Peshat and Drash

נמצאו 38 תוצאות חיפוש

1. The Law of Piggul: The Plain Meaning and the Halakhic Midrash

   Rabbi Amnon Bazak

   Chazal's interpretation of the law of Piggul differs from the biblical text. This lesson will explain Chazal's authority to contradict the Torah, in order to emphasize the spiritual significance of korbanot over the physical.

2. The Prohibition of Erasing the Name of God

   Parashat Re'eh

   Rabbi Yehuda Rock

   In Parashat Re'eh we are commanded to abolish idolatry from the Land of Israel, and on the flip side - to avoid destroying altars built for God. Practically, the Torah teaches us not to destroy holy artifacts used for worship in the Temple; but on a spiritual plane we learn a lesson of spreading the name of God throughout the world, and glorifying God's name.

3. "You Shall Cut Off Her Hand" and "An Eye for an Eye"

   Rabbi Yehuda Rock

   "An eye for an eye" is a blatant example of the gap between the written and oral Torah. The gap might be viewed as an expression of two complementary divine attributes - rahamim and din. The differences express the desire for justice for one who was injured, as well as the desire to educate the injurer.

4. Pshat and Drash in the Law of Lashes

   Rabbi Amnon Bazak | 12 דקות

   In a number of cases of crime and punishment, the Oral Law seems to contradict the literal, plain meaning of the text. This shiur focuses on three cases dealing with lashes, whose literal law differs from Oral Law. What accounts for the discrepancies? Chazal seek to apply the Torah's law fully while also protecting human dignity.

5. Literal and Exegetical Understandings of the Law of Lashes

   Rabbi Amnon Bazak

   The lashes is the focal point of a discussion regarding the difference between Peshat and Derash. According to the text - one who sins receives lashes, and the number of lashes is left to the discretion of the judicial system, as long as they do not exceed forty. Halakhah, however, limited lashes to sins against God, and limited the number of lashes to 39. The changes preserve the honor of one who receives lashed, and prevents even accidental damage.

6. A Test of Faith

   Rabbi Alex Israel

   Despite Eliyahu's response to the events in the aftermath of the showdown on Mt. Carmel, the evidence of the next few chapters would seem to show that the prophets of Ba’al do not return. Instead, prophets of God - many of them false prophets - have a fixed presence in the royal court which attests to the success of Eiyahu. When Aram lays seige on Shomron, Ahav is prepared to be a vassal state, but refuses a complete capitulation. Whether it is national pride that drives Achav, according to the Pshat, or a religious pride in protecting the Sefer Torah, according to the Midrash, God comes to Ahav's aid and sends him the tools for a miraculous victory.

7. Peshat and Midrash Halakha

   Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin

   תאריך פרסום: תשע"ד | | שעה

   What are students of “pshat” (the “simple” reading of Tanakh) to do when one’s “pshat” reading of the Torah contradicts the “reading” of halakha? With examples from Parashat Emor and elsewhere, we explore the nature of pshat, and truth. We consider the potential for multiple levels of meaning. We find different views of the commentators on these issues, and various attempts of commentators to deal with the problem of halakha contradicting the “pshat.” 

8. The Book of Yehezkel

   Introduction

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   The Book of Yehezkel covers a fateful period of some 22 years in the history of the Jewish People: beginning with year five of the exile of King Yehoyakhin and ending fifteen years after the Destruction of the First Temple. As opposed to other prophets, Yehezkel's prophecies are conveyed in Babylon and grapple with the contemporaneous crisis from a Diaspora vantage point.

   The purpose of Yehezkel's prophecies – in the years preceding the Destruction – was to inform the people that God had departed from His Temple in Jerusalem. He therefore describes in detail the Divine chariot and the journeys of God's glory outside the Temple.

   Yehezkel presents the view of the "inhabitants of Jerusalem," who say that the exiles have distanced themselves from God and from His Land, and that they are not counted among the inheritors of the land and those close to God. God's response, however, conveyed through the prophet, is that while those taken in captivity are currently in exile, God is with them there, as a "miniature Temple". For the first time, the prophet affirms the Jewish identity of the exiles: they remain part of God’s nation, even though the Jews still living in their homeland have a different view, and maintain that God's place is still in the Temple in their midst.

   Both groups, the inhabitants in the land and those exiled to Babylonia, despite their differences, have this in common: neither changed its behavior during these years. Thus, Yehezkel's prophetic mission during these years was not to call upon the people to mend their ways and repent, but rather to explain the significance of the events in Jerusalem, and thereby to prepare the ground for the prophecies of rebuilding which came after the Destruction, as well as the vision of the future Temple.

9. The Methodology of the Ibn Ezra: Between Traditionalism and Rationalism

   Rabbi Alex Israel | שעה

   This shiur explores Ibn Ezra's exegetical methodology. By closely examining his commentary, we notice that Ibn Ezra can be viewed as both a traditional and also radical commentator. These differences are highlighted particularly as we look at the differences in his approach to narrative verses law. On one hand, he is famous for adopting a heavily textual and grammatical interpretation, and has a strong allegiance to the text of the Torah. However, when it comes to law, Ibn Ezra stresses the importance of the Oral Law and the rabbinic teachings, even to the point of rejecting rational grammatical texts. 

10. Literal and Exegetical Understandings of the Law of Lashes [audio]

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak | 13 דקות

    The law of lashes is the focal point of a discussion regarding the difference between Peshat and Derash. According to the text - one who sins receives lashes, and the number of lashes is left to the discretion of the judicial system, as long as they do not exceed forty. Halakha, however, limited lashes to sins against God, and limited the number of lashes to 39. The changes preserve the honor of one who receives lashed, and prevents even accidental damage.

11. Midrash and Peshat - Why Was Yitzhak Blind?

    Rabbi Ezra Bick | 58 דקות

    Why did Yitzhak love Esav more than Yaakov? Many midrashim grapple with this question, attempting to understand Yitzhak's reasoning behind his favoritism. Through a close examination of a number of these midrashim, we can try to understand the deeper meaning of each midrash and what it reveals about the spiritual psychology of Yitzhak. 

12. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 1 - Introduction and the Attitude of the Geonim to Midrash

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    What are the definitions of Peshat are Derash? Which of the two is the central way of interpreting the Torah? What was the attitude of the Geonim to Midrash?

13. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 2 - Peshat Commentators in France - Rashi and Rav Yosef Kara

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Rashi often incorporates midrashim in his biblical commentary. He was the first commentator to draw a clear distinction between commentary on the level of peshat, and teachings on the level of derash. Rashi represented a turning point: he awarded extensive attention to the plain meaning of the text in his commentaries on Tanakh. However, Rashi himself was aware that his exegesis was not the "last word" in the realm of peshat; he acknowledged that if he had time he should indeed compose new commentaries

     

14. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 3 - Peshat Commentators in France - Rashbam

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Both Rashbam and R. Yosef Kara base their opinions on the teaching of Chazal that “the text never departs from its plain meaning,” but they understand this statement in different ways. According to R. Yosef Kara, it is a testament to the superiority of peshat over derash, while according to Rashbam it is simply a stamp of legitimacy granted to study of the peshat. In addition, while R. Yosef Kara regards the derash as separate from the text, according to Rashbam it represents a central level of the text itself in keeping with the principle of polysemy established by Rashi, his grandfather. In any event, both commentators share a fundamental approach that draws a distinction between peshat and derash, and views the study of peshat as a legitimate realm of study in its own right.

15. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 4 - Peshat Commentators in Spain and in Provence - Ibn Ezra and Ramban

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    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.

     

16. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 5 - Peshat Commentators in Spain and in Provence - Radak

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Radak, the greatest of the Provencal commentators, cites many midrashim, however, he too notes the need to draw a distinction between peshat and derash, and rejects midrashic interpretations that do not match the plain meaning of the text.

17. Peshat and Derash – Midrash Aggada

    Part 6 - The Rambam and his son, Rabbi Avraham

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    Rabbi Avraham, son of the Rambam, in the footsteps of his father, joins the prevailing spirit of the medieval commentators in explaining the text in accordance with its plain meaning, maintaining a clear separation between peshat and derash. He divides midrashim into five categories, maintaining that most belong to the category of lyrical or metaphorical interpretation of verses. He emphasizes that those midrashei Chazal which do not pertain to principles of faith or to matters of halakha, are not to be regarded as binding tradition that must be accepted. He draws a distinction between those midrashim that flow from reasoned consideration of the verse, and those whose intention is not to explain the meaning of the verse but rather to use it as a springboard to teach a different lesson. Concerning midrashim – whose interpretation of verses are 'logical suggestions' – Rabbi Avraham emphasizes that the teachings are not to be considered as binding, received tradition.

18. Shmuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) as a Bible Commentator

    Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin |

    In this class, we will examine the unique approach of Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzato) in his Bible commentary. We will look at different texts that highlight interesting features in his commentary to them. He does not hold back from interpreting the pshat (plain meaning of the text) in a way that contradicts traditional Rabbinic interpretations. Occasionally, he strongly voices his opposition to Rambam (Maimonides) and the apparent influence of Greek philosophers such as Aristotle on Rambam’s comments. Luzzato’s comments also reveal ideas about equality, sexual ethics, and the conviction that the purpose of the Torah(including mitzvoth such as Loving God, is not philosophy, but action: for furthering the goal of doing and spreading justice and righteousness.

19. The "Ascending and Descending" Offering

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    At the beginning of chapter 5 in Parshat Vayikra, the Torah discusses specific sins that are subject to the law of what Chazal refer to as the "ascending and descending offering" (korban oleh ve-yored). In these cases, the Torah takes into consideration the financial situation of the sinner and determines his obligation accordingly. 

    What are the circumstance of the sins for which the Torah permits a poor person to bring a more modest offering, a situation which has no parallel in the case of other transgressions? According to the simple meaning of the text, this provision applies in three cases, all set forth in the first four verses of chapter 5.

    What is so special about these three particular situations? Why does the Torah provide special consideration for the poor specifically in these instances? In order to answer this question, we must first understand what these cases actually entail. This is not a simple task, since the interpretation of these verses generally accepted among Chazal does not, for the most part, follow the simple meaning of the text. We shall therefore first attempt to understand the simple level of the text, and afterwards try to understand why the Torah shows special consideration here.

20. Rashi

    Part 1

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    It is impossible to exaggerate Rashi’s importance in shaping the worldview of the Jewish People; it may be said that after Tanakh and Talmud, Rashi’s commentaries are next in line in terms of their influence. Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is the point of departure and the foundation of many of the biblical commentators who come after him.

    While the character of Rashi’s parshanut on Tanakh was oriented towards peshat, the simple meaning of the text, it was also influenced by the need to contend with Christian claims, at a time when Christian scholars of that faith were attempting to wrestle with biblical passages on the basis of peshat. We may also find polemical content in Rashi’s commentary as he contends with Christian biblical exegesis.

    Rashi sees himself, above all, as a champion of peshat, However, Rashi adds that in his commentary he will integrate certain midrashim which are harmonious with the syntactic structure of the verse, only if the additional details which are found in the midrashim dovetail with the context and sequence of the verses.

21. Rashi

    Part 2

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Rashi’s commentary is composed, for the most part, of adapted midrashim. What motivates Rashi to turn to midrashim that apparently do not explicate the peshat?

    • A difficulty in the verses that has no reconciliation with the peshat.

    • The Torah does not speak in the human vernacular. Rashi adopts R. Akiva’s approach, according to which every word has meaning and significance. Therefore, one should be precise with biblical language, and even when the reader has no difficulty understanding the verses, one may derive information from some extraneous element in the text.
    • Maintaining the internal logic and sequence of the text by filling in lacunae.
    • When the verse and its midrash constitute excellent opportunities to transmit a spiritual or ethical message, Rashi cites the midrash even though there is no exegetical need for it.

