IRANO-JUDAICA VII

Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East
Irano-Judaica VII
Studies relating
to Jewish contacts
with Persian culture
throughout the ages

Edited by
Julia Rubanovich
and Geoffrey Herman

Jerusalem 2019
Published with the aid of:
The Amnon Netzer Center for Iranian Jewish History and Heritage, USA

© Copyright by the Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 2019

Design & Typesetting: Hanoch Waldenberg
ISBN 978-965-235-208-8
 Contents

Contents

001 Notes on contributors

009 Introduction

Part One
Law, Ritual and Eschatology in Zoroastrianism and Judaism
023 Defeating Death: Eschatology in Zoroastrianism, Judaism
and Christianity
Almut Hintze
073 A Pahlavi Legal Term in Jesubōxt’s Corpus Iuris
Maria Macuch
103 Cultural Intertwinedness and the Problem of Proving Reception.
A Case Study on Late Antique Foundations: ruwānagān, heqdēsh,
piae causae, and waq f
Benjamin Jokisch
129 Samuel’s Scythe-handle: Sasanian Mortgage Law in the Bavli
Yaakov Elman
145 ‘Thought Is Akin to Action’: The Importance of Thought
in Zoroastrianism and the Development of a Babylonian
Rabbinic Motif
David Brodsky

Part Two
Textual Patterns and Transmission
in Avestan and Middle Persian Sources
199 Observations on the Form of Avestan Texts in the Context of
Neighboring Traditions
Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst

v
 Contents

221 Les raisonnements taxinomiques dans le Dēnkard 3

Mihaela Timuș
251 Christlich-jüdische Spuren in Pahlavi-Dokumenten
des 7. Jhs. n. Chr.
Dieter Weber
267 The Hērbedestān in the Hērbedestān: Priestly Teaching
from the Avesta to the Zand
Yaakov Elman

Part Three
Jewish-Iranian Historical and Literary
Interrelations through the Centuries
297 Luhrāsp and the Destruction of Jerusalem: A Note on
Jewish-Iranian Syncretism
Domenico Agostini
311 Back to Bustanay: The History of a Legend
Geoffrey Herman
341 On Representations of Jews in Medieval Persian Epic Poetry
Julia Rubanovich
371 The Image of the Jew in Iranian Folklore
Orly R. Rahimiyan

Part Four
Texts and Motifs: Between Interaction and Polemics
393 ʻThree Partners in a Personʼ: The Metamorphoses of
a Tradition and the History of an Idea
Reuven Kiperwasser
439 The Usurpation of Solomon’s Throne by Ashmedai (b.Giṭ.
68a-b): A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian and Christian Contexts
Yishai Kiel

vi
 Contents

473 Jews and Christians in Late Sasanian Nisibis:

The Evidence of the Life of Mār Yāreth the Alexandrian
Sergey Minov
507 Therefore He Himself is the Demon, Lord of Hell:
On Manichaean and Zoroastrian Anti-Judaism
Samuel Thrope

Part Five
Judaeo-Persian Language and Literature
527 La dialectologie du persan préclassique à la lumière des nouvelles
données judéo-persanes
Gilbert Lazard
545 A Fragment of the Book of Jeremiah in Early Judaeo-Persian
Shaul Shaked
579 Reflections on a Judaeo-Persian Manuscript of Rūmī’s Mathnavī
Vera B. Moreen
597 Observations on the Epic Legacy in Judaeo-Persian Poetry
Nahid Pirnazar
637 Shāhīn’s Interpretation of Shira and Haʾazinu
Vera B. Moreen

Hebrew Section
‫ט‬ Between Jews and Gentiles in Talmudic Babylonia: Reading
between the Lines
Alex Tal

vii
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

The Usurpation of Solomon’s Throne

by Ashmedai (b.Giṭ. 68a-b):
A Talmudic Story in Its Iranian
and Christian Contexts*
Y ISHAI KIEL

I n t r o d u c t Ion
A fascinating Talmudic narrative (b.Giṭ. 68a-b) relates the legendary story
of the capture and imprisonment of Ashmedai, king of the demons, by
Solomon and the ultimate usurpation of the throne by this fierce demon.1
Several peculiar, conspicuous, and idiosyncratic features of this story have
led scholars to search, beyond the internal literary and compositional
analysis, for a non-rabbinic backdrop that can shed light on certain
aspects of its origin and formation.2 While certain elements in the story
are continuous with, and even dependent on, earlier rabbinic traditions,
either by way of incorporating, patterning, adapting, or reworking the

* I would like to thank Richard Kalmin and Gilad Sasson for generously sharing
their recent work and insights on this talmudic story. Although I seek to pave a
new path in this article, my work is greatly indebted to their excellent studies. I
would like to thank Steven Fraade, Prods Oktor Skjærvø, Christine Hayes, and
Rafael Lefkowitz for their excellent feedback.
1 For previous scholarship on the story of Solomon and Ashmedai, see Kushelevsky
2006; Elstein, Lipsker, and Kushelevsky 2009; Sasson 2004: 225–48; idem 2007;
Yasif 1994: 102–103; Kalmin 2014: 95–129.
2 The method of ʻunearthingʼ the non-rabbinic context in Talmudic stories by
bringing to light peculiar and idiosyncratic features of the story was recently
discussed in Bar-Asher Siegal 2013: 171, 183–84, and Kiel 2014a: 405–408.

439
 Yish a i K ie l

earlier traditions, 3 other elements of the story are unparalleled in the

extant rabbinic tradition.
The building blocks employed by the rabbinic redactors and storytellers
in crafting and weaving this impressive narrative were sought in several
cultural and literary contexts. 4 By and large, scholars have recognized
that certain elements of the narrative are likely literary embellishments
of Palestinian rabbinic traditions, while others reflect the incorporation
of and engagement with traditions from the Testament of Solomon
(henceforth: TSol), Christian sources, and ʻgnosticʼ works found at Nag
Hammadi (see below). As traditions frequently made their way from the
Roman East to Sasanian Babylonia, the textual parallels adduced between
the Babylonian rabbinic narrative and traditions from the Roman East are
essential for a sound reconstruction of the discursive, literary, and cultural
context of the rabbinic story.
In the present context, I will attempt to broaden the prevailing
comparative perspective by reading the story in its ambient Iranian context,
thus contributing to a panoramic view of the cultural constituents, which
contributed to the formation of the Talmudic story. While acknowledging
that certain aspects of the narrative are informed by earlier Jewish and
Christian traditions stemming from the Roman East, I submit that other
aspects of the story are in conversation with Iranian traditions and thus
reflective of Babylonian rabbinic engagement with Iranian mythical lore.
Despite the evident efforts (on the part of the rabbinic storytellers or
redactors) to smooth and harmonize the literary stitches between the
various units comprising the lengthy Talmudic narrative of Solomon

3 For these and other compositional methods employed by the Babylonian redactors
and storytellers, see, e.g., Rubenstein 1999: 18–21; idem 2010: 217–28; Friedman
2004: 55–93.
4 The question of whether the anonymous composers of the lengthy Talmudic
narratives should be identified with the anonymous redactors who composed
the dialectical legal discussions in the Babylonian Talmud, is a thorny one. For
the different positions, see Rubenstein 2010: 217–28; Friedman 2004: 57–58.

440
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

and Ashmedai, it has been correctly observed that the narrative reflects
internal discrepancies, contradictions, and incongruities, 5 a fact which
echoes the compositional diversity of the story. Most notably, as we shall
see, the narrative contains diverging and even contradictory depictions
of Ashmedai.6 Significantly, moreover, the literary parallels discerned in
the TSol and in Christian and ʻgnosticʼ sources are, by and large, limited
to the first part of the Talmudic narrative (ʻthe shamir and the capture
of Ashmedaiʼ), while the second part of the narrative (ʻthe usurpation
of Solomon’s throneʼ) seems to be informed mainly by the Iranian
tradition. I posit, therefore, that the internal signs of inconsistency and
literary eclecticism mirror the cultural disparity between the discrete
compositional units comprising the narrative.
The realization that certain elements in the Talmudic narrative of
Solomon and Ashmedai are informed by Iranian sources is not altogether
novel, as scholars have previously noted the existence of distinctive motifs
in the Talmudic story characteristic of Iranian folk literature.7 It has also

5 Yasif (1994: 102–103) notes that the internal inconsistencies and incongruities
surface throughout the story, a fact which supports my assumption that the
rabbinic storytellers or redactors attempted to weave together separate units,
stemming from discrete cultural contexts, into a single structured story about
Solomon and Ashmedai.
6 While in the first part of the story Ashmedai is portrayed as virtuous and even
partially ʻrabbinic,ʼ in the second part he is dangerous, sinful, and sexually
promiscuous. The internal incongruities cannot be sufficiently explained merely
by using tools of literary criticism. I remain unconvinced by the attempts to explain
away the basic incoherencies of the narrative as reflective of a mere ʻdevelopmentʼ
of the characters or of the plot. Cf. Sasson 2004: 237–40.
7 Scholars have noted that the motif of the imposter who manages to take over the
throne by trickery is paralleled in the Behistun inscription of Darius, in the story
of Gaumata who usurps the throne of Iran, disguised as the brother of Cambyses.
The imposter initially manages to fool everyone, but is eventually discovered by
the fact that he has no ears. The story is also told by Herodotus, History, 3: 68–69,
about Smerdis. For a summary of scholarship on this legend, see Schiena 2008
and Shayegan 2012. For the suggestion that this legend is somehow reflected in

