Daf Ditty Pesachim 111: Kishuf

1
The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. Reish Lakish said:
There are four matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon his own head, and he
is held liable for his own life, due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: One who relieves himself
in a spot between a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who
drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out
in front of him.

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who relieves himself between a palm tree and a
wall, we said that he places himself in danger only when there are not four cubits of space
between the two objects. However, if there are four cubits, we have no problem with it. The
demons have enough room to pass, and he will not obstruct them. And furthermore, even when
there are not four cubits, we said there is a problem only when the demons have no other route
besides that one. However, if they have another route, we have no problem with it.

2
The Gemara continues to discuss this issue. The Sages taught: Three objects should not be
allowed to pass between two people walking along a road, and people should not walk between
two of them: A dog, a palm tree, and a woman. And some say: Also, a pig. And some say:
Also, a snake. All of these were associated with witchcraft.

3
Similarly, these two men, between whom a menstruating woman passes, if she is at the
beginning of her menstruation, she kills one of them, i.e., she causes the death of one of the two
men. If she is at the end of her menstruation she does not kill, but she causes a fight between
them. What is his remedy? He should open with a verse that begins with the word God and he
should conclude with a verse that ends with the word God, as explained above.

The Gemara further states: These two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side
of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly
engaging in witchcraft. What is the remedy for one who walks by? If there is another route,
he should go by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, they
should hold hands and switch places. And if there is no other person with him, he should say
as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows. These are names of demons
invoked by witches.

QUEEN ESTHER: A NIDAH WHO WALKS BETWEEN TWO MEN

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Gemara says that if a woman walks between two men while she is a Nidah, a tragedy will
result. If she has just begun her state of Nidah, one of the men will be killed. If she is near the end
of her flow, a quarrel will arise between the two men.

VILNA GA'ON (Kol Eliyahu 142) uses this Gemara to explain why Queen Esther invited Haman
to join her and the king at the first dinner she made in the king's honor, as part of her plan to
persuade him to rescind the decree against the Jews. Since she had no intention to reveal her
identity as a Jew or to beseech the king to save her people from the evil plot of Haman until the

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-111.htm

4
second meal, why did she invite Haman to the first? The Gemara in Megillah (15b) provides many
possible explanations for Esther's conduct.

The Vilna Ga'on writes that "had I been there, I would have added another reason why she invited
him." The Gemara in Megillah (15a) says that when Esther heard the news of Haman's plot against
the Jews, it shocked her so much that she became a Nidah. Three days later, she made the first
dinner party for Achashverosh and Haman. Her motivation was to invite the two of them and to
situate herself, a Nidah, between them. If she was at the beginning of her state of Nidah, then one
of them would die, and the decree would be annulled. (The Gemara in Ta'anis (29a) says that when
the senate issued a decree, if one person in the senate would die, then it would be taken as an omen
that the decree must be annulled. However, it is not clear that this rule actually applied in the case
of Haman, because it is evident from the Megillah that his death did not cause the decree to be
rescinded, since the decree was signed with the king's signet and it was necessary for the king
himself to repeal it.)

If she was at the end of her state of Nidah, then a quarrel would arise between Achashverosh and
Haman, and again Achashverosh would rescind the decree. Either way, the decree would be
revoked as a result of Esther's strategy. (In the end, her strategy was successful in both ways. A
quarrel erupted between Haman and Achashverosh, and Haman was killed.)

More on Magic and Destructive Forces

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

As noted on yesterday’s daf, our Gemara is in the midst of a lengthy discussion about magic and
destructive forces – ideas that were popular during the Talmudic age that were not actively
discouraged by the Sages if they were “harmless” in the sense that they did not involve idol
worship or forbidden activities.

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 Aruk 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.

2
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim111/

5
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 sight for a short time.

The second activity that he mentions is drinking in a manner that he calls “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.

The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu?
Eliezer Brodt writes:3

I would like to deal with tracing the early sources for the Kos Shel Eliyahu. This post contains a
few corrections and additions to that version.

One of the memorable parts of the seder night is during Shefoch Chamascha when we open the
door for Eliyahu Hanavi to come inside and drink from the Kos Shel Eliyahu. Children all over the
world look carefully to see if there is less wine in the cup after he leaves, while many adults
‘accidently’ shake the table to make sure that there is less wine. What are the sources of this
custom? When do we pour the kos of wine and what should we do with the leftover wine from
the kos—drink it, spill it out, or save it? In this article I hope to trace this custom to its earliest
known sources and to discuss some other aspects of the seder night related to this topic.[1]

I would like to point out that my intention in this article is not to collect all the sources and reasons
on these specific topics but rather to focus on the earliest sources and how these
various minhagim came about.[2]

To begin with, it is worth pointing out that as far as we know today, there is no mention of the
concept of Kos Shel Eliyahu in all of the literature that we have from the Geonim and Rishonim.
Neither is there mention of it in the Tur, Shulchan Orach, Rema, or other early commentators on
the Shulchan Orach.

One of the earliest mentions of a Kos Shel Eliyahu can be found in Rabbi Yaakov Reischer’s
(1660-1733) work, Chok Yaakov, on Hilchos Pesach, first printed in 1696, in Dessau. He wrote
that in his area, people had the custom to pour an extra glass of wine and call it Kos Shel
Eliyahu.[3] He does not mention a reason for this custom, or at what point during the seder it is
done, nor does he connect it to the opening of the door during Shefoch Chamascha or the idea
Eliyahu Hanavi comes to the Seder.

3
https://seforimblog.com/2013/03/the-cup-for-visitor-what-lies-behind/

6
Rabbi Chaim Benveniste (1603-1673), famous for his work Knesses Hagedolah, in his work on
Pesach called Pesach Meuvin, first printed in 1692, writes that he saw some Ashkenazi Jews that
leave an empty glass in the middle of the table for the leftovers of each cup of wine, and they call
it Kos Shel Eliyahu. He writes that he liked this minhag so much that he started doing it himself,
and he drank this glass during the Meal.[4] Here too, there is no connection made between the Kos
Shel Eliyahu and opening the door during Shefoch Chamascha for Eliyahu Hanavi.

In 1728, Rabbi Moshe Chagiz (1671-1751), printed part of a work of his, on minhagim, in the back
of Sefer Birchat Eliyahu[5]. He writes that he was asked about the custom of Ashkenazi Jews to
pour a cup of wine at the beginning of the seder for Eliyahu Hanavi, and that after the seder the
head of the household slept next to this full glass of wine. Rabbi Moshe Chagiz was asked if
observing this custom was a problem of nichush [divination].

Rabbi Chagiz replied that it was not a problem of nichush at all. He explained that the reason for
this custom was similar to the reason we prepare a special chair for Eliyahu Hanavi at a bris
milah.[6] Eliyahu Hanavi witnesses that the bris is performed. So too, on Pesach, Eliyahu Hanavi
is supposed to be a witness that the Korban Pesach is done properly. The Korban Pesach is
dependent on milah, since the halacha is that only someone with a bris milah can eat the Korban
Pesach.[7] However it is important to point out that according to this reasoning, Eliyahu Hanavi
does come to the seder, but it would seem that this would apply only during the times when
the Korban Pesach was eaten.

New early sources for Kos Shel Eliyahu

Until 1984 these were the three earliest sources that made any mention of Kos Shel Eliyahu. In
1984, Rabbi Binyomin Nuzetz printed parts of a manuscript of Rabbi Zeligman Benga
on Pesachim. Rabbi Benga was a grandson of Rabbi Menachem Tzioni and a close talmid of the
Maharil, and he died around 1471. Rabbi Benga writes that he noticed some people pour a special
glass of wine and call it Kos Shel Eliyahu. He writes that a possible reason for this is that we pour
wine for Eliyahu Hanavi, since we are expecting him to come and he will need wine for the Arba
Kosos.[8] This source helps us date the Kos Shel Eliyahu a few hundred years earlier than
previously thought. Previously, the earliest source was printed in1692. What is interesting about
this source is that he was not sure where the minhag came from and, again, he mentions no
connection to Shefoch Chamascha.

In 1988, the department in Machon Yerushalayim that prints early works of German Jewry printed
two volumes from manuscript from Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) of Worms. Rabbi
Yuzpeh Shamash writes that it was the custom in Worms at the beginning of the seder to pour one
extra cup of wine. Just as we say in the Haggadah, “Kol dichfin yesev v’yachul,” we prepare a
glass for the guest who might come. This glass is called Kos Shel Eliyahu since this is the guest
we await. Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash brings another reason why it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu:
because it is a segulah to say “Eliyahu” to get rid of mazikim [destructive forces], and we do
various things on the seder night to chase away the mazikim.[9]

In 1985, a manuscript of Rav Yaakov Emden was printed in the Kovetz Kerem Shlomo of Bobov.
This manuscript contained Rav Yaakov Emden’s notes on the Pesach Meuvin of Rabbi Chaim

7
Benveniste. He says that there is a minhag to have a Kos Shel Eliyahu but not to pour leftover wine
in a cup for him—that would not be an honor for him at all. He points out that the Chazal say not
to drink from a cup that someone else drank from.[10]

Additional Reasons for Kos Shel Eliyahu

Rabbi Aron of Metz (1754-1836) suggested that the origin of the Kos Shel Eliyahu is that on
Pesach the head of the household does not pour for everyone. Therefore, out of convenience,
people would leave a big cup in the middle of the table for everyone to take from. Once the children
started asking what the cup was for, they would tell them it was a cup for Eliyahu Hanavi.[11]
Rabbi Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe suggests an original possibility for the Kos Shel Eliyahu.
The halacha is that when one makes a seudah he should leave over a little space empty as a zecher
l’churban. He says that on Pesach, a glass of wine was left over as a zecher l’churban. It was
called Kos Shel Eliyahu to represent the hope that Eliyahu Hanavi would come quickly to correct
the Churban.[12]

Rabbi Shimon Falk asks the following question: The halacha is that one cannot bring a full loaf
of bread to the table before bentching, since it looks like one is doing it for some form of idol
worship. So why isn’t it a problem to prepare a glass of wine for
Eliyahu Hanavi? Rabbi Falk suggests that it this might the reason we do not find any mention of
a Kos Shel Eliyahu in the Gemara, but today, when there is no one amongst the goyim who worship
in this manner, it’s not a problem.[13]

Maharal Haggadah

In 1905, in Warsaw, Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg printed the Haggadah of the Maharal which he
claimed was from a manuscript of the Maharal’s son in law. In this Haggadah there is a lengthy
discussion of the number of glasses of wine one should drink at the seder. The Maharal concludes
that one has to drink five cups of wine and that this fifth cup is the Kos Shel Eliyahu.[14] If this is
correct we have an early source for Kos Shel Eliyahu, the Maharal, and based on his words we
would have many more early sources, since various Rishonim listed by the Maharal mentions the
fifth glass of wine.

However, it has been proven that, although Rabbi Rosenberg was a tremendous talmid chacham,
he was also a forger. He may have possibly had good intentions behind his forgeries.[15] His most
notable forgery was the story about the Maharal’s golem.[16]

Rabbi Avraham Benidict devoted two articles to proving that this Haggadah is a forgery.[17] One
of the points he discusses relates to our topic. In 1582, the Maharal published his work about
Pesach and the seder titled Gevuros Hashem. In this work, the Maharal writes that one may drink
a fifth cup, but he doesn’t connect the fifth cup to Kos Shel Eliyahu.

8
The Fifth Cup of Wine

However, whether or not the Maharal said that one has to drink a fifth cup, and whether or not he
says that this is the Kos Shel Eliyahu, there are others that make a connection between the fifth cup
and Kos Shel Eliyahu. A small introduction is needed. The Mishnah at the beginning of Arvei
Pesachim says that even a poor person has to have four cups of wine at the seder. Later on, the
Mishna and Gemara discuss exactly when the cups should be poured and drunk. The Gemara
(119a) says that Reb Tarfon held that the fourth cup should be drunk after we say Hallel Hagadol.
Many Geonim and Rishonim interpret this to be referring to a fifth cup of wine. In 1950 Rabbi
Menachem Kasher printed a booklet collecting all the Geonim and Rishonim that deal with this
issue and he showed that many held that one should, but does not have to, drink a fifth cup of
wine.[18] It is worth noting that in Teiman[19] and in Italy,[20] many people drink a fifth cup of
wine at the seder because of this. None of the sources that Rav Kasher collected tie this fifth cup
to the Kos Shel Eliyahu.

Some bring in the name of the Gra,[21] others in the name of Rabbi Ephraim Zalman
Margolis,[22] an interesting explanation for the development of the Kos Shel Eliyahu. There is an
argument in the Gemara in Pesachim (119a) whether one needs to drink the fifth glass of wine.
There is no final halacha given. Because we are not sure what to do, we prepare a cup of wine, but
do not drink it. The reason it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu is that Eliyahu is going to come and tell us
what the din is.[23]

So according to this Gra, Kos Shel Eliyahu is not really a new concept. It always existed, as the
numerous sources that Rav Kasher collected demonstrate, but it was not called Kos Shel Eliyahu.
Many times, we have different versions of something said over in the name of the Gra. Sometimes
that is because things were added to what he actually said. In this case, one version has the Gra
saying this idea a bit differently, that the opinion in the Gemara that one should drink a fifth cup
of wine was Reb Eliyahu, so the fifth cup is called Kos Shel Eliyahu after him. This version
concludes that this reason was revealed to the Vilna Gaon because his name was Eliyahu, as well.
The problem with this version is that as far as we know there was no Tanna or Amorah with the
name Eliyahu and that the person who said to drink a fifth cup of wine was Reb Tarfon.[24]

Be that as it may, it is likely that there are early sources for a fifth cup of wine at the seder and at
some point, its name became Kos Shel Eliyahu. But none of these explanations (except for that of
Rav Moshe Chagiz) tie the cup to Eliyahu coming to the seder.

The Custom of Opening the Door

There is a custom of many that before we begin saying Shefoch Chamascha someone opens the
door. What is the source for this minhag? One of the earliest sources of keeping the door open the
whole night of Pesach is found in the Geonim. Rav Nissim Gaon says that one should be careful
to leave open the doors the whole night.[25] The Manhig explains that this is because the night of
Pesach is Leil Shimurim and if Eliyahu will come the door will be open and we would be able to
run and greet him.[26] The Rama writes in the Darchei Moshe that because of this we open the
door when saying Shefoch Chamascha, to show that we believe in Hashem and that Mashiach
should come.[27] So it is clear from this that there is some connection between Shefoch

9
Chamascha and Mashiach coming, but there is no mention in the Geonim and Rishonim that
Eliyahu comes when we open the door. Rather it is understood to be a preparation for his eventual
coming. It is worth pointing out that not everyone said Shefoch Chamascha[28]
and that there are many different versions of what is said by Shefoch Chamascha.[29]

Rabbi Yosef Hann Norlingen (1570-1637) writes in Yosef Ometz (first printed in 1723) that in
Frankfurt there was a custom that when the door was opened by the head of the house at Shefoch
Chamascha someone would come in the door, to show our belief that Mashiach will come.[30]

However, Rabbi Yair Chaim Bachrach of Worms writes in Mekor Chaim that the minhag that
some had to have the form of a person appear when the door was opened at Shefoch
Chamascha was not proper.[31]

Woodcuts and Pictures from Early Haggadahs

Some have claimed that there is no basis for a connection between Shefoch Chamascha and
Eliyahu coming to the seder. However, as I will demonstrate, this is not so. Some of the
earliest Haggadahs printed include many woodcuts and pictures of various aspects of the seder.
These Haggadahs are a great resource to help find early sources of how various things were done
at the seder.[32] Regarding Eliyahu Hanavi coming to the seder, Professor Sperber noted[33] that
in a few of these Haggadahs there are pictures by Shefoch Chamascha of a man on a donkey in
some of them he is being led by someone, for example, in the Prague Haggadah printed by Gershon
Cohen in 1527.[34] The pictures were updated in a Haggadah printed in Prague in 1560. Another
early Haggadah that has such pictures by Shefoch Chamascha can be found in
the Haggadah printed in Mantuvah in 1550.[35]

Yosef Guttman collected fifteen illustrated Haggadah manuscripts from the fifteenth century
which all show a man on a donkey by Shefoch Chamascha.[36] From all this evidence it is clear
that already a few hundred years ago there was a belief that when the door is opened by Shefoch
Chamascha that there is a connection to Eliyahu Hanavi and Mashiach.

Mantua 1550:

10
Prague 1556:

11
Prague 1590:

12
Sleeping Near the Kos Shel Eliyahu

In 1958, Rabbi Yosef Avidah wrote a small work devoted to gathering all the known information
about the Kos Shel Eliyahu. He makes the following interesting observation. Rabbi Moshe Chagiz
writes that the custom was that the head of the house slept near the Kos Shel Eliyahu the whole
night, but he does not say why. He suggests that the reason for this was similar to the reason for

13
sleeping with the door unlocked to show we eagerly await Eliyahu’s and Mashiach’s arrival. He
goes further to show that there is an early source for this minhag. The Leket Yosher writes that his
Rebbe, Reb Yisroel Isserlin, author of the Terumas Hadeshen, used to sleep on Pesach on the bed
that he leaned on during the meal and he does not know what his reason for this was.[37] Rabbi
Avidah suggests that he was sleeping there to remind himself of the concept that on Pesach night
we show that we eagerly await Mashiach.[38]

It is interesting to note that the Likutei Chaver from Rabbi Chaim Plaut, a talmid of the Chasam
Sofer, writes that the Chasam Sofer would keep the cup the entire night and use it for Kiddush the
next morning.[39] This would seem to have a connection to the same idea.

However, it is worth pointing out that these don’t point to a connection between Kos Shel
Eliyahu and Shefoch Chamascha.

Opening the Door and Zugos

Another nice possibility given to explain the opening of the door by Shefoch Chamascha is from
the Bais Halevi. The Rama says we open the door to show that it’s Leil Shimurim. The Bais Halevi
comments that according to this it would make more sense to open the door at the beginning of
the seder not at the end specifically when we say Kol dichfin yesev v’yachul ?[40] He answers that
the Gemara in Pesachim (109 b) asks how can there be a halacha to drink four cups of wine if
there is a danger to eat or drink things in pairs—which is known as zugos. The Gemara answers
since it is Leil Shimurim, there is no danger. So, the Bais Halevi says that we specifically open the
door when the fourth cup is drunk to explain to the person who would ask why there isn’t a problem
of zugos. We show him that it’s not a problem because it is Leil Shimurim as we open the door.[41]

Additional Reasons for Opening the Door by Shefoch Chamascha

A similar explanation for the opening of the door specifically by Shefoch Chamascha is suggested
by Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern. He says the Gemara in Pesachim says another way that there is
no problem of zugos is if one opens the door to the street. So that is why we open the door
specifically at this point in the seder.[42]

Others suggest the reason for the opening of the door by Shefoch Chamascha was to show the
gentile neighbors that the accusations against the Jews about using blood of Christians and the like
are false.[43] Rabbi Shmule Ruzuvski suggested that the possible reason why the door is opened
by Shefoch Chamascha is that when we used to eat the Korban Pesach the halacha
is that one cannot take any of it out of the house so they used to lock the door. After bentching,
they would go to the roof to say Hallel, so they opened the door.[44]

An Original Explanation for this Custom of Eliyahu Hanavi and the Seder

One possible explanation of why Eliyahu Hanavi is associated with the seder could be the
following: Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash writes[45] that on Pesach night we say Eliyahu and Mashiach
will come because mazikim run away from a place where they recite Eliyahu’s name. He says that

14
because of this some make a picture of Eliyahu and Mashiach for the children so that the children
seeing it will say “Eliyahu,” causing the mazikim to disappear.[46] Interestingly enough he writes
that this could also be the reason it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu to get rid of
the mazikim.[47] According to all this, what lies behind saying Eliyahu’s name at the seder is
simply a desire to get rid of mazikim.

Earlier I mentioned the Bais Halevi and others who say that the opening of the door at
the seder by Shefoch Chamascha is to get rid of mazikim. According to Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamsash
this was the also reason some used to draw pictures of Eliyahu and Mashiach.

