tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post115046375510114789..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Midrashic Literalism: 180 Billion in Egypt?! A Response.joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-39028656092285270892014-11-03T23:45:51.866-05:002014-11-03T23:45:51.866-05:00if we say that these midrashim were intended (by t...if we say that these midrashim were intended (by the humans who related these midrashim) literally, then there are several possibilities.<br /><br />* Torah miSinai, passed on from the time of Moshe<br />* close readings of the pesukim, as human interpretations of specific words and phrases.<br /><br />If the latter, there are two possibilities for these intended-as-literal midrashim:<br /><br />* they are also historically accurate<br />* they are not historically accurate<br /><br />Again assuming literal intent, that is a separate task we need not concern ourselves with, at the moment. First determine whether it is, and then see what to do with it. Inability to figure out what to do with it perhaps should not stand in the way of assuming literal intent, if that is where the evidence leads. (It might or might not.)<br /><br />As a next step (to provide some possible direction) it may be important to know that Bilaam engaged in bestiality to gain a greater appreciation for how low a person he was, yet Hashem deigned to speak with him, for a purpose; or to cast his interactions with the donkey, or with the princes in Moav in a different light -- Bilaam pumping himself up, and being continuously deflated. It may be useful to let us know Batya's hand extension, as a way of letting us know of Hashem's Divine direction of this process, throughout, and letting us appreciate His miracles.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57564036028327792852014-11-03T18:54:15.650-05:002014-11-03T18:54:15.650-05:00For those medrashim intended literally...where do ...For those medrashim intended literally...where do they come from? is it Torah Misinai? Did Hashem pass this on to Moshe? if so ...why? is it important for us to know that Bilam engaged in bestiality? or that Basya's arm elongated?inutnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153397290944040672006-07-20T08:08:00.000-04:002006-07-20T08:08:00.000-04:00btw, in the above list, some I meant in terms of a...btw, in the above list, some I meant in terms of analysis of midrashim and some I meant in terms of understanding Rashi's intent, another issue that has been raised in the comment section.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153397199352542442006-07-20T08:06:00.000-04:002006-07-20T08:06:00.000-04:00"If your argument is that many people just say "al..."If your argument is that many people just say "allegorical midrash" at the first sign of trouble, I'm with you. You seem to go further, in practice if not in theory."<BR/><BR/>True and true.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153397149106563352006-07-20T08:05:00.000-04:002006-07-20T08:05:00.000-04:00""I think most of the people involved in the dispu...""I think most of the people involved in the dispute in modern times are not qualified or equipped to analyze midrash.(the subject of a later blogpost of whether only "gedolim" are qualified to render these decisions.)"<BR/><BR/>it's mostly a matter of not paying attention. (depending on how you define "gadol" some of them are not paying particular attention to midrash) "<BR/><BR/>And that is where I disagree with you. I think that most people today are simply not equipped to deal with midrash, as a matter of innate skill and training. And the "gedolim," as I hope to outline later, are not necessarily rabbis with long flowing beards.<BR/><BR/>For instance, I would consider the following folks qualified (or to possess some of the qualifications) to make statements on these matters (though I might, and actually do, disagree with their conclusions):<BR/><BR/>Nechama Leibowitz<BR/>Yechezkel Kutcher<BR/>Rav Shmuel Pinchas Gelbard<BR/>Dr. Richard Steiner<BR/><BR/>I think one needs to be well versed in a large body of midrashic literature, have extensive training in Biblical philology and Semitic linguistics, and have a punny sense of humor.<BR/><BR/>I think most people, *even paying attention,* would not be able to conduct an analysis of a midrash even on the level that <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/07/parshat-pinchas-chamber-or-belly_14.html" REL="nofollow">I performed on the aforementioned midrashim about Pinchas, Cozbi, and Zimri.</A><BR/><BR/>This includes even some great Rabbonim - because they are not trained in this particular skill set, or in analyzing midrashim from the perspective of Biblical philology.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153396461882467882006-07-20T07:54:00.000-04:002006-07-20T07:54:00.000-04:00"I understand, but my point was that you can't rus..."I understand, but my point was that you can't rush to the conclusion that "modern scientific knowledge" is the reason for any given dispute...<BR/>That is also imposing a potentially inaccurate preconception, just from the reverse direction."