Philosophy:Miracles/2

Miracles

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Minimized Miracles

There is an attempt to minimize the miracles mentioned in Tanakh, either by suggesting that certain seemingly supernatural phenomenon did not occur at all, or by suggesting that the events did not contravene the laws of nature.

Reduce the Number of Miracles

Certain verses in Tanakh which appear to describe a violation of the laws of nature are reinterpreted and understood not to have happened in reality.

Sources:PhiloQuestions and Answers on Genesis I 31On the Creation 156-166Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78About Philo, RambamHilkhot Melakhim 12:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon

Methods used – This approach explains away apparent miracles using a number of different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical or as having occurred only in a dream or in someone's mind.  In other cases, it assumes that verses need to be understood metaphorically or reread in another manner. Examples of each category follow below.

Allegorical stories – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, PhiloQuestions and Answers on Genesis I 31On the Creation 156-166Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78About Philo and RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,¹ with the snake acting only as a symbol.² As such, the serpent never talked.

Dreams – Several miracles are discounted by assuming that they occurred only in a dream and not in reality:

• Bilam's donkey – According to Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim and RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom, Bilam's entire encounter with the donkey took place only in a prophetic dream, so the donkey never actively spoke.
• Gidon's signs – Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim³ asserts that the signs performed for Gidon with the wet and dry fleece took place only in a dream.
• Physical manifestations of angels – According to Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature. As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.⁴

People's perspective – In several instances an event is viewed as miraculous only due to the perceptions of the people viewing the event.

• Sun standing still – RalbagYehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom⁵ maintains that due to the speed of the nation's victory over their enemies, there was a perception that time stood still and that the day had been lengthened, though in reality it had not.⁶
• Reviving the "dead" - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by RadakMelakhim I 17:17About R. David Kimchi,⁷ the boy that Eliyahu revived had never died, but was only unconscious.  He was so sick, and his pulse and breathing were so faint (or non-existent) that his mother thought him dead.⁸  Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,⁹ it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.

Metaphorical language – Understanding certain verses metaphorically, as poetic flourishes rather than literal statements of fact, further reduces the number of miracles in Tanakh:

• Sun standing still – R. Walfish¹⁰ suggests that the description of the sun's standing still is simply a metaphoric way of expressing how the forces of nature aided Israel in battle.¹¹ For elaboration, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.
• Miracles in the End of Days – According to RambamCommentary on the Mishna Avot 5:6Hilkhot Melakhim 12:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon, the prophecies regarding changes in nature in the end of days, such as Yeshayahu 11:6-7, should be understood metaphorically as referring to world peace, and not as actual changes in the behavior of animals.¹²

Rereading: ambiguous syntax or meaning – At times, recognizing the ambiguity of a verse's syntax or noting a secondary meaning of a word, allows for reinterpretations that minimize miracles:

• Lot's wife – According to Ralbag Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershomthe referent of the word "וַתְּהִי" in the phrase "וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח" is not Lot's wife but the land.  The verse shares how she witnessed the land of Sedom become a mound of salt. For elaboration, see Lot's Wife and Her Fate.
• "מלאכים" – RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger¹³ and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.¹⁴
• "וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר" – RadakMelakhim I 17:4About R. David Kimchi brings an opinion that suggests that the word "עֹרְבִים" in this verse should be translated as "merchants", pointing to similar usage in Yechezkel 27:28. As such, it was not ravens, but human merchants who provided Eliyahu with food.

Philosophical motivations – What leads these sources to try and eliminate so many miracles, especially considering that all of these commentators do believe in the existence of at least some supernatural events? A number of philosophical issues might be at play:

• Immutability of nature – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.¹⁵ If Hashem set the laws of nature, they should be unchanging, as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).¹⁶ Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, and that Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.¹⁷
• Limited view of Divine providence – The less one views Hashem as actively involved in running the world, the less likely one is to suggest that He intervenes all the time through miracles. Thus, Rambam and Ralbag who posit that, on the whole, the world is run via nature, are more likely to view Biblical events as being as natural as possible. Moreover, since they view Divine providence to be directly related to a person's righteousness (or how in line they are with the Active Intellect), they will be likely to reinterpret any miracle which relates to an undeserving individual.¹⁸
• Purpose of miracles – Abarbanel claims that the magnitude of a miracle is directly proportional to the need that prompts it.¹⁹  Thus, if a miracle seems disproportionate to the benefit that it grants, there is a reason to minimize it.²⁰
• Superiority of Moshe – Another motivating factor that relates only to several specific miracles stems from the declaration in Devarim 34:10-11 that Moshe's miracles were unsurpassed by any other prophet. As such, miracles such as the sun standing still, or reviving the dead, which might otherwise rival those of Moshe, need to be re-interpreted. See Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders for elaboration.

Human agency

Miracles not addressed

Reduce the Supernatural Element

Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never violated the laws of nature. Divine intervention is noticeable only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.

Sources:ArtapanusCited in Eusebius Ch. 27About Artapanus, R. Saadia Gaon in Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1Bemidbar 22:28About R. Avraham ibn Ezra²¹, Chivi in Ibn EzraShemot Second Commentary 14:27About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 18:2About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambamMoreh Nevukhim 2 35About R. Moshe b. Maimon, RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:21About R. David Kimchi, R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemot 7:14About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. David Zvi HoffmannShemot 7:18Shemot 8:2Shemot 9:5Shemot 9:8-10Shemot 10:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, U. CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Talking animals – This position assumes that the animals communicated to those around them, in the manner of animal sounds, not via human speech:

• Snake in Eden – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra²² suggests that Chava understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.²³ Abarbanel explains similarly hat the snakes' eating of the fruit without harmful affects, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.
• Bilam's donkey – ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto explains the speech of the donkey similarly, suggesting that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech. 

Rainbow – Ralbag rejects the possibility that the rianbow was a new creation, made only inthe aftermath of the flood, instead claiming that it existed since creation, but was only now being used as a sign.

Mixing up of languages – Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 11:7Bereshit Second Commentary 11:8About R. Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that it is likely that the people did not begin speaking in many different languages overnight, but that the process of language development took place over multiple generations in a natural way.

Lot's Wife – R"Y Bekhor Shor, Radak and Abarbanel assert that the verse is not describing the miraculous metamorphosis of Lot's wife into a salt figurine but rather how her tarrying resulted in her being caught up in the destruction of the city.²⁴

The Plagues in Egypt

• Ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 2:3Shemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi and AbarbanelShemot 7:14About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel explain the plagues from the plague of frogs forward to have been caused by a simple chain of effects spawned by the plague of blood. The blood spoiled the waters of the Nile, leading the frogs to invade the country; their deaths, then, invited insects in the form of "כנים" and so forth.²⁵
• ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Bemidbar 22:2Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 7:18Shemot 8:2Shemot 9:5Shemot 9:8-10Shemot 10:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,²⁶ stating that the miracle was simply in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?

Splitting of Yam Suf – RashbamShemot 14:21Shemot 17:11Devarim 2:7About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 2:3Shemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, and various scholars cited by ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Bemidbar 22:2Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto and CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "easternly wind" (Shemot 14:21) as evidence that this miracle was brought through naturalistic means. The opinions in Shadal and Cassuto suggest that Yam Suf split as a natural result of the wind's role in the lowering and raising of the tide.²⁷  For further elaboration, see Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?

Victory over Amalek – RashbamShemot 17:11Devarim 2:7About R. Shemuel b. Meir maintains that Moshe's uplifted hands did not miraculously lead to victory, but rather served to boost the morale of the army. He compares it to soldiers who are encouraged by viewing their flag-bearer.

Wilderness miracles

• Manna – As early as Josephus, there have been attempts to identify the manna that fell in the Wilderness with similar natural phenomena known in contemporary times. See, for example, the opinion of Chivi brought (and rejected by) Ibn Ezra, and R. D"Z Hoffmann's exploration of the points of contact and contrast between the "manna" collected by Beduins from the Tamarisk tree and Biblical manna.²⁸ 
• Selav – See Ramban, Hoil Moshe and R. D"Z Hoffmann who claim that Hashem employed nature in bringing the "שְׂלָו", with the latter referencing modern accounts of quail migrations.²⁹ Some modern scholars³⁰ further attempt to explain the deaths of those who gorged on the quail in Bemidbar as also being (at least partially) a natural consequence of their actions rather than a miraculous Divine punishment.³¹  For discussion, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl.
• Clothing – Ibn Ezra and Shadal suggest that the clothing of the nation lasted for forty years, not due to a miracle, but because they had left with several sets.³² For further discussion of the degree to which the nation led a miraculous existence throughout the sojourn in the Wilderness, see Life in the Wilderness.

Splitting the Jordan – Y. Braslavy³³ suggests that the Jordan split via natural means. The water's overflowing caused trees to uproot and fall into the riverbed, effectively creating a dam which blocked the water flow below.

Stopping of the Sun at Givon – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla posits that though the sun set, Hashem ensured that its light continued to reflect and provide illumination. Some modern scholars, instead, understand the verses to refer to a solar eclipse³⁴ or that the sun's positioning blinded the enemy.³⁵ For further elaboration, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.

Angels – This position might suggest that the ability of angels to take on a corporeal body and be seen by humans is a totally natural phenomenon, being the manner in which they were created.³⁶

What is nature?

Existence of Magic – According to this approach, mentions of humanly operated magic in Tanakh should be understood as chicanery committed by charlatans.  If Hashem rarely overrides nature, it is absurd to think that humans have the ability to do so via "magic". For example:

• Ibn Ezra claims that Paroh's mages turned their staves into snakes only via an illusion. See ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto as well.
• RadakShemuel I 28:24About R. David Kimchi cites R. Shemuel b. Chofni who states that the witch of Ein Dor only pretended to be Shemuel, and gives a natural explanation for how she was able to give an accurate "prophecy".

Prophecy and Nature

National vs. individual miracles

Motivating factors – This position is motivated by the same factors as the above approach: belief in the immutability of nature, a limited view of Divine providence, a desire that miracles be in proportion to their need, and the need to ensure the supremacy of Moshe's wonders. See discussion above for details.

Supernatural Miracles

Stories of miracles should be understood literally as historical accounts of what happened.

Face Value

Miracles in Tanakh are understood to have occurred as described.

Sources:Mishna AvotAvot 5:6About the Mishna, Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelShemot 16:32About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Sifre Devarim33:21About Sifre Devarim, Bereshit Rabbah5:5-6About Bereshit Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer52About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 3:1About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1Bemidbar 22:28About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,  RambanBereshit 6:19Bereshit 18:19Shemot 6:2Shemot 13:16Vayikra 26:11Bemidbar 11:22Devarim 11:13About R. Moshe b. Nachman, MalbimShemot 7:25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

The Snake in the Garden of Eden – R. Saadia Gaon gives an extensive explanation of how Hashem took a regular snake, and miraculously changed it's nature to be humanoid, with human intelligence, understanding of morality, and the ability to speak.

Stories of Angels – According to this approach, there is nothing wrong with physical manifestation of angels. However, due to other textual considerations, certain stories may be explained in ways that avoid such physical manifestation.³⁷

The Plagues in Egypt – Malbim explicitly states that the plagues were supernatural, and that various details in the story prevent one from understanding the plagues to have been caused by a natural chain of cause and effect. For further elaboration, see The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?

Bilam's Donkey – According to Ibn Ezra, Bilam's donkey actually spoke, and Hashem miraculously intervened to allow this.

Stopping of the Sun at Givon – According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, the stopping of the sun at Givon was one of the greatest miracles in the history of the world. For further elaboration, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.

Manna and Quail

Divine Providence – Ramban has an extremely expansive understanding of divine intervention, viewing everything that happens in the world as caused by divine providence.

Purpose of Miracles – Ramban differentiates between two classes of miracles. The large and famous miracles, such as the exodus from Egypt, are intended as proofs of Hashem's existence, that He created the world, and His continuous providence. Meanwhile, the hidden miracles, such as rain, sickness, childbirth, and even peace or war, are intended as reward and punishment.

Mutable Nature

• Ramban views miracles as proof that nature is not unchanging, and therefore that the belief in the eternity of the world is false.
• All miracles were preordained during creation, and the laws of nature contain specific exceptions for each and every miracle. According to Rambam, nature is immutable, and therefore all miracles must have been set in nature from the day of creation.

What is Natural? Ramban understands all of nature to be directly caused by Hashem, and therefore he classes even mundane events such as birth, rain, or war as miraculous.

Divine providence

Angels – According to Rambam and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings whose physical manifestation to man would be a violation of the laws of nature. As such, they reinterpret all stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams. [Rambam does not reinterpret other apparent miracles in the same fashion, probably because other miracles in Tanakh have practical results which can not be explained if they merely took place in a dream. Since the only purpose of angels appearing is to convey information; this can be accomplished via a prophetic vision, which he undersatnds to be a natural phenomenon.[ie natural laws do allow Hashem to influence the world through prophecy and dreams]

Magic – The Mishna in Avot lists evil spirits (מזיקין) among the objects created during twilight. This would mean that non-divine magic is considered a part of nature, planned during creation

Embellished

Many of the miracles described n Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.

¹ Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]

² Accoring to Philo he symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag he represents the "כח הדמיוני".

³ See also Ralbag,Shofetim 6:36Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom though he also raises the possibility that they took place in reality or via a prophet.