Eliyahu Actually Comes

There are quite a number of stories concerning Eliyahu at the seder just to list some of them:
The Yismach Moshe once sent some of his chassidim to eat the seder with the Chasam Sofer.
When they returned, they told him that \in the middle something strange happened. A farmer came
in. He drank a cup of wine that the Chasam Sofer gave him and then the Chasam Sofer drank from
the cup after him. The Yismach Moshe told them that this was Eliyahu Hanavi.[48]

The Chiddushei HaRim once was speaking about the greatness of the Nodeh B’Yehuda. He said
that when the Noda B’Yehuda would say Shefoch Chamascha he would escort Eliyahu Hanavi all
the way to the street. The Noda B’Yehuda said, “It’s not that I actually see him, but rather \that I
believe so strongly that he does come to everyone, and this emunah is better than gilui
Eliyahu![49]

Rabbi Yitzchok Weiss writes that Rabbi Shneur Lublin, author of the Shut Toras Chesed, did not
allow anyone to eat at his seder,

He also told said that Eliyahu or a messenger comes to every great person on the night of the
seder.[50]

The Belzer Rebbe would great Eliyahu when he opened the door by Shefoch Chamascha.[51]

Rabbi Yitzchok Weiss writes that Rabbi Chaim Gottlieb of Stropkov would be visited by Eliyahu
Hanavi at the seder. Many wanted to come to see this, so they asked him permission to come. He
answered, “Why not?” While they were there, they fell into a deep sleep until the seder was
over.[52]

Conclusion

In conclusion there are definitely early sources that talk about a fifth cup of wine at the seder.
According to some, this fifth cup at some point started being called Kos Shel Eliyahu. Starting
from the late 1400s we find that people would pour a special kos and call it Kos Shel Eliyahu. I
have shown that there are early sources for opening the door at Shefoch Chamascha that give
various reasons. I also showed that there are many drawings by Shefoch Chamascha of a man on
a donkey and Eliyahu found in the early manuscripts and printed illustrated Haggadahs. This
would logically lead us to conclude that there was a belief that he did indeed come to visit when

15
the door is opened, and I offered another possible explanation for all this. May we be zocheh for
Eliyahu to come with Mashiach this year at the Leil Haseder.

NOTES

[1] For sources on this topic that helped me prepare this article See Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Zecher Yehosef, pp. 39-40; Rabbi
Moshe Weingarten, Seder Ha-Aruch 1 (1991), pp.576-582; Shmuel & Zev Safrai, Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp.177-178; Rabbi
Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beydenu, 2, pp. 392-409; Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha (Pesach), pp. 358-
376; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 180-243. These collections of sources were useful, but it is worth noting that much earlier than all these
collections many of the sources on this topic were already collected by Rabbi Yosef Avidah in 1958, in a small work called Koso
Shel Eliyahu. As I mentioned a few weeks ago I recently reprinted this work with additions from the author’s copy. Another earlier
useful article on the topic is from Yehudah Rosenthal, Mechkarim 2, pp. 645- 651. For general useful collections of material related
to Eliyahu Hanavi see the two volume work Romot Gilod from Rabbi Eliezer Veisfish, (2005) and the earlier work of Aharon
Weiner, The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism (1978). I would like to thank my good friend Yisroel Israel for help
with the beautiful pictures to accompany this article.
[2] I hope to return to all this in my forthcoming article in Hebrew on this topic.
[3] Chok Yaakov, end of Siman 480.
[4] Pesach Meuvin (1997), p. 124, #182.
[5] See also the end of his Shut Shtei Lechem. Rabbi Freund (above note 1), p. 359 was apparently not aware of where this piece
was printed first. This explanation is also brought in Rabbi Dovid Zecut, Zecher Dovid, Mamar Rishon, Chapter 26, pp. 174-175.
See Elisheva Carlbach, The Pursuit of Heresy, (1990) esp. pp. 247-249.
[6] I hope to return to this topic in a future article.
[7] See Hagadat Baer Miriam of Rabbi Reven Margolis (2002), p. 90-91 where Rabbi Magolis brings a similar idea from the Toras
Emes.
[8] Moriah, 13, (1984), n. 146-147, p. 17. See Chidushei MaHarz Binga, (1985), p.195.
[9] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, (1988), p. 85-86.
[10] Kovetz Kerem Shlomo, 76 (1985) p. 7
[11] Meorei Or, Pesachim. On this work see the important article of Yakov Speigel, Yerushaseinu 3 (2009, pp. 269-309.
[12] Techeles Mordechaei in Keser Kehunah, (2004), p. 40. See also his Hagadas Mordechai, p. 75.
[13] Shut Shem Mishimon, (2003) 2, pp. 100-101.
[14] Haggadah Shel Pesach, Loshon Limudim, 1905, pp. 65-66.
[15] See Meir Bar Ilan, Alei Sefer 19 (2001), pp. 173-184.
[16] On all this see the excellent work from Dr. Shnayer Leiman, 2004, The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London. See
also E. Yassif, Ha-golem Me-Prauge U- Massim Niflayim Acharyim, (1991).
[17] See Moriah 14 (1985) n. 3-4, pp. 102- 112; Moriah 16 (1989) n. 9-10, pp. 124- 130. See also Y. Yudolov, Otzar Hagadas, p.
171, #2299; Rabbi Shlomo Fischer, Tzefunot 3 (1989) p. 69.
[18] Kos Chemeshi, Later reprinted in the back of Haggadah Shelimah, pp. 161-177. See also Yosef Tabori, Pesach Dorot, (1996),
pp. 325-341; Shmuel & Zev Safrai,Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp. 40-41.
[19] See Rabbi Yosef Kapach, Ha-Liechos Teiman (1968), pp. 22-23. See also Rabbi Y. Ritzabi, Aggadata Depischa, (1996), pp.
388-390; Moshe Garba, Mechkarim BeSidurei Yeiman 1 (1989), pp. 139-141
[20] See Machzor Roma (1485), p. 73b [in the facsimile edition of this Machzar printed in 2012]. See also Sefer Ha-Tadir, (1992),
p. 217.
[21] See the excellent article of Rabbi Y. Avidah in Hatzofeh (1958) which I
recently reprinted in his Koso Shel Eliyahu pp. 53-57where he explains why he does not believe that the Gra actually said this idea.
[22] Hagdah Shel Pesach shel Haflah.
[23] See Likutei Tzvi, p. 28; Pineinim MeShulchan Ha-Gra, pp. 112-113; Hamoer Ha-godol, pp. 126-127. See also Rabbi
Yeruchem Fishel Perlow in his notes to the Chidushel Dinim Mei-Hilchos Pesach, pp.29-30 who gives this explanation himself.
See also A. Hopfer, Ha-Tzofeh Le-chochmas Yisroel, 11 (1927), pp. 211-21; Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shalmei Moed, p.
404.
[24] This version appears in the beautiful Haggadah Beis Avrhom- Beis Aron (p.117b) where the author heard this from The Belzer
Rebbe T”l in the name of the Gra. On all this see Yaakov Speigel, Yeshurun 7 (2000), p. 728-730. See also Shut Ber Sheva, end of
siman 73; Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Mamar Tahaluchos HaAgdot, p. 26.
[25] Rav Nissim Goan, (Abramson) p. 278.
[26] Sefer Ha-Manhig, 2. p. 423-424. See Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 3, pp. 81-82.
[27] For a discussion of the opening of the door see Rabbi Yosef Avidah, Koso Shel Eliyahu, pp. 4-8. See also his work Bershis
Be-mlitzah Ha-ivrit, (1938), pp. 40-43. For an early illustration of the opening of the door at Shefoch Chamascha see Therese and
Mendel Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle ages, (1982), p. 380.
[28] For example, in Italy they did not say it. See Machzor Roma (1485); Machzor Moscovitz, (2005), p.29. See Yitzchack
Yudolov, Kovetz Mechkarim Al Machzor Ki-Minhag Bnei Roma (2012), pp. 17-18.

16
[29] See Daniel Goldshmidt, Haggadah Shel Pesach (1960), pp. 62-64; Haggadah Sheilmah, pp. 177-180. See also Yosef
Tabori, Mechkarim Betoldos Halacha (forthcoming), pp. 370-389; Shmuel & Zev Safrai, Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp.174-175.
[30] Yosef Ometz, p. 172, #786.
[31] Mekor Chaim, end of Siman 480.
[32] See Cecil Roth, Areshet 3 (1961, pp. 7-30, especially, pp. 14-1. See also Richard Cohen, Jewish Icons, (1998), pp. 90-100; U.
Schubert, Emunos HAsefer HaYehudit (1993); Marc Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious
Imagination (2011), especially, pp. 80-84.
[33] Minhaghei Yisroel 4, pp. 168-170.
[34] On this haggadah see Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggadas, p. 2, # 7-8. See also Rabbi Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut,
(1967), pp, 69-71; the introduction to the 1965 reprint of his Haggadah; Yosef Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 13; See
also Yosef Tabori, Mechkarim Betoldos Halacha (forthcoming), pp. 461-474.
[35] On this rare Haggadah see Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggadas, p. 3, # 14.
[36] The Messiah at the Seder—A Fifteenth Century Motif in Jewish Art, pp. 29-38 printed in Sefer Rephael Mahaler (1974). See
also his Hebrew manuscript Painting (1978), pp. 98-99. See also the Illustration of the Washington Haggadah 1478 in Betzalel
Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated manuscripts, pp. 140-141,34.
[37] Leket Yosher, p. 86.
[38] Koso Shel Eliyahu, pp. 12-13.
[39] Likutei Chaver Ben Chaim, 5 (1883), p. 110 b.
[40] The truth is as previously mentioned originally that was indeed the custom.
[41] Bais Ha-Levi, Parshas Bo, p. 15. The Chasam Sofer says this same idea in his notes to Shulchan Orach, 480.
[42] Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Zecher Yehosef, p. 39. See also Mishna Zicron (1923), p. 138; Rabbi Tzvi Farber, Kerem Hatzvi,
p. 79. See the comments of the Dvar Yehoshuah on this printed in Hagadat Baer Miriam of Rabbi Reven Margolis (2002), p. 91.
[43] Likutei Tzvi, p. 29; Rabbi Shlomo Schick, Siddur Rashban, p. 32; Hagaddas Ha-Malbim (1883), p.50 (editor’s note).
[44] Mikrai Kodesh (Harri), p. 548.
[45] Rabbi Oberlander and Freund (above note 1) incorrectly thought that this comment is from the Chavos Yair.
[46] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, (1988), p. 87. Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beydenu, Rabbi Tuviah
Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha, and Pardes Eliezer, all quote this piece of Rabbi Shamash, but they did not realize what he was really
saying.
[47] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, p. 86.
[48] Orchos Hasofer, p. 115.
[49] Or Pnei Yitchak, p. 16.
[50] Elef Kesav, p. 21.
[51] Elef Kesav, p. 72.
[52] Elef Kesav, p. 97.

Where Do We Draw the Line Between Segulos, Sleight of Hand,

And Kishuf?

R’ Nechemya Klugman writes:4

We will discuss the halachos of engaging in certain supernatural practices, and in activities that
border on the supernatural. For example, is it permitted to perform segulos to achieve certain
results? And what about magic tricks – may one perform such tricks if the viewer does not know

4
https://matzav.com/where-do-we-draw-the-line-between-segulos-sleight-of-hand-and-kishuf/

17
how the trick works, and it seems “supernatural”? Also, is ayin hara a real thing, and if it is, in
what situations does one have to be concerned about it?

Kishuf and Magic Tricks

The Torah clearly prohibits engaging in kishuf, “black magic.”1 Kishuf is defined as an act that
uses kochos hatumah to do something that has no logical explanation. For example, someone
moves around a table, and everything in the room disappears.

However, one would think that magic tricks do not fall under this category, because nothing
supernatural is happening. Rather, the magician is able to move his hands quickly so that
it appears that something impossible is taking place. In truth, though, there is a big machlokes as
to whether it is permitted to perform magic tricks. Many Poskim2 rule that such “magic” is
forbidden min hatorah because it involves the issur of being a “meonen.”3 R’ Moshe
Feinstein,4 on the other hand, rules that magic tricks are entirely permitted. He bases his ruling on
the opinion of other Rishonim who interpret meonen differently. A third opinion5 holds that magic
tricks are forbidden because of “geneivas daas,” since they give the false impression that
something “magical” is happening. According to this view, if the magician shows his audience
beforehand how the trick works, he is permitted to perform the trick.

With regard to magic shows performed by non-Jews the halachah is that one may not tell him to
do the tricks (according to the Poskim who forbid magic tricks). However, if he is already doing
the tricks for other people, it is muttar to watch the tricks.6

Segulos

In general, one must be very wary of segulos. People are sometimes attracted to segulos because
they provide a “quick fix,” and give a “spiritual” feeling. However, the Steipler writes in a
letter7 that one must stay away from any segulah that does not have a source in the Torah. It should
be pointed out that there are in fact many segulos mentioned in Torah sources. Performing
such segulos is not only permitted but encouraged. Some examples: One who honors his parents
merits a long life (Shemos 20:12). A person who fears talmidei chachamim will merit becoming
one, and one who honors talmidei chachamim will have children that are talmidei

18
chachamim (Gemara, Shabbos 23b). Saying Bircas Hamazon with kavanah is
a segulah for parnassah (Mishnah Berurah 185:1). Finally, a person who does not answer back
when people shame him is zocheh to the ohr haganuz (Igeres HaGra).

