peshat

''Peshat'' (also ''P'shat'', ) is one of the two classic methods of Jewish biblical exegesis, the other being Derash. While ''Peshat'' is commonly defined as referring to the surface or literal (direct) meaning of a text,Goldin, S. (2007). Unlocking the Torah Text: Bereishit. Gefen Publishing. numerous scholars and rabbis have debated this for centuries, giving ''Peshat'' many uses and definitions.Garfinkel, Stephen. "Clearing Peshat and Derash." Hebrew Bible/Old Testament - The History of Its Interpretation. Comp. Chris Brekelmans and Menahem Haran. Ed. Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. 130-34. Print.

Definitions

''Peshat'' is most often defined as "straight," in reference to its tendency to describe the meaning of the text apparent at face value, taking into account idiomatic expressions, and focusing mostly on literal interpretation. It is often considered the most straightforward method for reading and understanding of biblical text. In this way, ''Peshat'' differentiates itself from the other methods present in ''Pardes'' - Remez, Drash and Sod, which look at what may be hidden in the text.

Linguistically, the term ''Peshat'' finds its root in the Biblical Hebrew term meaning "to flatten out," or "to extend." In the Talmudic Era, this definition was expanded to mean "to propound."Rabinowitz, Louis. "The Talmudic Meaning of Peshat." Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought 6.1 (1963). Web. Often when defining ''Peshat'', a quote from the Shabbat tractate of Talmud is referenced, stating "אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו," or, "a text cannot be taken from the meaning of its peshat." Some have used the Talmudic definition of ''Peshat'' to widen its overall definition, stating that the ''Peshat'' interpretation of a particular passage is "the teaching recognized by the public as obviously authoritative, since familiar and traditional," or "the usual accepted traditional meaning as it was generally taught." Based on the definitions provided by Talmud, it may be inferred that ''Peshat'' is solely a literal exegetical method. Others, though, have attributed this line of thought to the work of Rashi, and that he strictly defined ''Peshat'' and ''Drash'' years later - often his definitions have been used to redact the meaning of ''Peshat'' within its Talmudic usage.

Another linguistic curiosity can be seen in the difference between ''Peshat'' and the Hebrew verb ''Lamad'' (למד), meaning "to study." ''Peshat'' can be interpreted to mean a thorough and intensive learning of a text, rather than just a surface reading signified by Lamad. In this understanding of ''Peshat'', the idea that it is only the literal meaning of a text is incorrect. Rather, ''Peshat'' would refer to what can be extracted from intensive study, while still maintaining the importance of the literal meaning of the text. Therefore, a slightly different definition of ''Peshat'' can be formed, specifically that ''Peshat'' should refer to the meaning of a text as was commonly taught and accepted, including, but not limited to, a literal interpretation.Angel, Rabbi Hayyim. "From Black Fire to White Fire: Conversations about Religious Tanakh Methodology." The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. 4 Sept. 2008. Web.

Definitions of ''Peshat'' also note the importance of context, both historical and literary. This is in contrast to ''Drash'', which will often take the text of a verse out of its context, for uses beyond the context such as ritual or moral purposes. However, this does not mean that ''Peshat'' and ''Drash'' are fully opposing methods. In fact, one may often be used in helping to explain the other, in finding and defining nuances in text that might be otherwise inexplicable without application of both methods.

Rabbinic views and usage

Abraham Ibn Ezra is quoted in his writings as saying that the rabbis of the Talmud were well-versed in ''Peshat'', having built their Midrashic exegeses on it: "They he talmudic rabbisknew peshat better than all the generations that came after them."Lockshin, Martin I. "Lonely Man of Peshat." Jewish Quarterly Review 99.2 (2009): 291-300. Print. In contrast, Rashbam, felt that the early rabbis were not knowledgeable in ''Peshat'', and instead used other strategies. Consequently, these rabbis were led to opposing conclusions of the rabbis' halachic exegesis: Rashbam understood this as a separate type of exegesis from ''Peshat'', while Ibn Ezra felt that the only proper exegesis would lead to his own conclusions, and therefore disregarded the midrashim of the Talmudic rabbis as exegesis altogether. Regardless of these differences in opinion in reference to the rabbis of the Talmud, both Ibn Ezra and Rashbam favored and promoted ''Peshat'' as a superior alternative to Midrashic methods.

One of Rashbam's students, Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency, is noted as completely removing ''Drash'' from his exegetical strategies, relying solely on ''Peshat''. In comparison to Rashbam's tendency to explain how his views would contrast with those of talmudic rabbis, Rabbi Eliezer is not compelled to do so, feeling that ''Peshat'' is the only proper way to look at text.Berger, Yitzhak. "The Contextual Exegesis of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency and the Climax of the Northern French Peshat Tradition." Jewish Studies Quarterly 15.2 (2008): 115-29. Print. As ''Peshat's'' methods rely often on the importance of context, Rabbi Eliezer's commentaries are known for their tendency to focus on the context of a given verse or text. His commentaries are integrated with text, rather than sitting separate from them, and he insists on ensuring that no verse loses its context during his discussions, in comparison to other methods, such as the "verse-by-verse approach of Rashi"

David Kimhi (Radak) was also known for his ability in ''Peshat'', and was influenced both by Ibn Ezra and Rashi. While Kimhi preferred ''Peshat'' methods over Derash, the influence of Rashi can be seen in some of his commentaries, in the inclusion of midrashic citations.Berger, Yitzhak. "Peshat and the Authority of Ḥazal in the Commentaries of Radak." Association for Jewish Studies Review 31.1 (2007): 41-59. Print. Additionally, Kimhi lived among many famed proponents of Derash, such as Rabbi Moses the Preacher, who "undoubtedly had a substantial impact on Radak." Kimhi tended to go out of his way to reject the views of the rabbis of the Talmud often, which has led to the theory that, although disagreeing with them, Kimhi fully acknowledged the tradition and authority of the talmud rabbis. In his commentaries, Kimhi labels his interpretation as ''Peshat'', and that of the talmudic rabbis as Derash, creating a strict divide between the two in his writings.

A student of Saadiah Gaon is recorded as saying: "This is the sign by which you should know which comments well and which comments badly: Any commentator who first comments with ''peshuto shel mikra'' in concise language, and afterwards brings some of our rabbis' ''midrash'', this is a good commentary, and the reverse is crude ommentary

The modern approach of " Tanach at Eye Level" or " תנ"ך בגובה העיניים" led by Rabbi Yaakov Medan and Rabbi Dr. Yoel Bin-Nun, and promoted by many of the rabbis and alumni of Yeshivat Har Etzion is an approach to studying Tanach

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases