Are these the actual questions raised by the sefer? In guide for the perplexed, rambam actually discusses eyin tachat ayin in the literal sense. It is perplexing what his purpose is in doing so. Some things are hinted at in the Torah and Neviim. Moshiach is implied in the Torah and more explicit in Isaiah and some other Neviim. Techiyat hameeitim also implied, eg the valley of dry bones.
The problem of pshat goes back a long way. We are told that rabbanim used to pasken directly from the Torah. Over time this ability weakened, they had an oral law - and weakened again so it had to be written down so it's not forgotten.
In chazal or late 2nd temple the tzedukim made the logical claim that they want to pasken like the pshat. I'm presuming this was due to the old tradition of paskening directly from the Torah? Then a few centuries later, the Karaites emerged making similar claims.
Since this was a challenge to the oral law, they were deemed heretical movements. However, it is still human nature to try to see the plain meaning of the Torah text. How wide apart are these two approaches? For example, are there minority views in the Talmud which sound more tzeduki than majority views? Then there were the greatest rishionim who adopted various pshat views: Rashi, ibn Ezra, rashbam, ramban, radak, ramban, ralbag etc.
If I published a Chumash ralbag or ibn Ezra, I'd be excommunicated. But if I did it well I might also win a prize. I think that's what the controversy is. Pshat is ok, but we can't reach out own pshat or even decide that rashbam or radak said it best. The absurdity of this position is that these objectors are unwittingly attacking ramban, rambam, radak, rashbam etc and hence being mrevazeh rishionim
Are these the actual questions raised by the sefer?
ReplyDeleteIn guide for the perplexed, rambam actually discusses eyin tachat ayin in the literal sense. It is perplexing what his purpose is in doing so.
Some things are hinted at in the Torah and Neviim. Moshiach is implied in the Torah and more explicit in Isaiah and some other Neviim.
Techiyat hameeitim also implied, eg the valley of dry bones.
The problem of pshat goes back a long way. We are told that rabbanim used to pasken directly from the Torah. Over time this ability weakened, they had an oral law - and weakened again so it had to be written down so it's not forgotten.
In chazal or late 2nd temple the tzedukim made the logical claim that they want to pasken like the pshat. I'm presuming this was due to the old tradition of paskening directly from the Torah?
Then a few centuries later, the Karaites emerged making similar claims.
Since this was a challenge to the oral law, they were deemed heretical movements. However, it is still human nature to try to see the plain meaning of the Torah text. How wide apart are these two approaches? For example, are there minority views in the Talmud which sound more tzeduki than majority views?
Then there were the greatest rishionim who adopted various pshat views: Rashi, ibn Ezra, rashbam, ramban, radak, ramban, ralbag etc.
If I published a Chumash ralbag or ibn Ezra, I'd be excommunicated. But if I did it well I might also win a prize. I think that's what the controversy is. Pshat is ok, but we can't reach out own pshat or even decide that rashbam or radak said it best.
The absurdity of this position is that these objectors are unwittingly attacking ramban, rambam, radak, rashbam etc and hence being mrevazeh rishionim
https://musingsonthetorah.blogspot.com/2023/07/on-pardes-of-peshat.html
ReplyDelete