Q&A: Twisting the Plain Meaning vs. Straightforward Understanding
Twisting the Plain Meaning vs. Straightforward Understanding
Question
I read your column, and it really does provoke more honest thought.
I read columns 243 and also 279 and 280, and it seems from what you write that you agree that saying there is no divine involvement is to twist the verse. But since observation says there isn’t any, you interpret it that way.
It also seems that the sages understood that there are no miracles that we can see; they only inferred that when we don’t see, there is a possibility.
For example: “Blessing rests only on something hidden from the eye” in Bava Metzia, and one may even pray for that—even though that is intervention in nature. And that is a miracle.
And regarding the proof you brought from an embryo after forty days: there, there is an embryo that exists as a creature, and even for it they do not show miracles.
And before that, there is no life in the fetus (also regarding murder). And apparently in our times, if it is something visible to the eye, there is no intervention. And that is a technical matter.
Also in the time of the prophets there was no intervention except in isolated cases. The prophet only reveals that because they sinned, He gave another nation power to rule over them. But this happened in a natural way. If so, it has not changed from their time. And as Maimonides said, the prophet was written in order to reveal to us more than what we see.
Only with regard to power given to a person, or in his choice, can one say that there is intervention. And about that there is no observation that would force you to say otherwise. In other words, it is 50-50. And we also do not always know what causes us to want certain things. As Maimonides writes, in the matter of repentance, the Holy One prevented him from it, and apparently he himself did not even know—only it was revealed to us.
If so, the question returns: why twist the interpretation of the verse?
Thank you very much
Answer
What is the question? I don’t understand what you wrote.
Discussion on Answer
I agree that today it’s impossible to know what involves divine involvement and what does not.
But the prophet states that when they served God they succeeded, and when they did not, they did not.
There is no dispute that today there is no prophecy. There is no dispute that today there are no open miracles. That is, God’s mode of governance has changed according to everyone. I claim that perhaps this is also true regarding hidden miracles, and perhaps in truth there never were any.
There is no prophecy—that is true. But the prophet claims that there were hidden miracles.
Why say otherwise?
And open miracles—for most generations there weren’t any either (even when there was a prophet, there weren’t).
Other than Joshua and Elijah, and in Moses’ time, where else is a miracle mentioned?
King David didn’t have that.
Maybe there was in the First Temple, and this was canceled in the Second Temple, but the prophet still says that God watches over things.
The prophet says that God watches over things in the Second Temple period? Do we split prophecy in half?
Fine, everything has been explained, and there is no point in repeating it again and again.
I only came to say that there was supervision even when there weren’t open miracles.
And for most generations there was no intervention in nature, and about that it is said that there is God’s supervision.
I really didn’t understand what you answer to that.
And where do you see a change besides the fact that there is no prophecy?
This discussion began with the fact that I have already written at great length about these matters in the past. I suggest you read there.
In short, I understood you to be saying that there is no involvement, as a strained reading, because reality changed.
And I didn’t understand where you see a change. Even in the time of the prophets, everything appeared natural; the Holy One only revealed through the prophet what the reason was that they did not win the war (which looked natural).
And in giving a person strength to win, and changing his choice so that this is how it turned out—there, no observation can give any particular indication. (I was only trying to reject the proofs you brought.)
Thank you very much