<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Zev Sero <<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</a>> wrote:<br>> On the contrary, as the LR showed at length (see _Klolei Rashi_),<br>
> Rashi's derech is to cite medroshim only when he can't fully explain<br>> the text without it, and even then he only cites so much of the medrash<br>> as is necessary to resolve his problem with the text.<br>
<div><br></div><div>We are talking about two separate matters. You are talking about when Rashi deviates from peshat, and I am trying to define what Rashi considers to fall under the purview of peshat. When Rashi cites midrashim that Rivka was three at the well, the twelve stones around Yaakov's head became one, Moshe was 10 amot tall, Og's ankle was a full 30 amot tall, with Og by consequence about as tall as the Eiffel Tower, etc., are those peshat? Are those written anywhere in the text of TSBK? No, they are midrashim and yet Rashi incorporates them without second thoughts, not because they are peshat, but because in Rashi understanding of peshat, those interpretations do not violate peshat. How could that be? Because those are only non-peshat if you insist on using common sense and common experience as a source of what is a reasonable interpretation of the text. Many Roshonim insist on that, but Rashi doesn't.<br>
<br></div><div>RSZ cited my post:<br>>> Finally, there is a literary school of peshat, which will pay<br>>> attention to all kind of attitional textual clues as literary<br>>> devices.<br></div><div><br>
</div><div>RSZ then suggested:<br>> Perhaps you would count Malbim here. I see his derech as the ultimate<br>> in "ballebatish", straight as an arrow</div><div><br></div><div>Indeed, Malbim fits well into that category and can be seen as a precursor of sorts of Daat Mikra.<br>
<br>On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:38:06 -0500 David Wacholder <<a href="mailto:dwacholder@gmail.com">dwacholder@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> In contrast to his avowed Pshat agenda, Rashbam in Parshas Shmos refers<br>> to Sod several times. Did he deviate from Pshat?<br>
</div><div><SNIP><br>> How does this - exceptional - "Rashbam-generated Sod" affect Arye<br>> Folger's argument regarding Pshat in Rashbam?<br><br>
</div><div>That is a very interesting exploration and what you wrote is fascinating in its own right, but not that strongly related to our topic. Indeed, you adjusted the subject line to read "Rashbam and peshat [also Names of Hashem also Metargeim also Midrash]." However, what I was remarking was, when Rashbam suggests what is peshat, what does he mean by peshat? What are the sources and standards by which we decide whether or not something fits peshat?<br>
<br>
RDW then tried to define midrash, apparently citing from Darkei Ha'Agada of Heineman, [5759, Masada/Magnes] Chapter 12 - Drasha based on Words:<br>
<br>> Midrash had to fit into a Shabbat afternoon lesson, for many listeners<br>> who were concerned with both Torah and Hashkafa, but lacked literacy<br>> and available texts. The Doreish needed to create a narrative that was<br>
> both meaningful and novel and fit into the Pshat of the Pesukim.<br>> Meanwhile the medium and long-term effect must be the raising the level<br>> of understanding of the listeners.<br>
><br>> This was the only weekly or regular Drasha aimed at the larger public.<br>> Separate daily lessons, which allowed debate, had a smaller audience,<br>> the Hillel types, broadly speaking.<br>
<br></div><div>This is fascinating. Indeed, when reading Midrash, I sometime feel it is very clear that I am facing a well structured homily in full bloom. However, does Heineman bring sources to buttress his claims, particularly that the intended audience was "concerned with both Torah and Hashkafa, but lacked literacy and available texts?" I actually have the feeling that the listeners were great beqiim in Tanakh, for example, and that whenever the doreish veered from peshat, the audience knew that well.<br>
<br></div><div>Back to what prompted my initial post, Ma'ase Reuven, RDW wrote:<br></div><div><br>> Minchas Shai lists Aseres Hadivros and Maaseh Reuvein as having<br>> "duplicate sets of cantillations". Sheivet Reuvein may have been<br>
> red-faced at either Pshat.<br>
<br>
The existence of another set of te'amim here is of little import, unless we want to posit a totally different breakup of the pessukim, which leads into kol passuq delo passqei Moshe ... In fact, I did not argue much from the te'amim, but from the 'haluqat haparshiyot, which should not vary from one community to the next and definitely not from one meturgeman to the next.<br>
<br></div><div>However, reading further what you wrote, you seem to suggest that indeed, pessuqim breaks were flexible and depended on the meturgeman:<br></div><div><br>> So the Metargeim refused to be quoted as criticizing Reuvein, and the<br>
> Baal Korei had to continue to the next paragraph.<br>
><br>> The same "Metargeim" refused to interrupt Hashem's message "I am<br>> HVYH who is your Permanent Watcher who just as I removed you<br>> from Mitzrayim I will always watch you! Don't you dare trust worthless idols..."<br>
><br>> Therefore, with no choice the Baal Korei made one long passuk from each<br>
> one. [Now known as Taam Elyon].<br><br>That surely surprises many of us and I would appreciate that you elaborate how you square that with our understanding that kol passuq delo passqei Moshe lo passqinan.<br><br></div>
<div>Kol tuv,<br></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Arie Folger,<br>Recent blog posts on <a href="http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/</a><br>* Berichte über die CER-Konferenz in Berlin<br>
* Media Reports from the Latest CER Conference<br>* Should we Circumcise the Children of Non-Members?<br>* Another Reason for More Widespread Use of Halakhic Prenups<br>* Kann man die Beschneidung nicht mit einem symbolischen Ritual ersetzen?<br>
* I Made the Front Page…<br>* Sind innerreligiöse Ehen altmodisch und vorbei?<br>* Die ware Entstehungsgeschichte der Hatikwá-Hymne<br></div>
</div></div>