According to the Ibn Ezra, the Torah can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and throughout his commentary, there are many instances where he rejects an interpretation that represents derash. In addition, Ramban was more consistent than any other commentator in distinguishing between peshat and derash.
According to the Ibn Ezra, the Torah can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and throughout his commentary there are many instances where he rejects an interpretation that represents derash. Sometimes Ibn Ezra draws a distinction between details that appear in a midrash as part of a conceptual or symbolic idea, and details that have their source in historical tradition and are therefore binding even where they do not match the plain meaning of the text. Sometimes, Ibn Ezra expresses his reservations with regard to an interpretation that represents derash, but declares that if this is an accepted tradition, he withdraws his reservation.
The Ramban was more consistent than any other commentator in distinguishing between peshat and derash, usually by stating, "al derekh ha-peshat…" - an expression that he uses some 160 times. In the vast majority of cases Ramban cites the peshat interpretation as an alternative to the midrash. Ramban endeavors to explain the midrashic interpretation in such a way as to reconcile it with the text. Like Rashi and Rashbam, he does not regard derash as a form of exegesis that is not intended to match the text. At the same time, Ramban tries to explain the verses on the level of peshat, even where he is able to reconcile the midrashic teaching.
This post is based on an article, To read the full article>>
Edited by the HaTanakh Site team