Presence

I've been attending R. Gottlieb's new Chumash shiur on Bereshis. So far, so good. Last night's shiur focused on Gen 1:1 and the famous question, "What does it really mean?" Those familiar with the opinions of Rashi and Ramban know what I'm talking about, those that don't, suffice it to say, for various reasons both grammatical and philosophical, Rashi would translate Gen 1:1 as "In the beginning of God's creating, there was Heaven and Earth," whereas Ramban would prefer the more traditional, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." That's a bit of an oversimplification, but there ya' go.

What I found interesting was that, if you take a closer look at the two different explanations given by Rashi and Ramban, you find that Rashi's is based on a specific interpretation, guided by midrashim, with a moral focus. Ramban, on the other hand, explains Creation as a scientific process (he discusses the Greek concept of hiuli, or potential matter, and sort of says that Shamayim and Aretz are two different kinds of potential matter). What I think is interesting is that if you took these two opinions and transposed them to the present day, while Rashi would probably remain the same, Ramban would, more likely than not, amend his translation to account for present-day knowledge, perhaps mentioning things like matter and anti-matter, energy, etc.

Putting aside who is most likely correct in their translation (the answer is Ramban, since there are at least two instances in the Talmud that directly support his translation, along with the fact that, grammatically, he's more correct - or so they tell me), and the content of their explanations (Rashi's does not sit well with me for reasons I will explain some other time) when it comes to the mode of explanation, I would prefer Rashi's approach. Ramban's explanation is fundamentally a rationalist one, attempting to read whatever philosophic or scientific doctrines he felt most comfortable with back into the text, and it presumes that the Torah is attempting to teach us something historical or scientific. Rashi, on the other hand, is motivated by the internal content of text and the existing midrashim, focusing on the moral and ethical message conveyed. The presumption here is closer to the idea that the Torah is essential for Man to understand his place in the world, not for Man to understand the world itself.

If I had my druthers, I'd find some explanation that supported the translation of the Ramban with the method of Rashi. I rarely, as it turns out, get hold of these so-called druthers.

I am oft accused of being a rationalist (most recently by our esteemed commisioner, Bill Seliger), and, although it may be true to some extent, I'd like to attempt to dispell the notion. While I have a hard time accepting certain historical realities in light of scientific explanations, I do not as a rule attempt to read this back into my religion. When we say our motivations for interpretation of scripture come from within the text, and not from some external conflict with some other system of thought, we are taking a non-rational approach.

For those interested in virtually participating in R. Gottlieb's Chumash shiur, recordings are usually posted online the day after on the Shomrei shiurim page. I didn't see the recorder at last night's shiur, and it's not online yet, which may mean it wasn't recorded, which is a shame.