Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VOLUME 2
By
Dan Levene
LEIDEN BOSTON
2013
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
PJ5208.A2 2014
133.4'4089924035dc23
2013024746
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek,
and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/
brill-typeface.
ISSN 2211-016X
ISBN 978-90-04-25092-5 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-25726-9 (e-book)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
There was a domineering fellow who bullied a certain Collegiate. The latter came before
R. Joseph [for advice] said he to him: Go and put the shammetha on him. I am afraid of
him, he replied. Said he to him, Then go and take [out] a Writ against him.I am all the
more afraid to do that! Said R. Joseph to him: Take that Writ, put it into a jar, take it to a
graveyard and hoot into it a thousand shipur [horn-blasts] on forty days. He went and did
so. The jar burst and the domineering bully died.
Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 17ab
There is no one, too, who does not dread being spell-bound by means of evil imprecations.
Pliny the Elder, The Natural History (London, 1855), Book 28, chapter 4
Underlying all this talk, however, is the very real fear of a capacity for someone to remove
your ability to choose and act freely without your even realizing it. For the jealousy that
motivates witchcraft is not only the resentment of the envious but the bitter desires of the
sexually jealous.
A. Ashforth, Madumo: A Man Bewitched (Chicago, 2005), p. 159
Of course there was much less of that sort of thing than there used to be, but it still existed,
and its effects could be potent. If you heard that somebody had put a curse on you, then
however much you might claim not to believe in all that mumbo-jumbo, you would still
feel uneasy. This was because there was always a part of the human mind that was prepared
to entertain such notions, particularly at night, in the world of shadows, when there were
sounds that one could not understand and when each one of us was in some sense alone.
Some people found this intolerable, and succumbed, as if life itself simply gave out in the
face of such evil; and when this happened, it served only to strengthen the belief of some
that such things worked.
A. McCall Smith, Blue Shoes and Happiness (London, 2007), p. 123
CONTENTS
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Rationale for the Selection Made in This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Self-Designations and Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Yuval Harari on Aggressive Jewish Magic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Effectiveness of the Bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Curse and its Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Praxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Characteristics of the Curse Bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Lexicography of Aggressive Magic Bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Parallels with Greco-Roman Materials? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Synopses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Glossaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
ABBREVIATIONS
AIT Bowls that appear in J.A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia, 1913).
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, 1992).
AMB J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem,
1985).
BM British Museum. All of these can be found in CAMIB (reference below).
BTA Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic.
CAMIB J.B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London,
2000).
DJBA M.A. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat
Gan, 2002).
Isbell Bowls according to the numbers in C.D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Dissertation
Series 17 (Missoula, Montana, 1975).
Jastrow M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim (New York, 1950).
Justi F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Hildesheim, 1963).
M Bowls Bowls from the Moussaieff Collection. Unless otherwise noted these are from D. Levene, A Corpus of
Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity (London, 2003).
MD E.S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963).
MSF J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem,
1993).
N&Sh Bowls published by Naveh and Shaked in AMB and MSF.
MT Masoretic Text.
PS R. Payne Smith and J.D. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, Founded upon the Thesaurus
Syriacus of R. Payne Smith, D.D (Oxford, 1903).
SL M. Sokoloff and C. Brockelmann, A Syriac Lexicon: a Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion,
and Update of C. Brockelmanns Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, Indiana, 2009).
SLA Standard Literary Aramaic.
TS R.P. Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (Hildesheim, 2001).
SD Bowls Bowls from the collection of Mr Samir DeHays.
VA. Bowls Bowls from the collection of the Vorderasiatisches Museum.
VAM Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin.
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
VA.2484 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2829
VA.2509 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
VA.2484 & VA.2509 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
VA.2423 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4344
VA.2416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4950
VA.2423 & VA.2416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
VA.2434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5556
VA.2424 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5960
VA.2434 & VA.2424 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
VA.2496 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6769
VA.2575 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7072
VA.2496 & VA.2575 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
VA.3382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
VA.3381 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
VA.3382 & VA.3381 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
VA.2492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
VA.2418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
VA.2417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9394
SD 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102105
PREFACE
In 1965 Yamauchi made some comments on the Babylonian Aramaic incantation bowls in which he
stated that Bowl magic belongs to the category of white magic and is defensive in nature. It is
dangerous only to the curser. He noted, however, that it is only: In one case, Obermanns second text,
[that] the purpose of the bowl is to harm a known enemy. The aggressive bowl that he noted is in the
Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC 2393).1 Since then, many more have been discovered, and I know of an
additional twenty-five texts that fit this description,2 which are all presented here. Some of these have
already been published, while others are edited here for the first time.
What is it that makes an Aramaic incantation bowl a curse or aggressive? This is not a straightforward
question. The study of curses and aggressive magic, even in respect of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism
specifically, is considerable.3 The focus of this study is on the material itself. This is convenient as
the material is discrete in terms of the period from which it comes (fifth to seventh centuries ce), its
provenance (Mesopotamia) and its language (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic).
The study of Aramaic incantation texts has been greatly enhanced by the increasing numbers of
texts that have been published over the last century, particularly in the last twenty years. Yet, despite
the greater number of texts that are now available, we are still in the early stages of the study of
this material, with new approaches and methodologies still evolving. In this study I have restricted
myself exclusively to the study of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic texts. I have made reference to
other contemporary Jewish and some non-Jewish materials only when I thought it to be relevant and
necessary.
The first bowl text that I ever published, M1634 (presented again in this collection), was an aggressive
text, as was another of the texts from the Moussaieff Collection, M102, that I published soon after.5 These
two texts were my introduction to editing aggressive Aramaic incantations. It was clear to me from the
start that these were rare amongst the bowl texts. They were not, however, the only aggressive Aramaic
bowl texts that I came across. During my first research visit to Berlin in the late 1990s, I became aware that
there is an extraordinary collection of curse texts in the Vorderasiatisches Museum. I came to realise,
therefore, that there is a need to consider the aggressive texts in their own right.
Gagers collection of curse texts from the ancient and late antique worlds was one of my inspirations
for considering the aggressive bowl texts as a group.6 I was curious to see what their study could add to
our understanding of aggressive magical practices in late antiquity. In time, however, I began to wonder
whether Gagers inclusion of the Jewish materials in a collection that is dominated by Greco-Roman
sources is really appropriate, and whether the conclusions he made about the Jewish materials should
1 E.M. Yamauchi, Aramaic Magic Bowls, Journal of the American Oriental Society 85 (1965), pp. 511523 (520). An amended
materials that he is involved in publishing (primarily the Schyen and Shaye Collections).
3 See, for example, the thirty-two page bibliography in J.K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew
monograph in 2003; see D. Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity (London,
2003), pp. 4451, 138139.
6 J.G. Gager (ed.), Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford and New York, 1992).
xiv preface
be reconsidered. It is my hope that these texts will provide more insights into Jewish aggressive magical
practices of late antiquity, particularly in Babylonia.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge my great teachers, Professors Mark Geller and Shaul Shaked, who still
support and encourage me in so many ways. I also thank my colleagues who have read and discussed
with me many of these texts: Dr Siam Bhayro, Professor Gideon Bohak, and Dr Matthew Morgenstern. A
special mention is reserved for Dr James Nathan Ford, who devoted many hours to commenting on my
readings of the texts. Their contributions are evident on every page of this book and too numerous to
count. Dr Ortal-Paz Saar was also extremely helpful with editing the volume, producing the glossaries,
correcting many errors and making numerous suggestions. For the comments on the many personal
names that appear in these texts, I am indebted to Ortal-Paz Saar and Shaul Shaked.
A special thanks goes to Prof. Joachim Marzahn and his team at the Vorderasiatisches Museum for
many years of assistance, patience and great hospitality.
My PhD student, Mr Bradley Barnes, also deserves mention for his contribution to the formatting
and editing of this book. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my many colleagues in the
Department of History and Faculty of Humanities at the University of Southampton. I would also like
to thank the AHRC for funding an eleven-month fellowship, without which the completion of this book
would have taken much longer.
I am blessed to work in a field whose community includes many truly great scholarsindividuals
who have been incredibly generous in so many ways. I beg the readers pardon for any errors, misun-
derstandings and shortcomings in my work that are solely my own, for I have had many helping hands
that have eliminated many other mistakes and saved me much embarrassment. I hope that, despite its
shortcomings, this will be a useful study. For me it has been and still is the most extraordinary journey.
My greatest thanks are reserved for my wife Michaela, without whose love and support my joy of life
would be much diminished and this work the poorer; and, finally, my two children Isi and Shiphra, who
keep me on my toes, make me laugh every day and give me endless hugs.
INTRODUCTION
The Jewish Babylonian Aramaic magic bowl texts, of which well over one thousand are known to
exist,1 were apotropaicthey were reputed to have the power to avert evil spirits and misfortune.
While human involvement in the conjuring of such evil can be implied by the incantations, only a
tiny minoritytwenty texts to be precise2identify the alleged human culprit by name and exact
retribution against this person in the form of an aggressive counter-attack. Furthermore, there are six
texts (VA.2492, VA.2418, VA.2417, N&Sh B7, N&Sh B9 and YBC 2393) that name and level afflictions
against individuals with no claim of culpability on their part. Taken at face value, they would appear
to represent unmerited aggression. Both types of text are explicitly aggressive in nature, naming the
target of the incantation, and should thus be considered curses.3
The number of such aggressive texts known to us at present, while still small, marks a huge leap
forward from 1965 when Yamauchi noted the single case known to him.4 Yamauchi found it appropriate
to state, as we have noted above, that by and large the rule is: Bowl magic belongs to the category
of white magic and is defensive in nature.5 Nearly forty years later, in a discussion of black magic
in another late antique source, Sefer ha-Razim, Alexander made the following comment about the
aggressive aspect of late antique Jewish magic:
The one thing that is genuinely surprising about it is that the magic contained in it is so often black, that
it is aimed at inflicting harm on individuals. This is deeply shocking and very rare. The vast majority of
early Jewish magic is apotropaic: its purpose was to ward off sickness from individuals, or disaster from
communities; or to satisfy basic human greed.6
Although the aggressive material available to us merits collecting and presenting in one place, I would
nevertheless concur with Alexanderit is rare amongst the bowls and other Jewish magical texts from
late antiquity.
The arrangement of the texts in this book is primarily by collection. The choice of texts that have been
assembled in this volume has been determined in most cases by a rather simple criterion: they are those
that name a human target for an aggressive incantation, irrespective of whether the targeted person is
the one who initiated hostilities.
1 The most up to date list of published texts exists as part of the online magic bowls prosopographical database, which
although it is clearly intended as some form of aggressive counter-measure, the name of the main target of this incantation
is not mentioned. Admittedly, another name does occur in this text, but it does so in a way that is unusual within Aramaic
incantation bowls in that the mothers name is not given. The difficulty with making sense of some portions of this text, which
the authors acknowledge (AMB p. 152), also contributed to my decision to omit it from the current collection. This is also true of
025A (BM 91771), which has formula D (see Formulae Synopses chapter below) in it, but unfortunately is also missing a portion
that would provide a fuller context.
4 Yamauchi, Aramaic Magic Bowls, p. 520. See YBC 2393 which is presented with some corrections below.
5 Ibid.
6 P. Alexander, Sefer ha-Razim and the problem of black magic in early Judaism, in T.E. Klutz (ed.), Magic in the Biblical
World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (London, 2004), pp. 170190 (189).
2 introduction
I have also included four bowls that do not contain such names (VA.2496, VA.2575, VA.3382 and
VA.3381) because these bowls consist of two pairs intended to be interred togetherdescribed by
me elsewhere as constituting the qybl form (see discussion below).7 Both sets of texts purport to be
counter-charms, yet they avoid mentioning any names of potential antagonists. As such they are not
uniquethere are many other bowl texts that do this. My decision to include these four texts was in
part influenced by their status as part of the Vorderasitisches Museum collection, from which many of
the texts presented here come. Another reason for their inclusion is the often aggressive nature of the
qybl.8 I have excluded the only known bowl love charm,9 as it is my impression that its rarity (greater
even than the curse genre) and other distinctive characteristics make it a sufficiently different kind of
text that does not belong in the group discussed and presented here.10
The most obvious indicator of a bowls purpose is how it describes itselfthe table below lists these
self-designations. Not all bowls carry such explicit self-designationsin these cases I have provided
short descriptions that are based on their contents.
1 VA.2484:18
This charm is for overturning and dispatching and returning the evil Yaror from
against
2 VA.2509:14
This is a charm to overturn sorceries and vows and curses and afflictions and rites
from against
3 VA.2423:13 and
1011, 13, 1617
This is a charm to make void this document This is a restraint of curses
the sorcery and a curse and a and oaths and of aversions
vow and an aversion of who that performed against
have cursed him and vowed
[concerning] him that have
acted against him and that are
acting against May they
overturn and go against
4 VA.2416:14, 1617
This is a charm to overturn sorceries and This is a charm for overturning an evil
oaths and curses and afflictions and Yaror that is upon May it be overturned
magic rites and aversions, from onto upon
7 D. Levene, This Is a Qybl for Overturning Sorceries: Form, FormulaThreads in a Web of Transmission in: S. Shaked,
G. Bohak and Y. Harari (eds), Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition (Leiden, 2011), pp. 219244.
8 Ibid.
9 See AIT 28 in Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 213.
10 See Y. Harari, For a Woman to Follow You: Love Charms in Early Jewish Magic (Hebrew), Kabbalah 5 (2000), pp. 247
264, and O.-P. Saar, Jewish Love Magic: From Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (Hebrew; unpubl. diss., Tel Aviv University, 2008)
who have treated this genre in Jewish magic as distinct.
introduction 3
5 VA.2434:25
This is a charm for overturning the evil Yaror from the house of upon And may it
depart and go out from the sons, from the house of
6 VA.2424:34
This is a charm for overturning the evil Yaror from the house of
711 VA.2496 and For returning sorceries to those who instigated them.
8 VA.2575
9 VA.3382:13
11 These are the four texts in which names of the antagonists are not given; see above.
4 introduction
Aggressive Jewish magical texts from this period have not been collected and, with the exception
of Yuval Hararis work, have scarecely been discussed as a distinct group. Yuval Hararis landmark
treatment of aggressive Jewish magic covers a wide range of materials, both eastern and western, from
antiquity to the early modern period.15 The present study differs in that its focus is restricted to the late
antique Jewish Babylonian Aramaic incantation bowls (fifth to seventh centuries ce), all of which are
assumed to be the product of Jewish hands.16
Hararis statement that the belief in witchcrafts efficacy gave birth to the fear of it, and this (in turn
gave rise to) the need for defence17 is succinct, capturing the essence of our topic in terms of cause and
effect. Harari weaves a narrative that is characteristically exhaustive with references to both primary and
secondary sources. The first primary source he discusses is the Hekhalot literature, noting its assertion
12 C.H. Gordon, An Aramaic Incantation, The American Schools of Oriental Research14 (1934), pp. 141144 and C.D. Isbell,
Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Dissertation Series 17 (Missoula, Montana, 1975), pp. 6970.
13 W.S. McCullough, Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls (Toronto, 1967), pp. 25 and T. Harviainen, An Aramaic
Incantation Bowl from Borsippa: Another Specimen of Eastern Aramaic koin, Studia Orientalia 51 (1981), pp. 328 (10).
14 J. Obermann, Two Magic Bowls: New Incantation Texts from Mesopotamia, The American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures 57 (1940), pp. 131 (1528) and Isbell, Corpus, pp. 138139.
15 Y. Harari, If You Wish to Kill a Man: Aggressive Magic and the Defense Against it in Ancient Jewish Magic (Hebrew),
pp. 1718.
17 Harari, If You Wish to Kill a Man, pp. 132133 (my gloss in brackets).
introduction 5
that the initiate who recites a certain great mystery will be safe and free from a list of various dangers. Of
particular interest to us is this lists reference to sorcery (),18 which shows that a fear of aggressive
magical acts existed. An example of this is found in the Palestinan Talmud, Yoma 3:7, 40d, which relates
a tale of how a certain Persian was heard to curse someone who consequently died. This illustrates the
pervading climate of belief in the efficacy of magical powers, which were considered within the grasp
of persons of any faith who possessed the appropriate knowledge. Another point of significance to us
is this passages reference to the curse being delivered orally. The bowls themselves also seem to allude
more often to oral rather than written curses, which raises the issue of the relationship between oral
and written forms of magic, especially in respect of the incantation bowls.
Harari notes that aggressive magic is not always so distinct from protective magic. Indeed, sorcery
was also considered effective as a protective measurethe best defence is a good offence.19 The rabbis
recognition that knowledge of sorcery is essential is to be found in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin
17a, where Rabbi Yoanan, the third century Palestinian sage, is said to have stated that members of the
Sanhedrin were required to have a knowledge of sorcery () . Although this was presumably
to know how to counter it, it may also have been to take advantage of its power. Indeed, as Harari notes,
the Karaites accused the rabbis of using sorcery, although this clearly should be placed in its polemical
context and relates to the centuries that immediately follow the period of the Aramaic incantation
bowls.
Finally, Harari notes that the most common issue in the rabbinical traditions relating to magical
harm is cursing by The Name.20 This comes as no surprise to those who study the Aramaic incantation
bowls, in which name adjuration is a major part of their claim to efficacy. In this respect, the collection
of aggressive incantations presented below does not differ from the apotropaic incantations found in
the bowls.
Did such aggressive magic, specifically the curses we find in the incantation bowls, have any effect? Can
it be said to have worked? We are limited in our ability to consider such a question because we lack the
necessary information about the context in which each bowl was written. It must be remembered that
each of these texts was individually dedicated and therefore had a personal story that is now obscured.
We have no way of knowing whether any particular incantation bowl, with whatever ritual that may
have accompanied it, had any effect or not.21 The fact remains, however, that the production of aggressive
spells, of which the incantation bowls presented in this volume are but one type, persisted for thousands
of years and continues to this day.22 This does not mean that we need to accept that such practices are
capable of changing reality in ways we would not expect. On the other hand, we should recognise that
a combination of factors, such as faith, a fervent desire to cause harm to others, cultural constructs, and
the occasional appearance of success, can encourage a culture of trust amongst some people and the
propagation of narratives that confirm the efficacy of such magical practices.
18 Ibid., p. 113, citing P. Schfer, M. Schlter and H.G. von Mutius. Synopse Zur Hekhalot-Literatur, Texte und Studien Zum
Harari, If you Wish to Kill a Man, p. 133, and G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 356386.
20 Harari, If you Wish to Kill a Man, p. 116.
21 For a thoroughly interesting and sensible approach to such questions, see Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, pp. 3551.
22 See E. Westermarck, Ritual and Belief in Morocco (London, 1926) in which there are numerous chapters dealing with curses
and other aggressive forms of praxis. One might also mention, for example, testament to such praxes and their consequences
as recorded in A. Ashworth, Madumo: A Man Bewitched (Chicago, 2000).
6 introduction
Other less incredible aspects that might have had some bearing on the impact of such spells could
well have existed. Versnel discusses an example of a circumstance in which a public element combined
to make the potency of a curse more significant.23 The principle that lies behind such ancient Greek
examples is simple: a technique was used by which the insult, injury, offence or theft that was committed
against a particular individual was transferred to one of the gods, so that now the god became the injured
party and was thus in a position to redress the insult, injury, offence, or theft. The god was believed to be
able to inflict any one of a variety of punishments including illness and even death. Versnel provides
examples of tablets that show signs of being placed in public spaces such as templesa culture of
naming and shaming: circumstances that could motivate the criminal to repent while there was still a
chance. Indeed, Versnel also cites stelae that give accounts of cases where an offender did come forth
or an item was recovered, thus verifying the process as effective.
It is hard to see how such a public element to most of the bowl texts could have been a possibility. In
terms of the aggressive forms, however, we might consider a scenario in which this could occur. Such
charms could have been prepared in advance of legal confrontations, in which opponents names were
known and inserted into appropriately prepared aggressive bowl incantations. Such opponents could
then have been warned, lest they tamper magically with the court proceedings, that powerful magical
countermeasures had been put in place and would, if need be, automatically trigger an aggressive
magical response. This would not be inconsistent with the nature of some of the countercharms in this
collection.24 Such a mechanism might go some way to ensure a witchcraft-free legal process. Indeed,
incantations such as M163 and ROM 907.1.1, that specifically claim their purpose to be the shutting of an
opponents mouth, suggest more forcefully the possibility of a legal context. Another one of our texts,
VA.2418, that is blatantly aggressive with no indication of it being a counter charm, calls for a certain
Mar son of Ahot to end up in jaila punitive instrument of the law courts. There is ample evidence of
the use of magic in legal contexts in the Greco-Roman word,25 including its Jewish inhabitants.26
Versnel makes another interesting point in respect to the Greco-Roman materials, noting that, if the
name of the client who commissioned a curse tablet were to be found alongside the name of the person
it was meant to attack, such a client would have been in a potentially vulnerable position. This is due to
the fact that the use of such aggressive tablets was generally illegal, and was at times subject to severe
penalties. Such risk might be diminished, however, if such a tablet was meant only as a precautionary,
public measure that was intended ultimately to deter.27 Versnel thus distinguishes between what he calls
judicial prayers and defixiones; a distinction which we cannot make in our texts as they do not afford
enough information.28
23 See H.S. Versnel, Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers, in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbinik (eds), Magika
Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford, 1991), pp. 60106.
24 See below VA.2484, VA.2509, VA.2423, VA.2416. We may note also MS 1927/2:3 which provides the plea that the bowls
client may come to trial and win it (( ) S. Shaked, Form and Purpose in Aramaic Spells: Some Jewish Themes (The
Poetics of Magic Texts), in S. Shaked (ed.), Officina Magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (Leiden and Boston,
2005), pp. 130 (8)).
25 See the chapter Tongue-Tied in Court: Legal and Political Disputes, in Gager, Curse Tablets, pp. 116150.
26 See the reference above to the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 17a which is ascribed to Rabbi Yoanan, in which it is
implied that sorcery was not uncommon in courtroom proceedings and knowledge of which, therefore, was essential for a
member of the Sanhedrinthe supreme-court. In Shabbat 75a it is more clearly stated that it is knowledge, not practice, of
sorcery and teaching of such knowledge that is required of the rabbis.
27 H.S. Versnel, Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic-Religion, Numen 38 (1991), pp. 177197 (162163).
28 Ibid., p. 90.
introduction 7
Both aggressive and apotropaic bowl texts alike contain many allusions to and partial descriptions of
hostile sorcery. One observable feature of aggressive magic seems to be that, once a magical act has been
performed, it has an existence of its own. It is as if an independent essence is created by the magical act
and thus released into the world, having acquired an energy and life of its own. This is clearly implied
in relation to both the so-called demons of dispatch29 and the Yaror demon. The latter is mentioned
in a number of the texts presented in this book, where it is quite clear that they were dispatched to
harm human targets.30 This process may also be inferred in respect of aggressive verbal utterances, that
is cursing or swearing. It may have been believed that, once spoken, such an utterance conjurs up an
aggressive force that is distinct from the speaker, especially if it included the invocation of a divine or
other powerful name. It follows, therefore, that it was crucial to use the correct strategy to protect oneself
from such things.
