Q&A: On the Definition of Sorcery and Whether It Exists in Reality
On the Definition of Sorcery and Whether It Exists in Reality
Question
Hello Rabbi.
I understand quite simply that the prohibition of sorcery is the prohibition against bringing about something not by way of nature and its laws. There seem to be two possibilities: either such acts can be performed, or they cannot. If they can be performed, then they are part of nature. That is, it would turn out (to our surprise) that one of the laws of nature is that if a person stands at a certain hour and whispers a certain incantation and performs a certain action, then a certain effect occurs. It does not seem reasonable that the difference between sorcery and an ordinary act would be the degree of popularity of some law of nature. If so, what is the meaning of sorcery in that case?
A second possibility: sorcery cannot be performed. If so, then every act of sorcery is an “optical illusion” or deception, unless the sorcerer himself also does not know that what he is doing is just sleight of hand. According to this possibility, how should one interpret the words of Maimonides, who is commonly said (rightly?) to have taken this approach: “The sorcerer is liable to stoning, provided he performed an act of sorcery. But one who deceives the eyes, meaning that he appears to have done something when he did not do it, is given lashes for rebellious conduct” (Laws of Idolatry 14:15)?
And which of these possibilities does the Rabbi believe in?
Answer
This is an ancient dispute among the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and it is discussed at very great length in the book Vayashev Hayam by Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, the kabbalist from Jerusalem.
Maimonides’ view, and that of those aligned with him, is that there is nothing real to these acts, and the basis of the prohibition is being foolish / naive enough to believe in them. What you cited in his name is a distinction between a situation where I create an illusion without saying that it is merely trickery, and a magician like those nowadays who announces that he is merely deceiving. According to Maimonides, anything that actually works is permitted. But not everything people think works really does work (quite a few fools go after various “techniques” of alternative medicine and the like; in my view that is similar to these prohibitions).
The view of the medieval authorities who disagree (it is commonly accepted that this was Nachmanides’ position, although if I remember correctly there are some contradictions in his writings on this) is that there is something real here. Their claim is that there are powers that belong to the sitra achra (the “other side,” not the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, and nature), and there is a prohibition against using them. They maintain that these are powers that exist, but are not part of nature; rather, they come from another side of it. The big question here is one of diagnosis: how would you know whether the power you are using is a genuine power from the right side or a genuine power from the wrong side? I don’t know.
I of course tend toward Maimonides’ approach, although to be fair one should say that this is not the plain meaning of the biblical and rabbinic sources.
Discussion on Answer
See Radak on that passage in the name of the Geonim, that the medium tricked Saul.
What about summoning Samuel through the medium? If there is nothing real in such acts, then what exactly happened there?