Is magic real? There are three views among the Rishonim. This used to be an open question. But if these Rishonim were alive today, they'd all be in agreement.
I'm with you. My only "he'arah" is that there were phenomena that Rambam could not have correctly explained in his day, especially the causation of diseases by germs. Some of his "rational" theories of disease causation were no more correct that those who believed in demons or the like. Now that we know those "demons" exist but are microscopic, we can take up where Rambam left off.
On the one hand, yes, it is true that "Some of his 'rational' theories of disease causation were no more correct that those who believed in demons or the like." On the other hand, "correct" is not the only metric. My Gemara rebbi once gave a shiur in which he compared statements from the Rambam on scientific matters with statements of the Ramban and demonstrated that even in the pre-scientific era, the Rambam thought more scientifically than the Ramban, and rejected claims that the Ramban accepted. This shiur was in 2003 and wasn't recorded, so I don't remember many specifics. The only example I do remember was this Ramban from Bamidbar 22:1, which my rebbi said the Rambam would never believe:
"Now it is a well-known medical principle that all people bitten by poisonous creatures become dangerously ill when they see them, or [even] when they [only] see their likeness, so that if people who have been bitten by a mad dog or other mad animals look into water, they see there the image of the dog or the attacker, and [this] can [cause them to] die, as is written in medical books and mentioned in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma. Similarly doctors protect them from [people] mentioning in their presence the name of the animal that bit them, [and they forbid people] to mention it at all, because their minds cling to this thought and do not turn away from it altogether until it causes their death. [The doctors] have already mentioned that it is an empirical fact, amongst the wonders of reproduction, that if the urine of a person bitten by a mad dog is put in a glass receptacle after he has become rabidly sick, there will appear in that urine the likeness of the young of small dogs. And if you pass the liquid through a cloth and filter it, you will not find any trace of them at all; but if you return the liquid to the glass bottle, and it remains there for about an hour, you will again clearly see in it the small dogs. This is a true fact, and of the wonders of the powers of the soul."
The following piece from "Balak" may reflect a similar ambivalence: רלב"ג במדבר כ"ב:ו
לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה – אחשוב כי מפני שהיה בלעם קוסם - כאומרו: 'ואת בלעם בן בעור הקוסם הרגו בני ישראל בחרב' (יהושע יג, כב), ולזאת הסיבה גם כן הביאו לו קסמים - הנה היה יודע בקסם — העתיד לבוא על איש ואיש, בַּיותר־שלם שאפשר שתגיע זאת הידיעה לקוסם; ולזה נתיחד בזה הענין מבין שאר הקוסמים, שדברים רבים מדבריו נתקיימו, ומצד תחבולותיו, כאשר היה יודע מצד הקסם שיגיע רע לאיש־מה היה מקלל אותו, וכאשר היה יודע העת שראוי שיגיע בו לאיש־מה טוב היה מברך אותו, והיה מביא האנשים להאמין כי מבורכיו הם ברוכים ומקולליו הם מקוללים. ואפשר עוד שהיה עושה מעשים־מה ממין הנחש והכישוף, להזיק למי שירצה ולהועיל למי שירצה, כמו שנבאר עם זכירתנו תועלות זאת הפרשה.
It is interesting that altho you're presumably correct regarding what the Rishonim would hold were they around today the "Charedi" community has become more radical than ever embracing the literal meaning of all the magical and demonic aggados completely rejecting Rambam's path.
It seems to me that "what would the Rambam/Ramban believe today" is just a Rorschach test for your own beliefs. You believe that it is conclusively proven today that magic is nonsense (how?) so you attribute that change in belief to the Ramban without real evidence. But it seems like a silly game, speculating what the Ramban would say. If you believe so strongly magic is nonsense, why would you care about speculations about what the Ramban would say?
Also, I think your explanation of why the Ramban believed in magic is seriously incomplete. You say it's simply because of second or third-hand empirical experience, but the Ramban has a whole philosophy about how magic works and how it is connected to demons, which he bases on the Torah, and which he writes about multiple times in his commentary. It's not a simple matter of the "the Torah discusses it", but it's also not a simple matter of "I heard that a lot of people saw it" either. Not that it makes any difference, as it is a fool's errand to speculate exactly to what extent the Ramban would update his views with today's knowledge.
I would never say "it is conclusively proven today that magic is nonsense" because that sentence involves the "p" word, which is a "no no" in science. Science can certainly DISPROVE a theory, but the best they can do for a theory is to provide evidence which supports it. That's why I wrote "there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a belief in magic and the occult." And if there is, please show me! (And tell those scientists to see if anyone is offering an updated version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge)
Guess what? I think that if the Ramban were alive today, he would ALSO change his view of demons. Have you read the Ramban's demon discourse on Vayikra 17:7? (https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Ramban/Vayikra/17.7#m5e3nf) He makes several statements about demons which are based on outdated Aristotelian science, such as:
"The body [of these creatures of two elements] is of a spiritual nature; on account of its delicacy and lightness it can fly through fire and air. And just as the combination of the four elements in any object is the cause of its existence and its destruction [since everything that is composite must ultimately revert to its original components], so is it with these beings created from a combination of only two elements; when the elements combine, the creature lives, and when they separate [decompose], it is like the dead."
And:
"The matter of 'eating' [mentioned above in connection with these creatures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was in the trench. This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers perform to the demons. The reason [for their need to 'eat'] is that the fire in the air causes the drying up of their bodies, which must therefore be restored just as man's need for food is due to depletion in his body."
Regarding your question: "If you believe so strongly magic is nonsense, why would you care about speculations about what the Ramban would say?" Personally, I don't care what the Ramban would say. But there are two reasons why I engage in this speculation: (1) the Ramban was a great chacham, and - to my mind - those who think that he would simply deny science in order to uphold belief in nonsensical beliefs are doing a disservice to him, and when I teach my students his view, I want to present him in the most generous light possible so that they don't walk away thinking he was some sort of fool; (2) sadly, there are students - and certainly adults - whose accept or reject beliefs based primarily on authority, and I've found that making this point helps those people to be more open to the Rambam's view.
Those Rambans you quoted are exactly some of the ones I had in mind when I said that he had a whole philosophy of demons and magic. His view is not just from third-hand empirical evidence (which there is plenty today also, by the way!). And I see no compelling reason to believe that he would dump the entire philosophy just because of modern views. Especially in this case, when it is a view grounded in the Torah. But who knows, maybe he would dump it anyways because nobody won James Randi's million dollar prize yet.
The fact that the Ramban was a great chacham has nothing to do with this. Many great chachamim refuse to budge from their prior views. You have made up your mind that magic is nonsense, and so decided that of course a great chacham like the Ramban wouldn't be able to believe in nonsense, would he? And then circularly use your speculation about the speculative view of the modern Ramban to give authority to the magic-is-nonsense proposition. As if the non-existent Ramban is adding anything whatsoever to the question. This type of argument is irrational and only serves to obscure. If you have convincing evidence that magic is nonsense, that should be enough. And for those who don't find your evidence convincing, why on earth would they agree with your appeal to the authority of a non-existent Ramban?
I don't find fact that there is no scientific evidence of magic to be very compelling evidence, there is no scientific proof of angels either, yet I believe in them. In fact, I wouldn't expect magic that is controlled by demonic intelligence to be amenable to scientific proofs. If magic behaved in a predictable way, if it could be tested and measured precisely, just like the natural world, it wouldn't be magic, would it? It would just be natural law. I think to describe something as breaking the natural order implies that it doesn't behave like a natural process, and cannot be tested or measured like a natural process. If magic works, it's some way of interacting with spiritual/demonic intelligences, who may or may not do or tell you what you want, and their behavior is certainly not predictable or measurable, any more than people are. And I think that's mostly the way the practice of magic always been perceived- at least as I see it.
And regarding your third paragraph: I infer from here that we have two very different ways of looking at angels, demons, and magic - and two very different views of how to read the words of past chachamim accordingly.
To elaborate more, the Ramban you quoted, Devarim 18:9, attributes magic to מַּזָּלוֹת שָׂרִים יַנְהִיגוּ אוֹתָם.
See also Ramban Shemos 7:11 who says בלהטיהם אמרו רבותינו שהם מעשה כשפים ועל ידי מלאכי חבלה הם נעשים (as opposed to לטיהם which is שדים. A distinction between מלאכי חבלה vs. שדים). See the Mizrachi there who seems to learn that Rashi agrees with this.
See also the Abarbanel on Devarim 18:9 who quotes a Rashi that magic is done ע"י מלאכי חבלה, and to which he agrees.
This is also similar the view that the Rambam attributes to those who practiced magic, who believe that they could gain knowledge and wield power from the gods and angels.
Therefore, if such a thing is real, I am very doubtful it would be amenable to scientific testing and measurement.
That's a perfect example. Let's not even focus on the question of whether מזלות have power over the affairs of particular humans or not. This, as you know, was a מחלוקת ראשונים.
But now it is abundantly clear that מזלות are NOT EVEN REAL. I don't mean "they don't really have power." I mean "they don't EXIST."
The ancients believed that the stars and heavenly bodies were fixed patterns embedded in the celestial spheres which were in constant motion around a geocentric universe. We now know that celestial spheres don't exist and that the patterns we see are NOT embedded in any actual physical entity, but are merely our own perceptions from our vantage points on earth. The stars that form these constellations are mindbogglingly distant not only from earth, but from each other. For example, the three brightest stars that form Aries are 59 light-years, 66 light-years, and 164 light-years away from earth, have no actual physical relationship with each other, and would not even appear as Aries from a different angle.
To my mind, to claim that the Ramban would not change his view of מזלות if he knew this fact is to insult his intelligence.
Ah, that is a different point than what I was bringing up, which was about how the magic-believers thought magic worked. But I disagree with even that point.
There are plenty of very intelligent people even today who still believe in astrology. So in your opinion the Ramban would join the ranks of the majority who don't. Maybe you're right. Or maybe not. Rabbi Kasher in האדם על הירח has an interesting discussion about whether modern science has demonstrated that the Rambam is wrong about celestial bodies possessing intelligence. In his opinion, it has not. Perhaps the Ramban would say the same thing about the מזלות. We just don't know.
I don't see why, since we are talking from the point of view of those who actually believed in magic and demons. I don't think they believed it was predictable and measurable (if we can even use such modern terms about what they did or did not believe), but I would be interested in seeing sources they did. (About angels, I only brought that as an example of something that I believe yet cannot be scientifically tested. Not to say that they are similar to demons and magic. If somebody doesn't likes the angel example, I could use other examples, like prophecy, miracles, G-d answering prayer, etc.)
"The fact that the Ramban was a great chacham has nothing to do with this."
I was responding to your question about why I care. I wouldn't necessarily attempt to defend the false view of someone whom I don't know to be a chacham.
"Many great chachamim refuse to budge from their prior views."
If I had reason to believe that a chacham refused to budge from their prior views because he knew all the facts and had sufficient reason to maintain his view, then my respect for that chacham would increase. If I had reason to believe that a chacham refused to budge his their prior views for emotional or ego-related reasons, then yes - that would diminish the stature of that chacham in my mind. And yes - I know that there are many chachamim who had "bad moments" or even "bad streaks." Chachamim are human, like the rest of us.
"You have made up your mind that magic is nonsense, and so decided that of course a great chacham like the Ramban wouldn't be able to believe in nonsense, would he?"
No, that is a mischaracterization of my reasoning. I did not just pull the Ramban out of a hat and assert that he agreed with the Rambam because I declared it so. I would not automatically say the same thing about all chachamim throughout history. I wouldn't say such a thing for Rashi or the Baalei Tosafos because I don't have any knowledge about their proto-scientific outlook or methodology - unlike the Ramban.
"And then circularly use your speculation about the speculative view of the modern Ramban to give authority to the magic-is-nonsense proposition."
Um, no, this is another mischaracterization of my reasoning. When a writer sets forth his position, believing it to be sound, and his evidence, believing it to be sufficient or compelling, YOU don't get to call that "circular" simply because you personally reject the position or the evidence. Disagreeing with someone's position doesn't ipso facto transform their evidence into circular reasoning. Or to use an analogy: if someone makes a factual claim in their statement believing it to be correct, YOU don't get to call that person "a liar" simply because YOU disagree with that claim. Whether the speaker's claim is wrong is one issue, and what they believe ABOUT their claim is an entirely separate issue.
If I DID engage in circular reasoning, then I'd appreciate the fact that you pointed it out, but in this case I didn't - and I still don't. I believe my position and I believe that my evidence is sufficient to hold it.
"As if the non-existent Ramban is adding anything whatsoever to the question."
"This type of argument is irrational and only serves to obscure."
If that's what you believe, then I (evidently? TBD) can't stop you. I, on the other hand, have explained my rationale and my purposes, neither of which were to intentionally obscure.
"If you have convincing evidence that magic is nonsense, that should be enough. And for those who don't find your evidence convincing, why on earth would they agree with your appeal to the authority of a non-existent Ramban?"
I answered both of these questions in my previous comment, but I'll answer again in different words. "that should be enough" - yes, with the operative word "should." But we are emotional beings and we allow our feelings and biases to cloud our reasoning. (1) Believing that the Ramban would cling to his unfounded views in the face of modern science DOES diminish his esteem in the eyes of a certain type of student I've taught, which is ONE reason why I "give him the benefit of the doubt" in this case. (2) Invoking the Ramban as an authority DOES provide a certain type of student I've taught with support. Neither of these facts SHOULD matter for people, but they DO. And those are the two reasons.
As a former AP English Language teacher, I can't help but add, according to Aristotle's model*, there are three rhetorical appeals: ethos (appeal to the character of the speaker), pathos (appeal to emotion), and logos (appeal to the intellect). SHOULD people make decisions solely based on logos? Yes. But in reality, people are persuaded by ethos and pathos as well.
* I know, I know: it shouldn't matter who came up with this model. "Accept the truth from whoever said it!" And yet, we attribute statements to their authors.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I wrote "circular" because I understood from your previous comment that you were using the speculative Ramban as a logical support for the magic-is-nonsense proposition, which would be circular, but now I see that I may have misinterpreted you. My apologies. I certainly never thought you were intentionally trying to obscure. I still question the value of this thought experiment, and dispute its correctness in the case of the Ramban, but now I see what you were trying to do.
“Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem.”
Seems to me you have a specific definition of magic that many people may not share.
I believe in magic, but I don’t believe in magic that involves powers other than Hashem. I believe in miracles that go beyond the laws of nature, and I believe that humans can tap into that power to perform miracles (like Moshe doing actions that made the plagues in Egypt start, or hitting a rock and having water come out, or splitting the Red Sea). It is possible that bad guys, or people with incorrect beliefs can tap into that power as well, and I call that power magic.
Side point: today, more than in medieval times, scientific consensus can quickly change in a manner of months (or even days, see e.g. gatherings outdoors are dangerous during Covid pandemic). So I’m not so sure Rambam would value scientists’ conclusions as much as he did in his time, when scientific knowledge was more static.
And regarding your side point: I don't know if I buy that. Unlike the some of the chachmei Yisrael (perhaps even the Ramban), who relied purely on the AUTHORITY of scientists / natural philosophers, the Rambam repeatedly demonstrates that he actually cares about the scientific evidence. For instance, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 4:7 (linked in the footnote of my article), the Rambam's first argument against the astrologers is that there can't be any such thing as "good stars" or "bad stars" because the physical substance they're made of is the same. As a doctor, Rambam was well aware that scientific consensus can change, as his medical writings reflect (i.e. they show his awareness of shifting views within medicine). If you brought Rambam to the present and caught him up on the history of science, I can't imagine he'd say, "Well, I USED to believe in Greek science because I thought its truths were stable, but now that science updates at such a relatively rapid pace, I'm not going to put my trust in the scientific method." Everything I've read from the Rambam on matters of science and epistemology leads me to believe he'd embrace the scientific method even though - especially because! - particular scientific conclusions are frequently overturned.
I believe the reason I included the sentence “Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem,” back when I wrote this in 2013, is because the Ramban, himself, underscored this point - and the reason the Ramban underscored this point is because that's what Hashem did in Devarim 18:13! Here it is in context with the Ramban's commentary (Chavel's translation).
(10) There shall not be found among you one who passes his son and daughter through fire, a fortune teller, an astrologer, an omen-reader, a sorcerer, (11) an incantation-whisperer, one who consults an ove or yidoni, or one who inquires of the dead, (12) for all who do these are an abomination to Hashem, and because of these abominations does Hashem, your God, disinherit them from before you. (13) Wholehearted shall you be with Hashem, your God, (14) for these nations that you will inherit - they heed the astrologers and fortune tellers, but this is not what Hashem, your God, gave you. (15) A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, Hashem will establish for you; you shall heed him.
(יג) וטעם תמים תהיה עם י"י אלהיך – שניחד לבבנו אליו לבדו, ונאמין שהוא לבדו עושה כל, והוא היודע אמיתת כל עתיד, וממנו לבדו נדרוש העתידות מנביאיו או מאנשי חסידיו, רצוני לומר אורים ותומים. ולא נדרוש מהוברי שמים ולא מזולתם, ולא נבטח שיבאו דבריהם על כל פנים. אבל אם נשמע דבר מהם, נאמר הכל בידי שמים כי הוא אלהי האלהים עליון על הכל היכול בכל, משנה מערכות הכוכבים והמזלות כרצונו, מפר אותות בדים וקוסמים יהולל (ישעיהו מ"ד:כ"ה), ונאמין שכל הבאות תהיינה כפי התקרב אדם בעבודתו. ולפיכך אחר אזהרת שאלת העתידות מן קוסם ודורש בעד החיים אל המתים (דברים י"ח:י'-י"א) אמר שתהיה תמים עם י"י בכל אלה, ולא תירא ממגיד עתיד, אבל מנביאו תדרוש ואליו תשמע. וזה דעת אנקלוס: שלים תהא בדחלתא די"י אלהך, שלא תהא חסר ביראתו, כי תמים הוא השלם בדבר, כמו: שה תמים (שמות י"ב:ה'), שאין בו מום ושום חסרון. וזו מצות עשה וכבר הזכרתי זה בפסוק והיה תמים (רמב"ן בראשית י"ז:א').
Rambam - Devarim 18:13
THOU SHALT BE WHOLE-HEARTED WITH THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The meaning thereof is that we are to direct our hearts to Him only, and believe that He alone does everything. It is He Who knows the truth about all future events, and from His prophets, or from His pious ones, in other words the Urim and Thummim — are we to inquire about future events. We are not to inquire of the astrologers or from anyone else, or by any means to trust that their words will be fulfilled. Instead, if we hear any prediction [of the diviners] we should say, "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, for He is the G-d of gods Who is supreme above all, the Omnipotent One over everything, Who changes the set order of the stars and constellations at His Will, Who frustrateth the tokens of the imposters, and maketh diviners mad," and we are to believe that future events will occur according to man's drawing closer to His service. Therefore after the warning against inquiring about future events from diviners, and of seeking on behalf of the living to the dead, he stated that you are to be whole-hearted with G-d in all these matters and not be afraid of those who tell of things to come. Rather, you should inquire of His prophet and to him shall you hearken. And this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated, "You shall be whole-hearted in the fear of the Eternal your G-d," meaning that you should not be deficient in the fear of Him, for tamim (whole) indicates perfection in a thing, just as 'seh tamim' (a lamb that is perfect) means one that is without blemish and any deficiency. This verse [before us] constitutes a positive commandment. I have already mentioned this in connection with the verse, and be thou whole-hearted.
[end quote from the Ramban]
The Ramban was (likely) responding to the beliefs that were common about magic, sorcery, astrology, etc. back then, namely, that these were "other powers" that were not under the jurisdiction of Hashem. It might have even been necessary for him to follow up with this point because of the previous Ramban, in which he elaborates at length on his view of such matters and cites Chazal's explanation of the term כישוף, namely, שהם מכחישים פמליא של מעלה. He has to make it clear that even though magic goes against God's intention for the universe, it doesn't operate independently of His will.
But the truth is that belief in a person who believes in superstitious phenomena unconsciously believes (or runs the risk of believing) that these forces operate independently of Hashem. (See the Sefer ha'Chinuch on sorcery and the other related prohibitions.) I remember my rebbi telling me once that he saw a Jewish woman wearing a red string on her wrist. He asked her why she wore it, and she said that it protects her. He said, "I thought that if we obey Hashem's will and follow His mitzvos, then He will protect us." She thought for a moment and said, "Yes, but this helps." That's what I understand the Rishonim to mean when they speak of a שמץ עבודה זרה - not an overt idolatrous belief, but a belief that caters to idolatry. The same is true of some of the ways that people talk about the כח הטומאה and the סיטרא אחרא. Technically speaking, these terms refer to aspects of the universe Hashem created - but the way people TALK about them and FEEL about them caters to the same part of the psyche as idolatry, which is why Devarim pairs תמים תהיה with the prohibitions against magic.
I attempted to convey all of this in the sentence: “Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem”!
I'm not sure I agree. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Ramban was relying on the 'scientists' of his day, and would rely on Western science today vis a vis it's views on the occult.
It may well be that in his time he relied on 2nd or 3rd hand information by non scientists and that the phenomena seen 'publicly in the sight of witnesses' referred to regular folk. So to today - whilst Western science dismisses phenomena such as the purported efficacy of acupuncture (not quite occult but somewhat derivative), Ramban may well give the weight of a billion Chinese claiming witness to it's efficacy to be sufficient.
I'd go one step further - Ramban and Rambam famously differ on the source of the required belief in Hashem, with Rambam maintaining it as rational apriori and Ramban connecting it to the human experience of miracles. With that background, I'd say that Rambam would most definitely concur with Western scientists today, whilst Ramban would be open to the experiential claims of many despite lack of a quantituve caustive effect.
I hear your argument about the Ramban relying on testimony from non-scientists. What is your understanding of his statement about the Greek chachamim re: the rainbow?
על כרחנו נאמין לדברי היונים שמלהט השמש באויר הלח יהיה הקשת בתולדת, כי בכלי מים לפני השמש יראה כמראה הקשת
It seems that he is saying that the hava amina would be, per the simple inference of the possuk, is that Hashem created a new natural phenomenon - that at times a bow would appear in a cloud. Bit since the philosophers/scientists demonstrated that rainbows are not unique to the sky, and are always present in the right environment even in a bucket on Earth, the pshat in the possuk is not that anew phenomenon was created, but that an existing one took on a new status, when appearing in certain environments (i.e. clouds in heaven) - that of a bris.
I'm not sure how that refers to our discussion though. If it is to demonstrate that Ramban relied upon the scientists of his time, I'm not sure that is a good demonstration, as he accepts their position because it's easily demonstrable, rather than simply based upon their authority as experts.
A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”
I'm with you. My only "he'arah" is that there were phenomena that Rambam could not have correctly explained in his day, especially the causation of diseases by germs. Some of his "rational" theories of disease causation were no more correct that those who believed in demons or the like. Now that we know those "demons" exist but are microscopic, we can take up where Rambam left off.
On the one hand, yes, it is true that "Some of his 'rational' theories of disease causation were no more correct that those who believed in demons or the like." On the other hand, "correct" is not the only metric. My Gemara rebbi once gave a shiur in which he compared statements from the Rambam on scientific matters with statements of the Ramban and demonstrated that even in the pre-scientific era, the Rambam thought more scientifically than the Ramban, and rejected claims that the Ramban accepted. This shiur was in 2003 and wasn't recorded, so I don't remember many specifics. The only example I do remember was this Ramban from Bamidbar 22:1, which my rebbi said the Rambam would never believe:
"Now it is a well-known medical principle that all people bitten by poisonous creatures become dangerously ill when they see them, or [even] when they [only] see their likeness, so that if people who have been bitten by a mad dog or other mad animals look into water, they see there the image of the dog or the attacker, and [this] can [cause them to] die, as is written in medical books and mentioned in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma. Similarly doctors protect them from [people] mentioning in their presence the name of the animal that bit them, [and they forbid people] to mention it at all, because their minds cling to this thought and do not turn away from it altogether until it causes their death. [The doctors] have already mentioned that it is an empirical fact, amongst the wonders of reproduction, that if the urine of a person bitten by a mad dog is put in a glass receptacle after he has become rabidly sick, there will appear in that urine the likeness of the young of small dogs. And if you pass the liquid through a cloth and filter it, you will not find any trace of them at all; but if you return the liquid to the glass bottle, and it remains there for about an hour, you will again clearly see in it the small dogs. This is a true fact, and of the wonders of the powers of the soul."
The following piece from "Balak" may reflect a similar ambivalence: רלב"ג במדבר כ"ב:ו
לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה – אחשוב כי מפני שהיה בלעם קוסם - כאומרו: 'ואת בלעם בן בעור הקוסם הרגו בני ישראל בחרב' (יהושע יג, כב), ולזאת הסיבה גם כן הביאו לו קסמים - הנה היה יודע בקסם — העתיד לבוא על איש ואיש, בַּיותר־שלם שאפשר שתגיע זאת הידיעה לקוסם; ולזה נתיחד בזה הענין מבין שאר הקוסמים, שדברים רבים מדבריו נתקיימו, ומצד תחבולותיו, כאשר היה יודע מצד הקסם שיגיע רע לאיש־מה היה מקלל אותו, וכאשר היה יודע העת שראוי שיגיע בו לאיש־מה טוב היה מברך אותו, והיה מביא האנשים להאמין כי מבורכיו הם ברוכים ומקולליו הם מקוללים. ואפשר עוד שהיה עושה מעשים־מה ממין הנחש והכישוף, להזיק למי שירצה ולהועיל למי שירצה, כמו שנבאר עם זכירתנו תועלות זאת הפרשה.
It is interesting that altho you're presumably correct regarding what the Rishonim would hold were they around today the "Charedi" community has become more radical than ever embracing the literal meaning of all the magical and demonic aggados completely rejecting Rambam's path.
It seems to me that "what would the Rambam/Ramban believe today" is just a Rorschach test for your own beliefs. You believe that it is conclusively proven today that magic is nonsense (how?) so you attribute that change in belief to the Ramban without real evidence. But it seems like a silly game, speculating what the Ramban would say. If you believe so strongly magic is nonsense, why would you care about speculations about what the Ramban would say?
Also, I think your explanation of why the Ramban believed in magic is seriously incomplete. You say it's simply because of second or third-hand empirical experience, but the Ramban has a whole philosophy about how magic works and how it is connected to demons, which he bases on the Torah, and which he writes about multiple times in his commentary. It's not a simple matter of the "the Torah discusses it", but it's also not a simple matter of "I heard that a lot of people saw it" either. Not that it makes any difference, as it is a fool's errand to speculate exactly to what extent the Ramban would update his views with today's knowledge.
I would never say "it is conclusively proven today that magic is nonsense" because that sentence involves the "p" word, which is a "no no" in science. Science can certainly DISPROVE a theory, but the best they can do for a theory is to provide evidence which supports it. That's why I wrote "there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a belief in magic and the occult." And if there is, please show me! (And tell those scientists to see if anyone is offering an updated version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge)
Guess what? I think that if the Ramban were alive today, he would ALSO change his view of demons. Have you read the Ramban's demon discourse on Vayikra 17:7? (https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Ramban/Vayikra/17.7#m5e3nf) He makes several statements about demons which are based on outdated Aristotelian science, such as:
"The body [of these creatures of two elements] is of a spiritual nature; on account of its delicacy and lightness it can fly through fire and air. And just as the combination of the four elements in any object is the cause of its existence and its destruction [since everything that is composite must ultimately revert to its original components], so is it with these beings created from a combination of only two elements; when the elements combine, the creature lives, and when they separate [decompose], it is like the dead."
And:
"The matter of 'eating' [mentioned above in connection with these creatures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was in the trench. This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers perform to the demons. The reason [for their need to 'eat'] is that the fire in the air causes the drying up of their bodies, which must therefore be restored just as man's need for food is due to depletion in his body."
Regarding your question: "If you believe so strongly magic is nonsense, why would you care about speculations about what the Ramban would say?" Personally, I don't care what the Ramban would say. But there are two reasons why I engage in this speculation: (1) the Ramban was a great chacham, and - to my mind - those who think that he would simply deny science in order to uphold belief in nonsensical beliefs are doing a disservice to him, and when I teach my students his view, I want to present him in the most generous light possible so that they don't walk away thinking he was some sort of fool; (2) sadly, there are students - and certainly adults - whose accept or reject beliefs based primarily on authority, and I've found that making this point helps those people to be more open to the Rambam's view.
P.S. I love your fire. 🙂
Those Rambans you quoted are exactly some of the ones I had in mind when I said that he had a whole philosophy of demons and magic. His view is not just from third-hand empirical evidence (which there is plenty today also, by the way!). And I see no compelling reason to believe that he would dump the entire philosophy just because of modern views. Especially in this case, when it is a view grounded in the Torah. But who knows, maybe he would dump it anyways because nobody won James Randi's million dollar prize yet.
The fact that the Ramban was a great chacham has nothing to do with this. Many great chachamim refuse to budge from their prior views. You have made up your mind that magic is nonsense, and so decided that of course a great chacham like the Ramban wouldn't be able to believe in nonsense, would he? And then circularly use your speculation about the speculative view of the modern Ramban to give authority to the magic-is-nonsense proposition. As if the non-existent Ramban is adding anything whatsoever to the question. This type of argument is irrational and only serves to obscure. If you have convincing evidence that magic is nonsense, that should be enough. And for those who don't find your evidence convincing, why on earth would they agree with your appeal to the authority of a non-existent Ramban?
I don't find fact that there is no scientific evidence of magic to be very compelling evidence, there is no scientific proof of angels either, yet I believe in them. In fact, I wouldn't expect magic that is controlled by demonic intelligence to be amenable to scientific proofs. If magic behaved in a predictable way, if it could be tested and measured precisely, just like the natural world, it wouldn't be magic, would it? It would just be natural law. I think to describe something as breaking the natural order implies that it doesn't behave like a natural process, and cannot be tested or measured like a natural process. If magic works, it's some way of interacting with spiritual/demonic intelligences, who may or may not do or tell you what you want, and their behavior is certainly not predictable or measurable, any more than people are. And I think that's mostly the way the practice of magic always been perceived- at least as I see it.
Re PS- Thank you 🙂
And regarding your third paragraph: I infer from here that we have two very different ways of looking at angels, demons, and magic - and two very different views of how to read the words of past chachamim accordingly.
To elaborate more, the Ramban you quoted, Devarim 18:9, attributes magic to מַּזָּלוֹת שָׂרִים יַנְהִיגוּ אוֹתָם.
See also Ramban Shemos 7:11 who says בלהטיהם אמרו רבותינו שהם מעשה כשפים ועל ידי מלאכי חבלה הם נעשים (as opposed to לטיהם which is שדים. A distinction between מלאכי חבלה vs. שדים). See the Mizrachi there who seems to learn that Rashi agrees with this.
See also the Abarbanel on Devarim 18:9 who quotes a Rashi that magic is done ע"י מלאכי חבלה, and to which he agrees.
This is also similar the view that the Rambam attributes to those who practiced magic, who believe that they could gain knowledge and wield power from the gods and angels.
Therefore, if such a thing is real, I am very doubtful it would be amenable to scientific testing and measurement.
That's a perfect example. Let's not even focus on the question of whether מזלות have power over the affairs of particular humans or not. This, as you know, was a מחלוקת ראשונים.
But now it is abundantly clear that מזלות are NOT EVEN REAL. I don't mean "they don't really have power." I mean "they don't EXIST."
The ancients believed that the stars and heavenly bodies were fixed patterns embedded in the celestial spheres which were in constant motion around a geocentric universe. We now know that celestial spheres don't exist and that the patterns we see are NOT embedded in any actual physical entity, but are merely our own perceptions from our vantage points on earth. The stars that form these constellations are mindbogglingly distant not only from earth, but from each other. For example, the three brightest stars that form Aries are 59 light-years, 66 light-years, and 164 light-years away from earth, have no actual physical relationship with each other, and would not even appear as Aries from a different angle.
To my mind, to claim that the Ramban would not change his view of מזלות if he knew this fact is to insult his intelligence.
Ah, that is a different point than what I was bringing up, which was about how the magic-believers thought magic worked. But I disagree with even that point.
There are plenty of very intelligent people even today who still believe in astrology. So in your opinion the Ramban would join the ranks of the majority who don't. Maybe you're right. Or maybe not. Rabbi Kasher in האדם על הירח has an interesting discussion about whether modern science has demonstrated that the Rambam is wrong about celestial bodies possessing intelligence. In his opinion, it has not. Perhaps the Ramban would say the same thing about the מזלות. We just don't know.
I don't see why, since we are talking from the point of view of those who actually believed in magic and demons. I don't think they believed it was predictable and measurable (if we can even use such modern terms about what they did or did not believe), but I would be interested in seeing sources they did. (About angels, I only brought that as an example of something that I believe yet cannot be scientifically tested. Not to say that they are similar to demons and magic. If somebody doesn't likes the angel example, I could use other examples, like prophecy, miracles, G-d answering prayer, etc.)
Regarding your second paragraph:
"The fact that the Ramban was a great chacham has nothing to do with this."
I was responding to your question about why I care. I wouldn't necessarily attempt to defend the false view of someone whom I don't know to be a chacham.
"Many great chachamim refuse to budge from their prior views."
If I had reason to believe that a chacham refused to budge from their prior views because he knew all the facts and had sufficient reason to maintain his view, then my respect for that chacham would increase. If I had reason to believe that a chacham refused to budge his their prior views for emotional or ego-related reasons, then yes - that would diminish the stature of that chacham in my mind. And yes - I know that there are many chachamim who had "bad moments" or even "bad streaks." Chachamim are human, like the rest of us.
"You have made up your mind that magic is nonsense, and so decided that of course a great chacham like the Ramban wouldn't be able to believe in nonsense, would he?"
No, that is a mischaracterization of my reasoning. I did not just pull the Ramban out of a hat and assert that he agreed with the Rambam because I declared it so. I would not automatically say the same thing about all chachamim throughout history. I wouldn't say such a thing for Rashi or the Baalei Tosafos because I don't have any knowledge about their proto-scientific outlook or methodology - unlike the Ramban.
"And then circularly use your speculation about the speculative view of the modern Ramban to give authority to the magic-is-nonsense proposition."
Um, no, this is another mischaracterization of my reasoning. When a writer sets forth his position, believing it to be sound, and his evidence, believing it to be sufficient or compelling, YOU don't get to call that "circular" simply because you personally reject the position or the evidence. Disagreeing with someone's position doesn't ipso facto transform their evidence into circular reasoning. Or to use an analogy: if someone makes a factual claim in their statement believing it to be correct, YOU don't get to call that person "a liar" simply because YOU disagree with that claim. Whether the speaker's claim is wrong is one issue, and what they believe ABOUT their claim is an entirely separate issue.
If I DID engage in circular reasoning, then I'd appreciate the fact that you pointed it out, but in this case I didn't - and I still don't. I believe my position and I believe that my evidence is sufficient to hold it.
"As if the non-existent Ramban is adding anything whatsoever to the question."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
"This type of argument is irrational and only serves to obscure."
If that's what you believe, then I (evidently? TBD) can't stop you. I, on the other hand, have explained my rationale and my purposes, neither of which were to intentionally obscure.
"If you have convincing evidence that magic is nonsense, that should be enough. And for those who don't find your evidence convincing, why on earth would they agree with your appeal to the authority of a non-existent Ramban?"
I answered both of these questions in my previous comment, but I'll answer again in different words. "that should be enough" - yes, with the operative word "should." But we are emotional beings and we allow our feelings and biases to cloud our reasoning. (1) Believing that the Ramban would cling to his unfounded views in the face of modern science DOES diminish his esteem in the eyes of a certain type of student I've taught, which is ONE reason why I "give him the benefit of the doubt" in this case. (2) Invoking the Ramban as an authority DOES provide a certain type of student I've taught with support. Neither of these facts SHOULD matter for people, but they DO. And those are the two reasons.
As a former AP English Language teacher, I can't help but add, according to Aristotle's model*, there are three rhetorical appeals: ethos (appeal to the character of the speaker), pathos (appeal to emotion), and logos (appeal to the intellect). SHOULD people make decisions solely based on logos? Yes. But in reality, people are persuaded by ethos and pathos as well.
* I know, I know: it shouldn't matter who came up with this model. "Accept the truth from whoever said it!" And yet, we attribute statements to their authors.
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your position. I wrote "circular" because I understood from your previous comment that you were using the speculative Ramban as a logical support for the magic-is-nonsense proposition, which would be circular, but now I see that I may have misinterpreted you. My apologies. I certainly never thought you were intentionally trying to obscure. I still question the value of this thought experiment, and dispute its correctness in the case of the Ramban, but now I see what you were trying to do.
No worries. I'm glad you voiced your objections and questions!
“Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem.”
Seems to me you have a specific definition of magic that many people may not share.
I believe in magic, but I don’t believe in magic that involves powers other than Hashem. I believe in miracles that go beyond the laws of nature, and I believe that humans can tap into that power to perform miracles (like Moshe doing actions that made the plagues in Egypt start, or hitting a rock and having water come out, or splitting the Red Sea). It is possible that bad guys, or people with incorrect beliefs can tap into that power as well, and I call that power magic.
Side point: today, more than in medieval times, scientific consensus can quickly change in a manner of months (or even days, see e.g. gatherings outdoors are dangerous during Covid pandemic). So I’m not so sure Rambam would value scientists’ conclusions as much as he did in his time, when scientific knowledge was more static.
And regarding your side point: I don't know if I buy that. Unlike the some of the chachmei Yisrael (perhaps even the Ramban), who relied purely on the AUTHORITY of scientists / natural philosophers, the Rambam repeatedly demonstrates that he actually cares about the scientific evidence. For instance, in his commentary on Avodah Zarah 4:7 (linked in the footnote of my article), the Rambam's first argument against the astrologers is that there can't be any such thing as "good stars" or "bad stars" because the physical substance they're made of is the same. As a doctor, Rambam was well aware that scientific consensus can change, as his medical writings reflect (i.e. they show his awareness of shifting views within medicine). If you brought Rambam to the present and caught him up on the history of science, I can't imagine he'd say, "Well, I USED to believe in Greek science because I thought its truths were stable, but now that science updates at such a relatively rapid pace, I'm not going to put my trust in the scientific method." Everything I've read from the Rambam on matters of science and epistemology leads me to believe he'd embrace the scientific method even though - especially because! - particular scientific conclusions are frequently overturned.
I believe the reason I included the sentence “Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem,” back when I wrote this in 2013, is because the Ramban, himself, underscored this point - and the reason the Ramban underscored this point is because that's what Hashem did in Devarim 18:13! Here it is in context with the Ramban's commentary (Chavel's translation).
דברים יח:י-טו
(י) לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ קֹסֵם קְסָמִים מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף. (יא) וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים. (יב) כִּי תוֹעֲבַת י"י כׇּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ. (יג) תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ. (יד) כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן נָתַן לְךָ י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ. (טו) נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן.
Devarim 18:10-15
(10) There shall not be found among you one who passes his son and daughter through fire, a fortune teller, an astrologer, an omen-reader, a sorcerer, (11) an incantation-whisperer, one who consults an ove or yidoni, or one who inquires of the dead, (12) for all who do these are an abomination to Hashem, and because of these abominations does Hashem, your God, disinherit them from before you. (13) Wholehearted shall you be with Hashem, your God, (14) for these nations that you will inherit - they heed the astrologers and fortune tellers, but this is not what Hashem, your God, gave you. (15) A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, Hashem will establish for you; you shall heed him.
(יג) וטעם תמים תהיה עם י"י אלהיך – שניחד לבבנו אליו לבדו, ונאמין שהוא לבדו עושה כל, והוא היודע אמיתת כל עתיד, וממנו לבדו נדרוש העתידות מנביאיו או מאנשי חסידיו, רצוני לומר אורים ותומים. ולא נדרוש מהוברי שמים ולא מזולתם, ולא נבטח שיבאו דבריהם על כל פנים. אבל אם נשמע דבר מהם, נאמר הכל בידי שמים כי הוא אלהי האלהים עליון על הכל היכול בכל, משנה מערכות הכוכבים והמזלות כרצונו, מפר אותות בדים וקוסמים יהולל (ישעיהו מ"ד:כ"ה), ונאמין שכל הבאות תהיינה כפי התקרב אדם בעבודתו. ולפיכך אחר אזהרת שאלת העתידות מן קוסם ודורש בעד החיים אל המתים (דברים י"ח:י'-י"א) אמר שתהיה תמים עם י"י בכל אלה, ולא תירא ממגיד עתיד, אבל מנביאו תדרוש ואליו תשמע. וזה דעת אנקלוס: שלים תהא בדחלתא די"י אלהך, שלא תהא חסר ביראתו, כי תמים הוא השלם בדבר, כמו: שה תמים (שמות י"ב:ה'), שאין בו מום ושום חסרון. וזו מצות עשה וכבר הזכרתי זה בפסוק והיה תמים (רמב"ן בראשית י"ז:א').
Rambam - Devarim 18:13
THOU SHALT BE WHOLE-HEARTED WITH THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The meaning thereof is that we are to direct our hearts to Him only, and believe that He alone does everything. It is He Who knows the truth about all future events, and from His prophets, or from His pious ones, in other words the Urim and Thummim — are we to inquire about future events. We are not to inquire of the astrologers or from anyone else, or by any means to trust that their words will be fulfilled. Instead, if we hear any prediction [of the diviners] we should say, "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, for He is the G-d of gods Who is supreme above all, the Omnipotent One over everything, Who changes the set order of the stars and constellations at His Will, Who frustrateth the tokens of the imposters, and maketh diviners mad," and we are to believe that future events will occur according to man's drawing closer to His service. Therefore after the warning against inquiring about future events from diviners, and of seeking on behalf of the living to the dead, he stated that you are to be whole-hearted with G-d in all these matters and not be afraid of those who tell of things to come. Rather, you should inquire of His prophet and to him shall you hearken. And this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated, "You shall be whole-hearted in the fear of the Eternal your G-d," meaning that you should not be deficient in the fear of Him, for tamim (whole) indicates perfection in a thing, just as 'seh tamim' (a lamb that is perfect) means one that is without blemish and any deficiency. This verse [before us] constitutes a positive commandment. I have already mentioned this in connection with the verse, and be thou whole-hearted.
[end quote from the Ramban]
The Ramban was (likely) responding to the beliefs that were common about magic, sorcery, astrology, etc. back then, namely, that these were "other powers" that were not under the jurisdiction of Hashem. It might have even been necessary for him to follow up with this point because of the previous Ramban, in which he elaborates at length on his view of such matters and cites Chazal's explanation of the term כישוף, namely, שהם מכחישים פמליא של מעלה. He has to make it clear that even though magic goes against God's intention for the universe, it doesn't operate independently of His will.
But the truth is that belief in a person who believes in superstitious phenomena unconsciously believes (or runs the risk of believing) that these forces operate independently of Hashem. (See the Sefer ha'Chinuch on sorcery and the other related prohibitions.) I remember my rebbi telling me once that he saw a Jewish woman wearing a red string on her wrist. He asked her why she wore it, and she said that it protects her. He said, "I thought that if we obey Hashem's will and follow His mitzvos, then He will protect us." She thought for a moment and said, "Yes, but this helps." That's what I understand the Rishonim to mean when they speak of a שמץ עבודה זרה - not an overt idolatrous belief, but a belief that caters to idolatry. The same is true of some of the ways that people talk about the כח הטומאה and the סיטרא אחרא. Technically speaking, these terms refer to aspects of the universe Hashem created - but the way people TALK about them and FEEL about them caters to the same part of the psyche as idolatry, which is why Devarim pairs תמים תהיה with the prohibitions against magic.
I attempted to convey all of this in the sentence: “Of course, they do not believe that magic involves powers other than Hashem”!
I'm not sure I agree. Your conclusion relies on the assumption that Ramban was relying on the 'scientists' of his day, and would rely on Western science today vis a vis it's views on the occult.
It may well be that in his time he relied on 2nd or 3rd hand information by non scientists and that the phenomena seen 'publicly in the sight of witnesses' referred to regular folk. So to today - whilst Western science dismisses phenomena such as the purported efficacy of acupuncture (not quite occult but somewhat derivative), Ramban may well give the weight of a billion Chinese claiming witness to it's efficacy to be sufficient.
I'd go one step further - Ramban and Rambam famously differ on the source of the required belief in Hashem, with Rambam maintaining it as rational apriori and Ramban connecting it to the human experience of miracles. With that background, I'd say that Rambam would most definitely concur with Western scientists today, whilst Ramban would be open to the experiential claims of many despite lack of a quantituve caustive effect.
I hear your argument about the Ramban relying on testimony from non-scientists. What is your understanding of his statement about the Greek chachamim re: the rainbow?
על כרחנו נאמין לדברי היונים שמלהט השמש באויר הלח יהיה הקשת בתולדת, כי בכלי מים לפני השמש יראה כמראה הקשת
https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Ramban/Bereshit/9.12#m4e3nf
It seems that he is saying that the hava amina would be, per the simple inference of the possuk, is that Hashem created a new natural phenomenon - that at times a bow would appear in a cloud. Bit since the philosophers/scientists demonstrated that rainbows are not unique to the sky, and are always present in the right environment even in a bucket on Earth, the pshat in the possuk is not that anew phenomenon was created, but that an existing one took on a new status, when appearing in certain environments (i.e. clouds in heaven) - that of a bris.
I'm not sure how that refers to our discussion though. If it is to demonstrate that Ramban relied upon the scientists of his time, I'm not sure that is a good demonstration, as he accepts their position because it's easily demonstrable, rather than simply based upon their authority as experts.
A question (from one who is with you on the question of magic): How do you (and the Rambam) explain Sanhedrin 7:11?
הַמְכַשֵּׁף הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, וְלֹא הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינָיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שְׁנַיִם לוֹקְטִין קִשּׁוּאִין, אֶחָד לוֹקֵט פָּטוּר וְאֶחָד לוֹקֵט חַיָּב, הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּב, הָאוֹחֵז אֶת הָעֵינַיִם פָּטוּר:
A sorcerer, if he actually performs magic, is liable [to death], but not if he merely creates illusions. Rabbi Akiva says in Rabbi Joshua’s name: “If two are gathering cucumbers [by magic] one may be punished and the other exempt: he who really gathers them is punished: while he who produces an illusion is exempt.”