441
 Yish a i K ie l

been hypothesized that the name of Ashmedai (Asmodeus)—which

appears already in the Book of Tobit (3:7–9), the TSol (e.g., 5:5, in
Duling 1983: 967), and elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud (b.Pesaḥ.
110a, b.Meg. 11b) 8—derives from the reconstructed Avestan form
aēšmō daēuuō*, referring to the Iranian demon of wrath.9 While these
observations have indeed advanced the research on the story, scholars
have failed to recognize the existence of numerous linguistic, thematic, and
literary parallels between the Talmudic story of Solomon and Ashmedai
and the Iranian legend of the deposition of Yima,10 the mythical Iranian
king, by the demons Aži Dahāka and Aēšma (see below).11
In the present study, I suggest that the Iranian traditions concerning
the usurpation of Yima—the hero of numerous Iranian and Indic legends
reported in Sanskrit, Avestan, Pahlavi, New Persian, Sogdian, and Arabic
sources—and the particular role of the demons Aži Dahāka and Aēšma
in the story provide a window onto a contextual and more nuanced
understanding of the Talmudic story. It is further posited that many of
the peculiarities and idiosyncratic features of the Talmudic story are

the Talmudic story of Solomon and Ashmedai, see, e.g., Krappe 1933: 260–68;
Omidsalar 1993: 107; Russell 2004: 1131–33; Kalmin 2014: 104–106.
8 Ashmedai appears in b.Meg. 11b only in MSS Columbia and Goettingen.
9 Av. aēšma; MP xēšm; Pāzand and NP khashm/khishm. The name indicates wrath
both metaphysically, as a characteristic of a distinct demon, and (in Pahlavi
literature) psychologically as the function and quality of that demon realized in
humans. See Asmussen 2014. On the possible connection between Ashmedai and
Aēšma, see, e.g., Kohut 1866: 72–80; Pines 1982: 76–79; Shaked 1994: 285–89;
Russell 2004: 1131–33; Asmussen 2014. For other etymological suggestions, see
Ginzberg 1906.
10 Some of the different forms of the name of the Iranian king include Av. Yima,
Ved. Yama, MP Jam/Jamšēd, and NP Jamshīd. Comprehensive treatments of the
myths of Yima are provided in Skjærvø 2008 and König 2008. On Talmudic and
Manichaean adaptations of Yima’s figure, see Kiel 2015.
11 For the sake of consistency, I use the Avestan forms of these names throughout
the discussion, except when referring to specific texts in other languages.

442
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

illuminated when viewed against the backdrop of the Iranian traditions

of the demonic usurpation of Yima’s throne.
As the figure of Yima assumed various incarnations, which dynamically
evolved over time and across geographical regions and literary corpora,12
I will address a variety of Avestan, Pahlavi, and New Persian sources
pertaining to his figure, which originated in various historical and
cultural circumstances. Since the Pahlavi and New Persian traditions
generally reflect a complex web of medieval thought interwoven with
ancient traditions predating the advent of Islam, I will pay close attention
to the methodological difficulties inherent in the dating of these Iranian
traditions. 13 Matters are further complicated by the fact that literary
parallels between the Talmudic story of Solomon and Ashmedai and
Pahlavi and New Persian sources about Yima may reflect either the
impact of the Jewish and Islamic traditions on medieval Persian texts or,
alternatively, the influence of earlier (pre-Islamic) Iranian traditions (that
were preserved and transmitted only in Pahlavi or New Persian texts) in
rabbinic Babylonia during the Sasanian period.
The multifaceted and composed nature of the story of Solomon and
Ashmedai and the multiplicity of its literary and thematic constituents
highlight some of the broader tendencies that presently dominate
the contextual study of the Babylonian Talmud. One major strand in
contemporary scholarship underscores the impact of Greco-Roman
culture in general, and of Jewish and Christian traditions stemming from
the Roman East in particular, on the Babylonian Talmud,14 while other
strands emphasize the impact of indigenous traditions, including eastern

12 See, e.g., Skjærvø 2008; Shaked 1987a: 238–56.

13 On the problem of dating traditions preserved in Pahlavi and New Persian works
(particularly in the context of Arabic and rabbinic parallels), see Kiel 2012–13:
134–37; idem 2012a: 119–20; Kiel and Skjærvø 2017.
14 See, e.g., Kalmin 2014: 1–28.

443
 Yish a i K ie l

forms of Christianity,15 Zoroastrianism,16 and Iranian Manichaeism17 on

the culture of the Babylonian Talmud. The story of Solomon and Ashmedai
thus constitutes an important test-case for negotiating the various cultural
components of Babylonian rabbinic culture.
The parallels between the stories of Solomon and Yima can be
methodologically modeled in several ways. Some parallels are very
general and appear to be the result of similar and yet independent
reconstructions of a ʻmythic kingʼ figure. Other parallels seem to reflect a
pattern of emulation, in which the figure of Solomon is reimagined by the
Babylonian rabbis in the image of Yima, or in which Yima is reconfigured
by later Persian authors in the light of Jewish and Islamic traditions about
Solomon. And still other parallels seem to reflect a more comprehensive
form of syncretism, which presumes the convergence of the two figures.
Several Islamic authors, who attempted to interweave the biblical and
Iranian accounts of the sacred history, have explicitly identified the figure
of Yima with that of Solomon/Sulaymān.18 Shaul Shaked has convincingly
suggested in this regard that this type of syncretic discourse did not
originate in the ʿAbbasid period, as its roots may very well go back to the
Sasanian period (Shaked 1987a: 145, 152–53). The convergence of biblical
and Iranian figures can be found, in fact, already in the central and eastern
Manichaean tradition written in Iranian languages from the third century
onwards.19 Whether the Babylonian rabbis have already assumed the

15 See, e.g., Koltun-Fromm 2010: 129–238.

16 See, e.g., Secunda 2013: 8–33 (for earlier scholarship, see ibid.: 10–14).
17 See, e.g., Kiel 2014b; idem 2015.
18 See, e.g., the accounts of Ibn Qutayba (Wüstenfeld 1850: 320); Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir
al-Maqdisī (Huart 1899–1919: III, 46–48, 106–109). Some Arabic authors identify
Yima with Noah or other antediluvian figures; see Kiel 2015. Al-Maqdisī, for one,
says that Jamshīd lived at the time of Noah (Huart 1899–1919: III, 23–25). On the
tendency to interweave the biblical and Iranian accounts of the sacred history in
general, see Shaked 1987a.
19 See especially Skjærvø 1995: 192; idem 1997: 336–40; Kiel 2015.

444
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

convergence of Solomon and Yima or simply portrayed Solomon’s figure

in the light of Yima cannot be ascertained. However, the accumulative
effect of the evidence resulting from the existence of multiple linguistic
and thematic parallels between the Iranian and Talmudic stories, suggests
that the stories are in fact intrinsically related.

1 . t e x t A nd t r A n s l At Io n
In what follows, I present the text of b.Giṭ. 68a-b according to MS Vatican
130 with critical notes listing significant textual variants, followed by an
English translation. As the Talmudic narrative is composed of several
discrete units, I focus only on the story of the usurpation of Solomon’s
throne by the demons and its aftermath (excluding the account of
obtaining the shamir, the capture of Ashmedai by Benayahu ben Yehoyadaʿ,
and Ashmedai’s puzzles) contained in the second half of the Talmudic
narrative, as this part of the narrative appears to be more indebted to the
local Iranian context.

‫ יומא חד הוה‬4>‫ <לסוף מלכותיה דשלמה‬.‫תרחייה גביה עד דבני בית המקדש‬

,‫ (“תועפות")—אילו מלאכי השרת‬,"‫ “כתועפות ראם לו‬:'‫יתיב לחודיה ואמ‬
‫ מאי רבותייכו מינן? א"ל שקיל שושילתא מינאי והב‬.‫“ראם"—אילו השדים‬
5
,‫ בלעא‬.‫ שקל שוש' מיניה ויהב ל' עיזקתיה‬.‫ אחוי לך רבותאי‬,‫לי עיזקתך‬
‫ <"וזה‬.'‫ פתקיה ארבע מאה פרס‬,‫ואותבה לחד גפא בארעא וחד ברקיעא‬
‫ כל‬.>‫ וחד א' קודו\גודו\גונדו‬,‫ חד א' מקלו‬:'‫היה חלקי מכל עמלי" רב ושמו‬

20 Not in Munich 95.

21 Other textual witnesses have ‫בלעה\בלעיה‬. Kushelevsky (2006: 233, n. 41) suggests
that the swallowing can refer either to the ring or to Solomon.
22 Bologna: ‫( דץ‬affixed).
23 It is not entirely clear what Ashmedai did to Solomon according to this scene. My
translation provides one possible interpretation, but cf. Kushelevsky 2006: 233, n.
41.
24 The dispute between Rav and Shmuel is completely missing in MS Vatican 130,
but appears in all other textual witnesses. Compare y.Sanh. 2:6 20c; Gen. Rab. 96:1

