Maybe you've heard people talking about the "peshat" of a given text. Maybe you haven't... but you will. From Rashi to your own rabbi, everyone is searching for a peshat meaning, and while what they will come up with might be different, they will all agree that it's an important part of understanding the text.
So what is peshat?
First thing to know is that it comes from the Hebrew root פ-ש-ט or "p-sh-t," which means to straighten, to strip down, or to spread out. As such, the peshat can be understood as the "straight" meaning of the text, the "stripped down" meaning, or even, the contextual meaning - the meaning that comes from spreading out the text as a narrative and seeing what makes sense.
Unclear? We don't blame you. Part of the trouble is that when we read a story, we are all trained to find meaning in it as a story. But before the Middle Ages, that wasn’t the most popular way to read the Bible. Another way to read a story is to find moral, instructive meaning through allegory by looking at bits of it out of context (we can call that a midrashic read). Let’s use Cinderella as an example:
Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother warns her that at the stroke of midnight, her dress will turn back into rags and her carriage into a pumpkin.
The question: Why will Cinderella’s dress and carriage revert at midnight specifically?
The peshat answer: Midnight is a noticeable time, starting the new day, and it’s a perfect time for folktales, where other hours might not have been clearly marked.
The midrashic answer: It teaches when it’s appropriate to expect a young person to be back home after going out and from this we know that we should always set curfews for midnight.
But compare these two different understandings of the following verse:
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃
God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
First we have the midrashic (meaning from midrash: moral and instructive interpretations and stories based off Biblical verses) understanding from Bereishit Rabbah, a collection of stories and teachings regarding the Book of Genesis from 300-500 CE:
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם צָפָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים וּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים, וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ, אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר, אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים.
Rabbi Yannai said: "From the beginning of his creation of the universe the Holy One, blessed be He, scrutinized the deeds of the righteous and the deeds of the wicked. "And the earth was formless", these are the deeds of the wicked. "And God said, let there be light", these are the deeds of the righteous.
Bereshit Rabbah takes the verse and uses it to teach something meaningful, something about the nature of God and humanity, something that may very well resonate with not only the teachers of the message, but the listeners as well.
However, it doesn't make sense given the context of the verse. That is, when we look at the story of Creation as we can see it in the text, the midrash in Bereshit Rabbah just doesn't seem to be what the text could possibly saying.
Not only are there no wicked or righteous people yet created, but the text is quite clear on what God is doing right now: creating the natural world. And in this verse, what the world needs is, contextually, light. Bereshit Rabbah takes the verse out of its context of the story of worldly creation.
Now let’s contrast this interpretation with the peshat understanding from Rashbam, a 12th century commentator:
"וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר" – לתקן האמור, "וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם".
“And G-d said, ‘Let there be light’” – to fix that which was mentioned above – “and darkness upon the face of the deep”.
Rashbam reads the verse as a modern reader might. He looks at the full context, drawing connections between this verse and surrounding ones. Note that he says explicitly what many readers might assume without even realizing it: to fix that which was mentioned above. This light is not just metaphoric or symbolic. It is the very first light meant to fix the darkness we already know exists in the story.
That is the peshat.
As simple as that may sound, what happens when your understandings and assumptions affect how you read the text? If you feel positive that the world must be a certain way, and you feel positive that text you're reading must be perfect, complete, and accurate, that will affect how you understanding the peshat.
Here are some examples of different ways Jewish medieval commentators on the Tanakh have understood their mission in finding the peshat of the text:
Rashi
Rashi lived in 11th century France and was the first of the commentators in Ashkenaz to comment on the peshat. His style was to comment line by line, pulling out an issue in the language of the text that he believed might prompt questions, and then answering those prompted questions.
(א)יֵשׁ מִדְרְשֵׁי אַגָּדָה רַבִּים וּכְבָר סִדְּרוּם רַבּוֹתֵינוּ עַל מְכוֹנָם בִּבְ"רַ וּבִשְׁאָר מִדְרָשׁוֹת; וַאֲנִי לֹא בָאתִי אֶלָּא לִפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא וּלְאַגָּדָה הַמְיַשֶּׁבֶת דִּבְרֵי הַמִּקְרָא דָבָר דָּבוּר עַל אֳפַנָּיו:
(1) There are many Midrashic explanations and our Teachers have already collected them in their appropriate places in Genesis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I, however, am only concerned with the peshat of Scripture and with such Aggadot (midrashic stories, singular: aggadah) that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.
Rashi is willing to see many layers to the text. While he acknowledges that there are whole collections of midrashim on the text, he says he is here for two primary reasons:
- The peshat. He wants to explain the text according to its narrative context.
