Difference between revisions of "Philosophy:Miracles/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<point><b>Miracles and nature</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Miracles and nature</b> – 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.</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 is unchanging, 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 is unchanging, 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.  He does not elaborate further about the supernatural aspects of the incident, but it is possible that he would posit that Hashem simply helped Hagar find a well that had already existed, rather than creating one.]</fn></point> |
<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 provides, 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>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 provides, 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 | + | <point><b>Superiority of Moshe</b> – Another factor which might motivate one to reinterpret supernatural events relates only to several specific miracles, and 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>Methods used</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Methods used</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Allegorical stories</b> – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, <multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim 6:36</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3</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="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-23-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32</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="RalbagMelakhimIToalot17-15" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 17:15</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,<fn>Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]</fn> with the snake acting only as a symbol.<fn>Accoring to Philo, the snake symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag, he represents the "כח הדמיוני".</fn> As such, the serpent never talked.</point> | <point><b>Allegorical stories</b> – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, <multilink><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQuestionsandAnswersonGenesisI31" data-aht="source">Questions and Answers on Genesis I 31</a><a href="PhiloOntheCreation156-166" data-aht="source">On the Creation 156-166</a><a href="PhiloAllegoricalInterpretationII71-78" data-aht="source">Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShofetim6-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim 6:36</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot3" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3</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="RalbagBereshitBeurHaParashah32-23-32" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32</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="RalbagMelakhimIToalot17-15" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 17:15</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,<fn>Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]</fn> with the snake acting only as a symbol.<fn>Accoring to Philo, the snake symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag, he represents the "כח הדמיוני".</fn> As such, the serpent never talked.</point> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<li><b>Physical manifestations of angels</b> – According to Rambam and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings<fn>Rambam does not assume that the actual existence of angels is supernatural or impossible, and describes them as one of three categories of creation: "וּמֵהֶן בְּרוּאִים צוּרָה בְּלֹא גּלֶם כְּלָל וְהֵם הַמַּלְאָכִים. שֶׁהַמַּלְאָכִים אֵינָם גּוּף וּגְוִיָּה אֶלָּא צוּרוֹת נִפְרָדוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ" (Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 2:3).  See also Moreh Nevukhim 3:45 where he states that belief in the existence of angels follows from belief in the existence of Hashem. It is only the corporeality of angels which he finds problematic.</fn> whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature.<fn>As seen above, according to Ralbag, even miracles cannot create self-contradictory situations (something cannot be all black and all white simultaneously).  As such, he might find it impossible for an incorporeal being to be corporeal.</fn> As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.<fn>See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the three "angels" which visit Avraham in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men</a> [See Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel there as well.] and Ralbag's explanation of the story of Yaakov's wrestling with the "angel" in  <a href="Wrestling With Angels and Men" data-aht="page">Wrestling With Angels and Men</a>. Though Rambam takes this approach almost across the board, in many cases Ralbag alternatively suggests that the so-called angels are merely prophets; see below.</fn></li> | <li><b>Physical manifestations of angels</b> – According to Rambam and Ralbag, angels are incorporeal beings<fn>Rambam does not assume that the actual existence of angels is supernatural or impossible, and describes them as one of three categories of creation: "וּמֵהֶן בְּרוּאִים צוּרָה בְּלֹא גּלֶם כְּלָל וְהֵם הַמַּלְאָכִים. שֶׁהַמַּלְאָכִים אֵינָם גּוּף וּגְוִיָּה אֶלָּא צוּרוֹת נִפְרָדוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ" (Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 2:3).  See also Moreh Nevukhim 3:45 where he states that belief in the existence of angels follows from belief in the existence of Hashem. It is only the corporeality of angels which he finds problematic.</fn> whose physical manifestation to man, a material being, would be a violation of the laws of nature.<fn>As seen above, according to Ralbag, even miracles cannot create self-contradictory situations (something cannot be all black and all white simultaneously).  As such, he might find it impossible for an incorporeal being to be corporeal.</fn> As such, they reinterpret many stories which mention angels appearing or speaking as being prophetic dreams.<fn>See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the three "angels" which visit Avraham in <a href="Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men" data-aht="page">Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men</a> [See Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel there as well.] and Ralbag's explanation of the story of Yaakov's wrestling with the "angel" in  <a href="Wrestling With Angels and Men" data-aht="page">Wrestling With Angels and Men</a>. Though Rambam takes this approach almost across the board, in many cases Ralbag alternatively suggests that the so-called angels are merely prophets; see below.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>People's perspective</b> – In several instances, a totally natural event is | + | <point><b>People's perspective</b> – In several instances, a totally natural event is presented as miraculous only due to the perceptions of the people viewing the event.<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Sun standing still</b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink><fn>See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.</fn> 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.<fn>It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת" . Even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggest sthat the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness adn not actual death, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]</fn></li> | <li><b>Sun standing still</b> – <multilink><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua10-12-13" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 10:12-13</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot18-37" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 18:37</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink><fn>See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.</fn> 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.<fn>It is possible that the same idea is not suggested by the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states, "וַיָּמֹת" . Even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggest sthat the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer to a severe sickness adn not actual death, in which case this story , too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]</fn></li> | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<li><b>"וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר"</b> – <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:4</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.</li> | <li><b>"וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר"</b> – <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI17-4" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 17:4</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion name="No Violation of Nature"> | <opinion name="No Violation of Nature"> | ||
Version as of 22:31, 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.
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 is unchanging, 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 provides, 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 factor which might motivate one to reinterpret supernatural events relates only to several specific miracles, and 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 presented 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 becoming 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.
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. 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.
"וְאִם בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא ה" – Moshe's statement would seem to imply that a totally new phenomenon was about to be created, an impossibility according to Ralbag's view of nature. One might explain, however, that here, too, Hashem employed nature, bringing the equivalent of an earthquake or quicksand. It was a new "creation" only because of the speed in which it was created (Ralbag) or perhaps, because the nation had never before witnessed such a phenomenon.
Splitting the Jordan – Y. Braslavy40 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 eclipse41 or that the sun's positioning blinded the enemy.42 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.43
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
Mutability of nature – These sources divide on the question of whether or not nature is unchanging:
- 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.
Divine providence
- Total – Ramban's view on Divine providence, as expressed in his comments to Shemot 13, is very expansive.47 He points out that belief in a system of reward and punishment mandates belief in continuous providence and intervention. For, if rain, health, or victory in war are contingent on Torah observance, that means that each comes in accord with a person's deeds, and not because of natural order. This leads Ramban to conclude: "אין לאדם חלק בתורת משה רבינו עד שנאמין בכל דברינו" ומקרינו שכלם נסים אין בהם טבע ומנהגו של עולם."48
- More limited – This position, however, could also suggest that Divine providence is more limited. Hashem normally lets nature run its course, but when there is either a physical or spiritual threat, He momentarily intervenes and overrides natural law to fill the nation's need.
Miracles and nature – This approach offers two ways of looking at the relationship between the natural and supernatural:
- Ramban and R. Yochanan blur the line between the two, suggesting either that natural law does not really exist, as all so-called "natural phenomena" are really also manifestations of direct Divine intervention (Ramban), or that the supernatural is preprogrammed and therefore part of nature (R. Yochanan).
- Alternatively, this approach might posit that there is a marked distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena. The latter requires a suspension or overturning of the laws of nature. This, though, is possible because nature is mutable and Hashem can mold it to His desires.
Disproportionate miracles
- Ramban, who blurs the line between the natural and supernatural, viewing both as instances of direct Divine intervention, might not differentiate between the magnitude of various "miracles". As such, the concept of a miracle which is disproportional to the benefit which it provides does not exist. Moreover, since so-called supernatural miracles testify to Hashem's creative abilities, they always provide tremendous benefit to those viewing them regardless.
- Those who view miracles as being a direct response to the needs of the nation, however, might suggest, as does Abarbanel, that the magnitude of a miracle should be in direct proportion to the problem it is coming to fix.49
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.50
The Plagues in Egypt – Malbim explicitly states that the plagues were supernatural, attacking Abarbanel for suggesting that they were caused by a natural chain of cause and effect. He attempts to show how certain elements in the story, such as the mention of a seven day break after the initial plague of blood struck, eliminates his reading.
Bilam's Donkey – According to Ibn Ezra, Bilam's donkey actually spoke, and Hashem miraculously intervened to allow this.
Manna and Quail
Magic – The Mishnah in Avot lists evil spirits (מזיקין) among the objects created during twilight. This would suggest 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
Mutable nature – As above, this position views nature as mutable. Since it is Hashem who created the laws to begin with, He can change them as He sees fit.
Divine providence – This position might view Divine providence as being somewhat limited. Hashem normally runs the world through nature, only intermittently intervening in response to the people's needs. It is specifically because Hashem does not always intervene, that this position attempts to make the instances in which He does do so, even more blatant than implied by the simple reading of the text. It might be similarly motivated to not only embellish but even add instances of supernatural phenomenon that are barely alluded to in the text. In so doing, it highlights that Hashem is still involved in the world, actively caring for His creations.
Disproportionate miracles – This position is not troubled by seemingly "disproportionate miracles" because it views all miracles as offering tremendous benefit to their audiences, unrelated to the specific need which might have promoted them. Every miracle serves as proof of Hashem's existence, role as Creator, and His continuous providence.
The Plagues
- Though Sefer Shemot does not say that the nation of Israel was unaffected by the plague of blood,51 Shemot Rabbah 9:10 not only claims that there was differentiation, but that if an Egyptian and Israelite shared a cup, it would be blood for the Egyptians water for the Israelites.
- Shemot Rabbah understands the phrase "וְלֹא קָמוּ אִישׁ מִתַּחְתָּיו שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים" to mean that the Egyptians were frozen in place during the plague; one who was standing did not sit and vice versa. [The simple understanding would seem to be that they simply did not leave their homes.]
Splitting the Sea – Tanchuma suggests that not only did Hashem split the sea, but it divided into twelve lanes, one for each tribe. Shemot Rabbah further suggests that little trees sprung up in the sea, so that the Israelites could pluck from their fruit as they passed through.
Manna – Though Shemot and Bemidbar describe the manna as having the taste of honey or fat, R. Yehoshua in Mekhilta DeRashbi posits that it could take on all the tatses in the world.
The tablets – R. Chisda in Bavli Shabbat 104a posits that the words on the Tablets were chiseled in such a manner that, though the chiseling extended through to the other side of the stone, nonetheless the words on both sides could be read properly. This would seem to be impossible, as the letters on one side should have been the mirror image of the other.
Stopping the sun – According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, the sun did not stand still for a mere couple of hours but an entire 36!
Added miracles – Various midrashim preserve many stories regarding Hashem's providence over the righteous, which are not mentioned in Tanakh. These include Avraham being saved from the fiery furnace, Yaakov's and Moshe's neck turning into marble so that Esav and Paroh, respectively, could not kill them,
