Certainly, the most significant voice in the formation of an alternative natural philosophy was that of Moses Nahmanides (d. 1270). To be sure, Nahmanides insists that he rejects ‘‘nature’’ altogether. His system (if it may be called that) was in large measure a reaction to Mai-monides, who, in Nahmanides’ words, ‘‘diminishes miracles and augments nature’’ (Twersky, 232). Nahmanides will, then, ‘‘augment’’ miracles and diminish nature. Moreover, he draws upon ideas of earlier Jewish thinkers whose views were at variance with those of Maimonides.
In several clear statements, Nahmanides rejects out of hand any notion of ‘‘nature,’’ asserting that Jewish belief maintains that there are only miracles - miracles here meaning, direct products of the divine will. Will is not whim; it is an intervention elicited by Jewish moral and ritual behavior. Nahmanides does not propose an alternative physics (such as atomism, adopted by Muslim mutakallimUn and some Karaites). As we shall see, he in effect accepts the explanations of Aristotelian physics and Galenic medicine for mundane affairs; they cannot be allowed only when the observance of the Torah is somehow involved. ‘‘The blessings and curses are all miracles, for it is not natural that the rains should fall in season when we worship God...’’ (Commentary to Exodus 6:2). When the Jews as a whole behave as they should, ‘‘their affairs will not be realized by nature at all: not with regard
N
To their bodies, their land, their collective, or any of their individuals” (Commentary to Leviticus 26:11).
Indeed, Nahmanides recognizes a permanence in the cosmic setup, which, he insists, includes the spiritual as well as sensible realms, which is hardly distinguishable from Maimonides’ proclamation of a fixed and permanent natural order. He may even discern some sanctity in the scheme of things that God created. These ideas are divulged in his discussion of the biblical prohibition to cross species (kil’ayim):
> The rationale underlying kil'ayim is that God created the worldly species of things possessing a vegetative soul and those with a motive soul [an Aristotelian phraseology for plants and animals!], and he gave them the capacity to reproduce so that the species would maintain themselves forever, so long as He (Blessed is He!) wills the world to exist. As part of this capacity, He commanded that they reproduce within their own species, and that they do not change forever.. .Whosoever crosses two species denies the act of creation, thinking as if God did not perfect the world as required, and so he wishes to aid in the creation...[Therefore] animals will not reproduce [when mated] with another species, and even those that are close in nature and do reproduce, such as mules, will have no issue, since they are infertile (commentary to Leviticus 19:19).
Though formulated largely as a response to Maimonides, Nahmanides’ approach has roots in other, earlier Jewish approaches. He was well acquainted with the astrological worldview of Abraham ibn Ezra, for whom he professed ‘‘open antagonism and concealed love.’’ According to Ibn Ezra, man is bound within a universe governed by the stars, but he can escape their decrees by linking up to a higher order of reality, one which is above the stars. Nahmanides is much clearer than Ibn Ezra in specifying that this is achieved by observance of the Torah. We are not speaking about a subjective liberation from this-worldly drudgery, that can be achieved by developing the proper spiritual outlook - that would seem to be the view of Ibn Ezra. Instead, at issue here are the rewards and punishments clarified in the Torah: ‘‘For man receives no benefit in reward of a commandment nor evil in punishment of a violation unless it be by miraculous action. If he were left to his nature or his [astral] sign, his actions would be of no consequence...’’ (Commentary to Genesis 17:1). The idea that the natural course of events is astrally governed, or, to put it differently, that someone left to the governance of nature would be subject to the decrees of the stars, was widely held by Nahmanides’ followers, and largely identified by them with the lower order governance of the universe.
Nahmanides firmly believes that natural science is severely myopic. Aristotle and his school limited their interest to the sensible phenomena alone. They totally ignored the spiritual dimension of the cosmos and, therefore, had not a clue about the most telling set of operative causal connections: the linkage between human behavior, more precisely, Jewish ritual observance, and sensible phenomena such as rainfall. Revelation and the prophetic tradition teach Jews about this linkage, which is a key element of belief.
This idea fits into an earlier tradition that asserted that Jews have access to a richer body of knowledge than Gentiles. The poet and philosopher, Judah Halevi, argued it would be wrong to assert that reason (qiyas) is the criterion distinguishing Jewish from Greek science. The Greeks came up with ‘‘rational’’ explanations for whatever phenomena they could detect with their senses. Had they been able to visually attest to the miracles performed by the prophets, they would have ‘‘explained’’ them as well; but they cannot be faulted for denying events that they could not possibly witness. This line of thought was pressed by later thinkers. Joshua ibn Shueib, an influential preacher, criticized those who proffer illegitimate, allegorical interpretations of Jewish lore; they err ‘‘because they believe only what their eyes see and their senses apprehend. Whatever is beyond intellect or nature, they reject, in the manner of the philosophers. But whoever has belief in his heart.. .will believe that God creates new things on earth, as the situation or the moment [require]’’ (Derashot, Beshalah, 1,132). The ‘‘Greeks’’ are not accused of maliciously spreading disbelief; quite to the contrary, they are excused for not including in their theories dimensions or modes of operation of the world that lie beyond their grasp.
Miracles or nature are not the only options for Nahmanides. There exists a third alternative: God may occasionally intervene in a non-miraculous fashion, but rather by manipulating the usual, haphazard course of events (derekh ha-miqrim). Such was the case when quail were dispatched in response to the Children of Israel’s craving for meat. They arrived in greater than usual quantities, and their descent proved to be a punishment: both of these features are characteristic of miracles. Nonetheless, avers Nahmanides, there was no innovation here in ‘‘the nature of the world’’ (commentary to Numbers 11:19, end). Nahmanides also knows of one nature supervening upon another. At creation, animals were impressed with a vegetarian nature, ‘‘and that is the nature that was placed in them permanently.’’ They became carnivorous (and murderous) only with Adam’s sin, and this ‘‘custom’’ endures. In the messianic age, animals will revert to their ‘‘first nature’’ (comm. to Leviticus 26:6).
The idea of a higher order gained acceptance among Jewish thinkers who are classified as philosophers and overall adhere to the Maimonidean path. Here follow applications of the concept in the writings of two such thinkers. According to Jedaiah Penini, the higher mode becomes operational when the Jewish people behave as they ought to. Repentance is one way to activate the higher governance, and, as a rule, the Jews repent only when motivated by a hostile environment. Hence the Jewish people are paradoxically closest to salvation when they are most downtrodden. Repentance places them under divine providence, rather than natural law (Lashon ha-Zahav, Venice, p. 15a). Isaac Arama notes that the implementation at times of a higher order, which in effect ‘‘robs’’ the natural order of its governance, does not necessarily mean that there is no fixed natural order. He agrees that there is one indeed, the philosophers are correct in recognizing it and seeing in it a proof for God’s existence; but the Jews are no less well-grounded in finding proof in the miraculous violation of nature. ‘‘Just as the customary natural order of reality testifies to the truth of God’s existence, so also the occasional robbing and destruction of its nature proclaims the majesty of His kingship...’’ (Aqedat Yitzhaq, Bo, beginning of ch. 38).
See also: > Abraham ibn Ezra > Aristotelianism in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew Traditions > Moses Maimonides > Philosophical Theology, Jewish
World History
