Multiple interpretations of the text
Hello,
I studied the second root in the Rambam with the Ramban’s interpretations, and as I understood the point of contention is that the Rambam assumes that the text has one interpretation. And all other interpretations are not hidden in it, but rather expanded from it.
I asked where this premise comes from? Why is it reasonable to say that the text has only one ‘plain’?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, I understood. And I asked about the Creator from the beginning.
But the truth is, it also applies to man. It is not unreasonable for me to use a word that initially contains two actions that are not contradictory. I do not see the need to claim that any additional interpretation of the definition is an extension.
Perhaps this should be linked to Ockham's razor. Although, one should investigate what is simpler.
Note that Maimonides also speaks of the default. There are situations in which the sermon is indeed from the Torah (when the sages tell us that it is a Halacha from the Torah). This is precisely the result of what you wrote, that there is no need for there to be only one interpretation. This is the default unless it is an exceptional case where both interpretations are found in the text.
As long as you understand the intent, the interpretation is less important.
Thank you very much for the response.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
