x
Make new version your default
|
|
Specialty Sites: |
|
|
The Divine breathes within the words of the sages.
Even those things they themselves did not grasp, that we have only discovered centuries later, even that can be found in the nuances of their sayings and writings.

OK, so I will try and understand the concept from his point of view. In my other life, as a scholar of English Literature, there is a school of thought known as the New Criticism, which postulates that once the poet has written the poem, it must stand by itself and cannot be interpreted in light of the poet's life, or mood, or what he ate for breakfast that morning.
Similarly, we may take the words of Chazal and read meaning into them which may be somewhat different from what they originally intended, but, as long as it isn't apikorsus, learn additional insights.
Is that correct? Or am I missing the point entirely?
Pompano Beach, fl
The fact is, the way we say something reveals much deeper truths than the something that was said--the media contains a depth beyond the message. It seems there is something our non-verbal self knows and it's not telling that to the verbal self--but it's coming out nonetheless in our choice of words.
So too, these sages had truths that they themselves were not (verbally) aware of--yet these truths are nonetheless expressed in nuances of language.
Therefore, I disagree that there are "nuances of untaught truth" in the words of the early sages-- we have to assume that they did the best they could with the materials at hand, but I believe that a Soloveitchik or a Heschel of today could be their equal, theologically and halachically.
Pompano Beach, FL