11:08 PM
Gil Student
A few months ago, I exchanged some e-mails with another blogger who is ardently anti-Slifkin. Following that, and with my permission, he posted our exchange on his blog and then the two of us put up a few posts regarding R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's approach to miracles (my posts on the subject: I, II; his posts on the subject: I, II, III). In short, this blogger (nicknamed Freelance Kiruv Maniac, but I know his real name) argues on my interpretation of chapter 10 in R. Soloveitchik's recently posthumously published book, The Emergence of Ethical Man. While I believed that my reading is correct, I nevertheless turned to an expert to obtain clarification — Dr. Lawrence Kaplan, student of R. Soloveitchik, translator of Halakhic Man, professor of Jewish Law and Philosophy at McGill University, and frequent commenter to this blog. While I asked Dr. Kaplan for a few brief words, he graciously gave me a long analysis. What follows is his short essay on the subject.
R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik on Miracles and Nature
Lawrence Kaplan
The purpose of this essay is to elucidate the teaching of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik [Henceforth: the Rav] on miracles and nature, as presented in his recently published work The Emergence of Ethical Man [Henceforth: EEM]. In order to do so, I will have to adjudicate between two competing interpretations, that presented by Rabbis Natan Slifkin and Gil Student and that presented by the anonymous blogger, Freelance Kiruv Maniac [Henceforth: FKM]. In general, my reading will support the interpretation offered by Rabbis Slifkin and Student; but in light of my examination of the entire chapter in EEM in which the Rav’s teaching concerning miracles and nature appears, I hope to arrive at a more precise and complete understanding of that teaching.
Click here to read moreIn his recent post, “R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik on Miracles and Nature-The Complete Story (Or, More Selective Quoting by R' Student)” FKM argues that R. Student distorts the Rav’s teachings in EEM with regard to miracles.
This issue was originally raised when R. Slifkin minimized a supernatural understanding of miracles, i.e., viewing miracles as physical events that violate the natural order and defy scientific explanation. In support of his position, as R. Student noted, R. Slifkin in his much-revised version of Science of Torah, quotes the following passage from EEM (p. 187):
What is a miracle in Judaism? The word “miracle” in Hebrew does not possess the connotation of the supernatural. It has never been placed on a transcendental level. “Miracle” (pele, nes) describes only an outstanding event which causes amazement. A turning point in history is always a miracle, for it commands attention as an event which intervened fatefully in the formation of that group or that individual.Addressing Rabbi Student and criticizing R. Slifkin’s understanding, FKM responded to that quote as follows:
Rav Soloveitchik is being ultra precise, Kedarko BaKodesh. According [to this excerpt] he is not characterizing the miracles of Yetzias Mizrayim for which the Torah and the Rambam repeatedly use the term MOFES. He limited his discussion to the terms of “nes and pele”. Mofes, on the other hand, connotes the clear and unmistakable interference with the natural order in order to illustrate a power superior to nature. The verses in the Torah that convey G-d’s purpose of the 10 Makos makes this abundantly clear. Mofes is the term used over and over. Do I need to spell them out? Rav Soloveitchik is not demoting those mofsim/miracles to be within the natural order. This demotion would directly contradict numerous Rishonim and Achronim and negate the entire theological message of the 10 Makos. You and Rabbi Slifkin would like him to take that step. According to your quote below, he is not.In response to FKM, R. Student posted a longer excerpt from this section of EEM to back up both his and R. Slifkin’s understanding of the Rav:
The supernatural miracle is not very welcome in the covenant society. We prefer the regular flow of life. The Halakhah is completely integrated with the natural process. It never takes cognizance of any causalistic anomalies. Yet the central theme of the exodus tale is the miracle.As FKM admits in his most recent post, in responding to that quote “I was caught off guard. At first glance, Rabbi Soloveitchik is saying exactly what they [Rabbis Slifkin and Student] wanted him to say about the Ten Plagues. They are simply historically timed natural catastrophes. It seemed like I had to go on the defensive.” FKM responded as follows:
