Lilith: Wind, Night, and Wasting

Speaker 20:00

Pro Football is back. And so are the predictions. Trade yours on CalCheat, America's number one prediction market <span data-t="4.

9">platform. Indy takes on Kansas City with Indy currently trading at 28% to win. A $100 trade pays out <span data-t="10.

2">$336 if they win. Download CalCheat. Use code AUDIO 25 to get $55 when you trade $25. K-A-L-S-H-I. CalCheat.

Trade what's next. $18 plus only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contract trading involves risk <span data-t="25.

5">and may not be suitable for all investors. Calci products are not available in all jurisdictions. Prices, values, <span data-t="30.

0">and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see CalChi.com slash regulatory.

Advertisement omitted · 0:34

Speaker 31:53

There's nothing like my American Express Platinum card. I love that I can earn hotel credits when <span data-t="117.

9">I travel. I can also earn RETI credits, so you know I'm hitting the restaurants everyone's talking about.

Plus, with the digital entertainment credit, I'm even more excited to catch my favorite shows. All <span data-t="127.

8">in all, I can access over $3,500 in annual value with benefits and eligible purchases across travel, <span data-t="134.

1">entertainment, and more. Learn more at AmericaneExpress.com slash explore dash platinum. Enrollment requirements, monthly, and other <span data-t="140.

6">limits in terms apply.

Speaker 12:51

If so, then sit back, relax, and welcome to Southern Demonology, the podcast that explores all of <span data-t="180.

1">this and more. Hello all, and welcome back to another episode of Southern Demonology. As always, I <span data-t="192.

2">am your friendly neighborhood, Ancient Demonologist, JJ. Tonight we are finally beginning the Name Demon series in <span data-t="201.

3">earnest, and there was really only one place to start. Lilith was the overwhelming favorite in the <span data-t="208.

0">poll I posted on YouTube. But even apart from that, she is exactly the kind of figure that <span data-t="215.

8">makes this whole series necessary. Her history is ancient, layered, and spread across multiple cultures, which means <span data-t="225.

7">that the moment anyone starts speaking about her with absolute confidence, there is a very good chance <span data-t="233.

0">they have already flattened the evidence into something much cleaner than it actually is. That is one <span data-t="240.

7">of the reasons I wanted to begin here. Lilith is not merely famous, she is instructive. She <span data-t="248.

8">forces us to use the framework from the introductory episode. We have to ask what language we <span data-t="255.

7">are dealing with, what the earliest attested form of the name is, what later traditions did to <span data-t="262.

4">that name, and how much certainty the evidence can bear. In her case, all of those questions <span data-t="270.

2">matter because the figure most people call Lilith today is the product of a very long historical <span data-t="278.

2">development rather than a single stable identity preserved intact from antiquity. Now before we go further, let <span data-t="287.

4">me state something plainly. Most people inherit Lilith in already digested form. By the time she reaches <span data-t="295.

2">pop culture, occult books, internet demonology, and the endless machine that turns ancient material into bite-sized <span data-t="305.

0">certainty, she usually arrives with a ready made biography. People know her as Adam's first wife, or <span data-t="313.

3">as the mother of demons, or as some kind of primordial, dark feminine force. And all of that <span data-t="320.

7">feels old because the name itself is old. But those are not all equally early ideas, and they <span data-t="328.

6">certainly are not all biblical. Some are later developments, some are interpretive expansions, and some are simply <span data-t="337.

4">the result of multiple traditions being piled on top of one another until the pile starts passing <span data-t="344.

2">itself off as history. So if we are going to handle Lilith responsibly, we need to begin where <span data-t="353.

0">we should always begin with the name itself. The Hebrew term Leit appears explicitly in Isaiah thirty <span data-t="363.

1">four fourteen, and the dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible says that although it is <span data-t="369.

6">often connected by popular etymology with the Hebrew word for night, it is better understood as a <span data-t="377.

0">loan word from Achaidian Lilitu, itself related to older Sumerian material built on Lil. That means the <span data-t="386.

6">common night demon association is not meaningless, but it is not the whole story either. It tells <span data-t="393.

4">us something about how later interpreters heard the name, not necessarily where the figure began. And that <span data-t="402.

5">right there is the first place where bad demonology gets made. People hear a convenient etymology, decide <span data-t="411.

7">they have solved the problem, and then start building a whole theology on top of it. But Lilith <span data-t="418.

5">is one of those cases where the convenient answer is not the deepest answer. The night hag <span data-t="425.

8">reading reflects a genuine strand of reception, and it certainly affected later Jewish and Christian imagination. But <span data-t="434.

6">the deeper roots of the figure lie in Mesopotamian material, not in a neat little Hebrew wordplay <span data-t="443.

0">that wraps everything up in a bow. If we go back into that Mesopotamian background, the picture <span data-t="451.

3">immediately becomes more complex and frankly more interesting. The dictionary notes that the evidence reaches back into <span data-t="460.

2">the third millennium BCE, including the Sumerian tradition usually connected to Gilgamesh and Kidu and the Netherworld, <span data-t="470.

0">where a related demon figure appears in the tree associated with Inanna. It also points out that <span data-t="477.

3">forms such as Lilu, Lilitu, and Wardat Lili appear together in Achaidean texts as closely related beings <span data-t="486.

6">whose dominion is tied to stormy winds. That ancient association with wind matters much more than it <span data-t="495.

0">might seem at first glance. In the modern world, wind can sound like a vague symbol. In the <span data-t="502.

1">ancient world it was anything but vague. Wind enters the house without permission. It moves through cracks <span data-t="511.

0">and across thresholds. It rattles what is stable and unsettles what is secure. It can bring life <span data-t="518.

1">when it is breath, but it can also bring terror when it becomes storm. So when these beings <span data-t="525.

8">are associated with the wind, we are not dealing with a decorative poetic flourish. We are looking <span data-t="533.

3">at one of the ways the ancient imagination described a hostile presence that crossed boundaries, entered domestic <span data-t="541.

8">space, and made itself felt without becoming fully visible. That was one of the main things I <span data-t="549.

8">emphasized in my previous episode on Lilith, because I still think it is one of the keys to <span data-t="556.

3">her staying power. She is not merely associated with darkness, she is associated with wind, breath, spirit, <span data-t="565.

5">intrusion, and force. She occupies that unsettling seam between the tangible and the intangible. You feel her <span data-t="574.

9">before you fully see her. She is intimate without being welcome. She enters where she should not be.

That is a powerful demonic profile, and it is one of the reasons this figure kept surviving. <span data-t="590.

3">The dictionary pushes the matter even further though, because it says that the sexual aspect of these <span data-t="597.

1">beings is of great importance. Lilitu and related figures are described as beings without husbands who wander <span data-t="607.

1">in search of men and enter the house through the window. Their sexuality is not normal domestic <span data-t="614.

7">sexuality, but something irregular, predatory, and destructive. The entry also notes that Lilith cannot properly nourish <span data-t="624.

5">children and instead resembles a false or poisonous wet nurse, which is one of the reasons the <span data-t="631.

8">dictionary says she becomes closely aligned with La Moshtu in later Mesopotamian tradition. That gives us a <span data-t="641.

1">very important early matrix. Before Lilith ever becomes Adam's first wife, before she becomes a stock figure <span data-t="649.

5">in later folklore, and before she becomes a favorite of internet occult aesthetics, she is already tied <span data-t="657.

0">to a recognizable cluster of themes the wind, nocturnal danger, intrusive sexuality, anti domestic disorder, and threat <span data-t="667.

4">to children. The later traditions do not all appear out of nowhere. Many of them are developments <span data-t="674.

6">of motifs that are already present very early, though not always in the same form, and certainly <span data-t="682.

0">not with the same level of elaboration. Now this is where I want to slow down and make <span data-t="688.

7">the distinction that keeps getting blurred. The presence of those early motifs does not mean that every <span data-t="696.

6">later Lilith story is equally ancient. It means the later stories have roots. That is different. There <span data-t="705.

0">is a major difference between saying this later legend developed out of older material and saying this <span data-t="713.

4">later legend was there all along. Lilith is one of the best examples of why that distinction matters.

So let's move from the Mesopotamian background into the Hebrew Bible itself. The dictionary of deities <span data-t="731.

0">and demons in the Bible is extremely clear that Isaiah 3414 contains the only explicit Hebrew Bible <span data-t="739.

7">reference to Lilith. That is it. One direct Hebrew Bible citation. And the context there is not <span data-t="747.

8">a domestic scene, not Eden, and not a demonological biography. It is a judgment oracle against Edom, <span data-t="755.

4">which is portrayed as a desolated wasteland inhabited by uncanny creatures, desert beings, birds of prey, and <span data-t="763.

5">agents of ruin. Lilith appears there among the things that belong in cursed places. That fits exactly <span data-t="771.

6">with the way I handled this in my previous episode on Lilith. In Isaiah, she belongs to the <span data-t="778.

2">ecology of desolation. She appears alongside hyenas, satyrs, owls, kites, and the rest of that haunted bestiary. <span data-t="788.

2">The point is not that Isaiah is giving us a long theological disquisition about Lilith. The point <span data-t="795.

4">is that he is drawing on a known figure whose presence intensifies the image of a land so <span data-t="802.

0">devastated that only the anti human world remains. And that context should keep us honest. Isaiah is <span data-t="810.

8">not trying to tell us her origin, her rank, her powers, or her biography. He is painting a <span data-t="818.

2">landscape. Lilith belongs in that landscape because she is part of the symbolic world of ruin, wilderness, <span data-t="827.

0">terror, and inhabited desolation. That is what the text gives us. It is meaningful, but it is <span data-t="834.

5">also limited. It is enough to say something real without pretending it says more than it does. <span data-t="841.

7">At the same time, I do not want to stop with the direct Isaiah citation because I also <span data-t="849.

0">want to preserve something I said in my previous episode on Lilith, and that is the importance <span data-t="856.

2">of the elusive strand in Psalm ninety one, especially the phrase the arrow that flieth by day. <span data-t="865.

1">Now to be precise, Psalm ninety one does not explicitly name Lilith. That distinction matters, and I <span data-t="872.

9">do not want to muddy it, but the dictionary of deities and demons notes that in later Jewish <span data-t="879.

9">tradition a demon that shoots like an arrow is identified with Lilith, and that the meteorite was <span data-t="888.

1">even known in Jewish tradition as the arrow of Lilith. So the careful way to frame this is <span data-t="895.

0">that Isaiah thirty four fourteen gives us the explicit Hebrew Bible citation, while Psalm 91 participates in <span data-t="905.

5">an elusive field that later Jewish interpretation associates with Lilith's mode of attack.

Speaker 215:15

ProFootball is back, and so are the predictions. Trade yours on Calci, America's number one prediction <span data-t="920.

3">market platform. Indy takes on Kansas City, with Indy currently trading at 28% to win. A $100 <span data-t="925.

2">trade pays out $336 if they win. Download CalChi. Use code AUDIO 25 to get $55 when you <span data-t="931.

6">trade $25. K-A-L-S-H-I. CalCHI. Trade what's next. $18 plus only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event <span data-t="939.

8">contract trading involves risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Calci products are not available <span data-t="944.

0">in all jurisdictions. Prices, values, and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see <span data-t="948.

3">CalChi.com/slash regulatory.

Advertisement omitted · 15:50

Speaker 117:11

And honestly, that is exactly the kind of distinction this whole series needs. Explicit reference is <span data-t="1039.

4">one thing. Elusive development is another. They are related, but they are not interchangeable. If we do <span data-t="1048.

1">not keep that straight, then we wind up overclaiming the text and treating later interpretations as if <span data-t="1056.

0">they were already sitting there fully formed in the biblical material. That same elusive field becomes <span data-t="1064.

3">much more explicit in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in four Q five one zero to five <span data-t="1071.

4">one, a text I have talked about before and still think is one of the most important <span data-t="1077.

7">windows into how Second Temple Jews imagined hostile spirits. In that protective text, Lilith is named <span data-t="1087.

1">directly among the spirits of the angels of destruction, demons, howlers, desert dwellers, and those spirits <span data-t="1096.

2">who strike suddenly in order to lead astray and terrify. In my previous episode on Lilith, I <span data-t="1103.

8">pointed out that this text essentially does by direct naming what Psalm ninety one does by illusion. <span data-t="1111.

8">The Psalm builds a field of terror, suddenness, night, assault, and destruction, while four Q five one <span data-t="1120.

2">zero to five one fills out that field and names some of the entities within it. That <span data-t="1127.

2">is enormously important because it shows that by the Second Temple period, Lilith is not merely an <span data-t="1134.

5">obscure term marooned in Isaiah. She is still an active presence in Jewish demonological imagination. Her <span data-t="1143.

1">name still has force. She still belongs among the hostile beings against which the righteous community <span data-t="1150.

3">seeks protection. That continuity is one of the reasons she cannot simply be dismissed as a late <span data-t="1157.

9">medieval invention or a bit of decorative folklore. The evidence is thinner than modern people often <span data-t="1165.

8">imagine, but it is substantial enough to show that the name endured and remained potent. Now let <span data-t="1174.

9">us talk about translation, because this is where names begin to travel and in traveling begin to change.

The dictionary notes that the ancient versions of Isaiah do not all handle Lilith in the <span data-t="1190.

2">same way. The Septuagint gives one rendering, Aquila more or less transliterates the name, while Semachus <span data-t="1198.

2">and Jerome use Lamia. Jerome even comments Lamia, who is called Lilith in Hebrew. The dictionary takes <span data-t="1208.

5">these renderings as another sign of Lilith's ancient connection to Lamashtu, since the Greek and Latin <span data-t="1215.

3">translators are trying to map a difficult Hebrew demon term onto figures already known in their own <span data-t="1223.

1">cultural world. That point matters more than it may first appear. Translation is not neutral. The moment <span data-t="1233.

4">a translator chooses Lamia instead of simply reproducing Lilith, that translator is already interpreting the figure. <span data-t="1242.

1">He is saying, in effect, the closest thing my audience knows to this being is that one. <span data-t="1249.

0">That is useful. It tells us how the figure was being understood. But it does not mean <span data-t="1254.

8">that Lilith, Lamia, and Lamashtu are perfectly identical beings with one tidy infernal identity card. It <span data-t="1264.

1">means the traditions overlap, assimilate and illuminate one another. They form a family resemblance, not a <span data-t="1273.

2">simplistic one to one equivalence. That is why I keep insisting on the principle of data before <span data-t="1281.

2">doctrine. Once we see Mesopotamian wind demon material, the Hebrew term in Isaiah, the elusive Psalm <span data-t="1289.

4">ninety one tradition, the Second Temple naming in four Q five one zero to five one, and <span data-t="1296.

2">the Greek and Latin identifications with Lamia and Lamoshtu, the responsible move is not to collapse <span data-t="1304.

3">everything into one sentence and call it a day. The responsible move is to say that we <span data-t="1311.

0">are dealing with a long history of reception, adaptation, and reinterpretation. The overlap is real and <span data-t="1320.

0">But so are the distinctions. Now of course for most modern people, the question that rises above <span data-t="1327.

3">all the others is not Isaiah and not Acadian. It is this was Lilith Adam's first wife? <span data-t="1336.

7">And the answer is the same answer that so many of these named demon episodes are going <span data-t="1344.

2">to require. That is a later tradition, not the starting point. In my previous episode on Lilith, <span data-t="1352.

5">I traced how later readers looked at the two creation accounts in Genesis and began asking whether <span data-t="1359.

4">the woman created with Adam in Genesis I might be distinct from Eve in Genesis II. From <span data-t="1367.

1">there, later rabbinic tradition develops the now famous story. Lilith refuses subordination, quarrels with Adam, flees, <span data-t="1377.

2">and then becomes associated with demons and the generation of demonic offspring. The dictionary also acknowledges <span data-t="1385.

8">this tradition quite directly. It says that it was well known that Lilith was said to be <span data-t="1392.

4">Adam's first wife, that she flew away after a quarrel, and that from then on she became <span data-t="1399.

6">a danger to little children and had to be warded off by amulets. That tradition matters. It <span data-t="1407.

6">had enormous cultural impact. It shaped later Jewish folklore, Christian imagination, magical traditions, and eventually modern <span data-t="1417.

8">receptions of Lilith. But it is still later. It is not where the story begins. It is <span data-t="1425.

2">part of Lilith's afterlife, not the earliest recoverable stage of her identity. And I think one of <span data-t="1433.

2">the reasons this legend became so successful is that it domesticates and personalizes what had previously <span data-t="1440.

9">been more atmospheric and symbolic. Instead of a figure of wilderness, wind and intrusion, Lilith becomes <span data-t="1449.

9">a character embedded in the primal human drama. She becomes anti Eve. She becomes the woman who <span data-t="1457.

9">would not submit the one who departed, the one who became the dark mirror to order domesticity. <span data-t="1465.

0">That is potent mythology. It is easy to see why it lasted. But it is still mythology <span data-t="1472.

2">growing out of earlier material, not a piece of primeval biblical biography that had merely been waiting <span data-t="1480.

