4

I have in mind gemaras such as Yoma 54b, which says, according to the interpretation of one of my rabbis, that the Even haShetiya -- the stone found under what is now the Dome of the Rock -- was the first thing ever created. Must we take this and other gemaras literally, or can we interpret them as metaphor, as is permissible to do with (other) midrash?

Related: How is it that the Talmud can make historical mistakes?

Belief in midrashim

does one have to take a Midrash/Aggadah literally?

Non-literal Midrashim

SAH
  • 19,756
  • 4
  • 56
  • 165
  • 1
    Is the question does the Bavli ever incorporate Midrash (obviously yes: a complete book of Midrash Agada is regularly printed between the first two chapters of tractate Megilla)? Or: is Midrash in the Bavli different from other Midrash? Either way, I'm not sure why you think Midrash in the Bavli is different from anywhere else. – Double AA Oct 10 '16 at 14:34
  • Related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/4037/does-one-have-to-take-a-midrash-aggadah-literally?rq=1, http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/53349/belief-in-midrashim/53351#53351. – mevaqesh Oct 10 '16 at 19:26
  • @DoubleAA It happens to be that as far back as the Geonim there were those who differentiated between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Midrashim. (Not that that the OP gave reasons for why this might be). – mevaqesh Oct 10 '16 at 19:28
  • 2
    I think the moment one cares about the historical or scientific intent of a medrash they are on a different page than Chazal were. The point of Torah is to know what one's role in life is, and how to be better at doing it. Anything that helps make those points was used -- no care to whether the metaphor or model being used was accurate on a literal level or not.

    The problem is entirely a product of the modern era's obsession with making all questions scientific. This is why rishonim -- and even figures as late as R' Hirsch and R Yisrael Salanter simply weren't bothered.

     – Micha Berger Oct 11 '16 at 02:11
  • 1
    @MichaBerger I do think it can be useful to know what sort of "truth" we are dealing with when dealing with the truth of Torah. It helps us figure out what emunah does or should mean – SAH Oct 11 '16 at 11:04
  • The question is good, but a more important question is the nafka mina – kouty Oct 11 '16 at 11:20
  • @kouty The nafkamina may be that if one has to believe all this stuff literally, including that which strains modern comprehension, one may ch"v be convinced that Torah as a whole is shtus and religion is not worth it. However, when the normative worldview is a bit more subtle, it becomes easier for modern critical people to accept, and they are more likely to do so – SAH Oct 11 '16 at 11:27
  • @SAH see rambam on hakdama lechelek concerning people who understand all agadot kepshuto. Bu I want to make by my n.m. allusion a cut between Agada and halacha worlds. Anyway lhe teaching is not the literal text. So there has no importance if it is true literally or not. Even a great kantran if he has a few mg of Sechel must to search the learning domain of the teacher. – kouty Oct 11 '16 at 11:50
  • @mevaqesh: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/rysAgadaEnglish.pdf You should also see R' Daniel Eidensohn's "Daat Torah" -- a collection of primary sources on various aggadic topics, with a bias to showing the greater variety of opinion than most of us learned in yeshiva. There are pages and pages on the topic of aggadita being parable. My assertion here is milder -- that aggadita may or may not be ahistorical, the only point was the religious message. It's an anachronism on our part that we care which are pure allegory and which are also history / science. – Micha Berger Oct 11 '16 at 13:37
  • @SAH: Are you referring to the Rambam's three classes of people with regard to aggadita, in his introduction to the commentary on mishnah pereq Cheileq (Sanhedrin ch. 10 or 11), shortly before he lists the 13 articles of faith? – Micha Berger Oct 11 '16 at 13:39
  • @MichaBerger Thanks I'm familiar with the handbook. Don't worry I don't find it surprising in the slightest. In fact I document that all the Geonim and pretty much all the Rishonim held that one need not believe Midrash at all; literally or figuratively. I just happened to not have been aware of discussion on this by R. Salanter. – mevaqesh Oct 11 '16 at 13:40
  • To summarize http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/53349/belief-in-midrashim/53351#53351, you do not have to believe the non-halakhic statements of Hazal, literally or otherwise, whether they are in the Gemara or not. – mevaqesh Oct 13 '16 at 02:36
  • Interestingly according to Rambam according even the halakhic portions of the Talmud are not authoritative because of the Sages great prophetic powers, but because of their technical legislative and interpretive powers. – mevaqesh Oct 13 '16 at 02:36
  • @Double 'a complete book of Midrash Agada is regularly printed between the first two chapters of tractate Megilla'. You imply this is not (an original) part of the talmud. Do you have a source for that? – user6591 Nov 13 '16 at 14:20
  • @user6591 I have no source if Rav Ashi also put it there, but I don't know why that matters. It has all the trappings of a regular Midrash Agada (even starting with Petichtas) and has nothing to do with the surrounding Gemara. Maybe in Bavel they often learned this particular Midrash when the Yarkhei Kallah got to Megillah? Maybe it got added in by Geonim? Not sure. – Double AA Nov 13 '16 at 16:50
  • @Double it would matter according to the opinions that we take agadda from the bavli more seriously. It might matter as far as birchas hatora goes. But in general saying it got stuck in there somehow makes it sound very unimportant, something the baalei shas who put in so much agadda, for whatever reason, might take offense to. – user6591 Nov 13 '16 at 16:56
  • @user6591 I don't really know much about "the opinions that we take agadda from the bavli more seriously" or what that even means, but I simply disagree with everything else you said. I would refer to a piece of Tanakh that ended up in a Siddur somehow as "got stuck in there". It doesn't mean Tanakh itself isn't valuable, just that it's placement has little if any inherent meaning. You have to agree the placement in our case is anomalous and sui generis and something is up. It's not standard Aggadic throwaways or tangents. – Double AA Nov 13 '16 at 17:00
  • @Double I'll get back to you bl'n (bl'sh) with sources about taking agadda in shas more seriously. Offhand I think they was part of rashba's issue with rambam's opinion, but I'll get back to that. As far as the unusual agadda in this case, agreed. That's why I asked. – user6591 Nov 13 '16 at 17:42
  • @user6591 the source is Rambam in hakdamat zearyim – kouty Nov 14 '16 at 21:21
  • Some of those posts you link to seem to contain information that answers your question. Did you read through the material there? – mevaqesh Jan 04 '18 at 20:55
  • @mevaqesh By now, yes – SAH Jan 07 '18 at 06:40
  • Highly related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/11995/1516 – SAH Apr 05 '18 at 18:10

2 Answers2

1

No, Rambam said clearly that Aggadot Hashass use allegorical style.

I advise you to read two fragments of the introduction of Rambam on mishnayot commentary. One in zeraym introduction.

But the "literally true" question is itself an allegory, the question has several levels and the answer too cannot be yes or no.

in Zrayim Introduction :

Rambam said that Rav Ashi made four parts in Talmud Bavli: explainig the mishna; decide the law; the novelties which were found in mishna and new enactments; drash. For drash the message is secret and wrote in a way that everybody can hear it but wises only know the real topic.

He says that some people (the second group) believe that all Chachamim statements must be understood literally. He explain that they make a great damage to wises and shame to Jewish People. They are almost equivalent to the mal'igim, who ridiculize Talmide Chachomim and who are punisheb by boiling feces, dramatic expression (from the Gemara in Gittin 57b) explained below .

Here is a small extract:

והוא מה שאמרו (עירובין דף נג:) לבם של ראשונים כפתחו של אולם ושל אחרונים אפילו כמחט סדקית: וכ"ש אנחנו שהחכמה נעדרה ממנו וכאשר הודיענו הקב"ה ואבדה חכמת חכמיו ובינת נבוניו תסתתר (ישעיה כט.) יחד הכתוב כל אחד ממנו בארבעה דברים. ‏

We consider the intelligence and the deepness of our first wises as much larger than ours. We have four great disabilities.

  1. בחולשת השכל. ‏

weakness of intelligence.

  1. וחוזק התאוה. ‏

strength of physical desire

  1. ועצלות בבקשת החכמה. ‏

Intellectual laziness.

  1. והזריזות בבצע העולם. ארבעת שפטיו הרעים ‏

profit motive

ואיך לא נסמוך החסר לנפשותינו כשנעריך אותה עליהם. ומפני אשר ידעו עליהם השלום בענין זה שכל דבריהם ברורים ונקיים ואין בהם סיגים צוו עליהם והזהירו שלא ילעג אדם עליהם

Every word of Chachamim is clearly conceptualized and without superfluous things. To mock their words is prohibited.

ואמרו (גיטין דף נז:) כל המלעיג על דברי חכמים נידון בצואה רותחת כו'

since a Master has said (Gittin 57a): Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement.

Rambam reports and comments this dramatic phrase: ואין לך צואה רותחת גדולה מן הכסילות אשר השיאתו להלעיג.‏

It befits to their stupidity to be called boiling excrement best than to any other thing . ( __note that in the example itself Rambam is teaching us a method to link conceptually between boiling excrement and idiocy, making the punishment accurately linked to the spiritual situation of the punished person __v. Rav Chayim Friedlander in Sefer Sifse Chayim has large developments about the din, and discusses similar ideas based on Rav Dessler and Vilner Gaon).

So every word and every letter need to be accurately learned. But the Cavod is not to say that all is literal but that all is significant. The literal sense is very important because he has a great deal of truth, contains a great quantity of allusions.

Literal sense describes is sometimes parabolic only. E.g. in a symbolic language for addition and multiplication "+", "*", are arbitrary. Nobody thinks that to study their form will enhance knowledge about operations. Because the mathematic symbol is only a mean of expression for a precis intent.

Concerning Chachamim and Torah words, literal sense and the allegoric are interpenetrated. You can see examples in midrashim and deep sifre chasidus.

kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58
1

Ramchal - Mevo L'Sefer Haklalim (my rough translation)

The philosophers and scientists can grasp only the external surface of the world, namely, the physical world, according to what appears to their physical eyes. However, this is merely the outermost garment of the spiritual roots, namely, the sefiros who govern the world and are the innermost spirituality inside the physical... Just like the form of man alludes to the entire system of Divine governance, so too it is alluded from all the parts of nature, and every creation is an expression of one detail of His governance...

And on this are based most of the sayings of the Sages which refer to the Creation and to all matters of the world, whether in heaven or on earth and all of their derivatives, this is also a broad and important subject.

When our Sages instruct us on matters of nature and of this world, they are referring to its inner aspect - not on its external garment. Therefore, sometimes in their words we find things which appear strange, and which appear to be clearly false from what we perceive with our senses. But the truth is that they are speaking according to the true governance which is hidden from human eyes, which they received from the prophets and from the holy Torah.

sounds from here that they are not meant to be taken too literally.

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • Without the original Hebrew, it is difficult to know what Ramhal is discussing. It seems quite likely that he is only referring to some subset of statements in the Gemara, not all statement in the Gemara as in the OP. I see no indication that he refers to historical statements, for example, which seem to be included in the OP. – mevaqesh Nov 14 '16 at 23:46
  • But the truth is that they are speaking according to the true governance which is hidden What is 'true governance'? Whose translation is this? – mevaqesh Nov 14 '16 at 23:47