Journal for

the Study of
Judaism
Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287 brill.com/jsj

An Akkadian Demon in the Talmud:

Between Šulak and Bar-Širiqa1

Avigail Manekin Bamberger

Tel Aviv University
amanekin@gmail.com

Abstract
This article examines the resemblance between the Talmudic privy demon (“Shed
Bet ha-Kise”) and Šulak, a well-known Akkadian demon. There are four consider-
ations that point to identifying the privy demon of the Talmud with the Babylonian
demon Šulak: (1) They both dwell in the privy; (2) they both are demons that cause
epilepsy, strokes, or sudden falls; (3) they both seem to have the form of a lion; and
(4) their names (“Šulak” and “Bar Širiqa”) are very similar. This suggestion is yet
another example of the presence of beliefs and opinions from the Ancient Near
East that found an echo in the Babylonian Talmud, one that may be added to a
number of examples given by M. Geller.

Keywords
Rabbinic literature, Babylonian Talmud, Jewish magic, Ancient Near East, Šulak

In a number of places in the Babylonian Talmud we fijind warnings against

“Shed Bet Ha-kise,” the “privy demon.” One such place is b. Giṭ. 70a:

The Rabbis recited:2 One who comes from the privy mustn’t have sexual inter-
course until he waits the length of half a mil because the privy demon accom-
panies him, and if he does, he will have nikpe (epileptic) children.3

1) I would like to thank Prof. Gidi Bohak, Dr. Uri Gabbay and Avigail Wagschal for their help-
ful comments and insights.
2) This statement is introduced by the term “Tanu Rabanan,” a term that is traditionally
considered to introduce Palestinian baraitot from Tannaitic times. Exceptions to this view
were already pointed out by J. N. Epstein who demonstrated a number of examples of
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15700631-12340381
 A. M. Bamberger / Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287 283

From this source we learn of the prohibition to have sexual intercourse

after returning from the privy during the time it takes to walk half of a mil,
because of the presence of the privy demon.4 Should a man not heed this
advice, his future children (or: “sons”) will be nikpim, epileptic.5
The notion that epilepsy is caused by demons was widely believed in
ancient times,6 and can be found in Rabbinic Amoraic literature both in the
west and the east. In Palestine this belief is portrayed in a parable in

Babylonian baraitot introduced by “Tanu Rabanan,” J. N. Epstein, Introduction to the Mish-

naic Text (3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 171-77 [Hebrew]. Furthermore, the only parallel
to this baraita is from tractate Kallah, which is generally considered to be a post-Talmudic
composition, citing the Bavli and not the reverse. See M. B. Lerner, “The External Tractates,”
in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; Assen: van Gorcum, 1987), 367–403, esp.
393-95. The presence of beliefs known to us from Babylonian cuneiform medicine, as will be
demonstrated here, may strengthen the notion that this is in fact a Babylonian baraita.
3) This is a translation of the Hebrew text, according to the version of the Vilna printed edi-
tion, which is roughly the same as the readings in the following manuscripts: Vatican Biblio-
teca Apostolica ebr. 130; Vatican Biblioteca Apostolica ebr. 140; München Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek Cod. hebr. 95 (95); Oxford Bodleian Library MS Opp. 771.
4) For Rabbinic toilet rules, see R. Neis, “‘Their Backs toward the Temple, and Their Faces
toward the East:’ The Temple and Toilet Practices in Rabbinic Palestine and Babylonia,” JSJ 43
(2012): 328-68. Neis notes that the fear of demonic danger in the privy is of more concern in
Babylonian Rabbinic materials than in Palestinian materials. Neis connects this to I. Gafni’s
survey of culture contacts between Jews and Persians, which includes the realm of demons
and demonology, see I. Gafni, “Babylonian Rabbinic Culture,” in Cultures of the Jews: A New
History (ed. D. Biale; New York: Shocken, 2002), 244-53. The present article focuses on the
connection with an earlier Babylonian tradition.
5) The term nikpe is known from Tannaitic times and appears both in the Mishnah (m. Bek.
7:5) and the Tosefta (t. Ketub. 7:10; t. B. Bat. 4:5). All of the Mishnah’s commentators interpret
the word in a similar manner and it seems quite clear it was used to describe what we know
as epilepsy. Maimonides for example writes in his commentary to the Mishnah that the
meaning of nikpe is known, and that it is called that because a nikpe is forced to turn over
when he collapses. It could be that the term nikpe preserves a belief that a demon forces
(kofeh) the epileptic attack on its victim, see J. Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine (ed.
and trans. F. Rosner; New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1978), 300.
6) Popular superstitions regarding the demonological character of epilepsy appear in
ancient Babylonian beliefs, as will be demonstrated in this article, for more on the subject
see M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia (Groningen: Styx, 1993), 23-27. These beliefs were widely
held in the ancient Greek sphere as well. Such can be seen in the polemic composition “The
Sacred Disease,” from the Hippocratic collection from as early as ca. 400 B.C.E. See O. Tem-
kin, The Falling Sickness (2d ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 1-81. A
similar notion is also presented in the New Testament where Jesus cures a child, apparently
sufffering from epilepsy, by expelling the possessing spirit/demon, see Mark 9:14-30 and the
parallel versions in Matt 17:14-22 and Luke 9:37-46.
284 A. M. Bamberger / Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287

Lev. Rab. 26:5, in which a doctor gives an Israelite and a priest an amulet
against epilepsy but only gives instructions to the Israelite. When the priest
inquires why he didn’t receive instructions from the doctor, the doctor
replies that unlike the priest, the Israelite’s usual manner is to walk amongst
graves. The implication is that spirits of the dead are connected to epilepsy
attacks. The presence of the belief that epilepsy is caused by demons can
also be found in the Babylonian Talmud where we see that amulets were
prescribed to prevent epilepsy attacks (b. Šabb. 61a).
The Amoraic portrayal of epilepsy difffers from the occurrence of nikpim
in Tannaitic literature, where we fijind only references to the social status of
epileptics. For example, in m. Bek. 7:5, epileptics are included in the list of
priests who are not permitted to work in the Temple. However, while the
explicit association of epilepsy with demons cannot be found in Tannaitic
literature, this could be explained by the casuistic nature of the Tannaitic
compositions, and not necessarily by their beliefs.
As noted by M. Stol, the source above from tractate Giṭṭin, warning of the
presence of the privy demon, bears a striking resemblance to an Akkadian
prescription involving a demon named Šulak.7 Šulak is the Akkadian privy
demon and he is mentioned in the Diagnostic Handbook, a medical hand-
book used in Babylonia in ancient times.8 This Akkadian handbook dates
from ca. 1000 B.C.E. but was in use also later.9 One section of the Diagnostic
Handbook is almost entirely devoted to epilepsy, spasms and strokes.10 In it,
one fijinds the view that if someone falls on his left side he was smitten by
the hand of Šulak, lurker of the privy.11 Stol translates:

If his right side is let down: stroke (inflicted by) a lurker; he will recover. If the
right side of his body is in its entirety let down: stroke (inflicted by) a lurker; he
has been hit at the rear. If his left side is let down: Hand of Šulak. If his left side

7) Stol, Epilepsy, 76; M. Stol and F. A.M. Wiggerman, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its
Mediterranean Setting (Groningen: Styx, 2000), 167.
8) Portions of the Diagnostic Handbook were published in R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diag-
nostics et pronostics medicaux (Leiden: Brill, 1951). See also N. P. Heessel, Babylonisch-
assyrische Diagnostik (AOAT43; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000). An edition and translation of
the portions on epilepsy in the Diagnostic Handbook was published by Stol, Epilepsy, 55-98.
9) Stol, Epilepsy, 55.
10) Ibid. See also H. Avalos, “Epilepsy in Mesopotamia Reconsidered,” in Disease in Babylo-
nia (ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 131-36, who argues with Stol’s inter-
pretations of the Akkadian terms for epilepsy.
11) Diagnostic Handbook, Tablet 27, lines 11-13. See Heessel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnos-
tik, 297.
 A. M. Bamberger / Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287 285

is let down in its entirety: he has been hit at the front; Hand of Šulak, Lurker of
the bathroom. A conjurer shall not make a prognosis for his recovery.12

