Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:29:53.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Vow-Curse in Ancient Jewish Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

Avigail Manekin-Bamberger
Avigail Manekin-Bamberger*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Uttering a vow was an important and popular religious practice in ancient Judaism. It is mentioned frequently in biblical literature, and an entire rabbinic tractate, Nedarim, is devoted to this subject. In this article, I argue that starting from the Second Temple period, alongside the regular use of the vow, vows were also used as an aggressive binding mechanism in interpersonal situations. This practice became so popular that in certain contexts the vow became synonymous with the curse, as in a number of ossuaries in Jerusalem and in the later Aramaic incantation bowls. Moreover, this semantic expansion was not an isolated Jewish phenomenon but echoed both the use of the anathema in the Pauline epistles and contemporary Greco-Roman and Babylonian magical practices.

Keywords

rabbinicsAramaic incantation bowlsSecond Temple literaturePaulDamascus Documentancient magic
Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 340 - 357
Copyright
© President and Fellows of Harvard College 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Gideon Bohak, Daniel Boyarin, Rivka Elitzur-Leiman, Yair Furstenberg, Sarit Kattan Gribetz, Simcha Gross, Amit Gvaryahu, Shlomo Naeh, Laura Nasrallah, Yakir Paz, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, and the anonymous reviewers of HTR for their helpful comments on various versions of this article.

References

1 For biblical vows, see Tony, W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 147; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992Google Scholar); Jacques, Berlinerblau, The Vows and the “Popular Religious Groups” of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry (JSOTSup 201; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996Google Scholar); Yael, Ziegler, Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative (VTSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2008Google Scholar). For the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, see Albert, I. Baumgarten, “Korban and the Pharisaic Paradosis,” JANESCU 16–17 (1984–1985) 5–17Google Scholar; Moshe, Benovitz, “The Origin and Meaning of the Prohibitive Vow in Second Temple and Tannaitic Literature,” Tarbiz 64 (1995) 203–28Google Scholar (Hebrew); idem, Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions (BJS 315; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998).

2 See Cartledge, Vows, 15–18.

3 See, for example, Baumgarten, “Korban and the Paradosis”; Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 9–13, 127–31.

4 Other texts discussed include those of Philo and Josephus; see nn. 7 and 13 below.

5 According to the NRSV, with minor changes. See parallel text in Matt 15:1–5.

6 See Baumgarten, “Korban and the Paradosis,” 13–15. For a detailed summary of previous research, see Benovitz, “Prohibitive Vow,” 210–12 nn. 31–34. See also Joel, Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27A; repr. London: Yale University Press, 2000) 445Google Scholar; Adela, Yarbo Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 27:352–53Google Scholar.

7 M. Ned. 1:4. Josephus attests to the Jewish usage of the word qorban as an oath (“ὅρκος”); see C. Ap. 1.167; Ant. 4.70–74.

8 Benovitz, “Prohibitive Vow,” 210–17.

9 See George, W. Buchanan, “Some Vows and Oath Formulas in the New Testament,” HTR 58 (1965) 319–26Google Scholar.

10 Ze’ev, W. Falk, “On Talmudic Vows,” HTR 59 (1966) 309–12Google Scholar.

11 In a forthcoming article, Daniel Boyarin proposes another reading of the verse. In ancient sources the verb KBD, “to honor/make heavy,” is interpreted as to provide for one’s parents in their old age. The verb QLL, “to curse/make light,” a semantic opposition to KBD, should therefore be understood as doing the opposite. Thus, the verse, “Whoever curses their father or mother,” fits the context of Jesus’s criticism of the Pharisees who do not provide for their parents as they are obligated. (Daniel Boyarin, “Jesus, the Pharisees and the Oral Law,” Tedua 31: Aharon Shemesh Memorial Volume [forthcoming; Hebrew]; I would like to thank Prof. Boyarin for sharing his paper with me prior to its publication.)

12 See Baumgarten, J. M., Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD XVIII; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 178–79Google Scholar. Square brackets mark lacunae in the Qumran text with additions according to the genizah. I have modified the translation for the sake of consistency.

13 See Benovitz, “Prohibitive Vow,” 219–21 n. 65. Cf. Philo, Hypoth. 7.3–5: “Each individual is master of his possessions unless he has solemnly named the name of God over them declaring that he has given them to God…. If a man has devoted his wife’s sustenance to a sacred purpose he must refrain from giving her that sustenance; so with a father’s gift to his son or a ruler to his subjects.”

