Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah

Author(s): Joseph Dan

Source: AJS Review, Vol. 5 (1980), pp. 17-40
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486451
Accessed: 13/11/2010 22:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 SAMAEL, LILITH,AND THE
CONCEPT OF EVIL
IN EARLY KABBALAH

by
JOSEPH DAN

Hebrew University

One of the major problems in the study of early kabbalah is the difficulty
in distinguishing between old traditions used by kabbalists and new ideas
presented in their writings for the first time. Early kabbalists often pre-
tended to be using books and treatises by ancient authorities, a pretense
which is usually characterized as pseudepigraphy; however, there can be
little doubt that some kabbalists in the Middle Ages did have access to old
traditions, transmitted orally or in writing, which they used to mould their
own mystical attitudes, and the attempt to distinguish between the old and
the new is, in most cases, very difficult, if not outright impossible. The main
problem is that scholarly study can never prove a negative; one can do one's
best to prove that a certain writer had such and such a source before him,
but one can never conclusively prove that a writer did not know a certain
text or idea. Still, it is the duty of scholarship to try to follow the develop-
ment of ideas, themes and symbols, and to suggest, with the help of close
textual analysis, to what extent a certain writer followed ideas and texts, and
to surmise carefully what his original contribution was.
In this paper an attempt is made to clarify both the sources and the orig-
inal contribution to the mythological concept of evil as developed by Rabbi

17
18 JOSEPH
DAN

Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen in Spain in the second half of the thirteenth cen-
tury. The major text to be considered is Rabbi Isaac's treatise on evil, en-
titled "A Treatise on the Left Emanation," published by Gershom Scholem
in 1927.' In this text a kabbalist, for the first time after three generations of
the development of the kabbalah, presented a comprehensive concept of
evil, based on extreme dualistic attitudes, characterized by Scholem as
"gnostic," which indeed bears close phenomenological resemblance to the
ancient systems of the Marcionites, the Ophites and even the Manichaean
gnostics. A significant detail in this system is that here, for the first time in a
dated Jewish work, Samael and Lilith are described as husband and wife in
the realm of the Satanic power, a concept which was later incorporated into
the Zohar and became one of the most popular and well-known chapters in
Jewish myths concerning evil.
The following analysis is divided into two parts: the first is an attempt to
discover two types of sources which were used by Rabbi Isaac-mythologi-
cal sources and theological sources; the second part is an attempt to point
out the reasons for Rabbi Isaac's mythological attitude and his relationship
to other kabbalists, both earlier and later. In this fashion, a conclusion
might be reached concerning the role of mythological elements in the deve-
lopment of early kabbalah.

The sixth chapter in Rabbi Isaac's "Treatise on the Emanations on the

Left"2 is opened by a list of the "princes of jealousy and hatred," that is, the
active powers of evil influencing the world, the first of which is Samael.
After describing seven such "princes," Rabbi Isaac states: "Truly I shall give
you a hint, that the reason for all the jealousies which exist between the
princes mentioned above, and the [other, good] princes which belong to
seven classes, the classes of the holy angels which are called 'the guardians of
the walls,' the reason which evokes hatred and jealousy between the heaven-

1. The text was published by Gershom Scholem, "Qabbalot R. Ya'aqov ve-R.

benei R. Ya'aqov ha-Kohen," Madda'ei ha-Yahadut 2 (1927): 244-64, as a part of the first
Yih.aq
study of the kabbalah of Rabbi Jacob and Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohen. (The study was also pub-
lished as a separate book [Jerusalem, 1927], from which it is quoted here; the treatise on the
Left Emanations appears on pp. 82-102.)
2. Scholem, Qabbalot, pp. 89-90 (pp. 251-52 in Madda'ei ha-Yahadut).
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 19

ly powers and the powers of the supreme host, is one form3 which is destined
for Samael, and it is Lilith, and it has the image of a feminine form, and
Samael is in the form of Adam and Lilith in the form of Eve. Both of them
were born in a spiritual birth as one,4 similar to the form of Adam and Eve,
like two pairs of twins, one above and one below. Samael and the Eve the
Elder, which is called the Northern one,5 they are emanated from below the
Throne of Glory, and this was caused by the Sin."6
The author goes on to explain the disaster caused by the sin of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden, which, according to his description, caused
sexual awakening among the two pairs of "twins," an awakening in which
the snake, called here Nahasiel or Gamliel,7 took part. The result was that
the snakes became "biting snakes," that is, Evil came into its own, and
began to express itself.
Several elements in this myth are new, unknown from any previous
Jewish source, especially if other motifs, found in parallel passages in this
treatise are used to explain this description.8 But it seems that the first one to
be considered should be the joining of Samael and Lilith as a pair, analo-
gous to Adam and Eve. It is a fact that both Samael and Lilith are major
figures in earlier Jewish traditions, but nowhere are they mentioned as a pair
in a dated work before this passage in the second half of the thirteenth cen-
tury.9 Since talmudic times Samael was regarded as the archangel in charge

3. Hebrew: Surah, here probably meaning "a spiritual being," form as opposed to matter.
4. Hebrew: toladah ruhanit du-parSufim, a creature which is at first male and female
together (see Genesis Rabbah, 8:1), and then divided into separate beings.
5. See Scholem's note (Qabbalot, p. 89, n. 4). Samael is identified with the north not only
because of the biblical tradition that evil comes from the north, but also because of the possible
reading of his name as "left," which is identical with north (if facing east). His spouse, there-
fore, receives the feminine form of "north."
6. My translation was prepared with the assistance of Mr. E. Hanker of Berkeley, Cali-
fornia.
7. These names are in fact identical, because the snake (nahash) had the form of a camel
(gamal) before he was cursed; this midrashic tradition was included in the Book Bahir, sec. 200,
based on Pirqei de-Rabbi 'Eli'ezer, chap. 13-both serving as the basic source for Rabbi
Isaac's description of the story of the Garden of Eden.
8. Some further descriptions of Lilith are translated below.
9. A serious problem concerning the development of this idea is related to a medieval text
of magic, Sidrei de-Shimmusha Rabbah, published by G. Scholem in Tarbiz 16 (1945):
196-209. It is quite clear that the author of that text knew that Samael and Lilith were related,
and there are several other points which suggest a close relationship between it and Rabbi
Isaac's treatise. However, the chronological problem has not yet been solved, and it is impos-
sible to decide with any amount of certainty whether Rabbi Isaac used ideas which were known
some time before him and reflected in the "Shimmusha," or that the author of the
"Shimmusha" made use of some motifs he found in Rabbi Isaac's treatise.
20 JOSEPH DAN

of Rome, and therefore a satanic figure-especially in the mystical literature

known as the Heikhalot and Merkabah literature'0-though originally he
was one of the fallen angels mentioned in the Book of Enoch." The concept
of Samael developed in the early Middle Ages. In the late midrash, Pirqei
de-Rabbi 'Eli'ezer, he is one of the participants in the drama of the Garden
of Eden, as he is also in the first kabbalistic work known to us-the Book
Bahir.'2 But nowhere in these detailed descriptions is there a hint that he has
a wife or a feminine counterpart, and Lilith is not to be found.
The history of Lilith is even more complex. She seems to have been an
ancient Near Eastern goddess, mentioned in the Bible'3 and she is character-
ized several times in talmudic literature as a danger to infants.14 A very
unclear tradition in the midrash seems to hint that Lilith was Adam's first
wife before the creation of Eve, and that from this union demons were
born." In all these sources, however, Samael is never mentioned. How,
then, did Samael and Lilith become man and wife in the treatise by Rabbi
Isaac ha-Kohen?
Part of the answer to this question may be found in the famous source of
most of the legends concerning Lilith-the Alpha Betha of Ben Sira, which
should properly be called "Pseudo-Ben Sira," a narrative work in Hebrew
written late in the gaonic period. This book was recently studied in detail by
Eli Yassif, who prepared a critical edition of the text, using dozens of manu-
scripts.'6 One of the most important conclusions reached by Yassif is that
two versions of the work exist, one closer to the original and another, known
in Europe since the eleventh century,'7 which was edited and enlarged by a