Praxis
It is unfortunate that we know little of the processes involved in the preparation of incantation bowls,
which saw mundane objects transformed into significant magical objects, not to mention any additional
procedures which may have been involved in the making of the aggressive bowls. Indeed, we know
little beyond what is evident: unused domestic earthenware dishes were acquired by the practitioner,
inscribed with incantations using a reed and ink, and deposited in the ground, within houses, their
surroundings, or in cemeteries. They were usually deposited upside down, but sometimes in pairs, either
facing each other or within each other. Beyond this, we are left to speculate regarding what the various
parties may have done, be it physically or spiritually, privately or publically etc.
To attempt to learn more about aggressive praxis, I have adopted two approaches: first, a considera-
tion of the curse bowls in a bid to identify characteristics, both physical and formulaic, that are peculiar
29 Demons of dispatch ( ) are mentioned in M.J. Geller, Four Aramaic Incantation Bowls, in G. Rendsburg
et al. (eds), The Bible World: Essays in Honour of Cyrus H. Gordon (New York, 1980), pp. 4760 (bowl D:10 on 5760). See also
Isbell, Corpus, 63:7, Gordon Bowl 6:2, C. Gordon, Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Orientalia NS 10 (1941), pp. 116141, 272284,
339360 (125). Cf. also the amulet spirits of dispatch, and spirits of dispatch ( ) in VA.2423:9
(below).
30 The precise meaning of the word Yaror is not clear. In its various manifestations in the rabbinic literature it occurs either
as or ;the final letter interchanging between and . This seems to have already caused problems of interpretation in
the Middle Ages. See A. Kohut et al., Sefer Tosfot He-Arukh Ha-shalem/Additamementa Ad Librum Aruch Completum (New York,
1955), vol. 4, pp. 159160; S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-feshuah: Beur Arokh La-Tosefta (New York and Jerusalem, 1992), vol. 2, p. 652.
There is, however, the Syriac term that means jackal. Understandings of this term have been arrived at also on the basis
of the versions where yrwr appears as a translation of the Hebrew jackals (Job 30:29 Targum Peshitta ;
Micha 1:8 Targum Jonathan Peshitta ) and ostriches (Micha 1:8 Peshitta ). Besides
our texts there is the one case where this term is associated with the demonic worldin the Syro-Hexaplar to Isaiah 34:14 the
translation of is , see PS, p. 1630. Montgomery adds a note to the meaning of that the root is onomatopoeic,
connoting a howling creature (Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 81). He then suggests that choosing this word to
represent the demon is based on the fact that the Babylonians represented their demons in uncouth shapes of birds and
animals. Hunter also discussed this word in reference to Micha 1:8 and a section from the Acta of St. Simeon Stylites where the
cry of the jackal is likened to that of the cry of mourners. See E. Hunter, Two Incantation Bowls from Babylon, Iraq 62 (2000),
pp. 144145. It is worth noting that in Akkadian we find the term arru curse (see L. Oppenheim, The Assyrian Dictionary of
The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago, Vol. 1, A, Part II. (Chicago, 1968), pp. 234ff.I thank Tzvi Abusch for alerting
me to this possible connection), and its Hebrew cognate that has the same meaning. The dictionary favours the spelling
( DJBA, p. 541b), the Syriac (PS, p. 197). It has been suggested to me by Yuval Harari that a spelling on the basis of the
Hebrew form Yarurmight be considered on the basis of the passive form that is common in Biblical Hebrew. See
also Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, pp. 6484.
8 introduction
to them; second, an examination of terminology used in the bowl incantations to describe aggressive
magic, focussing, in this instance, on the term , curse.31
kyb Bowls
We start with a unique attestation to a form of praxis mentioned in one of the aggressive bowls (M163:6),
which it states that a white cock was used as part of the magical act.32 The use of such birds in acts
of ritual slaughter is known from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources and from various periods. The
reference to the white cock is frustrating, however, because it stands alone with no more information
concerning the part it played in the magical act. We assume it was slaughtered, but we have no other
information except the words under/in place of this white cock () , which leaves us
with much uncertainty. The verb used to designate the action is kb ( )to press down, capture or
subdue.33
This verb recurs in M163 and represents the motif at the heart of its formulae. This verb and the
motif it encompasses are present in two other aggressive bowl texts that are in our collection, N&Sh 21
and ROM 907.1.1. In all three incantations the verb kb ( )is central (see Opening Formulae B in the
Synopses chapter below).
M163
(1) This press and binding is for the name of Isha ( 2) [( ]1)
son of (2) Ifra Hurmiz that he may be pressed ][
and fallhe, his lot, his destiny, his stars, (3) his ( 3)
bindings, his words and his hateful thoughtsunder
the feet and command and authority (4) of this ( 4) ][
Mihlad and (this) Baran sons of Mirdukh. Shamish
the king of gods!
and not come out from (28) his mouth from this ( 28)
day and for ever, amen amen selah, true and
established.
N&Sh B21
(1) This spell is designated for subduing (2) of Duday ( 2) ( 1)
daughter of Immi, Radeni son of Aru, Abraham son ( )( 3) ( )( )
of, Susya (3) Daughter of Immi, and Friyabard son of ()
Gas (?).
(14) shuts the mouth of all sons of Adam and ( 14)
Eve, destruction (15) to all the sons of Adam and [ ( ]15)
Eve from Sunyona son of Qitin, in the n[ame of ]
31 There are, of course, a variety of other terms that could be treated in this way, but these must wait for another occasion.
32 For a fuller discussion of this text see Levene, A Corpus, pp. 129130.
33 DJBA, p. 551.
introduction 9
ROM 907.1.1
And they will press the body of Mahbarzin son of ( 2)
awwa (3) and of Shiltai daughter of Maredukh
under the foot of Babhai son of Mahlafta ( 3)
As the above selections show, subjugation and curbing speechmuzzlingare the aims of these
incantations.
A copper alloy amulet that also uses this verb as its central theme (N&Sh A16) was first published in
1985 by Joseph Naveh, who discussed its subjugation formulae and this verbs use in comparable Geniza
fragmentsa testament to the longevity of its use.34
34 J. Naveh, A Good Subduing, There is None Like It: An Amulet from orvat Marish in the Galilee (Hebrew), Tarbiz 54
(1985), pp. 367382; J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1993),
pp. 4350.
35 With the publication of the so called Pearson Bowl, which contains this formula, Geller cites another six examples; see
M. Geller, Eight Incantation Bowls, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 17 (1986), pp. 101117 (102105). Unlike those cited by Geller,
one of the texts presented in this book, 005A (BM 91745), mentions by name the individual to which the overturned sorceries
are redirected.
36 See B.A. Levine, The Language of the Magical Bowls in J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1970), vol. V,
demon39whose conjuring is described as an act of cursing.40 This Yaror is also described as having
been dispatched.41
Of the aggressive texts present in the Berlin collection and edited in this volume, there are six that
share certain physical and textual characteristics. It is from this sub-group of six that we can learn
something about their praxis. The most obvious connection between all six is that they all define
themselves as being a qybl ()in this particular group of texts, this term appears to mean
counter-charm rather than just charm. Thus all of these particular incantation bowls were made with
the specific intention of returning adverse magical acts to their point of origin, a named antagonist. As
such, we consider these spells aggressive as they clearly intended harm the named individuals.
39
See footnote 30 above.
40
, literally cursed them. See VA.2422:4,9,11,13,16,18 and VA.2416:4.
41 VA.2416:17 and VA.2434:7.
42 J.B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London, 2000), pp. 7985
exclude the possibility that such forces might be the product of human actions. In his dictionary, Jastrow
provides the gloss [a means against,] charm (to ward off danger)47 that fits the case of the particular
bowl texts mentioned above rather well. The nominal form has the meaning of complaint,48
which in Syriac has the more forceful sense of accusation or rebuke.49 These meanings fit the legalistic
tone of the magic bowl texts well. Indeed, the Akkadian cognates based on the root qbl: qabalu(m) II
battle50 and qubbulu to fight,51 also include the aggressive tone that we note for Aramaic qybl.
Other meanings derived from the root qbl ( )that are worth noting are darkness,52 to become
dark53 and the preposition junction, meeting,54 and opposite.55 These bring to mind two things
that, as we shall see, prove to be significant. The first is the fact that all but one of the bowls (040A)
with the qybl formula have bitumen markings56 on them and the second is a comment made by
Hilprecht regarding magic bowls found in excavations that: Sometimes two bowls facing one another
had been cemented together with bitumen.57 As our qybl bowls with bitumen markings constitute
such pairsi.e. pairs of bowls that were custom made to be set rim to rim opposite each other, fixed
with bitumen, and interred as a unitwe may consider qybls other meanings of darkness, junction,
meeting and opposite to be apt descriptions of such a physical configuration. Thus the word qybl
would be used in this context as a pun referring to both the purpose of the amuleta charm, counter
charmand to its physical formtwo bowls that are opposite each other, their rims meeting at a
junction and the space between them in darkness. Indeed, the bitumen markings on the verso of
VA.2484, reveal that this bowl was bound to VA.2509 (see the photograph with the text editions below)
with some sort of cord that was wrapped twice around the two bowls forming a cross shape when viewed
from above. This cord was fastened to the bowls in six places with globules of bitumenupon the four
points where the cord traversed the joined rims of the two bowls and at the apex of each of them where
the cord crossed itself.
As can be seen in the plates that accompany the text editions, when each of the three pairs of Berlin
bowls was placed together, rim to rim, the bitumen markings matched up, verifying that they were
bound together. The British Museum bowls, 039A (BM 91771) and 041A (BM 91763), also share the names
of the client and antagonist and seem to have been written by the same scribe. They also have bitumen
markings on the rims but not on the apex of the verso as with the Berlin bowls. These bowls do not
seem to match up quite as neatly when placed rim to rim. If not a pair in themselves, they most surely
had each been part of separate pairs. 040A (BM 91767), on the other hand, has no signs of bitumen. It
may be significant that this bowl, though describing itself a qybl, is not a counter-charm but plainly
aggressive.
47 Jastrow, p. 1309b.
48 DJBA, p. 978b.
49 SL, p. 1310, accusation, complaint. See also PS 487a and the participial form to accuse, impeach, complain, PS
p. 487b.
50 J. Black, A. George and J.N. Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden, 2000), p. 281b.
51 Ibid., p. 290a.
52 Jastrow, p. 1309b and DJBA, p. 472.
53 DJBA, p. 980b.
54 Jastrow, p. 1309b.
55 DJBA, p. 978.
56 See J. Connan, The Use and Trade of Bitumen in Antiquity and Prehistory: Molecular Archaeology Reveals Secrets of Past
Civilizations, Philosophical Transactions of the the Royal Society of London B 354 (1999), pp. 3350.
57 H.V. Hilprecht and I. Benzinger, Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century (Edinburgh, 1903), p. 447. See also
Hamiltons comments on bowls found joined in this way in V.P. Hamilton, Syriac Incantation Bowls (unpubl. diss., Brandeis
University, 1971), p. 10.
12 introduction
The literary expressions contained in the bowls are highly stylised, and were not intended to describe
actions. The texts were designed to affect the course of events, rather than convey information. Further-
more, the formulae are not transmitted in a stable or consistent way. Still, this should not deter us from
trying to discern the lexicography of aggressive magical practice. We can divide the Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic incantation texts into three types: first, those that list demons and other supernatural beings
such as ghosts;60 second, those that list types of sorcery as practised by humans;61 and, third, those that
list a mixture of both.
An example of the first type is:
58
Levene, This is a Qybl.
59
The ones that I know of are 04A (BM 91764), 020A (BM 131669), VA.2414 and VA.2426. See J.N. Ford and D. Levene, For
Aata-de-abuh daughter of Imma: Two Aramaic Incantation Bowls in the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (VA.2414 and
VA.2426), Journal of Semitic Studies 57 (2012), pp. 5165.
60 See particularly VA.2417 below. See also SD 27, in which it is also possible that ghosts are a factor.
61 These I consider to include activities that range from the mere utterance of words thought to be able to affect another
human adversely to complex ritual acts that might involve an invocation, ceremony and the use of materia magica.
introduction 13
Sealed and doubly-sealed are the house and threshold of from all evil plagues, from all evil spirits, from
monsters, from liliths, and from all blast-demons 62
This is a list of harmers that only includes supernatural beings and does not imply, in any obvious way,
human involvement. This kind of list, which excludes the suggestion of human responsibility, is less
common in the bowls.
The following is an example of the second type, consisting exclusively of harm resulting from human
activity:
}?{^^
}{
in order that there may not come against them oaths, curses and evil speeches. I adjure you oath, curse
[and] evil speech. I adjure, oath, curse, I adjure against you oath, curse and evil speech be it an oath
of a gentile or a Jew, be it a distant [or] near curse, be it a curse of a neighbour, brother or sister, be it a curse
of men or of women, be it an oath that is being delivered to male idols [and] female idols, or be it by an oath
or magic rites of any human beings.63
It must be noted that it is not entirely certain that all the acts listed here have been consciously generated
out of malice towards the client. Curses or oaths, for instance, might have been voiced in anger or might
have been made in such a way as to be not aimed specifically at the client, for example, if the whole
community were targeted by an aggressor.
Finally, the following is an example of the third type, which is the most common:
][
][
Thoroughly bound, sealed, tied and charmed (may you be) by the Name. May you be bound and sealed and
removed from the house and residence of and of all their house and all their residence, all (you) evil liliths
and demons, dews, bindings, idols, [oaths] curses, misfortunes, mishaps, spells, evil sorceries, mighty deeds
and all hateful things.64
It is particularly noteworthy that harm caused by both supernatural and human agents is treated in
much the same manner by the incantation.
I list below some of the terms commonly found in the aggressive magical texts, beginning with a more
detailed discussion of /lwt, which is most commonly translated as curse (the term I use in the
title of this book).
lwt
The root is very commonly attested in the incantations of the bowls in its nominal form ,
and also, though somewhat less frequently, in its verbal form. Apart from the meaning of to curse, the
verb also conveys denunciation,65 though such a use in the bowls is not known to me. The noun
occurs in the bowls mostly as a description of something odious done to the client. It seems to denote
an oral rather than a written act. However, there is one formula in which the term /lwt is used
self referentially ( this curse), thus defining the incantation in which it occurs as a curse.
This formula is found in three bowls in this volumeVA.2492:5, 039A (BM 91771):14 and YBC 2393:3, 4.
It is worth noting, however, that its use later in the incantation is somewhat different to the other self
referential statements, such as This is an amulet () , This is a mystery () , or This is a
bill of divorce () , which usually occur at the start of the text.66
Although known only from the later, Gaonic period, it is worth mentioning here also the so-called
, the Decree of Ban for Obtaining Evidence,67 which contains a rather elaborate conditional
curse to ensure that a witness does not withhold evidence. This curse is interesting because it includes
a variety of terms that we recognise from the earlier bowl texts.68
We now turn to how the formulae in the bowls portray the nature of the /lwt. We shall first
look at the lists of curses, which occur according to the familial relation the curser might have to the
client, the spatial relation to the client, the age of the curse, its manner of articulation, and the cursers
ethnic/national identities.
One of the longer lists is found in the so called Pearson bowl,69 which lists the following familial curses:
( 2) 70
overturned is the curse of all mankind, (2) overturned is the curse of all mankind, the curse of the mother
and the daughter, of the daughter-in-law, of the mother-in-law
The same text also lists the following spatial curses:
( 4) ( 3)
the curse that which is far and near, (3) that is established in the field and established in the town.
(4) of these men, which is vowed and cursed and sent against Gushnas, from the north it descended, from
the eastern mountain
Another text expands the spatial aspect thus:
overturned is the curse . of men and women that stand in the field and in the city and at the mountain
and the temple and the synagogue 71
The Pearson bowl also refers to the manner of articulation:
( 7) 72
73
, .
,[ ] , ,
, ,
. , ,
. )( ][ .
69 See The Pearson Bowl in Geller, Eight Incantation Bowls, p. 102. The most comprehensive parallel to the formula in that
bowl can be found in 05A (BM 91745), which is an aggressive bowl, an edition of which appears in this volume.
70 In other parallels rather than we find the word , speech; see 01A (BM 91713):3, 02A (BM 91758):4, 05A
the curse of these men, which is vowed, cursed and sent. The voice of the wolf in the evenings, the
voice of the cock in the mornings, the voice of these men it shouted, (7) neighed, howled, and again it
shouted, neighed, howled, and again it shouted, neighed, howled. Its shout will ascend in it (?), its howl
in its head.
There is also: the curse of heaven and of earth, ; of the living and of the dead,
; 74 a curse made on the road, ; 75 a curse that is either new or
ancient, ; 76 curses made in the cemetery and in the presence of sons of demons
and before idols and ishtars, ( )( )( 7) ; 77 and the curses
of sorcerous women, .78
The above list suggests that the /lwt curse is an oral rather than a written act. The references
to people standing up and cursing, doing so on the road, in the field and in other places, and the mention
of the noises that accompany such practices, point clearly to its oral nature.
magical practice.83 In the bowls this noun commonly occurs in the plural with the adjectival
, powerful (pl.), or , evil (pl.) in lists of harmful entities.84 Such are ascribed in one bowl
to sorcerous women.85
pebble charm.86 This also often appears in lists of things from which protection is sought.
, the plural of idol. These are referred to as both male and female. The term does not
occur in the Talmud, but some information about the way idols may have been used can be found in
contemporary Syriac martyrdom sources, which use the cognate term .87
knot.88 Another term that also appears in lists of things from which protection is sought.
We may assume that this wealth of terminology in the bowl incantations reflects a preoccupation with
harmful practices and their consequences. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether they
reflect the nature of such praxes.
In his book on aggressive magic in the ancient world, Gager suggests that it is his impression that
amulets, like the bowls from Mesopotamia, originally served a single purposeto protect the owner
from a wide range of known and unknown evils; however, across time their uses expanded to cover other
needs, so that the boundary lines between bowls, amulets, and defixiones gradually disappeared.89 My
concern with this statement is the inclusion of the bowls from Mesopotamia. Gager makes his assertion
in reference to the Greco-Roman materials, for which there are bodies of evidence that span long periods
of time and of which he has much knowledge. The bowls, on the other hand, were only produced within
a restricted period of time and their connection to earlier Mesopotamian and later Jewish texts is still
far from clear. Furthermore, we have no way, as yet, of stratifying them chronologically; except in the
very few cases in which the names present within them attest to two, or at the most three, consecutive
generations. Therefore, there is also no way of determining whether the curse bowls that we present in
this volume are any later than the majority of apotropaic texts.
Gager also notes that By and large it has been assumed that these spirit-demons invaded humans
on their own initiative. In the period of late antiquity, however, it would appear that this independent
initiative and wilfulness had been brought under human control in the sense that the behaviour
of spirit-demons came to be regarded almost exclusively as the result of curse tablets and binding
spells.90 This might be true of the Greco-Roman materials but is far from being the case regarding the
Mesopotamian bowls. These reflect a belief both in demons that are self motivated and those that are
under human control.
That Gager has understood eastern phenomena on the basis of western equivalents can also be
observed in the way that he categorises the materials in his book, which reflects the Greco-Roman rather
than Mesopotamian sphere. In what follows, I summarise how I think Gagers categories apply to the
Mesopotamian bowls.
83
DJBA, p. 845 ff.
84
See for instance AIT 5:2 and N&Sh B19:4 respectively.
85 Isbell 57:7.
86 DJBA, p. 873.
87 See, for instance, The History of Rabban Hormizd in E.A.W. Budge, The Histories of Rabban Hormizd and Rabban Bar-Idta
(London, 1902), vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 122125, in which the monks in a Nestorian monastery are described as having hidden such an
idol, which they worshiped and which is described as having had very real powers.
88 DJBA, p. 1011 ff.
89 Gager, Curse Tablets, p. 220.
90 Ibid., p. 230.
introduction 17
Postscript
The analyses presented in this volume only scratch the surfacethere is much more that we can find
out from these texts about aggressive magic in the bowls. It is my hope that this volume will stimulate
more research in this field by making the primary sources available to the wider scholarly public. To
conclude this introduction, I present a table that attempts to categorise the aggressive bowl texts that
are known to us at this point by the following criteria:
91 M. Margalioth, Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period (Hebrew; Tel Aviv, 1966), p. 94.
92 Reference to magic that is aimed at tampering with horse racing can also be found in The Sword of Moses and the Havdala
de-R. Akiva. See Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, p. 177, note 86, and p. 182, note 101.
93 Harari, For a Woman to Follow You . See also Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, pp. 153158 and Saar, Jewish Love Magic.
94 D. Levene and S. Bhayro, Bring to the Gates Upon a Good Smell and Upon Good Fragrances: An Aramaic Incantation
1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6
1 VA.2484 + + + +
2 VA.2509 + + + +
3 VA.2423 + + + +
4 VA.2416 + + + +
5 VA.2434 + + + +
6 VA.2424 (+) + (+) +
7 VA.2496 + + +
8 VA.2575 + + +
9 VA.3382 + + +
10 VA.3381 + +
11 VA.2492 + +
12 VA.2418 + +
13 VA.2417 + +
14 SD 27 +
15 M102 + +
16 M163 + +
17 005A (BM 91745) + +
18 024A (BM 91760) + ?95
19 039A (BM 91771) + + + +
20 040A (BM 91767) + +
21 041A (BM 91763) + + + +
22 043A (BM 91770) + ?
23 N&Sh B6 + +
24 N&Sh B7 + +
25 N&Sh B9 + + +
26 N&Sh B21 + +
27 N&Sh B23 + + +
28 Isbell 22 (Gordon 1934b) + + ?
29 ROM 907.1.1 + 96
30 YBC 2393 + + 97 +
95 There are the tiniest remains of black marks on the outside of the bowl near its rim at three of four directions. I am not
sure whether these indicate that it was one of a pair, but it is a possibility.
96 But it does employ the verb .
97 But it does employ the verb .
BOWLS NEWLY EDITED
Of the bowls presented in this first part, two, VA.2416 and VA.2417, were published by Wohlstein in the
late 19th century.1 They have, however, been included in this first section as the new edition here is
significantly different both in reading and comments. This is in no way a comment on the significance
of the achievement of Wohlstein well over a century ago, despite the fact that the tools at his disposal
were much sparser than those at ours.
() Uncertain readings
[] Restoration of lost writing
Omitted by the scribe by mistake
Only part of the letter is visible
{} Superfluous writing in the text
^^ Written above the line
Written below the line
This magic bowl was made as one of a pair that were joined together to produce one objecta qybl
form. Its partner is the following text VA.2509. As they were written by the same scribe and for the same
client some of the comments below will cover both texts.
