De la divina providencia, ó sea naturaleza universal (On Divine Providence, or Universal Nature)

You are right, for there is no way out of such dilemmas and they allow no subterfuge. However, returning to our topic, before I show you the true definition of this noun Nature, I must explain why our ḥakham stated this pious and holy opinion. What happened was this: he was in the yeshiva and someone there said that there was a sect called Deists that believed there is just one God but that He does not trouble Himself with governing the world.¹ The ḥakham asked: Who rules it, then, and who governs all this machinery, according to them? In response, he was told that they say that Nature directs and governs everything as it sees fit. The ḥakham replied that this was an enormous heresy and a detestable blasphemy, for there was no such Nature that governs things, and that this Nature that they said governs everything was God acting through His Providence.

And that is the censured proposition.

I know it well, but to put this opinion in more meaningful terms, we will say it is the Deists’ understanding that God left the running of the world in the hands of this supposed Universal Nature, like a prince who leaves the management of his palace or his state to the discretion, direction, and will of a majordomo or a favorite, without the prince noting or troubling himself with any matters great or small. Is that not what the Deists believe, and what was said of them in the yeshiva?

So people say.

Then in detesting the Deists’ opinion, he was not talking about specific Nature, such as that of fire, water, earth, and so on.

It seems that must be the case.

So your inference and your censure are not valid, for the Deists do not believe that each creature’s own specific Nature is what governs, and on that occasion it was never claimed that they did. In opposing their opinion, he had no reason to address or oppose a belief that they do not hold.

I have only second-hand knowledge of what happened in the yeshiva, since I was not there then, but what I myself heard in the sermon was that there is no Nature, and that the things they say Nature does are in fact done by God.

Exactly. He said it in the yeshiva and confirmed it in the sermon, and continues to assert and affirm that this is his belief. What have you to say against that?

I stand by my two inferences: it would follow, then, that all creatures are God, as are fire and water and so on, and that since there is no Nature, there can be no miracles.

If you were a logician, I would reply with a simple distinction: There is no universal Nature governing things, but rather the Providence of God—I concede that. But the idea that fire and water and so on do not have a specific Nature—I reject that. Nonetheless, to enlighten you while also elucidating this point clearly, I shall repeat the words of the sermon, with the proofs put forward at that time, to corroborate this hypothesis, which must convince you that the sermon made no mention of specific Nature with regard to the governing and direction of the world. What was said was that the noun tebah,² which in our holy language means “Nature,” was invented by our moderns after the year 500 or 600, and more specifically after they began to apply themselves to the human sciences, which is why this noun does not appear in books from before that time, such as the Bible, the Mishnah, and the Talmud.