<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>Note it is not just modern scientific knowledge, but also differing hashkafa and philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Plus also that I believe they were authentic Perushim, who believed in the truth of Torah sheBaal Peh and the legitimacy of facts deduced via the middot sheHatorah Nidreshet bahem. <BR/><BR/>And while the medieval commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, etc.) were also perushim, even as they explored the level of peshat, I believe that most modern Orthodox base on these meforshim and go further, to the point where they are all neo-Karaaites.<BR/><BR/>And they mask this fact by transforming every midrash into allegory - not just the "irrational" (by 21st century standards) ones, but also the ones that are simply based on midrashic methods of derivation.<BR/><BR/>When approaching a midrash that seems to us to be "irrational," we should consider both the possibility that it is allegorical and the possibility that this is the result of a cultural difference.<BR/><BR/>And sometimes this is unresolvable; and sometimes one might make a guess based on various features and clues.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153395720662675872006-07-20T07:42:00.000-04:002006-07-20T07:42:00.000-04:00Further Original Anonymous:"agree with your larger...Further Original Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>"agree with your larger point, but think that eg with this preconception:<BR/><BR/>"If a detail is an explicit derivation from a verse, it is no longer a manner of speaking but rather the very substance of the derasha. "<BR/><BR/>you are going to be taking midrashim literally that others will think ought not to be so taken. I've disputed this point in the past on this blog."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but your disputing of this point won't really hold me back from making it. Maharatz Chayes says something quite similar to what yuo say - that midrashim are either intended as allegorical or are historical, but in almost all cases, the derasha is not actually what generates the midrash, but is merely something upon which to hang ones hat, for mnemonic purposes are to let it better enter the heart of the hearer. (He says more or less the same for halachic midrash.) He makes a good argument for this, based on sources, but I disagree with him in understanding of these sources and in his general approach.<BR/><BR/>My reason for disagreement, as I've stated before, are the many times a midrash does NOT explicitly cite a verse, or cites a foreign verse but not the local one - when there is a hidden derasha that generates the midrash.<BR/><BR/>One example of this is the midrashim about Pinchas, Zimri, and Cozbi, as <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/07/parshat-pinchas-chamber-or-belly_14.html" REL="nofollow">I discussed in this post</A>, which is predicated on how one understands "hakuba," "kubata," and "achar."joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153395064390063182006-07-20T07:31:00.000-04:002006-07-20T07:31:00.000-04:00Original Anonymous:I now have a bit of time (about...Original Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>I now have a bit of time (about 45 mins) so I'll see if I can briefly respond.<BR/><BR/>"... but there are many other problems with literal interpretation of that midrash, some of which I've already indicated." <BR/><BR/>...<BR/>"I disagree completely with that reading of the stama degemara."<BR/><BR/>There are indeed difficulties understanding that gemara. e.g. What exactly did Abba Shaul experience? If we take it as intended literally, we can assume he was not fictionalizing it. (Though note that in both instances, he experiences something that could be completely natural - a lengthy rock formation, and e.g. a dinosaur or whale skull - and it is others who tell him a legendary explanation for what it is.)<BR/><BR/>Yet what exactly does the stama degemara mean here? (I am in fact perfectly willing to posit an allegorical interpretation for either or both of the sources - the eye-socket one and the up-to-the-shoulders one, but the way the stama degemara links the two in explanation, saying "and don't say that Abba Shaul was a dwarf" strongly suggests to me that the stama, at least, read these sources literally.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153245124126146862006-07-18T13:52:00.000-04:002006-07-18T13:52:00.000-04:00for example, the statement in Sanhedrin 110a that ...for example, the statement in Sanhedrin 110a that Korach took the wealth of Egypt, such that the KEYS to the treasures were carried by 300 (note the common exaggerated number) camels; and these keys were made of leather; were they made of metal, they would not have been able to carry them.<BR/><BR/>Such is in all likelihood an exaggerated statement.<BR/><BR/>Compare that with the statement that Esther had green skin, taken by R Pinchas Rosenthal as clearly allegorical. As I note in <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/06/dangers-of-taking-midrashim_04.html" REL="nofollow">this blogpost</A> it is quite possible that what is meant is a sallow, or a pale complexion... and that it was meant literally.<BR/><BR/>Even nissim, miracles, may be intended literally - e.g. that Bilaam levitated and Pinchas brought him down with the tzitz, in the midrash on this week's parsha - MIGHT (or might not) be intended literally. But this is not perforce the same as exaggeration, as in the case of Korach's camels.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153243293070667932006-07-18T13:21:00.000-04:002006-07-18T13:21:00.000-04:00Indeed, I said this in my initial blogpost. I wrot...Indeed, I said this in my initial blogpost. I wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Indeed, the Talmud does state that the rabbis spoke in exaggerated terms, such that some fantastic details are guzmas. But we must take care how we apply this dictum. If a detail is an explicit derivation from a verse, it is no longer a manner of speaking but rather the very substance of the derasha. We should not take statements out of context and apply them across the board to where Chazal never intended them."joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153243212522214112006-07-18T13:20:00.000-04:002006-07-18T13:20:00.000-04:00Also - I don't know if you are the same Anonymous ...Also - I don't know if you are the same Anonymous as before - from your writing style, I would guss not. But please choose an arbitrary pseudonym - e.g. Anon, or A, or some such, such that I can keep track.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153243063061713862006-07-18T13:17:00.000-04:002006-07-18T13:17:00.000-04:00as an example, reading Maharatz Chajes, we see tha...as an example, reading Maharatz Chajes, we see that he is willing to accept as historical various (certain) miraculous events.<BR/><BR/>but at the same time will say that certain numbers used over and over - 300, 13, etc., are exaggerations, and a mode of speech. And that certain statements like "the mountains said," or "the moon said" are meant allegorically.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153242723549504122006-07-18T13:12:00.000-04:002006-07-18T13:12:00.000-04:00Oy!That is not what I am saying at all.Of course c...Oy!<BR/><BR/>That is not what I am saying at all.<BR/><BR/>Of course certain things that Chazal say are exaggeration, as Chazal themselves say.<BR/><BR/>However, before discounting something as exaggeration because YOU don't agree with it, stop and consider the possibility that THEY might not have considered *this particular case* to be exaggeration.<BR/><BR/>Chazal don't say that EVERYTHING is exaggeration; just that ON OCCASION they speak in exaggeration.<BR/><BR/>It is the very basic difference between SOME and ALL.<BR/><BR/>And determining each particular case should be based on analysis of Chazal's cultural environment; on other statements of Chazal; how such statements are used; and their relation to the source text.<BR/><BR/>They should not be based upon whether *WE* would consider such a thing impossible or ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>"According to you, they believed anything including exaggerated and impossible statements, were true!"<BR/><BR/>According to me, when they MADE various statements, they may have meant them literally in their entirety; on the other hand, they may have meant them as exaggeration.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153241931364132722006-07-18T12:58:00.000-04:002006-07-18T12:58:00.000-04:00To Josh: If you believe that Chazal could have bel...To Josh: <BR/><BR/>If you believe that Chazal could have believed in these exaggerated statements they made (which in truth were not meant literally), then according to you they believed in anything, even the impossible because you would be saying that there was no such thing as exaggeration to Chazal because everything, EVEN things we consider exaggerated and impossible for it to happen according to Chazal, could happen! So why would the Gemara in Chullin say that Chazal spoke in exaggerated terms? According to you, they believed anything including exaggerated and impossible statements, were true! This puts you and Chazal in a contradiction. Therefore it is impossible that Chazal truly believed these statements they made because in reality, they did not mean them literally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153137010222838562006-07-17T07:50:00.000-04:002006-07-17T07:50:00.000-04:00also, since you mention Rashbam, yuo might want to...also, since you mention Rashbam, yuo might want to see <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/06/parshat-behaalotecha-rashbams_22.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>, in which I discuss an example of Rashbam making use of a heavily midrashic work to give peshat - thus, taking the midrashic work historically.<BR/><BR/>That is, in explaining Ki Isha Kushit Lakach, he states that Moshe was married to the queen of Kush for 40 years, citing the heavily midrashic Divrei haYamim leMoshe Rabbenu as his source.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153067226158035812006-07-16T12:27:00.000-04:002006-07-16T12:27:00.000-04:00"5. I had about 1000 words in the article to set f..."5. I had about 1000 words in the article to set forth my views. It was not the place for extreme detail, and that is why I did not explore the different views of the 2 in 600,000 aggad'ta."