445
 Yish a i K ie l

‫ אמרי רבנן מכדי‬." '‫היכא דמטא אמ' “אני קהלת הייתי מלך על ישר' בירוש‬
‫ קא בעי לך מלכא‬,‫ מאי האי? אמרו ל' לבנייהו‬,‫שוטה בחדא מילתא לא סריך‬
,‫ אין‬,‫ קאי מלכא לגבייכו? שלחן להו‬,‫ שלחו להי למלכתא‬.‫לגביה? אמ' להו לא‬
,‫ וקא תבע לן בנידותיהי‬,‫ במוקי קאתי‬,‫ בודקין בכרעיה? אמרי‬,‫ שלחו להו‬.‫קאתי‬
‫ הבו ליה עיזק' דחקיק עליה שם‬,‫ אייתיוה לשלמה‬.‫וקא תבע לבת שבע אימיה‬
'‫ ואפילו הכי חזייה\הוה לי‬.‫ כד עייל חזייה פרח‬,‫ושושילתא דחקיק עלה שם‬
'‫ דכת' “הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים גיבורים סביב לה מגיבורי ישר‬.‫ביעתותא‬
‫ חד אמ' מלך‬:'‫כולם אחוזי חרב מלומדי מלחמה איש חרבו על וגו' " רב ושמוא‬
.‫ וחד אמ' מלך והדיוט ומלך‬.‫והדיוט‬
He (=Solomon) kept him (=Ashmedai) with him until he built the
Temple. <Toward the end of Solomon’s reign>, one day he (=Solomon)
was sitting alone (with Ashmedai) and said: (It is written, ʻGod who
brings him out of Egypt) is like the horns (toʿafot) of a wild ox (reʾem)
for himʼ [Num 24:8]: (toʿafot)—these are the ministering angels;
reʾem—these are the demons. How are you superior to us (=humans)?
He said to him, ʻRemove the chain from me and give me your ring,
and I will show you my greatness.ʼ So he removed the chain from
him and gave him his ring. He then swallowed (the ring) and placing
one wing on earth and the other in heaven, hurled him a distance of
four hundred parasangs. <ʻAnd this was my portion for all my toilʼ
[Eccl 2:10]. Rav and Samuel (disagreed over the interpretation of this

(Theodor and Albeck 1965: 1235). The reading ‫ קודו‬is probably related to ‫קודא‬
attested in the Gen. Rab. version and to the term ‫( מקידה‬ʻbowlʼ) attested in t.Soṭa
3:4 (according to MS Vienna) and elsewhere in rabbinic literature. For the form
‫קוד‬, see also m.Kelim 16:1: ‫( וקוד הבבלי‬MS Kaufmann); t.Kelim (B.Q.) 3:11: ‫והקיד‬
‫ ;הבבלי‬Epstein 1982: 42; Sokoloff 2002a: 478. I would like to thank Moshe Bar-
Asher for these references. The reading ‫ גודו\גונדו‬may stem from ‫גודנא\גודאנא‬
(ʻa type of garmentʼ) as suggested by R. Shlomo Itzhaqi (ad loc.) or from ‫( גודא‬ʻa
leather bottle or bag,ʼ since the primary meaning ʻwallʼ seems irrelevant in this
context), both from Syriac. For these terms, see Sokoloff 2002b: 266.
25 Aras 889 adds here: ‫כי מטא לגבי סנהדרין‬. A second hand in Vatican 130 adds ‫[עד‬
].‫דמטא לגבי סנהדרי‬

446
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

verse): One said it refers to his staff and one said it refers to his bowl/
club>. Wherever he (=Solomon) arrived, he said, ʻI, Qohelet, was king
over Israel in Jerusalemʼ [Eccl 1:12]. The Rabbis said: Let us see, a
madman does not persist in one thing; what is (the meaning of ) this?
They asked Benayahu: Did the king send for you? He replied: No.
They sent to the queens: Did the king visit you? They sent back: Yes,
he has. They sent to them: Did you examine his legs? They sent back:
He comes in his socks, and he demands (to have sex with) us in the
time of our menstrual separation and he also demands (to have sex
with) Bathsheba, his mother. They brought Solomon and gave him a
ring on which the (divine) name was engraved and a chain on which
the (divine) name was engraved. When (Solomon) went in, Ashmedai
saw him and flew away. But even so, he (=Solomon) remained in fear
of him, as it is written, ʻBehold, it is the litter of Solomon! Around it
are sixty mighty men of the mighty men of Israel; all equipped with
swords and expert in war, each with his sword at his thigh because
of fear by nightʼ [Song 3:7–8]. Rav and Samuel differed (regarding
the reign of Solomon): One said that Solomon was first a king and
then a commoner and the other said that he was first a king, then a
commoner, and then a king again.

2 . I n se A r ch of A c on t e x t
As noted above, certain aspects of the Talmudic story are continuous
with Palestinian rabbinic traditions, whether by way of incorporation,
adaptation, or reworking of the Palestinian antecedents. For example,
the idea that Solomon, the great subjugator of the demonic sphere,26 was

26 The authority of Solomon over the demonic sphere is widely attested in Second
Temple, rabbinic, Christian, and Islamic literature. See, e.g., Torijano 2002: 41–87;
Sasson 2004: 208–76; idem 2007. For primary sources, see, e.g., The Revelation
of Adam, fol. 79 (Meyer 2007: 352); The Testimony of Truth, fol. 70 (ibid.: 626);

447
 Yish a i K ie l

eventually terrified of the demons and, more specifically, the use of

Canticles 3:7–8 in this context is already attested in Palestinian rabbinic
works.27 Similarly, the usurpation of Solomon’s throne by Ashmedai is, in
all likelihood, a reworked Babylonian version of his dethronement by an
angel found in Palestinian rabbinic works.28 Solomon’s desperate attempt
to reclaim his throne linked to the rabbis’ exegesis of Eccl 1:12 (ʻI, Qohelet,
was king over Israel in Jerusalemʼ) and the Talmudic interpretation of Eccl
2:10 (ʻand this was my portion for all my toilʼ) in terms of the possessions
retained by Solomon after his deposition are likewise prefigured in
Palestinian traditions.29
Beyond the use of earlier rabbinic traditions, Gilad Sasson and Richard
Kalmin have independently demonstrated the existence of literary parallels
between the Talmudic story and the TSol.30 Some of the shared motifs
include the subjugation of the demons by a majestic and divine ring;31 the
use of wine to capture the demons; 32 the exploitation of demons, so as

Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 5:3 (Mandelbaum 1987: 83–86); b.Sukkah 53a; Duling
1983: 935–87; Josephus, Antiquities, VIII, 2:5; Origen, Commentary to Matthew,
26:63; Qurʾān 38: 34–38. On Josephus’s account, see also Duling 1985. For a
comparison of the Testimony of Truth and rabbinic sources, see Pearson 1972: 459.
27 See, e.g., Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 5:3 (Mandelbaum 1987: 84) and parallels.
28 See, e.g., y.Sanh. 2:6 20c; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 26:2 (Mandelbaum 1987: 386),
and parallels. For the reliance of the Babylonian account on this version, see
Kushelevsky 2006: 225–26; cf. Kalmin 2014: 105.
29 See, e.g., y.Sanh. 2:6 20c; Gen. Rab. 96:1 (Theodor and Albeck 1965: 1235), and
parallels. Similarly, the dispute between Rav and Samuel if Solomon was ʻfirst a
king and then a commonerʼ or ʻfirst a king and then a commoner and then a king
againʼ parallels a Palestinian rabbinic dispute between R. Yudan and R. Hunia
(see CanR, Parasha 1, 10).
30 Sasson 2004: 240–48; Kalmin 2014: 107–13. Some parallels between the Talmudic
narrative and the TSol were already noted in Duling 1983: 948–49 (further
literature in n. 80) and McCown 1922: 62–63.
31 E.g., TSol 1:5–9 (Duling 1983: 962).
32 E.g., TSol 22:9–11 (Duling 1983: 984).

448
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

to find a material essential for the building of the Temple;33 the demons
possess foreknowledge; 34 Ashmedai/Asmodeos is one of the demons
appearing before Solomon;35 Solomon sends his servant to the mountains
in the company of a demon, bound by a ring bearing God’s seal, to bring
back a stone for use in the Temple; 36 Ashmedai/Asmodeos complains
about the arrogant treatment he receives from the king, angrily stressing
the transitory nature of Solomon’s position in the world.37
Richard Kalmin further underscores the historical significance of these
literary parallels for reconstructing the cultural exchange that took place
between East and West in late antiquity, as it appears that the core of
the narrative was formed in the Roman East and, later on made its way
to Sasanian Mesopotamia. Based on the late date of the final redaction
of the TSol (Schwartz 2005: 6–7), however, Kalmin maintains that the
parallels are probably not the result of direct borrowing of Babylonian
rabbis from the TSol, but rather the product of independent adaptations
of a preexisting Jewish or Christian source (Kalmin 2014: 95–96).
While the parallels between the Talmudic story and the TSol are indeed
reflective of the permeable nature of the cultural boundaries between
the Roman East and Sasanian Mesopotamia, it is noteworthy that these
parallels largely inform only the first part of the Talmudic narrative (ʻthe
confinement and imprisonment of Ashmedaiʼ), while the usurpation of
Solomon’s throne by Ashmedai, as I hope to demonstrate, is illuminated
primarily vis-à-vis Iranian parallels pertaining to the deposition of
Yima. Thus, I posit that, alongside the use of Iranian mythology, the
Babylonian storytellers incorporated discrete traditions stemming
from the Roman East—whether of rabbinic or non-rabbinic, Jewish or

33 E.g., TSol 10:4–6 (Duling 1983: 972).

34 E.g., TSol 20:1–17 (Duling 1983: 982–83); Kalmin 2014: 110.
35 E.g., TSol 5:5 (Duling 1983: 967); Kalmin 2014: 107.
36 E.g., TSol 10:4–7 (Duling 1983: 972).
37 E.g., TSol 15:7–12 (Duling 1983: 975–76).

