Allegory in Tanakh - The Rishonim
Rambam
1. Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed 2:25
We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal. For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the Eternity of the Universe. First, the Incorporeality of God has been demonstrated by proof: those passages in the Bible, which in their literal sense contain statements that can be refuted by proof, must and can be interpreted otherwise. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument.
Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is not contrary to any of the fundamental principles of our religion: it is not contrary to the words of any prophet. Only ignorant people believe that it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture: but we have shown that this is not the case: on the contrary, Scripture teaches the Incorporeality of God. If we were to accept the Eternity of the Universe as taught by Aristotle, that everything in the Universe is the result of fixed laws, that Nature does not change, and that there is nothing supernatural, we should necessarily be in opposition to the foundation of our religion, we should disbelieve all miracles and signs, and certainly reject all hopes and fears derived from Scripture, unless the miracles are also explained figuratively. The Allegorists amongst the Mohammedans have done this, and have thereby arrived at absurd conclusions. If, however, we accepted the Eternity of the Universe in accordance with the second of the theories which we have expounded above (ch. xxiii.), and assumed, with Plato, that the heavens are likewise transient, we should not be in opposition to the fundamental principles of our religion: this theory would not imply the rejection of miracles, but, on the contrary, would admit them as possible. The Scriptural text might have been explained accordingly, and many expressions might have been found in the Bible and in other writings that would confirm and support this theory. But there is no necessity for this expedient, so long as the theory has not been proved. As there is no proof sufficient to convince us, this theory need not be taken into consideration, nor the other one: we take the text of the Bible literally, and say that it teaches us a truth which we cannot prove: and the miracles are evidence for the correctness of our view.
Accepting the Creation, we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another? Why has He revealed the Law to one particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that? why has He shown through a prophet certain particular miracles? what is the object of these laws? and Why has He not made the commandments and the prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding questions. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions: and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. Owing to the absence of all proof, we reject the theory of the Eternity of the Universe: and it is for this very reason that the noblest minds spent and will spend their days in research. For if the Creation had been demonstrated by proof, even if only according to the Platonic hypothesis, all arguments of the philosophers against us would be of no avail. If, on the other hand, Aristotle had a proof for his theory, the whole teaching of Scripture would be rejected, and we should be forced to other opinions. I have thus shown that all depends on this question. Note it.
2. Shem Tov there
4. Rav Kafih, Hilkhot Shabbat 5:3
4. Ralbag, Genesis 2:4
וראוי שתדע בעניין הנחש שהוא מחוייב שנודה שהוא משל לפי שהוא מגונה מאד שנאמר שיהיה הב"ח ההוא מתחלת הבריאה מדבר ואח"כ הושם לו טבע שני ישוב בזה המדרגה הפחותה אשר הוא בה וזה מבואר מאד עד שהאריכו' בביאורו מותר.
ואולם בענין חוה אין בכאן סבה תחייב שיהיה לפי המשל כמו שאתה רואה מדברינו ר"ל שכבר נמשך לנו באור זה הספור עם הניחנו חוה הנקבה שנבראת עם האדם. וכבר יתבאר ג"כ שאינה לפי המשל ממה שהמשיכה התורה לזה הספור שכבר הולידה חוה קין והבל ושת שאי אפשר שהית משל.
ואולם הרב המורה נרא שהבין כי ענין חוה הוא גם כן משל לכח אחד מכחות הנפש האנושי ולא נתבאר מדבריו אי זה כח הוא זה הכח שישלם בו הסתת הנחש וסמאל שהוא רכוב עליו. והנה אחר התבוננות הטוב יתבאר למי שידע הנפש וכחותיה שזה בלתי אפשר שימשך על זה האופן כשיונח העניין…
וכבר טען מזה קצת גדול החכמים המתאחדים ועשו ציורים בענין קין והבל ושת והפסידו בזה כונת התור' וראוי שתדע שאין ראוי שיעש' ציור בדברי תורה אם לא במקומות אשר יחוייב שיהיו משל. שאם היה זה השעור מסור ביד האנשים הנה תפול התור' בכללה ולא יגיע ממנ' התועלת המכוון ממנה וזה מבו' מאד עד שהאריכו' ביאורו מותר. וראוי שתדע שבריאת אדם וחוה היה ביום הששי כמו שנזכ' שם ואולם נזכרה בכאן להודיע סודו' הבריאה האנושי':
4. Lawrence Kaplan on the Rav’s view of Rambam and Allegory
In the notes he has on Rav Soloveitchik's lectures on the Guide for the Perplexed, the note taker reports from the Rav that: "The entire account of the creation of man is an allegory for the Rambam."
Ibn Ezra
4. Ibn Ezra 2:8, 3:21
There is a secret meaning as to why the definite article has been placed in front of the word Adam… It is also possible that the definite article is placed before Adam because the word Adam is derived from the word used for ground (adamah). Hence, the name Adam may be a proper name or an adjective…
Now I will reveal to you via hints the secret of the Garden and the rivers. I did not find this secret discussed by anyone aside from Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol, for he was a very great expert in the secret of the soul.
4. Abarbanel on Ibn Ezra
There are among the commentators, those who interpret this chapter in accordance with the plain meaning of the verses. This approach was taken by Rashi and Ramban. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also [claims that he] favors this approach. He wrote: “The things described in this portion are to be taken in accordance with their plain meaning.” However, in reality, he does not imagine things to be so, nor does he think so in his heart. We can see that this is so, from his comments and hints later on…
4. Ibn Ezra, Introduction
ואם הדעת לא תסבול הדבר,
או ישחית אשר בהרגשות יתבר,
אז יבקש לו סוד,
כי שקול הדעת הוא היסוד,
כי לא נתנה התורה לאשר אין דעת לו,
והמלאך בין אדם ובין אלהיו הוא שכלו
Rambam, Ralbag, Ibn Ezra
4. Abarbanel Genesis
והדרך הב' הוא שאין הספור הזה כפי פשוטו ולא היה ממנו דבר אבל הוא כלו צורה ורמז המשליי וזה דרך הרב המורה בפרקים מח"א ופלח"ב והוא ג"כ באמת דרך הראב"ע וזה סודו. והרל"בג ג"כ בפירושו לתורה וכל האוחזים דרכם ושותים מימיהם בפיהם ירצו סלה. עם היות שיתאלפו בצורה וההמשל שכל א' נמשך לשטתו אבל הצד השוה שבהם שכוונת הפרשה כלה או רובה היא כפי הנסתר לא כפי הנגלה.
Rav Saadya Gaon
4. Rav Saadya Gaon
It is a well-known first principle that anything found in scripture is to be understood according to its simple meaning, with the exception of those cases where such is impossible, due to one of four possible causes:
Our perceived reality dismisses it.
An example would be the verse, “And Adam called his wife Chavah, because she was the mother of all life.”
Now, we see that the ox and the lion are not born from a human woman. So we know that these words refer not to all living beings, but only to human life.
Our sense of reason dismisses it.
For example, the verse, “For G‑d, your G‑d, is a consuming fire, a G‑d of vengeance.”
Now, fire is a creation, and it requires some sort of material to burn. At times it is extinguished. Our sense of reason cannot accept that G‑d could be such. So, we are forced to say that there is some idea hidden within the usage of fire to describe G‑d’s vengeance. Indeed, there is a verse, “For in the fire of My vengeance the entire earth will be consumed.”
Another verse explicitly negates it. In such a case, we must provide a resolution that is not explicitly stated.
For example, one verse says, “Do not test G‑d your G‑d, as you tested Him at Massah.” Yet another verse says, “Please test me in this, says G‑d, the G‑d of Hosts: If I will not open for you the portals of heaven . . .”
The resolution that arises from between the two verses is that we should not test G‑d to determine whether He is capable or not, like those about whom it was said, “They tested G‑d in their hearts, asking food for themselves, and they spoke about G‑d, saying, ‘Is G‑d capable of setting a table in the desert?” It is in reference to those people that it is said, “as you tested Him at Massah.”
But when a person tests his own worth to G‑d, to know whether he is fit for a wondrous sign or not, as Gideon asked, “I will test just this time with the fleece.” or as Hezekiah asked, or others like them—this is permissible.
We have a tradition that compromises the text in some way. In this case, we must reinterpret the text to fit the authentic tradition.
For example, we have been told that corporal punishment consists of no more than thirty-nine lashes. Yet the verse says, “You shall strike him forty lashes.”
In this case, we understand that the verse really means thirty-nine, only that it has rounded off the number—just as it has done in another verse: “As the number of days that you toured the land, which were forty days, so you will wander one year for each day, forty years . . .”—even though there were only thirty-nine, since the first year was not included in that punishment.
4. Rav Kook, Lenevuchei HaDor 5
And even if we were to further interpret allegorically regarding the order of the creation of the man, his placement in the Garden of Eden, his naming [of the animals], the fashioning of the rib [to create the woman], there's nothing that contradicts the foundations of the Torah, if the intention is that after man became close to the level of human recognition, and his emotions started developing in a pleasant way towards goodness and morality, as well as beauty and pleasantness, he would find the land a Garden of Eden [lit. refinement] in front of him, and from his own nature and his own internal sensitivity he would have recognition of a relationship between himself and his Creator. ... Therefore, immediately, in an awakening of the relationship between himself and his Creator who was guiding him on the good path, this was the word of God that was revealed to him, (Genesis 2:16) “From all the trees of the garden you can surely eat,” except from one tree, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, that he recognized through his natural recognition that in it was the power to increase the storm of his desires, to depart from his natural tranquility. From that would come the stumbling block that he would no longer trust in the tranquility as a guide for the straight path. Instead, he would evaluate if evil is perhaps not evil, and he would only depart from evil when it becomes clear to him emotionally and intellectually that it really is evil…. And it doesn't matter if we paint the snake as completely figurative, and, in the same way, the Tree of Knowledge as the emergence of a tendency to go out of this state of tranquility and simplistic refinement...
4. Shadal Genesis 1:1
The enlightened ones will understand that the intent of the Torah is not to inform about the natural sciences; and that the Torah was not given except to straighten the ways of man to righteousness and justice, and to establish in their hearts the belief in [His] unity and providence, since the Torah was not only given to sages but [rather] to the whole people. And just like the matter of providence and reward is not explained (and it would not have been fitting that it be explained) in a philosophical manner, but the Torah [rather] spoke about it like the language of [ordinary] people ([as in] "the anger of the Lord will flare against you" [Deuteronomy 7:4]; "and it grieved His heart [Genesis 6:6]; and there are many [other examples] like this); so too, the matter of creation is not told (and it is not fitting that it would be told) in the Torah in a philosophical manner. And it is as the Rabbis, of blessed memory, have stated (Midrash HaGadol, Genesis 1:1), "To tell the power of the story of creation to flesh and blood is not possible." Hence it is not fitting for the follower of Torah to uproot the verses from their understanding in order to make them agree with the natural sciences. It is also not fitting for the scientist to deny that the Torah is divine (min hashamayim) if he finds things in its stories that don't agree with natural science. But it is fitting for this one and that one, that they contemplate the inner workings of human hearts and the ways of wisdom that is used by nature in speaking to the heart of every individual: to the youth according to his manner and to the young man in a different manner and to the old man in a different manner [still]; to the strong in a particular manner and to the weak in a particular manner; to the rich man in one manner and to the poor man in another manner; and so [too] with all groups of men, nature speaks to their hearts in a specific way that is fitting to the people of that group. And nature does not reveal the pristine truth - without any mask or cover - to any one of these groups. And so [too] the Giver of the Torah, may He be blessed, (since the God that created nature and the God that gave us the Torah is one God.) in his speaking with people was required to speak according to their levels, and not according to His level, may He be blessed. And behold, God wanted to inform people of the unity of the [universe] and the unity of mankind; since error in both of these matters caused great evils in ancient times: from the lack of awareness of the unity of the [universe], it came out that people would believe in the existence of specific gods, with defects and inferior character traits; and they would do evil acts in order to please [these gods] (see what I have written in Parshat Yitro on the verse, "There shall not be for you" [Exodus 20:3]). And from the lack of awareness of the unity of mankind, it came out that the people of one nation would hate and revile the people of another nation and they would act towards them with the force of arms, and not with justice and righteousness. And these two fundamental principles (the unity of the [universe] and the unity of mankind) are the main point of the stories of the creation saga; and details of the book also include other intentions, as will be explained.
Shadal, Genesis 3:24
והנה בענין הספור הזה כולו, כול משכיל יראה כמה הוא מגונה ומתנגד לשלמות הבורא שיהיה מעשה ידיו מתקלקל לשעתו, ונהפך לאיש אחר ממה שהיה בדעתו שיהיה, עד שמיד אחר שבראו יצטרך לקללו קללת עולם, ולגרשו מן המקום אשר הכין למושב לו; אשר על כן גדולי החכמים פירשו הספור הזה דרך משל וחידה רומז לענינים אתרים מעניני חכמה ופילוסופיאה, וזה אמנם בלי שיכחישו אמיתת הספור כמשמעו, וז"ל בעל העקרים (מאמר ג' פרק כ"א): אף אם נמצאו בתורה דברים רבים, הסכימו בהם כל החכמים היותם רומזים לענינים נכבדים עליונים, וענינים שכליים, כספור גן עדן והארבעה נהרות וזולתם, לא בעבור זה הכחישו מציאותם ושלא יהיו כפשטן, עכ"ל, אפס כי החכמים ההם פירשו הענין רמז לענינים פילוסופיים אשר מלבד שאינם אמת בעצמם, אין בידיעתם שום תועלת לרוב בני אדם, ולפי זה לא יובן כלל למה רצה ה' שיהיה כל המאורע הזה, ולמה הביא על יציר כפיו קללה כיום הזה, אם לא היתה הכוונה אלא לרמוז ע"י זה לארבעת היסודות ולכוחות נפש האדם, וכיוצא בזה.