14 See Benovitz, “Prohibitive Vow,” 220–21.

15 In the Damascus Document, the verse is quoted with רעהו, different from the Masoretic version, אחיהו.

16 See Ezek 32:3: “I will throw my net over you; and I will haul you up in my dragnet.”

17 Cf. Tannaitic literature where the word “ḥerem” is used similarly to “qorban”: for example, m. Ned. 2:5, 5:4; t. Ned. 5: 5.

18 See Arie, Versluis, “Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of חרם in the Old Testament,” ZAW 128 (2016) 233–46Google Scholar; Ishay, Rosen-Zvi, “Rereading Herem: Destruction of Idolatry in Tannaitic Literature,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (ed. Katell, Berthelot, Joseph, E. David, and Marc, Hirshman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 50–65Google Scholar.

19 See more below, in the section on the vow-curse in the Pauline epistles and archaeological findings.

20 Milik, J. T., “Trois tombeaux juifs récemment découverts au Sud-Est de Jérusalem,” SBFLA 7 (1956–1957) 232–39Google Scholar.

21 See Baumgarten, “Korban and the Paradosis,” 7. See also Benovitz, “Prohibitive Vow,” 218; Ya’akov, Billig, “An Ossuary from Jerusalem Bearing Korban Inscriptions,” Cathedra 98 (2000) 49–60Google Scholar (Hebrew).

22 For a summary of the qorban inscriptions and their interpretations, see Boaz Zissu and Amir Ganor, “A New ‘Qorban’ Inscription on an Ossuary from Jerusalem,” Cathedra 123 (2007) 5–12 (Hebrew).

23 Billig claimed that the ossuary from Arnona should be read in a similar way to the ossuary from the Kidron Valley, meaning that the particle dy was omitted (Billig, “Ossuary from Jerusalem,” 55 n. 24). As Benovitz rightfully points out, this explanation is unlikely, since, among other things, the inscription is bilingual. As a result, Benovitz reads the inscription as a shortened formula stating that there was a vow that was preformed orally (Benovitz, , “The Korban Vow and the Ossuary Inscription from the Arnona Neighborhood in Jerusalem,” Cathedra 104 [2002] 179Google Scholar) [Hebrew]).

24 See Nahman, Avigad, Beth She’arim (3 vols.; New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1971) 3:233–34Google Scholar. For a summary of scholarship on the subject of the use of curses on graves, see Billig, “Ossuary from Jerusalem,” 56 n. 33.

25 Abel, M., “Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Bersabée,” RB 1.2 (1904) 266–70Google Scholar; Eve Miriam Davies, “From Womb to the Tomb: The Byzantine Life Course 518–1024 AD” (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2013) 341.

26 On the popular origin of various oaths and vow formulations, see Saul, Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942) 115–41Google Scholar.

27 For personal ascetic vows, see chs. 6 and 8 of m. Ned. (and t. Ned. 3:1–4:3).

28 See m. Ned. 3:6–11.

29 See m. Ket. 5:4–5; 7:1–5. On these practices, see Ishay, Rosen-Zvi, “Mishnah Ketubbot Chap. 7: The Tannaitic Conceptualization of Marriage,” Dinei Israel 26 (2010) 92–106Google Scholar (Hebrew).

30 M. Ned. 9:4.

31 For the origin and meaning of the variety of votive formulae in the Mishnah, see Moshe, Benovitz, “Substitute Vow Formulae,” Sidra 12 (1996) 5–25Google Scholar (Hebrew).

32 See m. Ned. 1:3–4, 2:1; b. Ned. 14a; and y. Ned. 1:4 (37a). See also Hanoch, Albeck, introduction to Tractate Nedarim, in The Mishnah, Seder Nashim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1958Google Scholar).

33 For example, m. Ned. 7:6: “Qonam this produce [lit., fruit] upon me”; i.e., the produce is like an offering for the person who pronounced the vow and he may not taste it.

34 Cf. “Qonam is that which I benefit from you” (m. Ned. 7:9).

35 Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 13–16.

36 See m. Ned. 5:3, 8:7, 9:2-3; t. Ned. 4:8–9.

37 Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 15 n. 30.

38 M. Ned. 9:3; m. Giṭ. 4:7.

39 See Epstein, J. N., Introduction to the Mishnaic Text (3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000) 500Google Scholar (Hebrew).

40 M. Giṭ. 4:7.

41 In the printed edition and in MS Vatican 140, the answer is brought in the name of Rav Hunna. In contrast, MS Vatican 130 and Munich 95 bring the answer anonymously.

42 See Epstein, Introduction, 500 n. 2.

43 This conclusion may be connected to J. N Epstein’s interpretation of the origin of the word “qonam.” According to Epstein, qonam is a Phoenician loanword, meaning “to adjure,” as is seemingly attested in the Ashmenezer inscription (Epstein, J. N., “On the Language of Nezirut,” in Sefer Magnes [ed. Epstein, J. N. et al.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1938] 10Google Scholar [Hebrew]). Benovitz has argued convincingly that this interpretation is highly unlikely, since there is no other attestation of such a usage in Phoenician. And even in the Ashmenezer inscription itself, the meaning is probably not an adjuration, since it does not fit the expected syntax; rather, the meaning is “whoever,” as most scholars of Phoenician suggest. Benovitz suggests that the origin of the word qonam is from the Greek κοινός, meaning “common” or “shared” (Benovitz, “Substitute Vow Formulae,” 5–25).

44 This phrase is very common in the Palestinian Talmud and the various midrashim: for example, y. Šeb. 7:1, 38d; y. Yoma 1:1, 38d; y. Mo‘ed Qaṭ. 3:7, 83c. Regarding this phrase, see Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 121–23.

45 The tremendous power of vows may explain why the rabbis institutionalized their own ability to annul them. See Mira Balberg’s argument regarding the minimization of vows that a husband may annul for his wife against the backdrop of this rabbinic institution (Mira Balberg, “ ‘The Vows That He Annuls’: The Definition and Classification of Annullable Vows in Rabbinic Literature” [MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2005] 14–20).

46 For further reading and references, see J. Behm, “ἀνάθεμα,” TDNT 1:356–57; Katell, Berthelot, “The Notion of Anathema in Ancient Jewish Literature Written in Greek,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. Eberhard, Bons, Ralph, Brucker, and Jan, Joosten; WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) 35–52Google Scholar; David, Martinez, “‘May She Neither Eat nor Drink’: Love Magic and Vows of Abstinence,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (ed. Marvin, Meyer and Paul, Mirecki; Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 129; Leiden: Brill 1995) 335–59Google Scholar; Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 87–107.

47 LSJ, s.v. “anathēma.”

48 See Berthelot, “Notion of Anathema,” 36–40.

49 Berthelot comments that there is no significant meaning for the difference in spelling (ἀνάθεμα or ἀνάθημα), as both forms are found in each period (ibid., 40–46).

50 See Behm, “ἀνάθεμα”; Berthelot, “Notion of Anathema,” 52.

51 For other occurrences, see Behm, “ἀνάθεμα,” 1:356. Benovitz argues that the accepted translation of anathema as a curse is erroneous and that the correct translation should be akin to the rabbinic prohibitive vow, namely, ḥerem. Benovitz explains the quoted verse from 1 Cor 12:3 accordingly: “Anyone who tries to force Jesus to keep his distance by declaring Jesus ḥerem to his own person is not actually speaking by the Spirit” (Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 105). However, this translation does not seem to be precise, since the words “to his own person” are not part of the original text, and the translation does not quite fit the antithetical structure of the verse, where the parallel statement is that Jesus is the Lord. Moreover, the word anathema is used as a curse in a defixio from the same time period. The common translation of anathema as curse seems to be imprecise as well. Consider, for example, Rom 9:3: “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ” (ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ). In this passage Paul declares that he himself should be anathema from Christ. As Benovitz pointed out, this kind of declaration has a striking resemblance to the rabbinic vow in which one may declare that he shall be distanced from another by a ḥerem (Benovitz, Kol Nidre, 98–99). The translation of anathema as a general curse means this unique meaning of the anathema as akin to the ḥerem is lost. Perhaps a more precise translation of the Pauline anathema would be a vow-curse, similar to the later use of the vow in the incantation bowls.

52 See John, G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999) 183–84Google Scholar; Auguste, Audollent, Defixionum tabellae (Paris: A. Fontemoing, 1904) 75–76Google Scholar no. 41.

