https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%98%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A8%22%D7%9F_%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%90_%D7%92

Torah 3 in Likkutei Moharan, Part II. I did not grasp the distinction and difference between your approach and his. On first reading, I דווקא found common ground. Medicine is deterministic. If one does a redemption of the soul, there is a chance to change something. That is, to allow some room within nature.

1.
When the Rabbi says that he does not rule out sporadic cases, does he mean a change in reality that is simply hidden from human eyes, correct? (Because if it is not a change, but rather within nature, then it is just nature.)

So if I understood correctly:
a. An open miracle — the splitting of the Red Sea (an overt change in nature)
b. A hidden miracle — a change from nature, only human beings did not notice it (example?)
c. Naturalness — acetaminophen lowers a fever.

2.
The basic premise, always —
According to the Rabbi’s view, since natural events are not divine intervention but rather nature as He created it, then according to your approach this is a principle that has always been true, even when prophecy existed — because if it is natural then it is not intervention.
For example: even in the time when there was prophecy, a person who took acetaminophen could not attribute his healing to anything but the acetaminophen.
(And it seems to me that according to this, one can never see God’s intervention at all, because even if, say, the Jewish people as a whole were successful, wealthy, and so on, one could attribute it to the wisdom of the Jewish people, Nobel prizes, etc.; that is, anything can be explained naturally, as long as it is natural.)
So this fits the Rabbi’s approach that only through an open miracle does one see divine intervention. Did I understand correctly?

3.
A question about the basic premise —
It seems that in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), we find God’s will appearing as nature. For example, the story of Joseph and the brothers, where he tells them that he was brought down to Egypt by God — but the brothers brought him down! ?
How would the Rabbi interpret that?

Yehoshua, I did not understand what exactly he wants from me. If there is a specific argument he is making, please formulate it, and then we can discuss whether I agree or not.

Gog,
1. Yes.
2. I did not understand. If something happens against nature, it is a miracle. If something happens that a prophet said was a miracle, then it is a miracle. If something happens that a prophet foretold in advance and it indeed happens, that is a miracle.
3. There was involvement of the Holy One, blessed be He. What is there to interpret here?

2. In your words I saw a statistical distinction between “the formation of a world with life in all the galaxies,” something whose likelihood is negligible and therefore is defined by you as a miracle / the hand of God, and “the return of the Jewish people to its land” as a case whose possibility is not negligible and therefore is not defined by you as a miracle but as a plausible phenomenon.
And that is contrary to the rule you gave here, that if the prophet’s words are fulfilled then it is a miracle.

3. Where does the Rabbi see, in the story of Joseph, divine intervention that goes beyond the bounds of nature? (I just went through the story quickly now… I did not see anything besides “granting favor,” and even that can be explained by double causality).

Your numbering looks like the result of a random generator.
If a prophet foretells something undefined that could happen naturally, and he also does not give a time for it to happen — I do not see that as necessarily a miracle. I can predict that in the future there will be somewhere in the world a person two and a half meters tall. If somewhere, sometime, that happens, is it a miracle? Moreover, even that prophecy does not necessarily say that it is a miracle. Jewish character and the halakhic command (and of course that prophecy itself) can bring this about by way of nature.
This discussion seems to me completely unnecessary.

I wanted to ask a question on this topic that I once heard in a song by Shuli Rand.
If you pray that the Holy One, blessed be He, should give you a sign, and let us say that suddenly at the end of your prayer in the forest you encounter a meteor shower…
but afterward it turns out that it had actually been known and publicized all over the news that such an event was supposed to happen that day —
is that a miracle?

Hypothetically, if you are sure you had not heard in some way that it was going to happen (usually there is no way to know that), and if you had not prayed thousands of times before and gone unanswered, then maybe yes.

My numbers (2, 3) corresponded to the numbering you wrote (I did not see a need to refer to 1, because you had already answered me on that). It feels to me like the question is being ignored… especially since you gave an example that is not a miracle at all. Apparently we have a disagreement in definitions of what a miracle is.

In any case, I would be glad to understand what your innovation is in the area of providence. Because you have two statements:
1. Within nature there is no divine involvement — and Maimonides already said this.
2. From the fact that there is no change from nature in an open and consistent way, you infer that there is no change from nature in a hidden and consistent way. And on this I have not found anyone who disagrees (or more precisely — I have not seen anyone say it, even in Eshel”t etc.).
— About open change we all agree that it is not to be found, and about hidden and sporadic change you agree that it is possible.
If so, what is your innovation?

I did not say that there is any innovation in what I am saying. I say what I think, and everyone can decide for himself whether there is any innovation in it or not.

I mean — why is there opposition to you? That you claim God abandoned the land, etc. I see your words as fitting together, and therefore I feel that I have not fully grasped all of your views.

Actually, now I understand: indeed, your definition of an open miracle does not match the definition in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). The victory of the few over the many would certainly be defined as a miracle, and that is something we did see in the years of the state’s rebirth.
Therefore I disagree with your definition that we do not see an open miracle; we do.
Thank you very much.

Nachmanides, end of Parashat Bo, chapter 13 verse 16: “A person has no share in the Torah of Moses our teacher until we believe that in all our affairs and all our experiences, all of them are miracles; there is no nature and no ordinary course of the world in them, whether regarding the community or the individual. Rather, if one performs the commandments, his reward will bring him success, and if he violates them, his punishment will cut him off — everything is by the decree of the Most High.”

Here I would like to add an interesting distinction to Gog’s point.
In the prayer “For the Miracles,” we thank God and describe the miracles of Hanukkah:
You delivered the mighty into the hands of the weak — that is a miracle!!
And the many into the hands of the few — that is a miracle!!
And the impure into the hands of the pure — is that a miracle??
And the wicked into the hands of the righteous — is that a miracle??
And the malicious into the hands of those who engage in Your Torah — is that a miracle??

What do I mean by asking, “is that a miracle”? I mean to say that according to the pure laws of nature, the righteous and those who engage in Your Torah ought to win. On the other hand, a large part of their victory is based on a miracle. And in general, wars are a miraculous business.

It just seems that here we have a situation presented to us in a natural way. And at the same time it is certainly defined as a miracle.
Of course, also according to the words of Nachmanides above.

By the way, interesting — according to the view that there are no miracles in the world at all, or something like that, that in some cases it is only statistics…
It seems that even “the mighty into the hands of the weak” and “the many into the hands of the few” is not a miracle — because statistically there have been cases in which the weak and the few won.