There is a logic and a methodology that progresses from viewing Torah as, literally, holy writ wherein every letter has multiple and divine intent. One can accept or reject the premise, but that renders the conclusion no less reasonably coherent.
Alternatively, there is a logic and a methodology that progresses from viewing Torah as human text, refined through a long process of oral and textual transmission, and conditioned by the authors and their times. Again, one can accept or reject the premise, but that renders the conclusion no less reasonably coherent.
But it seems to me that some real problems arise for those who try to straddle these two camps. Their explanations often bring to mind the word of that most curious goy, Humpty Dumpty:Let me now return to the poll. I find Berei**** 1 to be remarkable on a number of levels, containing more than its share of jewels in a text bedecked with jewels. But this in no way prevents me from acknowledging that the author got the order of creation wrong. Whether or not his intent was to divulge this order is (a) unknown to me, and (b) wholly beside the point. The fact remains: science tells us that the pshat is in error, and one would imagine that Holy Writ would be more than capable of avoiding such an embarrassment.
Nor am I impressed by efforts to navigate the distinction between God-authored and Man-authored by referenced to
'God-inspired', since I am not sure what is intended by these appeals. I am inspired by many things, none of which (or whom) render me any less fallible.
It is my belief that those who evolved PaRDeS were, in fact, inspired by an abiding belief in Torah as holy writ, and I further believe that this approach to biblical interpretation rests firmly on that conviction. So let me ask this question:
Can PaRDeS retain its coherence in the absence of such a conviction, and can such a conviction be maintained in the presence of clear errors in the pshat of the text?
Finally, regarding CMike. While I have occasionally found him infuriating (and have him on my ignore list) I acknowledge the coherence of his position and probably share some of his frustration with those who (from my perspective) approach Torah as a text
partially pregnant with divine authorship.
Fundamentalism is generally quite coherent, as is the opposite. However, I see no reason to reject a more complex approach merely because it does not fit into a dualistic, black/white-yes/no mold.
The Rabbinic tradition makes it clear that Torah is the place where God and the Jewish People come together. As the proverb mentioned in the Zohar synthesizes it,
Yisrael v'Orayta v'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu (Israel, Torah, and the Holy One Blessed Be He are One).
Moreover, part of the integral structure of Rabbinic exegesis are the presumptions that Torah is holy, is eternal, is of infinite potentiality of meaning, and that every bit of Torah
must mean something significant and productive.
Personally, if Torah is an entirely human enterprise, I fail to see how it can be the place where God and Israel come together, and I fail to see how it can be holy, or eternal, or hold infinite potentiality of meaning. Therefore, I see no reason to believe Torah is an entirely human enterprise.
However, if Torah-- even just Torah
shebichtav-- is entirely the literal dictated word of God, of which each part in all its facets must be accepted completely as Divine, then there is a different problem, as there are several places where the
pshat of the text is practically, ethically, or morally insupportable, and the tradition we have from Our Rabbis drashing those verses have not offered helpful reinterpretation or helpful practical reworking of the problematic meanings. And I cannot see believing in a God who said those things and intended them to be taken completely and literally as they are.
Therefore, it seems to me that the point of Torah being the place of coming together of God and Israel, the way in which we, God, and Torah are One, is that Torah is a cooperative enterprise. That Torah
shebichtav is the work of prophets, who received divine revelations, and did their best as fallible mortal men to set them forth as best they could; and that Torah
sheb'al peh is the work of wise men and women who are not prophets, but who have authority to interpret Torah shebichtav for purposes of both
halachah and
aggadah. And that when we have a particular facet of the text-- be it
pshat, or some traditionally received
remez, drash, or
sohd reading-- that is absolutely unworkable and insupportable in practice, no matter which way it is turned, then it stands to reason that the applied facet of the text must be one of the others. Which of the others may be a matter for debate, but that it is one of the others seems to me the only reasonable conclusion.
Yes, this way of looking at Torah is complex and requires considerable effort of debate, discussion, and study. It will not fit neatly into either the Orthodox box or the classical Reform/Reconstructionist boxes. But it doesn't have to.
If one takes the charedi approach popular today (including apparently by some who refuse the label of charedi), then exegesis is really a moot point: it was something the Rabbis of the Talmud did, and maybe a few gedolim among the Gaonim or Rishonim, possibly a couple of really extraordinary Acharonim, but no one today should do it, and in any case when it was done it the past, it either was done very conservatively, or it was guided by
ruach hakodesh.
If one takes the classical Reform approach, then the PaRDeS paradigm is next to useless. The words themselves, the idea that there might be multiple meanings in the text, might be concepts that can be reclaimed and used, but there would be no reason to use a system of exegesis dependent upon the idea that every bit of Torah has value because there is a spark of divinity within Torah. It would be far more reasonable to use whatever philosophical or source-critical approach to interpreting text that one finds useful and apt to produce edifying and morally progressive results.
"plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning.[1]