10. Samael's role as a power of Evil is especially prominent in the section of Heikhalot
Rabbati (Adolf Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash, 6 vols. [Leipzig, 1853-77], 3: 87) which describes the
martyrdom of ten of the mishnaic sages, as well as in the separate descriptions of this martyr-
dom in the treatise on the Ten Martyrs (see my The Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages [Hebrew]
[Jerusalem, 1974] pp. 62-69).
11. The development of the image of Samael is described in detail by G. Scholem in his
Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 385-89 (and see the detailed bibliography there).
12. Sec. 200 (the last section; in Scholem's edition-sec. 140).
13. See Isa. 34:14.
14. See Reuben Margulies's collection of the talmudic and midrashic traditions in his
Malakhei 'Elyon (Jerusalem, 1945), pp. 235-37.
15. This tradition was preserved in Midrash Avkir and elsewhere; see G. Scholem, Kab-
balah, p. 357 (and the detailed bibliography there concerning Lilith, pp. 360-61).
16. Eli Yassif, "Pseudo Ben Sira, The Text, Its Literary Character and Status in the History
of the Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages" [Hebrew], 2 vols., Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University,
1977.
17. The later version is the one found in Bereshit Rabbati by Rabbi Moses ha-Darshan.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 21

later compilator. This distinction between the two versions, proved conclu-
sively by Yassif, can shed some light on the history of Lilith and how she
became Samael's spouse.
The early version of Pseudo-Ben Sira tells the following story:

WhenGod createdHis world and createdAdam, He saw that Adam was

alone, and He immediatelycreateda woman from earth, like him, for him,
and namedher Lilith.He broughther to Adam, and they immediatelybegan
to fight: Adam said, "You shall lie below" and Lilith said, "You shall lie
below, for we are equal and both of us were [created]from earth."They did
not listen to each other. When Lilith saw the state of things, she utteredthe
Holy Name and flew into the air and fled. Adamimmediatelystood in prayer
before God and said:"Masterof the universe,see that the woman you gave
me has alreadyfled away."God immediatelysent threeangelsand told them:
"Go and fetch Lilith;if she agreesto come, bring her, and if she does not,
bringherby force."The threeangelswentimmediatelyandcaughtup withher
in the [Red] Sea, in the place that the Egyptianswere destinedto die. They
seized her and told her:"If you agreeto come with us, come, and if not, we
shalldrownyou in the sea."She answered:"Darlings,I knowmyselfthatGod
createdme only to afflict babieswith fatal diseasewhen they are eight days
old; I shall have permissionto harmthem from their birthto the eighthday
and no longer;whenit is a malebaby;but whenit is a femalebaby,I shallhave
permissionfor twelvedays."The angelswould not leave her alone, until she
swore by God's namethat wherevershe would see them or theirnamesin an
amulet,'8she would not possess the baby [bearingit]. They then left her
immediately.This is [the story of] Lilith who afflicts babies with disease.'9

It seems that every reader of this story in the Middle Ages was puzzled
by one question: Why did the angels leave Lilith alone? They were ordered
by God to bring her back to Adam, and for an unstated reason they were
convinced by her speech not to do so. But it is not just an unclear narrative
point: in the story as stated in this version one might easily come to the con-
clusion that these three exalted angels were bribed by Lilith by the promise

18. These three angels are Sanoi, Sansanoi and Samanglof, mentioned in the text of
Pseudo-Ben Sira. Many attempts have been made to explain these names by the use of several
oriental languages. It seems to me that they could have been created by the author of this work
as a parody on the angelology of the Heikhalot literature (which often used names like San-
saniel, etc.).
19. Yassif, "Pseudo-Ben Sira," pp. 64-65. This version is close to the one published by
David Friedman and S. D. Loewinger in Ve-zot li-Yehudah (Budapest, 1926), pp. 259-60.
22 JOSEPH DAN

that she would never harm babies protected by them or by their names on
amulets-and this might very well have been the author's point.20 It is not
surprising, therefore, to find that the editor of the later version, the one
which became known in Europe, changed this part of the story. When
describing the encounter between Lilith and the angels in the Red Sea, he
wrote: "They tried to take her back, but she refused. They asked her: 'Why
don't you want to go back?' She told them: 'I know that I was created for
the sole purpose of making babies ill from their day of birth until the eighth
day, when I have permission, and after eight days I have no permission. And
if it is a female, [this is so] for twelve days!' They said to her: 'If you do not
come back we shall drown you in the sea.' She answered: 'I cannot return
because of what is said in the Torah-"Her former husband who sent her
away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled,"21 that
is, when he was the last to sleep with her. And the Great Demon has already
slept with me.'"22 The author goes on to describe the agreement between
Lilith and the angels.
It is quite obvious that the editor of this version was confronted with the
difficulty concerning the behavior of the angels, and supplied a halakhic
reason for why Lilith could not return to her former husband. For this rea-
son he added a new hero to the story, the Great Demon (ha-Shed ha-Gadol),
whose sole function is to serve as a pretext for Lilith's being unable to return
to Adam, since she was defiled by somebody else. The "Great Demon" is a
new term, unknown in previous Hebrew sources, but it is quite natural that
he could not remain unnamed for long. Jewish tradition usually named the
archdemons, as it did the archangels. There was only one possible name for
this "Great Demon" added to the text of Pseudo-Ben Sira by the later edi-
tor, and that name was Samael. This was the only demonic name associated

20. The question of the meaning of this story depends on one's attitude toward the char-
acter of the Pseudo-Ben Sira. I still maintain that this is a satirical, and somewhat heretical, col-
lection of stories by a religious anarchist (see my Hebrew Story, pp. 69-78), although Yassif
regards them as usual folktales. (Compare also S. T. Lachs, "The Alphabet of Ben Sira: A
Study in Folk-Literature," Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies 2 [1973]: 9-28). It is my
intention to analyze the problem in detail elsewhere; but it is necessary to point out here that
the whole story does not make sense if it is not understood as an expression of Lilith's bitterness
toward God for the role assigned to her (in talmudic literature) of a baby-killer.
21. Deut. 24:4. Naturally, this whole "halakhic" discussion does not have any basis in
actual Jewish law.
22. Yassif, "Pseudo-Ben Sira," pp. 23-24. This version is similar to (but not identical; the
"great demon" is missing) the one published by Moritz Steinschneider in his edition, Alpha-
betum Siracidis (Berlin, 1858), p. 23.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 23

with the drama of the Garden of Eden, as described in the Pirqei de-Rabbi
'Eli'ezer and strengthened, in the eyes of the early kabbalists, by the inclu-
sion of that description in the text of the Book Bahir.23It is impossible to
decide exactly when and where Samael was identified with the "Great
Demon," and whether Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohen had any part in that process.
But there can be no doubt that it was Rabbi Isaac who gave the story of
Samael and Lilith a new mythological dimension, uplifting it from the level
of narrative gossip, as it was in the edited version of Pseudo-Ben Sira, and
made it a part of cosmic, and even divine, history. The following passage is
one example of his treatment of this subject:

And now we shall speakabout that thirdAir.24The mastersof tradition25

said that a traditionwas transmittedto their fathersthat this Air is divided
into threeparts,an upperone, a middleone, and a lowerone. The upperone
was given to Asmodeus,26 the greatking of the demons,and he does not have
permissionto accuseor causeharmexcepton Mondays,as the mastersof the
traditionhad mentioned.And we, with the help of our Creator,shallexpand
in this treatise[on this subject]to the extentthatwe can. Now Asmodeus,even
thoughhe is called"thegreatking,"is subservientto Samael,and he is called
"thegreatprince,"whencomparedwiththe emanationsabovehim, and "king
of kings"when comparedwith the emanatedpowersbelow him. And Asmo-
deus is governedby him and serveshim. The GrandOld Lilith27is the mateof
Samael,the greatprinceand the greatking of all demons.Asmodeus,the king
of the demons,has as a mateYoungerLilith.The mastersof this traditiondis-
cuss and point out manywonderfuldetailsconcerningthe formof Samaeland
the form of Asmodeusand the image of Lilith, the bride of Samael and of
Lilith, the bride of Asmodeus.Happy is he who meritsthis knowledge.28

The author goes on to describe a lower pair of a demon and his mate, and
associates these couples with some of the most cruel afflictions of this world,
including leprosy and hydrophobia, in a very detailed description.
The way this myth was constructed is clearer in another chapter of that
treatise:

23. Bahir, sec. 200 (and Pirqei de-Rabbi 'Eli'ezer, chap. 13).
24. Concerning these "airs," see below.
25. The author here constantly uses the term "qabbalah," which I did not translate as
"mystical" but, in the sense that the author seems to try to convey, ancient tradition.
26. Concerning Ashmedai, see Margulies, Malakhei 'Elyon, pp. 215-21; G. Scholem,
"Yedi'ot badashot 'al 'Ashmedai ve-Lilit," Tarbiz 19 (1948): 165-75.
27. Lilit sabbeta rabbeta.
28. Scholem, Qabbalot, p. 93 (Madda'ei ha-Yahadut, p. 255).
24 JOSEPH DAN

In answer to your question concerning Lilith, I shall explain to you that

most importantpart. Thereis a traditionreceivedfrom the early sages who
made use29of the Use of the Lesser Palaces30 which is the Use of Demons3'
which is like a ladderby which one can transcendto the variousdegreesof
prophecyand theirpowers.32In these sourcesit is explainedthat Samaeland
Lilithwereborn as a hermaphrodite,33 just like Adamand Eve, who werealso
born in this manner,reflectingwhat is above.34This is the accountof Lilith
whichwas receivedby the sagesin the Useof the Palaces.The ElderLilith35is
the wife of Samael.Both of themwereborn at the same hour,in the imageof
Adam and Eve, intertwinedin each other. And Asmodeus,the great king of
the demons,has as a wifethe YoungerLilith,the daughterof the king, whose
name is Kafzefoni,36and the name of his wife is Mehetabeldaughterof
Matred,"3 and theirdaughteris Lilith.This is the exact text of whatis written
in the chaptersof the LesserHeikhalot38 as we havereceivedit, wordfor word
and letter for letter. And the scholars in this science have a very esoteric tradi-
tion from the ancient sages who found it stated in those chapters that Samael,
the greatest prince of them all, is very jealous of Asmodeus the king of the
demonsbecauseof this Lilithwho is called Liliththe Maiden,39who is in the
form of a beautifulwoman from her head to her waist, and from the waist
down she is burningfire; like motherlike daughter.40

This paragraph clearly states Rabbi Isaac's sources, connected with the
Aramaic mystical text describing Rabbi Akiba's ascent to the Heavenly
Palaces, the Heikhalot Zutartei.4' Since this text is known to us in several

29. Shimmusha, meaning: magical use.

30. Shimmushade-heikhaleizulartei.
31. Shimmushade-shedei.
32. Meaningthatthe "magicaluse"of the "airof demons"is connectedwiththeprocessof
attainingprophecy;see below.
33. See above, n. 5.
34. Meaningthatthe creationin thiswayreflectsthebisexualityin thestructureof thespiri-
tual, or even divine, worlds.
35. It should be noted that in this section,as in severalothersin the treatise,the author
turnsto the Aramaiclanguageto expressthe great, ancienttraditions.He relieshere on the
ancientmysticaltext, HeikhalotZutartei,whichwas reallywrittenmostlyin Aramaic,but of
courseit does not contain any hint of the materialreferredto by Rabbi Isaac.
36. The element "Sefoni"seems to be the meaningfulpart of this name (i.e., from the
north-evil).
37. See Genesis36:39.Thekingsof Edommentionedin thischapterwereinterpretedas evil
powersin later kabbalah,especiallyin the Zohar.
38. See above, n. 35, and below, n. 41.
39. Lilit 'ulemta.
40. Scholem,Qabbalot,pp. 98-99 (Madda'eiha-Yahadut,pp. 260-61).
41. This work is found in several manuscripts, and was partly published in Solomon
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 25

versions,it is easy to discoverthat RabbiIsaac'srelianceon it is completely

apocryphal.Even if one may suggest that portions of this early mystical
work were lost, it is still inconceivablethat such a fascinatingstory was
included in it (or anywhereelse, for that matter), and no other source
botheredto mentionit until Rabbi Isaac cited it. Therecan be little doubt
that the languageof this paragraphis intendedto enhance Rabbi Isaac's
credibilityconcerningthe previousdescriptionsof the Liliths, the mother
and the daughter,and their relationshipswith their husbands,the kings of
the demons. A mythologicalnarrativewas createdhere, most probablyby
Rabbi Isaac himself,who made use of variousmaterialswhich werebefore
him but changedtheir charactercompletely.The ancientstory concerning
Lilith being Adam's first wife was not suitable to Rabbi Isaac's purposes
becauseSamaeldid not take any significantpartin it. He usedthe lateredi-
tion of the Pseudo-BenSira to introduce Samael into the story, not as
Lilith'ssecondhusbandbut as her originalmate,creatinga kind of parallel-
ism betweenAdam and Eve and Lilithand Samael.This principleof parallel
pairs was carried both forward and backward-reflecting the bisexual
nature of the divine world (God and the Shekhinah)as well as the lower
demonic pairs, like Lilith and Asmodeus or Kafzefoni and Mehetabel.
As RabbiIsaac'sconceptof the divineworldis mythicaland dynamic,so
are his views concerningthe demonic world;an element of strife is intro-
duced by the fight of Samaeland Asmodeusover the YoungerLilith.This
mythis carriedon in a subsequentdescriptionuntil RabbiIsaac'smaincon-
cern-the final battle betweengood and evil-is reached.42
The possibilitythat furthersourcesof RabbiIsaac'smythconcerningthe
demons will be discoveredhas to be taken into account, but even so it is
quite clear that it was Rabbi Isaac who mouldedprevioustraditionsinto a
new narrativemyth, expressinghis vision of the world and contributingto
his theology.

