Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?

34 Pages·2004·2.2 MB·English

Martin L. Gordon
Dr. Gordon, AssistantP rofessoro f Judaic Studies,
at Stern Coliege, Yeshiva University is currently on
SabbaticaLl eavei n Israel.
MEZUZAH: PROTECTIVEA MULET OR
RELIGIOUSS YMBOL?
Among those ideas enjoying wide circulation in the religious
community, and an ominous popularity, is the conception of.m e-
zuzaha sa protectived evice.A ssigning mechanisticp otencyt o
the Biblical inscription appearing on the face of the parchment,
as well as to the Divine nameS haddaio n the outer side, this view
imputes inherent defensivep ower to the very object of mezuzah
per se, claiming for it deterrente {Iecta gainste vil. Thus, the mits-
vaft appeals as a pressing practical expedient, addressedt o the
individual's concern for his personalp hysical security and that of
his family. When taken to its extreme, this perspectivec alls for
"bodek
being mezuzot" (examining the condition of the inscrip-
tion) in the wake of tragedy, suggestingt hat the unfortunate cir-
cumstancesm ight be attributable to the inoperative defenseso f
an invalid mezuzah.
This perception of mezuzahh as been widely popularized dur-
ing the past several years in the literature of the Lubavitcher
movement, particularly since the terrorist attack at Ma'alot in
1,974, and more recently since Entebbe. One particular Chabad
brochure, circulated in the wake of Ma'alot, calls upon Jews to
"defenses,"
marshal their spiritual depicting specific mitsvot-
"helmets,"
and mezuza&i s prominent among thsrnl-2s which
"military
strategy" advisesz( a battlefield analogy which is more
than figurative). Following the rescuea t Entebbe,a nd a discourse
by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which the protective view was ar-
ticulated in learned formulation,3 a student'brancho f the move-
ment distributed a flyer suggestingt hat the ordeai of the hostages
, :l- may be linked to the collective inefficacyo f their mezuzoti
TRADITION'. A Journal ol Orthodox Thought
A kosherm ezuzaho n your door postsn ot only makesy our housea n
abodef or G-dliness,b ut is also your security measuree ven after you
havel eft home for the day. And sincea ll Jewsa re one large body, it
increasesth e securityo f the entire Jewishn ation. Due to the fact that
most of the mezuzotin the homeso f hostagesu,p on examinationw, ere
found to be defective,i mproperly placed or not on every door post,
cll Jewss houldc heckt heir mezuzoti mmediately.+
The protective perception of mezuzah is formulated in the
mystical literature of the medieval period. It appears in works
such as Seler Raziel, associated with the thirteenth century ideol-
ogy of German Hasidism; in the Zohar, the major work of the
Kabbalah; and accedes to widespread influence via the sixteenth
century teaching of the Ari with its strong anti-demonic element.s
But it is our purpose to examine whether this doctrine is con-
sistent with the ideology of. Chazal, as incorporated in tannaitic
and amoraic literature. Our objective is to determine whether the
protective view may not, indeed, constitute a radical departure
from classic rabbinic thinkins.
I. THE ISSUE DEFINED
When we refer to the protectivev iew of mezuzah,w hosec on-
troversiality we shall explore, we havg in mind the belief in a
mechanisticp otency inherent within the mezuzaha s an object-
its parshiyyol (scriptural passages) or the name Shaddai in-
scribed upon it. Such a view is unique to a particular tendency
in religioust hought of a magical-mysticaol rientation,w hich de-
picts mezuzah as a screen against shedim (malevolent spirits).6
Our intention is not, of course,t o questiont he protective benefits
granted by Divine providence as a reward for the observanceo f
mitsvat mezuzah, a fundamental traditional conception, ap-
plicable to the observanceo f mitsvot generally. Such reward,
however,i s not an effect generatedb y the mitsvah-objecta s such,
nor by the shem (the Divine name) inscribed upon it, but a per-
sonal responseo f God acknowledgingt he merit of the mekayyem
ha-mitsvah (the executor of the precept), whose religious com-
mitment is reflectedi n his fulfillment of the commandment.A n
ongoing contemplation of the inscription affixed to the doorpost
- t;: rir :r.... 1 .:, i:!.,t. :j.. ,..: fostersa profound relationshipw ith God, with its attendantp rovi-
8
Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol?
dential dividends. Nor do we question the psychological effect
of mitsvot as deterrento f sin. Certainly one'sr egular contact with
the mezuzafta t his door contributest o a sustainedr eligious con-
sciousnesse, nhancingt he prospecto f virtuous behavior. At issue
is the ascriptiono f an occult potency to the mezuzah,w hich acts,
allegedly, to shield a man against physical harm, a particular
mystical conception, attributing protective power to the heftsa
shel mitsvah (mitsvah-object) per se.
II. SOURCES
Biblical Passages
Mitsvat mezuzaha ppearsi n two Biblical passagesT. he context
of the first of thesep assages(D euteronomy6 :4-9) clearly points
to an instructional role for the mitsvah,.n o protective function is
in any way suggested.C alling upon the Israelite to devote his
attention to the Divine unity and the love of God-,.And these
words which I command thee this day shall be upon thy hear1"-
the parshahf ormulatess everalp racticesi ntended to facilitate that
end:
And thous haltt eacht hemd iligentluy ntot hy childrena, nds haltt alk
of themw hent hou sittestin thy housea, ndw hent houw alkesbt y the
way . . . And thous haltb ind themf or a signu pont hy hand,a ndt hey
shallb e for frontletsb etweenth ine eyes.A nd thou ihalt write them
upont he doorpostosf thy house. . .
The function of mezuzah, together with that of tefiilin, is to
arouse the religious consciousnessj,u st as diligently teaching
"these
words" to one's children and regularly talking of them
will servet o intensify and perpetuateo ne'sc ommitment-.
In fact, the affirmation of the unity principle (Shema yis-
rael . ..), which openst he parshah,a nd the command to ,.love
the Lord thy God with all fhy heart, and with all thv soul, and
with all thy might"-lyhatever the sacrifice, as Rabbi Akiva,s
martyrdom demonstratedT-would preclude a concern for one,s
physical security, even as a passing thought, in the process of
j1 I. .::ti;-i . r; irl:,:, .1"...- implementing mitsvat mezuzah.sT he meiuzah is to te posted,
TRADITION: A lournal of Orthodox Thought
just as the tefillin are to be worn, as an expressiono f an exclu-
sively spiritual senseo f purpose.I n this light, recourset o mezuzah
as a device for self-protectioni s a distortion of its fundamental
purpose.e
But even where material reward is linked with mezuzah-in
the second passage( Deuteronomy 11: I3-21)-as a benefit of,
if not reward for, the mitsvah (". . . that your days may be multi-
plied, and the days of your children . . ."),nos uch recompenseis
a gestureo f God's beneficenth and ("1will give the rain of your
land in its season. . . And / will give grassi n thy fields .").
The mezuzaft itself does not generatea ny benefit by the mere
virtue of being positioned strategically at the doorway. Add to
this the plain senseo f the parshah,a ccordingt o which long years
are promised not specifically for mitnat mezuzah, but for an
all-embracingc ommitment to the totality of the Divine command-
ments.
In fact, the Torah implicitly rejects the notion that Divine
namesa re possessedo f inherent power,loa strikingly unique posi-
tion when viewed againstt he background of the literatures of the
ancient world. Among the ancients,d ivine names were consid-
ered a source of supernaturalp ower, which, if activated by the
skilled magical practitioner, could control and coerce even the
gods themselvesw, ho were thought to be reliant for their strength
on theses ecretn ame formulae.ll The Torah, on the other hand,
in its formulation of the monotheistici deal, deniesa ny such doc-
trine. God Himself is the exclusives ource of all power, and His
name(s) is in no way possessedo f independentp otency. Divine
namesm erely designateG od and servet o convey to the worship-
per a senseo f His closeness.l2
A rejection of the doctrine of magical name-powerw as, in fact,
communicatedb y God to Moses at the Burning Bush, according
to several scholars.lsH aving been asked to redeem the people,
Moses puts the question to God:
Behold,w henI comeu nto the childreno f Israel,a nd shalls ay unto
them:T he God of your fathersh aths entm e untoy ou; and theys hall
sayt o me: What is His name?W hats hallI sayu nto them?( Exodus
,,:r:-.-:,,:, : 3:l 3)
t0
Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Syrnbol?