⁴ See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the three "angels" which visit Avraham in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men [See Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel there as well.] and Ralbag's explanation of the story of Yaakov's wrestling with the "angel" in  Wrestling With Angels and Men. Though Rambam takes this approach almost across the board, in many cases Ralbag alternatively suggests that the so-called angels are merely prophets; see below.
Interestingly, neither use the "dream" method to explain away any other "miracles". It is possible that in cases where the apparent miracle has some type of concrete outcome, it is difficult to suggest that nothing at all occurred. As such, regarding those situations, they instead minimize the miracle by suggesting that it did not totally contravene the laws of nature. In the case of angels, in contrast, the purpose of the visit is to relay information, a deed which can be accomplished by a prophetic dream or the visit of a human prophet.

⁵ See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.

⁶ It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת" . Even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggest sthat the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness adn not actual death, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]

⁷ See also the various sources cited by  אברהם ס. אברהם, "הנשמה מלאכותית בתנ"ך?", המעין כח, ג (ירושלים תשמ"ח): 72-76.

⁸ He suggests that the language "עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא נוֹתְרָה בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה" might not mean that the boy died. He compares it to the similar metaphoric language in Daniel 10:17, "וַאֲנִי מֵעַתָּה לֹא יַעֲמׇד בִּי כֹחַ וּנְשָׁמָה לֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בִי", where it is clear that Daniel is not trying to say that he had literally died.

⁹ It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת."  In addition, even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggests that the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]

¹⁰ See R. Walfish, "עיון בפרשת עצירת השמש בגבעון", Megadim 38 (2003):43-52.

¹¹ She compares it to Devorah's statement, "מִן שָׁמַיִם נִלְחָמוּ הַכּוֹכָבִים מִמְּסִלּוֹתָם נִלְחֲמוּ עִם סִיסְרָא" in Shofetim 5:20. Just as this verse is not read literally to mean that the stars actually fought with Sisera, so, too, Yehoshua did not mean that the sun actually stopped in its tracks. Both are merely poetic flourishes.

¹² For similar examples, see also ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto on Yeshayahu 40:3-5 and RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 16:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:17Melakhim I 17:21Yeshayahu 49:11About R. David Kimchi on Yeshayahu 49:11.

¹³ As evidence, Ralbag points to  Chaggai 1:13 where the prophet Chaggai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'‏".  See also Bereshit 32:4, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".

¹⁴ This is how he explains the "מַלְאַךְ" which appears to Hagar, the three "men/angels" who visit Avraham, the "מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים" who Yaakov encounters in Bereshit 32:3 and the "מַלְאַךְ" seen by Manoach and his wife. [He similarly explains the "בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" of Bereshit 6 as being human giants and not celestial beings.]  In other cases, though, he suggests that stories which speak of angels really occurred just in a dream [see note above]. It seems that in any given story, when choosing between these two methods of discounting angels,  Ralbag is motivated by specific textual considerations (see, for example his commentsBereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37About R. Levi b. Gershom on Bereshit 19), and whether or not the individual seeing the "angel" is worthy of receiving a prophetic dream. [Thus, for example, Hagar, who was not on a level to receive a prophetic dream instead spoke with a prophet.]

¹⁵ See Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 2:29 where he states that, on the whole, the natural order of the world does not change. He points out that this does not mean that Hashem can not bring miracles when He wants to, only that Hashem normally does not. He adds that even when supernatural miracles occur and change the natural order to some extent, they are temporary phenomena, usually of short duration.  Thus, at the end nature reverts to what it was.  [It should be noted that Rambam maintains that even the resurrection of the dead in Messianic times will only be temporary, though it is possible that other factors influence that view.]

¹⁶ See also Kohelet 1:9, " מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה וּמַה שֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה הוּא שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה וְאֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ", which might suggest that a "new" phenomenon can never be created. See Ralbag who writes,  "הנה התבאר.. שהם יראו שלא יתכן שיתחדש על דרך המופת אם לא מה שיתכן שיתחדש על המנהג הטבעי באורך הזמן". A miracles can't create a phenomenon that could not otherwise happen in nature; it can simply speed up the process.

¹⁷ This last point would not be an issue for Ralbag, who does not believe that Hashem knows all of man's particulars regardless.

¹⁸ Thus, for instance, one would be motivated to reinterpret the verse which suggests that Lot's wife morphed into a pillar of salt.

¹⁹ He also speaks of miracles being proportionate to the merits of the people who receive them.  This aligns with Rambam and Ralbag's statement that the more deserving receive greater Divine providence. [However, Ralbag, in contrast to Abarbanel, assumes that the level of the prophet who performs the miracle will also affect its magnitude.  Someone who is closer to God will be able to perform a greater miracle, and of a longer duration, than someone else.]

