institute for dayanim: parshah shoftim -- signs and lots

8/9/2019 Institute for Dayanim: Parshah Shoftim -- Signs and Lots

1/4

OfOmensandGoralos

YoushallbewholeheartedwithHashem,yourGd(Devarim18:13)

Signs and Omens

It is prevalent, both among the nations of the world and even among Jews, to attribute significance and meaning to

various signs and omens. For non-Jews, a black cat that crosses one's path is a well-known bad omen; for Jews, the

Gemara itself mentions a number of omens, such as a solar or lunar eclipse, which are construed as a good and bad

sign for the nation of Israel, respectively.

In addition to signs and omens, we find that a number of Torah leaders over the generation would consult different

forms ofgoralos, "lots" that involve opening the Bible (or other Torah books) at certain places in order to resolve

difficult dilemmas. One of the most renowned of these goralos is the goral ha-Gra (attributed to the Vilna Gaon),

and even today some continue to practice various forms ofgoralos.

This article will study the halachic issues pertaining to the employment of omens and goralos. The Torah, as clearly

delineated in our Parashah, prohibits the use of signs and omens, and obligates "wholeheartedness" with G-d. We

will briefly elaborate on the parameters of this prohibition/obligation, and attempt to find the halachic ramifications

with regard to the said issues.

By way of introduction, it is interesting to note the first passage of the Mordechai in Maseches Yoma. The

Mordechai questions the permissibility of eating simanim, foods that are meant to evoke or indicate, through their

symbolism, positive experiences for the upcoming year. For instance, we eat the head of a fish so that we will merita quality year, the head denoting good fortune. Why, in view of the prohibition of using signs and omens, is this

universal practice permitted?

The Rambam's View of Wholeheartedness

We will return to the answer given by the Mordechai towards the end of the article. In order to reach some

understanding of the issues involved, we will first introduce a fundamental dispute between the Rambam and the

Ramban concerning the nature of the prohibition ofnichush (divination) and the instruction to be wholehearted with

G-d.

After discussing the prohibitions of witchcraft, sorcery, divination, necromancy, and other prohibitions related to the

ways of idolaters, theRambam concludes the eleventh chapter of the Laws of Idolatry with the following passage:

"All these matters are all matters of falsehood and deceit, and it was with these that the early idolaters made the

other [non-idolatrous] gentiles deviate and follow them. It is not fitting for Jews to use such nonsense, or even tothink that they are of any use. Those people who are wise and of a perfect mentality know very clearly that all

ParshasShoftim 5770 22

This week's Parashah includes the instruction to be "tamim" with Hashem. What does this instruction involve?

Does it prohibit consulting a horoscope? What about relying on omens, good or bad? And what of using

various forms of goralos? These, and other related issues, are studied in this week's article.


2/4

these things that the Torah forbade are not wise, but are merely nonsense which those lacking in knowledge follow

and because of which abandon the ways of truth. Because of this, when warning us against these nonsenses, the

Torah says, 'You shall be wholehearted with Hashem, your G-d'".

In other words, theRambam maintains that all prohibitions related to soothsaying, enchantment, divination, and so

on, mean to distance us from acts that are inherently false, bereft of all benefit and profit, which idolaters of old used

to practice.

According to the Rambam, this is also the intention of the instruction to be wholehearted or "perfect" with G-d,

compelling us to avoid the foolish ways of idolaters. Accordingly, the Rambam does not mention the instruction in

his list of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah. As theMegillas Estherexplains, according to theRambam's interpretation

the instruction to be wholehearted with G-d is inclusive of a number of Torah prohibitions (divination, necromancy,

and so on). As such, it is a mitzvah koleles (inclusive mitzvah), a type ofmitzvah that theRambam does not list.

Transcending the Stars

The Ramban presents a somewhat different picture of the instruction to be wholehearted with G-d.

According to theRambam (Laws of Idolatry 11:8-9; Commentary to Mishnah,Avodah Zarah 4:7), consultation with

stargazers is included in the prohibition of divining (me'onen), or, alternatively, in the prohibition of reading signs

(nichush). According to Rabbi Yehudah b. HaRosh (Zichron Yehudah, no. 91), consulting a stargazer violates both

prohibitionsapart from violating the instruction to be wholehearted with Hashem.

TheRamban (meyuchasos, no. 283), however, sees the practice of stargazing in a different light. In his opinion, the

practice does not violate any of the negative prohibitions defined by the Torah, because it is a branch of wisdom

rather than a matter of divination and sorcery. The Ramban therefore rules that if one receives unsolicited advicefrom a stargazer, it is permitted to follow his advicefor instance, to increase one's performance ofmitzvos so as to

overturn the decree. However, the Ramban concedes that actual consultation with stargazers is prohibited, for it

violates the instruction oftamim tihiyeh, the obligation to be wholehearted with Hashem.

Elaborating on the same theme, the Malbim ( Hatorah Vehamitzvah, no. 66) writes that the instruction of

wholeheartedness with Hashem relates to all forms of future-telling, "even to those forms that are not prohibited." It

obligates us to rely on Hashem, and not to seek to live our lives according to the words of future-tellers and

soothsayerseven those whose practice does not violate any prohibition.

In the light of the above dispute, we can understand that theRamban (Sefer Hamitzvos, Omissions of theRambam,

no. 8) does not concur with theRambam over the listing oftamim tihiyeh among the 613 mitzvos, claiming that this

is one of the mitzvotomitted byRambam. In theRamban's view, the mitzvah is distinct from the various prohibitions

of divination and sorcery, instructing us to place our trust wholeheartedly on Hashem, avoiding even those branches

of wisdom that allow us a glance into the future.

Consulting with a future-teller of any type involves a departure, to some degree, from a person's wholehearted trust

in G-d, a division the verse means to prohibit. In the words of the Ramban himself (in his sermon entitled Toras

Hashem Temimah), the mitzvah instructs us to be "entirely part of Hashem, completely detached from the

constellations, horoscopes, or demons." The influence of the constellations might be true, but as People of G-d the

nation of Israel are instructed to transcend them, to rise beyond the starsas Avraham Avinu did (Shabbos 156a)

and to be wholehearted with Hashem.

Prohibited Omens

We find a similar dispute between the Rambam and the Raavad concerning the use of omens. The Gemara

(Sanhedrin 65b) cites two Tanaic sources defining the biblical prohibition of using omens. The first source lists such

common omens as food falling from one's mouth or a deer crossing one's path. The second source lists studying theconduct, communication, or migratory patterns of fish or birds. The events listed in the first source, as well as the

natural phenomena of the second, were elements which were classically used as omens to predict the future.

In his redaction of the prohibition, the Rambam (Laws of Idolatry 11:5) includes these omens, but extends the

prohibition to include any and every sign used to predict the futureeven a personal one. For example, theRambam

rules that it is forbidden for someone to determine his future actions based on personal episodes. Thus, the method

of determination practiced by Eliezer in his search for a bride for Rivka, in which he decided to select a bride for

Yitzchak based on the generosity extended to him, is in fact forbidden (seeBach, Yoreh De'ah 169, concerning the

acts of Eliezer and the determination practiced by Yehonasan concerning going to war).

According to theRambam, any foretelling of the future, including even the "science" of stargazing and reliance on

personal episodes, involves a deviation from the ways of reasonand is therefore prohibited. Notably difficult, in

view of this position, are a number of Talmudic anecdotes (Chulin 95b) detailing signs and omens that were used by

various Sages of the Mishnah and Gemara. Rabbi Yochanan, for instance, employed the omen of asking children


3/4

which verse of the Torah they were studying; according to Rabbi Shimon b. Elazar, it is permitted to utilize a house,

child, or woman, as a sign. In order to resolve this difficulty, the Rambam suggests a novel interpretation of these

anecdotes:

It is permitted to make statements like, "This house that I built is a good sign for me," or, "This woman that I

married (or animal that I bought) is blessed, for once I obtained her (or it) I became rich," or to ask a child to

read a verse [of his choice] and to declare the child's reading of a verse from the blessings as a good sign.

These statements are permitted because by making them one has not decided upon a course of action or

refrained from doing somethingone has just accepted whatever it is as a good sign for what has all ready

happened.

Faithful to his position, the Rambam understands that it is only permitted to make use of omens with regard to

evaluating the past. With regard to the future, the use of omens is universally prohibited.

Omens of War

TheRaavaddisagrees with theRambam, claiming that personal signs and determinants, such as the sign utilized by

Eliezer, are permitted. The omens the mentioned in the Tamud as having been employed by the Sages, according to

theRaavad, were used to make decisions for the future, and not merely as yardsticks of the past.

TheRadak, in his commentary to Shmuel (I 14:9), offers an explanation to this position. The verse describes how

Yehonasan based a decision upon a personal sign, instructing his arm's bearer: "If the Pelishtim will respond to our

beckoning by saying, 'Come up to us,' we will attack for it is a sign that we will certainly be victorious. If, however,

they order us to stop, we will not continue with our attack." According to the Rambam, this would constitute a

violation of the prohibition ofnichush.Coming to the defense of Yehonasan, the Radak explains that the prohibition applies only to signs which were

employed by professional seers to help predict the future. Once these signs became institutionalized they were

forbidden. However, individual signs which a person sets for himself are completely permissible, and were therefore

employed both by Eliezer and Yehonasan. The Raavad's position is well understood in the light ofRadak's

explanation.

Permitted Omens

The dispute between the Rambam and the Raavad has the same foundation as the above dispute between theRambam and theRamban. According to the Rambam, all signs and omens are prohibited with regard to predicting

the future. There is no room, according to theRambam, for predicting the futurenot by means of stargazing, and

not by means of any signs. According to the Ramban, however, we have seen that the science of astrology is not

included in the Torah prohibitions of divination and the like, and the same would apply to signs that have a "natural"foundation, of that follow principles of logic (including personal experience).

We therefore find the Ran (Sanhedrin 65b), a disciple of the Ramban's school, stating (in the name of Rabbeinu

David) that the prohibition of nichush applies only to those who consult meaningless signs, such those examples

cited in the Gemara (bread falling out of one's mouth, a deer crossing the path, and so on). Those who consult

authentic systems, which can indeed provide a glimpse of the future, do not violate the prohibition.

Rabbeinu David reinforces his position from a statement of the Gemara (Pesachim 113a), which states that one who

consults with stargazers (the Talmudic word is "Chaldeans," which is interpreted by several rishonim to mean

stargazers; seeBeis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 179) violates the positive commandment of "tamim tihiyeh," the obligation

to be wholehearted with Hashem. The only violation is the positive instruction of purity of faith in Hashemand not

the negative commandments of divination and the like.

This, of course, is the same position as quoted above from the Ramban. Yet, unlike consultation with stargazers,which involves an infringement of the positive instruction of tamim tihiyeh, the employment of various omens is

entirely permitted. As theRan writes, the pure faith in Hashem prohibits consultation with horoscopes, but does not

prohibit reliance on signs. Personal signs, and signs that work natural means, are thus entirely permitted.

We may now return to the question posed by Mordechai: why is it permitted to eat simanim, foods that evoke or

indicate positive experiences for the upcoming year?Mordechai answers that the simanim are based on verses of the

Torah, and therefore they involve no prohibition. Rather than involving magic or prohibited mysticism, they bless

the coming year with references to the Torah. Being based on verses, they certainly do not distance their users from

Hashem.

Summary and Halachic Rulings

In summary of the above:


4/4

According to theRambam, all forms of foretelling the future, including stargazing and including the use ofall omes, are nothing but falsehoods, and are prohibited by negative commandments of divination (me'onen),

reading omens (nichush), and so on.

According to the Ramban and several rishonim, stargazing and other "scientific" means of future-telling doesnot transgress the negative commandments of sorcery and divination, but their consultation is prohibited on

account of the positive commandment oftamim tihiyeh.

In the latter opinion, the use of signs with personal significance to their user, or of signs that work by logicalor natural means, can sometimes be entirely permitted, for unlike stargazing, they do not distance one from

Hashem.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 179:1) rules that one may not consult stargazers or perform goralos. Following

the lines of theRamban, theRema explains that this prohibition is based on the instruction oftamim tihiyehrather

than on the negative commandments ofnichush and me'onen.

Based on this position, it would be permitted to employ personal experience as an omen for the future. The Rema

(179:4), however, quotes a dispute concerning making use of a personal signas we have seen, the Rambam, and

the Tur(Yoreh De'ah 179) who quotes the words of theRambam, prohibit the practice.

Concerning those omens that we find employed by Talmudic Sages, the Shulchan Aruch rules that although one

must not employ them to make absolute decisions for the future, one may use them for general guidance. This

follows the interpretation ofRashi (Chulin 95a), and is also the solution that the Beis Yosefsuggests for several

questions on the blanket prohibition implied by theRambam.

As to goralos, although the Shulchan Aruch writes that one should not employ goralos, a ruling that would match

the theRambam's view of prohibiting all future-telling. However, theRema states as a simple fact that it is permitted

to employ the omen of asking a child to read out hispasuk, and commentaries (Taz, 179:4, and Shach, 179:5) writes

that this "omen," which is based on Torah verses, is akin to a "small prophecy." The same, asRiaz (Sanhedrin 65b)

and Shiurei Berachah (Yoreh De'ah 179:6) write, would apply to the practice of opening Torah books and finding

relevant verses.

Yet, it is interesting to note that the Chaim Shaal (vol. 2, 38:41) cites from theRokeah, who writes in the name of

theRambam that one should not open up a Chumash [to find a verse that indicates the future], which is the manner

of non-Jewish goralos. According to what we have learned, this instruction would be limited to the view of theRambam, according to whom any form of predicting the future is wrong.

LawsofCharityCompiledandArrangedbyRabbiYosefFleischman

1. We have seen that a married woman is permitted to give small donations to charity without consulting herhusband. For a woman who financially sustains her husband, some authorities maintain that it is permitted to

give even a large sum to charity, without the need for prior consultation (Yam Shel Shlomo,Bava Kama 10:59).

2. In fact, some poskim write that she may give charity in spite of her husband's objections (Maharil, Chadashos109;Aruch Ha-Shulchan 248:12), but most authorities agree that if her husband objects she may not give thedonation (Shevet Ha-Levi 5:132; this is also implied by Yam Shel Shlomo (loc. cit.), who bases his ruling on the

assumption that the husband consents to the donation).

3. For a woman who conducts business dealings relating to the home economy (a definition that includes almost allof today's women), authorities dispute the application of the prohibition of giving large sums of money to

charity. According toRaavan, it is permitted for woman active in the home economy to give even large amounts

to charity, because the donation to charity is included in the general permission she has with regard to monetary

matters. Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 10:59) contests this position (seeAruch Ha-Shulchan and annotations of

Yad Avraham; see also Shevet Ha-Levi, 2:118). If her husband voices an explicit objection, all opinions agree

that a wife may not give the donations (Rosh, Kelal 13, sec. 11).

institute for dayanim: parshah shoftim -- signs and lots

Documents