Ayin Hara Is for Real

Many people think that ayin hara is not a real thing and will even make jokes about it. However,
it is clear from numerous places in the Chumash, as well as in Shas and Poskim, that ayin hara can
be very damaging and should be taken very seriously. Examples: Hagar, the wife of Avraham,
became pregnant, but then lost her baby due to ayin hara.8 After the Akedah, Avraham sent
Yitzchak away from home because people might talk about what happened and create an ayin
hara.9 Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, who were thrown into the fire and were saved through
a miracle, died because they received an ayin hara as a result of that miracle.10

Furthermore, there are many halachos that are based on a concern for ayin hara. Here are some:
One should not measure the exact amount of grain in his silo because this can bring ayin hara.11 A
glass is broken at a wedding in order to “break” any ayin hara that might be directed at
the chosson and kallah.12 Two brothers should not get aliyos one after the other, because it looks
like their family is taking over, and this might create an ayin hara.13 We are not allowed to count
Jews because this makes an ayin hara.14

However, ayin hara should not be blown out of proportion. R’ Moshe writes in a teshuvah15that
one should not be worried about ayin hara with regard to anything that is the range of normal.
Rather, the concern for ayin hara is only in the case of an unusual occurrence that can attract undue
attention. For example, a woman in child-bearing years who becomes pregnant doesn’t have to
hide this because it is normal. However, if an older woman becomes pregnant at an age that is not
normal for this to happen, she should be concerned about ayin hara. In addition, the Poskim say
that the parameters for what is normal can change according to the times. A case in point is a
pregnant mother who wants to walk her daughter down to the chuppah. Formerly, this was unusual
and was considered an ayin hara. Nowadays, however, this has become more common and thus
there is no longer a problem of ayin hara.16

19
How Ayin Hara Works

If ayin hara is a real thing, how does it actually work? R’ Dessler and the Chazon Ish say that there
is a certain power to the eye, and it can cause damage. An indication of this power is the fact that
people can actually “feel” when someone is looking at them. The Torah Temimah17also
explains ayin hara this way, and cites a story in which a man who starved to death had been looking
at a piece of bread as he was suffering. The bread was then examined, and it was found to contain
poison!

Another explanation is that when a person is under the spotlight, and especially when he flaunts
what he has and actively draws attention to himself, his deeds are examined in shamayim to see if
he in fact deserves the things that he has. And more often than not the person is found guilty, and
therefore suffers some type of punishment.

In Summation

To summarize, dealing with the supernatural is not to be taken lightly. Real kishuf and segulos not
found in the Torah must be avoided. Even magic tricks, which are not really supernatural, are
forbidden according to many Poskim. And one should be aware that ayin hara has significant
power, and therefore a person should try not to attract too much attention to those things in his life
that are out of the ordinary.

(‫ י“ז‬,‫ וכדכתיב מכשפה לא תחיה )שמות כ“ב‬1

‫ עיין ש“ך יו“ד סי‘ קע“ט ס“ק י“ז‬2

(‫ י‬,‫ מעונן )דברים י“ח‬.… ‫ כדכתיב לא ימצא בך‬3

‘‫ אג“מ חלק ה‬4

‫ כך שמעתי מהגרי“ש אלישיב זצ“ל ומהגר“ח קנייבסקי שליט“א‬5

‫ עיין קשו“ע‬6

20
 ‘‫ קריינא דאיגרתא ח“ג סי‘ א‬7

‫ ה‘ ד“ה אנכי‬,‫ עיין רש“י בראשית ט“ז‬8

‫ גמ‘ סנהדרין צ“ב ע“ב‬10

‫ שו“ע חו“מ סי‘ ר“ל‬11

‫ שו“ע אבה“ע סי‘ ס“ה‬12

‫ שו“ע או“ח סי‘ קנ“א‬13

‫ גמ‘ יומא דף כ“ב‬14

‫ אג“מ ח“ג סי‘ כ“ו‬15

‫ עיין שו“ת באר משה ח“ג סי‘ קפ“ד‬16

‫ בספרו תוספות ברכה עמ‘ קפ“ב‬17

Forms of Magic

Mordechai Torczyner writes: 5

The Prohibition against Practicing Magic

This law as a law regarding which one should be warned that it carries the death penalty [Lav
haNitan leAzharat Mitat Beit Din]: Eruvin 17b
Punishment of sekilah for violating this law: Berachot 21b
Punishment of lashes for violating this law: Eruvin 17b

5
https://www.webshas.org/science/misc/super/kishuf.htm

21
Judges in the High Court must be versed in Magic: Menachot 65a
Learning from an Attacker of the Torah: Shabbat 75a
Learning from an Attacker of the Torah, in order to teach the Laws: Shabbat 75a
Using Magic to protect one's self: Shabbat 81b; Kiddushin 39b; R. Shabbat 81b "Amri Inhu"

The "Kishuf" form of Magic

Sorcerers and astrologers prophesy without knowing what they are seeing: Sotah 12b
There was a time when young Jewish women became more involved in magic: Eruvin 64b
Interaction of Kishuf and Sheidim Spirits: R. Chagigah 3b "SheTishreh"
Ameimar was taught a protective chant by a Head Sorceress, against sorceresses: Pesachim
110a-b
Pairs of more than two items are dangerous; they might be affected by Magic: Pesachim 110b
Whole rolls, as opposed to pieces, have a greater danger of use for magic: Eruvin 64b
Magic causing a palm tree to shrivel or shriek: Pesachim 110b
Passing over spilled water in a place of Magic: Pesachim 111a
For two people to pass around items associated with Magic, or for one person to pass between
two items associated with Magic: Pesachim 111a
What to do, if one did one of the actions on the line above: Pesachim 111a
Leaving food on the ground where one finds it, due to concern that someone may have cast a
spell on it: Eruvin 64b
What a man and woman should do, in terms of Magic, if they meet on her way up from Ritual
Bath: Pesachim 111a
Wiping one's self with pottery: Shabbat 81b-82a
Killing a louse on one's clothing: Shabbat 82a
Eating a vegetable from a bunch, without untying the whole bunch: Shabbat 82a
Medication for Magic: Shabbat 109b

Chover Chaver - Summoning Aid, or Charming Beasts to join each other

Bringing an offering to a Shaid [spirit], as sorcery to gain its assistance: Keritot 3b

Charming beasts to join them together: Keritot 3b-4a
Charming beasts to prevent them from harming one's self: Keritot 3b

General Issues of Pairs of Items/Activities = "Zugot"

Zugot as a Law Spoken to Moshe at Sinai: Pesachim 110b

Originally, the Zugot were in Consumption of Eggs, Cucumbers, and Nuts; there was a Fourth,
and all of the other Zugot are a concern because we don't know the Fourth: Pesachim 110b
In Israel they weren't careful about Zugot: Pesachim 110b
One who is concerned against Zugot will be in danger from them, but people should still be a
little careful: Pesachim 110b
Zugot of 2 are a danger of Mazikin - Damaging Entitities: Pesachim 110b
Zugot of more than 2 are a danger for Magic: Pesachim 110b
Link between Zugot and Sheidim: Pesachim 110a

22
The danger is if one travels afterward: Pesachim 110a
Sleeping after doing something with Zugot: Pesachim 110a
Using the bathroom after pairs: Pesachim 110a
Zugot for guests: Pesachim 110b
Zugot for women: Pesachim 110b

Specifically Dangerous Zugot

Differentiating between Zugot of synthetic products and natural products: Pesachim 110b
Zugot on foods, as opposed to other things: Pesachim 110b
Including more/less important foods with less/more important foods for Zugot counts: Pesachim
110b
Including Drinks from before/during/after a meal: Pesachim 110b
Zugot on Dishes and Loaves: Pesachim 110b
Zugot on Taverns in which one drinks: Pesachim 110b
Danger in drinking an even number of cups of wine: Pesachim 109b-111a
Accidental drinking of 2 or 4 cups: Pesachim 110a
For 10 cups of wine: Pesachim 110a
For 8 cups of wine: Pesachim 110a
For 6 cups of wine: Pesachim 110a
For 4 cups of wine: Pesachim 110a
For 2 cups of wine: Pesachim 110a
Danger in having sexual relations an even number of consecutive times: Pesachim 109b, 110a
Danger in eating an even number of foods at one sitting: Pesachim 109b, 110a
Danger in wiping one's self from the bathroom an even number of times: Pesachim 109b, 110a
Diluted wine: Pesachim 110b
Hot or Cold Water: Pesachim 111a

Protection against Zugot

Link between Zugot and Blessing of the People by the Kohen: Pesachim 110a
Taking a break between dangerous pairs, as a separation: Pesachim 110a, 110b
What to do if one must travel and has already had Zugot: Pesachim 110a
What to do if one is uncertain whether he drank Zugot: Pesachim 110b
Death of a Shaid Spirit [from pain-Rashbam] when someone used an incantation after "Zugot"
against him: Pesachim 110a
A Cup of Wine Associated with a Special Blessing isn't included in the count of pairs, for the
bad: Pesachim 109b
An cup which is drunk as a morning appetizer is/isn't included: Pesachim 110b

23
RASHI on KISHUF

Rabbi Saul Zucker writes:6

There is little doubt in my mind, from looking through all of the places where Rashi mentions
"kishuf" that he held that kishuf is real. (See, for example Rashi on Shemos 17:9 and 32:4). The
big question is, what does that mean?

In order to answer that let's first turn to the ibn Ezra. The ibn Ezra was an extreme logician -
everything had to be rational to him (and by the way, he did not study Greek or Muslim philosophy
anywhere - he was largely influenced by Rav Sa'adyah Gaon). Yet, the ibn Ezra strongly believed
in astrology. He wrote nine books on the subject. How are we to understand this?

The answer, I believe, lies in defining the difference between the rational and the mystical. Both
the voodoo witch doctor and the sophisticated physician will isolate a person who has an unknown
disease. But the reason for the isolation in each case is very different. The witch doctor believes
that there are forces in operation that he imagines, using the primitive, emotional-psychological
part of him. That is, he conjures up demon forces and spirits out of the depth of his fears and
imagination, and based upon that, says that the sick person needs to be isolated so that the spirits
are not able to attack others. The sophisticated physician, on the other hand, goes through
hypotheses, experimentation, trial and error, and observation - all using his senses and his mind,
to the EXCLUSION of his emotional psychological fantasy - to come to a theory - about germs.
Based upon that he isolates the patient.

Now, on the surface, they both look the same, the witch doctor and the physician. But they are
complete opposites - as antithetical polar opposites as you can get. The whole difference lies not
in the conclusion, but in the method used to arrive at the conclusion.

The ibn Ezra embraced astrology because his observation of the world led him to the theory that
the natural order is highly influence by the planets and stars. This was his SCIENCE, not his
imagination. It turns out that his science, as we now know, was in error. But that is not the same
thing as embracing astrology because of fear, fantasy, or whatever other psychological force may
be in play.

Turning to Rashi - you could say that Rashi accepted the idea of kishuf because of primitive
fantasy, or you could say he accepted the idea of kishuf because of a (mistaken) scientific theory
about how the world of nature operates. That is, through observation, the ancients believed that
nature could be scientifically manipulated through certain actions, speech, etc. It doesn't matter
any that they could not explain HOW it works - just like the Rashba's teshuvah about magnets. He
knew that God created special metals that mysteriously attract other metals, even though he could
not explain why. But he knew that this was part of the natural order. If you take this latter
explanation, then Rashi, with many other rational ancients, accepted the idea of kishuf as a natural

6
http://www.mesora.org/RashisMagic.html

24
order phenomenon that could not be explained. This is very different from speaking about kishuf
from a MYSTICAL (i.e., emotional, psychological) framework.

In fact, one can go further and say that according to Rashi, the reason that kishuf is assur is that
the Torah prohibits man from engaging in any activity that easily lends itself to the mystical
framework, even though that activity is real, within the natural order framework.

The final question is - how do we know how to look at Rashi? Should we say that he is of the
mystical, primitive group - who view kishuf as possessing mystical, psychological irrational
power? Or do we view Rashi as seeing kishuf as a phenomenon within the natural order (even if
we cannot explain it - like magnets to the Rashba)? The answer, of course, depends upon your
starting point vis-a-vis the rishonim. If you view them as simple folk, who were influenced by
their surrounding environment in all kinds of areas including theology, and you read them
simplistically, you will see Rashi as the witch doctor. If you view them as great logicians, rational
sages, you will see Rashi as the physician, who happened to be mistaken in his diagnosis in this
case - not because he was a witch doctor, but because sometimes, even the greatest doctors make
mistakes in their science.

In response to your inquiry about Chazal’s questions in the case of the snake and Moshe’s hands,
I would add the following: I think that their questions point to the fact that even within the realm
of kishuf as a factor in the natural order, there are known limitations. That is, "vekhi nachash
MEIMIS o nachash MECHAYEH?" means that even in the realm of manipulation of natural forces,
looking at a designed snake would never be able to effectuate an instantaneous cure of multitudes
of people. "Vekhi yadav shel Moshe OSOS MILCHAMAH o SHOVROS MILCHAMAH?" means
that war, which involves numerous factors including the bechirah chofshis (free will) of the
soldiers, cannot be manipulated instantaneously, even in the realm of kishuf as a natural order
phenomenon, by the raising of hands that the people would look at. The point is that since kishuf
DOES operate in the realm of the natural order, this realm has limitations, and Chazal knew that
these two examples were outside of the realm of those limitations, and therefore they asked their
questions. If kishuf were mystical voodoo forces, then there would be no known limitation, and
Chazal would have no question here.

Sara Ronis writes:7

Picture this: It’s early morning and the summer sun is low in the sky. You’re on a walk — maybe
walking to work, maybe just walking for exercise. You are surrounded by homes, shady trees and
lots of greenery. All seems peaceful and quiet. Are you thinking about what you need to do today?
Are you spacing out? Are you listening to music or a podcast on your headphones? According to
today’s daf, this is not a good idea!

