Ancient Interpretations: Talmudic Hermeneutics and Drashot Revisited
Intro, and Discussion of some specific methods used in the Talmud and related literature. With Analogy to Kabbalistic / Hasidic hermeneutics; and discussion of Chazal's approach to history
See also my previous piece on this topic: “Using A Linguistic Lens on Midrash: Does a Deep Technical Understanding of Modern Linguistics Provide Significant Help in Understanding Drashot in the Talmud and Midrash?” (September 26, 2023).
Illustration generated by Dall-E
“Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, as well as philosophical texts.”
Talmudical hermeneutics - Wikipedia:
“Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) defines the rules and methods for investigation and exact determination of meaning of the scriptures in the Hebrew Bible, within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism. This includes, among others, the rules by which the requirements of the Oral Law and the Halakha are derived from and established by the written law.”
A specific interpretation is typically called a drasha (plural drashot).
Discussion of some specific methods used in the Talmud and related literature
Much of Talmudic logic is basic intuitive analogies. And there are indeed many instances of insightful linguistic readings, as Josh Waxman points out (see his comments, referenced in my previous post).
But the formalized methods, which are a not-insignificant part of standard Talmudic methodology in halachic sugyot, are often quite far from seeming to be in any way objectively logical and rational.
In addition, no slightly complex deductive logic is used (for example, Aristotelian syllogism: If 'P implies Q' and 'Q implies R', then 'P implies R').
(There is also the question of methods in halacha vs. aggada/homiletics. This isn’t something I’ll discuss here.)
Intutive
It is interesting how the logical argument of 'a fortiori' is so central to rabbinic logic ( קל וחומר or כל שכן). From an objective, outsider perspective, it might appear overused.
Binyan Av, and the related tzad hashaveh, are essentially slightly idiosyncratic inductive reasoning: applying by analogy from more specific instances.1
Non-intuitive
Other than Kal va’chomer and Binyan av, a lot of the other major methods are not actually especially logical.
The method of interpreting extra words and letters (מופנה/ מילים ואותיות יתירות) would not be considered to objectively reasonable.
Gezeira Shava: not logical, other than in the narrow sense of looking at the same word somewhere else, in order to figure out the meaning of that word.
Klal U'Prat is an especially non-intuitive family of methods.
In sum: Talmudic methods and readings range from the reasonable, to the quite unreasonable. Often, the questions are far better than the answers.
See the stance of Rashi, cited here, which is generally the accepted one (my translation):
מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן – ויקיפדיה > "לימוד המידות שהתורה נדרשת בהם":
"Rashi and the Tosafot disagreed on whether a sage can independently reason using these methods or only through tradition; according to Rashi, one is only allowed to reason independently through a fortiori argument, while according to the Tosafot, one can reason independently in all cases, except for Gezerah Shavah. Today, it is not accepted to use these methods to create new halachot, but only for the purpose of theoretical study."
There's basically an awareness that rabbinic interpretive methods other than 'a fortiori' often don’t make much intuitive, logical sense.
Chazal's approach to history
The Talmud’s approach to Biblical interpretation is relate to their overall approach to history.
(For previous posts of mine on Chazal and history, see my: “On the historical accuracy of Talmudic biographical details and stories” (July 17, 2023) - piece on rabbinic biography and critical history; “Was Abraham a Lamdan?” (July 4, 2023)- on Chazal’s anachronistic readings in the Bible; “Instances in Jewish Literature of Extra-judicial Execution of Idol Worshippers, Informers, Apostates, and Heretics” (with previous parts cited) - a discussion of Chazal’s difficulties with a number of stories starring Shimon Hatzadik and Shimon ben Shetach.[1]
See also my discussion of the many Jewish forged writings in late Second Temple times (overlapping with Greek and early Roman rule over Eretz Yisrael), known as “Seforim Chitzonim” (final part here, with previous parts cited: “Notes on the Seforim Chitzonim - pt.4” (August 18, 2023).
I'll also mention Arnaldo Momigliano and Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (in Zakhor (1982)) who show the ceasing of inward-facing historical writing among Jews after the Biblical period.)
Isaac Hirsch Weiss in Dor Dor VeDorshav (4 vols., 1871-87) discusses ahistorical retrojections at length, such as the following:
/ מנהג הנביאים[5]
In many instances, these have little real historical basis. The assigning to specific pre-rabbinic historical personalities or groups (sometimes also the anachronistic “X and his beit din” - פלוני ובית דינו) are often arbitrary. They're really just ways of saying that these were viewed as being laws and traditions that were around for a while, meaning, for as long as could be remembered, as Weiss puts it.
Analogy to Kabbalistic / Hasidic hermeneutics
A good analogy for rabbinic derush is Kabbalistic / Hasidic hermeneutics: they sometimes raise interesting interpretative and linguistic questions. Less commonly, they provide interesting interpretative and linguistic answers. But broadly speaking, they're operating with a very different set of assumptions and methods.
[1] On the actual beginnings of the widespread practice of Judaism, in the Hasmonean period in 2nd century BCE, see the recent masterful book by Yonatan Adler, The Origins of Judaism (2022).
[2] Even traditional commentators say this. See the Hebrew Wikipedia entry hyperlinked (my translation and bolding), with citations:
"For several laws that were attributed to Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai (a law given to Moses at Sinai), some medieval commentators explained that their origin was in takanot (enactments by the sages), but nevertheless, they were presented as Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai in order to indicate that they are clear matters without dispute, just like Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai.”
[3] See the Hebrew Wikipedia entry hyperlinked (my translation and bolding), with citations:
"Boaz Zissu, based on archaeological research, argues that cities surrounded by walls from the time of Joshua son of Nun were actually cities that had a wall in the Second Temple period, built upon older fortifications attributed to the time of Joshua son of Nun. Zissu contrasts this with villages established in the Second Temple period not on ancient cities, where houses were built adjacently to create an outer wall, in a manner of a city whose houses are its wall."
[4] See the Wikipedia entry hyperlinked, with citations:
“Some modern scholars suggest that rather than describing a specific institution, the term "Great Assembly" is a reference to a specific time period (between the return from Babylonian captivity and the Macedonian conquest). Louis Jacobs, while not endorsing this view, remarks that "references in the [later] Rabbinic literature to the Men of the Great Synagogue can be taken to mean that ideas, rules, and prayers, seen to be pre-Rabbinic but post-biblical, were often fathered upon them".
[5] Such as חיבוט ערבה – ויקיפדיה
For a systematic modern interpretation of Talmudic logic, see the extensive work of Michael Abraham. See especially the series under his editorship, Studies in Talmudic Logic.
interesting! so many good rabbit holes to jump down....