Must a Jew Abstain from Hermetic Magic? A Psak
This really got away from me, so the psak is divided into three parts. This second part covers the question of what the status of a non-Jewish wizard is. This includes both the basic question of whether such practice is legal in a Jewish sense, but also whether a Jew could benefit from Hermetic magic - by asking a wizard to cast a spell for them, for instance.
Part 2 - Non-Jewish Hermetic Wizards
Mythically Plausible - This post presents a rabbinic opinion - a psak or responsum - as what relationship an observant Jews should have to Hermetic magic. This opinion is intentionally weighted towards leniency to Hermetic magic, because that’s what makes for an interesting story. But it's not an impossible position, and you can imagine it as a persuasive minority ruling, much like how Rabbi Asher’s opinion on the prayer for rain was not adopted, but is still considered a respected opinion. That said, I am aware of no actual halakhic ruling that rules particularly leniently towards sorcerers.
This post is an in-universe text, but it does not hew too closely to the 13th century style so that it might be understandable to a modern audience. Citations are provided by quotation, with no reference to the page of Talmud on which they appear. This is because the standardized page numbers would not be invented for several hundred years, with the adoption of the printing press. A modern reader can look to Leviticus 19, Deuteronomy 18, Sanhedrin 65b, 67a, and 67b for many of the quotations. The text was written by a Rabbi with poor scores (but not nonexistent ones!) in Magic Theory and Order of Hermes lore. So his understanding of the Order and its magic is very imperfect, but hopefully understandable.
A psak often has three parts. The question being asked, often a practical question asked by a member of the community, a discussion of the halachic issues that the question brings up, and finally the answer, the psak proper. This post is the middle part of the discussion.
With questions of idolatry out of the way I turn to the question of sorcery itself. We read “Let no one be found who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead.” And further that “you shall not allow a witch to live.” The Torah prohibition is much commented on by our sages.
This leads to the second question I will address - is sorcery prohibited to the nations? There is ample evidence to suggest it is. Our rabbis discuss how a witch is put to death. They derive that a witch of the nations is put to death by decapitation, the method by which non-Jews are executed, but that a witch of the Jewish people is put to death by stoning, the most serious method of execution. But we also learn that since the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jewish people, that no capital punishment may be performed. It requires a beit din of twenty three to pronounce a capital sentence, and no court of sufficient wisdom exists. And so it seems clear that we have no mechanism by which to enforce this commandment upon the nations, and that it is only applicable in the time when the temple is restored.
There are laws by which we do judge the nations in modern times. “The sons of Noah were given seven commandments,” we read in a Tosefta, “courts, idolatry, blasphemy, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and the limb of a living animal”. And Rabbi Shimon says, “on account of sorcery.” The laws of Noah that are required of the nations are from the Torah, while Rabbi Shimon’s prohibition is a rabbinic prohibition only.
Is Rabbi Shimon’s prohibition definitive? Certainly not. We learn from Rabbi Akiva, “A necromancer can prove,” Akiva is willing to use a necromancer to prove the date of Shabbat. And further, “Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya would sit every Shabbat eve … and a third-born calf would be created for them,” by sorcery, ”and they would eat it in honor of Shabbat.” And Rashi, of blessed memory, understands that the third-born calf was especially delicious.
And further, even when the sorcerer is working against our sages these actions are not prohibited by them. “There was a certain woman who was attempting to take dust from under the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: If you succeed, go and do it. I am not concerned about it, as it is written: “There is none else besides Him.”” In this example we may understand that this certain woman was a sorcerer, and she was attempting to gain what is known as a Connection of Magic to Rabbi Hanina. The sage was not concerned because he knew that great sages have protection from Hashem against magic. This is known as Magic Resistance by the Order of Hermes. Just as this was true in the time of the sages so it is true now.
“Abaye says: The halakhot of sorcery are like the halakhot of Shabbat” And by this he means that certain acts of sorcery may be performed by a goyish sorcerer and a Jew may benefit from these acts. This is derived by analogy, just as in the halakhot of Shabbat there are acts that a Jew may not perform on Shabbat but may benefit from those acts if they are performed by a shabbos goy.
Indeed, our sages knew much about the Order of Hermes, and told us which of them to be cautious of. There are “acts of sorcery, which sorcerers perform themselves, without using demons. And likewise it says: “And the flaming sword that turned every way” The flaming sword refers to the Flambeau, who do not perform evil magic and may be consulted. And “Abaye says: A sorcerer who is particular about using a certain utensil for his sorcery is employing a demon; one who is not particular about using a certain utensil is performing a permitted act of sorcery.” This is referring to the Verditiuis, who use utensils to perform their magic, which is an evil sort of magic. One may not consult with him.
We see that sorcery is not prohibited to the nations. And all the more so, we see that it is permitted to benefit from a goyish sorcerer, though there are many goyish sorcerers that one should be cautious of.
Story Seed - The Noahide Laws
A local Guernicus gets hold of this Psak. She is not Jewish, but finds the laws of Noah to be compelling: to create just courts, a ban on idolatry, blasphemy, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and tearing the limb of a living animal. These seem like some basic principles for a moral life. She moves to have these principles enshrined in the Peripheral code. How will the more traditional Quaesitors feel about this innovation? How does the covenant feel about it?
Story Seed - The Offended Verditius
A local Tytalus secretly has this psak translated and is spreading it around the Tribunal, using her skill with intrigue to keep her hands clean. She plans to supplant the Order’s long memory of the Corruption of the Tytalus with the idea that it is the Verditius who are corrupted, and the psak is only one small stage in her plan. A local Verditius falls for this intrigue. She is deeply offended by the idea that all Verditius are associating with demons and seeks to deal with this Rabbi personally. How will the magi react when the local Jewish Quarter catches fire? How will the intrigue play out at Tribunal? Can the Verditius and the Jewish community be reconciled?