<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1255">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/25/2017 11:41 PM, H Lampel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:057fcda7-0e48-53f8-c0ec-135a112bb534@gmail.com">
<br>
<br>
On 12/25/2017 8:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">...But he doesn't ever say that if the
story is plausible, that's the point
<br>
of the story. Nor that it's sufficient reason to assume it's
true on a
<br>
literal level.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The first statement is of course true. The reason a story is told is
to make a point. Thus the citations where the Rambam says that all
the maamerei Chazal impart valuable lessons.<br>
<br>
The second statement is where we diverge. I understand that the
Rambam does take the plausible reports of happenings (reported of
course because they impart something worthy to know) to be
historically true. In other words, that's the default position. He
never says that we may deny the historic factuality of events Chazal
presented as factual historical events. I understand the citations
you bring where Rambam invokes Mishlei to defend interpreting
maamarei Chazal non-literally to be saying that even the
implausible ones really have valuable lessons but must be
interpreted non-literally to understand them.<br>
<br>
So I would still ask you for examples of the Rambam not bothering to
worry about contradicting a medrash's plausible historical reports.<br>
<br>
I previously remarked that the historical mentions the Rambam's
makes, treating the plausible Midrashim as history without making
any qualifications, without explaining why he takes them as
historical fact (for example, the neis of the pach shemen, and the
military victory of the Chashmonaim), indicates he took them as
historical fact, which thereby provides the lessons to be learned
therefrom.<br>
<br>
I quoted a passage from Rambam's Hakdama to Perek Cheilek
(originally to counteract the face-value meaning of RSM's
declaration that the Rambam holds that every Medrash is meant
non-literally), where the Rambam makes clear that some reports are
meant non-literally, but some are meant literally.<br>
<br>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your take can be worded as
follows:<br>
<br>
Chazal and Rambam did not care whether the historical events they
learned lessons from, really occurred. All Chazal's statements are
only for the sake of the lessons. Some of the lessons must be
extracted by understanding the statements in a non-literal way,
particularly if at face value they are implausible. Of the plausible
reports, the lessons to be learned from them can be gleaned from a
literal understanding, meaning the message is clear without needing
to give unusual meanings to its the words. But that does not mean
that they were meant to be historically factual. They are meant
literally, but not historically.<br>
<br>
I.e., the Rambam held that although lessons Chazal intended were
ostensibly learned from, or reinforced by, events they reported, it
is irrelevant whether the events did actually occur, and indeed they
may not have. <br>
<br>
But I think his words indicate otherwise. Here they are again:<br>
<br>
<blockquote> And I will yet compose a work in which I will gather
all the<br>
drashos found in the Talmud and elsewhere...and I will reveal
what<br>
of the drashos are [meant in] a literal way, and which of them
are<br>
[meant as] mashal, and which of them were [describing
something seen<br>
only] in a dream but was stated in a purely absolute way, as
if it<br>
were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness...<br>
</blockquote>
If the Rambam considered it irrelevant whether the events did
actually occur, and held that indeed they may not have occurred, why
is he concerned with whether the report occurred in a dream? Why
would he invoke a dream, if he considered the actuality of all
reported events irrelevant? After all, its only the lesson that is
relevant!<br>
<br>
But if you accept that the Rambam considered the default position to
be that reported events are meant to be understood as actually
occurring, and that while some are merely mashal but others are
real, then it makes sense that he felt it important to exclude
implausible reports and explain which were pure mashal and which
were experienced in a dream.<br>
<br>
And describing the report as "stated in a purely absolute way, as if
it were [experienced] in a state of wakefulness," implies that, had
it not been implausible, being stated in an absolute way would imply
that it was indeed experienced in a state of wakefulness.<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>