Showing posts with label Noach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noach. Show all posts

Friday, October 28, 2022

Noach: Shadal’s Radical Application of Dibrah Torah ki’Lshon Bnei Adam

This week's Torah learning has been sponsored by Vanessa, the first person who offered to cover the costs of my Zoom account for the year. Thank you, Vanessa! 

Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: DALL-E's response to the prompt, 
"painting in the style of Van Gogh of Noah bringing an animal sacrifice"

Noach: Shadal’s Radical Application of Dibrah Torah ki’Lshon Bnei Adam

Parashas Bereishis features a handful of “extreme” anthropomorphisms: “Let Us make man in Our Image” (1:26), “They heard the sound of Hashem-God walking in the garden” (3:6), and “Hashem regretted having made man on earth, and He was pained to His heart” (6:6). Another example can be found in Parashas Noach. After Noach emerges from the Ark and brings burnt-offerings to Hashem, we are told that “Hashem smelled the soothing fragrance” (8:21), then declared that He would no longer curse the earth or smite all living creatures. Shadal (R’ Shmuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865), quoting Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669), explains that this anthropomorphism “signifies a sacrifice brought to make God forget His anger.” Shadal continues:

(translated from the Italian by Dani Klein, with my own underlining for emphasis) 

This expression, of course, is merely an anthropomorphism suited to the popular understanding of the generation in which the Prophet (i.e. Moshe Rabbeinu) lived (על דרך דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם לפי מצב בינת אנשי הדור שהנביא עומד בו). At this point it is well to consider that the prophet Samuel told Saul, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice." [I Samuel 15:22]. From then on, we find this concept widespread in Israel; David said: – "For You delight not in sacrifice" [Psalms 51:18]; – "If I were hungry [for sacrifices], I would not tell you" [ibid. 50:12]; – "Burnt offering and sin offerings have You not required" [ibid. 40:7]. All the prophets of the Monarchic period, moreover, expatiated at length on this subject. Hence it should be clear as day that the Torah could not have been written during the Monarchic period, or from the time of Samuel onward, for the Torah speaks the language of people who were on a far lower intellectual plane than that of the Israelites of the Monarchic period (כי התורה דברה כלשון בני אדם אשר שכלם עומד במצב שפל מאוד ממצב ישראל בימי המלכים). 

Before we discuss the “radical” part, let us appreciate Shadal’s main point. Shadal wrote his commentary in the wake of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), in which the Torah’s authority was challenged from all sides. Maskilim (the so-called “enlightened Jews”) claimed that the Torah was composed during the Monarchic period – specifically, during the reign of Yoshiyahu in the 7th century B.C.E. Shadal argues that if the Torah were composed during this later era, the text would evince a negative attitude towards korbanos, as we see from numerous statements made by national leaders, such as Shmuel, David, Yeshayahu, and Yirmiyahu. Shadal concludes that this positive characterization of God’s response to korbanos is a concession to the lower intellectual level of the Jews in the pre-Monarchic period, and therefore serves as evidence of the Torah’s antiquity. 

It is Shadal’s opening and closing statements (underlined above) which intrigue me the most. I’m not troubled by Shadal’s assertion that the Jews in Moshe’s time were “on a far lower intellectual plane than that of the Israelites of the monarchic period.” The Jews who left Egypt had been steeped in the paganistic Egyptian culture for over two centuries. The Korban Pesach (lit. “sacrifice of skipping”) is predicated on the fact that the Jews were identical with their Egyptian masters in nearly every way and therefore needed to differentiate themselves by rejecting avodah zarah in order to merit redemption. The narratives that follow the Exodus are rife with examples of how attached Bnei Yisrael were to the Egyptian culture from whence they came. Likewise, I am not troubled by the notion that the Torah catered to the earlier generations’ attachment to korbanos. Indeed, this is the basis of the Rambam’s entire theory that korbanos as a whole are (as it were) a concession to the Jews’ attachment to the modes of worship that were ubiquitous at the time the Torah was given (see Moreh 3:32).

