The descent of hail in the parasha is described as “fire mingled with the hail,” which, in the words of Sages, was “a miracle within a miracle.” The concept of “a miracle within a miracle” is also found in other places and in relation to other events throughout biblical history. It serves as an expression of special emphasis by the reader and the commentator who wish to draw our attention to a given miraculous event. This is an attempt to magnify the miracle as part of our appreciation of God's manifestation in the world in a clear and direct manner. An examination of the commentaries reveals that the understanding of this emphasis varies from one commentary to another.
The commentators disagree about the nature of the “miracle within a miracle” (cited in Shemot Rabba), that transpired during the plague of hail. According to the Maharal, two levels of miracle were combined in the hail. The first miracle was simply the unique descent of the hail, which does not usually occur in such quantity and intensity. The second miracle was the combination of fire and water that deviates from nature (Gur Aryeh, Exodus 9). According to the Re’em (Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrahi), the additional miracle that took place aside from the combination of fire and water is in the fact that the fire went downwards, “which is the opposite of its normal motion, as it is written (verse 23) ‘and fire ran down to the earth’ ” (Mizrachi, Exodus 9).
According to the Maharal, the two miracles are not equal in their intensity. In contrast with the fire that mingled with the ice, the descent of hail itself is an entirely natural act, the miracle was only in the timing and intensity. The Re’em sought to find two miracles at the same level, both of which reflect a reversal of the natural order.
Regarding the definition of a double miracle, the Re'em follows in the footsteps of Midrash Rabbah describing how the Egyptians’ staffs were swallowed by Aaron’s staff. “ ‘And the staff of Aaron swallowed up their staffs,’ Rabbi Elazar taught: This was a miracle within a miracle” (Bavli Shabbat 67a). The Midrash explains the nature of the two miracles. “Rabbi Elazar taught, it was a miracle within a miracle, for the staff reverted to being a staff, and then it swallowed them" (Exodus Rabbah, Va’era, 9). In other words, according to the Gemara the serpent turned back into a staff, and it was the staff that opened its mouth and swallowed the other staffs. Thus, two separate miracles occurred, both of which were against nature.
The desire to search for a multitude of miracles and, moreover, to place the conspicuous miracle in the center, stems from the primal human need to interact with God face to face, to sense His presence and His existence, by means of His great power. This is the point made by the Shem Mi-Shmuel (Rabbi Shmuel Bornsztain), “…for when the angel of fire descends, at that moment the hiddenness of God disappears…and this is the glory of God, Blessed be He, that there is no other besides Him, and there is no reality for any other creature apart from Him.” (Shem Mi-Shmuel, Vayera). The revelation of God by means of a miracle reveals that He is the creator of nature.
A further suggestion is found in a discussion in Tractate Sotah, where the miraculous incident involving the prophet Elisha and the youth who mocked him is discussed. At the end of the incident, the mocking youngsters were torn apart by bears that came out of the forest (see II Kings, 2:23-24). In explaining this event, the sages Rav and Shmuel differ as to whether what happened was a miracle or, perhaps, a miracle within a miracle. “ ‘Then two bears came out of the forest and tore up forty-two lads.’ Rav and Shmuel disagree. One says it was a miracle, while the other says that it was a miracle within a miracle. According to the opinion that it was a miracle, initially there was a forest but there were no bears. According to the opinion that it was a miracle within a miracle, there was neither a forest nor were there bears” (Bavli Sota 47a). According to the latter explanation, the miracle lay not only in the appearance of the bears, but in the appearance of the forest from whence they came – for initially there were neither bears nor forest. Thus, according to this approach, the entire scene of the event, together with the event itself, sprang from nothing – ex nihilo. All of this suggests that the attempt to present a miracle as “a miracle within a miracle” is the result of a desire to deepen the miracle, to magnify it and to marvel at its power. The very disagreement highlights a hidden competition about how to best explain the story in an inspiring manner.
Another example of “a miracle within a miracle” may be found when the miracle is performed in an unanticipated manner. When Elisha sweetens water by means of salt, Rashi comments: “But surely salt is something that spoils the water! Rather, this is a miracle in a miracle" (Rashi II, Kings 2). The sweetening of the water is the miracle in itself, but the way in which the water's sweetening was performed turns the miracle into a miracle performed by means of a miracle. Similarly, we find the rescue of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the fiery furnace, not by extinguishing the fire, but by keeping them alive and their bodies intact within the fire, is identified by Rabbenu Bahye as “a miracle within a miracle,” as he teaches – “For this is the way of the Almighty, by performing signs and wonders with the righteous ones, He makes them ‘a miracle within a miracle,’ to magnify the sign and the wonder. We find this regarding Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, when they were cast into the fiery furnace, and it was possible with a simple wonder to extinguish the fire, but to increase the sign and the wonder, the fire was allowed to remain strong, and yet it did not harm them” (Exodus 13). Rabbenu Bahye hints that it is as though God were “showing off” His abilities, as reflected in miracles that are performed in an excessive manner, by totally reversing the natural order.
The Radak offers an alternative approach. In his commentary on the story of Sarah’s pregnancy, he describes it as a miracle within a miracle because Sarah becomes pregnant despite her barrenness and despite her advanced age – two different factors preventing her pregnancy (Radak, Genesis 11). From his teaching we learn that it is possible for a single event to be perceived from different perspectives, turning it into “a miracle within a miracle.” Nevertheless, in the end, the emphasis is on the "effort" of God, and not on the multiplicity of miraculous events. In his interpretation, the Radak passes the responsibility onto the observer – how does the reader choose to understand an event that occurred? What level of spiritual elevation can be attained from an event that, in some cases, is a relatively minor incident?
Yet another meaning of the term "miracle within a miracle" is suggested by two Spanish sages of the 12th century. Ibn Ezra said: "... As it is written, ‘Behold, I will kill your eldest son,’ and the second for the escape of the firstborn of Israel. Thus, there was a miracle within a miracle" (Ibn Ezra, Psalms 135:8). According to Ibn Ezra, the plague of the firstborn was “a miracle within a miracle” because not only did the Egyptian first-born die, but the Israelites remained alive. According to this interpretation, the concept of “a miracle within a miracle” is attained when the additional miracle serves to limit the first miracle. Similarly, the Ramban recognized that “a miracle within miracle” can include cases where we find a "miracle" and an "anti-miracle" simultaneously. “ ‘For the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, and the LORD brought back the waters of the sea on them, but the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.’ This is ‘a miracle within a miracle” (Ramban, Exodus 15:19). According to this, the very fact that at the same time that the Egyptians were drowning, the Israelites were walking on dry land, is the “miracle within a miracle.”
These different commentaries reflect diverse perspectives on miracles and their essence. The first three approaches tend to focus not only on the miracle but also on how conspicuous the miracle was, how powerful the miracle was, how explicit the miracle was. In this way, they present the “miracle within a miracle” as the greatest of all miracles. On the other hand, the latter two interpretations present a different understanding of miracles precisely by means of their explanations of “a miracle within a miracle.” They introduce the idea that a simple event can become thousands of miraculous details depending on how we read it. They also introduce the idea that a miracle may be something that requires a restraining mechanism. When a miracle occurs, it offers us abundance, but it also presents us with challenges. An example of this is the well-known story of Honi the Circle Maker who must pray that the miraculous rains stop their downpour.
From this approach we can conclude that perhaps the greatest of all miracles is not the “miracle within a miracle,” rather it is the simple, limited miracle. The best miracle is one that succeeds in restricting its own abundance. The attempt to detect such a miracle and to declare it to be “a miracle within a miracle” teaches that with all the desire and reverence for a direct relationship with God, it is clear that the world cannot exist in the face of Divine abundance. The abundance of miracles may bring about the “breaking of the vessels” – a state of holiness that we cannot endure.
In the weekly Torah readings this time of year we are subjected to an abundance of miracles that point out the difficulties of living with constant miracles. The power of revelation accompanying the miracles have the capacity to undermine our entire existence. The manifestation of unadulterated holiness may overwhelm those who gaze upon it. The revelation of God before His creatures may be difficult for the observer who feels the need to cover, to set limits and to criticize. We know that in our human relationships, the release of checks and balances may be desirable in certain contexts because it allows openness, sincerity and integrity. At the same time, in the wrong setting, dispensing with those limitations could be construed as impropriety, miscommunication, or rudeness.
When discussing the period of the Bible and prophecy, this is an important point to remember. Not in every context is a miracle appropriate. Sometimes we need “a miracle within a miracle” specifically to set limits on the miracle itself.
