Is it permissible to turn to the “fathers”?

Watch this video at 14:35 where Amnon Levy testifies that Snir Ben Artzi told him very surprising things about his sons and family:

I also heard similar stories about him from a close friend.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the abilities he has are real. Is he also forbidden to use them for himself?
Best regards,

There are many stories. If he has abilities, I would expect him not to make mistakes. But as mentioned, none of this is important. Simply put, there is a prohibition against using such things.

Even the forecaster is sometimes wrong, even if he certainly has abilities. In other words, his "vision" is probably blurred, so he doesn't always know how to distinguish between truth and imagination. Furthermore, it's unlikely that so many people would testify to his abilities and seek his advice, including Michael and Raya Strauss, Galia Albin, Yaakov Ne'eman, and more.

The fortune teller has scientific knowledge that can be reproduced by others (the scientific repeatability criterion). On the other hand, someone who claims esoteric knowledge has a duty of proof, and therefore if he is wrong it arouses greater suspicion. It is always possible that he has statistical abilities (meaning that he is more likely to be right than an ordinary person, but not always), but he must convince me that he is.
The ”testimony” that is received about his abilities really does not impress me. I have already heard so much ”testimony” that can be refuted just by hearsay (meaning to offer an interpretation that shows that there is no special ability here), and I am sure that with systematic examination many more of them will be refuted. From experience, I have understood that most people are not intelligent and/or desperate and need supreme knowledge to help them, and therefore can be worked on quite easily.

Regarding the prohibition, it should be extended. Apparently, this depends on the dispute first. According to Maimonides, the “powers” from the Sitra Achra that should not be relied upon are dunyot, meaning that there is a prohibition against being stupid. Hence, if there is something that works, it is permissible to rely upon it. According to his view, all that is needed is good evidence that it really works. However, according to many other rishonim, there is a prohibition against relying upon such powers even if they are real. Rabbi Yaakov Hillel (head of the Kabbalist Yeshiva Ahavat Shalom in Jerusalem) elaborated on this in the Responsorial Psalm and the Sea, at great length.

How about meeting him and seeing for yourself for the academic sake?

According to Maimonides, if it works, is it permissible?
After all, they kill ancestors and soothsayers and don't worry, "Maybe it works."
According to Maimonides, there is simply no such thing as it working. The reason Maimonides believes that it is forbidden because it is a bluff is because Maimonides believes that it is always a bluff.
However, we are talking about a prophet who can sometimes perform miracles, beyond that, nothing "works."

Oren, I don't see any value in this. At most, it will turn out that he has such powers (which of course I highly doubt). So what? Beyond the fact that there is apparently a prohibition here.

With me, there is a logical fallacy in what you are saying. If you define omens and soothsayers as mechanisms that do not work, then indeed there is no such thing as an omen that works. This is a tautology. But if what you are saying is an argument and not a definition, you must propose a definition of an omen and soothsayer regardless of whether it works or not. And after you propose this definition, you will have to provide clear evidence that it does not work.
In other words, explain to me why the radio or WhatsApp is not an omen and soothsayer in the eyes of the Maimonides. The Maimonides could not explain how it works. It is literally magic. So either in his opinion it does not work (but it does) or it is not an omen and soothsayer. In other words, everything that works is not an omen and soothsayer. Proverbs.
What kills omens and soothsayers according to the Maimonides is because these things do not work. Therefore, there is no point in your questioning why they are not afraid that it works. We tested it and it does not. If it really worked, we wouldn't kill them (just as, according to Maimonides, we don't kill radio or WhatsApp users).

Is there a prohibition even in the actual testing of whether these powers exist or not? After all, the appeal is made not for the purpose of using power, but to understand whether it is real (and this also has a halachic implication according to what you wrote above)

I'm not sure about that. It's possible (perhaps from the rabbinic saying, "You shall not turn aside," Rambam 17:7-8). In any case, it doesn't seem interesting enough to invest in. There are many charlatans who claim to have powers. And why should I go now, as a peddler, to check them all out?!

What does it mean, "We tested and it didn't work"? How exactly do you test to make a deterrent? This is a halakhic condition according to the Maimonides? Why is such a thing not mentioned in the halacha?
As I understand it, the Maimonides believes that it cannot work because nature operates with laws and not with cosmologies.
What is the difference between WhatsApp and Ob? WhatsApp operates according to nature, and Ob, although it operates according to nature, claims to be supernatural. The problem according to the Maimonides is the introduction of false beliefs and opinions into the hearts of the masses, but we have no side that it really helps, because the supernatural does not exist.
(We don't need clear evidence that it doesn't work, because the Maimonides understands a priori that nature has rigid laws and there is no room for deviation from them, and it is built on causality, which we know a priori).

Itay, I explained to you that there is a logical fallacy in what you said. It doesn't magically disappear if you repeat it again.

There is no logical fallacy, and my definition is clear, the definition of a sorcerer is not “something that doesn't work”
Whatever it is that doesn't work, the Rambam understands a priori.
The definition of a sorcerer is someone who does a natural act that claims to be supernatural.
And sin is misleading the masses and giving birth to error and folly.
(I only implicitly assumed that the reason the Rambam was forced to say that it doesn't work and was killed because of the deception, is not because the Rambam believed that if it works, there is no point in prohibiting it, and it is unlikely that the Rambam would decide in his mind such things to limit the law of the Torah just because it didn't seem to him that the Torah would prohibit such a thing, but rather that the Rambam assumed that it was impossible for such things to work, because as stated there is a law in nature).
In short, the argument is that it cannot work, without evidence, but an a priori understanding of nature, (just as you and David Hume do not need evidence for causality), and the definition of a sorcerer is someone who performs a natural action that claims to work in a supernatural way = Uri Geller for example.
(As opposed to something that cannot be explained how it works but understands that there is some natural mechanism that activates it).
– If you mean to say that a sorcerer and a sorcerer “works” naturally, it is no longer a sorcerer and a sorcerer, it is just a WhatsApp that is really not forbidden, but it is not in the definition of a sorcerer, which is clear that the definition is in everyone's eyes a supernatural action, but for those who disagree with Maimonides, it is truly supernatural and for Maimonides, it is a fake supernatural.
(Apologies for the length, I simply did not understand where the logical fallacy is, and I tried to clarify where I could).

Now all that's left for you to do is define what is natural and what is supernatural? (without resorting to what works or doesn't work)

Natural is a static law, and therefore permanent.
Supernatural means something that works by local intervention. Therefore, it is also not permanent.

Therefore, it is possible to repeat the same action and sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not.
If I hold a spoon and look at it hard, it will not bend, and Uri Geller does.
(The assumption is of course that Uri Geller's eyes are not part of the forces of nature, it doesn't matter why it can't be, the work is that people assume that it is not, and they understand that Uri Geller has forces outside of nature that can operate nature as he wishes).

[I don't think Maimonides needs to define this definition, anyone who talks about the supernatural can ask what he means and why he doesn't call it nature, the fact is that even those who believe that witchcraft and sorcery work don't call it nature, and they assume that it works in a different way].

That's exactly the question I'm asking. You. How do you distinguish between what works sometimes and what always fails? After all, when a plane flies through the air, you don't say that gravity is supernatural, but you look for an explanation or believe that there is an explanation. And when a person is provoked and sometimes reacts violently and sometimes not - is the violence supernatural? And when a dice roll sometimes lands on a 5 and sometimes on a 1, is that supernatural? You can wonder the same way about any phenomenon. I think I commented on all of this in my book God Plays Dice, in connection with Dawkins' statement that he doesn't believe in the supernatural (he simply assumes that everything that works is natural).

And if Nir Ben Artzi always hit the truth, would that be natural? Would that be permissible?

First of all, for the prohibition of a fortune teller, you don't need to know, what people think is enough, if a person claims to sell himself as acting by supernatural force, that's enough, as long as people assume that it doesn't work naturally, that's enough for the prohibition.
But how do you really diagnose this, I don't know, but the rabbi has already insisted on it in several places (in the first book in the trilogy, and as I think I read about it also in What Is and What Is Not or In God Playing Dice) that any tracing of a law assumes some kind of intuition as to the direction of the explanation, because if not, there are endless possibilities where to check, and since no law has been tested, perhaps it operates specifically in the environment of Nir Ben Artzi, apparently our intuition teaches that Nir Ben Artzi is not a natural explanation, (and therefore at most he can operate by supernatural force, and then in a process of scientific investigation we have nothing to do with this information).

In your opinion, if only Steph Curry can make shots at such a high percentage and from such distances, he must have supernatural ability. In my opinion, this is a miraculous natural ability.
I think the point is now understood and we have exhausted it.

In any case, there are three babs that every Hasid must turn to, namely, Baba Kama, Baba Metzia, and Baba Batra, for whoever claims to be a Hasid must observe the milii davot, milii davrot, and milii danzikin that are explained in the ’trilogy’ of the above three babs. Whoever learns from the three babs how to be careful in all his ways with his fellow man–s money is guaranteed to him that they will create him as a ’Kabat

With many blessings, Sh’z

(Please, if you can insert another word).
The difference is that Steph Curry is not a law of nature, the laws of nature are known, Steph Curry is a coincidental realization of known laws, and therefore he is explained according to the existing laws of nature.
Nir Ben Artzi is an event that does not realize any known law of nature, and therefore the assumption is that the action is not within the known legal framework.

I'm a little surprised by the rabbi. It's probably pretty clear that the Rambam was wrong in this case. (Philosophy has mostly taken it). The simple abstraction that from the perspective of the Torah, a magician, a sorcerer, a sorcerer, etc. was a real reality. It's unlikely that the Torah forbade something that was imaginary and even distributed it to many Levites and even punished them with death in the synagogue. The Rambam was pushed to this because of his perception of the mitzvah that there are no demons, etc., which after Kabbalah became unnecessary (like the ether for Maxwell's equation and the constant speed of light). Rabbi Ovadia, following the Shulchan Arba's ruling, ruled that it is forbidden to hold a magician's show (simply inviting a magician to a children's birthday party) because it is "cloudy". (And Rashi explains that the sages know who is called a cloud). It is unreasonable in my opinion to prohibit such a magician who does nothing, and the Radbz wondered about him. And I guess in my cup that our magician also has the opinion of the rabbi as my own. And even so, there is no room to divide this from Nir Ben Artzi (whose opinion in principle is the opinion of the rabbi). The rabbi's rationality is mostly taken for granted.

Ailon, I once thought the same as you. But against your interpretive consideration stands the improbability that such phenomena actually exist and that there are such forces. Therefore, I do not have a clear position on this. The speaker refers to the last two columns (267-8) on mystical intuitions.

Well. The explanation for this is simple. Reality has changed. It is not just an excuse. It went along with the disappearance of prophecy. There is a lot of talk in all the early literature and Kabbalah about the decline of generations in spirituality and the ability to see spiritually (people are coarser. thicker. more materialistic). The decline of synthetic ability, as the Rabbi put it. The prohibitions today are irrelevant and it is about the same as slavery laws today. It is no less likely than the “improbability that such phenomena do exist and that there are such forces” which exists only in the present (at least in terms of the classical Torah position). That is, for me, extrapolation from the present to the past on this subject is not only not necessary but also probably not correct. At least for those who believe in prophecy (which today stands at the same level of improbability as the existence of “such phenomena and forces”).

Regarding what you wrote above that ”There are many charlatans who claim to have powers. And why should I go now because I am a peddler to check them all?!”
If someone is sufficiently famous for having supernatural powers, there is enough justification to check if they are indeed as she claims. Moreover, it could be a topic for a very interesting post 🙂

Oren, I don't know what the point of this is. It's not interesting enough for me to invest time in it. By the way, many stories are told about Oren Zarif, and about many others. What's more, I've already seen that he was deceived, so I don't see that there is any special potential for examination here (even if it were interesting to me).
I don't think that any particular halachic or other knowledge is required here, and you also have sound logic and common sense. If it interests you – you can also check it out yourself.

There is a gemara at the end of the chapter Arba Mithut of Sanhedrin from which it is understood that there is value in investigating these areas:
Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin Page 68 Page 1
Once he and I were walking on the road, he said to me: Rabbi, teach me how to plant thorns. I said one thing, and the whole field was filled with thorns. He said to me: Rabbi, you taught me how to plant them – teach me how to uproot them. I said one thing, and they all gathered in one place. … Are you a worker? And the one who does a deed is obligated! – to learn that I am. Saying, Master, you will not learn to do what you have learned, but you have learned to understand and to teach.

In addition, from you they will receive corroborating testimony of these powers, but not from me.
As for Oren Zarif, I don't think he has reached the level of fame of Nir Ben Artzi, for example, Wikipedia writes about him as follows:
“In 2012, Forbes magazine estimated that the value of his institutions was about 100 million NIS. His circle of associates included figures such as Raya Strauss, Galia Albin, and Professor Yaakov Ne'eman.”

I'm really not impressed. The fact that people are rich doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent. On the contrary, sometimes loneliness and responsibility lead them to rely on charlatans like “Rabbi” Pinto and his colleagues and many others.

The very fact that he reached such a value from scratch, without being a descendant of a great rabbi (like the sons of rebbes who inherit their status) and without any special Torah talent or even special charisma, speaks volumes.

Absolutely not. You don't need anything but the courage to enter this charlatan swamp. Wear black and do whatever your heart desires. The fools will come. There are dozens and hundreds of such cases.
Again, I'm not saying that he necessarily doesn't have any unusual abilities, but the data doesn't prove anything about it.

It is a fact that among all the charlatans in the field, he reached an astronomical value that almost no one else has even come close to (except for the Rebbe and the sons of Rebbe). Besides, assuming that the Torah spoke of a possible reality, what data would you expect to be placed before you to believe in this phenomenon?

I haven't made any comparisons, but you're quite surprising to me. There are a lot of millionaires in this field. A simple explanation is that his clients (which you mentioned) are very rich. The explanation here is marketing and not substantive. Therefore, as I said before, in my opinion the amounts really don't say anything on the merits. Simply nothing except about his marketing abilities.
I'm not sure the Torah spoke of a possible reality (I commented on that above). And even if it did – I don't know what the criterion is. It's possible that a test could prove (or confirm) this, but I have no interest in doing it. Why would it interest me? It's also possible that this reality has passed from the world like prophecy and the overt (and perhaps also hidden) miracles. In short, I have no interest in it.