Thank you HaRav Rational Traditionalist, for clarifying these issues. It's amazing that somebody could really think it's preferable to reject major parts of the Torah than to believe in the supernatural, which the Torah is already full of.
The reason less miracles rather than more miracles is the more rational view of Hashem is because more miracles makes G-d whimsical.
It is less rational to set up an entire brilliant system of natural law with all its millions and millions of subtle, delicately balanced harmonious details and interconnections (and in the biosphere, with self-correcting mechanisms), just to abrogate all of it at what seems to be a whim.
Making miracles upon miracles at a drop of a hat after having creating this enormous intricate system full of divine wisdom seems capricious and whimsical and less thought-out. Like He's doing things on the fly.
It is more rational to set up a single all-inclusive system so inherently flexible and sophisticated that it never needs to be broken and miracles aren't necessary. Or if they are, only very rarely.
I happen to think this is a very persuasive argument in favor of the Rambam's rationalism against those who have G-d breaking natural law at every slight opportunity.
Thank you R' Dovid for that clear presentation. For clarification, two small points:
1. Essentially your point is that Hashem set up teva to be the default baseline system for running the physical world. Nobody disagrees with that in theory. That's why nissim are uncommon. But everybody also agrees that sometimes it's Hashem's will to operate on a system other than teva. The only question is under what circumstances that other system is applied. So your explanation is not an explanation for the Rambam any more than it's an explanation for Rashi, Ramban, Maharal, or Ramchal. What you said is the baseline, and after that there's a discussion of how Hashem chooses to juggle the two systems. If He chooses to use the non teva system more often or less often, it's because that's the balance He has decided to set into place, whether or not you fully appreciate his rationale in each particular case. (Looking around the world even as we see it, there's lots of stuff going on that I don't think I personally would have done if I were an all powerful Manhig Hakol. Goes to show how much I know. It doesn't seem that Hashem cares very much if His decisions appear 'whimsical' to me or to you.)
2. You seem to be under an impression of nissim being the result of Hashem saying "ah what the heck, let's break the rules". In reality the spiritual/supernatural system is every bit as intricate and precise as the physical/natural system is. As is the protocol for the interfacing of the two. (Some sifrei Ramchal may provide some helpful reading on the topic.) As such the question is once again how exactly Hashem chooses to operate His systems, not hey why not just stick with the system that's already in place.
3. Most relevant to the current discussion, I have very serious difficulty processing your terminology.
You laid out a Svara why you like Rambam's approach better than Rashi et al's. Very well. But other Rishonim and Acharonim disagree with you (at least in terms of application; see above). They have an understanding of Hashem's hanhaga that includes more nissim. There's quite a large literature elaborating on their approach.
You may very well be entitled to your opinion, but I'm struggling with your choice of terms. You set out to explain why the Rambam is the more "rational" approach. I'm still not understanding how you've accomplished that. You said that you personally like his approach better. Ok. Because one side of a debate sits better by you that gets termed the "rational" side? Is that how you conduct every other argument in your life?
I happen to be pro the death penalty. Others think it to be barbaric. Should I unilaterally term my position the "rationalist perspective" because that's the one I like better?
You are 100% right that if there is an alternate system of law which G-d toggles between when doing miracles, then the Rambam's approach is not more or less rational than the others. But I am certain the Rambam was responding to the position that G-d simply breaks natural law every time there is a miracle without using any parallel system.
I take it from your immediate recourse to there being an alternate system, that you agree that simply breaking natural law whenever the need arises is less than ideal.
And although I agree that for Ramchal and perhaps the Maharal, this alternate system of supernatural law was indeed put in place in parallel with supernatural law, I am skeptical that this alternate system was recognized as such by Rashi.
You will need to show me evidence that he held of such an alternate system.
1. If so, you should modify the language of your original comment, as your point is not so much that the Rambam was particularly rational; it's rather that Rashi was irrational. Virtually all modern day non-Rambamists trace their worldview in some form or other to the systems laid out in sifrei Ramchal, or Maharal in introduction to Gevuros, or Sifrei Ari, etc, which as per your generous concession place them on equal rational footing as the Rambam.
