[net.religion.jewish] Literalism and Torah Interpretation

tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)

Perhaps some of the Jewish readers of this group can help me with an issue
in Judaism that has puzzled me for some months.  I have been told two
mutually exclusive things by Jews concerning the interpretation of Torah.

Some have told me that the Torah is a symbolic book with multiple valid
interpretations, as set forth by the multiple interpretations given in the
Talmud.  Therefore, any "historical" passage in the Torah may not be truly
historical, but a vessel of divine symbolic meaning.  I asked whether this
applied to all branches of Judaism, and was told that it did.

Some others have told me that any historical passage in the Torah happened
as described, that the facts given in the historical books are
unimpeachable, and in fact that proof exists for the story of the Exodus.
(Of course, when an outsider asks to see this proof, the claimant
equivocates fully as much as a Christian asked for the alleged proof of the
resurrection, but that's neither here nor there.)

These are obviously not compatible.  Am I seeing a controversy within
Judaism, or have both sides described these attitudes in a way that doesn't
let me see the internal harmony, or what?  In case you're wondering why I
ask, I am religiously eclectic and feel that most religions, including
Judaism, contain divine inspiration, and so I try to learn as much about
various religions as I can.  This issue of Torah interpretation seems to be
a major hole in my understanding of Judaism.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"