In a recent issue of המאור – a rabbinic journal of repute – an anonymous notice appeared on the Golem of Prague.1 Apparently, a rabbi in Brooklyn had publicly denied the authenticity of the Maharal’s Golem, claiming that R. Yudel Rosenberg (d. 1935) – in his נפלאות מהר”ל (Piotrkow, 1909) – was the first to suggest  that the Maharal had created a Golem. According to the account in המאור, the rabbi based his claim, in part, on the fact that no early Jewish book records that the Maharal had created a Golem. In response to the denial, the anonymous notice lists 6 “proofs” that the Maharal of Prague, in fact, created a Golem. Here, we list the 6 “proofs” in translation (in bold font) and briefly discuss  the weight they should be accorded in the ongoing discussion of whether or not the Maharal created a Golem.

   1. How could anyone imagine that a [Jewish] book written then [i.e., in the 16th century] could include a description of how Jews brought about the deaths of numerous Christians? At that time, the notorious censors censored even more fundamental Jewish teachings. Fear of the Christian authorities characterized every move the Jews made, from the youngest to the oldest.

The argument is presented as a justification for the lack of an early account of the Maharal and the Golem. Only in the 20th century could the full story appear in print, as it appears in נפלאות מהר”ל.  Apparently, the author of the anonymous notice has never read נפלאות מהר”ל. The volume does not depict how “Jews brought about the deaths of numerous Christians.” If the reference here is to the punishment meted out by the Golem to the Christian perpetrators of the blood libel,  נפלאות מהר”ל never depicts the Golem as bringing about the death of anyone, whether Christian or Jew. If the reference here is to the blood libel itself, נפלאות מהר”ל describes only how Christian criminals plotted against Jews (by means of the blood libel) and subsequently needed to be brought to justice by the Christians themselves. Nowhere are Jews described as bringing about the deaths of numerous Christians.

This argument, of course, does not prove that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century.

    2. The Maharal’s creation of the Golem is alluded to on his epitaph, in the line that reads: “It is not possible to relate.” More proof than this in not necessary.

The full line on the epitaph reads as follows: “For him, praise best remains silent, for in any event it is not possible to relate the full impact of his many good deeds.”2 See Psalm 65:2 and cf. Rashi to b. Megillah 18a, ד”ה סמא דכולא משתוקא. Nothing is said – or hinted – here about a Golem. Alas, more proof than this is necessary indeed.

First, it should be noted that R. Yudel Rosenberg did not invent the notion that the Maharal of Prague had created a Golem. Evidence for the Maharal’s Golem dates back to 1836 (before R. Yudel Rosenberg was born).3 If the rabbi in Brooklyn claimed otherwise, he was mistaken. Thus, the claim in 1909 that the Maharal of Prague had created a Golem occasioned little or no surprise.

Second, R. Yudel Rosenberg ascribed the book to R. Yitzchok b. R. Shimshon Katz, the son-in-law and contemporary of the Maharal. R. Yudel described in great detail how he had managed to come into possession of this rare manuscript.4 There was no immediate reason to suspect that this was a literary hoax, especially coming from the hand of R. Yudel Rosenberg.

Third, had the book contained pejorative material about the Maharal, a storm would surely have been raised against it. Instead, the book presented the Maharal as a master kabbalist, who created the Golem in order to stave off the notorious blood libel accusations against the Jews. Why should anyone have protested against this heroic image of the Maharal?

In any event, even if one concedes that “the majority of Gedolei Yisrael greeted his book with esteem” (a dubious claim that cannot be proven), it surely does not “prove” that the Maharal created a Golem. A book published in 1909 is hardly proof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century.

    4. Chabad Hasidim relate in detail how R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn visited the attic of the Altneu shul in Prague and saw what he saw. He wasn’t the first to do so – as reported by various elders – in the last 400 years.

Indeed, a long list of the names of the famous and not-so-famous who visited the attic of the Altneu shul can easily be drawn up. That the sainted Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, visited the attic of the Altneu shul is established fact. It is recorded in contemporary documents, i.e, in the Sichos and Letters of his successor, the Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson.5 Exactly what the Rebbe saw in the attic is less certain. According to one account, when asked, R. Yosef Yitzchok chose not to respond.6 According to another account, he reported that he saw ”what remained of him,” i.e., of the Golem.7 For Lubavitchers, this may be unassailable proof that the Maharal created a Golem, and perhaps that is as it should be. But for historians, dust – or even a bodily form – seen in an attic early in the 20th century hardly constitutes proof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century. As a matter of fact, it should be noted that extensive renovation took place in the attic of the Altneu shul in 1883. No evidence of the Golem was discovered then.8 A film crew visited and filmed the attic in 1984. No evidence of the Golem was discovered then.9

    5. No one disputes the fact that the Maharal put an end to the blood libel accusations that the Jews had suffered for generations. And even this was not fully spelled out in the book [i.e., נפלאות מהר”ל]. Can someone explain how the Maharal accomplished this?

The rhetorical question at the end of the fifth “proof” presupposes the existence of the Golem. Only by means of the Golem was the Maharal able to counter the blood libel accusations. No one disputes that the Maharal put an end to the blood libel accusations? Quite the contrary, no one has ever discovered a shred of evidence that links the Maharal to staving off a blood libel accusation! Nowhere in his writings, nowhere in the writings of his contemporaries (Jewish and non-Jewish) and disciples, is there a word about the Maharal’s involvement in staving off a blood libel accusation. That he put an end to the blood libel accusation is historically untrue. While the blood libel charge became less frequent in the Hapsburg lands after the 16th century, it hardly disappeared.10 From the 16th through the 18th centuries, the blood libel accusation largely shifted to Eastern Europe. In Poland alone, between 1547 and 1787, there were 81 recorded cases of blood libel accusation against the Jews.11 The Beilis case is a sad reminder that the blood libel accusation continued into the 20th century as well.12

Needless to say, this argument hardly proves that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century.

The manuscript referred to here is a notorious 20th century forgery of a letter ascribed to the Maharal, itself based upon R. Yudel Rosenberg’s נפלאות מהר”ל. The Munkatcher Rebbe, R. Hayyim  Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937), apparently was the first of many to expose this forgery.14

 In a subsequent issue of המאור, R. Hayyim Levi added 4 new “proofs” that the Maharal created a Golem.15  A brief summary of each of the new “proofs” is followed by an even briefer discussion of the weight they should be accorded in the ongoing discussion of whether or not the Maharal created a Golem.

