Depends on your definition of void. If you are following a purely traditional definition, considering ptolomaic aspects (sextille, trine, square, opposition; and also conjunction, that is not an aspect strictu sense) I would say that a void Moon is:

If she does not apply in orb to an aspect in it's present sign, she is void.

If the Moon is out of orb, but applies to a planet before leaving it's sign, it is void for the time being.

If the Moon separates from an aspect, still in orb, it is not void, but will shortly be if there is no other aspect to be made in line, through which she can shed her light and that of the planet recently aspected, although she still carries the light in this case, only that she undergoes a void period. If she goes out of sign before transfering light, then it is testimony to destruction (or at least modulation) of the matter at hand.

If the Moon does not aspect a planet in sign, but is still in orb of an aspect in the next sign, then it could be said that it is not void (this is source to constant discussions, though).

If the Moon does not aspect any planet in it's present sign, at all, it could be said to be feral, besides being void (here, feral probably relates to the solitary condition of the Moon).

The latin term for a void of course body is ad vac, that I feel, depicts the meaning of it very well, vac being the root for words such as vacuous and vacate.

If you're allowing minor aspects, that were not used profusely before reforms introduced by Kepler, then the Moon will seldom, if ever, be truly void of course.

About declinations, I personally would look at it only if there is an aspect, since there is no meaning in applying an empowering testimony to something that does not come to be (and something only comes to be if there is aspect involved). So, if your definition of aspects includes minor, then declination would strengthen that testimony, if not, it would be useless. Still, even in tradition there is other relations that can be drawn besides those related to vision/aspect, such as antiscia and equal ascension, and these can prescind of ptolomaic aspects, so, if you put such a weight on declination... I personally would have to see that work in practice in a consistant manner, though...

But still, more important than knowing if the Moon is void or not, is to understand what a void Moon means, I'd say...
Paulo Felipe Noronha

Well, my first point would be that the moon void is a traditional concept, so, if you want to follow it, you should follow its traditional rules, if not, what is the point?

The second point would be that, if you use semi-sextiles and septiles and their cousins, to traditional planets, modern ones, hypotheticals, etc, you will never have a void of course moon.

The third point would be to try to learn the reasons of why the void of moon is defined the way it is. I believe that if you read the articles in skyscript and others, you will see that the point about declinations is moot.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

Void of Course Moon

The old astrologers considered the Moon void of course if she beholds no APPLYING Ptolemaic aspect before leaving the sign she is in. If we loosely translate the term "void of course," we might say that "the path before her is empty; she meets no one."

The rules of astrology, which are in part embedded in such ideas as void of course, exist in order to hold our thought processes to a disciplined framework. The void of course Moon is primarily used in horary astrology, and when it occurs the chart is "not fit to be read," because there is no dynamic for change. That is why some modern writers suggest that a void Moon can be interpreted as "nothing will happen." The quesited is without sufficient "energy" to change and simply "runs out its course".

If we look for "ways around" such strictures (by applying "new" criteria to the rule, whatever it may be,) we do so at our peril. Our interpretation in such cases will be weak because it does not hold to the logical framework provided us by astrology, perhaps invalid or inaccurate, and so our counsel to the client will be off the mark. We may be trying, consciously or unconsciously, to make the horoscope fit some preconceived notion or desire, rather than looking at the very realistic description of a given moment that a proper reading of a chart gives us.

Re: Void of Course Moon

Debbie wrote:If the moon makes a minor aspect such as a semi-sextile, but no other, is it void? What about declinations?
Simple answer rests on a simple question - do you recognise the semi-sextile aspect.

I don't. I consider it something else, not an aspect in truth, as aspects refer to how and if two planets can see one another. Planets in semi-sextile cannot, therefore it is more an 'anti' aspect, a 'dark' point - so perfecting a semi sextile suggests to me entering into a position where the other planet is perfectly at your blind spot - that alone can be very telling of course. I've noted it in some horaries on lost items for example.

But would I consider it to negate the moon being void? No. Personally I wouldn't. As yuzuru points out, if you're using the idea of a void moon then you're using a traditional astrological viewpoint. Why not go the whole mile and stick with traditional aspects?