53 See Gager, Curse Tablets, 84 n. 17.

54 See John, Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians (trans. Paul, W. Harkins; FC 68; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1977) 12Google Scholar (1.5): “I asked him why he rejected the Church and dragged the woman to the place where the Hebrews assembled. He answered that many people had told him that oaths sworn there were more to be feared.”

55 From Henk, S. Versnel, “Beyond Cursing: The Appeal to Justice in Judicial Prayers,” in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (ed. Christopher, A. Faraone and Dirk, Obbink; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 60–106Google Scholar, at 72. This curse text is part of a genre that Versnel defines as “judicial prayers” or “prayers for justice” (see also idem, “Prayers for Justice, East and West: Recent Finds and Publications since 1990,” in Magical Practice in the Latin West [ed. Richard L. Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón; Leiden: Brill, 2010] 275–354).

56 Versnel, “Beyond Cursing,” 72.

57 Ibid.

58 See, for example, a bronze tablet from Southern Italy (3rd cent. BCE), quoted in ibid., 73: “Kollura consecrates (ἀνιαρίζει) to the servant of the goddess the three gold pieces which Melitta received but does not return.” For similar texts, see Versnel, “Prayers for Justice”; Gager, Curse Tablets, 188–90; Irene, Salvo, “Sweet Revenge: Emotional Factors in ‘Prayers for Justice’,” in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World (ed. Chaniotis, A.; Stuttgart: Steiner, 2012) 235–66Google Scholar.

59 For comprehensive overviews, see Shaul, Shaked, “Incantation Bowls and Amulet Tablets: How to Get Rid of Demons and Harmful Beings,” Qadmoniot 129 (2005) 2–13Google Scholar (Hebrew); Dan, Levene, “Curse or Blessing: What’s in the Magic Bowl?” (The Ian Karten Lecture; Parkes Institute Pamphlet 2; Southampton; University of Southampton, 2002) 5–40Google Scholar; Gideon, Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 183–93Google Scholar; Yuval, Harari, Jewish Magic before the Rise of Kabbalah (Detroit: WSUP, 2017) 132–40Google Scholar, 234–51.

60 Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 119–20.

61 Ibid., 119 n. 27.

62 This action is essential to the magic of the incantation bowls. For the significance of adjurations in ancient Jewish magic, see Yuval Harari, “Religion, Magic, and Adjurations: Methodological Reflections Aimed at a New Definition of Early Jewish Magic,” Da‘at 48 (2002) 52–56 (Hebrew); idem, Jewish Magic,169-75.

63 The published bowls do not refer to other names of the vow, such as qorban or qonam. In Judah B. Segal’s edition, bowl 35A has the unusual word קונמא; this is probably due, however, to a mistake in the reading, and the word should be read קיטרי (magical knot), a typical word found on the bowls (Judah, B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum [London: British Museum Press, 2000Google Scholar]). I would like to thank Dr. James Ford for drawing my attention to the correct reading.

64 The client names in this bowl are not Jewish. The name Bar Shabbetay appears in b. Giṭ.11a as a typical name of gentiles. A genizah fragment of this passage, TS Rab. 2351.13–15 (8450), preserves the same spelling as the bowl, בר שבתי, contrary to other ways of spelling in the printed editions and various manuscripts of tractate Giṭṭin. For the religious identity of the clients of the bowls, see Shaked, “Incantation Bowls,” 2–13.

65 Naeh translates שבטי as שדפון (blight) that harms fields and humans (Shlomo, Naeh, “Šebet, Šibta, Sibtana,” Language Studies 7 [1995] 97–109Google Scholar [Hebrew]).

66 In the original Aramaic the vow and the curse are written in singular form: משבענא עליכון נידרא לוטתא ומללתא בישתא.

67 Montgomery translated this magical act קריתא as “invocations” (James, Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur [Philadelphia: University Museum, 1913] 84Google Scholar).

68 Bowl 19, in Joseph, Naveh and Shaul, Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993) 124–26Google Scholar. The translation is that of the authors.

69 This may have to do with the existence of oral traditions. Other pairs include: שידי ודיוי, שיקופתא ואשלמתא, חרשין בישין ועובדין בישין. I intend to elaborate on this issue elsewhere.

70 See, for example, Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 138; Charles D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 140, 142, 144, 148; Judah B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London: British Museum Press, 2000) 48, 50, 65, 66, 73; Dan, Levene, Jewish Aramaic Curse Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia (Leiden: Brill, 2013) 31Google Scholar, 37, 64, 130.

71 This translation is according to a suggested correction from Dr. James Ford that one may read here, דאית עימי, meaning “that are with,” instead of דאי תעימו, meaning “that if you sadden.”

72 Bowl M123, in Dan, Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity (London: Kegan Paul, 2003) 83–84Google Scholar, Levene’s translation, with slight modifications.

73 The vow as a designation of an adjuration appears three times in the bowl while, in line 5, invoking the holy name given to Moses in the burning bush. For the motif of the burning bush in Jewish magic, see Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 412–14.

74 Levene, Corpus of Magic Bowls, 89–90. The third bowl Levene includes in his synoptic table (MS 2053/216) does not contain these formulae.

75 In Levene’s edition, the reading is “a house of evil” (בי בישתא). I suggest the reading “synagogue” (בי כנישתא), which is compatible with various parallel formulae, for example, bowl VA2423, line 7: “Vows of the cemetery, and vows of the house of idols, and the vow of the synagogue,” cf. also bowl VA2509, line 12; 039A, line 1.

76 “Gentiles,” according to Levene’s translation. Sokoloff translates this as “pagans” (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods [Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002] 169). For this bowl, it seems that the correct translation is indeed “non-Jew,” given the context of the binary oppositions presented: “close/far”; “men/women”; and “Jew/non-Jew.” But this isn’t always the preferred translation. For example, in bowl Isbell 49, there is a list of different sorceries: חרשין ארמאין חרשין יהודאין חרשין טיאעין חרשין פרסאין … חרשין דמיתעבדין בשבעין לישנין (Aramean sorcery, Jewish sorcery, Arab sorcery, Persian sorcery … sorcery that is performed in 70 languages). In this bowl, “Aramean” seems to designate a specific ethnic group and not the general “gentiles.” These two different translations may lead to the conclusion that “Aramean” can indicate a specific group of Aramaic speakers or non-Jews in general.

77 This formula is attested in a bowl published by Gordon, where the words ל ומילשאו ורדנ (vowed and fulfilled to) appear four consecutive times, each time to a different deity: The God of the Heavens and the God of the earth; male Gods and female Ishtars; idols and Ishtars; and another named deity (C. H. Gordon, “Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” Orientalia 10 [1941] 121–22). For a Jewish adjuration of the God of the heavens and of the earth, see Gen 24:3 and t. Soṭah 7:3. An additional formula that can attest to the specific practice of the vow-curse appears in bowl VA2423, published by Dan Levene, where there is reference to a “vow of graveyards,” a “vow of a house of idols,” and a “vow of the synagogue” (Levene, Jewish Aramaic Curse Texts, 37). How to understand the meaning of these labels is uncertain, but they may attest to a vow that consists of devotion to the Jewish God, to idols, or to the dead, similarly to the Greco-Roman defixiones discussed above.

78 Cf. midrashic exegesis on other biblical verses, in which the sons of a man are the ones who die: b. Ketub. 72a; b. Šabb. 32b; y. Ketub. 7:7, 31b.

79 The translation of “curse” for “vow” is absent from Syriac and Mandaic dictionaries. In the Drower-Macuch dictionary, nidra is translated as “vow” or, in magical contexts, as “(evil) vow” (see Ethel Stefana Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary [Oxford: Clarendon, 1963] 297). Syriac dictionaries regularly translate nidra as “vow” as well (see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin; Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009] 892). However, it is worth noting that for מנדרא, Sokoloff refers to the 9th-cent. Isho Bar Ali (The Syriac Arabic Glosses), who translated it as מתעסקא, “torment.” This may point to an ancient lexical connection between the vow and the curse.

80 The vow appears quite frequently in the Syriac incantation bowls, usually as part of a list of harms that the client seeks protection from, similar in practice to the Jewish bowls (see, for example, bowl nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 22, 23, 32, 38, 41, and 44, in Marco, Moriggi, Syriac Incantation Bowls [Leiden: Brill, 2014Google Scholar]). Dr. Ohad Abudraham informed me that in the corpus of Mandaic epigraphic materials (which includes unpublished magical material), the nidra appears approximately 14 times, at times as part of a list of harms and in close proximity to the curse. This preliminary research leads to the conclusion that the vow was used as a curse in other religious groups, though more research on this subject needs to be conducted.