How do you understand the Talmudic passage that says: “One who goes to measure his threshing floor says: ‘May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You send blessing in the work of our hands.’ If he began to measure, he says: ‘Blessed is He who sends blessing upon this pile.’ If he measured and only afterward recited the blessing, this is a vain prayer, for blessing is found neither in something weighed, nor in something measured, nor in something counted, but only in something hidden from the eye.’

It seems to imply that a request for an actual miracle—but one that is still not yet apparent to a person (because he still has not measured)—is not considered a vain prayer.

The sages of the Talmud certainly understood that there is divine involvement (they also thought this could happen within the framework of the laws of nature, which today is known not to be true). Beyond that, I explained that God’s mode of conduct has apparently changed, and at least in our time it seems that He is not involved.

Could you please explain what you mean by saying that the Sages thought this was possible within the framework of the laws of nature, and it has become clear to us that this is not correct?
What do we know about nature more than they did that is relevant to this question?

Beyond Nadav’s question, I don’t understand how you interpreted the Sages regarding the blessing over measuring the threshing floor. Suppose the Sages understood that there is intervention in nature (without a miracle). How does a person’s knowledge of the quantity in the threshing floor turn the blessing into a miracle (which is why one does not pray)? After all, before knowing, the prayer is legitimate and the intervention is not miraculous. This really requires explanation.

A possible explanation has now occurred to me based on the comments of Nachmanides and Ritva on Bava Metzia 42. It seems that “one who goes to measure etc.” refers only to tithes, about which it says, “Test Me now with this,” etc. And even though it is an open miracle, it is still permitted to pray. But after he measured the tithes one may not pray, since it is a vain prayer. But that is a strained reading.

It seems that in the Sages there are two relevant parameters in the issue of praying for a miracle: one does not pray for an open miracle (divine intervention), and one does not pray for a deviation from nature even when it is hidden.
One who comes to measure his threshing floor does not pray after he measured, because that would be an open miracle. Before he measured, he may pray because it is hidden. But here there is no deviation from nature, so everything depends on whether it is hidden or open.
As stated, if it is a deviation from nature, then even on the hidden plane one does not pray and ask for it. The proof is from one who prays that his wife should give birth to a male. There, the fetus is still in the womb, so even if a miracle were to occur and a female turned into a male, it would still be a hidden miracle. So why not pray? How is this different from asking regarding the threshing floor before measuring? Because here, in the Sages’ view, this is a deviation from nature and not a miracle within nature (which, in the Sages’ opinion, is a real thing. But it is not). Therefore before the sex of the fetus has been determined, it is permitted to pray about its sex, because even then, according to the Sages, this is a request for a miracle within nature (and again—in reality this is not correct).
As a side point, one can discuss whether in the case of entering to measure one’s threshing floor this is a deviation from nature or not. Seemingly, anyone can add a few sheaves to the threshing floor, so why shouldn’t the Holy One, blessed be He, be able to do so? So perhaps for them this is a miracle within nature. But by the same token, changing the sex of the fetus can be done by surgery by a doctor, so why shouldn’t the Holy One, blessed be He, be able to do that? In this picture there are very few miracles that are not within nature. It is fairly clear that “within nature” means what would have happened without God’s intervention (and also without that of other human beings, such as a doctor).

You wrote:

“It seems that in the Sages there are two relevant parameters in the issue of praying for a miracle: one does not pray for a miracle (divine intervention) when hidden (as with a fetus), and one does not pray for a deviation from nature when open (after he measured his threshing floor).”

It seems you got mixed up. It should say: It seems that in the Sages there are two relevant parameters in the issue of praying for a miracle: one does not pray for a hidden miracle (like a fetus), and one does not pray for a deviation from nature when open (after he measured his threshing floor).

Now I think that actually my “correction” is just a semantic game. In any case, I understood your answer. Interesting. Still requires further thought. But after all is said and done, it is still not clear to me why prayer today is not forbidden on the grounds of being a vain prayer.

A hidden miracle is a reason to permit asking, not to forbid it.
If I had the power, I would forbid it. But perhaps there is hidden divine involvement that departs from nature in special cases, and for that it is permitted to pray. Therefore it is difficult to forbid it categorically. I do think it should be done only in cases where there is no natural way out (very extreme cases), and there perhaps one may ask the Holy One, blessed be He, to overturn nature because there is no other option. That is only regarding permission to pray, but as I said, I assume that usually it will not be answered.

