[Avodah] Distinguishing Peshat from Derash

[Rabbi Y. H. Henkin]

 From my book "Equality Lost," chapter three
[Urim Publications, 1999. -mi
Rabbi Yeuda Henkin

Torah exegesis is traditionally divided into four categories: peshat, remez, derash and sod, forming the acrostic PaRDeS (literally: orchard).

Sod (literally: secret) is mystical or esoteric interpretation. Nothing further will be said here about it, other than that sod employs unfettered metaphor and pure symbolism to link events and personages to Divine forces and historic processes.

Remez (literally: hint) finds oblique references in the text to events often far removed from its immediate time and place. An example of this can be found in my Torah commentary, Chibah Yeteirah: In Bereishit 30:1, Rachel told Yaakov, "Give me children (banim), or else I die." Banim translates as "sons" or "children," in the plural. So, too, when she eventually had a child, "... she called his name Yosef, saying 'May haShem afford me another [or: a different] son' " (v. 24). Apparently, having only one son was insufficient.

 The remez is to the fact that Ephraim and Menasheh, the tribes descended from Yosef, were among the Ten Tribes exiled by Assyria who never returned. If Rachel had had only one son her seed would have been eradicated; her future was secured only through the descendants of her second son, Binyamin.

Derash, aggadic and homiletic exposition, constitutes the main non-legal exegetical activity of the rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash. Contrary to misconception, derash usually relies on some textual reading. An example is the Midrash Rabbah to Bereishit 25:22. On the verse describing Rivkah's pregnancy, "the children struggled together within her" (vayitrotzetzu habanim bekirbah), the Midrash relates: "When Rivkah passed houses of prayer and study, Yaakov struggled to emerge, and when she passed houses of idol worship, Esau ran and struggled to emerge." This has not one but two textual pegs. First, the verb vayitrotretzu contains the root letters resh tzadi which form the word ratz (to run). Second, in the unvocalized Torah bekirbah, ("within her [womb]") can just as easily be read bekarvah ("when she came close"). Came close to what? The Midrash follows. 

Peshat is the "simple" or 'plain" import of the text. The text itself consists of letters, words, sentences, chapters and larger units. Sometimes the meaning of a word or sentence taken alone differs from its meaning in a wider context. In that case, the latter is almost invariably peshat while the former is a source for derash.

There can be more than one peshat in a given passage. Often, the language leaves ample room for different interpretations. For example, in Vayikra 19:17, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart; definitely rebuke your neighbor, and do not bear (velo tisa alav) sin about him," the words tisa alav can mean at least three different things as seen in other texts of the Bible:

1) In Vayikra 22:9, "velo yis'u alav cheit" means that "they should not bear sin because of it [ritual impurity]." Following this usage, the verse in chapter 19 is a warning lest you yourself sin when rebuking your neighbor, e.g. by shaming him publicly.[1]

2) In Devarim 25:49, "Yisa haShem alecha goi mirachok" means that "G-d will

bring a nation from afar upon you." According to this meaning, our verse warns against rebuking your neighbor if by doing so you bring sin upon him, i. e., if thus far he acted out of ignorance, but if rebuked would sin willfully which would be a far greater sin.[2]

3) In II Kings 9:25, "nasa alav et hamasa" means that the prophet "spoke G-d's words about [the fate of Ahab's family]." The verse in Vayikra would thus mean not to attribute sin to your neighbor, that is to say: don't assume he is a willful sinner who can't be changed and that therefore there is no point in talking to him. Don't hate your neighbor in your heart, but instead openly remonstrate with him. 

In addition, the text alone is often insufficient to provide any complete picture of what is going on, particularly in the narrative sections of the Torah. The reason for this is the extreme terseness of the Biblical text: the background to the events, the thoughts of the protaganists and other important information are frequently missing and need to be generated. Both peshat and derash aim to fill these gaps. How can we distinguish between the two types of commentary?

I suggest three criteria for distinguishing between peshat and derash as well as between various degrees of peshat: necessity, economy and plausibility.[3] To illustrate, we may use the midrash concerning Rivkah's pregnancy mentioned above, "When Rivkah would pass houses of prayer and study...." It fails the three criteria: it is unnecessary, in that to explain the Hebrew vayitrotzetzu habanim bekirbah as simply a description of a difficult twin pregnancy leaves no textual difficulty or unanswered question. It lacks economy, in that it introduces new elements, such as houses of prayer and study which are nowhere indicated in the text. Finally, it lacks plausibility: fetuses do not behave that way, in our experience, and there is no reason to suppose that we are dealing with a miracle.

In fact, the midrash is not talking about Yaakov and Esau, Rivkah's children, at all. Talmudic thought rejects the notion that an individual can be an idol-worshipper or a monotheist from his mother's womb.[4] Rather, the political/religious point intended is that the Jewish people from its inception has been God-fearing, while Rome (=Edom=Esau) has been idolatrous.

Notes

1. Erchin 17b. R. Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah 3:72 explains the verse as meaning, rebuke

your neighbor lest his sin be accounted as yours since you could have prevented it. According to this the verse is a Biblical source for areivut, the religious responsibility one has for another. I have suggested that the Talmud does not propose this interpretation because the obligation to rebuke applies even to bad practices such as drunkenness that are not, strictly-speaking, sins; see my Bnei Banim, II, resp. no. 26.

2. This is a Biblical source for the Talmudic dictum "mutav sheyihyu shogegin v'al yihyu mezidin," "better that they should be ignorant sinners than willful ones"; see Bnei Banim, II, no. 27, note, and III, maamar 1.

3. Contrast Yeshayahu Maori's criteria for distinguishing peshat from derash, translated in

Tradition, vol. 21, no. 3 (Fall 1984) p. 41: "1) whether the explanation is logically coherent; 2)

whether it fits the context, and 3) whether it is compatible with the grammar of the language." It is unclear how these criteria would enable the midrash about Rivkah to be classified as derash rather than peshat. 

4. Tractate Berachot 33b, "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven," and many similar statements, and see Rambam, Hilchot Teshuvah, chap. 5.

--

DISTINGUISHING PESHAT FROM DERASH

Torah exegesis is traditionally divided into four categories: peshat, remez, derash and sod, forming the acrostic PaRDeS (literally: orchard).

Sod (literally: secret) is mystical or esoteric interpretation. Nothing further will be said here about it, other than that sod employs unfettered metaphor and pure symbolism to link events and personages to Divine forces and historic processes.

Remez (literally: hint) finds oblique references in the text to events often far removed from its immediate time and place. An example of this can be found in my Torah commentary, Chibah Yeteirah: In Bereishit 30:1, Rachel told Yaakov, "Give me children (banim), or else I die." Banim translates as "sons" or "children," in the plural. So, too, when she eventually had a child, "... she called his name Yosef, saying 'May haShem afford me another [or: a different] son' " (v. 24). Apparently, having only one son was insufficient.

 The remez is to the fact that Ephraim and Menasheh, the tribes descended from Yosef, were among the Ten Tribes exiled by Assyria who never returned. If Rachel had had only one son her seed would have been eradicated; her future was secured only through the descendants of her second son, Binyamin.

Derash, aggadic and homiletic exposition, constitutes the main non-legal exegetical activity of the rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash. Contrary to misconception, derash usually relies on some textual reading. An example is the Midrash Rabbah to Bereishit 25:22. On the verse describing Rivkah's pregnancy, "the children struggled together within her" (vayitrotzetzu habanim bekirbah), the Midrash relates: "When Rivkah passed houses of prayer and study, Yaakov struggled to emerge, and when she passed houses of idol worship, Esau ran and struggled to emerge." This has not one but two textual pegs. First, the verb vayitrotretzu contains the root letters resh tzadi which form the word ratz (to run). Second, in the unvocalized Torah bekirbah, ("within her [womb]") can just as easily be read bekarvah ("when she came close"). Came close to what? The Midrash follows. 

Peshat is the "simple" or 'plain" import of the text. The text itself consists of letters, words, sentences, chapters and larger units. Sometimes the meaning of a word or sentence taken alone differs from its meaning in a wider context. In that case, the latter is almost invariably peshat while the former is a source for derash.

There can be more than one peshat in a given passage. Often, the language leaves ample room for different interpretations. For example, in Vayikra 19:17, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart; definitely rebuke your neighbor, and do not bear (velo tisa alav) sin about him," the words tisa alav can mean at least three different things as seen in other texts of the Bible:

1) In Vayikra 22:9, "velo yis'u alav cheit" means that "they should not bear sin because of it [ritual impurity]." Following this usage, the verse in chapter 19 is a warning lest you yourself sin when rebuking your neighbor, e.g. by shaming him publicly.[1]

2) In Devarim 25:49, "Yisa haShem alecha goi mirachok" means that "G-d will

bring a nation from afar upon you." According to this meaning, our verse warns against rebuking your neighbor if by doing so you bring sin upon him, i. e., if thus far he acted out of ignorance, but if rebuked would sin willfully which would be a far greater sin.[2]

3) In II Kings 9:25, "nasa alav et hamasa" means that the prophet "spoke G-d's words about [the fate of Ahab's family]." The verse in Vayikra would thus mean not to attribute sin to your neighbor, that is to say: don't assume he is a willful sinner who can't be changed and that therefore there is no point in talking to him. Don't hate your neighbor in your heart, but instead openly remonstrate with him. 

In addition, the text alone is often insufficient to provide any complete picture of what is going on, particularly in the narrative sections of the Torah. The reason for this is the extreme terseness of the Biblical text: the background to the events, the thoughts of the protaganists and other important information are frequently missing and need to be generated. Both peshat and derash aim to fill these gaps. How can we distinguish between the two types of commentary?

I suggest three criteria for distinguishing between peshat and derash as well as between various degrees of peshat: necessity, economy and plausibility.[3] To illustrate, we may use the midrash concerning Rivkah's pregnancy mentioned above, "When Rivkah would pass houses of prayer and study...." It fails the three criteria: it is unnecessary, in that to explain the Hebrew vayitrotzetzu habanim bekirbah as simply a description of a difficult twin pregnancy leaves no textual difficulty or unanswered question. It lacks economy, in that it introduces new elements, such as houses of prayer and study which are nowhere indicated in the text. Finally, it lacks plausibility: fetuses do not behave that way, in our experience, and there is no reason to suppose that we are dealing with a miracle.

In fact, the midrash is not talking about Yaakov and Esau, Rivkah's children, at all. Talmudic thought rejects the notion that an individual can be an idol-worshipper or a monotheist from his mother's womb.[4] Rather, the political/religious point intended is that the Jewish people from its inception has been God-fearing, while Rome (=Edom=Esau) has been idolatrous.

Notes

1. Erchin 17b. R. Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah 3:72 explains the verse as meaning, rebuke

your neighbor lest his sin be accounted as yours since you could have prevented it. According to this the verse is a Biblical source for areivut, the religious responsibility one has for another. I have suggested that the Talmud does not propose this interpretation because the obligation to rebuke applies even to bad practices such as drunkenness that are not, strictly-speaking, sins; see my Bnei Banim, II, resp. no. 26.

2. This is a Biblical source for the Talmudic dictum "mutav sheyihyu shogegin v'al yihyu mezidin," "better that they should be ignorant sinners than willful ones"; see Bnei Banim, II, no. 27, note, and III, maamar 1.

3. Contrast Yeshayahu Maori's criteria for distinguishing peshat from derash, translated in

Tradition, vol. 21, no. 3 (Fall 1984) p. 41: "1) whether the explanation is logically coherent; 2)

whether it fits the context, and 3) whether it is compatible with the grammar of the language." It is unclear how these criteria would enable the midrash about Rivkah to be classified as derash rather than peshat. 

4. Tractate Berachot 33b, "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven," and many similar statements, and see Rambam, Hilchot Teshuvah, chap. 5.

--