Jews have been composing commentaries on the Torah for over 2,000 years. Surprisingly, we still have not run out of valuable new insights, even about the “plain” meaning or peshat.
Broadly speaking, Jewish Bible commentaries are divided into two categories: peshat and midrash. Peshat is usually translated as the plain, simple or contextual meaning of the biblical text. Midrashic commentaries, on the other hand, sometimes play fast and loose with the rules of grammar or syntax, or ignore the immediate context of a particular biblical verse, in order to read an uplifting or edifying meaning into the verse.
At least for the last few centuries, few Jews have been willing to label their commentaries “midrash,” and the distinction can be fuzzy. A common joke says: “Peshat is what I say, and midrash is what everyone else says.”
Nevertheless, the distinction can be useful. For example, in last week’s Torah portion, verse 24:7 of the book of Exodus reads: “Then he [Moses] took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken, na’aseh v’nishma,’” These last two Hebrew words literally mean “We will do and we will hear” or “We will do and we will understand.”
This catchphrase, “We will do and we will understand,” underpins the writings of many Jewish thinkers over the last 1,500 years. Basing their thinking on the Babylonian Talmud’s explanation in Shabbat 88a, they argue that the Torah is teaching us that the Jewish way is to perform various mitzvot (religious obligations) even if we do not (yet) understand the reason for these obligations. First you do, later you understand. This interpretation of na’aseh v’nishma is a good example of midrash¸ an educational message that is neatly, but perhaps artificially, attached to the words of the Bible.
Already in the Middle Ages, a few Jewish Bible interpreters suggested that the talmudic explanation was not the original meaning of the biblical phrase na’aseh v’nishma. The mitzvot of the Torah are generally divided into two categories: positive commandments (i.e. actions we are required to do, such as honouring parents or studying Torah) and negative commandments (i.e. actions we are supposed to refrain from doing, such as not murdering or not committing adultery). When the Jewish People at Mount Sinai said, “na’aseh v’nishma,” “we will do and we will hear or listen,” they were saying that they would do the positive things that require doing, and listen to, or obey, the negative restrictions that were placed on them. This latter interpretation falls into the category of peshat. Another example is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society, “All that the LORD has spoken we will faithfully do,” where the two Hebrew verbs work together, in typical biblical style, to express one thought.
Since midrashim read messages that are meaningful to their own contemporaries into the biblical text, new generations often evolve their own midrashim. You might think, though, that the peshat, the plain, simple and contextual understanding of the Bible would quickly become a closed book. Brilliant Jews have tried over the centuries to find the peshat of the biblical text. Is there really more to say about it now?
Already in the 12th century, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam), the peshat Bible interpreter par excellence, realized that peshat, just like midrash, can and does change over time. In his commentary to Genesis 37:2, he quoted his famous grandfather, Rashi, as having spoken of ha-peshatot ha-mitchadeshim bechol yom, the peshat interpretations of the Bible that are newly thought of every day.
In his aptly titled book, Peshat Isn’t So Simple, Rabbi Hayyim Angel convincingly demonstrates that the pursuit of peshat is alive and well today. The book conveniently gathers into one volume 22 of his previously published short essays. Some of them analyze the peshat masters of yesteryear, but in most of them, he writes about more contemporary readings of the Bible.
Rabbi Angel, a young and prolific scholar, teaches Bible at Yeshiva University. His book exemplifies the high quality of new Bible commentaries coming out of modern Orthodox circles. For example, in the chapter, “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in Combining Traditional and Academic Bible Methodologies,” Rabbi Angel describes how Jews in previous generations related to the curious story of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). He suggests how modern critical scholarship can help our understanding of this text, writing, “Over the past two centuries, scholarship has progressed significantly with the discovery of many artifacts and written documents from the Ancient Near East.”
He then shows how various modern Orthodox scholars have benefited from these discoveries, and have developed new models for understanding the peshat of this perplexing ancient text. For example, a number of modern scholars believe that the Tower of Babel story is today best understood as a polemic against the ancient polytheistic society of the Babylonians. Archeologists tell us that Babylonian cities were often centred around temples whose high towers were seen as the work of the gods.
Anyone who is interested in the history of peshat interpretation, or who is drawn to this kind of modern interpretation, would benefit from Rabbi Angel’s clear explanations. Rabbi Angel’s ability to sift through the works of modern critical scholarship to find “kosher” nuggets will particularly appeal to traditional Jews who wish to discover newly invented peshat interpretations appropriate for our generation