Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6

Hook

The Maimonidean definition of "sorcery" isn't about magical powers; it’s about the deliberate mimicry of pagan ritual structures. Maimonides strips away the mystery to reveal the mechanical sin of imitation.

Context

In Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avodah Zarah 6, Maimonides codifies the prohibitions of ov (necromancy) and yid'oni (divination). Historically, this reflects his rationalist project: by detailing the specific, physical "deeds" of these practices (waving myrtle, burning incense), he demystifies them, framing them as idolatrous behaviors rather than supernatural threats.

Text Snapshot

"What do the deeds associated with an ov involve? A person stands up and offers an incense offering of known content. He holds a wand of myrtle in his hand and waves it while whispering a known incantation... it appears as if the words are coming from below the earth in a very low tone." (Mishneh Torah 6:1)

Close Reading

• Structure: Maimonides uses a "What do the deeds... involve?" formula, shifting the focus from the effect (predicting the future) to the physical action (the incense, the wand, the trance).
• Key Term: Karet (spiritual excision). By linking these acts to the same severity as eating on Yom Kippur, Maimonides elevates forbidden ritual mimicry to a fundamental violation of the covenant.
• Tension: The tension lies between the subjective experience of the practitioner—who believes they hear a spirit—and the objective reality described by Maimonides as mere theatrical artifice.

Two Angles

• Ramban (Nachmanides): Criticizes the restrictive view of what constitutes "an act" (ma'aseh). He argues that some forms of divination, even without the specific mechanical ritual described by Maimonides, are inherently forbidden by the spirit of the law.
• Rashi/The Peri Chadash: Focuses on the legal necessity of the "act." They debate whether the mere act of holding a bone in one's mouth constitutes a punishable "deed," or if the law requires a more complex performative ritual (like burning incense) to trigger liability.

Practice Implication

This text teaches that "practice" is defined by behavior, not intent. Even if one performs a ritual seeking truth or beauty—like planting a tree near an altar "to beautify the Temple"—the act is forbidden if it mimics pagan structures. It demands we scrutinize not just our goals, but the forms of our expressions.

Chevruta Mini

1. If an action is performed for the sake of God (like the prohibited bowing on stone), does the intent mitigate the legal violation, or is the "form" of the act inherently corrupting?
2. Why does Maimonides insist on defining sorcery as a physical "act" rather than a mental state or a claim of power?

Takeaway

True holiness requires not only pure intentions but the rejection of aesthetic and ritual forms that mimic the distortions of the past.