i.e. they should not eat two distinct portions
of the same food, or drink two cups of the same beverage) - which various commentaries
understand to be a teaching highlighting the Jewish sensitivity towards adopting the theology of
dualism.

However, such a sensitivity becomes a problem for seder night when we have 4 cups of wine.
Thus, the question addressed by the Gemara is how can we reconcile the sensitivity towards
dualistic beliefs, with the practice of drinking four cups of wine on Pesach? In response to this
question, the Gemara offers three different answers: Firstly, seder night provides its own special
protection from slipping into these faulty beliefs. Secondly, because one of the cups of wine
accompanies the recitation of Grace After Meals which teaches us about the role of God in this
world, this helps ensure that the four cups are not interpreted as representing dualistic beliefs. And
thirdly, the four cups are not necessarily two pairs. Instead, they are - at least in some way - four
separate and distinct cups of wine, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.

Having reconciled how our practice of seder night need not be interpreted to be reflective of
dualistic tendencies, today’s daf (Pesachim 110a) proceeds to inform us of the practices of various
Babylonian Amoraim who were sensitive to the rule of ‘pairs’ and who avoided eating and
drinking in pairs. This is because dualism was a strongly promoted theology in Babylon at the
time.

Contrasting this, we are told (in Pesachim 110b) that the Amoraim living in Israel ‫– לא קפדי אזוגי‬
‘were not particular in regard to pairs’ – meaning that by this point in time, dualism was a less
known and less popular belief in Israel. What we learn from here is at least some of the rules
established by the Rabbis were established in response to trends and beliefs which existed at the
time, and that variations between communities can be explained in light of the prevalence of those
trends and beliefs.

However, before concluding, I want to return to the insights of Rabbi Sacks on dualism - because
there is much in what he says about the tendency towards dualism which is highly relevant for
contemporary Judaism and the modern world.

As Rabbi Sacks observes, dualism is a way of finding a simple answer to complex questions. But
as he asks, and then proceeds to address, ‘what if monotheism requires the ability to handle
complexity?’ (ibid. p. 53).

23
Today, while few Jews speak the language of dualism, there is unfortunately still a tendency within
our community to provide simple answers to complex questions. As Rabbi Yehuda Amital7 once
wrote while reflecting on Israeli society, ‘simplistic thought – seeing issues as black-and-white,
and an inability to perceive a whole and complex picture – has become a national epidemic. The
media continually broadcast simple and uncomplicated message [and] there is no time for involved
explanations which require more airtime… A situation has been created whereby simplistic
thought has not only gained legitimacy but has become the accepted language’ (Commitment and
Complexity p. 8). In response to this, he explains that it is important that we ‘fight against
superficiality and understand the complexity of the world’ (ibid.).

Overall, while ‘it is not easy to see God as the source of bad as well as good, judgement as well as
forgiveness, justice as well as love’, monotheism requires complex thinking, and instead of seeking
simple answers to hard questions, monotheism demands hard answers to hard questions. At the
same time, a person of faith must never forget that there will always be questions about God which
we – as humans - are not fully able to answer.

Yosef the Shed appears as a character in the Orthodox Israeli comic book
"L'azazel Im Baba" by Shay Charka8

7
Commitment and Complexity KTAV Publishing House (April 4, 2008)
8
Shay Charka is a comic artist from Israel. He created the popular series 'Baba', which deals a lot with biblical and talmudic
subjects. The book 'Passover Haggadic' from this series was translated into English for the Jewish American market. Shay Charka
is also an illustrator, animator and puppets designer for Israeli TV.

24
Speed Demon

Eliezer Segal writes:9

Jewish law establishes limitations about where and how far one may travel and carry on the
Sabbaths or holy days. These laws are rooted in the passage in the book of Exodus that tells of the
miraculous mannah, the “bread from heaven” that nourished the Israelites during their sojourn in
the desert. Mannah would not materialize on the Sabbath, and the people were admonished not to
leave their dwellings to look for it: “Abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his
place on the seventh day.” What may have originated as a warning to trust the divine word was
understood by the Jewish legal tradition as a categorical prohibition against traveling beyond a
specified distance from one’s place of residence or carrying objects between private and public
domains.

Rabbi Ḥanina in the Talmud raised the intriguing question of whether the legal distinctions
between the different domains apply only on the surface level; or do they extend above-ground—
beyond the elevation of ten hand-breaths that normally defines the upper limit of a private domain?
What was at that time a trifling instance of unrealistic rabbinic casuistry would later take on
practical relevance for dealing with air rights in our age of aviation and drones.

In its effort to resolve Rabbi Ḥanina’s query, the Talmud cited an incident that occurred in the
academies of fourth-century Babylonia. One Saturday morning, a collection of seven statements
was expounded before Rav Ḥisda in the town of Sura, and towards the end of that day the exact
same statements were cited before Rava in Pumbedita (today’s Fallujah), some 175 km away! The
best explanation that the rabbis could produce for that instantaneous transfer of the teachings over
such a large distance was by postulating supernatural channels of communication.

Jewish lore knows of one prominent figure who travels between the earthly and heavenly domains,
namely the prophet Elijah. Scripture does not tell of Elijah’s death, but rather of his ascent to
heaven in a whirlwind with a chariot of fire. Rabbinic literature relates many conversations
between the prophet and Jewish sages, and it was therefore not entirely unreasonable for them to
suppose that Elijah had couriered the teachings from Sura to Pumbedita. Since he was of course
observant of Jewish law, he could not have walked beyond the permitted limits. Therefore, they
initially assumed that he flew the distance (perhaps in a chariot or whirlwind). However, this
explanation only works if we accept the premise that there is not any Sabbath no-fly zone in effect
above ground level. This reasoning would appear to answer Rabbi Ḥanina’s question.

However, the Talmud rejects that argument. The Elijah hypothesis is not the only plausible way
of accounting for the same-day delivery of Rav Ḥisda’s seven statements. The ancient rabbis knew
of at least one other figure who could have traversed the distance: “Perhaps it was Joseph the
demon who reported them!” Rashi explained that the demon was not subject to the objections
leveled against Elijah because he was not Sabbath-observant.

9
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/181109_SpeedDemon.html

25
The mention of a demon in an ancient Jewish text is hardly remarkable, since until quite recently
virtually every known human culture shared the belief in invisible beings who have to be controlled
or conciliated (In our more scientifically advanced civilization we assign similar roles to space
aliens, viruses and Google). The Iranian heritage that held sway in Babylonia at that time was
particularly rich in its mythology of subversive and malevolent “daevas,” and this is vividly
reflected in the Talmud.

It is nonetheless interesting that the supernatural creature mentioned in this story bears a Hebrew
name, and that the venues of his activities were rabbinic academies. It is not clear whether he was
motivated by a helpful desire to advance the spread of Torah learning, or if he was colluding in a
kind of plagiaristic hacking into proprietary Suran knowledge.

This is not the only place in the Talmud that mentions Joseph the demon. For the most part, he
appears as a sympathetic figure, one who makes use of his demonic connections to assist the Jewish
sages. Thus, Rav Pappa and Rav quote him as a source of practical first-hand advice about how to
protect oneself from the machinations of evil spirits who are ready to attack the unfortunate persons
who committed the deadly blunder of imbibing or performing other actions in even-numbered
units.

Jewish rationalists were understandably reluctant to accept this kind of story at face value. The
thirteenth-century Provençal scholar Rabbi Menaḥem Meiri asserted that the Talmud’s reference
to Elijah was purely figurative; it alluded to a contemporary teacher—albeit one who was capable
of leaping between distant towns like the biblical prophet. Similarly, for Meiri Joseph was not
literally a demon. Like all such instances in rabbinic literature, that epithet was being employed
here as a rhetorical euphemism to indicate a Jew who violated the Sabbath, and perhaps to contrast
him with the proverbial “Joseph who honors the Sabbath,” the devout hero of a well-known
talmudic tale.

Rabbi Judah the Pious of Regensburg, the foremost figure in the medieval mystical “Ḥasidei
Ashkenaz” movement, insisted that not only do demons believe in the Torah, but they even
scrupulous in their observance of all the rabbinic laws. When challenged as to how Joseph was
able to transmit his information from Sura to Pumbedita without transgressing the Sabbath laws,
Rabbi Judah explained that Joseph in fact never left Pumbedita, where he received the data from a
fellow demon stationed in Sura who communicated it to him by means of a “long hollow tablet.”

I am not sure how exactly we are supposed to visualize that ancient communication device.
Apparently, Rabbi Judah had in mind an ultra-long tube capable of conveying and sustaining a
voice over vast distances (He was probably not aware of the actual distance involved). In any case,
Rabbi Judah’s disciple Rabbi Isaac Or Zarua‘ challenged his teacher’s explanation, pointing out
that as long as there was no Sabbath desecration involved, then there was no reason for the Talmud
to abandon its initial hypothesis that it was Elijah who conveyed the information to Pumbedita.

Our knowledge of talmudic Judaism in Babylonia derives almost exclusively from the information
contained in the Talmud itself, with very few external archeological artifacts. An interesting
exception to this rule is the phenomenon of “incantation bowls.” These are clay bowls whose
interior surfaces are inscribed with magical texts in Aramaic, usually written in a continuous spiral
beginning from the outer rim. These were intended to restrain or expel hostile demonic beings.

26
The bowls would be placed upside-down so that they would symbolically entrap their supernatural
targets. Thousands of these bowls have been unearthed, mostly around Nippur. Most of them are
of Jewish provenance, and their wording is often modeled after Jewish legal formulas, especially
those that are employed in documents of divorce or excommunications. There are certain rabbis
whose names are standardly invoked in the incantations, but these are usually legendary figures
who lived long before the time when the bowls were produced.

However, one of those bowls—after listing an impressive roster of figures who endorse the ban,
continues: “...And may you be under the ban of Rav Joseph the demon. And may you be under the
ban of all demons and dark ones that are in Babylonia.”

For the scribe who composed this incantation, Joseph the demon was not merely an observant Jew
(as would later be claimed by Rabbi Judah the Pious), but he even qualified for a rabbinic
ordination and the title “Rav”—Rabbi. Evidently the two callings were not regarded as mutually
contradictory.

And his sermons might not have been original, but they were probably delivered very quickly.

Do Chazal dispute whether shedim exist?

Josh Waxman writes:10

10
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/06/do-chazal-dispute-whether-shedim-exist.html

27
There is an interesting discussion over at Rationalist Judaism as to whether Rambam interpreted
Chazal correctly. The discussion turned to sheidim, and the Rambam's break from Chazal as to
their existence. Some suggested that it might have even been a dispute among Chazal
themselves, with some believing in their existence and some disbelieving.

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but I think I can debunk the one gemara which was offered as evidence
in that thread. It was from Bava Kamma 21a:

‫אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא אמר רב הדר בחצר חבירו שלא מדעתו אין צריך להעלות לו שכר משום‬
‫ יב( שנאמר‬,‫ושאיה יוכת שער אמר מר בר רב אשי לדידי חזי ליה ומנגח כי תורא רב יוסף אמר ביתא )ישעיהו כד‬
‫מיתבא יתיב מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דקא משתמש ביה בציבי ותיבנא‬

R. Sehorah slated that R. Huna quoting Rab had said: He who occupies his neighbour's premises
without having any agreement with him is under no legal obligation to pay him rent, for Scripture
says, Through emptiness (Shaya) even the gate gets smitten. Mar, son of R. Ashi, remarked: I
myself have seen such a thing and the damage was as great as though done by a goring ox. R.
Joseph said: Premises that are inhabited by tenants keep in a better condition. What however is
the [practical] difference between them? — There is a difference between them in the case where
the owner was using the premises for keeping there wood and straw.
The suggestion was that Rav Yosef must disbelieve in the existence of sheidim. But this is not
necessarily so. Rashi writes:

‫ שנאמר ושאיה יוכת שער‬- .‫שד ששמו שאיה מכתת שער בית שאין בני אדם דרין בו והלכך זה שעמד בו ההנהו‬
‫לישנא אחרינא בית שהוא שאוי ויחיד מאין אדם יוכת שער מזיקין מכתתין אותו‬:

That is, it is a particular demon. Demonology is a complex subject, and it could be that Rav Yosef
did not believe in this particular sheid, or that it has this particular effect -- or else had heard a
tradition as to the true reason for the introduction of this law.

I will elaborate why I doubt that Rav Yosef would disbelieve in the reality of sheidim in general.
If we look in our daf:

‫אמר רב יוסף אמר לי יוסף שידא אשמדאי מלכא דשידי ממונה הוא אכולהו זוגי ומלכא לא איקרי מזיק איכא דאמרי לה‬
‫אמר רב להאי גיסא אדרבה מלכא ]רתחנא הוא[ מאי דבעי עביד שהמלך פורץ גדר לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו‬
‫פפא אמר לי יוסף שידא בתרי קטלינן בארבעה לא קטלינן בארבעה מזקינן בתרי בין בשוגג בין במזיד בארבעה במזיד‬
‫אין בשוגג לא‬

Rav Yosef: Yosef the Shed told me that Ahmadzai, the king of the Shedim, is appointed over all
Zugot;

1. Version #1: A king does not normally damage (we need not be so concerned for Zugot; the
Baraisos warn against it on account of witchcraft).

28
2. Version #2: A king does whatever he wants - he may breach a fence to make a path for
himself, and people cannot protest (we must be very concerned for Zugot).
Rav Papa: Yosef the Shed told me that Shedim kill on account of two (e.g., cups); they damage
on account of four, but they do not kill;

1. They strike on account of two whether it was Shogeg or Mezid; they damage on account
of four only if it was Mezid.

Most translations I have seen give this as Yosef the Shed, that is Yosef the demon. Could
someone who has conversed with a demon really disbelieve in demons. (We also see, according
to the second version, that one who believes in demons could still believe that they would not
accomplish some particular action.)

Now, in William G. Braude's The Book of Legends, I have seen "Yosef Sheda" translated as
"Yosef, the expert on demons." That is, "Sheda" is a profession or expertise in demonology,
and he is informing these Amoraim about the rules governing demons. Still, that they cite him in
any meaningful way indicates that they believe in the reality of demons. (Unless we suggest that
Rav Yosef here cites him according to version #2, in order to undermine belief in zugot because
he does not believe in their reality.)

Depending on whether ‫ מר‬when used by Abaye refers to Rabbah or Rav Yosef, we may have an
explicit example of Rav Yosef saying that something was caused by demons, on Chullin 105b.

I would like to reconsider the gemara in Eruvin about Eliyahu Hanavi or Yosef Sheida. But first,
a paraphrase of something from the end of Yerushalmi Terumot:

29
Thus, sheidim have the ability to transport people from one location to another more or less
instantaneously. This is either teleportation or really fast travel. Now, let us turn back to Eruvin
43a:

‫תא שמע הני שב שמעתא דאיתאמרן בצפר' בשבתא קמיה דרב חסדא בסורא בהדי פניא בשבתא קמיה דרבא‬
‫בפומבדיתא מאן אמרינהו לאו אליהו אמרינהו אלמא אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה לא דלמא יוסף שידא אמרינהו‬

(f) Answer #3: Seven teachings were said Shabbos morning in front of Rav Chisda in Sura, and
Shabbos afternoon in front of Rabah in Pumbedisa [which is outside the Techum of Sura; surely,
the same person said them]!

1. Suggestion: Eliyahu said them (he flew above 10 from Sura to Pumbedisa) - this shows that
Techumim does not apply above 10! Me'iri, Chasam Sofer 6:98
(g) Rejection: Perhaps they were said by a certain Shed [that does not observe Shabbos].
I would emend this to not just "a certain Shed" by Yosef the Shed, the same one who spoke to Rav
Yosef and Rav Papa elsewhere.

30
Thus, first the assumption is that only Eliyahu Hanavi could travel that quickly. He would not
violate Shabbos by traveling past the techum, so he must have used his other miraculous power
and traveled in the air, higher than 10 tefachim. Thus, techum does not apply over
ten handbreadths.

The gemara rejects this because maybe it was Yosef Sheida. That is, Yosef the demon. We see
elsewhere that this demon conversed with Amoraim and could do so here. And demons are not
required to keep Shabbos, even if they have the name Yosef! As Rashi writes:

‫יוסף שידא‬- ‫דלא מינטר שבתא‬:

Yosef the Sheid, who does not keep Shabbos. And as we saw from the aforementioned story in
Yerushalmi, demons can travel really fast.

Alternatively, if we understand Yosef Sheida as the human expert on demons, then the gemara is
suggesting that this human expert was able to harness the power of demons to travel this great
distance on Shabbos. And there is no evidence that Yosef the demon expert was a religious man.
He didn't keep Shabbos, but still traveled to Pumpedisa and related the seven rulings.

Alternatively, Yosef Sheida is still this human expert, but unlike Rashi's suggestion, he did keep
the Shabbos. But travel via demon is instantaneous teleportation, which does not involve travel on
the ground or above it.

In any case, the gemara is trying to establish halacha, and relies on the reality of Eliyahu Hanavi
moving around among us, and then on the existence and power of demons. This indicates to me
that whoever wrote this indeed believed in the existence and power of demons and was not using
it in some metaphorical sense.

31
To Review:
First, the gemara in Eruvin which I claim indicates literal belief in sheidim. I should point out that
I strongly suspect that this gemara is not from the Amoraim but from the Rabanan Sovorai, and so
this particular gemara need not indicate that Chazal themselves believed in literal demons.

The gemara reads as follows. Eruvin 43a:

‫תא שמע הני שב שמעתא דאיתאמרן בצפר' בשבתא קמיה דרב חסדא בסורא בהדי פניא בשבתא קמיה דרבא‬
‫בפומבדיתא מאן אמרינהו לאו אליהו אמרינהו אלמא אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה לא דלמא יוסף שידא אמרינהו‬

(f) Answer #3: Seven teachings were said Shabbos morning in front of Rav Chisda in Sura, and
Shabbos afternoon in front of Rabah in Pumbedisa [which is outside the Techum of Sura; surely,
the same person said them]!

1. Suggestion: Eliyahu said them (he flew above 10 from Sura to Pumbedisa) - this shows that
Techumim does not apply above 10! Me'iri, Chasam Sofer 6:98
(g) Rejection: Perhaps they were said by a certain Shed [that does not observe Shabbos].
I would emend this to not just "a certain Shed" by Yosef the Shed, the same one who spoke to Rav
Yosef and Rav Papa elsewhere; and that he does not observe Shabbos is Rashi's explanation.

There are two reasons to leap to the assumption that a magical or mystical creature is responsible.
First, how are you to travel higher than 10 handbreadths the entire distance from Sura to
Pumpedita? It must be via flight, which Eliyahu Hanavi could accomplish. But once we assume it
is someone violating the Shabbos, why assume a sheid, a demon, particularly? Why not any human
being, be it a non-Jew or any irreligious Jew?

Thus, the second reason. Sura is located about 6 km from al-Hira, according to a teshuva from Rav

32
Natronai Gaon. Its longitude and latitude coordinates are: 31°53′N 44°27′E. Here is an image of
Sura, in modern-day Iraq:

Meanwhile, Pumpedita was located in what is modern-day Fallujah. Its coordinates are:
33°21′04″N 43°47′10″E. And here is an image of it, placed in Iraq:

They seem pretty close, but maps can be deceiving. Just how far away are they from one another?
Using the FCC's distance calculator:

Distance between

N Latitude 31 53 0.00, E Longitude 44 27 0.00 (Point 1)

and N Latitude 33 21 4.00, E Longitude 43 47 10.00 (Point 2)

174.628 kilometers; 108.509 miles
Azimuth from point 1 to point 2 = 339.32°

33
 Azimuth from point 2 to point 1 = 158.96°

And that is as the crow flies! Can a normal human walk, or run, 108.509 miles from Shabbos
morning to afternoon?! Of course, there are other possibilities. For example, by horse, though this
would certainly violate Shabbos. According to one website:

Horses speed varies with their stride length, body build, and other factors, but here is a basic idea
of how fast-- in miles per hour-- horses move at their various gaits:

Walk: Roughly 3-4 MPH. A pleasure show horse can go as slow as 2 mph. Gaited horses-- who do not trot-- can do a 'running
walk' as fast as 15 mph.

Trot: The trot is roughly 8-10 MPH. Again, a shorter striding horse could trot slower, and a horse with a long stride could move
faster.

Canter/Lope: 10-17 MPH.

Gallop: This depends on the horse's condition and athletic ability. Some horses are not built to run fast and may only do a fast
canter at their best; however, the gallop is about 30 mph. Thoroughbreds, which are bred for running distance but not speed, have
been clocked at over 40 MPH. Quarter horses, bred and raced for short distances at speed, can reach 50 MPH in short bursts
according to the AQHA's website.

So, a thoroughbred, running at full gallop, for three hours could make the trip. But how long can
a horse maintain this full gallop? According to another horse site:

How long can a horse sustain a gallop? The distance a horse can maintain a gallop depends on their build and physical fitness. A
well-conditioned horse can easily maintain a gallop for a mile to a mile and a half. At two to two and a half miles most horses will
feel fatigued. Lighter built horses (Arabians and Thoroughbreds) can maintain a gallop over longer distances than heavier horses
(Draft or Quarter Horse type), and horses with longer strides can travel longer distances with less effort.
A horse is built to cover many miles in one day, but not at a gallop. A horse can cover more ground, faster, if kept consistently at
a trot. While a horse may be exhausted after a three-mile gallop, that same horse could trot, with a few walk breaks, 15 miles
without extraordinary strain.
Most people assume the Pony Express riders galloped their entire route. In fact, the speed of a pony express rider averages out to
10 miles per hour- meaning they spent most of their time alternating between a trot (about 8-9 mph) and a canter (12-13mph). The
Pony Express riders switched to fresh horses every 10-15 miles.

