User:Aetgar/sandbox

Affinities between angels and sages in the rabbinic literature

The Babylonian Talmud contains a reworked ancient tradition of the myth of the fallen angels – here, this narrative is invested with new significance and accordingly, these are the distinguished rabbis who are portrayed as the heavenly messengers’ offspring. The most explicit presentation of this notion is found in bShabb 112b. The text recounts the sages’ halakhic discussion in which Rabbi Hizkiya praises Rabbi Yohanan’s competencies by exclaiming “this is not a human!”. Right after his remark a following passage appears.

"Rabbi Zeira said that Rava bar Zimuna said: If the early generations are characterized as sons of angels, we are the sons of men. And if the early generations are characterized as the sons of men, we are akin to donkeys. And I do not mean that we are akin to either the donkey of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys."Although on the façade this appears to be a humorous allegory, this passage represents a broader tradition of associating angels and rabbis that manifests in other passages dispersed in the Babylonian Talmud. This tendency has two components, and, on the one hand, the text compares the sages to angels in various respects such as knowledge (e.g., the sages should be good teachers playing the function of the angel of the Lord in bHag 15b, some of their halakhic decisions are labeled as angelic in origins in bPes 33a), or appearance (e.g., according to bShabb 25b Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai’s Sabbath attire resembles the garments of the angel of the Lord, in bQidd 72a the Babylonian scholars are compared to the ministering angels). On the other hand, the Babylonian Talmud portrays the angels as highly reminiscent of the rabbis themselves: they are proficient halakhists (e.g., in bMenah 41a an angel disputes the laws of fringes with Rabbi Kattina, in bAbodZar 20b the angel of death betrays his deep familiarity with the rules of ritual slaughter), linguists (e.g., in bBBat 75a Gabriel and Michael scrutinize the semantics of the term kadkod known from Isa. 54:12), and teachers (e.g., in bMeg 3a–b and bSanh 44b an angelic prince admonishes Joshua for neglecting his Torah studies). On the whole, the quantitative data show that the sages are frequently juxtaposed with angels, and the main dimension of comparison is their intellectual proficiency. When it comes to the mapping of specific rabbinic competencies onto the angels, the most popular is the ability to engage in halakhic scrutiny and teaching. In sum, this presentation of the sages as angels can be taken as an expression of the sense of elitism entertained by the Babylonian sages.

lilith

in the hebrew bible

greek version

kosior's paper

ABS section on Eve

Lilith's reliance on Eve as presented in the early rabbinic literature

The key elements of the myth of Lilith as it appears in the Alphabet of Ben Sira can be summarized as follows: (1) Lilith is created equal to man and becomes his first wife before Eve; (2) she possesses the knowledge of the divine name and its utilization; (3) she inhabits some desolate place; where (4) she engenders her own race of demons, probably with some substitute for Adam; and from where (5) she assaults children unless they are protected by special rites and paraphernalia. The story of Lilith in the Alphabet of Ben Sirach is unique in combining these elements and invents an appropriate etiology for the more ancient demonic lore. However, although the image of Lilith of the ABS is unprecedented, some elements in her portrayal can be traced back to the talmudic and midrashic traditions that arose around Eve.

First and foremost, the very introduction of Lilith to the creation story rests on the rabbinic myth, prompted by the two separate creation accounts in Gen. 1:1 – 2:25, that there were two original women. A way of resolving the apparent discrepancy  between these two accounts was to assume that there must have been some other first woman, apart from the one later identified with Eve. The Rabbis, noting Adam’s exclamation, “this time (zot hapa‘am) [this is] bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23),  took it as an intimation that there must already have been a “first time.” According to Genesis rabah 18:4, Adam was disgusted upon seeing the first woman full of “discharge and blood,” and God had to provide him with another one. The subsequent creation is performed with adequate precautions: Adam is made to sleep, so as not to witness the process itself ( Sanhedrin 39a), and Eve is adorned with fine jewelry (Genesis rabah 18:1) and brought to Adam by the angels Gabriel and Michael (ibid. 18:3). However, nowhere do the rabbis specify what happened to the first woman, leaving the matter open for further speculation. This is the gap into which the later tradition of Lilith could fit.

Second, this new woman is still met with harsh rabbinic allegations. Again playing on the phrase zot hapa‘am, Adam, according to the same midrash, declares: “it is she [zot] who is destined to strike the bell [zog] and to speak [in strife] against me, as you read, ‘a golden bell [pa‘amon] and a pomegranate’ [Ex. 28:34]  … it is she who will trouble me [mefa‘amtani] all night” (Genesis Rabbah 18:4). The first woman also becomes the object of accusations ascribed to Rabbi Joshua of Siknin, according to whom Eve, despite the divine efforts, turned out to be “swelled-headed, coquette, eavesdropper, gossip, prone to jealousy, light-fingered and gadabout” (ibid. 18:2). A similar set of charges appears in Genesis Rabbah 17:8, according to which Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib rather than from the earth makes her inferior to Adam and never satisfied with anything.

Third, and despite the terseness of the biblical text in this regard, the erotic iniquities attributed to Eve constitute a separate category of her shortcomings. Told in Gen. 3:16 that “your desire  shall be for your husband,” she is accused by the Rabbis of having an overdeveloped sexual drive (Genesis rabah 20:7) and constantly enticing Adam (ibid. 23:5). However, in terms of textual popularity and dissemination, the motif of Eve copulating with the primeval serpent takes priority over her other sexual transgressions. According to the story, the snake gazed at Adam and Eve while they made love, developed a desire for the first woman, mated with her and tainted her with filth (Aramaic zohama’). Eve in turn, as the mother of all life, transmitted this contamination to the subsequent generations, and it was only the presence of the Israelites at Mount Sinai that purified them – unlike the other nations, which remained polluted. Despite the rather unsettling picturesqueness of this account, it is conveyed in numerous places: Genesis rabah 18:6, and BT Sotah 9b, Shabat 145b–146a and 196a, Yevamot 103b and ‘Avodah zarah 22b.

rephaite

etymology

There are two main groups of etymological hypotheses explaining the origins of the biblical rephaim. The first group proposes that this is a native Hebrew term, which could be derived either from the root רפא or רפה. The first root, רפא, conveys the meaning of healing and is realized in the words such as Heb. rofe (a physician) or refuah (medicine). The second root, רפה, means being weak, powerless. Although at first glance they are contradictory, this semantic discrepancy could be explained by the liminal nature of the deceased: it could be therefore said that the deceased have embraced the experience of death and accordingly are capable of healing. The refa’im would then be the departed heroes comprising the roles of the wounded healers.

The second group of etymological hypotheses treat the word rephaim as a loan from some other ancient Semitic language. Among the proposals is the Akkadian rabu, a prince, but this explanation enjoys rather limited popularity. Far more support has been gained by the hypothesis which derives the Heb. refaim from the Ugaritic rpum which denotes the semi-deified deceased ancestors who are mentioned in such sources as the so called Rephaim Text (KTU 1:20–22).

Although most modern English translations clearly distinguish between Rephaites as one of the tribes (e.g. Genesis 14:5; 15:18-21; Deuteronomy 2:11-20) and rephaim as the inhabitants of the underworld (e.g. Isaiah 14:9-11; 26:13-15), one has to remember that in the original text it is the same word which is applied. Thus, whatever the initial meaning and origins of the word rephaim, its usage in the Hebrew Bible suggests that behind the biblical narrative were the legends of some ancient indigenous people inhabiting the valleys of the land of Canaan which was subject to the gradual Hebrew conquest.

The problem is however, that such meaning of the root is relatively late and present only in the Hebrew literature of post-biblical period.

This option in turn does not explain the presence of the consonant alef which appears in the Heb. rephaim consistently throughout the Hebrew Bible. What is more,

other sections to be included

In the Ugaritic literature

In the Hebrew Bible

---

nefilim/gigantes

Kosior's citation

In the Hebrew Bible there are three interconnected passages referencing the nephilim. The first two come from the Pentateuch.

Outside of the Pentateuch there is one more reference in the Book of Ezekiel.

interpretation as giants

Most of the contemporary English translations of the Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33 render the Heb. nefilim as "giants". This tendency in turn stems from the fact that one of the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint composed in III/II century BCE, renders the said word as gigantes. The choice made by the Greek translators has been later adopted into the Latin translation, Vulgate, compiled in IV/V century CE, which uses the transcription of the Greek term rather than the literal translation of the Heb. nefilim. From there, the tradition of the giant progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of men spread to later medieval translations of the Bible.

The decision of the Greek translators to render the Heb. nefilim as Gr. gigantes is a separate matter. The Heb. nefilim means literally "the fallen ones" and the strict translation into Greek would be peptokotes, which in fact appears in the Septuagint of Ezekiel 32:22-27. It seems then that the authors of Septuagint wished not only to simply translate the foreign term into Greek, but also to employ a term which would be intelligible and meaningful for their Hellenistic audiences. Given the complex of meaning of the nefilim which emerged from the three interconnected biblical passages (human-divine hybrids in Genesis 6, autochthonous people in Numbers 13 and ancient warriors trapped in the underworld in Ezekiel 32), the Greek translators recognized some similarities. First and foremost, both nefilim and gigantes were liminal figures resulting from the union of the opposite orders and as such retained the unclear status between the human and divine. Similarly, dim was their moral designation and the sources witnessed to both awe and fascination with which these figures must have been looked upon. Secondly, both were presented as impersonating chaotic qualities and posing some serious danger to gods and humans. They appeared either in the prehistoric or early historical context, but in both cases they preceded the ordering of the cosmos. Lastly, both gigantes and nefilim were clearly connected with underworld and were said to have originated from earth and as well end up closed therein.

tzitz

The root tzitz means “to blossom” or “a flower” and as such is employed by the picturesque metaphors in Isa. 27:6, 28:1, 40:7-8, floral descriptions of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:18-35) and the blooming of Aaron’s rod (Num. 17:23). This latter instance is particularly interesting, because just as a tzitz appeared on the Aaron’s rod so is the Aaronide high-priest supposed to wear a tzitz on his forehead. In addition to this, once in the Hebrew Bible, in Ezekiel 8:3, the word appears in the construction tzitzit rosh meaning “a mop of hair” and probably deriving from the metaphor of hair as the plants grown from skin. This is furthermore supported by a handful of rabbinic descriptions which compare the priestly tzitz to a flower in Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a.

tzitzit

etymology

A popular etymological interpretation of Heb. tzitzit is that which derives the word from Akkadian clothing vocabulary: either sisiktu (a thread, edge, loom) or tsitstsatu (a floral ornamentation). This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the custom of making fringes from extending the threads of embroidery was common in the ancient Near East as the means of strengthening the fabric. The further analyses of the antique iconography suggest that apart from this pragmatic purpose the tassels could also decorate the cloth and as such be a marker of the social status: the more elaborate and elegant the fringes, the higher the position of the owner. In addition to this and given the unique nature of each of the tassels it could also be used as a personal “signet” for sealing documents. This data has led the scholars to assume that the practice itself is of very ancient origins and was only secondarily incorporated into the Hebrew Bible where it was invested with new religious meaning.

torah sources

However, there is an important difference between the two. While Numbers 15:37-41 uses the Heb. tzitzit, the passage in Deuteronomy 22:12 employs the plural form of gadil, which is an Akkadian loanword for a "cord" or "string". The reason for this lexical change is opened to speculations, yet, the scholars are inclined to assume that in the times when the The Book of Deuteronomy was composed, the meaning of the tzitzit of Num. 15:37 had been lost and the gedîlîm is a dynamic translation of an unusual term.

What is more, the biblical sources are rather ambiguous. Since the Heb. word kanaph can mean a “corner” or a “border”,  the specific place of the attachment of the fringes remains unsure. Their exact number is also not specified. Obviously, there is no mention of tallit, which is a later rabbinic invention developed probably with convenience in mind. Lastly, the passage lacks any instructions on the binding of the fringes, save for the obligation to include “a cord of blue” (Heb. ptil tchelet). Somewhat contrary to the technical laconicism of the sources, the primary mnemonic purpose of the mitzvah is expressed clearly: it is supposed to remind about the proper performance of all the other commandments and thus to prevent from engaging in idolatry. In sum, the biblical sources are very scarce what leads to conclusion that the mitzvat tzitzit was to a great extent developed by the rabbis of the Late Antiquity.

rabbinic judaism/shatnez

According to the discussion which unfolds in Menahot 39b, the proper execution of the commandment of fringes involves creating a mixture of wool and linen known as shatnez which is biblically prohibited by Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11. The rabbis were clearly aware of the presence of shatnez in the fringes, what in turn is corroborated by Menahot 39b-40a, 43a or Leviticus Rabbah 22:10.

The origins and the sense of the forbiddance of shatnez are problematic. For sure, it fits the Pentateuchal ban on the combinations of various phenomena like planting different types of seed or ploughing with different animals. Yet, unlike other such mixtures, shatnez was not only allowed but also required in the priestly garments according to Exodus 28:6, 8, 15, and 39:29. In addition to this, the temple staff was obliged to wear shatnez only during their ritual duties, while when outside of the temple, they still needed to perform the obligation of shatnez. Thus, both the laymen and the priests were supposed to have with them a specific item made of the mixture of wool and linen all the time. If approached from this perspective, the shatnez of the layman reflects that of the priest.

tekhelet

biblical references

Although the biblical sources disallow establishing the exact hue of techelet, the actual usage of the word in the HB clearly confirms its distinguished status. The word appears almost 50 times with

It is interesting to note, that approximately 80% of the occurrences gathered in Exodus and Numbers. Especially dense are the chapters 26 and 28 of Exodus, which apply the word in the description of the Tabernacle appurtenances and the paraphernalia of the high priest. The remaining instances outside of Pentateuch (inter alia, Judg. 8:26; Esther 1:6, 8:15; Dan. 5:7; Jer. 10:9; Ezek. 23:6, 27:7, 27:24) present techelet in the secular context as the color of the royal elite.

talmudic references

The Rabbinic sages provide two main expositions for the color of techelet, both of which continue the chromatic and semantic problems outlined above. One group of sources, including bB. Metz. 61a-b and bMenah. 40a-b, mentions qala ilan, an indigo dye described as visually indistinguishable from techelet. Yet, although this dye was much cheaper to obtain, the rabbis cursed those who substituted techelet with some low-priced equivalent and in fact preferred to annul the obligation altogether rather than to compromise its value (mMenah. 4:1), what clearly proves that it was not the color which mattered most. The second and much more numerous group compares the techelet to the color of the sky or the sea which is not far off from indigo. More importantly, however, this group contains several instances (bMenah. 43b, bSotah 17a, bHul. 89a, Num. R. 4:13, 17:5) which extend the comparison and liken the techelet to the throne of glory. Apparently, the particular features of this divine chair are not speculated in the ERL, but it can be safely assumed that, again, these were not the visual qualities which counted here but rather the extraordinary value of the object and its explicit cultic associations.

The special significance of techelet is furthermore corroborated by the process of its acquisition as construed in the ERL. From the data contained in bMenah. 42b and 44a it can be inferred that techelet was produced out of the gland secretions of a ḥīlazôn – an aquatic animal said to resemble a fish and appear once in every seventy years. Although the rabbinic descriptions are relatively detailed and definitely surpass the scarcity of the biblical data, many pragmatic questions remain. For sure, however, the teḵēlęṯ must have been very expensive to obtain and as such was reserved for special occasions.

---

In this regard it is worthwhile to refer to the often cited passage from Rambam’s Mishneh Torah which states:"It is a common custom to write [God's name,] Shaddai, on the outside of a mezuzah opposite the empty space left between the two passages. There is no difficulty in this, since [the addition is made] outside. Those, however, who write the names of angels, other sacred names, verses, or forms, on the inside [of a mezuzah] are among those who do not have a portion in the world to come. Not only do these fools nullify the mitzvah, but furthermore, they make from a great mitzvah [which reflects] the unity of the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that this will help them regarding the vanities of the world."Amuletic usage of mezuzah

The culture-comparative analysis suggests that the objects placed on domestic thresholds often bear the function of an amulet repelling the broadly understood evil. In fact, the early Rabbinic sources explicitly witness the belief in the anti-demonic function of mezuzah. This is the case in e.g. JT Megillah 4:12; BT Bava Metziya 102a; BT Pesahim 113b. The further analysis of the biblical and rabbinic texts (inter alia Deuteronomy 6, 11, Exodus 12, Mekhilta de-rabbi Ishmael 7,12 and BT Menahot 33b, 43b) shows that mezuzah is construed as a device protecting against the divine anger.

Interestingly, the belief in the protective power of mezuzah is prevalent in the modern times as well. In the 1970s after a series of terrorist attacks in, the representatives of Chabad-Lubavitch started the campaign for the systematic checking of mezuzahs. The more general assumption underlying the action was that adhering to the mitzvot would guarantee personal safety. Similar steps have been undertaken by an organization Bi-zkhut rabbi Shimeon which collects the testimonies of those who have personally experienced the extraordinary power of the mezuzah. Some statements speak about the direct dependence between the damaged biblical text and the essence of the encountered calamity. For instance:"A woman suffered from deep depression. An examination of her mezuzahs revealed that in the word “your soul” there was a letter split in two."Finally, according to various pieces of sociological research, approximately three-quarter of adults in believe that the mezuzah literally guards their houses.

---

While Aronofsky’s other movies have evoked significant emotional response, they were still far from the turmoil aroused by Noah. It was screened for the first time on March 28th 2014 and despite its PG-13 rating  it has quickly been recognized by Box Office Mojo as one of the most controversial movies of the last 35 years along with such titles as The Passion of the Christ or The Da Vinci Code. Also, a survey of the on-line reviews clearly shows that the viewers found Aronofsky's biblical retelling challenging in several regards. Accordingly, the noble patriarch, is a Wiccan, “religious extremist” and “borderline psychopath” who bands with the Luciferian fallen angels,  while the Creator is a “distant – unaware or uncaring – overseer who cares more about the animals than humans.”  It was also stated that the picture outwardly affirms violence and promotes the use of the psychoactive substances,  confuses creationism with evolutionism,  and generally contains “more Tolkien than Torah.”  Finally, the screening of Noah has been banned in United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Indonesia on religious grounds with other countries following suit.

---

Establishing the core tenets of Judaism in the modern era is even more difficult, given the number and diversity of the contemporary Jewish denominations. Even if to restrict the problem to the most influential intellectual trends of the nineteenth and twentieth century, the matter remains complicated. Thus for instance, Joseph Soloveitchik’s (associated with the Modern Orthodox movement) answer to modernity is constituted upon the identification of Judaism with following the halakhah whereas its ultimate goal is to bring the holiness down to the world. Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Reconstructionist Judaism, abandons the idea of religion for the sake of identifying Judaism with civilization and by means of the latter term and secular translation of the core ideas, he tries to embrace as many Jewish denominations as possible. In turn, Solomon Schechter’s Conservative Judaism was identical with the tradition understood as the interpretation of Torah, in itself being the history of the constant updates and adjustment of the Law performed by means of the creative interpretation. Finally, David Philipson draws the outlines of the Reform movement in Judaism by opposing it to the strict and traditional rabbinical approach and thus comes to the conclusions similar to that of the Conservative movement.

---

One Judaism or many Judaisms?

The above presented notions of Judaism can be provisionally categorized in a variety of ways. First, the denominations differ in regards with the orientation. Orthodoxy and Conservative are the past-oriented movements, meaning that they highly value the tradition in which they find their rationale. Oppositely, Reform and Reconstructionism are the future-oriented notions with the accent put on the socially functional, unifying aspect of religion and culture. Second, Orthodoxy as well as Conservative and Reform position themselves relatively close to the tradition or more specifically, towards their image of the tradition. Orthodoxy and Conservative share an idea of a constant tradition created in the antiquity and thereafter followed, while the Reform movement introduces an original concept of a “flexible tradition”. Contrary to them, Reconstructionism loosens its bonds with the tradition, by attempting to invest this term with a new meaning. Third, all of the trends could be graded on the continuum of cultural and religious flexibility with each level marked respectively by Orthodoxy, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionism in terms of growing resilience.

Also, it may be worthwhile to perceive this cultural and religious mosaic in the anthropological framework of etic and emic, hereby understood in their classical sense constituting the dichotomy of two sets: “emic – actor – intended – manifest” and “etic – observer – unintended – latent”. Thus, from the etic perspective the diversity within Judaism is something inherent to it and easily observable through the ages of development. Even if to treat Judaism as a religious entity constituted on the complex of historical events from the beginning of the Common Era, it is easy to point out numerous divisions: Jews and Judeo-Christians, Jews and Karaites or Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. In fact, such internal heterogenity marks every contemporary religious tradition. On the other hand, from the emic perspective the differentiating factor is the idea of the “real Jewishness” understood specifically by each notion.

---

initial

conventionally translated as God Almighty but the construction of the phrase fits the pattern of the divine appellations in the Ancient Near East and as such can convey various types of semantic relations between these two words: El of a place known as Shaddai, El possessing the quality of shaddai or El who is also known as Shaddai – exactly as is the case with the names like “’El Olam”, “’El Elyon” or “’El Betel”.

God that said "enough"

A popular interpretation of the name Shaddai is that it is composed of...

The passage appears in tractate Hagigah 12a and reads:"Resh Laqish said: what is it that is written: I am El Shaddai (Genesis 35:11)? I am he who said to the world “enough!”. Resh Laqish [also] said: in the hour that the Holy, blessed be he, created the sea, it started to expand – until the Holy, blessed be he, reproached it. [Then] it dried out as it was said: He reproaches the sea and makes it dry; and all the rivers makes desolate (Nahum 1:4)."This account has two parallel variants with some minute changes. One appears in Bereshit Rabbah 5:8, where Shaddai stops the world from expanding and in 46:3 where he limits the earth and heavens. What is common to all these instances is the cosmogonic context and the exposition provided by Resh Laqish, who explains the appellation as a compound form consisting of she- and day. These passages have often been exposed in a sophisticated way as indicating the divine plan of drawing the borders between mind and matter, keeping the balance between his right and left hand or as an early manifestation of the kabbalistic idea of tzimtzum. It seems however, that they should rather be approached in their immediate context and in relation to another parallel narrative which comes in BT Sukkah 53 a-b and reads:"When David dug the Pits, the {watery chasm} arose and threatened to submerge the world. David asked: «is there anyone who knows whether it is allowed to inscribe the [divine] name upon a {piece of clay}, and cast it into the {watery chasm} that its waves would subside?» (…) He thereupon inscribed the name upon a {piece of clay}, cast (Aram. שדי) it into the {watery chasm} and it subsided sixteen thousand cubits."This story has its variants: in Makkot 11a David sees the tehom rising and stops it by means of the name inscribed upon a stone while Bereshit Rabbah 23:7 conveys the tradition that this was the abuse of the tetragram which brought about the flood. If to approach these passages from the structural perspective, it is possible to discern two basic essences engaged in the opposition: the active, dividing agent and passive amorphous matter. Moreover, each of the recalled accounts has strong cosmological undertones, what suggests assuming the comparative perspective. Accordingly, Shaddai limiting the expansionist outburst of the world fits well the pattern of the so called chaoskampf – an initial divine battle followed by the triumph of the young and vivacious deity, subjugating the hostile, usually aquatic monster and building the palace or creating the cosmos.The mythological traditions of the ancient Near East are full of parallels: Babylonian Marduk and Tiamat, Ugaritic Ba‘al and Yam, Egyptian Ra and Apop, Hittite Tarhun and Illuyanka, etc. In fact, this rabbinic reiteration should not be surprising at all, given the semantic capacity of this myth. Not only does the HB recall the cosmic battle numerous times, especially in Psalms (e.g. 77:16-17; 89:10) and Prophets (e.g. Isaiah 51:9-10; Ezekiel 32:13) but also plays with this ancient motif reiterating it to convey a specific meaning. Yahveh blowing the waters of the flood in Genesis 8:1 to make place for the new creation or dividing the Yam Suf in Exodus 14-15 to let the Hebrews walk to the other side and start a new national existence – all of these may be read as the retellings of the initial cosmogonic conflict.

