Thank you Reb Happy G. L. for this illuminating post. It's also nice to see how Michelangelo's creations have been evolving healthily over the centuries. Based on the observed rate of development, my computer models tell me if we check back in 500 years the figure on the right will look like Elvis and the one on the left will be wearing a burqa.
I hope it's ok to throw in my two cents on a couple of your points:
1. It would seem there's an important distinction to be made between "interpretation" and "reinterpretation"; i.e. instances of a mefarish adding a novel facet to understanding a passage versus a binary alternative pshat which actually contradicts chazal or the mesora.
The former, if well reasoned and operates within a suitable framework, can certainly be legitimate under the concept of shivim panim. The latter would not appear to ever be legitimate at all.
2. With regard to relying on the Rambam to say something off the beaten path: even if the Rambam says something that most other meforshim consider untenable (which he certainly does on occasion), and even if we can't write him off because he's the Rambam, that still does very little for us on a practical level. Because as consumers of mesoras haTorah our job is to understand the corpus of mesoras haTorah, not just the Rambam. So if you have a hard time with the traditional interpretation you've got a problem regardless, Rambam notwithstanding. Just like you can't write off the Rambam, you also can't write off rov minyan u'binyan of mesoras haTorah.
Perhaps the fact that the Rambam says something makes me unable to call you a heretic for also saying it. But the goal of limud haTorah doesn't end at being "not a heretic"; you've also got to understand Torah on its own terms, which includes the traditional mesora. So what did you gain?
Both of these points individually would seem to render your suggested reinterpretation of the doros chronology at least not very helpful, even if not unacceptable (which, as you indicated, it might be as well).
And while I have no problem per se with your explanation of why it's unacceptable to allegorize the mabul, it does seem to skip over the main reason why it's unacceptable: because such an approach contradicts - not just adds a twist to - 3 thousand years of mesoras haTorah.
3. To clarify some axioms: mesoras haTorah is not simply a utilitarian tool to learning that says hey since this is how the earlier generations learned it's more likely to be right (although it certainly is that too). It's the fundamental structure and purpose of limud haTorah, to connect to the chain from Sinai and learn, understand, preserve, and pass on the Torah that Hashem gave us there. If someone's approach to "learning Torah" involves ignoring and directly contradicting mesoras haTorah he's kinda missing the boat.
4. One relatively more minor point: in at least two of your opening examples you fail to mention the main reason why the interpretation is ok: the episode of Reuvein and the explanation of an eye for an eye are ok because they are the correct and basic interpretation of those versus as taught by Torah shel ba'al peh, which is every bit as authoritative as Torah shebiksav. So those are not examples of "reinterpretations" at all.
5. The Rav Saadia is also neither a reinterpretation nor an allegory. He's simply doing what meforshei chumash do for a living: translating the words. He translates the term as a metaphor, which is a perfectly legitimate literary device that the Torah uses often. That has nothing to do with deciding that an actual event recorded in the Torah never really happened but was just meant as a parable of some sort.
Sorry for being so long winded. I look forward to your thoughts on all this. Thanks again for a great piece.
Thank you HaRav RT for your kind and helpful comments.
Regarding 1, I think that there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of places in meforshim where they explicitly write peshatim that contradict Chazal (that is, they bring Chazal's pshat, then they say a different pshat which, if true, would contradict that). This is not just so-called "rationalists" like the Ibn Ezra, but Rashi and Ramban as well. I bring one example here (Ramban Bereishis 8:4, he even invokes shivim panim, https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/reinterpretation-of-creation-and#footnote-4-100729562), but there are many more. I try to explain why that is not going against the Mesorah. Perhaps you have a better explanation, which I would love to hear. Perhaps you may say that even if the meforshim did this, this is not our Mesorah, or we are not on the level to do that. Which I can accept, you are almost certainly a bigger expert in the Mesorah than myself. I alluded to this idea at the end of my "novel interpretation" regarding myself, but may well apply to anybody nowadays.
2. Yes, this is pretty much what I intended, but you said it even better. You are of course correct about the Mabul.
3. You are of course correct.
4. In footnote 1, I mention that certainly interpretations of Chazal are a totally different level of authority, than, say, the Ramban. But I think it is correct to call it an interpretation, כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה was not Halacha l'Moshe M'Sinai because we see there is a machlokes in the Gemara about it.כתנאי. ״פחז כמים אל תותר״. רבי אליעזר אומר ״פזתה״, ״חבתה״, ״זלתה״. רבי יהושע אומר: ״פסעתה על דת״, ״חטאת״, ״זנית״. רבן גמליאל אומר: ״פיללתה״, ״חלתה״, ״זרחה תפלתך״. (Did I understand the Gemara wrong?) Of course, we accept the maskana of the Gemara that the interpretation is correct, even if we wouldn't necessarily have thought of it ourselves. Maybe you understood when I said "reinterpretation", I meant something new that nobody ever thought of before. But that was not my intent at all, but rather something that seems very much shelo kepshuto.
5. Of course you are correct. I was just bringing different examples of things that people could understand as shelo k'pshuto. But in this case it is definitely kepshuto.
Yasher koach for your clear and thought out response.
1. Regarding rishonim arguing on chazal in interpreting pesukim, I'd love to sit down with you over a bunch of examples and see if we can discern some themes. My guess going in would be that most fall under certain categories:
a. Instances of "yeish medrash hagadah harbei" but the goal of the mefarish being to find the one that best flows in the pesukim. This is what Rashi does in most cases. It has nothing to do with arguing on chazal or even litigating between different midrashim, it's just a certain program within limud haTorah to understand the pesukim's best flow on a baseline level.
The Ramban you referenced makes a point of saying that that's what he's doing (in accordance to his understanding - apparently rashi disagrees on the application level there). Indeed, Ramban's approach also has midrashic support (earlier in Bereishis Rabbah 32, the statement of R Pinchos), and he argues that that's the one that best fits the reading of the pesukim.
b. Ramban himself writes in the Vichuach (sorry it's not in front of me so I can't provide chapter verse) that he doesn't believe every midrash to have the full faith and credit of authoritative Torah shel ba'al peh. It obviously has to be worked out how he applies this principle, but whatever falls under it will not be part of our discussion.
c. As you referenced, many midrashim are clearly meant as drash or remez or sod which won't be contradicted by a pshat level explanation either. Again, we'd obviously have to find a system of assigning status (and it's possible for some taxonomic disagreement amongst the meforshim to exist).
d. Even in pshat there's a possibility of multiple layers that may superficially seem to contradict each other, but are in reality perfectly compatible results of a complexity of interpretation. We find this l'havdil in secular literary analysis as well. Was an action 'good' and intended to be helpful, or 'bad' and motivated by personal considerations or spite? Often the answer is both. People are complicated. Results are multidimensional. One explanation may highlight one angle and another will focus on a completely opposite angle (a good example of this would be chazal and the meforshim's treatment of Tzidkiyahu hamelech. But countless others exist).
e. A straightforward incident or statement may have numerous allegorical or metaphorical overtones. Focussing on those does not negate the basic reality of the incident or statement. As you pointed out regarding the mishkan.
f. Statements can be made from the perspective of perception not of technical accuracy. E.g. The sun "rises" in the east. Someone saying that the sun doesn't really rise is not "contradicting" the statement. If I recall you made this point in an earlier post.
I'm sure there are many other possibilities that don't come to mind right now. But bottom line none of these constitute a binary, zero sum rejection of an unambiguous undebated biblical interpretation accepted as such by the corpus of mesoras haTorah. And none give us license to do so either.
It's possible we're in full agreement on this. Or it's possible you have examples of statements of rishonim that seem to indeed straight up argue on chazal, in which case we'll have to discuss. I await your response eagerly.
2. With regard to Torah side baal peh - halacha l'Moshe miSinai is a technical term. A designation of a pasuk as non literal codified in the gemara is, I'm fairly certain, a chelek of Torah shel ba'al peh that was given along with the Torah shebiksav as the authoritative interpretation of the pasuk, and as such does not constitute a 'reinterpretation' in the context of your discussion. Of course, machalokes is possible and common within Torah shel ba'al peh.
It should also be noted that chazal interpreted pesukim (aside from through mesorah) with rigid INTERNAL hermeneutic rules of interpretation - the 13 of R' Yishmael for halacha, the larger lists for agadah, the Malbim identifies 613 such. As such they may not lend credence at all to an external approach such as the ones you are discussing.
Thanks HaRav RT for that exposition, which is valuable on its own.
Regarding 1, I sent you an email, as I think that discussion might be too long and involved for the comments.
Regarding 2, I 100% agree anything from Chazal is Torah SheBaal Peh. Again, when I said "reinterpretation", I didn't mean לאפוקי תורה שבעל פה. I meant things that seem very much shelo kepshuto.
One other thing, I would question if ONLY Chazal is Torah shebaal Peh. Are you sure Rashi, the Rambam, Rav Akiva Eiger, Rav Ovadiah Yosef are NOT Torah sheBaal Peh? Of course, they are an totally different level than Chazal/Gemara themselves. But I think it would be fair to say that on a certain level, they are also part of the Torah SheBaal Peh.
Great post! I want to thank you, Rabbi Happygolucky Personage. Your prodigious erudition and eloquent writing style greatly enhance Irrationalist Modoxism. We are honored to have you as a valued contributor to our platform. It wouldn't be the same without you.
I want to chime in on your discussion on the Rambam. In his book The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Marc Shapiro spends a considerable amount of time attempting to discredit the 13 Ikkarim by cherry-picking isolated cases of individuals who do not appear to accept them as necessary tenets of faith. Much of his work has already been debunked as misrepresentations and disingenuous arguments by Sochaczevski and Grossman.
Moreover, Shapiro conveniently overlooks the fact that many of these principles are explicitly articulated by Chazal. For instance, the Gemara in Perek Chelek extensively discusses Techiyas Hameisim, which you use as an example. Chazal unequivocally state that anyone who denies it is a kofer who does not have a place in Klal Yisroel and will not inherit olam haba. The Gemara also cites numerous proofs of this concept from Tanach, including Yechezkel's vision of the dry bones. So speculating that perhaps the Rambam did not hold of it (even though he never denies Techiyas Hameisim and writes in a few places that he did hold of it) as a "lesson to the moderns" that they need not be concerned about it is pretty crazy stuff. If the Rambam wouldn't have held of it, he wouldn't be the Rambam. As you so succinctly put it, the Rambam's entire authority was as a codifier of Jewish law and tradition. Not as its creator.
It is always amusing to observe how self-important academics produce extensive essays that mockingly dismiss tradition as a result of close-minded Torah scholars, yet they are exposed time and time again as having pulled their pants down publicly by misrepresenting the evidence.
I am not a chassid of Shapiro, but for the sake of honesty here, those listed by Shapiro as "denying Resurrection" take the Gemara seriously, as they do the biblical passages that mention it. They interpret them as referring to the spiritual afterlife. You don't have to agree with that interpretation, but you can't accuse them of being dismissive or ignorant of the rabbinic sources. The same for Shapiro, who, as an intellectual historian, spends that chapter (for the most part) gathering these sources.
Upon a thorough examination of the gemara, it becomes clear that the notion that the dead will come back to life is unequivocal. The gemara offers explicit examples that are difficult to dismiss, such as the explanation of the verse that directs us to give Teruma to Aharon Hakohen, a mortal, because Aharon Hakohen will return to life.
Furthermore, the gemara recounts the story of a מין (MODOX) who questioned the possibility of techiyas hameisim, the resurrection of the dead, given that the bodies have already disintegrated into dust. The gemara provides an answer to this question, but if one were to view the concept of techiyas hameisim as merely a spiritual afterlife, the question would not arise.
A comprehensive review of the entire sugya (Sanhedrin 90a 92b) reveals that the interpretation of techiyas hameisim as a spiritual afterlife is implausible. The gemara goes through many detailed technical and explicit descriptions of the disintegrated dust returning to life. Additionally, the gemara discusses the concept of olam haba, spiritual afterlife, as a separate phenomenon.
Therefore, anyone attempting to undertake an "intellectual historical" inquiry to argue that the Rambam did not believe in techiyas hameisim would have to acknowledge that such an assertion is exceedingly difficult to square with the extensive discussion in the Talmud. This would also require ignoring the Rambam's own writings and relying solely on secondary sources.
Moreover, attempting to "allegorize" this gemara to suggest that it refers only to an afterlife is problematic because the gemara could not be clearer in its intention. And the gemara says that belief in techiyas hameisim is a fundamental tenet, and anyone who does not accept it is considered a kofer. Attempting to finagle out of such an important belief, despite its acceptance in traditional Torah Jewry, leaves nothing sacred and creates a backdoor to dismiss every tenet of the Torah.
That's a reasonable argument - to support your personal opinion (which I would concur with). But you don't understand what intellectual history is. If I would write a book on Jewish intellectual history, I would need to record that there were Jews who were Christians, Jews who were atheists, Jews who were Marxists, etc. This is regardless of how cogent those philosophies may or not be. It's a historical reality: People had such opinions. In the same way, there were Jews (not unimportant ones) who thought that the Rambam allegorized Resurrection. Right or wrong, it's there.
Well, he did not write it as merely "intellectual history". Shapiro writes in his conclusion that he wrote the book as a "lesson for the moderns" that the 13 ikkarim are not all they're cracked up to be, and people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they want and still be considered kosher Jews. Besides for having been exposed as grossly misrepresenting many of the sources, if sources in fact do exist that appear contrary to what Chazal describe in very strong terms as basic tenets of faith, they may be a troubling historical oddity, but certainly nothing more than that. And definitely not a basis to discard millennia of tradition and unequivocal statements from Chazal.
The gemorroh says clearly mitzvos betiloh l'osid levoh (re tachrichin and shatnoz). The gemorroh says clearly yackov ovinu lo meis. The gemorroh says clearly not teaching a son a trade will lead him to dishonesty. Ahem.
Nothing is clear in the gemorroh, even though it appears to be. Every single word, every sugyoh structure, is subject to endless discussion and debate. However clear it appears.
"Every single word, every sugyoh structure, is subject to endless discussion and debate. However clear it appears." No. This is incorrect. This is probably MO's biggest mistake. Maybe this is a two-year old's understanding of what goes on in a yeshiva, but is very far from the truth.
Clearly you haven't learnt much tur beis yosef. The rishonim quoted therein bring halachik conclusions completely contrary to the traditional way of a learning a sugyoh. Our favourite Rambam comes to mind (no, I am not talking about stiros here) but there are others.
Again, the big MO mistake. Because there exists such a thing as debate regarding some things, therefore everything is up for debate. Any wonder why they are starting to permit mishkav zachar?
No it doesn't. But it does involve teaching then to read and write well enough to cope in their host countries. That way, they won't need to rely on others to complete the benefit claim forms.
I don’t know much about writing but anyway you have chat gpt and gramerly if you’re old fashioned. What I do know that in todays world the analytical skills acquired through a chareidi education has created many successful accountants lawyers and even more businessmen.
Reminds me of the asinine discussion (which frustratingly Sochaczevski partakes in ) about the eight principle being somehow contradicted by the view in the Talmud that Yehoshua wrote the last couple of pesukim. A real head scratcher, being that the eighth principle is about the divine origin of the Torah, irrespective of who inscribed it.
היא התורה הנתונה למשה... ושהוא במדריגת סופר... וכך נקרא מחוקק... וזה אשר נעשהו היום הוא בעינו התואר אשר אמר ה' למשה ומסר לנו והוא מוסר שליחות נאמן במסירתו.
There is a very clear emphasis on Moshe here. You're free to play it down, but to dismiss it offhandedly is wrong.
No, there is not. By all accounts he wrote 99% of it. There is zero indication it has anything to do with the actual Principle and is anything other than incidental to it.
Strange that there isn't any traditional sources that pick up on this. Like zero. Because it takes a certain level of pure genius to realize this clever question how the Principle squares with an explicit gemora. Amazing how long it went undiscovered.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the לשון הרמב"ם that points to Moshe being the one doing the writing as being an integral part of the principal.
Do you have an explanation why everyone else missed the issue?
If I'm not mistaken, I think that Josh Berman in his "Ani Maamin" makes this suggestion to reconcile the the four centuries of Galus Mitzrayim with the chronology.
Modern Orthodoxy is a chumrah not a kulah. I understood that modern orthodoxy's idea to learn secular knowledge is a chumrah, that is, that learning secular knowledge is not supposed to come at the expense of Torah knowledge. So you need to be like the Rambam and know Torah inside and out as well as learning secular knowledge. But in no way should one sacrifice Torah knowledge for secular knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise has totally misunderstood modern orthodoxy. So, of course, that leaves modern orthodoxy available to a very small group of intelligent, quick learning, elite. Go figure.
Does this really answer science? It would be a far stretch to add the millions or billions of years required for dna code to write itself to the torahs chronology.
Realistically, it would only extend civilization a few thousand years, but that would answer a lot of questions about the Mabul and when cities started, for example. Our regular chronology of *civilization* only diverges from science by a few thousand years at most. Regarding the other billion, trillion, gazillion years, there is a probably a hybrid that science is wrong in some respects, our understanding in Torah is not 100%, etc.
I can’t say anything about reading and writing but these days you can just use gramerly and chat GBT so who needs that. The analytical skills acquired through a chareidi education even with very little secular education has made many successful accountants lawyers and even more successful business men.
Mar 2, 2023Liked by מכרכר בכל עוז, Happy, Rational Traditionalist
Future academics will point to HGLs usage of this picture as outstanding evidence that Maimonides principle of God having no form never received widespread acceptance. It will be duly noted however that quite apart from the portrayal of such images in earlier times, subtle chareidy influences demanded some coverups here, albeit with less than desirable objects.
You are aware that the torah is designed to speak to eterntity. To every generation. As are the recorded nevius. The challenge is to find it (very important when learning nach).
So there is absolutely no reason why one cannot find find discussion of democracy, feminism, equality, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, and criticism of authority figures in the torah, through a novel interpertation.
And of course, criticism of authority is rampant through tanach. It is only modern day Yeshivaland that has elevated every rebbe pictured putting up a mezuzah in the erstwhile pages of the 'haredei press' as infallible popes who can never make mistakes. When one learns novi, the novi could well be talking about the so called leaders of today who do absolutely nothing to root out corruprion, nepotism, fraud and all that goes with it in the institutions below them. What goes in botei dinnim today is a disgusting travesty of justice, not least the endless delays.
Freedom of Speech - כי האלקים על השמים ואתה על הארץ על כן יהיו דבריך מעטים
Equality - לא ישבו בארצך
Religious tolerance - לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני
Criticism of Authority figures - ירא את ה' בני ומלך
Perhaps the Torah does not say what you want it to say. But that does not mean that it is not discussed.
And not one Rebbe/Rabbi, besides Lubavitch, is considered 'infallible' by his followers, let alone by the public. Nobody has heard that, taught that, or lives like that. More lies from the MO, who would like to place the 'other' in a box, so they can kick them around.
That's called cherry picking of sources. For example, you refer to 'lo yeishvu b'artzocho' yet ignore vehavtam as hegeir. Hu Yimshol Boch is a klolloh, there is no mitzvah to subjugate oneseleves to klollos. What does 'b'zeus epocho tochal lechem' tell us about current kollel society? Anybody can pick sources for what they like.
Yes. Reducing complex issues to one line soundbites is meaningless and wrong. Even if you make it sound yeshivish as being a 'klal'. I believe the possuk 'tevorach mi'noshim yo'el' (or something like that) is chazal"s endorsement of militant feminism, even when it involves seven be'ilos.
Come on, most of these citations are not even trying. (I could do a lot better).
1. Define feminism and explain why והוא ימשול בך contradicts it. I've seen some people define it as merely caring about women's health services and such.
2. And the מלך was not an absolute monarch (despite having powers the West would consider unacceptable).
3. This is just laughable. What does a posuk saying not to speak harshly against Hashem because he knows what he's doing have to do with freedom of speech.
4. Relevance to equality nowadays? (Also IIRC they could convert and be equal.)
5. לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני not sure what the relevance is to religious tolerance. This isn't even an injunction to destroy non-Jewish avodah zara in Eretz Yisrael (which is a different mitzva).
6. This is probably your best citation. See the Malbim:
ירא את ה' בני ומלך ועם שונים אל תתערב, צוה שיירא את ה' בעניני הדת, ואת המלך אשר במשפט יעמיד ארץ בהנהגת הקיבוץ המדיני, ואל תתערב עם האנשים שרוצים לשנות הנהגת המדינית, ר"ל למרוד במלכם ולהקים תחתיו הנהגה שניה משונה מראשונה שבזה תפר גם יראת ה' שצוה שתהיה מורא מלך עליך:
I would answer you, but I don't see the need. I was writing off the cuff to show that the principles are dealt with, and we can learn more to understand better.
It is just that in all likelihood, western civilization is not in sync with the Torah, and Moshiach will come and wipe it away.
(Btw, Melech not being an absolute monarch has nothing to do with democracy. The limits a king has are not based on the will of the people, they are based on Torah. So democracy is not a Jewish value, monarchy is)
When Zali Rebbe criticises the Aroni Rebbe is that frowned upon? Does that mean neither are real tzadikkim? What about criticism of a dati le'umi talmid chochom (there are/were a few)? Is that somehow okay?
In other words, your comment about criticism of torah authority is all froth and no beer. It's meaningless when you consider how charedim themselves happily bash other rabbis when it suits them.
Well, there are no nevi'im nowadays, so your response has no practically impact on anything. So, back to the point - charedi groups criticise the rabbis of other groups all day and all night - why is that suddenly ok?
Well, that's great but you are botel b'rov. Charedim themselves say it's ok. Look out how Rav Shaul Alter is being bashed by other gerrers. If that's ok, why can't Slifkin bash, I dunno, Rav Shach? What is the difference?
"This is really a matter for the Gedolei Hador (The Great Rabbis of the generation) to decide"
But who DECIDES who the Gedolei Hador are? In Yeshivaland, it tends to be the chap that agrees with me. So the fantatical only speak teach and eat Yiddish in England will happily point to the rabbis that support them as being 'gedolei hador' while dismissing all the others as, well, you know, not quite from our beis hamedrash. Ditto every other machlokas you care to mention.
"The entire idea of a Creator is absolutely fundamental to Jewish theology, not confined to the Genesis narrative, but essential to the entire Torah and the whole idea of miracles.15
Therefore, any interpretation that claims the Creation narrative was never really a Creation, but an allegory for something else, must immediately fail on those grounds. "
Has anybody else spotted the crafty shift from 'creator' to 'creation'. Typical of this chap's work. A 'creator' is indeed one of the ikkurim. 'Creation' is not, so the fact that a creator has to be taken literrally sheds no bearing on the question of whether the 'creation' story likewise needs to do so. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Thank you Reb Happy G. L. for this illuminating post. It's also nice to see how Michelangelo's creations have been evolving healthily over the centuries. Based on the observed rate of development, my computer models tell me if we check back in 500 years the figure on the right will look like Elvis and the one on the left will be wearing a burqa.
I hope it's ok to throw in my two cents on a couple of your points:
1. It would seem there's an important distinction to be made between "interpretation" and "reinterpretation"; i.e. instances of a mefarish adding a novel facet to understanding a passage versus a binary alternative pshat which actually contradicts chazal or the mesora.
The former, if well reasoned and operates within a suitable framework, can certainly be legitimate under the concept of shivim panim. The latter would not appear to ever be legitimate at all.
2. With regard to relying on the Rambam to say something off the beaten path: even if the Rambam says something that most other meforshim consider untenable (which he certainly does on occasion), and even if we can't write him off because he's the Rambam, that still does very little for us on a practical level. Because as consumers of mesoras haTorah our job is to understand the corpus of mesoras haTorah, not just the Rambam. So if you have a hard time with the traditional interpretation you've got a problem regardless, Rambam notwithstanding. Just like you can't write off the Rambam, you also can't write off rov minyan u'binyan of mesoras haTorah.
Perhaps the fact that the Rambam says something makes me unable to call you a heretic for also saying it. But the goal of limud haTorah doesn't end at being "not a heretic"; you've also got to understand Torah on its own terms, which includes the traditional mesora. So what did you gain?
Both of these points individually would seem to render your suggested reinterpretation of the doros chronology at least not very helpful, even if not unacceptable (which, as you indicated, it might be as well).
And while I have no problem per se with your explanation of why it's unacceptable to allegorize the mabul, it does seem to skip over the main reason why it's unacceptable: because such an approach contradicts - not just adds a twist to - 3 thousand years of mesoras haTorah.
3. To clarify some axioms: mesoras haTorah is not simply a utilitarian tool to learning that says hey since this is how the earlier generations learned it's more likely to be right (although it certainly is that too). It's the fundamental structure and purpose of limud haTorah, to connect to the chain from Sinai and learn, understand, preserve, and pass on the Torah that Hashem gave us there. If someone's approach to "learning Torah" involves ignoring and directly contradicting mesoras haTorah he's kinda missing the boat.
4. One relatively more minor point: in at least two of your opening examples you fail to mention the main reason why the interpretation is ok: the episode of Reuvein and the explanation of an eye for an eye are ok because they are the correct and basic interpretation of those versus as taught by Torah shel ba'al peh, which is every bit as authoritative as Torah shebiksav. So those are not examples of "reinterpretations" at all.
5. The Rav Saadia is also neither a reinterpretation nor an allegory. He's simply doing what meforshei chumash do for a living: translating the words. He translates the term as a metaphor, which is a perfectly legitimate literary device that the Torah uses often. That has nothing to do with deciding that an actual event recorded in the Torah never really happened but was just meant as a parable of some sort.
Sorry for being so long winded. I look forward to your thoughts on all this. Thanks again for a great piece.
Thank you HaRav RT for your kind and helpful comments.
Regarding 1, I think that there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of places in meforshim where they explicitly write peshatim that contradict Chazal (that is, they bring Chazal's pshat, then they say a different pshat which, if true, would contradict that). This is not just so-called "rationalists" like the Ibn Ezra, but Rashi and Ramban as well. I bring one example here (Ramban Bereishis 8:4, he even invokes shivim panim, https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/reinterpretation-of-creation-and#footnote-4-100729562), but there are many more. I try to explain why that is not going against the Mesorah. Perhaps you have a better explanation, which I would love to hear. Perhaps you may say that even if the meforshim did this, this is not our Mesorah, or we are not on the level to do that. Which I can accept, you are almost certainly a bigger expert in the Mesorah than myself. I alluded to this idea at the end of my "novel interpretation" regarding myself, but may well apply to anybody nowadays.
2. Yes, this is pretty much what I intended, but you said it even better. You are of course correct about the Mabul.
3. You are of course correct.
4. In footnote 1, I mention that certainly interpretations of Chazal are a totally different level of authority, than, say, the Ramban. But I think it is correct to call it an interpretation, כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה was not Halacha l'Moshe M'Sinai because we see there is a machlokes in the Gemara about it.כתנאי. ״פחז כמים אל תותר״. רבי אליעזר אומר ״פזתה״, ״חבתה״, ״זלתה״. רבי יהושע אומר: ״פסעתה על דת״, ״חטאת״, ״זנית״. רבן גמליאל אומר: ״פיללתה״, ״חלתה״, ״זרחה תפלתך״. (Did I understand the Gemara wrong?) Of course, we accept the maskana of the Gemara that the interpretation is correct, even if we wouldn't necessarily have thought of it ourselves. Maybe you understood when I said "reinterpretation", I meant something new that nobody ever thought of before. But that was not my intent at all, but rather something that seems very much shelo kepshuto.
5. Of course you are correct. I was just bringing different examples of things that people could understand as shelo k'pshuto. But in this case it is definitely kepshuto.
Yasher koach for your clear and thought out response.
1. Regarding rishonim arguing on chazal in interpreting pesukim, I'd love to sit down with you over a bunch of examples and see if we can discern some themes. My guess going in would be that most fall under certain categories:
a. Instances of "yeish medrash hagadah harbei" but the goal of the mefarish being to find the one that best flows in the pesukim. This is what Rashi does in most cases. It has nothing to do with arguing on chazal or even litigating between different midrashim, it's just a certain program within limud haTorah to understand the pesukim's best flow on a baseline level.
The Ramban you referenced makes a point of saying that that's what he's doing (in accordance to his understanding - apparently rashi disagrees on the application level there). Indeed, Ramban's approach also has midrashic support (earlier in Bereishis Rabbah 32, the statement of R Pinchos), and he argues that that's the one that best fits the reading of the pesukim.
b. Ramban himself writes in the Vichuach (sorry it's not in front of me so I can't provide chapter verse) that he doesn't believe every midrash to have the full faith and credit of authoritative Torah shel ba'al peh. It obviously has to be worked out how he applies this principle, but whatever falls under it will not be part of our discussion.
c. As you referenced, many midrashim are clearly meant as drash or remez or sod which won't be contradicted by a pshat level explanation either. Again, we'd obviously have to find a system of assigning status (and it's possible for some taxonomic disagreement amongst the meforshim to exist).
d. Even in pshat there's a possibility of multiple layers that may superficially seem to contradict each other, but are in reality perfectly compatible results of a complexity of interpretation. We find this l'havdil in secular literary analysis as well. Was an action 'good' and intended to be helpful, or 'bad' and motivated by personal considerations or spite? Often the answer is both. People are complicated. Results are multidimensional. One explanation may highlight one angle and another will focus on a completely opposite angle (a good example of this would be chazal and the meforshim's treatment of Tzidkiyahu hamelech. But countless others exist).
e. A straightforward incident or statement may have numerous allegorical or metaphorical overtones. Focussing on those does not negate the basic reality of the incident or statement. As you pointed out regarding the mishkan.
f. Statements can be made from the perspective of perception not of technical accuracy. E.g. The sun "rises" in the east. Someone saying that the sun doesn't really rise is not "contradicting" the statement. If I recall you made this point in an earlier post.
I'm sure there are many other possibilities that don't come to mind right now. But bottom line none of these constitute a binary, zero sum rejection of an unambiguous undebated biblical interpretation accepted as such by the corpus of mesoras haTorah. And none give us license to do so either.
It's possible we're in full agreement on this. Or it's possible you have examples of statements of rishonim that seem to indeed straight up argue on chazal, in which case we'll have to discuss. I await your response eagerly.
2. With regard to Torah side baal peh - halacha l'Moshe miSinai is a technical term. A designation of a pasuk as non literal codified in the gemara is, I'm fairly certain, a chelek of Torah shel ba'al peh that was given along with the Torah shebiksav as the authoritative interpretation of the pasuk, and as such does not constitute a 'reinterpretation' in the context of your discussion. Of course, machalokes is possible and common within Torah shel ba'al peh.
It should also be noted that chazal interpreted pesukim (aside from through mesorah) with rigid INTERNAL hermeneutic rules of interpretation - the 13 of R' Yishmael for halacha, the larger lists for agadah, the Malbim identifies 613 such. As such they may not lend credence at all to an external approach such as the ones you are discussing.
Thanks HaRav RT for that exposition, which is valuable on its own.
Regarding 1, I sent you an email, as I think that discussion might be too long and involved for the comments.
Regarding 2, I 100% agree anything from Chazal is Torah SheBaal Peh. Again, when I said "reinterpretation", I didn't mean לאפוקי תורה שבעל פה. I meant things that seem very much shelo kepshuto.
One other thing, I would question if ONLY Chazal is Torah shebaal Peh. Are you sure Rashi, the Rambam, Rav Akiva Eiger, Rav Ovadiah Yosef are NOT Torah sheBaal Peh? Of course, they are an totally different level than Chazal/Gemara themselves. But I think it would be fair to say that on a certain level, they are also part of the Torah SheBaal Peh.
Great post! I want to thank you, Rabbi Happygolucky Personage. Your prodigious erudition and eloquent writing style greatly enhance Irrationalist Modoxism. We are honored to have you as a valued contributor to our platform. It wouldn't be the same without you.
I want to chime in on your discussion on the Rambam. In his book The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Marc Shapiro spends a considerable amount of time attempting to discredit the 13 Ikkarim by cherry-picking isolated cases of individuals who do not appear to accept them as necessary tenets of faith. Much of his work has already been debunked as misrepresentations and disingenuous arguments by Sochaczevski and Grossman.
Moreover, Shapiro conveniently overlooks the fact that many of these principles are explicitly articulated by Chazal. For instance, the Gemara in Perek Chelek extensively discusses Techiyas Hameisim, which you use as an example. Chazal unequivocally state that anyone who denies it is a kofer who does not have a place in Klal Yisroel and will not inherit olam haba. The Gemara also cites numerous proofs of this concept from Tanach, including Yechezkel's vision of the dry bones. So speculating that perhaps the Rambam did not hold of it (even though he never denies Techiyas Hameisim and writes in a few places that he did hold of it) as a "lesson to the moderns" that they need not be concerned about it is pretty crazy stuff. If the Rambam wouldn't have held of it, he wouldn't be the Rambam. As you so succinctly put it, the Rambam's entire authority was as a codifier of Jewish law and tradition. Not as its creator.
It is always amusing to observe how self-important academics produce extensive essays that mockingly dismiss tradition as a result of close-minded Torah scholars, yet they are exposed time and time again as having pulled their pants down publicly by misrepresenting the evidence.
See here for a classic example:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/on-knowing-how-to-learn-part-ii
Grossman:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17l02tZ0zlTTB4CrqPvsS3_1CF2SkBM17/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H0jEPBoTwJscpzrH4Lv28MxzBUWOGDQQ/view?usp=share_link
Sochczevski:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IEwaEGlc3tEYHeUTnbGf_8uiBYMcFy-Q/view?usp=share_link
I am not a chassid of Shapiro, but for the sake of honesty here, those listed by Shapiro as "denying Resurrection" take the Gemara seriously, as they do the biblical passages that mention it. They interpret them as referring to the spiritual afterlife. You don't have to agree with that interpretation, but you can't accuse them of being dismissive or ignorant of the rabbinic sources. The same for Shapiro, who, as an intellectual historian, spends that chapter (for the most part) gathering these sources.
Upon a thorough examination of the gemara, it becomes clear that the notion that the dead will come back to life is unequivocal. The gemara offers explicit examples that are difficult to dismiss, such as the explanation of the verse that directs us to give Teruma to Aharon Hakohen, a mortal, because Aharon Hakohen will return to life.
Furthermore, the gemara recounts the story of a מין (MODOX) who questioned the possibility of techiyas hameisim, the resurrection of the dead, given that the bodies have already disintegrated into dust. The gemara provides an answer to this question, but if one were to view the concept of techiyas hameisim as merely a spiritual afterlife, the question would not arise.
A comprehensive review of the entire sugya (Sanhedrin 90a 92b) reveals that the interpretation of techiyas hameisim as a spiritual afterlife is implausible. The gemara goes through many detailed technical and explicit descriptions of the disintegrated dust returning to life. Additionally, the gemara discusses the concept of olam haba, spiritual afterlife, as a separate phenomenon.
Therefore, anyone attempting to undertake an "intellectual historical" inquiry to argue that the Rambam did not believe in techiyas hameisim would have to acknowledge that such an assertion is exceedingly difficult to square with the extensive discussion in the Talmud. This would also require ignoring the Rambam's own writings and relying solely on secondary sources.
Moreover, attempting to "allegorize" this gemara to suggest that it refers only to an afterlife is problematic because the gemara could not be clearer in its intention. And the gemara says that belief in techiyas hameisim is a fundamental tenet, and anyone who does not accept it is considered a kofer. Attempting to finagle out of such an important belief, despite its acceptance in traditional Torah Jewry, leaves nothing sacred and creates a backdoor to dismiss every tenet of the Torah.
That's a reasonable argument - to support your personal opinion (which I would concur with). But you don't understand what intellectual history is. If I would write a book on Jewish intellectual history, I would need to record that there were Jews who were Christians, Jews who were atheists, Jews who were Marxists, etc. This is regardless of how cogent those philosophies may or not be. It's a historical reality: People had such opinions. In the same way, there were Jews (not unimportant ones) who thought that the Rambam allegorized Resurrection. Right or wrong, it's there.
Well, he did not write it as merely "intellectual history". Shapiro writes in his conclusion that he wrote the book as a "lesson for the moderns" that the 13 ikkarim are not all they're cracked up to be, and people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they want and still be considered kosher Jews. Besides for having been exposed as grossly misrepresenting many of the sources, if sources in fact do exist that appear contrary to what Chazal describe in very strong terms as basic tenets of faith, they may be a troubling historical oddity, but certainly nothing more than that. And definitely not a basis to discard millennia of tradition and unequivocal statements from Chazal.
The gemorroh says clearly mitzvos betiloh l'osid levoh (re tachrichin and shatnoz). The gemorroh says clearly yackov ovinu lo meis. The gemorroh says clearly not teaching a son a trade will lead him to dishonesty. Ahem.
Nothing is clear in the gemorroh, even though it appears to be. Every single word, every sugyoh structure, is subject to endless discussion and debate. However clear it appears.
"Every single word, every sugyoh structure, is subject to endless discussion and debate. However clear it appears." No. This is incorrect. This is probably MO's biggest mistake. Maybe this is a two-year old's understanding of what goes on in a yeshiva, but is very far from the truth.
Clearly you haven't learnt much tur beis yosef. The rishonim quoted therein bring halachik conclusions completely contrary to the traditional way of a learning a sugyoh. Our favourite Rambam comes to mind (no, I am not talking about stiros here) but there are others.
Again, the big MO mistake. Because there exists such a thing as debate regarding some things, therefore everything is up for debate. Any wonder why they are starting to permit mishkav zachar?
So teaching your son a trade means spending $150,000 on a college “education”? Why are you insinuating Chareidim are not mekaim that.
No it doesn't. But it does involve teaching then to read and write well enough to cope in their host countries. That way, they won't need to rely on others to complete the benefit claim forms.
I don’t know much about writing but anyway you have chat gpt and gramerly if you’re old fashioned. What I do know that in todays world the analytical skills acquired through a chareidi education has created many successful accountants lawyers and even more businessmen.
Reminds me of the asinine discussion (which frustratingly Sochaczevski partakes in ) about the eight principle being somehow contradicted by the view in the Talmud that Yehoshua wrote the last couple of pesukim. A real head scratcher, being that the eighth principle is about the divine origin of the Torah, irrespective of who inscribed it.
וזה לשון הרמב"ם שם:
היא התורה הנתונה למשה... ושהוא במדריגת סופר... וכך נקרא מחוקק... וזה אשר נעשהו היום הוא בעינו התואר אשר אמר ה' למשה ומסר לנו והוא מוסר שליחות נאמן במסירתו.
There is a very clear emphasis on Moshe here. You're free to play it down, but to dismiss it offhandedly is wrong.
No, there is not. By all accounts he wrote 99% of it. There is zero indication it has anything to do with the actual Principle and is anything other than incidental to it.
Strange that there isn't any traditional sources that pick up on this. Like zero. Because it takes a certain level of pure genius to realize this clever question how the Principle squares with an explicit gemora. Amazing how long it went undiscovered.
I'm sure that if Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg zt"l would realize that you considered him a na'ar for lecturing about this question he would recant.
Lol, we playing the name game now?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the לשון הרמב"ם that points to Moshe being the one doing the writing as being an integral part of the principal.
Do you have an explanation why everyone else missed the issue?
R Joshua Maroof already said this in 2006.
http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/2006/10/ten-generations-and-problem-of.html?m=1
Nice. Looks like I brought more sources and support for this possibility, and pre-empted many of the objections in the comments there.
Just pointing out that you're not the first frum person to suggest it. It's still a great sevara.
If I'm not mistaken, I think that Josh Berman in his "Ani Maamin" makes this suggestion to reconcile the the four centuries of Galus Mitzrayim with the chronology.
Amazing stuff. Thank you HGL for explaining this so eloquently!
A touch of humility would save some of these "scholars" much trouble indeed.
Modern Orthodoxy is a chumrah not a kulah. I understood that modern orthodoxy's idea to learn secular knowledge is a chumrah, that is, that learning secular knowledge is not supposed to come at the expense of Torah knowledge. So you need to be like the Rambam and know Torah inside and out as well as learning secular knowledge. But in no way should one sacrifice Torah knowledge for secular knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise has totally misunderstood modern orthodoxy. So, of course, that leaves modern orthodoxy available to a very small group of intelligent, quick learning, elite. Go figure.
Does this really answer science? It would be a far stretch to add the millions or billions of years required for dna code to write itself to the torahs chronology.
Realistically, it would only extend civilization a few thousand years, but that would answer a lot of questions about the Mabul and when cities started, for example. Our regular chronology of *civilization* only diverges from science by a few thousand years at most. Regarding the other billion, trillion, gazillion years, there is a probably a hybrid that science is wrong in some respects, our understanding in Torah is not 100%, etc.
I can’t say anything about reading and writing but these days you can just use gramerly and chat GBT so who needs that. The analytical skills acquired through a chareidi education even with very little secular education has made many successful accountants lawyers and even more successful business men.
Great post....but...I don't know. At the end of the day it sounds like you're calling the Rambam a heretic without calling him a heretic.
Well written
Yasher Koach
I think the attached imagery is somewhat inappropriate
Future academics will point to HGLs usage of this picture as outstanding evidence that Maimonides principle of God having no form never received widespread acceptance. It will be duly noted however that quite apart from the portrayal of such images in earlier times, subtle chareidy influences demanded some coverups here, albeit with less than desirable objects.
The Maharal wrote that the Book of Job was written by Moshe Rabbenu even though it contained no mitzvot.
The Gemerah says it, according to one man de'amar
"well-established Torah ideology"
You are aware that the torah is designed to speak to eterntity. To every generation. As are the recorded nevius. The challenge is to find it (very important when learning nach).
So there is absolutely no reason why one cannot find find discussion of democracy, feminism, equality, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, and criticism of authority figures in the torah, through a novel interpertation.
And of course, criticism of authority is rampant through tanach. It is only modern day Yeshivaland that has elevated every rebbe pictured putting up a mezuzah in the erstwhile pages of the 'haredei press' as infallible popes who can never make mistakes. When one learns novi, the novi could well be talking about the so called leaders of today who do absolutely nothing to root out corruprion, nepotism, fraud and all that goes with it in the institutions below them. What goes in botei dinnim today is a disgusting travesty of justice, not least the endless delays.
Torah speaks to feminism - והוא ימשול בך
Democracy - שום תשים עליך מלך
Freedom of Speech - כי האלקים על השמים ואתה על הארץ על כן יהיו דבריך מעטים
Equality - לא ישבו בארצך
Religious tolerance - לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני
Criticism of Authority figures - ירא את ה' בני ומלך
Perhaps the Torah does not say what you want it to say. But that does not mean that it is not discussed.
And not one Rebbe/Rabbi, besides Lubavitch, is considered 'infallible' by his followers, let alone by the public. Nobody has heard that, taught that, or lives like that. More lies from the MO, who would like to place the 'other' in a box, so they can kick them around.
That's called cherry picking of sources. For example, you refer to 'lo yeishvu b'artzocho' yet ignore vehavtam as hegeir. Hu Yimshol Boch is a klolloh, there is no mitzvah to subjugate oneseleves to klollos. What does 'b'zeus epocho tochal lechem' tell us about current kollel society? Anybody can pick sources for what they like.
You seem to think that because something is a klal, it is meaningless. That is wrong.
Yes. Reducing complex issues to one line soundbites is meaningless and wrong. Even if you make it sound yeshivish as being a 'klal'. I believe the possuk 'tevorach mi'noshim yo'el' (or something like that) is chazal"s endorsement of militant feminism, even when it involves seven be'ilos.
It says תברך מנשים, not תברך מאנשים. Because the issue is not between men and women, rather between women and women.
But that would require actual translation of the possuk.
So what? The best woman is a militant woman. Mefurash a possuk. Right?
Equality means all are equal. לא ישבו בארצכם means all are not equal.
And even a convert is not 'equal' as he does not have a portion in Eretz Yisroel like someone who was born Jewish.
va'ahavtem et hager refers to a ger tzedek, not to goyim
Come on, most of these citations are not even trying. (I could do a lot better).
1. Define feminism and explain why והוא ימשול בך contradicts it. I've seen some people define it as merely caring about women's health services and such.
2. And the מלך was not an absolute monarch (despite having powers the West would consider unacceptable).
3. This is just laughable. What does a posuk saying not to speak harshly against Hashem because he knows what he's doing have to do with freedom of speech.
4. Relevance to equality nowadays? (Also IIRC they could convert and be equal.)
5. לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני not sure what the relevance is to religious tolerance. This isn't even an injunction to destroy non-Jewish avodah zara in Eretz Yisrael (which is a different mitzva).
6. This is probably your best citation. See the Malbim:
ירא את ה' בני ומלך ועם שונים אל תתערב, צוה שיירא את ה' בעניני הדת, ואת המלך אשר במשפט יעמיד ארץ בהנהגת הקיבוץ המדיני, ואל תתערב עם האנשים שרוצים לשנות הנהגת המדינית, ר"ל למרוד במלכם ולהקים תחתיו הנהגה שניה משונה מראשונה שבזה תפר גם יראת ה' שצוה שתהיה מורא מלך עליך:
I would answer you, but I don't see the need. I was writing off the cuff to show that the principles are dealt with, and we can learn more to understand better.
It is just that in all likelihood, western civilization is not in sync with the Torah, and Moshiach will come and wipe it away.
(Btw, Melech not being an absolute monarch has nothing to do with democracy. The limits a king has are not based on the will of the people, they are based on Torah. So democracy is not a Jewish value, monarchy is)
Sure, criticism of the wrong authority (like Menashe) is rampant. But criticism of the Torah authority is frowned upon.
When Zali Rebbe criticises the Aroni Rebbe is that frowned upon? Does that mean neither are real tzadikkim? What about criticism of a dati le'umi talmid chochom (there are/were a few)? Is that somehow okay?
You get my point.
Sure, it is more complicated than all criticism is bad. You get my point.
In other words, your comment about criticism of torah authority is all froth and no beer. It's meaningless when you consider how charedim themselves happily bash other rabbis when it suits them.
What is 'torah authority'?
The navi you were talking about. They didn't take criticism too kindly.
Well, there are no nevi'im nowadays, so your response has no practically impact on anything. So, back to the point - charedi groups criticise the rabbis of other groups all day and all night - why is that suddenly ok?
Who says it's ok? Not I.
You are happy to call Rabbi Lord Dr Jonathan Sacks a kofer. No ifs. No buts. Why is that suddenly ok?
Well, that's great but you are botel b'rov. Charedim themselves say it's ok. Look out how Rav Shaul Alter is being bashed by other gerrers. If that's ok, why can't Slifkin bash, I dunno, Rav Shach? What is the difference?
Correct. For the Torah view of feminism, see Rashi on Breishis 1:28.
"This is really a matter for the Gedolei Hador (The Great Rabbis of the generation) to decide"
But who DECIDES who the Gedolei Hador are? In Yeshivaland, it tends to be the chap that agrees with me. So the fantatical only speak teach and eat Yiddish in England will happily point to the rabbis that support them as being 'gedolei hador' while dismissing all the others as, well, you know, not quite from our beis hamedrash. Ditto every other machlokas you care to mention.
"The entire idea of a Creator is absolutely fundamental to Jewish theology, not confined to the Genesis narrative, but essential to the entire Torah and the whole idea of miracles.15
Therefore, any interpretation that claims the Creation narrative was never really a Creation, but an allegory for something else, must immediately fail on those grounds. "
Has anybody else spotted the crafty shift from 'creator' to 'creation'. Typical of this chap's work. A 'creator' is indeed one of the ikkurim. 'Creation' is not, so the fact that a creator has to be taken literrally sheds no bearing on the question of whether the 'creation' story likewise needs to do so. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Looks like you didn't read that part carefully.