[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Zvi Lampel]

On 11/30/2010 3:32 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Zvi Lampel<zvilampel at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Then we totally agree. Baruch Hashem! I must have misunderstood you. Why did
>> you consider this "another way of looking at it," when it's identical to
>> what I quoted the sources as saying?
> Because the manner in which you wrote seemed to preclude understanding
> a word according to its secondary meaning, unless there are serious
> theological objections to using the primary meaning. I think that that
> is an excessively high bar that denies the Torah the right and ability
> to express itself in the most powerful way. I wouldn't lightly look
> for a secondary meaning, but I consider the bar you seemed to have
> set, to be too high. ...

But all I did was to add onto RAK's formula, cited by RMB, what the 
sources say. RMB wrote:
>> ...There are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the 
>> Torah is not to be taken according to its literal meaning: [181]
>>   1. Where the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.
>>   2. Where it is repudiated by obvious logic. [182]
>>   3. Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.
>>   4. Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition. [183]

>...But more importantly, we aren't talking about literal vs allegory. ...

And I added:

"True, we're not talking about literal vs. allegory; but about literal
(i.e., peshat) meaning. But there are rules for determining correct
literal meaning as well. Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim
explicitly, and others implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word
must be its primary meaning, unless it transgresses one of the rules
you mentioned. There is a hierarchy of meanings that must be followed:
Preferably primary; with cause (such as those you listed), non-primary."

What bar did I set higher than what the sources demand?

Zvi Lampel