PaRDeS 
The word Pardes, (lit. orchard) is an acronym that was used in
the Middle Ages to refer to four types of biblical exegesis:
Pshat: simple, plain, intended meaning (the opposite of Drash) (sometimes
inaccurately referred to as the literal meaning- see below)
Remez: alluded meaning (reading between the lines). Remez in modern
Hebrew means hint. Traditionally, remez referred to methods such
as gematria (word-number values)
Drash: drawn out meaning. Homiletical or interpretative meaning. Not
pshat.
Sod: (lit. secret). The mystical or esoteric meaning.
Here is an example of analysing the phrase: milk and honey according
to the four models.
However, there are really only two categories: Pshat (what the
text says/meant) and Drash (interpretations). Professor Barry
Levy, Dean of Religious Studies, McGill University, has suggested
a different apporach:
I prefer to talk about four other categories of analysis: Text,
Texture, Context and Pretext. Text concerns what the text is and
what it says (that's close to peshat but I avoid the word because
of
all the ambiguities and problems alluded to above) . Texture deals
with the literary qualities of the text. Context is the historical,
geographic, and cultural settings of the text. Pretext is using
the
text for purposes not specifically articulated in it.
Why not only use Pshat? In a way, Pshat is what the biblical scholar
is trying to do: determine what the TEXT really meant. Drash allows
us to find new meaning and new ideas, answering the question,
(not what did the text mean) but what does the text say to ME.
Pshat means the simple meaning of the text, but it is not so simple!
First of all, we have to decide what is the Pshat. (One person's
Pshat is another person's Drash). It has been apocryphally attributed
to the great scholar of our generation the late Nehama Leibowitz
that 'Peshat is what she thought the text meant and derash is
what everyone else thought.' The problem is that every reading
of 'Pshat' must also be an interpretation, just like every translation
is (even though it doesn't MEAN to be an interpretation). Professor
Barry Levy, Dean of Religious Studies, McGill University, writes,
Another issue is the number of possible peshats a passage may
carry.
Some writers spoke of "the" peshat; others recognized a plurality
of
peshats and limited discussion to "a" peshat. The interesting
evolution of the word in Yiddish to peshettle shows that peshat
came
to mean only "an interpretation." The diminutive suffix gives
the
word a meaning something like "a little peshat" but actually it
means
"a derash."
Let's look at these examples:
|
|
|
|
 |
Moses says: Give-ear O heaven that I may speak,
Let the land hear the sayings of my mouth (Deut. 32:1)
Isaiah says: Hear O heaven, and give ear O land
for the Lord speaks (Isa. 1:2) |
(This is a good example of symmetry; Isaiah was probably using
the language of Deuteronomy on purpose.)
Now Rabbi Akiva (2nd Century) interprets that hearing is something you do from far; give ear is something you do from close (like whispering in someone's
ear):
This teaches that when Moses spoke the Torah he was in heaven...
but Isaiah who was on land, began by saying Hear O heaven as it was far from him.
Ibn Ezra (medieval commentator, we'll be introduced to him more
formally next module) says:
Now there is no distinction between Hear and Give-ear according
to the Pshat method.
So the first problem is deciding what the Pshat is. Did the text
mean to be interpreted? And if it clearly (?) did, as in the case
of a metaphor,
What is the Pshat of a Metaphor?!
Forum
PaRDeS