7:33 B: After he spat, he touched his tongue.
1. Human saliva as a remedy.
Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 126B: It is a traditional doctrine that
the saliva רוֹק of the father’s firstborn heals (eye
diseases). On the other hand, the saliva of the mother’s firstborn does not
heal. ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Šabbot 14.14D.18: Samuel († 254) said, “Tasteless
saliva must not be put on the eye on the Sabbath (because that means a
forbidden healing takes place on the Sabbath).” From this, you can infer with
respect to the area of the skin (that also its treatment with saliva on a
Sabbath is forbidden). The same is said in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2.40D.19 and b. Šabb.
108B. ‖ Mishnah Niddah 9.7: What is tasteless saliva? Salvia when one has not
yet (previously on the same day beforehand) eaten.
2. Spitting on a diseased part of the body was particularly common in
incantations (לְחִישָׁה, Aram. לְחָשָׁא).
Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.1: The following are those who have no portion in
the world to come.… R. Aqiba († ca. 135) said, “Also … whoever whispers over a
wound הַלּוֹחֵשׁ
עַל הִמַּכִהּ
and says, ‘I will not place upon you all the suffering that I have placed on
the Egyptians (for I am Yahweh, your physician)’ (Exod 15:26).”—By
“whispering,” what is meant is the whispering of a spell, as it was customary
in incantations when used in connection with a biblical passage. The words in
parentheses are missing in the text of the Mishnah, but were certainly recited
during the incantation, since the ensuing discussion (see the discussion)
revolves around them.—More precisely, it is said in t. Sanh. 12.10 (433) that
Abba Saul (ca. 150) said in the name of R. Aqiba, “Also whoever whispers over a
wound, it is written in Exod 15:26, ‘I will not place upon you all the diseases
that I have placed on the Egyptians,’ and (thus) he who spits out וְרוֹקָק has no place in the future world.”—Thus it
is not the discussion of a wound in itself, nor the use of a scriptural verse
that is forbidden, but what excludes participation in the future world is
merely the recitation of the biblical text in connection with spitting out.
This is confirmed by b. Sanh. 101A: “He who whispers over a wound.…” R. Yohanan
(† 279) said, “This applies to someone who spits, because the name of God
(which appears at the end of Exod 15:26) must not be mentioned when
spitting.”—Here, we hear that the prohibition to recite a biblical passage in
connection with spitting out had its basis in the concern that the divine name
would be desecrated by its mention in connection with human saliva.
Accordingly, Rashi’s comments at b. Sanh. 101A confirms this: “Those who
whisper the spell usually spit before whispering, and it is forbidden to
mention a verse of Scripture when whispering (discussing). However, there are
also whisperers who spit afterward and speak a verse of Scripture in a foreign
(not the holy) language and also mention the name of God in a foreign language.
Then my teacher told me that this was permitted, for it was only forbidden to
whisper after spitting because it seemed as if the name of God was mentioned
when spitting. Furthermore, it was only forbidden in the holy language, but not
in a foreign language.”—What is said in the above passages about the name of
God has been extended by others to scriptural texts that do not contain God’s
name. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 101A: Rab († 247) said, “Even (when he says
during the incantation) ‘in case a plague of leprosy befalls a human being’
(Lev 13:9)”; R. Hanina (ca. 225) said, “Even (when he says,) ‘And God called
Moses’ (Lev 1:1) (this one has no part in the future world).” Of course, it is
also meant here that the recitation of verses of Scripture is only forbidden
within an incantation, if (and indeed before) one spits. In the parallel
passage in y. Sanh. 10.28B.2, therefore, Joshua b. Levi (ca. 250) says, “Even
if one has said, ‘When damage due to leprosy arises upon one’s body’ (Lev 13:9)
and (then) spits. He has no share in the world to come.”
The following details should be noted with respect to spitting out
during the incantation:
a. The individual did not spit on the ground, but rather on the
diseased part of the body. Abot de Rabbi Nathan 36: R. Yohanan b. Nuri (ca.
