[Mesorah] When to use Drash/Sod to Exaplain Seomthing: was Re: kodashim

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Seth Mandel <sethm37 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> And those of the Qabbalistic persuasion can surely give a reason 'al pi
> Qabbala, since the Ari considered the shapes of the vocalization signs to be
> significant.
> Seth Mandel
>

I have been learning a lot of Sefer hachinuch lately

I have found that he has a balance between Pehsat and Sod that is
compelling.
He almost ALWAYS tries to explain something al pi peshat FIRST. he mentions
that there is a Sod-Based explanation but usually exmploys that ONLY when
he's otherwise stuck.

I'm not sure if Rashi punted from Peshat to Drash when he was stuck, but he
does often have a feel for Peshat first and Drash only later.

this seems to have been lost. it seems in the niskatnu hadoros many FIRST
l;ook fro Drash/Sod explnations w/o getting down the basic peshat first.
This is a real problem in conemporary analysis of Texts.

The Rishonim such as Sefer hachinuch were not prone to do this even despite
having acces to Sod. Sod was almost a last resort.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080302/41857cf5/attachment-0008.htm>