2. I'm not sure where you'd expect to look to find evidence of Rashi's approach to these matters one way or the other, as he simply never wrote a systematic treatise on this topic . Offhand, anything I can think of that he does mentions as part of his various pirushim fits just fine into the general theme of the various acharonim who do elaborate on the topic. If you have anything in particular in mind that does not, please let me know and we can discuss.
3. Without putting Rashi into one box or another, it does not at all arise from his works that Hashem throws around miracles "whimsicaly" with no system at all, and it kinda just depends on the weather (or if someone drops a hat). Best I can make out, Rashi assumes certain people, places, and tekufos to have transcended the teva system to a large degree. That means teva rules within its framework, but not so much within the framework in which it doesn't. That's a perfectly rational system too, whether you personally would choose that system or not.
4. As a general observation, whatever it is that Rashi understands the ratzon Hashem to be is coming through the prism of his status as a mefarish of kol haTorah kula and a Rabban shel Yisroel for his dor and the subsequent 900 years. I was not aware that it is the place of 21st century yungerlite to be machnis rosham bein gedolei chachmei hamesora in dvarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam and paskin for us which are being sensible and which not so much.
5. At any rate the original question remains unanswered because assuming Rashi thinks this is true, then he thinks it make sense for Hashem to act that way. You may disagree. But don't you think it's highly presumptuous to unilaterally label your opinion the "rationalist" one in a fair fight amongst intelligent equals?
I'll just point out that it was you who mentioned Rashi, Ramban etc. as being the par plugta of the Rambam. Not me.
I was perfectly content to leave it as just the Rambam vs. whomever the Rambam was coming to oppose. I wasn't going to name names precisely to avoid the problem you are raising.
If you don't think it's proper to "demote" Rashi's approach if he opposed the Rambam's rationalism, fine with me. But then don't call yourself a "rational traditionalist" and then complain that we shouldn't prefer rational traditional sources over non-rational traditional ones.
I think this is true for the vast majority of people who fall into the category of "many have tried and failed." But there are clearly people who have tried and succeeded, and can experience direct open miracles even in the current reality of hester panim. Because they have succeeded, they will not experience it the way you describe.
Thank you HaRav Rational Traditionalist, for clarifying these issues. It's amazing that somebody could really think it's preferable to reject major parts of the Torah than to believe in the supernatural, which the Torah is already full of.
Very well written!
The reason less miracles rather than more miracles is the more rational view of Hashem is because more miracles makes G-d whimsical.
It is less rational to set up an entire brilliant system of natural law with all its millions and millions of subtle, delicately balanced harmonious details and interconnections (and in the biosphere, with self-correcting mechanisms), just to abrogate all of it at what seems to be a whim.
Making miracles upon miracles at a drop of a hat after having creating this enormous intricate system full of divine wisdom seems capricious and whimsical and less thought-out. Like He's doing things on the fly.
It is more rational to set up a single all-inclusive system so inherently flexible and sophisticated that it never needs to be broken and miracles aren't necessary. Or if they are, only very rarely.
I happen to think this is a very persuasive argument in favor of the Rambam's rationalism against those who have G-d breaking natural law at every slight opportunity.
Thank you R' Dovid for that clear presentation. For clarification, two small points:
1. Essentially your point is that Hashem set up teva to be the default baseline system for running the physical world. Nobody disagrees with that in theory. That's why nissim are uncommon. But everybody also agrees that sometimes it's Hashem's will to operate on a system other than teva. The only question is under what circumstances that other system is applied. So your explanation is not an explanation for the Rambam any more than it's an explanation for Rashi, Ramban, Maharal, or Ramchal. What you said is the baseline, and after that there's a discussion of how Hashem chooses to juggle the two systems. If He chooses to use the non teva system more often or less often, it's because that's the balance He has decided to set into place, whether or not you fully appreciate his rationale in each particular case. (Looking around the world even as we see it, there's lots of stuff going on that I don't think I personally would have done if I were an all powerful Manhig Hakol. Goes to show how much I know. It doesn't seem that Hashem cares very much if His decisions appear 'whimsical' to me or to you.)
2. You seem to be under an impression of nissim being the result of Hashem saying "ah what the heck, let's break the rules". In reality the spiritual/supernatural system is every bit as intricate and precise as the physical/natural system is. As is the protocol for the interfacing of the two. (Some sifrei Ramchal may provide some helpful reading on the topic.) As such the question is once again how exactly Hashem chooses to operate His systems, not hey why not just stick with the system that's already in place.
3. Most relevant to the current discussion, I have very serious difficulty processing your terminology.
You laid out a Svara why you like Rambam's approach better than Rashi et al's. Very well. But other Rishonim and Acharonim disagree with you (at least in terms of application; see above). They have an understanding of Hashem's hanhaga that includes more nissim. There's quite a large literature elaborating on their approach.
You may very well be entitled to your opinion, but I'm struggling with your choice of terms. You set out to explain why the Rambam is the more "rational" approach. I'm still not understanding how you've accomplished that. You said that you personally like his approach better. Ok. Because one side of a debate sits better by you that gets termed the "rational" side? Is that how you conduct every other argument in your life?
I happen to be pro the death penalty. Others think it to be barbaric. Should I unilaterally term my position the "rationalist perspective" because that's the one I like better?
Please explain.
You are 100% right that if there is an alternate system of law which G-d toggles between when doing miracles, then the Rambam's approach is not more or less rational than the others. But I am certain the Rambam was responding to the position that G-d simply breaks natural law every time there is a miracle without using any parallel system.
I take it from your immediate recourse to there being an alternate system, that you agree that simply breaking natural law whenever the need arises is less than ideal.
And although I agree that for Ramchal and perhaps the Maharal, this alternate system of supernatural law was indeed put in place in parallel with supernatural law, I am skeptical that this alternate system was recognized as such by Rashi.
You will need to show me evidence that he held of such an alternate system.
Thank you again. A couple of thoughts:
1. If so, you should modify the language of your original comment, as your point is not so much that the Rambam was particularly rational; it's rather that Rashi was irrational. Virtually all modern day non-Rambamists trace their worldview in some form or other to the systems laid out in sifrei Ramchal, or Maharal in introduction to Gevuros, or Sifrei Ari, etc, which as per your generous concession place them on equal rational footing as the Rambam.
2. I'm not sure where you'd expect to look to find evidence of Rashi's approach to these matters one way or the other, as he simply never wrote a systematic treatise on this topic . Offhand, anything I can think of that he does mentions as part of his various pirushim fits just fine into the general theme of the various acharonim who do elaborate on the topic. If you have anything in particular in mind that does not, please let me know and we can discuss.
3. Without putting Rashi into one box or another, it does not at all arise from his works that Hashem throws around miracles "whimsicaly" with no system at all, and it kinda just depends on the weather (or if someone drops a hat). Best I can make out, Rashi assumes certain people, places, and tekufos to have transcended the teva system to a large degree. That means teva rules within its framework, but not so much within the framework in which it doesn't. That's a perfectly rational system too, whether you personally would choose that system or not.
4. As a general observation, whatever it is that Rashi understands the ratzon Hashem to be is coming through the prism of his status as a mefarish of kol haTorah kula and a Rabban shel Yisroel for his dor and the subsequent 900 years. I was not aware that it is the place of 21st century yungerlite to be machnis rosham bein gedolei chachmei hamesora in dvarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam and paskin for us which are being sensible and which not so much.
5. At any rate the original question remains unanswered because assuming Rashi thinks this is true, then he thinks it make sense for Hashem to act that way. You may disagree. But don't you think it's highly presumptuous to unilaterally label your opinion the "rationalist" one in a fair fight amongst intelligent equals?
I'll just point out that it was you who mentioned Rashi, Ramban etc. as being the par plugta of the Rambam. Not me.
I was perfectly content to leave it as just the Rambam vs. whomever the Rambam was coming to oppose. I wasn't going to name names precisely to avoid the problem you are raising.
If you don't think it's proper to "demote" Rashi's approach if he opposed the Rambam's rationalism, fine with me. But then don't call yourself a "rational traditionalist" and then complain that we shouldn't prefer rational traditional sources over non-rational traditional ones.
I think this is true for the vast majority of people who fall into the category of "many have tried and failed." But there are clearly people who have tried and succeeded, and can experience direct open miracles even in the current reality of hester panim. Because they have succeeded, they will not experience it the way you describe.
Great points
Beautifully articulated