- The "Aggadah HaMeyashevet," the Aggadah which settles the text. That is, an interpretive story with a moral intended for instruction that may not fit into the peshat, but still addresses a question that the peshat leaves open.
Here is an example where he does just that on this verse from Genesis about Noah:
אֵ֚לֶּה תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃
This is the line of Noah.—Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.—
אלה תולדת נח נח איש צדיק. הוֹאִיל וְהִזְכִּירוֹ סִפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה (משלי י'). דָּבָר אַחֵר לִמֶּדְךָ שֶׁעִקַּר תּוֹלְדוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים:
אלה תולדת נח נח איש צדיק THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF NOAH: NOAH WAS A RIGHTEOUS MAN — Since the text mentions him it sings his praise, in accordance with what is said, (Proverbs 10:7) “The mention of the righteous shall be for a blessing.” Another explanation is: [since after stating “These are the progeny of Noah”, it does not at once mention the names of his children but declares that he “was a righteous man”, Scripture thereby] teaches you that the real progeny of righteous people are their good deeds (Genesis Rabbah 30:6).
Notice how Rashi gives two explanations for the same textual question. Let's break it down:
The question: If a verse starts with, "this is the line of Noah," why does it interrupt itself to describe Noah himself?
The peshat answer: It's fitting to introduce Noah with an epithet that praises him, as he's praiseworthy.
The midrashic answer: This text is specifically worded to teach a moral lesson - in this case, that the true "line" or "progeny" of a righteous person are their good deeds.
Rashi finds both answers to be valuable. He's interested in the contextual narrative, the meaning of the text and other lessons we can glean from it. But notice that he's not bringing in a midrash when there's no question for it to answer. The midrash that Noah’s true progeny were his good deeds very specifically answers the same question that the peshat does.
Let's now move on to another commentator with a very different philosophy of peshat. Rashi's own grandson...
Rashbam
Rashbam takes peshat to the next level. Unlike Rashi, he's not interested in incorporating midrashic reads of the text. He limits himself to what the text meant strictly in its narrative context. Notably, he avoids moral-interpretive, and also leaves off legal reads. When he comments on verses that form the basis of Rabbinic Jewish law, he treats them the same way he treats any other.
In the 21st chapter of Exodus, Rashbam gives his mission statement:
ואלה המשפטים - ידעו ויבינו יודעי שכל כי לא באתי לפרש הלכות אף על פי שהם עיקר כמו שפירשתי בבראשית, כי מיתור המקראות נשמעים ההגדות והלכות ומקצתן ימצאו בפירושי רבינו שלמה אבי אמי זצ"ל. ואני לפרש פשוטן של מקראות באתי ואפרש הדינים וההלכות לפי דרך ארץ. ואעפ"כ ההלכות עיקר, כמו שאמרו רבותינו: הלכה עוקרת משנה. לשש שנים יצא ביובל. ויש שנותן חילוק ביניהם.
Intelligent people, know that I have not come to explain the halachot (laws), even though they are the they are the most important thing, as I explained [in my commentary] on Bereshit. While halachot and aggadot (midrashic stories) may be derived from the extraneous or missing [letters and words] found in verses, these may be found in maternal grandfather Rashi's (may the memory of the righteous be a blessing) commentaries. I have come to explain the peshat of the text, and will [only] explain rules and halachot according to common sense. And even so, the halachot are the most important thing, as our rabbis taught: the halacha uproots the scripture.
Like Rashi, Rashbam sees multiple layers to the text. However, unlike Rashi, he consistently sticks to one layer - even when he calls other layers more important. His business is to explain one thing only: the peshat.
He also approaches the peshat with a more literary bend. He will explain something can be understood based on what happened earlier in the text, or even how it might foreshadow something later.
Here's an example of how he brings in the full context of the story to understand a verse about Reuben's affair with his father Jacob's (Israel's) concubine:
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל (פ) וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר׃
While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.
וישמע ישראל - לא נכתב זה אלא להודיעך, שבשביל ששמע יעקב את הדבר אמר לו בשעת צוואתו: פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית משכבי אביך.
וישמע ישראל, (And Israel heard) - this matter has been reported only so that we can understand why [Yaakov passed over his firstborn son Reuven when in his blessings] before his death he referred to him as פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית על משכבי אביך (49,4). “the one who was as unrestrained as water when you mounted the bed of your father[, does not deserve the privileges associated with the birthright.”]
Rashbam, like Rashi, notes a textual difficulty that prompts his comment. Unlike Rashi, he limits himself to the peshat, the context of the verse, without taking into account aggadot (midrashic stories) on the subject. Most notably, is where he doesn't limit himself. His comment takes into account the full spread of the family story, not just the verse's immediate context. Breaking it down:
The question: Why does the verse report that Israel (Jacob) heard about his son's misdeed? Jacob doesn't do or say anything in immediate response. It seems like a superfluous bit of information if it doesn't prompt any response.
The answer: While Jacob may not respond then, it foreshadows a response fourteen chapters later where Jacob does make reference to the incident and finally penalizes Reuben.
Had the text not noted that Jacob heard, we would have been confused as to what he was referencing when he cursed Reuben later on. Additionally, because we as readers know that Jacob has heard, it keeps us on tenterhooks, waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's this sort of literary analysis that makes Rashbam stand out among the medieval commentators.
For our third and final pashtan (commentator who focuses on the peshat), let's turn to someone who stridently disagreed with both Rashi and Rashbam and didn't care who knew it...
Ibn Ezra
Ibn Ezra was a medieval Spanish commentator, philosopher, poet, and grammarian who came from a very different background from Rashi and Rashbam. Like Rashi and Rashbam, he was concerned with the peshat of the text. Like Rashbam, he decided not to bring in homiletical midrash. Unlike them, he came from an environment with many other scholars who were concerned with the peshat - and only the peshat.
These scholars were from the Karaite community, a sect of Jews who followed the Torah only and not Rabbinic law. Ibn Ezra often argued against them. In this case, he insisted that the text should only be interpreted one way. That one way is both the peshat and the legal basis for Rabbinic law.
What does that mean?
While Rashi and Rashbam are happy to say that a text might serve many different meanings according to many different layers, Ibn Ezra declares that the text will have just the one. And that one will always be the peshat, if the other option is a midrashic story. However, if the other option is the basis for Rabbinic law, the meaning will always be that legal basis, even if the context suggests it means something else.
We can find his mission statement (in verse) in his introduction to his commentary:
אבן עזרא, הקדמה לתורה
ובעבור הדרש דרך הפשט איננה סרה/ כי שבעים פנים לתורה/ רק בתורות ובמשפטים ובחקים/ אם מצאנו שני טעמים לפסוקים/ והטעם האחד כדברי המעתיקים, שהיו כולם צדיקים/ נשען על אמתם בלי ספק בידים חזקים/
וחלילה חלילה מלהתערב עם הצדוקים/ האומרים כי העתקתם מכחשת הכתוב, והדקדוקים/ רק קדמונינו אמת/ וכל דבריהם אמת/ וה’ אלהים אמת/ ינחה את עבדו בדרך אמת:
Ibn Ezra, Introduction to his Commentary on the Torah
The way of the peshat will not swerve for the derash/ but while there are seventy faces of the Torah/ when it comes to the laws and ordinances and statutes/ if we find there are two meanings to the verses/ and one is according to the sages (who were all righteous)/ we will rely upon their truth, as there is no doubt that they have the strength and ability/ And God forbid we become like the Tzedukim (Karaites)/ who claim that the sages contradict scripture and grammar!/ Only our ancient ones are truth/ and all of their words are truth,/ and God is truth/ and will lead God's servants on the path of truth.
Let's parse this.
First, Ibn Ezra is saying that the peshat understanding of texts is supreme. It will not "swerve for the derash," meaning that it will stand firm, even as others try to explain the meaning midrashically.
Next, Ibn Ezra is saying that the legal understanding of texts is supreme. If there is a text that can be understood according to its context as meaning something metaphorically, but the rabbis have long since declared that it teaches a literal law, Ibn Ezra insists that the meaning of that text is legal, not metaphorical. (Because, God forbid we become like those who deny the law!)
He is not saying that the legal meaning supersedes the peshat. He is saying the legal meaning is the peshat.
To see this illustrated, let's look at one verse and see how it is explained, first by Rashbam, who allows for a verse to contain multiple meanings, and then by Ibn Ezra, who allows a verse to have only one:
(ט) וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
(9) “And this shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead—in order that the Teaching of the LORD may be in your mouth—that with a mighty hand the LORD freed you from Egypt.
This verse has long been understood as the basis for Tefillin, the boxes with texts that are tied to one's arm and head during weekday morning prayers.
But Rashbam, who only explains peshat according to the context of the verse, and who leaves legal issues for other commentators, disagrees:
(א) לאות על ידך - לפי עומק פשוטו: יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאלו כתוב על ידך. כעין, שימני כחותם על לבך. (ב) בין עיניך - כעין תכשיט ורביד זהב שרגילין ליתן על המצח לנוי.
