Image from DreamAI
The importance of not interpreting the Torah improperly
It is too much to demand a completely proper or correct interpretation of the Torah, for who besides Moses has stood face-to-face in the Counsel of God? We do our best, but the least we could expect is avoiding clearly improper interpretations.
Reinterpreting Creation and the Flood to accommodate the Latest and Greatest Scientific Truth is a perennial hot topic. There is good reason that this issue arouses such controversy, because it strikes at the heart of the Truth of the Torah.
If the Torah can be interpreted whichever way the winds blow, then it is possible that the Patriarchs, the Exodus, and the Giving of the Torah can likewise be interpreted away as allegory or myth, and the Torah has no more authority than any other book of myths. Similarly, it is possible that all the Commandments of the Torah can be reinterpreted as suggestions, or ideals, or as esotericisms, or as pure fiction. On the other hand, if there is a way to eliminate improper interpretation, then we can trust the Torah's narrative and its instructions.
In this series of essays, we will deal with the question of proper and improper interpretations of the Torah, while leaving an analysis of the scientific issues for a different essay entitled "Towards a Healthy Skepticism of Science Without Descending into Empirical Nihilism".
Interpretation is the bedrock of the Torah
This much is clear- it is evident from the Torah itself and from our Tradition that the Torah is open to interpretation, and this is a fundamental basis of the Oral Torah. The entire Torah is a mysterious document, chock-full of ambiguities, leaving out a great deal of information in some places, surprising us with very unexpected information in others, abound with unusual prose and wording, and full of seeming contradictions, thus demanding extensive interpretation1 .
This demand for interpretation is fulfilled in the Oral Torah and the profusion of commentary on the Torah throughout the ages. Additionally, many sections in the Prophets and Writings are obviously meant to be understood allegorically. So therefore, interpretation is the rule rather than the exception, and אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו2 ("Scripture never loses its simple meaning") has limited application.
Seventy facets of Torah
There is a famous dictum in Chazal, שבעים פנים לתורה3, Seventy Facets of Torah. Simply put, this means that there could be a variety of interpretations for the same text. There is no demand that every interpretation 100% follow Chazal or other early commentaries, and there is nothing wrong with proposing alternate and original interpretations (within certain guidelines, as this series of essays discusses). This has been the standard practice of the commentators throughout the ages, who frequently suggested alternative interpretations to Chazal and their predecessors4, and this is within the spirit of שבעים פנים לתורה.
Not seventy-one facets
There is another, perhaps less famous expression from Nechama Leibowitz, who, upon being told a rather original explanation of a passage in the Torah, along with the rationalization that there are seventy facets to the Torah, wittily remarked "Seventy, not seventy-one". Not every interpretation has validity. Certain interpretations have no merit, no matter how many "problems" they supposedly solve.
Rabbi Saadia Gaon and the rules of reinterpretation
In regard to reinterpreting the Torah in a way that contradicts the plain meaning (when it does not seem like an allegory in context5), Rabbi Saadiah Gaon6 explains that this is possible in four circumstances:
The plain meaning is contrary to the truth as perceived by our five senses
It is contrary to reason
It is contrary to the received tradition of Chazal
It contradicts the Torah elsewhere
Everywhere else, Rabbi Saadiah explains, we must hew to the plain meaning of the text, lest we fall into the trap of no longer being able to trust any of the Commandments.
Rabbi Saadiah's first and second rules would definitely lend support to various attempts to reinterpret Creation and the Flood in accordance with the Latest and Greatest Scientific Truths. However, these rules of Rabbi Saadiah don’t automatically inform us what constitutes a valid interpretation or reinterpretation. Even if they allow us to reinterpret aspects of Creation or the Flood, it should be obvious that this doesn't mean that any and every interpretation has validity.
Stay tuned for Part 2...
The Bible critics take these features as evidence that the Torah is a mishmash of copy-and-pasted elements from different authors with conflicting agendas, but we definitively reject this nonsense.
Talmud Shabbos 63a
Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16
For example, Ramban Beresishis 8:4
אבל כיון שרש"י מדקדק במקומות אחרי מדרשי ההגדות וטורח לבאר פשטי המקרא הרשה אותנו לעשות כן כי שבעים פנים לתורה ומדרשים רבים חלוקים בדברי החכמים ואומר אני שאין החשבון הזה שאמרו נאות בלשון הכתוב….
See Ibn Ezra, Exodus 13:9
Emunos V’Deyos, Maamar 7