The PaRDeS of Peshat

Over time, it has grown on me that the following meforshim adopt four different models in harmonizing (purely text based) peshat with traditional (read: Chazal's) interpretations and notion of peshat

Derash — Rashi typically selects midrashic statements that hew close to the plain meaning of the pesukim and deploys them as peshat. When that is unavailable or he will proffer an explanation in accordance with peshuto shel mikra. He will not explicate a verse in a way that contravenes the halacha. (The "Derash" designation is due to Rashi ostensibly being of the opinion that Chazals statements—at least the ones that he selects —represent peshat)

Peshat — Rashbam interprets according to what he considers the straightforward and unadorned reading (omek hapeshat). He doesn't make any effort to have it cohere with Chazals explanations. He seems to posit the existence of two disparate tracts, peshat on the one hand, and the accepted rabbinic tradition on the other, which is based off of allusions within the text, with the latter being the "ikkar". His handy innovation affords him the luxury of explicating according to his understanding of peshat without having the external pressure of the mesorah impacting it. (I termed this approach "Peshat" as it seems that Rashbam believes that Chazal were really on board with these two tracts, their heavy emphasis of derash notwithstanding)

Sod — Ibn Ezra also explains according to his understanding of peshat. However, unaccepting of Rashbam's dualism, he holds that the peshat must indeed conform with the halacha. He will therefore submissively accept Chazals interpretation as peshat against his own judgement or karaite readings that seem closer to peshat when they conflict with the accepted halacha. Occassionally he will offer explanations that do not align with the mesorah, not mentioning the conflict. Perhaps he was unaware of the tradition in those cases as he wasn't necessarily the most accomplished talmudist (per Maharshal). (I allocated the "Sod" designation to this view in the sense that adopting Chazal's reading seems difficult to fathom as a true rendering of peshat which is what it ostensibly represents according to ibn Ezra.)

Remez — Rambam is also a peshatist. He makes use of original non talmudic sources that cohere better with peshat arriving at the same place as Chazal. (I termed this "Remez" as their "peshat" is merely symbolic.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more