[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[H Lampel]

> On 1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> ... The story of the Chanukah oil
>> might not be an aggadic story, as the chiyuv of pirsumei nisa is impossible
>> without knowing the neis. This is the same reason the Rambam records the
>> story in the Yad, no?
If Chazal were not interested in the historical veracity of events they 
reported, then one could easily argue that the story about the pach 
shemen is metaphor; and the kindling of lights is to symbolize, 
celebrate and publicize the miraculous victory of the Maccabees that 
brought about ''the freedom to worship...concealed in darkness ... now 
brought to light'' (Josephus). (Of course, even this is saying that when 
Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the many, etc.., 
they meant it historically, which according to you is not their concern. 
Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's belief that good 
triumphs over evil.)
>> ... You
>> are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic
>> story ahistorical.
>>
>> What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for
>> the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open
>> to personal opinion.
I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of history, 
sans a lesson from it.

That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they were 
unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they connected the 
lesson to.

But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just 
that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's 
statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely for 
sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of 
historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he were 
definitely unconcerned about it.

Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express such 
concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim as 
historic fact.

And as for deducing from Rambam's alleged remark (that ''all the words 
of Chazal are expressing inyanim elokiyim/elyonim'') that the Rambam 
held that their intent was /only/ in those matters, would you conclude 
the same from this passage from the 8th Y'sod HaDaas?

''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi 
she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...''

''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one 
who  understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is unfathomable.''

Shall one conclude from this that the Rambam holds that the Torah's only 
intent was for these wondrous concepts, and that it is not concerned 
with the historic veracity of the lives of the Avos, of Yetsias 
Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah?
>> ...
>> : 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...
>>
>> He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching
>> things that were disproven philosophically.
I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already accomplished by 
the alleged position that in /all/ their comments, plausible as well as 
implausible, the intent is exclusively in the (sublime) message, and the 
veracity of the event is irrelevant.

But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and 
that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is reason 
for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some reports as 
reports of dreams.

I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and how 
correctly translated it does not indicate that,
>> ... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's
>> ALL deep stuff.
>>
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14 (see paragraph 
beginning, ''--Two types of statements'')

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180104/1499fef9/attachment-0002.htm>