,. " , ,'', '.. ,, ; ,i..,.|r We haveh erea n allusiono n Moses'partt o Egyptiann ame-magic,
ask to know the name of their God, in orcier to tap its potency
"I
for theurgicu se.T o which God responds: shall be [presentl
as I shall be lpresentl" (ibid. 3:14). Let Israelk now that I am
no pagan deity, whose power is deftly drawn from the mystery
of his name.I am a personalG od, Who will be dynamicallya vail-
able.t o them and responsivet o them in every crisis, out of a con-
cerned awarenesso f their plight. Ironicaliy, then, the protective
notion, which imputes power to the mezuzah inscription itself,
blunts one of the most distinctivef eatureso f the Torah's theo-
logical posturei n its battle with ancientm ythology.
Tannaitic and Amoraic Sourcesla
The protectivep erceptiono f mezuzahd oesn ot appeari n the
tannaiticm idrashim.I n the .lilrei (Deuteronomy6 :9), me7u7ah,
together with tefillin and tsirsfr,s erve to foster the bond between
God and Israel. Out of His love for Israel, God has ,,encom-
passedt hem with mitsvot," which serve the people as perpetual
reminderso f that love.l5 God is particularly responsivet o Is-
rael, when she expressesh er devotion tO Him through thesem ifs-
vot, as reflectedi n a parabie depicting Israel as a queen, ,,desir-
able" unto the king when adorned with her .,jewelry."
The Mekhilla is emphatic in denying any protective interpre-
tation in an analogousc ass-the blood sprinkled on the Israelite
doorposts the night of the Exodus.16N oting that God had in-
"And
structed, the blood shall be for you as a sign" (Exodus
12:13), the Mekhilta (ad /oc.) explicatest he Divine intent:
_As a sign for you, not as a sign for Me." Clearly, explains R.
Ishmael, God, before Whom all is revealed,d id nof ,.quire btood
at the entrancesi n order to distinguish the Israelite homes on
that wrathful night.l7R ather, the sprinklingo f the blood was an
act expressiveo f obediencet o the Divine command.ls.a meri_
"I
torious gesture,i n reward for which shall appear,"s aysG od,
"and
havec ompassionlfeo r you" (Mekhiita, piodus tZ:i3, Z3).
The Mekhilrc (Exodus 12:23), in fact, compares the two
sa5ss-fhg blood on the doorposts and the parihiyyot of our
1l
TRADITION: A tournal ol Orthodox Thought
mezuzah-in terms typical of classic rabbinic reasoning,m eas-
uring the respective weight of each as a mitsvaft, not as an
apotropaic rite. Raising the issueo f Jewishs uffering,t he Mekhil-
/d posesa question: Why is it that destruction never penetrated
the Israelite homes in Egypt, which were sprinkled wiih blood
(a lesserm itsvah, since it was applicable only on that single oc-
casion,o nly at night and not in future generations),w hile suf-
fering does befall Jewish homes through the ages, which are
adorned with mezuzah (a greater mitsvah, since it comprisest en
Divine names, is applicable through both day and night and
for all generations)? Now, if the intent of the Mekhilta had
been to weigh respective strengths of deflective power, rather
than degreeso f importance as a mitsvah, there would have been
no significanceto the frequencyo r infrequencyw ith which each
ritual applies. Clearly, there would be no reason for the blood
on the doorposts on the night of the Exodus to have been con-
sidered relatively any less potent by virtue of its inapplicability
on any other occasion; or, conversely,f or mezuzaftt o be con-
sidereda ny more potent at a given moment by virtue of its regu-
larity.It is obvioust hat both mezuzaha nd dam (the blood) are
being evaluatedb y the Mekhilta for their respectivei mportance
as Divine commands-or religious experiences,if you will. The
greater frequency of mezuzah, its perpetuity as a mitsvah le-
dorot-even its incorporation of ten Divine names with their
inspirational and instructional value-reflect a mitsvaft deemed
more vital and impactual in terms of drawing the Jew closer to
God. No protective function is at all involved.
Particularly in its solution to the question-why Jewish suf-
fering in the face of mitsvat mezuTahl-the Mekhiha makes
clear that the fortunes of Israel are, after all, in no way tied to
some specialp ower of the mezuzah:
"But
Whati s thec auseO? ur sins,a si t is said: your sinsh aves eparated
between you and your God" (Isaiah 59:2)
Mezuzah is effective as is any mitsvah only when its observance
is indicative of a general devotion to the service of God. No
particular mitsvah-act or mitsvah-object can generate a pro-
12
Mezuzah: ProtectiveA mulet or ReligiousS ymbol?
tective effect,w hen a man is unworthy of Divine beneficence.