<BR/><BR/>My immediate reaction to the statement that you were aware of other approaches (presumably including my own) was, "Wow! Baruch shekivanti!"<BR/><BR/>I don't try to look through many Rishonim and Acharonim in trying to figure out midrashim. Most commonly, I rely on my own skills of analysis developed over the course of several years learning midrashim deeply. (And this is note just one of other interpretations. To my mind, it is the most plausible on the basis of THE TEXT.) I don't know of a source that suggests what I did. Could you tell me where it is, so that I can add a note to my blogpost?<BR/><BR/>What I meant was not that you should discuss in great detail every midrash you cited. However, when I was first informed of your article by Happywithhislot, the thing that impressed him the most was yuor reductio ad absurdum that if one claims Chazal intended midrashim literally, one is FORCED to say that there were 180 billion in Egypt.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, in other comments on other websites in the blogosphere, it was this point that impressed them the most. Which is why I gave such prominence to it in my response, even including it in the title of the blogspost.<BR/><BR/>My point is that, if you were aware of other interpretations in which one could take this midrash literally and in which it was not so "ridiculous," then it is (intellectually) dishonest to withhold this information and claim you have a reductio ad absurdum.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous: I know I still have to get back to you.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153066765245357932006-07-16T12:19:00.000-04:002006-07-16T12:19:00.000-04:00Now, Hererodotus' works were intended as history (...Now, Hererodotus' works were intended as history (see <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus" REL="nofollow">here</A> yet some questioned the veracity of some of what he wrote.<BR/><BR/>But note, he writes of someone's body being 7 cubits tall. If we trust this conversion made in the article of 7 cubits = 10 feet, then 10 cubits in the midrash may well be 14 feet (the size of Ajax). Still more than the recorded amount of 7 cubits, but not that much of a stretch (excuse the pun).<BR/><BR/>One people allowed for people that tall, even if the intent was a 20 feet Moshe, this is still not something that should be dismissed out of hand as ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>As to whether they actually believed in the truth of the Greek mythologies - that may be up for dispute. However, one should not simply casually dismiss the possibility just because of modern rationalist Western attitudes.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, they may have encountered things which may have led them to believe in giants.<BR/><BR/>From that same Wikipedia article, there is mention of giants in North America (though it unclear whether to trust this):<BR/><BR/>"Aside from mythology and folklore, mysterious remains of giants have been found in America. Giants are usually classified as human-like remains that are 7'-5" or more in height. The book Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman recounts the following finds:<BR/><BR/>A decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 3.28 metres (10 feet 9 inches tall), was unearthed by labourers while ploughing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.<BR/><BR/>A human skeleton measuring 3.6 metres (12 foot) tall was unearthed at Lompock Rancho, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, some of these claims are "rather dodgy," as one commentor notes in the discussion page of the Wikipedia article. But there are extremely large animals which may have been dug up - to cite on commenter:<BR/><BR/>"Prehistoric animals of colossal size; Mammoth, Bison, Camel, Bear, vulcher, and even beaver, of very large proportions have co-existed with our ancient ancestors in the dawn of pre-history between 2 million and 5,000 years ago in America and the entire globe. Examples of these giants would be: Teratornis-meriamii or Teratornis Woodburnensis, a giant vulcher whose wingspan spread between 12 and 20 feet wide. Or how about the Columbian, or Imperial mammoth who stood 12-16 feet at the shoulder, Giant short faced bears 10- 12 feet tall, Beavers 6 to 8 feet long, Bison 9 feet tall at the shoulder, and camels 12 to 18 feet high. Not to mention giant lizards and reptillians whose ancient bones were excavated by native peoples--and legends likely sprang from such early fossil discoveries, combined with actual live encounters between pleistocene animals and man.<BR/><BR/>To view the skeletons of such ancient giants, you need only visit a local museum of natural history."<BR/><BR/>If Chazal's contemporaries had dug up similar fossils, it is quite possible that they believed in enormous humans.<BR/><BR/>And it is also possible that the midrash involving Moshe is allegory. Just don't jump to an immediate conclusion, based on "common sense," which is just another name for "Avi Goldstein's experiences and perspectives."joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153064427356541882006-07-16T11:40:00.000-04:002006-07-16T11:40:00.000-04:00"4. The term "common sense" denotes just that: not..."4. The term "common sense" denotes just that: not Avi Goldstein's common sense, but sense that is common to most rational beings."<BR/><BR/>who live in Western society in the 21th century. My common sense, and your common sense, to not necessarily translate to the time of Rashi, to the time of the Geonim, to the time of the Tanaaim and Amoraim.<BR/><BR/>To assume otherwise is just cultural bias.<BR/><BR/>To expand on one example that I mentioned earlier, how do you know that giants are an impossiblity in Chazal's thoughts, or in the thought of Chazal's gentile scientific contemporaries?<BR/><BR/>In your article, one impossibility you mention, that only a 6-year old could believe (so you say), is that Moshe was 20 feet tall. Let us use the actual statement, that Moshe was 10 cubits tall.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible that Chazal's rational contemporaries believed this as a natural possibility?<BR/><BR/>Here is <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_%28mythology%29" REL="nofollow">a link to a Wikipedia article on Giants.</A><BR/><BR/>Citing from that article:<BR/><I>In Greek mythology the gigantes (γίγαντες) were (according to the poet Hesiod) the children of Uranos (Ουρανός) and Gaea (Γαία) (The Heaven and the Earth). They were involved in a conflict with the Olympian gods called the Gigantomachy (Γιγαντομαχία), which was eventually settled when the hero Heracles decided to help the Olympians. The Greeks believed some of them, like Enceladus, to lay buried from that time under the earth, and that their tormented quivers resulted in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Greek mythology also features the cyclopes (κύκλωπες) —well remembered for their encounter with Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey—giants (though not gigantes) with only one eye. The titans were as well often imagined to be of great size and strength, whence the word titanic.<BR/><BR/>Herodotus in Book 1, Chapter 68, describes how the Spartans uncovered in Tegea the body of Orestes which was seven cubits long -- around 10 feet. In his book The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus Plutarch describes how the Athenians uncovered the body of Theseus, which was of more than ordinary size. The kneecaps of Ajax were exactly the size of a discus for the boy's pentathlon," wrote Pausanias. A boy's discus was about twelve centimeters in diameter, while a normal adult patella is around five centimeters, suggesting Ajax may have been around 14 feet tall.</I><BR/><BR/>will continue this thought in next comment. need to put the baby to nap.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153063908659179632006-07-16T11:31:00.000-04:002006-07-16T11:31:00.000-04:00"3. What I mean by "closely addressed the text" is..."3. What I mean by "closely addressed the text" is not, chas v'shalom, that Rashi read the Torah like a six-year-old (although you appear to believe that our Tannaim and Amoraim did just that). What I mean, and I agree this is speculative, is that Rashi looked for Midrashim (regardless of their historical accuracy) that worked well within the text. Thus, for example, the Midrash of three stones merging into one accords with the Torah's switch from plural to singular, avanim to even."<BR/><BR/>Again, "like a 6 year old" are your words, not mine. My point is basically that, if you insist that only a 6 year old could maintain such a thing, then you risk (or end up) calling people who are orders of magnitude greater than you (or me) in Torah learning 6 year old.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Rashi, he does not merely cite the midrash on a verse closest to the text; he often uproots a midrash from one location to answer a difficulty in the text in another location - one that was not initially intended by the midrash. This may well be the mark of believing in the historical accuracy of the midrash.<BR/><BR/>There are others that you risk calling 6 year olds. Have you read the Rambam in perek chelek inside? If not, I posted it on my blog at the beginning of July. See <A HREF="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2006/07/rambam-on-midrashic-literalism-source.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>The Rambam discusses three groups amongst his contemporaries. The largest group, who are idiots, believe in the midrashim literally, and believe that the impossibilities in these midrashim are reality. Another large group, who are even bigger idiots, believe that Chazal intended the fantastic midrashim literally and thus dismiss Chazal. (I am closest to this second group of idiots, except I do not dismiss Chazal.) The last group, *who should not even be called a group because of their small number*, realize that there are hidden mysteries, and that Chazal are speaking in allegory. The Rambam counts himself amongst this last group.<BR/><BR/>*However*, this last group is relatively small. The vast majority of the "idiots" is just just. They include some rabbinic contemporaries of Rambam. We call them Rishonim. You call them 6 year olds.<BR/><BR/>The Rambam is allowed to do this, in my book, because he is a <I>gaon olam</I>, and a master of the Written and Oral Law. It is incredible arrogance for you to do the same.<BR/><BR/>Another 6 year old? How about the Maharatz Chayos, in his Mavo HaTalmud. That is an impressive work for a 6 year old to write! There, he does cite the Rambam abuot the three groups, but seems to read the topic as midrashim talking about the corporeality of God. (He also talks about *some* midrashim not intended as reality but rather to encourage the nation in Avodat Hashem.)<BR/><BR/>In the very beginning, he claims that many midrashim were actually history passed down father to son - and the derashot attaching them to pesukim are just mnemonic devices (quite similar to what he says about midrash halacha, as a matter of fact). As evidence of this, he shows how many midrashim found in Chazal are matched by recorded events in Josephus' Antiquities and Josephus' War of the Jews. He explicitly includes some of the more miraculous midrashim that you consider ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, his first example is that Josephus writes that many Jews died in the three days of darkness, a midrash you claim only 6 year old could believe. That Chazal and Josephus agree on this, he takes as a sign that the midrash was actually history.<BR/><BR/>An interesting thing to note that this particular midrash is not actually found in Josephus. Presumably it was found in the Hebrew version of Josephus, Yosipon. And presumably someone appended this midrash to the Hebrew Josephus. Still, this is not the case for other midrashim he mentions. And we say that Maharatz Chayos thus believes in the historicity of this midrash.<BR/><BR/>I would note that even as we may disagree with Maharatz Chayos that this was history - presumably Josephus was smiply citing and incorporating midrashim in his history - we may deduce from here how (some) people in Josephus' day related to midrashim - they regarded them as history rather than allegory.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153051775453463092006-07-16T08:09:00.000-04:002006-07-16T08:09:00.000-04:00Regarding point (2), I am glad you finally get wha...Regarding point (2), I am glad you finally get what I am saying. Makes for more productive conversation and all that.<BR/><BR/>Happywithhislot in the above comment really answered this well, if a bit succinctly.<BR/><BR/>It is not *I* who labels the notion ridiculous. It is you who does that. Ridiculous is a relative notion to the beliefs common at the time.<BR/><BR/>For example, Chazal (including Rambam) believed in spontaneous generation, and in the dirt-mouse which is half dirt and half mouse.<BR/><BR/>Chazal believed in astrology (a science at the time). Chazal believed in a mandrake plant, which walked around and which could be killed by disconnecting the umbilical cord connecting it to the ground.<BR/><BR/>Will you contest even these?<BR/><BR/>It is *possible* that *some* statements of Chazal are intended allegorically, and it is *possible* that these statements are intended literally. In each case, I believe it best not to follow <B>pre-conceived</B> notions of what Chazal would or would not have believed, and instead follow the text.<BR/><BR/>You have not explained the meaning of the text "and do not think that Abba Shaul was a dwarf" (that he would have come up to his nose in the corpse's eyeball.)<BR/><BR/>By the way, it is important to note that in each of these instances, it is not Abba Shaul who states it, but rather he is relating what others told him. ("I was told.")<BR/><BR/>"I stand my ground; the author of this aggad'ta did not believe so silly a thing."<BR/><BR/>And this is arguing based on conclusions rather than based on texts. Which means that no matter how many countless sources I throw at you which say something you do not believe they could have believed, you will deny it.<BR/><BR/>Did you read my response to Rabbi Rosenthal, in which I point out various times that one occassion, fantastic aggada is used to determine halacha, something difficult to do if it were understood purely allegorically? That would be one way to try to pin down how some midrashim were intended.<BR/><BR/>More in another comment.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1153050763837290802006-07-16T07:52:00.000-04:002006-07-16T07:52:00.000-04:00thanks for your response. Anonymous, I know I stil...thanks for your response. Anonymous, I know I still have to respond to you, and beEzrat Hashem, I will soon.<BR/><BR/>Avi:<BR/>thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll try to answer to your points succinctly.<BR/><BR/>1) I meant that <B>in your article</B>, you wrote that Rashbam said that Rashi admitted that he would have written a <B>simpler</B> commentary, not that he would have written a more <B>radical</B> commentary.<BR/><BR/>By the way, just because they were in the same school of Biblical commentary does not mean that Rashi is exactly the same as Rashbam in his approach. Rashbam states נתווכחתי עמו ולפניו which implies that there was a *dispute* between them in the matter, with a final admission that he should have incorporated more peshat in his commentary.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, that is not the same as stating that the midrashim he cites are untrue - just that they are <B>derived</B> via midrashic methods rather than peshat-based methods. He might agree to this premise, or perhaps not.<BR/><BR/>Thus, for example, Ramban (who admittedly is not Rashi, but it shows what one might hold) notes that the statement is not <I>ein mikra yotzei ela lifshuto</I> (or something like that) but rather <I>ein mikra yotzei midei peshuto</I>. There may be both peshat and derash meanings arising from the text.<BR/><BR/>Next point in another comment so that I don't lose it, and so I can tackle these one at a time.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1152299993048106042006-07-07T15:19:00.000-04:002006-07-07T15:19:00.000-04:00still incredibly swamped. I'll try to get back to ...still incredibly swamped. I'll try to get back to this next week.<BR/>good shabbos.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1152176019972051122006-07-06T04:53:00.000-04:002006-07-06T04:53:00.000-04:00i confused the psukim, you're right, but there are...i confused the psukim, you're right, but there are many other problems with literal interpretation of that midrash, some of which I've already indicated. <BR/><BR/>"b) in one of these instances, the setama degemara bolsters a midrash about sinking up to his nose by stating that one should not think that Abba shaul was a dwarf, because he was tallest in his generation, and each subsequent generation until theirs was progressively a head shorter. The setama degemara truly seems to take this particular midrash literally."<BR/><BR/>I disagree completely with that reading of the stama degemara. <BR/><BR/>I agree with your larger point, but think that eg with this preconception:<BR/><BR/>"If a detail is an explicit derivation from a verse, it is no longer a manner of speaking but rather the very substance of the derasha. "<BR/><BR/>you are going to be taking midrashim literally that others will think ought not to be so taken. I've disputed this point in the past on this blog.<BR/><BR/>"My point was basically as follows: before assuming based on modern scientific knowledge that a midrash describing a giant must be allegorical, we should consider that:"<BR/><BR/>I understand, but my point was that you can't rush to the conclusion that "modern scientific knowledge" is the reason for any given dispute. It's just as much an error to impose one's own thinking on chazal as to start with the preconception that chazal had different "Social and intellectual influences" and assume a nonexistant difference. <BR/>That is also imposing a potentially inaccurate preconception, just from the reverse direction. <BR/><BR/>"I think most of the people involved in the dispute in modern times are not qualified or equipped to analyze midrash.(the subject of a later blogpost of whether only "gedolim" are qualified to render these decisions.) "<BR/><BR/>it's mostly a matter of not paying attention. (depending on how you define "gadol" some of them are not paying particular attention to midrash) <BR/><BR/>If your argument is that many people just say "allegorical midrash" at the first sign of trouble, I'm with you. You seem to go further, in practice if not in theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1152151789892429692006-07-05T22:09:00.000-04:002006-07-05T22:09:00.000-04:00I've got to work tonight, so I will try to post a ...I've got to work tonight, so I will try to post a better response tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>for the moment, a few (really quick points):<BR/><BR/>1) You just gave a great example of having to learn the midrash inside before making pronouncements. "hinei mitaso" is a statement about King Solomon, who had 30 strong men about his bed -- which Chazal take figuratively, by the way. The pasuk you are looking for is "hinei arso," in Devarim 3:11.<BR/><BR/>See here:<BR/><BR/>http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0503.htm<BR/><BR/>If Chazal really believed Og to be that big on a literal level (which I take no position - just that it *might* be intended literally or *might* be intended allegorically), then what to make of this pasuk? Obviously, they must make some other rendition of this pasuk.<BR/><BR/>And here is the rendition. It states בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ, a normal person's cubit - rather than Og's cubit. But the pasuk does NOT refer to his BED, <I>mitato</I>, but rather to his <I>eres</I>:<BR/>הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל<BR/><BR/>Now, an eres can be a bed, but it can also be a CRIB. In modern Hebrew, an Arisa is a crib or cradle. Thus, even the baby Og had such a large crib, made of iron, no less! (as one possible answer to the question.)<BR/><BR/>but answering questions like this is like swatting at flies. we are dealing with general conceptual questions, and a quick "but how about X," especially without going into detail about X, is tangential at best.<BR/><BR/>2) You write:<BR/>"I agree with you that many analyze midrashim without paying close attention to the text, the source of the drasha, the themes of the text chazal are picking up and commenting and etc etc. But even doing all that, people bring to midrash implicit understanding of chazal built up through many years of analyzing midrash, and that understanding is going to differ between people. And it's simply not the case that all people are equally equipped to analyze midrash - some people are just not that literary and midrash is above all a literary medium."<BR/><BR/>Of course people will bring an implicit understanding to each new midrash. But I think most of the people involved in the dispute in modern times are not qualified or equipped to analyze midrash. (the subject of a later blogpost of whether only "gedolim" are qualified to render these decisions.)<BR/><BR/>3) I don't take a series of midrashim literally that you would take allegorically. In fact, I would be amenable to taking almost any one of those individual midrashim allegorically.<BR/><BR/>My point was basically as follows: before assuming based on modern scientific knowledge that a midrash describing a giant must be allegorical, we should consider that:<BR/><BR/>a) this midrash does not stand alone, but is in fact one of several<BR/>b) in one of these instances, the setama degemara bolsters a midrash about sinking up to his nose by stating that one should not think that Abba shaul was a dwarf, because he was tallest in his generation, and each subsequent generation until theirs was progressively a head shorter. The setama degemara truly seems to take this particular midrash literally. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, perhaps a midrash describing a giant is to be taken allegorically, or perhaps it is to be taken literally. My point is that one should not assume based on modern attitudes.<BR/><BR/>I'll try to adress these and other points in greater detail sometime this week, but I really have to make a phone call to work.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1152138297107019112006-07-05T18:24:00.000-04:002006-07-05T18:24:00.000-04:00"This evaluation must be done inside, not citing i..."This evaluation must be done inside, not citing it off the cuff. We must learn through a midrash with the same intensity and rigor that we use when learning a piece of gemara. Furthermore, not everyone has the right type of mind or has developed the right type of mind for learning midrash. It takes a feel for the theme of a text, linguistic awareness, and a propensity for pun in order to understand and appreciate the situational and textual ambiguities that lead to a midrash."<BR/><BR/>I think you forget this point. I agree with you that many analyze midrashim without paying close attention to the text, the source of the drasha, the themes of the text chazal are picking up and commenting and etc etc. But even doing all that, people bring to midrash implicit understanding of chazal built up through many years of analyzing midrash, and that understanding is going to differ between people. And it's simply not the case that all people are equally equipped to analyze midrash - some people are just not that literary and midrash is above all a literary medium. <BR/><BR/>It's possible to disagree with your analysis here and yet to read the midrash as if not more closely than you do - a point I'm sure you will concede in theory. There have been a number of cases where you assume chazal meant something literally that I think otherwise based on differing implicit understanding of the themes in the text, what chazal were picking up on, etc. Eg I think to arrive on this:<BR/><BR/>"Clearly the Midrash and gemara are trying to show that on a literal, historical level, a Biblical character can be this big. Otherwise why the proof that generations of people shrunk in order to justify his having fallen into Avshalom's eye-socket. So Chazal may have thought this to be true, and literal."<BR/><BR/> you take a series of midrashim literally that I believe are allegorical, and I think I can demonstrate this. For ex, we have measurements of golias' spear and this midrash would then make him a midget. For another, "hiney mitaso" can't accomodate these measurements because it would be bigger than rabas benei amon, and you'd be left in the position of saying the midrash is literal and the posuk not, since the posuk would leave rabas bnei amon in og's bed, rather than og's bed in rabas bnei amon. This is just the beginning, there are other proofs. <BR/><BR/> I suppose I can agree that anyone who says *all* difficult midrashim are allegorical is not a close reader, but that's about it. You seem to forget your own point and to act as though your own analysis closes the door -- I don't think in theory you believe this but in practice that is how your posts on this topic read. <BR/><BR/>"If a detail is an explicit derivation from a verse, it is no longer a manner of speaking but rather the very substance of the derasha. "<BR/><BR/>That's a claim you've made in the past, and I dispute it. I believe that many drashas are asmachtas and not an indication of literalness. Surely this is at least a legitimate disagreement, and not simply to be dismissed as "people foisting their opinions on chazal"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com