Peshat and Halakha

Found 24 Search results

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.
"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.
Darosh Darash
Rabbi Ezra Bick
In the immediate aftermath of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu there is a puzzling vague incident involving Moshe and Aharon regarding eating of sacrifices. What is happening in the story and what are the reasons behind it? By closely examining the story we can understand it in a new light, and also appreciate its application to the relationship between God and Am Yisrael.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin
תאריך פרסום: תשע"ד | | Hour
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.”
Parshat Naso - Bridging Vision and Reality
Rabbi Yair Kahn
תאריך פרסום: תשע"ו | | 10 minutes
How do the three prominent halakhic passages of Parashat Naso fit in with the overall narrative structure of Sefer Bamidbar?
The Methodology of the Ibn Ezra: Between Traditionalism and Rationalism
Rabbi Alex Israel | Hour
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.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 1 - Introduction
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
The conventional approach among the commentators is thus that all of Chazal's interpretations are halakhically binding, but they do not void the validity of the peshat reading of the text.

However, the Ibn Ezra is of the belief that when the midrash halakha contradicts the plain meaning of the verse, it should not be regarded as an interpretation of the verse, but rather as an already-known law relying upon the verse only as asmakhta. In the realm of exegesis, the peshat is the only way of understanding the text, but when it comes to halakha, the Oral Law is binding – even where it does match the plain meaning. The source and authority of the halakha do not arise from the verse, but rather from the oral tradition.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 2 - Midrashei Halakha that Contradict the Peshat
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
In instances where there is a blatant contradiction between the peshat and midrash halakha, Ibn Ezra systematically interprets the verses in accordance with the midrash. However, other commentators, including the Rashbam and the Vilna Gaon, maintain the distinction between peshat and derash – even in matters of halakha.

Rashbam maintained that the principle of polysemy, of multiple valid interpretations of the text, is relevant even in these instances. He emphasizes that the laws derived from seeming superfluities in the text are the “essence” – and by this he would seem to be saying that the midrashic teaching is binding, in practical, halakhic terms, but nevertheless the plain sense of the verse still has its value and role.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 3 - Rabbinic Interpretations that Contradict the Peshat
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
If the literal text indeed suggests one understanding, why do Chazal not rule in accordance with it? If, on the other hand, it is Chazal’s interpretation that is binding in any case, what is the status and value of the peshat understanding?

With regard to “an eye for an eye,” the Rambam seems to contradict himself: in Moreh Nevukhim he writes that the plain meaning of the text is that the offender's eye is actually to be put out, while in Mishneh Torah he writes that Chazal's conclusion that the reference is to monetary restitution is "implicit in the Written Law."

If the former is true, and monetary restitution for an eye is not an oral law passed down from Moshe, but rather derived by Chazal, it is possible to raise the possibility that at some stage the law of "an eye for an eye" was indeed practiced in accordance with the literal interpretation, and only later did Chazal rule that the reference is to monetary restitution. If we accept this possibility, then there is room to ask why, at some stage, Chazal moved away from the plain meaning of the text and interpreted the verses in such a way that the punishment imposed is monetary rather than physical.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 4 - Rabbinic Interpretations that Contradict the Peshat (cont.)
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
The changing understanding of “an eye for an eye” can be explained as follows: during the biblical period there was no compunction about severing limbs as a form of corporal punishment, and hence it is possible that "an eye for an eye" was indeed followed literally at that time. However, as the generations progressed, it seems that in light of moral norms it was no longer possible to arrive at a practical ruling that someone who had maimed his fellow had to have his own limb removed, and for this reason the Sanhedrin used its authority to interpret the verses in a different way, with the faith that this was God's will and that the Torah had permitted this change from the outset.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 5 - Rabbinic Interpretations that Contradict the Peshat (cont.)
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Chazal taught that "from the day after the Shabbat" means "from the day after the festival". Chazal's interpretation was accepted by all of the commentators, but it is difficult to ignore the fact that this understanding seems somewhat forced. It is possible to say that when Chazal declared that "from the day after the Shabbat" means "from the day after the festival,” they did not mean this as an interpretation of the verse in Vayikra; rather, they meant it as a halakhic ruling, by virtue of the authority of the Sanhedrin to decide the beginning of the count on a particular date, although the Torah makes no such stipulation.
Peshat and Midrash Halakha
Part 6 - Contradictions between Different Parshiot
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Chazal interpret even the verses in Shemot and in Devarim, which speak of the Hebrew slave serving "forever," as meaning "until the Jubilee." This is not meant as an interpretation of the word "forever" (olam), but rather as an interpretation of the parshiot in the Torah as a whole which deal with the topic, each of which expresses an independent value or ideal, and which together must be synthesized into a single coherent instruction on the practical halakhic level. This can be viewed as a model for many instances of contradiction between peshat and midrash halakha.
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.
Targum Onkelos
Dr. Avigail Rock
In this first lesson of the series Targum Onkelos is examined. There is no doubt that Targum Onkelos succeeded, for over a millennium, in maintaining its honored place in the Jewish community as the authoritative translation of the Torah. In every publication of the Torah with commentaries, Targum Onkelos maintains its place of honor, and throughout the Jewish world, the weekly study of the Targum is a halakhic obligation.

