A response to some questions about a text that _wastrel is tran

[richardf8]

_wastrel, here is the response you sought to your post at http://www.livejournal.com/users/_wastrel/70786.html

The difference between magic and religion is where the power lies. In magic the power lies with man, in religion it lies with God. Magic, as you are using the term, means the exertion of human will over the supernatural. This is strictly forbidden in Judaism. The denomination does not matter. I would also be extremely cautious about the source you are using, since it seems to be retrojecting its own interpretation of the bible into the biblical period. I would not view it as authoritative.

Now to deal with the issues you raise:

1) Moses was not a magician. The agency behind the various miracles that occured for him was God's and not his own. The red sea did not split at Moses' behest, but at God's. The ten plagues befell Egypt because God wanted to discredit their magicians, and deconstruct their pantheon. He wanted to deconstruct the very notion of magic itself. In fact, God was so concerned about Moses appearing to be a magician that when he drew water from the rock without making it absolutely clear that it was God's doing and not his own, God prohibited him from entering Canaan because of it. (cf Num. 20:12)

2) Demonology in Judaism. Adam's relations with Lilith and Eve's relations with Samael, and the production of demons as a result of these unions amounts to a talmudic theory of disease. The sages were at a loss to explain problems like infant death, death of the righteous, plagues, and other similar natural injustices. The therefore attributed it to demons, and then had to explain the existence of demons. This was the explanation they came up with.

3) The Rabbis teach that the generation of Noah were indeed great magicians - and that this is what brought about the flood.

4) Mezuzot. The contents of a Mezuzah is the declaration "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one" along with those verses which instruct us to teach this precept to our children and to remind ourselves of it by posting it on our doors. It does not serve any magical purpose, and anyone who ascribes magical power to them is regarded as a heretic. One hears occasionally things like "the intifada broke out because the word 'land' was not properly written on Ehud Barak's mezuzah," or "so-and-so had a heart attack because the word 'heart' was improperly written . . ." but these statements are not attributions of power to the mezuzah. Rather, they are cautionary tales concerning the importance of executing commandments properly.

5) Solomon was no wizard, although because of his renowned wisdom, many magical traditions attribute works to him that he did not write. The creation of pseudepigrahic works (that is a work attributed to an accepted authority, although not written by that authority) is a common means by which questionable works are given an air of authority that is not their own.

6) Teraphim. This is idolatry plain and simple. The Talmud construes Rachel's death when bearing Benjamin to her refusal to leave them behind at Laban's. This practice is now found most commonly among Catholics in the form of the use of statuettes of Jesus and various saints to ward off bad luck or bring good luck.

7) Star of David/Seal of Solomon. Neither of these symbols is inherently Jewish, and are certainly not Israelite in Origin. The iconic symbol of Judaism is the 7-branched Menorah. The 6 pointed star came to be a Jewish symbol because in the middle ages, the Church insisted that Jews label themselves with it. Eventually Jews became accustomed to associating it with themselves and thus it took on positive connotations. This may be compared to the (relatively) recent adoption of the inverted pink triangle as a symbol of solidarity by the gay community.

8) Kabbalah. God is not placed in the position of Mage. God is the creator, and the act of creation is understandable only through metphor. The metaphor in Genesis is that of performative speech, but in Job, God describes the acts of creation in very tactile terms. The Zohar is, first and foremost, a commentary on Torah. It attempts to explicate the Torah in terms of the relations between what happens on earth and in the heavens. There is no mechanism in Kabbalah for the invocation of demons, or their control. Those who suggest such things, whether Sabbatai Tsvi, Alister Crowley, or "Rav" Berg are charlatans.

Now to the question of whether this is offensive. The problem comes down to this - the attribution of supernatural powers to elements and personalities of a religious, cultural, or racial group has a bifold effect. In a relaxed environment, it results in people who are not members appropriating that group's symbols and rituals, and ascribing to them meanings that they do not possess within the context of the group. Whether it is a white man's penchant for the paraphernalia of First Peoples' shamanic traditions, like dream catchers and peace pipes, or Madonna laying teffillin in a video the problem remains the same - the link between the symbol and its meaning, which is the source of holiness, is cheapened. This can be ignored, however what it leads to cannot, because, like feminism's madonna/whore complex, the flip side of this attribution is that in a tense environment - like when Europe was hit by the plague, or when cultural tensions are running high, this attribution of supernatural power results in things like the Damascus Blood Libel, or charges of witchcraft - the sort of things that lead to expulsions, pogroms, and given the efficacy of contemporary technology for killing people, holocausts. So, yes, Quenot's assertions amount to a quintessentially anti-Judaic slander, of very old provenance.

The second question, of its accuracy, I think I have addressed adequately. It is difficult to see how it could be farther off base.

This all being said, leaves a question unanswered, namely, if Judaism is so unaccepting of magic, why does it appear so often in the Talmud? The answer is quite simple - H.G. Wells wrote The Time Machine because he wanted us to struggle with some of the moral questions that time travel might raise. That he wrote it does not imply that time machines were in use or even possible. Stories of magic in the Talmud, like Wells' time machine, are speculative fiction, the Rabbis' way of saying "if such and such were possible, what would the moral implications be?" In many cases, we modern Jews are served well by these speculations because we now possess the technology to do things that they imagined possible only through magic. Thus we can look to a talmudic legend about a dying sage who was being kept alive, perhaps past his time, by the prayers of his disciples and find insights to guide us on the appropriate and inappropriate use of life support technology. This comes back to your citation of the quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Likewise anything we wish we had the technology to achieve, but don't, we can speculate about by calling it "magic"

And now, to the difference between religion and magic. Religion is the acceptance of divine will as a force in the world. Magic is the assertion of human will as a force in the supernatural world. The first is humility, the second pride.

Comments

Don't sweat it.

[richardf8]

Given how I feel about that symbol personally, I think I have a notion of why being associated with the Star of David could be irritating to you.

Actually, I'm fine with being associated with the Star of David. It's been a symbol of Judaism for a good many generations. What I'm not fine with is the "ooo, it's a magic symbol" response to it, as if the Jews chose it for occult reasons, when it was something we acquired at the behest of others. To my mind, it is stripped of occult meaning and signifies only that a space in which it appears is a Jewish space.

I apologize for offending you, but I still don't regret posting the entry. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have learned everything that reading this entry taught me, and neither would my readers.

Oh, Please, don't sweat it; you opened asking whether it was offensive and whether it was accurate, so I answered you. And I thank you for asking. I would not have wanted to let such a teachable moment pass.

The fact that her account of Judaism seems to be your first encounter with it is what makes her work so disturbing - if you can be misled by it, what about all the people who get their hands on it who don't have access to a real Jew to question about its contents. They will come away with a perception that Judaism is as she says, and that is what makes her work problematic.

I do not regret your posting it either, precisely for the educational opportunity that it represented. I worry about those people who would read it (the book, not your entry) and go away thinking it to be truth.