So, we would not expect one horse to make this trip, or at full gallop. Maybe if the person switched
horses every two or three miles, but that would involve a lot of horses. I suppose at an average
between a trot and canter, that is an average of 10 mph, and switching horses about ten times, one
could make it in 11 hours. On a long Shabbos, this might be just possible. It is still quite an ordeal,
and thus somewhat farfetched.

Another possibility recommends itself by examining the map. Both Sura and Pumpedisa are
located on the river. (Indeed, Pumbedita means "at the mouth of the Bedita river, which is a stream
of the Euphrates.) Which way does the water flow in the Euphrates? In a south-easterly direction.
Since Pumpedita is northwest of Sura, and the message came from Sura, this would mean moving
upstream, against the current. But according to this book, Ebalitica, in discussing the Euphrates
river and in general, in Old Babylonian Times, speed upstream by boat or by foot was about 25 to
30 airline km / day, which falls far short of the required 174 km.

34
Now, that was much earlier, in Old Babylonian times. Perhaps by Talmudic times, a boat could
make this 108.5-mile journey on a Shabbos. Indeed, a boat is one of the subjects under discussion
in the gemara.

Regardless, I think the extreme distance and thus fast travel necessitated Eliyahu Hanavi, or else a
demon, in the thought of the gemara.

In my earlier post I considered the possibility that Yosef Sheda was a human expert on demons. I
would now say that I regard this as unlikely, based on the wording in our daf:

‫אמר רב פפא אמר לי יוסף שידא בתרי קטלינן בארבעה לא קטלינן בארבעה מזקינן בתרי בין בשוגג בין במזיד בארבעה‬
‫במזיד אין בשוגג לא‬

Rav Papa: Yosef the Shed told me that Shedim kill on account of two (e.g., cups); they damage on
account of four, but they do not kill.

1. They strike on account of two whether it was Shogeg or Mezid; they damage on account
of four only if it was Mezid.

From the wording of ‫קטלינן‬, and ‫מזקינן‬, "we kill" and "we damage", it rather seems that Yosef
Sheda himself is a sheid.

Back to the gemara in Eruvin, given the astounding speed required to travel this great distance, I
would regard the reference to Eliyahu Hanavi in the gemara as absolutely literal. And as such, he
is traveling by flying very very quickly, higher than 10 tefachim. And if Eliyahu Hanavi was
intended absolutely literally, then I would guess that Yosef Sheda was also intended absolutely
literally, but that since Yosef is a sheid and not a Jew, since he is not a human being, as Rashi
writes, he does not keep the Shabbos.

An allegorical approach seems far-fetched to me, because if Eliyahu Hanavi is supposed to

represent, e.g., a deep spiritual realization, while Yosef Sheda, e.g., represents the Yetzer Hara or
some such idea, why in the former case would it be subject to the laws of Shabbos, such that we
can derive laws of techum? And in the latter case, how is this allegorical meaning to convey a
message from one place to another? In other words, there are aspects of the gemara itself that seem
to require a literalness to Eliyahu Hanavi and Yosef Sheda.

It is of course always possible to kvetch any gemara, given enough brilliance, time and effort. Still,
I prefer to take a text-internal approach. Ignore any hashkafic repercussions. What in the

35
gemara itself indicates the most likely way to interpret this? And that we are
drawing halachic repercussions from a discussion about a real-life incident where diyukim are
made from rather practical considerations of where the path of travel must have been, I would
conclude that the most likely interpretation is a literal one.

Once we know this, there are two possibilities. Either Chazal (in this gemara) are right, and we are
wrong about the reality of sheidim, or the reverse.

Meanwhile, the Meiri does not believe that demons are real, and he has a running commentary on
the gemara. How does he interpret the gemara?