The challenges, difficulties and limitations of any translation of the Bible are visited as well as the specific overarching principles of Targum Onkelos that include:
- Simple translation of the text without details from the Midrash
- Avoids the anthropomorphization of God
- Explanation – not translation – of metaphors
- Explanation – not translation – of biblical poetry
- Varying translations of similar terms in different contexts in order to avoid the desecration of God’s name
- Maintain the dignity of the leaders of the Jewish nation, often concealing questionable actions
- In accordance with Halakha
Saadia Gaon
Dr. Avigail Rock
The person who had the most profound and wide-ranging influence upon the development of the Jewish tradition in the early medieval period, was Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon. Rasag was a revolutionary in many spheres. In the discipline of linguistics and halakhic writing, his work marks a turning point and a paradigm shift in the Jewish tradition. In the realm of parshanut, he is one of the founding fathers and trailblazers of the Jewish exegesis of Tanakh.

The historical background of Rasag’s Commentary is a response to the rise of Islam and to the Karaite movement that denied the Oral Law and its divinity.

The main aim of Rasag in his short commentary was to translate the Torah into the spoken Arabic of his world, in order to make it approachable for everyone, without dealing with broader issues of exegesis. However, even in this simple version Rasag was guided by several principles:

·         Avoids the anthropomorphization of God

·         Commentative elucidations

·         The identification of places, nations, objects and animals

·         Clarifications in the sphere of faith and philosophy

·         Alterations to prevent the desecration of God’s name

In his longer commentary, of which we have only small portions, Rasag’s modus operandi was to explain the verses according to their simple meaning, unless: the sensory perception of the world or intellect refute the peshat, the Sages’ tradition refuted the peshat or the existence of contradicting verses forced one to reevaluate the peshat.
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.
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.
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.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra
Part 3
Dr. Avigail Rock
Ibn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages’ halakhic tradition to contradict the peshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanut and exerts great effort to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However, when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages’ tradition in Halakha, ibn Ezra pushes the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages’ view, while striving to have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language.

Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable authority of the Sages in Halakha, many times ibn Ezra veers in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling.

· It may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling – due to poverty and wandering - is what causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages.

· Alternatively, while the ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by the Sages’ legal authority, the Sages themselves do not believe that this is the verse’s intent, but they tie the law to the verse.

While ibn Ezra had a profoundly negative view of the Karaites, it is important to note that he does not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. According to his view, the truth of the Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written Torah.

Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashi’s status in France. Therefore, in his commentary to the Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence despite the fact that he disagreed with him.

Ibn Ezra conceals issue in his commentary; he embraces the phenomenon of "sod" with regard to deep concepts, issues regarding the authorship of Torah and sins of great Biblical figures.
Rashbam and Ibn Ezra
Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin
תאריך פרסום: 5777 | | Hour
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.
Peshat vs. Halakha: An Eye for an Eye and Other Cases
Rabbi Yehuda Rock | Hour and 4 minutes
There is an apparent contradiction between some verses and the halachic laws derived from them. One famous example of this is the “eye for an eye” scenario, whereby the punishment detailed in the verses is not the same as the one delineated within the halachic sources. How do we resolve this contradiction between the written and oral Torah? Throughout the discussion we relate to this problem specifically and also to the conceptual relationship between peshat and halacha.

Click here for a downloadable audio version of this lecture
If a case is too difficult for you to decide - Uniformity and diversity in Jewish law
Rabbanit Dr. Michal Tikochinsky
An eye for an eye
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
"from the day after the Shabbat"
Rabbi Amnon Bazak