III

An attempt to clarify Rabbi Isaac's mysteriousreferenceto the "third

air," and the "air of the use of the demons"43leads us to anothergroup of

Musajoff's Merkavah Shelemah (Jerusalem, 1926), pp. 6a-8b. Several sections were translated
by G. Scholem in his Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New
York, 1960).
42. See below.
43. See above.
26 JOSEPH DAN

sourceswhichhelpedRabbiIsaaccreatehis mythologyof the evil powers-

the theologicalworksof the AshkenaziHasidim.Rabbi Isaacmentionedin
his treatiseat least twice that he had connectionswith the Jewishsages in
Germany,44and it seems that in the second half of the thirteenthcentury
severalkabbalistsemphasizedsuch a connectionas a sourceof theirteach-
ings.45This is not surprising,since the mastersof this pietisticmovement
were respectedthroughoutthe Jewishworld becauseof theirethicalteach-
ings, their interpretationsof the prayers,their pronouncementson Jewish
law, and their direct connection with early traditions received from the
east.46These traditionshad an elementof magicalknowledgeand the per-
formanceof miracles,associatedwith severalof the ancestorsof Ashkenazi
Hasidism,47and reflectedin Rabbi Isaac's treatisein the story about the
magicalflightof Rabbi Eleazarof Wormsridinga cloud.48 It is no wonder,
therefore,that the AshkenaziHasidim,especiallyRabbiJudahthe Pious(d.
1217),and his disciple,RabbiEleazarof Worms(d. ca. 1230),49 wereregard-
ed by Rabbi Isaac and by some other kabbalistas an authoritativesource
for esotericknowledge,with some emphasison magicaland demonological
aspects of that tradition.
Whileit is quiteclearthat the conceptsof the various"airs"betweenthe
earth and the divine world reflectthe influenceof termsfrom the Book of

44. Rabbi Isaac stated that he and his brother met in Narbonne with a disciple of Rabbi
Eleazar of Worms (see Scholem's introduction to the texts, Gnosticism, p. 8), and among other
things he tells a hagiographic story about Rabbi Eleazar (chap. 10, p. 92). This story is told
immediately after the statement concerning the use of the "demon's air" for the purpose of
prophecy.
45. A clear example of such an attitude toward the Ashkenazi Hasidim is to be found in the
"Epistle of Worms," included by Rabbi Shem Tov Ibn Gaon in his kabbalistic treatise "Baddei
ha-'Aron" (written in Palestine early in the fourteenth century), MS Paris 840. These examples
attest to the fact that kabbalists in Spain used the reputation of the Ashkenazi Hasidim as great
mystics and recipients of ancient traditions to enhance their own credibility.
46. Especially via Southern Italy; the arrival of Rabbi Aaron ben Samuel of Baghdad in
Italy in the eighth century is regarded as the source of Ashkenazi hasidic prayer mysticism. See
my The Esoteric Theology of the Ashkenazi Hasidim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 13-20.
47. Rabbi Aaron of Baghdad is presented in the Megillat 'Abima'a$ as a magician as well as
a mystic. A summary of these traditions is to be found in my paper: "The Beginnings of Jewish
Mysticism in Europe," The WorldHistory of the Jewish People: The Dark Ages, ed. Cecil Roth
(Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 282-90.
48. Scholem, Qabbalot, p. 92. It should be noted that this story not only praises Rabbi
Eleazar for his piety and his supernatural knowledge, but also states that he failed once in recit-
ing the right formula, fell off the cloud, suffered injury, and remained crippled until his last day.
49. Concerning the date of his death see my Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature
[Hebrew] (Tel Aviv-Ramat Gan, 1975), p. 69.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 27

Creation(SeferYeSirah)and the commentarieson that book, especiallythat

of Ray Saadia Gaon,so upon Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohen, the connection
betweenthe "thirdair"and both prophecyand demonologyposes a serious
problem. In Rabbi Isaac's work, the demons representcosmic and divine
elementsof evil, while in the sizableliteratureof the AshkenaziHasidimon
this subjectone cannot find any dualisticelement:the demons representa
natural power which is an integral part of the created world, and their
actions conform to the decreesof God exactlyas do those of angels.5'Still,
there is a connection between Rabbi Isaac's myth and the Ashkenazi
hasidic speculations,for it was the pietists in the late twelfth centuryand
the earlythirteenthwho stressedthe link betweenvisionsof demonsand the
phenomenonof prophecy.
Several discussions of problems concerning prophecy in Ashkenazi
hasidic esoteric literaturedeal with a phenomenontraditionallycalled in
Hebrewsarei kos ve-sareibohen,52"the princesof the glass and the princes
of the thumb."The termrefersto a universalpracticeof divination,using a
thin layerof oil spreadupon a brightsurface,whichmay be a pieceof glass,
a sword,a mirroror even a fingernail-all materialsoften mentionedin this
connectionin Hebrewdescriptions.The beliefwas that demonscan be com-
pelledto revealthemselveson such surfaces,and when they are askedques-
tions by a professionalsorcerer(usuallya non-Jew)theymustrevealsecrets.
This practicewas usedto solve manyeverydayproblems,most often to find
lost articlesor to catch a thief (generallyto revealwherestolen goods were
hidden).53The sorcereror the witch would receivea request,the owner of
the lost goods would usuallyparticipatein the ceremony,andwhenthe right
demon,who was responsiblefor that areawas broughtby the forceof incan-
tations, an answerwould be revealed.
This common practiceseems to have been very well known in medieval

50. This stratification of "airs" or "winds" is based on Sefer Yesirah, chap. 1, secs. 9-10.
Following Rav Saadia, Rabbi Eleazar of Worms in his commentary (Przemysl, 1883) described
this heirarchy in detail (see especially p. 3c).
51. See my Esoteric Theology, pp. 184-90.
52. See Samuel Daiches, Babylonian Oil Magic in the Talmudand Later Jewish Literature
(London, 1913); Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, (New York, 1939), pp.
219-22, 307-8; and my study, "Sarei kos ve-sarei bohen," Tarbiz32 (1963): 359-69 (reprinted
in Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 34-43).
53. The Ashkenazi Hasidim also used some more "prophetic" means to achieve this;
compare the story told by Rabbi Judah the Pious concerning the discovery of a thief in Studies
in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 10-12.
28 JOSEPH DAN

Germany,54 probablyafterit had been broughtfrom the east to Europeby

the Arabs.The AshkenaziHasidimreferto it as a commonplaceoccurrence
which does not have to be describedand discussedin detail;no doubt the
readerswere familiarwith it. The problem,however,is that of the relation-
ship between this elementaryform of magic and prophecy.It seems that
here the AshkenaziHasidim found an unnoticedelementin this practice
which conformedeasily to their theology.
The key detail in this magicalpracticewas that neitherthe sorcerernor
the personrequestingthe practicecould see the demonsin the thin layerof
oil. The demon could be seen only by a child, a small boy or a virgingirl.
The adultssurroundingthe brightsurfacedid not see anything,but the child
would describein greatdetailwhat he saw in the oil-a demon dressedin a
certainmannerhavinga certainidentifyingmark.Oftenthe sorcererwould
instructthe child to send that demon back and ask anotherone to come,
until the right demon appeared.The ability of the child to perceivethings
hiddeneven from professionalmagicianswas the key to the successof the
whole practice.
This detail was the cause for the intensive interest of the Ashkenazi
Hasidimin this practice,becauseit seemedto illustratethe centralproblem
in theirconcept of prophecy.The pietistsreliedupon the famousdictumof
Rav SaadiaGaon, who statedthat whatthe prophetshad seenwas a created
angel, called the divine Glory (kavod).55But only one faction among the
medievalesotericistsacceptedSaadia'sview;othersheld differentopinions.
Some claimedthat the whole processof prophecyis an internal,psychologi-
cal one, and no element of external revelationis involved;the prophets
describedtheir dreamsand theirinnerthoughtswhen they describeddivine
revelation.Others-and these include the main teachersof the Ashkenazi
Hasidicschool, like RabbiJudahthe Pious and RabbiEleazarof Worms-
held, following Rabbi AbrahamIbn Ezra's interpretationof prophecy,56
that the prophetsdid indeedsee a divinerevelation,and the revealedpower
is called the divineGlory. But this Gloryis not a createdangel,but a divine
power, emanatedfrom God, a spiritualbeing which is not bound by the
laws of creation.

