Using A Linguistic Lens on Midrash: Does a Deep Technical Understanding of Modern Linguistics Provide Significant Help in Understanding Drashot in the Talmud and Midrash?

This piece is based on my comments in a conversation I had with Josh Waxman re linguistics and drashot in the comment section to a recent blogpost of his, here. See this earlier relevant post of mine (referenced later in this piece): https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/was-abraham-a-lamdan

Someone who starts studying the literature of Chazal, the sages of the Talmud and Midrash, typically quickly find themselves wondering at their interpretations of Biblical texts. 

The concept of midrash and drashot has been a topic of debate and reflection across various periods, from the early Pharisaic era to the present. It has been the heart of discussions pitting Pharisees (פרושים) against Sadducees (צדוקים), medieval rabbinic apologists like R’ Sa’adya Gaon and Maimonides against Karaites and Christians, and traditionalist rabbis in the face of Haskala, in the late modern period. (On the latter, see my earlier piece, “Was Abraham a Lamdan?”, re figures and works such as  R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Malbim, R’ Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg’s Hak’tav V'Hakabbalah, and R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk’s Meshech Chochma.)

The scholarly consensus is that while Chazal's drashot might occasionally align with modern linguistic principles, they operate on a plane shaped by tradition and a sense of the text's significance. The approach of contemporary critical scholarship, including the use of linguistics, is much closer to the method of peshat, as it began to be developed in medieval times. 

Chazal's Intuitive Approach to Texts

While one could argue that Chazal explored many linguistic possibilities systematically, akin to how a critical scholar does, it seems more plausible that they approached texts with a blend of tradition and intuition. They were drawing on traditions and intuition, sometimes selecting one method of interpretation, sometimes another.

Kugel

James Kugel’s monumental research stands as a guiding light here. His contributions are encapsulated in two books: the scholarly The Bible As It Was (1997) and the more accessible How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (2007). (I highly recommend the latter.)

The Role of Linguistic Expertise

A deep understanding of grammar as we know it today didn’t occur until medieval times, under the influence of early medieval Muslim grammarains.

That's not to say Chazal were linguistically naive. They likely had a keen intuitive sense of how texts should read. But this intuition wasn't necessarily anchored in systematic grammar. Instead, it was shaped by a unique set of hermeneutic tools and principles, such as wordplay, linguistic associations, the concepts of minutely close reading of halachic passages (to extract meaning from every letter), omnisignificance, harmonization between contradictory texts, and hermeneutics that would likely seem odd to the non-rabbinic reader: gezeirah shava; hekesh (i.e. מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן). Not to say that the latter tools don’t have a basis in linguistics. (On the middot as an early form of grammatical interpretation, see Saul Lieberman, re the influence of classical Greek grammarians, and the grammatical tools developed by the scholars of the Library of Alexandria of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE to interpret Homer.) But in their more extreme forms, they are far from what most objective readers would consider reasonable. 

The Relevance of Modern Linguistics

So, does modern linguistic expertise play a crucial role in understanding Chazal’s drashot? While it might offer some insights, it's not the central piece of the puzzle. After all, Chazal's interpretations weren't a product of structured linguistic frameworks as we understand them today. They were the result of tradition, intuition, and a sense of textual resonance.