Type: This bowl states itself to be a qybl (line 18). It is concerned with the repelling of a Yaror and
sending it back to the named human whom it claims activated it.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 15cm4.5cm
Physical description: This bowl consists of five fragments that are glued together and constitute the
great majority of the bowl. Most of the text is therefore present and generally well preserved. The
text that is absent is due to a small chip that is missing from beyond line 17, and a somewhat larger
section of bowl that is also missing from beyond lines 19 and 20. There are also some small areas upon
the surface of the bowl that appear to be scuffed in which bits of text have either been obliterated or
have irrevocably faded. It is partly to do with this and the fact that there are no known parallels to
some of the readings that have been made for line 23 and beyond that the text has a more tentative
feel from this point on. There are three sets of pairs of bitumen markings on the outer rim of the bowl.
A fourth pair would have existed on the earthenware segment that is missing. These sets of pairs of
daubs are spaced at roughly equal intervals from each other. There are a further four little daubs of
bitumen at the bowls apex. These markings are a testament to the fact that this bowl was made as
one of a pair, which together constituted a qybl form. Its compliment is VA.2509.
The layout of the text: Despite its modest size the inside of this bowl contains 27 lines of a very small but
neat script that spirals in a clockwise fashion from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards
its outer rim and ends about 35mm from the rim of the bowl. There is a small circle at the centre of
the text and a larger one encircling and separating it from the rim of the bowl. There is no writing on
the convex side of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The hand of this scribe is generally very neat. Rather
minor exceptions are the first line which is very tight and not as tidily and clearly written, and what
appears to be a tiny smudge on the et of in line 11. Although it is by no means clear in most of the
text, it seems that in some instances the scribe appears to write bet and kaf in a distinctly different
manner; the latter being somewhat rounder. An example of this is the word in line 6, where the
kaf is distinctly rounder than the bet. Likewise, dalet and resh are on occasion distinguished. There
are instances, such as in the word in line 6, where the resh is distinctly rounder than the two
dalets. Furthermore, there are instances where there appears to be a distinction between the waw
and the yod, such as in in line 14, where the former is clearly longer than the latter. In the case of
the waw and yod it is safe to say that they are not distinguished throughout the text, though one might
consider the fact that, as this is a rather small bowl, upon which the scribe very expertly crammed
a copious amount of text, that, try though he might have to distinguish the two; the thickness of
the reed, the tiny letters and the closeness of the lines to each other made it difficult for him to be
consistent. On the other hand et and heh are not distinguished in any perceptible sense. There are
no obvious orthographic peculiarities in this text. The scribe is also generally accurate but on the odd
occasion misses one or a number of letters such as dropping the samekh in in line 4, the last
four letters of in line 23 and the dalet in in line 7though the latter might be an elision
va.2484 21
or assimilation that can be otherwise explained.2 The scribe is not consistent with the use of the 3rd
person pronominal suffixes using - and - interchangeably.
The imperfect 3rd person masc. prefix is consistently - that is characteristic of SLA. The 1st person
perfect IIIy forms with - suffix are also apparent in this text. Conversely there are a number of Pael
infinitives that have the form that are consistent with BTA. The accusative is also apparent
in this text.
Client and other names:
Client: The name Shilta means asked (of God), with the same meaning and derivation
as the Hebrew , Saul. For the loss of aleph compare , of the Palmyrene inscriptions, with
Talmudic .3 Is the Semitic word for mother.
Children: Perhaps a Semitic compound of + , meaning blessed by the sun?
Probably a variation of the name , for which see Wohlstein 1893, Bowl VA.2422. This name
is composed of and + . The form comes from his father. (A) very common name
attested in the BT Hullin 113b as the name of a tanna.4
Husband(?): The first name is unattested. The mothers name is an Aramaic word that
means young girl derived from the root , meaning to grow.5
Antagonists: / Montgomery considered that this is possibly derived
from the Persian names Sisines, Sisinnios, ioi, for which he cites Justi (p. 303). He also notes the
Jewish names and .6 The name is composed of Asman, God of Heaven, and dukh,
daughter.
This name is a Semitic compound of and . The meaning of is his mother
(with a proleptic pronoun) and is for her father.
It is also noteworthy that the second antagonists mothers name, , is one and the same as that of
the client.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula A, Formula A: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, Formula B: A,
B
Biblical quotes: Deut 6:19 in line 19.
Other introductory comments: The text was written for a certain lady called Shilta daughter of Imi to
divert a curse, a Yaror, that was sent (lines 11, 12) against her and Zipho son of Rabita, and her/their
sons Barkhishamshi and Akhrabai (the sons and man (husband?) are mentioned in lines 16, 17). The
client commissioned this text especially against Shishin daughter of Asmandukh, but includes in
some sections also a certain Shishin daughter of Shilta (a daughter? A problem with in-laws?). This
text includes a qybl formula (lines 1015) that we know from VA.2416, VA.2434 and others. If the
translation of the text that is presented here is correct then the Yaror is adjured to go and kill the
cursed party.
2 See M. Morgenstern, On Some Non-Standard Spellings in the Aramaic Magic Bowls and Their Linguistic Significance,
(Oxford, 1903), p. 283, and C.H. Gordon, Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums, Archiv Orientln 6
(1934), pp. 319334 (325).
4 J. Wohlstein, Ueber einige aramische Inschriften auf Thongefassen des Kniglichen Museums zu Berlin, Zeitschrift fr
pp. 219220.
22 bowls newly edited
7 For a discussion of the reading of this name see J.N. Ford, Phonetic Spellings of the Subordinating Particle d(y) in the
and husband . of his . and his possessions and ( ....( ).....)( ...)()
his sons . (25) . /( .)/[....](( ).)
[......................................... (25)..]/
Again . el is your body and Uriel your steed and [ .](( ).......)
Sik.iel your weapon and Duktael is your snare and . ( )(.........)
and Chatschitiel and . and Hahyuel and Bachliel (.)( .)
and Shushniel.
Notes:
1, 2 On the basis of line 18 and other parallels it is tempting to reconstruct the opening as
even though this emendation is not necessary for the clause to make good sense. See also, for instance,
VA.2416:1 , VA.2434:1,2 and VA.2423:1 .
va.2484 25
2, 3 Under the value of this verb Sokoloff lists Harviainens citation of that occurs in the Borsippa bowl
in line 78 as an itpe., a stem that is otherwise only attested for this verb in Mandaic,9 in which the is elided.
Harvianen opted for the itpe. rather then the pa., which is identical, as the context in that text suggests a passive
form to be appropriate. In our text an active transitive sense is more appropriate. The prosthetic that appears
in all the instances in this text (in lines 3, 14, 16, 18, and 26, , , and )suggests
that this is an af..
6,7 A striking parallel to this section occurs in both 039A (BM 91771) and VA.249210 that make it
possible to read what is in our text in these lines with greater certainty. These parallel sections are presented in the
table below. There are, in fact, other similarities between these three bowl texts, namely that they all employ the
counter-charm ( )formula and include at their end a specification that a seven day limit for this incantation
take effect (VA 2484:10 and 039A (BM 91771):17).
This is not a commonly used term. It is, however, attested in the Targum of Joshua 5:29 where the Hebrew
( her maid servants) is rendered in the Aramaic as . The singular form being attested in Syriac
as .17
810 Similar descriptions of eating the flesh and drinking the blood are found in other bowl texts. In N&Sh 7:8,
which is also an aggressive incantation a supernatural entity is adjured to attack the clients antagonist. In M165:4,
518 this culinary motif is used to describe the subjugation of a demon.19
8 T. Harviainen, An Aramaic Incantation Bowl from Borsippa: Another Specimen of Eastern Aramaic koin, Studia
Orientalia 51 (1981), pp. 328 (1213).
9 See DJBA, p. 586 and MD, pp. 218219.
10 See C. Mller-Kessler, Die Zauberschalensammlung des British Museum, Archiv fr Orientforschung 48/49 (20012002),
pp. 115145 (127b) where she notes this duplicate, which is fully edited here for the first time. Unfortunately, she incorrectly
forces what is clearly read in VA.2492 to suit her interpretation.
11 Initially published by Segal, CAMIB, pp. 7981, then reconsidered and commented upon by Mller-Kessler, Die Zauber-
leashes is more appropriate than the usual reading of , pegs. Sokoloff, DJBA, p. 793 defines as bolt, but here the
meaning leash, collar is more appropriate, similar to Mandaic sugara halter, noose, leash (for a dog) (MD, 321). Note DC 45:
zim k kalba bsugara held like a dog by his leash and the word-pair sikia usugaria in Jb 130, 23(both quoted by MD, ad
loc.).
14 DJBA, p. 417b jailor (Mir zndnakn), Syr .
15 See full edition of this text below.
16 The restoration of the here is made on the basis of the other texts.
17 SL, p. 1245b.
18 See D. Levene, Your mysteries are concealed: A Prophylactic Jewish Aramaic Magic Bowl with some Notes on Literary
Influences, in A. Rappoport-Albert (ed.), Late Aramaic: The Literary and Linguistic Context of the Zohar (forthcoming).
19 For further discussion of this motif in other ancient Semitic literature see J.N. Ford, Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye
and One from Natural Causes: KTU 1.96 in Its Near Eastern Context, Ugarit-Forschungen: Internationales Jahrbuch fr die
Altertumskunde Syrien-Palstinas 30 (1998), pp. 201278 (230233).
26 bowls newly edited
N&Sh 7:8
M165:4,5
VA.2484:8,9
See DJBA, p. 995b where with is cited as having the meaning of to be in a subservient position
before someone, attend.
See DJBA, p. 937a for a meaning of to punish for with .
Did the scribe start to write the BTA for + suffix, and then decide he preferred the + suffix form; as
he wrote it in line 6 and later on in the text in line 24?
From the verb , that is attested in the Targum of Proverbs 6:30, is used in Syriac, but apart from this
formula is unattested in Babylonian Aramaic.
1112 and Both these readings are verified by VA.2416:17 and VA.2434:6,7.
Naveh and Shaked, follow Montgomery20 in translating this word as tormentor. Montgomery21 suggests
a possible connection to the Syriac to hold, seize. Sokoloff, in turn, notes a connection to this root in his
dictionary yet provides only the meaning type of demon.22 This demon is also known from Mandaic texts, its
name, mbklt, cited by Drower as meaning bitter,23 whereas in Syriac the similar means unripe grapes,
sour grapes, galls.24
Text 039A (BM 91771), which has considerable formulaic similarities to this text, contains in lines 4
and 10 the very similar designation just that it is preceded by the name Nanai () .
The list before this verb might be understood as being of more than one entity, indeed, in one of the
duplicates of this section (VA.2416:17) the plural form occurs. It is, however, clear from the commands that
follow in this and the other duplicates of this section (VA.2416:17,18 and VA.2434:57) that are feminine singular
forms, that a singular entity in a multiplicity of forms is described here.25
In N&Sh 13:4 a passage that employs the same terminology that which is raw he
eats, that which is unmixed he drinks.26
17 This is an abbreviation of .27
The following words are faint, but the reading that is provided of them is confirmed by VA.2416:20 and
VA.2434:13.
18 Cf. the Mandaic diaruta, meaning help.28
19 The citation of Deuteronomy 6:19 seems to be made on account of its content that is sympathetic to that of the
incantation of the bowl. The minor differences in the spelling are just a case of a few mater lectionis.
VA.2848 )(
MT
2022 The reconstruction that has been made here is on the basis of VA.2416:20 and VA.2434:11.
The reconstruction that has been made here is on the basis of sections that are found in lines 13, 23
and 26.
23 The reconstruction that has been made here is on the basis of sections that are found in VA.2424:12, 13.
24 This section is difficult to make out and a full reconstruction was not achieved. It is of note that
the presence of the word and the three masculine suffixes (-) suggest the possibility that a male person is
introduced here. Unfortunately, the text is not complete enough to suggest who this person is and whether he is
protagonist or antagonist.
28 bowls newly edited
VA.2484
va.2484 29
VA.2484
VA.2509
Type: This bowl, like its partner above (VA.2484) states itself to be a qybl. It is concerned with the
repelling of a Yaror and sending it back to the named human whom it claims activated it.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimentions: 15.1cm3.5cm
Physical description: Although the greater part of this bowl has survived, at least a third of it is missing.
There are four fragments; the biggest is the bottom of the bowl, in addition to which there are three
smaller, but still sizeable, fragments that all form parts of the rim. On one of the rim fragments there
are two bitumen markings that line up with a pair of those found on the rim of VA.2484. Combined
together, these four markings are the remnants of one blob of bitumen that would have covered the
cord that fastened the two bowls to each other. A black mark on the inner surface of the bowl appears
to have been the result of a bit of the bitumen that was used to seal the two bowls together, that
leaked into the space between them and, as a result, unfortunately obscurs a small portion of the
text.
The layout of the text: As this text was written by the same scribe as VA.2484 the comments that were
made for that bowl concerning its modest size, the smallness of the script and the general neatness
of its application on its inner surface apply here as well. In this bowl, however, there are only 21 lines
of text. These also spiral in a clockwise fashion from the centre of its concave side towards its outer
rim and end, likewise, only about 35 mm from its rim. Here too there is a small circle at the centre
of the text and a larger one circling and separating it from the rim of the bowl. There is no writing on
the convex side of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: See VA.2484 above which was written by the same
scribe, together with this text as a pair. As with its compliment we find a very neat and accurate hand
despite the rather small and tight script it produced. In this bowl the scribe does spell some words
defectively, such as for in line 8, for in line 9 and for in line 10. In
line 5 the scribe writes the 3m. pl. Impf. with a prefix as opposed to the bare form he uses elsewhere.
Client and other names: This bowl text is for the protection of one , though unlike its
partner bowl, VA.2484, there is no mention in what remains of the bowl of her children and husband.
The names of the two women the incantation in this bowl is directed against are named as
and ; and are the same as those mentioned in VA.2484.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening formula A, Formula C
Other introductory comments: A parallel to a great deal of this text is found in 041A (BM 91763) of which
a reading can be found below. Consequently the readings of each of these texts have been aided by
the existence of the other.
The reference found in this section is to the demise of the rebellious Qorah, Dattan and Abiram who
challenged Moses and came to a sorry end, which is found in Numbers 16. The way it appears here,
and its parallel in 041A (BM 91763), is interesting in that it diverges somewhat from the biblical tale.
In the biblical version, in verse 30, we are told that the earth opens up and swallows the three up, and
that they went down alive to Sheol with houses and possessions. Soon after, in verse 35, it tells of a
fire that came out from God and consumed the two hundred and fifty incense offerers. However, in
the formula in our text there is no mention of the forming of a fissure into which gravity causes them
to descend, rather it is a previously unknown driving force that is introducedthe fires of Gehenna.
Furthermore, it is not Sheol but the abyss ( )into which they descend. Neither the terms used
nor the sequence of events narrated in the magical text are known to us in this context in any of the
va.2509 31
Targums or known Midrash. We thus have a new midrashic motif that might have been partly the
result of a conflation of the events as presented in the biblical narrative.
Transcription and translation:
VA.2509
34 bowls newly edited
This magic bowl was made as one of a pair that were joined together to produce one objecta qybl
form. Its partner is the following text VA.2416. As they were written by the same scribe and for the same
client some of the comments below will cover both texts.
Type: This bowl states itself to be a qybl. It is concerned with the returning of a variety of types of sorcery,
which it claims were instigated by individuals who are named in the incantation.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 17.5cm5.5cm
Physical description: This bowl consists of one very big fragment and five small ones that are glued
together and which constitute the great majority of the bowl. There are some small sections that are
missing and that have been resorted with plaster-of-paris. Most of the text is therefore present and
generally well preserved. It is only beyond lines 13, 14 that there occur gaps in the text due to the
missing section of earthenware and some small parts of surface from which text has faded. There are
bitumen markings around much of the outer rim of the bowl as well as four smaller daubs with some
smaller spots of it at its apex. These bitumen markings are a testament to the fact that this bowl was
made as one of a pair, which together constituted a qybl form. Its compliment is VA.2416.
The layout of the text: This bowl contains 23 lines of a small but neat script that spirals in a clockwise
fashion from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin
of 25mm of its full surface. There is a small circle at the centre of the text and a larger one circling
and separating it from the rim of the bowl. A third circle separates the text of the first fifteen lines and
most of the sixteenth from its remainder, which starts with the words This is a restrain () .
There is no writing on the convex side of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: This scribe is incredibly neat and it is possible that
he is one and the same as he who wrote VA.2484 and VA.2509. We may observe similarities to what
we found in VA.2484, namely that the dalet and resh seem to be distinguished in some instances, but
not in others. Examples are in line 3 and in line 13 in which the resh is perceptibly more
rounded than the dalet. In VA.2416:10 the word , and in line 12 are examples
that all display the same distinction. Yet as in VA.2423 and VA.2484 this distinction is not marked in
all the text.
At the end of line 11 the scribe seems to have made a bit of a mistake and has left two characters that
appear, to this reader, garbled. As can be seen from the parallels that I have found and presented below
(to lines 315) it seems that these garbled letters and the two words beyond them are inconsistent
with the course the formula should follow. I therefore suggest that as the scribe was reproducing it
he got confused, realised his mistake, glossed it over and just continued to write.
There is a smudge attached to the second letter, the taf, in the word towards the end of line 15.
That this is just a smudge and that is what is meant is confirmed by the appearance of the same
sequence in VA.2417:13,14. Likewise, the alef in in line 14 was corrected from another letter
written. The scribe has also rendered a superfluous repetition of in line 19 and a repetition
of in line 15.
29 The formulae in this bowl has parallels also in VA.2515 and VA.3088. These were brought to my attention by Ford at a
time that was too late to include in this volume. They are, however, being edited and will be published by myself and a team of
scholars, including Ford, in the future.
36 bowls newly edited
There is only one imp. 3rd person masc. form and it displays the - prefix that is characteristic of SLA. In
its partner bowl VA.2416 there are, however, a few more of these. Both texts also employ the accusative
that is also characteristic of SLA. In the opening of this bowl VA.2423 there are also three Pa.
infinitive forms that are consistent with BTA, as there is also what seems to be a lone perf. pl. BTA
form in line 14 ()? . The latter, though, might well be a scribal error.
30 DJBA, p. 246.
31 DJBA, p. 707.
va.2423 37
32 The bets could be kafs and the yods or waws are not certain.
38 bowls newly edited
Notes:
316 The sequence in these lines contains an extended version of a suite of formulae, parts of which are also found
in other bowls, namely: two bowls from the British Museum (024A (BM 91760) and 025A (BM 91739)) another, as
yet unpublished, bowl from the collection of the VAM (VA.2487) and VA.2417, which is part of the collection of
bowls presented here.34 Of particular interest is the historiola narrative within it, which is not all together clear,
partly due to the fact that there is some variance between the parallel texts which might well represent diverging
traditions of use of these formulae. So, for instance, where it is stated that three old men sit within (- )a furnace
in the two bowls from the Berlin collection (VA.2423 and VA.2487), in the BM bowls they are presented as sitting
at its mouth (-) . Although this historiola narrative is slightly reminiscent of the story found in Daniel 3 in
which three men, Daniels colleagues, also end up in a furnace, in that case surviving its flames; it is there that the
similarity to our magical text ends. For the two other old men who, the incantation states, were sat on the Dead
Sea, we have no point of reference to connect it to the Daniel or any other narrative.
Synopsis of parallel sections of VA.2423, 024A (BM 91760), VA.2427, VA.2487, and 025A (BM 91739):
33 Psalm 91:1: .
34 See below.
35 Both transcriptions of the BM bowls provided here include the emendations of both Mller-Kessler (Mller-Kessler, Die
Zauberschalensammlung) and the present author. For the full text of 024A (BM 91760) see below.
40 bowls newly edited
) (12 ..............................
)( )( )) (5( ) (6
) (7 ] [........
][
) (13
38 ][
][ ][ ) (7 )(
][
) (8 ] ....[
) (14
] [23 words
) (8 ] [ ][....
) (15 ] ) (9
[
}{
][ ) (9
) (10
)./(
) (11
and considers this to have been superfluously written by the scribe (CAMIB, p. 66). My reading is based 36 Segal reads
on what I can observe in the remnants of what is written as well as what is found in line 4 of our text where the text is clear.
. 37 Segal reads .....
. 38 Segal has for all this sequence only
va.2423 41
4 , What we have here must have the same meaning as lines 11 and 12 where the parallel has . In line 4
we have the participle of the verb written twice; the first of the two with the mater lectionis . In lines 11 and
12 we have the demonstrative with the 3rd person masculine suffix. We may note the variants (below): in 024A
(BM 91760):5,6 we have neither forms; they are dispensed with all together. In 025A (BM 91739):4 and 5 we have
the use of the verb .
VA.2423:4
VA.2423:11
VA.2423:12
024A (BM 91760):3
024A (BM 91760):5,6
025A (BM 91739):4 )(
025A (BM 91739):5
The Dead Sea is mentioned in another bowl (Unpublished VA.2180:6) under which, rather than upon
as in our bowl, a malicious entity is said to dwell.
5 For the equivalent to this verb in the parallel text, 024A (BM 91760):3, Segal reads hissed. In our text
the reading is clear and can be seen to correspond to the use of the same verb in lines 21 and 22 that is used in
much the same contextthe untying or releasing of various harmful things from the client. A closer look at the
BM bowl suggests that one should read rather than .
10 The reading of these words seems clear and the meaning in our translation is inspired by such Talmudic
passages as bPes 112a and bAZ 30b where the dangers of drinking from water that is left unattended are pointed
out. These dangers include the warning that demons lurk in such water and that illness or even death can result
from drinking it.
11 { })(It is clear from the parallels from line 4 and the other duplicates (see table above) that
the scribe got confused here.
12 If we compare the names of these old men we find some usual forms of corruption as tend to occur in the
transmission of such texts:
Names of old men that are in/upon the (mouth of the) furnace:
VA.2423 )(
VA.2487 [ ....... ]
024A (BM 91670)
42 bowls newly edited
Apart from the spelling differences which are highlighted above in bold, the most obvious difference is the fact
that the first and second names seem to have swapped the names of their mothers.
VA.2423 )(
VA.2487
024A (BM 91670)
In the case of these last two names the text of 024A (BM 91670) had completely lost the first name, yet the name
that it has preserved is close enough to that of the second one in VA.2423 to realize that they originate from the
same source.
Note that in SD 27:6 the dead receive the curses.
15 The reconstruction at the beginning of this line is made on the basis of line 10.
This sequence can be found in three places in the Targum, two of which are manuscripts of
the Fragment Targums of Genesis 11:2,39 and the more significant of which is the Targum Neofiti to Exodus 3:14.
