Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
<point><b>Talking animals</b> – This position assumes that both the snake in Eden and Bilam's donkey communicated to those around them, but using animal sounds rather than human speech:<br/> | <point><b>Talking animals</b> – This position assumes that both the snake in Eden and Bilam's donkey communicated to those around them, but using animal sounds rather than human speech:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Snake in Eden</b> – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 3:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>He himself understands the verse literally.</fn> suggests that Chavvah understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.<fn>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.</fn> Abarbanel explains similarly, suggesting that the snakes' eating of the fruit without suffering any harmful consequences, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.</li> | + | <li><b>Snake in Eden</b> – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 3:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>He himself understands the verse literally.</fn> suggests that Chavvah understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.<fn>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.</fn> <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit3-1" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 3:1</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> explains similarly, suggesting that the snakes' eating of the fruit without suffering any harmful consequences, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.</li> |
<li><b>Bilam's donkey</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> explains the donkey's speech in the same manner, claiming that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech. </li> | <li><b>Bilam's donkey</b> – <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> explains the donkey's speech in the same manner, claiming that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech. </li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Rainbow</b> – Ralbag rejects the possibility that the rainbow was a new creation, made only in the aftermath of the flood, instead claiming that it existed since creation, but was only now being used as a sign. The phrase, "אֶת קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן" does not mean that right now, for the first time, was a rainbow placed in the sky, but only that it began to act as a sign now.</point> | + | <point><b>Rainbow</b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah9-12" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah9-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 9:12</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> rejects the possibility that the rainbow was a new creation, made only in the aftermath of the flood, instead claiming that it existed since creation, but was only now being used as a sign. The phrase, "אֶת קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן" does not mean that right now, for the first time, was a rainbow placed in the sky, but only that it began to act as a sign now.</point> |
− | <point><b>Mixing up of languages</b> – <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-8" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary11-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 11:7</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 11:8</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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.<fn>Though in this case | + | <point><b>Mixing up of languages</b> – <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-8" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary11-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 11:7</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 11:8</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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.<fn>Though in this case Ibn Ezra offers a natural explanation for the episode, in many other cases, he prefers the "supernatural" explanation over the "natural" one.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Lot's Wife</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Lot's Wife</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>The Plagues in Egypt</b><ul> | <point><b>The Plagues in Egypt</b><ul> | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
<li><multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:18</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot8-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:2</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:5</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-8-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:8-10</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot10-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:22</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:17</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="UCassutoShemot9-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:9</a><a href="UCassutoShemot10-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:14</a><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink> further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,<fn>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.</fn> stating that the miracle was simply in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see <a href="The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?</a></li> | <li><multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot7-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:18</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot8-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:2</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:5</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot9-8-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:8-10</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot10-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:22</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:17</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="UCassutoShemot9-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:9</a><a href="UCassutoShemot10-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:14</a><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink> further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,<fn>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.</fn> stating that the miracle was simply in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see <a href="The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?</a></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Splitting of Yam Suf</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot14-21" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot14-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21</a><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:11</a><a href="RashbamDevarim2-7" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:7</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot14-20-21" data-aht="source">Ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiTiratKesef2-3" data-aht="source">Tirat Kesef 2:3</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot11-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 11:10</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot14-20-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:20-21</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, Ralbag, and various scholars cited by <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:17</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="UCassutoShemot9-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:9</a><a href="UCassutoShemot10-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:14</a><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink> all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "eastern 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.<fn>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.</fn>  For further elaboration, see <a href="Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?</a></point> | + | <point><b>Splitting of Yam Suf</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot14-21" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot14-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21</a><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:11</a><a href="RashbamDevarim2-7" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:7</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot14-20-21" data-aht="source">Ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiTiratKesef2-3" data-aht="source">Tirat Kesef 2:3</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot11-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 11:10</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemot14-20-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:20-21</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagShemotBeurHaMilot14-21" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3:1</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah9-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 9:12</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot16-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot18-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah19-37" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot21-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-23-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32</a><a href="RalbagShemotBeurHaMilot14-21" data-aht="source">Shemot Beur HaMilot 14:21</a><a href="RalbagShemotBeurHaMilot16-4" data-aht="source">Shemot Beur HaMilot 16:4</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar16-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16:28</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar17-23" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:23</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar22-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:21</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua4-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 4:20</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim 6:36</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot17-15" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 17:15</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimI17-16" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:16</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="RalbagMilchamotHashem6-2-10" data-aht="source">Milchamot Hashem 6:2:10</a><a href="RalbagMilchamotHashem6-2-11" data-aht="source">Milchamot Hashem 6:2:11</a><a href="RalbagMilchamotHashem6-2-12" data-aht="source">Milchamot Hashem 6:2:12</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, and various scholars cited by <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:11</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:20</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="ShadalShemot8-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 8:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot9-3" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:3</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:4</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:15</a><a href="ShadalShemot10-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:21</a><a href="ShadalShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar22-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:2</a><a href="ShadalYeshayahu40-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 40:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:17</a><a href="UCassutoShemot7-27" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:27</a><a href="UCassutoShemot9-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9:9</a><a href="UCassutoShemot10-14" data-aht="source">Shemot 10:14</a><a href="UCassutoShemot14-21-22" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:21-22</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink> all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "eastern 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.<fn>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.</fn>  For further elaboration, see <a href="Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural" data-aht="page">Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?</a></point> |
<point><b>Victory over Amalek</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:11</a><a href="RashbamDevarim2-7" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:7</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> 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.</point> | <point><b>Victory over Amalek</b> – <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot17-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 17:11</a><a href="RashbamDevarim2-7" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:7</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | <point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Manna</b> – 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.<fn>See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "<a href="https://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/printitem.asp?item=1374">המאכילך מן מן המדבר</a>. 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.</fn> </li> | + | <li><b>Manna</b> – As early as <multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews31-6" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews31-6" data-aht="source">3 1:6</a><a href="Josephus Antiquities of the Jews" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews</a></multilink>, 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.<fn>See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "<a href="https://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/printitem.asp?item=1374">המאכילך מן מן המדבר</a>. 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.</fn> </li> |
<li><b>Selav</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Some modern scholars<fn>See the article by Braslavi cited above.</fn> 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.<fn>undefined</fn>  For discussion, see <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl</a>.</li> | <li><b>Selav</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Some modern scholars<fn>See the article by Braslavi cited above.</fn> 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.<fn>undefined</fn>  For discussion, see <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl</a>.</li> | ||
<li><b>Clothing</b> – 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.<fn>Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that the manna caused less sweat than other food, leading to less wear and tear on the clothing.</fn> For further discussion of the degree to which the nation led a miraculous existence throughout the sojourn in the Wilderness, see <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">Life in the Wilderness</a>.</li> | <li><b>Clothing</b> – 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.<fn>Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that the manna caused less sweat than other food, leading to less wear and tear on the clothing.</fn> For further discussion of the degree to which the nation led a miraculous existence throughout the sojourn in the Wilderness, see <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">Life in the Wilderness</a>.</li> |
Version as of 23:10, 5 December 2018
Miracles
Exegetical Approaches
Reducing the Supernatural
There is an attempt to minimize the prevalence of apparently supernatural phenomena described in Tanakh, either by suggesting that certain miraculous phenomena did not occur at all, or by suggesting that the events did not contravene the laws of nature.
Some Miracles Didn't Happen
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.
- Bilam's donkey – According to Rambam and Ralbag, Bilam's entire encounter with the donkey took place only in a prophetic dream, so the donkey never actively spoke.
- Gidon's signs – Rambam11 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 Rambam and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings12 whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature.13 As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.14
- Sun standing still – Ralbag15 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.16
- Reviving the "dead" - According to one opinion brought (and rejected) by Radak,17 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.18 Thus, though Eliyahu only resuscitated the boy,19 it was perceived as if he miraculously brought him back from the dead.
- Sun standing still – R. Walfish20 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.21 For elaboration, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.
- Miracles in the End of Days – According to Rambam, 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.22
- Lot's wife – According to Ralbag the 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" – Ralbag points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger23 and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man, but might instead refer to human prophets.24
- "וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר" – Radak 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.
No Violation of Natural Order
Stories which mentions wondrous, seemingly unnatural events, happened in reality, but never completely violated the laws of nature. Divine intervention is noticeable only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.
- Snake in Eden – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by Ibn Ezra29 suggests that Chavvah understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.30 Abarbanel explains similarly, suggesting that the snakes' eating of the fruit without suffering any harmful consequences, expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן" though no words were spoken.
- Bilam's donkey – Shadal explains the donkey's speech in the same manner, claiming that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech.
- Ibn Kaspi and 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.33
- Shadal, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,34 stating that the miracle was simply in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?
- 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.36
- 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.37 Some modern scholars38 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.39 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.40 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.
Preserving the Supernatural
Stories of miracles should be understood literally as historical accounts of what happened.
Literal Readings
Miracles in Tanakh are understood to have occurred as described.
- 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.
Embellished Accounts
Many of the miracles described in Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.