Philosophy:Miracles/2

Miracles

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators offer a spectrum of opinions as to how to view Biblical descriptions of supernatural events.  These reflect different assumptions about the mutability of nature, the extent of Divine providence, the purpose of miracles, and the line between the natural and supernatural.

Rambam and Ralbag attempt to minimize the supernatural events of Tanakh, suggesting that Hashem attempts to preserve natural order as much as possible.  In several instances, they posit that seemingly supernatural events never occurred and that the passages describing them are not meant to be taken literally.  In other instances, they claim that the events did indeed take place, but that they did not contravene the laws of nature.

Several Midrashic sources and Ramban, in contrast, prefer to understand the miracles as indeed occurring supernaturally. While Ramban tends to take the verses at face value, many of the Midrashic sources often embellish the descriptions, making them even more miraculous than they originally seem.

Reducing the Supernatural

The number of seemingly supernatural phenomena described in Tanakh is minimized, either by suggesting that the stories should not be read literally, 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 in a non-literal way.

Sources:Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 3:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 9:12Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Shemot Beur HaMilot 14:21Shemot Beur HaMilot 16:4Bemidbar 16:28Bemidbar 17:23Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Shofetim 6:36Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I 17:16Melakhim I Toalot 18:37Milchamot Hashem 6:2:10Milchamot Hashem 6:2:11Milchamot Hashem 6:2:12About R. Levi b. Gershom

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 in it appears to suggest that either Creation was not perfect or Hashem had not foreseen all that was necessary.⁴

Limited view of Divine providence – The less one views Hashem as actively involved in controlling the minute details of daily life, 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 operates via nature, are more likely to view Biblical events as working through natural order. 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 performed for a seemingly undeserving individual.⁵

Disproportionate miracles? Abarbanel claims that the magnitude of a miracle is directly proportional to the need which prompts it.⁶  Thus, if a miracle seems incommensurate with 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 several different methods. It reads certain stories as being allegorical or as having occurred only in a dream or in someone's mind.  In other cases, it assumes that verses need to be understood metaphorically or reread in another manner. Examples of each category follow below.

Allegorical stories – The miraculous nature of certain events is eliminated by suggesting that the story in which the event occurred is only an allegory. Thus, PhiloQuestions and Answers on Genesis I 31On the Creation 156-166Allegorical Interpretation II 71-78About Philo and RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom understand the story of the Garden of Eden to be an allegory,⁹ with the snake acting only as a symbol.¹⁰ This avoids having the serpent actually speak.

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

• Bilam's donkey – According to Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim and RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom, Bilam's entire encounter with the donkey in Bemidbar 22 took place only in a prophetic dream, so the donkey never actively spoke.
• Gidon's signs – Rambam1 422 292 352 422 463 17About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim¹¹ asserts that the signs of the wet and dry fleece performed for Gidon in Shofetim 6 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 – RalbagYehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom¹⁵ 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 cited (and rejected) by RadakMelakhim I 17:17About R. David Kimchi,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 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. Similarly, Ralbag suggests that Shemuel was never really brought back to life by the necromancer; this was all simply a figment of Shaul's imagination. ²⁰

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. Walfish²¹ 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.²² For elaboration, see Stopping of the Sun at Givon.
• Miracles in the End of Days – According to RambamCommentary on the Mishna Avot 5:6Hilkhot Melakhim 12:1About R. Moshe b. Maimon, the prophecies regarding changes in nature in the end of days, such as Yeshayahu 11:6-7, should be understood metaphorically as referring to world peace, rather than to actual changes in animal behavior.²³

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 RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom, the referent of the word "וַתְּהִי" in the phrase "וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח" is not Lot's wife but rather the land.  The verse thus states only that Lot's wife witnessed the land of Sedom becoming a mound of salt. For elaboration, see Lot's Wife and Her Fate.
• "מלאכים" – RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom points out that the word "מלאך" merely means a messenger²⁴ and thus need not refer to celestial beings who supernaturally appear in physical form to man.  It instead refers to human prophets.²⁵
• "וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר" – RadakMelakhim I 17:4About R. David Kimchi cites an opinion that the word "עֹרְבִים" in Melakhim I 17:4,6 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

Wondrous and seemingly unnatural events happened in reality, but never completely violated the laws of nature. The Divine intervention is manifest only in the timing or extent of the phenomena.

Sources:ArtapanusCited in Eusebius Ch. 27About Artapanus, R. Saadia Gaon in Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1Bemidbar 22:28About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,²⁶ Chivi in Ibn EzraShemot Second Commentary 14:27Shemot Second Commentary 16:13About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 16:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:17Melakhim I 17:21About R. David Kimchi, R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, RalbagShofetim 6:36Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom,²⁷ ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. David Zvi HoffmannShemot 7:18Shemot 8:2Shemot 9:5Shemot 9:8-10Shemot 10:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, U. CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Miracles and nature – Like the previous approach, 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. In other words, even the so-called "supernatural" is at least somewhat natural.

Philosophical motivations – This position is motivated to minimize miracles by the same factors as the first 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 the 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 are presented below:

Talking animals – This position assumes that while both the snake in Eden and Bilam's donkey communicated to those around them, they did so by making animal sounds rather than human speech:

• Snake in Eden – An anonymous explanation brought (and rejected) by Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra²⁹ suggests that Chavah understood the snake's hissing to mean what the Torah says in his name, but that the snake did not actually speak.³⁰ AbarbanelBereshit 3:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel explains similarly, suggesting that the snake ate from the fruit, and by demonstrating that it ate without suffering any harmful consequences, it expressed the message: "לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן", despite no actual words being spoken.
• Bilam's donkey – ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto explains the donkey's speech in the same manner, claiming that Bilam understood its brays, not that it used human speech. 

Rainbow – RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 9:12About R. Levi b. Gershom rejects the possibility that the rainbow was a new creation, formed only in the aftermath of the Flood, as the laws of nature would mandate that it had existed from the earliest of time.  He, therefore, suggests that Bereshit 9 is saying only that for the first time, after the Deluge, the rainbow was being utilized as a covenantal symbol.³¹

Mixing up of languages – Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 11:7Bereshit Second Commentary 11:8About R. Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that it is likely that the people did not begin speaking in many different languages overnight, but that the process of language development took place over multiple generations in a natural way.³²

Lot's Wife – R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 19:26About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RadakBereshit 19:26About R. David Kimchi, and AbarbanelBereshit 19:23About R. Yitzchak 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.³³

The Plagues in Egypt

• Ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 2:3Shemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi and AbarbanelShemot 7:14About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel explain that the Ten Plagues were all caused by a simple chain of effects triggered by the initial Plague of Blood. The blood spoiled the waters of the Nile, leading the frogs to invade the country; their deaths, which in turn, invited insects in the form of "כנים", etc.³⁴
• ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Bemidbar 22:2Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 7:18Shemot 8:2Shemot 9:5Shemot 9:8-10Shemot 10:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto further point out that many of the plagues are known natural phenomenon that occasionally strike Egypt,³⁵ and that the miracle was manifest more in the timing and severity of the plagues. For further elaboration, see The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural?

Splitting of Yam Suf – RashbamShemot 14:21Shemot 17:11Devarim 2:7About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 2:3Shemot 11:10Shemot 14:20-21About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 3:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 9:12Bereshit Beur HaMilot 16:7Bereshit Beur HaMilot 18:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37Bereshit Beur HaMilot 21:17Bereshit Beur HaMilot 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:2Bereshit Beur HaParashah 32:23-32Shemot Beur HaMilot 14:21Shemot Beur HaMilot 16:4Bemidbar 16:28Bemidbar 17:23Bemidbar 22:21Yehoshua 4:20Yehoshua 10:12-13Shofetim 6:36Melakhim I Toalot 17:15Melakhim I 17:16Melakhim I Toalot 18:37Milchamot Hashem 6:2:10Milchamot Hashem 6:2:11Milchamot Hashem 6:2:12About R. Levi b. Gershom, and various scholars cited by ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Bemidbar 22:2Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto and CassutoShemot 7:17Shemot 7:27Shemot 9:9Shemot 10:14Shemot 14:21-22About Prof. Umberto Cassuto all point to the mention of Hashem's bringing an "eastern wind" (Shemot 14:21) as evidence that this miracle was brought through natural means. The opinions in Shadal and Cassuto suggest that Sea split as a natural result of the wind's role in the lowering and raising of the tide.³⁶  For further elaboration, see Yam Suf – Natural or Supernatural?

