Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

There seems to be a lot of controversy when it comes to interpreting pesukim non-literally. Fortunately, Saadia Gaon sets forth four clear rules, with no exceptions.

Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss

Aug 26, 2016

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: *Contingency Plan*, by Ryan Yee

Eikev: When to Take Pesukim Non-literally

Question: What do the following four pesukim from this week's parashah have in common?

"Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)
"You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)
"Behold! To Hashem, your God, belong the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)
"You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

If you read the title of this article, then you already know the answer: these are all pesukim which we do not take literally!

Unlike some of our fundamentalist Christian neighbors, we Jews have never subscribed to Biblical Literalism. "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Shemos 21:24) refers to monetary compensation, not literal eye-gouging and tooth-pulling; "with a strong hand and an outstretched arm" (Devarim 4:34) is an allegory, and doesn't mean that God has limbs; "Yisachar is a strong-boned donkey" (Bereishis 49:14) is a metaphor, not a taxonomic statement. The list goes on and on.

The problem is that although there are many instances in which it is obvious that we do not take a pasuk literally, there are others which are not so clear-cut. Is the Torah's account of creation to be taken at face value? Did the snake in the Garden of Eden really talk? Was Avraham Avinu really visited by angels in human form?

If only there were a methodology for how to approach these questions of interpretation! Better yet, it would be great to have a list of interpretive rules and guidelines that we could apply as a litmus test to determine whether a pasuk is literal or non-literal.

Thankfully for us, Saadia Gaon [1] provides us with exactly what we are looking for! He lays out a set of rules for when to interpret a pasuk literally and when not to. According to Saadia Gaon, there are four - and only four - reasons why we would not take a pasuk literally. He even provides us with at least one example from each category. Here is a translation of his treatment of this topic:

It is a well-known fact that every statement found in the Torah is to be understood in its literal sense except for those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four reasons:
Reason #1: It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the senses, such as the statement: "And the man called his wife’s name 'Chava' because she was the mother of all living things" (Bereishis 3:20), whereas we see that the ox and the lion are not the offspring of womankind. Hence we must conclude that the implication of the statement embraces human descendants only.
Reason #2: Or else the literal sense may be negated by rationality, such as that of the statement: "For Hashem, your God, is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (Devarim 4:42). Now fire is something created and defective, for it is subject to extinction. Hence it is logically inadmissible that God resemble it. We must, therefore, impute to this statement the meaning that God’s punishment is like consuming fire, in accordance with the remark made elsewhere in Scripture: "For all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My jealously" (Zephaniah 3:8).
Reason #3: Again, [the literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible] by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal sense. Thus, for example, it is said in Scripture: "You shall not test Hashem, your God, as you tested Him at Massah" (Devarim 6:16). And it is also said, on the other hand: "And do not test Me now ... if I will not open for you the windows of heaven" (Malachi 3:10). Now the point wherein these two statements agree is that we must not test our Lord as to whether He is able to do a certain thing, as they did of whom it is reported: "And they tested God in their heart by asking food for their craving. They spoke against God, saying: 'Can God prepare a table in the wilderness?'” (Tehilim 78:18-19). It is to these that the remark "as you tested Him in Massah" refers. It is, however, permissible for a servant of God to test his Master’s power by asking whether it will be possible for Him to create a miracle in his behalf. Such a request was indeed made by Gideon, who said: "I will test but this one time through the fleece" (Shoftim 6:39). It was also done by Hezekiah (II Melachim 20:8) and others.
Reason #4: Finally any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinic tradition has attached a certain qualification is to be interpreted by us in keeping with this authentic tradition. Thus it has been transmitted to us that the punishment of malkos (lashes) consists of thirty-nine blows, although Scripture states: "Forty lashes he shall give him" (Devarim 25:3). We therefore adopt the view that this is just a rough way of saying that there be thirty-nine stripes. The text of Scripture has merely expressed this thought in round numbers, as it has done in the statement: "After the number of days in which you spied out the land, even forty days, for every day a year shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years" (Bamidbar 14:34). For in reality there were only thirty-nine years, since the first year of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness did not enter into this punishment.
Thus, there are only these four possible reasons for a non-literal interpretation of the verses of the Holy Torah, there being no fifth.

There you have it - the four cases in which we take a pasuk non-literally. Now let's see how these categories to apply to the pesukim from our parashah.