What I find both radical and compelling is Shadal’s application of dibrah Torah ki’lshon bnei Adam (Torah speaks in the language of man). This principle is typically invoked to explain the Torah’s use of anthropomorphisms: since it is impossible for the human intellect to have any positive knowledge of God, we are forced to speak of Him in terms which are, strictly speaking, inaccurate. Shadal takes this one step further by claiming that in some cases (at least) the Torah’s specific anthropomorphisms are tailored to the developmental level of the audience to which it was given. This methodological move has enormous implications, which I will leave the reader to consider.  
________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast""The Stoic Jew" Podcast"Rambam Bekius" Podcast"Machshavah Lab" Podcast"The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

Friday, October 8, 2021

Parashas Noach: Migdal Bavel and the Hindu Account of the Mabul

This week's Torah content has been sponsored by an anonymous donor, in memory of her grandmother, Golda Henya bat Devora a"h.
 
Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.




Parashas Noach: Migdal Bavel and the Hindu Account of the Mabul

Rashi (Bereishis 11:1) mentions three possible motives of the Dor Ha'Haflagah (Generation of the Dispersion) for building the tower. According to his third explanation, the people said: "Once every 1656 years, the firmament becomes unstable, as it did in the time of the Mabul (Flood). Come, let us make supports for it!" (Bereishis Rabbah 38:6). On a basic level, Chazal are teaching us that the Dor Ha'Haflagah denied that the Mabul was Divine punishment for the sinfulness of mankind; likewise, they denied Hashem’s promise that He would never bring such destruction again. Instead, they viewed the Mabul as a natural, cyclical phenomenon – one which had nothing to do with morality, and which could be averted by taking the proper technological precautions.

Up until now, I assumed that this midrash was mere homiletics, having nothing to do with historical fact. After all, how could Chazal know what the Dor Ha'Haflagah really thought? This year, however, I discovered that there really were people who believed this about the Mabul! I’m currently in the middle of reading Rabbi on the Ganges: A Jewish-Hindu Encounter, by Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill. The author summarizes the Hindu-Indian account of the Mabul, as recorded in the Puranas, a sacred text which was written down during the Gupta era (350-550 CE):

The Puranas present many related versions of the flood story, which all bear an uncanny resemblance to the biblical flood story. All of these accounts agree that the flood story’s protagonist is a man named Manu. Like Noah, Manu is described as a virtuous individual “who, by penances and prayers, had won the favor of the lord of heaven” (Shatapatha Brahmana I:8 Matsya Purana). Both Manu and Noah had three sons before the flood – Charma, Sharma, and Yapeti, and Ham, Shem, and Japheth, respectively. In Genesis, the cause of humanity’s destruction is that the “wickedness of man was great in the earth” (ch 6). In the story of Manu, however, the destruction of the world was part of the natural order of things, rather than as a divine punishment. (p.112)

Apparently, the cyclical flood theory wasn’t merely a didactic element of a midrashic fiction, but was a real belief held by actual human beings! Let us compare the response of the Dor Ha’Haflagah as described by the midrash with the Hindu response described in the Puranas. Chazal rightly condemn the Dor Ha’Haflagah for their denial of the true cause of the Mabul. They knew what Noach had told them based on nevuah and rejected it anyway. In contrast, the Hindus didn’t have access to a living navi to frame the event from a true Divine perspective. Where does that leave us today? We also don’t have a living navi. How should we respond to a cyclical natural disaster?

The answer lies in the Rambam’s codification (Hilchos Taaniyos 1:1-3) of the Jewish response to tzarah (catastrophe):

It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to cry out and to sound the trumpets on every tzarah that befalls the community … such as drought, epidemic, locusts, and the like … This principle is one of the darchei teshuvah (ways of repentance), that at a time of the onset of an affliction, when the [people] cry out and sound the trumpets, everyone will know that it was because of their evil conduct that this bad occurrence befell them … But if they do not cry out and do not sound the trumpets, but instead say, “This is minhago shel olam (a natural event) which befell us, and this affliction is a mikreh (chance occurrence)” - behold, this is a derech achzarius (way of cruelty) and will cause them to cling to their evil conduct, and [this] affliction and others will increase.

The Rambam doesn’t differentiate between cyclical and non-cyclical catastrophes. Apparently, it doesn’t matter whether the tzarah follows a natural cycle or not. What matters is whether we respond to it by doing teshuvah or whether we dismiss it as “the way of the world” and persist in our behavior. Every tzarah ought to prompt us to engage in teshuvah, no matter what the cause or frequency. In this framework, even if the Mabul were a cyclical disaster – as believed by the Dor Ha'Haflagah and the Hindus – it wouldn’t make a difference. Even without access to a navi today, we can know with 100% certainty that the correct response to any tzarah is teshuvah.
___________________________________________________________________________________
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast""The Stoic Jew" Podcast"Rambam Bekius" Podcast"Machshavah Lab" Podcast"The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here

Friday, June 1, 2018

Parashas Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Flamewake Phoenix, by Min Yum
This is NOT the type of bird-meat that Hashem would provide. 



Parashas Behaalosecha: Moshe's View of Miracles

Introduction

The episode in the wilderness known as Kivros ha'Taavah (the Graves of Desire) begins with Bnei Yisrael's craving for meat, instigated by the Erev Rav (Mixed Multitude):
The multitude that was among them cultivated a craving, and the Children of Israel also wept once more, and said: "Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge: the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic. But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing to anticipate but the mahn!" (Bamidbar 11:4-6)
Moshe Rabbeinu responds to their outcry in an uncharacteristically agitated manner:
Moshe said to Hashem: "Why have You done evil to Your servant? Why have I not found favor in Your eyes, that You place the burden of this entire people upon me? Did I conceive this entire people or did I give birth to it, that You say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a suckling, to the Land that You swore to its forefathers'? Where shall I get meat to give to this entire people when they weep to me, saying, 'Give us meat that we may eat'? I alone cannot carry this entire nation, for it is too heavy for me! And if this is how You deal with me, then kill me now - if I have found favor in Your eyes - and let me not see my badness!" (ibid. 11:11-15)
Clearly there is a LOT to understand here. A full analysis of Moshe's reaction is beyond the scope of this blog post. I refer you to Rav Soloveitchik's shiur (available here in audio and here as a transcript). In this post I intend to focus only on Moshe's dialogue with Hashem regarding Bnei  Yisrael's demand for meat.

The Question

After instructing Moshe to gather 70 elders to help him bear the burden of leadership, Hashem tells Moshe how He intends to address Bnei Yisrael's demand for meat:
[Hashem said to Moshe:] "To the people you shall say: 'Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat, for you have wept in the ears of Hashem, saying: Who will feed us meat? for it was better for us in Egypt! So Hashem will give you meat and you will eat. Not for one day shall you eat, nor for two days, nor for five days, nor for ten days, nor for twenty days. Until an entire month of days, until it comes out of your nose, and becomes nauseating to you, because you have rejected Hashem Who is in your midst, and you have wept before Him, saying: 'Why did we leave Egypt?'" (ibid. 11:18-20)
Hashem responds by telling Moshe to inform Bnei Yisrael that He will provide them with more meat than they can handle, as a way of rebuking them for their underlying desire to return to Egypt. One might expect Moshe to accept this without any problems. Instead, he bemoans the logistics of Hashem's plan:
Moshe said: "Six hundred thousand foot-soldiers are the people in whose midst I am, yet You say I shall give them meat, and they shall eat for a month of days?! Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? Or if all the fish of the sea will be gathered for them, would it suffice for them?" (ibid. 11:21-22)
On the surface it seems as though Moshe doubts Hashem's ability to miraculously provide meat! This reading of Moshe's words is supported by Hashem response to Moshe's question:
Hashem said to Moshe: "Is the hand of Hashem limited? Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" (ibid. 11:23)
Hashem then provides meat by causing the wind to blow quail from the sea: "A wind went forth from Hashem and blew quail from the sea and spread them over the camp, a day's journey this way and a day's journey that way, all around the camp, two cubits above the face of the earth" (ibid. 11:31-32).

This exchange between Moshe and Hashem is problematic. The pesukim make it sound as though Moshe doubted Hashem's ability to provide meat for Bnei Yisrael. Our question is: What was Moshe thinking? After all, this is Moshe Rabbeinu we're talking about - the greatest navi who ever existed, through whom Hashem performed the miraculous Ten Plagues, the splitting of the sea, the mahn in the Wilderness, and a number of other miracles and wonders. How could he express incredulity about Hashem's ability to perform this simple miracle of providing meat for the nation?

The Ran's Answer

The Ran [1] provides an eye-opening answer to this question in the eighth drashah of his Drashos ha'Ran. As is my custom, I will first present a translation of the relevant excerpt - with my own paragraph breaks for clarity - and then I will summarize and comment on each point. The Ran writes:
Hashem's desire and will is to maintain the natural order (minhago shel olam) as much as possible; nature (teva) is precious in His eyes, and He will only change it if there is an absolute necessity
It is because of this that Moshe said: "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc." for Moshe thought that Hashem would not generate a miracle and a wonder in order to fill their bellies with something that is not necessary. He was astonished and wondered how, by natural means, he would be able to provide enough meat for those people.
And since the natural order is precious in Hashem's eyes and He desires it, as we have written, then sometimes, when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle and a wonder, He will intermingle it with a natural phenomenon which will serve as a basis for that miracle - even though that natural phenomenon is not sufficient to bring about that miracle, but is merely a support for it.
An example of this what Elisha said to that woman from among the wives of the prophets' disciples: "[Elisha said:] 'Tell me: what do you have in the house?' and she said: 'Your maidservant has nothing in the house except for a jar of oil'" (Melachim II 4:2) and he responded to her: "Go, borrow vessels for yourself from the outside, from all your neighbors - empty vessels; do not be sparing" (ibid. 4:3). [Elisha then went on to miraculously fill all of the empty vessels with oil from that single original jar.]
There is no doubt that it would have been impossible within the laws of nature to produce that much oil from that jar - as impossible as if there were no oil there at all. Nevertheless, the navi's request was in line with Hashem's will that this miracle should have a natural basis to lean on. 
The Ran makes four points, which we will now summarize and briefly analyze.

Point #1: Nature is Precious in Hashem's Eyes

Truthfully, this point deserves its own blog post, since it has so many implications, and there is so much evidence to support it. Instead of writing my own thoughts about this, I will quote an excerpt from the introduction to a well-known essay written by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva:
Judaism, as seen through the eyes of the scholars of the Talmud, has its own unique religious orientation. While basing itself on a cataclysmic event – revelation, it does not look to miracles as the source of its intimate relationship with God. God's revelation at Sinai was a one-time occurrence never to be repeated. This is expressed in Deuteronomy 5:19, “a great voice which was not heard again.” In the mind of the Talmudic scholar God continuously reveals himself not through miracles but through the wisdom of his laws. These laws manifest themselves in Torah –the written and the oral law – and in nature
The Psalmist expresses this view most clearly. He speaks freely of the wonders of nature and the awe-inspiring universe as in Psalm 8:4, "When I look at the heavens, the work of Your fingers; the moon and stars which you have established". Psalm 104, dedicated to the wonders of nature, climaxes with the exclamation, "How many are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom." Regarding the sheer intellectual joy one derives from studying Torah, he states, "The Torah of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul, the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the simple person. The precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is lucid, enlightening the eye. The statutes of the Torah are true; they are all in total harmony. They are more to be desired than gold, even fine gold, and they are sweeter than honey and the honeycomb." 
When speaking of man's search for God the Psalmist states: "The Lord, from heaven, looked down upon the children of man, to see if there were any man of understanding searching for God" (Psalms 14:2). Man discovers God only through understanding. Accordingly, the righteous are depicted as being constantly involved in this process of searching for and discovering God. "But only in the Torah of the Lord is his desire, and in His Torah he mediates day and night" (Psalms 1:2). Maimonides sharply criticizes those who consider themselves religious and search for God through the miraculous. "Say to a person who believes himself to be of the wise men of Israel that the Almighty sends His angel to enter the womb of a woman and to form there the fetus, he will be satisfied with the account; he will believe it and even find in it a description of the greatness of God's might and wisdom; although he believes that the angel consists of burning fire and is as big as a third part of the Universe, yet he considers it possible as a divine miracle. But tell him that God gave the seed a formative power which produces and shapes the limbs and he will turn away because he cannot comprehend the true greatness and power of bringing into existence forces active in a thing that cannot be perceived by the senses." 
While Judaism is based on a supernatural event, it is not oriented toward the supernatural. The essence of Judaism is not realized through religious fervor over the miraculous but through an appreciation of God's wisdom as revealed both in Torah and the natural world. A miracle, being a breach of God's law, does not contribute to this appreciation. This distinction is crucial since it gives Judaism its metaphysical uniqueness.
I believe that the view expressed by my Rosh ha'Yeshiva is what the Ran means when he says that nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes." He cannot mean that nature is "precious" to Hashem simply because He created it. This wouldn't warrant the word "precious," which implies that it is more valuable to Hashem (so to speak) than other things in His world. Rather, nature is "precious in Hashem's eyes" in that it provides the basis of man's relationship to Hashem - namely, the wisdom and beauty of the Divinely authored laws of nature. Nature is precious as a means of drawing closer to Hashem.

That, according to the Ran, is why Hashem is "reluctant" (so to speak) to do miracles, except when absolutely necessary. A miracle is a pgam (blemish) which mars the beauty of Hashem's wondrous laws of nature. 

Point #2: Conservation of Miracles

The Ran's second point is an explicit formulation of what I've heard some people refer to as "The Law of Conservation of Miracles." Hashem doesn't perform miracles gratuitously. Rather, He will only perform a miracle when it is "absolutely necessary." 

The Rambam [2] mentions an application of the Law of Conservation of Miracles in his discussion about nevuah (prophecy), emphasizing the point that all of Moshe's miracles were done out of practical necessity - not to establish his prophecy:
Israel did not believe in Moshe Rabbeinu because of the [miraculous] signs he performed, for one whose belief is based on miracles will have doubt in his heart, since it is possible that he did [these miracles] using illusions and trickery. Rather, all of the miracles he performed in the wilderness, he did out of necessity – not to bring a proof for his prophecy. He needed the Egyptians to be drowned – he split the sea and drowned them in it; we needed sustenance – he brought down the mahn; we were thirsty – he split the stone for them; the congregation of Korach denied him – he caused the earth to swallow them; and the same for all the other [miraculous] signs.
As a Chumash teacher I am often asked, "Why didn't Hashem solve such-and-such problem by miraculously doing such-and-such?" Although this question must be taken up on a case-by-case basis, the general answer can be boiled down to The Law of Conservation of Miracles: if a natural solution is possible, Hashem will not make recourse to miracles - and even when He does resort to miracles, He will minimize His intervention in the laws of nature as much as possible.

This is the basis of the Ran's answer to our question about Moshe's response to Hashem's proposed solution for the meat crisis ...

Point #3: Moshe's Response to the Meat Crisis

According to the Ran, Moshe's response ("Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them? etc.") did not stem from any disbelief in Hashem's ability to do miracles. Rather, Moshe was operating under the assumption that God wouldn't do a miracle in this particular case. He reasoned that Hashem wouldn't do a miracle since it wasn't absolutely necessary for Bnei Yisrael to eat meat. Therefore, he assumed that the solution to Bnei Yisrael's dissatisfaction would have to be found within the laws of nature, and that seemed to be an impossible task to him. 

(Indeed, the Chizkuni [3] learns that Moshe thought that the 70 elders were appointed to help him with all of the meat-slaughtering. Part of his question, "Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them?" was:  "How can 71 men slaughter enough meat for 600,000 men?")

According to the Ran, Hashem's response to Moshe ("Is the hand of Hashem limited?") was not intended to rebuke Moshe for thinking that the hand of Hashem is limited; rather, His response was intended to correct Moshe's mistaken assumption that the meat would be provided by his hand rather than Hashem's hand. The rhetorical formulation of Hashem's rebuke was intended to highlight Moshe's mistake about whose hand would provide the meat.

(Unfortunately, I do not know of any commentary by the Ran on the second part of Hashem's response: "Now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!" which seems to imply that Moshe did have some doubt as to whether the word of Hashem would come to pass. Let me know if you find or think of anything on this remaining question!)

Point #4: Miracles Via Nature

The Ran's fourth and final point is related to his first point. Because nature is precious in Hashem's eyes, then even when it becomes necessary for Him to do a miracle, He will do it by using a natural phenomenon as a "support" in order to convey his "reluctance" (so to speak) to completely do away with nature. 

The examples of this principle are too numerous to recount here. I'll just mention a few:

  • Hashem could have just miraculously protect Noach, his family, and the animals. Instead, He made Noach build an ark and gather a male and female of each species. Undoubtedly, this ALSO required miraculous intervention - but the miracle was done using nature as a "support."
  • The flood, itself, is an example of this. Hashem could have instantaneously "zapped" all of the evildoers. Instead, He utilized a natural disaster of miraculous proportions.
  • Hashem could have designed the Ten Plagues to be completely supernatural. Instead, He utilized natural phenomena and caused them to behave in unnatural ways.
  • Hashem could have split the sea by causing the waters to levitate or miraculously move aside on their own. Instead, "Hashem moved the sea with a strong east wind all the night" (Shemos 14:21).

This principle answers many questions about why Hashem performed specific miracles in the manner that He did. As the Creator of the universe yesh me'ayin (ex nihilo), of course Hashem could do miracles in any way He desires - and yet, He opts to incorporate nature as much as possible into these miraculous interventions in order to convey to us how precious nature is in His eyes.

Concluding Thoughts

I think there is an important lesson we can learn by comparing the popular view of miracles to Moshe's view miracles, as explained by the Ran. The Rambam [4] articulates the popular view in his Maamar Techiyas ha'Meisim
I will explain to you that which brought me to this approach, and that is that our aim and the aim of every intelligent person among the select few is opposite to the aim of the masses of people. For the most cherished and beloved thing to the masses of Torah-observant people, because of their ignorance, is to consider the Torah and human intellect to be two opposite poles. Everything which is incomprehensible to the intellect they consider to be a miracle. They flee from explaining something as a natural phenomenon whether it pertains to something recorded in the past, or in regard to something which is discernible at the present time, or whether it relates to something which is written will happen in the future. We, on the other hand, strive to reconcile the Torah with human intellect and regard everything in its natural light wherever possible, unless it is self-evident therefrom that it is of miraculous connotation and cannot be interpreted at all; then we are forced to say it is a miracle.
The "masses of Torah-observant people" look for miracles everywhere. They are eager to posit a miracle whenever possible. In their eyes, the more "miraculous" the miracle is, the better. Many even believe that nature diminishes Hashem's greatness and detracts from our ability to relate to Him.

From Moshe Rabbeinu we see that the Torah encourages the opposite of this orientation towards miracles. Moshe didn't expect Hashem to do a miracle for him, even though it would have solved a lot of problems, since he knew that Hashem only does miracles when they are absolutely necessary. Moshe knew that even when Hashem does perform a miracle, He uses natural phenomena as a "support" in order to convey how "precious" nature is in His eyes. The reason for this is because nature exhibits the wisdom of the Creator, and is our greatest vehicle for relating to Him. As tempting as it might be to seek out the miraculous as a basis for our relationship to God, His preference is for us to seek Him by appreciating the wondrous wisdom of His natural law: "How great are Your works, Hashem! With wisdom You made them all; the earth is full of Your creations" (Tehilim 104:24).

Indeed, this is why the Torah presents us not only the historical account of the miracles that Hashem did, but also includes the information we need in order to learn how Hashem wants us to relate to His miracles. The challenge is to set aside our own preconceived notions, wishes, and fantasies about Divine intervention, and instead, to learn about the ways of Hashem from the words and teachings of Hashem in His Torah.

[1] Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven, Drashos ha'Ran #8
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 8:1
[3] Rabbeinu Chezkiah ben Manoach, Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 11:21-23
[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead; see my post entitled On Interpreting "Miracle Stories" in the Talmud for a further exploration of this view