tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post7571843158460807942..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Does parshat Haazinu include a promise that Israel will enjoy forbidden fats?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78665298987346907702013-09-03T11:04:35.134-04:002013-09-03T11:04:35.134-04:00"The objection is that there in the pasuk, it..."The objection is that there in the pasuk, it refers to Torah and Torah learning! The answer is that even if it is an allegory, not only the mashal needs to make sense but also the nimshal. Thus, we can derive something from the "peshat" {it is a weird definition and example of peshat} of the pasuk"<br /><br />I would suggest they are not parallel cases. The sword-torah thing is an allegorical interpretation, therefore it needs to be the case that the "peshat" interpretation makes sense on its own terms. The cheilev example, on Onkelos' interpretation, is a metaphor, where the primary meaning really is the symbolic one, so the words don't really need to make perfect sense in a literal sense.<br /><br />For example, if I construct an allegory about someone driving a car, then the car to New York and getting stopped by traffic police, to illustrate the process of teshiva, the car bit needs to make sense on its own terms. But if I say "X is driving me up the wall", it doesn't really need to make sense (how can you drive up a wall?!).Gabriel Mnoreply@blogger.com