[Avodah] rishonim, yevamos 24a, ain mikreh.....

[harveybenton at yahoo.com]

Re: our recent discussions of Chet Reuvein K’Pshuto or not. 
From: Critique of Rabbi Jeremy Weider's "When the Torah Doesn't Mean What it Says" 
http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-rabbi-jeremy-weiders-when.html
R. Sadia Gaon: 
….Emunos v’Deos 7:2. But although this passage cited is directly relevant, I believe the presentation of the Gaon’s position was incomplete and understated. The Gaon was very much an opponent of allegorizing scripture. While Rabbi Weider almost takes it for granted that halachic passages not be taken allegorically, the Gaon sees this as a very real potential risk once allegorical interpretation is allowed to replace the simple meaning, and its application to narratives is an additional concern, “if this kind of interpretation is necessary for the legal section of Scripture, it must likewise apply to the narrative portion.” (E.D. 7:4)…..[snip] 
The equivocal language of Genesis 3:20 where Eve is called the “Mother of all Living” was certainly not understood by its original audience as indicating all living species descended from Eve, and this is made clear by the context. Likewise the description of God as a “devouring fire” found in Deuteronomy 4:24 is a more or less clear example of figurative speech and would have been understood as such by its original audience…....
Rambam: 
Moreh Nevuchim II:25. 
[5] In the absence of being compelled otherwise, “we take the Bible literally” (ibid). 
Rashba: 
While Saadia Gaon reserves allegorical interpretation for when observation or reason prevents one from accepting the simple meaning, and the Rambam rejects allegorical interpretation when there is an equally plausible explanation which preserves the simple meaning, the Rashba seems to allow allegorical interpretation to uproot the simple meaning of the text whenever one is confronted with a conflict with “science”… [hb: footnote 7: See Chidushei HaRashba, Perushei HaHagados, Mosad HaRav Kook edition page 102.]… [snip] 
….The Rashba contends that when a scientific position conflicts with a tradition (kabalah) we follow the tradition and do not interpret the passage allegorically.[8].  Ibid page 104. 
Ramban: 
The Ramban in his commentary on the Torah criticizes the Rambam (which is cited with approval by the Ribash[10]) for saying that certain encounters with angels which the Patriarch’s experienced had really occurred in dreams. [hb: footnote 10; See Menachem Kellner’s translation, Rabbi Isaac Bar Sheshet’s Responsum Concerning the Study of Greek Philosophy, Tradition Vol. 15 (Fall 1975), pages 110-118.] 
The Meiri: 
The Meiri has three classifications of Scripture with respect to allegorical interpretation, those which must be interpreted only allegorically, those which can have an additional allegorical meaning, and those which may not be interpreted allegorically at all. The Meiri includes the creation of the world in the latter category which is forbidden to interpret allegorically.[12] [hb: footnote 12; Beis HaBechira 3:11, cited in Interpretation and Allegory, page 205.] 

HB: it seems to me that the most conservative of the Rishonim mentioned above, would suggest not interpreting halacha and/or scriptural directives allegorically.  What then should we do with: scriptural commands to: 1. give 40 lashes (not 39) 2. count omer 50 days (not 49) 3. ayin tachas ayin, shein tachas shein literally (not mammon); 4. eat matzah 6 days v. 7 days; 5. not outside on shabbas (a la karaites). 6. lo tevashel gdi b'cheilev imo (without any attendant milk/meat prohibitions besides for the specific ones mentioned in the Torah), etc???? 

 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090526/92b3c73d/attachment-0001.htm>