54. Lynn Thorndike, History of Magic and ExperimentalScience, 8 vols. (New York, 1923),
2: 161, 168, 320, 354, 364-65, and 1: 774. Compare Rashi to Sanhedrin 67b and 101a.
55. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 104-18.
56. In the twelfth chapter of his Yesodmora, as well as in his commentary to Exod. 33; see
Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 113-16.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 29

Thiscontroversy,
whichholdsa centralplacein theesoterictheologyof
the Ashkenazihasidicmovement,57 broughtinto discussionas a central
themethemagicalpracticeof sareikosandsareibohen,becauseat leasttwo
viewscould be supportedby the procedureof this divinatorypractice.Those
who believedprophecyto be an internal,psychologicalprocessclaimedthat
the demonsinvokedin this way haveno realexistence,they arenothingbut
dreams and imaginaryvisions, even though many people believe in their
materialexistence. Others, like Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eleazarclaimed
that this practiceprovesconclusivelythat prophecyis a real phenomenon,
but that the revealedpoweris divineand not created.In biblicaldescriptions
of propheticvisions there are some occurrencesin which one person-the
prophet himself-did see something-while other people standing beside
him did not see anything,as in the case of Elishaand his servantwhen the
city was surroundedby chariotsof fire."5This proves, accordingto them,
that the visioncould not be natural,becausenaturalphenomenacan be seen
eitherby all or by no one, being subservientto naturallaw; divinepowers
can have supernaturalrevelationof a selectivekind, revealingthemselvesto
a certain person while remaininghidden from others. Thus Rabbi Judah
and Rabbi Eleazarprovedthat Rav Saadia'sconceptof createdGlory was
insufficientin explaining the process of prophecy, and only Ibn Ezra's
descriptionof the divine,emanatedGlory can explainthe facts.To this they
addedthe factthat God implanteda miraclewithinthe createdworldwhich
can serveas a proof of this concept,59namely,the fact that only a child can
see the demons when divination is practiced, while all others standing
aroundsee nothing;what can be done by everycommonwitch can also be
performedby the divineGlory, and thereforeneitherthose who claim that
prophecyis an imaginaryprocessnor thosewho claimthat a createdangelis
revealedcan be right.
When Rabbi Eleazarexplainedthe creationof the throne of Glory, he
wrote:60"Anotherreasonfor its creationis for visions, for it is seen by the

57. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 129-43, based on the detailed discussion in the first part of
Bodl. MS Opp. 540, part of which was published in Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Litera-
ture, pp. 148-87.
58. Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 165-66; 2 Kings 6:15-17.
59. This is one example for the use of a basic Ashkenazi hasidic theological idea, that
God's miracles were implanted in the world to teach the righteous God's ways; see Dan,
Esoteric Theology, pp. 88-93.
60. Hlokhmatha-nefesh (Lemberg, 1876), p. 18c-d (the pagination in this edition is com-
pletely arbitrary and wrong; this page is marked as p. 20. In the Safed edition, reprinted exactly
30 JOSEPH DAN

prophets in visions which include a divine message ... and the Creator
changesthe visions accordingto His will.61 I shall give you an example,as
they evoke sarei bohenwith a child and he sees in them what his master
wishes.The Creatorcreatedvisions,to teachthe prophetsthe contentof His
decrees .. . And among the philosophers62 there was a controversy about
sarei bohenand sarei kos. Some of them said that the supervisingangel63
entersinto the heartand createsthoughtsin a person'sheartand the child's,
and changeshis thoughtsandgiveshim knowledge64 whichtakesformin his
mind like a thief and the stolen goods, and he sees everything,but he really
does not see anything."
After reviewingthis attitude,Rabbi Eleazargoes on to compareother
interpretations,as does RabbiJudahthe Piousseveraltimes in his theologi-
cal works.65In one place RabbiJudahbringsthis practiceas one exampleof
the principleof zekher'asahle-nifle'otav,the principlethat states that every
miraculouspower of God has a "sign"or "remnant"in the worldto prove
God's powers66and concludes:"Do not be surprisedbecauseGod's voice
entersthe prophet'searsand is not heardby othersaroundhim, for it is like
a persontalkinginto a tube, the otherend of whichis in someoneelse'sear,
and, whenhe talksinto it, one hearsand the othersdo not hear.In the same
way one sees divinevisionsand othersdo not. Is it not truethat somepeople
see in the fingernailand in the sarei kos and othersdo not see?In the same
way do not be surprisedabout the visions of the prophets.For it is like a
mirror, one can look into one and see everythingthat is in the opposite
direction;so it is withsareikos andsareibohen-everythingtheysee theysee
like a person looking into a mirrorseeing a reverseimage."''67
The AshkenaziHasidimused the analogyof this magicalpracticecon-
cerningseveraltheologicalproblems,but the comparisonto prophecyis the

word for word and line for line, the paginationhas beencorrected,and this is the pagination
used here). See Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 39-41.
61. Accordingto the author, the changesin the visions are supernaturaland therefore
reflectdivine characteristics.
62. "Philosophers"in this text means"sages,"includingJews,andhas nothingto do with
Greek,Arabicor evenJewishphilosophy,to whichthe AshkenaziHasidimwerein fierceoppo-
sition. See Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 31-33.
63. Accordingto theirconceptof divineprovidence,thereis a supervisingangel(memun-
neh), who directsthe fate of each person;see Dan, EsotericTheology,pp. 235-40.
64. The readingof this sentencein the manuscriptis doubtful.
65. See Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 41-43.
66. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 88-93.
67. Dan, Studies in Ashkenazi Hasidic Literature, pp. 171-72.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 31

most frequentand insistentone. It is quiteclearin the writingsof thesepiet-

ists that they never imagined an actual connection existing between the
realmsof demonsand magicand the propheticphenomenon;all theirefforts
were directedat analyzingthe analogybetweenthis practiceand prophecy,
based upon their monisticconcept that the world of demons is an integral
part of the world createdby God, refutingany possibilityof a dualisticatti-
tude.
When seeking a source for Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohen'sdescriptionof the
"demonic air" which is describedas the "air of prophecy"one cannot
neglect the possibility that the Ashkenazi Hasidim's analogy somehow
turnedinto fact in Spain, two generationsafter Rabbi Judah'sand Rabbi
Eleazar'sworkswerewritten.It is quite clearfrom RabbiIsaac'sreferences
to the AshkenaziHasidimthat he was not a directdiscipleof their school,
and those ideasof theirswhichdid reachhim did so throughintermediaries,
about whom we have no definiteknowledgewhetherthey really knew this
esotericdoctrinefrom a first-handsource.It seemsprobable,therefore,that
the informationthat reachedthe Spanishkabbalistwas far from accurate,
and RabbiIsaaccould interpretit to meanthat thereis an actualconnection
betweenthe processof prophecyand magicaldivinationby the revelationof
demons.If this was so, it was possibleto concludethat the propheticvision
and the "use" (shimmusha)of demons originate from the same cosmic
source, the "third air" in his mythicaldescription.
It shouldbe notedthat the differencebetweensareibohenandshimmusha
de-shedeicould be much smallerthan it seems if we take into accountthe
possibilitythat RabbiJudahthe Pious and his disciplesdid not speakabout
sarei bohenbut about shedeibohen,that is, not "Princesof the Thumb"but
"Demonsof the Thumb."The Hebrewletterscan easilybe confused,and in
one homileticaldiscussionby RabbiJudahof the talmudicsectionreferring
to these powers it is evident that he read "demons"and not "princes."68
It is probable, therefore,that Rabbi Isaac used inaccuratetraditions
originatingin the schools of the AshkenaziHasidimto describehis concept
of the world and the place of demonsin it. It is possible,therefore,that he
used the same sources,in a similarcreativeway, to devise his myth of the

68. A homily by Rabbi Judah the Pious (Bodl. MS Opp. 540, fol. 84v) explains the leshad
ha-shemen ("a cake baked in oil") in Num. 11:8 as referring to these "princes," so that it is
clear that he called them "shedim" and not "sarim." Prof. E. E. Urbach kindly informed me
that in the commentaries in medieval halakhic literature concerning the relevant passages in
Sanhedrin (above, n. 54), the halakhists often refer to "shedim."
32 JOSEPHDAN

"destroyedworlds,"which, unlike the "air of the use of demons" has a

crucial place in his concept of evil and the creation of a mythological
demonology.

IV
Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohenbegan his story of the originsof evil by describ-
ing a detailedmyth concerningthe "destroyedworlds,"worldswhichwere
created before our world but could not exist. The importancewhich he
attributesto this myth is clearfromthe long openingstatement,tellinghow
this tradition had reached him: "Now we shall turn to speak about the
systemof the evil powerswhich are in heaven,of those whichwerecreated
and then annihilated suddenly. When I was in the great city of Arles,
mastersof this traditionshowedme a booklet, a veryold one, the writingin
it beingroughand differentfromour writing.It was transmittedin the name
of a great rabbi and a gaon called Rabbi Mapliab,for the old gaon, our
RabbiPelatiah,was fromthe holy city of Jerusalem,and it was broughtby a
great scholarand Hasid called RabbiGershomof Damascus.He was from
the city of Damascusand lived in Arles about two years,and people there
told storiesabout his greatwisdomand wealth. He showedthat booklet to
the great sages of that age, and I copied some thingsfrom it-things which
the sages of that generationhad understood,for they werenot familiarwith
that particularwriting like those earlier sages who learned it from that
scholar and Hasid."69
After this story, which does not includeeven one name or fact that can
be verifiedby any other source,RabbiIsaac describesthe emanationof the
first evil powers from a curtainbelow the third sefirahin the kabbalistic
system, which he calls, like many early kabbalistsbefore him, Teshuvah
(repentance).The firstthreeevil worldsto be emanatedweredestroyed,and
Rabbi Isaac'sdiscussionof this is basedon the talmudicand midrashictra-
ditions about the earlierworlds-the one in the midrashstatingthat before
God createdthis world he used to create other worlds and destroythem70
and the talmudictraditionabout the generationswhich were annihilated,

69. Scholem,Qabbalot,pp. 86-87.

1903),
70. GenesisRabbah9:2,ed. JuliusTheodorandChanochAlbeck(Berlin-Jerusalem,
p. 68 and compareEcclesiastesRabbah3:11.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 33

974 in number.7 Rabbi Isaac even goes furtherin homileticaltreatmentof

the subject, by ascribingnames to the princes ruling these lost worlds--
Qamtiel,Belieland 'Ittiel,namesderivedfromthe versein Job whichserved
as a basis for the talmudichomily.72
The basic elementsof this myth weretaken, therefore,fromwell-known
Hebrewhomiliesin popularsources.The majornew twist given to the myth
by Rabbi Isaac is centeredon one element,which is completelynew here;
those previous worlds or generationswere evil, and they were destroyed
(nimbu,qummelu-the termsusedby the midrash,whichseemto be used by
Rabbi Isaac in the sense of "inverseemanation."Their emanation was
reversed73) because they were much too evil. It is impossibleto state that
they were destroyedbecause they contained a satanic element, for Rabbi
Isaac'sdescriptionof our world stressesthe existenceand the power of the
satanicelementin it; the destructionwas caused by their being totally evil,
whereaswhen our world was createdsome angelic and good powers were
emanatedas well.
When seekingRabbi Isaac'ssourcesfor this myth we must concentrate
on these two motifs:the identificationof the destroyedworlds and genera-
tions as evil, and this evil as the causeof theirdestruction,while the existing
world containssome good besidethe evil element.Such a homily,contain-
ing exactlythese motifs, is containedin Rabbi Eleazarof Worms'klokhmat
ha-nefesh.74
The subjectdiscussedby Rabbi Eleazaris the purposeof the creationof
the world:

Why did He createthe world, for the Creatordoes not need the createdand
has no benefitfrom them, so why did He createthe world?Beforeanything
wascreatedtherewereonlyHe andHisnamealone,andHe existedwithout
anycreatedbeing,so whydidHe needHiscreatures?
BeforethecreationHe
did not need them [and he does not need them now]?
The truthis that God did not createthe worldfor His own sake,for He has
no benefitfroma worthlessworld,but He said:"If I shouldcreatea world

71. Hagigah 13b-14a.

72. Job 22:16.
73. According to Rabbi Isaac (Scholem, Qabbalot, p. 88), they were emanated as spiritual
worlds, and their end came in a spiritual manner, like the burning tip in an oil lamp which is
plunged into the oil in order to stop its burning.
74. Ilokhmat ha-nefesh, p. O1c-d.
34 JOSEPH DAN

without the Evil there will be no wonderif the creatureswill be as

Ye•er75
good as the MinisteringAngels;76and if I put into them a strongEvil Yeger,
they mightbe unableto overcomethis YeSer.Still, I mightfind two righteous
peopleamongthem,like David."He thus createdworldsand destroyedthem,
for He did not find righteouspeople like David ... and when He saw that
there were no such righteousas David, He destroyedthem.
He said:"Thefactthatthereis not even one good personamongall theseis
becauseI createdthe EvilYeSertoo strongin them .. ." andthe Creatorsaid:
"The reasonwhy I createdsuch a strongYegerin them is, that if two [righ-
teous] are found, He would be ungratefulif he did not createthem. But he
said: I createdit too strong,thereforethere is no good in them;I shall now
create human beings with anotherYeSer,the Good Yeeer.

Rabbi Eleazar's extensive homily includes references to many verses

which he interprets as describing the destroyed worlds, and he goes on to
analyze the destroyed generations, and the evildoers of the period of the
deluge. His main argument is quite clear, relying to a certain extent on the
midrashic treatment of the subject, but expressing some of the most impor-
tant theological concepts of the Ashkenazi hasidic movement. Righteous-
ness, according to these pietists, can be measured only by means of the
opposition which one has to overcome; there can be no righteousness where
the only drive is a good one. For this reason, the angels are not regarded as
righteous. If so, ideal righteousness, the highest possible religious achieve-
ment, is one which is demonstrated against impossible odds, without any
divine help, like a created person who has only an Evil YeSerin him and still
succeeds, to some extent, to overcome it and be righteous (this might be the
reason why the example of righteousness given is David; it cannot be
doubted that he had a very strong evil inclination). The fact is that creation
by Evil YeSeralone did not produce even one such person; still, God had to
create these unsuccessful worlds, for he could not damn them into non-
existence before the evil was performed. If even two righteous persons were
to overcome all the obstacles and do some good in those evil worlds, God
would have been ungrateful if he did not create them.77
The creation of our world is therefore described as a compromise, a

75. That is, in a perfectway.

76. This is based on the text in Genesis Rabbah,chap. 3, sec. 9.
77. Similarideas were expressedelsewherein the thirteenthcentury,as in the mystical
"SeferHa-bayyim"(MSS Brit. Lib. Or. 1055,Munich209). See Dan, EsotericTheology,pp.
230-35 and compareSeferha-yashar(Venice,1544),chap. 1.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 35

reluctantone, by God. He decided to add a Good YeSerto help human

beingsbecomerighteous.This, of course,degradestheirrighteousness,for it
is now achievedwith divinehelp, and not by overcomingmaximumdifficul-
ties. Still, this compromiseis the only way to createa worldthatcould exist,
after the repeatedfailuresof the previousperiod. Obviously,accordingto
Rabbi Eleazara world cannot exist unless there are in it at least two righ-
teous persons.(It is possibleto surmisethat suchexistenceis dependentalso
on the extent of their righteousness,which is smallerin our world than it
could have been in the Evil Yeserworlds;it means, paradoxicallyenough,
that the powers of existence of this world are lesser than in the ancient
destroyedones; if one of those could exist, it would have been much more
valid than our own.)
Rabbi Eleazar'sinterpretationof the mythof the destroyedworldsis one
accordingto which God tried at firstto create"ideal"worldswhichwould
be completelyevil, and thus would be able to produceideal, completerigh-
teousness.Failingin that, he createda mixedworld,in whichgood and evil
are combined,and whichsuccessfullyproducesfrom time to time righteous
personswhichjustify its existence.It is quite clearthat thereis no traceof a
dualisticattitudein Rabbi Eleazar'stheology. Evil comes from God direct-
ly, and it fulfills a divine function. The extent of evil in every phase of the
creationis decidedby God, accordingto his divineplan,whichis a perfectly
good one-to produce righteousness.Evil is a necessarymeans to bring
righteousnessforward,to test it in the most difficultcircumstances,7" and to
justify the existenceof the world by it. Rabbi Eleazar'sachievementin this
formulationincludesan explanationof the evil characterof this world:it is
necessaryfor the sake of the righteous,who could not otherwiseshow their
truenature.But this explanationof the meaningof evil does not includeany
dualistic or gnostic inclination.
This theology includes the basic elements of Rabbi Isaac ha-Kohen's
myth of the destroyedworlds:The previousworldswerecompletelyevil-
they were destroyedbecauseof theircompletelyevil nature.The theologyis
radicallydifferentfrom Rabbi Eleazar's,for Rabbi Isaac does not offer an
explanationas to why these worlds should have been evil accordingto the
divineplan, but it seemsthat one can safelysurmisethat RabbiIsaac'smyth
was producedunderthe impactof Rabbi Eleazar'sradicaltheology,which
was given a completelynew twist in the frameworkof Rabbi Isaac'smytho-

78. See my discussion of their ethical attitude in Hebrew Ethical and Homiletical Literature
[Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 121-45.
36 JOSEPH DAN

logical concept of evil, which is so different from Rabbi Eleazar's instrumen-

tal one.
Rabbi Eleazar's system does not include an element of strife, except the
struggle within the soul of the Hasid who is trying to become righteous.
Rabbi Isaac's myth is based to a very large extent on descriptions of mythi-
cal struggle:

Thesesouls,79whichare angelicemanations,existedpotentiallywithinthe
depth of the Emanator,hiddenfrom everything,but beforethey could come
out of theirpotentialexistenceinto reality,anotherworldwas emanated,from
strange forms and destructiveappearances.The name of the ruler of this
emanation,a princeover all its forces,is Qamtiel.Theseare the CruelOnes,
who beganto rebukeand to disruptthe emanation.Immediatelythereexuded
a decreefrom the Princeof Repentance,who is calledKaroziel,0?who is also
called the Echo of Repentance,and said: "Masokhiel,Masokhiel,"8 destroy
what you have createdand collect your emanationsback to you, for it is not
the wish of the King of Kings,blessedbe He, that theseemanationswill exist
in the worlds.They returnedand wereannihilated;in the same way that they
were emanated they atrophied. Scholars explained this process by an
example-like a stringsaturatedin oil whichis burningby the oil it constantly
absorbs;when you wish to turn it off, you sink it into the oil whichmakesit
burn;the same oil which makes it give light turns it back to nothing.
After this, anotherworld was emanated,from strangeforms and foreign
appearances,the nameof the rulerof theiremanationand the princeof their
forcesis Beliel.Thesewereworsethan the firstones in rebukingand disrupt-
ing all kindsof emanation,untila decreecame forth fromthe King of Kings,
and theywereannulledin a momentlike the firstones.Afterthata thirdworld
was emanantedfromstrangeforms,strangerthan the firstand the second;the
name of its rulerand princeof theirforcesis 'Ittiel.Theseareworstof all. It is
theirwishand ambitionto be on top of the divine,to distortandcut the divine
tree with all its branches,untiltherecamea decreefromthe divineWill that it
will be annihilatedlike the first and second ones, and it was decreedand
decidedthat such an emanationwill neveragaincome to the world'sair, will
never be rememberedor mentioned.Theseare the worlds about which the
ancient sages said that God was creatingworlds and destroyingthem."2

79. Meaning: emanations.

spiritual
80. From the Hebrewkaroz,crier.
81. From the Hebrewmasakh,curtain.
82. Scholem, Qabbalot, pp. 87-88.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 37

The differencebetween this mythical descriptionand Rabbi Eleazar's

homily is as clearas the similarities.Rabbi Eleazar'smonismis replacedby
a stark dualismin this realm,and the relativelysystematicinquiryinto the
problems of the creation and divine providence is replaced by an un-
explainedmyth, visionaryratherthan explanatory.Still, the idea that the
destroyedworldswereones of unmitigatedevil, whichcausedtheirdestruc-
tion, to be replacedby a world in which good and evil are combined, is
based on Rabbi Eleazar'sspeculation.

The comparisonbetweenRabbi Isaac ha-Kohen'streatiseon the "Left

Emanations"and those sourceswhich we can identifywith some extent of
certaintydoes not diminishthe impact of Rabbi Isaac'soriginalconcepts,
but ratherenhancesit. Thesesourcesdo not constitutebasicelementsof his
mythologicalworldview,but only materialsusedwhenbuildingthe innova-
tive kabbalisticsystem which was destinedto have a major impact upon
later kabbalists,especiallythe authorof the Zohar. Thoughone can never
be certainthat most of the relevantsourceshave been found and properly
analyzed, the three clear examplesdescribedabove can at least offer the
major outlines of the structureof Rabbi Isaac's use of previous sources.
These outlines seem to suggest that Rabbi Isaac did rely on previous
materialin secondarymotifs,whereashis basic attitudescannot be found to
date in any known Hebrewwork.
If this is the situationat the presentstage of the study of Rabbi Isaac's
theology, the main questionsremain:WhatdroveRabbiIsaacto createthis
novel attitude toward the world, creation, Satan, Samael, Lilith, demons,
divination, and the destroyedworlds?What is the underlyingmythicalor
mysticalvisionwhichbroughtforth this new combinationof oldermaterial,
paintedin daring,new colors?In other words:What is the basic difference
between Rabbi Isaac's concept of evil and that of all other Jewishwriters
before him?
In chapter nineteen of his treatise, after the detailed descriptionof
Samael and Lilith and the fight between Asmodeus and Samael over the
"YoungerLilith," Rabbi Isaac states:

It is saidthatfromAsmodeusandhiswifeLilitha greatprincewasbornin
38 JOSEPH DAN

heaven, the ruler of eighty thousand destructivedemons, and he is called

IJarbade-'AshmedaiMalka ("The Swordof the King Asmodeus"),and his
name is Alpafonias,83and his face burnslike fire. He is also calledGorigor,84
[for]he antagonizesand fightsthe princes85 of Judah,who is calledGurAryeh
Yehudah.And from the same form from which that destroyerwas born,
anotherprincewas born in heaven,86from the source of Malkhut,87who is
called IJarbadi-Meshiba("The Swordof the Messiah"),and he too has two
names, Meshibieland Kokhviel.88Whenthe time comes, and God wishesit,
this swordwill come out of its sheath,and the prophecieswillcome true:"For
My sword hath drunk its fill in heaven;behold, it shall come down upon
Edom."89"Thereshall step forth a star out of Jacob,"90amen. Soon in our
time we shall have the privilegeof seeingthe face of the righteousmessiah,we
and all our people.9'

In the last paragraph where the myth of Samael and Lilith is developed,
Rabbi Isaac states:

I shall now teachyou a wonderful,unknownthing.You alreadyknowthat

Evil Samael and Wicked Lilith are like a sexual pair, who by means of an
intermediary92 receive an emanationof evil and wickedness,one from the
other, and emanateit onwards.I shall explain this relying on the esoteric
meaningof the verse:"In thatdaythe Lordwith His soreandgreatandstrong
sword will punishleviathanthe slant serpentand leviathanthe tortuousser-
pent"-meaning Lilith-"and He will slay the dragonthat is in the sea."93As
thereis a pureleviathanin the sea and he is calleda serpent,so thereis a great
impureserpentin the sea, in the usual sense of the term. And it is the same
above [in the divine world], in a secret way. And the heavenlyserpentis a
blind prince,94who is like an intermediarybetweenSamaeland Lilithand his

83. Theformofthisnameis quitemysterious, butit seemsthatit mightcontaintheHebrew

element,penei'esh("fieryface"),whichis includedin thedescription of thispower.
84. TheHebrewelementgur("cub")is evidenthereas a scionof Judah.
85. It shouldbe "prince"in the singular.
86. The author follows the same structure of parallel births, as he had stated concerning
Adam and Eve and Samael and Lilith.
87. "Malkhut," Kingdom, has here a double meaning, both as the tenth sefirah in the
kabbalistic system and as a symbol of the Kingdom of Judah.
88. Based on the verse in Numbers 24:17 which was interpreted as referringto the messiah.
89. Isaiah 34:5.
90. Numbers 24:17.
91. Scholem, Qabbalot, p. 99.
92. This term is used here in a derogatory sense-an intermediary who leads one to sin.
93. Isaiah 27:1, and compare Bava Batra 74b. See Scholem's note, Qabbalot, p. 100, n. 5.
94. Samael's name is obviously interpreted here by Rabbi Isaac as derived from suma
=blind.
SAMAEL, LILITH, AND THE CONCEPT OF EVIL 39

nameis Tanin'iver(BlindSerpent)... andhe is theonewhobringsaboutthe

unionbetweenSamaeland Lilith.If he werecreatedin the fullnessof his
emanation hewouldhavedestroyed thewholeworldinonemoment... When
thereis a divinewish,and the emanationof Samaeland Lilithdiminishes
somewhat theemanation achievedbytheBlindPrince,theywillbecompletely
annihilated by Gabriel, princeof power,whoinvokeswaragainstthem
the
with the help of the princeof mercy,then the esotericmeaningof the versewe
have quoted will come true.95

The concludingparagraphsof the treatisedealexclusivelywith this same

subject.The final destructionof the powers of evil, Samael, Lilith and the
serpent,by messianicpowers,and a glowing descriptionof messianictimes,
after evil has been overcome,conclude the treatise.
If we try now to answerthe questionsposed at the beginningof this sec-
tion, we have to take into accountthe full scope of the myth told by Rabbi
Isaac. In this way it will becomeevidentthat Rabbi Isaac did not combine
the motifs he borrowedfromearliersourcesto producea new descriptionof
the creation,or even to explainthe existenceof evil in the world in the past
and in the present.The myth he presentedin this treatiseis a coherentone,
startingwith the powersof evil whichprecededthe creationand concluding
with the descriptionof the messianicvictory over evil.
One of the basic characteristicsof this myth is the consistentattemptto
produce parallelisms,to describe all existence in terms of two similar
antagonisticpowers. This is evident both within the realmof evil-Asmo-
deus and Samael,the OlderLilithand the YoungerLilith-as well as in the
relationsbetweenthe evil powersand the good. The Swordof Asmodeusis
reflectedin the Sword of the Messiah;the pure leviathanis reflectedin the
evil leviathan, and so forth. Even the creation of Samael and Lilith is a
parallelto the creationof Adam and Eve. Rabbi Isaac did not hesitateto
departradicallyfrom the content of his sourcesin orderto achievethis, as
he did in this last detail, forsakingthe myth of Lilithas Adam'sfirstwife in
order to be able to present a complete parallelbetweenthe two pairs.
This basic attitudebringsinto focus the meaningof the title of the trea-
tise, a meaningeasily neglectedbecausethis idea becameafter Rabbi Isaac
one of the most famous characteristicsof kabbalistic thought-"Left
Emanation,"called by the Zoharsilra 'abra(= "TheOtherSide,"meaning
Evil).96Rabbi Isaac'sconcept of two systemsof divineemanations,similar

95. Scholem, Qabbalot,pp. 101-2.

96. "Other"in the Zoharicterminologyconcerningevil meansboth "left"and"evil,"while
40 JOSEPH DAN

in many details but one of good and one of evil, was not an idea standing
alone, but an integralpart of a mythologicalworldviewwhich felt that all
existenceis governedby the antagonismbetweenpairs of similarstructure
and conflictingcontent. This attitudecan be found in almost every para-
graph of this treatise.
As the examplestranslatedabove show, these pairs are in continuous
conflict, both within the realmof evil and betweenthe evil systemand the
good one. It seemsthat in this mythologythe parallelpairsshouldby nature
fight each other, and that this strugglewill not cease until one side is com-
pletelyannihilatedand true unitywill reignin the divineand earthlyworlds.
Thus, it is not just a dualisticmythology,but one which is markedby an
internalstructurewhich necessitatescontinuousstruggle.
It seems that the outcome of this strugglemight be the key to the main
drivebehindthe creationof this myth,namely,the messianicvictoryand the
annihilationof evil. It should be stressedthat this treatiseby Rabbi Isaac
can be regardedas the first Hebrewapocalypseto be writtenin medieval
Europe,and certainlyit is the firsttreatmentby a kabbalistof the messianic
motif in any detail. The dualisticcharacterof the work, its gnostic under-
tones and its starkdemonologicalmythologyare meansto expressthe basic
apocalyptictheme:the strugglebetweengood and evil will come to its con-
clusion when the messianicswordis raisedand destroysthe powersof evil.
The historyof thesepowersis told in detailin orderto lay the foundationsof
the story of the final victory over those powers.
Messianismwas not the mainsubject,northe mainconcern,of kabbalis-
tic writersin the firsthundredyearsof the kabbalah,nor even in the writings
of nonkabbalisticauthorsof that period.The originalvision of RabbiIsaac
should be seen againstthis background,and his main innovationshould be
seen as a whole: a mythologyof evil expressinga messianicapocalypse."

silra, "side," refers to the system of emanations. See G. Scholem, Kabbalah, pp. 122-27, and
Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1949), 1: 288-92.
97. It is possible to compare this process to a somewhat similar one which occurred several
centuries before Rabbi Isaac, namely, the description of the evil power, Armilos, in the Book of
Zerubbabel (see Yehudah Even-Shmuel, Midreshei ge'ulah, [Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1954], pp.
56-88, and compare my discussion in The Hebrew Story in the Middle Ages, pp. 33-46). In this
case too we have a mythical description of an evil power, the son of Satan and a beautiful stone
statue in Rome, who became the spiritual as well as political leader of the world and threatened
to destroy the people of Israel. The original mythology of the power of evil is closely connected
with the emergence of a new mythology of the messiah and a detailed description of messianic
victories.