<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1255">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c05f04a7-282c-dcf8-5ddd-4409b49a0a1a@gmail.com">On
1/2/2018 4:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">... 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?</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
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). (Of course, even this is saying
that when Chazal reported a military victory of the few against the
many, etc.., they meant it historically, which according to you is
not their concern. Could be the whole thing is metaphor for Chazal's
belief that good triumphs over evil.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c05f04a7-282c-dcf8-5ddd-4409b49a0a1a@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">
... You
are arguing as though I said that the Rambam concidered EVERY aggadic
story ahistorical.
What I said was, according to the Rambam none of them were repeated for
the sake of history. Which then leaves the matter of historicity open
to personal opinion.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I agree Chazal did not report history solely for the sake of
history, sans a lesson from it.<br>
<br>
That doesn't mean the lesson was their exclusive concern, and they
were unconcerned about the historic veracity of the event they
connected the lesson to.<br>
<br>
But your your rendition of the proof text you brought indicated just
that, and not that . You claimed it proved that all of Chazal's
statements (and not just the implausible ones) are intended solely
for sublime concepts. Which means Rambam's stand on the matter of
historicity is not open to personal opinion, but that Chazal and he
were definitely unconcerned about it.<br>
<br>
Thus my counterpoints from Rambam's writings where he does express
such concern and/or spontaneously and innocently repeats Midrashim
as historic fact.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
''Kol dibbur v'dibbur min HaTorah yeish bahen chochmos upela-im l'mi
she-mayvin osom v'lo hu-saga tachliss chochmasam...''<br>
<br>
''All the statements in the Torah contains chochmos upela-im for one
who understands them, and [yet] their ultimate wisdom is
unfathomable.''<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<span dir="RTL" style="font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"
lang="AR-SA"></span>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c05f04a7-282c-dcf8-5ddd-4409b49a0a1a@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">
...
: And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10)
: about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were
: really reports of dreams and which were not...
He felt a need to reassure the rationalist that his mesorah isn't teaching
things that were disproven philosophically.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I think you missed my point. That reassurance is already
accomplished by the alleged position that in /all/ their comments,
plausible as well as implausible, the intent is exclusively in the
(sublime) message, and the veracity of the event is irrelevant.<br>
<br>
But, if he held that veracity of events reported was of concern, and
that only implausible reports contain inyanim elokyim, there is
reason for the Rambam to go out of his way to categorize some
reports as reports of dreams.<br>
<br>
I posted separately about the translation of Rambam's Arabic, and
how correctly translated it does not indicate that,<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c05f04a7-282c-dcf8-5ddd-4409b49a0a1a@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20180102214051.GA11128@aishdas.org">
<pre wrap="">... mashal is the way of communicating deep stuff -- but it's
ALL deep stuff.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol36/v36n001.shtml#14</a> (see paragraph
beginning, ''--Two types of statements'')<br>
<br>
Zvi Lampel<br>
</body>
</html>