Halakhic Miracles

An interesting angle on the discussion of miracles within Judaism is the halakhic-legal application. There is a halakhic directive to make a blessing upon experiencing a miracle (Brachot –chapter nine). As such, there is a need to have a working halakhic-legal definition of what exactly constitutes a miracle so that the individual can know when they are obligated to make this blessing.

The Talmud however, does not define the precise boundaries of what is considered a miraculous event. What it does do, is give us examples of what it considers a miracle. For example, the Talmud (Brachot 54a) says that one must make a blessing when passing the place where our ancestors experienced a miracle. It then goes on to give two examples: the splitting of the sea and the place where the Jews fought (and won) Amalek. 

Clearly these two events are strikingly different in their type of miracle. As we discussed at length in the last few posts, there is a miracle that works within nature, and a miracle that transcends and doesn’t reckon with nature. These two examples typify these two class sets.

This would seem to imply that even when someone experiences an event that does not break the bonds of nature and is just not what we would expect (i.e. winning a war against a numerically and strategically superior force, such as Amalek), we still can, and are obligated to, make a blessing on the event.

The shulkhan arukh (orach chayim, siman 218, seif 9) brings yet another example that might obligate one to make a blessing on a miracle. The example is where one simply underwent a potentially life-threatening situation and was saved. Such as being robbed or falling off a ladder and the like. According to this we can isolate three class sets of experiences that can be considered halakhically a miracle.

1.       Complete miracle- i.e. something broke the laws of nature.

2.       Semi – miracle – i.e. something extraordinary happened that utterly defied what we would expect to play out naturally. Yet no law of nature was broken. This would be chanuka, the war of Amalek, purim etc.

3.       Dangerous situation – potentially life threatening that one was saved from. In this situation there is no breakdown of nature, not even something extraordinary, just what appears to be a commonplace occurrence. Yet this is, according to some authorities, considered a halakhic miracle.

The problem with this last class set is that there is an entirely different blessing that one is supposed to make on being saved from a potentially life threatening situation. It is called birkhat hagomel, the blessing of beneficence. Thus if one crossed the sea and went through a storm, or travelled through a desert they must say a blessing of gomel. This would seem to indicate that a dangerous situation is not halakhically classified as a miracle since it already falls under a different category of gomel or grace. As a result this last class set is hotly disputed by the earlier commentaries.

What is most interesting is that these three halakhic categories exactly parallel the three categories that Chassidic thought delineated. The open dominant miracle, the integrated miracle and the non-recognizable miracle.

Although the earlier commentators (Rishonim) debated the issue, the final ruling as it has been codified by the later commentators (Achronim) is that one makes a blessing on a miracle only where a breakdown of nature has occurred. 

A Chassidic Unified Theory

Last week we explained how it is conceptually possible to have a merging of the natural and the divine in one fluid system. In this week’s essay we will explore the ramifications of asserting that our earthly natural system of reality contains divine energy and influence.

Chassidic thought asserts several core concepts that can all perhaps be seen to revolve around one central axis. Among them are the following:

1.       Divine providence – hashgacha pratit : Chassidus asserts that every single occurrence that takes place is governed and orchestrated by G-d. From a fish eating plants on the seabed to the fall of communism, everything is ultimately presided over by G-d.

2.       Purpose of creation – dirah betachtonim: Chassidus posits that the purpose of creation is that G-d wants us to create for him a “dwelling place” here in the physical realm. This is in direct contrast to most other strands of Jewish thought which place the emphasis of the divine intent on spirituality or other considerations. See my post for more on this.

3.       Divine “goodness” – ein ra yored milmala: Chassidus asserts that ultimately there is nothing bad or harmful that comes from above. Any occurrence in one’s life that seems filled with pain, sorrow and/or darkness, is in fact something profoundly beneficial and constructive. In fact, precisely because of the depth of its “goodness”, it is percieved as destructive instead of constructive. This is obviously a viewpoint that requires a comprehensive explanation to understand its coherency and cogency.

4.       Awakening of the dead – techiyat hameisim : Chassidus uncharacteristically  takes the Ramban’s (Nachmonides) position on this over the Rambam’s (Maimonides). The dispute is whether the final climax of existence will take place in a world of souls (Rambam’s postion) or a world with actual physical bodies (Ramban’s position). Chassidus takes the latter position.

5.       Supremacy of action – maaseh ikar: Chassidus places incredible emphasis on physical mitzvoth, asserting that a physical act of a mitzvah connects one to a deeper place of divinity then learning Torah does. This is dealt with at some length in Professor Naftali Lowenthal’s “The Apotheosis of Action in Early Habad”printed in the Daat Journal #18.

6.       Supremacy of limitation – kadmo ha’heder: Chassidus takes the position that the ability of G-d to exist in limited and imperfect ways is in fact, a deeper expression of his omnipotence then His ability to exist in infinite and perfect ways. Hand in hand with this is the idea that concealment can reflect a deeper level of G-dliness then revelation.

7.       Supremacy of the recipient – maalas ha’mekabel : a similar strand of thought is that the recipient is in fact greater than the giver. Chassidus pinpoints this in several places. The (latent and eventual expression of) supremacy of woman over man, action over contemplation and speech over thought.

8.       Supremacy of nature over the miraculous – the subject of our last couple posts’.

While many of these points have been dealt with at length (most notably, purpose of creation in Rabbi Faitel Levin’s “Heaven on Earth” and supremacy of action in Lowenthal, above) there has yet to be written a unified theory clarifying the conceptual underpinnings of each of these radical positions and how they derive one from the other. Perhaps there is no core pillar from which springs forth each of these positions, and instead each position is taken on a case by case basis. But given the intertwinement of most of Chabad thought, it appears probable that there is a key concept behind all these positions.

What we can do is isolate several ideas common to all the positions taken above. Firstly, the idea that there is something innately holy about the material realm. Secondly, the idea that reality is often the inversion of our perception and opposite what we might think.

In next week’s post we will start clarifying the diversity of Jewish thought on the concept of miracles and nature. Stay tuned.