http://www.rabbisedley.com/halacha/kashrut/Danger1.pdf

Talmud Nida 17a

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: There are five things that if someone does them they forfeit their lives, and their blood is on their heads. One who eats peeled garlic, or peeled onion, or peeled egg, or drinks diluted drinks that have been out overnight; one who sleeps in the cemetery, one who cuts their
fingernails and throws them into the public domain, and one who lets blood and then has marital relations. One who eats peeled garlic: even though it was placed in a basket and sealed shut, nevertheless an evil spirit rests on them. But this only applies if there was no root or peel left on it, but if some of the root or the peel was left, it is not a problem.

Tzitz Eliezer 18; 46

I was asked regarding peeled onion and garlic that was left out overnight. [The questioner] wanted
to claim that if they are well covered and closed in the fridge that saves them so that they may be eaten, and they don’t need to be thrown out, since sometimes this leads to a great loss, and it also wasteful to
the food. This leniency doesn’t seem to work [based on the Talmud], however, it seems that
[nevertheless] there is room to be lenient in a case of loss, and to rely on the fact that this statement in the Talmud is not brought in either the Rambam or the Tur or Shulchan Aruch, and is only mentioned in a
few of the later sources. It could be that the Rambam and the authors of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch held in their greatness that this statement is not the Halacha, or that it does not apply nowadays because nature has changed, like we find in many other areas. Also, even if we are concerned in principle with this Halacha nowadays, like we find many of the great poskim were concerned, there are nevertheless many ways that it is permitted. We learn from the Sma”k two kinds of permission - either mix them with something else, like bread, or make sure to leave some of the peel with them (even if it has already been peeled off), and this prevents the evil spirit. Another permitted way is to put salt on them. Also, some people hold that the prohibition is only if they are raw and not cooked, and conversely, some hold only cooked and not raw. Therefore it turns out that if we want we can be lenient because of s’fek s’feka (double doubt). In other words, perhaps the law does not apply today at all, and even if it does, perhaps it is the other way (cooked or raw) from what we have. Even though this is a doubt in a dangerous thing (where we cannot be lenient), nevertheless, the doubt is not in a physical danger, but rather a spiritual, segula, concern. And we see that many people are not careful about this and nothing happens to them. Furthermore, in Shu”t Yad Meir he claims that there is a simple leniency, even if we say that the Halacha does apply nowadays, that washing them off [before eating] helps, and removes the evil spirit. Even though this is not mentioned in earlier sources, even so, it seems that it should work, since even without this, essentially the evil spirit is not common nowadays anyway.

------------------

I have three questions:
1) What happened to the evil spirit that it is no longer common nowadays?

2) Are there other halachos in which we are concerned about the evil spirit? Why are we more concerned there than here?

3) Is throwing the fingernails into the public domain in this gemara connected to the whole thing about pregnant women miscarrying?

1: Are you refering to a dybuk or shaidim?

"ruach ra'ah".

1) It became too inconvenient and as the quote above states, we see with our own eyes the reality is otherwise. The Rightists have all sorts of explanations, some which are more fanciful than others.
2) There are lots and lots of halachot based on the existence of the evil spirit. Among the reasons for the way we wash our hands in the morning is ru'ach ra'ah. Why certain rulings of Chazal are lucky enough to get codified and become normative practice and others aren't is a very good question, the answer to which is very complicated. But note that in that list of 5 things, some are normative practice today and some are not. Yet note that many are indeed makpid about uncovered eggs and the like.

Also, moshi, you might want to take a look at these threads
http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=622881
http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?s=&...ost&p=79966

People are pretty makpid not to close up a window entirely so that the sheidim can get out(?)

In sem someone told me that if we could see all the spirits that were around us, we'd go insane. I got pretty spooked by that for a while.

Rashi says it too..... Parshas Balak.

That's in the ethical will of R. Yehudah Ha-chassid. Of course, the same people who hold by that snippet seem to have little trouble ignoring other admonitions in the ethical will, such as building permanent homes in chutz la'aretz, building where there was no previous building, showers in a home...Funny which things people are particular about.

What's that?

If you could see all the waves that were around you, you'd be pretty spooked too. But somehow those waves don't seem to bother too many people (their existence, not their danger).

You mean like microwaves? I think people are pretty paranoid about that stuff already. At my work, when someone nukes their lunch they always make sure to stand outside the kitchen while they're waiting.

While talking on their cellphone which is "nuking" their brain with a low power version of what is in the microwave......

Radio waves, sound waves, heat waves...

if I remember and have a chance, b'n I'll scan the exact wording by this time tomorrow. but in short, having a "merchatz" in one's home is somewhat problematic.

Can't read all that due to my poor language skills... Does he explain why we are makpid on X and not on Y, and why the reasoning of "no more worries about ruach raah" and "we don't see anyone harmed by this" applies to X and not to Y?

I think it's empiric. When we see people not being makpid on certain things, we apply the various reasonings to explain the practice falling into disuse.

But if people are doing things because of ruach raah, then wouldn't this mean that ruach ra'ah is still active, otherwise why are they doing it?

My personal view is that yes, the fact that people do things because of ruach raah means it's still active. Absolutely. I would imagine those on the other side of the discussion would claim there are different types of ruach raah.

The Tzitz Eliezer in the OP says otherwise. . . Very confusing.

And the whole idea of it not being active anymore is weird too. What happened to it? It got tired?

Well, there are lots of theories and idea. For example, I, who have no appreciation for art, would not be affected by a Masterpiece. It would have no impact, since I'm numb to the affect that a Great Work of Art is supposed to elicit. So too with respect to some of these forces. Due to our degeneration, we are not on the spiritual level to be as affected by these forces.

As for the Tzitz Eliezer, he assumes the existence of ruach raah in many of his responsa, such as when discussing the various things for which one needs to wash in Siman 4 in the Shulchan Aruch. So when he says it isn't common (in the responsum in the opening post) I assume he is speaking of a particular type of ruach raah.

But I think rabbis are caught between a rock and a hard place because they need to explain and justify why so many torah truers pay no or little heed to certain things in divrei chazal.

I'm just gonna throw this out there, in case anyone cares: maybe, culturally, we've generally moved past the belief in little evil boogeymen and gremlins the way little kids eventually outgrow fears of monsters under the bed. Just an idea.

(Yes, I am a classical liberal. Why do you ask?)

Yeah... This reminds me once again that I have to finish reading "Rupture and Reconstruction".

There is likely an element of truth to that since the views of Jews towards sheidim and evil spirits and hocus pocus often parallels that of the culture in which they find themselves. Hence, for example, the enormous amount of spirit literature in the Bavli, where the authors lived among Babylonians, as compared to the Yerushalmi. Medieval Europe was rife with these beliefs, and so too were the Jews. And as society moves away from these folklore superstitious beliefs, so do the Jews.
Or so a heretic would claim. And maybe the Rambam as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/mel...erchassidim.jpg

I just read something tonight about how superstitious and magic-oriented (instead of science) the Babylonians were.

Back then, was there really a difference between superstitious magic orientation and science, if one defines science as using the scientific method and reproducible experimentation to determine fact? Sure, they had empiric observations and could, let's say, accurately predict the next lunation, but is that really science?

Which is actually the point, melech. People misread all those divrei chazal as religious statements, when in fact they are protoscientific statements. Look at the original post - that's a list of "dangerous" things, not "assur" things. With sheidim, as in many other cases, Chazal took the best knowledge of the time and gave advice based on that. At the time, the existence of evil spirits was a "scientific" hypothesis to explain various phenomena. Today, we have better knowledge of the natural world, and therefore no reason to believe such things exist. Much as there is no religious imperative to follow Chazal's medicine or biology, when we know better, there is no religious obligation to follow their physics, and their physics includes the existence of sheidim. The only reason people don't realize this is that to our modern ears sheidim sound spooky and spiritual, and therefore we assume them to be a religious concept, while to someone in Chazal's time they were merely something like gravity or tides - just part of how (they thought) the natural world works.

Possibly. That's certainly a spin. But first we need to differentiate among and not conflate different concepts such as sheidim, mazikin, sakanah, ru'ach ra'ah etc. They are not all the same. Secondly, there are often religious explanations for practices and then it becomes necessary to differentiate between the religious reason and the "other" reason. An example might be mayim acharonim, where there's a practical health reason (although it's also possibly spiritually harmful, not just physically) but also applications of a verse about kedushah. Thirdly, we have things like fish and meat, where no matter how much scientific evidence one can muster, there's no way that one is going away. Fourthly, although you and I and R. Avraham ben Harambam might know that there's no reason to follow their biology, not everyone is on the same page. So while the Rightists might explain away considering a premature baby being born in the eighth month as being muktzeh, they are not so quick to accept that maybe metzitzah bepeh isn't the healthiest thing to do. As well, they won't say, as you do, that we know better - they will phrase it as Chazal were correct, but human nature and physiology have changed.

What's the intersection point between the spooky and the spiritual? For example, negel vasser, food that was slept upon or taken into the bathroom, some stuff about cemeteries?

I agree, with the proviso that I'm not sure that Chazal or the Rishonim or whomever were always presenting "the best" science of their time. This is no more likely than the assumption that contemporary rabbonim are always aware of "the best" science of today. They were presenting beliefs of their time. Whether it was or wasn't the best needs to be measured against what was available.

Incidentally, it always bugs me how people turn, le-moshol, the Rambam into a shaman: where they'd look at his 12th century medical advice and presume it to be superior to what medicine can offer today. The Rambam himself would undoubtedly be appalled at the notion that his texts would be favored over what is considered the best in a later time (this is probably the one instance where I feel confident that I am indeed justified in saying what the Rambam "would" think).

This gets into the general area of how one can emulate an independent thinker by depending on their thought, if indeed such can be a true talmid of that person.

Except Chazal were Chazal and were the most brilliant people ever (yeridat hadorot and all that) so why would they not know the best science of the day?


Agreed. Given that the Rambam himself rejected certain scientific pronouncements of Chazal, I never understood why we would need to accept the pronouncements of the Rambam, as if he were held to a higher standard than Chazal themselves.

I'll appeal to authority.





The Rambam's alleged synagogue (the "Rav Moshe" synagogue) is venerated as a place capable of providing miraculous cures.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006803

Shedim don't originate from scientific claims. They're even mentioned in Tehillim.

Not in Devarim?

You missed his point. What we call science, meaning the study of nature using an empirical method which produces results that can be tested and falsified is wholly a product of the slide toward modernity. But that doesn't mean that people didn't study nature and produce useful results before modernity, only that they didn't do so using a consistent, empirical method and they didn't think of testing their findings or that findings which can't be falsified are not as reliable as ones which can.

Therefore in earlier scientific systems lots of correct observations about nature were mixed in with lots of things which weren't observations at all. They were either thoughts that very smart people had proposed or explanations that were handed down from the past which no one thought to question. These sorts of things could not be separated from the study of nature until a few hundred years ago. Grend's point is that in proto-science things like demons did play a role in the systems they came up with. For example, uncertainty might be explained by the mischief caused by demons, whereas today we might show the statistical role in randomness instead.

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to exactly?
But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reference there, as well.


I understood his point.
But I don't think shedim are the best example to use, since the main focus around them wasn't (and still isn't) scientific.

Also known as Deuteronomy . 32:17.

But if you are claiming sheidim exist because they are mentioned in Tanach verses, does that also mean that foreign gods also exist, because isn't that what sheidim means in those verses?

Sure it was. That was his point. Demonology was as much a part of science before science became "scientific" in the modern sense as alchemy. It would be totally artificial to separate what we can recognize as valid science (e.g., the ability to build a bridge using obviously working engineering principles) and what we don't think of as science because that is not how they thought. It would be anachronistic. For what it's worth, the term science itself predates its modern sense, so it is certainly accurate to use the term in the pre-scientific period as they themselves used it.

Torah negates that idea, so no.


Sheidim don't mean demons in those verses, as well as in Tehillim?
Isn't it an accepted fact in Judaism that kishuf did exist?

