[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Zvi Lampel]

RMB wrote:

 >As for RAK's handbook, here's the quote:
     ...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.

Yom literally means era, as in "lifnei ba yom Hashem hagadol vehanora".<

Actually, Radak (Yoel 3:3 referring to Yoel 2:11) says that the "Yom 
Hashem HaGadol V'HaNora" is the day of Gog and Magog's downfall. Sounds 
like a specific (V-)day.

RMB:
 >Or a more significant example to our case, in Bereishis 2:4, the creation
era is called a yom -- "beyom asos H' E-lokim eretz veshamayim" --
not 7 of them!

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

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.

This is clear from the first chelek of Moreh Nevuchim.

Here's what the Sefer Ikkarim writes.

'IKKARIM, CHAPTER 21 (pp.192-194)

"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:

"When witnesses testify, we do not say, let's tweak the time or 
interpret the testimony to keep the witnesses innocent of perjury. To 
illustrate: let's say they testified that Reuven killed Shimon on the 
first day of the week, and then their testimony is proved false. We do 
not say, let's interpret their testimony to prevent them from being 
false witnesses. Let's say that by "on the first day of the 'week' " 
they meant on the first of the seven-year sabbatical cycle (the "week" 
of years). Or let's say that by "he killed him" they meant he refused to 
give him alms, which would support him; or they meant he did not teach 
him the Torah, [which is, after all,] the true source of life in the 
World to Come. We do not say any of this because a testimony must be 
understood naturally, and if witnesses are shown to have given false 
testimony, they must be put to death, and we do not interpret their 
words in ways to save them...

Just wondering: Let's say someone refrains from melacha on shabbos 
thinking that  he's commemorating that Hashem "made the heavens and 
earth into seven seas" (yamim can mean "seas," you know---/I can prove 
it from rishonim/!) and has that in mind when he says "Ki Sheyshess 
Yamim, Asah Hashem Ess HaShamayyim V'ess HaAretz." Is he gaining the 
concept Shabbos is meant to teach? Does it matter?

Let's say, when reciting Kiddush, or davening Sh'meoneh Essray, or 
learning Chumash, he thinks that  "U-bayom HaSh'vi'iShavas VaYinafash," 
means that "during the day, the seventh sphere stopped working" 
("U-bayom, "HaSh'vi'i" shavvas VaYinafash"). Does it matter?

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101126/7e9f0b39/attachment-0002.htm>