Not a word about the Golem of Prague appears in any of these sources. Indeed, where we can examine the available evidence (in the case of the awesome story heard by the חיד”א), it apparently had nothing to do with a Golem.19

    2. R. Shimon of Zelikhov, משגיח of Yeshivat Hakhmei Lublin, said: “Everyone knows that the Maharal made use of the Sefer Yetzirah and created a Golem. I don’t claim that one needs to believe the tales in the storybooks about the Maharal. But it is clear that the Maharal used the book of Yetzirah and created a Golem.”20

R. Shimon of Zelikhov, a great gaon and zaddik, died as a martyr in 1943.21 His claim in the 20th century, however weighty, does not prove that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century.

This is the same notorious 20th century forgery listed as a “proof” above, section I, §6. For the refutation of this proof, see the reference cited in note 14.

This story, first published in 1837,26 is one of the oldest of the Maharal and the Golem stories. It was retold by R. Yitzchok of Skvere, and published in Yiddish (in 1890) and Hebrew (in 1903). Wonderful as the story may be, it cannot be adduced as “proof” for an alleged event that occurred some 300 years earlier.

—————————

Even aside from the dictates of rationalism, what militates against the notion that the Maharal created a Golem is the fact that nowhere in his voluminous writings is there any indication that he created one. More importantly, no contemporary of the Maharal – neither Jew nor Gentile in Prague – seems to have been aware that the Maharal created a Golem. Even when eulogized, whether in David Gans’ צמח דוד 27 or on his epitaph (see above), not a word is said about the creation of a Golem. No Hebrew work published in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (even in Prague) is aware that the Maharal created a Golem.28

In this context, it is worth noting that R. Yedidiah Tiah Weil (1721-1805),29 a distinguished Talmudist who was born in Prague and resided there for many years – and who was a disciple of his father R. Nathaniel Weil (author of the קרבן נתנאל) and of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz, both of them long time residents of Prague – makes no mention of the Maharal’s Golem.

This, despite the fact that he discusses golems in general, and offers proof that even “close to his time” golems existed. The proof is a listing of famous golems, such as the golems created by R. Avigdor Kara (d. 1439) of Prague30 and R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem (d. 1583) of Chelm.31 Noticeably absent is any mention of the Golem of the Maharal of Prague.32

Note too that the first sustained biographical account of the Maharal – by a distinguished rabbinic scholar from Prague – was published in 1745.33 It knows nothing about a Golem of Prague. The deafening silence of the evidence from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries needs to be addressed by those who are persuaded that the Maharal created a Golem.

The cumulative yield of the “proofs” put forward in המאור in support of the claim that the Maharal created a Golem is perhaps best described as an embarrassment of poverty. In the light of what passes for historical “proof” in המאור, it would seem that המאור – a reputable rabbinic journal – would probably do well to focus more on halakhah and less on Jewish history.

Whereas המאור commemorated the 400th anniversary of the Maharal’s death by focusing on the imaginary accounts of the Maharal and the Golem, scholars in the Czech Republic are to be congratulated for commemorating the 400th anniversary by designing a magnificent exhibition of the Maharal’s life and works and displaying it at the Prague Castle. The exhibition was accompanied by an even more magnificent printed volume edited by Alexandr Putik and entitled Path of life (and referred to several times in the notes to this posting). Despite the many excellent studies in the book devoted to the Maharal’s life and thought, much space – some will argue too much space – is devoted to the history of the Golem in art, sculpture, film, and theater. In contrast to המאור, the essays in Path of Life assume that the Golem of Prague was legendary, not a fact. Here, we reproduce one of the many imaginary paintings of the Maharal and the Golem displayed at the exhibition and included in the volume. It was done by Karel Dvorak in 1951.33

 

Not to be outdone, the Czech post office issued a commemorative  stamp to mark the 400th anniversary of the death of the Maharal. It features an imaginary portrait of the Maharal wearing a European casquette, reminiscent of the one the חפץ חיים used to wear in Radun. The first day cover includes an imaginary portrait of the Golem as well.

One wonders if the Maharal, prescient as he was, ever imagined that this is how he would be remembered on the 400th anniversary of his death!

1.  Anonymous, “הילולא קדישא הארבע מאה של המהר”ל מפראג זי”ע: יצירת הגולם” Ha-Ma’or  62:4 (2009), p. 95.

2.  The Hebrew original reads:
לו דומיה תהלה כי אין מספרים לרוב כח מעשי[ו] הישרים . See O. Muneles, כתובות מבית-העלמין היהודי העתיק בפראג, Jerusalem, 1988, p. 273. Cf. K. Lieben, גל עד, Prague, 1856, Hebrew section, p. 3.

3.   See S. [the author asked that I not reveal his name], “An Earlier Written Source for the Golem of the Maharal from 1836,” at On the Main Line, November 4, 2009. Cf. S. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London,” Judaic Studies 3(2004), p. 20, n. 34; and see below, n. 32, for evidence from 1835 that may link the Maharal and the Golem.

4.  נפלאות מהר”ל , Piotrkow, 1909, pp. 3-4.

5.  See, e.g., R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, תורת מנחם: התוועדויות, Brooklyn, 1992, vol. 1, p. 6.

6.  See previous note.

7.  Copy of a hand-written note by R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson published in the periodical כפר חב”ד, issue 798, 1998. The Hebrew reads in part:

בנוגע לעיקר הענין (שהמהר”ל עשה את הגולם), בעצמי שמעתי מכ”ק מו”ח אדמו”ר שראה הנשאר ממנו בעליית בית הכנסת דמהר”ל פראג.

 The full text of the letter is also available online at http://theantitzemach.blogspot.com, entry “למה נקרא שמו ברוך דוב“, Tuesday, April 27, 2010, in a comment by Anonymous posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at 12:28 A.M. I am indebted to Zalman Alpert, reference librarian at the Mendel Gottesman Library of Yeshiva University, for calling my attention to the online version (and to many other important references over the many years we have known each other).

Yet a third account, drawn from a conversation with Rebbetzin Chana Gurary, a daughter of R. Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, provides even more detail. Rebbetzin Gurary reported:

I then asked him [her father, the Rebbe] to tell me what he had seen there. My father paused for a moment and said: “When I came up there, the room was filled with dust and shemus. In the center of the room I could see the form of a man wrapped up and covered. The body was lying on its side. I was very frightened by this sight. I looked around at some of the shemus that were there and left frightened by what I had seen.

