[Avodah] Historicity of Aggadta

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 01:56:51PM -0500, H Lampel wrote:
: >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)...

Except that this isn't an aggadic story, since your interpretation would
rob the menorah of pirsumei nisah.

But in general, yes, the Rambam repeating a story as historical as his
opinion, and he would not insist that there is any obligation to take it
as so.

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

Again, you are arguing like I said the Rambam holds that no story
is historical. And instead I am saying the Rambam holds that no
story is told for its historical content, and the history isn't the
point. Some are historical, some are stories, and that's a side issue.

But if the Rambam feels that it's likely a given story was historical,
why wouldn't he use it that way?

: 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?

This point was conceded two posts ago, after RSM translated from the
Arabic. But since the Rambam says repeatedly that they're only discussing
lofty matters, eliminating one such occurance doesn't mean much
The Rambam's whole discussion of Shelomo and how he wrote ShS, Mishei
and Qoheles and citation of other examples is all about how Chakhamim
communicate in metaphor. The thesis doesn't work if you think that
they only sometimes communicate that way. (I believe that's RSM's
point.)

: "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?

This is totally irrelevent. Nothing to do with medrash, nor with metaphor,
but with the limitations of human comprehension. So, understand what you
can.

: I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and
: how correctly translated it does not indicate that,

You know Judeo-Arabic? The PDF you sent us links to is opaque to
me. To you too, no? So it's just one more official translation, no more
authoritative than the one I was using by R' Yosef el-Qafeh (a/k/a Kapach)
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/rambam/hakdamat-2.htm#3>. I dragged
RSM into this for the sole purpose of having someone tell me what the
original is, so that we have more data about which translation he thought
was more literal. And lemaaseh, he agreed with where the word translated
"kulam" belongs.

But the problem is that you're making a discussion of an idea into a
debate of that one line. As RSM pointed out and I wrote above, the whole
discussion depends on it, regardless of my overreliance on the Hebrew
version you were using leading to error.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
micha at aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507