The main difference is the spelling in the Targums rather than that is found in our bowl that resembles
the Syriac and Mandaic spellings. The connection with Exodus 3:14 is particularly interesting as this verse and
its subject matter, the giving to Moses of Gods name at the site of the burning bush, are well attested within the
folklore of Jewish magic in general and within the bowls specifically.40 The Neofiti to Exodus 3:14 is as follows:
And God said to Moses: I-Am-That-I-Am. And he said, thus you shall say to the People of Israel: The one who
spoke and the world came into being from the beginning, and who will say to it be, and it will be. He has
sent me to you.
VA.2423
44 bowls newly edited
VA.2423
VA.2416
Type: This bowl states itself to be a qybl. It is concerned with the returning of a variety of types of sorcery
and a Yaror, which, it claims, they instigated, to named individuals.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 18.3cm4.2cm
Physical description: This bowl consists of two big fragments and another four small ones that are glued
together and which together constitute the great majority of the bowl. Most of the text is therefore
present and generally well preserved. It is only beyond line 17 that there occur gaps in the text due to
the missing sections of earthenware. Like VA.2423, its partner, this bowl has bitumen markings that
cover most of the rim. On its back at its apex it also has the characteristic bitumen markings that
show in the gaps between them where the cord that bound the two bowls originally was. In addition
to the main daub of bitumen at the apex of the bowl there is an adjacent secondary one, suggesting
either that the bowl was lashed with extra cord a second time, or that this was to hold down cord left
hanging.
The layout of the text: This bowl contains 20 lines of a small but neat script that spirals in a clockwise
fashion from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin
of 25mm of its full surface. There is a small circle at the centre of the text and a larger one circling
and separating it from the rim of the bowl. A third circle separates the first sixteen and a half lines
of the text from its remainder, which starts with the words This is a charm () . There is no
writing on the convex side of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: This is the same scribe who wrote VA.2423, and so, as
in that bowl, in this he is incredibly neat and there are no perceptible corrections or mistakes but for a
repetition of the word in line 17 which he initially wrote mistakenly as , and the omissions
of the in in line 7 and the at the end of in line 15. In line 20 there is a superfluous waw in
front of }{. In line 14 there is a phonetic aleph as the second consonant in .
Client and other names: The names that appear in this text are the same as the ones that appear in
VA.2423.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula A, Formula A: A, B, C, D, Formula G: A, B
Biblical quotes: IIKings 19:15 and Isa. 37:16.
Other introductory comments: This bowl was published originally by Wholstein in 1894.43 It is, as was
mentioned above, a sister bowl to VA.2423 and shares some of its features and characteristics.
Notes:
5 When it comes to uncommon angel names it is difficult to make decisions regarding the reading of letters
such as and as is the case here. I read simply as it is the nearest to an attested name that is cited
in Margaliot,45 though any other permutation such as or are in this case just as likely.
7 This restoration is done on the basis of M131:346 in which the same sequence of formula occurs (
) .
9 This formula occurs in many places with a number of spelling variations. See for instance: M103:847
; AIT 14:4 which Montgomery translates as: Oh avaunt, oh avaunt,
avaunt!48 Other examples occur in Isbell 69:7 , in the Havdala de-R. Akiva p. 24
line 3449 and The Sword of Moses (Hararis ed.50) . Scholem51 agreed
with Montgomerys (above) understanding of this sequence and noted the variants amongst the bowls. It can
be observed that in some of the variants the introductory , by the name, indicates that it was considered a
composite name and lost any meaning it might have had as hurry hurry. As it is amongst a list of names in our
text, it can be assumed that this was how it was considered. The interchange of the letters and , and and in
the final name are evidence of the kind of corruption that easily occur in the transmission of Nomina Barbara.
12 I am not aware of the existence of this form anywhere else either in any bowl text or in any other dialect.
As it occurs here within a list of other nouns, all formed from verbs that are found in this literature: from ,
from , from , from and from which it parallels semantically, it too
seems to be a nominalisation of the verb .
47 Ibid., p. 51.
48 See Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 184.
49 G. Scholem, Havdala de-R. Akiva: A Source for the Tradition of Jewish Magic During the Geonic Period (Hebrew), Tarbiz
Sword of Moses: An Ancient Book of Magic, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 28 (1896), pp. 148198, IXXXV (p. V:15,16).
51 Scholem, Havdala de-R. Akiva, pp. 266267 n. 84, 85.
va.2416 49
VA.2416
50 bowls newly edited
VA.2416
va.2416 51
This magic bowl was made as one of a pair that were joined together to produce one objecta qybl
form. Its partner is the following text VA.2424. As they were written by the same scribe and for the same
client some of the comments below will cover both texts.
Type: This bowl states itself to be a qybl. It is concerned with the repelling of a Yaror and sending it back
to the named human whom it claims activated it.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 16cm4.5cm
Physical description: This bowl consists of three large and four smaller fragments that are glued
together and which jointly constitute the great majority of the bowl. Most of the text is present and
generally well preserved. It is only beyond line 8 that there occur gaps in the text due to the missing
sections of earthenware; nevertheless, the text can be completely reconstructed. There are bitumen
markings around much of the outer rim of the bowl as well as four smaller daubs at the apex of its
outer side. These bitumen markings are a testament to the fact that this bowl was made as one of a
pair, which together constitute a qybl form. Its compliment, as stated above, is VA.2424.
The layout of the text: This bowl contains 13 lines of a neat script that spirals in a clockwise fashion
from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin of 1 cm
of its full surface. There is a small circle at the centre of the text that contains some marks that are
unidentified by this author, and a larger circle separating the text from the rim of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: This scribe is neat and there are only a very small
number of corrections that are perceptible. In line 4 the scribe started writing for what needed
to be ( see note below) but corrected by writing the over the and leaving the final to be read
as a . Another such correction occurs in line 13 where a is covered by a to produce and cover
up for having started to write , which is the following element in this sequence. There is, finally,
an extra mark on the first letter of in line 8. The hand of this bowl and its partner seems to be
the same as that of the scribe who wrote VA.2484, VA.2423 and VA.2416. Here too there are, as with
the other bowls by this scribe, places like in line 7 with the word , where he seems to make a
point of distinguishing the dalet and reshtwo letters which are otherwise undistinguishable.
The imperfect 3rd person masc. prefix is consistently written with a yod prefix that is characteristic of
SLA.
Client and other names:
Clients: The first name is unattested. The mothers name is based on the Semitic root
lp that in Aramaic means to pass, elapse, exchange.52 This name is widely attested and is possibly a
reference to a custom by which the name of a sick child would be changed with the hope of confusing
the afflicting demon.
The first name means mother (see above).
52 DJBA, p. 465.
va.2434 53
Antagonist: The first name is an Aramaic name meaning the hungry one.53 The mothers
name, /, is noted by Montgomery to be a hypocoristicon from , friend, uncle.54 Naveh
and Shaked note that this name is not easy to place ethnically as it does not fit with the pattern of
either Semitic or Iranian proper names.55
The mothers of the two customers share the same name; and though it is a common name it is possible
that they were one and the same and that the customers were siblings.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula A, Formula A: A, B, C, D, E
Transcription and translation:
(10) they will shake, cancel out, cause to go out the ( 10)
evil Yaror from the house and body of Ima daughter ]
of Makhlafta and from the 252 limbs of her body. [
In the name of Gabriel (11) and Michael and in the ( 11)
name of Anael who is standing behind the sphere of
the sun.
And in the name of Zikiel and Parkiel and Barkiel ] [
and Arki[el who min]ister before (12) the throne of ( 12)
the glory of God, who empowered them on the earth
and their authority is in heaven.
Notes:
4 )(the letter that is rendered here in brackets is somewhat garbled on the bowl and the reading of the is
what it most resembles. However, of all the parallels that we have to this formula, only VA.2416 provides the added
verbs , there followed clearly by offering the possibility of reading here a scribal bungle that he
did not quite bother to correct.
13 Considering the list we find in lines 11 and 12 of VA.2424, this bowls partner, we find the fact that the
exclamation and from, followed by an invocation of In the name of, to be rather abrupt. It seems as though the
scribe initially thought there was more to the list of those protected from this spell that he needed to add, but then
thought the better of it. Having already written another and from, he recanted. He might have lost concentration
and just forgot to proceed with the rest of the list, or it might be that he realised that he had fulfilled what he needed
of the list at this point in the incantation. Alternatively, he might have decided that as he had reached so close to
the edge of the bowl, he had better skip the rest of the list so that he would have enough room to comfortably fit in
the final line. We may further note that if the latter was the case, he decided not to cross the final and from, out,
which would surely produce a visually impaired effect to an otherwise neatly written text. Whether he considered
this to be an accepted abbreviation, like us putting something followed by etc, we have not enough evidence to
judge.
va.2434 55
VA.2434
56 bowls newly edited
VA.2434
VA.2424
Type: This bowl, like its partner VA.2434, is a qybl. It is concerned with the repelling of a Yaror and
sending it back to the named human whom it claims activated it.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 15.5cm4.5cm
Physical description: This bowl has survived intact, though the fact that the first ten lines are so
badly faded means that this author has not been able to read a great portion of it. Beyond line 10,
however, the text is very well preserved. There are bitumen markings around much of the outer rim
of the bowl as well as three smaller daubs at the apex of the outer side of the bowl. These bitumen
markings indicate that this bowl was made as one of a pair, which together constituted a qybl form.
Its compliment is VA.2434.
The layout of the text: This bowl contains 15 lines of a neat script that spirals in a clockwise fashion
from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin of 1 cm
of its full surface. There is a small circle at the centre of the text and a larger circle separating the text
from the rim of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The notes for VA.2434 cover the characteristics of
this bowl text that was, after all, produced by the same scribe as one of a pair. Here, too, the scribe
does not manage to produce a text without the characteristic smudged letter. Here it occurs in the
last line after the word . It is not clear what he started to write but for the fact that he thought
the better of it and moved on.
Client and other names: Same as VA.2434.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula A, Formula A: B, C, D, E, F
58 bowls newly edited
(2) (In your name) (3) (I am doing. This is a charm ( ][)(][ ) (3) (( )2)
for overturning the) evil Yaror from the house of ( ][ ] [ 4) ][
Batia son of Makhlafta and from Imi daughter of ()
Makhlafta
(8) overturn the evil Yaror from the house of Imi ( )( ) (] 8)
daughter of Makhlafta upon Kafnai son (9) of ( 9) ...... [)(
Dadai
in the name Gabriel and Michael and Raphael and
by the name of Anael who is standing behind the ........ )
sphere of the sun, ..
and in the name of Zikiel (10) and Parkiel and ( 10) (
Barkiel and Arkiel who minister before the throne of
glory of God, whose authority is in the earth and ( 11) )(
whose domain is the heaven. They will shake, (11)
cancel out, carry off the evil Yaror from the house of
Batia son of Makhlafta and from his sons and from ( 12)
his daughters and from his wife and from his
property and from (12) his house and (those) after
his heirs, and from the 252 limbs of Ima daughter of
Makhlafta. And in the name of I-Am-That-I-Am.
The angel says (13) to Michael the angel, and may ( 13)
they strike and rebuke and move and cause to
depart and send away and keep away the evil Yaror
from the house of Batia son of Makhlafta.
And in the name of Shamirimiel and antitiel ( 14)
and (14) aniniel and aziel and Bakhliel and
Shalshaniel. These ten holy and distinct and ( 15)
trustworthy angels, they will move and cancel out
and cause to depart the evil Yaror from Batia son of
Makhlafta and from his house and from his dwelling.
Amen amen selah, immediately, sound and
established.
May the Yaror (be removed) from the house of Batia ( .)
son of Makhlafta from this day and forever.
Notes:
13 From the verb with the meanining to strike, see DJPA, p. 341a.
15 (.) This looks very much like other infinitives found in similar formulae, such as VA.2484:18:
, that all provide the sense of removing the Yaror. However, it is unclear what the verb used here is.
va.2424 59
VA.2424
60 bowls newly edited
VA.2424
va.2424 61
These two magic bowls were made as a pair and were joined together to produce one objecta qybl
form. They are near exact duplicates that were written by the same scribe and for the same client and
are thus treated together here.
Type: These bowls state themselves to be concerned with the returning of a variety of types of sorcery
to unnamed individuals whom it claims instigated them.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 12.5cm4.75cm and 12.75cm 4.75cm
Physical description: These two bowls constitute a pair not just in that they were written by the same
scribe for the same client using the same formulae, but also for the fact that the actual bowls are
nearly identical in their shapes, clearly chosen as such to assure that they would fit together, rim to
rim when sealed with bitumen. The bitumen markings suggest that it was applied just around the rim
which is different from the other pairs that we have in which the bowls were first lashed together with
some sort of cord. The markings show some bitumen dribbling down VA.2575 and edging towards its
base, suggesting that it was applied to the bowls while they were sitting one upon the other, VA.2496
having been on the top and VA.2575 at the bottom. The shape of bowl chosen for this pair is slightly
uncharacteristic in that it is a bit rounder and deeper than most that were used for this purpose.
VA.2496 consists of five fragments, two larger and three smaller, that constitute most of the bowl.
The fragments which are missing mean that that there is some text absent from line 4 onwards. The
first few lines of VA.2575 are in a somewhat faded condition but as the text is complete and is identical
in both bowls, missing sections can be reconstructed with some confidence.
The layout of the text: VA.2575 consists of 15 lines whereas VA.2496 has 17. Both display the same neat
and fairly clean hand and, in both, the texts are arranged in the common form of a spiral that works
its way from the inner part of the concave side of the bowl in a clockwise fashion to its rim. In VA.2575
the scribe applied lines above and below the two sections of text that begin with the word , in
the name of, and in which angel and divine names are listed that occur in lines 7, 8 and 11. In VA.2496
such surrounding lines seem to appear only for the second section of name invocation found there in
lines 16, 17. For some reason the scribe forgot, or decided not to, mark the name invocation in lines 8,
9.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The scribe is reasonably neat and consistent. His
hand is somewhat cursive and there is less distinction in it between dalet and resh and even final kaf.
Nor are yod, waw or bet and kaf distinguished. The two texts are really very nearly identical and clearly
meant to be so. This scribe displays considerable skill in that he was very careful to reproduce the text
faithfully in both bowls, while making sure to fill the space of the inner surface of both bowls in an
equal manner. Nevertheless, a number of mistakes can be detected. More than carelessness, which is
far from being either apparent or obvious, these errors provide a sense of the scribes difficult craft.
The errors are as follows: 1) there is a superfluous repetition of in VA.2575:4, 2) in VA.2496:8 he
mistakenly puts , citing the ladys nickname where her mothers should be, realises his mis-
take, does not mark it out, but follows on with the correct name, 3) in VA.2496:10 he repeats the first
two letters of the clients name ()}{, 4) in VA.2574:12 he misspells as and just follows
the mistake with the correct spelling, 5) in VA.2496:15 he again cites the clients nickname where
her mothers should be written, but follows with the mothers name, but then omits the character-
istic citing of the nickname as he does elsewhere, , 6) not necessarily a mistake but in
va.2496 and va.2575 63
VA.2575:14 he follows the name of the client with but omits to do so in VA.2496,
7) in VA.2575:15 he adds a superfluous mem in }{and an extra dalet and yod before .
Another interesting quirk of the scribe is that he writes with an aleph at the end in VA.2575:4
and VA.2496:4 and with a heh at the end in VA.2575:10 and VA.2496:12. Had we only had the one bowl
then we would be inclined to think nothing of such variance of aleph and heh endings of nouns, but
the fact that this is reproduced in both texts raises the question of whether this is already in a formula
that the scribe is copying from and doing so with due care, whether he wrote one bowl and copied
the second from it, or whether this is just a fluke.
These texts display the third person imperfect yod prefix and the accusative particle that are charac-
teristic of SLA. The weakening of the ayin is also apparent in the spelling of ( VA.2496:11 and 14
and VA.2575:9 and 12).
Client and other names:
Client: The name Dendukh is Iranian, meaning daughter of the religious
law.56 The name Burzai seems to also be Iranian, related to the name Burz meaning exalted.57 The
name Qaqai, which is common in the bowls, is possibly the Iranian for uncle, brother-in-law58 though
it also has the meaning pelican in Aramaic.59
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Formula A: C, Formula E, Formula G: B
Other introductory comments: The incantation found in these bowls does not contain the name of an
antagonist yet I included them in this collection as they have two main elements in common with
the other qybl bowls: 1) the incantation formula states itself to be for the returning of magical acts to
their senders, as well as containing other formulaic elements in common with the other texts from
the Berlin bowls from VAM that are presented here, and 2) this pair of bowls form a qybl pair.
In cases like the one here, where we have two exact duplicates written by the same scribe, and in this
case also a qybl pair, we have the possibility of comparing with the aim of getting a better sense of
the character of the scribe, his idiosyncrasies and the quality of his craft. The two texts we have here
are so close that we might assume the possibility that they were in principle, at least, meant to be
identical. We may therefore look at the differences and ask: 1) whether they are intentionaland if
so what significance might be attributed to such variants, or 2) whether they are the result of some
manner of oversight, and if so what does this tell us about the scribe.
This text employs terms and expressions that are found throughout the bowl corpus. Its particular
formulaic configuration is, however, unique. The combination of and is, despite the
relative profusion of them individually in the greater corpus, unknown elsewhere in combination.
Formulae of overturning, of which the verb is the key, are also well attested in the bowls though
its particular configuration is exclusive, so far, to this pair of bowls. The use of the quadrilateral
verb , so much better known in Persian, from which it has been borrowed, is present in these
texts several times including its transformation into an angelic name. This combination of linguistic
particularities, the distinct formulaic variant, the unusual shape of the bowls and the way that they
were joined combine to form a signature that is rather particular.
VA.2496 VA.2575
(1) By your name Lord of healing ) (1 ) / ) (1 )(.
who overturns
(2) That all the sorceries and ) (2 /( ][)(][ ) (2 ][
)magical acts and evil Yarors (3 ) (3 ][ ][
and charms and Shidei and dws ][ ) (4 ) (3 )(][
and spirits and a chill and satans )( )(
and liliths and (4) a vow and ][ ) (5 )( )} (4{
curse and mishap and evil rites and )( ] ) (5
neck charms and the weeping )(
of all (5) humanity and from a
species of destroyer and species of
retribution that are in the world
may be overturned.
(6) May they all depart and go out ) (6[ )
from her, Dandukh daughter of ] [ ()( ) (6
Burzai called Qaqai and from all ) (7 )(
the members (7) of her household. ] [
May they go and be cast upon those
who conjured them, upon those
who sent them and upon their
masters.
Similarly, they will be overturned, ] ) (8[ ) (7
returned (8) and overturned from } { )(
her, Dandukh daughter of Burzai
called Qaqai.
In the name of Hadriel the angel ] ) (9[ )(
and Mehadriel the angel, ) (8
(9) and in the name of Apkiel and
Mapkiel the angel,
and in the name of Parhaziel the ]
angel and Maparhaziel the angel.
May these (10) holy angels be ) (10[ ) (9
vigilant, my they save Dandukh }{
daughter of Burzai, called Qaqai )(] [ ) (11
from all evil sorceries and from ) (10
(11) harmful magical acts and from
evil spirits and from powerful ) (12
words and from a vow and curse ) (.
and from affliction and evil rites
and from all (12) necklace charms
and mishaps and weeping of all
humanity.
May Dandukh daughter of Burzai }{ ) (11
called Qaqai be healed and saved
may she be redeemed.
va.2496 and va.2575 65
of protect that seems more appropriate for what we have in line 14. The form in line 10 fits better the meaning
of circumspection or taking precaution we find in Syriac,64 which is nearer to the meaning that the Syriac root
has in the itpe: to guard, watch over.65
12 It is curious that the scribe used passives here, in the feminine in VA.2496 and masculine
in VA.2575. Futhermore, the use of the passive negates the need for the particle .
VA 2496:12
VA 2575:10
I suspect, this sentence got confused somehow with the narrative in line 9. What appears to be the itpa. of the
verb is unusual in that there is not the metathesis of the tsade with the taf and its transformation to tet. The
dictionaries do not attest a passive form in the Babylonian Talmud and only an itpe. in the Targums.66 In Syriac,
however, such a form is attested.67
15 Should rather have been .
VA.2496
68 bowls newly edited
VA.2496
va.2496 and va.2575 69
VA.2496
70 bowls newly edited
VA.2575
va.2496 and va.2575 71
VA.2575
72 bowls newly edited
VA.2575
va.2496 and va.2575 73
This bowl and the one that follows, VA.3381, are two magic bowls that were made as a pair and joined
together to produce one objecta qybl form. They were written by the same scribe and for the same
client. It is for this reason that some of the comments regarding this text refer also that which follows.
Type: This bowl states itself to be concerned with the returning of a whole list of types of sorcery, which
it claims they instigated, to individuals not named in the texts. It ends with a conditional curse upon
whosoever considers contravening the mystery and spell in this bowl.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 18.4cm7.8cm
Physical description: This bowl consists of two fragments that are glued together, with only a smallish
chip missing at its edge that does not hamper the reading. The text is therefore almost all present
and is very well preserved. Two small holes that appear to have been drilled, rather than produced
in the clay before firing, are found at either side of the bowl not far from its rim in proximity to
which, adjacent to the rim itself there are bitumen markings that attest to the fact that this bowl
was originally made as one of a pair. Indeed, VA.3381 is its partner and displays holes with bitumen
markings that match those of this bowl. What this suggests is that these bowls were secured together,
in what is a less known fashion, by threading some sort of cord through each of the pairs of holes that
came into proximity when the bowls were positioned rim to rim. Once the cord was secured through
the holes and the bowls were fastened, some bitumen was daubed over them to keep the whole thing
secure.68
The layout of the text: This bowl contains sixteen lines of neat script that spiral in a clockwise fashion
from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin of 1 cm
of its full surface. There is a small circle that is divided into four by a cross at the centre of the text,
and a larger one surrounding and separating the text from the rim of the bowl. There is no writing on
the convex side of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The scribes hand is a skilled one, his writing is neat
and his spelling consistent. This scribe has a habit of often adding an extended tail to the end of
his yod in a number of instances when it appears at the end of a word, such as at the end of the
clients mothers name in line 2 and line 8 or, as can be observed at the end of the word
and the name in line 16. These have been marked with a bold rather than a normal yod in the
transcription. This feature is not apparent in VA.3381 and the present author has not detected, as
yet, any reason why the scribe might have wished to distinguish certain final yods. This scribe seems
to distinguish dalet from resh in most cases; at the start of line 9 is an exception. The first
five lines of text are rather cramped and give the impression that the scribe was not sure whether he
would have enough room within the bowl to fit the whole text. He seemed to gain confidence beyond
this line as the text is more neatly spaced thereafter. The scribe has put a mark over the mem that is
the first letter of the last word of line 12, the reason for which is unclear.
The 3rd person masculine imperfect forms in this bowl all sport the nun prefix but for the verb in line 4
and the last one in line 13 which are bare, using only the yod prefix. Its sister bowl, VA.3381, however
sports only forms with the yod prefix. VA.3381 also uses the accusative in line 13.
