Peshuto Shel Mikra

Found 9 Search results

  1. The Tower of Bavel

    Sharón Rimón

    The story of the Tower of Bavel is the last of the Bereisheet narratives. What does this story teach us about humanity? Why is it specifically this story that concludes the period of Bereisheet, while afterwards we move on to the period of the forefathers? What's wrong with building a city and a tower? Isn't unity a positive quality? How does God react to the story? Why did the Torah choose to be so vague about the story?

  2. Duplication and Contradiction

    Part 1

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The awareness that the Torah contains many instances of duplication, as well as contradictions between different sources, has always existed. Chazal address these phenomena in many places, and note them. Many contradictions have been debated over the generations and various explanations have been proposed. However, in many instances the solutions are less than satisfactory, since they interpret the text in a manner that does not sit well with the plain meaning; one who seeks to understand the literal meaning of the text has trouble reconciling the various explanations with the plain meaning. Additionally, it is necessary to address this phenomenon from a broader and more all-encompassing perspective and not merely answer each case individually.

    An overview of Documentary Hypothesis, a theory that views the authorship of the Torah as a combination of different sources, is presented. According to this theory, the Torah is neither Divine, nor authored by Moshe.

  3. Rashi

    Part 2

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Rashi’s commentary is composed, for the most part, of adapted midrashim. What motivates Rashi to turn to midrashim that apparently do not explicate the peshat?

    • A difficulty in the verses that has no reconciliation with the peshat.
    • The Torah does not speak in the human vernacular. Rashi adopts R. Akiva’s approach, according to which every word has meaning and significance. Therefore, one should be precise with biblical language, and even when the reader has no difficulty understanding the verses, one may derive information from some extraneous element in the text.
    • Maintaining the internal logic and sequence of the text by filling in lacunae.
    • When the verse and its midrash constitute excellent opportunities to transmit a spiritual or ethical message, Rashi cites the midrash even though there is no exegetical need for it.

  4. Rashi - Part 6 - Rashi and Christianity (I)

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    The comments and midrashim that Rashi brings not because of any interpretative need, nor because of their educational or moral significance, but rather because of their exigency for his generation, a generation living beneath the shield and the sword of the Christian faith are examined.

    Rashi sometimes strays from the peshat of the verses because of the need to contend with Christian claims against the Jews, out of his desire to strengthen the spirit of his nation.

    There is no doubt that Rashi, in his commentary to Shir Ha-shirim, is responding to the First Crusade. Similarly, in his commentaries to a number of psalms and the Book of Yeshayahu, Rashi relates to the cruelty of the Christians, their claims against the nation of Israel, and the punishment that God is destined to bring upon them.

    Also in the Torah itself, we find anti-Christian trends in Rashi's commentary.

  5. Rav Yosef Kara

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Mahari Kara, an apparent student of Rashi, maintained both a loyalty to and at the same time a strong independence of Rashi.

    Mahari Kara’s exegetical principals include:

    • Loyalty to the peshat, much more so than Rashi, feeling no obligation to cite any derash at all. In this, his commentary may be considered trailblazing. 
    • A great sensitivity to literary technique and style including lashon nofel al lashon, alliteration, paronomasia, rhythm and meter, literary structure, and connective associations.
    • He delineates exegetical principles that may be applied elsewhere in Tanakh including pre-emption and parallelism.  

     

    Mahari Kara makes two basic assumptions about peshat and derash:

    • Even the Sages, who wrote the midrashim, believed that peshat is the essence.  The aim of derash is only for ethical purposes, and not to provide an explanation missing in Tanakh.
    • Tanakh does not require external facts in order to explain it; it cannot be that the verse speaks ambiguously and relies on Midrashic material in order to be understood.

  6. Rashbam

    Part 1

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Rashbam displays a great deal of respect towards his grandfather, Rashi, having learnt a great deal from him, but this does not prevent him from arguing on his views. The Rashbam’s commentaries are original and creative; his avoidance of Midrashic material allows him to look at the verse in an innovative, direct way.

    The nature of Rashbam’s commentary makes the following assumptions:

    • The commentaries prior to him, including his grandfather Rashi, might have thought that they were explaining the verses in accordance with the peshat, their commentaries do not express the simple meaning of the verse.
    • The “enlightened” are those who study Tanakh without relying on any Midrashic material.
    • The Rashbam’s pursuit of pure peshat does not take away from his regard for the Sages’ traditions, which are reliable and valid. The data derived from the derash is more important than the data derived from peshat.
    • Nonetheless, the peshat maintains an independent significance.
    • Both the Peshat and the Derash are true readings of the Torah.

    The principles of Peshat according to Rashbam include:

    • Taking into account common sense, logic and nature.
    • A verse must be understood as part of the general context in which it is placed and as being integrated in the sequence of verses in which it is found.
    • The peshat of Tanakh should be understood on its own, without consulting any external information; all data must be either explicit in the text or implicit in human logic or accepted practice.

    Rashbam’s Rules for Understanding the Biblical Lexicon include:

    • Synonyms are used in juxtaposition to each other without alluding to a different meaning to each word.
    • When the Torah introduces a passage with “And it was at that time,” it is an expression which comes to tell us that this event is closely tied to the previous event.

  7. 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.

  8. Nechama Leibowitz's Teachings and Methodology

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    תאריך פרסום: 5777 | | Hour

    Dr. Nehama Leibowitz pioneered the modern scientific discipline of the study of parshanut. Her students who studied with her in person and by mail (through her famous “gilyonot) came from all walks of life. In this shiur, we explore Dr. Nehama Leibowitz’s Tanakh methodology and personality, drawing on her writings and anecdotes. We will examine different aspects of her approach to peshat and derash, structure and meaning, and insights about ethics and human behavior, using varied examples from the Biblical text.

  9. 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.