The Prohibition against Sorcery

There are numerous verses in the Torah that prohibit the use of sorcery and other forms of magic. Rambam (Maimonides 1135-1204), Introduction to Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, lists eleven negative commandments that relate to sorcery and witchcraft. The details of these prohibitions are listed in the Gemara, Sanhedrin 65a-b and in Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim chapter 11. In this issue, we will discuss two approaches to understanding the Torah's prohibitions against sorcery and the practical difference between these two approaches.

The Two Approaches

Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:16, states emphatically that the powers that sorcerers claim to have do not exist. He further states that anyone who believes that these powers exist, but the Torah nevertheless prohibited partaking of them, "lacks intellect." Ramban (Nachmanides 1194-1270), Devarim 18:13, Rabbeinu Nissim (c. 1320-1380), Derashot HaRan no. 4 and R. Yosef Ibn Chabib (14^th-15^th century) Nimmukei Yosef, Sanhedrin 16b, s.v. Tanu Rabanan, all disagree with Rambam and assume that such powers do exist in the world and the Torah nevertheless prohibited partaking of them.

The dispute as to whether such powers exist carries over to the codifiers of Jewish law. R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 179:6, codifies Rambam's opinion that these powers do not exist. The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) vehemently disagrees. He notes that although Rambam does not believe that these powers exist, all of the authorities that followed Rambam disagree and do believe that these powers exist. He then suggests that Rambam was influenced by "the philosophers" and therefore, he was forced to assume a non-literal interpretation of verses in the Torah and statements in the Talmud. The Vilna Gaon asserts that these episodes are to be understood literally, but not on a superficial level, rather through in-depth analysis.

Practical Differences between the Approaches

There are a number of practical differences between the two approaches. First, Ramban, Teshuvot HaMeyuchasot no. 283, writes that one practical difference is whether it is permissible to base one's actions on knowledge of the supernatural. He posits that if one consults an astrologer, he violates the positive commandment of being a tamim (a simple person, based on the verse in Devarim 18:13 "tamim tihiyeh im HaShem Elokecha," you shall be simple with the Lord). However, the prohibition against consulting astrologers only applies if one actively seeks information from them. If someone has knowledge of astrology or knows of advice given by astrologers, it is permissible to base one's action on that information. Ramban notes that Rambam disagrees. Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:9, writes that it is prohibited to base one's actions on astrology or other fortune tellers. Ramban writes that the reason why Rambam prohibits basing one's actions on astrologers is that Rambam is of the opinion that these powers do not exist. However, if one assumes that they do exist, the prohibition is limited to seeking out their information and not to acting upon information that one already knows. [Almost all of the Teshuvot HaMeyuchasot LaRamban were actually written by Rashba. This is one of the few responsa written by Ramban.]

The dispute between Rambam and Ramban may play a role in enumerating the 613 mitzvot. Ramban, Hashmatot, Mitzvat Aseh no. 8, questions why Rambam omits the mitzvah of being a tamim from his list of mitzvot. R. Aharon Y. Grossman, V'Darashta VChakarta Vol. III, pg. 488, explains that Rambam and Ramban are consistent with their opinions. Rambam is of the opinion that these powers do not exist. Therefore, the prohibition against consulting an astrologer is not the consultation per se, but rather the action based on his advice. For this reason, Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:16, presents the verse of "tamim tihiyeh" as a general warning against all forms of sorcery. As such, there is no specific mitzvah of being a tamim and it does not warrant being counted in the list of mitzvot. Ramban, who is of the opinion that these powers exist, understands that the verse prohibits consulting people who have knowledge of these powers. The prohibition is seeking the knowledge and not acting on that knowledge. Therefore, this prohibition differs from the other prohibitions relating to sorcery and warrants being counted as a separate mitzvah.

Second, R. Shlomo Luria (1510-1574), Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin 8:13, discusses whether a person in a life-threatening situation can consult a sorcerer for a cure. He suggests that in theory, the question should be contingent on the two approaches. According to Rambam, there is absolutely no purpose in seeking counsel from a sorcerer and therefore, it is prohibited to violate Torah law. According to the other Rishonim, it is permissible to violate Torah law for (almost) all prohibitions and this prohibition is included. R. Luria concludes that perhaps Rambam will agree that it is permissible in a life-threatening situation because there is always a small possibility that the sorcerer may find a cure.

R. Ya'akov of Karlin (d. 1855), Mishkenot Ya'akov, Yoreh De'ah no. 41, presents a different analysis of whether it is permissible to seek treatment from a sorcerer for a life-threatening situation. He notes that there are two issues in seeking treatment from the sorcerer. The first is that one is causing the sorcerer to violate a prohibition of sorcery. Regarding whether this prohibition applies in a life-threatening situation, Mishkenot Ya'akov posits that it is dependent on a dispute in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) as to whether non-Jews must observe the laws of sorcery. If one assumes that they are required to observe these laws, one must conclude that sorcery is considered a form of idol worship. If one assumes that they are not required to observe these laws, sorcery is not a form of idol worship. If sorcery is a form of idol worship, one may not violate the prohibition against sorcery in a life-threatening situation. If it is an independent prohibition, one may violate the prohibition in a life-threatening situation. The second issue is that the "patient" violates the prohibition of "tamim tihiyeh." Mishkenot Ya'akov writes that there are sufficient grounds to be lenient in a life-threatening situation (alluding to R. Luria's analysis). However, he writes that while one can justify seeking treatment from a sorcerer, he would not recommend doing so.

Performing Magic Tricks

Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:9 and 11:15, writes that it is prohibited to perform acts that appear magical even though there is no actual magic involved. Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot no. 32, specifically includes acts of sleight of hand in this prohibition.

R. David ben Zimra (15^th-16^th century), Teshuvot HaRadvaz no. 1,695, suggests that Rambam is simply following his own opinion that these powers don't exists and therefore, sleight of hand must be included in the prohibition. However, all of the Rishonim who disagree with Rambam permit acts of sleight of hand that appear magical as long as they are not being used to trick people.

R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820), Chochmat Adam 89:6, rules that acts that appear to be magical are prohibited, even if they are acts of sleight of hand. R. Ovadia Yosef (b. 1920), Yechaveh Da'at 3:68, accepts Chochmat Adam's opinion as normative. R. Yekutiel Y. Halberstam (1905-1994), Divrei Yatziv, Yoreh De'ah 1:57, adopts the position of Radvaz that tricks of sleight of hand are permissible. He further suggests that if everyone knows that there are no supernatural forces involved, it is permissible according to all opinions. R. Betzalel Stern, B'Tzel HaChochma 4:13, rules that even those who prohibit acts of sleight of hand only prohibit acts of optical illusions. If someone performs acts of sleight of hand by switching two items while the audience is not looking or other similar acts, it is permissible, even according to Chochmat Adam.