22. Rav Yosef Kara

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Mahari Kara, an apparent student of Rashi, maintained both a loyalty to and at the same time a strong independence of Rashi.

    Mahari Kara’s exegetical principals include:

    • Loyalty to the peshat, much more so than Rashi, feeling no obligation to cite any derash at all. In this, his commentary may be considered trailblazing. 
    • A great sensitivity to literary technique and style including lashon nofel al lashon, alliteration, paronomasia, rhythm and meter, literary structure, and connective associations.
    • He delineates exegetical principles that may be applied elsewhere in Tanakh including pre-emption and parallelism.  

     

    Mahari Kara makes two basic assumptions about peshat and derash:

    • Even the Sages, who wrote the midrashim, believed that peshat is the essence.  The aim of derash is only for ethical purposes, and not to provide an explanation missing in Tanakh.
    • Tanakh does not require external facts in order to explain it; it cannot be that the verse speaks ambiguously and relies on Midrashic material in order to be understood.

23. Rashbam

    Part 1

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Rashbam displays a great deal of respect towards his grandfather, Rashi, having learnt a great deal from him, but this does not prevent him from arguing on his views. The Rashbam’s commentaries are original and creative; his avoidance of Midrashic material allows him to look at the verse in an innovative, direct way.

    The nature of Rashbam’s commentary makes the following assumptions:

    • The commentaries prior to him, including his grandfather Rashi, might have thought that they were explaining the verses in accordance with the peshat, their commentaries do not express the simple meaning of the verse.
    • The “enlightened” are those who study Tanakh without relying on any Midrashic material.
    • The Rashbam’s pursuit of pure peshat does not take away from his regard for the Sages’ traditions, which are reliable and valid. The data derived from the derash is more important than the data derived from peshat.
    • Nonetheless, the peshat maintains an independent significance.
    • Both the Peshat and the Derash are true readings of the Torah.

    The principles of Peshat according to Rashbam include:

    • Taking into account common sense, logic and nature.
    • A verse must be understood as part of the general context in which it is placed and as being integrated in the sequence of verses in which it is found.
    • The peshat of Tanakh should be understood on its own, without consulting any external information; all data must be either explicit in the text or implicit in human logic or accepted practice.

    Rashbam’s Rules for Understanding the Biblical Lexicon include:

    • Synonyms are used in juxtaposition to each other without alluding to a different meaning to each word.
    • When the Torah introduces a passage with “And it was at that time,” it is an expression which comes to tell us that this event is closely tied to the previous event.

24. Rashbam

    Part 2

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Foreshadowing

    One of the most important ideas that the Rashbam develops is the principle of foreshadowing. According to this principle, when the Torah notes details that appear to be disconnected, extraneous, or anachronistic, it actually provides them in order to explain an event that comes afterwards.

    It is possible to apply the principle of foreshadowing, not only to verses or fragments, but even to larger segments. For example, in the Rashbam’s introduction to Bereishit, he declares that the story of Creation interests us solely because it helps us understand the Ten Commandments.

    From explanations similar to this, it arises that the essence of the Torah is the mitzvot, while the narratives are secondary; the stories appear in order to explain the mitzvot.

    Peshat and Halakha

    In his explanations of the halakhic portion of the Torah, the Rashbam employs the same method which he applies to the narrative portion of the Torah: the explanation of the verses without any reliance on Midrashic literature. This approach is difficult to apply to mitzvot because the binding halakha is not the simple meaning of the verse, but the interpretation of the verses as the Sages explain it. The Rashbam believes that one should adopt the views of the Sages for everything that relates to practical Halakha; however, the interpretation of the peshat and the halakhic midrashim can live under the same roof. What worth does peshat have when it does not fit with Halakha? One possibility is that the peshat reflects the ideal, while the derash deals with the real.

25. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    R. Yosef of Orléans, (northern France) was a 12^th-century exegete who has become known through the generation as Ri Bekhor Shor. He was a Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam, and he was influenced mainly by Rashi’s commentary and the commentaries of Mahari Kara and the Rashbam. Like his predecessors Mahari Kara and Rashbam, he was a member of the peshat school.  It appears that Ri Bekhor Shor forges a path that is a middle way between Rashi and the pursuers of the peshat. These are his major exegetical principles:

    • Ri Bekhor Shor aims to explain the verses without non-biblical information; however, when the derash is appropriate for explaining the peshat and for the general context of verses, or when one may explain it as being in keeping with biblical reality, he will not hesitate to bring a midrash.
    • The Torah does not provide superfluous information. All information provided is in fact essential.
    • Verses should be explained within their specific context, a reverse method to the foreshadowing principle of Rashbam.
    • Verses should be explained based on understanding the state of mind of the human actors.
    • Verses should be explained according to the reality of the biblical era.
    • God directs the world in a natural way as much as possible, and the use made of miracles is the absolute minimum.
    • An expansive and consistent approach to the question of the reasons of mitzvot.
    • In the Peshat vs. Halakha discussion, Ri Bekhor Shor is closer to Rashi’s approach with exception in which he explains the verses according to a Peshat that differs from Halakha.
    • A tendency to counteract Christian interpretations of the Torah.

26. R. Avraham ibn Ezra

    Part 2

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Ibn Ezra describes his commentary as “the book of the straight,” - a reference to following the way of peshat. Ibn Ezra explains the work as a commentary based on the fundamentals of grammar, language, and stylistic sensitivity and conforming to the requirements of logic and reason.

    Ibn Ezra declares that he is not obligated to previous commentaries, referring both to Midrashic sources and the commentaries of his predecessors.  However, in his commentaries to the halakhic part of the Torah, Ibn Ezra sees himself as bound to the Sages’ exegesis.

    Similarly, Ibn Ezra distinguishes between two types of Midrashic sources: tradition and speculation.  The Ibn Ezra feels compelled to accept a tradition but not an interpretation that they concocted of their own accord.

     

    Ibn Ezra formulates a consistent set of linguistic and grammatical rules in his commentary:

    • The formulation of rules which are adequate for all circumstances. For example he explains the word "Na" as always meaning "now".
    • The meaninglessness of trivial changes; the verse uses synonyms frequently, and there need be no justification for interchanging them. Similarly, there is no reason necessary for variations in spelling. This is applied to differences between the Ten Commandments in Shemot vs. Devarim.
    • The verse will often use a word to refer to multiple items, even though it appears in the text only once.
    • The Torah is written generally according to chronological sequence. Despite this, sometimes there are some divergences from chronological sequence.
    • The juxtaposition of the passages in the halakhic sections of the Torah is significant, not a capricious sequence of laws.

27. Radak - Rav David Kimchi

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    The Radak — R. David Kimchi — was born and active in Provence, in southern France, near Spain. The Radak was a member of a family of Spanish grammarians and exegetes. Like R. Avraham ibn Ezra, the Kimchi family brought the fundamentals of linguistics and grammar from Spain to France.

    Despite the fact that Radak sees himself as a pashtan, he does not hesitate to cite derash. However, when the Radak quotes these sources, it is obvious that he has a distinction between peshat and derash.

    Two principles guide the Radak in citing Midrashic sources:

    • When it is difficult to resolve the peshat without the derash.
    • For the lovers of derash - in order to explain the text and engage his readers.

    The view of the Radak is that the Torah is not a historical tome. Those stories of the Patriarchs which have been selected to put into the Torah with all of its details must fulfill one criterion: teaching a moral lesson.

    Just as one may learn from the positive acts of the forefathers, so one may learn from their negative acts. The Radak does not engage in apologetics; instead, he writes explicitly that the narratives which describe the negative acts of the Patriarchs have been written in order to help us avoid this sort of behavior.

    The Radak points out consistently that the Torah often uses repetitious language, not because each word introduces new meaning, but because the verse seeks to stress the significance of a given issue. This view stands in stark contrast to that of Rashi, who argues that generally speaking, one must assign meaning to every word, as there cannot be any redundancy in the biblical text.

