[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[H Lampel]

On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote:
>
>
> On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> ...But he doesn't ever say that if the story is plausible, that's the 
>> point
>> of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's true on a
>> literal level.
The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is to 
make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all the 
maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons.

The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the Rambam 
does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of course 
because they impart something worthy to know) to be historically true. 
In other words, that's the default position. He never says that we may 
deny the historic factuality of events Chazal presented as factual 
historical events. I understand the citations you bring where Rambam 
invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting maamarei Chazal non-literally to  
be saying that even the implausible ones really have valuable lessons 
but must be interpreted non-literally to understand them.

So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to 
worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports.

I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's makes, 
treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making any 
qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as historical fact 
(for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the military victory of 
the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as historical fact, which 
thereby provides the lessons to be learned therefrom.

I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek (originally to 
counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's declaration that the Rambam 
holds that every Medrash is meant non-literally), where the Rambam makes 
clear that some reports are meant non-literally, but some are meant 
literally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as 
follows:

Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they 
learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are only 
for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be extracted by 
understanding the statements in a non-literal way, particularly if at 
face value they are implausible. Of the plausible reports, the lessons 
to be learned from them can be gleaned from a literal understanding, 
meaning the message is clear without needing to give unusual meanings to 
its the words. But that does not mean that they were meant to be 
historically factual. They are meant literally, but not historically.

I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were 
ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it is 
irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they may 
not have.

But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again:

         And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather all the
         drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal what
         of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them are
         [meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing something
    seen
         only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as if it
         were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness...

If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did actually 
occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why is he 
concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why would he 
invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all reported events 
irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is relevant!

But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to be 
that reported events are meant to be understood as actually occurring, 
and that while some are merely mashal but others are real, then it makes 
sense that he felt it important to exclude implausible reports and 
explain which were pure mashal and which were experienced in a dream.

And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if it 
were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had it not 
been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply that it 
was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171226/7fa4696b/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 215599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171226/7fa4696b/attachment-0008.pdf>