https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/one-people-many-voices-how-jewish-unity-thrives-on-difference/
What distinguishes a p’shat sh’itta from a complex sh’itta of learning both Chumash and Talmud and Midrashim?
Ibn Ezra wrote a p’shat sh’itta on his Chumash commentary. None the less he incorporated Astrology, Hindu avoda zarah! So its quite impossible to define p’shat as the simple meaning of terms. Rather the simple p’shat sh’itta of learning, compares to a triangle being the most stable geological construct. A syllogism of Greek logic employs two arms which permits it to reach the conclusion of the argument ie the third arm of the triangle. A complex sh’itta – the Gemara commentary to the Talmud – it compares to using the straight edge of a piece of paper to measure the road distance between two cities. Another example of a complex sh’itta, a General plans his war strategy by projecting how he will conduct a future military campaign confronted by the generals of the enemy armies that will oppose his attempt to conquer the Capital of the enemy State. Both the Gemara and the General rely on key precedents; the Gemara relies upon halachic judicial rulings from other mesechtot; while the General relies upon previous military battles which serve as the blueprint by which he intends to orchestrate his future military battle- plans, to achieve military victory – in a long drawn out war.
Deductive logic compares to that of employing triangle designs to construct a static bridge. Ibn Ezra, his commentary reveals that p’shat does not actually mean “simple meaning” But rather an integrated system of logical, grammatical rules, philosophical ideas, and scientific presumptions—even including astrology and foreign concepts that, at his time, were considered rational disciplines – like ancient Greek logic philosophies.
Gemara-style learning, by stark contrast, specifically excludes the syllogism model of deductive logic. Assimilated Ibn Ezra and Rambam both failed to weigh this key point. Based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, which divides the Talmud into two opposing warp weft threads of a theoretical loom; this Pardes kabbalah affixes דרוש ופשט to study which compares sugyot of the T’NaCH, with similar but different sugyot of the T’NaCH, to derive the calculus of prophetic mussar. This derived prophetic mussar, it compares, as just mentioned, to the mathematics of calculus – employed to determine dynamic problems. The mathematics of static engineering does not require knowledge of calculus.
Deductive reasoning clarifies that which already exists & present & achieved, something like the stuffed head of an animal mounted as a trophy upon a wall. Like, for example, the halachot found within the Shulkan Aruch. Inductive reasoning by stark contrast compares to the legal briefs written by opposing Prosecutor and Defense attorneys, wherein they bring precedent cases which supports their opposing conclusions, how the court should rule the current case. Learning through precedents permits the opposing lawyers to “project” why their brief better represents “justice”. Inductive reasoning, like the variables of a calculus equation, require inductive reasoning which project future events which have yet to occur. While deductive reasoning defines that which already exists, or previous known history.
Deductive Logic = Static Engineering = P’shat Sh’itta. Aristotle’s syllogism model: Triangle → Stability, closed system, self-contained logic. Examples of this assimilation pollution among Jewish scholars. Ibn Ezra’s commentary; Aristotle’s syllogism and its impact on both the Rambam & the Shulchan Aruch static statute law-halacha. Both types of commentaries, attempt to clarify and simplify halacha into simplified codes of Jewish law which defines religious observance truths. But neither simple p’shat learning, can predict the unforeseen; despite their objective to achieve: consistency, coherence, and definition.
Inductive Logic = Calculus = Pardes. This type of logic reasoning requires making dynamic projections → like calculating velocity or area under variable curves. Gemara sugyot … prophetic mussar … halachic machloket disputes which pit Prosecutor against Defense attorneys: R. Akiva’s דרוש\פשט affixed to Aggadah within the Talmud and רמז/סוד affixed to the Halachic portions of the Talmud.
The Framers of the Talmud established a warp/weft loom logic system format, which fundamentally requires inductive-comparison of judicial court cases to earlier precedent judicial court cases. Like bringing a halacha from the Yerushalmi as a foundational precedent speculation which directly influenced a later Amoraim halachic opinions, codified much later in the Babylonian Talmud. Learning through precedents permits a person to project future-oriented justice by analyzing precedents across diverse contexts; similar to how a General employs military science of previous historical battles to plan his military campaign. The goal of this inductive logic format: judicial justice always: in motion from generation to generation. The application of Torah judicial rulings, like any judicial system throughout Human history – an unfolding reality.
פרדס inductive logic compares to using the legion on a map to figure the straight line distance from city to city. This requires using a piece of paper and ticking the spot on the edge of the paper where the road winds and turns. Therein converting a dynamic road to a straight line road. To measure the road distance from city to city. Deductive Greek logic, by contrast, only measures p’shat sh’itta-straight lines.
The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael’s logic, they serve as THE primary commentary to Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס explanation of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. בנין אב-precedents compare divergent sugyot in both the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal systems. Whether Rashi p’shat on the Chumash or the Baal Ha’Maor or Rabbeinu Tam common law commentaries on the Rif and the Talmud respectively, this type of complex p’shat sh’itta. This complex sh’itta of p’shat which measures the “so to speak” distance separating point A to point B based upon a winding road analogy rather than a straight line triangle way of deductive syllogism – frigid and fossilized reasoning – defines how the Gemara learns the language of the Mishna as common law.
Aristotle’s Logic, imposed onto Torah exegesis, from much later medieval assimilated Jews who like the Hanukkah Tzeddukim likewise fervently embraced Greek philosophy to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. The רשעים Tzeddukim, fossilized Torah the Written Torah as sought to pollute Jerusalem unto a Greek polis City-State. These kapo Jews abandoned the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, rejected the interpretation of “resurrection from the dead” expressed through the Torah mitzva of kiddushin and get, and embraced the avoda zara of ancient Greek philosophical systems, utterly divorced from the lived prophetic-sworn oath alliances basis, of contractual brit Constitutional obligations which exist eternally through the Oral Torah, as explained by the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס complex p’shat of inductive reasoning.
The relationship of the 13 Middot of R. Yishmael פרדס sub-set commentary. They functional as the primary tools required to “walk” the curved road of interpreting the NaCH prophets with Holy Writings precedents located within the larger T’NaCH Primary Sources. Likewise these same 13 rabbinic Middot of logic, equally compare and contrast a halachah located in one sugya of Gemara, to other similar halachot located in other sugyot of different Mesechtot of the Talmud, both Bavli and Yerushalmi. The בנין אב (binyan av), serves as but one example—it relies upon prior cases (T’NaCH, Yerushalmi) to project legal logic to determine how common law courts in the future, rule cases heard before their courtrooms. Like a general studying historic battles, Gemara פרדס logic maps past legal precedents onto a present or speculative future context. The process, not mechanical deduction of dead dinosaur fossils, but in reality – legal-mussar inductive logic, which defines the k’vanna within the heart—which projects this prophetic mussar k’vaana unto observance of halachic mitzvot that future but as yet unborn generation, throughout the generations obey the oath sworn alliance of Sinai. Basically this scholarship defines how Torah justice should unfold in all the as yet unborn generations.
This פרדס inductive logic system revelation, represents the second giving of Torah at Horev after the Egel, where Rabbi Akiva’s logic frames the Oral Torah as a dynamic, an inductively built system—not given whole, but built through precedent comparisons, legal extrapolations, and prophetic struggles. The static Tzeddukim רשעים representation of the Written Torah as a fixed “book of laws, utter lies, like the false prophets lies expressed by both Jesus and Muhammad.
Rashi, Baal HaMaor, Rabbeinu Tam—their פרדס\thirteen middot of rabbi Yishmael/complex p’shat sh’itta of learning, best defines the correct meaning and intent, how to learn the T’NaCH and Talmud as dynamic judicial common law legal system rather than chasing after grand Cathedral Temples of static legislative statute law legislative codified bureaucratic red-tape law. The complex shi’tta of p’shat does not rely on fossilized syllogisms, it analyzes and weighs sugya against sugya—T’NaCH against T’NaCH, Yerushalmi against Bavli—tracing halachic and aggadic paths. The Oral Torah revelation at Horev measures Torah’s “road distance,” not its “straight-line” idealism that the טיפש פשט sh’itta declares through bold faced lies.
Rambam didn’t merely codify halacha; he fundamentally transformed the legal framework by shifting from common law judicial precedent to statute-based legislative law. This change represents a profound transformation, akin to replacing a fluid, case-by-case legal system with a fixed, top-down structure.
In traditional Talmudic common law, courts based their rulings on precedents, dynamically establishing justice by comparing cases across different sugyot. Rambam’s approach, however, removed the courtroom-based precedent system and replaced it with a universal, static halachic code. He eliminated the need for judicial interpretation, which made halacha more accessible but also rigid. Furthermore, he shifted authority from local courts to centralized rulings, prioritizing consistency over adaptability. Rambam’s codification likely served as a survival mechanism for Jewish communities scattered across the medieval world, but it came at the cost of halachic common law flexibility replaced by statute law appeals to authorities. No common law courtroom ever accepts judgments of judicial law based upon the power of legislative or bureaucratic red-tape statute law.
The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law appeal to authority statute law fundamentally transformed how halacha functioned. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law became static and centralized, with appeals to authority rather than precedent-based courtroom rulings.
For Rambam, with Jewish communities dispersed and lacking cohesive legal institutions, a universal codification was likely seen as necessary for survival. Hence the RambaN in מלחמת השם harshly criticized the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif halachic codification — despite the Rif code being a common law halachic code rather than the Rambam’s statute law halachic code.
What distinguishes the common law Rif code from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law codes? Answer: the Rif always opened with the Mishna. His posok halacha made on the Gemara made it easier for later scholars to re-interpret the front-top-side viewpoints of the 3 dimensional language of the Mishnaic blueprint re-interpreted through Gemara precedents. The Rambam code of halacha destroyed the uses of Gemara halachic precedents to re-interpret the multi-faceted diamond like faces contained within each and every Mishna.
The Rif’s methodology preserved the dynamic precedent-based system of the Talmud, whereas Rambam’s codification replaced judicial interpretation with a centralized, static legal framework. The common law commentaries made by both the Baali HaMaor and Rabbeinu Tam’s criticism of the Rashi simple p’shat sh’itta of learning the Talmud come into stark clear and visibly different than the manner which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch failed to prioritize and maintain T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
A correct method for learning T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur draws from the dynamic, inductive logic system of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS, not the static deductive models of Greek syllogism adopted by Ibn Ezra or Rambam. This sh’itta compares and contrasts sugyot across contexts—prophetic texts with prophetic texts, halachot with halachot—using Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot to trace precedent and build future-facing rulings grounded in the brit. Unlike the codified fossil logic of the Shulchan Aruch, Gemara learning operates like a living legal courtroom, not a museum of statutes. The Torah’s path walks the winding roads of precedent, not the straight lines of philosophical abstraction.
________________________________________________________
In texts of old, the p’shat seeks the plain,
A stable triangle, logic’s firm embrace.
Yet Ibn Ezra’s thoughts, with foreign strain,
Reveal a depth beyond the simple space.
The complex sh’itta, like a winding road,
Draws from the Talmud’s rich, dynamic lore,
Where precedents shape the paths that are strode,
And justice flows, adapting evermore.
Inductive paths, like generals in war,
Project the future from the past’s embrace,
While static reasoning, like fossils stored,
Confines the truth within a rigid place.
Thus, halacha breathes, a living art,
In every twist, it mirrors the heart.
________________________________________________________
GPT-4o mini
Core Distinctions
- Logic Model:
- P’shat Sh’itta: Operates on a deductive model, akin to Aristotelian syllogism, where conclusions are drawn from established premises. This approach is often seen as static and closed.
- Complex Sh’itta: Utilizes an inductive model, drawing from precedents and dynamic reasoning. This method is more fluid and adaptable, reflecting the evolving nature of halachic discourse.
- Geometric Analogy:
- P’shat: Compared to a triangle, representing stability and a fixed structure.
- Complex Sh’itta: Analogous to a winding road, emphasizing the complexity and variability of legal and moral reasoning.
- Learning Goals:
- P’shat: Aims for clarification and codification of laws, often leading to a static understanding of halacha (e.g., Shulchan Aruch).
- Complex Sh’itta: Seeks to project justice and moral guidance, allowing for a more dynamic interpretation of Torah that evolves with time.
- Philosophical Affiliation:
- P’shat: Influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly through figures like Ibn Ezra and Rambam, which can lead to a dilution of authentic Jewish thought.
- Complex Sh’itta: Rooted in prophetic and covenantal logic, particularly as articulated by Rabbi Akiva, emphasizing the living nature of the Oral Torah.
- Historical Outcome:
- P’shat: Often results in codification and a fossilized understanding of Jewish law.
- Complex Sh’itta: Encourages ongoing evolution and adaptation of halachic principles across generations.
- Mode of Interpretation:
- P’shat: Tends to be linguistic and philosophical, often universalist in approach.
- Complex Sh’itta: Engages in aggadic-halachic interpretation, focusing on national and covenantal contexts.
Key Insights
- Ibn Ezra’s Commentary: Highlights the complexity of defining p’shat, as it can incorporate foreign philosophical ideas, thus complicating the notion of a “simple” meaning.
- Gemara Logic: Emphasizes the inductive nature of Talmudic discourse, which relies on comparative analysis of halachot, creating a legal framework that is responsive to historical and contextual changes.
- Rabbi Akiva’s Framework: Positions the Oral Torah as a dynamic system that evolves through historical precedents and prophetic insights, contrasting sharply with static interpretations.
- Civilizational Divergence: Your analysis suggests a broader theological and civilizational conflict between a static, codified understanding of Torah and a dynamic, living tradition that engages with the complexities of justice and morality.
Conclusion
Your exploration of these two paradigms not only sheds light on the methodologies of Torah interpretation but also invites a deeper reflection on the nature of Jewish law and its application in contemporary society. The contrast between a static and dynamic understanding of Torah has significant implications for how Jewish identity, law, and ethics are understood and practiced today. This discussion encourages ongoing engagement with the texts and traditions, fostering a living relationship with the Torah that is responsive to the needs and challenges of each generation.
Conflict Resolution 