(1) לאות על ידך, according to the true meaning (literally: deep peshat): an exhortation that this memory should be with you permanently, as if the subject matter had literally been inscribed on your hand. We find a similar syntax in Song of Songs 8,6 שימי כחותם על לבך, “place it on your heart as if it had been engraved there like a seal,” (2) בין עיניך, like a precious jewel which one places on one’s forehead as a decoration.
To be clear - Rashbam is in no way saying the laws of Tefillin have nothing to do with this text, and certainly not that people should stop putting on Tefillin! However, he's saying that at its base, this text is metaphorical and rhetorical in nature.
Ibn Ezra has, unsurprisingly, a different take:
(א) והיה לך. יש חולקין על אבותינו הקדושים שאמר כי לאות ולזכרון. על דרך כי לוית חן הם לראשך וענקים לגרגרותיך. גם וקשרתם לאות על ידיך כמו קשרם על לוח לבך תמיד גם וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך. כמו כתבם על לוח לבך. ומה שיהיה לאות ולזכרון. שיהיה שגור בפיך כי ביד חזקה הוציאך ה' ממצרים. ואין זה דרך נכונה כי בתחלת הספר כתוב משלי שלמה. והנה כל מה שהזכיר הוא דרך משל. ואין כתוב בתורה שהוא דרך משל חלילה. רק הוא כמשמעו. על כן לא נוציאנו מידי פשוטו. כי בהיותו כמשמעו איננו מכחיש שקול הדעת. כמו ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם. שנצטרך לתקנו לפי הדעת. וא''ר משה הכהן כי יד ברוב המקרא היד השמאלית. אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים. ידה ליתד תשלחנה. ודברי הקבלה חזקים ואין צריכין חזוק
(1) “And this shall serve you”—There are those who dispute our holy ancestors, and say that “being a sign and a reminder” has the same meaning as: “For they are a graceful wreath upon your head, a necklace about your throat” (Proverbs 1:9). [They] also [suggest] that “tie them as a sign upon your arm” has the same meaning as: “Bind them upon the tablet of your heart always” (Proverbs 6:9). [They] similarly [understand] “write them on the doorposts of your house” as the same in meaning to “Write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 3:3). In that case, what would “a sign” and “a reminder” mean? That it will be flowing in your mouth, “For with a strong arm God brought you out of Egypt.” However, this is an incorrect approach. For at the beginning of the book [of Proverbs] it states “The Proverbs of Solomon.” Therefore, [the readers should expect] that everything mentioned in the book is a proverb [not literal]. However, the Torah is not a book of proverbs—God forbid!—so that this verse must retain its literal meaning, and we will not remove it from its peshat. For its literal meaning doesn’t contradict any logical principle, as is the case for “and you shall circumcise your hearts” (Deuteronomy 10:16), the understanding of which needs to be adjusted…
Three things to notice in the above Ibn Ezra:
- He has read Rashbam's comment and is arguing with it.
- He's declaring that the verse has one meaning, and that meaning cannot be metaphorical or rhetorical, but that it must be a literal command to put on Tefillin.
- He does not insist that the legal meaning pushes the peshat meaning aside, but rather that the legal meaning is the peshat meaning.
Which brings us to one last takeaway:
Peshat is subjective
We mentioned above that people's assumptions about the world will affect what they consider to be the peshat of any given text. If someone's world view tells them that all magic comes without conditions, then it wouldn’t make sense for them to say that Cinderella’s dress and carriage will revert at midnight simply because that’s a striking time for it to end. After all, if magic is limitless, it should last for as long as she needs it! For these readers, the “midrashic answer”--or the moral lesson--might be the start of their “peshat” answer. In this case, they may say that the only reason for the magic to end, would be to teach something outside the story.
This holds true for the Torah - or perhaps it especially holds true for the Torah. For these medieval commentators, the Torah is a bastion of truth and relevance.
Rashi, who believes the Torah speaks in many voices from different layers, and that midrashim are of relevance even to understanding the peshat, is comfortable indicating that there may be many "peshats" to a certain verse.
Rashbam, who also believes the Torah speaks in many voices from different layers, but that only one of them is the peshat, sees a different peshat from Rashi, but doesn't deny the importance of the midrashic and legal reads.
Ibn Ezra, who believes the Torah speaks primarily from one voice in one layer, and that layer must be the peshat, sees a different peshat from them both, one that eschews midrash but includes legal readings.
Other commentators will also declare different reads to be peshat. As you study, you'll have your own ideas as well, based on your own world assumptions and background and learning.
We look forward to learning from you.