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

Wilderness miracles

• Manna – As early as Josephus3 1:6About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, there have been attempts to identify the manna that fell in the Wilderness with various natural phenomena. See, for example, the opinion of Chivi brought (and rejected by) Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 16:5About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, and R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 16:36About R. David Zvi Hoffmann's exploration of the points of contact and contrast between the Biblical manna and the "manna" collected by Beduins from the Tamarisk tree.³⁷ 
• Selav – See RambanShemot 16:6-7About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Hoil MosheBemidbar 11:29About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, and R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 16:13About R. David Zvi Hoffmann who claim that Hashem employed nature in bringing the "שְׂלָו", with the latter referencing modern accounts of quail migrations.³⁸ Some modern scholars³⁹ further attempt to explain the deaths in Bemidbar 11 of those who gorged themselves on the quail, as also being (at least partially) a natural consequence of their actions. For discussion, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl.
• Clothing – Ibn EzraDevarim 8:4About R. Avraham 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.

"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, or a sinkhole.  It was a new "creation" only because of the speed in which it was created (RalbagBemidbar 16:28Yehoshua 4:20Milchamot Hashem 6:2:12About R. Levi b. Gershom) or perhaps, because the nation had never before witnessed such a phenomenon.

Splitting the Jordan – Y. Braslavi⁴¹ 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 ChiquitillaYehoshua 10:12About R. Yehuda ibn Balaam posits that though the sun set, Hashem ensured that its light continued to reflect and provide illumination. Some modern scholars understand the verses to refer either to a solar eclipse,⁴² or to the sun's positioning blinding 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:

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

Preserving the Supernatural

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

Literal Readings

Miracles in Tanakh occurred as literally described, but without any additional embellishments not mentioned in the text.

Sources:Mishna AvotAvot 5:6About the Mishna, Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelShemot 16:32About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Sifre Devarim33:21About Sifre Devarim, Bereshit Rabbah5:5-6About Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 3:1About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 3:1Shemot First Commentary 16:5Bereshit Second Commentary 3:1Shemot Second Commentary 14:27Bemidbar 22:28Shemot Second Commentary 16:13About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RadakBereshit 2:1About R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 18:19Shemot 6:2Shemot 13:16Shemot 16:6-7Devarim 11:13About R. Moshe b. Nachman, MalbimShemot 7:25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Mutability of nature – These sources divide on the question of whether or not nature is unchanging:

• Mutable – According to 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

• Total – Ramban's view on Divine providence, as expressed in his comments to Shemot 13, is very expansive.⁴⁸ 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 accordance 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."‎⁴⁹
• 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 pre-programmed 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 malleable and Hashem can mold it to His desires.

Both variations, thus, are quite comfortable with taking Biblical accounts of miracles at face value, preserving their supernatural elements.

Disproportionate miracles

• Ramban, who blurs the line between the natural and supernatural, would not be bothered by miracles which seem unnecessary. If everything in the world is equally a product of Divine intervention, there is no difference between splitting a sea and bringing rain.
• 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.⁵⁰

The Snake in the Garden of Eden – R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 3:1About R. Saadia Gaon gives an extensive explanation of how Hashem took a regular snake, and miraculously changed its 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.⁵¹

The Plagues in Egypt – MalbimShemot 7:25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser 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 the possibility of such a reading.

Bilam's Donkey – According to Ibn EzraBemidbar 22:28About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Bilam's donkey actually spoke, and Hashem miraculously intervened to allow this.