And when he is worthy, it is God Who will protect him as a
gestureo f His personalc oncern.T hus the Mekhilta text depicts
the circumstancesin which evil is renderedi mpotent as attribu-
table not to some inherent effect of the mezuzahi tself or its
Divine names,b ut, as the Biblical phrase itself would suggest,
"He
to a free act of the Divine will: would not permit the mash-
hit . . ." (Exodus l2:23).2o
Nor do talmudic sourcesl end support to the protectivev iew.
One particular baraita (Menahot 43b), quoted as the theme of
mezuzahb y virtually all post-talmudicw orks dealingw ith the
mitsvah, defines its effect exclusivelyi n terms of moral re-
straint:
R. Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: Anyone who has tefillin upon his head
and tefillin on his arm, tsirsi/ on his garment and a mezuzaft at his
entrance has a strong reinforcement against sin.21
A passagea ppearingin the JerusalemT almud (Pe'ah I:l)
might seem to suggest,a t first blush, the protectivep otencv of
mezuzah. The account is related of Artavan, Parthian king
(probably the V),22 who sent" Rabbenuh a-Kado.sh"( ostensibly
R. Judah ha-Nasi) a pricelessje wel, riquesting an item of com-
parable value in return. Rebbi, reciprocating,s ent Artavan a
mezuzah,t o which the king reactedw ith disbelief: ,The item
I sent you was of immeasurablew orth, and you send me some-
thing worth a pittance?"T o this Rebbi replied:
Neither the things you nor I might desire [material wealth] are com-
parable to it Ithe mezuTah]; and, furthermore, what vou have sent me
requires.my protection, whereas what I have sent you protects you,
even while you sleep.23
A surface reading of the above account could suggestt he
protectivev iew; but this is not the case.T he point Rebbi was
expressingw as not the mysteriousp otencyo f a religiousi nscrip_
tion-though to a pagan king this might have been the super-
fcial sense;r ather, the enlightening spiritual effect of the words
of Torah, representedb y and articulatedw ithin the passageso f
the mezuzah,2ra s well as their providential dividlnds when
13
TRADITION: A Journal ol Orthodox Thought
adopteda s the guide of one'sl ife. This is confirmedb y the verse
cited by Rebbi at the conclusiono f his response-"When thou
walkest it shall lead thee, rvhen thou liest down it shall watch
over thee ," (Proverbs 6:22)-a passagew hich lauds the
merit of wisdom or Torah study,2*"a s is clear from the context
of the sugyah, establishingt he superiority of such study even
over the practice of mitsvot.25R ebbi was far from any attempt
at selling the mechanisticp otency of a specificm a'asehm itsvah
or heltsa shel mitsvah.H e rvasp rojectingt he Torah, generally,
as the key to an entire corpus of redemptivev a1ues.26
The protectivev iew of.n teaeah is suggestedin one talmudic
passage( Menahot 33b), but as the non-normativep osition.T he
context is a statemento f Rava to the effect that a mezuz.ah
should be affixed to the doorpostw ithin a handbreadtho f the
entrance.T wo explanationsa re offered in the Talmud for this
requirement:
Rabbanans ay: That he encountert he mezuzah( the mitsvah) with
immediacyR. . Hanina of Sura says:That Ithe mezuzahf protect
ithe entireh ousel.
R. Hanina of Sura (sixth _ueneratioanr .nora)e xplainst he first-
handbreadth principle in terms of the security of the home,
w^h9sein terior is, apparently,m aximally embracid by the Fower
of the mezuzah,w hen it is positioneda t the very threshold.R ab-
banan, however, the collective majority, do not subscriber o
this interpretation.F or them, Rava'i considerationis an enthu-
siasmf or mitsvot, expressedin a desiret o encounter the mezu-
zah with greatesti mmediacya s one enterst he home. The pre-
dominant interpretation,t hen, implicitly denies any notion of
a protectivef orce generatedb y mezuzah.2T
The rejection of R. Hanina of Sura's rigidly apotropaic (or
mechanisticallyp rotective) position,o n the pait oi the^mesader
ha-sugyah( the talmudic editor of the passage),D oy, indeed,
be inferred from a statementc ited e|id.) ln immloiate se-
quencet o the Suran view:
Considerh ow the mannero f mortal men is unlike that of the Holy
One BlessedB e He. The mannero f mortal men is suchthat a king
t4
Mezuzah: ProtectiveA mulet or ReligiousS ymbol?
dwellsw ithin[ hisp alace]w, hileh iss ervantgsu ardh im from without.
Not so the mannero f the Holy OneB lesseBd e He, Whoses ervants
dwellw ithinf theirh omes]w, hileH e guardsth emf romw ithoutA. s it
"The
is said: Lordg uardsth ee. . ." (Psalml2 l:5).
Unlike the view of R. Hanina of Sura, this passage,q uoted
in the name of R. Hanina b. Hama, a studento f R. Judah ha-
Nasi, formulatesa providential position,i dentifying the source
of protection as God Himself, Whose presenceis only symbol-
ized by the mezuzah.2(sI n fact, title to the Divine protectioni s
not associatedb y R. Hanina b. Hama with the specific fulfill-
ment of mitsvat mezuzahp er se, nor with the performanceo f
any one particular mitsvah, for that matter, but with an all-in-
clusivec ommitment to the serviceo f God, as suggestedb y his
"servants,"
reference to the Lord's who dwell within.se) By
quoting R. Hanina b. Hama at this point, the mesaderh a-sugyah
appearst o have intended,i n effect,t o overridet he mechanistic
view of R. Hanina of Sura,e ither by replacingi t with the more
acceptablep rovidentialp osition or by redefiningi t innocuously
in providential terms (contrary, of course, to R. Hanina of
Sura'so wn intent).30
Another talmudic passage( Avodah Zarah 11a) places the
identical statemento f R. Hanina b. Hama on the tonsue of
onkeles the Proselyte.o nkeles is depicted as having sucleeded
in making Jews of successivetr oops of Roman soldiers sent to
seizeh im following his conversion.I n the finar such encounter,
the soldiers are attracted by the mezuzaho n the doorpost, upon
which onkeles had placed his hand. Inquiring as to its signi-
ficance,t hey are moved to conversionb y his st-atemenot f G6d's
protective concern for Israel. Here too no prophylactic p^colweaerr,
is attributed to the mezuzah-objecta s such. In iact, it is
as well, from onkeles' earlier exchangew ith the troops that God
Himself is the subject of discussion.o nkeles cites ihe Biblical
passaged epicting how God walked before Israel in the desert,
"with
a pillar of fire to give them light,, (Exodus 13:21), which
he contrasts with the distant air of a mofial king, who would
never serve his people.with any such gesture unbecoming his,
station. Be it His illumination of their way in the desert oI ui,
protection of their homes, God is a personally interestedG uard-
l5
TRADITION:. A lournal ol Orthodox Thought
ian of Israel, Whose concern is articulated in the inscription on
the doorpost,a personalG od, responsiveto all who place their
trust in Him.31
We have cited severals ugyot to demonstratet hat any surface
impressions uggestingt he protectivev iew of mezuzahd oes not
stand up under investigation.T here are, furthermore, several
sugyot which implicitly exclude the protective notion. The case
is cited (Yoma 11a) of an examinero f mezuzot,w ho was ap-
prehendedb y the Roman quaestorw hile inspectingt he mezuzot
posted at the gates of the city of Sepphoris.T he Talmud, noting
that the authorities leveled a costly fine upon him, is disturbed
by the issueo f Divine justice, pointing to the principle of R.
"Those
Eleazar, engaged in a mission of. mitnah are immune
to injury." Now, were mezuzah considered endowed with a
distinctive,m echanistically-protectivpeo wer, the Talmud would
surely have pursued the issue in those terms, rather than con-
fining its inquiry to the general providential principle of R.
Eleazar.
Similarly, the talmudic criteria determining the schedule for
examining a mezuzah (to insure that the inscription remains
intact) betray indifference toward any notion of protection
from evil as the function of the mitsvah. The mezuiah of. an
individual is to be inspected twice in seven years, and that of
a community, twice in fifty years (ibid ). The rationale under-
lying these time intervals is based on a projection that the in-
scription is not likely to becomea lteredi n the interim, and there-
fore a hezkat kashrut (presumption of legitimacy) is established.
Now, had the Talmud subscribedt o the magical-mystical per-
ception of mezuzaha s an anti-demonicd evice,w hose mvsteriou,
potency requires a flawless inscription,32i t surely would not
have relied on the probabilities implicit in hazakah, but would
have.r equired a regular scrutiny of the parchment to guarantee
the fact of a valid mezuzah.
The twice-in-fifty-years examination period prescribed for a
public mezuzah (ibid.), as interpreted by seviral rishonim, is
particularly irreconcilable with any protective notion. These
commentatorse xplain that no more frequent inspections chedule
could have been realistically imposed on a community, because
1 6 '