9

I believe this will be related to a similar question about a statement by Rabbi Sacks. Rabbi Jeremy Wieder said in a lecture titled Non Literal Interpretation of Scripture in Jewish Tradition (and elsewhere as I understand it) that based on principles mentioned by the Rambam and Rav Saadia Gaon that, in simple terms, you generally understand the plain meaning of the text except when reason doesn't allow such a literal understanding, provided doing so doesn't violate core principals of Judaism. One example he gives is that while the verse speaks of God creating a rainbow, upon being shown that a rainbow is a natural property of optics and refraction, Rambam reinterpreted it to mean that God simply used a rainbow as a sign.

However, he goes on to say that the whole of the first 11 chapters could be understood to be like a parable, not something that actually happened. (Perhaps for details like halachos based on this portion he would take a modified approach, not sure.) (Also he says it wouldn't be heresy to say the Avos never existed but he would personally be very uneasy about taking it that far. Basically he said the only thing that you must understand as literal was the revelation at Mt. Sinai.)

So my question is, is there any precedent for that position on such a large scale? It's much more than understanding the nature of a rainbow. It seems to go against all of Chazal's commentaries and Jewish tradition from Mt. Sinai to say that the events didn't happen. To be sure, if correct, his approach would basically answer my other question that asks for a reconciliation between science that seems to say human history goes well beyond 6,000 years ago and that it proceeded uninterrupted straight through the Mabul (as well as another detail I didn't ask about that the history of languages shows they developed with no dispersion at a tower 4,000 years ago). But the halachic basis for such a liberal approach seems questionable to me, hence the question.

EDIT: I added a bounty to try to draw more eyes to the answers and get some other people's feedback on them or improved answers so I can get help choosing one for the accepted answer.

Community
  • 1
A L
  • 2,547
  • 20
  • 38
  • 1
    My take on the lecture mentioned http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-rabbi-jeremy-weiders-when.html – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 02:24
  • @Yirmeyahu I read your post, it was very insightful. Can I ask you one thing, where you quote the Meiri as saying Creation must not be understood allegorically, does that directly argue with Rambam's statement about Ma'asei Bereishis not to be understood "in all its parts" as literal? As an aside I asked another rabbi who said it's "never understood k'pshuto, those who try to interpret it as such might be kefirah", so does he also argue with Meiri? (Then again the rabbi might not be so reliable, he did recommend to me Genesis and the Big Bang after all.... No need to critique that book here.) – A L Jul 25 '13 at 05:10
  • 1
    AL--I think we should try to be compliant with the policy against using the comments for discussion. Perhaps you could turn these into their own question or direct the questions in the comments to the article? – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 06:27
  • @Yirmeyahu Okay. I emailed you R' Weider's response to your post on his lecture, if you're interested. – A L Jul 25 '13 at 17:31
  • Where is the Rambam about rainbows? – mevaqesh Aug 19 '15 at 00:57
  • 2
    @mevaqesh IMSMC it's actually a Ramban al hatorah on Noach. – Loewian Feb 08 '16 at 22:37
  • AL my detailed answer over here might of interest to you https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/26478/does-the-literary-content-of-genesis-1-compel-the-conclusion-that-it-is-a-fictiv – Bach Jun 26 '20 at 14:56

3 Answers3

6

Briefly, such an interpretation is inconsistent with the text and trend of Rav Saadia Gaon's discussion of this topic in Emunos v'Deos. The entire context of his discussions on when one may interpret Scripture contrary to the plain meaning is one of restricting the practice. Regarding allegorical interpretation Rav Saadia warns:

The result of the application of such a method of interpretation would be that there would not be an item left in the entire story of the creation [of the world] that would not have been divest of its literal meaning, which is the creation and origination of things. (Ibn Tibbon treatise 7:5, Rosenblatt, page 425).

The Rambam also has language limiting the non-literal interpretation of scripture (“a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text.” (Guide for the Perplexed II:25, trans. Friedlander)). While it might be argued that he is more open to exception he still does not provide any precedent for doing so beyond the creation account and his reasoning for doing so, and his method of doing so would not apply ("not interpreting literally" is not the same as offering a coherent non-literal interpretations).

Yirmeyahu
  • 13,367
  • 1
  • 44
  • 80
  • 1
    Could you please expand on your last parenthetical comment? "'not interpreting literally' is not the same as offering a coherent non-literal interpretations" – A L Jul 25 '13 at 03:29
  • 1
    What I mean is that although many people will suggest we interpret Torah non-literally, pointing to the Rambam or so forth, they will often fail to actually offer such an interpretation that explains what IS meant. – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 03:38
  • @Yirmeyahu Why is that a fundamental flaw in the method? All that says is current claims of non-literalness are unconvincing, not that they are untenable. – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 06:32
  • @DoubleAA, I'm sorry, I don't follow the question? – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 06:36
  • @Yirmeyahu You complained that people offering non-literal reads "often fail to actually offer [] an interpretation that explains what IS meant [by the allegory]". That isn't a valid complaint against the method, only about how convincing the instances of it that you have encountered are. – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 06:40
  • @DoubleAA, its a little late my time so I apologize if I'm being a little dense in my response but my observation, not complaint, was an after thought, literally a parenthetical statement. The method I meant was the Rambam's specific approach and the problem with it is that it is predicated upon Aristotelian philosophy. Does that answer your question? – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 06:53
  • Not really. I thought you were saying the problem is that a "coherent non-literal interpretation" had not been offered (yet!), but now you are throwing in Aristotle? How does Aristotle even come in here, and how is that problematic? – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 22:27
  • Any references to statements of Rambam would be appreciated. – mevaqesh Aug 19 '15 at 00:59
  • @mevaqesh, done. Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/30000/899 – Yirmeyahu Aug 26 '15 at 01:13
  • I know this answer was sitting here for a while, but I think before accepting it it could use a couple improvements. One is to add some clarifications you made within the comments to the answer itself. A second is to explain what Rambam meant by the creation account not being (in all its parts) literal (like does he mean none of the 6 days story is literally true, or did he mean a few specific details are not literally true) as this matters in terms of how much of a precedence he provided. Continued... – A L Dec 13 '16 at 05:44
  • ... Third, I think where you say Rambam says a mere arguement is not enough to reinterpret the meaning really does need more attention in a couple ways. Is a "mere argument" enough to interpret things he doesn't consider fundamental? Because then we can debate whether he considered the first 11 chapters non-fundamental. If he means for anything, how strong of an argument do you need? Evidence against the flood and pre-Adam humans for example for example is seen by many to be pretty strong. Continued... – A L Dec 13 '16 at 05:49
  • ...Reading the Rambam, it seems like if there were proof of an eternal universe, it'd be more than a matter of saying okay now you can reinterpret this, he'd totally reject Judaism. Would he do that too if he thought the evidence for pre-Adam humans was stronger than evidence for Judaism's truth? But that goes back to whether his reinterpretation restrictions are limited to fundamental details or everything. Please clarify those points, and I'd be happy to accept this answer. I know it goes a little beyond how much precedence there is, but your answer touches on things that need clarification. – A L Dec 13 '16 at 05:53
3

The Rambam, and even the Kuzari, say that it is not forbidden to re-intepret the six days. And if you consider the fact that the Moreh Nevuchim and the Kuzari are opposites on many other issues, and that they are two of the greatest works of Jewish thought, then it follows that one can understand the six days as non-literal without feeling like one is relying on an obscure view.

Steven Moshe Kaplan
  • 31
  • 1
1

As mentioned in the question, its based on the principles of the Rambam and Rav Saadia Gaon. When there's (a) reason to understand the text non-literally you may do so. In the past, these rishonim (and others) applied this principle of interpretation to certain cases based on philosophical reasons, and nowadays it may apply to other areas for archeological reasons, but it follows the same basic principles.

Also, one does not need to understand everything as a parable, just that the literal meaning of the pesukim may not be giving a detailed scientific account. For example, the beginning of Berishis says that the world was created by God, but the specific account can be understood symbolically in various ways. One can say something similar for the Flood story, but you can't keep on insisting everything's a metaphor, since revelation at Sinai is a fundamental belief.

Update:
The comments raise the issue of what is a fundamental belief and therefore must be interpreted literally and the question already mentioned R. Wieder's view on this. The Rambam enumerates 13 principle of belief that he holds cannot be re-interpreted, but that means other things can be re-interpreted. The Rambam followed this in practice in many instances, e.g. he reinterprets every single appearance of an angel in Tanach as a vision. The Rambam did not have a mesorah about angels, but he re-interpreted them based on his philosophical views. Similarly nowadays one can re-interpret things based on science.

Commentators who did not have such philosophical or scientific issues may have interpreted these stories completely literally; there are many ways to interpret the Torah. While one can interpret almost everything literally nowadays too, there's no reason to insist that it's an ikkar to do so. As chazal say, כל המוסיף גורע.

Ariel K
  • 10,999
  • 34
  • 53
  • 2
    But I mean, for you to try to fit everything with science, you would have to put such large quantities of the first 11 chapters into the realm of parable that the rest would only make sense as parable as well (to a degree that it seems to seriously undermine the overall credibility). To go back to my question, is there precedent for such a scale (understanding large portions of events as being metaphorical, not just a particular word)? – A L Jul 25 '13 at 02:53
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrin That indeed is a problem. If at one point in history all of Jewish knowledge can confidently say something happened as written, and then some archeological find or scientific development shows it to be an untenable position, and then the solution is to simply say it didn't happen after all, then how can any other statement that hasn't been thus far disproven be so confidently assumed as fact? On the other hand, if not afforded such a solution, it might seem that one would require Emunah that has been proven more conclusively than the existence of the problematic find itself. – A L Jul 25 '13 at 05:33
  • @ShmuelBrin "How do you know what is what?" We wouldn't, but who cares? Judaism is no more real if (eg.) the Korach story is allegorical or not. Moreover there are lots of stories that we don't know are real or not (Avraham and the Angels, Bil'am's donkey, Hoshea's harlot, and Shaul and the Ba'alat Ov for instance might be dreams, while the whole book of Job might be ahistorical) and that hasn't stopped Tanach from being important. You'd be hard pressed to prove definitively about anything in Tanach (aside, perhaps, from some version of Mattan Torah) that it must be literal. – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 06:33
  • @DoubleAA-is that an answer with sources? – Yirmeyahu Jul 25 '13 at 15:50
  • @ShmuelBrin Then what do you do with all the mefarishim on Bereishis and Noach, say that they simply didn't have a tradition/mesora and just assumed everything they wrote because they didn't have anything to prove them wrong? – A L Jul 25 '13 at 17:29
  • @ShmuelBrin This isn't a question about proofs of Judaism or God's existence. Why are you asking me these questions? It's a logical possibility that Ezra made it all up, but I don't believe that, and I think a Jew cannot believe that as it violates a number of ikkarei emunah. So what? Is there an ikkar emunah to believe that the Korach story is meant entirely literally? I've never heard of such a thing. You'd have to explain to me why it's more reasonable to think it is non-literal than literal if you want me to believe that. But it isn't impossible. – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 22:19
  • @ShmuelBrin 3) No. 1) The Mishna records it in Sanhedrin 10:1. ואלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, האומר...ואין תורה מן השמים. How did they know it? Either from the Torah which is from Shamayim, or because that's just a definitive characteristic of Judaism. To not believe it would be to follow a fundamentally different religion. I'll warn you though that enumerating definitive characteristics of things is a notoriously difficult task in the philosophy of language. – Double AA Jul 25 '13 at 23:17
  • 1
    Noting your update, are you sure Rambam interprets angles to be as a dream because he's forced into that position from some external philosophy? I'm not sure why it would be for that reason (I can totally imagine a spiritual angel appearing in physical form). Also I'm not sure Rambam said anything in the Torah may be interpreted as desired so long as it doesn't violate the 13 principles. For example, he wouldn't accept a philosophical idea that precluded miracles even though there is no 14th principle of faith that says "miracles happen". – A L Jul 26 '13 at 01:54
  • 1
    @AL, While you can imagine it, the Rambam felt they couldn't. Note that he had a rather Aristotelian view of angels. – Ariel K Jul 26 '13 at 02:40
  • By denying all miracles, one may deny other fundamental principles, but one can re-interpret specific miracles. Rambam himself was willing to re-interpret many miraculous stories, and he understood all miracles to have been "pre-programmed" in nature in some sense.

    I'll admit that one cannot re-interpret everything that doesn't directly contradict the principles. Some things may comes too close to denying a principle or implied principle, and there may not be such a clear cut-off. But understanding the first chapters of Bereishis non-literally do not run into any of those problems.

     – Ariel K Jul 26 '13 at 02:47