There is a concept that pesukim can be understood derech p'shat, remez, drush and sod. I'm not sure if that means that EVERY pasuk contains this 4 ways but I was wondering if any pasuk does not contain a p'shat derech of understanding?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
does not contain a p'shat, as per Shabbos 55b:
My nearest example is:
Devorim 25 (6) which speaks about levirate marriage (Yibum). The link is to the Chabad Tanach. That translation takes into account that fact that the possuk does not mean what it seems to say.
As you can see from Rashi: וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת does not take that meaning
but means that
Pshat is defined by Ohr Someach as the simplest meaning, based on the text and context.
This is a possuk in which a simple meaning based on the text is not true.
To understand it, we have to go to the Gemoro Yev. 24a that Rashi quotes.
This question confuses a lot of people, and the confusion arises from people thinking that the word p'shat, the first of the four levels of פרדס, means the same as when we say that Rashi is explaining p'shat - an unfortunate but understandable mistake. Because the two usages of this word have two very different meanings.
The first means the literal meaning of the words of the Torah. The second means the simple explanation of the Torah, how we are supposed to understand what the Torah is saying. This is what the פשטנים - Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, et al. - are coming to do, and this is why we are commanded the read the weekly Torah portion with the Targun Onkelos and/or Rashi, so that we know what the Torah means to say on a basic level.
Most of the time this basic meaning is the p'shat, the literal meaning of the words, but sometimes what Chazal teach us in the midrash or the gemara is what the Torah means, and thus Rashi brings their explanations as the 'p'shat' - the basic teaching of the Torah.
The Gemara in Bava Kama 84a has an extended discussion about the meaning of the verse עין תחת עין, which everyone assumes does not mean what it says. In fact, when towards the end of the discussion (10 lines from the bottom) רבי אליעזר has the gumption to suggest עין תחת עין ממש, the Gemara immediately declares that he can't literally have meant literally! Rather he meant...
It seems that there is no possibility that it means what it says.