110) said, “… whoever whispers (an incantation formula) over a wound and spits
on the wound וְרוֹקֵק
עַל הַמַּכָּה,
and says, ‘all suffering …’ (Exod 25:26) has no part in the coming world.” ‖
Furthermore, see the story of a woman who is said to have whispered a spell
against eye pain and then spit into the allegedly ill eyes of R. Meir in y. Soṭah
1.16D.37 at § Matt 5:9, #1, second third.
b. The reason for spitting during the incantations is not given
anywhere, but it is easy to extrapolate. Babylonian Talmud Pesaḥim 111A: Resh
Laqish (ca. 250) said, “Whoever does four things will have his blood upon his
head, and he will be in debt for his life. These things are as follows: whoever
urinates between a palm tree and a wall; whoever passes between two palm trees;
whoever drinks borrowed water; and whoever walks over poured water, even if it
is his wife who has poured it out.” (These four things are harmful because of
the evil spirits that dwell in them, according to Rashi.) … “The one who walks
over poured out water: that is said only in the instance that one does not
remove it by the dust of the earth or spit upon it; if it has been removed (by
the dust of the earth) or if it has been spit upon, then nothing comes of it
(the poured out water is thereby freed from the evil spirits and rendered
harmless).” Other passages consider the emission from a human to be among those
things that are disgusting. The same sense of disgust for human saliva was
assumed for demons and was seen as a means to drive them out of their
dwellings. Similarly, a woman who is followed by a snake is advised by b. Šabb.
110A to throw some of her hair and nails at the snake and then it will leave
her alone. Here, too, disgust serves to expel an annoying adversary. Since,
according to widespread opinion, human illnesses came from the sinister work of
demons who took possession of the diseased part of the body, the superstitious
believed spitting on the affected area of the body (and the incantation) was an
effective means of driving the evil spirits away.
Comment: In an essay, Guttmann expressed the opinion that Aqiba’s
above-mentioned judgment about whispering over a wound in m. Sanh. 10.1 was
directed particularly against Jewish Christians. But in R. Aqiba’s statement
there is nothing which would have been characteristic of the Jewish Christians.
Instead, everything fits exactly into the Jewish practice of that time.
a. The incantation for diseases was common practice among Jews at that
time and was also permitted. Only formulations referring to demons were not
permitted by R. Yose (ca. 150). Apart from the above-mentioned passages, see
for example Jos. Ant. 8.2.5:
“(Solomon) had established the use of incantations in order to alleviate
diseases, and he also left behind exorcisms by which demons are driven away in
such a manner that they never return. And this healing procedure has been the
most valid and is used by us even now (καὶ αὕτη μέχρι νῦν παρʼ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία πλεῖστον ἰσχύει).” Tosefta Šabbot 7.23 (119): One is
permitted (on a Sabbath) to whisper an incantation formula against the evil
eye, a snake, or a scorpion. On the Sabbath, one is permitted to lead something
over a (diseased) eye (for cooling or for pressure). Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel
(ca. 140) said, “Something one can carry on the Sabbath. One is not permitted
to discuss something that refers to demons (on the Sabbath).” R. Yose said,
“Even on a weekday one is not permitted to discuss something that refers to
demons.” ‖ On incantations and formulations, see in particular b. Šabb. 67A;
110B; b. Giṭ. 69A; b. Pesaḥ. 116A; see also the excursus “Ancient Jewish
Demonology,” #1, n. f. and e.
b. The custom of reciting written words to ward off danger was also
widespread among the Jews, see b. Ber. 55B; 56B; b. Šabb. 67A; b. Pesaḥ. 111A;
112A. Other than the Shema, the 3rd and 91st Psalms were
spoken especially against the mazziqin
(a harmful plague of spirits). The latter was therefore almost called the “Song
against the Plague of Spirits”; see b. Ber. 5A; y. Ber. 1.2D.43; y. Šabb.
6.8B.17; y. ʿErub. 10.26C.25; b. Šebu. 15B; Num. Rab. 12 (165A); TanḥB נשא § 27 (20A); Midr. Ps. 91 § 1 (198B); see
also the excursus “Ancient Jewish Demonology,” #1, n. c. and e.
In light of these Jewish habits, R. Aqiba’s saying can be fully
understood. Conversely, in a few rabbinic passages that deal with the healing
of the sick by Christians (cf. § Matt 10:1 B), the recitation of an OT
scriptural word is never mentioned, whereas it is regularly noticed that the
healings happened in the name of Jesus. How then can Aqiba’s comment about
whispering an Old Testament passage of Scripture have Jewish Christians in
mind!
3. When Jesus wets the tongue of the deaf and mute man with salvia, it
has nothing at all to do with the use of salvia, as was customary with
incantations, because the healing does not take place by means of an
incantation but instead by Jesus’ almighty word. Nevertheless, it must
presuppose that the patient knew about the custom of using salvia (see #1).
Jesus links what he is doing to this practice: by touching the tongue of the
deaf and mute man with his salvia, Jesus is letting him know that he should expect
healing from the one who stands before him. Only the awakening of this belief
is the work of Jesus, which precedes the actual healing; the healing itself
happens through Jesus’ word. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck,
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob
N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham,
Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:17-20)
