Peshat: Difference between revisions

[[Abraham Ibn Ezra]] is quoted in his writings as saying that the Rabbisrabbis of the Talmud were well-versed in Peshat, having built their [[Midrashic]] exegeses on it: "They [the talmudic rabbis] knew peshat better than all the generations that came after them."<ref name="Lockshin">Lockshin, Martin I. "Lonely Man of Peshat." Jewish Quarterly Review 99.2 (2009): 291-300. Print.</ref> In contrast, [[Rashbam]], felt that the early rabbis were not knowledgeable in Peshat, and instead used other strategies.<ref name="Lockshin"/> Consequently, these rabbis were led to opposing conclusions of the rabbis' halachic exegesis: Rashbam understood this as a separate type of exegesis from Peshat, while Ibn Ezra felt that the only proper exegesis would lead to his own conclusions, and therefore disregarded the midrashim of the Talmudic Rabbisrabbis as exegesis altogether.<ref name="Lockshin"/> Regardless of these differences in opinion in reference to the Rabbisrabbis of the Talmud, both Ibn Ezra and Rashbam favored and promoted Peshat as a superior alternative to Midrashic methods.<ref name="Lockshin"/>

One of Rashbam's students, Rabbi [[Eliezer of Beaugency]], is noted as completely removing Drash from his exegetical strategies, relying solely on Peshat. In comparison to Rashbam's tendency to explain how his views would contrast with those of Talmudictalmudic Rabbisrabbis, Rabbi Eliezer is not compelled to do so, feeling that Peshat is the only proper way to look at text.<ref name="Berger1">Berger, Yitzhak. "The Contextual Exegesis of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency and the Climax of the Northern French Peshat Tradition." Jewish Studies Quarterly 15.2 (2008): 115-29. Print.</ref> As Peshat's methods rely often on the importance of context, Rabbi Eliezer's commentaries are known for their tendency to focus on the context of a given verse or text. His commentaries are integrated with text, rather than sitting separate from them, and he insists on ensuring that no verse loses its context during his discussions, in comparison to other methods, such as the "verse-by-verse approach of Rashi"<ref name="Berger1"/>

[[David Kimhi]] (Radak) was also known for his ability in Peshat, and was influenced both by Ibn Ezra and Rashi. While Kimhi preferred Peshat methods over Derash, the influence of Rashi can be seen in some of his commentaries, in the inclusion of midrashic citations.<ref name="Berger2">Berger, Yitzhak. "Peshat and the Authority of Ḥazal in the Commentaries of Radak." Association for Jewish Studies Review 31.1 (2007): 41-59. Print.</ref> Additionally, Kimhi lived among many famed proponents of Derash, such as Rabbi Moses the Preacher, who "undoubtedly had a substantial impact on Radak."<ref name="Berger2"/> Kimhi tended to go out of his way to reject the views of the Rabbisrabbis of the Talmud often, which has led to the theory that, although disagreeing with them, Kimhi fully acknowledged the tradition and authority of the Talmudtalmud Rabbisrabbis.<ref name="Berger2"/> In his commentaries, Kimhi labels his interpretation as Peshat, and that of the Talmudictalmudic Rabbisrabbis as Derash, creating a strict divide between the two in his writings.<ref name="Berger2"/>

The modern approach of "[[:he:תנ"ך_בגובה_העיניים|Tanach at Eye Level]]" or "[[:he:תנ"ך_בגובה_העיניים|תנ"ך בגובה העיניים]]" led by Rabbi [[Yaaqov Medan|Yaakov Medan]] and Rabbi Dr. [[Yoel Bin-Nun]], and promoted by many of the [[Rabbi|Rabbis]]rabbis and [[Alumnus|alumni]] of [[Yeshivat Har Etzion]] is an approach to studying [[Hebrew Bible|Tanach]] which in essence follows in the footsteps of the [[Rashbam]], [[Abraham ibn Ezra|Iben Ezra]] and [[David Kimhi|Radak]] in sticking more closely to the Peshat and straightforward way of understanding the [[Hebrew Bible|Bible]].

* R.Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of R. Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from '''its plain meaning (פשוטו)''', he replied. R. Kahana said: By the time I was eighteen years old I had studied the whole Talmud, yet I did not know that a verse cannot depart from '''its plain meaning (פשוטו)''' until today. What does he inform us? That a man should study and subsequently understand. <ref>Talmud, Shabbat 63a</ref>

* Others say: According to the Rabbisrabbis no question arises, for since the text has once been torn away from '''its ordinary meaning (פשוטו)''' it must in all respects so remain.<ref>Talmud, Yevamot 11b</ref>