Thanks for the answers, much appreciated!

I still don’t understand. What do we know today that rules out a hidden miracle (measuring his threshing floor) more than what the Sages knew in this context?
Do we know that everything is deterministic and they didn’t? Then why did they see this as a miracle if there is no determinism?

With God’s help, Friday eve of the holy Sabbath, “For the Lord your God is with you,” 5779

Did the Sages not know the “orders of creation,” and did they not attribute importance to them? After all, the Sages knew how to calculate with precision the movement of the sun and moon in order to know how to intercalate years and sanctify months, and they recognized the regularity in their motion. It was from that regularity that Abraham our Patriarch inferred that “the palace has a ruler,” to whom the sun and moon are subject.

About one who grew breasts because he had no money to pay a wet nurse for his son, the Sages said: “How disgraceful is this man, for the orders of creation were changed for him.” Divine intervention that upsets the orders of creation is undesirable and occurs only as a last resort. After all, it is the Holy One, blessed be He, who established the “laws of heaven and earth.”

However, the Holy One, blessed be He, is not only the Creator of nature, but also the God of justice and judgment, who ordained that each being with free choice should receive what is due to him; and He is also the God of kindness and mercy, who satisfies every living thing, especially the needy and downtrodden who require His salvation.

Therefore, usually He will not bring His help and salvation through open miracles, but by ways that do not involve “breaking the rules of the game.” Thus, one who needs milk to nurse his child—God may help him either by preserving the mother’s health so that she will have milk to nurse, or by granting him grace and favor in people’s eyes so they help him pay for a wet nurse, or by sending him people who will find him sustaining work.

All these forms of help do not depart from the laws of nature, but neither are they trivial, and a person needs a great deal of heavenly assistance: that his health endure, that he find livelihood and dignity, and that he find favor in the eyes of people who will help him. And for this we pray, giving thanks for the past and asking for the future.

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath,
S.Z. Levinger

By the way, in the days of the Sages a conception of nature was prevalent according to which the orders of creation depend on the course of the constellations, and an astrologer who knew when a person was born could calculate in advance what would happen to him at any given moment—as though he were Laplace’s demon himself 🙂

Modern science, in most things, can provide only a probabilistic forecast of what is expected to happen, and therefore today the “room for maneuver” for divine intervention that would not appear as an open change in the “orders of creation” is greater. And indeed, we see before our eyes the hand of God in history, which has brought about the beginning of the return of the Jewish people to its land and the restoration of its physical and spiritual standing—and all this without breaking natural regularity.

What we know today is that there are no gaps in the laws of nature. The Sages apparently did not know this. Measuring his threshing floor is not relevant, because there the issue is hidden versus revealed, not within the laws of nature versus outside them. The relevant example is the fetus. The Sages apparently thought that the sex of the fetus is not a natural result of the circumstances but something random. Nature allows both possibilities. The miracle is that the Holy One, blessed be He, creates something according to our request when otherwise it would have been a matter of chance.

With God’s help, 9 Elul 5779

In Rabbi Zamir Cohen’s article, “Want a Boy or a Girl? Ask for Mercy” (on the Hidabroot website), he points to studies according to which even when the male Y chromosome is present, a female may still develop, since the male chromosome must secrete a substance that overcomes the larger female chromosome, and when that substance is not secreted, a female develops despite the presence of the male chromosome. The decisive time for such development is between days 22 and 40 of pregnancy.

According to this research, it follows that even naturally, there may be a chance that a pregnancy with male XY genetics will develop into a female, and only on the 40th day does the “window of opportunity” close and there is no natural possibility of change. However, the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud is that even when a woman is “sitting on the birthstool,” one may pray for a change in the sex of the child, and it would seem that the Jerusalem Talmud holds that one may even pray for a miracle.

Regards,
S.Z.

Rabbi, I came to this thread following your reference in the second book of the trilogy (p. 262 n. 11). Does the Rabbi have a satisfactory answer—beyond what was written here, which I didn’t really understand—to the contradiction between the passage about the fetus and the passage about measuring the threshing floor?

I cited Meiri (that the prayer is about the merchandise and not about the fruits). Beyond that, perhaps the passages are in dispute. Be that as it may, in the passage in Berakhot my point is proven.