Is Derush Part of Torah?

Do derashos add light to their sources, or does it really work the other way around?

Photo by 𝓴𝓘𝓡𝓚 𝕝𝔸𝕀 on Unsplash

Is every Torah interpretation itself “Torah”? Is it possible that some derashos are nothing more than the private creative thoughts of their authors?

First off, I'm unsure how to even translate the word "derush". Words like "research" or "investigation" come close, but the way it's often used in Torah literature has a clear overtone suggesting greater authority. And then, as we'll see, there are two distinct ways the word is used even within the context of Torah.

And what exactly is "Torah"? Are there limits to the kinds of explanations and interpretations that can reasonably be included and, by extension, connected with the Mt. Sinai revelation? It goes without saying that modern efforts to understand how Torah law (halacha) should be applied to our lives are legitimate parts of the process, as are ethical works (mussar) that are designed to inspire us to properly observe halacha. But is any derush-based interpretation automatically included? What about commentaries that claim to fill gaps in the Biblical historical record? Are they "Torah"? By what mechanism could they be included?

Let me apply my question to two kinds of derush: interpretation and historical analysis. Many interpreters of Torah principles like Rabbi S. R. Hirsch and Malbim don't claim to have a direct connection to Mt. Sinai but, instead, offer their intelligent sense of the meanings behind various Torah passages. They show us the methodology they used and leave their readers free to either agree or disagree with their conclusions. This class of derush presents no practical difficulties: its limits are clear.

Figuring out how to understand historical analysis, on the other hand, can be a challenge. Exactly what status do such commentators ("darshanim") claim for their explanations? Do they feel that the actual thoughts and calculations motivating the events of each Biblical story are accurately and definitively reflected in their comments? Do the darshanim claim that they're simply repeating what they've heard as part of an unbroken chain of tradition going back to Mt. Sinai itself? Do they claim to be inspired by some Divine guidance? And if, on the other hand, it's all just assumptions, can that be reasonably called "Torah" rather than the educated musings of (often very smart) human beings?

Now you might ask what difference it makes one way or the other. I would suggest that the distinction should impact the emotional and doctrinal energy we invest in the material. Does it, in other words, become part of the way we define ourselves as Jews. And, from a purely practical perspective, this should define the way we organize our learning time. If a commentator can't really be called "Torah" in terms of either authentic historical tradition or by being part of the process, then we should devote less time to its study in favor of alternatives.

Here's an example. Rabbi Moshe Sofer (1762-1839 - known as the Chasam Sofer), in his work Toras Moshe, quotes a couple of midrashic sources relating to the violence considered by Joseph's brothers in Gen. 37:18-19. He writes that the brothers considered encouraging their dogs to kill Yosef, but rejected the possibility, worried that an angel named "ba'al hachalomos" ("Master of Dreams") would be free to tell their father about it despite their previous mutual agreement preventing them all from talking. Since the dogs all technically belonged to Jacob, the agreement would not restrict the angel from disclosing everything.

While the discussion incorporates a number of midrashic and halachic sources and tries to fit them together in a quasi-halachic style, it's most likely the result of a creative process. Would Rabbi Sofer expect us to believe that the way he portrayed the brothers' plans and concerns was the objective historical reality lying behind the Torah's verses? Does he claim to have inside information on the events? I strongly doubt it.

How, after all, could Rabbi Sofer - and others like him - have acquired that knowledge? Was a kind of prophetic inspiration?

To my knowledge, no mainstream Torah commentator (previous to 16th Century members of the "Tzfas school" associated with the Ari and those who worked under their influence) ever claimed that explicit Divine inspiration lay behind their writings. Furthermore, I personally find it difficult to fathom what God could gain by delivering such inspiration: the Torah we received from Mt. Sinai is perfect and needs no additions. And Torah scholars ("chachamim") are great because of their wisdom ("chachma"), not because of what they effortlessly overheard.

It's also worth noting that, by the way they so sharply criticized each other, Medieval scholars can all be safely said to have lived under no illusions about the human origins of the Torah they wrote. This is certainly true of the famously sharp comments of ibn Ezra and others, but it's even noticeable from the way the more conservative Nachmanides (Ramban) would write about Rashi and Maimonides (Rambam). These three examples hardly fit the way you would expect a man of that stature to describe words of Divine inspiration:

Ramban to Gen. 3:16 - לשון רש"י ואיננו נכון ("...those are the words of Rashi, but they are not appropriate.")

Ramban to Lev. 1:16 - אבל לשון נוצה לא ימצא כדברי הרב ("...But the word 'notza' will never be found [in a way that fits] the words of the Rav.")

Ramban to Gen. 18:1 - ואלה דברים סותרים הכתוב, אסור לשומעם אף כי להאמין בהם ("And these words contradict the Torah [itself]. It is forbidden to hear them or even to believe them.")

I also find it very difficult to believe that Rabbi Sofer was in possession of a direct - and secret - oral tradition originating with Moses or even Jacob himself. It's highly unlikely that any such ancient tradition could have survived through so many centuries without being either forgotten or become widely known.

Just what, then, is the status of such commentaries? Examples like this one from Rabbi Sofer don't seem to be meant to inspire readers to repentance - Rabbi Sofer had no trouble writing in that style when he wanted to - and it's not an addition to the historical record (whatever value there might be in such an exercise). So what benefit did great sages like Rabbi Sofer see in having us spend precious time learning their commentaries?

I suspect that there’s some evidence to suggest that derush is mostly unsourced, casual thoughts that occurred to their authors through the course of their studies. Ideally, we readers should walk away inspired, but that won’t always be possible. It’s possible that authors fully expected their readers to understand the casual context of those thoughts.

But if derashos are, indeed, “unsourced”, then why are they associated with specific passages from Torah and Chazal?

I wonder if the tradition of the modern art of darshanos can be traced to the Ari, who famously associated his system with the various texts of the Zohar, while at the same time incorporating shocking and far-reaching innovations (like the existence of “Adam Kadmon”).

Perhaps the Ari felt his creative and sophisticated ideas wouldn’t be so easily accepted on their own, so he positioned them within the better-known Zohar. The pre-existing authority enjoyed by the Zohar might carry those new ideas along with it.

Could this also describe the general approach of darshanus?