I hear this aproach, and I definitely agree that at its deepest level Torah exists within its own system and on its own terms. This is why I am so atracted to the thought of the Maharal ect. But I was wondering how you understand the aproach of the more 'rational' rishonim. Its hard to argue they aren't adressing the Torah from an Aristotelian world view, and critically this often leads to a seemingly forced understanding of the text. My understanding has been that there are different levels of Torah which can be filtered through multiple genres (seeing that Torah is infinite). Of course such interpretations can never contradict the ethics of Chazal if they are to be considered genuine Torah.
There are two points to consider regarding science and Torah.
1: If Torah comes first, and one accepts its truth and/or is overwhelmed by its force, he will then feel compelled to also understand the scientific meaning of the Torah, including its philosophical underpinnings. Thus, the Guide of the Perplexed is addressed to someone who is, to begin with, certain of the truth of the Torah, and then is perplexed with how to make it comport with philosophy, as Maimonides writes in the introduction. The addressee begins with a certainty about the Torah, and then uses whatever science he knows to understand the Torah scientifically as well and thereby enrich his Torah understanding. We should do the same with our science - after we know the Torah's truth, on its own, non-scientific terms. The Torah should be studied as Torah, and then understood as philosophy/science. I think that is the best method for understanding it well.
2: If someone is confident about something, such as the Rishonim were confident in their science (to various degrees), then he is going to approach the Torah from that lens and make it fit into that perspective, sometimes with violence. We are more sensitive to fallibility, so this is thankfully less of a pitfall for us.
I don't see Maharal as someone whose framework is organic to the Torah. He works with Aristotelean and Platonic concepts.
Ah I see where you were going with it. In your mind a pirush like the Netziv would be called organic?
A lot of Rambams more 'forced' pirushim come when he won't contradict Aristotilian metaphysics. (Such as Avraham dreaming his entire encounter with the three malochim) In those days philosophy and science weren't distinguishable. In general I am skeptical about reading science into the Torah as I don't think the Torah was trying to convey scientific ideas and the given science is anyway liable to constantly change.
Re the Maharal, he uses Aristotelean and Platonic concepts to express kabalistically rooted ideas. But he is certainly not tied to the philosophies and sciences and often criticises those he feels are in thrall to them. In my mind kabalah would be a organic position to understand the Torah from. But I am probably using the term with a different meaning in mind to you.
I would say Netziv is more organic, yes. But Chazal is the place to look for true fidelity to the idea of seeking for the Torah to explain itself.
Although the Torah isn't there to teach science, it is valid to attempt understanding the science and philosophy of the Torah. How does prophecy happen? How do miracles happen? Why is it important to be moral? Etc.
A key point to make, it seems. It would be very odd indeed if we were expected to find an embodiment of true divine purpose in "The Odyssey" for example!
I hear this aproach, and I definitely agree that at its deepest level Torah exists within its own system and on its own terms. This is why I am so atracted to the thought of the Maharal ect. But I was wondering how you understand the aproach of the more 'rational' rishonim. Its hard to argue they aren't adressing the Torah from an Aristotelian world view, and critically this often leads to a seemingly forced understanding of the text. My understanding has been that there are different levels of Torah which can be filtered through multiple genres (seeing that Torah is infinite). Of course such interpretations can never contradict the ethics of Chazal if they are to be considered genuine Torah.
There are two points to consider regarding science and Torah.
1: If Torah comes first, and one accepts its truth and/or is overwhelmed by its force, he will then feel compelled to also understand the scientific meaning of the Torah, including its philosophical underpinnings. Thus, the Guide of the Perplexed is addressed to someone who is, to begin with, certain of the truth of the Torah, and then is perplexed with how to make it comport with philosophy, as Maimonides writes in the introduction. The addressee begins with a certainty about the Torah, and then uses whatever science he knows to understand the Torah scientifically as well and thereby enrich his Torah understanding. We should do the same with our science - after we know the Torah's truth, on its own, non-scientific terms. The Torah should be studied as Torah, and then understood as philosophy/science. I think that is the best method for understanding it well.
2: If someone is confident about something, such as the Rishonim were confident in their science (to various degrees), then he is going to approach the Torah from that lens and make it fit into that perspective, sometimes with violence. We are more sensitive to fallibility, so this is thankfully less of a pitfall for us.
I don't see Maharal as someone whose framework is organic to the Torah. He works with Aristotelean and Platonic concepts.
Ah I see where you were going with it. In your mind a pirush like the Netziv would be called organic?
A lot of Rambams more 'forced' pirushim come when he won't contradict Aristotilian metaphysics. (Such as Avraham dreaming his entire encounter with the three malochim) In those days philosophy and science weren't distinguishable. In general I am skeptical about reading science into the Torah as I don't think the Torah was trying to convey scientific ideas and the given science is anyway liable to constantly change.
Re the Maharal, he uses Aristotelean and Platonic concepts to express kabalistically rooted ideas. But he is certainly not tied to the philosophies and sciences and often criticises those he feels are in thrall to them. In my mind kabalah would be a organic position to understand the Torah from. But I am probably using the term with a different meaning in mind to you.
I would say Netziv is more organic, yes. But Chazal is the place to look for true fidelity to the idea of seeking for the Torah to explain itself.
Although the Torah isn't there to teach science, it is valid to attempt understanding the science and philosophy of the Torah. How does prophecy happen? How do miracles happen? Why is it important to be moral? Etc.
A key point to make, it seems. It would be very odd indeed if we were expected to find an embodiment of true divine purpose in "The Odyssey" for example!