Esoterica in the Torah – Sorcery, Demons, Idolatry, and the Like

Opening message from the rabbi

Esoterica in the Torah – Sorcery, Demons, Idolatry, and the Like

Posted on 10/9/2004

In light of the discussion in the thread on Maimoni’s Borderline, which began to deal systematically with a different topic, I suggest opening a special thread for that purpose and beginning the discussion from the start.

I suggest not transferring the messages from there to here merely by copying them, but instead starting from the beginning for those who did not follow the earlier discussion.

As I suggested there, and as became clear there, we must begin by establishing the methodology of the discussion (so that we do not drown in the many sources, opinions, and considerations, as happened there).

I will begin with a proposed methodology, and we should begin the discussion with that alone. Please do not send other messages here until we have settled the methodological points that will now arise.

The proposed rules of the thread (as a basis for the initial debate—a preliminary discussion):

1. Each person should be open to hearing what the other claims and should respond substantively. This is of course required by the forum’s rules, and I am merely reminding myself and all of us.

2. Evidence and arguments should be presented one by one, and as precisely as possible. For example, the claims of R. M. B’Mazal regarding the Vilna Gaon that were raised in the earlier thread there (which were a collection of several different points) may legitimately be included in a single message; however, we must number them and respond to each one according to the number assigned at the beginning of the sub-discussion.

3. Regarding the nature of the evidence, we must decide whether certain sources count as evidence, which of them would constitute conclusive proof, and why they should count as proof.

At this delicate point (which was disputed there) I propose as follows:

The discussion should be divided into an a priori discussion of whether a given idea is possible at all. In stage two, the various sources and their relative weight should be discussed (from the Sages through the later authorities). The final result will be a weighting of the two discussions together: the more implausible something is, the more we will tend to force the sources or even reject them (as R. Ben-Tziyon did, quite rightly from his own point of view—since he is convinced that this is entirely impossible). And conversely, the more unequivocal the conclusion of the sources is, the more prepared we will be to accept something that is less plausible.

Therefore the discussion must be divided, and only afterward should its two levels be weighed together.

4. We will begin with the a priori discussion, which will address the feasibility of the existence of the various esoteric entities or phenomena, and also the question whether there is any distinction among the conclusions about their existence—that is, whether the existence of demons also implies the existence of astrology and the like, or whether the topics should be distinguished from one another.

(The influence of celestial spheres, stars, demons, angels, souls, sorcery, and more: the list should be completed and finalized before the discussion.)

Stage 1: Please propose a complete list of the various entities to be discussed. Please do not introduce anything else into the discussion at this stage.

Stage 2: Should the a priori discussion be divided among them, or should all of them be discussed together?

Stage 3: An a priori discussion (not source-based) of the list, item by item, in the order that I will determine in the summary of the discussion.

In this discussion, sources have no significance at all, and we should raise a priori considerations, as explained above regarding the division between the two levels.

The results of the discussion, to be summarized by each participant at the end of his message, will be: entity X can in principle exist; it is impossible that it exists; it is implausible; it is highly plausible; certain.

So too for each of the entities on the list.

After this discussion has been summarized, we will move on to discuss the sources on each and every item (because I have the impression, though I have not checked it, that different medieval authorities distinguish among the items, as I hinted there).

Here too we will begin with a list of relevant sources.

I suggest choosing canonical sources that are accepted by the public; otherwise we will never finish. And of course they should be sources that address the topic. Therefore, we should first propose a list of the sources whose views we are clarifying.

Finally, I will summarize the list, and we will begin a discussion on the basis of the various sources, each one separately, in order.

As a rule, I do not propose that I summarize the substantive conclusion, but only the lists required for the technical conduct of the discussion; otherwise the summary might be biased. Each person will retain his own conclusion.

I very much ask that we focus on each source separately, in order, because otherwise I (and I assume there are other ordinary Jews like me) cannot manage to examine the sources themselves as they arise, and without that the discussion is not serious. We ask participants to study the sources directly and share their opinion with us on the matter. As stated, each source separately.

I already apologize now if the pace of the discussion is somewhat slow, because it requires careful study, and I, as the coordinator (if that is agreed), will have to determine the transition between the various stages, and I am not sure that I will always be able to do so with the necessary speed.

It seems to me that in any case this will be an interesting experiment in systematic teamwork. And if it succeeds, perhaps we will be able to establish additional types of threads intended to operate according to similar rules.

I submit this for the consideration of the forum administrators, may they be granted long life.

That is the end of the proposed rules. Let us begin the discussion about the rules themselves (in this discussion there are no rules; see the thread on methodological paradoxes), and please restrict yourselves to that alone.

Source (forum “Stop, People Think Here”): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=1104872&forum_id=1364