<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 08:50 PM 6/22/2011, Lisa Liel wrote in response to R. Zev
Sero<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">ZS: >Excuse me? Why do
you think we say Baruch Shem? Because Moshe <br>
>heard the mal'achim say it.<br><br>
LL: That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the
reason?<br><br>
ZS: >Why do we say Baruch She'amar? Because it was on a piece of
paper <br>
>that fell from heaven.<br><br>
LL: A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how
to <br>
respond to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of
<br>
paper that fall from heaven.<br><br>
ZS: >Why do we start saying at least the first word of the part of
<br>
>kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"? Because Eliyahu
told an amora <br>
>to say it. How did Moshe know that the ketores can prevent a
<br>
>plague? Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.<br><br>
LL: That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the
reason?</font></blockquote><br>
Midrashim need not be taken literally. See <br><br>
<div align="center"><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirsch.pdf">Rav
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita I</a> (from R. N. Slifkin's web
site)<br><br>
<a href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaHebrew_ll.pdf">
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita II </a>(Original Hebrew article
from Hama'ayan)<br><br>
<a href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf">
Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita III</a> (Translation as it first
appeared in Light Magazine) <br><br>
</div>
Let me add to this the following which is from The Musar Movement by
Rabbi Dov Katz (English translation) Volume 1, Part 1 footnote 2, pages
301-302. (This is a biography of Reb Yisroel Salanter. <br>
<br>
2. See S.
Mark, op. cit., pp. 8890. The author also relates that<br>
Prof.
Hermann Helmholtz, the famous philosopher and scientist,<br>
evinced an
interest in meeting R. Israel, and an
animated
<br>
conversation took
place between the two of them. Helmholtz seized <br>
the opportunity to
express his surprise that the Talmud, which is<br>
built on such
solid and logical foundations should have given<br>
space to such
legends which sound like fanatical and outlandish<br>
fantasies, such as
the stories of Rabbah bar bar Chana, which<br>
tell of a bird
standing in the sea, with the water reaching up to<br>
its feet, and its
head to heaven (Baba Batra 73b). R. Israel<br>
answered by using
an analogy: They were living in 1871, after<br>
Germany had won
its great victory over France. The King of<br>
Prussia had been
crowned Kaiser of all Germany. His emblem<br>
was an eagle.
Previously it had been one-headed; now it had<br>
become two-headed.
Hundreds of poets and authors had
celebrated
<br>
the event in
diverse forms. He himself had read a poem in<br>
which the author
had given a description of the glory of modern<br>
Germany in these
terms: The great German eagle had one head<br>
reaching out to
Memel and the other to Metz; its one wing tip<br>
touched Kiel and
the other Badensee. They knew the reference.<br>
The poet had described
how far German territory now extended<br>
in all four directions.
Now, the professor could imagine to<br>
himself that 600 years
hence when no one would remember<br>
how Germany had been
fragmentized in principalities and the<br>
metaphoric description
of the rise of the monarchy someone<br>
would find a story of a
two-headed eagle with wings extending some<br>
300 miles in some
library. Would he not express the same opinion<br>
as the professor had on
the stories of Rabbah bar bar Chana?<br>
Obviously, just as they
understood the import of the two-headed<br>
eagle, so did the people
of those times understand the <br>
implications of those
stories, which were certainly richer in content<br>
than the mere
description of an eagle. It was because the present<br>
was so far removed from
that epoch that the description seemed<br>
so absurd to them.
Similar approaches had to be adopted towards<br>
the other Aggadot of the
Talmud as well. The reply is
characteristic
<br>
for R. Israel, and shows
his rationalistic bent.<br>
</font></body>
<br>
</html>