Magic – The Mishnah in AvotAvot 5:6About the Mishna 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:Shemot Rabbah9:1014:321About Shemot Rabbah, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer52About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer

Mutable nature – 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,⁵² Shemot Rabbah9:10About Shemot Rabbah not only claims that there was differentiation, but that if an Egyptian and Israelite shared a cup, it would contain blood for the Egyptians but water for the Israelites.
• Shemot Rabbah14:3About 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 – TanchumaBeshalach 10About the Tanchuma suggests that not only did Hashem split the sea, but it divided into twelve lanes, one for each tribe. Shemot Rabbah9:1014:321About 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 DeRashbi18About Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot posits that it could take on all the tastes in the world.

The tablets – R. Chisda in Bavli ShabbatShabbat 104aAbout Bavli Shabbat 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 Eliezer52About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, the sun did not stand still for a mere couple of hours but an entire thirty-six hours!

Adding miracles – Various Midrashic sources 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 and Yaakov's and Moshe's necks turning into marble so that Esav and Paroh, respectively, could not kill them.

¹ 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.

² See Ralbag who writes, "כי השם יתברך איננו שונה הסדור הטבעי כי הוא בראו".

³ 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".]

⁴ This last point might not be an issue for Ralbag, who does not believe that Hashem knows all of man's particulars regardless.

⁵ 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.]

⁶ 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.]

⁷ 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".. 
See also RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 16:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:4Melakhim I 17:17Melakhim I 17:21Yeshayahu 49:11About R. David Kimchi who uses this reasoning to explain why Hashem did not make a miracle and  ensure the proper climate so as to enable the Israelites to be circumcised in the Wilderness.  Fulfilling the commandment in a timely fashion was not sufficient reason to change the natural order: ובעבור האריך זמן המצוה לא ישנה הקב״ה מנהג העולם כי אף על פי שמשנה מנהג העולם בקצת הנסים בקריעת ים סוף והירדן ועמידת השמש לא יעשה כן ברוב הנסים.

⁸ 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.

⁹ Rambam alludes to this possibility as well. [See Moreh Nevukhim 2:30 and Abarbanel's understanding of the passage.]

¹⁰ Accoring to Philo, the snake symbolizes pleasure and vice, while according to Ralbag, he represents the "כח הדמיוני".

¹¹ See also Ralbag,Shofetim 6:36Melakhim I Toalot 18:37About R. Levi b. Gershom though he also raises the possibility that they took place in reality or via a prophet.

¹² 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.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the three "angels" which visit Avraham in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men [See Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel there as well.] and Ralbag's explanation of the story of Yaakov's wrestling with the "angel" in  Wrestling With Angels and Men. Though Rambam takes this approach almost across the board, in many cases Ralbag alternatively suggests that the so-called angels are merely prophets; see below.

¹⁵ See also Rambam as understood by Efodi and R. Moshe of Narbonne.

¹⁶ 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.]

¹⁷ See also the various sources cited by  אברהם ס. אברהם, "הנשמה מלאכותית בתנ"ך?", המעין כח, ג (ירושלים תשמ"ח): 72-76.

¹⁸ He suggests that the language "עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא נוֹתְרָה בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה" might not mean that the boy died. He compares it to the similar metaphoric language in Daniel 10:17, "וַאֲנִי מֵעַתָּה לֹא יַעֲמׇד בִּי כֹחַ וּנְשָׁמָה לֹא נִשְׁאֲרָה בִי", where it is clear that Daniel is not trying to say that he had literally died.

¹⁹ It is possible that the same idea is not suggested regarding the story of the boy revived by Elisha since in that story the verse explicitly states: "וַיָּמֹת."  In addition, even if this was taken to refer only to lack of breath, since significant time passes between the boy's death and the arrival of Elisha, CPR would have no longer been effective regardless. See, though, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 1:42, who suggests that the verb "וַיָּמֹת" might also refer only to a severe sickness, in which case this story, too, can be explained as Elisha curing the boy rather than reviving him from the dead. [It should be noted, however, that Rambam himself does not say this.]

²⁰ See Did Shemuel Come Back to Life for discussion.

²¹ See Rut Walfish, "עיון בפרשת עצירת השמש בגבעון", Megadim 38 (2003): 43-52.

²² She compares it to Devorah's statement, "מִן שָׁמַיִם נִלְחָמוּ הַכּוֹכָבִים מִמְּסִלּוֹתָם נִלְחֲמוּ עִם סִיסְרָא" in Shofetim 5:20. Just as this verse is not read literally to mean that the stars actually fought with Sisera, so, too, Yehoshua did not mean that the sun actually stopped in its tracks. Both are merely poetic flourishes.

²³ For similar examples, see also ShadalShemot 7:11Shemot 7:20Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:3Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:15Shemot 10:21Shemot 14:21-22Yeshayahu 40:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto on Yeshayahu 40:3-5 and RadakYehoshua 5:2Shemuel I 16:2Shemuel I 28:24Melakhim I 17:17Melakhim I 17:21Yeshayahu 49:11About R. David Kimchi on Yeshayahu 49:11.

²⁴ As evidence, Ralbag points to  Chaggai 1:13 where the prophet Chaggai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'‏".  See also Bereshit 32:4, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".

²⁵ This is how he explains the "מַלְאַךְ" which appears to Hagar, the three "men/angels" who visit Avraham, the "מַלְאֲכֵי אֱ-לֹהִים" who Yaakov encounters in Bereshit 32:3 and the "מַלְאַךְ" seen by Manoach and his wife. [He similarly explains the "בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" of Bereshit 6 as being human giants and not celestial beings.]  In other cases, though, he suggests that stories which speak of angels really occurred just in a dream [see point above]. It seems that in any given story, when choosing between these two methods of discounting angels,  Ralbag is motivated by specific textual considerations (see, for example his commentsBereshit Beur HaParashah 19:37About R. Levi b. Gershom on Bereshit 19), and whether or not the individual seeing the "angel" is worthy of receiving a prophetic dream. [Thus, for example, Hagar, who was not on a level to receive a prophetic dream instead spoke with a prophet.]

²⁶ The citation of R. Saadia in Ibn Ezra does not match R. Saadia's own commentary where he allows for a supernatural reading of the story.

²⁷ Ralbag combines this approach with the above one, suggesting that some apparently supernatural events did not occur at all and that others occurred, but via nature.

²⁸ These two methods of minimizing miracles do not contradict and often the same exegete will employ both methods, suggesting that certain events did not occur at all and that others employed natural means.

²⁹ He himself understands the verse literally.

³⁰ In contrast, according to R. Saadia, as brought by Ibn Ezra, an angel (whom he views as being part of the natural order of the world) spoke on the snake's behalf.

³¹ In other words, the phrase, "אֶת קַשְׁתִּי נָתַתִּי בֶּעָנָן" does not mean that right now was a rainbow placed in the sky, but only that it began to act as a sign now. See also Ramban who says the same.

³² Though in this case Ibn Ezra offers a natural explanation for the episode, in many other cases, he prefers the "supernatural" explanation over the "natural" one.

³³ She was covered in a mound of salt from the fire and brimstone that descended on the city, just like everyone else who perished in Sedom.

³⁴ For a more modern variation of the idea that the plagues were natural phenomenon, leading from one to another in a domino effect, see Greta Hort, “The Plagues of Egypt,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957): 84–103 and ZAW 70 (1958): 48–59.  Her article is summarized in N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 69-73. See also, Ziony Zevit, “Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues,” Bible Review 6:3 (1990): 16-23 and J. Marr and C. Malloy, "An Epidemiologic Analysis of the Ten Plagues of Egypt," Caduceus 12:1 (1996): 7-24.

³⁵ Inundations of frogs, lice, or locusts, hailstorms, or diseases such as boils or animal plagues, are not in and of themselves supernatural.  Even the bloodying of the Nile, in the sense of its turning red, has been attested to.

³⁶ Artapanus as cited by Eusebius and Chivi as cited by Ibn Ezra take this a step further, and state that the entire miracle was just a matter of Moshe knowing the tide schedule. Ibn Ezra reacts vehemently to this belittling of the miracle, pointing out that the text does not support it, as it speaks of two walls of water surrounding the nation as they passed on dry land. See, though, Ralbag who maintains that the word "wall" is metaphoric and refers to a barrier - the water prevented the Egyptians from giving chase from the right and left.

