Pensamiento judío sobre Josué 10:13

Although it is a scientific fact that major physical phenomena are reversible, G-d’s ability to destroy earth proves that it had not always existed, that He had created it. Otherwise, whence would G-d have taken the power to destroy it? The fact that the reversals of certain phenomena are the product of G-d’s free will and did not happen of their own, needs to be demonstrated. The verse (Jeremiah 31,10) "He who disperses Israel will gather it in," which might indicate the opposite, when viewed superficially, does in fact not prove that such reversals occur automatically. Jeremiah does not refer to the ingathering as being an automatic corollary of a previous dispersal, but as an act of G-d requiring supernatural means. This is demonstrated clearly by the context of the whole chapter in which this verse appears. Shepherds do likewise with their flocks, and so does the Lord. Sometimes He scatters in order to discipline, sometimes He collects people. All this is due to G-d exercising benevolent Personal Providence. This is true also when such happenings occur as part of the shepherd's vocation. When we talk about natural phenomena, the same does not hold true. Gideon, who wanted to see if the wool which is naturally moisture absorbent could also be made moisture repellant at the will of G-d, had his wish fulfilled (Judges Chapter 6). Thereby the power of G-d to reverse the laws of nature which He Himself had formulated had been demonstrated. Similarly, King Hezzekiah (Kings II, chapter 20). When the king saw the shadow of the sun dial reversing itself, he had found proof of the Creator's ability to reverse the seemingly irreversible processes of nature. The story of the deluge also demonstrates that He who has established natural law can also reverse it. Thereby He proves that His existence had preceded the laws of the universe, else He could not have demonstrated mastery over these laws. G-d therefore is able to decree after the deluge that natural law shall not again cease to function normally. Summer, winter, heat, and cold will all alternate at predictable intervals, as stated in Genesis 8,22. Noach and his sons, having witnessed first a universe which functioned beautifully then a universe in the process of destruction and lastly a newly functioning universe, were the witnesses for all future generations of the truth of the claim that G-d had created the universe ex nihilo. According to the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 11, the technical method that brought about the flood was the relocation of two stars forming the Pleiades. Even if mankind were to serve G-d, but under the mistaken impression that the laws of nature are immutable, such service of G-d would degenerate if man grew to believe that they were only in touch with intermediaries such as the sun and the moon, and that the Lord Himself would forever unconditionally allow these intermediaries to possess independent power which could not be curbed. At this point, the author engages in polemics against all those Jewish philosophers who, in common with their Greek counterparts, attempt to explain away most of the miracles. He singles out Ralbag especially. He defends the Rambam as having been wilfully misunderstood by some who read his commentary. He ascribes the tendencies of some commentators to rob the story of miracles of their fundamental value to two considerations. 1) No one can perform miracles that outclass those performed by Moses. 2) The beneficiaries of such miracles were not worthy of such far-reaching changes in nature to be performed for their sake. The Talmud Shabbat 53 relates that a husband whose wife died while leaving behind a small baby was in a predicament since he could not afford to hire a wet nurse to nurse the baby. A miracle occurred; the father's nipples produced milk on which the baby fed and survived. Rabbi Joseph views this as an extreme compliment to the father for whose sake such a great miracle was performed. Abaye, on the other hand, feels that it points out the unworthiness of the father, since G-d had to resort to supernatural means to supply the infant's needs. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the father's position was such that a miracle was not denied him, in order for him to fulfil his function of raising the infant. We have to view the role of pious men and prophets at various times in our history in a similar light. On the one hand, the generation of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, were praised because there was no need for a rainbow to appear during their respective lives (Ketuvot 76). They were praised for the fact that no miracles were needed in their time. No doubt, had the need arisen, these men would have been able to call on the power of miracle to be used on behalf of their contemporaries. Jacob moved a rock meant to be removable only by a whole group of shepherds. On the other hand, when praying for victory against Amalek, Moses’ss hands were so weak they had to be supported. This does not make Jacob superior to Moses. Certain needs arise at certain times. Only at those times can it be determined whether a miracle is in place to meet those needs. Examples are numerous. Joshua's commanding the sun and moon to be arrested in their orbits, does not denigrate the powers of Moses one iota. Had Moses found himself in the same predicament Joshua had found himself in, he would have been able to perform a similar miracle. Even a Yehu, a king of Israel who had failed to remove the golden calves Jerobam had erected, was enabled to wipe out all the priests of the Baal singlehandedly, something none of those greater than he had been able to do. Elijah and Elisha revived the dead, feats not credited to Moses, yet no one puts down Moses’s abilities on account of that. If you will, the revelation at Mount Sinai, and Moses’ss role in it as well as the participation of the entire nation, so outclass and overshadow any miracles performed by anyone subsequently or prior to that, that Moses’ss honor as the prophet/miracleworker par excellence can never be called into question. At that time, Moses had been instrumental in a chidush ha-olam, a renewal of the universe, so to speak. What happened was such a thorough reversal of all natural laws that the work of later prophets pales into relative insignificance by comparison. If this were not so, the miracles predicted in Yoel chapters three and four, would not be capable of being performed without relegating Moses to an inferior position vis a vis the Messiah or whoever will be G-d’s instrument when the time comes to fulfil those prophecies. In fact, all subsequent miracles are ascribed by G-d to Moses, when G-d promises in Exodus 34,10 that all the miraculous acts which are yet to occur are based on what G-d does for, with, and through Moses. In Moses, as it were, rests the fountainhead of all miracles ever performed by any prophet after him. In all of the Torah, we do not find any events which would constitute fulfilment of G-d’s promise to Moses made at that point. Joshua 11,16 makes it clear that throughout his career as leader of the Jewish people, his role remained that of being Moses’ss disciple. Nothing he did is to be understood as being innovative. It may have been Moses’ss desire to personally carry out these miracles as demonstrations of G-d’s power, which prompted him to request permission from G-d to cross the river Jordan. G-d’s denial of this request was coupled with the assurance that indeed his disciple would perform such miracles, thus fulfilling G-d’s promise to Moses in Exodus 34,10. The instructions to Moses to invest Joshua with part of his own glory and Moses’ss subsequent action cause our sages to comment that whosoever leaves behind him pupils fit to take his place has not in fact died at all (Midrash on Numbers 26,20). Our sages have accepted the principle that the Torah occasionally employs language in the manner people do in their every day speech. Therefore, we find both exaggeration and hyperbole. This fact, however, is not sufficient reason to explain away the very miracles that demonstrate the power of the Creator. There is also no foundation for the assumption of some commentators that miracles involving extra terrestrial matters are of inherently greater significance than miracles involving behavior of phenomena that we are familiar with on earth. In fact, one could argue the reverse with at least equal persuasion. If one can change phenomena that occur on earth despite the fact that their celestial causes have NOT been altered, this is more remarkable than changing patterns of behavior by phenomena whose celestial causes have either been neutralised, interfered with, or have been reversed. If, for instance, someone's arm can stay the wheel of a watermill in spite of the fact that the flow and pressure of the stream that activates it has not diminished, this is more remarkable than halting such a wheel by stopping the flow of water to it. If Daniel told Darius that the angel of G-d shut the lions' mouths, this is more remarkable than if the angel had merely killed the lions. We have discussed such events in chapter fifteen, also in chapter thirty-eight, in connection with the Passover in Egypt. The statement in Deut.34,10 that there never arose another prophet comparable to Moses, does not refer to Moses’sd power as a performer of miracles, but to the fact that no one since ever attained the face to face relationship with G-d that the Torah testifies Moses had achieved. The effortlessness with which Moses performed miracles, as compared to the need of other prophets to engage in prayer beforehand etc., proves how much Moses was on G-d’s "wavelength," so to speak.

Before I will begin explaining the next passage,³⁶I.e., before beginning the interpretation of the passage from the Zohar that follows. I would like to draw a possible connection between the statement of our Sages that the moon entered the domain of the sun and the words of the prophet Chabakuk,³⁷Chabakuk 3:11. “The sun and the moon stood in their domains.” In that verse, the hei of the word zevulah, translated as “in their domains,” is written without a mapik (i.e., a “diacritic,” a mark indicating that the letter should be read as a consonant).³⁸As will shortly be stated, Tosfos Yom Tov advances the interpretation of zevulah as “its (the sun’s) domain.” He prefaces his statements by saying that were that to be the interpretation, the hei should be written with a mapik. Hence, he agrees that this is not the simple meaning of the verse. Nevertheless, according to the approach of derush, there is room for the interpretation that he will advance. Thus, Rashi comments on that word:In their domains – Whenever a word requires a lamed at its beginning, a hei may be used at its end. The verse refers to the actions of the sun and the moon during the war against Givon, as reflected by the Targum.”³⁹See Yehoshua 10:12. Similarly, Radak comments on that verse: The sun and the moon – In the war of Yehoshua…. In their domains – In the heavens, which serve them as a domain and as a home, as it is written:⁴⁰Ibid. 10:13. “And the sun stood in the center of the sky.” The word zevulah contains an extra hei, like the hei of the word lailah, for the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. Radak is saying that the hei at the end of the word zevulah is extra and does not connote the feminine, just as the word lailah is masculine, as reflected in the verse,⁴¹Bereishis 41:11. Hebrew words ending with the letter hei are often feminine. However, this does not apply when the word is accented on the penultimate syllable. In such words the hei is called “extra,” i.e. it serves no grammatical function. Thus, although the noun lailah, “night,” ends in a hei, since the word is accented on the penultimate syllable, it is quantified by echad, the masculine form of the number one. Thus, we see that lailah is masculine, not feminine. “And we dreamt… on one night.” However, the way of the Midrashim is to give explanations even to extra letters.⁴²As Tosfos Yom Tov will proceed to explain, in the mode of derush, the hei may be understood as feminine possessive. Also, the phrase, “The sun and the moon” requires explanation because the words are written without the connecting letter vav, i.e., without the word “and”. Also, the term amad, “stood,” requires explanation because seemingly, it should have been written with a plural form. True, the singular form could be interpreted as meaning, “each stood individually,” as in the verse,⁴³Ibid. 49:22. See the commentaries of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, who explain that the singular form of the verb “strode” is used with “maidens”, which is plural, for the reason Tosfos Yom Tov offers here in the main text. “Maidens strode,” where a singular verb is used for a plural noun to imply that each one strode individually. Here, too, the intent is that both the sun and the moon stood individually. Nevertheless, there is room to explain, following the mode of derush, why the plural form is not used. Therefore, I maintain that the word “sun” in this verse can be understood as an introductory phrase, as if to say, “Let me tell you what happened concerning the sun.” Now, there are places in Scripture where the word “sun” takes a masculine form, as in the verses, “the sun emerged,”⁴⁴Bereishis 19:23. and “and when the sun sets.”⁴⁵Vayikra 22:7. However, there are other verses, e.g., “If the sun shines upon him,”⁴⁶Shmos 22:2. and “And as the sun was setting,”⁴⁷Bereishis 16:17. where the word “sun” takes a feminine form. Thus, the word zevulah could be understood as meaning “the sun’s domain.” Thus, the verse could be interpreted as meaning, “The sun – the moon stood in its domain,” i.e., to borrow the wording of our Sages mentioned above, the moon entered the domain and sphere of the sun.

We must not be misled by the account that the light of the sun stood still certain hours for Joshua, when “he said in the sight of Israel,” etc. (Josh. 10:12); for it is not said there “in the sight of all Israel,” as is said in reference to Moses. So also the miracle of Elijah, at Mount Carmel, was witnessed only by a few people. When I said above that the sun stood still certain hours, I explain the words “ka-jom tamim” to mean “the longest possible day,” because tamim means “perfect,” and indicates that that day appeared to the people at Gibeon as their longest day in the summer.