What is a miracle in Judaism? The word “miracle” in Hebrew does not possess the connotation of the supernatural. It has never been placed on a transcendental level. “Miracle” (pele, nes) describes only an outstanding event which causes amazement. A turning point in history is always a miracle, for it commands attention as an event which intervened fatefully in the formation of that group or that individual. As we read the story of the exodus from Egypt, we are impressed by the distinct tendency of the Bible to relate the events in natural terms. The frogs came out of the river when the Nile rose; the wind brought the locusts and split the sea. All archaeologists agree that the plagues as depicted by the Bible are very closely related to the geographical and climatic conditions that prevail in Egypt. Behind the passages in the Bible we may discern a distinct intention to describe the plagues as naturally as possible. The Bible never emphasizes the unnaturalness of the events; only its intensity and force are emphasized. The reason for that is obvious. A philosophy which considers the world-drama as a fixed, mechanical process governed by an unintelligent, indifferent principle, may regard the miracle as a supernatural transcendental phenomenon which does not fit into the causalistic, meaningless monotony. Israel, however, who looked upon the universal occurrence as the continuous realization of a divine ethical will embedded into dead and live matter, could never classify the miracle as something unique and incomprehensible. Both natural monotony and the surprising element in nature express Gods' word. Both are regular, lawful phenomena; both can be traced to an identical source...
In what, then, does the uniqueness of the miracle assert itself? In the correspondence of the natural and historical orders. The miracle does not destroy the objective scientific nexus in itself; it only combines natural dynamics and historical purposefulness. Had the plague of the firstborn, for instance, occurred a year before or after the exodus, it would not have been termed “with a strong hand” (be-yad hazakah). Why? God would have been instrumental in a natural children's plague. Yet God acts just as the world ruler.[1] On the night of Passover He appeared as the God of the cosmos acting along historical patterns. The intervention of nature in the historical process is a miracle. Whether God planned that history adjust itself to natural catastrophes or, vice versa, He commands nature to cooperate with the historical forces, is irrelevant. Miracle is simply a natural event which causes a historical metamorphosis. Whenever history is transfigured under the impact of cosmic dynamics, we encounter a miracle.
Rabbi Soloveitchik merely points out that G-D uses the stuff of the natural world to carry out His historical design. He can easily accept the idea that G-d uses the natural world in ways that cannot be explained by scientific analysis. “The intervention of nature in the historical process is a miracle.”First, we should note that FKM in this response has tacitly abandoned his earlier distinction between nes and pele on the one hand and mofes on the other. Even according to FKM’s response, the Rav has “demo[ted] those mofsim/miracles [associated with the plagues] to be within
Having the forces of nature intervene purposefully towards some specific historically meaningful goal is completely inexplicable to the scientist. (I think the Greeks called this phenomena “fate”.) How could nature be “aware” of human history to actively engage in correspondence with it? This “awareness” and deliberate purposeful intervention of blind natural forces is clearly beyond the realm of the “scientifically possible”.
If Rabbi Slifkin will now concede to this idea, then he is either retracting or contradicting himself.
the natural order,” a demotion that, according to FKM, “would directly contradict numerous Rishonim and Achronim and negate the entire theological message of the 10 Makos.”
Further, I would argue that this second response is flawed in its own terms. If the miracle “does not destroy the objective scientific nexus in itself,” all that the scientist qua scientist is required to do is to show how the miracle arises out of that nexus. That historically this miracle contributed to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is, again, for the scientist qua scientist not “scientifically inexplicable,” but scientifically irrelevant. It is a striking coincidence — no more, no less.
I would finally note FKM’s rhetoric in this response. “At first glance, Rabbi Soloveitchik is saying exactly what they [Rabbis Slifkin and Student] wanted him to say about the Ten Plagues.” Not “what they believed him to be saying,” but “what they wanted him to say.” Rabbis Slifkin and Student, of course, have an agenda, as opposed to FKM who, equally of course, is perfectly objective!
In any event, in his most recent post FKM states that this second response, made “without the benefit of looking at the book itself to read the excerpt in context,” was a “needless retreat.” For, he says, “after paying a small fortune to get my hands on the entire book … I saw that my initial rebuttal to the smaller quote was perfectly accurate. I found it bizarre that R' Student should think RYBS agrees with [R.] Slifkin at all, for on the VERY NEXT LINE, Rav Soloveitchik then [something is missing from FKM’s text: LK].” FKM then cites “the full story from pp. 188-190,” with the addition of “inserted emphasis and additional bracketed comments.” I will now present FKM’s entire quotation of the Rav’s text together with FKM’s inserted emphases and bracketed comments. I apologize in advance for the length of the excerpt, but it is important to read both what the Rav has to say and to see how FKM understands him. Indeed, as I will show, FKM ought to have quoted MORE of what the Rav has to say. For, as we shall see, he cuts off the quote at a critical point. Kol ha-posel be-mumo posel.
We see that the Torah incessantly stresses the miraculous when reflecting on or recalling the redemption from Egypt:In response to FKM, first let me point out that his citing and highlighting the quote from the Rav “We see that the Torah incessantly stresses the miraculous when reflecting on or recalling the redemption from Egypt,” as well as his highlighting the word “mofsim,” beg the question with a vengeance. For the question precisely is what, for the Rav, the Torah means by mofsim, by the miraculous. Let us examine how FKM interprets the Rav.
“The great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs and those great miracles [MOFSIM]” (Deut. 29:2)
“And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs and with wonders [MOFSIM]” (Deut. 26:8)
When the antithesis reached its climax and the historicity of the covenant came to critical point, God wanted to demonstrate the unalterable necessity inherent in the charismatic historical occurrence. It cannot and will not be curtailed by any natural forces. If the need arises, the covenant will become a factum, even if other factors will have to be altered because of that. Miracle expresses the idea that whenever the covenant comes to a crisis in its eternal struggle with the forces of indifference, the historical motives will overcome the opposition of a cruel reality. Historical values will emerge victorious from the clash with actual forces, which during the interim, seemed to run contrary to the vision of realization.
[FKM: He refers to a clash of forces with the covenant ALTERING the natural reality repeatedly here. This is apparently a description of how we, as limited human beings, perceive a miracle-termed specifically as a Mofes as mentioned above. Without spelling it out explicitly here, Rav Soloveitchik sharply contrasts the DIVINE NARRATIVE of the Makos as they are happening from GOD'S PERSPECTIVE on the one hand, with the manner in which God commands them to be REMEMBERED AND RETOLD BY PEOPLE on the other. The reason for this turnabout is given immediately by Rav Soloveitchik:]
This faith is rooted in our identification of both realms-the historical and the universal. Human intelligence has separated them from each other. Yet in the divine infinite consciousness, the cosmic law is at the same time a moral law and morality is natural. “I form light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil” (Isa. 45:7). Light and darkness-two natural phenomena, and peace and evil-two ethical concepts, are correlated. Moreover, they merge together into one divine creation. God reveals Himself through the cosmos in the natural law and through the ethical universe. The unity of God warrants the unity of both orders: the natural and the moral.
This is a common place in the prophetic world formula and needs no further elucidation. However, as we explained in detail in the second part of this essay, man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders...
[FKM: So it is abundantly clear that Rav Soloveitchik understands the unity between charismatic historical and natural forces (mentioned in R' Student's limited quote) is harmonized only within the divine consciousness and prophecy alone. But to the ordinary human observer like the scientist, there is only conflict and a clash of forces with the historical ones defeating the natural ones. This is the message of the miracles of the Exodus to the world at large.]
According to FKM’s understanding of this passage, at first glance Rabbi Soloveitchik appears to contradict himself. On the one hand on pp. 187-188 he states that “the miracle does not destroy the objective scientific nexus in itself,” while immediately further on he says that the covenant “will not be curtailed by any natural forces,” and that “if the need arises, the covenant will become a factum, even if other factors will have to be altered because of that.” FKM understands this to “refer to a clash of forces with the covenant ALTERING the natural reality.” FKM harmonizes this apparent contradiction by claiming that “Rav Soloveitchik understands the unity between charismatic historical and natural forces (mentioned in R' Student's limited quote) as harmonized only within the divine consciousness and prophecy alone. But to the ordinary human observer like the scientist, there is only conflict and a clash of forces with the historical ones defeating the natural ones. This is the message of the miracles of the Exodus to the world at large.”
This harmonization cannot be accepted. If, as Rabbi Soloveitchik says, “behind the passages in the Bible we may discern a distinct intention to describe the plagues as naturally as possible,” if “the Bible never emphasizes the unnaturalness of the events; only its intensity and force are emphasized,” if a “miracle is simply a natural event which causes a historical metamorphosis,” and if, finally “the uniqueness of the miracle assert itself … in the correspondence of the natural and historical orders… [and] the miracle does not destroy the objective scientific nexus in itself,” then how is all of this not accessible to “the ordinary human observer like the scientist.” For whom is the Bible writing if not for that human observer?
In general, it is very difficult to see how it is possible that the miracles associated with the exodus “do… not destroy the objective scientific nexus” from the perspective of “the divine infinite consciousness,” but do destroy that nexus from the perspective of the human observer. Furthermore, as readers of Kol Dodi Dofek and other essays of the Rav know full well, the Rav did not like –to say the least -- to speak about events taking place from the perspective of “the divine infinite consciousness,” which are barred to human understanding. That, in my view, is precisely why the Rav in the passage quoted by FKM after saying that “in the divine infinite consciousness, the cosmic law is at the same time a moral law and morality is natural,” goes on to say that these two realms “merge together into one divine creation. God reveals Himself [to man: LK] through the cosmos in the natural law and through the ethical universe.”
In truth, however, I believe that FKM misunderstands of the passage on pp. 188-190. Although FKM may have paid a small fortune to get his hands on the entire book, it appears he did not even read the entire chapter of which these excerpts form a part. Unfortunately the passage on pp. 188-190, as FKM himself notes, is not as clear as one might wish—we have to remember Rabbi Soloveitchik did not prepare this text for publication —, but in light of the entire chapter, I believe that it has to be understood as follows.
Let us look closely at the following key sentences. “When the antithesis reached its climax and the historicity of the covenant came to critical point, God wanted to demonstrate the unalterable necessity inherent in the charismatic historical occurrence. It cannot and will not be curtailed by any natural forces.” What “antithesis” and what “natural forces” is the Rav referring to? To understand this we must go back earlier in the chapter.
According to the Rav, between the initiation of the covenant and its fulfillment there is always an interim period characterized by the “apparent deterioration of the covenant.” This deterioration is caused by an antithesis that “is inherent in the covenant itself.” The Rav describes this antithesis in various ways. It is a clash “between a historical-natural reality [antithesis] and a covenantal-charismatic mission,” or again between “the charismatic-historical and the natural-orgiastic [antithesis],” or, most important, “between the natural human order [antithesis] and the charismatic-historical order.” Note in all instances the Rav refers to the antithesis as stemming from the natural order. But it is absolutely clear that for him this natural order, antithetic to the covenant, does NOT refer to that natural order which is in the hands of heaven: the light and the darkness, the wind and the rain, the sea and the dry land, etc., but, as the Rav explicitly states, to the natural historic human order which is in the hands of man. It is this natural historic human order which is opposed to the covenant. This opposition manifests itself on two levels: an individual level, where selfish, orgiastic, hedonistic, natural man resists the ethical, charismatic, and historic demands of the covenant; and on a historical-communal level, where, either within or without the incipient covenantal community, groups arise and make use of “concrete historical forces” to undermine or oppress the covenantal people. The prime example of the latter, as the Rav states, was the enslavement of Jacob’s family in Egypt which “marked the full reversal of the covenant.”
If we now return to the Rav’s statement, “When the antithesis reached its climax and the historicity of the covenant came to critical point, God wanted to demonstrate the unalterable necessity inherent in the charismatic historical occurrence. It cannot and will not be curtailed by any natural forces,” it becomes clear — though one wishes the Rav had made it more explicit — that the antithetic “natural forces” which opposed and threaten to curtail the covenant were NOT the natural forces involved with the plagues, but rather the “natural forces” of the human historical order, both the inner resistance of the Israelites themselves — indeed, the Rav claims that even “Moses as a natural man offer[ed] resistance” initially to the covenantal demands — and especially the threat to the covenant posed by the Egyptian bondage. Indeed, I believe that in his comment “When the antithesis reached its climax and the historicity of the covenant came to critical point,” the Rav had in mind the Rambam in Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 1:3, where the Egyptian enslavement almost cut off the great principles implanted in the people by Abraham.
That this interpretation is correct is confirmed by the Rav’s statement, “Historical values will emerge victorious from the clash with actual forces, which during the interim, seemed to run contrary to the vision of realization.” FKM emphasizes the phrase “victorious from the clash with actual forces,” but he overlooks the significance of the continuation of the sentence, “which during the interim, seemed to run contrary to the vision of realization.” If this reference is to the actual cosmic natural forces involved in the plagues, what does the Rav mean by his claim that these actual forces ran contrary to the vision of realization during the interim. It is clear that the actual forces referred to are the actual forces of the HUMAN natural order, both personal and communal, which, as we have seen, were, for the Rav, during this interim period opposed to the realization of the covenant.[2] This is also supported by the Rav’s references to “the forces of indifference” and “the opposition of a cruel reality.” I think by now it should be clear that these forces were forces of human indifference and the opposition came from a cruel human reality.
This interpretation, ironically enough, is further confirmed by the end of the excerpt from the Rav cited by FKM, though FKM – mistakenly—believes that it supports his interpretation. Let us look at this passage again.
This faith is rooted in our identification of both realms-the historical and the universal. Human intelligence has separated them from each other. Yet in the divine infinite consciousness, the cosmic law is at the same time a moral law and morality is natural. … Moreover, they [the two realms] merge together into one divine creation. God reveals Himself through the cosmos in the natural law and through the ethical universe. The unity of God warrants the unity of both orders: the natural and the moral.What does the Rav mean by saying that “The unity of God warrants the unity of both orders: the natural and the moral. This is commonplace in the prophetic world formula and needs no further elucidation. However, as we explained in detail in the second part of this essay, man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders...”
This is a common-place in the prophetic world formula and needs no further elucidation. However, as we explained in detail in the second part of this essay, man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders....
FKM writes: “So it is abundantly clear that Rav Soloveitchik understands the unity between charismatic historical and natural forces … is harmonized only within the divine consciousness and prophecy alone. But to the ordinary human observer like the scientist, there is only conflict and a clash of forces, with the historical ones defeating the natural ones. This is the message of the miracles of the Exodus to the world at large.”
So, for FKM, while the natural forces involved in the miracles of the Exodus are “harmonized only within the divine consciousness,” the ordinary human observer, like the scientist, who observes these miracles sees only “a conflict and a clash of forces, with the historical ones defeating the natural ones.”
It must be said that it is difficult to see how man’s supposed inability to see that in the divine consciousness there is no clash between the natural forces involved in the miracles of the Exodus and the charismatic-historical forces can result from the fact that “man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders...” But, in truth, FKM cut off this quote at a crucial point. The full text reads: “However, as we explained in detail in the second part of this essay, man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders. The ethical personality with its drive towards a sympathetic coexistence suddenly encountered the esthetic–orgiastic personality, with all its demonism. The genuine existence clashed with a pseudo-existence, and man surrendered to the demonic forces.”
From this quote in its ENTIRETY it is clear as day that when the Rav says that “man has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders” he is referring primarily to a cleavage between the HUMAN natural and the ethical orders, to a cleavage within man and following from that to a cleavage between man and the natural world surrounding him and under his control. As the Rav explains in the second part of the book, originally natural man, man as part of nature, gave rise to man as a human personality. This human personality was supposed to have been an ethical one, which would live in harmony both with natural man and, again following from that, with the surrounding natural world. But the human personality, instead of evolving into the ethical personality, became the demonic-esthetic–orgiastic personality. And it is this demonic-esthetic–orgiastic personality which “has introduced a cleavage between the natural and the ethical orders,” living in harmony neither with the natural man within nor with the natural world without. It should therefore also be undeniably clear that this cleavage introduced by man between the natural and the ethical orders has absolutely nothing to do with the natural forces involved in the miracles of the exodus and how they were perceived by the human observer.
Indeed, the real point of the Rav is exactly opposite to that suggested by FKM. The cosmic-natural order in the hands of God operates in harmony with the ethical-charismatic-historical order. And the message of the miracles of the exodus was precisely to demonstrate this harmony by showing how these miracles were simply “natural event[s] which cause[d] a historical metamorphosis. Whenever history is transfigured under the impact of cosmic dynamics, we encounter a miracle.” The natural quality of the miracles of the exodus was the greatest example of the harmony of these two orders. These miracles furthered the aims of the covenantal society without for one moment ceasing to be natural. And, as the Rav goes on to say later in the chapter, far from the natural quality of these miracles being barred from man’s perception, this natural quality was intended to serve as a model for man. Just as God harmonizes the natural and the ethical orders, so man should imitate God by harmonizing them within his own life, that is, by first expelling the esthetic-orgiastic personality from within himself, and then by harmonizing within himself and within his society natural man with man the ethical personality. And this is precisely the aim of the covenantal society whose establishment the natural miracles of the exodus facilitated. We see how the Rav’s teaching on these matters forms a perfect unity.
A fair reading of the ENTIRE passage of the Rav dealing with the miracles of the exodus within the context of the chapter in which it is to be found and in the context of the book as a whole supports, then, the reading offered by Rabbis Student and Slifkin, which is, when all is said and done, the plain reading of the passage, namely, that the miracles of the exodus were natural events which did not break in any way with the objective scientific nexus, and were miraculous only in the sense that, to repeat, they gave rise to “a historical metamorphosis” and led to the realization of the covenantal vision. Indeed, as the Rav states on the very last page of EEM, “The man of the miracle appears: the harmonious personality that reconciles the natural with the historical order (Moses through the plagues and exodus from Egypt)” (p. 204, emphasis added). Note how the miracle reconciles the two orders. Harmony is the final word.
In conclusion: I do not delude myself into believing that FKM will now acknowledge his error. I must say that I never cease to be impressed by how FKM, with amazing ingenuity and “maniacal” energy, defends the—what at least seems to me to be—indefensible. But if he wishes now to criticize me, along with Rabbis Student and Slifkin, for “distorting” the Rav’s teaching and to defend his own interpretation, he will need to do so in light of the ENTIRETY of the passage dealing with miracles, as seen within the chapter and book as a whole.
For myself, I have tried to the best of my ability to understand the Rav’s teaching concerning miracles and nature. As I understand it, it is both a profound and an inspiring teaching. But why should that surprise anyone?
[1] Something seems wrong with the text here. I wonder whether the “just as” from this sentence belongs to the previous one, that is, the previous sentence should read “God would have been just as instrumental in a natural children's plague.” Perhaps Dr. Michael Berger who edited EEM or Rabbi Reuven Ziegler, director of the MeOtzar HoRav archives, could enlighten us on this point.
[2] Again, something seems wrong with the text. At the beginning of this paragraph the Rav speaks about “natural forces,” but a little later on he speaks of “actual forces.” I wonder whether in the Rav’s manuscript the text in both places either read “natural forces,” or “actual forces.” And again, perhaps Dr. Berger or Rabbi Ziegler could enlighten us about this.
[The preceding was written by Dr. Lawrence Kaplan. See above for more information on him.]