449
 Yish a i K ie l

Christian, origin—seeking to weave these traditions together into a single

narrative. The attempts to harmonize and smooth the literary stitches
notwithstanding, traces of this ʻbraidingʼ process are still evident in the
story.
Scholars have also noted the possible existence of Christian undertones
(mostly by way of subtle polemic) in the Talmudic story as well as in
other rabbinic reconstructions of the figure of Solomon more generally.
Gilad Sasson speculated in this regard that in contrast to several patristic
writers who maintained that Christ was prefigured in Solomon (Vanning
2002: 1–50)—that is to say that Christ, in fact, superseded and supplanted
the messianic and royal hopes associated with Solomon,38—the rabbis
sought to subvert this connection by associating Jesus with no other than
Solomon’s antagonist, Ashmedai (Sasson 2004: 243–48).
Alternatively, Richard Kalmin suggested viewing the Talmudic figure
of Ashmedai as a ʻrabbanizedʼ version of the ʻholy manʼ (Kalmin 2014:
116–20).39 While Ashmedai partakes in typical rabbinic exegesis, he is
also portrayed as wise and virtuous, leads a very simple life style (drinking
merely water), has a complicated relationship with religious and political
authorities, and is occasionally appealed by ʻconventionalʼ members of
society for assistance (in finding the shamir in this case). 40 Thus, the
Talmudic storytellers acknowledge, on the one hand, the unique powers
and spiritual facilities of Ashmedai as a ‘holy man’, but, on the other hand,
attempt to domesticate his figure by depicting him as dangerous to no
one. As long as he is approached only for his esoteric knowledge and

38 See, e.g., Matt 12:42; Luke 11:31; Augustine, City of God, XVII, 8.
39 For an up-to-date survey of previous scholarship on the ‘holy man’ in rabbinic
literature, see Bar-Asher Siegal 2013: 20–25.
40 Kalmin (2014: 116–20) further reasons in support of this identification that
Ashmedai lives on the margins of civilization; is not easily accessible; shows
kindness and compassion to others; is concerned with his status in the world to
come; and performs puzzling actions that violate the norms or standards of social
behavior.

450
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

conventional members of society do not attempt to subjugate or confine

him in any way, he will pose no disruption to society.
To be sure, the ʻholy manʼ qualities of Ashmedai may accord perhaps
with his initial representation in the first part of the story, but in the second
part (ʻthe usurpation of Solomon’s throneʼ), he is depicted as malevolent,
dangerous, sexually promiscuous, and a prominent threat to Solomon’s
throne. In all likelihood, the incongruities in the story are the result of its
eclectic and diverse compositional units. Indeed, while the first part of the
narrative contains many literary elements also found in the TSol and other
Jewish-Christian traditions stemming from the Roman East, the second
part of the narrative contains numerous linguistic and thematic elements
illuminated by Iranian material.

3. y I m A A n d s o l o mon
Before relating the particular connections between the Talmudic story of
the usurpation of Solomon’s throne by Ashmedai and the Iranian account
of the deposition of Yima by Aži Dahāka and Aēšma, I would like to briefly
point out the general resemblance of the characters of Solomon and Yima,
which may have facilitated their ultimate convergence in the minds of
Islamic (and most likely also pre-Islamic) authors. Much like Solomon,
Yima’s reign represents an ideal and peaceful era in Iranian history;41 he
is associated with divine wisdom;42 exhibits the ʻright measureʼ (paymān)

41 See, e.g., Yasna 9.5.

42 See, e.g., Shāh-nāma (Khāliqī-Muṭlaq 1988–2008: I, 41–44, ll. 1–60); Persian
Rivāyats (Christensen 1917–34: II, 66–68). This element of Yima’s character
appears primarily in the later Persian tradition and, thus, may have been impacted
by the Jewish-Islamic traditions about Solomon. However, since the motif of the
wise king pervades ancient texts more broadly, there is no reason to assume
Jewish-Islamic influence in this case, as Yima’s wisdom may reflect an earlier
Iranian tradition, which was developed independently.

451
 Yish a i K ie l

in terms of ethical conduct; 43 he is remembered as both righteous and

sinful at one and the same time,44 and is associated with the subjugation
of the demonic sphere.45
The basic account of Yima’s kingship is given already in the Avesta.46
According to Vīdēvdād 2.4–6, Yima was appointed by the supreme
Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazdā, as ʻprotector, guardian, and overseerʼ of the
living creatures, a role which, at least initially, he carried out successfully.
Yima is remembered in the Iranian tradition as a model king of a golden
age and there is said to have been no death, sickness, and unhappiness
during his reign.47
The Iranian texts mention several symbols or manifestations of Yima’s
majesty. Already the Vīdēvdād (2.5–6) relates, ʻI gave him two tools: a
golden pick and a gilded goad. Thus Yima possessed two commandsʼ
(Skjærvø 2011: 71). Similarly to Solomon’s ring, moreover, the later Persian
tradition underscores the miraculous potency of Yima’s ring.48 Mahmoud
Omidsalar argues in this regard that one need not suppose that the motif of
Yima’s ring, which emerges in the later Persian tradition, is necessarily an

43 paymān (ʻlack of excess,ʼ ʻthe right measureʼ) is characteristic of Zoroastrian ethics

in general and is particularly associated with Yima. See, e.g., Dēnkard 3.227 (de
Menasce 1973: 239–40, 281–83); Dēnkard 7.1.20; Mēnōy xrad 26.33; Zaehner
1955: 250–52; Shaked 1987b: 217–40.
44 For Yima’s ʻlieʼ and ʻsinʼ see, e.g., Vīdēvdād 2.1–5; Pahlavi Rivāyat 31 (Williams
1990: I, 134–39; II, 57–59); Dādestān ī dēnīg 38.19–21 (Jaafari-Dehaghi 1998:
158–59).
45 On the connection of Yima with the demons, see below in detail.
46 E.g., Vīdēvdād 2.5–6 (Skjærvø 2011: 71); Yašt 19.31–32 (Skjærvø 2011: 113). On
Yašt 19 in general, see Kellens 1997–98; idem 1999–2000.
47 See Yasna 9.5.
48 See, e.g., the mention of the ring in the Shāh-nāma (Khāliqī-Muṭlaq 1988–2008:
II, 6, l. 50). The Persian Rivāyats mention the three symbols of majesty: the ring,
the throne, and the diadem; see Christensen 1917–34: II, 60–67. Moreover, like
Solomon’s ring, what gave Yima’s ring its potency was a formula inscribed on its
stone; see Omidsalar 2008: 526.

452
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

Iranian adaptation of the Jewish tradition about Solomon’s ring facilitated

by the Islamic identification of the two figures, since the royal symbol of
the ring and its unique powers are common enough in world literature to
have emerged independently in both traditions.49
Another manifestation of Yima’s kingship is his possession of divine
fortune or glory (Av. xᵛarənah; Pahlavi xwarrah),50 which was perceived as
the embodiment of his power (Yasna 9.4). Much like Ashmedai’s deceitful
attempt aimed at gaining possession of Solomon’s majestic ring, Yima too
lost his divine xᵛarənah, the ultimate source of his majestic power, as a
result of demonic deceit and trickery. Yašt 19.30–34 describes how Yima
was deceived (probably by a certain demon or even the Evil Spirit himself )
and was thus deprived of his divine xᵛarənah.51
The Talmudic suggestion that Solomon retained a ʻclubʼ from his royal
possessions may thus be related to the description of Yima as possessor
of ʻa golden pick and a gilded goad.ʼ52 This connection is complicated
by the fact that Solomon’s staff is already mentioned in the Palestinian
parallels and by the wide-spread attestation of this motif. Given, however,
the existence of other elements connecting the stories of Solomon and
Yima, it is possible that the reiterated allusion to Solomon’s staff and ring
in the Babylonian rabbinic narrative engages the very same attributes of

49 Omidsalar 2008: 526. His point well taken, it must be borne in mind, however,
that at least in some cases, the Islamic authors did tend to attribute to Jamshīd
traditions that were originally told about Solomon. Thus, for instance, Khāqānī
attributes the story of the loss of the ring to Jamshīd instead of Solomon (see
Omidsalar 2008: 526).
50 Although the exact meaning of this term and its precise mythical significance
are somewhat unclear, xᵛarənah appears to denote a luminous quality. For a
summary of scholarship on this term, see Gnoli 1999. Certain Muslim authors
have suggested, along the same lines, that the ending of Yima’s/Jamshīd’s name –šīd
means ʻshine, radianceʼ; see Skjærvø 2008: 502.
51 Skjærvø 2011: 113. On this passage, see Kellens 1999–2000: 727; Skjærvø 2008:
506–507.
52 Vīdēvdād 2.5–6 in Skjærvø 2011: 71.

453
 Yish a i K ie l

Yima. Unlike Yima, though, who lost his throne forever, the Babylonian
rabbinic story relates that Solomon was able to retain certain royal items
after his deposition and eventually managed to regain his authority and
kingship.53
Two other elements in the Iranian account of the deposition of Yima
that illuminate the Talmudic story include the king’s hubristic aspirations
vis-à-vis the celestial sphere and the demons’ employment of deceit and
trickery to usurp the throne. Unlike the usurpation of Solomon by an angel
in the Palestinian Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud details the inability
of Solomon to accept the superiority of the celestial sphere over humans
(ʻwhat is your greatness over us?ʼ) as a reason for his deposition and
elaborates on the deceitful means by which Ashmedai manages to obtain
the throne.
Yima’s throne is similarly usurped by means of demonic deceit and
trickery which expose the king’s hubristic aspirations to extend his lordship
over the celestial sphere. While several Iranian traditions interpret Yima’s
ʻsinʼ (e.g., Yasna 32.8) in terms of his refusal to profess and promote the
Zoroastrian daēna (the oral religious tradition),54 others emphasized that
Yima was guilty, first and foremost, of hubris, as he desired to himself
lordship and authority over the celestial sphere:

ka az druz frēbīhist u-š az ohrmazd bandagīh bē ō abardom xwadāyīh

ārzōgēnīd u-š dām-dādārīh abar xwēš guft ud pad ān drōzišn abar
anōdag būd az rāy ud xwarrah u-šān kirrēnišn kirrēnīd.
When he (=Jam) was deceived by the lie-demon,55 then from his (state
of ) servitude of Ohrmazd he desired the highest lordship. And he

53 Note, however, the alternative rabbinic position, according to which Solomon

(much like Yima) died as a commoner (see above, n. 29).
54 Vīdēvdād 2.1–5; Pahlavi Rivāyat 31 (Williams 1990: I, 134–39; II, 57–59); Dādestān
ī dēnīg 38.19–21 (Jaafari-Dehaghi 1998: 158–59). This role was eventually given
to Zarathustra according to Vīdēvdād 2.1–5.
55 Cf. Dēnkard 9.21.4 (Vevaina 2007: 303).

454
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

attributed to himself the creation of the creatures,56 and on account

of that falsehood he became estranged from brilliance and ʻfortuneʼ
(xwarrah) and they cut him apart.57

Like Solomon in the Talmudic account, who hubristically challenged

the superiority of celestial creatures over humans and sought to affirm
his authority over the demonic sphere,58 Yima too exhibits a hubristic
attitude and desires for himself lordship and authority over all creatures.
Interestingly, according to the Talmudic account, it is not the biblical sins
of idolatry and fornication for which Solomon is deemed unworthy to rule,
but rather hubris, the very sin attributed to his Iranian counterpart. To wit,
both Yima and Solomon were deemed unworthy to rule because of their
inability to accept the relative inferiority of humans; both exaggerated
their temporary authority over the demonic sphere; both were ironically
deceived and tricked by the demons, deprived of their majestic symbols
of authority, and finally deposed of their kingships.

56 The self-attribution of creation seems to have no evident parallel in the Talmudic

story.
57 Dādestān ī dēnīg 38.19–20 (Jaafari-Dehaghi 1998: 158–59). Cf. Pahlavi Rivāyat
31a10 (Williams 1990: I, 136–37; II, 57); Pahlavi Rivāyat 47.8 (Williams 1990: I,
170–71; II, 78). For the ʻsplitting/cutting apartʼ of Yima, see Bundahišn 18.9–10,
33.1, 35.5. For the meaning of kirrēnīdan, compare Lincoln 1997: 681–85. See
also Pahlavi Rivāyat 47.8 (Williams 1990: I, 170–71; II, 78); Dēnkard 9.21.2–10
(Vevaina 2007: 297–99, 303–304).
58 Cf. Kushelevsky 2006: 235, who interprets Solomon’s question to Ashmedai as
reflecting the notion that the king does not accept him as an integral part of reality.
That hubris is at stake can be seen, however, from the rivalry between Solomon
and Ashmedai throughout the entire story and their mutual attempts to subjugate
each other’s terrestrial or celestial spheres.

455
 Yish a i K ie l

4 . de mo n Ic us u r pAt Ion
In what follows, we will see that beyond the connections that link the fates
of Solomon and Yima, Ashmedai too (as portrayed in the second half of
the Talmudic narrative, or the ʻusurpation sceneʼ) bears resemblance to
the particular demonic figures associated with the deposition of Yima in
the Iranian tradition. I posit in this context that the Talmudic figure of
Ashmedai incorporates and engages the figures of both Aēšma and Aži
Dahāka and their respective roles in the deposition of Yima.
The possible linguistic link between the names Ashmedai and Aēšma (a
proposition which, in itself, has been long acknowledged in scholarship),
reflects only the tip of the iceberg of the parallelism that exists between
these demonic figures and their respective roles in the usurpation of the
throne. Elsewhere, I have argued that the study of Iranian terminology in
the Babylonian Talmud must not be limited to a linguistic investigation
(Kiel 2012b: 190–92), as the editorial choice to employ a particular Persian
loanword rather than Aramaic or Hebrew often bears broader cultural
implications that may not be evident at first sight.59 In this regard, Persian
loanwords function at times as trigger words eliciting a range of cultural
possibilities. In the present context, it would seem that the use of the
Iranian name Ashmedai triggers a broad range of cultural possibilities
associated with the demon Aēšma and his accomplices.
To be sure, the demon that succeeds Yima on the throne and is most
commonly associated with his dethronement in the Iranian tradition is
Aži Dahāka.60 Similarly to the chains placed on Ashmedai in the Talmudic

59 Interestingly, the medieval copyists of the Talmudic manuscripts often replaced

obscure Persian terminology with decipherable Aramaic words; see, e.g.,
Rosenthal 1992: 219–25, regarding the replacement of the Persian term arzānīg
in most textual witnesses of b.Tamid 32a-b.
60 Av. Aži Dahāka; MP Azdahāg/Dahāg; Parth. Aždahāg. See the comprehensive
treatment in Skjærvø 1989: 194–96. In the Avesta, Aži Dahāka is portrayed as a
great dragon-like monster, connected to the Indo-European and Indo-Iranian

456
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

story, from which he manages to trick his way out,61 Aži Dahāka is said to
have been chained to a mountain by Frēdūn (Dēnkard 9.21.10), but will
eventually manage to escape in the end of days.62
In line with the Talmudic epithet of Ashmedai, ʻking of the demonsʼ
(‫)מלכא דשידי‬63 and his successful attempt to gain authority over humans
as well, Aži Dahāka, the usurper of Yima’s throne, is likewise known in the
Pahlavi tradition by the title ʻking of demons and men.ʼ Thus, according
to Dēnkard 9.21.20, the hero Ferēdūn utters, ʻI struck Azdahāg, the
fleetest in existence, who was a grievous king of all—demons and men.ʼ64
Thus, Ashmedai as ʻking of the demonsʼ seems to have assumed not only
characteristics of Aēšma, but also those of the king-demon, Aži Dahāka,
the main usurper of Yima’s throne.
In the later Persian tradition, Aži Dahāka (who, at this point, was
transformed into Ḍaḥḥāk, the legendary ruler of the Arabs) overturns the
throne of Jamshīd (Yima). The latter, unable to resist Ḍaḥḥāk, disappears

myths of the great serpent/dragon/snake slain by a mythic hero. In certain Pahlavi

texts Azdahāg is portrayed as the embodiment and originator of the evil Tradition.
See, e.g., Dēnkard 3.229 (de Menasce 1973: 243; cf. Zaehner 1955: 30); Dēnkard
3.308; Dēnkard 3.287–88; Dādestān ī dēnīg 71; cf. also Dēnkard 8.35.13 and
9.10.2–3. Dahāg is often referred to in the Pahlavi texts as Bēwarasp; see Dēnkard
9.21.7; Mēnōy xrad 7.29, 26.34, 35, 38; Bundahišn 9.34 (Anklesaria 1956: 98).
61 As mentioned above, the chaining of the demons by Solomon is already mentioned
in the TSol and, thus, may not be a direct result of contact with the Iranian story
of Yima.
62 On the Indo-European background of this myth, see Skjærvø 1989: 191–92.
63 Levene (2003: 181–83) observes that Ashmedai is referred to as ʻking of the
demonsʼ both in the Babylonian Talmud and in the magic bowls (in contrast to
another demonic figure which bears this title in the Tsol; Duling 1983: 964). See
also the discussion in Ten-Ami 2013: 189–90 and Shaked 1985: 515 regarding
Ashmedai’s most common attributes in the bowls, ‫ מלכא דשידי‬and ‫מלכא דדיוי‬.
64 Similarly, Dēnkard 9.21.21: ʻLet it be thus, for you struck Azdahāg, who was the
swiftest in existence, who was the king of both demons and menʼ (Vevaina 2007:
305).

