Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<point><b>Immutability of nature</b> – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.<fn>See Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 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. Ralbag adds that any permanent change in nature is impossible because that suggests that Hashem's original creation must have been flawed, and that there was some beneficial aspect that had not been incorporated.</fn> If Hashem set the laws of nature, and He does not change, then the laws He established must be unchanging as well,<fn>See Ralbag who writes, "כי השם יתברך איננו שונה הסדור הטבעי כי הוא בראו".</fn> as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).<fn>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. Ralbag, in fact, says as much: "הנה התבאר.. שהם יראו שלא יתכן שיתחדש על דרך המופת אם לא מה שיתכן שיתחדש על המנהג הטבעי באורך הזמן". According to him, it is not possible to create a totally new object or for a phenomenon that does not otherwise exist in nature to be introduced since this would imply a change in nature. So-called miracles simply speed up otherwise "natural" processes; they do not inherently change the natural order. [It should be noted, however, that what a modern individual might view as a "new" object might not be perceived as such by Ralbag. For example, Ralbag maintains that transforming one object into another is not creating something new and does not negate the laws of nature; an object can shed one form to take on another, given enough time.  Thus, changing a staff into a snake and the like is still working within "nature".]</fn>  Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, or that Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.<fn>This last point might not be an issue for Ralbag, who does not believe that Hashem knows all of man's particulars regardless.</fn></point> | <point><b>Immutability of nature</b> – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.<fn>See Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 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. Ralbag adds that any permanent change in nature is impossible because that suggests that Hashem's original creation must have been flawed, and that there was some beneficial aspect that had not been incorporated.</fn> If Hashem set the laws of nature, and He does not change, then the laws He established must be unchanging as well,<fn>See Ralbag who writes, "כי השם יתברך איננו שונה הסדור הטבעי כי הוא בראו".</fn> as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).<fn>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. Ralbag, in fact, says as much: "הנה התבאר.. שהם יראו שלא יתכן שיתחדש על דרך המופת אם לא מה שיתכן שיתחדש על המנהג הטבעי באורך הזמן". According to him, it is not possible to create a totally new object or for a phenomenon that does not otherwise exist in nature to be introduced since this would imply a change in nature. So-called miracles simply speed up otherwise "natural" processes; they do not inherently change the natural order. [It should be noted, however, that what a modern individual might view as a "new" object might not be perceived as such by Ralbag. For example, Ralbag maintains that transforming one object into another is not creating something new and does not negate the laws of nature; an object can shed one form to take on another, given enough time.  Thus, changing a staff into a snake and the like is still working within "nature".]</fn>  Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, or that Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.<fn>This last point might not be an issue for Ralbag, who does not believe that Hashem knows all of man's particulars regardless.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Limited view of Divine providence</b> – The less one views Hashem as actively involved in running the world, the less likely one is to suggest that He constantly intervenes 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.<fn>Thus, for instance, one would be motivated to reinterpret the verses which suggests that Lot's wife morphed into a pillar of salt, or that a well was supernaturally created for Hagar and Yishmael. [In the latter case, Ralbag posits that Hashem's intervention came only out of providence for the deserving Avraham.]</fn></point> | <point><b>Limited view of Divine providence</b> – The less one views Hashem as actively involved in running the world, the less likely one is to suggest that He constantly intervenes 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.<fn>Thus, for instance, one would be motivated to reinterpret the verses which suggests that Lot's wife morphed into a pillar of salt, or that a well was supernaturally created for Hagar and Yishmael. [In the latter case, Ralbag posits that Hashem's intervention came only out of providence for the deserving Avraham.]</fn></point> | ||
| − | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Disproportionate miracles?</b> Abarbanel claims that the magnitude of a miracle is directly proportional to the need that prompts it.<fn>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.  [Thus, he might be less bothered by miracles which seem disproportionate to their need, as long as the agent who performed them was worthy.]</fn>  Thus, if a miracle seems disproportionate to the benefit that it grants, there is a reason to minimize it.<fn>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 Yehoshua and nation in battle than to wreak havoc with the entire solar system by having the "sun stand still"..  <br/>See also <multilink><a href="RadakYehoshua5-2" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakYehoshua5-2" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 5:2</a><a href="RadakShemuelI16-2" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 16:2</a><a href="RadakShemuelI28-24" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 28:24</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:4</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-17" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:17</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:21</a><a href="RadakYeshayahu49-11" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 49:11</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Impossibility of self-contradictions</b> – Ralbag maintains that self-contradictory situations cannot exist.  