I think there is a distinction. That is a miracle that breaks laws, and this does not break any laws, no?

That is, we find that it is forbidden to pray for a miracle. Is planting a thought a kind of miracle that breaks laws? Not really. And to sharpen the question, I suggested this as a forced answer. Does it not work?

It breaks free will. That too is a law of creation: a person determines his actions through his choice.
Why is this question so severe in your eyes that it requires a forced answer? It is clear that the Sages lived with an ancient scientific view according to which there can be a miracle within nature, and therefore they were mistaken. What is the problem here?! They were mistaken quite a bit in matters of nature. I can prove this from the passage itself, and I have even done so here in the past.

Okay, what you say seems right. Out of curiosity, I’d be glad if you would write your proof from the passage here.

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90

This is also my view: today, the main way God intervenes is through the choices of human beings. And what the Rabbi thinks, that this harms free will—that is not so. I hold that the choice between good and evil is between choosing not to choose (letting the beast within us dictate matters, in which case it acts according to deterministic biological stimulus-response laws) and choosing to choose (that is, taking the reins of the horse into our own hands). But from the moment we choose to choose, what we actually do is dictated by laws external to us (the laws that dictate what is right to do at the moment), which we perceive by listening. These are laws that I call “super-deterministic,” because on the one hand they do not dictate the choice itself, but they do dictate its content—the specific act that will be done.
In any case, the Holy One, blessed be He, can intervene on my behalf, so to speak, in another person’s choice by creating an awakening in his heart to choose and to emerge from his non-choosing slumber. He indeed sends thoughts of repentance into his heart, a kind of opening of the eyes. He causes him to see something he did not see before. But this still does not touch the core of his choice. True, it lowers somewhat the level of free will that the Rabbi maintains. But that is not so bad, because in any case (among people from the Jewish people) the conception is that we are part of one organism, so it is quite logical that the voluntary acts (prayer and repentance) of one person—one cell—a righteous person, will influence another cell that is less developed (a wicked person, that is, someone with less free will, more similar to an animal than the first). These ideas have a source in the writings of the Ari regarding the influence of righteous people on the wicked. The Rabbi believes in the absolute autonomy of every person equally, but reality shows that this is not necessarily true. We see people with less free will than ours all the time—for example, criminals whom every little thing drives out of their minds. That is, their point of choice is lower than ours. And I claim that it is not only a difference in location on the axis of choice, but also that someone who has a higher point of choice, for him too the choice for good at his own point of choice is “easier”—that is, he struggles against fewer illusions than the other. I do not see why such people could not influence the level of choice of those lower than them. There is choice, but it is not absolute.

I also of course accept the possibility of intervention in nature, as I once discussed with the Rabbi, except that this is a lower level of intervention. And it seems to me that in my life I have seen it happen in my own case several times, in the sense of “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He causes even his enemies to make peace with him.”

As I said, if there is such involvement, I see no reason to rule out involvement in nature, and then there is no need for these forced answers.

These are not forced answers, but since there are degrees of intervention, this gives a much more accessible prediction for anyone who wants to see such intervention, in the sense of “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

That is, since the Rabbi argues that intervention in nature is not something we see, here this is the place where one can indeed see it (if one believes there is something to see).