I asked there but wasn’t answered regarding question A. I think I clarified the question. And regarding question B, I brought examples there that prove that the homiletic interpretations are not just pumping things up, as you call it. I’d be very happy if the Rabbi would address there or here the examples, and also the example from the Passover Haggadah. I wasn’t asking for an explanation, only saying that this proves it’s not just hype, but rather that they had a mode of exposition whose nature we do not know.

I answered there. The “proof” from the interpretations about the plagues in the Haggadah is truly astounding. You took the words right out of my mouth.

https://www.mifgash-haparasha.co.il/image/users/210124/ftp/my_files/vaera%20full%2012.pdf?id=10094557

Nahum, an article on the counting of the plagues. Maybe it will put your mind at ease.

Rabbi, why are you using sarcasm? I meant that yes, you answered there, but I continued asking there and you didn’t continue answering.

I really wasn’t being sarcastic. I answered there, and that’s it. If something in the answer doesn’t seem right to you, then please do me the courtesy of formulating it in a reasonable and understandable way—not in the form of riddles and references to examples that you didn’t give, and certainly not with strange proofs from the midrash about the numbers of the plagues, which I assume even you yourself don’t understand as a proof from there.
I expect someone who asks here to devote a minimal amount of time to formulating for himself what exactly is bothering him, and then to formulate it to me as well in a way that I can understand. If and when you do that, I’ll try to see what was unclear and whether I can add an explanation.

Okay, I’ll try to phrase it more clearly. I understood that your approach regarding homiletic interpretations in aggadic literature, as opposed to interpretations in Jewish law, is that the Sages took things they already knew beforehand and merely attached them to the verses in order to strengthen the people, and that they really had no actual proof from the verses for what they said. I’m asking because there are very many midrashim of the Sages that don’t seem to have come for the sake of strengthening at all, such as where they expounded many sins committed by great figures, or added details. And similarly, the example from the interpretations we read in the Passover Haggadah about the plagues—it seems they were expounding something real and not just inventing it. It’s not that I have an explanation for it, but your approach on this matter seems very strange. As for what you expect from the site’s readers, I understand, but I’m somewhat inarticulate, so please forgive me for that.

I understand that Nahum and Hazi are the same person, just under different nicknames.
First, let me explain. I did not claim that aggadic midrashim are merely attached to the verses, but that these are homiletic discourses and not midrashim. A homily, as opposed to a midrash (whether creative or textually supported), presents a conclusion that does not really emerge from the text. So how do we know it is true? Because it is a message they want to convey. A homily is not measured in terms of validity—how much it arises from the text—but in terms of effectiveness—how useful the conclusion is.
Now to your question. I see in all this no proof against what I said. When the Sages expound on the sins of great people, they can certainly use a homily to reinforce the fear of sin: if even the greatest of the great sinned, then all the more so we might.
The same goes for the plagues in the Passover Haggadah. There, as I wrote to you, it is simply absurd. After all, you are not offering any other explanation for those interpretations, but for some reason you assume these are actual textual interpretations and not homiletic discourses. How do you know? What proof do you see there? Once you offer an explanation for them, we can discuss whether it emerges from the verses, or was innovated from them, or whether it is simply a message they wanted to convey.
In general, you tend not to agree with my claim, and that is of course legitimate in itself. But your proofs contain nothing. They are nothing but begging the question. You argue that if we have no explanation for the midrash about the plagues in the Haggadah, then that is proof against me. Why? Because it is not reasonable that the Sages would say something unless it truly emerges from the verses. So you are assuming the very conclusion you want to reach. What shred of proof do you see here?

I want to understand: according to you, the Sages invent major sins about various righteous people just in order to strengthen the people? Does that seem okay to you? Now, I’m not a great Torah scholar, but I seem to remember that they expounded all sorts of other strange interpretations too, with many details about various people, not necessarily righteous ones. Were those things simply invented too, for various purposes? On the contrary, you surely know many more examples than I do—bring some examples. Now regarding the Passover Haggadah, it seems very strange to me that we recite a text that is made up, with an incorrect exposition, and that there really were not several plagues within each plague, but that they wrote made-up things just to raise morale. Notice that you’re saying about the Sages something that you yourself would not do.

We’ve gone back to the discussion about the basic premise, with no connection to any example. The question is whether it is reasonable that people invent homilies for educational purposes. In my view yes, and in your view no. By the way, it doesn’t have to be that every aggadic midrash is like this, only that quite a few are. I see no point in continuing this discussion.