The Farmer, Archeologist, Geologist and Treasure Hunter

THE FARMER, ARCHEOLOGIST, GEOLOGIST AND

TREASURE HUNTER

P’shat: What does the Earth Mean to a Farmer?

To better appreciate the differences between the four worlds of interpretation, an analogy from four ways one can analyze the earth could prove helpful.

When a farmer is asked what the earth means to him, or to state the question more simply, what does the earth contain; his answer will be agricultural products. The farmer views the earth as a repository of grains, fruits and vegetables. Nobody can deny this straightforward analysis of the earth and its purpose.

Not only is this the straightforward and obvious characterization of the earth it is the most vital. The very sustenance of life depends on the earth’s ability to produce food. No other aspect of the earth can come close to the importance and the indispensable nature of the earth as the source of food.

Remez: An Archeologist’s View

When an archeologist, however, is asked what the earth means to him, or what does the earth contain, his answer, from his perspective will be: relics of the past.

Let’s analyze the difference in the responses between the farmer and the archeologist. They might both be experts in their field. It is not the difference in wisdom that distinguishes them, but their different vantage points. The farmer is looking at the most basic understanding and use of the earth, whereas the archeologist is looking at the “hints” that the earth might provide about the past. The relics that are discovered will shed light on which peoples inhabited this area; how did they live; what was their means of livelihood, etc.

The archeologist’s view of the earth is no less valid than that of the farmer. The differences between their approaches are that the farmer looks at the most obvious and most significant (P’shat) use of the earth, while the archeologist looks at a more remote aspect (Remez) of the earth.

Secondly, the vegetation that the earth contains is a more natural part of the earth, whereas relics of the past are not intrinsic components of the earth.

Drush: A Geologist’s View

A geologist who would be asked what the earth means to him, or what does the earth contain, will provide us yet with a third answer: coal, oil, natural gas, iron, gold, diamonds and all the other natural resources the earth contains.

The geologist will also provide us with a chemical analysis of the earth’s composition.

How does the geologist reach these conclusions? It is not obvious to all that the earth has these resources. The geologist must conduct tests and scientific analysis that employs the deductive method of reasoning, to prove that the earth that he is examining has these resources. Often the geologist will be able to predict, based on his analysis of the earth’s composition, that there is a strong likelihood that these resources are indeed embedded in the earth at this location.

This method that the geologist employs can be described as Drush. It requires research, probing beneath the surface – both figuratively as well as literally – and arriving at conclusions that are not obvious to the average observer.

If we measure the levels of interpretation by their degree of obviousness to the uninitiated eye, P’shat is the most blatant. Remez is next because everyone can see, for example, a pattern formed by the initials of several words.

No deductive reasoning is required as in the level of Drush.

On the other hand, there is certain remoteness that Remez has that Drush does not have. Remez, though it is based on the observation of easily detectable elements, nevertheless, takes these “relics” and steers us away from the text to focus on a subject that is usually remote and far-fetched, in relation to the text at hand.

Drush, by contrast, though it takes more sophistication to be able to see the message that Drush arrives at, nevertheless, in the case of Drush it is always inherent in the text; it is its deeper meaning. Thus Drush is often a far more popular approach to Torah study, because it is more closely connected to the basic message of the text. Remez, on the other hand, is far more tantalizing. Sod: The Treasure Hunter The analogy for Sod, is the treasure hunter. One cannot employ any of the senses and methods of research to find treasures. Either one has the treasure map that guides the hunter to the treasure, or will spend the rest of his life digging up every inch of earth, destroying houses and farms and everything else to find the elusive treasure.

In the same way, Kabbalah or Sod, is a treasure that is embedded in the Torah, but cannot be accessed by any method of interpretation and deduction. One must have the “treasure map” and follow it carefully. Otherwise, one can literally “uproot” entire structures of Judaism and of life. As we have discussed in earlier chapters of part one, studying Kabbalah without the proper safeguards, can lead and has led to disastrous consequences.

We can now appreciate that all that has been said about the three levels of P’shat, Remez and Drush, does not apply to Sod. There is a quantum leap between the first three and the fourth level of Sod.

From the book Safe Kabbalah, Part Two: The Fourth Dimension by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, published by the Jewish Discovery Center.