Special thanks to Rabbi Shimon Deutsch for providing me with a copy of Rebbetzin Gurary’s testimony, as reported to Rabbi Berel Junik.

8.  See N. Gruen, Der hohe Rabbi Loew, Prague, 1885, p. 39.

9.  See I. Mackerle, Tajemstvi prazskeho Golema, Prague, 1992. Cf. his “The Mystery of Prague’s Golem,” December 12, 2009, at http://en.mackerle.cz.

10.  See, e.g., R. Po-chia Hsia, The Myth of Ritual Murder, New Haven, 1988, pp. 203-209.

11.  See Z. Guldon and J. Wijaczka, “The Accusation of Ritual Murder in Poland 1500-1800,” Polin 10(1997), pp. 99-140.

12.  For basic bibliography on the Beilis case, See S. Leiman, “Benzion Katz: Mrs. Baba Bathra,” Tradition 42:4 (2009), pp. 51-52, n. 1.

13.  Rabbi A. Stern, מליצי אש, Vranov, 1932. In the three volume Jerusalem, 1975 photomechanical reproduction of מליצי אש, the passage appears in vol. 2, p. 87.

14.  For discussion and references, see S. Leiman, “The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem: A Modern Forgery,” Seforim Blog,  January 3, 2010.

15.  R. Hayyim Levi, “המהר”ל זי”ע” Ha-Ma’or 63:1 (2009), p. 84.

16.  R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (d. 1806), שם הגדולים השלם , Jerusalem, 1979, vol. 1, p. 124.

17.  R. Zvi Ashkenazi (d. 1718), שו”ת חכם צבי, סימן ע”ו, ed. Jerusalem, 1998, pp. 183-4.

18.  Loc. cit. R. Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz of Frankfurt died in 1719. Cf. below, n. 32.

19.  See Rabbi A.S. Michelson, שמן הטוב, Piotrkow, 1905, pp. 118-120.

20.  R. Avraham Shimon of Zelikhov, נהרי א”ש, Jerusalem, 1993, p. 173.

21.  See M. Wunder, מאורי גליציה, Jerusalem, 1978, vol. 1, cols. 238-243; Jerusalem, 2005, vol. 6, cols. 105-106.

22.  Rabbi Y. Weiss (d. 1942), אלף כתב, Bnei Brak, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 47-48.

23.  R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss (d. 1944). On him, see T.Z. Rabinowicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism, London, 1996, pp. 534-5.

24.  Y. W. Tzikernik, ספורים נחמדים, Zhitomir, 1903, pp. 13-14. Tzikernik’s hasidic tales were reissued by G. Nigal in סיפורי חסידות צירנוביל, Jerusalem, 1994.  In Nigal’s edition, the story about the Maharal and the Golem appears on pp. 128-130.  Tzikernik, who died circa 1908, was a follower of R. Yitzchok Twersky of Skvere (see next note) and recorded his stories for posterity.

25.  On R. Yitzchok Twersky of Skvere (d. 1885), see Y. Alfasi, אנציקלופדיה לחסידות: אישים, Jerusalem, 2000, vol. 2, cols. 339-40.

26.  The 1837 version appears in B. Auerbach, Spinoza, Stuttgart, 1837, vol. 2, pp. 2-3. See above, note 3, for a similar version of the story published in 1836. But the 1836 version makes no mention of the double recitation of מזמור שיר ליום השבת at the קבלת שבת  service.

27.  See David Gans, צמח דוד, Prague, 1592, entry for the year 5352 (= 1592). In M. Breuer’s edition (Jerusalem, 1983), the passage appears on pp. 145-6.

28.  It is noteworthy that in 1615, Zalman Zvi Aufhausen, a Jew residing in Germany, published a defense of Judaism against a vicious attack by the apostate Samuel Brenz. In the introduction to his defense, Aufhausen writes that he was encouraged by the great Jewish scholars in Prague and Germany to undertake his defense of Judaism. In the list of accusations, Brenz accused the Jews of engaging in magical rites and creating golems out of clay. Aufhausen admitted that Jews created golems out of clay in the talmudic period (see b. Sanhedrin 65b), but only by means of Sefer Yetzirah and the Divine Name, and not by engaging in magical rites. After the talmudic period, according to Aufhausen, Jews no longer had the ability to create golems out of clay, especially in the German lands. Aufhausen concludes:

 אביר אונזרי גולמיים אין דיזן לאנדן מכין מיר ניט אויש ליימן זונדר
אויש מוטר לייב ווערין זיא גיבורן.

    In these lands, however, our Golems are not made from clay, but
rather they are born from the bodies of their mothers.

See Zalman Zvi Aufhausen, יודישר טירייאק [second edition], Altdorf, 1680, pp. 7a-b. Given the apologetic nature of Aufhausen’s defense, it is difficult to assess how much stock should be put in his claim. But, surely, if the Maharal’s Golem had been strolling the streets of Prague a decade or two earlier than the appearance of the first edition of Aufhausen’s work, he could hardly claim openly that Jews no longer had the ability the create Golems out of clay after the Talmudic period.

29.  See L. Loewenstein, Nathaniel Weil Oberlandrabbiner in Karlsruhe und seine Familie, Frankfurt, 1898, pp. 23-85.

30.  See the entry on him in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 10, cols. 758-759. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was widely believed that he was the author of ספר הפליאה, a kabbalistic work that describes the creation of a Golem. Prof. Moshe Idel (in a private communication) suggests that this may have led to the belief that R. Avigdor Kara of Prague created a Golem. In any event, the fact that a distinguished Talmudist in 18th century Prague was persuaded that R. Avigdor Kara had created a Golem, suggests the possibility of a transfer in Prague of the Golem legend from R. Avigdor Kara (who by the end of the 18th century was relatively unknown) to the Maharal (who by the end of the 18th century resurfaced as a major Jewish figure whose works were being reprinted for the first time in almost 250 years).  For other suggestions regarding the linkage between the Maharal and the Golem, see V. Sadek, “Stories of the Golem and their Relation to the Work of Rabbi Loew of Prague,” Judaica Bohemiae 23(1987), pp. 85-91; H. J. Kieval, “Pursuing the Golem of Prague: Jewish Culture and the Invention of a Tradition,” Modern Judaism 17(1997), pp. 1-23; Kieval’s updated version in his Languages of Community: The Jewish Experience in the Czech Lands, Berkeley, 2000, pp. 95-113;  B. L. Sherwin, “The Golem of Prague and his Ancestors,” in A. Putik, ed., Path of Life: Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, Prague, 2009, pp. 273-291; and J. Davis, “The Legend of  Maharal before the Golem,” Judaica Bohemiae 45(2009), pp. 41-59.

