[Avodah] Peshat (was Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution )

[Zvi Lampel]

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 from: "Micha Berger" <micha at aishdas.org> 
 > Zvi Lampel wrote: 
:From the Introduction to Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon's Full Commentary on the Torah: 
:> 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. RMB:
Which would include idiomatic or poetic usage, or even rare but accepted 
usage.

ZL:
Yes, if there is some reason to abandon the literal meaning, which indeed is often, maybe even usually, the case.The first section of Moreh Nevuchim treats the subject. He first gives the primary, literal meaning of a word, shows where it is used in that meaning, then describes how it can have related, non-literal meanings, and shows how other pesukim do use it in that meaning based upon context. Then, based upon principles of reason or mesorah, he applies that meaning such words whose literal meaning would ascribe corporeality or other deficiencies to Hashem. There is a progression to follow, and one cannot go to the next step unless there is reason to do so. That is precisely what RSG and the Sefer Ikarrim are telling us. At stake for them was discounting the immediate jump by allegorists to allegorize everything--narratives and imperatives--at whim. RSG does not just say that one is free to say anything as long as it does not contradict Chazal. On the contrary, he says one should understand the words in their primary, conventional meanings /unless/ reason or Chazal indicate otherwise. 

RMB:
IMHO, this doesn't touch the inyan of whether "yom" must mean day rather than era unless we are told.

ZL:
It follows from the above that "yom" means day, rather than era. That's how people talk presently. That's how you must agree it is usually used in the rest of Tanach. (As one example of its usage which comes up many times: When the Torah speaks of keeping a Yom Tov for a day, have you any doubt what it means?) And in Maasei Breishis, that is how it was impassively taken by the rishonim. Some (Rashi, Ramban, Abarbanel, Rabbeynu Ovadia MiBartenuro) express it in terms of hours. Some (Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Rabbeynu Bechaya, Seforno) express it in terms of the rotation of the heavenly sphere.The Rambam's son objects to the (Rashi) explanation that "the yom Hashem made the tolodos of Heaven and Earth" could be referring to Day One, on the grounds that the tolodos were not extracted/fashioned/perfected/positioned in one day, but over the rest of the six days. He therefore concludes that in this case, as well as in the case of the posuk that talks of "the Day that the Torah was given" the primary meaning of "yom" must be relinquished in favor of the less-used meaning of "period of time." These are the exceptions. Like his father, he took it for granted that "yom" in all other cases, including in Maasei Bereishis, means a 24-hour type day.

ZL, quoting RSG:
: 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.... 

RMB:
I assume also "the mesorah of the prophets" will raise the same contention 
between ourselves and RMShinnar as did the MN. Does this mean "the body of 
mesorah as a whole", ie defy some ikkar or shoresh, or does it mean the 
mesorah about the particular pasuq?

ZL:
RSG's examples show he means the latter.

Old ZL:
: 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.... 

RMB:
I think it's more like when the ba'alei mesorah say nothing about the meaning 
of the word, any peshat meaning is valid, whereas you are limiting it to the 
most usual usage.

ZL:
Any "peshat" meaning is valid, but the definition of valid "peshat" is what's at issue. If the most usual usage is not given priority, then you are simply disregarding, or disagreeing with, what RSG, Rambam and Sefer Ikarrim are trying to tell you, or rendering their thesis meaningless.

RMB:
Your way would involve gray area, BTW. If the homonym has 
two equally common translations, you obviously can't say one to the exclusion 
of the other. So how much more usual need it to be before it qualifies as a 
default assumption?

ZL:
Yes, there are instances of gray area, and sometimes it's a toss-up (Rambam in MN notes some such cases), and that's why there are sometimes (make that often-times) machlokos. But you can't invoke the "where-do-you-draw-the-line" argument in cases where the conventional meaning is obvious.

RMB:
But I am shying away from your position because (leshitas RSRH and I assume 
others) homonyms in Hebrew come from the two meanings having a single 
underlying commmon theme, and the word's translation really meaning that 
theme. The translations are really limiting the broader idea by fitting it 
into context and thus coming with different English words (or other 
descriptions in the translation) and are not really different translations. IOW, if yom refers to a time period of a certain sort, and both eras and days 
are times period of that sort, neither usage is the more primary translation 
-- they are just different assumptions about context coloring the same 
translation: "And it was evening and it was morning, one 
some-sort-of-time-period."

ZL:
RSRH is proposing a subtly different idea than the Rambam. The Rambam takes the primary meaning of a word to be 100 percent of a given concept. For instance, "fire" is the concept of an entity that proffers light, heat, fury, destruction, melting, blackening, etc. The "borrowed" meaning takes just some of these properties, not all; so that one who is angry can be described as "fiery." For although he is not proferring light, melting, or blackening, he is demonstrating fury.So granted that according to RSRH, the "real" meaning of a word is solely what the homynym has in common with the "literal" meaning. But this does not change the fact that there is a meaning that the speaker means to convey. And it does not negate the thesis of RSG, Rambam and Sefer Ikarrim that in understanding the Torah’s intent, the initial preference should be given to the primary, usual, conventional meaning of words meant by people when they use that term. And that meaning should only be abandoned if reason or mesorah indicates that one should abandon it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061105/7602d9b4/attachment-0001.htm>