Reviewing: ‘Pursuing Peshat: Tanakh, Parshanut and Talmud Torah,’ by Dr. Moshe Sokolow. Kodesh Press, 2024. English. Paperback. 372 pages. ISBN-13: 979-8888940211.

Dr. Moshe Sokolow’s new book is a “must have” book in the field of “peshat” study and enables him to showcase the breadth of his knowledge in the areas of Tanach and Jewish education. It consists of 16 essays and spans 350 pages. Dr. Sokolow is a professor of Jewish education at the Azrieli Graduate School of Yeshiva University. His field is Tanach study and the history and philosophy of Jewish education. He has written numerous articles and many books (including one related to Nechama Leibowitz, who he studied under from 1982-85). He has been giving a weekly parsha class at Lincoln Square Synagogue since 1985.

The verb פשט means “to strip off.” On the simplest level, this means that the “peshat” is the surface meaning of a verse. Dr. Sokolow points out that the statement, “ein mikra yotzei miydei peshuto,” appears three times in the Talmud. He explains that this statement means that “no verse can be purged from its peshat.” But at the same time, the statement is not saying that verses are to be interpreted at their surface meaning only.

A large section of the book summarizes the interpretive approaches of important Rishonim and Acharonim: e.g., Rashi, Rashbam, Rabbi Yosef Kara, Bechor Shor, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Ramban, Ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, HaKetaav veHaKabbalah and Malbim. Geonic interpreters Rabbi Saadiah Gaon and Rabbi Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon are included as well.

For example:

• Rabbi Shmuel bar Chofni is famous for his statement about the story at Samuel 1, 28 about the witch who resurrected Samuel. The Talmud appears to accept the story literally. But the view of R. Shmuel bar Chofni is that the story cannot be accepted literally because it contradicts reason. He is implying that any story in Tanach that contradicts reason cannot be peshat.
• Rashi cites aggadic material all the time. But at Genesis 3:8, he sets forth his guiding principle that he is only going to cite aggadic material where there is a problem in the peshat that needs to be resolved. No aggadah gets a free ride. A major issue in the study of Rashi is whether he is true to this principle. Dr. Sokolow discusses the Rashi on אמתה at Exodus 2:5 as an interesting case. At first glance it seems that Rashi’s mention of the derasha of the lengthening of the arm of the daughter of Pharaoh is unnecessary. But on close examination, Dr. Sokolow finds an issue in the peshat that could have motivated Rashi’s including this midrash.

I once wrote a column on the issue of whether Rashi was true to his guiding principle. I cited Rabbi Hayyim Angel who wrote (“Peshat Isn’t So Simple,” page 41): “Rashi saw assimilation and persecution among French Jews, and therefore used his commentary to inspire them during the grim period surrounding the First Crusade … Rashi may have selected Midrashim he knew were far from peshat in order to convince his community that they are loved by God and should remain faithful to the Torah and mitzvot.”

• As to why Rashbam’s approach to interpretation differed so greatly from Rashi’s, Dr. Sokolow mentions several possible factors, including acquaintance with contemporary Christian exegesis, the burgeoning Spanish philological commentaries of the 12th century, the influence of his older contemporary Rabbi Yosef Kara and that the careful study of Talmudic texts may have led Rashbam and others to apply the same critical tools to study of the Bible.

Dr. Sokolow writes much about the uneven balance between Talmud and Tanach study over the centuries. He points to several factors which tended to limit the study of Tanach. Among them: 1) the most important study is study that leads to observance of halacha, 2) encountering a difficulty in Talmudic study can lead to an untraditional practice but an unresolved difficulty in Tanach can lead to heresy, and 3) Talmud study is an idiosyncratically Jewish enterprise, while Tanach is studied by non-Jews as well.

——-

Aside from the many articles related to methodology, here are four of the eight topics that have their own articles:

1) Nimrod’s Character: Reconciling Conflicting Interpretations

2) Jacob and Esau “Face to Face”: An Exercise in Theme Words

3) Who Tore Whose Coat? An Attempt at Disambiguation

4) How (Not) to Teach Akeidat Yitzchak?

Number one focuses on the fundamental disagreement between Rashi and Ibn Ezra about Nimrod’s character. The same words at Genesis 10:8-10 end up being interpreted very differently by Rashi (following the Sages) and by Ibn Ezra. For example, verse 9 tells us that Nimrod was a “gibor tzayid (=mighty hunter) lifnei Hashem.” Ibn Ezra believes this means that he offered the animals he killed as sacrifices to God. But Rashi believes that “lifnei hashem” refers to Nimrod antagonizing God to His face. They also interpret “gibor tzayid” differently. (Rashi: “He would ensnare people’s minds with his mouth.”)

Dr. Sokolow suggests that it is reasonable to assume that the Sages had some tradition that Nimrod was rebellious. Otherwise, it would have been unfair of them to interpret the verses in the manner they did. He also suggests that the Sages must have believed that no one named Nimrod (from the root מרד—rebel) could be completely free of the taint of rebellion. (Although Ibn Ezra would respond that the above verses did not state that he was given this name to symbolize future rebelliousness.)

Number two explains that a main “theme word” in the story of Jacob and Esau’s meeting at Genesis 32-33 is “panim” (face). Here, he makes many interesting points. For example, at Genesis 32:21, we have Jacob thinking “achaperah fanav bamincha haholechet lefanai; veacharei chein ereh fanav, ulai yissa fanai.” A word from the root “face” appears four times in this verse.

Yet, here is the JPS 1917 translation: “I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept me.” A face-related word only appears one time! The wordplay of the Hebrew is entirely lost. The same loss of the Hebrew wordplay here also occurs in the translations of The Living Torah, the Artscroll Stone, and Rober Alter.

Number three focuses on the very ambiguous phrase at 1 Samuel 1, 15:27: “Samuel turned away (from Saul) to go on his way, and he took hold of the corner of his coat, and it tore.” Whose coat was torn, and how? There are four possibilities. After much discussion, here is his conclusion: “Saul tore Samuel’s coat accidentally, and the prophet capitalized on the incident to turn the torn coat into a symbol of the imminent tearing away of Saul’s kingdom.”

Number four suggests an approach to the Akedah that removes the stigma of divinely ordained child sacrifice from the story.

——-

A few random tidbits:

• In case you never read Ramban’s poem in his introduction to his Torah commentary, Ramban writes regarding Ibn Ezra: “we shall conduct an open rebuke and secreted love.”
• An interesting ambiguous verse is Genesis 44:22. Judah is speaking to Joseph: “We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father; if he were to leave him, he would die.’ ” Dr. Sokolow describes this verse as a disagreement between the textualists (Benjamin would die) and the contextualists (Jacob would die). Dr. Sokolow points out that Judah may have intended the double meaning. The book has an entire chapter discussing phrases like this with ambiguous subjects.
• In his introduction to Exodus 21, Rashbam is widely believed to have written “halacha okeret mikra” (halacha uproots Scripture). Dr. Sokolow cites an article from 1980 which argues that the correct reading here is עוקבת. The meaning with this reading is “halacha supplements Scripture in circuitous ways.” This is a very different statement.
• The term “talmid chacham” originally meant someone who studied from a wise teacher. This is not how we use it today. (This has ramifications in the case of a star female student!)
• The title of the book, “Redifat Ha-Peshat,” derives from the epithet “rodfei ha-peshat” (pursuers of peshat) that was first used by Ramban (died 1270), commentary to Genesis 36:12.
• Dr. Sokolow represented the United States in the Bible contest in Israel in 1965, where David Ben-Gurion headed the tribunal of judges.

This well-researched book—written with wit and wisdom—will be of great benefit to all.

Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected].