<html><head></head><body><p>
</p><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span class="plaintextbody"><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Re: History (Zvi Lampel)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
RMB:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="plaintextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;">We
have, during the course of the years, found meqoros in R Saadia </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">Gaon, the Rambam (who is quite harsh toward the
literalists a few </span><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">paragraphs before he lists the ikkarim), R' Avraham
ben haRambam (in </span><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">his introduction to the subject), the Maharshah, the
Baal haMe'or, </span><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">the Maharal, the Ramchal (haqdamah to Medrash Rabba),
the Gra (Peirush </span><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">al Qama Agados), RSRH, RYS (from RDKatzh's Tenu'as
haMussar, see </span><br>
<span class="plaintextbody">< <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n003.shtml#03%3E" target="_new">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n003.shtml#03></a>
)... </span><br>
<br>
> <span class="plaintextbody">I assume RDE has an authoritative collection of
sources in his DT vol I. <<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br>
<span style="color: black;">Of course, you can insist that every time a rishon
cites an Aggadta he has in mind an unspoken underlying understanding that it is
not meant historically, just as when rishonim nonchalantly use the phrase ''the
Hand of G-d'' we understand they are speaking non-literally. But the rishonim <b>*tell*</b>
us the principle of anthropomorphism. As far as your thesis about a-historicity
of the aggadta, I’m not aware of any rishonic statement backing it. This leaves
your thesis unfalsifiable but unproven. So when you stated that this thesis is
held by numerous rishonim, it piqued my interest. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">As far as I know about the
rishonim you listed, I am not aware of any who said that the historical Aggadta
are not meant historically. I’m aware of the principle that Aggados that are
problematic on their face--because they contradict reason or fundamental
principles—must be delved into for alternative, deeper meanings. But this principle
is not saying that the non-fantastic historical reports are not historically
true. On the contrary, my impression is that the rishonim generally assume the
historicity of the Aggadic reports, and only if their methodology forces them
to reject them will they make an exception and do so. For instance, according
to some, an Aggadta that contradicts the pashtus ha-pesukim cannot be taken at
face value. The rishon will therefore state that it must have some “sod” and is
not meant historically. But again, such instances are treated as exceptions to
the rule, while your thesis claims it is the rule.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Some specific examples of
literally-taken biographical/historical Aggados that come to mind: The conflicting
Aggados about what age Avraham was when he discovered Hashem. They are
explained as disputing opinions or as references to different stages of
Avraham’s discoveries. But I don’t recall any rishon saying that this isn’t
referring to an historical reality. You can insert that explanation, but
without a rishon who actually says there is such a concept, the thesis remains
at odds with the facts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Or take the Aggadta
regarding Avraham’s persecution by Nimrod. In the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Avodas
Kochavim 1:3 ) the Rambam refers to this in terms that indicate he took it plainly
as an historical event: ''…the king sought to execute him, and a miracle was
done for him, and he went out to Haran''). Here the Rambam is plainly reporting
the Aggadic narrative—miracle and all--of Avraham’s persecution and miraculous
rescue as a purely biographical fact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;">Again, in Moreh
Nevuchim (</span><st1:time minute="45" hour="15"><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;">3:45</span></st1:time><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;">),
the Rambam writes: ''it is distinctly stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father
Abraham chose the west side, the place where the Most Holy was built. I believe
that he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a
deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the Sun].
Abraham turned therefore on </span><st1:place><st1:PlaceType><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;">Mount</span></st1:PlaceType><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span><st1:PlaceName><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;">Moriah</span></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;"> to the West, the site of the Sanctuary,
and turned his back toward the sun.''<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">More: The Chazal about the
Yam Suf splitting not in just two parts but twelve. One would be certain that
the Rambam would take this as an aggadic embellishment, not meant to be taken
as a historical reality (--especially considering his often-alleged reluctance
to accept miracles not spelled out in Scripture--but that’s another controversy).
Nevertheless, in his Payrush on Avos (<span class="htmltextbody">5:2) regarding “the
miracles performed for our Fathers…ten in </span></span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Egypt</span></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;">, and ten at the Sea,” </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">he explains that the ten miracles in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Egypt</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> were the ten times they were spared the plagues that
attacked the Egyptians. He shows how this can be seen from the pesukim although
it is not always obvious--an obvious reliance on the Aggadta. Moreover, he then
continues, <span class="htmltextbody">"But the ten miracles at the Sea--
they are [known only through] kabballa [i.e., the
<span style=""> </span>messorah].'' He then goes on to list the ten miracles
at the Sea--the splitting into 12 parts, the creation of fountains,
etc., etc. He expresses no skepticism or desire to allegorize the
Chazal, and accepts the historical fact of these miracles as a kabbalah.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;">To
me, it seems farfetched to claim the Rambam is not speaking about this messorah
as a historical report.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="htmltextbody"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Zvi</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br>
</span><span style=""> </span></p>
<br></body></html>