[Avodah] History

[David Riceman]

hlampel at koshernet.com wrote:
>
> The Shulchan Aruch simply says that one should not read books about 
> wars on Shabbos. This is because despite the page-turning, 
> can't-put-the-book-down pull that such works have, there is no 
> G-d-directed value in them. In this sense, of course, our teachers 
> held no interest in history-for-history's sake. As the Gemora says, 
> "mai d'hava, hava."
>
Actually it prohibits it even on weekdays.  For a more lenient view see 
Igroth RAYH I: #149 (pp. 192-197).
>
> But the context of the statement I was wondering about was the 
> history-related statements made by Chazal which, by definition, 
> interest Chazal and should interest us. But interest them and us in 
> what way[s]? The thesis RMB said is held by numerous rishonim is that 
> the interest Chazal had in them was solely in the lessons to be drawn, 
> and that they were not interested in, and we should not be interested 
> in, whether those statements are meant to depict actual historical 
> occurances.
>
I would have made a less extreme statement: Hazal weren't interested in 
history as a discipline (there are exceptions; arguably Seder Olam is an 
example of history and not just parshanut).
>
>
> In other words, regarding Scriptural historical narratives (putting 
> aside the controversial points), say the events of Yaakov Avinu's 
> life, I hope we agree Chazal and rishonim maintained that they 
> actually occurred, and for that reason those events carry whatever 
> lessons for us they do. The issue is regarding the talmudic and 
> Aggadic narratives: Did numerous rishonim maintain that for all Chazal 
> cared, they did not actually occur? And if so, my question is: which 
> rishonim and where?
>
I think you'd need someone with encyclopedic tendencies for an 
exhaustive answer.  One example that springs immediately to my mind is 
Rashba Hiddushei Aggadoth Berachoth 54b (it's also cited in Ein Ya'akov 
there).  But that, of course, is an extreme example.
>
>
> I don't have Rav Sheilat's edition of the Payrush HaMishnayos. Could I 
> trouble you to present what he says?
>
There's nothing particularly unusual about that translation.  Here goes 
(my English from RYS's Hebrew from the Rambam's Arabic): "The third 
category is crass speech [hadibbur hama'us], which is speech lacking a 
useful purpose for the human soul, and which neither obeys nor rebels 
(against God), like most popular tales, and descriptions of royal 
courts, and why certain people died, and their wealth.  The sages call 
these "idle chatter", and superior people attempt to avoid them."

This is an accurate description of (pre Ibn Khaldum) medieval historical 
writing: stories without analysis.

David Riceman