PaRDeS -- peshat, darash, remez, and sod

[librarylarry]

  I had heard that 'remez' was like "throwing a hint" and 'sod' involved a more mystical interpretation, but I didn't know that the Palestinian Talmud puts 'peshat' and 'darash' on such a "level playing field", so to speak.

 jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12060-peshat

[alon]

Oct 9, 2017 20:45:02 GMT -8 librarylarry said:

  I had heard that 'remez' was like "throwing a hint" and 'sod' involved a more mystical interpretation, but I didn't know that the Palestinian Talmud puts 'peshat' and 'darash' on such a "level playing field", so to speak.

 jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12060-peshat

from the article:

"Pashaṭ" originally had, therefore, the same meaning as "darash." A distinction between "peshaṭ" as the literal sense of Scripture and "derash" as the interpretation and derivation from Scripture could not have been made in antiquity for the simple reason that the Tannaim believed that their Midrash was the true interpretation and that their "derash" was the actual sense of Scripture, and therefore "peshaṭ" (see Midrash Halakah). Only later, in the period of the Amoraim, when on account of the development of hermeneutic principles the interpretations of the Midrash often seemed forced and artificial, did scholars come to the conclusion that the natural and simple sense of Scripture was different from that given in the Midrash; and a distinction was, accordingly, made between the simple literal sense, called "peshaṭ," and the interpretation, called "derash."

There must have been some original distinction, otherwise why list them as two separate and distinct categories of exegesis?  I think the key here is the phrase "the Tannaim believed that their Midrash was the true interpretation and that their "derash" was the actual sense of Scripture." The Tannaim were from the Mishnaic period of 10-220 CE, so they were not as "ancient" as one might expect from reading this article. And the attitude that their interpretation is the correct interpretation of scripture still holds sway in much of Judaism today. It is why some contemporary sects place Talmudic writings on the same par or even above . I've been told that Talmud explains , and I couldn't understand without it. 

When using PARDES there can and often is a lot of overlap from one method to the rest. However they are still their own distinct methodologies, and the p'shat cannot be changed for the convenience of making any other interpretation say what we want. It says what it says, and any other meaning derived from the text must in some way conform to the text. Thus the overlap.

The author may subscribe to this idea of the pre-eminance of Talmud over (meaning either the Books of Moshe or scripture as a whole), and thus give short shrift to the idea of p'shat being, well, "p'shat." Regardless, we must have a foundation, and for Meshiachim that foundation is the written . The interpretations and arguments (both in the literal meaning and the idea of opposing opinions) of studious and Godly men can assist us in deeper understanding of scripture. But only as long as a.) the literal meaning is neither challenged nor changed, and b.) we have an understanding of what is being said and the cultural factors at work.

I might add c.) that the Talmud was, according to Abraham Cohen in his book "Everyman's Talmud" designed to change as circumstances changed, thus keeping the scriptures relevant to all men everywhere and in all times. Applying PARDES to any writings other than scripture can lead to a slippery slope into darkness. Change interpreting change is just a bad idea, as the original meaning is soon lost. Therefore changing the p'shat meaning of scripture by making it the equivalent of Talmudic d'rashot is also a bad idea, since it puts us exactly on this path to destruction!

Since most of us coming here are unfamiliar with Judaic thought and ideologies, and since the church has so maligned scripture with their interpretations, it is easy for us to overlook those places where Judaism also strays. But we must use the same discernment when reading Jewish resources as when reading those of Christians. Now, it may only be our understanding which is lacking, so I don't discredit anything out of hand. But it may be that we need to put that resource aside until we understand more; because the third party to understanding vs. misunderstanding is us. We need to be careful not to become entrenched in our own (mis)understanding; yet we also need to not make leaps into the void based on a misunderstanding either. So use discernment. Some things are good, some bad, and some we just need to set aside until we have the knowledge to make the call.

Dan C