[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[H Lampel]

On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
 > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote:
 > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible
 > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates
 > : otherwise.
 >
 > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or
 > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a
 > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be
 > assumed to be literal history.

You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's 
plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth 
making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical 
events? But surely you agree that the Rambam  recorded Chazal's reports 
of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for 
example, as actual history (see 
https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ 
for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly 
historically false meaning) was worth mentioning!

And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) 
about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were 
really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is 
important.

But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that 
plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to 
imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports 
is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even 
plausible medrashim is irrelevant.

 > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest
 > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions
 > via mashal and melitzah.
 >
 > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us
 > license to ignore paragraphs of writing.

But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. 
Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, 
after invoking Mishlei, reads,

    l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim 
hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal.

You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the 
predicate of the sentence, and you translate it:

     ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which 
form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah 
and mashal.''

But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the 
subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the 
passage translates:

    for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters,
    which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah
    and mashal.


Which did the Rambam mean?

Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama 
L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all 
the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty 
matters. There he phrases the thought:

    V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal
    umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u
    haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim.

    And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to
    understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their
    chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the
    undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to
    develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their
    words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL]
    through remazim.


What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: 
/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser 
people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or 
ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they 
should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically 
and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface 
meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better 
that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the 
code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then 
that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing 
preference, but that's what he says!)

This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty 
teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized 
for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other 
teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as 
well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the 
profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. 
Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's 
reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it 
to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both 
as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3).

So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the 
Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports 
irrelevant.

Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without 
qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, 
certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even 
all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim 
elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in 
the Talmud about who was ‎whose rebbi, and their times and locations, 
and indeed invokes these facts in the ‎Mishneh Torah introduction to 
support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ‎does Iggeress Rav 
Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important.

Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to 
Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed 
in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and 
the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ 
levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that,

    einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo
    nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim
    ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu
    ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/.

    [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this
    category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/
    nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended
    completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar,
    or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar.
    I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their
    statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah
    umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/,
    and /not in any nigleh/ from it.


--Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, 
have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the 
nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which 
are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of 
which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the 
device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is 
(nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim.

So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a 
(non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, 
like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by 
the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those 
maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those 
implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all.

Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim 
la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' 
for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of 
rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass 
‎haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal 
v’chidah for some other ‎concept that must be disguised from the 
masses.‎ Many other such examples can be found.

Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud 
and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of 
Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it 
important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual.

When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand 
it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as 
described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, 
does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of 
Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is 
important.

 > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke
 > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts
 > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an
 > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam
 > : doesn't care whether it's historically so?
 >
 >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that
 > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant
 > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am
 > willing to entertain anything.
 >
 > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even
 > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in
 > <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n141.shtml#11> as well as
 > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to
 > mention historical evidence.

None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the 
Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or 
three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to 
Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was 
intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain 
that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, 
despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as 
I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other 
arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei 
elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their 
surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of 
writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events.

If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the 
historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does 
not come from these paragraphs of writing.

 > ...
 >
 > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam
 > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be
 > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything
 > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the
 > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon
 > haQodesh.

That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But 
again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what 
you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) 
assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant 
historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a 
mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be 
hidden from the masses.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180101/2148ce6d/attachment-0002.htm>