Today’s daf imagines the world is full to the brim with demons. Demons lurk behind or inside
trees and bushes. Demons dwell also within shadows cast by trees, plants and outhouses. And
because of their ubiquity, we have to be constantly aware and careful of them.

7
Myjewishlearning.com

25
As today’s daf points out:

With regard to one who relieves himself between a palm tree and a wall, we said that he
places himself in danger only when there are not four cubits of space between the two objects.
However, if there are four cubits, we have no problem with it.

Remember, as we learned recently, relieving oneself makes one more vulnerable to demon attack.
Especially at such a moment, we must always know how close or far we are from the trees around
us, which might harbor these unseen creatures.

Why four cubits? Four cubits is the Talmud’s standard marker of personal space. And whose
personal space is at stake here? The demon’s! Apparently (and, when you think about it,
unsurprisingly) demons do not appreciate being on the wrong end of a stream of urine.

And yet, the Gemara continues:

Even when there are not four cubits, we said there is a problem only when the demons have
no other route besides that one. However, if they have another route, we have no problem
with it.

Demons would prefer to avoid humans, and will flee rather than attack where possible. If they can
escape that stream of urine, they will. While the demons don’t seem to want to attack humans, it
is on humans to be aware of where demons live and to leave them alone.

In addition to having favorite hangouts (the aforementioned trees, shadows, outhouses, etc.)
today’s daf also tells us that demons are more prevalent at particular times of the day, month and
year! One must be aware of whether it is morning or evening, the phase of the moon, and the
season. For example, during the first 16 days of the month of Tammuz, demons are prevalent, but
perhaps not for the rest of the month.

And beyond these dates and times that can be found on a clock or a calendar, one must also be
aware of one’s own personal time — and whether it is a propitious time for you or not! As one
story on today’s daf states:

Abaye was coming and walking along the street and Rav Pappa was walking on his right and
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was on his left. Abaye saw a certain ketev meriri (a kind of
demon) coming on his left side and he switched Rav Pappa to his left and Rav Huna, son of
Rav Yehoshua, to his right. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And I, what is different that you were
not concerned about any possible harm to me? Abaye said to him: The time is in your favor.

In this story, Abaye swung his colleague Rav Pappa around to meet the demon and shield the other
two, knowing that Rav Pappa was at that time more “immune” from demonic attack.

For the rabbis, simply going on a walk becomes a fraught dance of demon avoidance. The rabbis
expect pedestrians to expend a substantial amount of effort to avoid provoking demons. This
constant vigilance seems like it would have been exhausting, and honestly, at that point, many of

26
us would choose to just stay home. But it also would have fostered a uniquely rabbinic way of
moving through the world, constantly aware of those, seen and unseen, who are around us, and
putting the onus of responsibility on us to avoid causing them discomfort.

Shedim vs Kishuf

MAY ONE PERFORM SUPERNATURAL ACTS THROUGH THE

VEHICLE OF A "SHED"?

Rav Y. MONTROSE writes:8

Abaye teaches (Sanhedrin 67b) that there is a difference between acts of Kishuf (witchcraft) and
acts done through Shedim (demons, or spiritual forces that inflict harm). A spell or trick which
can be activated only through the means of a specific type of vessel is an act of Shedim. A spell
or trick which does not need a particular kind of vessel is Kishuf, for which one may be punished
with Sekilah.

Does Abaye imply that an act of Shedim is not included in the Torah's prohibition against Kishuf?
If it is not included in the prohibition against Kishuf, is one permitted to perform such acts?

CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN writes that the Torah prohibition indeed includes only the more powerful
spells of Kishuf (he calls them more powerful presumably because they do not require any specific
type of vessel). It does not include doing tricks with Shedim. He adds that the Chochmei Almania
relied on this view to perform acts of Shedim daily.

The Chidushei ha'Ran proves that such acts are not forbidden from the Gemara later (101a). The
Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama says that one is not permitted to ask questions
to Shedim on Shabbos. Rebbi Yosi says that one is not allowed to ask questions to Shedim even
during the week. Rav Huna comments that Rebbi Yosi maintains that it is prohibited during the
week only because doing so poses a danger to one's safety. This implies that it is not inherently
prohibited.

YAD RAMAH maintains that one who performs acts of Shedim has the same status as one who
performs acts of Kishuf. He reasons that if acts of Shedim would be permitted, then it should have
been mentioned as an example in the Gemara that follows. The Gemara that follows states that the
laws of Kishuf are like the laws of Shabbos: sometimes one is "Chayav" (one is punished for doing
the act), sometimes one is "Patur Aval Asur" (he is exempt from punishment, but the act is
prohibited), and sometimes the act is "Mutar" (the act is permitted).

8
https://dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-067.htm

27
The Gemara explains how these three categories apply to Kishuf: one who performs an action is
Chayav, one who creates an illusion transgresses but is not punished, and one who creates things
by using Sefer Yetzirah has done nothing wrong. The Yad Ramah says that if the permissibility of
acts of Shedim would be different from Kishuf, then the Gemara should have mentioned such acts
as one of the last two examples of acts that are either Patur or Mutar. It must be that the reason
why the Gemara does not mention an act of Shedim as an example is that its law is identical to
Kishuf, even though it can be done only using certain vessels.

The Chidushei ha'Ran addresses this proof and rejects it. He explains that the Gemara mentions
the example of Sefer Yetzirah (as a permitted form of apparent Kishuf) instead of acts of Shedim
because such an act is done without a vessel, and thus it is more similar to Kishuf than acts of
Shedim.

How does the Yad Ramah address the proof of the Chidushei ha'Ran from the Gemara later?

BACH (YD 179) explains that the Yad Ramah agrees that acts of Shedim are not inherently
forbidden. When he says that the Torah forbids such acts, he means that they are forbidden because
one thereby puts himself in danger (as Rav Huna says), and not because such acts constitute an
inherent prohibition of Kishuf.
However, the TUR (YD 179) does not interpret the words of the Yad Ramah this way, and
the RADVAZ (#848) clearly states otherwise in the name of the Yad Ramah. According to the Tur
and Radvaz, how does the Yad Ramah explain the Gemara later?

ROSH (7:8) differentiates between the Gemara here and the Gemara later. Although the Rosh
disagrees with the Yad Ramah and maintains that the Gemara here permits acts of Shedim, he
explains that the Gemara later discusses asking questions of Shedim (such as where one's stolen
item can be found), but not doing actions by way of Shedim. There is no proof from that Gemara
that having a Shed do something is permitted, and thus that Gemara poses no contradiction to the
opinion of the Yad Ramah.

RAV YECHEZKEL ZILBER (in his footnotes to the Yad Ramah on 101a, note 454) suggests
that this difference between the two Gemaras in fact is the position of the Yad Ramah.

One is permitted to ask questions of Shedim, but not to make them perform actions.

28