History, Philology, & FOOLology

Originally published 6/8/07, 10:28 AM, Eastern Daylight Time

A Rabbinical Colleague of mine - let's call him Rabbi Philo - posited based upon philology:

Emunath Chachamim is the Emunah possessed BY Chachamim
NOT faith IN the Chchamim!

I counter that this means the following: according to the logic above:

1. Yi'rat hashem is the FEAR posssessed by God for something else (implicit heresy)
2. Bedikat Hametz is the inspection conducted BY the Hametz itself
3. Beth Hamidkash is a house OWNED by the Sanctuary
4. etc.

I did a reality check. I consulting 18 separate sources starting from Mahzor Vitry and forward, as to how to parse the meaning of this phrase.  R. Philip Birnbaum was the only dissenting voice. He translated "Emunath Chachamim" as "intellectual honesty."

Nevertheless, I do see my R. Philo's point. Hassidim and other Chareidim have unfortunately transformed Emunath Chachomim into worship of Sages instead of simply "trusting the Sages".

That said, I don't see how  his philology is accurate. Were his peshat accurate, the phrase should be "Emunatan shel Chachamim," the Faith possessed by the Sages. I consider this not Philology but FOOLology.

However, the bigger question lingers. How can one reject 800 years of commentary and go back and give a revisionist spin on a classic text? Is this within the parameters and boundaries of P'Sak as outline in the previous post?

Is it legitimate to go back and spin the meaning in order to drive even a VALID modern Agenda?