Apotropaic usage of the name "Shaddai" in the Jewish tradition

The name “Shaddai” often appears on the devices such as amulets or dedicatory plaques. More importantly, however, it is associated with the traditional Jewish customs which could be understood as apotropaic: male circumcision, mezuzah and tefillin. The connections of the first one with the name Shaddai are twofold. According to the biblical chronology it is El Shaddai who ordains the custom of circumcision in Genesis 17:1 and, as is apparent in midrash Tanhuma Tzav 14 (cf. a parallel passages in Tazri‘a 5 and Shemini 5) the brit milah itself is the inscription of the part of the name on the body:"The Holy, blessed be he, has put his name on so they would enter the garden of Eden. And what is the name and the seal that he had put on them? It is “Shaddai”. [The letter] shin he put in the nose, dalet – on the hand, whereas yod on the {circumcised} [membrum]. Accordingly, {when} goes to {his eternal home} (Ecclesiastes 12:5), there is an angel {appointed} in the garden of Eden who picks up every son of which is circumcised and brings him {there}. And those who are not circumcised? Although there are two letters of the name “Shaddai” present on them, {namely} shin from the nose and dalet from the hand, the yod (…) is {missing}. Therefore it hints at a demon (Heb. shed), which brings him down to Gehenna."Analogous is the case with mezuzah – a piece of parchment with two passages from the Book of Deuteronomy, curled up in a small encasement and affixed to a doorframe. At least since the Geonic times, the name “Shaddai” is often written on the back of the parchment containing the shema‘ and sometimes also on the casing itself. The name is traditionally interpreted as being an acronym of shomer daltot Yisrael  (“the guardian of the doors of Israel”) or shomer dirot Yisrael (“the guardian of the dwellings of Israel”). However, this notarikon itself has its source most probably in Zohar Va’ethanan where it explains the meaning of the word Shaddai and connects it to mezuzah.

The name “Shadday” can also be found on tefillin – a set of two black leather boxes strapped to head and arm during the prayers. The binding of particular knots of tefillin is supposed to resemble the shape of the letters: the leather strap of the tefillah shel rosh is knotted at the back of the head thus forming the letter dalet whereas the one that is passed through the tefillah shel yad forms a yod-shaped knot. In addition to this, the box itself is inscribed with the letter shin on two of its sides.

---

Psalm 91

The apotropaic usage of Psalm 91 is also corroborated by midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 12:3 which recounts the story of Moses’ ascent to the Mount Sinai during which he was assaulted by a band of hostile angels wishing to prevent him from acquiring the Torah. According to the midrash, the patriarch defended himself by singing the words of Psalm 91, the so called “psalm of plagues”. The first two verses are abundant in the divine names: “The one sitting in the cover of Elyon, in the shadow of Shaddai will dwell, says to Yahveh: my refuge and my fortress, my Elohim, I will trust in him.” Moses acknowledged the protective strength of the biblical poem concluding that “by means of his name I shall repel the {demons} and the angels of destruction”. The further interpretation of Psalm 91 present in the midrash develops the idea of the power of the divine name:"Under his wing you shall take refuge – [for] the one who comes to take refuge under the wing of the Holy, blessed be he, he shall be a shield and a buckler of truth. What is the meaning of a shield and a buckler? Rabbi Shimeon ben Laqish said: the Holy, blessed be he, said: a weapon I {forge} for everyone who deals with the truth of the Torah [and] the truth of the Torah is the weapon for {those who possess it}. {He also said}: a weapon has given the Holy, blessed be he, to on Sinai, and on it the {explained name} was written."