31.  On R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm, see J. Guenzig, Die Wundermaenner in juedischen Volke, Antwerpen, 1921, pp. 24-26; G. Scholem, “The Idea of the Golem,” in his On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, New York, 1969, pp. 199-204; M. Idel, “R. Eliyahu, the Master of the Name, in Helm,” in his Golem, Albany, 1990, pp. 207-212; and idem, גולם, Tel Aviv, 1996, pp. 181-184.

32.  R. Yedidiah Tiah Weil, לבושי בדים, Jerusalem, 1988, p. 37. The passage comes from a sermon delivered in 1780.

Yet another 18th century witness, R. Saul Berlin (d. 1794), was apparently ignorant of the Maharal’s Golem. In his כתב יושר (written in 1784 but published posthumously in Berlin, 1794), p. 3b, Berlin writes:

ואולי דבר סרה על הנסים הידועים לכל בני הגולה, כאותם שעשה מוהר”ר לוי [קרי: ליוא] בהזמינו את הקיסר רודאלפוס למשתה, וע”י שם הוריד בירה מן השמים, או בגולם שעשה מוהר”ר נפתלי זצ”ל אשר עפרו עודנו טמון וגנוז.

              Did [Wessely] speak disparagingly about the miracles known throughout the Jewish Diaspora? [Did he speak disparagingly] about those miracles performed by Rabbi Liva when he invited Emperor Rudolph to his party, and when by means of a Divine name he caused the Prague Castle to descend from heaven? Or regarding the Golem created by Rabbi Naftoli of blessed memory, whose dust still remains stored away?

Clearly, R. Saul Berlin knew legends about the Maharal. But when he needed to adduce a sample of the Golem legend, he had to turn elsewhere! Interestingly, the legend about the Prague Castle descending from heaven onto the Jewish quarter of Prague was first told about R. Adam Baal Shem, and not about the Maharal.  It first appeared in print in Prague in the 17th century. By the 19th century, the very same story was told in Prague circles with the Maharal as its hero. Once again (see above, note 30) it would appear that we have a sample of the transfer in Prague of a legend from one hero to another, with the Maharal as the recipient. In general, see C. Shmeruk, ספרות יידש בפולין, Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 119-139.

Even more interesting is the reference to the Golem of R. Naftoli, otherwise unrecorded in Jewish literature. The reference is almost certainly to R. Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz (1645-1719), distinguished halakhist and master of the practical kabbalah, whose amulets – apparently — didn’t always work. From 1690 to 1704 he served as Chief Rabbi of Posen. (Note too that the Maharal served as a Chief Rabbi of Posen!) Recorded in Jewish literature (though I have never seen it cited in any discussion of the Golem of Prague) is an oral tradition from 1835 that the Maharal’s Golem was created in Posen and that the remains of the Golem could still be seen in the 19th century in the old synagogue of Posen “under the eaves, lifeless, and inactive like a piece of clay.” See S. M. Gollancz, Biographical Sketches and Selected Verses, London, 1930, pp. v and 50-55, and especially p. 54. It is at least possible that R. Saul Berlin heard about the legend of the Golem of Posen and assumed (wrongly) that the Golem was created by the famed practical kabbalist and rabbi of Posen, R. Naftoli.

I am indebted to S. of the On the Main Line Blogspot (see above, note 3) for calling my attention to the כתב יושר passage.

Apparently, reports about the remains of Golems in attics were a rather widespread phenomenon in the early modern period. Aside from the reports about Prague and Posen, see the report about the Great Synagogue in Vilna  (where the Vilna Gaon’s Golem rested in peace) in H.L. Gordon, The Maggid of Caro, New York, 1949, p. 176. A similar report about a Golem in Beshtian circles is recorded in R. Yosef of Tcherin, דרכי החיים, Piotrkow, 1884, Introduction, pp. 14-15.

33.  R. Meir Perels (d. 1739), מגילת יוחסין , appended to R. Moshe Katz, מטה משה, Zolkiev, 1745. It was reissued separately in Warsaw, 1864, and is available in L. Honig, ed., חדושי אגדות מהר”ל מפראג, London, 1962, vol. 1, pp. 17-32. Perels’ מגילת יוחסין is riddled with inaccuracies and needs to be used with caution. See A. Putik and D. Polakovic, “Judah Loew ben Bezalel, called Maharal: A Study of His Genealogy and Biography,” in A. Putik, ed., Path of Life: Rabbi Judah ben Bezalel, Prague, 2009, pp. 29-83. Putik and Polakovic cite significant earlier studies by Y. Yudlov, D.N. Rotner, S. Sprecher, and others. See also N.A. Vekstein ‘s important analysis of Perels’ מגילת יוחסין, entitled “המהר”ל מפראג,” in המודיע, September 4, 2009.

In the light of the discussion in notes 30-33 — and until new evidence is forthcoming — it seems evident that the linkage between the Maharal and the Golem originated after 1780 and before 1835, almost certainly in Prague but perhaps in Posen.

34.  See A. Putik, ed., Path of Life, pp. 398-399.

 

 

The Gaon and Zaddik of Spinka informed me on Monday of [parshat] Hukkat-Balak, 7 Tammuz, 5682 [= 1922], that a manuscript written by the hand of the Maharal of Prague came into his possession. In it, he responded to R. Jacob Günzberg about the making of the Golem, how and why it was done, and whether the Golem will be included in the resurrection of the dead.9

Thus, we know that the letter reached the Spinka Rebbe no later than the beginning of July in 1922.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, for those interested in some of the discussions regarding demon wranglers and golem makers, see Dr. Leiman’s post on “Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem?” and the post “Ghosts, Demons, Golems, and their Halachik Status.” As well as Dr. Leiman’s comments regarding a story that appeared in De’ah ve-Dibbur regarding the Maharal and his alleged golem and this post.

A wedding carries with it many customs, one of which is an attempt to use this ceremony to disseminate Torah. There was an old custom in many communities for people to write poems in honor of the simchas chasan and kallah. Others even wrote plays in honor of the bride and groom. One example is the Ramchal who wrote the play Ma’ashe Shimshon (as well as other poems for various weddings). In other communities there was a custom for someone to say a derasha at the chasunah for the same reason (in certain circles this still exists). Recently a newer custom evolved to print a sefer and give it out at the wedding.

It used to be a plain old bentcher was given out at a wedding, some, wanting something more substantial than a bentcher began giving out siddurim or chumashim. Today, in many circles, a sefer of some sort is given out to the wedding guests. Some times it’s an old work of some old famous relative of the family that has never been printed before, other times is a reprint from a relative of one of the wedding parties work which had been out-of-print. Some times its it’s torah from the groom or from some family member that’s making the wedding. What’s even more interesting about these seforim is many times they never reach the stores even the famous Biegeleisen who generally gets close to everything printed (to some known as Gan Eden). The market for these seforim many times is very small so the family never bothers bringing it to any stores. [Although, recently, various works of R. Reuven Margoliyot were reprinted for a wedding. It seems these were more widely disseminated as the republication forced Mossad HaRav Kook to reprint the works and to note that, according to them, the wedding reprint was a violation of their copyright.] The only way one gets the sefer is by being at the wedding or knowing someone who has been there. Other times it’s just pure luck – somehow one gets lucky and stumbles upon it. It’s a shame that a complete bibliography of such works can not really be written because there is no way to know all the works that have been published for these occasions.

A few months ago I was at the wedding of a good friend. As is now commonplace, the guests received a sefer – more correctly a collection of seforim – at this wedding. What follows is a review of that wedding gift.

First, I can only refer to this work as Mazkeret Nisuin Yehudah Vyael Hershowitz (a keepsake from the wedding of Yehudah and Yael Hershkowitz) as no other title is provided. The sefer is a paperback and is one hundred and thirty six pages long. It includes a few parts some of which have never printed before. The book was edited by the groom – R Yehudah Hershkowitz. R. Hershkowitz has authored many articles some of which appeared in Or Yisroel and Yeshurun dealing with many areas of learning and history.

The sefer contains four sections: section one is the sefer Ashes Chayil from R. Avrohom Yagel, section two are Shelios Uteshuvot from R. Avigdor Kara, section three is the Mamar al targum from R.Yakov Ben Chaim (ibn Adonijah), and section four is a Kuntres from R. Noach Berlin. I assume the reason why he printed it in this order is because Ashes Chayil is the most relevant to the wedding and then the other placement is based on chronological order. Prior to each section R. Herskowitz includes an excellent historical introduction to the work which follows.

The first part is the sefer Ashes Chayil from R. Avrohom Yagel. This work has been printed a few times even at a chasunah in 1994 of Zvi and Sarah Friedman in this edition R Herskowitz reset the type, which had not been done in the prior reprint, and added some notes.

The author R. Avrohom Yagel has been discussed at great length by Professor David Ruderman in his book Kabblah, Magic and Science. R. Avrohum Yagel was born in 1553. He corresponded with many gedolim of the time, amongst them the Ramah Mepano and R. Mordechai Dato. He was highly respected by the Ramah Mepano. He wrote many works on all areas especially science, many of which are still in manuscript and await publishing. One of his seforim is called Gaie Chezyon this work has been recently reprinted in English and Hebrew by Professor David Ruderman. It is a highly original work written in the form of dreams dealing with many topics. Many aspects of R. Yagel’s personal life can be gleaned from this work.

Ashes Chayil was first printed in Venice in 1606 and is a commentary on the thirty-first chapter of Mishlei which contains the verse of Ashes Chayil . R. Yagel wrote this work in honor of a friend’s wedding. The main idea of the work is to discuss what the role of a wife in marriage, to fear and love god, fear and love her husband and not to sit idle. R. Yagel notes that these same attributes apply not only for marriage but also when serving God. In the work there are many interesting explanations to different aggados of Chazal. Besides for this he writes many practical pieces of advice relating to marriage. For example, he writes, how the wife should get up early to prepare the household needs (pg 36). He writes that her voice should not be heard outside (Pg 40). Another point he makes is she should be careful to dress in a ts’neius manner and not to dress up like many woman to impress everyone (pg 49-50).

The next section are the Shelios u’Teshuvot of R Avigdor Kara. These teshuvot are printed here for the first time from manuscript. Here too R. Hershkowitz includes an excellent historical background about R. Avigdor Kara and his times. Although not much is known about R Avigdor Kara, R. Hershkowitz includes a brief history as well as a listing of the writings of two of his contemporaries which help with R. Kara’s biography: R. Yom Tov Melehuzan and R. Menachem Shalem. They were all active on the beis din in Prague during the same time periods (approx. 1390-1439). Besides for this R. Yom Tov Melehuzan was involved in kabblah as many of his works show whereas R. Menachem Shalem was more involved in philosophy. R Avigdor Kara was somewhere in between them as he was involved with both areas. In one of the teshuvot printed in this collection we see how R Avigdor Kara struggled trying to reconcile contradictions between Kabblah and philosophy. In the end R. Kara writes that he was successful and felt that he was able to show that there were no contradictions between the two. Both R. Yom Tov Melehuzan and R. Menachem Shalem were close with R Avigdor Kara quoting him in their respective works. R Avigdor Kara wrote many works on all areas. Some were printed many others remain in manuscript. One work, the Sefer Hapliah (more on this in a future post) was attributed to him but as has been recently proven is certainly not from him. The Sefer Hapliah although many write it is from R Nechunyah Ben Hakonah (see the many sources R Hershkowitz cites) but Professor Ta Shema (see his Kneset macharim Volume 3) and others have demonstrated that it’s a much later work.

R Herskowitz was perhaps unaware of some more sources on R Avigdor Kara. R. Yididiah Tiyah Weil brings that R Avigdor made a golem (Levushim Levadim pg 37). There is a nice chapter on R. Avigdor Kara in the controversial book Hachasidus from R. Ahron Marcus (chapter 28). Another point R. Hershkowitz missed is that the Zemir Achud Yuchud is attributed to him . This song is sung in many circles when the chasun gets an aliyah and has been subject to an excellent article by one of the experts on minhagim, R. Hamburger in his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz (volume 3 Pg 373- 397). While these contemporary sources are not mentioned, R. Herskowitz does provide many other sources.

The teshuvos which are included in this volume are on some very interesting topics. He discusses davening to angels and in general what function they serve exactly in tefilah. This is another great source for the well-known discussion of Machnesei Rachamim which has been treated thoroughly in the classic article of R. S. Sprecher (Yeshurun, vol. 3, pp. 706-29). It is also an important source for the debate, recently restarted again on this blog, regarding Professor Marc B Shapiro book. Another teshuvah deals with a work of R. Avigdor Kara’s which we do not have called Even Sappir. R. Avigdor explains what this work was, it appears to be rectifying contradictions between Kabblah and philosophy. For both these teshuvot R. Hershowitz provides some excellent background behind these topics. One other (of the many) interesting points found in this section is a early source that one should remove ones shoes before entering shul. This subject has been treated by many, most recently by R. Yecheil Goldhever in his now classic Minhaghei Hakehilos (volume one pg 3-7).

The next section is the Mamar Al targum from R.Yakov Ben Hayyim. This Mamar was very rare and exists in less than five chumushim in the world. R. Yakov Ben Hayyim was the famous editor for the Bomborg publishers in Venice. Much has been written about Bomberg, but suffice it to say it played a very important role in the history of the printing of seforim. Many of the seforim printed in this printing house have remained the same layout to this day such as the Mikros Gedolos Chumash, Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi and Rambam. R. Hershkowitz has a nice discussion on how exactly did R.Yakov Ben Hayyim edit the seforim. One of the famous points of interest with R.Yakov Ben Hayyim is that he became a Christian, not much is known as to when and why. R. Hershkowitz wants to suggest an interesting possibility that R.Yakov Ben Adoneiah did not do so willingly but rather was forced. [The inclusion of R. Yakov and R. Yagel has another connection, in that R. Yagel was erroneously accused of converting to Christianity.]

The Mamar Al targum discuses many interesting things amongst them when was Targum Onkelos given and written. He also has a big chidish L’ehalacha that sh’naim mikra ve’achad targum needs to be done during K’reias hatorah.

The last section is a Kuntres from R. Noach Berlin. This kuntres was never printed before. In this section R Hershkowitz does not provide that much of a biography about R. Noach Berlin as he and a friend are currently working on another work of R. Berlin the Meyin Hachacmah (which we eagerly await). R. Noach Berlin authored many famous works amongst them the Atzei Arazim (on Shulchan Orach Even Ezer) and Aztei Almughim (on eruv chaserios and netlayas yadaim). R. Chaim Volozhiner writes that after the Gra died the only person he had to consult with was R. Noach Berlin. This kuntres is on the topic of woman doing semicha. While discussing this topic he goes thru many others (as was the style of learning in those days) and deals with woman and mitzvos aseh sheha’zman grama especially Tefilin.

What follows is a short essay by Prof. Shnayer Leiman, whose article on this topic, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London: R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague,” appeared in Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58 [PDF].

I. In March 2006, Dei’ah VeDibur, a Charedi internet newsletter, published an essay on the Maharal and the Golem. Its conclusion was that “it is unclear whether or not the Maharal ever made a golem.”[1]

At the time, I responded on the internet with a congratulatory note praising Dei’ah VeDibur for its sober assessment of the evidence, and for its readiness to admit that it may be that the Maharal did not create a Golem.[2]

Shortly thereafter I received what appeared to be an angry email note from a distinguished academician at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It read

“You still haven’t responded to the evidence that a talmid of the Maharal is known to have created a Golem and that this factoid is documented.”

Since I had never claimed that a disciple of the Maharal either did or did not create a Golem, it was unclear to me why I had to respond to such a claim. Nonetheless, I knew precisely what my academic colleague had in mind. The author of the Dei’ah VeDibur essay mentioned in passing that the story connecting the Maharal to the making of a Golem was ”invented at some stage or, alternatively , it was mistakenly attributed to the Maharal while in fact it was his talmid HaRav Eliyahu Baal Shem of Chelm who made a golem (though the Maharal might have played a part).”[3]

Alas, we know precious little about R. Eliyahu (b. R. Aharon Yehudah) Ba’al Shem of Chelm (16th century).[4] In 1564, he joined a coalition of distinguished rabbis including R. Solomon Luria (the Maharshal, d. 1574) — that permitted an agunah to remarry.[5] Most importantly, he was an ancestor of R. Yaakov Emden (d.1776), who preserved the following tradition about him:[6]

As an aside, I’ll mention here what I heard from my father’s holy mouth regarding the Golem created by his ancestor, the Gaon R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of blessed memory. When the Gaon saw that the Golem was growing larger and larger, he feared that the Golem would destroy the universe. He then removed the Holy Name that was embedded on his forehead, thus causing him to disintegrate and return to dust. Nonetheless, while he was engaged in extracting the Holy Name from him, the Golem injured him, scarring him on the face.

Thus, there clearly existed a 16th century rabbi by the name of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm (contemporary sources prove this), and the creation of a Golem was ascribed to him (so according to 17th and 18th century sources).[7] Not a word is mentioned about his being a disciple of the Maharal.

So I sent off a note to my academic colleague in Jerusalem. It read in part:

“There is no evidence that any talmid of the Maharal created a Golem. You write: “this factoid is documented.” Let me assure you that no such “factoid” is documented. The claim has been made – I am well aware of that, but the claim is based on a misreading of texts that I plan to expose in a footnote or essay in a future publication.”

The remainder of this essay is devoted to fulfilling the promise I made to my academic colleague in Jerusalem.

II. The claim that a disciple of the Maharal created a Golem appears most prominently in an essay published by a close friend — and scholarly colleague – of mine, Dr. Shlomo Sprecher, in the Torah periodical Yeshurun. [8] I am certain he will forgive me for correcting him, if I am right. And if I am wrong, I urge him to correct my error publicly, thereby advancing discussion, and pray that he forgives my indiscretion.

The ישורון essay reads in part:[9]

“Regarding R. Eliyahu of Chelm, we know that he studied Torah under the Maharal and that he was a colleague of the Rabbi, author of the Tosafot Yom Tov…. The “true” Golem — according to a reconstruction based upon trustworthy sources — was the creation of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem, Chief Rabbi of Chelm, who was a disciple of the Maharal (as mentioned earlier). For whatever reason, the Master and the disciple were confused, with the resulting confusion [as to who created the Golem.]”

In fact, R. Eliyahu of Chelm was neither a student of the Maharal nor a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov. Sprecher can hardly be faulted; he was misled by the source he quotes, namely R. Menahem Mendel Krengil (d. 1930) in his commentary to R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai’s Shem Ha-Gedolim.[10] In turn, Krengil was misled by the source he quotes, R. Yitzhok Shlomo of Ozorkov’s introduction to Mikhlol Yofi (Warsaw, 1883).[11] In turn, R. Yitzhok Shlomo was misled by the source he quotes, R. Yehiel Heilprin’s (d. 1746), Seder Ha-Dorot.[12] In common, all these sources – and others not mentioned here – confused two different rabbis with the same name and cognomen, Eliyahu Ba’al Shem, and compressed them into one person. Despite the best efforts of nineteenth and twentieth century Jewish historians to expose this error,[13] shabashta keyvan d’al ‘al.

