Mazikim and Shaidim; Zugos and Shniyos: The Supernatural
in Judaism and the Role of Shma and Torah as Antidotes, as
Explained by the Maharal and Other Commentators
By Eliakim Willner
Eliakim Willner is author of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An
Appreciation of Torah Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the
Maharal of Prague, published by Artscroll/Mesorah. This article is adapted from
his forthcoming continuation of the Nesivos Olam series, “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv
HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer”.
Introduction
The supernatural has always
held a fascination for people. But in modern societies, like the USA, people
tend to brush off the notions of the supernatural and the occult as ignorant
superstition – a subset of the tendency in secular circles to brush off
anything spiritual as ignorant superstition. To a confirmed secularist, if
something is not susceptible to the senses, it does not exist.
Indeed, many of the ideas promulgated by
the media, and by hucksters, about the supernatural are in fact ignorant
superstition. But it would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the
bathwater, as it were, and deny the existence of these things entirely. They
are, after all, mentioned numerous times in the Gemara and other Torah
works and they have practical halachic ramifications, even today. We
Jews, who accept the concept of the spiritual realm and live our lives
accordingly, need to learn what these forces really are, to separate fact from
fiction, and to become familiar with the halachos that emanate from that
universe. One halacha in particular, the bedtime Shma, is
particularly pertinent to mazikim, as we will discuss.
Many What Are Mazikim and
Shaidim?
The word “mazik”
(singular of mazikim) is a general term for forces with malign intent –
forces that aim to cause harm and damage. Rashi on the Gemara in Brachos
5a, equates mazikim specifically to shaidim, which we will
translate as “demons”. But, what are shaidim, exactly?
The Ramban on Vayikra
17:7 explains that shaidim are creatures that occupy a middle ground
between physical and spiritual beings; indeed this is implicit in the Gemara
(Chagigah 16a) which enumerates three ways that shaidim are like
people and three ways they are like angels. While, the Ramban says, physical
beings are comprised of four elements– fire, water, earth and air – and
spiritual beings have none of those components, shaidim are comprised
only of the lighter elements, fire and air, and thus they are ordinarily
imperceptible to our five senses. (Some commentators point out that Hashem made
them imperceptible because they are too frightful to behold and people would be
driven out of their senses if they saw them. The ibn Ezra mentions that
people who are already out of their senses may in fact be able to perceive shaidim.)
The Maharal explains that
the mazikim resent their second-class status and therefore they pose a
threat to the physical world and its inhabitants. More on this later.
Their native habitat is
desolate places but they may be anywhere and are capable of interacting with
and causing harm to the physical world and its inhabitants. The Ramchal
writes in Derech Eitz Chaim that as mankind degenerated in stature, the shaidim
correspondingly began to spread out over the entire world, increasing their
threat potential. Per the Gemara in Chagigah 16a, cited by the Ramban,
shaidim are able to fly and can cover great distances in their flights.
Since they straddle the spiritual world as well, they can “overhear” what is
going on there and thus have an inkling of forthcoming near-term physical world
events. On the other hand, like physical creatures, they “eat”, they procreate
and they die.
The Maharal points out in Be’er HaGolah 2, however,
that shaidim operate within the bounds of natural law. They sense things
that most men cannot, but they are unable to violate or circumvent the laws of nature.
(That form of activity is called kishuf, is based on using impure powers
and is strictly forbidden. The ancient “magicians” of Egypt who, along with Paroh,
confronted Moshe’s attempts to display the miracles of Hashem, were kishuf
practitioners, and – up to a point – were able to duplicate Moshe’s divinely produced
supernatural phenomena with similar phenomena that were produced using kishuf.)
Interestingly, though, the Egyptian magicians
evidently did use shaidim in their attempt to duplicate at least the
early plagues. Rashi points out on Shmos 8:14 that they were
unable to duplicate the plague of lice because shaidim have no power
over creatures smaller than a grain of barley. Without access to shaidim
to assist them in duplicating this plague, the magicians were helpless.
Why, though, are shaidim impotent on creatures
smaller than a barley grain? The Maharal on the aforementioned verse in Shmos
explains that shaidim derive their power from forces of impurity and
objects smaller than that size are impervious to impurity (the Maharal is
speaking specifically about impurity deriving from death). A grain of barley is
the minimum size necessary for an object to retain its own identity. In fact,
the word for a barley grain, שעורה, se’orah, derives from
the word שעור, shiur, which means “measure”. Objects smaller than that
size have no “measure” of their own. Instead they are subsumed into the larger
world around them.
It is no coincidence that the barley grain measure is
the minimum size for an object to be susceptible to impurity, and is also the
size at which objects have an independent identity. As the Maharal explains,
impurity is always localized; it is impossible for the world as a whole to be
ritually impure. Ritual impurity is an aberration; a deviation from the norm; by
definition the entire world, which defines the norm, cannot be a deviation from
the norm. When an object is less than the size of a barley kernel, and is
subsumed into the larger world around it, it’s status is that of the world as a
whole. Since the world as a whole cannot be impure, the undersized object that
is incorporated within it also cannot have a separate status of impurity. Only
an object larger than a barley kernel, which retains its own identity, can have
an impure status.
Pagan peoples worshiped shaidim
and offered sacrifices to them in an attempt to curry favor in order to persuade
them to reveal the future. The Torah strictly prohibits interacting with shaidim
in this way; we are instructed (Devarim 18:13) to be “wholehearted with
Hashem” and to consult with our prophets and Sages, rather than with
representatives of the dark forces, to guide us in our planning for the future.
What are Zugos and
Shniyos?
The Gemara in Pesachim
109b-ff describes a prohibition against eating certain foods and doing certain
action in pairs – which are called zugos.. The prohibition, which is
either Sinaitic in origin or carries the force of laws that are Sinaitic in
origin, is based on danger, and is a corollary of the general Biblical
obligation (Devarim 4:15) to preserve one’s well-being and to avoid
actions that might compromise one’s well-being. (The obligation to avoid
actions harmful to one’s well-being is codified in the Shulchan Aruch,
Choshen Mishpat 427:10.)
Zugos are dangerous because they put the person
who indulges in them at risk of harm from shaidim (in fact, the Gemara
in Pesachim states that Ashmodai, king of the shaidim, is in
charge of zugos). Similarly, the Gemara in Brachos 51b
calls the second cup of wine drunk at a meal the “cup of affliction” and
prohibits its use as a blessing-cup for the after-meal blessings, since
affliction is contrary to blessing.
Zugos are a manifestation of the concept of shniyos;
that concept itself requires explanation. Moreover, what is significant about
the concept of pairs? Who do they invoke shaidim and harm? The following
is a composite from the Torah of the Maharal drawn from his various works, and
in particular, Be’er Hagolah, Be’er 2.
Shniyos – All That Is Bad
About Multiplicity
We know that Hashem is one,
and therefore the existence of a possibility of multiplicity – that is, of a
situation where there are entities that differ one from another (since it is
difference that disrupts unity) gives rise to the false notion that there may
be multiple powers in the universe and opens the door to heresy.
The existence of difference,
of separation, with the attendant negative implication, is called shniyos,
from the Hebrew word shinui, which means difference. The word sheini,
which means “second” shares the same root since “second” implies something
different from “first” – a shinui, a difference. We are taught that the
upper and lower waters were separated on the second day of creation – the day
of shinui, the day that shinui came into existence with the
separation of the waters – and that is why the formula, “and it was good”,
which was applied to all the other days of creation, was omitted on the second
day.
Primary and Support Roles
A consequence of the concept
of separation is the distinction between primary creation roles and creation
support roles. Some objects, both in the physical and spiritual worlds, are
primary; they are the principle objects of the totality of creation. They exist
because they, themselves need to exist in
order to fulfill Hashem’s plan for the universe. Other objects, again in both
the physical and spiritual worlds, were not created for their own sake. Rather,
they were created to service in some fashion the principle objects of creation.
Hashem created the world for the sake of the principle objects of creation. He
created the support objects for the sake of the principle objects.
These support objects are
the shniyos, and since they are a “child” of multiplicity, they thrive
in environments of multiplicity, and in particular, in environments where the
number two (the first manifestation of multiplicity) is paramount. Shaidim,
themselves branded as shniyos, as we will discuss, are active, and
present danger, in zugos (i.e. multiples-of-two) environments for this
reason.
Shniyos as the
Counterbalancing Negative Force
Shniyos carries the additional implication of
“antithesis”; of a force that stands in opposition to a force of good. Of
course, the possibility of an antithesis could only happen in a world of
multiplicity.
The evil inclination, a
“breakaway” from good, and a support object for good (since, without the
possibility of evil, man would be deprived of the free choice to select good)
is a product of shniyos. Esav, and in particular his descendant Amalek,
are the antithesis of Yaakov, and they are also a product of shniyos.
The right side is primary; the secondary and opposing left side partakes of shniyos.
And, as the Maharal explains in Nesiv HaAvodah, chapter 19, mazikim
are also firmly in the shniyos camp; that accounts for their enmity
toward the denizens of the physical world.
Rabbeinu Bechaya, in Shulchan
Shel Arba, adds a pragmatic reason for avoiding zugos: A person must
be firmly grounded in the unity of Hashem even in a world rife with apparent
dualities, such as good and evil. These dualities tend to obscure unity. We
avoid zugos because it is human nature for actions to reinforce beliefs,
so avoiding pairs of things helps to keep us centered on the oneness of Hashem
and inoculates us against the notion of competing forces governing the
universe. However Rabbeinu Bechaya presents this as a secondary reason; the
primary basis for the zugos prohibition, he says, is the supernatural
dangers they pose.
The Dangers of Zugos
Today
The extent to which the
dangers of zugos apply nowadays is a matter of dispute among halachic
authorities. The overall consensus is that their relevance is non-existent or
very limited, although the Tur (Orach Chayim 170) holds that the dangers
of zugos are still present and thus the regulations that restrict them
are still in force. The Tur does not, however, spell out the details of
the regulations as they are discussed in the Gemaros in Pesachim
and Brachos.
The Rashbam in Pesachim
writes that the potency of zugos, and therefore their danger, has been
continually spiraling downwards throughout the course of history. The Bais
Yosef, Aruch HaShulchan, Yalkut Yosef and others permit discounting the
danger of zugos today. The Ben Yehoyada concurs, and records that
the custom in Bagdad when women sent sweets to others was to deliberately send
two baskets as a declaration that zugos have been definitively quashed
and there is no longer any reason to fear them. Note, however, that other
dangers posed by mazikim as described in the Gemara in Pesachim,
are still extant, and have practical implications that are mentioned in the Shulchan
Aruch and other halachic works.
We should mention that the Rambam
holds that none of these forces actually exist or ever existed; they are, he
says, the fictional creations of charlatans out to fleece the unwashed masses
of their money by offering bogus antidotes for non-existent dangers. The Rambam
is virtually alone in this view, however. There are, as we have seen, numerous
explicit Gemaros that seem to say otherwise, and therefore most other Rishonim
and Acharonim disagree strongly with the Rambam. We have followed
their mainstream point of view.
Notwithstanding the
here-and-now application of zugos, it seems clear that the Maharal, at
least, holds that we must still contend with the negative power of shniyos
and that is why he emphasizes, in Nesiv HaAvodah, chapter 19, the
importance of the bedtime Shma as a deterrent to ward them off, as we
now discuss.
The Bedtime Shma Prayer –
Our Shield Against Mazikim
The Gemara in Brachos
5a presents two reasons Shma has a shielding effect against mazikim.
The first view is that of Rabbi Eliezer, who states: “When a person recites Shma
upon retiring it is as if he is gripping a two-edged sword in his hand”. What
is it about Shma that makes it comparable to a two-edged sword, and how
does that protect against mazikim? Some explain that the two edges
represent protection from two forms of danger: spiritual danger, as from sins
that might occur in a bedroom setting, and physical dangers from mazikim.
The Maharal, however,
understands both edges as defenses from mazikim. The basis for his view
is that Shma, which is a declaration of Hashem’s unity and of our
aspiration to bind with it, strikes at the heart of multiplicity – of
“non-oneness”. By cleaving to Hashem’s oneness we are impervious to dangers
presented by non-oneness. (In the next section we will discuss the concept of
“oneness” and how it applies to Hashem.)
Why, then, two edges,
specifically? Because the mazikim are present to his right and to his
left so he holds a metaphorical two-edged sword to dispose of the mazikim that
are on both sides of him - to his right and to his left.
This is based on a Gemara
in Brachos 6a: “Rav Huna said, every one of us humans has one-thousand mazikim
to his left and ten-thousand to his right”. The Ayin Yaakov version of
this Gemara adds, “…as the verse (Tehillim 91:7) states, ‘A
thousand will be stationed at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand;
but they will not approach you’”. This chapter of Tehillim speaks of the
protection against adversaries, both physical and metaphysical, enjoyed by one
who puts his trust in Hashem, including protection against the myriad mazikim
that surround him on his left and right sides. This theme fits nicely with the
Maharal’s teaching that binding with the oneness of Hashem – through Shma,
per the Gemara in Brachos 5a, or as Tehillim 91 asserts,
through perfect trust in Hashem – is a sure antidote against mazikim.
Two Kinds of Oneness
In Be’er Hagolah, Be’er
2 the Maharal presents another reason Shma is compared specifically to a
two-edged sword. He explains that there are two kinds of “oneness”, relative
oneness and absolute oneness. A flesh-and-blood king, for example, is “one” in
the sense that he is his nation’s one and only king. From the perspective of
kingship he is therefore one. But as a human being he is a single element of a
large group of many, so from the perspective of humanness he is not one. That
is relative oneness. Hashem, however, is one not only in relative terms but
also in absolute terms – nothing exists besides Him, ain ode milvado. Shma
is a declaration of Hashem’s absolute oneness. This concept is discussed in
detail in Nesiv HaAvodah Chapter 9.
A sword with a single sharp
edge represents mere relative oneness. The second, dull side signifies the
absence of absolute oneness. A sword with two sharp edges represents the
presence of both varieties of oneness. Shma, a declaration of Hashem’s
absolute oneness, is therefore comparable to a two-edged sword. A person who
takes refuge in Hashem’s absolute oneness is thus metaphorically wielding a
two-edged sword and is accordingly protected from mazikim, which
originate from multiplicity, the antithesis of oneness.
It is noteworthy that the
Hebrew word for sharp, chad, also means “one”. Perhaps, according to
this explanation of the Maharal, this is why our Sages selected the two-edged
sword as the metaphor for absolute oneness – it is chad in every
possible dimension.
The Torah – Our Shield
Against Mazikim
We mentioned earlier that
the Gemara in Brachos 5a presents two reasons Shma is an
antidote against mazikim. We discussed Rabbi Eliezer’s view that it is
because of Shma’s ability to associate us with oneness. Rav Yitzchok,
however, citing a verse that refers to the Torah, attributes Shma’s
protective abilities to Shma’s status as a chapter in the Torah. The
origin of the principle that Torah provides a shield against mazikim is
a Medrash in Devarim Rabbah: “Hashem says, if you safeguard the
words of Torah, I will protect you against mazikim”.
In Chapter 1 of Nesiv
HaTorah the Maharal explains that the power of mazikim to cause harm
is greatest in situations that are removed from the normal workings of the
world, such as desolate areas – and nighttime, when the world is generally
dormant, as discussed above. But the Torah is the blueprint for the workings of
the world so when a person makes the Torah his companion, he thereby attaches
himself to those workings, just as if he were surrounded by companions in broad
daylight, and that keeps the mazikim at bay.
Shma Activating the
Torah’s Protective Powers – The Maharal’s View
Of course, the question is,
if the protection is coming from the Torah, why does the Gemara
associate the protection specifically with Shma? Why does it not emanate
equally from every other portion of the Torah? The answer, the Maharal explains
in Nesiv HaAvodah, chapter 19, is that the protective effect derived
from reading other Torah portions ceases when a person is in bed, asleep, and
no longer engaged in Torah reading. There is no way to extend the protection beyond
the reading. But a single Shma recitation satisfies the Shma
obligation for the entire night, so its Torah-induced protective effect also
lasts the entire night.
We know that Shma
also provides the protective effect of Torah study from the law that says that
even if a person merely recited Shma morning and evening he
fulfilled the Torah study obligation set
forth in the verse (Yehoshua 1:8), “You shall meditate (in the Torah)
day and night. The Shma verses satisfy the nighttime Shma
obligation for the entire night so the protective effect of the nighttime Shma
is the same as if he was involved in Torah study the entire night.
Let us elaborate. Independent
of any other Torah a person may be studying, he is Biblically mandated to
recite Shma twice a day, once, during the daytime, after he arises, and
once, nighttime, before he retires (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 58
and 235). These recitations are also minimally fulfill the obligation to engage
in Torah study during the day and during the night, per the Gemara in Menachos
99b, as derived from the cited verse in Yehoshua. Since, as far as the Shma
commandment is concerned, a single recitation “lasts” the entire night, it’s
Torah study component – and the accompanying protective effect against mazikim
– also lasts the entire night. This cannot be said of any other Torah passage;
there is no other Torah passage that has an independent, nightly obligation for
recitation.
Shma’s Unique Protective
Powers – The Pnei Yehoshua’s View
The Maharal seems to be
saying that, according to Rav Yitzchok, the protective power of Shma is
no different in strength than that of Torah in general – but it is
longer-lasting in that its effect extends beyond the time of learning itself
and encompasses the entire night, for reasons the Maharal explains. The Pnei
Yehoshua, however, on the Gemara in Brachos 5a, says that Shma
has a more potent protective power than that of general Torah study. Why does
the Gemara conclude, he asks, that the verse it cites, which refers to
Torah, is specific to Shma? He answers that it is because Torah per
se would not provide an all-encompassing protection against mazikim,
while Shma would, and since the verse alludes to a complete protection
from mazikim, the reference must be specific to Shma.
Of course the question is,
why does general Torah not provide complete protection? The answer is that,
paradoxically, despite the Torah’s protective powers, mazikim are
actually more motivated to harm Torah scholars than they are to harm ordinary
people. He cites the Gemara in Brachos 6a which states that the
clothing of Torah scholars wears out quickly, even though they do not engage in
toilsome physical labor, because of the mazikim that are rubbing against
them.
Torah scholars are prime
targets because the mazikim are jealous of them, as Tosfos (Chulin
91a) points out. So while Torah provides protection, it also creates additional
vulnerability. Thus its protection is not comprehensive. Shma, on the
other hand, provides an invincible shield against the mazikim. Since the
Gemara understands that the verse is assuring ironclad protection, it
concludes that the reference in the verse is not a generic reference to Torah
but must be a specific reference to Shma.
As to why Shma has
this additional power, the Pnei Yehoshua (in contrast to the Maharal)
posits that Rav Yitzchok may agree on this point with Rabbi Eliezer, who
equates Shma (and only Shma) to a two-edged sword. But Rav
Yitzchok is adding that this effect will occur only if the Shma is
recited with the same exactitude and concentration that one employs when
studying Torah.
See also Nesivos Olam,
Nesiv HaTorah, end of chapter 13, where the protective power of the Torah
against mazikim is discussed, and the very informative notes of Rabbi
Yehoshua Hartman thereon, in his edition of that work.
Conclusion
We know that the part of our
world that we sense is but the tip of the iceberg, and that tip pales into
insignificance against what lies beneath the surface – the ruchnius’dike
world that is the foundation of all existence. We have attempted to provide a
glimpse into a tiny corner of that world; a corner that abuts and impinges upon
our physical existence, and that we usually complacently ignore. It is
important, however, to be aware of this corner so that we can properly
appreciate and utilize the tools that Hashem has provided us to deal with it – especially,
the Shma, and Torah study.
