Q&A: Aggadic Midrashim of the Sages
Aggadic Midrashim of the Sages
Question
Hello Rabbi,
As is well known, there are aggadic midrashim of the Sages that do not sound literally true (like a parable or an idea, but definitely not a real story). By the way, there are contradictory midrashim—for example: was the Red Sea split into two, or into 12 channels? (According to plain common sense, one of them has to be incorrect.) In the Torah and the Hebrew Bible as well there are things we explain as not being literal, or as not having happened in practice. For example: Maimonides claimed that Abraham’s angels were part of a dream. Job too, and so on.
Here is my question: how can one “rely on the story of the giving of the Torah” (perhaps the most important proof for the Jewish people’s obligation and their direct connection with God), when the stories of the Hebrew Bible (through the midrashim) seem like something that is not necessarily binding from a factual or historical standpoint? Seemingly, it looks like a book with no commitment to the rules of historical writing, with the kind of precision from which one can learn what exactly happened and what exactly was said. Similarly, we have already understood (in the era of modern science) that even the description of the creation of the world in Genesis is a cosmic description that may have unfolded over thousands or millions of years, and not necessarily as written: on the first day, on the second day, etc.
Another thing I thought about: the Kuzari’s argument that faith is proven from the giving of the Torah is very difficult. He claims that since everyone saw it and passed it on, that is conclusive proof.
The problem is that the generation of the Exodus from Egypt—the adults—did not enter the Land. All the sinners died as a result of the sin of the Golden Calf; only the priests and the children remained, and it would seem that they are the ones who entered the Land. When there is such a major turnover of all the central figures who are supposed to testify about the giving of the Torah, that creates a difficulty.
It is hard for me to bring proof from the priests, because for people in positions of authority who receive gifts from the nation, it is not “worthwhile” to destroy the cartel that serves their purposes and their comfortable position.
Of course, God forbid, I am not claiming that this is what happened. I am only trying to show that perhaps the argument that “everyone saw” is unfortunately not so strong.
I would appreciate a response. Thank you very much.
Answer
A good question. With regard to Scripture as well, common sense helps distinguish between a real story and a parable. Maimonides himself makes such distinctions. Beyond that, the giving of the Torah is transmitted by tradition and not only in the written text, and it is also not reasonable, on logical grounds, that all this arose without some source from above.
Your argument about the death of the wilderness generation is not clear to me at all. Every generation dies in the end. What is different about the wilderness generation? About any generation, you could ask: after they all died, why believe the tradition they passed on?
Discussion on Answer
I disagree with the very widespread thesis about many traditions that were created out of nothing. I do not know of many such traditions, and certainly not something that endures for so long and demands so much. It is a baseless myth (perhaps that itself is a tradition created out of nothing). Hasidism is a counterexample. You say, suppose a tradition will arise about a carriage that flew through the air. Why “suppose”? Because it did not arise. Not really. Aside from a few naive people who tend to treat old wives’ tales as actual events. That is precisely the point. Such traditions are not created just like that. And even if there are such traditions, they usually begin from an event that happened to an individual (like the miracles of Jesus or the revelations of Muhammad). But not a mass event.
By the way, you say that in the past they called schizophrenia possession, but perhaps it is more correct to say that today they call possession schizophrenia. Calling something by a name does not mean we have explained it. But that is not relevant to the matter at hand.
As I explained in the fifth notebook (and in the fifth conversation in the book The First Available Being), one must look at the whole picture and not at each aspect separately. The reliability of the tradition joins together with the history, the special circumstances, the content of the tradition, the a priori considerations, and so on.
The Rabbi writes that the giving of the Torah also has a tradition and is not only “in writing,” but why should I assume that this impressive tradition was built on something that really happened? History teaches that impressive traditions can arise around things that never happened. Who says that when a tradition is impressive, that guarantees the truth of the event it conveys?
Suppose that in another 4,000 years the story of the Baal Shem Tov’s carriage flying through the air is still passed from father to son—would that be a reason to believe that the story probably happened in reality too?
The Rabbi writes that it is unlikely that all this happened without something from above—is that enough for us in order to believe it? And even if something did happen, what exactly was meant by it? As we all know, even one small detail in the story being different from how it is described is enough to change the whole direction completely.
It is hard to rely on interpretations and descriptions of past events, because their point of view was very primitive. In the past they called schizophrenia possession and demons, they called bacteria harmful agents, and they called the forces of nature the wrath of God or of the gods.