[Avodah] literalism

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, October 9, 2007 6:49 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Correct it's all about semantics
: but to me literal avoids the idiomatic

This was a point I was going to make as well.

The description of churban bayis sheni that "Blood flowed like a
river" isn't guzma when "flowed like a river" was a common idiom in
the language of the time.

How often does someone say "I couldn't care less" to mean they care
very little, but less is actually possible? Or even odder, using "I
could care less" to mean the same?

More to our point: "he flew" for "he ran incredibly quickly". If you
encountered these phrases in an English book, would you call it
metaphor, a non-literal take on the text, to assert the author meant
"he ran"?

That's not to say I think Chazal were always literal, including idiom.
I believe meshalim were a way to relay TSBP in writing without fully
violating the "i ata reshai". It was also usual for the period to
relay deeper truths this way; it allows for more emotional impact than
simple description and for more insight through further study of the
mashal. The same reason why mashal is common in poetry.

When speaking of nevu'ah, nevu'ah is through chazon -- metaphor is the
stock of trade. And when giving tokhachah, which nevi'im did more than
anything else, guzma is also a tool of choice (when not used to the
point of allowing a person to dismiss the whole message as absurd).

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv