Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses an exegetical principle, דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם The Torah speaks in the language of men.  That is to say, sometimes there can be extra verbiage if it adds to poetic value or is part of how people use idioms. 

This is an obvious point, as in order for the Torah to be comprehensible and even objectively pleasant, it must use phrases that are generally understood.  For example, when the Torah says, “עָרִ֛ים גְּדֹלֹ֥ת וּבְצוּרֹ֖ת בַּשָּׁמָ֑יִם  large cities with walls in the heavens” (Devarim 1:28), this is not literally cities in Heaven.

The Rambam (Commentary on Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1) extends this idea beyond phrases and makes it an important theological principle. He uses it to explain the many ways in which the Torah uses Anthropomorphism and Anthropopapisms to describe Hashem’s actions and thoughts, (which of course are neither actions or thoughts in a physical sense):

היסוד השלישי

שלילת הגשמות ממנו וזה שנאמין כי האחד הזה שזכרנו אינו גוף ולא כח בגוף ולא ישיגוהו מאורעות הגופים כמו התנועה והמנוחה והמשכן לא מצד עצמות ולא במקרה ולכן שללו ממנו החכמים ז"ל החבור והפירוד ואמרו (חגיגה טו.) אין למעלה לא ישיבה ולא עמידה לא עורף ולא עפוי כלומר לא פירוד ולא עורף והוא חבור והוא עפוי מלשון ועפו בכתף פלשתים כלומר ידחפו אותם בכתף להתחברם בהם ואמר הנביא ואל מי תדמיוני ואשוה יאמר קדוש אילו היה גוף [היה] דומה לגופים וכל מה שבא בכתבי הקדש שמתארים אותו בתארי הגופות כמו ההליכה והעמידה והישיבה והדבור וכיוצא בזה הכל דרך השאלה וכן אמרו ז"ל (ברכות לא:) דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם וכבר דברו החכמים בזה הענין הרבה והיסוד השלישי הזה הוא מורה עליו מה שנאמר כי לא ראיתם כל תמונה כלומר לא השגתם אותו בעל תמונה לפי שהוא כמו שזכרנו אינו גוף ולא כח בגוף: 

The third principle Denial of His physicality and that is that we believe that this Unity that we mentioned is not a body and not the power of a body and that actions of a body do not relate to Him, not in His essence and not in His doings. And hence the sages, may their memory be blessed, denied [the possibility of] His composition and dissolution and said (Chagigah 15a), "Above there is no sitting or standing, no backside (aoref) and no weariness (aipui)," which is to say say no dissolution, and that is aoref, and no composition, and that is aipui, as per the usage (Isaiah 11:14), "And they aifu on the shoulder of the Philistines," which is to say they pushed themselves onto [their] shoulder to connect to them. And the prophet said (Isaiah 40:25), "'And to whom do you compare Me and I be equated,' says the Holy."[But] were He a body, He would be comparable to [other] bodies. And everything that comes in the holy Scriptures that describes Him in physical ways, such as walking or standing or sitting or speaking, or similar to it, it is all by way of metaphor. And so did the rabbis say (Berakhot 31b), "The Torah speaks in the language of people." And the sages already spoke much about this matter. And this third principle is indicated by that which is stated (Deuteronomy 4:15), "for you did not see any image" - which is to say, you did not perceive Him as something with an image, because He is - as we mentioned - not a body and not the power of a body.

This principle is developed and applied in even more creative ways.  Later Rishonim, such as Ralbag, have used this principle as a way to better explain discrepancies between Biblical descriptions and scientific knowledge:

Ralbag, in his commentary on Job (40) notes that there were scientific astrological inaccuracies in regard to Ezekiel’s prophetic description of the heavenly spheres, as well as the Biblical description of Avraham’s prophecy regarding his descendants being as numerous as the stars. Ralbag was thoroughly convinced of the scientific veracity of his observations and found them to contradict the descriptions of astrological phenomena in the prophecies. His response is neither a repudiation of science nor reinterpretation of the verse, which would be more typical of a medieval philosopher. Instead, he reframes the scope of prophecy itself. He states: “Prophecy comes in accordance with the scientific knowledge level of the prophet.” In other words, if even the most outstanding prophet believed the world to be flat in the science of his day, the vision that he sees would come to him within this frame of reference, as it does not detract from the essential truth of the message. 

There are far reaching implications to this concept put forth by Ralbag. In essence, he is saying that any scientific truth that was accepted at the time that the prophet received the prophecy, would be incorporated as part of the metaphoric, allegorical and symbolic language of the prophecy without any requirement of scientific veracity. This is an extreme, but also a logical extension of the principle of "the Torah speaks in the vernacular of people", as we have been discussing. The sensibility of the Ralbag’ approach is compelling. If God gives a prophet a vision or message, He will use the prophet’s language, vernacular and even scientific frame of reference, as the purpose of the prophecy is not to teach science, rather to impart moral lessons.  

The position of Ralbag can be logically supported by the following thought experiment and argumentum ad absurdum :  Imagine when Moshe saw the burning bush and exclaimed (Exodus 3:3), “Why is this bush not burning?” Shall we imagine that God would interrupt Moshe’s prophecy, with a professorial correction, “Actually Moses, this particular species really belongs to the genus of trees, not bushes…”. The point being illustrated here, is that if for whatever reason, Moshe erroneously mislabeled what he saw, if it wasn't pertinent to the prophecy, why would God interrupt him and provide him a science lesson? 

Consider another ridiculous example, but theoretically possible: What if, for whatever reason, in Moshe’s time the tribal history and stories got confused and instead of calling Abraham by that name, they knew him as “Haramab”. Of course, there is no reason to assume this happened, but bear with me and ask yourself, “What if it did?” So now the Jews have a collective tradition that their great ancestor was a fellow named Haramab.  Every story in the Torah that is attributed to Avraham was accurately transmitted from one generation to another, except they ot his name wrong. Shall we suppose, as God was revealing the scripture to Moshe, God would bother to correct our nation’s version of history? Would there have been some kind of footnote, or Artscroll “grey box” in the Torah scroll letting us know that actually his name is Avraham instead of Hamarab? We can't know for sure, but common sense and logic dictates that since the name is likely immaterial, God would not bother to correct it and confuse the whole nation's version of history. (Ok, perhaps since Avraham’s name means “Av Hamon Goyyim” “A father of many nations”, the name is pertinent, so the example is not a perfect one, but you get the idea.)

The real reason for all this has nothing to do with God’s limitations or the limitations of the Torah, but rather the limitations of Man. Moshe, the prophet and lawgiver, can only perceive God’s message in a form that is comprehensible by humans. Even though as an article of faith we believe Moshe to have achieved the absolute highest level of prophecy, we also know from scripture that he still had some human limitations. Hashem tells Moshe (Exodus 33:20): “You cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live.” Thus, the message, divine wisdom, and truth of the laws came to Moses as a revelation, but still applied to the spiritual developmental needs of the Jewish people and mankind as a totality in time and space. 

It still might seem theologically problematic to think that even Moshe’s prophecy was somehow filtered to adjust for human experience because that leaves it potentially open to criticism of human bias. However, potential is not actual. As an article of faith an Orthodox person believes that Moshe transmitted the will of God through his prophecy in a perfect manner. It just so happens that Rambam and Ralbag define “perfect transmission” as what the psychological and emotional vernacular of the time dictates. Also, this means to say that it was a perfect transmission of the will of God, and it was God’s will alone to make it comprehensible to humans, so Moshe’s prophecy is not being filtered by his own mind, but by God alone. There is an intriguing Aggadah which supports this point (Pirke DeRebbi Eliezer 46:4):

The ministering angels said to him: Moshe! This Torah has been given only for our sakes. Moses replied to them: It is written in the Torah, "Honor thy father and thy mother"). Have ye then father and mother? Again, it is written in the Torah, "When a man dieth in the tent". Does death happen among you? They were silent, and did not answer anything further.

The obvious question is what were the ministering angels thinking? Moshe’s refutation was something a school age child could have asked! Rather, there must be a given assumption that the divine truths of the Torah, if received by the angels, would be expressed differently. Moshe did not so much refute the angels as calmed them once they realized he was receiving a human version of the Torah, which reflected the same truths as theirs but still was not expressed or revealed in the same manner.

Furthermore, even in this world, God’s divine revelation can be experienced simultaneously and differently by different people. As it states in Midrash Tanhuma (Yisro, 16):

Since the Holy One had appeared to them in the sea as a warrior making war (Exod. 15:3), appeared to them on Sinai as a scribe teaching Torah, appeared to them in the days of Solomon as a youth (Cant. 5:15), and appeared to them in the days of Daniel as an elder (Dan. 7:9, 13, 22); the Holy One said to them: Even though they saw me in many forms, I am the one who was in the sea; I am the one who was on Sinai; I am the Lord your God.

Hiyya bar Abba said: He appeared to them in a form that was appropriate for each and every concern, and so in each and every matter. In the sea it was as a warrior; he waged the wars of Israel. On Sinai he taught Torah to Israel and served as a scribe. In the days of Daniel he taught Torah as an elder, for so it is fitting for Torah to be coming from the mouths of the elders. He appeared to them as a youth in the days of Solomon as was fitting for their deeds.

...If a thousand people were looking at it, it would be looking back at all of them. So it is with the Holy One. When he spoke, each and every person of Israel said: The Divine Word has been with me alone...R. Jose bar Hanina said: It was according to the capacity of each and every person that the Divine Word spoke with him, and do not be surprised at this fact. Since we find in the case of the manna that, when it came down to Israel, each one of them savored it according to his capacity, how much more would the principle apply with the Divine Word!

You will soon read or have read the account of creation in Bereishis.  Isn’t there something massive missing?  What about the creation of angels or the Maaseh Merkava and the Holy Throne?  The answer is that even the creation story is a story about what HUMANS need to know about creation, not the full cosmological (or, dare I say, scientific) truth.  The account of Heaven and the Sun, Moon and Stars are only in the creation story to discuss their effects on earth, as the verse (Bereshis 1:14-15) states:

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹקִ֣ים יְהִ֤י מְאֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַיּ֖וֹם וּבֵ֣ין הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְהָי֤וּ לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים׃

 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day from night; they shall serve as signs for the set times—the days and the years;

וְהָי֤וּ לִמְאוֹרֹת֙ בִּרְקִ֣יעַ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם לְהָאִ֖יר עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so.

The Torah is divine, but what we see of it in the revealed world is the human encounter with God’s will. Therefore, this encounter must be relatable in terms of human experience and perception. When humans encounter God’s will it can only be a reflection of the mutuality of the encounter. Divine eternal truth, yes indeed! However brought into the human sub-ethereal world and expressed in human terms. (This approach can be developed further to address certain questions that modern Biblical Criticism raises about the anomalies in scripture, but that is for a different blog post.)

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)