For instance, it is impossible that an object could be all white and all black simultaneously.  Since this is logically impossible, no miracle can accomplish such a feat either.<fn>There are those who allow for such contradictions  For example, see R. Chisda in Bavli Shabbat 104a who posits that the words on the Tablets were chiseled in such a manner that they could be read from both sides.</fn> As such, any event which appears to do so, would need to be reinterpreted.</point> | <point><b>Impossibility of self-contradictions</b> – Ralbag maintains that self-contradictory situations cannot exist.  For instance, it is impossible that an object could be all white and all black simultaneously.  Since this is logically impossible, no miracle can accomplish such a feat either.<fn>There are those who allow for such contradictions  For example, see R. Chisda in Bavli Shabbat 104a who posits that the words on the Tablets were chiseled in such a manner that they could be read from both sides.</fn> As such, any event which appears to do so, would need to be reinterpreted.</point> | ||
<point><b>Superiority of Moshe</b> – 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 <a href="Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders" data-aht="page">Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders</a> for elaboration.</point> | <point><b>Superiority of Moshe</b> – 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 <a href="Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders" data-aht="page">Moshe's Epitaph – Signs and Wonders</a> for elaboration.</point> | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
<opinion>Literal Readings | <opinion>Literal Readings | ||
<p>Miracles in Tanakh are understood to have occurred as described.</p> | <p>Miracles in Tanakh are understood to have occurred as described.</p> | ||
| − | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Avot</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Avot 5:6</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot16-32" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot16-32" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:32</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim33-21" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim33-21" data-aht="source">33:21</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah5-5-6" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah5-5-6" data-aht="source">5:5-6</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>,  | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Mishna Avot</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Avot 5:6</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot16-32" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaDeRabbiYishmaelShemot16-32" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:32</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim33-21" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim33-21" data-aht="source">33:21</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah5-5-6" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah5-5-6" data-aht="source">5:5-6</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>, , <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit3-1" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit3-1" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 3:1</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <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="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary3-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar22-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22:28</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>,  <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-16" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBereshit18-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:19</a><a href="RambanShemot6-2" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:2</a><a href="RambanShemot13-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:16</a><a href="RambanShemot16-6-7" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:6-7</a><a href="RambanDevarim11-13" data-aht="source">Devarim 11:13</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot7-25" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot7-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 7:25</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink></mekorot> |
| − | <point><b>Miracles and nature</b></point> | + | <point><b>Miracles and nature</b> – This position blurs the line between the natural and supernatural, suggesting either that natural law does not really exist, as all so-called "natural phenomena" are really also manifestations of direct Divine intervention, or that the supernatural is "pre-programmed" nature. As such, these sources are quite comfortable with taking Biblical accounts of miracles at face value, and preserving their supernatural elements.</point> |
| − | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Immutability of nature</b> – These sources divide on this issue:<br/> |
| − | <point><b>Divine Providence</b> – Ramban | + | <ul> |
| − | <point><b>Purpose of Miracles</b> – Ramban differentiates between two classes of miracles. The large and famous miracles, such as the | + | <li>Mutable – According Ramban, nature is mutable. Natural law can be utilized, molded, or suspended at Hashem's will. Since it is Hashem who created the laws to begin with, He can change them as He sees fit.<fn>See the story in Bavli Taanit 25a regarding Rabbi Chanina b. Dosa's daughter who accidentally used vinegar rather than oil to light for Shabbat.  Her father famously replies, "בתי, מאי איכפת לך? מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק".  According to him, too, natural law is mutable. If Hashem wants, He can set vinegar to burn just as He had previously set oil to do so.</fn> In fact, it is the very existence of miracles which attests to Hashem's role as Creator.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-16" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:16</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> who writes, "כאשר ירצה האלהים בעדה או ביחיד ויעשה עמהם מופת בשנוי מנהגו של עולם וטבעו, יתברר לכל… כי המופת הנפלא מורה שיש לעולם אלוה מחדשו". Ramban explains away the apparent contradiction regarding the reasoning for observance of Shabbat as preserved in Shemot in Devarim in the same manner.  Saying that Shabbat commemorates the exodus is identical to saying that it commemorates Creation, since the Exodus is what testifies to Creation.</fn></li> |
| + | <li>Immutable – R. Yochanan in Bereshit Rabbah,<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RambamCommentaryontheMishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamCommentaryontheMishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Commentary on the Mishna Avot 5:6</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>'s understanding of the mishnah in <multilink><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Avot</a><a href="MishnaAvot5-6" data-aht="source">Avot 5:6</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> which lists the ten supernatural objects created at twilight of the sixth day of creation.  He suggests that it, too, is trying to deal with the oxymoron of the immutability of nature and the simultaneous existence of supernatural phenomena.  The mishnah concludes that these miracles do not contravene nature, for they were built into the laws of nature to begin with.</fn> in contrast, implies that though nature is immutable, the existence of later supernatural phenomena is nonetheless not problematic because miracles were built into the very laws of nature. In the beginning of time, Hashem already commanded that there were to be certain exceptions to natural law.</li> | ||
| + | </ul></point> | ||
| + | <point><b>Divine Providence</b> – Ramban's view on Divine providence, as expressed in his comments to Shemot 13, is very expansive. He points out that belief in a system of reward and punishment mandates belief in constant providence and intervention.  For, if rain, or health or victory in war, is contingent on Torah observance, that means that each comes is accord with a person's deeds, and not because of natural order.</point> | ||
| + | <point><b>The natural vs. the supernatural</b> – Ramban's views on the mutability of nature and the prevalence of Divine providence lead him to conclude: אין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שנאמין בכל דברינו" ומקרינו שכלם נסים אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם. The natural and supernatural are not really distinct because even seemingly natural events are Divinely guided. Such a worldview sees no reason to reduce the supernatural elements in descriptions of Biblical miracles, and so Ramban usually takes them literally.</point> | ||
| + | <point><b>Purpose of Miracles</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>The Snake in the Garden of Eden</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>The Snake in the Garden of Eden</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Stories of Angels</b> – 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.<fn>See, for example, Radak's explanation of Avraham's guests (see details in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?</a>), 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 <a href="Wrestling With Angels and Men" data-aht="page">Wrestling With Angels and Men</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>Stories of Angels</b> – 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.<fn>See, for example, Radak's explanation of Avraham's guests (see details in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?</a>), 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 <a href="Wrestling With Angels and Men" data-aht="page">Wrestling With Angels and Men</a>.</fn></point> | ||
| Line 111: | Line 116: | ||
<opinion>Embellished Accounts | <opinion>Embellished Accounts | ||
<p>Many of the miracles described in Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.</p> | <p>Many of the miracles described in Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.</p> | ||
| + | <mekorot>Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</mekorot> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Version as of 03:03, 6 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.
Miracles and nature – This position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order, and that even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized and not completely suspended. Discomfort with and the desire to minimize miracles might stem from a number of philosophical assumptions, as laid out in the following bullets:
Immutability of nature – The desire to minimize miracles stems, in part, from a belief in the immutability of the laws of nature.1 If Hashem set the laws of nature, and He does not change, then the laws He established must be unchanging as well,2 as He Himself says, "עֹד כׇּל יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ זֶרַע וְקָצִיר וְקֹר וָחֹם וְקַיִץ וָחֹרֶף וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ" (Bereshit 8:22).3 Moreover, since natural law attests to the perfection of Hashem's Creation, any change thereof appears to suggest that Creation was not perfect, or that Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.4
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 constantly intervenes 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.5
Disproportionate miracles? Abarbanel claims that the magnitude of a miracle is directly proportional to the need that prompts it.6 Thus, if a miracle seems disproportionate to the benefit that it grants, there is a reason to minimize it.7
Impossibility of self-contradictions – Ralbag maintains that self-contradictory situations cannot exist. For instance, it is impossible that an object could be all white and all black simultaneously. Since this is logically impossible, no miracle can accomplish such a feat either.8 As such, any event which appears to do so, would need to be reinterpreted.
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.
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, Philo and Ralbag understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,9 with the snake acting only as a symbol.10 As such, the serpent never talked.
Dreams – Other miracles are discounted by assuming that they occurred only in a dream and not 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
People's perspective – In several instances, a totally natural event is viewed as miraculous only due to the perceptions of the people viewing the event.
- 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.
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. 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
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 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.
Human agency
Miracles not addressed
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.
Sources:Artapanus, R. Saadia Gaon in Ibn Ezra25, Chivi in Ibn Ezra, Radak, R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Ralbag,26 27 Shadal, R. David Zvi Hoffmann, U. Cassuto
Miracles and nature – As above, this position assumes that, for the most part, the world is run via natural order. Even when there is Divine intervention, the laws of nature are utilized, as Hashem attempts to veer from natural law as little as possible.
Philosophical motivations – This position is motivated to minimize miracles 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, the impossibility of self-contradictions, and the need to ensure the supremacy of Moshe's wonders. See discussion above for details.
Methods used – As opposed to the above approach, which suggested that certain "miraculous" events did not take place at all, this position suggests that in many cases, the event described in Tanakh did actually occur, just that it employed natural means.28 Many examples of how the proponents of this position read nature into the various seemingly supernatural episodes in Tanakh follow:
Talking animals – 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:
- 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.
Rainbow – 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.
Mixing up of languages – 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.31
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.32
The Plagues in Egypt
- 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?
Splitting of Yam Suf – Rashbam, Ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, and various scholars cited by Shadal and Cassuto 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.35 For further elaboration, see Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?
Victory over Amalek – Rashbam 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.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.
Splitting the Jordan – Y. Braslavy41 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 eclipse42 or that the sun's positioning blinded the enemy.43 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.44
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:
Prophecy and Nature
National vs. individual miracles
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.
Sources:Mishna Avot, Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Sifre Devarim, Bereshit Rabbah, , R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Malbim
Miracles and nature – This position blurs the line between the natural and supernatural, suggesting either that natural law does not really exist, as all so-called "natural phenomena" are really also manifestations of direct Divine intervention, or that the supernatural is "pre-programmed" nature. As such, these sources are quite comfortable with taking Biblical accounts of miracles at face value, and preserving their supernatural elements.
Immutability of nature – These sources divide on this issue:
- Mutable – According Ramban, nature is mutable. Natural law can be utilized, molded, or suspended at Hashem's will. Since it is Hashem who created the laws to begin with, He can change them as He sees fit.45 In fact, it is the very existence of miracles which attests to Hashem's role as Creator.46
- Immutable – R. Yochanan in Bereshit Rabbah,47 in contrast, implies that though nature is immutable, the existence of later supernatural phenomena is nonetheless not problematic because miracles were built into the very laws of nature. In the beginning of time, Hashem already commanded that there were to be certain exceptions to natural law.
Divine Providence – Ramban's view on Divine providence, as expressed in his comments to Shemot 13, is very expansive. He points out that belief in a system of reward and punishment mandates belief in constant providence and intervention. For, if rain, or health or victory in war, is contingent on Torah observance, that means that each comes is accord with a person's deeds, and not because of natural order.
The natural vs. the supernatural – Ramban's views on the mutability of nature and the prevalence of Divine providence lead him to conclude: אין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שנאמין בכל דברינו" ומקרינו שכלם נסים אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם. The natural and supernatural are not really distinct because even seemingly natural events are Divinely guided. Such a worldview sees no reason to reduce the supernatural elements in descriptions of Biblical miracles, and so Ramban usually takes them literally.
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.
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.48
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
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 Accounts
Many of the miracles described in Tanakh are embellished, and described as even more miraculous than they originally seem.
Sources:Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer
