So your A/X scheme (parables below), was merely a device to express known ambiguity through multiple levels of meaning (PaRDeS)? Then I misunderstood you, and it's unclear why bring it up here. Most of our argument is about identifying pshat/pshat ambiguities.
Scripture is for everyone, hence, of necessity, intended ambiguities. Since i.f. detected :), I'd better ask you to elaborate of necessity.
kindergarten verbal or syntax games (Same as here.) It is the Scripture, after all. Perhaps you're aiming at me, but you're hitting Them, and their use of apparent simplicity; I marvel at their literary ingenuity.
The intended audience of the Talmud is students of the Talmud elitist view (in whatever form) is erroneous How do you reconcile these views?
With respect to Talmud, you're describing current approach to studying Talmud. To put it a bit differently, you're idealizing (imho, not in a good way) Talmud at the expense of the real one. I used to look at it very similar, I no longer do; Chagiga 10 was helpful in that sense.
no subject
Scripture is for everyone, hence, of necessity, intended ambiguities.
Since i.f. detected :), I'd better ask you to elaborate of necessity.
kindergarten verbal or syntax games
(Same as here.) It is the Scripture, after all. Perhaps you're aiming at me, but you're hitting Them, and their use of apparent simplicity; I marvel at their literary ingenuity.
The intended audience of the Talmud is students of the Talmud
elitist view (in whatever form) is erroneous
How do you reconcile these views?
With respect to Talmud, you're describing current approach to studying Talmud. To put it a bit differently, you're idealizing (imho, not in a good way) Talmud at the expense of the real one. I used to look at it very similar, I no longer do; Chagiga 10 was helpful in that sense.