Timeline for Are there unnecessary words in Torah?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2018 at 14:41 | comment | added | Dov F | Tough for me to argue on something I wrote.. :) Nevertheless, I think my point stands. True, it is not just the legal context, but also the pshat context and perhaps certain other limited contexts. But שבעים פנים לתורה. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 14:22 | comment | added | Alex | @DovF See also beismedrash.blogspot.com/2012/04/… | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 14:22 | comment | added | Alex | @DovF Most, if not all, of the examples I quoted were in non-legal contexts. The point is that these rishonim stated that there is no need for there to be a deeper meaning (though of course there can be one), because the Torah has the right to speak normally. The premise of the question (and most of the answers besides mine) is that there is a need for there to always be a deeper meaning. This, then, is the dispute. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 14:13 | comment | added | Dov F | The principle of דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם is not a broad statement that the Torah was written like a regular book. It simply says when you are reading the Torah on a certain level, or in a certain context such as a legal one, you may interpret words in accordance with it. In other words, it is a principle which is internal to a particular mode of interpretation which is valid in its context. It is not a principle that in any way defines or restricts the broader meaning of the Torah which is not limited by canons of legal interpretation. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 13:57 | comment | added | Alex | @DovF The point is that there is clearly a disagreement here. One school of thought holds that the Torah (in some ways) was written like a regular book. That doesn't mean that there can't be additional meaning to something, but it does mean that there doesn't have to be additional meaning. Once you say that there must always be additional meaning, by definition the Torah was not just written like a regular book. This is the other opinion (the questioner's assumption) and my answer is showing that it is far from universally accepted. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 13:12 | comment | added | Dov F | Sure it is. That principle is simply sufficient to satisfy one particular level of understanding according to one opinion - according to the other opinion not. No one says that principle exhausts all meaning of the divinely ordained word or clause in question. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 5:20 | comment | added | Alex | @DovF But if every such usage must have a deeper meaning as well, it is no longer true that the "Torah speaks like men". | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | Dov F | I think all of these sources are simply explaining pshat. None of them are denying that there are reasons for the so-called superfluities and that deep meaning can be found; they are simply not in the business of remez, drash and sod and are simply interested in explaining how to read the text on a basic level that flows. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 19:18 | comment | added | Heshy | Ok, I missed your second paragraph, I understand better what you mean now. I still think that even in these Rishonim, there's room to play with when the Torah chooses to use these kinds of extra letters and words and when it doesn't. Yaakov in Vaychi is obviously trying to be more poetic in his speech. For a non-poetic one, ואני אנה אני בא may be דרך הלשון, but I would argue that it's primarily דרך הלשון for people to repeat themselves when they're agitated (as Reuven was), rather than when they're calm. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 19:03 | comment | added | Alex | @Heshy This is semantics. If a necessary component of the Torah is that it conform to literary standards, that's fine. It still means that some parts of it only exist to conform to literary standards, as opposed to having an inherent Divine purpose. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 18:57 | comment | added | Heshy | Who says that "Torah qua Torah" doesn't need to be a work of literature? | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 18:49 | comment | added | Alex | @Heshy There is no inherent meaning to the letters/words. They are only there because that is the way people talk/write. The point is that unlike the assumption that every word or letter in the Torah has to be of Divine significance, many rishonim had no problem saying that some words/letters serve no greater purpose in the Torah than they would in any other work of Literature. I.e. they are unnecessary for the Torah qua Torah, but they still serve a literary purpose. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 18:43 | comment | added | Heshy | "some components only serve a "stylistic" purpose that does not have any real meaning to it" - why is style itself not a "real meaning"? | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 18:09 | history | answered | Alex | CC BY-SA 3.0 |