The Talmud opens with a ghost story. In tractate Berachot, Rabbi Yose enters a ruin and hears a disembodied voice. The sages debate whether it was a heavenly echo or the spirit of a deceased person—and they take the question seriously. This is not an obscure footnote but a foundational text of rabbinic Judaism, and it immediately confronts listeners with the paranormal. The episode explores how Judaism's approach to ghosts, demons, and possession forms a coherent system with its own mechanics, entirely distinct from Christian frameworks. Key categories include the ibbur—a righteous soul that temporarily attaches to a living person to help complete a mitzvah—and the dybbuk, a trapped soul that attaches out of desperation, requiring repair rather than combat. Shedim, Jewish demons, were created at twilight on the sixth day as a separate order of being, not fallen angels. The tradition lacks a single authoritative afterlife doctrine but features a multi-stage process: Gehinnom (temporary purification, not hell), Gan Eden (spiritual reward), and Techiyat HaMeitim (bodily resurrection in the Messianic era). The episode also examines how 19th-century historians like Heinrich Graetz dismissed dybbuk stories as embarrassing superstition, sanitizing a tradition that was saturated with supernatural beings.
#4142: Ghosts in the Talmud: Judaism's Hidden Paranormal Tradition
The Talmud opens with a ghost story. Here's what Judaism actually says about spirits, demons, and the afterlife.
Episode Details
- Episode ID
- MWP-4321
- Published
- Duration
- 30:04
- Audio
- Direct link
- Pipeline
- V5
- TTS Engine
-
chatterbox-regular - Script Writing Agent
- deepseek-v4-pro
AI-Generated Content: This podcast is created using AI personas. Please verify any important information independently.
Downloads
Transcript (TXT)
Plain text transcript file
Transcript (PDF)
Formatted PDF with styling
You Might Also Like
Never miss an episode
New episodes drop daily — subscribe on your favorite platform
New to the show? Start here#4142: Ghosts in the Talmud: Judaism's Hidden Paranormal Tradition
Daniel sent us this one, and I have to say, it's the kind of thing that once you see it, you can't un-see it. He points out that if you actually open the Talmud — not a summary, not a commentary on the commentary, just the text itself — you barely get past the laws of reciting the Shema in tractate Berachot before you're knee-deep in ghost stories. Rabbi Yose enters a ruin, hears a disembodied voice, and suddenly you're in the middle of a conversation about whether that was a spirit of the dead or a divine echo. This is not some obscure kabbalistic manuscript. This is the foundational text of rabbinic Judaism, and it opens with a ghost.
What's wild is that this story in Berachot three A isn't tucked away in a footnote. It's right there in the first tractate, and the sages debate it seriously — was this a bat kol, a heavenly voice, or was it the spirit of a deceased person? They don't dismiss the question. They don't allegorize it away. They engage with the possibility that Rabbi Yose just had a genuine paranormal encounter, and they argue about the mechanics of what he heard.
Which is exactly Daniel's point. He says he's had actual arguments with people who insist Judaism rejects the paranormal, that there's no afterlife, no ghosts, no spirits. And his response is basically: have you read the sources? Because the sources are full of this stuff.
And I think the reason this hits a nerve right now — with fifty-four percent of Americans telling pollsters they believe in ghosts — is that the paranormal conversation in popular culture is almost entirely framed through a Christian or New Age lens. You hear about heaven and hell, wandering spirits with unfinished business, energy and vibrations. But there's this whole Jewish paranormal tradition that has its own distinct mechanics, its own vocabulary, its own logic, and almost nobody outside of very specific study circles knows it exists.
The mechanics are genuinely different. Take the ibbur — a righteous soul that temporarily attaches itself to a living person to complete some task or mitzvah. That's not a haunting. That's not a restless spirit seeking vengeance. It's almost a spiritual collaboration. The ghost isn't the problem — the ghost is there to help.
Right, and that's a radically different framework from the standard horror-movie ghost. In the Christian imagination, ghosts tend to be either demonic deceptions, souls in purgatory seeking prayers, or something that shouldn't be happening. The Jewish tradition has categories for all of this — ruach, ibbur, dybbuk, shedim — and each one operates under different rules. It's not just "ghosts exist or ghosts don't exist." It's what kind of entity are we dealing with, what's its purpose, and what's the appropriate response.
We're going to do what Daniel asked. We're going to walk through the Jewish tradition on the afterlife, ghosts, demons, and possession — and compare how Christianity and other traditions have navigated these same questions. Because the story here is bigger than just whether Jews believe in ghosts. It's about how a tradition that was saturated with supernatural beings got sanitized in the modern era, and what gets lost when that happens.
I want to flag something before we dive in. The sanitization isn't ancient history. In the nineteenth century, major Jewish historians like Heinrich Graetz actively dismissed dybbuk stories and possession accounts as superstition — embarrassing folkloric residue that rational, enlightened Judaism needed to shed. That impulse to clean up the tradition, to make it respectable to European intellectual standards, shaped how generations of Jews were taught about their own texts. Most people who confidently declare Judaism has no ghosts are repeating a nineteenth-century editorial decision, not the actual content of the tradition.
Which is a very polite way of saying they haven't read the book.
I was trying to be diplomatic.
It's one of your more exhausting qualities. So let's start with the big one — what does Judaism actually say happens after you die? Because if you don't understand the Jewish map of the afterlife, the ghosts and demons don't make sense. They're not random supernatural intrusions. They're features of a coherent system.
That system is coherent, even if it's never been codified into a single authoritative doctrine the way the Catholic Church did with heaven, hell, and purgatory. Judaism has always had multiple coexisting models, but the core framework is Olam Ha-Ba — the World to Come — and it's not just one thing. It's a multi-stage process.
Multi-stage how?
After death, the soul enters a period of judgment and refinement. This is Gehinnom — and this is where a lot of people get tripped up, because they hear Gehinnom and think hell. It's not hell. It's purgatorial. It's temporary. The traditional understanding is that most souls spend up to twelve months in Gehinnom, being cleansed of the spiritual residue of their misdeeds, and then they move on.
Twelve months is the maximum?
For most souls, yes. There's a minority opinion about the utterly wicked, but the dominant view is that Gehinnom is a process of refinement, not eternal damnation. That's a huge difference from the Christian hell. After Gehinnom, the soul enters Gan Eden — not the earthly garden from Genesis, but a spiritual realm of reward and closeness to the divine. And then, in the Messianic era, there's Techiyat HaMeitim — the resurrection of the dead, where souls are reunited with bodies in a perfected physical world.
You've got judgment, purification, paradise, and eventual bodily resurrection. Four distinct stages, and none of them map neatly onto Christian heaven.
The timeline matters. In the Christian framework, particularly in Catholicism, you die, you're judged, and you go to your eternal destination — heaven, hell, or purgatory as a temporary stop. In the Jewish framework, the process unfolds across cosmic history. You die, you're refined, you experience Gan Eden, and then at the end of history you're resurrected into a transformed physical world. It's more like a narrative arc than a final verdict.
Which means the boundary between the living and the dead is more porous than in Christianity. If souls are in process — if they're moving through stages, if they can be refined, if they can return — then the idea of a ghost isn't a violation of the natural order. It's almost expected.
This is where we get into the specific categories. The story Daniel mentioned from Berachot three A is the classic example. Rabbi Yose enters a ruin in Jerusalem to pray, and he hears a voice — described as a bat kol, a divine echo — cooing like a dove, mourning the destruction of the Temple. The sages debate: was this a heavenly voice, or the spirit of a deceased person? And the fact that they debate it at all tells you everything. If the tradition had a blanket rejection of ghosts, the question would be settled before it was asked.
And it's not the only example. The Talmud in Berachot also records a story about a pious man who spent the night in a ruin and encountered a spirit assigned to guard the place. The Talmud is comfortable with the idea that spirits of the dead can linger, can communicate, can have purposes. But the purposes are specific. They're not random.
Which brings us to the ibbur. The word literally means impregnation or attachment — it's when the soul of a righteous deceased person temporarily attaches itself to a living person. The key word is righteous. This is not a dybbuk. The ibbur is benevolent. It's there to help the living person perform a mitzvah, to guide them, to share its merit. The living person gets assistance, and the deceased soul gets to participate in a good deed it couldn't complete in its own lifetime.
It's basically spiritual carpooling.
In the most reverent possible sense, yes. The ibbur is not a haunting. It's not frightening. It's a feature of the system, not a bug. This concept comes largely from Lurianic Kabbalah — the teachings of Isaac Luria in sixteenth-century Safed — but it builds on older ideas about soul migration and the interconnectedness of the living and the dead.
Safed in the sixteenth century is where a lot of this crystallizes. You've got Luria, you've got his circle, and suddenly the vocabulary for all these paranormal phenomena gets systematized in a way it hadn't been before.
Before we get to the dybbuk and possession, we need to talk about shedim — demons. Because the Jewish demonology is completely different from the Christian one, and it's one of the most misunderstood parts of the tradition.
I've heard people say Judaism doesn't have demons. Which, again, is a claim you can only make if you've never opened the book.
Talmud Chagigah sixteen A describes shedim in detail. They have physicality — they eat, they drink, they procreate. They were created at twilight on the sixth day of creation, in that liminal moment between the sixth day and the Sabbath. They're neither angels nor humans. They're a separate created order.
Twilight on the sixth day. So they're almost a category of being that didn't quite make it into the finished creation. They belong to the margin between the mundane and the sacred.
That's a beautiful reading, and it's consistent with how shedim function in the stories. They inhabit liminal spaces — ruins, wilderness, thresholds. They're associated with twilight and nighttime. The most famous is Ashmedai, Asmodeus, who appears in the Talmud as the king of the demons. He's not a fallen angel. That's a crucial distinction. In Christian demonology, demons are fallen angels — rebels against God, led by Satan. In Jewish demonology, shedim were created as shedim. They're part of the created order, not a corruption of it.
There's no war in heaven.
Not in the same way. Judaism has a concept of a satan — but it's a title, not a name. Ha-satan means the adversary, the accuser, and in the Book of Job it's clearly a member of the divine court, not a rebel. The idea of Satan as a fallen angel leading a rebellion is Christian theology, and it gets read back into Jewish texts by people who assume the traditions are the same.
Which is exactly the kind of category error Daniel's prompt is pushing against. You can't just take Christian paranormal categories and assume Judaism has the same ones with different names. The whole architecture is different.
The architecture matters because it shapes what possession means. In Christianity, possession is almost always demonic — a malevolent entity taking over a person, and the response is exorcism in the name of Jesus. In Judaism, you have multiple types of spiritual attachment. You have the ibbur, which is benevolent. And you have the dybbuk — but the dybbuk isn't a demon. It's the soul of a deceased person who, because of their sins, can't move on. They're stuck. And they attach to a living person, not necessarily out of malice, but out of desperation.
A dybbuk is more like a ghost with unfinished business than a demon.
The response isn't to cast it into hell — it's to help it complete its tikkun, its repair. The exorcism is performed by a rabbi, often using amulets, incantations, and appeals to the soul's need for healing. The goal is not to destroy the dybbuk. The goal is to help it move on.
Which is a radically different emotional register from Christian exorcism. It's not combat. It's almost therapy.
That's the thread that runs through all of this. The Jewish paranormal tradition is fundamentally oriented toward repair. Souls return because something is incomplete. Spirits linger because something needs to be finished. Even Gehinnom is about refinement, not punishment for its own sake. The whole system is process-oriented, not verdict-oriented.
Yet, if you ask most Jews today about any of this, you'll get a blank look. Or you'll get told that Judaism doesn't believe in ghosts. How did a tradition this saturated with the supernatural become known as the rational, this-worldly, no-nonsense religion?
That's the sanitization story. The texts didn't change. What changed was which parts of the tradition got taught, which got allegorized, and which got actively suppressed as embarrassing.
The nineteenth century gives you spiritualism, séances, the Society for Psychical Research — and at the same time, Jewish historians are scrubbing the dybbuk from respectable Judaism.
Heinrich Graetz, who wrote the first comprehensive history of the Jewish people in the nineteenth century, basically treated anything supernatural as a folkloric embarrassment. Dybbuk stories were superstition. Kabbalah was irrational mysticism that had corrupted pure, ethical Judaism. And because Graetz's history became the standard textbook for generations of Jews, his editorial judgments became the default understanding of what Judaism was and wasn't.
When Daniel's friends tell him Judaism doesn't believe in ghosts, they're not actually citing Jewish tradition. They're citing Heinrich Graetz's opinion about what Jewish tradition ought to be.
Graetz had his reasons. He was writing in a context where Jews were fighting for emancipation, for acceptance in European society, and he wanted to present Judaism as a rational, ethical, philosophically respectable religion. Ghosts and demons didn't fit that narrative. So they got edited out.
The irony being that Christianity was doing something similar. The nineteenth century is also when you get liberal Protestant theology demythologizing the New Testament, stripping out the miracles and the angels and the demonic possessions. Both traditions were trying to make themselves respectable to modernity by denying their own supernatural content.
In both cases, the supernatural came back. It always does. In Christianity, you get the Pentecostal revival, the charismatic movement. In Judaism, you get S. Ansky's play The Dybbuk in nineteen fourteen. Ansky wasn't a rabbi. He was an ethnographer, a secular Jew who spent years collecting folk stories in the Pale of Settlement. His play becomes this massive cultural phenomenon — performed in Yiddish, in Hebrew, made into a film, influencing horror cinema for decades. Suddenly a concept Graetz dismissed as superstition is at the center of Jewish artistic identity.
Which raises the question: if the supernatural is this persistent in the culture, despite centuries of institutional pressure to suppress it, maybe it's not a foreign intrusion. Maybe it's native to the tradition in a way that the sanitizers couldn't fully erase.
Here's my personal entry point into all of this. I came across gilgul — reincarnation — completely by accident. I was on the Chabad website, looking up something totally unrelated, and I stumbled onto an article about gilgul nefashot, the cycling of souls. And I remember thinking: wait, this is in Judaism? I'd been through years of Hebrew school, I'd sat through countless sermons, and nobody had ever mentioned that my tradition had a fully developed doctrine of reincarnation.
You grow up hearing that Judaism is about this life, about action, about mitzvot — which it is. But the implication is always that we don't do speculation about what happens after death. And then you open the Zohar, or the writings of the Ari, and it's nothing but speculation about what happens after death.
Once you find gilgul, the floodgates open. Because the same sources that talk about reincarnation also talk about ruach, ibbur, shedim, dybbuks. It's all one ecosystem.
Which is exactly the thing that makes Daniel's argument so frustrating to have. The sources aren't obscure. Chagigah sixteen A is not some hidden manuscript. It's the Talmud. It's been in print for centuries. Anyone can read it.
Yet the default presentation of Judaism — in synagogues, in introductory courses, in popular culture — is that it's a this-worldly, legalistic religion focused on action rather than belief. Which is true in part. But it's not the whole picture. The Talmud, the Zohar, the medieval commentaries — they're saturated with supernatural beings and after-death experiences. The tradition has always had a robust paranormal dimension. It just got edited out of the public-facing version.
The question Daniel's prompt raises isn't really whether Judaism has ghosts. The question is why so many people — including Jews — are convinced it doesn't.
Part of it is that Judaism never had a centralized authority to enforce a single doctrine. The Catholic Church could say "this is what we believe about purgatory." Judaism never had that. So you get multiple coexisting models, and the supernatural ones were easier to sideline because nobody had the institutional power to say "no, this is actually official." Part of it is also that the supernatural elements cluster in texts that most Jews don't study directly. The average Jew in a Reform or Conservative synagogue isn't doing daf yomi. They're getting summaries, curated selections, the greatest hits. And the ghost stories don't make the highlight reel.
Then there's the Graetz factor. Nineteenth-century Jewish historians actively worked to present Judaism as a rational, ethical system compatible with Enlightenment values. Anything that smelled of superstition got allegorized, minimized, or dismissed. That editorial posture shaped how generations of rabbis were trained, which shaped what they taught their congregations.
What's at stake in recovering this tradition? I think there are two things. The first is honesty about what the tradition actually contains. If you're going to reject Jewish supernaturalism, you should at least know what you're rejecting. The second is that for people who do have paranormal experiences — or who are simply curious about these questions — the Jewish framework offers something distinctive. It's a process-oriented, repair-focused model of what happens after death and how the living and the dead relate to each other. And that model has been largely ceded to New Age spirituality without any acknowledgment of its Jewish roots.
The New Age point is important. How many people have heard of tikkun olam without knowing it's connected to a cosmology where souls return to complete unfinished work? How many people talk about past lives without knowing that gilgul is a Jewish concept?
Recovering this tradition isn't about making Judaism spooky. It's about saying: these ideas have a home here. They've always had a home here. And the fact that they got sanitized out of the public version doesn't mean they're not authentic. It means the public version is incomplete.
Let's get into the ghost categories. Berachot three A — Rabbi Yose in the ruin. Walk me through what actually happens there.
Rabbi Yose enters a ruin in Jerusalem to pray. He hears a voice — cooing like a dove — mourning the destruction of the Temple. The sages debate whether this was a bat kol, a divine echo, or the actual spirit of a deceased person. And here's the key: they don't settle it definitively. The debate itself is preserved. The tradition holds both possibilities as live options.
Which means the idea that a dead person's spirit can linger and communicate is not ruled out. It's debated. That's a very different posture from later claims that Judaism simply rejects ghosts.
The ruach category — your basic spirit of the dead — appears in multiple places. The Talmud in Berachot also records a story about a pious man who spent the night in a ruin and encountered a spirit assigned to guard the place. These aren't random hauntings. The spirits have purposes.
Which brings us to the ibbur. This is the one that really threw me when I first encountered it, because it's not a ghost story in any recognizable sense. It's almost the opposite.
The ibbur is a righteous soul that temporarily attaches to a living person, and the purpose is benevolent. The soul is there to help the living person perform a mitzvah, to guide them, to share its merit. It's not frightening. It's not a haunting. It's spiritual collaboration.
You've got a dead person hitching a ride in your soul to help you do a good deed. That's not The Exorcist. That's more like a divine carpool.
I'm going to pretend you didn't say divine carpool, but yes. This concept comes largely through Lurianic Kabbalah, though it builds on older ideas about soul migration. The ibbur is a feature of the system, not a malfunction.
Then on the other end of the spectrum, you've got shedim. Which, again, people will tell you Judaism doesn't have.
Talmud Chagigah sixteen A is explicit. Shedim were created at twilight on the sixth day of creation. They have physicality. They eat, they drink, they procreate. They're neither angels nor humans. They're a separate created order entirely. And they inhabit liminal spaces — ruins, wilderness, thresholds. The most famous is Ashmedai, Asmodeus, who appears in the Talmud as the king of the demons. And this is where the comparison with Christianity gets really sharp. In Christian demonology, demons are fallen angels — rebels who followed Lucifer. In Judaism, shedim were created as shedim. They're not a corruption of something good. They're part of the blueprint.
No war in heaven. Just a category of being that was always going to exist.
That changes what possession means. In Christianity, possession is almost always demonic. In Judaism, you've got the dybbuk — and a dybbuk is not a demon. It's the soul of a deceased person who, because of their sins, can't move on. They're stuck. They attach to a living person out of desperation, not malice.
The dybbuk is more like a ghost with unfinished business than a demonic invader.
The response follows from that. The exorcism isn't about casting the spirit into hell. It's about helping the soul complete its tikkun — its repair. Rabbis performed these exorcisms using amulets, incantations, and appeals to the soul's need for healing. The goal is to help the dybbuk move on, not to destroy it.
That's a radically different emotional register. It's not combat. It's more like spiritual therapy.
The dybbuk concept really crystallized in sixteenth-century Safed, in Luria's circle. But spirit possession appears earlier — the Talmud in Berachot has a story about a spirit possessing a man. So the raw material was there for centuries before it got systematized. And then you get cases like the dybbuk of Miropol in the eighteenth century, documented in Hasidic sources. This isn't just theoretical. There are named cases, recorded accounts, rabbinic responses.
The recording matters. These weren't fringe folk tales whispered in corners. They were documented by the same communities that produced halachic rulings and Torah commentaries. The supernatural and the legal existed side by side in the same intellectual world.
Which makes the later sanitization even more striking. You have to actively work to not see this stuff.
Here's what I'd actually tell someone who's been told their whole life that Judaism has no room for this stuff. Go read Berachot three A. It's right there. Don't take my word for it, don't take your rabbi's word for it, don't take Heinrich Graetz's word. Just open the book. And then, if you want to go deeper, the Zohar and the writings of Isaac Luria are waiting. The tradition is richer than the sanitized version you've been handed.
For someone who isn't Jewish but is interested in the paranormal, the Jewish framework offers something different. You don't have to sign up for eternal damnation. You don't have to accept a single afterlife destination with no possibility of movement. What you get instead is a process — souls in motion, souls in repair, souls that can return to complete something unfinished. The whole thing is built around tikkun.
That's the word to sit with. It's not just a social justice slogan, which is what tikkun olam has become in a lot of circles. It's a cosmological principle. The idea that souls can come back because something needs fixing — that's not a horror premise. That's a statement about what the universe is doing.
It reframes the paranormal entirely. A ghost isn't a threat. A dybbuk isn't a monster. These are souls in a process they haven't completed yet. The appropriate response isn't fear — it's helping them finish the work.
The practical takeaway, whether you're Jewish or not, is this: the paranormal in Judaism is ultimately about repair, not fear. And if that resonates with you, the sources are there. They've always been there. Nobody needs to invent a new framework. The old one is sitting on the shelf waiting to be read.
Here's the question I keep coming back to. Interest in the paranormal is surging — fifty-four percent of Americans believe in ghosts, the numbers keep climbing, and the conversation is dominated by Christian frameworks and New Age spirituality. Jewish institutions spent two centuries scrubbing this stuff from the public face of the tradition. Do they try to reclaim it now, or do they just cede the territory permanently?
I think the institutional answer so far has been silence. Most synagogues aren't running adult education courses on dybbuks. Most rabbinical schools aren't making Berachot three A a centerpiece of their curriculum. The default posture is still that this is folkloric residue — interesting for anthropologists, not serious theology.
Which means the reclaiming, if it happens, is going to come from outside the institutions. The way it did with Ansky. Artists, writers, podcasters — people who encounter the sources and refuse to pretend they're not there.
You can see it happening already. The last decade gave us films like The Vigil, which draws directly on Jewish demonology and possession traditions. There's a whole emerging genre of Jewish horror fiction that treats the supernatural material not as metaphor but as real within the world of the story. That's a form of reclamation. It says these ideas belong to us, and we're going to use them.
The Golem to The Vigil is its own lineage. And what's interesting is that the horror genre — which you'd think would be the least respectful treatment — is actually one of the places where the tradition gets taken most seriously. Because horror has to believe in its monster for the story to work. You can't allegorize a dybbuk and still make it scary.
The allegorical reading is the enemy of the paranormal tradition, because it turns everything into a lesson. The ghost isn't really a ghost — it's a symbol for guilt or trauma or whatever. But the sources don't read that way. Rabbi Yose heard something in that ruin. The sages debated what it was, not what it represented.
The open question is whether the institutions catch up to the artists, or whether this stays an underground recovery project. And my guess is it stays underground for a while, because the institutional discomfort with the supernatural runs deep. It's not just Graetz. It's centuries of apologetics.
The next conversation I'd want to have is how Kabbalah systematized all of this into a full cosmology. Because what we've sketched today — the afterlife stages, the spirit categories, the possession mechanics — that's the raw material. The Lurianic system turns it into a comprehensive map of how souls move through worlds. And then you've got the artistic lineage from The Golem through The Dybbuk to The Vigil, where that cosmology gets tested in story.
That's the episode I want to hear. But for now, I think the thing to sit with is simpler than all the theology. The tradition has ghosts. It has demons. It has souls that return. And if you've been told otherwise, someone made an editorial decision on your behalf. You're allowed to go check their work.
Now: Hilbert's daily fun fact.
Hilbert: The distinctive tang of Honduran chicha, a fermented maize beverage documented in the nineteen forties, owes its signature acidity to a two-stage fermentation where Lactobacillus plantarum first produces lactic acid before wild Saccharomyces yeasts convert the remaining sugars to ethanol — a microbial relay race whose name, chicha, likely traces to the Chibchan word chichab, meaning maize, making the drink's very etymology a footnote in the history of Central American agriculture.
Hilbert: The distinctive tang of Honduran chicha, a fermented maize beverage documented in the nineteen forties, owes its signature acidity to a two-stage fermentation where Lactobacillus plantarum first produces lactic acid before wild Saccharomyces yeasts convert the remaining sugars to ethanol — a microbial relay race whose name, chicha, likely traces to the Chibchan word chichab, meaning maize, making the drink's very etymology a footnote in the history of Central American agriculture.
I don't know what to do with the phrase microbial relay race.
I think you just let it wash over you and move on. This has been My Weird Prompts. Thanks to our producer Hilbert Flumingtop for keeping the show running, and thanks to Daniel for a prompt that sent us straight into a ruin in Jerusalem with a ghost. If you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review — it helps more people find the show. Until next time.
This episode was generated with AI assistance. Hosts Herman and Corn are AI personalities.