²⁰ Thus, for example, there would seem to be no good reason to make a miracle allowing the snake in the Garden of Eden to talk.  Similarly, there would seem to be other ways of aiding the nation in battle than to wreak havoc with the entire solar system by having the "sun stand still" leading to a reinterpretation of this story as well. 
See RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 16:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:4Melakhim I 17:17Melakhim I 17:21Yeshayahu 49:11About R. David Kimchi who uses this reasoning to explain why Hashem did not make a miracle and  ensure the proper climate so as to enable the Israelites to be circumcised in the Wilderness.  Fulfilling the commandment in a timely fashion was not sufficient reason to change the natural order: ובעבור האריך זמן המצוה לא ישנה הקב״ה מנהג העולם כי אף על פי שמשנה מנהג העולם בקצת הנסים בקריעת ים סוף והירדן ועמידת השמש לא יעשה כן ברוב הנסים.

²¹ The citation of R. Saadia in Ibn Ezra does not match R. Saadia's own commentary

²² He himself understands the verse literally.

²³ In contrast, according to R. Saadia, as brought by Ibn Ezra, an angel (whom he views as being part of the natural order of the world) spoke on the snake's behalf.

²⁴ She was covered in a mound of salt from the fire and brimstone that descended on the city, just like everyone else who perished in Sedom.

²⁵ For a more modern variation of the idea that the plagues were natural phenomenon, leading from one to another in a domino effect, see Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957): 84–103 and ZAW 70 (1958): 48–59.  Her article is summarized in N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 69-73. See also, Ziony Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” Bible Review 6:3 (1990): 16-23 and J. Marr and C. Malloy, "An Epidemiologic Analysis of the Ten Plagues of Egypt," Caduceus 12:1 (1996): 7-24.

²⁶ Inundations of frogs, lice, or locusts, hailstorms, or diseases such as boils or animal plagues, are not in and of themselves supernatural.  Even the bloodying of the Nile, in the sense of its turning red, has been attested to.

²⁷ Artapanus as cited by Eusebius and Chivi as cited by Ibn Ezra take this a step further, and state that the entire miracle was just a matter of Moshe knowing the tide schedule. Ibn Ezra reacts vehemently to this belittling of the miracle, pointing out that the text does not support it, as it speaks of two walls of water surrounding the nation as they passed on dry land. See, though Ralbag who maintains that the word "wall" is metaphoric and refers to a barrier - the water prevented the Egyptians from giving chase from the right and left.

²⁸ See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "המאכילך מן מן המדבר. The miracle of the manna is minimized boy others in a second way, as they suggest that it was not the sole food source in the wilderness, and that it might not have rained down in areas where there were alternative means of acquiring food.  See Rashbam and Minchah Belulah.

²⁹ See Y. Braslavy, נס השליו במדבר in הידעת את הארץ , vol. II:.339-347. See also M. Raanan, ויאספו את השליו, who synthesizes much of the earlier research on the "שְׂלָו" Braslavy also points out aspects of the "שְׂלָו" episodes which do not fit with the natural patterns of quail migrations. These include: the arrival of the "שְׂלָו" in Iyyar, their descent upon the middle of the Sinai desert, the vast quantities which came, and Moshe's ability to predict the exact time of their coming.

³⁰ See the article by Braslavi cited above.

³¹ undefined

³² Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that the manna caused less sweat than other food, leading to less wear and tear on the clothing.

³³ See יוסף ברסלבי, "נס כריתת הירדן (יהושע א'-ד')", בית מקרא יג, ד (תשכ"ח): 23-38.

³⁴ See חזי יצחק, דניאל ויינשטוב, עוזי אבנר, "'שמש בגבעון דום וירח בעמק אילון – ליקוי חמה טבעתי ב-30 באוקטובר 1207 לפנה"ס?', בית מקרא ס"א (תשע"ו): 196-238.

³⁵ See A. Malamat, "Early Israelite Warfare and the Conquest of Canaan", Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies (1978):19-21.

³⁶ If one posits that angels in general are a natural phenomenon, it is not necessarily a big step to suggest that they were created with this ability. Ralbag and Rambam, nonetheless, find this assumption problematic, maintaining that it is not natural for a non-corporeal angel to somehow be manifest to a human.  Therefore, they suggest, as mentioned above, that all appearance of angels should either be reinterpreted as human messengers or as occurring in a prophetic dream.

³⁷ See, for example, Radak's explanation of Avraham's guests (see details in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?), where he states that the angels did not appear to Avraham physically, but in a dream, while in the following chapter physical angels manifest in Sodom, and interact with Lot and the residents of Sodom. See also Wrestling With Angels and Men.