Someone once told me that "there are no right or wrong interpretations/understandings of Torah, only more or less probable."

I have been wondering if Torah can ever be understood allegorically - such as f.i the story of Kayin and Hevel?

D

Please see this page http://globalyeshiva.com/honor_to_torah.htm for some sources on this subject. If you have more questions please feel free to ask.

I came here with a serious question. The answer I got I lack the knowledge and access to the sources to comprehend, because of matters beyond my control such as being brought up secular - there must be a way to answer my question with a 'Yes, and this is one way...' or 'No, and this is why'.

This reminds me of those authors who love to litter their books with quotes in a multitude of foreign languages, but don't provide a translation or at least a summary of those quotes.

The text is in clear English and it answers your first question. If you do not want to think about it then a yes or no answer has no value either. If you want to continue the discussion on the next level I will be happy to respond.

Dov,
to some degree there is no right or wrong interpretaton/understanding of the TOrah. for example the story of Kayin and Havel has it literal meaning , then it comes to teach us also some which is revelent to each person. and other allegorical meaning. however there are limits even to doing this.

Thank you Mack

quote:

If you do not want to think about it then a yes or no answer has no value either. If you want to continue the discussion on the next level I will be happy to respond. Smile

Rabbi,
with all due respect - why do you assume that I don't want to think? Could it truly be that I honestly do not understand what kind of answer I am supposed to derive from the texts you provided? - and I have read them several times, and I assure you I am not stupid, just not very knowledgeble. A hint instead of humiliation and insults would be nice.

D

quote:

for example the story of Kayin and Havel has it literal meaning , then it comes to teach us also some which is revelent to each person. and other allegorical meaning. however there are limits even to doing this.

So, what you are saying that there are sort of layers to a text/story, and that while the outermost layer is the text itself 'as is' - when we/I encounter it, it can and 'will' speak from another layer too, and that reading that layer in text is ok? If that is the case, then what about reading the 'second layer' too in a general manner, such that it could say the same to many and not just the one?

Then what happens when the first and the second layer contradicts each other or the second layer doesn't even touch on the literal layer?

D

The literal layer always must remain (Ain Mikrah Yoitzeh Mip'shuto.) There is an argument in the begining of BB if Iyov (Job) was a real story or an allegorical one. The argument was only by Iyov, which seem to come in from nowhere, but all other stories, which seem to fit some time order, everybody agrees that it's true.

Though there are deeper meanings in all of Torah, one can't just dismiss the literal layer (unless we have a D'rasha that the literal translation should be reread, like "an eye for an eye" should be read in the sense money for an eye.)

From the texts that I originally quoted we learn the supreme value given to the words of the sages. Even if they disagree, both of their views are correct even though ultimately there is only one truth. The Ktzos in his introduction explains how such a phenomenon can be.

Quote: The Torah was not given to angels but rather to human beings who have limited intelligence. G-d gave us the Torah because of his great mercy and kindness. He wanted it to be observed according to the understanding of human intelligence-even if this interpretation is not true in the absolute sense etc. He later brings the Bereishis Rabbah:, At the time that G-d wanted to create man there was a dispute amongst the angels as to whether man should be created. The angel of truth said that he should not be created since he was full of lies... G-d threw Truth to the ground... The angels said that G-d was debasing His jewel-the Torah. G-d replied that He wanted Truth to arise from the ground. In other words, it was obvious that human intellect would have difficulty ascertaining the truth and thus truth was in the lowly man. Thus the claimed that Torah was being debased being confined to man's limited intellect rather than what was true. G-d replied that He in fact wanted truth to be according to what the sages agreed with their human intellect and in this manner, He would cause His glory to dwell in the world....

We need to know that we are not in the same league as the earlier generations and our opinions cannot reach even close to theirs. I hope this helps to explain your first question.



English translation of the Ktzos by Daniel Eidensohn.

Dov, hmm, as you know there is a place called Pardes (Pardise) and which is a beaitful place that words can not even desribe it only experience can know of it. well like this place there are four level or layers of the text which is term PaRDeS. however each layer can not contradict the first layer but merely enchance it's taste.

which though i work backwords in answering your two questions are one. beacause just as we can question what does it mean for me it can also be ask what does it mean for us as a whole.

for example Rav Chaim gives a perfect example of where the first layer (literal meaning) can be some what problamatic "eye for an eye" for ovious reason since say a perosn blinds another person and the second person does have any eyes. then what is the judgement of 'measure for measure'?

or even things of the nature dealing with HaShem having finite features surely these things should never be taken litterally. such as a 'hand' 'body' 'feet' and the like. but rather these are allogialies to reveal somthing to us using the lanauge of man. for as R' Mitterhoff explain that the Torah was not given to angels but to men thus it is in the lanauge (word usage) that we can more clearly comprehend.

quote:

Rabbi Mitterhof: We need to know that we are not in the same league as the earlier generations and our opinions cannot reach even close to theirs. I hope this helps to explain your first question.

Yes, thank you I think I understand. Very Kind of you to get back to me

What you are saying and what the text you provided are saying is that as long as I hold what the Sages said to be true, because they preceeded me in both knowledge and understanding, what I understand or interpret when reading Torah is quite ok, provided it doesn't negate the literal reading. Am I close here?

Then, if I have understood what you explained correctly, even an understanding that seemingly isn't directly in tune with the literal reading could be 'correct', if the original elements remained?

F.i thinking that the passage about Kayin and Hevel could be an allegorical depiction of what takes place in the MIND of one of the main characters? F.i the matter of G-d rejecting Kayin's offering could be read to be something that takes place entirely inside Kayin's mind?

D

quote:

Though there are deeper meanings in all of Torah, one can't just dismiss the literal layer

I think I understand. Question that comes to mind is then. How am I to undertsand this:
" It is then the task of the student to justify every statement and refine its meaning in such a way that the intended thought becomes pleasing, acceptable and reasonable to the mind." (From 1. The Ways of the Talmud by Rabbi Yitzchak Canpanton (a late Rishon))
Pleasing to who's mind? - My mind or the Minds of the Sages?

D

shalom Dov,

[CODE] It is then the task of the student to justify every statement and refine its meaning in such a way that the intended thought becomes pleasing, acceptable and reasonable to the mind." (From 1. The Ways of the Talmud by Rabbi Yitzchak Canpanton (a late Rishon))
[/CODE

it speaks of the readers mind which is your or mine. for example: R' Akiva build a sukkah on top of a ship. and Rabban Gimel (not sure if it was him) said not to, and it happen that the wind blew it away.

know we all know that R' Akiva is not some ignorant person who just did somthing because they didn't know any better. in fact we are taught that Moshe Rabbinu told HaShem that why did he lead the exile from Egypt instead. so he wasn't some fool so there has to be more to this statement and act of Rabbi Akiva. Well i still can't fully understand it but i began to justify the act towards somthing meaningful to my mind which was

perhaps he comes to teach us "and you are do it (the mitzvah) with all your heart and with all your soul." that the mitzvah of sukkot should be done with all their abilities no matter where they are. now perhaps you yourself would not agree and perhaps you will but why do you think R' Akiva went through grave lenght to build a sukkah on a ship which he didn't have to do?

Thanks for getting back to me, Mack, much appreciated!

quote:

however each layer can not contradict the first layer but merely enchance it's taste.

Agreed. But what if the second layer seemingly does contradict the second layer - like through sliding the meaning from one 'realm' of thinking to the other. Would that be a true contradiction or only a contradiction in terms of what it loooks like?

D

quote:

but why do you think R' Akiva went through grave lenght to build a sukkah on a ship which he didn't have to do?

For the love of the Mitzvah - like you said R' Akiva wasn't a fool, he would have known that his efforts could be swept away at any minute - yet he made the effort, thus teaching us that our efforts for the sake of the Mitzvah counts, even if they don't take us all they way? That no matter how far in completion of a Mitzvah we get - the intent and the effort still counts, even if we seemingly fail?
D

I will speak in order this time first thing first and second thing second second.

it is taught that one should get a fellow to study with and a teacher. the reason for this is so that you can bounce ideas off of each other. some of these idea's may slightly appear to contradict the first layer or not at all and though talking about the matter hopefully it becomes more clear weather it does or doesn't contradict.

a Contrdiction is somthing like G-d is G-d and also G-d is a man. there is no mending this it is just a contradiction. then there are some like which two verse in teh Torah appear to contradict each other like witnesses and so a third witness (verse) is call forth to bring clearlity that these two witness are in agreement.

Dov, do you get anything else from the story of Rabbi Akiva and the sukkah? even from your own experience that you may have had in the past. intent goes long but doen't do the job. for example if a person intent to keep shabbat but decide to go to the movies then what intent was really there. now let's say somone intent to keep shabbos but had to break it because they have to save a life then we see all the intent does have more meaning.

so this goes back to concept of each thing being judged on it's own merit.

Shalom Mack,

quote:

a Contrdiction is somthing like G-d is G-d and also G-d is a man. there is no mending this it is just a contradiction. then there are some like which two verse in teh Torah appear to contradict each other like witnesses and so a third witness (verse) is call forth to bring clearlity that these two witness are in agreement.

Isn't this what the Sages do all the time? One state one thing, calling on this or that passage in Torah to either verify his statement or refute another's?

quote:

Dov, do you get anything else from the story of Rabbi Akiva and the sukkah? even from your own experience that you may have had in the past. intent goes long but doen't do the job. for example if a person intent to keep shabbat but decide to go to the movies then what intent was really there. now let's say somone intent to keep shabbos but had to break it because they have to save a life then we see all the intent does have more meaning.

It's like the story of the poor widow and her chicken.
A poor widow, with a handful of children had after many weeks of saving finally gotten enough money to buy chicken for Shabbat Dinner. She went to the shochet/ritual butcher, who killed the fowl and then examined it and informed her that according to the leading legal authority, Shulchan Aruch it was not kosher
Stricken with despair at not being able to give her children a proper Shabbat Dinner this week
either, after all that saving, she took the chicken from the shochet and went to the Rabbi. When she told him her predicament, he examined
the chicken, saw that the shochet was indeed correct, the chicken wasn't kosher - but he recalled a lesser authority under which the chicken would be kosher. He told the poor woman that her chicken was kosher, blessed her and sent her home to a joyous Shabbat Dinner.

The intent and the effort of the poor widow sort of 'overruled' Shulchan Aruch, because her circumstances were such that to deprive her of the joy of Shabbat would have been a greater breach of Torah than her chicken not being exactly kosher according to the stricter reading of the Law.

For one to have the intent isn't enough, I agree, thus intending to keep Shabbat and then ending up going to movies - i.e not follow through, making the effort to keep Shabbat when one had the intent is one thing.

To have the intent and actually make the effort, and still fall short of the mark due to matters beyond our control, such as getting stranded in the middle of the road on one's way home and having to walk longer than permitted on Shabbat in order to get home family who would otherwise be very worried, is another.

Or, which is my personal experience, not being able to make it to shul on Shabbat, thus not having the ability to pray with a minyan. I still pray, and I still keep Shabbat, but I might not do it to the extent Torah requires.

I could say, 'well Torah requires this of me, I cannot do all of that, due to the situation I am in, so I might just as well not do anything of it...' Intent and Effort goes hand in hand.

For the love of the Mitzvah.

Dov

quote:

now let's say somone intent to keep shabbos but had to break it because they have to save a life then we see all the intent does have more meaning.

Yes, but then the intent is to keep Shabbat is 'broken' by the intent to save a life, which by the Sages is deemed equal as if one 'has saved the world', so it would be as if one has not broken the Shabbat at all, yes?

Dov

shalom Dov,
This is exactly what the sages do for it comes to teach us that we should not rely upon our own understanding but rather if we state somthing we should find a source for it as proof to the matter of what we are saying. thus brings us full circle in dealing with layers or concept taken from the literal to some lofty concept.


as you explain in your story, there are not always yes and no clear cut. but each case must be weigh and measure by it's own merit of proper intention and action. but even in the story the rabbi had to first as we stated earlier find proof that it was accpetable (though it was leinntent) before he could tell her to enjoy her chicken on shabbat.

i don't know the rational behind it. however I know such a person who save another human life during that period is not punished by any measure.