[Avodah] Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply
on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav
in a different direction.

I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the
"q" in "Amaleiq".)

: I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported
: wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher
: Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where
: we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history.

: Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint
: in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious
: revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of
: anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where
: the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in
: order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal
: add a story that isn't needed.

: Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or
: pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some
: of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising,
: but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read
: historically, I wonder.

I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical
aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.)
Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened"
the criteria for such categorization?

If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that
defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem
derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if
you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh
chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories
that defy how the world works.

(And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how
we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who
accept miracles.)

In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and
historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study
of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually
stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't
defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures.

Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav
and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking
about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid.

IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh
and av deis din derelict in his duty?

The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means
that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it
was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of
myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes
the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because
they're only ahistoric.


I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so
much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from
within the midrashic-story system.

So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about
the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..."

While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise"
far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an
illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
micha at aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter