[Avodah] Rishonim and Chazal (was One Opinion)

[Arie Folger]

I once analyzed the Gra's reasoning as to when it is warranted to
reinterpret passages allegorically, based on his commentary to the
aggadot of Rabba Bar Bar 'Hanna.

The following paragraph may be germane to the discussion about when
new interpretations are OK:
--------------------------------------------------
The text of the Be'ur HaGra is a reaction to a halachik ruling of
Rabbi Yossef Karo, where the latter cites a ruling from Maimonides
denying the effect of a magical formula. The Gra declares that
Maimonides was fooled by "the damned philosophy" and explains why the
latter's view is incorrect. Namely,
since we find numerous stories in the [Babylonian] Talmud ... and in
the Palestinian [Talmud] ... And the Torah attested "and they became
serpents" and see [what the] Zohar [expounds] there. And so too
amulets [are mentioned] in several places, and la'hashim, [to the
point that they are] too numerous to count them.
Black magic likely exists, since we find numerous occurrences in the
Oral Torah, and even in the Written Torah, that describe events that
came about through black magic.
Now we must ask, if the Gra wouldn't reject allegorical exegesis [his
whole work on those aggadot is allegorical in a way that clearly
supplants the literal reading--arie], on what basis would he reject
Maimonides's view? Neither the Gra nor Maimonides discuss any
rationale for rejecting the existence of spirits and of black magic.
It is possible that the Gra felt that in the light of the absence of
such rationale one could not demand the reinterpretation of countless
verses in the Torah and passages in the Talmud and the Zohar so that
the existence of spirits and black magic would not be necessary.
Indeed, the Gra might have wondered at the absence of such rationale
whether "the damned philosophy fooled him."

==== AD KAAN ====

I generally question the later reinterpretation of the words of our
holy Rishonim in order to make them conform with our own notions. The
Ramban writes in a way that strongly implies he sometimes disagreed
with 'Hazal. It may be that he found support for his position in other
statements of 'Hazal, but that was surely not so important to him,
because he does not always cite those sources supporting his view. In
other words, the Ramban writes in a way that shows he felt he was
disagreeing with 'Hazal or allowed himself to reinterpret them at his
own discretion.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany (appears Jul. 26)
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle für G"tt?
* If You Work With Garbage, You Will Get Dirty
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits