[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta
H Lampel
zvilampel at gmail.com
Mon Dec 25 15:53:28 PST 2017
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
More information about the Avodah
mailing list