Pshat and Drasha are those mysterious things that the more we speak of them, the less we understand. It is not that it is hard to "get" each one separately; that is pretty easy. What's baffling is to conceptualize how Chazal worked both of them side by side into their halachic methodology.
It would seem that one ot the other must predominate. Either you believe that Halacha is encoded into the Torah for purposes of derivation, or at least of demonstration, in which case the Drash reigns and the Pashat, albeit also a part of Torah, is more of a curiosity for those who like Tanach. Or, Pshat is the "real"meaning of the Torah, and Drash is but an expedient by which to connect Oral Tradition and Written Law.
This is why it is important to explore the interface of Pshat and Drash, by which I mean, how the too work together, so that neither overshadows the other . How does halacha arises out of the two working together?
Netsiv in his Chumash commentary offers several instructive example. He says that Pshat modifies and directs the Drash. I will begin with one that is the least technical.
When Yosef's brothers decide to kill him, they elect to bring his death about in an indirect way. Why, one may ask should it matter how Yosef dies; is it not the same "bad" whether he dies by their hand or through their handing him over to others to kill him. But apparently it matters! Yehuda says: " Do not spill blood...Let us sell him to Ishmaelites and our hand should not be upon him:(Gen 22-27). It seems that killing indirectly is better than killing directly( see Sanhedrin 77a-b about murder and grama)
Netsiv comments: "Prohibition(against spilling blood) that is expressed explicitly is more severe to transgress than one that is derived through reasoning( see Gen. 9:6). Sometimes, we find that Chazal emphasize the case in the verse over the cases learned by Drash from the same verse This is why the Court in Usha decreed that, "We do not excommunicate the head of Beis Din who behaved improperly (because of the verse, "The Prince in you people you shall not curse)". (In other words, even though we darshin this verse to refer to more than just the Prince), the simple meaning remains that we do not curse or excommunicate a Prince; the Drash does not obviate the Pshat).
In this manner, the Pshat works along side the Drash. Drash explains that the halacha is not as limited as stated in a verse and broadens it to other similar cases but the Pshat insists that the plain meaning of the verse still accrues added severity for that case that is the sole Pshat in the verse.
Netsiv talks about this in two other places in his commentary, Vayikra 13:45 and 19:27, and adduces as proof Tosafos in Kiddushin 24b. In Vaykra 13, the point is that even though the separation of a Metzorah, his wearing a cloak that covers his lips and calling "Tame Tame" is derived by Toras Kohanim to apply to all types of a Metzora, it is written in the section of a Tsaraas of the head. Therefore, it is particularly severe in the cases of the tsaraas of the head. Similarly, the prohibition to speak Lashon Hara applies everywhere but because it is written in the section on behavior during the war, it is particularly severe in the wartime(Kesuvos 46). Another example is the prohibition to remove the peyos of one's head (Vaykra 19:27). It applies to .both Kohen and Yisroel; but, because it is written about Kohanim, it is particularly severe for Kohanim.
It seems to me that Netziv would not subscribe to the notion that Drash is simply a sophisticated Pshat (Omek Hapshat). Rather they are two separate systems that generally co-operate, although sometimes one tor the other predominate in a particular case. Sometimes, the Drash even obviates the Pshat but usually it merely expands and broadens it. At other times, like the cases that we discussed above, Pshat amends and modifies the Drash. Sometimes Pshat loses to Drah out in one verse but returns in different guise as the Drash explanation of another verse. They remain two concurrent and simultaneous systems that work together to define Halacha.
This leads me to an observation that I saw in Martin Lokshin's commentary to Rashbam al Hatorah. He notes that Chazal say that "a verse does not lose its plain sense (Ein Hamikra Yotse Midei Pshuto - Shabbos 63a); yet, this essential and overriding principle is barely mentioned in their literature. This leads to disagreemtns about what this statement really means. Perhaps, the meaning is exactly this - Drash broadens the meaning of verses but their Pshat is also not lost, for the cases which are the Pshat remain more severe than the cases added to the "coverage" of the verses by Drash.
Comments