Was Ibn Ezra killed by demons?

Summary: So goes the story, showing how Ibn Ezra got his comeuppance, after claiming that demons did not exist. Though whether he actually claimed this is uncertain. I don't really believe the story, though.

Post:

As discussed in a previous post on Shofetim, there is a good probability that Ibn Ezra dismissed the existence of sheidim, demons. This based on his use of the word האומרים, such that it is only their claim that they consult demons. And earlier, in a post about a pasuk in Acharei Mot, because Ibn Ezra describes them as thinking demons have power (rather than it being something that is true) and because those who see them are crazy people. Note that there is a possibly good counter-argument in terms of Ibn Ezra's belief. It is often difficult to determine Ibn Ezra's beliefs.

Rabbi Moshe Taku, though, thought that Ibn Ezra clearly asserted that demons do not exist. But he asserts something else as well. To cite from Jewish Magic and Superstition, by Joshua Trachtenberg,

If we are to believe Moses of Tachau,3 Ibn Ezra paid dearly for
p. 27
his hardihood in denying the existence of demons. "Ibn Ezra wrote in his book," he says, "'Of a surety there are no demons in the world!' .Verily he erred in this matter, for they were ever at his side . . . and indeed they proved their existence to at him. I have heard from the people of Iglant [England?], where he died, that once when he was travelling through a forest he came upon a large band of black dogs who glared at him balefully; undoubtedly these were demons. When he had finally passed through their midst he fell seriously ill, and eventually he died of that illness." This incident was apparently evidence enough for R. Moses, though we may question whether, if it occurred, it sufficed to convince the doughty Ibn Ezra.

So too in the book Prophetic inspiration after the prophets:

As well as in the JQR, volume 6.

The different citations give different flavors. Did he deny their existence? Did he willfully make use of them? Was it accidental.

It is just so difficult for rationalists! After their death, when they can no longer defend themselves, people can deliberately or accidentally make up personal stories that prove the opposite of their positions. If Ibn Ezra knowingly consulted with demons, he makes no mention of this in his commentary which denies their existence. And I suppose that if he was killed after an encounter with hell-hounds, he would not have lived long enough to print a retraction of his views.

For me, this has the flavor of an urban legend, or else a story with some basis but embellished to prove a point. And it is specifically the non-rationalists who would take that story and accept it, uncritically, as truth.

Demons on the ark, and the Kotzker's famous elu ve'elu

Summary: Rashi and Chazal against Rambam. The Kotzker resolves this by having the Rambam effectively pasken demons out of existence. But does this work for a rationalist? Does it work with the words of the Rambam? Doesn't it go against a Mishnah?

Post: According to Rashi, sheidim were taken on the teivah. How so?

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.		יט. וּמִכָּל הָחַי מִכָּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל תָּבִיא אֶל הַתֵּבָה לְהַחֲיֹת אִתָּךְ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה יִהְיוּ:
And of all living things: Even demons. — [Gen. Rabbah 31:13]		ומכל החי: אפילו שדים:

This based on the midrash in Bereishit Rabba:

ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים וגו אמר רבי הושעיא:אפי' רוחות נכנסים עם נח אל התיבה, שנאמר: מכל החי, מאותן שנבראו להם נפשות ולא נברא להם גופין. 

The basis for this derasha is clearly laid out. Mikol is inclusive of something, and hachai implies that this inclusive element has an aspect of chai. This would be something with a nefesh but not a guf. This would be ruchot, spirits. The standard meforshim on the side assume this means sheidim, and point us to another midrash that the creation of sheidim was incomplete, as they were created just before Shabbat. I am not so convinced they are the same thing, but Rashi does seem to regard them as the same.

The Rambam rejects the idea of literal sheidim, as demons. He takes them allegorically, or else perhaps in other instances dismisses them as a daas yachid. Thus, in his Moreh Nevuchim, he writes:

As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form. Yet such a creature has the power of causing harm and injury, a power which does not belong to other creatures. For those gifts of intelligence and judgment with which he has been endowed for the purpose of acquiring perfection, but which he has failed to apply to their proper aim, are used by him for wicked and mischievous ends; he begets evil things, as though he merely resembled man, or simulated his outward appearance. Such was the condition of those sons of Adam who preceded Seth. In reference to this subject the Midrash says: "During the 130 years when Adam was under rebuke he begat spirits," i.e., demons; when, however, he was again restored to divine favour "he begat in his likeness, in his form." This is the sense of the passage, "Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and he begat in his likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3).

Thus, they did mean something by it, but Chazal did not mean literal demons in that midrash regarding what Adam begat.

Elsewhere, Rambam says that sheidim are non-existent, and that one should not believe in them. One such place is in his perush haMishnayot to Avodah Zarah 4:7. The Mishna:

Or, in English:

 THE ELDERS IN ROME WERE ASKED, 'IF [YOUR GOD] HAS NO DESIRE FOR IDOLATRY, WHY DOES HE NOT ABOLISH IT?' THEY REPLIED, 'IF IT WAS SOMETHING UNNECESSARY TO THE WORLD THAT WAS WORSHIPPED, HE WOULD ABOLISH IT; BUT PEOPLE WORSHIP THE SUN, MOON, STARS AND PLANETS; SHOULD HE DESTROY HIS UNIVERSE ON ACCOUNT OF FOOLS!' THEY SAID [TO THE ELDERS], 'IF SO, HE SHOULD DESTROY WHAT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE WORLD AND LEAVE WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE WORLD!' THEY REPLIED, '[IF HE DID THAT], WE SHOULD MERELY BE STRENGTHENING THE HANDS OF THE WORSHIPPERS OF THESE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD SAY, "BE SURE THAT THESE ARE DEITIES, FOR BEHOLD THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABOLISHED!"'

The Rambam comments:

Note the part I underlined in red. Thus, he considers sheidim to be non-existence, and nonsense and falsehood. One should not think that they exist but just that they are forbidden to be worshiped or paid heed to.

There then seems to be a conflict between this Rashi and Chazal, on the one hand, and the Rambam, on the other hand.

Perhaps Rambam would simply make this midrash into an allegory as well. I don't see how one could do this, though. The midrash is rather explicit in its derivation and that what is being inclusive is something with spirit but no physical body. This would not include evildoers. Plus, if Hashem's purpose was to destroy the world, what sense is there for Hashem to command the bringing of evildoers as well into the ark? Maybe we could say this is a reference to Cham? Even so, it doesn't work out because of the former part.

My guess is that Rambam would label this position of Rabbi Hoshaya in the midrash to be a daas yachid, and point out that there is an alternate derivation (as far as I, Josh, read it) that וּמִכָּל הָחַי refers to taking the whelps, rather than the adults, of the re'em. Or else that he would offer a different allegorical explanation of this particular midrash. Or that he would distinguish between ruchot and shedim. Or that he was unaware of this particular midrash, or didn't set his mind to resolving every single one.

There is a rather famous harmonization offered by the Kotzker Rebbe, which I saw quoted in Prachei Rashi:

שאל אחד את רבי מנדל מקוצק: הרמב״ם במורה נבוכים כופר
במציאות שדים וכשפים, ואלו בתורה כתוב ״ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם
לשעירים״? גם כיצד יתיישבו דברי רש״י, שנח נצטוה מפי הגבורה להביא
שדים אל התיבה? ענה הרבי מקוצק, אלה ואלה דברי אמת: בימי קדם
היו שדים וכשפים בנמצא, אך מיום שבא הרמב״ם ואמר שאינם בנמצא,
הרי הרמב״ם פוסק הוא והסכימו עמו גם בשמים, וקימו את דבריו הלכה
למעשה וחדלו שדים מן הארץ.

"Someone asked Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk: The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim denies the existence of demons and magic, yet in the Torah is is written 'and they shall no longer offer their sacrifices to seirim?' Also, how can the words of Rashi be resolved, that Noach was commanded from the Mouth of the Omnipotent to bring demons to the ark? The Rabbi of Kotzk replied, 'This as that are simultaneously true. In days of old, demons and magic existed. But, from the time that Rambam came and said that they did not exist, behold, Rambam is a posek, and they agreed to him as well in Heaven, and established his words halacha leMaaseh such that demons vanished from the earth."

I don't know that this really resolves anything, even though it is both cute and seemingly a way to say eilu veEilu for the rationalist and mystical approach. The problem with this, to my mind, is that Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim and elsewhere did not merely take a position on the present existence of demons, but on the existence of demons in the past as well. Read carefully his comments in peirush haMishnayot and seems rather clear that he maintains that they never existed, and that it is silly to believe otherwise. That this was Avraham Avinu's argument, that these forces didn't exist.

That Rambam interprets midrashim referring to demons allegorically demonstrates that he maintains that even in the days of Chazal, and in the days of Adam, demons did not literally exist.

What would Rambam do with the pasuk about worshiping the seirim? He would say that they worshiped the non-existent seirim, and that one should not take this pasuk to mean that they exist but it is merely forbidden to worship them. He says this explicitly, above. He cites the chasidim mibnei dateinu who hold this belief, and says that they are wrong. We also saw that Rambam interpreted midrashim referring to demons and spirits allegorically. So in answer to how to resolve it, one should adopt one of the above approaches. Namely, daat yachid, allegory, or in some instances reference to things which don't even exist.

As a result, not only would Rambam be unhappy with this non-rationalist harmonization of his position -- how rationalist is it to "pasken" demons out of existence? -- but this doesn't even make Rambam's words true. For Rambam did not just deny the existence of present demons, but of demons in the past, pre-Rambam, as well. How could we say, then, that אלה ואלה דברי אמת?

I would add one somewhat humorous point to this. If sheidim are seirim and were worshiped, then the Mishna in Avodah Zarah above would seem to argue against the possibility of their ceasing to exist, and disappearing in a puff of Maimonidean logic. For the zekeinim in Rome explained why some existing gods (or entities worshiped as gods) couldn't suddenly disappear.

:-)

More on Ibn Ezra and sheidim

Summary: Considering an Ibn Ezra that might, once again, indicate disbelief in sheidim.

Post: I discussed this topic in the past, on a different parasha, based on a different comment by Ibn Ezra, which appeared to imply that one who saw demons was delusional.

There is a similar suggestion in parashat Shofetim. The pesukim, Devarim 18:10-11:

10. There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,		י. לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ קֹסֵם קְסָמִים מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף:
11. or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer.		יא. וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים:

Ibn Ezra writes:

[יח, יא]
וחבר חבר -אלה האומרים שיחברו השדים.

אוב וידעני -פירשתיו.

ודורש אל המתים -ההולכים אל בית הקברות ולוקחים עצם אדם מת, ובעבור מחשבתו ושגיונו תראה לו דמות צורות בחלום גם בהקיץ, וכל אלה תועבות השם, כי האמת להיות לב האדם תמיד תמים עם בוראו, וכאשר ישען על חכמתו לבקש האמת, ומה שיהיה חוץ מהשם הנה לבו חסר כי הוא משובש והרוצה לדרוש ידרוש מהשם על פי הנביא

Note that in discussing what this חֹבֵר חָבֶר person does, he says, האומרים, that יחברו השדים. This could well be expressing doubt either about the existence of the sheidim or about the efficacy or reality of the action. They say they do this, not that actually do it.

In terms of doresh el hamesim, after describing what it involves, Ibn Ezra writes ובעבור מחשבתו ושגיונו תראה לו דמות צורות בחלום גם בהקיץ. Thus, he sees what appear to be forms in a dream or even awake, due to his thoughts and whims. And he writes further that these are all abominations to Hashem, because of tamim tihyeh, and כאשר ישען על חכמתו לבקש האמת, ומה שיהיה חוץ מהשם הנה לבו חסר כי הוא משובש. There seems to be the idea that what he sees will not be accurate because of his deficient and defective heart, such that he is not getting accurate information, and more than that, perhaps that he is imagining this.

In light of the ideas in the previous post on this subject, about people who see shedim as seirim, that Ibn Ezra said that והקרוב, בעבור שיראו אותם המשוגעים כדמות שעירים.

There is more to this comment of Ibn Ezra on Shoftim, but for a follow-up-post.

Demonic messages between Sura and Pumbedita

I would like to consider, once again, the gemara in Eruvin about Yosef Sheida from two perspectives -- my own (last discussed here), and that of Meiri. In both instances, there are new facets.

First, the gemara in Eruvin which I claim indicates literal belief in sheidim. I should point out that I strongly suspect that this gemara is not from the Amoraim but from the Rabanan Sovorai, and so this particular gemara need not indicate that Chazal themselves believed in literal demons.

The gemara reads as follows. Eruvin 43a:

תא שמע הני שב שמעתא דאיתאמרן בצפר' בשבתא קמיה דרב חסדא בסורא בהדי פניא בשבתא קמיה דרבא בפומבדיתא מאן אמרינהו לאו אליהו אמרינהו אלמא אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה לא דלמא יוסף שידא אמרינהו

Or, from the Point by Point Summary:

(f) Answer #3: Seven teachings were said Shabbos morning in front of Rav Chisda in Sura, and Shabbos afternoon in front of Rabah in Pumbadisa [which is outside the Techum of Sura; surely, the same person said them]!

1. Suggestion: Eliyahu said them (he flew above 10 from Sura to Pumbadisa) - this shows that Techumim does not apply above 10! Me'iri, Chasam Sofer 6:98

(g) Rejection: Perhaps they were said by a certain Shed [that does not observe Shabbos]. 

I would emend this to not just "a certain Shed" by Yosef the Shed, the same one who spoke to Rav Yosef and Rav Papa elsewhere; and that he does not observe Shabbos is Rashi's explanation.


There are two reasons to leap to the assumption that a magical or mystical creature is responsible. First, how are you to travel higher than 10 handbreadths the entire distance from Sura to Pumpedita? It must be via flight, which Eliyahu haNavi could accomplish. But once we assume it is someone violating the Shabbos, why assume a sheid, a demon, particularly? Why not any human being, be it a non-Jew or any irreligious Jew?

Thus, the second reason. Sura is located about 6 km from al-Hira, according to a teshuva from Rav Natronai Gaon. Its longitude and latitude coordinates are: 31°53′N 44°27′E. Here is an image of Sura, in modern-day Iraq:

Meanwhile, Pumpedita was located in what is modern-day Fallujah. Its coordinates are: 33°21′04″N 43°47′10″E. And here is an image of it, placed in Iraq:

They seem pretty close, but maps can be deceiving. Just how far away are they from one another? Using the FCC's distance calculator:

Distance between N Latitude 31 53 0.00, E Longitude 44 27 0.00 (Point 1) and N Latitude 33 21 4.00, E Longitude 43 47 10.00 (Point 2) 174.628 kilometers; 108.509 miles Azimuth from point 1 to point 2 = 339.32° Azimuth from point 2 to point 1 = 158.96°

And that is as the crow flies! Can a normal human walk, or run, 108.509 miles from Shabbos morning to afternoon?! Of course, there are other possibilities. For example, by horse, though this would certainly violate Shabbos. According to one website:

Horses speed varies with their stride length, body build, and other factors, but here is a basic idea of how fast-- in miles per hour-- horses move at their various gaits:

Walk: Roughly 3-4 MPH. A pleasure show horse can go as slow as 2 mph. Gaited horses-- who do not trot-- can do a 'running walk' as fast as 15 mph.
Trot: The trot is roughly 8-10 MPH. Again, a shorter striding horse could trot slower, and a horse with a long stride could move faster.
Canter/Lope: 10-17 MPH.
Gallop: This depends on the horse's condition and athletic ability. Some horses are not built to run fast an may only do a fast canter at their best; however, the gallop is about 30 mph. Thoroughbreds, which are bred for running distance but not speed, have been clocked at over 40 MPH. Quarter horses, bred and raced for short distances at speed, can reach 50 MPH in short bursts according to the AQHA's website.

So a thoroughbred, running at full gallop, for three hours could make the trip. But how long can a horse maintain this full gallop? According to another horse site:

How long can a horse sustain a gallop? The distance a horse can maintain a gallop depends on their build and physical fitness. A well conditioned horse can easily maintain a gallop for a mile to a mile and a half. At two to two and a half miles most horses will feel fatigued. Lighter built horses (Arabians and Thoroughbreds) can maintain a gallop over longer distances than heavier horses (Draft or Quarter Horse type), and horses with longer strides can travel longer distances with less effort. 

A horse is built to cover many miles in one day, but not at a gallop. A horse can cover more ground, faster, if kept consistently at a trot. While a horse may be exhausted after a three mile gallop, that same horse could trot, with a few walk breaks, 15 miles without extraordinary strain. 

Most people assume the Pony Express riders galloped their entire route. In fact, the speed of a pony express rider averages out to 10 miles per hour- meaning they spent most of their time alternating between a trot (about 8-9 mph) and a canter (12-13mph). The Pony Express riders switched to fresh horses every 10-15 miles. 

So we would not expect one horse to make this trip, or at full gallop. Maybe if the person switched horses every two or three miles, but that would involve a lot of horses. I suppose at an average between a trot and canter, that is an average of 10 mph, and switching horses about ten times, one could make it in 11 hours. On a long Shabbos, this might be just possible. It is still quite an ordeal, and thus somewhat farfetched.

Another possibility recommends itself by examining the map. Both Sura and Pumpedisa are located on the river. (Indeed, Pum-Bedita means "at the mouth of the Bedita river, which is a stream of the Euphrates.) Which way does the water flow in the Euphrates? In a south-easterly direction. Since Pumpedita is northwest of Sura, and the message came from Sura, this would mean moving upstream, against the current. But according to this book, Ebalitica, in discussing the Euphrates river and in general, in Old Babylonian Times, speed upstream by boat or by foot was about 25 to 30 airline km / day, which falls far short of the required 174 km.

Now, that was much earlier, in Old Babylonian times. Perhaps by Talmudic times, a boat could make this 108.5 mile jouney on a Shabbos. Indeed, a boat is one of the subjects under discussion in the gemara.

Regardless, I think the extreme distance and thus fast travel necessitated Eliyahu Hanavi, or else a demon, in the thought of the gemara.

In my earlier post I considered the possibility that Yosef Sheda was a human expert on demons. I would now say that I regard this as unlikely, based on the wording in Pesachim:

אמר רב פפא אמר לי יוסף שידא בתרי קטלינן בארבעה לא קטלינן בארבעה מזקינן בתרי בין בשוגג בין במזיד בארבעה במזיד אין בשוגג לא

Or in English:

Rav Papa: Yosef the Shed told me that Shedim kill on account of two (e.g. cups); they damage on account of four, but they do not kill;

1. They strike on account of two whether it was Shogeg or Mezid; they damage on account of four only if it was Mezid.

From the wording of קטלינן, and מזקינן, "we kill" and "we damage", it rather seems that Yosef Sheda himself is a sheid.

Back to the gemara in Eruvin, given the astounding speed required to travel this great distance, I would regard the reference to Eliyahu Hanavi in the gemara as absolutely literal. And as such, he is traveling by flying very very quickly, higher than 10 tefachim. And if Eliyahu HaNavi was intended absolutely literally, then I would guess that Yosef Sheda was also intended absolutely literally, but that since Yosef is a sheid and not a Jew, since he is not a human being, as Rashi writes, he does not keep the Shabbos.

An allegorical approach seems far-fetched to me, because if Eliyahu Hanavi is supposed to represent, e.g., a deep spiritual realization, while  Yosef Sheda, e.g., represents the Yetzer Hara or some such idea, why in the former case would it be subject to the laws of Shabbos, such that we can derive laws of techum? And in the latter case, how is this allegorical meaning to convey a message from one place to another? In other words, there are aspects of the gemara itself that seem to require a literalness to Eliyahu haNavi and Yosef Sheda.

It is of course always possible to kvetch any gemara, given enough brilliance, time and effort. Still, I prefer to take a text-internal approach. Ignore any hashkafic repercussions. What in the gemara itself indicates the most likely way to interpret this? And that we are drawing halachic repercussions from a discussion about a real-life incident where diyukim are made from rather practical considerations of where the path of travel must have been, I would conclude that the most likely interpretation is a literal one.

Once we know this, there are two possibilities. Either Chazal (in this gemara) are right and we are wrong about the reality of sheidim, or the reverse.

Meanwhile, the Meiri does not believe that demons are real, and he has a running commentary on the gemara. How does he interpret the gemara?

Well, in terms of how to travel higher than 10 tefachim off the ground, Meiri notes in the beginning of the gemara:

בעי רב חנניא יש תחומין למעלה מעשרה או אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה עמוד גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה לא תיבעי לך דארעא סמיכתא היא כי תיבעי לך בעמוד גבוה עשרה ואינו רחב ארבעה אי נמי דקאזיל בקפיצה לישנא אחרינא בספינה מאי

We are not discussing land higher than 10 tefachim but wider than 4, for this is considered ground. Rather, it is higher than 10 but very narrow, narrower than 4. Alternatively, בקפיצה. This means, according to Meiri, either via repeated jumping or some תחבולה, trick, ruse, strategem. Alternatively, by boat (where the boat is 10 tefachim off the riverbed).

How does he explain Eliyahu Hanavi? As follows:

ובאו ללמדה משב שמעתא הנזכרות (בראש בפרק) [בר"פ] אלו
טרפות דאיתמר בצפרא לקמיה דרב חסדא בסורא ובאותו היום
בעצמו נאמרו לרבה בפום בדיתא ויש שם יתר מן התתום אף
על ידי עירוב ואם כן מל כרחך בשהלך המגיד למעלה מעשרה
והמשילו [לאליהו] על דמיון תנועת העופפות . ולמדנו מכל מקום
שכל למעלה מעשרה מהלך כמו שירצה . ותירץ לו דרך צחות
דלמא יוסף שידא . פרשו בו גדולי הרבנים שאינו משמר שבת .

Thus, it is not Eliyahu HaNavi, but they only used him by way of comparison, that it was someone traveling over 10 tefachim, in a way similar to Eliyahu Hanavi who would fly. And by Yosef Sheda, he does not say that it means a sheid, but just that various meforshim say that this Yosef Sheda did not keep Shabbos. Perhaps he maintains that this is a human named Yosef Sheda, or a parallel to Yosef Sheda but any individual who does not keep Shabbos. He is unfortunately not explicit on this point, but I do believe he is explaining why one need not resort to belief in demons.

In terms of whether I think it is plausible, while more plausible than an allegorical interpretation, I don't find it more plausible than the literal. After all, later on in the same gemara they discuss how Mashiach cannot come on Shabbos, and mention Eliyahu Hanavi coming the day before. It is a bit strange for the former to be non-literal and the latter to be literal. And if simply a human, this does not account for the great speed from one place to the other. And it is difficult to say that there is a 100+ mile high and narrow land-ridge from Sura to Pumpedisa, over which someone ran at great speed. I suppose we can salvage this by saying that this was travel by boat, but I would really have expected the gemara to say simply that the travel was by boat. Further, Eliyahu Hanavi and Yosef Sheda (based on that other gemara I mentioned) are mythical persons/demons. That the gemara chooses these two in particular is strange, and would indicate to me a literal approach.