The Role of The Prophet in Producing Miracles

What is the role of the prophet in a miracle? More specifically, what was the role of Moshe Rebbenu in the production of the miracles that brought about the Jewish people’s Exodus from Egypt? Did Moshe play a passive role in the performance of a miracle- a type of “announcer” with pre-knowledge of the miracle and it timing or did Moshe play some type of more active role, being something of a “miracle worker“? This more active role seems to be the position of Maimonides in the “Guide for the Perplexed” when he states:

“ Scripture, therefore, declares that no prophet will ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in the presence of friend and enemy, of his followers and his opponents; this is the meaning of the words: ‘And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, etc, in all the signs and wonders, etc, in the sight of all Israel.’ Two thing are here mentioned together; namely, that there will not arise a prophet that will perceive as Moses perceived, or a prophet that will do as he did; then it is pointed out that the signs were made in the presence of Pharoh , all his servants and all his land, the opponents of Moses and also in the presence of all the Israelites, his followers. This is a distinction not possessed by any prophet before Moses; nor, as is correctly foretold, will it ever be posses by another prophet….Your mind must comprehend the distinction of the prophecy and the wonders of Moses, and understand that his greatness in prophetic perception was the same as his power of producing miracles.” (my underline RB)

So, for Maimonides, the prophet is more than a passive player in the miracle. Only Moshe, he states here could “produce” the public miracles of the plagues and the Exodus. He did more than announce them through knowledge. Bt what was Moshe’s role in the production of the miracles? To explore this passive versus active role of the prophet, I would like to revisit the difference of position of Maimonides regarding whether the miracle was designed with the initial creation of the world (Chazal) or whether it was produced at the time of its occurrence?  Maimonides states:

“ When I, however, said that no prophet ever announced “a permanent change of any of its properties,” I intended to except miracles. For although the rod was turned into a serpent, the water into blood, the pure and noble hand into a leprous one, without the existence of any natural cause that could effect these or similar phenomena, these changes were not permanent, they have not become a physical property. This is my opinion; this should be our belief. Our Sages, however said very strange things as regards miracles; they are found in Bereshit Rabba, and in Midrash Koheleth, namely, that the miracles are to some extent also natural; for they say, when God created the Universe with its present physical properties, He made it part of these properties, that they should produce certain miracles at certain times, and the sign of a prophet consisted in the fact that God told him to declare when a certain thing will take place, but the thing itself was effected according to the fixed laws of nature.” (Guide: Par 2, Chapter 29)

Upon reflection, the difference of opinion between Maimonides and Chazal seems very strange or even incomprehensible. It is true that miracles occur at a point in time. There is a timeline for all events that take place from beginning of the creation of the world up to the present moment. For example the splitting of the sea occurred in the Jewish year of 2448 on the 22^nd day of Nissan. This is at a specific time. Both Maimonides and Chazal, of course, agree on this. So what do they disagree on? It seems, at first, that the disagreement is whether the miracle was designed within the structure of the initial creation (Chazal‘s position) or whether this structure was “disturbed or altered” at the time of the miracle. Here is where it gets difficult for me. Maimonides holds, as does Chazal, I would assume, that G… is outside of time. G.. created time with the other elements of creation. This concept has always been, as I understand, a foundation of our belief. Parenthetically, with Einstein’s discovery that time is only a property of matter (space-time) and has no meaning outside of matter, science has certainly concurred with the idea that G…, having no matter, does not exist in time or act in time. An interesting quote from a prominent physicist, James Jeans in his book, “The Mind of God” states:
 

“What happened before the big bang? The answer is, there was no “before”. Time itself began at the big bang….the world was made with time and not in time, and that is precisely the modern scientific position.”

So, if we accept that G… is outside of time, as time is a property of the material creation, how can there be a disagreement between Maimonides and Chazal as to the timing of G…’s causing of the miracle. There are no “different times” with regard to the act of creation by G… The idea of arguing whether a miracle was pre-programmed by G… at the initial time of creation or done “on the spot” seems absurd. G… doesn’t act in the timeline. If time was created at the moment of ‘the beginning” it would seem that everything that was created was created at that point including all future time and its miracles. Time just keeps “rolling out” for us as we experience it in material existence.

So what is Maimonides position that implies an alteration in the creation at the time of the miracle? He certainly does not hold that G.. creates within time or creates at different times. But perhaps there is another factor in the production of miracles that is in time. This temporal factor ( one bound by time and existing on the timeline) is the prophet. Perhaps Maimonides agrees with Chazal that all miracles have a non-temporal element: part of the miracle created by G… who is outside of time at the point of creation. However, there is another element causing the miracle that is in time. The role of the prophet in bringing about the miracle. It is with this role that Maimonides and Chazal differ. This difference is whether the prophet plays a passive role as a simple announcer, knowing the timing and details of the miracle, but having no causative role (Chazal’s position) or whether the prophet plays a co-causative role with G… in the production of the miracle (Maimonides view).

In the next post we will explore what the active role of the prophet is in the miracle and more particularly what was Moshe’s role in bringing about the Exodus from Egypt. We will discuss the point Maimonides makes about the greatness of the prophet being correlated with the greatness of the miracle and that the greatness of the miracle seems to be associated with the public nature of the miracle. As Maimonides states in the “Guide for the Perplexed”(Pt. 2, Chapter 33)

“The general distinction between the wonders of Moses and those of other prophets is this: The wonders wrought by prophets, or for them, are witnessed by a few individuals, e.g., the wonders wrought by Elijah and Elisha; the king of Israel is therefore surprised, and asked Gehazi to describe to him the miracles wrought by Elisha: “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. And it came to pass as he was telling, etc. And Gehazi said: ‘ My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life’” (2 Kings viii, 4,5). The same is the case with the signs of every other prophet, except Moses our Teacher. Scripture, therefore, declares that no prophet will ever, like Moses, do signs publicly in the presence of friend and enemy, of his followers and his opponents; this is the meaning of the words: And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, etc., in all the signs and the wonders, etc. in the sight of all Israel.”

End Pt. 1  R.Borah 4/24/11