6">for us to notice it. And this is another place where poor method produces bad history. People <span data-t="1488.

3">take the most dramatic, late form of a tradition and then read it backward as if it <span data-t="1494.

6">had always been present. Once that happens, everything gets distorted. Lilith did not begin as a fully <span data-t="1502.

7">formed medieval demon queen. She emerges gradually out of a much older and much murkier world of <span data-t="1510.

3">wind, intrusion, dangerous sexuality, wilderness and anti domestic threat. The later legends may be compelling, but <span data-t="1520.

3">they do not erase that earlier complexity. Now let me say something that may sound strange at <span data-t="1527.

8">first, but I think it is one of the deepest truths about Lilith. Her modern popularity often <span data-t="1535.

5">depends on her ancient ambiguity. She is old enough to feel powerful, she is obscure enough to <span data-t="1543.

0">feel mysterious, she is fragmentary enough to be reinvented, and she is dangerous enough to be marketed. <span data-t="1550.

8">That is a nearly perfect recipe for cultural immortality. Modern people can project almost anything onto <span data-t="1559.

4">her because the record, while real, is not so exhaustive that it closes off reinterpretation. In fact, <span data-t="1567.

8">one reason Lilith keeps returning is because each era is able to pull her into its own <span data-t="1574.

5">anxieties and aspirations. That is not unique to Lilith, but it is especially pronounced in her case. <span data-t="1583.

0">She becomes a site of projection. For some she is a demon. For others she is a goddess.

For others she is a symbol of sexual danger. For others she is a symbol of <span data-t="1596.

3">sexual liberation. For others she is a folkloric child snatcher. For others she is a literary archetype. <span data-t="1605.

4">And because the name carries real antiquity, all of those projections inherit a kind of borrowed <span data-t="1612.

8">authority, whether they deserve it or not. This is one reason I think Lilith is the perfect <span data-t="1619.

5">first name demon for the series. She shows exactly why names matter and exactly why names can mislead.

Her name preserves a real historical lineage. It connects us to the ancient Near East, to <span data-t="1636.

0">biblical tradition, to Second Temple, demonology, to translation history, to rabbinic legend, and to medieval and <span data-t="1645.

6">modern folklore. But that same richness also means that the name can become a magnet for bad <span data-t="1653.

0">history, inflated confidence, and all sorts of theological improvisation. Now at this point I want to make <span data-t="1662.

0">a distinction that I think is pastorally important. There are usually two bad ways people respond to <span data-t="1669.

4">a figure like Lilith. One is to dismiss her entirely as just folklore with a cool name. <span data-t="1676.

6">The other is to treat the name Lilith as though it explains everything. A nightmare, a sexual <span data-t="1684.

3">temptation, a season of dread, a strange dream, a perceived attack, and suddenly someone wants to stamp <span data-t="1694.

2">Lilith on it with complete confidence. Neither posture is healthy. If you dismiss the figure entirely, you <span data-t="1703.

8">miss the very real continuity of ancient demonological tradition and the way certain names preserve patterns <span data-t="1712.

1">of threat, fear, and hostile symbolism across centuries. But if you treat the name as an explanatory <span data-t="1720.

6">shortcut, you replace discernment with labeling. And a label can become a false comfort. It can make <span data-t="1729.

8">us feel as if we have identified and therefore mastered something when in fact we have merely <span data-t="1735.

9">attached a familiar word to a poorly understood experience. That is one of the deepest points from <span data-t="1743.

8">the introduction to this series. Naming is not mastery. A list of names is not the same <span data-t="1751.

4">thing as wisdom, and Lilith is perhaps the best possible proof of that. She has one of <span data-t="1758.

4">the most recognizable names in all of demonology, yet the closer you look, the more you realize <span data-t="1766.

2">how layered, unstable and historically developed that name really is. So how should we think about her <span data-t="1775.

0">responsibly? I would say something like this Lilith is one of the earliest and most durable named <span data-t="1784.

1">demonic figures preserved in the orbit of the Bible and the ancient Near East, but she is <span data-t="1790.

9">not preserved in a single stable form. Her name in Hebrew is best understood as an Akkadian <span data-t="1798.

2">loan rather than a purely native Hebrew formation. Her deeper background lies in Mesopotamian material associated <span data-t="1806.

6">with stormy winds and dangerous female spirits whose sexuality is intrusive and irregular. Her explicit Hebrew <span data-t="1816.

5">Bible appearance is in Isaiah thirty four fourteen, where she belongs to the ruined wilderness of divine <span data-t="1823.

5">judgment. Her wider biblical adjacent tradition includes the elusive field around Psalm ninety one and the <span data-t="1832.

4">later identification of the flying arrow with Lilith. By the Second Temple period, she is named directly <span data-t="1841.

0">among destructive spirits in four Q five one zero to five one. Later, Jewish, Greek, and Latin <span data-t="1849.

8">traditions expand and reshape her dramatically, eventually giving us lamia, the Adam story, the child killing <span data-t="1859.

2">traditions, the amulets, and much else besides. That is not a neat answer, but it is the <span data-t="1867.

8">right kind of answer. It respects the evidence without overclaiming. It lets the name remain old and <span data-t="1875.

7">dangerous without pretending the record is simpler than it is. And spiritually, I think Lilith remains <span data-t="1883.

6">compelling for one central reason. She embodies the violation of boundaries. She is the intrusion of the <span data-t="1891.

4">hostile into the intimate. She is wind where walls should protect. She is night where there should <span data-t="1899.

4">be rest. She is seduction where there should be order. She is wilderness where there should be <span data-t="1906.

1">habitation. She is suddenness where there should be safety. That is why she feels so archetypically demonic.

Not because every late legend about her is equally authoritative, but because the cluster of themes <span data-t="1923.

4">attached to her touches fears that human beings have carried for millennia. The unseen entering the room, <span data-t="1932.

4">the hostile crossing the threshold, the intimate becoming dangerous, the desert coming home. That is why <span data-t="1941.

8">the name lasted. So in the end, that is why Lilith had to be first. She was <span data-t="1948.

8">the overwhelming favorite in the poll, yes, but more importantly, she teaches us how this entire series <span data-t="1956.

1">needs to proceed. She teaches us to ask where a name comes from, what language family it <span data-t="1962.

5">belongs to, what its earliest attestation is, what later traditions did to it, and how much certainty <span data-t="1970.

3">we are actually entitled to claim. She teaches us that a named demon can be very old <span data-t="1977.

4">without being simple, very important without being exhaustively documented, and very influential without being reducible to <span data-t="1987.

0">one clean biography. And frankly, that is exactly what I want this series to do. I want <span data-t="1994.

9">us to take these names seriously without surrendering our discernment. I want us to respect the ancient <span data-t="2002.

6">material without romanticizing it. And I want us to resist the temptation to pretend that because a <span data-t="2010.

7">name sounds old, we therefore understand everything attached to it. Lilith is old, Lilith is layered, <span data-t="2019.

0">Lilith is dangerous, and Lilith is one of the clearest examples of why method matters more than swagger.

In the next episode, we will move on to another name demon and continue applying the <span data-t="2035.

3">same principles earliest attestation, language family, original context, later reception, and how much certainty the evidence <span data-t="2045.

0">can really bear. Because in this field, the moment we stop being careful is the moment we <span data-t="2052.

3">start mistaking our own confidence for knowledge. Thank you for listening to Southern Demonology. Stay safe <span data-t="2059.

4">out there. Find us online at Southern Demonology.com, where you can find all of our social links, <span data-t="2078.

1">including YouTube, TikTok, and Patreon. In addition to listen to episodes and read their transcripts. Also, <span data-t="2088.

1">if you have a moment, please rate this podcast and share it with friends, as nothing can <span data-t="2094.

2">help us grow more.

Speaker 235:24

K-A-L-S-H-I. CalCHI. Trade what's next. $18 plus only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contract <span data-t="2131.

5">trading involves risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Calci products are not available in <span data-t="2135.

4">all jurisdictions. Prices, values, and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, see Calci.

com slash regulatory.

Speaker 435:44

That sound could mean a lot of things. And when something's going wrong at home, the <span data-t="2149.

2">hardest part can be figuring out what the problem actually is. At ThumbTech, you can upload a <span data-t="2155.

5">voice message or a photo, and our AI-powered search will help diagnose your project. Plus, the pros <span data-t="2161.

4">we know have over 14 million five-star reviews, so you can hire with confidence. ThumbTech, we know <span data-t="2168.

0">homes. Hire the right pro today.

Speaker 336:38

Enrollment requirements, monthly, and other limited terms apply.