Example #1: "Hear, O Israel, today you cross the Jordan, to come and drive out nations that are greater and mightier than you, cities that are great and fortified in the sky" (Devarim 9:1)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's first category: pesukim we take non-literally because they contradict our senses. It is impossible to actually build cities that are "in the sky" because the sky cannot support such structures. Alternatively, if we read this phrase as "up to the sky," it is still impossible to take this literally, since human beings cannot build structures which reach that high. "Skyscraper" is a figure of speech - not a literal description.

This particular form of non-literal statement is referred to by Chazal (the Sages) as "guzma" or "divrei havai." Chazal [2] teach: "The Torah spoke in an exaggerated manner, the prophets spoke in an exaggerated manner, and the Sages spoke in an exaggerated manner."

Example #2: "You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and no longer stiffen your neck" (ibid. 10:16)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's second category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are negated by rationality. It would be absurd to take this pasuk literally, that Hashem commands each and every Jew to surgically remove their own pericardium. The Ibn Ezra [3] is fond of using this pasuk as an example of when to interpret a commandment in the Torah non-literally if doing so would be irrational. He offers several reasons for why our pasuk falls into this category: the Torah says that we should do this mitzvos and live by them; it is prohibited to murder others, and to murder ourselves; and - my favorite reason - the mitzvah would be impossible to do, since we would die before completing the procedure! Rather, the pshat of this pasuk is "you shall remove the foolishness of your mind," as Onkelos renders it.

Without a question, this is the trickiest of Saadia Gaon's interpretive rules to apply. Whether a pasuk is "negated by rationality" is not always a clear-cut matter. Consider, for example, the three instances mentioned earlier: the Six Days of Creation, the talking snake, and Avraham's visitors. The meforshim (commentators) are divided as to whether these pesukim should be taken literally or not; each side will claim that their interpretation is consistent with rationality.

Nevertheless, Saadia Gaon's rule still stands. The fact that the application of this rule is subject to difficulty and dispute does not negate its validity.

Example #3: "Behold! To Hashem, your God, belongs the heaven and the highest heaven, the earth and everything that is in it" (ibid. 10:14)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's third category: pesukim which we take non-literally because they are explicitly contradicted by another text in the Torah. Chazal point out the contradiction of our pasuk by using a similar pasuk from Tehilim:

Rebbi Levi raised a contradiction: in one place it is written: "The earth and its fullness belong to Hashem" (Tehilim 24:1), but in another place it is written: "As for the heavens, the heavens are Hashem's, but the earth He has given to mankind" (Tehilim 115:16)! [Which is it? Does the earth belong to Hashem or to mankind?]
[Rebbi Levi answered:] This is not a contradiction: the first pasuk refers to before one recites a blessing; the second is referring to after one recites a blessing.

Like any contradiction, this one is resolved by qualifying each statement such that it doesn't contradict the other.

Example #4: "You shall place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul; you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and let them be tefillin between your eyes" (ibid. 11:18)

This pasuk is an example of Saadia Gaon's fourth category: pesukim which we take non-literally because we have a mesorah (oral tradition) for how to interpret the pasuk which overrides its literal meaning. Although the pasuk itself would seem to indicate that we should place our head-tefillin between our eyes, the Torah she'baal Peh (Oral Torah) interpretation that was received by Moshe Rabbeinu at Sinai teaches that the head-tefillin should be placed so that it is resting on one's hairline above the spot that is between one's eyes. Like many of the non-literal interpretations in this category, there would be no way for us to arrive at this reading on our own without the oral tradition.

And there you have it! Saadia Gaon assures us that these are the only four categories of non-literal pesukim, and thus far in my learning, I have seen no reason to doubt his claim. So next time you wonder whether a pasuk should be taken literally, just whip out Saadia Gaon's checklist, run through all four categories, and that should help you to find your answer!

End Notes:
[1] Saadia ben Yosef al-Fayyumi (Saadia Gaon), Emunos v'Deos 7:2
[2] Talmud Bavli: Maseches Tamid 29a
[3] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemos 20:1; see also Ibn Ezra's introduction to Torah in his regular commentary and in his Shitah Acheres commentary

Have you found a clearer guide for when to interpret pesukim non-literally? If so, please share, because I haven’t!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post