Hidden miracles and working within nature

Recent days have been a whirlwind of emotions and dramatic news cycles – punctuated with regular sprints to the nearest bomb shelter. While the heart-stopping screech from our phones and nerve-jangling wails of the sirens often occur at ungodly hours, there is no lack of indication of divine footprints accompanying this latest leg of Israel’s historic journey.

Surely the most conspicuous instance of this is what transpired at Beersheva’s Soroka hospital, at the end of last week. When news of a direct missile hit on the hospital filtered through our underground bunker we all feared the worst. There was nothing short of amazement when it was subsequently revealed that the imploded building had been evacuated by a concerned advisor just 11 hours earlier.

Reflecting on the way in which a mass-casualty-event was averted, it is striking how the apparent display of providence parallels the Maimonidean approach to the phenomenon. As Judaism Reclaimed explores in detail, Rambam understands that the primary avenue through which God intervenes in human affairs is by providing flashes of inspired knowledge and intuition to a person making critical decisions. Providing an example with a tragic association from his personal life, Rambam describes how God would not typically interfere with the rules of nature in order to prevent a boat from sinking in a storm at sea. Rather he would provide certain individuals with the foresight and instinct to navigate such worldly dangers and thereby avoid death and misfortune.

What is particularly important to note here, however, is that the apparent providence on display last week in Beersheva did not obviate the need for careful planning and security precautions – in fact it boosted and inspired the sensible decision making. The building had not been cleared under standard procedures implemented at the start of the war. But when Moshe Bar Siman Tov reviewed Soroka’s safety the afternoon before the strike, he ordered an evacuation which thoroughly surprised the hospital staff.

This theme of combining providence – perhaps miraculous – intervention with the laws of nature is one which occurred to me again during yesterday’s Torah reading. The episode of the spies, in which the nation despairs of its ability to conquer Canaan despite God’s promise, can be contrasted with how God dealt with them during their exit from Egypt:

“It came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them [by] way of the land of the Philistines for it was near, because God said, Lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt.”

As part of his analysis of the rationale for korbanot, Rambam identifies a fundamental principle contained within this verse. God, he explains, did not miraculously intervene in order to fortify the nation and ply them with superhuman courage in order to comply with His will that they journey in the most direct way to the Promised Land. Rather He worked within human nature, recognising the innate weaknesses of newly-released slaves and their inability to rise and challenge the mighty Philistines.

With the passage of time, however, God sought to toughen the nation up with their desert sojourn, providing in the meantime an array of signs and wonders to build their confidence in His willingness and ability to assist them. In the aftermath of the episode of the spies, therefore, God anticipates that they have internalised this message. In light of this, all the people “who perceived My glory, and the signs that I performed in Egypt and in the desert” are held responsible and punished for their lack of faith. For their inability to acknowledge God’s ability and willingness to operate – even within the laws of nature – to inspire His people to navigate and transcend the severe challenges with which they are confronted.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

"Not by means of an angel, saraf or shaliach ..."

This line, which appears both in the Pesach Haggadah and Sifre to Devarim, appears to be conveying the idea that the smiting of all Egyptian (human and animal) firstborns was performed directly by God himself. Taking a step back and analyzing this idea in the context of Rambam’s teachings on the subjects of angels, miracles and providence, I believe that the midrash may contain a very profound insight.

The nature of biblical miracles and the extent to which the plagues which struck Egypt can be explained as rare and unlikely yet fully natural occurrences is a popular subject of debate in certain circles. Rambam, in the Moreh Nevuchim, seems to cater for both possibilities.

Some fascinating and surprisingly overlooked chapters near the start of the second section of the Moreh describe angels as the agents through which God delegates the overseeing and implementation of His Will in the world. More specifically, each rule of nature – which represents an aspect of the divine will – is guided by a specific angel (“no angel performs more than one task”). As part of his discussion, Rambam introduces the example of God’s destruction of Sodom – which Avraham perceived prophetically to be the work of angels – to show how God’s providential will can be seen to operate through nature.

What is particularly fascinating about the example of Sodom, is that it involves the resolution of a conflict between different aspects of God’s will: the angel dispatched to destroy Sodom needed to co-ordinate with the angel sent to save Lot. Here, writes Rambam (2:7, supported by a teshuva from Sherira Gaon), we find the notion of limited angelic discretion and free will – not as to whether to obey or disobey God’s instruction but rather as to how God’s will should best be implemented.

The angel is clearly unable to overturn Sodom while Lot is still inside as that would be an act of disobedience to the divine will: “Hasten, flee there, for I will not be able to do anything until you arrive there” (Bereishit 19:22).

However, when Lot believes that he is unable to make it all the way to the designated mountain, the angel is authorized to amend the plans and save a small, less wicked town on the outskirts that is within Lot’s range: “I have granted you this matter too not to overturn this city that you have mentioned” (19:21).

Awakening from his prophetic dream, Avraham looks out over the plains of Sodom and sees smoke rising. Lot, as we are about to be told in great detail, has been saved alongside two of his daughters. God’s will has been effectively implemented through the angelic forces of nature – whether by asteroid or another geological phenomenon. Anyone lacking Avraham’s prophetic insight into the providential dynamics at play behind the scene might have considered this to have been a fully natural event.

In contrast with this more regular modus operandi of God’s will being implemented through the angelic agency of nature, the Rambam introduces a separate category both in the second section of the Moreh and in his commentary to Avot. There he interprets a midrash to be teaching that “God made conditions with all that he created during the six days of Creation” so that, on specific historical occasions, part of creation would behave in an abnormal or unnatural way:

“Not only with the sea did God make conditions [that it would split before Israel] but with all that was created in the six days of creation… I commanded the sea to split and the oven not to harm Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel and the fish that it spit out Yonah. And comparisons can be made to other instances”. [2:29]

While Rambam does not comment as to how many of the ten plagues might belong within this category of divine conditions, it would seem that the midrashic teaching included in the Haggadah is making just this very point regarding the killing of the firstborns:

“And God took us out of Egypt”: Not by means of an angel, and not by means of a saraf and not by means of a messenger. Rather the Holy One Blessed be He himself in his glory…as it says “And I passed through the land of Egypt on that night” – I and not an angel…”.

The Haggadah is at pains to point out that this final plague, at the very least, was not performed via the providential format of God’s will being implemented discreetly through the angels of nature. Rather it was God himself who, presumably as understood by Rambam, would have foreseen and integrated such an occurrence during the period of creation of the world.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Chance or guided providence?

As I flitted through the reporting of Al Jazeera, BBC and the Tehran Times last week, one repeated theme I noticed in the anti-Israel media was the attempt to downplay the significance of Israel’s achievement in its “lucky” killing of Yihyeh Sinwar. But while it seems true that Sinwar’s demise did not involve the same degree of intelligence and planning as that of others such as Nasrallah, does it automatically follow that it should just be attributed to good luck?

On what will be a particularly poignant Simchat Torahin a few days’ time, we will read the final poetic portion of the Torah in which God is depicted as “rochev shamayim - Rider of the heavens”. This cryptic description is expounded by Rambam towards the end of the first section of Moreh Nevuchim, where he sees it as providing an important insight into the nature of the relationship between God and the physical world. Not only does “rochev” denote that God is separate from the world and not a force within it (a statement which powerfully rejects any notions of pantheism/panentheism), but it also indicates that God controls and moves the world just like a rider who “makes the beast of burden move and go where he wishes”.

This second aspect of “rochev” got me wondering if we could take the rider metaphor one step further. Some brief research on forums of horse-riding enthusiasts confirmed my suspicion that the way in which riders guide their horses can be extremely subtle – barely detectable to the casual observer:

“Someone recently asked me an interesting question: “Can my horse read my thoughts?” This person went on to describe the extraordinary bond he has with his Arabian horse, and his belief that the horse knows how he feels and where he wants to go without being cued. What appears to be a telepathic connection develops from experience and sensitivity and emerges when the horse and rider are working together in harmony with a common mind and purpose.”

What does this all mean for our understanding of hashgacha– the way in which God is perceived to manage and govern His world?

Judaism Reclaimed dedicates long chapters to an exploration of Rambam’s view of the subject. On the one hand, Rambam’s worldview sees God as having a constant will with which He established unchanging rules of nature. Certainly, those approaching Maimonidean thought from the academic perspective tend to downplay any possibility for miraculous or providential interference with the natural order. Rambam himself comments on a Mishnah in Avot:

“They (the sages) did not believe in the constant renewal of God’s will, but at the beginning of creation (God) put the nature of things into the world, both the way in which things should act regularly – this is ‘nature’ – or the abnormal manner in which they should act rarely – this is a ‘miracle’. All is equal.”

But does this tell the whole story?

As David Hartman pointed out in his Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest, once it has been stated that God used His knowledge of ‘future’ necessity in order to build miracles into the natural world from its origin, it makes no difference, from a strictly logical perspective, whether one admits to one or a thousand such miracles.

The Moreh Nevuchim also contains several intriguing comments which suggest that Rambam’s position on providence may be more complex than is commonly thought. First, in 1:35, Rambam states that “the character of His governance … the ‘how’ of His providence are truly the secrets of the Torah”. Later, at the peak of the famous palace parable, Rambam describes the highest category of those who seek God – the prophets in the king’s inner chamber – as turning their intellects “to know His governance of them in whatever way is possible”.

In his Iggeret Techiyat HaMeitim, Rambam explicitly considers the historical fate of the Jewish nation to be providential:

“…we believe that the blessings which come from obedience [to God] and the suffering from disobedience, for this nation, become a sign and a wonder”.

Returning to our opening question, to what extent should Sinwar’s death – along with a number of other events from the past year – be attributed to good or bad fortune?

Drawing upon the Torah’s horse-riding metaphor, at times it may be impossible to detect any guidance or direction from the rider – yet when one examines the horse’s entire journey around the race track or obstacle course it will be abundantly clear that it could not have achieved what it did unaided.

So too at times with our national fate. It may be possible to explain away each isolated event via natural cause and effect. But, taking a step back to appreciate the broader – sometimes historical – perspective, the series of events that we have experienced over the past year(s) and indeed throughout Jewish history appear far too unusual to be attributed to natural phenomena alone.

I am reminded now of an Israeli spy series “Tehran” that I watched a couple of years ago. At the time I thought that the show was well written and put together – my only complaint was that the final episode in each season just seemed way too far-fetched. Too removed from reality. Today the show’s drama and unexpected twists and turns cannot even begin to compete with what we have been witnessing on the news cycles.

We continue to pray to the Rochev Shamayim for the protection and success of our soldiers and swift return of all our hostages as we await the final dramatic episodes of the festive season.

First posted on Facebook 20 October 2024. For comments and discussion, click here.

Rambam, Greeks and Chanukah: ideological battle or philosophical synthesis?

Earlier this week we explored the interplay between “Yafet” – representing the artistic and cultural faculties of humanity – and the religious dimension symbolised by “Shem”. We did so primarily through the perspective of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch who taught that the arts and aesthetics hold substantial positive value for humanity, but only when influenced by and “dwelling within” the tents of Shem.

This post will attempt to examine the dynamics of the ideological clash between Maccabees and Hellenists from the perspective of Rambam. This is of particular interest since Rambam – one of Judaism’s primary sources concerning philosophy and theology – is remarkably silent when it comes to the ideological battles of the Chanukah era. Even though such ideological divergences are emphasised in prior Rabbinic sources. Additionally, it is evident throughout his writings that Rambam possessed a healthy respect for many aspects of Greek philosophy, albeit as we will discuss, from an earlier era. What did he see as being the key differences between Greek thought and Judaism? And could any of these ideological tensions have been at play in the Chanukah story?

While it is true that Rambam enthusiastically embraced many aspects of Greek philosophy and science which represented in his day (and for many centuries after), the main framework and template for understanding the world, he does make some crucial qualifications.

At the conclusion of Rambam’s explanation of the concept of miracles as having been built into nature at the world’s creation, he presents a simple summary of his fundamental agreement and disagreement with Aristotle. Rambam explains that, with regard to the functioning of the physical world according to its natural order, he broadly follows the Aristotelian structure of fixed, immutable and eternal rules of nature – that God instituted the rules of nature and doesn’t plan to breach them. In fact, the wisdom contained within the functioning of the universe bears testimony to God’s supreme wisdom. Nevertheless, the same section of Moreh Nevuchim also firmly rejects Aristotle’s understanding of the world as having existed eternally in the past, with God merely ensuring its existence.

Aristotelian theory, as presented by Rambam, held that God cannot be said to have created the universe at any one specific point in time, but rather constantly and eternally causes the world to exist. According to Aristotle’s understanding therefore, God is not free to in any way influence the physical world which emanated from Him.

Rambam states strongly that such an Aristotelian understanding would render the Torah meaningless since it would relegate God to some kind of technical cause, unable to exercise (or grant) free will, perform miracles and all other aspects of providential interaction with the world. For this reason, Rambam emphasises creation in time as “the basis for the Torah”; if Aristotle were correct on this point, writes Rambam “the entire Torah would become void”. The reason for this becomes more apparent when we explore Rambam’s understanding of miracles.

Rambam addresses the concept of miracles in two of his works – both of which emphasise how all miraculous occurrences were built into the natural order at the time of creation – based on God’s knowledge of the future. In Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam cites a midrashic teaching to support his understanding that “When God created this existence and established all of its nature, He placed within the physical world that all miracles too would occur.”

Then in his commentary to Avot, he states further that the ten miraculous phenomena – such as Moshe’s staff and the mouth of the earth that swallowed Korach – were said to have been formed already during the days of creation because:

The Sages did not believe in the constant renewal of God’s will, but at the beginning of Creation [God] put the nature of things into the world, both the way in which things should act regularly—this is “nature”—or the abnormal manner in which they should act rarely—this is a “miracle.”

For Aristotle however, who opposed the very notion of creation in time by a freely-acting God, there is no scope within the rigid rules of nature for any miracles, providence or revelation. For this reason, Rambam considers that such an Aristotelian system renders the entire Torah void.

How might this relate back to Chanukah?

It must be borne in mind that Greek philosophical thought of the Hellenic Chanukah era had evolved somewhat from the Classical era of Aristotle. Nevertheless, and without wanting to get too involved, there were strong trends of similarity in the way that major Hellenist philosophical groups such as the Epicureans understood God as no longer involved in any meaningful way in the functioning of His Creation. Aristotle’s thought too remained highly influential right the way through to, and beyond, Rambam’s era.

As we explained in the previous Chanukah post, within the worldview of R Hirsch, Noach’s prophecy implies that the ideology of Yafet (of which the Greeks are a primary element) is not to be viewed as an entirely negative contribution to humanity – but rather as containing positive potential when correctly harnessed to the Torah’s teachings – ie when it “dwells in the tents of Shem”.

Similarly, we can suggest within Rambam’s worldview, that the Greek-Aristotelian conception of steady and unbreakable natural laws emanating from a single source is to be embraced. As Rambam writes, reflecting upon the beauty and wisdom inherent in the universe can lead one to fear and love of God and appreciation of His wisdom.

Rambam believed that Aristotle’s methodology for analysing the world was extremely beneficial, and could lead to recognition and knowledge of the Single God of the Torah. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote how monotheism and the Torah’s description of God creating the world:

“made science possible. No longer was the universe seen as unpredictable. It was the work of a single, rational, creative will.”

Others have noted how science has particularly flourished in societies based on monotheistic belief. Only if one perceives the world as an organic whole designed by a single Creator, can one analyse and develop meaningful theories as to how it all functions together.

But this acceptance and approval of Yafet’s systematic understanding of the natural order is only proper when placed in the correct context of creation in time – an acceptance of God’s creation of the universe with all of the accompanying implications for providence and miracles. If this is correct, then for Rambam too the ideological conflict between the Jews and the Greeks was not a total rejection of Greek thought, but rather represented an attempt to reposition the beneficial aspects of Yafet firmly within the tent of Shem as the verse advises. So that, as Rambam demands, appreciation of the structure, wisdom and beauty of the universe can lead to the further comprehension of the Creator who freely designed it.

Perhaps this can explain the strong emphasis we find in Rambam’s Laws of Chanukah on publicising miracles. Particular attention is paid by Rambam at the start of his discussion of Hilchot Chanuka to the miraculous aspects both of the deliverance from the Greeks and its connection to the miracle of the oil. At the conclusion of these laws Rambam teaches that the mitzvah of the Chanukah light holds particular importance as it makes God’s miracles known.

According to the ideas highlighted in this post, it is the capacity of God to have introduced miracles into the natural order which represented the crucial distinction, for Rambam, between Jewish and Greek ideologies. For Rambam therefore, so-called “Greek” truths and appreciation of the wisdom and beauty inherent in the world can and must lead us towards understanding, appreciation and love of its Creator.

Devoid of Shem’s guidance this wisdom loses its deeper meaning and utility. Rather than leading to a warm appreciation of and relationship with the Creator, scientific and philosophical wisdom outside the tent of Shem becomes cold, detached speculation and knowledge. In such a system of thought, God can be relegated to an eternal but irrelevant and limited cog in the eternal wheel of existence – rather than the Source of the wisdom - who freely created and interacts with the world.

First posted to Facebook 16 December 2020, here.

Maimonidean miracles: providence and the Twilight Zone

As we approach Shabbat Bereishit, the first week of the parashah cycle, Maimonideans among us would be well served to celebrate the preceding twilight – a watershed moment in Rambam’s theological calendar. A Mishnah in the 5th chapter of Avot lists ten things which were created on the eve of the first Shabbat such as the ‘mouth of the earth that swallowed Korach’ and ‘Moshe’s staff’. Rambam, like Rabbi Yehuda Halevi before him, detected within this teaching a strong traditional support for his religious philosophy:

They (the sages) did not believe in the constant renewal of God’s will, but at the beginning of creation (God) put the nature of things into the world, both the way in which things should act regularly – this is ‘nature’ – or the abnormal manner in which they should act rarely – this is a ‘miracle’. All is equal.

As Judaism Reclaimed discusses at length, the popular religious notion of a miracle – in which God is understood to alter the rules of nature – presents a challenge to Rambam’s way of comprehending the universe. In Moreh Nevuchim (2:28) Rambam sets out his theory of the laws of nature. Quoting from a passage of Tehillim which relates God’s creation of the world, Rambam highlights the verse “And He set them up to eternity…He issued a decree, which will not change” (148:6).

The consistency of the natural order is not due to any lacking on the part of God, but because “a matter which changes, changes only because of an inherent lacking”. In contrast to this, God’s “work is perfect” (Devarim 32:4) – His absolute knowledge means that He does not need to keep fiddling with and adjusting His creation. Any subsequent requirement for adapting of the rules of nature can be foreseen by Him and placed within (or alongside) the natural order.

In the subsequent chapter of the Moreh, Rambam further elaborates upon his understanding of how biblical miracles can fit within this model:

For when God created this existence and established all of its nature, He placed within their natures that all miracles too would arise at the times of the … It states: “R’ Yonatan said “God made conditions with the sea that it should split before the Israelites…R’ Yirmiyah son of Elazar said: “Not only with the sea did God make conditions, rather with all that He created in in the six days of creation… I commanded that the sea split, and that the furnace should not injure Chananya, Mishael and Azariah, and that the lions should not damage Daniel, and that the fish should vomit out Yonah.” [Bereishit Rabbah 85]. From here one can draw an analogy to all the other [miracles].

These pre-conditions which God made with all aspects of the creation facilitate the miraculous phenomena which occur throughout the Torah. By depicting them as having been created “bein hashemashot” – in the twilight zone between the week of creation and Shabbat, the sages may have been implying that these exceptional miracles are set aside from the regular predictable natural rules, but still belong within the broader creation process.

From Miracles to Providence

Rambam’s standard approach to providence focuses on an individual, who has developed his or her relationship with God, thereby being the recipient of flashes of divinely-assisted insights and intuition. This approach thereby avoids any interference with God’s natural order. Does Rambam’s theory of miracles present an additional dimension through which his understanding of Providence can assessed?

As David Hartman has noted, once it has been proposed that God built miracles into the natural world from its origin, it makes no difference, from a strictly logical perspective, whether one admits to one or a thousand such miracles. This allows us to speculate more broadly as to which of the many manifestations of providence which appear in the Torah can be explained in this manner.

One possible example of ongoing miraculous providence, that Rambam appears to actively endorse, is the national covenant of blessings and curses in which God promises the Jewish people rewards and punishment such as abundance or scarcity of rainfall. The level of rainfall and other such promises which feature in the Torah are not easily explained through Rambam’s standard providential theory of intellectual inspiration or intuition. Perhaps we can suggest therefore that they too are contained within this category of ‘miracles built into nature’ at Creation. Such a suggestion can draw support from the closing stages of Rambam’s Iggeret Techiyat Hameitim where he writes: “…we believe that the blessings which come from obedience [to God] and the maledictions from disobedience, for this nation, become a sign and a wonder”.

Can this theory be stretched even further? The discussion thus far has focused primarily on miracles on a national scale – the providential relationship based upon God’s covenant with the Jewish people. There is an indication from the closing chapters of Moreh Nevuchim that this concept of inbuilt miracles, based on God’s infinite and timeless knowledge, can also apply to the manipulation of the laws of nature on behalf of exceptional individuals. Commenting on Tehillim (91:7-8), Rambam describes the righteous person who has developed a connection with God:

If you happen to pass through a battlefield of drawn swords, you will go on your way with thousands being killed at your left hand and myriads at your right hand, no harm will be inflicted upon you … as it says: “A thousand will fall from your side, ten thousand at your right, but (the evil) will not befall you”…This person’s great providential protection is “Because he has set his exclusive love upon me, therefore I shall rescue him, for he knows My Name.” We have already explained that ‘knowing God’s name’ refers to perceiving Him. The Psalm is therefore saying: that this individual is protected because he perceives and passionately loves Me.

The sort of divine assistance being described in this passage, which depicts a person being rescued from a raging battlefield, is not easily attributed to Rambam’s standard approach to providence of heightened intellectual awareness and inspired knowledge. Might it be taken to imply that, in certain situations, God may have built miracles into Creation in order to “manipulate” laws of nature even on behalf of individuals.

This discussion leaves us with several questions:

1. Modern scientific theories of Quantum mechanics understand there to be inbuilt randomness within certain aspects of atomic behaviour. Does this modern scientific knowledge make it easier to accept (or perhaps develop) Rambam’s theory of inbuilt yet undetected providence within the laws of nature?

2. If it is indeed correct to apply Rambam’s theory of miracles more broadly so as to include possibilities of individual providence, would this necessarily be limited to exceptional people (who Rambam is describing in that passage) or could regular people also be beneficiaries of some degree of miraculous input?

3. Some scholars interpret Rambam’s comments concerning the worthy individual being rescued from a raging battlefield to mean that the person will no longer be concerned about his fate, rather than miraculously rescued. While this may be easier to reconcile with other statements of Rambam elsewhere, is this really a satisfactory reading of his words?

First posted on Facebook 30 September 2021, here.