68 For another pair of bowls that were likewise joined (VA.2414 and VA.2426) see Ford and Levene, For Aata-de-abuh.
va.3382 75
69 DJBA, p. 593.
70 Justi, p. 219b.
71 Justi, p. 385b.
72 Gignoux, Noms propres, p. 193.
73 See Daduxt in Justi, p. 76a.
74 Justi, p. 171b.
75 DJBA, p. 704a.
76 bowls newly edited
Notes:
37 There seems to be some inconsistency in the fact that the subject in the beginning of this clause is in the
singular (), whereas it seems that this same subject in line 4 is a multiple of household/family members. It is
also unclear why the name of the main client is given in this and line 16 as rather than which is how he
is referred to in lines 1 and 8 and in VA.3381:13.
7 The spelling is a bit strange with what seem to be two superfluous yods. We consider our understanding
of this word within the sequence found in line 7 to be the same as that found at the end of line 9.
Line 7
Line 9
9 Is formed from the root , which commonly occurs in our texts, however, this particular nominal form
is, so far as the author is aware, attested here for the first time in Jewish Aramaic. This form is attested in both
Mandaic and Syriac.76
10 This word eludes identification. It is possible, however, that it is a corruption. It could be, if indeed we
have read correctly the bet to be that rather than a kaf, that the scribe intended to write here confusing
the order of the letters. Realising his error he re-wrote it. Another possibility is that we have here a corrupted form
of the Mandaic , meaning repulsiveness or ugliness.77 This word is however an adjective and is not
attested elsewhere in the bowls.
13 I understand this as being equivalent to the Mandaic ( DM, p. 177a) and the Syriac (SL,
p. 515b).
14 with a hook. Cf. DJBA, p. 200: the Angel of Death caught him with his hook
like a fish.
VA.3382
VA.3381
Type: This bowl is a charm to counter a wide variety of malign entities, many of which are clearly the
products of human praxis. It ends with a plea for these to return upon those that conjured them.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 18cm7.2cm
Physical description: This bowl is covered with some kind of matter that looks like a cement that covers
significant portions of text. The bowl has two small holes at opposite sides in proximity to its rim.
Around the outside of these there are bitumen markings. As stated above these match similar holes
and markings that are found upon VA.3382 and show that the two were a pair that were joined into a
qybl shape.
The layout of the text: This bowl contains fifteen lines of neat script that spiral in a clockwise fashion
from the centre of the concave side of the bowl towards its outer rim, filling all but a margin of 1 cm
of its full surface. In the middle of the bowl there is a small circle that is divided into 4 sections each
of which contains the letters . There is also a circle that separates the text from the rim of the bowl.
It appears from what is visible of the first word of line 4 ( )and its proximity that this word was
surrounded by a cartouche. There is no writing on the convex side of the bowl. Over the portion of
the last line of text that includes the words In the name of YHWH the Lord of Hosts, amen there is a
line which marks the holy name from above and below.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: See comments on VA.3382 above.
Client and other names: See comments on VA.3382 above.
80 bowls newly edited
AIT 1278
(1) YH YH YH YH ( 1)
(2) I adjure you, Lord, who descends ( 2)
from heaven, (3) when creating an ( 3)
image that we call ZYP ZLWP the angel ( ][4) ][ ( 6)
(4) who does the will of his lord and ][
who walks on his Lords trodden path, ( [ 5) ]
(5) shines and is glorified in heaven, ]
shines and his praise is in the (6) ( [)( )( )(6) ( 7)
underworld. The angels of the tassle ] [
that keep purifying (themselves ?) since ( 7)
the beginning of time. (7) Their feet are ] [ ][
not seen when they surround the entire ( ][ 8) ( 8)
world. They stand in their place (8) and
blowing like the blast, and flashing like
lightening.
They will make void and ban and [ .........] ( 9)
excommunicate all (9) bands of [ ....]( ][ 9)
marauders and .. and counter-charms [..... ][ ]
and neck-charms, and curses and oaths ( 10)
and affliction . and rites and dispatch )( ] ( 10)
(demons) (10) and evil sorceries and evil [.......](.)[)( .][ }{
words and idols and Ishtars and .. ( 11) )(
male and female and hateful dreams ][ ]
and fornicating demons (11) and male [][ ][][ ][
Lilith and a female Lilith and a ban and
a tormentor, male and female ones, all ( )( 12)
curses and horns and bans (12) and ][ ]
broken sounds of the shofar79 and [ )(
decrees and excommunications and ( 13)
afflictions of the synagogue and of the [)( .......]
houses of mourning and of the cemetery ][ ]
and of the grave (13) and of the male [
idols and of female idols .. that have
been spread out and of the corners, of
the night and the day far and near of
every moment and of all time.
78 AIT 12 contains a parallel text to the one here and is therefore presented alongside it. It is unfortunate that, at the time I
was preparing this manuscript, I had not had the opportunity to consult either the bowl itself (it resides in Pensylvania) nor a
photographic image of it, so as to see if any revision of Montgomerys reading was needed.
79 See Morgenstern and Ford forthcoming.
va.3381 81
Notes:
2 We have translated Lord but the fact that our parallel (AIT 12:5) has the word angel in this position
might be instructive. A close look at the bowl reveals a faint vertical line that is perceptible above the left hand of
the resh, which might then be read as a lamed. This would constitute the first three letters of as it appears
in AIT 12, and thus one might argue that the scribe left out the last two letters for some reason. Alternatively one
might consider the possibility that although in Jewish Aramaic does not have the meaning of angel the Syriac
does.80
Montgomery translated this as there being kneaded (something) in the shape of a horn, on which honey
is poured.81 The most glaring problem with this is his translation of as honey for which he gives no explanation.
Epstein on the other hand provided a rather different understanding: There being fashioned a lock of decorated
hair.82 He takes to be the Syriac hair, and also as a Syriac form, decorated. The problem is
that neither of these makes particular good sense.
6 Epstein argues that this is Aramaisation of the Mandaic abode of darkness, which was an
adverb turned into a noun. The Mandaic is derived from hate. The Aramaic derives its form from the root
, meaning to be blind, which denotes the darkness of the land of darkness, that the Mandaic term denotes.
Finally, the Aramaic displays the adverbial ending in place of the Mandaic ending -.83
13 One would expect of the streets, of the corners. See N&Sh B6:9 .
15 [] ( )Could be read also as or , see Gordon 20:7 .
80 SL, p. 824a.
81 Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 174.
82 Epstein, Mearim, p. 341, and see the rendition into English in DJBA, p. 1045a.
83 Epstein, Mearim, p. 342, and see DJBA p. 819a.
82 bowls newly edited
VA.3381
va.3381 83
Type: This is an aggressive text that calls for its victim, who is named in the text, to be attacked fall ill
and die. The name of the client is absent from the text.85
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 16cm (at the widest point) 6.5 cm
Physical description: The bowl consists of three fragments, one bigger and two smaller ones. About a
third of the bowl is missing. The writing that is present is clear and readable.
The layout of the text: The text consists of seven, maybe eight, lines of neatly written text that spiral in a
clockwise fashion from the centre of the concave side of the bowl outwards, and reach to within about
2.5cm of its rim. In the middle of the text there is an image of what appears to be a long haired person
with hornspossibly a womanwho has one arm upraised and seems to be holding a twig-like
object. There is another stick-like object jutting out from the upper part of the body which might be
a representation of something held in the other hand. It is not clear whether this is a representation
of a bound demon or a depiction of a shamanic figure carrying out some sort of ceremonial activity.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: There is an aleph in line 2 that the scribe forgot to
write initially and then added above the line. It is not clear whether this was done immediately or
whether the scribe had a habit of checking his work once he had completed the writing of the text.
The imperfect 3rd person forms have nun prefixes but for one in line 3 ( )that has a lamed.
Client and other names:
Antagonist: The name Farrukh is Iranian, meaning endowed with light.86 The name
is the Persian Burzoe/Barzui.87
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Formula B: B, C, D
Other introductory comments: It seems from the text that this might be a continuation of another text
that is at present unknown, as it starts with the words: send against him and Farid son of . Who
the first him or her is is not stated. It also has a formula that is known from other counter-charm
formulae, such as 039A (BM 91771).
84 This bowl parallels VA.2507 + VA.2513; VA.2508; VA.2446 (in addition to the published bowls BM 91771 and YBC 2393).
These parallels, however, came to my attention too late to be included in the book. A publication of these and indeed all of the
VAM collection is forthcoming.
85 One must note however, that there is some possibility that the clients name appeared at the end in parts of the text that
are missing.
86 Gignoux, Noms propres, p. 82.
87 Justi, pp. 65, 74.
va.2492 85
Notes:
2,3 This sequence of verbs occurs in AIT 28:1, , which is, to
date, the only love charm that we know of amongst the bowl incantations. It is worth noting that although I have
decided to leave this text out (see introduction) that the use of the same verbs as we find in this text, as well as
039A (BM 91771),88 suggests the possibility that there might have been an awareness that AIT 28 was not strictly
speaking just amorous in nature (if that at all), but aggressive as well.
VA.2492
VA.2418
Type: This bowl contains a curse that invokes the Baruqta demon to bring about the demise and eventual
imprisonment of a named antagonist. The clients name is not mentioned.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 13.3cm6cm
Physical description: This is a rather smaller and deeper bowl than most. It is in perfect condition and
all the text is legible.
The layout of the text: This text has the much less common, but not unknown, arrangement in that it
spirals from the rim of the concave side of the bowl in a clockwise fashion working its way towards
the centre of it. There is a circle just under the rim of the bowl that characteristically separates it from
the text. This means that, in effect, the first line of text is underlined. This is noted as at the beginning
of the second line the scribe starts another line which follows the spiraling text all the way to its end,
underlining all but the last word, quickly. Underneath this word there are what appear to be the
letter tet written twice. Beside this, to its left, is a mesh constructed of four vertical lines over which
two horizontal lines were drawn, producing nine small squares (3 3). In five of these, dots have been
carefully placed. The centre of the bowl has three circles that occur in a descending order so that each
one was placed within that which was bigger than it. There are a further eighteen lines running from
the centre of the bowl and bisecting the inner circles into three sets of seventeen sections; a total of
fifty one. The outer circle of sections is filled with letters but only one of the middle circle of sections
is and the inner circle of sections has none. Most of the sections have one or more dots in them. In
line 3 the seven utterances of woe, , are blocked off at either side of this group so that they are, in
effect, enclosed in a cartouche shape.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The 3rd person imperfect forms have nun prefixes.
Client and other names:
Antagonist: This mans name is derived from the Aramaic word for master/lord. His
mothers name is the Hebrew word sister.
88 bowls newly edited
(1) And her name is Baruqta. I call you evil spirit that ( 1)
sits in the cemetery and dwells in ditches and
crouches between alfalfa/clover and crushes vines.
(2) And you will attack Mar son of Ahot and sit upon ( 2)
his head and upon his temples and upon his eyes
and dissolve the great sinew/nerve of his neck.
(3) And he will say woe woe woe woe woe woe woe ( ^^ 3)
woe about the injury. The injury that afflicted his
body and it injured him (away) from me.
From me I call to you evil spirit (4) and I adjure you ( 4)
by the name of Michael and Ramiel, that you may ( 5)
bring upon him, Mar son of Ahot, misfortune ( )
(5) louse eggs and vermin and (then) he will be
imprisoned in a jail, amen amen quickly. ()
(6) G (T) Q (G) H M N B W Y (7) L ( 7) ( )( 6)
Notes:
1 The cataract demon. For a discussion of its appearance elsewhere in the Aramaic incantation bowls and
the Babylonian Talmud see Levene, A Corpus, 2003, p. 118. Note, however, the relation between the way this demon
is described here and the way it is in other texts which illustrates clearly a reliance on a common narrative.
VA.2418 M15689
( 1)
( 2) ( 5)
( 6)
)(
2 This section is reminiscent of 011A (BM 91719):7 where we have the expression dissolving the
sinews that occurs, as it does in our text, within a list of prescribed calamities that are to beset the clients
antagonist.
VA.2418
VA.2417
Type: This bowl is unusual in our collection of texts here in that it invokes spirits of the dead to uproot
themselves from the house of one individual, who we presume to be the client, and go and party in
the house of another individual. It seems likely that the intention is malicious but it should be noted
that the lack of other context and the uniqueness of the text means that we cannot be entirely sure.
Physical location: VAM.
Dimensions: 18.75cm5cm
Physical description: This bowl is made up of one big fragment and another ten smaller ones. Together
they make up the great majority of the bowl, and, but for a small fragment that is missingdue to
which a small number of letters are absent from lines 8 and 9, the whole text is present and in good
condition.
The layout of the text: At the bottom of the concave side of the bowl there is a little circle. Around this
circle there starts a spiral that runs in a clockwise fashion and consists of thirteen lines of a neat, but
cursive script that reach to between 0.51 cm of the rim of the bowl. Around this text there is another
circle that separates it from the rim. On the convex side of the bowl, to one side, there is a drawing of
an image with scraggly hair whose hands are raised at its sides and who faces the viewer. It appears
to be wearing a one-piece, dress-like garment, filled in with a simple criss-cross pattern. This image
is surrounded by a circle.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: The script that the scribe uses is clearly a form of
square-script that is recognisable as comparable to and belonging to the various styles of Jewish
Aramaic scripts that we come across in the bowls. This particular script, however, is one of the more
unusual and took this author some time to get used to. Nevertheless, it must be noted that apart
from a couple of places, such as in the beginning of the fourth word of line 5the interpretation of
which still eludes me, the scribe is consistent in the way that he writes the letters and very neat in his
execution of them.
We find the use of the form in this text which is otherwise unknown in the bowls but is found in
Mandaic. There is an example of softening of the guttural ayin to an aleph in the spelling of ,
which we find in parallels to the formula that it appears in here as being spelled ( see below).
The use of the accusative is consistent in this text. The one third person imperfect form that we
have in this text in line 10 is uncertain but looks like it is a yod prefix.
Client and other names:
Client: This mans name is attested and is a hypocrastic of the word for father.90 The
mothers name is much like the names Br, Bir, Brand91 and Br, the last of which Gignoux
suggests might be of Semitic origin and simply represent the Akkadian god Bel.92
Antagonist: This ladys name is not attested though there is an Iranian name that has
the Persian element asman, sky, in it.93 Though one might consider another Persian word, asm, that
90 See P. Gignoux, Mitteliranische Personennamen, in: M. Mayrhofer and R. Schmitt (eds), Iranische Personennamenbuch,
vol. II, Fasziekel 3, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wiessenschaften (Vienna, 2003), p. 26 where the name Bbiy
occurs.
91 For these three names see Justi, p. 69a.
92 Gignoux Mitteliranische, p. 58.
93 See Asm-bd in Gignoux, Mitteliranische, p. 24.
va.2417 91
means silver94 and has the Aramaic cognate .95 Her mothers name is possibly the same as the
found in the bowl published by Borisov,96 but is otherwise unattested.
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Formula D: E, G, H, I, J
Other introductory comments: This bowl was originally published by Wohlstein in 1894.97
Transcription and translation:
Notes:
1 The form that we have here is better known from Mandaic.98 The form being in Mandaic
interchangeable for both the prepositions l and l + pronoun suffix.99 See also , peace be upon you, in
Moussaieff 1:810,100 that is used as an address to various supernatural entities. Lines 1 to the middle of 7 consist of
12 addresses to entities that follow the form of peace be with you followed by a name. In the first four the spelling
is , whereas, the next six are spelled but for the sixth where we have the hybrid . One
can only speculate as to why the scribe changed the spelling of the last character of the noun and the first of the
preposition a third of the way through the list. Did an awareness between spoken and the literary forms, or two
types of different literary forms he was used to, cause him to alter his way of writing midway? Was he making a
copy from a source in which this difference was already marked? If so, did he notice the change of spelling in time
to render it correctly? It is possible that the difficulties in the reading of the fifth and sixth entry, that are almost
the same in content, stem from the fact that they are in fact a repetition that resulted from a moments confusion
which the scribe had decided to leave untouched.
6 Read possibly with a matethasis for leader. Another possibility is that we have here
which has the meaning of persecutor in Mandaic.101
713 This section of the text has parallels in a couple of texts. The greater part of lines 79 (starting with the word
)is found in 025A (BM 91739), the last line of which is closer in form to what follows this section in VA.2423
(see above), the other parallel. VA.2423, which is a counter charm, has a greater portion of similarity to our bowl
(For the synopsis of these texts see the notes to VA.2423 above).
Apparently is a phonetic form of .
98 MD, p. 467a.
99 R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin, 1965), p. 234 and T. Nldeke, Mandaische Grammatik
(Halle, 1875), p. 193.
100 S. Shaked, Peace be upon you, Exalted Angels: On Hekhalot, Liturgy and Incantation Bowls, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2
VA.2417
94 bowls newly edited
VA.2417
SD 27
Type: This is a text with a formula that is otherwise unknown. It was written with the intention of
blocking the curses of over thirty named antagonists.
Physical location: The Samir DeHays Collection.
Dimensions: 17.8cm4.5cm
Physical description: The bowl is complete and in very good condition. The text too is legible and clear
but for some fading in line 11 and beyond in which there are some areas of text that have been lost.
The layout of the text: The text on the bowl consists of 14 lines of a very neat and skilled hand that
spirals in a clockwork fashion from the centre of the bowl to about half a centimeter from its outer
rim. There are no signs of any other lines encircling the text either at its centre or its outer edge, nor
are there any signs of markings on the outer surface of the bowl.
Notes on scribal characteristics and peculiarities: This scribe has a very neat hand and was very careful
in his execution. There do not seem to be any obvious mistakes but for a part of a word in the last line
( )that seems to have been added above the line; though one cannot be certain as this comes at
the end of a section that is badly faded.
The third person imperfects, all found in lines 46, have nun prefixes. The accusative occurs in
line 6. The considerable list of names that occur in the text are all prefaced with the demonstrative
conjunction , but for a couple of instances in line 10 where the scribe decides to use the independent
and fuller form.
Client and other names:
Clients:
)( The first name is unattested but is a theophoric name much like so many of the
names of angels. The mothers name is common.102
Neither of these names are attested. The first is probably the Semitic compound
+ , meaning praised (be) my Lord. The mothers name might actually be )(derived from
the biblical tribe name of Simeon.
Antagonists:
Neither the name of this woman nor that of her mother are as yet attested. This womans
two daughters are named just below.
The name Mirdukh is probably Mihrdukh, meaning daughter of the deity Mihr, or in its
older form, Mithra.103
The womans name is Persian and is a compound of the Iranian d, happy,104 and the
word friy, loved.105
106 For the writing of the relative pronoun here and in PN as see Ford Phonetic Spellings of the Subordinating
Particle d(y) in the Jewish Aramaic Magic Bowls, Aramaic Studies 10/2 (2012), in press.
107 Geller, Eight Incantations, pp. 115117 (Aaron Bowl F).
108 Justi has aklah as a feminine name (p. 279b).
109 DJBA, p. 772b.
110 DJBA, p. 750b.
111 DJBA, p. 1045a.
112 N&Sh B13.
113 W. Baum, Shirin: Christian-Queen-Myth of Love: A Woman of Late Antiquity-Historical Reality and Literary Effect (New
Jersey, 2004).
114 MacKenzie, Pahlavi Dictionary, p. 80.
115 Justi, pp. 12, 173, 34 (Mongomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 254).
116 Cf. Gignoux, Noms propres, no. 465.
117 Cf. MD, p. 270, and in Levene and Bhayro, Bring to the Gates, p. 245.
118 DJBA, p. 454.
119 Gignoux, Noms propres, no. 329.
120 CAMIB, p. 58.
121 See Gignoux, Noms propres, no. 1057. Cf. also Zdn and Zdnfarrx in Justi, p. 377b.
sd 27 97
This womans name is unattested. For her mothers name see above.
For this womans name see above. Her mothers name probably means female cub.
This womans name means my mother. For her mothers name see above.
This mans name is unattested. For his mothers name see above.
This name means Sister-of-her-mother.
This mans name is a compound of + .122 His mothers name simply means
sister.
This man has a Biblical name. For his mothers name see above.
..... )()( )This is a Persian name that is a compound of Yazdn, gods, and duxt, daugh-
termeaning daughter of the gods.123
)(This woman seems to have what looks like a family nickname. For her mothers name
see above.
For this womans name see above. Her mothers name is Aramaic and means
enduring.
For this womans name see above. The name of her mother is strange in that it is usually a
mans name which comes from the word baba, meaning father.124 The names Pab, Bab, Baba, meaning
Daddy or Grandpa are common Sassanian names.125
Other introductory comments: This bowl was written for two clients, both men, who are named as
Amitiel son of Mahlapta and Elishebakh son of Shumuni. It is clear that these men had a grievance
with well over thirty people who are listed by name in the bowl and who, as the opening line that
states the general purpose of the text suggests, were all residents of the same town. The text follows
in lines 2, 3 with a simile based on the story from Dan 3:2328 which tells of Hannaniah, Mishael
and Azariah whom Nebuchadnezzar had thrown into a fiery furnace for not worshipping the 60
cubit gold image he made of himself, and how, due to their piety, they were saved from its flames.
This simile, as we shall see, is employed as part of a magical formula to affect the annulment of
curses,126 and is followed by a long list of the names of people whose curses this amulet was meant to
bind. Unfortunately, the very end of the text is lost, though I suspect that it would have consisted of
some kind of summing up formula to reinforce the thrust of the rest of the text, maybe a holy name
invocation sealed with the likes of .
122 See Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, p. 210 and CAMIB, p. 90. Also Gordon believes it offers a pronunciation of
Borisovs bowl (( ) Borisov, Epigraficeskie, p. 11) with Daniel and (AMB, p. 54). The use of the three
friends of Daniel is also known in Coptic texts, like no. 53 in M.W. Meyer and R. Smith. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts
of Ritual Power (Princeton, 1999), p. 100: Ananias [As]arias Mishael, Se[d]rak Mishak Abednago I adjure you by your names
and you powers, that as you extinguished the fiery furnace(s) of Nebuchadnezar, you may extinguish [every fever] and every
[] and every chill and every malady that is in the body of . (See also ibid., nos. 51, 63, and 64 on pp. 99, 118, 123 and 127).
98 bowls newly edited
(14) By Hanael his vows and his flames. /( ..) ( ..) ^^( ..........) (14)
(..............)
Notes:
1 )(The first verb in this text is somewhat difficult to read and could yield either or . Its translation
is, therefore, inevitably uncertain. The most probable root of this verb is to admonish. However, a second
option would be to consider the root to cover, which would be equally appropriate. Especially if the imagery
of Num 16:33, in which the three rebels, Korach Datan and Aviram, were swallowed and covered by the earth, is
considered.127 The Hebrew root that is used in Num 16:33 is and is rendered in both the Neofiti and Peshitta
with the same root. In order for this root to be considered, a final yod would have to be reconstructed.
One might consider that this is the place name we know as Yazdan in the western part of Iran in the
region of Yazd, named so by Yazdgerd I.128 The Middle Persian word yazdn, relates to any number of benificent
beings or Ohrmazd more specifically.129 If this were the case then the first line of the text would be a plea to cover
up this town.
23 The angel names invoked here ( and )have particular relevance within the context of this bowl.
Michael, commonly invoked in bowls, is mentioned in Daniel 12:1, as he is here, with the title the great prince
(see table below). However, the use of Mishael as an angel name is somewhat peculiar, as this is the name of one
of Daniels three associates mentioned in the next line of this bowl. Mishaels title, the prince of fire, as we shall
see, is used elsewhere to describe the angel who gave Daniels associates protection from the fire and heat of the
furnace.
bPes 118ab
Said Gabriel I, the Prince of fire
The most striking difference between our text and that which we find in the MT, the Peshitta the LXX (and the
Vulgate) is that while the biblical sources focus on the violence that was wrought upon Daniels associates by
describing the fact that they were thrown into the furnace, the version in our bowl chooses to depict the moment
of contact with the furnace when the angels would have had to instantly take charge of the associates and conduct
them safely into the flames so that no harm would befall them on coming into contact with the heat.
Another tradition central to this story is found in the Prayer of Azariah; the addition to the book of Daniel, which
is inserted between verses 23 and 24 of chapter 3. Of course, opinions vary as to the date of the composition, the
language that it was composed in, and whether it is in fact, regarding the MT, a deletion rather than an addition.
Most, however, consider it to be an addition, composed either in Hebrew or Aramaic in the second century bce
and translated into Greek in the 1st century bce.130 The Syriac version is a translation of the Greek which is known
to have existed at least as early as the 4th century.131 As a whole the prayer of Azariah is thought to consist of four
127 The imagery associated with this biblical episode is attested in other bowls, see, for example, M163:24 (Levene, A Corpus,
p. 123), VA.2509:6 and 041A (BM 91763):4,5 (CAMIB, p. 83)all reproduced here in this book.
128 N. Miri, Historical Geography of Fars during the Sasanian Period, e-Sasanika 10 (2009), pp. 165 (4546).
129 M.G. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (Princeton, 1984), p. 286.
130 See Moores contribution in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (C.A. Moore, The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the
Three Young Men in The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah, The Additions (London, 1995), pp. 3966) and
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 149151.
131 R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge, 1977), p. 109. See also M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old
Testament (Cambridge, 1999), p. 82. Both cite the 7th stanza from Ephrems collection of hymns On Paradise:
100 bowls newly edited
separate compositions that were joined together. The part that is of interest to us is the so-called narrative section.
See below a comparison of SD 27, the Syriac version of the Prayer of Azaria and an Aramaic version published
by Gaster in 18941895132 who considered it to be the vorlage, though it has been demonstrated since that it is, in
fact, a medieval composition that seems to have been translated from the Greek LXX. This we call Theodotions
addition.
In the Prayer of Azariah we observe another version of events; or rather another perspective of them is offered us.
As the three friends land in the furnace, after having been thrown down towards it, an angel miraculously lands
in with them. This is the angel of dew who produces a pleasant cool wind that shields them from the flames and
heat. In some senses this version is closer to that which is in our bowl. In both, the focus of the narrative is not on
the cruelty of Nebuchadnezzars act so much as on the miracle that occurred. In the book of Daniel, on the other
hand, we find out that the three heroes are unharmed only when we are told that the king noticed them walking
about within the furnace accompanied by a fourth being. In the Prayer of Azariah, as in our bowl, we are given a
glimpse into the manner of their salvation.
One might point out another similarity, between the Prayer of Azariah and our bowl, which is at odds with the
MT: Daniels associates have both Hebrew and Aramaic names. In the MT, as well as in the versions of it, the
Hebrew names are used for what are originally in the MT the Hebrew sections and the Aramaic names in what
are originally Aramaic sections. The narrative of the casting of the three into the furnace is in the MT in Aramaic;
hence the names Shedrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego are used. But in the Prayer of Azariah, as in our bowl, the
Hebrew names are used within the furnace narrative.
Another literary Jewish tradition exists in the Targum Toseftot (Early Medieval at the very latest), which is,
linguistically, at least, closer to the Prayer of Azariah and our bowl than it is to the MT version.
(The true bough) bent down and cast her beloved ones into the fire; her
leaves bore dew; they cooled the furnace.
132 M. Gaster, The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotions Additions to the Book of Daniel, Proceedings of the Society of
Michael the great prince Then the angel of And the angel of the Lord Hannaniah Mishael and
and Mishael the prince of dew went down with came down into the oven Azariah who were landing
fire. Just as you delivered Hannaniah, Azariah and with Azariah and his in the fiery furnace in
Hannaniah (3) Mishael and Mishael into the burning fellows Babylonia
Azariah into the midst of fiery furnace
the burning furnace
The best known rabbinic version which expands upon this biblical narrative is found in the Babylonian Talmud
in bPes 118ab:
When the wicked Nebuchadnezzar cast ( )Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, Yurkami,
Prince of hail, rose before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said to Him: Sovereign of the Universe! Let me go
down and cool the furnace and save these righteous men from the fiery furnace. Said Gabriel to him, The might
of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not thus [manifested], for thou art the Prince of hail, and all know that water
extinguishes fire. But I, the Prince of fire, will go down and cool it within and heat it without, and will thus perform
a double miracle. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him, Go down. (The emphasis is mine)134
An interesting version of the storysince here, as in our bowl, we find that an angel with the title of The Prince
of Fire is the savior of the three and not the angel associated with something wet. Note that in this version the
prince of hail, who is reminiscent of the angel of dew whom we find in the Peshitta, is divested of his role in the
miracle. One is tempted to see in the Talmudic version a tradition that is meant to undermine that of the Prayer
of Azariah as it is most specifically presented in the Peshitta.
134
.
102 bowls newly edited
SD 27
sd 27 103
SD 27
104 bowls newly edited
SD 27
sd 27 105
SD 27
BOWLS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED
Where I have suggested readings that differ from those in the published text I have added notes to mark
them and on occasion provided a brief discussion where I felt that support for my reading was needed.
The translations are generally based on the published ones and have only been altered to accommodate
new readings and to coincide with the translations given above.
M102
Type: This text defines itself in the opening as a counter-charm for overturning and returning sorceries
back onto the clients antagonists who are named therein. The verb / is a significant elemental
motif in this incantation.
Published: Levene, A Corpus, pp. 4451.
Transcription and translation:
R.
By the name, by YH YHW HWH, by upper mysteries
and by lower mysteries and by the seven upper ( 13)
mysteries (13) and by the seven lower mysteries. By
the solitary letter which has no relation. May that )(
mystery and seal which was given to humankind be
taken away from this Ahatoi and this Awirta. May
everything that their hearts know be forgotten. May )( }{
the unique character not be revealed to them, nor all ( ) ( 14)
the mysteries. May their hearts forget, (14) and may
the faculties of Ahatoi and Awirta be taken away. )(
May their faculties, that is theirs by nature, be taken
away from their hearts. GW God GWL. By the name
of the Great and Holy one who exists forever, amen
amen selah, firm and established.
Notes: For lines 5 and 6 I have taken Fords suggestion2 and changed my translation from woe to and if (they are). I
have also amended the understanding and translation of line 11 according to the suggestions of Morgenstern3
and Mller-Kessler.4
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula A, Formula G: B
Type: This is a subjugation text that employs the term as its main motif. The clientss antagonist is
named.
Published: Levene, A Corpus, pp. 120138.
Transcription and translation:
(1) This press and binding is for the name of Isha ( 2) [( ]1)
son of (2) Ifra Hurmiz that he may be pressed ][
and fallhe, his lot, his destiny, his stars, (3) his ( 3)
bindings, his words and his odious thoughtsunder
the feet and command and authority (4) of this ( 4) ][
Mihlad and (this) Baran sons of Mirdukh. Shamish
the king of gods!
Just as all countries have been (5) pressedjust so ( 5) ][
press this Isha son of Ifra Hurmiz, in every name he
has, under the feet and command (6) and authority ( 6) ][
of this Mihlad and (this) Baran sons of Mirdukh.
Under this white cock that [is appointed on your ][
behalf], just so (7) May this Isha son of Ifra Hurmiz ( 7)
be pressed in every name he has under the feet and ] [
command and authority of (8) this Mihlad and (this) ( 8)
Baran sons of Mirdukh.
Just as the heavens are pressed upon the sun, and
the sun is pressed upon the earth, and the earth is ( 9)
pressed upon the waters, and the waters are pressed
upon the (9) darkness and the lower convolution,
where there dwell these sons of gods who know
seven powerful words by which the heavens and the ( 10)
earth are pressed: One wordthe name: MD,
(10) the name: MD; and one wordthe name: ( 11)
GYMWN; and one wordthe name: DBYL, the
name: DYBYL; and one wordthe name: MKBH,
the name: MKBH; and one wordthe name: (11)
ZDYN, the name: MYZYWN and ZYWYN; and one ( 12)
wordthe name: DBYL, and the name: RKDYL; )( ][
and one wordthe name: KYBWN. By this (unit ( 13)
of) seven words, the universe and and their mount is
pressed. (12) [Just so] may this Isha son of Ifra
Hurmiz be pressed and trodden under in every
name he has under the feet and command and
authority of this Mihlad and (this) Baran sons of
Mirdukh, (13) and may all his odious and evil words
and thoughts be pressed and perish within him and
not go out from his mouth.
m163 111
5 Literally perverted.
6 I.e. of ZL and ZL and ZZYL.
112 bowls that have already been published
Notes: The translation of lines 23 and 24 has been amended in accordance with the suggestion of Ford.7
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Opening Formula B
Type: This text defines itself in the opening formula as a counter-charm for overturning sorceries back
onto the clients antagonist who is named therein. The verb / is a significant elemental motif
in this incantation.
Published: By Schwab in 1892,8 then by Gordon in 19419 and finally in CAMIB.10 Aspects of it were
discussed in AMB p. 139 and in Mller-Kessler, Die Zauberschalensammlung, p. 120.
Transcription and translation: The readings given here are based Segals original edition with Mller-
Kesslers corrections as well as my own.
8 M. Schwab, Deux vases judeo-babyloniens, Revue dassyriologie et darchologie orientale 2 (1892), pp. 136142.
9 C.H. Gordon, Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Orientalia NS 10 (1941), pp. 116141, 272284, 339360 (p. 399).
10 Pp. 4647.
005a 115
Previous readings: I note below forms which I have replaced above with my own readings.
(2) , , (3) , , (4) { }, (5) , (7) , , , (8)
, (9) .
Type: For healing ( )and for untying/loosening ( )of the vow, curse, knocking and rite of
a named individual.
Published: CAMIB, pp. 6566. Aspects of it were discussed in Mller-Kessler, Die Zauberschalensamm-
lung, p. 122.
Transcription and translation: The readings given here are based Segals original edition with Mller-
Kesslers corrections as well as my own.
Previous readings: I note below forms which I have replaced above with my own readings.
(3) .
Formulaic parallels in the other texts: Formula D: A, B, C, D, F,
039A (BM 91771)
Type: This is a counter-charm that defines itself as a qybl and is for overturning sorceries onto the clients
named antagonist.
Published: CAMIB, pp. 7981. Aspects of it were discussed in Mller-Kessler Die Zauberschalensamm-
lung, pp. 125128.
Transcription and translation: The readings given here are based Segals original edition with Mller-
Kesslers corrections as well as my own.
Previous readings: I note below forms which I have replaced above with my own readings.
(1) MK11 , (2) MK , MK }{, (4) , (6) MK , MK , MK , (7) ,
, (10) MK , MK , (12,13) , !, , (14) , }{
, (15) }{ , , .
11 Mller-Kessler.
040A (BM 91767)
Type: This is also a text that defines itself as a qybl but presents its purpose as being not the overturning
of sorceries but rather the dispatch of malign forces upon a named person.
Published: CAMIB, pp. 8183. Aspects of it were discussed by Mller-Kessler and Morgenstern.12
Transcription and translation: The readings given here are based Segals original edition with Mller-
Kesslers, Morgensterns as well as my own corrections.
12 Mller-Kessler Die Zauberschalensammlung, p. 129 and M. Morgenstern, The Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowl
Howl, howl! So will you cry, Mar Zutra son of (14) ( 14)
Ukmay. Enter (pl.) with this charm locusts fly, these XXX ][
oppressors. Kill him from above ???? Mar zutra son ( 15)
of (15) Ukmay
I shall go from you, O blind one. Yeh, )()( Exterior
. Brimstone and salt; burning is all your land; not
sown nor sprouting, nor will any greenery grow in it;
like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, ( 16)
Admah and Zobiim, which (16) the Lord destroyed
in his anger and his wrath (The verse is now
repeated in reverse order.)
Previous readings: I note below forms which I have replaced above with my own readings.
(13) Morg13 , Segal , MK , Morg )( , (14) , , Segal
)(, MK , Morg .
13 Morgenstern.
041A (BM 91763)
Type: This is a counter-charm that defines itself as a qybl and is for overturning sorceries onto the clients
named antagonist.
Published: CAMIB, pp. 8384. An uncharectereistically limited amount of comments were also made
by Mller-Kessler.14
Transcription and translation: The readings given here are based Segals original edition with Fords,
Mller-Kesslers as well as my own corrections.
Lo, quickly, open the doors of Sheol, and the snares ( 15)
(15) of gathering and the chains of iron may they ^.^(( )..] [ )
not come near Mahlafa son of Batshiti. Bind and
hand over all the curses.
In the name of the great Okeanus and the great ............ ( )( ]16)
Algin (16) who is appointed
And may you remove all evil and misfortune, that [ ..........
they may not come and approach Mahlafa son of
Batshiton, and also not evil sorceries and not evil ..........] (17)
magical acts and not (17)
In the name of the great Dibniel the great angel, [ ..........
and in the name of the great Obadiah who is strong
and fearsome, who is One and whose Name is One.
Amen Amen Selah.
All the troubles and vows and knocks (18) I [)(............... (18) ] ( )
adjure Mahlafa son on Batshiton that you may move
and go out from the two hundred and forty eight
limbs of his stature.
For, moreover, Gabriel is on his right, Michael (19) ( 19)
the angel is to his left, and Susuiel is infront of you, )(
and abriel is behind him and Shekintiel is above }{
his head, that of Mahlafa son of Batshiti.
In the name of Bar-Mashbiel who will come, by the ( )(]20)
name of (20) the mountain upon whom his decree [)(
was decreed, and by whose guard post no one can
pass.
Amen Amen Selah.
GRYT GRYT MRRYHPQT L MNY MNY MNY MNY )(
MNY and be gracious to me, He will be gracious to
me.
Amen Amen Selah Hallelujah.
The Lord of hosts (21) is with us; the God of Jacob is ( ) ( 21)
our refuge.
For you, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive; and of
bountiful love toward all those who call upon you.
The Lord preserveth the simple: I was brought low,
and he saved me. Selah.
15 See Segal (CAMIB, p. 87) suggests Semit; perhaps desire, Heb tawh.
N&SH B6
Type: This text is an invocation of certain supernatural entities to attack (eat from his flesh, drink from
his blood, frighten and afflict) a named person.
Published: AMB, pp. 168172.
Transcription and translation:
Type: This text states itself to be for the afflicting and killing of a named person.
Published: AMB, pp. 174179.
Transcription and translation:
(1) Seized, clasped and bound and crooked are his (( )( )( )1)
luck and his angels and his stars and his planets.
(2) And all the vomit (?) and spittle of Judah son of ( )( )( 2)
Nanay, that his tongue may dry up in his mouth, that ( 3)
his spittle may dissolve (3) in his throat, that his )()( )(
hind legs may dry, that sulphur and fire may burn in
him, that his body may be struck by scalding (?), that ( )( 4)
he may be choked, become estranged, (4) become ( 5)
disturbed to the eyes of all those who see him, and ( )
that he may be banned, broken, lost, finished,
vanquished, and that he may die, and that a flame
may come upon him from heaven, (5) and shiver
seize him, and a fracture catch him, and a rebuke
burn in him.
Type: This is a subjugation text that employs the term as its main motif. The clients antagonist is
named.
Published: MSF, pp. 127130, and commented on by Levene.16
Transcription and translation:
Type: This is a text for the returning of aggressive magical acts to a named person.
Published: MSF, pp. 132133.
Transcription and translation:
Type: This text states itself at the outset as being for overturning (/ )of curses onto a named
person.
Published: Initially by Gordon and later by Isbell.18
Transcription and translation:
17 The formula that opens this text is common enough in the bowls, but is not attested elsewhere as being preceeded by the
counter-charm clause that we have here and so not usually associated with it.
18 Gordon, An Aramaic Incantation, pp. 141144 and Isbell, Corpus, pp. 6970.
ROYAL ONTARIO MUS 907.1.1
19 McCullough, Jewish and Mandaean, pp. 25 and Harviainen, An Aramaic Incantation, p. 10.
YBC 239320
Type: This text is for the affliction of a named person (cause restlessness) and for returning her curse to
her.
Published: Published by Obermann and republished by Isbell (text 62).21
Transcription and translation:
(1) And let them not restore sleep to her eyes, and let ( 1)
them not restore rest in her body, in her dreams (2) ( 2)
and her visions. And may they terminate her life and ( 3)
not give her life, by Shamish, and Sin, and Nabu, and
Dilbat, (3) and Bel, and Nerig, and Kewan! Oh Great ^ .^
King QRPDN, and Mistress of WBNN, come and ( 4)
bear witness concerning this (4) curse which ( 5)
Mahanosh, son of Amulazad returned to Ona
daughter of Gayat, and may there be no remedy
forever, and no (5) release forever!
In the Name of WY thy curses, by KLBY, and he is
our ruler, and creator, the Great Judge of the ( 6)
souls; and may you come and do my will and my
command (6) unto the great day of Judgment.
Judgment and (?), a time and period of seven days.
And let there be complete healing for Mahanosh son }{
of (A)mulazad, and do not harm him, nor his wife, ( 7)
(7) nor his house, nor against his possessions.
Amen, Amen, Selah.
20 I would like to thank Elizabeth Payne, Conservator in the Yale Babylonian Collection, for kindly giving me access to photos
of this bowl.
21 Obermann, Two Magic Bowls, pp. 1528 and Isbell, Corpus, pp. 138139.
22 Other parallels to this text occur in two other unpublished texts VA.2507+2508 and VA.2446. These will be published at
a later date.
SYNOPSES
In this chapter I provide the reader with a set of synopses of formulae that are found in this collection
of texts. There are a number of reasons for this, to do with offering the reader a chance to see parallels
and to allow the reader to observe the craft of the scribes who produced these incantations.
Opening Formula A
This set of opening formulae is by far the most dominant in this genre.
VA.2434 )VA.2424 039A (BM 91771) 041A (BM 91763 040A M102 Gordon 1934b
)(BM 91767
) (1 )) (2( ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1
) (2 ) (2) )] (3[)(][
( )
) (3 ( ) (2 ) (2
][ ) (4 ) (3 ) (2
}{
][ ]
) (4 [ )(.) (3
][ )(
) (3][
) (4
Opening Formula B
Formula A
][ E
][
][ ][
)(
) (18
) (23 F
) (13 )(See 020A:13
)(
][
]
][ G
]
) (26
[ ][
][
)(
] [
]
) (27[
138 synopses
Formula B
Formula C
Formula D
Formula E
Formula F
Formula G
) (3][
) (9
]
) (8[
GLOSSARIES1
Aramaic
father N. m. VA.2509:11, 041A:9. +Sf. VA.2484:9, wife N. f. +Sf. VA.2424:11, VA.3382:8, YBC:6,
M163:29 VA.3382:2
to loose, to destroy/to perish V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B9:4, spell, binding N. m., pl. VA.2509:18,
Pa. Inf. 041A:6, VA.2509:8 VA.3382:12
mourner N. m., pl. VA.3381:12 threshold N. f. +Sf. VA.2484:13,23,
to mourn V. Pe. Part. pl. N&Sh B6:7 VA.2416:18, VA.2434:9, 039A:4, 040A:12,
stone N. f. N&Sh B6:5,8 VA.3381.15, VA.3382:8, Gordon 1934b:4,
help N. f. VA.2484:18 charm, binding N. m. M163:1, pl. 040A:6,7,
meaning uncertain N. +Sf. N&Sh B21:9 VA.2575:2, VA.2496:3, 005A:10, 039A:7,12, +Sf.
returning N. f. VA.2416:12 M163:3,29
whether Conj. VA.2423:19,20, M102:5,6,7,8 goddess N. f., pl. VA.2484:19, VA.2423:17,
ear N. m./f., pl. N&Sh B6:4, +Sf. 043A:3, VA.3381:10, M102:5,6,7, N&Sh B23:2,8
N&Sh B6:7 inflammation of the bone N. f. VA.2423:8
air N. m. 041A:13 periodic fever N. f. VA.2423:8
road N. f. VA.2509:13, 041A:11, pl. N&Sh B6:10 tertian fever N. f. VA.2423:8
the Torah N. f. 041A:11 fever, fire N. f. VA.2509:15, VA.2423:8, 039A:11, 041A:13,
to go V. Pe. Perf. 041A:10. Impf. 040A:15, N&Sh B7:4,9, N&Sh B9:3, 005A:10
VA.2416:7,8,10,12,14,16, VA.2417:9, VA.2575:6, VA.2496:7, a type of demon N. f. VA.3381:12
VA.3381:16, M102:12, VA.2484:7, VA.2423:11, there is Part. VA.2509:18,19, VA.2423:12,
SD 27:6, VA.2484:5,12, VA.2418:2, VA.2484:20,22, VA.2416:8,10,12,14,16,17, VA.2575:5,12, VA.2496:5,14,
Part. VA.2509:11, VA.2416:6, Imper. VA.2482:12, VA.3381:14, VA.2417:10, M163:5,7,12,13,16,24, 005A:3, 039A:9,
VA.2416:18, VA.2434:8, 040A:3, VA.2509:10, 040A:12, N&Sh B7:3, N&Sh B23:5
040A:7,10, 041A:8 woman N. f., pl. 039A:6, N&Sh B6:6, +Sf.
brother N. m. VA.2509:11, 041A:9 Gordon 1934b:6
to hold, seize V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B9:1, Impf. to eat V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B9:9, VA.2484:8,
N&Sh B9:5, Pa. Part. 039A:5,6 VA.2417:9, Imper. VA.2484:12, N&Sh B7:8, Inf.
behind Prep. VA.2484:15,21, VA.2416:19, VA.2434:11, 040A:8
VA.2424:10 aversion N. f. VA.2423:17, VA.2416:3,12,14,15,
ban N. f. VA.2423:6, VA.3381:12, +Sf. VA.2423:2
VA.2423:14 paralysis N. m. N&Sh B9:10
sister N. f.+Sf. VA.2509:11, 041A:9 God N. m. VA.2484:16,21, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:12,
document N. f. VA.2423:13,14 VA.2424:10, VA.2417:12, M163:16,18, VA.2575:14,
fate (?) N. m., pl. VA.2484:18 VA.2496:16, 043A:1, f. VA.2417:4. pl.
then Adv. 040A:15 VA.2416:9, M163:4, M163:9, N&Sh B23:8
as Conj. M102:9 why Conj. N&Sh B21:3,4,5
these Pron. VA.2484:13,26, VA.2423:12, VA.2416:6,18, thousand Num., pl. M163:23
VA.2434:9, 040A:6, ROM:1 immediately Adv. VA.2424:15, VA.2484:17,
mute Adj. m., pl. N&Sh B6:7 VA.2416:16, VA.2484:27, VA.2423:16, VA.2416:20, 043A:4,
mother N. f. VA.2423:18, 041A:9, VA.2509:11, N&Sh B23:11
005A:1, VA.2417:3,4, +Sf. VA.2484:9, N&Sh if, whether Conj. VA.2848:8, 040A:5
B6:6 secure Adj., pl. VA.2423:19
see darkness N. f. N&Sh B7:4
yes Interj. VA.2484:17,18, VA.2426:20, VA.2434:13 to say V. Pe. Perf. VA.2423:15, VA.2484:6,24,
they Pron. VA.2484:14,16,25, VA.2509:8, VA.2416:6,18,19,20, VA.2484:10, N&Sh B21:5, Impf. VA.2418:3
VA.2434:10,12, VA.2424:10,14, VA.3381:8, M163:16, 040A:6, maidservant N. f. VA.2423:10, VA.2423:10
041A:6, N&Sh B23:6,7, ROM:1,2 , I Pron. VA.2484:19,20, VA.2423:22, VA.2434:13, 040A:5,
man N. m. VA.2575:4,6,10, VA.2496:5,12, 041A:14,20, N&Sh B6:3,5,6, N&Sh B21:13, N&Sh B23:5,
N&Sh B23:11, VA.2509:15, 041A:14, pl. we Pron. VA.2423:16, VA.2417:13
N&Sh B6:2,5,9, N&Sh B23:6 person N. m., pl. VA.2417:10
1 Bowls VA.3382, VA.3381, VA.2575 and VA.2496 are not curse texts according to the definition that I have opted for in this
collection. Therefore, to retain a curse glossary but not omit these four newly editied texts that do not fit this category, I have
put all references to them, in this glossary, in bold.
144 glossaries
2 PS p. 24a c.
glossaries 145
3 See rn in J. Hoftijzer, K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden, 1995), p. 406.
glossaries 147
1934b:6, VA.2418:2, VA.2417:10, M102:5,6,8,11,13, 005A:11, country, city N. f. N&Sh B6:3, pl. M163:5
YBC:1,2,4, VA.2509:7, VA.3382:15, VA.3381:3, VA.2492:4, west N. m. M102:5, 005A:7
M163:5,7,16,23,29, 005A:3,9, 039A:15,13,14,17, 040A:7,8,12, trustworthy Adj. pl. m. VA.2484:14, VA.2416:19,
041A:3,5,15,16, N&Sh B7:3, N&Sh B9:10, YBC:6, VA.2434:9, VA.2424:14, 005A:9
VA.2417:8,11,12, 024A:7, 043A:1 N&Sh B6:3,4, VA.3382:5, to recognise V. Eshtaf. Impf. M102:11
VA.3381:14,15, M102:7,8 brain N. m. +Sf. 040A:5
no, not Negative particle. VA.2484:10,17, VA.2423:19, oath N. VA.2423:19, VA.3382:13, +Sf. Gordon
VA.2575:13, VA2496:15, VA.2417:13, SD 27:3,4,5, M102:7,8,11, 1934b:7
M163:13,23,26,27, 040A:5, 041A:3, 043A:1,2,3,13 N&Sh B7:6, brain N. m. +Sf. M163:24
N&Sh B23:11, Gordon 1934b:6, YBC:1,2,4,6,7. The shortened to die, to be dead V. Pe. Part. VA.2417:7. Impf.
form in VA.2484:12 . see N&Sh B9:4, VA.3382:14, Af. Inf. +Sf.
garment N. m. M:102:9 VA.2417:12
outside, except for Perp. M163:13,26,2728 death N. m. 040A:2, VA.2417:2
to put on clothes V. Pe. Impf. +Sf. M102:9 groaning demon (?)5 N. f. 039A:7
into Prep. SD 27:3 rebuke N. f. N&Sh B9:5
to curse V. Pe. Perf. VA.2416:4,9,13,14,16,18, VA.3382:5, diluted Adj. VA.2484:12
005A:6, +Sf. VA.2423:3, Part. 005A:2,6, star sign N. m., pl. VA.2416:7, 005A:1, +Sf. N&Sh
VA.2509:18, M102:6, Impf. 005A:7, Pa. Part. B9:1, +Sf. M163:17,19,21,24,29, M163:17
041A:11, Itpa. Part. VA.2509:13 corrupt, spoil6 Adj./N. VA.2416:17, VA.2434:6,7
curse N. f. sg. & pl. VA.2509:2,12,13, to blot out V. Itpe. Impf. N&Sh B9:12, N&Sh
VA.2423:2,5,16,17,19,21,22, VA.2416:2,7,10,12,13,15, B9:12
VA.2416:7, VA.2575:3,10, VA.2496:4,11, VA.3382:4,10,15, to strike V. Pe. Part. Gordon 1934b:4, Impf.
VA.3381:9,11, VA.2492:5, SD 27:3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, M102:6, VA.2484:8, VA.2484:24, Gordon 1934b:5,
005A:1,10,11, 024A:4,7,9, 039A:1,7,14, 041A:8,11,15, N&Sh 040A:12, Inf. 040A:12
B23:2,3,4,6,7,8, Gordon 1934b:1, YBC:4, VA.2509:10, thought N. f. pl. +Sf.
SD 27:5, pl. VA.2509:16, M102:6, +Sf. M163:3,13,17,19,21,25,26,27
YBC:5, VA.2492:6, 039A:15, VA.2423:14, request N. f. VA.2417:8
005A:2,7,8 to reach V. Pe. Impf. 040A:11
throat N. m. +Sf. N&Sh B9:9 guard post N. +Sf. 041A:20
bread N. m. 040A:8 who Interogative particle. 043A:12
whispering N. f. VA.2509:12, 041A:10 water N. m. pl. M163:8, 005A:7, 040A:8, N&Sh B21:10,
heart N. m., pl. +Sf. M163:13,22,26,27, 040A:5, 043A:3 VA.2423:10, 040A:10
M102:11,13, M163:26, M102:14, N&Sh B6:7, thing N. m. 043A:13
M163:24 something Pron. VA.2423:14,18,21, VA.2416:15,
curser N. m., pl. 005A:5 VA.2509:18, 024A:9, VA.2575:14
a male demon N. m., pl. VA.3382:11, 005A:5 word, matter N. f. M163:9,10,11, 043A:2, N&Sh B7:1, pl.
night N. m. VA.2575:13, VA2496:15, N&Sh B21:5, M163:9,11,27, + Sf. M163:3,13,17,19,25,26,27, 043
VA.3381:13, 005A:7 A:1
Lilith N. f. VA.2484:16,22, VA.2416:20, VA.3381:11, command N. m. pl. +Sf.
Gordon 1934b:2, 039A:12 M163:3,5,7,12,14,17,19,21,22,25
pirate N. m. N&Sh B9:14 species, category N. m. VA.2496:5. pl. VA.2575:4,
tongue N. m., pl. +Sf. N&Sh B9:2, N&Sh VA.2496:5
B6:10 shining (?) Adj. f. (perhaps from )VA.3382:12
there is not Part. M102:13, 041A:14, N&Sh B21:7 dead N. m., pl. VA.2423:13, VA.2417:4,7,11,12, M102:6,
forever Adv. VA.2509:5, VA.2423:23, VA.3381:16, 039A:16
VA.2492:6, 039A:15, 041A:3, YBC:4,5, 039A:17 angel N. m. VA.2484:23, VA.2509:14,18,
against Prep. +Sf. N&Sh B6:5,6, 043A:2,3, VA.2416:5,11, VA.2424:12,13, VA.2575:7,8, VA.2496:8,9,
N&Sh B6:2 VA.3381:3, M102:3,10, M163:15, 005A:3, 024A:8,
to be struck V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B9:3 041A:12,13,17,19, N&Sh B9:14, N&Sh B21:14, N&Sh B23:5,10,
a hundred Num., dual VA.2484:14,22, VA.2509:19, pl. M163:13,15,16,18,23,26, VA.2484:14,25,26,
VA.2416:19,20, 041A:18, VA.2434:10, VA.2424:12, VA.2416:4,6,19, VA.2434:9, VA.2424:14, VA.2575:8,12,
040A:9 VA.2496:10,13, VA.3382:15, 040A:10, ROM:1
- one who Rel. Pron. VA.2423:5, VA.2416:11,1,4,16,18, to salt V. Pe. Perf. 043A:7
VA.3382:4,13, VA.3381:15, M102:2,3 to regn V. Af. Perf. M163:28, Impf. M163:28
tormentor N. f. VA.2484:11,16,22, VA.2416:17,20, king N. m. M163:4, 039A:4,5,14, YBC:3, VA.2492:5,
VA.2434:7, VA.3381:11 +Sf. Gordon 1934b:2
to vanquish V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B9:4, +Sf. kingdom N. f. N&Sh B21:11, N&Sh B21:10, +Sf.
VA.3381:16 041A:14, VA.2417:9
5 MD p. 241a.
6 See the Mandaic mhblt, part. Pa. f. st. emph. of hbl (DM p. 259a).
glossaries 149
to speak V. Pa. Impf. N&Sh B6:10, Part. to touch V. Pe. Perf. SD 27:3, Impf. SD 27:3,
005A:8 SD 27:4,5, VA.2575:13, VA.2496:15
word N. m. N&Sh B6:10 watercourse N. m., pl. M163:22
words N. f. pl. VA.2423:20, VA.2575:9, VA.2496:11, to vow V. Pe. Perf. +Sf. VA.2423:3
VA.3381:10, N&Sh B23:4 river N. m. 040A:13, N&Sh B21:9
speech N. m. 005A:4 to give light V. Itpa. )?( M163:15
from Prep. Passim, +Sf. m. VA.2418:3, N&Sh B6:5, fire N. f./m. SD 27:2,3, pl. VA.2509:6, 041A:4
VA.2416:17,20, VA.3382:3, M102:12, N&Sh B23:7, to depart V. Pe. Impf. VA.2484:10, VA.2417:17,
040A:15, 040A:8, VA.2484:6,10,16, VA.2575:5,7, VA.2434:4, Af. Perf. M163:26, Imper. M163:27
VA.2496:6,8,14, 040A:15, 043A:2, N&Sh to go down V. Pe. Perf. VA.3381:2, Af. Perf. m. pl.
B6:5, N&Sh B21:13, VA.2423:18 VA.2509:6, 041A:4, Impf. 005A:9, Imper.
whence Adv. N&Sh B21:5,6 M102:10
to appoint V. Pa. Part. VA.2509:17, VA.2423:12, to protect V. Pe. Part. 040A:10
ROM:2, 040A:6,7 protector N. m. VA.2417:5
oppressor N. m., pl. +Sf. N&Sh. B21:8 affliction9 N. f. SD 27:4
overturning7 N. f. 039A:7 foot N. m. +Sf. VA.3381:7
to dissolve V. Itpe. Impf. N&Sh B9:2 vow N. m. VA.2423:2,5,7,16, VA.2416:7,10,12,13,15,
to hand over V. Pe. Part. SD 27:7,8,9,10,11,12,13, VA.3382:4,10, VA.3381:9, 024A:4,7,9, N&Sh B23:4,
Imper. VA.2509:16, 041A:15 VA.2575:3,10, VA.2496:4,11, pl. VA.2509:2,
protective8 Adj. VA.2417:6 VA.2423:7,17,20,21,22, VA.2416:2, 005A:9, 039A:1,7, 041A:2,
magical act, sorcery N. m., pl. VA.2416:7, N&Sh B23:2,7, 041A:17, +Sf. VA.2423:14,
VA.3382:4,15, VA.2575:2,9,12, VA.2496:2,11,14 VA.2416:14, SD 27:14, 039A:6
intestines, bowels N. m. pl. +Sf. 040A:4 - dative particle, Prep. +Sf. 005A:11
west N. m. M102:5 rest N. m. VA.2492:4, 039A:13, YBC:1
distinct Adj. m. 043A:1, pl. VA.2484:14, female N. f. VA.2484:19. pl. VA.2423:17, VA.3381:10,11,
VA.2416:19, VA.2434:9, VA.2424:14 N&Sh B23:2, 039A:8,11,12, VA.2417:8
to suck V. Pe. Perf. VA.2423:18 soul N. f. sg. & pl. 005A:5, 039A:15, YBC:5, pl. +Sf.
middle Adj. m. VA.2417:7 VA.2423:15, VA.2417:12
foster mother N. f. VA.3382:11 to be estranged V. Itpe. Impf. N&Sh B9:3
to rebel V. Pe. Part. VA.2509:12 , incubus N. m., pl. VA.3382:11
master N. m. M163:23, VA.3381:2, N&Sh B21:10, to sprinkle, spatter V. Pe. Impf. M163:24
+Sf. VA.2423:10, VA.3381:4, pl. VA.2575:1, to take V. Imper. VA.2509:9, VA.2423:13, 041A:8,
VA.2496:1, M163:20, 041A:14, +Sf. VA3382:9, VA.2509:16
VA.2496:7, M163:19, VA.3382:6,16 to inflate V. Pa. Imper. 040A:4
sick N. m., pl. N&Sh B6:7 to attack V. Pe. VA.3381:16, VA.2418:3
cruel Adj., f. VA.2509:10 to fall V. Pe. Part. 005A:2, Impf. N&Sh B9:10,
to afflict V. Pa. Imper. N&Sh B7:8 M163:2, Part. 040A:9, Imper. N&Sh B7:6,8, Inf.
chariot N. f. VA.2484:11, VA.2416:17, VA.2434:6 N&Sh B7:7, Af. Inf. 040A:8
foetus (?) N. m. pl. Gordon 1934b:5, f. pl. to go out, to be released V. Pe. Perf. N&Sh B7:4,
Gordon 1934b:5 Impf. M163:26, VA.2416:17, VA.2434:4,
bitterness N. m. N&Sh B7:4 VA.2484:10, VA.3382:14, VA.2509:19, VA.3382:7,
foster father N. m. VA.2417:6 041A:18, SD 27:6, VA.2575:5,13, VA.2496:6,14,
mistress N. f. VA.2484:3,11, 039A:2,4,5,10,14, YBC:3, M163:13,27, Part. N&Sh B6:10, Imper.
VA.2492:5, VA.2417:4, +Sf. VA.2423:10 VA.2484:12, VA.2416:18, VA.2434:7, Gordon 1934b:7, Inf.
sender N. m. +Sf. VA.2423:11, 039A:6, Af. Impf. pl. VA.2484:14,16,21,23, VA.2416:20,
N&Sh B23:9, VA.2575:6, VA.2496:7 VA.2434:10,12, VA.2434:10,12, VA.2424:11,14
sending, visitation N. f. VA.2509:10,14, soul, body N. f. +Sf. f. VA.2484:25, pl.
039A:10 VA.2423:8
because of Prep. VA.2423:19,20 to gather, to seize V. Pe. Perf. +Sf. M163:23, Part.
affliction N. m. VA.2423:6, 039A:7, N&Sh B23:1
VA.3381:9, VA.3381:11 +Sf. gathering N. f. VA.2509:9, 041A:8,15
VA.2423:14, to revenge V. Pe. Impf. 005A:6
town N. f. VA.2509:12, SD 27:1, 041A:10 vengeance N. 005A:6
two hundred Num. M102:12 to clap, to strike V. Pe. Impf. VA.2417:10, Af. Perf.
louse eggs N. m. VA.2418:5 N&Sh B21:13
bark N. f. +Sf. 040A:10 net N. m. +Sf. VA.2484:25
daybreak N. m. pl. 005A:7 to forget V. Itpe. Impf. M102:13
7 MD p. 246b.
8 PS p. 287b.
9 See Mandaic nia, MD p. 205a.
150 glossaries
to give V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B6:4 eye N. f. +Sf. N&Sh B21:4, VA.2484:24, pl.
old man N. m., pl. VA.2423:4, 11, 024A:3,5 005A:7, N&Sh B6:4, N&Sh B9:4, +Sf. VA.2492:3,
numerous Adj. N&Sh B6:3 VA.2418:2, 039A:13, YBC:1, M163:22,23
to walk V. Pa. Part. VA.3381:4 N&Sh B6:7
base, anvil N. m., pl. M102:8, perverted evil eye N. VA.2423:18,20,21,23
devils (see MD, p. 310) heel N. m. +Sf. N&Sh B21:13
bear witness V. Pe. Inf. VA.2492:5, 039A:14, spell, exorcism N. m. N&Sh B23:4, N&Sh B23:3
YBC:3 to delay V. Pa. Impf. VA.2417:13, VA.2484:10
leash, collar N. m. pl. VA.2492:2, 039A:13 to disturbe V. Itpe. Impf. N&Sh B9:4
end Adv. M163:20 against, upon Prep. Passim, +Sf. N&Sh B6:10, N&Sh
end after Prep. 040A:5 B21:4,7, VA.3381:2, M102:10, 005A:11, N&Sh B21:6,14,
to place upside-down, to pour over V. Pe. Part. VA.2417:1,2,3,4, VA.2484:5,20, 039A:9,10, 040A:2,5,6,7,
N&Sh B21:12 Gordon 1934b:3,5, VA.2416:14,16,17,18, VA.2434:7,
to stop up V. Itpe. Imp. +Sf. 005A:4 040A:3,7, 041A:18, N&Sh B7:6,8, N&Sh B9:14, 041A:5,
satan, demon N. VA.2423:18,21,23, N&Sh B9:14, pl. VA.2484:5,7,9,12,22, VA.3382:6,14, VA.2418:2,4,
005A:5, VA.2575:3, VA.2496:3 M163:21, 039A:10, 040A:14, N&Sh B9:4,5,7, 005A:6,
moon N. m. VA.2416:7 VA.2484:6, VA.2492:1, M102:7,9, 039A:8,9,11,12,
black Adj., pl. 040A:10 M163:23, N&Sh B23:9, VA.2509:5, VA.2423:13,18,20,
book N. m., pl. N&Sh B6:9 VA.2416:9,11,13,15, 041A:4, N&Sh B21:12,
to look at V. Itpa. Perf. VA.2484:11, VA.2434:5, VA.3381:16, M163:18 M102:7,9, VA.2509:7
VA.2416:17 to enter, put in V. Pe. Imper. 040A:10,14, Pa. Part.
to shut up V. Pe. Part. M102:8, Pa. Imper. VA.2423:15, VA.2417:12
043A:2, Inf. N&Sh B6:1, Itpe. Impf. N&Sh world, eternity N. m. VA.2484:12,17, VA.2509:18,
B9:3 VA.2423:15,16, VA.3381:6, M163:11,28, 005A:6, 039A:4,10,
to ascend V. Pe. Part. +Sf. 040A:13 VA.2575:5,13, VA.2496:5,14, VA.2417:13, M163:20,
to be blind V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B6:7 N&Sh B9:12, VA.2416:16, VA.2424:15, M163:28,29,
blind man N. m., pl. M163:15 M102:14, N&Sh B7:3. pl. M102:14, M163:30
underworld N. f. VA.3381:6 immediately Adv. N&Sh B7:9. See also
blind person N. f. 040A:15 with, together with Prep. N&Sh B23:6,7
to lean on V. Pe. Impf. N&Sh B9:14 people, population N. m. +Sf. N&Sh B6:3
to hate V. Pe. Part. 040A:8 column N. m. M163:15
evil, odious Adj. VA.3382:4, VA.3381:10, 040A:11, pl. cloud N. f., pl. M163:24, N&Sh B21:13, M163:23
M163:3,13,17,19,21,25,26,27 +Sf. N&Sh B21:8 neck charm N. f. VA.2509:13, VA.2423:5,
hatefulness N. f. M163:26,27 VA.2509:10, VA.2575:3,10, VA.2496:4,12, VA.3382:10,
to fetter V. Imp. 005A:4, Imper. 005A:6 VA.3382:15, 041A:9, 006A:10, pl. VA.3381:9, +Sf.
hair N. m. +Sf. VA.2423:14, VA.2509:13
see to deal with V. Pe. Perf. VA.3381:15
to do, to act V. Pe. Perf. VA.3382:5, N&Sh B7:9, N&Sh earth N. m. VA.2423:13, VA.2417:6, VA.2417:8
B21:10, VA.2423:10,15, M102:11, Part. VA.3381:4, misfortune N. f. 041A:16
N&Sh B9:13, VA.2423:11, VA.3382:5, M102:5, 041A:6, chill N. f. 039A:11, 005A:10,
M102:6, VA.2509:7, VA.3382:15, VA.2509:17, VA.2575:3, VA.2496:3, pl. VA.2423:8, N&Sh
+Sf. M102:3, Impf. VA.2423:15, pl. B9:13
039A:16, YBC:5, Itpa. Impf. M102:7 bed N. m. +Sf. 040A:7
slave N. m. N&Sh B21:10 to flee V. Pe. Perf. VA.2423:10, Imper. ? Gordon
practitioner N. m., pl. +Sf. VA.3382:9, 1934b:7
VA.2423:11, VA.2575:6, VA.2496:7, VA.3382:16 to exorcise V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B23:1
to transgress V. Pe. Perf. M163:19, Part. 005A:3 ten Num. VA.2484:14,25,26, VA.2416:19, VA.2434:9,
bolt N. m. 040A:4 VA.2424:14
quickly Adv. VA.2418:5, VA.2509:9, N&Sh ( expresses future occurrence) Adj. VA.2423:15,
B9:13, VA.2509:16, VA.3381:15, 041A:7,14, 043A:1, VA.2417:12
VA.2509:15,16, 041A:14, VA.2509:16, 043A:4 body N. m. +Sf. VA.2416:8,19, VA.2434:10, VA.2492:4,
until Conj. VA.2484:9,24, M163:24, 040A:11 039A:13, 040A:3, VA.2418:3, VA.2484:14, YBC:1,
to pass V. Pe. Part. 041A:20 VA.2423:16, VA.2417:12, VA.2417:10
( magical) act N. m., pl. VA.2416:10,12,13, mouth N. m. VA.2423:3, M102:8, N&Sh B21:6,14,
VA.3382:10, 041A:16, 005A:4 024A:3,5, N&Sh B6:1,5,9, ROM:2, 024A:2, N&Sh B6:5,
depth N. m. M163:29 +Sf. N&Sh B21:3, M163:13,26,28, 005A:2,4,
to cause distress, to oppress V. Af. Part. 024A:9 043A:2, N&Sh B9:2, N&Sh B6:7,10
unpleasant Adj., pl. VA.2423:10 command N. m. M163:18, +Sf. M163:25
strong Adj. f. VA.2509:10, pl. VA.2509:12,13, retribution N. f. N&Sh B9:13
041A:11 loosing, dissolving of a spell N. m. M102:7
time N. m. VA.3381:13, 005A:11, 040A:11 to clasp, bind V. Pe. Perf. +Sf. M163:23, Part.
signet-ring N. m. ROM:4 N&Sh B9:1, M163:23
upper Adj., pl. M102:12 to cease, stop V. Itpe. Perf. M163:23
glossaries 151
to keep away V. Impf. VA.2424:13, Imper. 040A:12, N&Sh B6:6, +Sf. VA.2417:11, Impf.