457
 Yish a i K ie l

for one hundred years.65 While the Shāh-nāma has nothing to say about
the whereabouts of Jamshīd in the century following his deposition, the
Garshāsb-nāma recalls that during this period Jamshīd was forced to live
incognito for fear of Ḍaḥḥāk,66 a description which is perhaps reminiscent
of Solomon’s life as a commoner. Considering, however, the differences
between the two accounts (Jamshīd is forced to live this way because he
is afraid of Ḍaḥḥāk, while Solomon is forced to live this way since nobody
believes he is the real king), it would seem far from necessary to conclude
that the Persian account is dependent on, or somehow indebted to, the
Jewish-Islamic tradition about Solomon, as it is equally possible that the
Persian account emerged independently from an earlier Iranian tradition.
While Aži Dahāka is the main demonic figure associated with the
usurpation of Yima’s throne, he did not act alone, but rather conspired
with two other demons in this act: Spitiiura (MP Spitūr) and Aēšma (MP
Xēšm). The conspiracy between Aži Dahāka, Aēšma (ʻwith the bloody
clubʼ), and Spitiiura (ʻthe Yima-cutterʼ)67 is alluded to in Yašt 19.46. The
specific role of Aēšma in the collaborative attempts of the demons to usurp
Yima’s throne is mentioned in several Pahlavi texts. According to Dēnkard
9.21.4:

<abar> ōdag kē jam ī šēd ī huramag [kē] tan pad zūr-zanišnīh bē zad
a-dādestānīhā ud rag abar gēhān harzag kerd… ud hešm ī xurdruš.
(Regarding) Ōdag68 (=Azdahāg’s mother), who struck Jamšēd (=Yima)
with good herds, struck you all by trickery, (i.e., unlawfully). And how

65 At the end of this period he is captured by Ḍaḥḥāk, who orders him to be cut
apart; see Khāliqī-Muṭlaq 1988–2008: I, 51–52, ll. 182–186.
66 Apud Omidsalar 2008: 523–24.
67 Spitiiura’s epither, the ʻYima-cutter” (spitiiurəmca yimō.kərəṇtəm; Yašt 19.46), may
suggest that he alone cut Yima apart, but according to several Pahlavi texts he is
said to have collaborated with Aži Dahāka and Aēšma in this vicious act.
68 Ōdag/Wadag; on this figure, see Dādestān ī dēnīg 71, 77; Pahlavi Vīdēvdād 18.30;
Mēnōy xrad 56.24–25.

458
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

she swiftly released upon the world of the living…Xēšm (Aēšma) ʻwith
the bloody clubʼ (Vevaina 2007: 303).

A curious remark in this context is preserved in a passage from the

Mēnōy xrad (26.34–37), discussing the benefits gained from ancient
rulers. Regarding Azdahāg the text relates that his sole advantage (sūd)
is that had he not accepted the kingship after Yima, it would have gone
to Aēšma, whose authority cannot be overturned. Thus, Aēšma did not
merely conspire in the usurpation of Yima’s throne, but the Pahlavi authors
seem to envision an alternative ʻrealityʼ in which Aēšma actually replaces
Yima on the throne.
It is possible, although by no means certain, that the reign of Ashmedai
in the Talmudic story functions as some sort of response to this Pahlavi
challenge. The storytellers may be conveying the idea that one need not
speculate what would have happened if Aēšma had been given absolute
authority, since this scenario actually took place vis-à-vis the Talmudic
figure of Ashmedai.
Another important feature shared by Ashmedai and Aēšma is their
terrifying nature. In line with the awesome portrayal of Ashmedai in the
Talmudic story and the dreadful effect he had on Solomon (ʻand even
so, Solomon remained in fear of himʼ), the Pahlavi tradition stresses the
horror and fear caused by Xēšm, who is even compared to the Evil Spirit
himself.69 Similarly to the Talmudic account of Solomon’s fear at night,
moreover, Xēšm is said to ʻvisitʼ the human realm once every night, and
is kept away by the guardian-hero Srōš.70

69 Mēnōy xrad 2.19 (Sanjana 1895: 68.18).

70 Šāyast nē šāyast (sup.) 22.17 (Kotwal 1969: 91); Šāyast nē šāyast (sup.) 13.43
(Kotwal 1969: 52–53).

459
 Yish a i K ie l

5 . de mon Ic s e x
According to the Talmudic account, while disguised as King Solomon,
Ashmedai had sex with the menstruating queens and with Bathsheba,
Solomon’s mother. Before situating these particular sexual encounters in
the context of the Iranian legend about Yima, I would like to point out that
the sexual mingling of demons and humans is regarded in the Pahlavi texts
as characteristic of the reign of Azdahāg, the demon-king, in contrast to
Yima who ʻkept away from the earth the mixing of demons with peopleʼ
(Dēnkard 9.21.2). 71 Beyond the general observation that Aži Dahāka
promoted sexual intercourse between humans and demons, however, a
certain Pahlavi tradition relates that Yima and his sister in particular were
sexually seduced by the demons. According to this tradition, the Evil Spirit
sent a male and female demon to trick Jam (Yima) and his twin sister,
Jamag,72 into having sexual intercourse with them.73
The similarities between the Iranian and Talmudic accounts are worthy
of note. While Ashmedai, disguised as King Solomon, tricks the queens and
the king’s mother into having sex with him, the Pahlavi story relates that in
accord with the will of the Evil Spirit certain demons disguised as humans
tricked Yima and his sister into marrying them. In both accounts, then,
we are told of a demon tricking King Solomon/Yima and, via disguise,
managing to have sexual intercourse with one or more of the king’s
relatives (mother/wife/sister). Unlike the ʻimposterʼ story of Gaumata-

71 Cf. Bundahišn 14b.2 (Anklesaria 1956: 136–37); Dēnkard 9.21.1–2 (Vevaina 2007:
303).
72 The Avesta does not preserve an explicit tradition concerning Yima’s twin sister.
The Rigveda, however, relates that Yama (Yima’s Indic counterpart) had a twin
sister named Yamī. In fact, an incest story connects the Pahlavi narrative with the
Old Indic myth, according to which Yamī tries to seduce her brother, just as Jamag
attempts to seduce Jam in the Pahlavi tradition. For the commonality of the Indic
and Pahlavi traditions, see Skjærvø 2008: 501–502. For Talmudic allusions to the
Iranian legend of Jam and Jamag, see Kiel 2016: 235–39.
73 Pahlavi Rivāyat 8e4–8 (Williams 1990: I, 54–55; II, 13).

460
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

Smerdis (see above), which bears perhaps some general resemblance to the
Talmudic story but is not concerned with Yima in particular, the legend
under discussion is told about Yima. As such, it seems to be a natural
backdrop against which to read Ashmedai’s relationship with Solomon’s
queens and mother.
Beyond the general affinity of the Talmudic and Pahlavi accounts, it
appears that the two stories share another important feature in common,
namely a mutual preoccupation with incest. Although it is not Solomon
who has sex with Bathsheba according to the Talmudic story, but rather
Ashmedai disguised as Solomon, it is pertinent to pursue the broader
meaning and function of the allusion to incest in the story. It makes sense,
in terms of the plot, that Ashmedai would demand to have sex with the
queens since he is, after all, mistaken to be Solomon, but would he not
raise suspicion by demanding to have sex with Bathsheba, (supposedly)
his own mother?74
The conspicuous desire of Ashmedai for Bathsheba and the menstruating
queens ultimately brings the rabbinic investigators to realize that the one
sitting on the throne is an imposter. Since the rabbinic storytellers could

74 That Ashmedai demanded to have sex with the queens while they were
menstruating indicates that he is either sexually promiscuous or completely
ignorant of, or uninterested in, the menstrual laws. Either way, the figure of
Ashmedai that emerges from our story stands in stark contrast to the righteous
and learned portrayal of Ashmedai exhibited in the first part of the Talmudic
narrative. As I have argued, this would seem to indicate that the two parts of
the Talmudic narrative are derived from discrete cultural contexts. While I was
unable to find a specific link between Aži Dahāka or Aēšma and menstruation,
which might explain Ashmedai’s desire for menstruation, it is noteworthy that
Zoroastrianism emphatically stresses the connection between menstruation and
the demonic sphere; see, e.g., Choksy 2002: 31–50; Mendoza Forrest 2011: 70–80;
Secunda 2014: 83–108. While menstruation is connected with the demonic sphere
in other human cultures as well, this is not the typical view in rabbinic literature.
It thus comes to reason that Ashmedai’s distinctive desire for the menstruating
queens in the Talmudic story engages this Iranian background.

461
 Yish a i K ie l

have chosen any other motif to signal that Ashmedai was an imposter,
I would like to propose that the allusion to an incestuous act between
Solomon and his mother (however fictitious) engages another aspect of
the Pahlavi myth of Jam/Yima and his sister Jamag, namely the incestuous
act they perform.75
The incestuous encounter between Jam and his sister Jamag is
regarded in the Iranian tradition as one of the mythic prefigurations of
the Zoroastrian doctrine of xwēdōdah (Av. xᵛaētuuadaθa). 76 While the
original Avestan meaning of this term is somewhat unclear, it is said in the
Pahlavi sources to refer to endogamous marital unions, especially between
father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister, and is regarded
as one of the most pious and laudable deeds in the Zoroastrian tradition.77
To complicate matters further, the Pahlavi texts tell us that in contrast
to the righteous performance of incest by Yima, which is perceived as a
model for the performance of xwēdōdah, Azdahāg, the king-demon and
usurper of Yima’s throne, was also engaged in a negative form of demonic
incest with his mother, Ōdag/Wadag.78
It is possible that the Talmudic allusion to a sexual encounter between
Ashmedai-turned-Solomon and Bathsheba subversively and critically
engages the Iranian accounts of the incestuous acts performed by Yima
and Aži Dahāka. At least one way to interpret the particular allusion to

75 Pahlavi Rivāyat 8e10 (cf. Williams 1990: II, 13). See also Bundahišn 14b1
(Anklesaria 1956: 136–37).
76 For other prototypical enactments of xwēdōdah, see Skjærvø 2013. For primary
texts, see Dēnkard 9.38.6; Dēnkard 5.18.3; Dēnkard 3.80.4–6 (Skjærvø 2011: 203);
Pahlavi Rivāyat 8a (Williams 1990: II, 10–11); Dēnkard 3.80.7 (Skjærvø 2011:
203); Dādestān ī dēnīg 36.69 (Jaafari-Dehaghi 1998: I, 136–37); Dādestān ī dēnīg
65; Dēnkard 7.1.9–10.
77 The literature on xwēdōdah is vast; see the references and summary in Skjærvø
2013; Kiel 2014a: 417–23; idem 2016: 149–81.
78 Skjærvø 2011: 195. While mother-son incest is the most righteous manifestation
of xwēdōdah, this is not true for demons.

462
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

incest in the Talmudic story is by way of response to the parallel Iranian

stories: unlike Yima who manifested a righteous form of incest with his
sister, Solomon was (mistakenly) believed to have had sex with his mother.
Indeed, like Aži Dahāka who performed (sinful) intercourse with his
demonic mother, it was Ashmedai who, disguised as Solomon, created the
impression of an incestuous encounter between Solomon and his mother.
In light of the Iranian parallels, therefore, the Talmudic story can be seen
as an attempt to subvert and perhaps undermine the Zoroastrian inference
from Yima that incest among humans is a positive thing. The rabbinic
storytellers seem to emphasize that while it may appear that Solomon had
sex with his mother, it was in fact Ashmedai in disguise who had done so.

c on c lus Ion
The significance of the parallels presented in this article lies not in the
relative conviction one attaches to one or another point of affinity, but
rather in the cumulative effect of the evidence. The existence of multiple
linguistic, thematic, and literary parallels between the Talmudic and
Iranian accounts and the underlying syncretic associations of the main
characters (Solomon/Yima; Ashmedai/Aži Dahāka/Aēšma) suggests that
we are dealing with cognate stories and not merely with the accidental
convergence of motifs. The intersection of the Talmudic and Iranian
stories, moreover, can be located textually in a distinct literary and
compositional unit within the lengthy Talmudic narrative. While the first
part of the Talmudic narrative bears many connections with earlier Jewish-
Christian traditions about Solomon, the usurpation story seems to engage,
incorporate, and adapt many features of the Iranian tradition about Yima.
We have seen that some of the motifs common to both the Iranian and
Talmudic accounts can already be found in earlier Jewish traditions, of
both rabbinic and non-rabbinic origin. While there is no doubt that the
Babylonian storytellers made (direct or indirect) use of these traditions
as building blocks in the grand narrative, I have posited that these earlier

463
 Yish a i K ie l

parallels were thoroughly re-contextualized upon their incorporation in

the Babylonian narrative (although, apparently, not enough to smooth
the internal inconsistencies). Thus, for example, the motif of ʻangelicʼ
usurpation of Solomon’s throne found in the Palestinian Talmud was
woven together with other ancient traditions depicting Solomon’s
contact with demons and Ashmedai/Asmodeus in particular (TSol). The
total, however, of the Babylonian narrative is greater than the sum of its
building blocks, as it is only in the Babylonian rabbinic version that we
find Ashmedai involved in usurping Solomon’s throne and replacing him
as king.
I have proposed that the various building blocks were carefully crafted
and woven together by the Babylonian storytellers in a specific manner, so
as to engage, incorporate, or emulate local Iranian traditions concerning
the usurpation of Yima’s throne, a process resulting in multiple points of
thematic or linguistic affinity between the Talmudic and Iranian stories.
The syncretic atmosphere that pervaded the Sasanian culture and informed
the convergence of Yima and Solomon may have facilitated the adaptation
and incorporation of local Iranian traditions concerning the myth of Yima
into the Talmudic story of Solomon and Ashmedai.

BI BlI o gr A ph y
Anklesaria, Behramgore T., ed. and trans. 1956. Zand-Ākāsīh, Iranian
or Greater Bundahišn. Transliteration and Translation in English.
Bombay: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sanha.
Asmussen, Jes P. 1985. ʻAēšma.ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica I, pp. 479–80 [an
updated version is available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
aesma-wrath.]
Bar-Asher Siegal, Michal. 2013. Early Christian Monastic Literature and
the Babylonian Talmud. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

464
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

Boyarin, Daniel. 2010. ʻBeyond Judaisms: Meṭaṭron and the Divine

Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism.ʼ Journal for the Study of Judaism 41,
pp. 323–65.
Choksy, Jamsheed K. 2002. Evil, Good, and Gender: Facets of the Feminine
in Zoroastrian Religious History. Toronto Studies in Religion 28. New
York: Peter Lang.
Christensen, Arthur. 1917–34. Les types du premier homme et du premier
roi dans l’histoire légendaire des Iraniens. Archives d’études orientales
14. Stockholm. 2 vols.
Duling, Dennis C. 1983. ʻTestament of Solomon: A New Translation
and Introduction.ʼ In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1:
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Ed. James H. Charlesworth.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, pp. 935–87.
———. 1985. ʻThe Eleazer Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom
in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42–49.ʼ The Harvard
Theological Review 78, pp. 1–25.
Elstein, Yoav, Avidov Lipsker, and Rella Kushelevsky, ed. 2009. Encyclopedia
of the Jewish Story: Sippur ʿOkev Sippur. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan UP, vol.
2. [in Hebrew]
Epstein, Jacob N., ed. 1982. The Gaonic Commentary on the Order of
Teharot, Attributed to Rav Hay Gaon. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Magnes
and Dvir. [in Hebrew]
Friedman, Shamma. 2004. ʻA Good Story Deserves Retelling—The
Unfolding of the Akiva Legend.ʼ Jewish Studies Internet Journal 3, pp.
55–93.
Ginzberg, Louis. 1906. ʻA smodeus, or Ashmedai [Ashmadai] (‘Aσμοδαὶος,
‫)אשמדאי‬.ʼ The Jewish Encyclopedia II, pp. 217–20.
Gnoli, Gherardo. 1999. ʻFarr(ah).ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica IX, pp. 312–19.
Huart, Clément, ed. and trans. 1899–1919. Moṭahhar ben Ṭāhir el-
Maqdisī. Le livre de la création et de l’histoire. Paris.

465
 Yish a i K ie l

Jaafari-Dehaghi, Mahmoud, ed. and trans. 1998. Dādestān ī dēnīg. Part 1:

Transcription, Translation and Commentary. Cahiers de Studia Iranica
20. Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes.
Kalmin, Richard Lee. 2006a. ʻThe Formation and Character of the
Babylonian Talmud.ʼ In The Cambridge History of Judaism. Ed. S.T.
Katz. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, vol. 4, pp. 840–76.
———. 2006b. Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine. New
York: Oxford UP.
———. 2014. Migrating Tales: The Talmud’s Narratives and Their Historical
Context. Berkeley: U of California Press.
Kellens, Jean. 1997–98. ʻLangues et religions indo-iraniennes: de la
naissance des montagnes à la fin du temps: le Yašt 19.ʼ In Annuaire
du Collège de France: résumé des cours et travaux. Paris: Collège de
France, pp. 737–65.
———. 1999–2000. ʻLangues et religions indo-iraniennes: promenade
dans les Yašts à la lumière de travaux nouveaux (suite).ʼ In Annuaire
du Collège de France: résumé des cours et travaux. Paris: Collège de
France, pp. 721–51.
Khāliqī-Muṭlaq, Jalāl et al., ed. 1988–2008. Abū al-Qāsim Firdausī. Shāh-
nāma. Persian Text Series, N.S. 1. New York: Bibliotheca Persica. 8 vols.
Kiel, Yishai. 2012a. ʻThe Systematization of Penitence in Zoroastrianism in
Light of Rabbinic and Islamic Literature.ʼ Bulletin of the Asia Institute
22, pp. 119–35.
———. 2012b. ʻRedesigning Tzitzit in the Babylonian Talmud in Light
of Literary Depictions of the Zoroastrian Kustīg.ʼ In Shoshannat
Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman. Ed.
Shai Secunda and Steven Fine. Brill Reference Library of Judaism 35.
Leiden: Brill, pp. 185–202.
———. 2012–13. ʻThe Authority of the Sages in the Babylonian Talmud: A
Zoroastrian Perspective.ʼ Shnaton ha-mishpaṭ ha-ʿivri 27, pp. 131–74.
[in Hebrew]

466
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

———. 2014a. ʻConfessing Incest to a Rabbi: A Talmudic Story in Its

Zoroastrian Context.ʼ Harvard Theological Review 107/4, pp. 401–24.
———. 2014b. ʻStudy Versus Sustenance: A Rabbinic Dilemma in Its
Zoroastrian and Manichaean Context.ʼ AJS Review 38/2, pp. 275–302.
———. 2015. ʻReimagining Enoch in Sasanian Babylonia in Light of
Zoroastrian and Manichaean Traditions.ʼ AJS Review 39/2, pp. 407–32.
———. 2016. Sexuality in the Babylonian Talmud: Christian and Sasanian
Contexts in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
———, and Prods Oktor Skjærvø. 2017. ʻApostasy and Repentance in Early
Medieval Zoroastrianism.ʼ Journal of the American Oriental Society
137/2, pp. 221–43.
Kohut, Alexander. 1866. Über die jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie
in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipzig.
Koltun-Fromm, Naomi. 2010. Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish
and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community. New
York: Oxford UP.
König, Götz, ed. and trans. 2008. Die Erzählung von Ṭahmuras und
Ğamšid: Edition des neupersischen Textes in Pahlavi-Schrift (MU 29)
nebst zweier Parallelfassungen. Iranica 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kotwal, Firoze M.P., ed. and trans. 1969. The Supplementary Texts to
the Šāyest nā-Šāyest. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab
Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 44, 2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Krappe, Alexander H. 1933. ʻSolomon and Ashmodai.ʼ The American
Journal of Philology 54/3, pp. 260–68.
Kushelevsky, Rella. 2006. ʻGaps Between Versions Constituting a Thematic
Series: A Study of the Legend “Solomon and Asmedai”.ʼ In Studies in
Jewish Narrative: Maʿase Sippur, Presented to Yoav Elstein. Ed. Avidov
Lipsker and Rella Kushelevsky. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan UP, pp. 221–42.
[in Hebrew]
Levene, Dan. 2003. ʻA Happy Thought of the Magicians: The Magical
“Get”.ʼ In Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and

467
 Yish a i K ie l

Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff. Ed. Robert Deutsch. Tel

Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, pp. 175–84.
Lincoln, Bruce. 1997. ʻPahlavi kirrenidan: Traces of Iranian Creation
Mythology.ʼ Journal of the American Oriental Society 117, pp. 681–85.
Mandelbaum, Bernard, ed. 1987. Pesiḳta de-Rav Kahana: ʿal pi ketav yad
Oḳsford ve-shinuye nusḥaʾot mi-kol kitve ha-yad u-śeride ha-genizah.
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary.
McCown, Chester C., ed. 1922. The Testament of Solomon. UNT 9. Leipzig.
de Menasce, Jean, trans. 1973. Le troisième livre du Dēnkart. Travaux de
l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de Paris III 5. Bibliothèque
des œuvres classiques persanes 4. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Mendoza Forrest, Satnam K. 2011. Witches, Whores and Sorcerers: The
Concept of Evil in Early Iran. Austin: U of Texas Press.
Meyer, Marvin, ed. 2007. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. New York: Harper
Collins.
Omidsalar, Mahmoud. 1993. ʻOf the Usurper’s Ears, the Demon’s Toes,
and the Ayatollah’s Fingers.ʼ The Psychoanalytic Study of Society 18:
Essays in Honor of Alan Dundes, pp. 105–18.
———. 2008. ʻJamšid. ii. In Persian Literature.ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica XIV,
pp. 522–28.
Pearson, Birger A. 1972. ʻJewish Haggadic Traditions in the Testimony of
Truth from Nag Hammadi (CG IX, 3).ʼ In Ex Orbe Religionum: studia
Geo Widengren oblata. Ed. Claas J. Bleeker et al. Studies in the History
of Religions 21–22. Leiden: Brill, pp. 457–70.
Pines, Shlomo. 1982. ʻWrath and Creatures of Wrath in Pahlavi, Jewish,
and New Testament Sources.ʼ In Irano-Judaica I. Studies Relating to
Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages. Ed. Shaul
Shaked. Jerusalem: The Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish
Communities in the East, pp. 76–79.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, ed. 1994. The Ante-Nicene
Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson. 10 vols.

468
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

Rosenthal, David. 1992. ʻʿArakhim nosafim la-milon ha-talmudi (3).ʼ

Tarbiẕ 61, pp. 219–25.
Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. 1999. Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition,
and Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
———. 2010. Stories of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP.
Russell, James. 2004. ʻGod is Good: On Tobit and Iran.ʼ In idem Armenian
and Iranian Studies. Cambridge, MA: Armenian Heritage Press and
Harvard UP, pp. 1129–34.
Sanjana, Darab Peshotan. 1895. The Dînâ î Maînû î Khrat, or the Religious
Decisions of the Spirit of Wisdom. Bombay.
Sasson, Gilad. 2004. ʻA King and Layman—The Sages’ Attitude towards
King Solomon.ʼ Ph.D. dissertation. Bar-Ilan University. [in Hebrew]
———. 2007. ʻIn the Footsteps of the Tradition about Solomon the Magician
in the Literature of the Sages.ʼ Jewish Studies Internet Journal 6, pp.
37–53. [in Hebrew]
Schäfer, Peter. 2012. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity
Shaped Each Other. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Schiena, Simonetta. 2008. ʻThe False Smerdis: A Detective Story of Ancient
Times: The Reconstruction by Ilya Gershevitch.ʼ East and West 58,
pp. 87–106.
Schwartz, Sarah. 2005. ʻBuilding a Book of Spells: The So-called
Testament of Solomon Reconsidered.ʼ Ph.D. dissertation. University
of Pennsylvania.
Secunda, Shai. 2013. The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian
Context. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press.
———. 2014. ʻThe Fractious Eye: On the Evil Eye of Menstruants in
Zoroastrian Tradition.ʼ Numen 61, pp. 83–108.
Shaked, Shaul. 1985. ʻBagdāna, King of the Demons, and Other Iranian
Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic.ʼ Acta Iranica 24 (Papers in Honor
of Professor Mary Boyce, II). Leiden: Brill, pp. 511–25.

469
 Yish a i K ie l

———. 1987a. ʻFirst Man, First King: Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism

and Iranian Mythological Transformations.ʼ In Gilgul: Essays on
Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions,
Dedicated to R.J. Zwi Werblowsky. Ed. Shaul Shaked, David Shulman,
and Guy G. Stroumsa. Studies in the History of Religions 50. Leiden:
Brill, pp. 238–56.
———. 1987b. ʻPaymān: An Iranian Idea in Contact with Greek Thought
and Islam.ʼ In Transition Periods in Iranian History: Actes du Symposium
de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22–24 mai 1985). Cahiers de Studia Iranica 5.
Leuven: Peeters, pp. 217–40.
———. 1994. ʻThe Zoroastrian Demon of Wrath.ʼ In Tradition und
Translation: Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit
religiöser Phänomene. Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag.
Ed. Christoph Elsas et al. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 285–89.
Shayegan, M. Rahim. 2012. Aspects of History and Epic in Ancient Iran:
From Gaumāta to Wahnām. Hellenic Studies Series 52. Washington,
DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 1989. ʻAždahā. i. In Old and Middle Iranian.ʼ
Encyclopædia Iranica III, pp. 191–99. [an updated version is available
at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azdaha-dragon-various-
kinds#pt1].
———. 1995. ʻIranian Epic and the Manichean Book of Giants: Irano-
Manichaica III.ʼ AOASH 48/1–2: Zsigismond Telegdi Memorial Volume.
Ed. Éva Jeremiás. Budapest: Akad Kiadó, pp. 187–223.
———. 1997. ʻCounter-Manichean Elements in Kerdīr’s Inscriptions:
Irano-Manichaica II.ʼ In Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di Studi
ʻManicheismo e Oriente cristiano antico,ʼ Arvacata di Rende, Amantea,
31 agosto—5 settembre 1993. Ed. Luigi Cirillo and Alois van Tongerloo.
Manichaean Studies 3. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 313–42.
———. 2008. ʻJamšid. i. Myth of Jamšid.ʼ Encyclopædia Iranica XIV, pp.
501–22.
———. 2011. The Spirit of Zoroastrianism. New Haven: Yale UP.

470
 The Us u r pat ion of S ol omon ’s Thr one b y A shme d a i

———. 2013. ʻMarriage. ii. Next of Kin Marriages in Zoroastrianism.ʼ

Encyclopædia Iranica. Online edition: http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/marriage-next-of-kin.
Sokoloff, Michael. 2002a. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of
the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan UP.
———. 2002b. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic
and Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan UP.
Ten-Ami, Alon. 2013. ʻGiluyim nosafim mʿinyaney ʾashmeday: ʾashmeday
be-keʿarot ha-hashbaʿa mi-bavel.ʼ Peʿamim 133–134, pp. 185–208.
Theodor, Jehudah, and Hanoch Albeck, ed. 1965. Midrash Bereshit Rabba:
Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jerusalem: Wahrmann.
Torijano, Pablo A. 2002. Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus,
Development of a Tradition. Supplements to the Journal for the Study
of Judaism 73. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Vanning, Stewart. 2002. ʻMedieval Christian and Jewish Approaches to the
Sins of King Solomon and His Salvation or Damnation with Special
Reference to the Treatise of Philip of Harvengt.ʼ Ph.D. dissertation.
Bar-Ilan University.
Vevaina, Yuhan S.D. 2007. ʻStudies in Zoroastrian Exegesis and
Hermeneutics with a Critical Edition of the Sūdgar Nask of Dēnkard
Book 9.ʼ Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.
Williams, Alan V. 1990. The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the Dādestān ī
Dēnīg. The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters: Historisk-
filosofiske meddelelser 60. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. 2 vols.
Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand, ed. 1850. Ibn Coteiba’s Handbuch der Geschichte.
Göttingen.
Yasif, Eli. 1994. Sippur ha-ʿam ha-ʿivri: toldotav, sugav u-mashmaʿuto.
Jerusalem: Bialik.
Zaehner, Robert C. 1955. Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma. Oxford:
Clarendon.

471