You're highlighting a tension the exists whenever the fundemental perceptions of theological claims shift. This happens in Judaism every couple centuries, and it leads to reinterpretation of the earlier sources. Nothing particularly significant about kabbalah more than modern hashkafos in the yeshivish world, modern orthodox values, mussar, enlightenment, lomdus, chassidut, pilpul, philosophy (Aristotlean, platonic, Sufi, and others), rishonic pilpul, midrash chazal, TSBP, second temple pesharim, and even going back to the biblical era itself. Not sure why this one has been successful at irking you while other shifts haven't.
Fair enough. However, for me the response is the opposite. Since no theological development has ever taken place without reinterpretation, engaging in the reinterpretations themselves using the tools created by the various movements makes them more significant, not less. Obviously if you don't relate to a certain approach you not only could but should reject it (as ancient reinterpreters have done), but evolution of ideas and methodologies is a feature, not a bug.
True. But I hope there would be some objective standard by which we can judge authenticity. Otherwise we're stuck in subjective hell and unable to define any limits: "Monotheism? That's just a social construct..."
RE Nefesh Hachaim Sha’ar 1, Chapter 15, you're translation is inaccurate. He does not say that Moshe and Adam had the essence of God in their body, he says that they had the essence of the Neshama in their body. Big difference.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that עצמות מהותה is referring *just* to a neshama (whatever that could even mean). And the phrase is definitely used elsewhere without obvious reference to a neshama.
Just off the cuff, הטיחה certainly does not mean "Pressed". It means to "fling away". If you watch someone putting plaster on a wall in large quantities, you will see them take a flat paddle-like tool, scoop up a blob of plaster and fling it on the wall with the flick of his wrist like he's returning a serve in a game of ping-pong.
But it is clear that Rav Chaim is taking a term that is routinely used as a negative act and reinterpreting it here in Chana's case as a positive one. He explains why it is appropriate in teffiloh in particular.
I agree that your "fling away" interpretation of הטיחה isn't impossible: now that I think about it, you could have also brought כמטחוה קשת as a good example. But the relationship הטיחה shares with טחן would seem to suggest that that interpretation isn't obvious. Still, it does look more reasonable.
Isn’t the whole idea of the system of פרד״ס that not every interpretation within Torah has to be mutually compatible to be true? Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the “occam’s razor” approach is the best way to arrive at פשט. That still leaves room for equally valid ways of learning on the levels of רמז, דרוש, סוד which do not have to be equally “likely” (or else they would ALSO be פשט) yet nevertheless אלו ואלו דא״ח.
Now obviously when it comes to deciding פסק הלכה, we must resort to פשט, since (generally speaking) there can be only one valid method of observance, and we have to choose somehow. But נפש החיים is clearly not a commentary on שולחן ערוך, nor ח״ו trying to replace it in any way; rather, it’s an additional layer “on top” so to speak, exactly what you’d expect from a sefer based on learning sources at a deeper level.
Of course, this multifaceted approach is very difficult to reconcile with our modern way of thinking grounded in western rationality. But that’s a challenge to us, not Torah!
You're certainly correct to say that there are other ways to consume Torah besides "occam's razor". And the fact that I personally have trouble appreciating them doesn't take away from their objective value.
My problem with these particular examples is that they (mostly) present pesukim or statements from Chazal as proof texts, and I can't see the connection between the text and the "proof".
You're highlighting a tension the exists whenever the fundemental perceptions of theological claims shift. This happens in Judaism every couple centuries, and it leads to reinterpretation of the earlier sources. Nothing particularly significant about kabbalah more than modern hashkafos in the yeshivish world, modern orthodox values, mussar, enlightenment, lomdus, chassidut, pilpul, philosophy (Aristotlean, platonic, Sufi, and others), rishonic pilpul, midrash chazal, TSBP, second temple pesharim, and even going back to the biblical era itself. Not sure why this one has been successful at irking you while other shifts haven't.
Well, I have written about other parallel tensions (like lomdus - https://darchecha.substack.com/p/assessing-the-modern-yeshivishe-approach - and philosophy - https://darchecha.substack.com/p/how-do-we-know-god-is-incorporeal - for example)
But perhaps it's because the kabbala-driven changes currently feel so dominant (and coercive) that they "irk" me.
Fair enough. However, for me the response is the opposite. Since no theological development has ever taken place without reinterpretation, engaging in the reinterpretations themselves using the tools created by the various movements makes them more significant, not less. Obviously if you don't relate to a certain approach you not only could but should reject it (as ancient reinterpreters have done), but evolution of ideas and methodologies is a feature, not a bug.
True. But I hope there would be some objective standard by which we can judge authenticity. Otherwise we're stuck in subjective hell and unable to define any limits: "Monotheism? That's just a social construct..."
Fair point. That's indeed always a challenge in doing theology at all.
RE Nefesh Hachaim Sha’ar 1, Chapter 15, you're translation is inaccurate. He does not say that Moshe and Adam had the essence of God in their body, he says that they had the essence of the Neshama in their body. Big difference.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that עצמות מהותה is referring *just* to a neshama (whatever that could even mean). And the phrase is definitely used elsewhere without obvious reference to a neshama.
I think it is clear from the context he is referring only to the neshama and nothing else.
Just off the cuff, הטיחה certainly does not mean "Pressed". It means to "fling away". If you watch someone putting plaster on a wall in large quantities, you will see them take a flat paddle-like tool, scoop up a blob of plaster and fling it on the wall with the flick of his wrist like he's returning a serve in a game of ping-pong.
See here at 50 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bVz6R7O678&pp=ygUaZmxpbmdpbmcgcGxhc3RlciBvbiBhIHdhbGzSBwkJwwkBhyohjO8%3D
But it is clear that Rav Chaim is taking a term that is routinely used as a negative act and reinterpreting it here in Chana's case as a positive one. He explains why it is appropriate in teffiloh in particular.
I agree that your "fling away" interpretation of הטיחה isn't impossible: now that I think about it, you could have also brought כמטחוה קשת as a good example. But the relationship הטיחה shares with טחן would seem to suggest that that interpretation isn't obvious. Still, it does look more reasonable.
There is no problem whatsoever because to me it is obvious that הטיחה is the verb form of טיח. This word טיח MEANS plaster!
https://context.reverso.net/translation/hebrew-english/%D7%98%D7%99%D7%97
No need to go to טחן at all.
Isn’t the whole idea of the system of פרד״ס that not every interpretation within Torah has to be mutually compatible to be true? Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the “occam’s razor” approach is the best way to arrive at פשט. That still leaves room for equally valid ways of learning on the levels of רמז, דרוש, סוד which do not have to be equally “likely” (or else they would ALSO be פשט) yet nevertheless אלו ואלו דא״ח.
Now obviously when it comes to deciding פסק הלכה, we must resort to פשט, since (generally speaking) there can be only one valid method of observance, and we have to choose somehow. But נפש החיים is clearly not a commentary on שולחן ערוך, nor ח״ו trying to replace it in any way; rather, it’s an additional layer “on top” so to speak, exactly what you’d expect from a sefer based on learning sources at a deeper level.
Of course, this multifaceted approach is very difficult to reconcile with our modern way of thinking grounded in western rationality. But that’s a challenge to us, not Torah!
You're certainly correct to say that there are other ways to consume Torah besides "occam's razor". And the fact that I personally have trouble appreciating them doesn't take away from their objective value.
My problem with these particular examples is that they (mostly) present pesukim or statements from Chazal as proof texts, and I can't see the connection between the text and the "proof".