tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post624005976836262879..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Shelach: The Meraglim Didn't Liejoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21757007747585673922007-06-12T11:00:00.000-04:002007-06-12T11:00:00.000-04:00I wouldn't call it "logic" vs. "numerology." More ...I wouldn't call it "logic" vs. "numerology." More like "context" vs. "al tikra." Or context implying that word X, while an arcane form, means Y based on context, as opposed to taking it to mean Z and making derivations from it.<BR/><BR/>This distinction between peshat and derash is not my own distinction. Dr. Steiner has said as much. And I would argue Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc., make the distinction between peshat and derash on these grounds as well.<BR/><BR/>And there is independent value to each of them.<BR/><BR/>It is unclear that classic (Talmudic) Chazal made the same distinction that some medieval commentators made between peshat and derash. It was simply truth. I try to examine the underpinnings of derash, in terms of working with the themes developed in the text itself and elsewhere (e.g. other midrashim.)<BR/><BR/>And the vast majority (if not all) of derash is "insightful" (if we must use this term) because this is a key component in developing the derash. There may be times that people, for various reasons, do not merit to see the depth of Chazal's insight -- often because they focus solely on the derasha aspect of it, if at all.<BR/><BR/>But presenting just the thematic elements of it and developing it on those grounds, without appealing to the 31 middot of aggadic midrash, I would label a (rather than "the") peshat-level understanding of the text.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73935243775327520372007-06-12T09:00:00.000-04:002007-06-12T09:00:00.000-04:00OK, so for you pshat/drash refers solely to the me...OK, so for you pshat/drash refers solely to the method of derivation ("logic" or "numerology"), and not to the substance of the conclusion.<BR/><BR/>And what you did in your post was to tell us about a conclusion reached by drash, then show how it could equally be reached by pshat, i.e. thematic considerations unrelated to the grammatical ambiguity.<BR/><BR/>However, to me that seems like a rather trivial difference between pshat and drash, and not what people usually intend pshat/drash to mean. Isn't the substance of the answer supposed to be more important than the method of derivation?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, whenever you call a drash "insightful", doesn't that mean that you are examining it on the fly by logical considerations - that you are verifying that in fact, it is pshat as well as drash? If so, what would drash without pshat look like? Spinning the gematria wheel to find out that the duration of mattan torah somehow hints to your grandmother's maiden name?<BR/><BR/>I would rather have definitions of pshat and drash which grant independent value to both of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5955806311364719342007-06-12T08:32:00.000-04:002007-06-12T08:32:00.000-04:00your paraphrase is essentially what I meant.I cons...your paraphrase is essentially what I meant.<BR/><BR/>I consider derash to be any interpretation that makes use of the middot sheHaTorah nidreshet bahen for halacha or aggada, which takes the text out of its plain, straightforward meaning. Also, if it makes use of significance maximalism/omnisignificance. <BR/><BR/>I consider peshat to be any interpretation which does not reinterpret the plain meanings of the words in context.<BR/><BR/>Over and over on parshablog, I try to show that midrash is insightful, and "hooks in" to themes developed on the plain-text level, highlighting specific points perhaps by reinterpreting certain words. I therefore crudely call it true on the peshat level as well. One need not use middot sheHaTora nidreshet bahen to say the same thing on this pasuk. That is, without the need for reinterpreting "mimenu," this is already thematically the case. The midrash is then either reinterpreting in this light, or hooking-in to a reinterpretation to stress this theme which comes from the verse.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52755719227454530272007-06-12T03:53:00.000-04:002007-06-12T03:53:00.000-04:00The derasha above was that מִמֶּנּוּ means "Him," ...<I>The derasha above was that מִמֶּנּוּ means "Him," meaning Hashem, rather than "us." This is not a matter of derash, however. This is absolutely peshat in the pasuk. What they saw when spying out the land disheartened them. It was indeed true that it was highly unlikely that they would succeed against such a formidable foe. Thus, they said "they are stronger than we." But they forgot that Hashem was directing the events, and promised their victory, even against these seemingly insurmountable odds.</I><BR/><BR/>From this, it seems that you think drash is inherently "wrong", and that any insightful commentary must be assigned to the category of pshat.<BR/><BR/>In particular, I agree with you that "mimenu=Hashem" is insightful. You say that therefore, it is really pshat. I think it's more accurate to explain the Israelites meant what they said - "mimenu=us". That is the pshat. The insight of the drash is to point out the lack of faith in Hashem which underlies their statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com