VA.2575:12, VA.2496:14, Ittaf. Impf. VA.2575:9, VA.2509:15, 041A:14, N&Sh B9:5,6, 043A:2,3, Af. To
VA.1496:10 resurrect Part. VA.2417:12
restraint N. f. VA.2423:16 body N. f. +Sf. VA.2416:19,20, VA.2424:12,
iron N. m. VA.2509:9,16, 041A:8 M102:12, 040A:9, 041A:18, VA.2484:15,22, VA.2509:19,
to depart V. Pe. Impf. VA.3382:7, VA.2434:10, ROM:2
VA.2424:11,13, VA.2575:5,13, VA.2496:6,14, +Sf. 024A:8, close distance N. m. 005A:2
Imper. VA.2484:12, VA.2416:18, VA.2434:8, Inf. to kill V. Pe. Perf. 040A:5, Imper. 040A:5,9
041A:13 killing N. m. VA.2423:9
maid servant N. f. +Sf. VA.2484:7, charm N. m. VA.2484:18, VA.2509:1, VA.2423:1, VA.2434:2,
VA.2492:1, 039A:12 VA.2424:3, 039A:1, 040A:1,14, 041A:1, N&Sh B23:5,
( Itpe. with )to punish V. Pe. Impf. VA.2484:9 005A:10, pl. VA.2423:10,19, VA.2416:1,16, VA.3381:9,
to steighten V. Pe. Part. 040A:12 N&Sh B23:3, +Sf. 005A:9
to melt, to dissolve V. Pe. Imper. VA.2418:2 knot N. m. pl. VA.2423:10,15, +Sf. N&Sh
release (from a spell) N. f. VA.2492:6, 039A:15, YBC:5 B23:11
to open V. Pe. Perf. N&Sh B21:3,7, Imper. established Adj. 005A:11, M102:14, VA.2417:13,
VA.2509:9,16, 041A:7,14 M102:14, M163:30, VA.2417:12
idol N. m., pl. VA.2484:19, VA.2423:17, VA.2417:8, anger N. m. +Sf. VA.2484:10
005A:10, 039A:8,12, N&Sh B23:1, VA.3381:10,13, misfortune10 N. m. VA.2418:4
M102:5,7, 041A:10, +Sf. M163:21,25,29 voice N. 005A:6, 005A:6,7,8
( female) idol N. f. pl. VA.3381:13 vermin N. f. VA.2418:5, N&Sh B9:13, N&Sh B9:13
to pervert V. Pe. Part. M163:15 possession, property, livestock N. m. +Sf. f.
to want V. Pe. Part. VA.3381:15 VA.2484:13,22,24,26, VA.2424:11, YBC:7
to hunt V. Pe. Part. VA.2417:7 to terminate V. Pe. Impf. VA.2492:4, 039A:14,
to shout V. Pe. Inf. N&Sh B7:6 YBC:2
curl N. f. pl. M163:23 verse N. m. N&Sh B9:5,7,10
to heed, obey V. Pe. Part. 043A:1, Inf. 005A:5 to come near, approach V. Impf. 041A:16,
temple N. m., pl. +Sf. VA.2418:2 VA.2575:13, VA.2496:15, 041A:3, VA.2509:17,
bird N. m., pl. M102:9 041A:15, VA.2509:5
tassle N. f. VA.3381:6 war, battle N. m. M163:26
to pray V. Itpa. VA.2496:12, VA.2575:10 to call V. Pe. Perf. VA.2509:13, Part. 005A:5,
to attach V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B9:1, N&Sh B23:1 VA.3381:3, 041A:11, +Sf. VA.2418:1,3, VA.2417:8,
binding N. m. N&Sh B23:4 043A:1, N&Sh B6:4, M102:3, Af. Impf. +Sf.
to contaract V. Pe. Perf. 043A:6 005A:9, Itpe. to be called, designated, Part.
to neigh V. Pe. Impf. 040A:8, Part. 005A:8 VA.2575:5,7,11,13,14, VA.2496:6,8,10,12,15, 005A:9, N&Sh
shout, cry N. f. N&Sh B23:5, VA.3382:13 B7:2, 005A:4
trouble N. m. 041A:17 to happen V. Pe. Perf. N&Sh B7:3, N&Sh B7:3,
, to tie up V. Pe. Part. ROM:4 VA.2423:19
to receive V. Pa. Imper. VA.2423:14, Gordon near Adj., f. VA.3381:13, 005A:2
1934b:7 VA.2423:13, VA.2423:14, 024A:7, SD 27:6, relative N. m., pl. SD 27:5
Inf. 039A:6, Ittaf. Impf. M102:7 invocation N. f. VA.2509:10,13, 041A:8,12,
grave N. m., pl. VA.2423:10, N&Sh B7:4 VA.3382:10, N&Sh B23:4, N&Sh B23:4,6,7,8, pl.
to shout, wail, V. Pe. Impf. 040A:8, 040A:13, VA.2509:13
Part. 005A:8, Imper. Gordon 1934b:7 mishap N. f. VA.2423:5, VA.2575:3,10, VA.2496:4,12,
holy Adj./N. m. M102:14, pl. VA.2484:14,25, N&Sh. B7:3, +Sf. VA.2423:14
VA.2416:5,19, VA.2434:9, VA.2424:14, VA.2575:8,12, corner N. m. & f., pl. VA.3381:13, N&Sh B6:9
VA.2496:10,13, VA.3382:15, M163:16, pl. f. warrior N. m. VA.2492:5, 039A:5,14, YBC:3
M163:29 harmful Adj. VA.2575:9,12, VA.2496:11,14
before, to Prep. VA.2484:15,21, VA.2509:12, VA.2423:20, bow N. f. 040A:4
VA.2416:20, VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10, VA.2575:15, M163:18, head N. m. +Sf. 005A:8
M102:7,14, 041A:11, 043A:1, VA.2496:16, +Sf. f. master N. m. 024A:1,4,8
VA.2484:6,9,24, )(VA.2484:10. of old great, large Adj. m., pl. M163:15
first N. f. M163:18,21,23,27, 039A:10 great Adj. m. VA.2484:7,12, VA.2509:17,18, VA.2416:11,
to deal rigorously V. Pa. Part 040A:11 VA.2575:15, VA.2496:16, VA.2492:7, 039A:4,5,14,17, 040A:12,
snare N. m., pl. VA.2509:9, 041A:8,14 041A:15,17, N&Sh B6:9, YBC:3,5,6, VA.3382:12,13,
to stand V. Pe. Impf. VA.2484:9,24, VA.2492:5, VA.2418:2, VA.2417:5,6, VA.2417:11, SD 27:2,
N&Sh B9:7, Part. VA.2484:15,21, VA.2416:19, VA.2434:11, M102:3,14, M163:20,23, Gordon 1934b:2. f. VA.2417:3,5
VA.2424:10,15, VA.2423:16, M163:28,30, VA.2484:8, greatness N. f. M163:20, M163:16, +Sf.
005A:2, VA.3381:6,7, N&Sh B6:2,5, N&Sh B23:6, M163:16
10 MD p. 412b.
152 glossaries
to send V. Pe. Perf. +Sf. N&Sh B7:5, Impf. , angel, prince N. m. SD 27:2, pl. +Sf. N&Sh B9:1
040A:11 family N. f. 043A:12
to have power over someone, to dominate V. Part. to dwell V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B9:14, Gordon 1934b:3,
VA.2509:14, 041A:13, +Sf. 039A:15, 040A:10
VA.2484:16,21, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:12, Pa. Part. to untie, release V. Pe. Impf. VA.2423:5, 024A:3,
M102:3,4 039A:13, 040A:3, VA.2423:17,19, 21, Pa.
messenger N. m. +Sf. VA.2484:7, VA.2492:2, Inf. N&Sh B23:11, Itpe. Perf. VA.2423:22, Part.
039A:13 VA.3382:12, Impf. VA.2492:2
ruler N. m. Gordon 1934b:2, 039A:15, YBC:5 permission, release N. f. M163:15
to be completed V. Part. +Sf. VA.2423:20 sound N. m. VA.2423:16, VA.2424:15, VA.2417:13, M102:14,
peace N. m. VA.2417:3,4,5,6,7, VA.2417:1,2, 005A:11, M163:28,30
N&Sh B6:3, , year N. f., pl. N&Sh B6:7
completeness (of body) N. f. 039A:17, YBC:6 to drink V. Pe. Impf. VA.2484:8, VA.2417:10,
to remove V. Pe. Imper. 040A:9 Imper. VA.2484:12, N&Sh B7:8, 040A:8
name N. m. M102:12, M163:9,10,11,13, to silence V. Pa. Impf. N&Sh B6:9, Inf.
M102:11,14, M163:5,6,10,11,12,16,24, 039A:9, N&Sh B6:1, N&Sh B6:5
041A:19, VA.2484:13,15,17,18,19,21,22, VA.2423:13, to claim V. Pe. Imper. +Sf. VA.2417:13
VA.2416:14,15,16,18,19,20, VA.2434:9,10,13, VA.2424:10,12,13, to break V. Pe. Part. N&Sh B23:11, Imper. 043A:3,
VA.3382:14,16, VA.2492:6, VA.2418:4, M102:3,10,11,12,14, Itpe. Part. VA.3382:12, Impf. N&Sh B9:4
M163:13,14,16,26,29, 005A:3, 039:15, 040A:2,10, 043A:3, calamity, fracture N. m. N&Sh B9:5, pl. VA.2423:19,
N&Sh B6:8, N&Sh B7:8, N&Sh B9:14, N&Sh B21:11, brocken sounds of the shofar VA.3381:12
N&Sh B23:5,6,7,10, Gordon 1934b:7, YBC:5, +Sf. crown N. m. N&Sh B21:10, +Sf. VA.2509:7, 041A:5,
039A:4,5, M163:15, 024A:8, 041A:5,6,12,13,15,17,19, N&Sh B21:11
N&Sh B23:10, +Sf. 005A:5, VA.2484:15,19, abyss N. m. VA.2509:6, 041A:5, pl. 040A:10
VA.2509:6,7,15,17,18, VA.2423:15, VA.2416:5,9,11,19, again Adv. VA.2484:11,25, VA.2423:18, VA.2416:11,13,15,17,
VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10, VA.2424:12, VA.2575:7,8,11,14, VA.2434:6, VA.2417:11, Gordon 1934b:6
VA.2496:8,9,12,16, VA.3381:16, VA.2418:1, M102:10,11, ox N. m. M163:18, 040A:9
M163:1,28,29, 005A:5, 040A:10, 041A:17, N&Sh B6:9,10, praise N. f. +Sf. VA.3381:5
N&Sh B7:1,6,9, N&Sh B9:12, N&Sh B23:9, VA.2575:1, under Prep. M163:3,5,6,7,12,14,17,19,21,22,25, N&Sh B21:9,
VA2496:1, VA.2484:18, SD 27:2, VA.2423:11, pl. ROM:3, pl. 040A:10
005A:3,4, N&Sh B7:2, +Sf. 024A:5, lower Adj. M102:12,13, M163:9
M163:16, 043A:1 astonishment N. m. VA.3382:14
left side N. f. +Sf. 041A:19 south N. m. M102:6
heaven N. m. pl. VA.2423:9, VA.2416:6, VA.3382:1,12, three Num. VA.2423:4, VA.2423:11, 024A:2,5
VA.3381:2,5, M102:4,6, M163:8,9,24, N&Sh B9:4, thirty Num. 040A:5, N&Sh B6:8
005A:1, 024A:1,2, N&Sh B21:10 to be speechless V. Af. Perf. M163:26, Imper.
Sabbatical cycle N. f. N&Sh B6:7 M163:27
to hear, to obey V. Pe., Perf. 005A:5,6, +Sf. eight Num. VA.2416:19,20, VA.3382:12, M102:12, 040A:6,9,
N&Sh B6:4, Part. 043A:1, Af. Imper. 043A:1 041A:18, M163:24
to minister V. Pa. Part. VA.2484:15, VA.2416:20, strong, powerful Adj./N. f. VA.2484:11,
VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10, VA.2496:16, M163:16, VA.2509:10, VA.2416:17,18, VA.2434:6, VA.2575:9, VA.2496:11,
VA.2575:15 M163:9, VA.2434:7. pl. VA.2416:7,10,12,13,15,
to ban V. Pa. Impf. VA.3381:8, VA.3381:13 VA.3382:10, M163:27, N&Sh B6:2
ban N. f. VA.3382:14, 039A:2, pl. remedy N. f. 039A:15, YBC:4
VA.2416:8,10, VA.3381:11 see
see two Num. VA.2484:14,22, VA.2509:19, VA2423:4,11,12,
to remove V. Pa. Imper. VA.2417:9 VA.2434:10, VA.2424:12, 024A:3,6
hour N. f. VA.3381:16 to divorce V. Pa. Perf. Gordon 1934b:6
speech N. f. 005A:1 hen N. f. N&Sh B21:3
leg N. m., pl. +Sf. N&Sh B9:3 cock N. m. 005A:7, M163:6
to take V. Imper. Gordon 1934b:6, VA.2423:14, gate N. m., pl. 2509:9,16, 041A:8
024A:7, Itpe. Impf. M102:13,14
Hebrew
behind Prep. VA.2423:22, +Sf. 041A:19 M102:14, M163:28,30, 024A:9, 039A:17,18, 041A:17,20, 043A:4,
god N. m. VA.2423:22. pl. VA.2416:9 N&Sh B6:10, N&Sh B7:9, N&Sh B21:13, N&Sh B23:11,
unknown Adj. pl. VA.2423:19 Gordon 1934b:9, YBC:7, VA.2418:5
no Negative particle N&Sh B9:5 to say V. Perf. N&Sh B6:10, N&Sh B21:13, Part.
amen, firm Adv. m. VA.2484:17,18, VA.2509:21, VA.2484:23, VA.2424:12
VA.2423:16,23, VA.2416:11,16,20, VA.2434:13, VA.2424:15, I Pron. VA.2484:1, VA.2434:1, VA.2424:3, Gordon 1934b:9
VA.2575:15, VA.2496:17, VA.3382:16, VA.3381:16, VA.2417:13, healing N. f. N&Sh B9:6
154 glossaries
M163:14 005A:3
041A:12 VA.2575:11, VA.2496:13
041A:13 VA.2509:18
M163:11,14 040A:6
VA.2492:5, 039A:5,14, YBC:3 M163:18
039A:15, YBC:5 M163:18
VA.3382:15 M163:15
VA.3382:14 VA.2484:15, VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10
VA.3382:15 VA.2416:19
M163:9,10 005A:3
VA.2496:13 VA.2575:7,11, VA.2496:9, VA.2484:15, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10
VA.2416:6 005A:3
M163:14 N&Sh B23:6
Gordon 1934b:7 VA.2575:8,12, VA.2496:9,13
VA.2416:14 VA.2484:15, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10
M102:11 VA.2423:22, VA.2575:14,15, VA.2496:16, VA.3381:16,
M163:11 M163:29
VA.2416:5 Gordon 1934b:8
VA.2484:15,20,23, VA.2416:19, VA.2434:11, M102:6,8,11,12
VA.2424:10,13, VA.2575:11, VA.2496:13, SD 27:2, M102:10,11, 040A:11
041A:18 024A:8
SD 27:2 VA.2484:17, VA.2434:13
M163:10 040A:2
VA.2575:8,11, VA.2496:9,13 VA.2509:15, 041A:13
VA.2575:8,12, VA.2496:9,13 SD 27:1
VA.2484:17, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:13 Gordon 1934b:5
VA.2417:6 VA.2417:6
M102:10 N&Sh B21:9
VA.2509:15, 041A:13 M163:18
VA.2509:20 VA.2418:4
M163:10 VA.2484:15, VA.2416:19, VA.2434:11, VA.2424:10, M102:11
VA.2492:4, 039A:5,14, YBC:2 Gordon 1934b:7
VA.2416:5 ROM:4
VA.2426:5 VA.2492:6, 039A:15, YBC:5
N&Sh B23:6 VA.2484:25
039A:4,10 041A:19 VA.2509:19,
N&Sh B7:9 039A:5,14, YBC:3, VA.2492:5, N&Sh B6:8
040A:6 ROM:1
040A:6 VA.2424:14
005A:3 VA.2484:13
VA.2423:22, 041A:19 VA.2416:18, VA.2434:9, VA.2424:13
VA.2492:4, 039A:5,14, YBC:2 VA.2492:4, M163:4, 039A:5,14, YBC:2
SD 27:1 VA.2484:13
VA.3382:15 ROM:1
VA.2484:17 043A:9
VA.2416:5 039A:10
005A:3 ROM:1
N&Sh B21:11 VA.2484:17, VA.2416:20, VA.2434:13
N&Sh B21:12
158 glossaries
Biblical Quotations
Exodus IIKings
22:23 N&Sh B9:7 19:15 VA.2416:14
Deuteronomy Micah
6:19 VA.2484:19 7:1617 N&Sh B9:11
10:17 M102:10 Psalms
28:22 N&Sh B9:8 46:8 041A:2021
28:28 N&Sh B9:9 69:24 N&Sh B9:6
28:35 N&Sh B9:9 69:26 N&Sh B9:6
29:19 N&Sh B9:12 86:5 041A:21
29:22 040A:15,16 116:6 041A:21
Leviticus Nehemiah
26:29 N&Sh B9:9 9:32 M102:10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aitken, J.K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (Louvain, 2007).
Alexander, P., Sefer ha-Razim and the Problem of Black Magic in Early Judaism, in T.E. Klutz (ed.) Magic in the
Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon, (London, 2004), pp. 170190.
Algamil, J., Ha-Yehudim ha-Qaraim be-Misrayim 15171918 in J.M. Landau (ed.), The Jews in Ottoman Egypt
(15171914) (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 513556.
Aptowitzer, V., Formularies of Decrees and Documents from a Gaonic Court, Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (1913),
pp. 2351.
Ashworth, A., Madumo: A Man Bewitched (Chicago, 2000).
Audo, T., Treasure of the Syriac Language (Losser, 1985).
Black, J., A. George and J.N. Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden, 2000).
Baum, W., Shirin: Christian-Queen-Myth of Love: A Woman of Late Antiquity-Historical Reality and Literary Effect
(New Jersey, 2004).
Bohak, G., Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge, 2008).
Borisov, A.J., Epigraficeskie zametki (Russian), Epigrafika Vostoka 19 (1969), pp. 313.
Budge, W.E.A., The Histories of Rabban Hormizd and Rabban Bar-Idta, vol. II, pt. 1 (London, 1902).
Connan, J., The Use and Trade of Bitumen in Antiquity and Prehistory: Molecular Archaeology Reveals Secrets of
Past Civilizations, Philosophical Transactions of the the Royal Society of London B 354 (1999), pp. 3350.
Cooke, G.A., A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean,
Palmyrene, Jewish (Oxford, 1903).
Cunliffe, B. and P. Davenport. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, vol. II (Oxford, 1985).
Drower, E.S. and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963).
Epstein, J.N. and E.Z. Melamed, Mearim be-Sifrut ha-Talmud uvi-Leshonot Shemiyot (Jerusalem, 1983).
Flusser, D., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, 1998).
Ford, J.N., Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes: KTU 1.96 in Its Near Eastern Context,
Ugarit-Forschungen: Internationales Jahrbuch fr die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palstinas 30 (1998), pp. 201278.
, Review of Dan Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity,
Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006), pp. 207214.
, Phonetic Spellings of the Subordinating Particle d(y) in the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls,
Aramaic Studies 10 (2012) (forthcoming).
Ford, J.N. and D. Levene, For Aata-de-abuh daughter of Imma: Two Aramaic Incantation Bowls in the Vorderasi-
atisches Museum, Berlin (VA.2414 and VA.2426), Journal of Semitic Studies 57 (2012), pp. 5165.
Gager, J.G., Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford and New York, 1992).
Gaster, M., The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotions Additions to the Book of Daniel, Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894), pp. 280290 and 17 (1895), pp. 7594.
, The Sword of Moses: An Ancient Book of Magic, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 28 (1896), pp. 148198,
IXXXV.
Geller, M.J., Four Aramaic Incantation Bowls in G. Rendsburg et al (eds), The Bible World: Essays in Honour of Cyrus
H. Gordon (New York, 1980), pp. 4760.
, Eight Incantation Bowls Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 17 (1986), pp. 101117.
Gignoux, P., Incantations magiques syriaques (Louvain and Paris, 1987).
, Noms propres Sassanides en moyen-perse pigraphique in Mayrhofer M. and Schmitt R. (eds), Iranische
Personennamenbuch, vol. II, Fasziekel 2, Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wiessenschaften (Vienna,
1986).
, Mitteliranische Personennamen in M. Mayrhofer and R. Schmitt (eds), Iranische Personennamenbuch,
vol. II, Fasziekel 3 (Vienna, 2003).
, Les bulles Sasanides de Qasr-i Abu Nasr (collection du Metropolitan Museum of Art), in Papers in Honour
of Professor Mary Boyce, Acta Iranica 24 (Leiden, 1985), pp. 195215.
Gordon, C.H., Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums, Archiv Orientln 6 (1934), pp. 319
334.
, An Aramaic Exorcism, Archiv Orientln 6 (1934), pp. 466474.
, An Aramaic Incantation, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research14 (1934), pp. 141144.
160 bibliography
Wohlstein, J., Ueber einige aramische Inschriften auf Thongefassen des Kniglichen Museums zu Berlin, Zeit-
schrift fr Assyriologie 8 (1893), pp. 313340.
, Ueber einige aramaische Inschriften auf Thongefassen des Koniglichen Museums zu Berlin, Zeitschrift fr
Assyriologie 9 (1894), pp. 1141.
Yamauchi, E.M., Aramaic Magic Bowls, Journal of the American Oriental Society 85 (1965), pp. 511523.
INDEX
Targum, 7, 25, 26, 31, 42, 66, 100 Vorderasiatisches Museum, xiii, 12
The Sword of Moses, 17, 48 Vow, 15
Terms for aggressive magical acts, 1516
Yaror, see Demons