[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[Mandel, Seth]

I don't know why he divides your and his translation into stanzas.
The Rambam does not divide it in the original, unlike in the Mishneh
Torah, which he deliberately divided into halokhos (which the printers
messed up). But you should know is that the Rambam's Arabic here is
a pleasure to read, precisely written but with no super-erudite words,
and his flow of his argument is crystal clear. If the arguments are about
whether the Rambam is claiming that no aggadta is historically accurate,
it is the flow of the arguments that answers that question conclusively,
not just this sentence. This sentence, from the Arabic, would be:

    "because what all the scholars (or: those with wisdom) say concerning
    these elevated (or: sublime) matters, which is the ultimate goal,
    is indeed metaphor and allegory."

But the context and the line of arguments of the Rambam makes it clear
that anyone who takes aggadta just as historical fact is a fool because
everything in Aggadta is meant to teach a lesson. I believe that the
Rambam would say it is unimportant if it really happened, because Chazal
are not interested in telling historical facts.

Could it have happened that way? Perhaps, but to Chazal that is
irrelevant. They are using Aggadta as metaphor and allegory to talk
about complex things and teach moral lessons, just as Shlomo haMelekh
did b'Ruach haQodesh in Shir haShirim an Mishlei and parts of Qohelet,
as the Rambam says in the very next sentence. There he is explaining why
Chazal always used metaphor and allegory to teach some things, Mussar,
and he says they learned it from how Shlomo haMelekh did it.

So according to Chazal, there never was an actual man and actual woman
in Shir haShirim, it was all a beautiful metaphor. Could there have been
a man and a woman? Why does that matter, just as it did not matter to
Chazal in Aggadta whether the allegory they are using actually occurred
historically.

Chazal are not interested in teaching history.

However, the Geonim had a tradition that some things that Chazal say are
historical, and these are the things that the Rambam quotes, such as
the story of Chanukka. He does not quote the allegories unless he is
using them for his purposes. He also states things that he believes
are historical, such as how AZ developed at the beginnings of Hilkhot
AZ. But even there, he is telling what the reason tells us what happened,
as confirmed by some remarks of Chazal, and he is not really interested
in the dates.

In another section of Perush haMishnayot, he says that just telling over
history is something that may be in the category of "d'vorim b'telim,"
unless you are telling it with a purpose in mind.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union