[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[H Lampel]

On 12/25/2017 3:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> And so, I agree with:
> : So, the Rambam does not maintain that the literal meaning of  /all/
> : drashos is to be rejected. Some are indeed meant literally, and some are
> : not.
>
> And yet still won't bother worrying about contradicting any medrash's
> historical claims.
I already stated that the Rambam holds the intent of  a medrash is not 
literal if he holds it contradicts realia, logic, fundamentals or 
pesukim. And I should add, if it contradicts what he considers the 
consensus of Chazal. And in past iterations I submitted examples where 
the Rambam cites midrashic reports of history apparently qua history. 
You may insist that he (contra the Kuzari regarding Adam and the 
patricarchs speaking Hebrew) doesn't care about whether they are 
historically factual. But if you have examples of the Rambam not 
bothering to worry about contradicting a medrash's historical reports 
despite the above caveats, please provide them.

Zvi Lampel