From this source, we see clearly the connection between the Akkadian
privy demon Šulak and a seizure/stroke, which is similar to what we have
seen in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Giṭṭin.13
While Stol points to the similarity between the Akkadian and Jewish ren-
ditions of the privy demon, it appears that the two demons may actually be
one and the same. This is indicated by b. Šabb. 67a, which discusses spells
to be used against demons or illnesses:14

To the Privy Demon one should say: On the heads of lions and on the nostrils15
of cubs you found the demon Bar-Širiqa Panda. In the bed of leeks I hit him,
and with an ass’s jawbone I struck him.16

That the Privy Demon in this passage is in fact Šulak, the Akkadian demon
mentioned in the Diagnostic Handbook, can be derived from the following
two considerations. First, the spell against the demon is: “On the heads of
lions and on the nostrils of (lion) cubs you found the demon ‘Bar-Širiqa

12) Stol, Epilepsy, 76.

13) For another demon that causes epilepsy, the “roof-demon,” see T. Kwasman, “The Demon
of the Roof,” in Disease, 160-86.
14) This source has been discussed by Bohak in regard to Aramaic incantation bowls pub-
lished by D. Levene, A Corpus of Magical Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late
Antiquity (London: Kegan Paul, 2003), 40-41. Bohak shows an interesting parallel between
the spell formula here and in a certain incantation bowl (M101) and suggests that the spell in
the Talmud and the spell on the bowl are variations of the same. See G. Bohak, “Babylonian
Incantation Bowls – Past, Present and Future: on A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation
Bowls in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity by Dan Levene,” Peʾamim Studies in Oriental
Jewry 105-106 (2006): 258 [Hebrew].
15) For ‫ אוסיא‬as nostrils, see M. Sokolofff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-
Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 92.
16) This is a translation of the Aramaic text, according to the version of the Vilna printed
edition; the manuscript readings are very much alike, though one should note diffferent
orthographies of panda/panra and also diffferences between “Širiqa” with full and defective
spelling. The word translated “nostrils,” ‫אוסי‬, also varies between manuscripts but seemingly
with no diffference in meaning. The manuscripts checked here include Vatican Biblioteca
Apostolica ebr. 108; München Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Cod. hebr. 95 (95); Oxford—
Bodleian Library MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23(366), and Genizah fragment Cambridge—Westmin-
ster College G.F. Talmudica II, 2.
286 A. M. Bamberger / Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287

Panda.’”17 That is to say, the spell in the Babylonian Talmud is against a

demon in the form of a lion, and scholars do in fact identify the demon
Šulak with a demon in the form of a lion.18 This identifijication is due to a
large Assyrian tablet from around the seventh century B.C.E. describing
demons from the “Under World,” in which Šulak is described as “a lion,
standing constantly on his hind legs.”19 Further evidence that Šulak has the
form of a lion is suggested by F. A. M. Wiggermann. According to Wigger-
man, the fijindings of apotropaic fijigures of the lion-man urmaḫlullû that
were sometimes placed outside of lavatories may have been aimed at
attacking the lion-demon Šulak. One of the few seals found containing an
image of an urmaḫlullû is shown to be attacking a lion, Wiggerman suggests
that the lion may in fact be the privy demon Šulak.20 Furthermore, the Tal-
mudic name “Bar Širiqa” has a resemblance to the Assyrian name, “Šulak,”
and may just be an Aramaic adaptation. The main diffferences for the
exchange are the graphically similar letters yod and vav, and the phono-
logical exchanges between /l/ and /r/ and between /k/ and /q/. These pho-
nological exchanges seem to be due to the adaptation of the Akkadian
name to Aramaic. One may fijind similar exchanges in other loanwords in
Aramaic. For example, E. S. Rosenthal discussed the interpretation of Ben
Qavutal/Qavutar by the Babylonian Rav as Kabōtar, a pigeon.21 Another
example is the adaptation of the Akkadian word askuppatu to asqupa in
the Talmud,22 whereas in the Aramaic incantation bowls we fijind both
asqupa and askupa.23

17) The word following the name, “panda”/”panra,” can be translated as “a blow,” see Sokolofff,
Dictionary, 887.
18) See F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts (Groningen:
Styx, 1992), 98. And also C. Frank, “Lamaštu, Pazuzu und andere Dämonen. Ein Beitrag zur
babylonisch-assyrischen Dämonologie,” MAOG 14 (1941): 26, 33.
19) “The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince” (Museum no. VAT 10057), according to
the translation by A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA 3; Helsinki:
Helsinki University Press, 1989), 72, no. 32:6
20) See Wiggerman, Spirits, 98, 181.
21) E. S. Rosenthal, “Talmudica Iranica,” in Irano-Judaica: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts
with Persian Culture throughout the Ages (ed. S. Shaked; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982),
48-50 [Hebrew].
22) I would like to thank Dr. Uri Gabbay for bringing this to my attention, see Sokolofff, Dic-
tionary, 122.
23) The interchange between the liquid consonants lamed and resh is very common in
Semitic languages; see C. E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar
(Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 135. Alternatively, it may be that the demon Bar Širiqa was known
 A. M. Bamberger / Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013) 282-287 287

To conclude, there are four considerations that point to identifying the

privy demon of the Talmud with the Babylonian demon Šulak: (1) they both
dwell in the privy; (2) they both are demons that cause epilepsy, strokes, or
sudden falls; (3) they both seem to have the form of a lion; and (4) their
names (“Šulak” and “Bar Širiqa”) are very similar.
As a result, I suggest that the sages of the Talmud knew of the demon
Šulak, mentioned him in the Talmud and gave instructions on how to
defend oneself from him. If correct, this suggestion is yet another example
of the presence of beliefs and opinions from the Ancient Near East in use in
the Sassanian time in Babylonia that found an echo in the Babylonian Tal-
mud, one that may be added to a number of examples given by M. Geller.24
This also supports Geller’s conclusion that the rabbis in Babylonia were
influenced by their surrounding societies in beliefs in magic and healing,
just as their colleagues in Palestine were influenced by Hellenistic beliefs
and practices.25

to the rabbis through Persian culture, in which case this exchange is not surprising as Pahl-
avi doesn’t distinguish between the lamed and the resh sounds. Shaul Shaked attributes
the qof/kaf exchange to the loss of emphatic consonants in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic.
While Aramaic words kept the original orthography, loanwords from other languages did
not, see S. Shaked, “Iranian Loanwords in Middle Aramaic,” Encyclopedia Iranica (New York:
Mazda, 1987), 2:259. According to Shaked the reason for the preference of the letter qof is
because its accent is unequivocal, while the kaf has a plosive and fricative sound (personal
communication).
24) One of the most signifijicant of Geller’s examples is the parallel between b. Giṭ. 68b-70a,
and a medical vademecum, the Diagnostic Handbook, the same Akkadian handbook in
which we fijind Šulak, see M. J. Geller, “An Akkadian Vademecum in the Babylonian Talmud,”
in From Athens to Jerusalem (ed. S. Kottek et al.; Rotterdam: Erasmus, 2000), 13-32. Geller’s
parallel to the Diagnostic Handbook (b. Giṭ. 68b-70a) is extremely close to the location of the
parallel about the privy demon Šulak (b. Giṭ. 70a). Whether this is just a coincidence or
whether it shows something of the knowledge of the editors of tractate Giṭṭin is a matter for
further study.
25) See M. Geller, “Deconstructing Talmudic Magic,” in Magic and the Classical Tradition (ed.
C. Burnett and W. F. Ryan; London: The Warburg Institute, 2006), 1-18.