In Parashas Pinchas we find instruction about dividing the Land of Israel: “It shall be divided by lots.” The portions of the Land will be allocated to the Tribes of Israel by drawing lots.
The concept of drawing lots raises the question of the use of lots and omens in halachah.
It is prevalent to attribute significance and meaning to various signs and omens. For some non-Jews, a black cat crossing one’s path is a well-known bad omen. For Jews, the Gemara mentions omens such as a solar or lunar eclipse, which are 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 employed different forms of goralos, “lots,” that involve opening the Bible (or other Torah book) 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). Even today some continue to practice various forms of goralos.
Is it permitted to rely on omens and lots to decide a future course of action? Is there a difference between relying on omens for the future, and for indications of the past? Does it make any difference if the omen is Torah-related? How does reliance on omens square with the Torah obligation to be wholehearted (tamim) with Hashem?
We will discuss these questions, among others, below.
The Rambam’s View of Wholeheartedness
After discussing the prohibitions of witchcraft, sorcery, divination, necromancy, and other prohibitions related to the ways of idolaters, the Rambam concludes the eleventh chapter of the Laws of Idolatry with the following:
“All these matters are 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 to think that they are of any use.… Those people who are wise and of a perfect mentality know very clearly that all these things that the Torah forbade are not wise, but are merely nonsense which those lacking in knowledge follow and because of which [they] abandon the ways of truth. Because of this, when warning us against these nonsensical practices, the Torah says, ‘You shall be wholehearted with Hashem, your G-d.'”
Thus, the Rambam 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 Hashem (Devarim 18:13), commanding us to avoid the foolish ways of idolaters.
The Rambam does not mention the instruction in his list of the 613 mitzvos of the Torah. As the Megillas Esther explains, according to the Rambam’s interpretation, the instruction to be wholehearted with Hashem is inclusive of a number of Torah prohibitions (divination, necromancy, and so on). As such, it is a mitzvah koleles (inclusive mitzvah), a type of mitzvah that the Rambam does not list.
Transcending the Stars
The Ramban presents a somewhat different interpretation of the instruction to be wholehearted with Hashem.
The Rambam (Laws of Idolatry 11:8-9; Commentary to Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 4:7) rules that 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 prohibitions—in addition to violating the instruction to be wholehearted with Hashem.
The Ramban (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 matter of wisdom rather than a matter of divination and sorcery.
He rules that if one receives unsolicited advice from a stargazer, he is permitted to follow this advice, for instance, by increasing his performance of mitzvos so as to overturn the decree. Nonetheless, the Ramban rules that actual consultation with stargazers is prohibited, for it violates the instruction of tamim 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 live our lives according to the recommendations of fortune-tellers and soothsayers—even those whose practice does not violate any prohibition.
In the light of the above dispute, we can understand that the Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvos, Omissions of the Rambam, no. 8) does not concur with the Rambam over not listing tamim tihiyeh among the 613 mitzvos. He counts it as one of the mitzvot omitted by Rambam. In the Ramban’s view, the mitzvah is distinct from the various prohibitions of divination and sorcery, instructing us to place our trust wholeheartedly in Hashem, avoiding even those branches of wisdom that allow us a hint into the future.
Consulting with a future-teller of any type involves a departure, to some degree, from a person’s wholehearted trust in Hashem, which the verse means to prohibit. In the words of the Ramban (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 stars—as 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 omens as food falling from one’s mouth or a deer crossing one’s path. The second source lists studying the conduct, 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 once 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 future—even a personal one. For example, the Rambam rules that it is forbidden for someone to determine his future actions based on some occurrence that he sees as an omen.
Thus, the method of determination practiced by Eliezer in his search for Rivka, in which he selected a bride for Yitzchak based on the generosity extended to him, is in fact forbidden (see Bach, Yoreh De’ah 169, concerning the acts of Eliezer and the determination practiced by Yehonasan concerning going to war).
According to the Rambam, any foretelling of the future, including even the “science” of stargazing and reliance on personal episodes, involves a deviation from the ways of reason—and 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, asked children 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 something—one has just accepted whatever it is as a good sign for what has already happened.
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
The Raavad disagrees with the Rambam, claiming that personal signs and determinants, such as the sign utilized by Eliezer, are permitted. Also the omens the mentioned in the Talmud as having been employed by the Sages, according to the Raavad, were used to make decisions for the future, and not merely as yardsticks of the past.
The Radak, 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 arms 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 was a violation of the prohibition of nichush.
In 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 validly employed both by Eliezer and Yehonasan. The Raavad’s position is well understood in the light of Radak’s explanation.
Permitted Omens
The dispute between the Rambam and the Raavad has the same foundation as the above dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban. According to the Rambam, all signs and omens are prohibited with regard to predicting the future. There is no room, according to the Rambam, to predict the future—not 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, that follow principles of logic or 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; see Beis 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 Hashem—and not the negative commandments of divination and the like.
This is the same position as that 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 the Ran writes, the pure faith in Hashem prohibits consultation with horoscopes, but does not prohibit reliance on signs. Personal signs, and signs that work by natural means, are thus entirely permitted.
Summary and Halachic Rulings
In summary of the above:
- According to the Rambam, all forms of foretelling the future, including stargazing and including the use of all omens, are nothing but falsehoods, and are prohibited by negative commandments of divination (me’onen) and reading omens (nichush).
- According to the Ramban and several rishonim, stargazing and other scientific means of future-telling do not transgress the negative commandments of sorcery and divination, but their consultation is prohibited on account of the positive commandment of tamim tihiyeh.
- In the latter opinion, the use of signs with personal significance to their user, or of signs that work by logical or 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 Ramban, the Rema explains that this prohibition is based on the instruction of tamim tihiyeh—rather than on the negative commandments of nichush and me’onen.
Based on this position, it is permitted to employ personal experience as an omen for the future. The Rema (179:4), however, records that there is a dispute concerning making use of a personal sign. As we have seen, the Ramban, Ran and Radak permit and the Rambam, prohibits the practice.
Concerning those omens that were 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 of Rashi (Chulin 95a), and is also the solution that the Beis Yosef suggests for several questions on the blanket prohibition implied by the Rambam.
Goralos
Returning to the goral—in the division of the Land—the Shulchan Aruch rules that one must not employ goralos, a ruling that matches the Rambam’s view of prohibiting all future-telling. Based on this, the goral for dividing the Land is different since it was a direct instruction from Hashem.
However, the Rema states as a simple fact (as based on Talmudic precedent) that it is permitted to employ the omen of asking a child to read out his pasuk. 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, as Riaz (Sanhedrin 65b) and Shiurei Berachah (Yoreh De’ah 179:6) write, applies 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 the Rokeah, who writes in the name of the Rambam that one should not open up a Chumash [to find a verse that indicates the future], which he attributes to non-Jewish custom.
According to what we have learned, this ruling would be based on the view of the Rambam, according to which any form of predicting the future is wrong. Those who practice the Goral Ha-Gra—which has a special method and is not simply opening up a Chumash—certainly have whom to rely upon (not least the Gra himself).