The above-mentioned R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm, the ancestor of R. Jacob Emden, may have created a Golem. But he was not a disciple of the Maharal, and he was not a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov, and — so far as anyone knows – he never set foot in Prague. Yet another R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem was R. Eliyahu (b. R. Moshe) Loanz (1564-1636) of Worms.[14] Distinguished kabbalist and author, he was a disciple of the Maharal[15] and a colleague of the Tosafot Yom Tov, but no one ever suggested that he created a Golem! This is not even a case of the proverbial “two Yosef b. Shimons.” For R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm’s father’s name was R. Aharon Yehudah, whereas R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Worms’ father’s name was R. Moshe.[16] Moreover, each was buried in the city where he served as Rabbi. Pilgrimages to the grave of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm — in Chelm –were commonplace until World War II.[17] The tombstone inscription on the grave of R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Worms – in Worms – was published in the nineteenth century.[18]

Other famous disciples of the Maharal include his son, R. Bezalel; his son-in-law, R. Yitzhok b. R. Shimshon; R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, author of Tosafot Yom Tov; and R. David Ganz, author of Tzemah David.[19] No source prior to the twentieth century ever imagined that these — or any other – disciples of the Maharal were involved in creating a Golem. In sum, until new evidence is forthcoming, the answer to the question raised in the title of this note appears to be: “No.”

Notes:

[1] B.Y. Rabinowitz, “The Golem of Prague – Fact or Fiction?” Dei’ah VeDibur, March 1, 2006.

[2] Posting on Mail-Jewish, March 6, 2006.

[3] See note 1.

[4] In general, see J. Günzig, Die Wundermänner in jüdischen Volk, Antwerpen, 1921, pp. 24-26; A. Brik, “רבי אליהו בעל שם זצ”ל מחעלם,” Moriah 7 (1977), n. 6-7, 79-85; and M.D. Tzitzik, “מהר”ר אליהו בעל שם מחעלם,” Yeshurun 17 (2006), 644-667.

שו”ת ב”ח החדשות, ס’ ע”ז [5]

[6]

שו”ת שאילת יעב”ץ, ח”ב, ס’ פ”ב. Cf. his בירת מגדל עוז, Altona, 1748, p. 259a; מטפחת ספרים, Altona, 1768, p. 45a; and מגילת ספר, ed. Kahana, Warsaw, 1896, p. 4. See also שו”ת חכם צבי, ס’ צ”ג, and the references cited in שו”ת חכם צבי עם ליקוטי הערות, Jerusalem, 1998, vol. 1, p. 421 and in the periodical כפר חב”ד, number 351 (1988), p. 51.

[7] See the sources cited by M. Idel, גולם, Tel Aviv, 1996, pp. 181-184 (English edition: Golem, Albany, 1990, pp. 207-212).

[8] S. Sprecher, בסתר בצל’:קווים לדמותו הסמויה של הג”ר בצלאל בנו יחידו של המהר”למפראג זצ”ל in Yeshurun 2 (1997), 623-634.

[9] See the text on p. 629; and the end of note 24 on p. 632.

[10] R. Menahem Mendel Krengil, ed., שם הגדולים השלם, Podgorze, 1905, vol. 1, p. 11b, n. 85. Cf. Krengil’s remarks at p. 12a, n. 90, and at p.117a, n. 12.

[11] R. Eliyahu Loanz, מכלול יופי, Warsaw, 1883, introduction. R. Yitzhok Shlomo of Ozorkov (near Lodz), who wrote the introduction, arranged for this reissue of R. Eliyahu Loanz’ commentary on Koheleth. The introduction is particularly confused and misleading.

[12] סדר הדורות , Karlsruhe, 1769, p. 64a. Cf. סדר הדורות השלם, Jerusalem, 1985, part 1, p.248. The passage reads:

[13] See, e.g., H.N. Dembitzer, כלילת יופי , Cracow, 1888, part 1, pp. 78b-79a; H. Michael, אור החיים , Frankfurt, 1891, pp. 170-171; and E.L. Gartenhaus, אשל הגדולים, Brooklyn, 1958, pp. 92-94.

[14] See J. Günzig, op. cit. (above, note 4), pp. 37-39; N.Y. Ha-Kohen, אוצר הגדולים, Haifa, 1966, vol. 2, p. 184; and the entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 11, column 420.

[15] See R. Barukh b. R. David of Gniezno, גדולת מרדכי, Hanau, 1615, letters of approbation (reissued: Jerusalem, 1991, p. 3). R. Eliyahu Loanz, in his letter of approbation to this volume, writes:

“ והנה ידוע שמ”ו ה”ה הגאון מהר”ר ליווא מפראג היתה תורתו אומנותו מיום הכיר את בוראו.”

For legendary accounts of R. Eliyahu Loanz and his meetings with the Maharal of Prague and the author of the Tosafot Yom Tov, see R. Moshe Hillel, בעלי שם, Jerusalem, 1993, pp. 10-87.

[16] Already noted by A. Brik (above, note 4), p. 81.

[17] A. Brik (above, note 4), p. 85. Cf. J. Günzig, op. cit., p. 26.

[18] L. Lewysohn, נפשות צדיקים, Frankfurt, 1855, p. 59-60. Cf. E.M. Pinner, כתבי יד, Berlin, 1861, p. 166 and notes.

[19] See A. Gottesdiener, המהר”ל מפראג, Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 88-97.

One explicit mention of a ghost appears in the Talmud Ketubot 103a. The Talmud records that every week Rebbi used to return to his house after he died. The Talmud, however, does not record what Rebbi used to do when he came back. The Sefer Hassidim states that Rebbi was different than other dead people in that he was considered almost fully alive. Rebbi, according to the Sefer Hassidim, would make Kiddush for his family.[1]

A much later instance of an interaction with a ghost is found in R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen’s (1691-1765/1767) Yesh M’Nechalin. R. Katzenellenbogen happened across a man who had the last two of his fingers bent back and connected to his palm. R. Katzenellenbogen inquired whether the man was born that way. The man explained that he was not and instead this happened when he had attended a fair. There were hundreds of people in a large room preparing for the next day’s events. Suddenly, the door of the room opened on its own. Standing at the doorway was a women dressed in tachrichim (death clothes). One person, screamed that it was his dead mother. Someone got up and slammed the door shut only to have the door open by itself again with the woman standing there. This man then went and pushed the “ghost” and from that day on his fingers were permanently connected to his palm.

Continuing on the theme of dead or other beings which interact with those still alive, we come to a rather strange question which has occupied the minds of many people for the last 800 years. The question is what is the status of someone who has intercourse with a demon? The first to mention this question is R. Isaac of Vienna (1200-1270) in his work Or Zarua. He states that intercourse with a demon is halackically meaningless. He cites a midrash which has a hassid (pious one) who was seduced by a demoness on Yom Kippur. Afterwards he felt very bad about this, but Elijah the Prophet visited him and asked him why he was sad. After the hassid explained what happened Elijah said don’t worry it was only a demon. The Or Zarua therefore says as Elijah appeared to him and he told him it was ok, intercourse with a demon is not a problem.

Now, the Or Zarua was not addressed at an actual question, however, R. Meir of Lublin (1558-1616) was asked about an “actual” case where a woman had intercourse with a demon and thus could she remain married to her husband. Although R. Meir was unaware of the Or Zarua he independentally came to the same conclusion – she was still permitted to remain married as intercourse with a demon has no effect. Least one say this is all in the realm of theory or not followed, the Beit Shmuel the classic commentary on Shulhan Orach Even haEzer quotes this law of R. Meir of Lublin (Even haEzer 6:17).

The question of intercourse with a demon seems to have come up without respect to the local or time period. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) discusses “groups of women who go out to the forest” and conduct rituals with music and it seems they were visited or engaged in intercourse with demons. The Hida follows the ruling of R. Meir of Lublin and permits these women.

In Hungary in the 19th century there was a celebrated case where a woman became pregnant while her husband was away and she claimed the “father” was a demon. It appears the child was not deemed a mamzer (bastard) and the woman was allowed to remain married.

Now, there were some who questioned this whole line of reasoning and said that if one engages in intercourse with what appears to be human even if they are a demon it is of no moment. Thus, a married woman would be prohibited to remain married. The first to come to this conclusion was R. Yitzhak Binyamin Lipman (17th century) in his Nahlat Binyamim. Additionally, R. Yosef Zechariah Stern says if one follows the above rulings, what is stopping anyone who commits adultery to just claim it was a demon.

Moving on from demons, we now go to beings created via the Sefer Yetzirah. The Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) is a work which allows via manipulation of various names of God to create things. Many have dealt with the halakhic status of such creations. For instance, R. Meir Leibush (1809-1879) in his work the Malbim says the reason Abraham was able to give the angels milk and meat together was Abraham did not give them meat from a born cow. Rather, the Malbim points to the verse which says “the calf which he [Abraham] made.” Malbim explains the words “he made” are literal, i.e. Abraham created the calf via the Sefer Yetzirah and thus was able to feed them both this meat and milk at the same time.

R. Isaiah Horowitz in his work Sheni Luchot HaBrit (Shelah) similarly understands the controversy between the brothers and Joseph. Specifically, Joseph, according to some Midrashic sources three negative things about the brothers – they at ever min ha-hai, they engaged in intercourse with Canaanite females and they embarrassed the children of the servants. The Shelah explains all three were based upon the Sefer Yetzirah. He explains that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham and passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob. The brothers, however, felt the sons of the servants were not worthy of such an important work (thus speaking ill or embarrassing them). Additionally, the brothers acted on the book and created animals which they ate from before killing them as there was no need being they were created via the Sefer Yetzirah. Further “it is possible that the tribes [the brothers] had created a woman” and it was these things Joseph saw and misunderstood to be regular beings. Again, according to the Shelah, intercourse or otherwise with beings from other worlds pose no halakhic issues. It is not surprising the Shelah took this position as the Shelah’s teacher was R. Meir of Lublin the one who permitted the woman who had intercourse with a demon to remain married.[2]

Perhaps the brothers were not the only ones to make women for this purpose, it is recorded (albeit much later) that R. Solomon Ibn Gabriol (1021-1058) created a woman to “serve” him. But, when the authorities found out he was forced to show it was merely wood and not a person.[3]

At the end of the forgery Niflot HaMaharal (the most comprehensive source for the false legend the Maharal of Prague created a golem) there is a discussion of various aspects of a golem. For instance, whether a golem would create impurity after it was “killed” (it would not) and the like. In regards to intercourse they state that “a golem can not reproduce nor does it have desires for the opposite sex.” It would seem that in the Paul Wegner 1920 silent movie classic “Der Golem” he disagreed with that premise. Part of the plot line is the Golem falling in love with the Maharal’s daughter; the nobleman’s son also does and she in fact runs off with him only to have the Golem rescue her. (It seems the Simpsons also follows with a similar plot line.)

As a final note, it is worthwhile mentioning that going the route of trying to connect with the other world does have it perils. R. Yaakov Ettlinger, in his Binyan Tzion describes a case where a woman met a man who told her he was Elijah the prophet and through their union the Messiah would be produced. The woman believed him, only to find out after the fact the person was con man. R. Ettlinger deals with whether in such a case she can remain married to her husband. So, ultimately one should make certain they verify the credentials of any demon, golem or ghost prior to engaging in any questionable acts.

Sources: Yesh M’Nechalin, 267-68; Hannah Sprecher, “Diabolus Ex-Machina: An Unusual Case of Yuhasin” in Jewish Law Association Studies VIII: The Jerusalem Conference Volume, 183-204; J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (who although discusses the topic of intercourse with a demon appears to have been unaware of Sprecher’s article which contains many more sources than Chajes cites or discusses); Moshe Idel, Golem, esp. pp. 213-241 (which was reprinted almost in its entirety in a Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000) article by Dr. John Loike available here (PDF); R. Yudel Rosenberg, Niflot HaMahral (Pitrokav, 1909), pp. 71-74; R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Binyan Tzion, no. 164; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London; R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague,” Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58; see also the account in Kav Ha-Yashar from R. Moshe Koidonover, translated by Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 161-63.

[1] See the discussion in the R. Reuven Margulies edition how he could have been motzei them if he was dead. Sefer Hassidim, no. 1129.

[2] Interestingly, Idel in his book Golem, appears to have been unaware of the connection between the Shelah and R. Meir of Lublin.

[3] In the halakhic realm, most are already familiar with the well-known question first posed by R. Tzvi Ashkenazi and elaborated on by his son R. Ya’akov Emden, whether a golem could be counted for a minyan (quorum).