TORAH: LITERAL OR LITERARY?
Excerpt from Mind over Matter
The Lubavitcher Rebbe On Science,
Technology & Medicine *
Edited and Translated into English by Dr Arnie
Gotfryd, PhD
The Rebbe’s Approach
In the Rebbe’s works we find a repeated emphasis on the statement of our Sages, “A verse never leaves its literal meaning.” The Rebbe consistently demonstrates how the diversity of Torah interpretations, be they allegorical, homiletical, philosophical or kabbalistic, are all consistent with and alluded to within the pshat, the straightforward meaning of the verse. Moreover, as a general rule, we are to consider even the statements of our Sages as literal and exact.
The Rebbe’s approach to explaining Rashi’s
commentaries on
the Torah is original. He does so in accordance with Rashi’s
self-stated objective: “I am here only to explain
the simple meaning of the text.” Accordingly, there can be nothing in
Rashi — neither a Midrash nor an interpretation, etc. — which is superfluous to the most basic meaning of the text
itself, as it should be understood by a “five-year-old studying the
Torah.” 1
And yet, as the Rebbe constantly demonstrates, within Rashi’s commentaries, there
are meanings and kabbalistic insights,
virtually invisible to the untrained eye.
The
same is true of the Rebbe’s reading of Maimonides, the Rambam: Although he is
well cognizant of the fact that in the Rambam’s
philosophical works there can be various levels of interpretation and hints,
etc., the Rebbe explains the halachic works
of the Rambam first and foremost in their most literal sense. This is in
accordance with the Rambam’s own description of his
great halachic work in its introduction: “So that all of the laws will
be open and revealed, to both small and great.”2
This
consistent-with-the-literal approach resonates
throughout the Rebbe’s words, especially in all that relates to the relationship between Torah and science.3 Moreover this approach
is integral to Chassidic principles regarding the relationship between Creator and
creation, as well as between Torah and the world. Accordingly, information
about nature contained within Torah is an inseparable portion of Torah itself, given to us by G-d. Accordingly one cannot
simplistically assume that Torah views on nature are subject to change
as are scientific views that are predicated
solely on sensory observations and causal reasoning.
Another
implication of this approach is that there cannot be any true conflict between
Torah and science. Any apparent contradictions should be resolvable by proper
study of the two disciplines. This is because “istakel
b ‘orayta u ‘vara 4 “G-d
looked into the Torah and created the world,” i.e., Torah is the
blueprint of creation.
All of this has radical implications for the apologetic style of virtually all of the Torah-and-science
literature to date (as we shall see in Chapter 4 on Apologetics). It is
therefore especially important to make sure
that the Torah basis of this view is properly established in the context
of Rabbinic Judaism. At this point we shall
bring evidence of the necessity to adhere to a literal understanding of
both the written and oral Torah:
The Written Torah
Ray Sa’adya Gaon writes in his book Emunot VeDe’d 5 that one cannot remove a verse in the Torah from its literal meaning, 6 except in the following four cases:
a) When our senses tell us that it is
not meant literally, i.e. “For she (Eve) was the mother of all life.”7 It is obvious that the animals are
not descended from Eve. It is therefore clear that the intent of “mother of all
life” is only human beings.
b) When
our intellect disallows the simple interpretation, i.e. “For the L-rd your G-d is a consuming fire.”8 Obviously, G-d’s
essence is not actually a fire, since fire constantly undergoes changes; fire can be lit and
extinguished, etc. We therefore have no choice but to explain the verse as a
reference to G-d’s revenge or vengeance burning and consuming like a fire.
c) When
a clear verse elsewhere contradicts the literal translation, i.e. the commandment “Do not test the L-rd your G-d.”
9 In the Prophets we are told, “test Me please on this.”10 Since they are both true and both were given by the
same G-d, we must find a way to bridge the difference. One way of
resolving the contradiction is by saying that the test is not one of G-d and
His abilities but rather solely a test of the person himself — by behaving in
the manner suggested by the prophet, he will soon find out if he merits G-d’s
blessings.11
d) When we
have a clear tradition telling us not to understand the words literally, i.e. the punishment of
lashes, where the Torah tells us “forty shall he be smitten,”12 but the Sages
received a tradition traced directly all the way back to Moses at Sinai that the intent is to the number which is completed
by forty, i.e. thirty-nine.
Rabbi
Sa’adya Gaon concludes:
“There are these four, and there is no fifth.”
He writes further13 that if we were to freely translate the verses non-literally, we would not be left with any commandments which we fulfill simply out of subservience
to G-d and adherence to his word,14 for all such commandments
can be explained away as allegorical. By way of illustration:
“Do not kindle a fire in all of your
dwellings on the Shabbat day15 can be
explained away as: On Shabbat, avoid war, which is compared to fire in
Scripture:16
“Do not eat chametz
(leaven)”17:
Avoid even the slightest contact with
immorality, which is compared to leaven in Hoshea.18
“Do not take the mother with her offspring:”19 Do not kill out complete families in war.
Similarly, even the most famous miracles related in the Torah could be explained away. One could claim that “the splitting
of the Red Sea” is a reference to Jews passing safely through the Egyptian armies,
for the Gentile nations are referred to in the Torah 20 as “a raging river” and “many waters.”
These
are the words of Rav Sa’adya
Gaon.21
The Oral Torah
This statement of literal
intent with regard to the Torah applies as well to
the statements made by our Sages: First and foremost, they must be understood
in the literal sense. However, just as in the Scriptures there are some parts
that were written in the first place as a
parable and allegory, such as the Song of Songs and the book of Proverbs
— where the simple meaning is non-literal, as opposed to the simple
meaning of other texts — so, too, there are some Aggados said by the Sages which were in the first place
said as parables.22
There
is a famous rule in the study of Talmud that since the Oral Law is intended as
an elucidation and application of the Written Law, the Mishna’s
syntax must be even clearer and more direct than that of Scripture itself.
This, despite the fact that even the Mishna is extremely concise, to the point
that the Gemarah must
often add several words which were understood to be implied, in order
for us to comprehend the Mishna.
This rule applies even more so to the words
and statements of the Talmud/Gemara, since its purpose is to further expand on and discuss the words of the Mishna and
its sources: “An amora (sage of the Gemara) is required to fully explain
his words.” 23
As a result, it is very difficult to say about any statement
in the Mishna, and to an even greater degree any statement in
the Talmud, that it is not
meant literally. The same is true, to a progressively greater degree, about the
words of the Sages in all of the generations since.
It
is obvious that we must be very careful about trying to explain statements away
as being non-literal. It is completely out of the question to say so about
anything that was presented as a Halachic
ruling, even if the Halachic ruling does deal with beliefs or opinions.
For instance: Maimonides dedicated the last two chapters of his book 24 to the topic of the
Redemption and Moshiach. Amongst other statements, he rules that certain verses
— such as the famous “the wolf shall lie with the lamb 25 — are allegorical. [This is talking
about the beginning of the Messianic era,
before the Resurrection of the Dead.] It is therefore clear that everything else that he had discussed in these
chapters — most of which are not “natural” by our standards — are not
allegories, but rather meant literally.
Aggadah
“
‘Pharaoh was one cubit tall,
and his beard was one cubit....26’ This statement
cries out: “Explain me!” However, we may not,
Heaven forbid, say that this wasn’t
the way things were in a literal sense. The verses of Torah and the
statements of our Sages can never be removed from their literal meaning. All I
will do is explain hints and reasons why
G-d created him in such a form and shape.... “
(Shelah, Torah SheBichtav,
“The general rule: All the words of Scripture and the Sages are true and reliable in their literal meaning as well as in their more exegetical and esoteric senses, except for a very few instances where statements are made allegorically, as enumerated in the thirty-two methods of expounding the Torah by Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yossi HaGelilr 27
“Mashal (parable), for instance: The trees went to anoint a king.28 That is merely a metaphor for the Jewish people, who appointed Atniel, Devorah, and Gideon, as rulers upon themselves.”
Says the Maharik: Only in the case of prophecy, can one say that the Torah’s words are intended as a metaphor. When dealing with the Torah and its Mitzvot, however, one may not expound them as being parables, except for the three instances stated by Rabbi Yishmael.... “
(Shelah,
Torah
The Zohar
In his famous legal ruling about the kashrut
of a chicken that
was found not to have a heart, the Chacham Tzvi writes:
“ ...This
that you wish to explain the clear words of the Zohar as being merely allegories
and metaphors, we have been instructed by our holy fathers and teachers that one may not remove any words of Torah from
their literal meaning, even the words of the
Written Torah which are sealed and locked. Our Sages said, ‘A verse never departs
from its simple meaning. ‘ How angered was the father of
“This is
true not just of Mitzvot and the foundations of Torah alone, but of all aspects of the Torah, for there is no
differentiating between them. This is the basis of the entire Torah and all of
the prophets. The only exception is where our senses tell us, or there are
clear signs to overturn the simple meaning,
or where the verses contradict each
other, as written by Rabbi Sa ‘adiah Gaon....
“Therefore,
in our case where none of those four exceptions apply — On the contrary! All four of them together agree with
the simple meaning of the text — it is out of the question to interpret the Zohar’s words non-literally. When the Zohar discusses the
highest realms, its words are sometimes
locked with a thousand locks (i.e. not understood by us), but in all
other areas, its words are literal, just like all the rest of the Talmud and
the statements of the Sages. This is obvious ....”
(Sha’alot U’Teshuvot Chacham Tzvi, 77, s.v. gam. Benei Berak 1970, p. 87.)
From all the above, we see that regardless of other levels of interpretation, normative, rabbinic Judaism requires us to accept the pshat, or straightforward meaning of scriptural verses and rabbinic writings, except under very specific and defined circumstances. It is not uncommon for the Lubavitcher Rebbe to enhance this concept by analyzing and resolving a diversity of issues in Torah interpretation using a careful and detailed analysis of the pshat.
Footnotes:
1 See Kelalei Rashi, Kefar Chabad 1991, p. 15 ff
2 See Kelalei Rambam, Kefar Chabad 1991, Chapters 2-3, 23, etc.
3 In a certain sense, one may term this approach a
fundamentalist one. However, one must recognize the difference between those
“fundamentalists” who fail to acknowledge or integrate Rabbinic
tradition and interpretation (and are therefore not Judaic by definition) and
those that do.
4. Zobar 11:161
5 7:1.
6 Shabbat, 63a. Bereishit, 3:20.
8 Devarim, 4:24.
9 Devarim, 6:16.
10 Malachi, 3:10.
II Our Sages traditionally reconcile this contradiction
in a different manner (that the commandment of charity is the one exception,
where G-d encourages people to test Him). See Ta’anit,
9a.
12Devarim, 25:3.
13 End of chapter 2.4 as opposed to those
commandments which, in addition to the Divine command, we are also able to
comprehend their necessity intellectually.
15 Shemot, 35:3.
16 See, for instance, Nachum, 2:4.
17 Shemot, 13:3.
18 7:4.
19 Devarim, 22:6.
20 Yeshayahu, 66:12. Yirmiyahu: 47:2.
21 Cf. Moreh
Nevuchim II, 25. Sha ‘alot U’Teshuvot HaRashba, vol. 1, 413 ff.
22 See Maimonides’
Introduction to Perush HaMishnayot,
s.v. acharei chein ra’ah lehistapek.”
23 Yad
Malachi, kelalei haAleph,
53.
24 Melachim, 11-12.
25 Yeshayahu, 11:6.
26 Moed
Katan, 18a.
27 #26.
28 Shoftim, 9:8.
29 Vol. 1, 414-416.
* Mind over
Matter, Teachings of The Lubavitcher Rebbe On Science, Technology &
Medicine, Edited and translated into English by Dr Arnie Gotfryd, PhD, Shamir, 2003, p. xv-xxiii
Mind Over Matter is freely translated from the Rebbe's talks, discourses and letters on
science, technology and medicine. It covers such diverse topics as proof of the
Creator, origin of the species, aviation, fate vs.
freedom, geometry, medicine and more.
The content on this page
is produced by Chabad.org, and is
copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article,
we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with our copyright policy.