[Avodah] Demons in the Talmud

[Prof. Levine via Avodah]

From http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/aggada/18aggada.htm

There is a well-known debate about how to understand talmudic
references to demons. Some commentators took these gemarot at face
value while the Rambam denied that demonic beings exist. For example,
one gemara (Makkot 6b) explicitly mentions the possibility of a
criminal receiving warning from a demon. Rambam (Hilkhot Sanhedrin
12:2) cites this case as a scenario in which one hears the warning
but cannot identify the source. Rambam offers a naturalistic reading
in which no demonic beings exits and the term "shed" refers to a
natural phenomenon whose source we have not yet discovered.

How would Rambam interpret our gemara about the danger of even
numbers? Fortunately, R. Menachem Meiri, a follower of Rambam's
general school of thought, provides an explanation in his commentary
on Pesachim. Meiri argues that in talmudic times, the masses were
very influenced by popular beliefs and superstitions. The sages
directly combated these beliefs when they were linked to idolatrous
practices. If the beliefs were simply foolish but not idolatrous, the
sages would not reject them directly but rather took steps to limit
their impact.

See the above URL for more.

I find it interesting that the Meiri "argues that in talmudic times,
the masses were very influenced by popular beliefs and superstitions." YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140924/30837e62/attachment.htm>

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 01:05:56PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/aggada/18aggada.htm
:
: There is a well-known debate about how to understand talmudic
: references to demons. Some commentators took these gemarot at face
: value while the Rambam denied that demonic beings exist. For
: example...

: How would Rambam interpret our gemara about the danger of even
: numbers? Fortunately, R. Menachem Meiri, a follower of Rambam's
: general school of thought, provides an explanation in his commentary
: on Pesachim. Meiri argues that in talmudic times, the masses were
: very influenced by popular beliefs and superstitions. The sages
: directly combated these beliefs when they were linked to idolatrous
: practices. If the beliefs were simply foolish but not idolatrous,
: the sages would not reject them directly but rather took steps to
: limit their impact.

Except that in talmudic times, demonology wasn't considered a
superstition. It (and astrology) were science. Or more accurately,
philosophy, as the lines between Natural Philosphy and Metaphysics
weren't drawn yet.

Given the history, I would think that the question of chazal believing
in demons is like the question of the Ramban writing about the beri'ah
of hyuli (hyle, ie substance without form), R Chaim Volozhiner writing
about phlogiston (the thing in combustible objects that is released
when they burn) or the Malbim writing about aether (the substance the
universe is filled with that is to light as an ocean is to its waves).

In none of these cases, did the speaker think they were discussing a
religious entity where questions of superstition or idolatry would be
in issue.

Which is why the talmud written in EY, where the Romans ruled and
therefore Greek Natural Philosophy held sway, there are literally just
a couple of mentions of demons in the entire shas.

I therefore would take the question to be what roles demons played in
their worldview, and transvalue the term to refer to whatever plays
the nearest role in today's scientific theories. Such as the Me'iri
saying they're psychologocal entities, and R' Aharon Soloveitchik's
identification of sheidim with germs.

People who read Qabbalah as referring to real metaphysical entities
rather than metaphors would probably note that the Y-mi has less aggadita
altogether, and therefore while the dirth of demons is odd, it is not
odd enough to prove anything. (Or maybe that the Y-mi is less prone
to discuss nistar, although I think mequbalim tend to identify /more/
with the Y-mi than the rest of us, not less.)

Personally I come down on the fence on that one too, as I believe
(whether well founded or not, it's what makes sense to this brain) that
metaphysical entities and metaphors by which the person in question
relates to the non-physical -- including values like chesed, gevurah,
din, fairness, liberty, etc... -- are the same thing.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

[David Riceman via Avodah]

RMB:

<<

the Y-mi has less aggadita
altogether, and therefore while the dirth[dearth] of demons is odd
All of the collections of aggadta we have from amoraic times are from
EY, so you'd have to poll them as well. IIRC, however, Levi Ginsberg
makes a similar point.

David Riceman

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

There is a well-known debate about how to understand talmudic references
to demons. Some commentators took these gemarot at face value while the
Rambam denied that demonic beings exist.

Where did he deny this?