As a way to learn more about the way each of us sees the text, I thought this would be a useful thread. Simply make a post describing how you approach the Torah, what you have in mind, what methods you are using, as you look at it. I will go first:
From a religio-cultural perspective, when I look at a text I am using PaRDeS methodology. I believe that this is similar to a Muslim methodology, but I am uncertain. PaRDeS (like paradise in English) is an acronym for pshat, remez, drash, and sod. Pshat is the plain meaning. Remez is the hinted meaning. Drash is the allegorical, homiletical meaning. Sod is the hidden or mystical meaning. So, an example.
"Joe and Fred went for a hike in the mountains."
The pshat of this would be that Joe and Fred went for a hike in the mountains. From a traditional Jewish perspective, and I concur, this is the plain meaning. Whatever other meaning is taken from it, that remains the plain meaning. Even if I'm doing biblical criticism and I think it's a more likely answer, in my understanding a plain reading of the text would bare a different understanding, the pshat understanding.
Remez we could say that they were going from somewhere, don't know where. Joe and Fred probably know each other. Things that seem implied.
Drash is homiletics and allegory. If I say that they were heading to the mountains because there was going to be a flood, and the only reason it sounds so casual is because this was a normal event, that their home would flood, that would be a drash, albeit not a very good one.
Sod would be if I said something like, Joe represents chochmah and Fred represents binah, "went for a hike" means in olam hanekudim. The mountains, read har not as mountains, but that it is only due to Ayn Sof that they exist at all.
Anything like that would be sod. Sometimes I approach like that. Often I do, because there's a lot of room to stretch there. But sometimes I also look at the text critically. And I suppose this is often too. I try not to let one approach dominate my way into Torah, as I find them both to be very spiritual.
My concern when I see the text, I want it to be meaningful. That's my greatest concern. I want to relate to the text, truly, mamish as they say, mamish relate to it. If I walk away and feel like I had a moment of losing myself in Torah I guess that's enough for me.
Dauer
From a religio-cultural perspective, when I look at a text I am using PaRDeS methodology. I believe that this is similar to a Muslim methodology, but I am uncertain. PaRDeS (like paradise in English) is an acronym for pshat, remez, drash, and sod. Pshat is the plain meaning. Remez is the hinted meaning. Drash is the allegorical, homiletical meaning. Sod is the hidden or mystical meaning. So, an example.
"Joe and Fred went for a hike in the mountains."
The pshat of this would be that Joe and Fred went for a hike in the mountains. From a traditional Jewish perspective, and I concur, this is the plain meaning. Whatever other meaning is taken from it, that remains the plain meaning. Even if I'm doing biblical criticism and I think it's a more likely answer, in my understanding a plain reading of the text would bare a different understanding, the pshat understanding.
Remez we could say that they were going from somewhere, don't know where. Joe and Fred probably know each other. Things that seem implied.
Drash is homiletics and allegory. If I say that they were heading to the mountains because there was going to be a flood, and the only reason it sounds so casual is because this was a normal event, that their home would flood, that would be a drash, albeit not a very good one.
Sod would be if I said something like, Joe represents chochmah and Fred represents binah, "went for a hike" means in olam hanekudim. The mountains, read har not as mountains, but that it is only due to Ayn Sof that they exist at all.
Anything like that would be sod. Sometimes I approach like that. Often I do, because there's a lot of room to stretch there. But sometimes I also look at the text critically. And I suppose this is often too. I try not to let one approach dominate my way into Torah, as I find them both to be very spiritual.
My concern when I see the text, I want it to be meaningful. That's my greatest concern. I want to relate to the text, truly, mamish as they say, mamish relate to it. If I walk away and feel like I had a moment of losing myself in Torah I guess that's enough for me.
Dauer
