Blood. Torah. Science. Magic.

Parashat Va’eira features a fascinating episode in which Pharaoh, having witnessed the miraculous transformation of the Nile to blood, calls upon his court magicians who apparently succeed in imitating the feat. The wizardry of Pharaoh’s servants, which is the earliest biblical reference to witchcraft, confronts us with difficult questions: How does the Torah regard magic? Does it recognise the existence of a “dark side” or are its prohibitions against practising sorcery truly outlawing trickery and sleight of hand?

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed which grapples with the question of Torah and magic focuses primarily on the approach of Rambam, who understands all sorcery to be a form of intelligent trickery and sophisticated sleight of hand. This approach, which views all darker arts as an outgrowth of idolatry, was the subject of this post last year. 

We note however how many commentaries follow the position of Ramban, who taught that sorcery and the “dark side” do indeed have a genuine existence, the exploitation of which the Torah forbids.It is of particular interest that Ramban’s literal understanding of the passages discussing the darker arts does not appear to have been based solely on his wish to adhere to the simple meaning of the Torah or Gemara’s texts.

Ramban notes the “pious interpretation” of those who did not consider magic to be genuine, but objects that “we cannot deny matters which are proven in front of our eyes”, the prevailing wisdom at his time being that magic and divination were genuinely efficacious. Ramban’s words allow room for speculation as to whether he would have withdrawn his objection to Rambam’s “pious interpretation” of these prohibitions had he lived in a modern scientific era.

This suggestion can perhaps draw support from the position taken by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch. As a matter of general principle, R’ Hirsch strongly endorsed Ramban’s “traditionally-sourced” approach to Judaism over that of Rambam, whom he accused of being unduly influenced by external rational trends. Nevertheless, R’ Hirsch unequivocally cites Rambam’s rationalist conclusion on the subject of magic, writing that it is “merely deception; it is nothing but getting the better of the other person’s mind”.

For some people there is a measure of discomfort in allowing the fickle and fluctuating findings of science to dictate to the Torah’s timeless truths. A subject which is explored in greater detail in a later chapter of Judaism Reclaimed in the context of both halachah and broader Jewish beliefs.

On the subject of halachah’s reliance on and willingness to change in light of new scientific knowledge I saw this very interesting recent video from Rav Asher Weiss, one of the leading halachic decisors in today’s generation.

R’ Weiss, speaking in the context of scientific and medical advice concerning Coronavirus and vaccines, presents eight examples from different areas of Talmudic discussion as to how halachah is often both premised on and prone to change on the basis of scientific findings. Particularly significant are the sources he cites on the subject of blood found in parts of the egg yolk and questions of niddah in which halachah is shown to have changed on the basis of science having improved its understanding of the facts which halachah is interpreting.

Does such an openness to scientific discovery also apply to the realm of Torah interpretation and allow us to favour the approach of those such as Rambam, who understood biblical sorcery as sleight of hand? Or is it legitimate for those following the footsteps of Ramban to suggest that the darker arts – efficacious in an earlier era of prophecy and open miracles – no longer hold sway in our spiritually sub-standard generation?

First posted on Facebook 13 January 2021, here.

Moshe: unwilling interlocutor to fearless superhero

The transition which Moshe undergoes at the start of yesterday’s Torah reading is sudden and difficult to understand. From the first time God appears to him, asking Moshe to take up the role of leader and redeemer of the Jewish people, he seems unwilling and unconvinced. “The people will not listen to me”. “Pharaoh will not listen to me”. “I am not a man of words”.

Even once Moshe reluctantly embarks upon his mission, his misgivings resurface at the initial setback: “Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me?”. Even after God’s subsequent rebuke, Moshe twice more questions whether the people and Pharaoh will listen to his aral sefatayim (closed lips).

Yet just a few verses later we see a remarkable transition. God once again commands Moshe to confront Pharaoh, and this time Moshe does not object. From this point onwards, Moshe steps fearlessly into his destiny as Exodus superhero, marching into Pharaoh’s Court, confronting him at the river and issuing a series of bold warnings and threats.

How are we to understand this stunning change of character and behaviour?

Judaism Reclaimed develops a fundamental principle taught by the Maharal according to which biblical prophecies are divided into two categories. Promises (“havtachot”), on the one hand, in which the prophet relays what will transpire should the recipients be found deserving of such a fate, and definitive statements of pre-ordained reality on the other in which the prophet tells of an irrevocable divine decision. Detecting which mode of prophecy is being transmitted requires a close reading of the biblical text. When the prophecy is presented in the future tense, this signifies that the predicted event is contingent on the worthiness of those involved. Other prophecies, by contrast, make use of the “prophetic past tense”, to indicate that the prophet is foretelling an unalterable and sealed divine decision.

The Maharal detects his principle in the commentary of Rashi to the Brit Bein HaBetarim. When Avraham is initially informed that his descendants will inherit the Land, he seeks reassurance “How will I know that I will inherit it?”. However, once God has stated (past tense) that “to your descendants I have given this land”, Avraham’s doubt dissipates. Rashi comments on this past-tense statement: “the word of God is as if it has been performed”

It is this key that Judaism Reclaimed utilises in order to unlock the perplexing dynamics between God and Moshe at the start of the book of Shemot. After being approached at the Burning Bush with the instruction to relay God’s word to Pharaoh and the Jewish people, Moshe is extremely reluctant and appears to lack confidence in the success of the mission. This reluctance can be explained on account of the future-tense “havtacha” indicated by God telling him “I will be with you”. Moshe’s reticence is because, in his humility, he lacks confidence in his own merit and is therefore not convinced that the mission will be successful.

This lack of confidence continues into parashat Va’eira until God discloses using the past-tense: “I have placed you as a Master over Pharaoh” [netaticha]. With this prophetic statement of pre-ordained fact, Moshe’s worries evaporate since the success of the mission is no longer contingent upon his own personal merit, and he henceforth fearlessly confronts Pharaoh and his courtiers without a hint of concern or protest.

First posted on Facebook 14 January 2024, here.