[Avodah] Rav Keller's JO article on evolution

[Zvi Lampel]

>From : T613K at aol.com[mailto:T613K at aol.com]

R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
>>[The Sfer HaIkarrim writes:] "The Torah is called a 'testimony' ('aidus' --Ex. 25:21 and Ps. 132:12). This is to signify that the Torah must be understood by pashtus (the normal meaning of its words), just as the testimony of witnesses:..."<< 

RTK:
>> Nevertheless we do not translate "Etzba Elokim" or "Yad Hashem" literally. So it's not always so pashut what pashtus is.<<

ZL:
Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon gives a clear exposition of the parameters of "peshat" and when and how the conventional, primary meaning of a word can and may be abandoned:


>From the Introduction to Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon's Full Commentary on the Torah:

"It is impossible to interpret the Torah without mastering the three pieces of information that bring loyal Jews (baalei emunah) to perfection in their performance (shleimus ha-avodah): the muskal, the kasuv, and the mekubal. I will now establish how to interpret the Torah and the other prophetic works.

"These three items are [also] the basis understanding Scripture [itself]. Now, in any language, every statement may contain words that tolerate a single meaning, and words that tolerate multiple meanings. The statements in the Torah, being written in one of the world's languages, are no exception. This being so, an obligation (chovah) rests upon anyone attempting to expound upon the Torah, to explain all its words according to their conventional/primary meaning (k'pashtan), as they square with the muskallos that preceded it and the mesorah that came after it, as words that have absolute meanings (k'millim sheh-hein baalos masma'os muchlatos). Any word whose attributed meaning contradicts one of these [two] factors unquestionably has another meaning.

"If I would further clarify this, I would add that it is proper for every person of understanding to always grasp the sefer Torah according to the peshat of the words that is mefursam [conventional/widely-known/familiar] among those who use that language, and [take the meaning that is] used more. For the goal of every written work is that its ideas be wholly grasped by those who hear it [read]. The only exception is if the chush (sensory perception) or the seichel contradicts that terminology, or if the peshat of that terminology clearly contradicts another verse, or contradicts the mesorah of the prophets. If one sees that letting the words retain their peshat meaning would lead to one of those four things I established [denial of muchash or muskal, denial of peshat of other pesukim, or denial of the mesoress], one is obligated to know that the statement in question is not meant kepashto, but has a word or words not meant to be true in all aspects. And [one is obligated to know that when correctly interpreted, utilizing one of the several categories of figures of speech, the verse must agree with the muchash, the muskal, the pashtei hapesukim [i.e., of the other pesukim which can retain their pashut meaning without objection--ZL] and the mesoress."

RSG then brings examples to  illustrate the four factors, each of which is necessary to allow, and forces, one to relinquish the conventional/primary meaning of a word:

Eve described as the "mother of all life" in the conventional/primary sense contradicts the muchash, because the words would then imply that the lion, ox, donkey and all the other creatures are offspring of Eve. Therefore the word "life"must e modified to mean "human life."

"Hashem is a consuming fire" (Devarim 4:24) in the conventional/primary sense contradicts seichel.

In the conventional/primary sense, Hashem's saying that when giving maaser "you shall test me through this" (Devarim 6:16) contradicts the pesukim prohibiting testing Hashem.

In the conventional/primary sense, "Do not cook a kid goat in its mother's milk" implies that only cooking a kid goat in its own mother's milk is prohibitted, whereas the mesorah teaches us that we are probitted not only to cook, but also to eat, other animals, together with other milk. "This requires us to search the verse for some borrowed forms of words by which we can explain how the verse can match the mesoress.

---------------

RMB and I have had a usually unexpressed disagreement over the "argument from silence." If I understand him correctly, when Chazal and/or rishonim say nothing about the meaning of a word, nothing can be learned about how they understood it. I always maintained, and I submit the original quote from Sefer HaIkarrim and now this passage from Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon demonstrates, that the primary, conventional understanding of words is the correct way to understand them, and is the way to understand how Chazal and/or Rishonim took them, unless they state otherwise. Especially when dealing with rishonim who have a reputation of explaining when words are meant literally and when not, and especially when they deal with a specific word in question (such as, for instance, "day," which the Rambam's son redefines in "The day G-d created Heaven and Earth" and in another context, but not in the context of the "first day," "second day," etc., of MB) when they do not redefine it, the proper way to define it is the conventional.

RMB (and Rav David Gottleib) have already pointed out that the rishonim would not regard archeological-type "proofs" of what existed in the past to be the "muskal" RSG and others refer to, and to be in fact inferior means for establishing the truth. They therefore would not relinquish the conventional meaning of words on such basis.

Zvi Lampel