28. Eikev: Peshat and Derash of Birkat HaMazon

    Rabbi David Silverberg

29. Nechama Leibowitz's Teachings and Methodology

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    תאריך פרסום: 5777 | | שעה

    Dr. Nehama Leibowitz pioneered the modern scientific discipline of the study of parshanut. Her students who studied with her in person and by mail (through her famous “gilyonot) came from all walks of life. In this shiur, we explore Dr. Nehama Leibowitz’s Tanakh methodology and personality, drawing on her writings and anecdotes. We will examine different aspects of her approach to peshat and derash, structure and meaning, and insights about ethics and human behavior, using varied examples from the Biblical text.

30. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra

    Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin

    תאריך פרסום: 5777 | | שעה

    Beginning with biographical sketches, we compare and contrast, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, two Torah commentators who claim to look for the plain meaning of the text.  Both are interested peshat at a time when others aren’t, but they are two very different people from different contexts and milieus. Their methods and comments can often be remarkably similar, but the differences are telling. We delve into the question of what peshat is. Do they both see "peshat" as the highest value in their Torah commentary, or is something else going on? We will look at some fascinating examples that highlight their respective methodologies.

31. Shmot: If Midrash is Real, Why Isn't It Peshat?

    Rabbi David Fohrman |

    Welcome the book of Exodus! In this video, we explore the strange midrash in which the arm of Pharaoh's daughter stretched through the river to fetch Moses. Why do the Sages tell us such an odd story? Rabbi Fohrman argues that we need to put ourselves into the eyes of Pharaoh's daughter, and help us see that when we want to achieve something, God will help us find a way to do it.

     

     

    If you enjoyed this video, please visit AlephBeta.org to watch more.

32. Rashi on Isaiah 53: Peshat or Theology?

    Professor David Berger | שעה ו- 5 דקות

    The “suffering servant” chapter in Isaiah was the most theologically sensitive biblical passage for Jews in Christian Europe. Rashi strikingly understands the servant as the Jewish people whose suffering atones for the sins of the nations of the world. A common understanding of his motive is his search for an explanation of Jewish tribulations during the First Crusade. Such an explanation, however, would be psychologically unsatisfying, and the possibility that Rashi was motivated primarily by considerations of pshat is greatly enhanced by indirect but compelling evidence that other medieval Jews who disagreed with him provided interpretations that reveal--against their will--that their own deepest instinct pointed to his understanding as the straightforward meaning of the passage. 

33. Biblical Roots of Midrashic Stories-Towards an Understanding of Midrashic Methodology

    Rabbi Moshe Shulman | שעה ו- 6 דקות

    This lecture discusses the relationship between the Biblical text and the midrashic text through an analysis of a number of midrashim. We explore the methodology of midrash and understand its foundations and its intersections with pshat.

     

    Click here for a downloadable audio version of this lecture

34. Mikra: Gateway to Midrash?

    Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom | שעה ו- 10 דקות

    The Midrashic authors of the millenium following the era of the Mishnah, saw the Tanakh not as a document rather as a living testament of ongoing history, including their own post-Biblical world. They undertook a responsibility, both social and pedagogic, to derive lessons, to associate stories and to vivify Biblical characters in their own Byzantine, Sassanian, Islamic and Christian worlds. In this session, we will investigate a sampling of over 20 Midrashic/Aggadic texts to demonstrate this approach and to provide examples of various perspectives of this "ongoing dialogue with Mikra"
    
     

35. Rashi’s Peshat Revolution – Was it an innovation “ex nihilo”?

    Dr. Lisa Fredman | שעה ו- 7 דקות

    Rashi was the first commentator in Northern France/Ashkenaz to write a ongoing Bible commentary that addressed the Peshat. Was this innovative breakthrough original to Rashi or did he cull from earlier sources? If so, which sources? What are the building blocks of his Peshat commentary and why did he feel the need to introduce this new style of Biblical interpretation?

36. Rashi and Rav Yosef Kara

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

37. Ibn Ezra and Ramban

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

38. Rabbi Avraham - son of the Rambam

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak