Question

Hello Rabbi Michael,
 
Maimonides, in his introduction to the Mishnah, divides those who understand the aggadic sayings of the Sages into three groups.
Maimonides' view is that these are parables, rhetoric, and riddles, and are not to be taken literally.
 
 
But with all due respect, sometimes I come across aggadic passages like these, and it is very, very hard not to understand them literally based on the discussion itself and its purpose. In tractate Zevahim 113b, the Sages discuss whether there was a flood in the Land of Israel or not. As part of the discussion they ask how the animal called the re’em, which is enormous in size, survived the flood according to the view that the waters covered the entire land, and they claim that Noah brought a male and female into the ark when they were small young. Then they bring the contradictory opinion of Rabbah bar bar Hannah, who saw that same re’em and says it was the size of Mount Tabor and its neck was three parasangs long. Then they claim that in fact it could not have entered the ark at such a size, and therefore Noah tied it by its horns outside the ark.
 
To sum up: it seems clear to me that Rabbah bar bar Hannah, Rabbi Yohanan, and Reish Lakish are putting together a story that, in their view, is true and contains no parable at all. If Rabbah bar bar Hannah says that the re’em is the size of Mount Tabor, that has implications for how it entered the ark, or whether it did at all. I do not see any parable here. What is the Rabbi's view about aggadic passages like these in general?