[Avodah] Only One Interpretation, The Right One - (Was Did RSRH write LH)

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, December 21, 2008 5:46 am, R Y Levine quoted from the new RSRH
chumash (Bereishis 40:5):
> An intelligent person can discern the precise explanation of a
> dream, without being able to guarantee the dream's fulfillment. The
> interpretation must come from within the dream itself. Such an
> interpretation of a dream is a deep psychological task, just as the
> explanation of any symbol, the hermeneutic interpretation of any verse,
> should be pisron, explanation from within. There is no end to the
> interpretations that can be forced upon any symbol or verse. But there
> is only one interpretation -- the right one -- that will be found by one
> who seeks (thus the term derush) the interpretation from within. Just as
> at organic birth and at the unfolding of every bud, there is an inner
> point from which the whole development takes its course, so in every
> "closed" symbolism, there is a kernel of an idea which has to be grasped,
> whereupon all the rest automatically follows and becomes clear.

RYL adds:
: RSRH does not use midrashim to explain pesukim
: all that often. To me it seems that the above comments explain why.

But that would mean that RSRH would be accusing medrashim to be
"interpretations ... forced upon any symbol or verse". He may not
use them, but he does acknowledge that many/most really do come from
Chazal, no?

Personally, I think the reason is pedagogic -- his audience wasn't ready
for it.

I heard in his words a reference to symbology, which RSRH utilizes
heavily. A frequent criticism in the lips of those who seek other systems
of meaning to mitzvos than the symbol-based derekh of RSRH is that pretty
much any nimshal can be dray-ed into any act / nevu'ah, if the person
is creative enough. And therefore RSRH is making a distinction between
the true symbology, coming from kernels of ideas actually handed down
along with the text and law, and such creations.



By the way, it is for this reason -- "in every 'closed' symbolism, there
is a kernel of an idea which has to be grasped" -- that I drifted away
from my past attraction to Horeb's approach.

Implied is that for these symbolic mitzvos, most people don't get much
out of doing them. Not unless they are aware of the symbol. I am more
comfortable believing that mitzvos have impact regardless of whether I am
"in the know".

One can argue that "mitzvos einum tzerikhos kavanah" even solely because
the point of the mitzvah is to *have the opportunity* to have kavanah. And
that one can fulfill the chiyuv if the point is only to have those 100
tefillos so that one of them will be the time everything connects. As
opposed to fulfillment depending upon that connection.

However, RSRH's understanding goes beyond kavanah to saying that the
hashpa'ah of a mitzvah requires not only intent to do the mitzvah,
and not only intent for the sake of doing a mitzvah, but very specific
knowledge of Yahadus. This is in contrast to Litta, where they debated how
"ha'adam nif'al lefi pe'uloso" -- whether it's that one in 100 when the
person is moved to change or even without trying to be changed. (Which
in turn became a machloqes between the centrality of learning halakhah
vs the Mussar Movement.)

The Hirschian concept of how mitzvos change, by internalizing a message
only the informed actually know, is something I simply have a hard time
swallowing was really HQBH's intent when giving us the mitzvos. A "doesn't
feel right" kind of "argument", but there it is. I'm only saying that
"al pi darki", it isn't as good of a fit for me as it used to be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha at aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507