Metaphors
What about metaphors? By definition, a metaphor is a kind of figurative speech. (I just hate it when people say, for example, 'When she walked
into the party wearing the same dress, I was so embarrassed, I
just literally died.' NO, I SCREAM, you metaphorically died! That's
the whole point of a metaphor- it isn't literal. ) I wish just once some roofer would fall through a hole in
the ceiling- then he could say, 'I literally went through the roof.' But most people don't literally go through
it when they're angry, they metaphorically go through the roof.
So when the God says in the Torah, I took you on eagles' wings,
even the most fundamentalist, literalist reader would (probably)
admit that this is a metaphor. In other words God didn't take
them on actual eagle's wings, but took them with the meaning of
the metaphor of eagle's wings: strongly, quickly, etc. (My favorite:
a grade 5 American student (thinking of a bald eagle, symbol of
America and freedom) suggested, 'It means God took them to freedom.')
In other words, by definition, the 'Pshat' of a metaphor needs
to be interpreted. To take a metaphor literally would itself be
quite an interpretation, indeed! And who is to say that one person's
interpretation of the metaphor is more correct or authentic that
anothers?
The first problem is to interpret the metaphor. But the second
question is, IS it a metaphor?
Look at the passage: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the
leopard shall lie down with the kid." (Is. 1:16) Most commentators
see the Pshat as literal: natural enemies will no longer have
animosity towards each other; even the prey of carnivores will
live in harmony with their predators. Not so, says Maimonides
(13th century Spanish philosopher, legalist and physician). This
is a metaphor. Pshat cannot mean that lambs will lie in safety
with wolves, because such a thing can never happen. This is not
the 'simple' meaning. In other words, in these two examples, Pshat
here IS metaphor.
One last example: Exodus 13:9, in discussing Passover says, It
shall be as a sign on your arm and 'totafot*' between your eyes
so that the instruction of Adonai will be in your mouth...
*this word is difficult; scholars have suggested: remembrance?
The question is does it mean literally or figuratively? Those
who see the Pshat as literal, say that tefillin are meant (the
black boxes worn by some Jews in morning weekday prayers).
Rashbam, (Rashi's grandson- and no slouch) says: as a sign on
your arm: According to the actual Pshat sense of the verse this
means it shall be a constant remembrance to you, as if it were written on your arm (like tying a string on your finger).
It is like the verse from Song of Songs, 'Set me as a seal upon
your heart.' In other words, according to Rashbam, wearing Tefillin
is a Drash on the verse!
Just because one believes the Torah is True, and takes the Torah
seriously, doesn't mean the Torah must be literal. All the famous
(read: unbelievable) stories: Jonah and the great fish, Jacob
and the wrestling angel etc. may not even have been meant to be
taken literally. Why can't God can use metaphors, dream sequences,
imagination. Some commentators suggest the book of Job is only
a story to make a point- that there never was such a person.
The best example of all, though is the Song of Songs. Read literally,
it is erotic love poetry. The Rabbis believed it was an allegory
of the love between God and the people Israel. (It is only because
of this allegorical interpretation that this book was included
in the Canon).
Your two breasts are like two young roes* that are twins which
feed among the lilies (4:5)
Rashi: two breasts: this is Moses and Aaron; (and some say the two
tablets)
*(Parenthetically, here is a problem in translation: the Hebrew
tzvi is today identified by scholars as the gazelle. Rashi identified
it as the ibex; his grandson, Rabbenu Tam suggested deer.)
Not surprising, then, Artscroll in the introduction to its translation
states: "the only 'literal*' translation of Shir HaShirim is allegorical...[sometimes] to the interpret [the Torah] literally is to misinterpret
it entirely." [emphasis added]
(*I assume they mean here 'Pshat.')
So what do we have here?! A claim that sometimes the literal reading
is an 'interpretation,' and it is the interpretation that is actually
the 'Pshat.' So one person's Pshat might be another's Drash.
(Of course, the Rabbis teach (Shabbat 63a) that a verse never departs from its direct meaning. In other words, although you
might find meaning in a 'drash,' the verse also must always also
retain its meaning on the Pshat level.)
Forum
Metaphors