From Daas Torah - translation copyrighted
Rashba (Commentary to Agada Bava Basra 74b pp 102-106): You should know that when one of our pious Torah sages reads the words of the philosophers, it is possible that he might agree with them. Even if he finds contradictions between Biblical verses and the philosophers, he can explain those verses in a manner that conforms to philosophy. In other words he can view the verses as metaphoric and not literal - since he isn’t rejecting anything learned from prophecy and he isn’t discarding any mitzvos by doing so. However when it comes to matters [concerning Biblical verses or our Tradition] that are widely accepted by our Sages as literally true – then the sage will insist on understanding them literally according to our Tradition. He will do this even though he knows that the philosophers strongly reject such a literal understanding. For example, the belief that the dead will be literally resurrected is not unequivocally found in Biblical verse. It is seems reasonable that all the relevant verses might be explainable as being allegorical e.g., such as those in Yechezkeil (Chapter 36). Nevertheless such a metaphorical approach is rejected by the sage in favor of the literal one because our Tradition insists that these verses be taken literally. In such cases, the sage acknowledges that the widely accepted traditional understanding takes precedent over the philosophicalrationalist view. He readily admits in such conflicts that we do not pay attention to rational analysis which goes against our Tradition because the wisdom of Gd is beyond our intellectual grasp. Of necessity in every instance that we have a clear Tradition from our ancestors, we can not reject this Tradition – unless it is established that the traditional understanding is impossible – Gd forbid! Why should we destroy our Tradition since we know that it would not have become widespread except for the fact that it has been received generation after generation all the way back to Moshe or the Prophets… Consequently while we need to acknowledge that many verses in Bible are allegorical, nonetheless we need to accept the truth that some verses are describing actual miracles and that G-d has the ability to change nature according to His wishes…. Therefore when our Tradition requires a literal understanding why should it be discarded just because it is against a rationalistic philosophical understanding? …
Rashba (Commentary to Agada Bava Basra 74b pp 102-106): You should know that when one of our pious Torah sages reads the words of the philosophers, it is possible that he might agree with them. Even if he finds contradictions between Biblical verses and the philosophers, he can explain those verses in a manner that conforms to philosophy. In other words he can view the verses as metaphoric and not literal - since he isn’t rejecting anything learned from prophecy and he isn’t discarding any mitzvos by doing so. However when it comes to matters [concerning Biblical verses or our Tradition] that are widely accepted by our Sages as literally true – then the sage will insist on understanding them literally according to our Tradition. He will do this even though he knows that the philosophers strongly reject such a literal understanding. For example, the belief that the dead will be literally resurrected is not unequivocally found in Biblical verse. It is seems reasonable that all the relevant verses might be explainable as being allegorical e.g., such as those in Yechezkeil (Chapter 36). Nevertheless such a metaphorical approach is rejected by the sage in favor of the literal one because our Tradition insists that these verses be taken literally. In such cases, the sage acknowledges that the widely accepted traditional understanding takes precedent over the philosophicalrationalist view. He readily admits in such conflicts that we do not pay attention to rational analysis which goes against our Tradition because the wisdom of Gd is beyond our intellectual grasp. Of necessity in every instance that we have a clear Tradition from our ancestors, we can not reject this Tradition – unless it is established that the traditional understanding is impossible – Gd forbid! Why should we destroy our Tradition since we know that it would not have become widespread except for the fact that it has been received generation after generation all the way back to Moshe or the Prophets… Consequently while we need to acknowledge that many verses in Bible are allegorical, nonetheless we need to accept the truth that some verses are describing actual miracles and that G-d has the ability to change nature according to His wishes…. Therefore when our Tradition requires a literal understanding why should it be discarded just because it is against a rationalistic philosophical understanding? …
As I see it, the essence of the paragraph is not about philosophy but mesorah:
ReplyDeleteNevertheless such a metaphorical approach is rejected by the sage in favor of the literal one because our Tradition insists that these verses be taken literally. In such cases, the sage acknowledges that the widely accepted traditional understanding takes precedent over the philosophicalrationalist view.
BTW, I'm putting together a similar argument about the Rambam. That this topic isn't seen in terms of literal peshat vs philosophy but of mesoretic peshat vs philosophy. And in that arena, the only possible answers are to show the philosophy is flawed (as he does with the notion of the universe having no beginning) or the question is as yet unanswerable.
I hope to show the Ramban was more actually more apt to veer from Chazal's peshat than the Rambam was.