³⁷ See also the article of "אבינעם דנין, "המאכילך מן מן המדבר. The miracle of the manna is minimized by 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.

³⁸ See Y. Braslavy, נס השליו במדבר in הידעת את הארץ , vol. 2: 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.

³⁹ See the article by Braslavi cited above.

⁴⁰ Ibn Ezra also raises the possibility that the manna caused less sweat than other food, leading to less wear and tear on the clothing.

⁴¹ See יוסף ברסלבי, "נס כריתת הירדן (יהושע א'-ד')", בית מקרא יג, ד (תשכ"ח): 23-38.

⁴² See חזי יצחק, דניאל ויינשטוב, עוזי אבנר, "'שמש בגבעון דום וירח בעמק אילון – ליקוי חמה טבעתי ב-30 באוקטובר 1207 לפנה"ס?', בית מקרא ס"א (תשע"ו): 196-238.

⁴³ See A. Malamat, "Early Israelite Warfare and the Conquest of Canaan", Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies (1978):19-21.

⁴⁴ If one posits that angels in general are a natural phenomenon, it is not necessarily a big step to suggest that they were created with this ability. Ralbag and Rambam, nonetheless, find this assumption problematic, maintaining that it is not natural for a non-corporeal angel to somehow be manifest to a human.  Therefore, they suggest, as mentioned above, that all appearance of angels should either be reinterpreted as human messengers or as occurring in a prophetic dream.

⁴⁵ 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.

⁴⁶ See RambanShemot 13:16About R. Moshe b. Nachman's words, "כאשר ירצה האלהים בעדה או ביחיד ויעשה עמהם מופת בשנוי מנהגו של עולם וטבעו, יתברר לכל… כי המופת הנפלא מורה שיש לעולם א-לוה מחדשו". Ramban explains away the apparent contradiction regarding the reasoning for observance of Shabbat as expressed in the two versions of the Decalogue in the same manner.  He points out that saying that Shabbat commemorates the Exodus is identical to saying that it commemorates Creation, since the miracles of the Exodus are what testify to Hashem as Creator.

⁴⁷ This might be the view of Ibn Ezra as well; see his comments on Bemidbar 22:8. See also RambamCommentary on the Mishna Avot 5:6About R. Moshe b. Maimon's understanding of the mishnah in AvotAvot 5:6About the Mishna 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 "pre-programmed" into the natural order.

⁴⁸ Ramban's overall position on Divine providence, however, is ambiguous as his various discussions of the issue appear to be somewhat contradictory. In his commentary on Bereshit 18:19, Devarim 11:13 and Iyyov 36:11 he implies that Hashem generally runs the world through natural order and that only the exceptionally righteous (or exceptionally wicked) merit individual providence. See Prof. David Berger, "Miracles and the Natural Order in Nahmanides", who discusses Ramban's position at length, suggesting that it is possible that Ramban asserts only that all rewards and punishments meted out in this world are totally miraculous in nature, not that Hashem's running of the world is continuously miraculous. In fact, in general, Hashem lets nature takes its course.

⁴⁹ The Rambam questions this approach to divine providence, pointing out that belief in complete providence would seem to eliminate the possibility of humans having free will. One might further question that if everything is in Hashem's hands, and stems directly from His will, how do we explain the existence of evil in the world?

⁵⁰ If so, in certain instances one might be motivated to reduce the supernatural element of a miracle to make it more proportionate to the benefit it is granting.

⁵¹ However, due to other textual considerations, certain stories may be explained in ways that avoid such physical manifestation.See, for example, Radak's explanation of Avraham's guests (in Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?), where he has no problem positing that angels took on a physical form to interact with Lot and the residents of Sedom, but nonetheless explains that the previous chapter which speaks of the same angels visiting Avraham, only took place in a dream.

⁵² See Whom and Where Did the Plagues Strike for various approaches to the question of whether or not the Israelites were struck by the plagues when the text does not say explicitly that they were not.