[Avodah] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:51:11AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
> I watched a debate between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks...                and
> biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins asked Rabbi Sacks if he believed there
> was an Adam and Eve and Rabbi Sacks without hesitation said "Of course,
> not. That is just allegorical." He continued to say that there is a
> principle in Judaism that reading the Bible literally is heretical. He
> said Christianity reads it literally but not Judaism.

I think this is *A* position, but not the only one.

(Perhaps R Sacks stated things more firmly than otherwise because the
context was debating heresy.)

I would have rather he said that there is a principle in Judaism that
insisting the Torah *MUST* be reas literally is heretical.

While we have TSBP and derashah, there is the idea that ein davar yotzei
miydei peshuto -- simple peshat is concurrently valid. Everything in
Torah is said for its message about how we should live our lives. the
question is whether the message is ever wrapped an ahistorical myth,
rather than being learned from history or law.

Aside from Moshe's special kind of nevu'ah, prophecy is wrapped in
metaphor. But that wouldn't make the text metaphoric, it would be
the literal description of what the navi saw in a vision -- but that
vision was a metaphor. And then there are the special-form books: Shir
haShirim and Tehillim use poetic imagery, Mishlei's title tells you it's
a collection of Parables, Iyov may or may not be historical, etc...

On to the esoteric subjects, as per the Mishnah in Chagiga 2:1 ("Ein
Dorshin"). Maaseh haMerkavah (and the related vision of the Man in the
Throne at the end of Mishpatim) are prophetic visions, so they could well
be relayed as literal description of what the navi experienced. Which
leaves us with Maaseh Bereishis. Could it be taken literally even though
Chazal tell us it eludes popular understanding?

Because of that, most days I personally subscribe to an idea I got
from the Maharal (Gevuros Hashem intro #1) and R Dessler (MmE vol II,
pp 150-154, see my summary at
<https://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2005/01/28/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation>).
In short, they say that everything that happened in the world before
Chava and Adam ate from the eitz hadaas is totally incomprehensible to
us. REED says that in particular because the arrow of time is a human
perception which we only picked up with the eitz hadaas.

So, I would say that Geneis 1 & 2 are indeed literal descriptions.
But what they literally describe is incomprehensible to me. All I
can study is what Hashem taught us through those events and through
His Choice of how to describe those events.

But as I opened, I don't think there is only one The Jewish Answer
to this.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 27th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             taking control result in relationship?