Are there any Torah commentaries that incorporate a systematic theory of PaRDeS analysis?
Given the number of commentaries out there, even just the ones from eminent Torah authorities (the numerous conflicting interpretations of Bereshit 1:1 being the classic example) I was wondering if anyone has attempted to compile them, or demonstrate how they form a framework of valid interpretation.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the source, but PaRDeS is the general division: within each type of analysis are the same for subtypes, meaning peshat of peshat, remez of peshat, etc.. (hence Rashi can use drash freely while still presenting the peshat, but only if it's required by the literal text). The theory goes that there's one unique interpretation for each Soul at Sinai.
But regardless, there are a number of conflicting commentaries. And we know from the Gemara that a conflict between two sages can be reconciled at a higher level of interpretation. Meaning a contradiction doesn't always imply an error, but quite often is a "these and these are the words of Living G-d" type situation. Applied to commentaries, this would suggest that they are all valid interpretations (the eminent ones, I mean), some higher, some lower, with the "peshat of peshat of peshat..." being the most material level, all the way up to the Zohar (assuming that's the sod of sod of...).
Does anyone know if this approach has been rigorously treated anywhere? By that I mean, gone beyond merely listing competing interpretations and attempting to fit they all into a single (albeit necessarily contradictory) framework? Because the Torah is G-d's Essence emanating down into this material world (Tanya), and therefore shouldn't all commentaries ultimately fold into One?
