Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
<point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | <point><b>Wilderness miracles</b><ul> | ||
<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>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. | + | <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. 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> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
<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>, , <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> | <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> – 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 | + | <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 built into nature. As such, these sources are quite comfortable with taking Biblical accounts of miracles at face value, and preserving their supernatural elements. The following bullets lay out the various philosophical assumptions which lead to these conclusions:</point> |
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Mutability of nature</b> – These sources divide on the question of whether or not nature is unchanging:<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <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><b>Mutable</b> – 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> | + | <li><b>Immutable</b> – 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> | </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>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> |
Version as of 03:20, 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.
- 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. 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.39 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.
- 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.44 In fact, it is the very existence of miracles which attests to Hashem's role as Creator.45
- Immutable – R. Yochanan in Bereshit Rabbah,46 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.
- 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.