[Avodah] RSRH - History in Aggadah is Beyond Critical Examination

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:50:14AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
:             Rabbi Chaim Eisen, "Maharal's Be'er ha-Golah and His
: Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship", Hakira 4,
: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Eisen.pdf - after examing the
: Gaonic/Rishonic understanding of aggadah, Rabbi Eisen shows that de
: Rossi's proposal would meet with Rav Hirsch's approval, as both Rabbi
: Hirsch and de Rossi follow that same Gaonic/Rishonic approach,
: notwithstanding that the Maharal, departing from the Gaonic/Rishonic
: understanding of aggadah, viewed de Rossi's suggestion as heresy.)

I recommend learning Be'eir haGolah. You're deducing a broken view of the
Maharal's position from what you're getting from RCE's article. In fact,
the Maharal is on our list of rishonim and acharonim who tell you that
there is nothing in aggadita that can be assumed to be unequestionably
historical. Or, to put it another way -- that all of aggadita is
metaphoric, some using history for the metaphor, some not. And for that
matter, when anyone reads his own peirush on aggaditos, it's clear.

Be'eir haGolah #4 (p 51), translation R' Mordechai Becher, posted to
v15n9 by RGSeif:
    Now you will see that most of the words of the Sages were in the form
    of metaphor and the analogies of the wise... unless they state that a
    particular story is not a metaphor, it should be assumed that it is a
    metaphor. The matters of great depth were generally expressed by the
    Sages using metaphors, and should be understood as metaphors unless
    they are explicitly indicated to be taken literally. And therefore
    one should not be surprised to find matters in the words of the Sages
    that appear to be illogical and distant from the mind. (Berachot 61a:
    The evil inclination looks like a fly)

IOW, there is little indication that anyone assumed that aggadic stories,
particularly the fantastic ones, are to be taken historically. And,
of course, that's not the grounds of the Maharal's objection to Me'or
Einayim. Rather, it was that de Rossi questioned the Divine origin of
the nimshalim as well.

RSRH's position (tr. R' Pinchos ME Wechsler, RMBreur was the meivi la'or)
was posted to Avodah by RYLevine, IIRC:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf>
And a "slightly-condensed translation" by R' Yehoshua Leiman from that
Hebrew to the English:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf>
It's less extreme than de Rossi's, but along the same axis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha at aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l