Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 1:1): You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study - even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with Tannaim in halachic matters - but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.
Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 46:8): Don’t be bothered by the fact that our explanation is the opposite of what our Sages stated. We have already asserted that concerning the understanding of the non halachic verses of the Torah permission is given to the diligent student to innovate.
Ohr HaChaim (Devarim 32:1): Even though I am explaining this differently than our Sages but we know that there are 70 faces to Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:16). Concerning Agada it is permitted to offer explanations even if they contradict those of our Sages as long as they don’t contradict the Halacha….
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:3): Vayikra Rabbah (22:1) states that Scripture, Mishna, Halacha, Talmud, Tosefta, Agada and even what a faithful student would say in the future - were all taught to Moshe on Sinai. It is clear from this medrash that permission has been granted for Torah scholars to explain and interpret in various ways and for the diligent students to provide new insights in expounding verses - to the degree that it can be justified with the verse.
Michtav M’Eliyahu (4:355): 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 ….
Why doesn't Rav Dessler understand, like the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh, that they offered alternative interpretations because there are 70 panim Latorah?
ReplyDeleteRav Dessler was a major proponent of the "Don't think for yourself. The Gedolim(tm) will do it for you" school of lack of thought.
DeleteAs I understand it, he believes that some of what the Radak wrote is not really Torah in the sense that it is of the "70 faces".
DeleteThe question really is: What would Chazal say about these issues?
ReplyDeleteLet's saw a Tanna magically appears tomorrow and we show him a copy of Mikraos Gedolos. Do you think he would throw it to the ground and shout "How did they dare! Only we could explain Torah and only our opinions matter!" Or would he sit there, study it, memorize it and then comment on it because that Rashi dude had some great insights and why does that mean Ramban have to pick on him all the time?
Rav Yaakov Ariel, the rosh yeshiva of ramat gan, a leading RZ/ Hardal Gaon, has called modern study of Tanakh "neo Karaite" because it reaches its own conclusions without relying on meforshim and chazal.
ReplyDeleteBut some meforshim were also doing the same thing - Radak, ibn Ezra, sometimes ralbag, etc.
The tsedukkim would by and large do the same but also in halachic matters. Sometimes halacha sounds more pshat than others.
One reason there was a schism between the tsedukkim and chazal was because of a struggle over running the Temple (as described in yoma)
Is it possible that the perush of the perushim was expanded in order to totally deligitimize the tsedukkim, as opposed to inclusivism
?
The victors write the history books. The Great Revolt of 70 CE wiped out every major Jewish faction except the Peirushim. All our relgious history accounts are from them. It makes sense that as the victors they ensure history remembered the Tzadukim badly.
DeleteBecause it takes the true greats, like the Ohr Hachaim to fully understand the ramifications of his "new explanation" and how it affects past and future Halacha.
DeleteMost of 929 is foolish, feel good explanations that a don't add any true academic value , and be, or sometimes against halacha.