Parashat Behar-Bechukotai (5761)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Behar-Bechukotai, 5761

PaRDeS: plain meaning, allusion, midrashic interpretation, and secret

In Parashat Behar the law of the Hebrew slave appears, and there the Torah establishes: 'He shall go out in the Jubilee year, he and his children.'

By contrast, in Parashat Mishpatim it is written: 'And he shall serve him forever.' The Sages, in tractate Kiddushin, point to

this contradiction, and answer: 'Forever'—that is, until the Jubilee. In other words, here there is an interpretation by way of

midrashic interpretation (as a result of a parallel verse), according to which 'forever' means until the Jubilee, whereas by way of the plain meaning,

as the Talmud assumes, the meaning of the word 'forever' is forever, literally. So too in the case of 'an eye

for an eye,' there is the interpretation by way of midrash that it refers to money, and there is the interpretation by way of

the plain meaning, that it refers to an actual eye. It is clear that both interpretations are valid, for if not, it is not clear

why the Torah would express itself in so strange and obscure a manner.

There are various explanations that attempt to reconcile these two modes of interpretation: the plain meaning and the midrashic. For example,

in the context of 'an eye for an eye' they explain that in truth it would have been fitting to put out the eye of one who injured

his fellow, but the Torah instructs, in practice, that he pay only money. That is, the plain meaning points to the

value judgment, whereas the midrash indicates the practical law. So too regarding the interpretation of 'forever' as meaning 'until the Jubilee,' there one may explain that the slave in fact ought to have been acquired forever, since that is his wish (this also has a halakhic implication: the master has rights of ownership over the slave's very person, which is not the case in other temporary acquisitions). However, the Torah instructs us that in practice we must free him at the Jubilee despite his wish, because we are all servants of the Holy One, blessed be He, and are not full owners even of ourselves.

This phenomenon of contradictory interpretations is well known and accepted in the world of Torah. As is well known, there are four

modes of interpreting the Torah: plain meaning, allusion, midrashic interpretation, and secret; their traditional acronym is PaRDeS. Let us try to understand

something of the relations among these methods, and of their nature.

Plain meaning is a very problematic concept, for it is not at all clear how to define the

'simple' interpretation. Simple from the standpoint of language? From the standpoint of comprehension? Or perhaps a combination of the two criteria? Despite

this, we do have an intuition about what is called interpretation by way of the plain meaning, and therefore I will not try to define it further.

Allusion, by contrast, is the use of strange formal tools in the interpretation of the Torah. For example,

from the verse in Song of Songs, 'let the mixed wine not be lacking,' the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin learns that the Sanhedrin, which numbers

seventy elders, may not allow more than twenty of its members to leave the plenary chamber (the Chamber

of Hewn Stone) at the same time. At least fifty members of the Sanhedrin must always remain, since the numerical value of the original Hebrew word translated here as 'mixed wine'

is 50.

It seems quite clear that no claim is being made here that this is the meaning of the verse. We may use the tool of allusion

in order to derive laws or instructions from biblical verses, but allusion is not an interpretive process. For the purposes of allusion,

Scripture serves only as a code, and not as a source of information. To illustrate the point

it is worth noting that the methods of allusion are usually based on letters and not on words. The basic unit

of meaning in a language is a word (or even a sentence). Allusion, whether it is gematria

or acronymic interpretation, uses the letters of the Torah and not its words. By contrast, the other methods usually use words and sentences. That is, the other methods are in the nature of interpretation of Scripture, whereas allusion is a different kind of relation. It is not interpretation.

Midrash, or at least legal midrash, appears at first glance to be similar to allusion. There are thirteen principles that legal midrash

uses, and these are seemingly formal rules for approaching Scripture (though they relate to its words and not

to its letters). This too does not seem to be interpretation, but it appears that this is not so. Midrash is carried out

with different tools, but the result of midrash is a different interpretation of biblical verses. This can be shown,

but this is not the place to elaborate on it (see, for example, the dispute between Maimonides and Nahmanides regarding Maimonides' second foundational principle in his introduction to the Book of the Commandments).

The secret level is certainly interpretation, but it describes the verses (legal principles or

historical events) in a language, and within a conceptual system, that is different from the accepted one.

There is a division parallel to the division into PaRDeS, and that is the division between the revealed and the hidden. Apparently the revealed

is the plain meaning, the hidden is the secret level, and midrash and allusion lie between them. This conception is based on the understanding

that 'hidden' means concealed in the verses of the Torah, that is, distant from the plain meaning. And 'revealed' is the interpretation

naturally suggested by the verses. However, this axis of distance between the interpretation and what is suggested by the verses is

the axis that distinguishes among the four PaRDeS methods, and not between the revealed and the hidden. The axis that distinguishes between the revealed

and the hidden is the question from which world the conceptual system employed in the discussion at hand is drawn.

According to this criterion it is clear that the secret level is the hidden, since its language is drawn from a higher realm, whereas all the other methods (the first three of PaRDeS) belong equally to the revealed. In all of them the conventional language of Torah law is used. What distinguishes them is the interpretive tools and the 'distance' from the verses.

From this emerges a very interesting consequence: the plain meaning and the midrashic interpretation are in their essence opposing, and even

contradictory, interpretations. The hidden and the revealed are one and the same interpretation itself, only formulated in different languages. Therefore

a halakhic, or other, contradiction between the revealed and the hidden is in the nature of an 'accident.' In principle there ought

to be perfect correspondence, and if there is no such correspondence, it is clear that an error has occurred on one side of

the equation. With respect to the relation between the plain meaning and the midrashic interpretation, by contrast, precisely because these are in essence contradictory interpretations, it is clear that both of them 'were right together.' A possible way to see this is described at the beginning

of our remarks regarding the slave and regarding the punishment of one who put out his fellow's eye.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This may be left for respectful disposal in any synagogue or rabbinic academy. Comments and responses will be gratefully received.

Biton88.doc