[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Zvi Lampel]

On 11/30/2010 12:49 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> RZS [should be RZL--ZL] wrote:
>> ... 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....

> Another way of looking at it is from G"d's perspective. Why would you
> limit G"d to expressing Himself only in the most simple manner...

Another way of looking at it? I'm quoting our baalei mesorah as to the
correct way of looking at it.

> why should it be written according to the rules laid out in elementary
> school?

Pardon me? I'm invoking serious pronouncements by Geonim and Rishonim
as to the correct way to go about understanding G-d's words!

> Great writers surely don't stick to those rules, and express
> themselves with all the wealth of expressions the human communicative
> canon offers. ...

The Geonim and Rishonim were appreciative of, and expanded upon the
wealth of expression and the additional and deeper meanings of the
pesukim within and beyond peshat. That doesn't change the rules about
establishing the basic peshat and what it engenders.

Please consider the implications of what you are saying in regards to,
say, blanket interpretation of the entire Torah as allegory, both in
its narratives and its halachos.

On 11/30/2010 12:49 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> So if the question is whether we are free to reinterpret words at
> will, to the point of making Torah almost arbitrary, I agree with you
> that it cannot be that we have such licence. OTOH, if the question is
> whether the Torah may express itself in those types of figurative
> speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word, the answer
> must surely be a resounding yes.

I didn't give enough attention to this caveat. Nevertheless, as far as 
your saying,
> if the question is whether the Torah may express itself in those types
> of figurative speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word,
> the answer must surely be a resounding yes
-- I must reiterate that the circumstances under which we may understand
"whether the Torah may express itself in those types of figurative
speeches and utilize the non-primary meaning of a word," is precisely
what the the rishonim and geonim were concerned about and which they
defined. And which I quoted.

Zvi Lampel