Parshas Shoftim 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.

Of Omens and Goralos 
You shall be wholehearted with Hashem, your G‐d (Devarim 18:13) 
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 of goralos, "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 of goralos.
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 merit
a 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 of nichush (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, the Rambam 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 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 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, 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 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 the Megillas Esther explains, according to the Rambam'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 of mitzvah that the Rambam does not list.
Transcending the Stars
The Ramban presents a somewhat different picture of the instruction to be wholehearted with G-d.
According to the Rambam (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
prohibitions—apart from 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 branch of wisdom
rather than a matter of divination and sorcery. The Ramban therefore rules that if one receives unsolicited advice
from a stargazer, it is permitted to follow his advice—for instance, to increase one's performance of mitzvos so as to
overturn the decree. However, the Ramban concedes 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 seek to live our lives according to the words of future-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 the listing of tamim tihiyeh among the 613 mitzvos, claiming that this
is 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 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 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
common 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 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 future—even a personal one. For example, the Rambam
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 (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, employed the omen of asking 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 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
The Raavad disagrees with the Rambam, 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
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 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 of nichush.
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 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, for predicting 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, 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; 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, 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 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 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:
  According to the Rambam, all forms of foretelling the future, including stargazing and including the use of
all 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 does
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 lines of 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 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 sign—as we have seen, the Rambam, and
the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 179) who quotes the words of the Rambam, 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 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.
As to goralos, although the Shulchan Aruch writes that one should not employ goralos, a ruling that would match
the the Rambam's view of prohibiting all future-telling. However, the Rema states as a simple fact that it is permitted
to employ the omen of asking a child to read out his pasuk, 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, as Riaz (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 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 is the manner
of non-Jewish goralos. According to what we have learned, this instruction would be limited to the view of the
Rambam, according to whom any form of predicting the future is wrong.

Laws of Charity – Compiled and Arranged by Rabbi Yosef Fleischman 
1. We have seen that a married woman is permitted to give small donations to charity without consulting her
husband. 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, Chadashos
109; Aruch Ha-Shulchan 248:12), but most authorities agree that if her husband objects she may not give the
donation (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 all
of today's women), authorities dispute the application of the prohibition of giving large sums of money to
charity. According to Raavan, 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 (see Aruch 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).