There's no doubt that modern science is entirely different, but I just don't think that issues like shedim/the satan/or lillith were ever thought of as scientific explanations...rather, just the spiritual meaning.
Modern science can prove the facts, while Chazal's explanation of issues is still valid and can be intertwined. But if science finds out our origin for mischief, and Chazal, for example, explained that demons were the source- then who says either is wrong?
Science & philosophy can be interdisciplinary.

Where?

The line between demons and gods is not altogether clear. Perhaps some study of ancient mythology and paganism would clear the matter.

Certainly not (in the sense that it "worked"). It's an accepted fact that the Torah inveighs against kishuf and its an accepted fact that all ancient people believed that it "worked" but its hardly an accepted fact that it did "work."

The Rambam used pretty harsh language against those who believed it existed.

But they were. It's not just a matter of what it seems like from reading ancient texts that make references to these things with our own modern eyes and minds. It is abundantly clear that things like spirits were considered to be potent forces at work in the natural world. Thus, for example, when building a house you needed to do something physical to make sure that the house would stand to counteract the physical impact of demons. We later learned that you don't need to do these things.


For one thing, you can't mix demons with science and still end up with airplanes and artificial hearts. So to the extent that we want airplanes and artificial hearts we, or at least the people who will develop those things, must discard demons. If you're suggesting that there is no physical imprint from demons, only a spiritual one then there are two problems: one, Chazal maintained that there is a physical impact by demons and two, then why mention demons at all? It's really no different from saying that your car starts because there is a faun under the hood, only we pretend its not there, take it to a mechanic when it needs fixing, but it is there anyway. Maintaining that it's there without any explanation for what it does is pointless.


Now how does this pertain to demons and the like?

Depends whom you ask.


The ability to harness bad forces for evil purposes was recognized as a real phenomenon, yes. However, that's different than claiming that sheidim exist.

You might want to take a look at the Rambam to Mesechet Avodah Zarah 4:7
and at this http://www.hashkafah.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=281919

Thanks. I know of the Rambam's opinion, but there're various opinions on this subject.
I don't exactly understand how Rambam could disagree though if lillith, for example, is mentioned in Gemara?

As for the other points mentioned on this thread, I'll (bli neder) come back to this thread & address them when I return later on.

The Rambam believed that something that isn't halakhah being mentioned in the Gemara is not sufficient reason to rely on it or believe in it. He (correctly) realized that belief in demons is cross-cultural, rather than a religious element within Judaism.

Do you think the Rambam believed Chazal could simply be wrong about some things?

What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether a statement in the gemara is to be taken as fact and incorporated into halachah or interpreted as "the science of the times" and ignored?

If a [certain demographic] holds by it.

Yes.

Where Torah tells us not to worship gods?

I'm sure you know!


Yes, but I suppose I'm enterting a "danger zone" by bringing up the topic of kishuf and black magic. The bottom line is that it isn't allowed, not that it didn't work. It's a very wavered subject in Judaism, so I guess it's not an accepted fact by all. What is the reaction then- if it didn't work?
Aren't there sources in Judaism that black magic did/does work?


It's just the notion of "you don't always need to see to believe."
I personally don't think the demonology was used so much as a science...just an explanation or a fact. I mean, I still fail to see how lillith explains anything scientific; the whole story w/ Adam relates to science or the physical reasoning- how?
I don't mean science in today's world. It's a complicated issue, and I just don't think it relates to science best. There're better examples of Chazal's science then and science today than demonology.
But maybe this has more to do with what's mentioned below.

Could this have to do with the fact that one can differentiate between "minhag makom" (or belief of the makom) vs. halacha?
The Chafetz Chaim also differentiated: by not saying that something isn't true, rather saying that it doesn't apply to current times. Like the prohibiton of a father teaching his daughter Torah.
But I think the subject of demons is one that shouldn't be disregarded, yet shouldn't be obsessed over b/c it can really just drive someone crazy.
How about that black cat thing? Killing a black cat and using the ashes over the eyes...something like that which enables one to see demons.
*shudders*

It's interesting to note that many who dismiss the ideas of demons- don't usually dismiss the ideas of the satan, malach hamavet, and the yetzer hara, as well.