This is a long shot, but does anyone know whether there is consensus about the import of the phrase, "restauratione gemmarum," in Argumentum 2 of ST 105.7? The objector argues that not all events that occur outside/against the order of nature are miracles. One argument is that a miracle must be "arduous," but some events are basically not a big deal, such as healing of the sick or "restoration of gems." What is this? It's the only instance of the phrase in Aquinas.

This long discussion proposes various solutions, e.g. it refers to:  a story in which St. John, in disputation with the philosopher, Crates, prays and restores a smashed jewel; the miracle of Aaron's rod (a meaning of 'gemma' was 'bud'); 'gemmae' refer to kinds of sores; 'gemmarum' or even 'restauratione gemmarum' should be deleted... The author of the linked article seems to favor the Aaron's rod expl., on the grounds that 'gemma' had botanical senses in the MA, but the Google entry does not include the final pages of the article.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gMP3SR60O_oC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=restauratione+gemmarum&source=bl&ots=F5zWSub7YC&sig=zniAF68psNBtfuW8tooyLF-eIDo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJkaeq6sHcAhUBzlkKHVb-DXEQ6AEwAXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I shouldn't think that the budding of Aaron's rod is "in minibus rebus," not difficult, and thus, that it should not be paired with healings of the sick, so that proposed solution seems feeble. But maybe yes, it's less difficult that making the sun stand still in the heavens etc.