Well, in terms of how to travel higher than 10 tefachim off the ground, Meiri notes in the beginning
of the gemara:

‫בעי רב חנניא יש תחומין למעלה מעשרה או אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה עמוד גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה לא תיבעי לך‬
‫דארעא סמיכתא היא כי תיבעי לך בעמוד גבוה עשרה ואינו רחב ארבעה אי נמי דקאזיל בקפיצה לישנא אחרינא בספינה‬
‫מאי‬
We are not discussing land higher than 10 tefachim but wider than 4, for this is considered ground.
Rather, it is higher than 10 but very narrow, narrower than 4. Alternatively, ‫בקפיצה‬. This means,
according to Meiri, either via repeated jumping or some ‫תחבולה‬, trick, ruse, stratagem.
Alternatively, by boat (where the boat is 10 tefachim off the riverbed).

How does he explain Eliyahu Hanavi?

As follows

‫ובאו ללמדה משב שמעתא הנזכרות )בראש בפרק( ]בר"פ[ אלו‬

‫טרפות דאיתמר בצפרא לקמיה דרב חסדא בסורא ובאותו היום‬
‫בעצמו נאמרו לרבה בפום בדיתא ויש שם יתר מן התתום אף‬
‫על ידי עירוב ואם כן מל כרחך בשהלך המגיד למעלה מעשרה‬
‫ ולמדנו מכל מקום‬. ‫והמשילו ]לאליהו[ על דמיון תנועת העופפות‬
‫ ותירץ לו דרך צחות‬. ‫שכל למעלה מעשרה מהלך כמו שירצה‬
‫ פרשו בו גדולי הרבנים שאינו משמר שבת‬. ‫ דלמא יוסף שידא‬.

Thus, it is not Eliyahu Hanavi, but they only used him by way of comparison, that it was someone
traveling over 10 tefachim, in a way similar to Eliyahu Hanavi who would fly. And by Yosef
Sheda, he does not say that it means a sheid, but just that various meforshim say that this Yosef
Sheda did not keep Shabbos. Perhaps he maintains that this is a human named Yosef Sheda, or a
parallel to Yosef Sheda but any individual who does not keep Shabbos. He is unfortunately not
explicit on this point, but I do believe he is explaining why one need not resort to belief in
demons.

36
In terms of whether I think it is plausible, while more plausible than an allegorical interpretation,
I don't find it more plausible than the literal.

After all, later on in the same gemara they discuss how Mashiach cannot come on Shabbos and
mention Eliyahu Hanavi coming the day before. It is a bit strange for the former to be non-literal
and the latter to be literal. And if simply a human, this does not account for the great speed from
one place to the other.

And it is difficult to say that there is a 100+ mile high and narrow land-ridge from Sura to
Pumpedisa, over which someone ran at great speed.

I suppose we can salvage this by saying that this was travel by boat, but I would really have
expected the gemara to say simply that the travel was by boat.

Further, Eliyahu Hanavi and Yosef Sheda (based on that other gemara I mentioned) are mythical
persons/demons. That the gemara chooses these two in particular is strange and would indicate to
me a literal approach.

As to what sort of demon Yosef the Shed was exactly, based on this answer, it seems he was a
kind of "Jewish demon", who would study Torah, and for this it seems that he was friendly with
the sages (and maybe that also got him a Jewish name, rather than something like "Ahmadzai").

Rabbi Asad, however, wrote in Yehudah Ya'aleh Orach Chaim 199:

" ‫ א"כ התם לא הישראל נקרא שד אלא איפכא אותו השד שאמר‬.‫הנה התם פירש"י דלא מינטר שבתא ומ"כ צריך לפרש כן‬
‫הכי שב שמעתא קמיה דר"ח וקמיה דרבא קראו אותו חכמי התלמוד בשם יוסף אולי משום שלא רצו להזכיר שם שד מזיק‬
‫אי נמי‬...'‫ אבל ביבמות דף קכ"ב ע"א איתא לר"ח א"ל יונתן שידא כו‬.‫בלבד ע"ד ותבחר לשון ערומים תוסיפו לו שם קדש‬
‫הכי הוי השד שלימד כן לר"ח קראו אותו גם בשם קדש יונתן ג"כ‬..."

"There Rashi explained that he didn't keep Shabbat and why did he need to explain this so. Therefore,
there it isn't that the Jew was called a demon but the opposite, that demon who would say those things
before R"Ch and before Rava, the sages of the Talmud called him by the name Yosef, perhaps because
they didn't want to mention only the name of the destroying demon, per "So you choose crafty
language" they added to him a holy name. But in Yevamot 122a came to R"Ch and said Yonatan Sheida
etc...so too here, the demon who taught so to R"Ch was called by the holy name Yonatan as well..."

So according to Rabbi Asad, Yosef and Yonatan (and other such shedim, if there
were/are) had demonic names but were given by the sages new names so that the sages wouldn't
need to use their demonic names.

Afterwards, however, Rabbi Asad expounds a little bit on the view that these were men and not
demons.

Interestingly, in both instances Rav Steinsaltz zt"l interprets his name to mean that he was a
sheid/demon himself.

37
However, it is worth noting that Rashi elsewhere in Yevamos 122a upon noting someone with a
similar title, namely 'Yonasan Sheida', writes:

‫ שד היה או בקי בהן‬- ‫לימדני יונתן שידא‬

Yonsasan Sheida taught me - i.e. his name denotes that he was either a sheid or an expert on them
(and that's why he warranted the title).
So, it could be based off this Rashi that Yosef Sheida was similarly, possibly only a human that
happened to be an expert on the topic of demons.

The (‫ אור זרוע )ח"ב עירובין סי' קמז‬speak a bit about him. Rashi on the page says that ‫ שדים‬do not keep
shabbos. However, the ‫ אור זרוע‬quotes his rebbi ‫ ר' יהודה החסיד‬who says that the ‫ שדים‬accepted the
torah (with some conditions, see there). In explanation of the gemara, he says that ‫ יוסף‬had a
subterranean communication system that enabled them to communicate across distances even on
shabbos!

Sara Ronis writes:11

The first mishnah in the tenth chapter of Pesachim opens with the mandate that everyone —
regardless of their income — must drink four cups of wine on the first night of Passover. Given
what we already know about the Talmud, we should expect the rabbis to follow up with a number
of questions: How big must the cup be? How much of each cup must someone drink? What counts
as wine? The rabbis of the Talmud do follow up with a number of questions, but weirdly, their
first question isn’t any one of these. Instead they ask: How could the mishnah have mandated
something that we know is dangerous?! To support this question, the Talmud cites a beraita:

A person should not eat pairs (i.e., an even number of food items) and he should not drink
pairs (of cups) and he should not wipe himself with pairs and he should not attend to his
sexual needs in pairs.

The Talmud goes on to explain that doing things in pairs may provoke demonic attack. Really. So
if you want that second cup of wine, be prepared to pour a third. Ditto that second round in the
sack.

Today’s daf kicks off a discussion on demons that will continue for the next four pages. Though
there are many Jewish communities today that do actively believe in demons, likely many of the
people reading this do not. It can be hard for some of us to read these pages and really get inside
the minds of the rabbis of the Talmud. So, it’s a good time to take a step back and ask: are the
rabbis … serious?!

It is easy to take rabbinic teachings seriously when they are talking about the beauty of the Torah,
the ways human beings are meant to relate to each other and the gifts that we can bring to the
world. It is harder when they are talking about things which — to many of us — seem weird. In
fact, depending on whether you are reading the daf in a variety of English translations, in Hebrew

11
Myjewishlearning.com

38
and Aramaic, or together with the medieval commentators Rashi and Tosfot, you’re going to see
very different approaches to the Talmud’s demons.

Many modern commentators interpret the demons of the Talmud as metaphors or symbols for
things like disease and poverty that the rabbis didn’t have the scientific language for. But as you
read these pages, if you try to map where the rabbis identify demonic dangers with modern
understandings of danger, you are doomed to fail. In the case of the four cups of wine on the first
night of Passover, for example, the issue is clearly not one of drunkenness and alcohol poisoning;
indeed, the rabbis suggest, one solution to the demonic danger might be to just drink a fifth cup of
wine!

Taking another approach to the weirdness of these demons, 19th century German-Jewish historian
Heinrich Graetz dismissed all the demon talk in these pages as foreign corruptions of authentic
Jewish teachings, the negative effects of living in the Babylonian exile. It was all so weird to
Graetz that he decided it could not really be rabbinic. But in fact, though demons were prevalent
in the ancient world, many of the beliefs about demons that the rabbis describe have no parallel in
any of the other religious traditions in late antique Babylonia. These really are rabbinic demons.

So, yes. The rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud do believe that demons exist and that demons
interact with humans in a range of ways. And while you and I may or may not believe that demons
exist, to fully understand how the rabbis thought about the world and their place in it, we have to
take seriously even those parts of their thinking that seem most foreign to us today.

39