11 Nov RABBI SACKS ON READING CHUMASH FAITHFULLY

I. Rabbi Sacks’
Focus on Chumash
Rabbi Jonathan
Sacks, whose fifth
yahrtzeit was this past
week, focused much
of his teachings on
the Chumash, the Five
Books of Moses. His analyses vary widely in
style, ranging from close readings of single
verses to sweeping literary and theological
themes. By changing his commentarial styles,
Rabbi Sacks taught readers many different
approaches to studying Chumash in the most
practical way—by doing it. Reading Rabbi
Sacks’ essays on the weekly Torah portion or
his books on contemporary topics serve as a
lesson in the many ways to engage with the
sacred text.
It is interesting that Rabbi Sacks’ earlier
writings are replete with references to later
scholars, Acharonim, and halachic debates
while his later work pivots toward biblical
interpretation. Presumably, he made this
change strategically in order to reach a broad
section of Jews and gentiles for whom this
material is familiar, or at least should be. He
taught the text most appropriate for beginners
but in a sophisticated way that would attract
and engage thoughtful readers.
And yet, Rabbi Sacks did not seem to

address the central methodological question
regarding the Chumash. As a highly educated
scholar talking to the public at large, he
would be expected to explain his underlying
methodology and why it differs from the
standard in academia. As an Orthodox rabbi,

Rabbi Sacks rejected any form of historical-
critical approach that claims the text was

written by human authors. Rather than object
to the approach that is standard in most of the
world, Rabbi Sacks ignored it. Instead, he
consistently taught from a traditional Jewish
perspective that implicitly rejects what we
colloquially call biblical criticism. Instead of
explaining his assumptions, he demonstrated
them at great length over many years.
To my knowledge, there is one exception
to this understated dismissal of biblical
criticism. In a 1989 article, Fundamentalism
Reconsidered, Rabbi Sacks explains some of
his methodological approach to the Chumash.
I would like to explore it here and expand a
bit on his intriguing comments.
II. Fundamentalism, Literalism and the
Sages’ Focus
The essay begins with Rabbi Sacks exploring
the history and meaning of the term
fundamentalist. While important at the time,
the issue now seems quite dated. He proceeds
to define Orthodox belief: “Orthodoxy
involves belief in a proposition… that the

Five Books of Moses are the unmediated
word of God.” Rabbi Sacks contrasts that
with the dominant belief in the Conservative
movement, that the text was composed by
human authors. He criticizes this middle view
between secularism and Orthodoxy. How can
there be faith without revelation? He shows
the incoherence of such a view in ways that
would be too much of a digression to discuss
here.
Rabbi Sacks then discusses literalism and the
Chumash, pointing out that Jewish tradition
does not express concern with the factual
accuracy of the sacred text. Certainly, there
are commentators who read non-literally
anthropomorphic terminology and any
statement contrary to established science.
Even more than that, you see very little
concern among the sages for the historical
accuracy of the text. Rabbi Sacks writes,
“When the sages ask, ‘Why was this book
written?’ or ‘Why was this passage placed
next to that?’ rarely indeed do they answer:
because that is how things happened. Their
normal mode of answer begins with the
words, ‘To teach you that…’”
Rabbi Sacks is not saying that the sages
did not believe the stories in the Chumash
actually happened. Rather, he is saying that
this was not their focus in studying the text.
Their concern lay in the practical implications
of the text, the halachic and ethical
assumptions and teachings. He notes that
focusing on the history in the text “would
have… missed the point of the narrative and
misconstrued its genre. Torah, as the Torah
itself so often insists, is not an assemblage
of facts: It is a set of rules and models of
how Israel should live and be blessed.”
But does this matter? If they believed that
the text is literally true while focusing on
other aspects, how does that move them out
of the literalist camp? Rabbi Sacks is making
an important point when he discusses focus.
He is not trying to deny that Orthodox Jews
believe that the Chumash is factually and

historically true, albeit with some non-
literal statements, as mentioned above.

Rabbi Sacks is saying that the purpose
of the Chumash is not to teach history or
science and we would be mistaken to read it
as a history or science textbook.
IV. Reading Covenantally: The Chumash
as Eternal Heritage
Rabbi Sacks then goes on the offensive.
The Chumash explicitly tells us its purpose.
“Moshe commanded us the Torah as the
heritage of the congregation of Ya’akov”
(Deut. 33:4). The Chumash is a command
for all generations, a heritage that applies
even to us thousands of years later. The
Chumash tells us to read it as an eternally
relevant guide to life. You read the
Chumash authentically when you read it
“covenantally.”
Academics read the Chumash historically,
asking what the text meant in the context
of its time. Rabbi Sacks urges us to

read covenantally, asking what the text
means today. He explains, “To read Torah
covenantally is to hear the voice of God Who
is above time and space addressing me in my
full existential singularity. It is to enter into
its words, not as they were addressed to the
wilderness generation, but to me, here, now.”
Rabbi Sacks’ approach leaves unanswered
a very important question: what do we do
with all the questions and challenges posed
by biblical criticism? I believe his implicit
answer is that we begin with the assumption
that the text constitutes the unmediated word
of God. Reading the Torah covenantally
means assuming that the text is accurate
and authentic, and then incorporating all
data within that assumption. An academic
assumes that the text was composed by
humans and interprets any repetitions or
anomalies within that intellectual framework.
A covenantal reader assumes that the text is
divinely written and interprets the same facts
within this traditional intellectual framework.
Are there repetitions and anomalies? A
covenantal reader asks what halachic or
ethical lesson they teach us.
Rabbi Sacks strongly implies that when he
writes, “To read Torah covenantally is to do
so as part of the historic community of Israel,
the “congregation of Jacob” whose heritage
it is. It is to hear its words filtered through
the tradition of interpretation accepted as
authoritative by the community of faith.”
A covenantal reader studies the Chumash
within the traditions in which the text was
received and accepted throughout Jewish
history. Any questions posed are analyzed
through the lens of a divinely composed text
and answered within the Jewish commentarial
traditions. The focus is on the text’s lessons
while accepting its historical truth. A faithful
reader takes to heart the text’s statement that
the Chumash was given to be our heritage,
eternally relevant and meaningful in every
generation.