Michtav M’Eliyahu (4:353): 5) It is important however to distinguish between those explanations which are basically interpretation of the verses and those of our Sages which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of confused people. In other words, these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him. (Of course, any alternative explanations which contradict foundation principles of faith are prohibited.) This is consistent with our understanding of R’ Shmuel HaNagid. This advice is very critical in order to save the souls of the confused people. Such an approach is similar to that of the Rambam who wrote so much for the confused. We see this from the fact that many difficulties that exist in what he wrote could have been explained in a much clearer fashion. However, since he was addressing confused people he provided alternative explanations which they could accept - as long as it didn’t contradict the Halacha. Using this approach, I have been able to understand the difficult comments of the Radak who was a very holy person and one of the great members of the period of the Rishonim. In particular, it justifies his comments concerning the disparity of the text of the Torah and how it is to be read in a number of places (kri v’kesiv)….
I'd like to know what the guildelines are for making up new standards, announcing that they're the only standards and then expecting everyone to fall in line.
ReplyDeleteUntil the Maharal came along, it was quite acceptable to understand Chazal's aggados as metophorical or moral stories without taking them literally. Along he came and suddenly it's "No, they're literal, everyone has always agreed they're literal and you're a kofer if you don't accept them as literal."
The Michtav Mi'Eliyahu did the same thing. I'm pretty sure all the major mephorshim on Tanach who disagreed with Chazal didn't think "Well I know I'm not writing the truth but those confused people need something." They read the text and came up with different ideas and there didn't seem to be any prohibition with it. Until he came along.
Then Chabad came along and announced that the entire world is an illusion, everything is fake and only God actually exists and that's what EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS THOUGHT AND IS THE ONLY WAY TO THINK ABOUT THINGS.
So what's the basis for this?
There's a statement of Chazal that the pshat never leaves the verse
ReplyDelete.
Is there a pshat of what chazal said or are there different aggadic and midrashic versions?
Then, here's another question.
Did chazal actually receive the "artscroll" full peirush from Moshe rabbeinu, or did they use their own methods of interpretation to arrive at their versions?
Plus, with due respect, come on, who is michtav m'eliyahu exactly to dictate to us what the Torah says?
In the big scheme of things, he's a small time mashgiach on the fanatic end of the litvish spectrum.
He's not a rishon or Rashi's grandson,. . He wasn't even the greatest of his own generation.
The greatest meforshim are the mikraot gedolot, nobody in the last century can come near them.
It's not who he was but who he is presented as which is important.
DeleteIf R' Aryah Karmell hadn't translated some of his stuff and Yonasan Rosenblum hadn't written a hagiography that created the impression that he was way more important that he really was, he would be yet another minor authority that only someone into mussar would've heard of. But publicity is everything.
Mussar was only interesting with Rav salanter.
DeleteAfter this it's no longer mussar, but the manipulation of mussar style language to convey a destructive, anti Jewish pseudo moralism.
Gateshead was probably one of the first major hareidi yeshivas in the English speaking world.
DeleteWhereas the United synagogue (orthodox in UK) had a chief rabbi and a beit din, they had a mixed congregation. So Gateshead would claim to be frum and they had a few publicists.
Ironically, Rabbi Dessler - as cited by rabbi slifkin, didn't hold that belief in the authenticity of the Zohar is a requirement.
Surprisingly it didn't hurt his career