Question

Hello Honorable Rabbi,
 
A question came to mind בעקבות the Rabbi’s latest column and his recent remarks regarding aggadic literature. What seems to follow from the Rabbi’s words is that after fair give-and-take concerning the aggadot of the Sages, one can arrive at the conclusion of the passage. True, “as a matter of fact” people do not change their views on the basis of the aggadot of the Sages, etc.; nevertheless, I would like to raise Maimonides’ approach on this issue.
 
Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed, in his discussion of the eternity of the world, wrote (Schwartz, II:16): “Since this question—whether the world is eternal or created—is open, I accept the latter on the basis of prophecy, which clarifies matters that the power of speculation cannot reach.”
It is true that Maimonides places commitment to logic at the foundation of biblical study; after all, this is what leads him to explain many verses and expressions so that we not think they are to be taken literally in a way that corporealizes the Divine. However, after using logical tools, it seems that Maimonides gives force to the plain meaning of Scripture in matters “that the power of speculation cannot reach,” until proven otherwise.
And in his own approach, one can also see several places where he rules directly on the basis of Scripture (Kings 6:7, though see Kesef Mishneh; Hiring 3:7; Forbidden Sexual Relations 12:10), and for example (Valuations and Dedicated Property 6:31-33):
“It seems to me that even though a person cannot consecrate something that has not yet come into the world, if he said, ‘It is upon me to consecrate it,’ he is obligated to consecrate it when it comes into the world because of his vow […] The proof for this is what our forefather Jacob said: ‘And of all that You give me, I will surely tithe to You,’ and it is said, ‘which you vowed to Me there.'” And the Raavad also commented that “the proof from Jacob is indeed a proof.”
 
Until now, from what I understood from the Rabbi, the main reason that studying the Hebrew Bible does not help was because the messages can be conveyed in other ways, and also because those things that can be learned from the biblical story are subject to dispute, and usually a person uses the Hebrew Bible as a trigger for discussing his own views.
And now, after it has become clear that conclusions from aggadah, and perhaps from the Hebrew Bible as well, are possible after fair give-and-take—as it seems the plain-sense commentators on the Hebrew Bible did, when arguing with their predecessors and contemporaries, not only about values and morality but also about the plain meaning of the verses—perhaps one can say that this constitutes a source of authority (and Maimonides is proof of this). After all, one who reached a definite conclusion from a biblical story—”this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants”—is obligated by it. And true, “at least as a matter of fact, it really seems that no one actually changes his position after studying the passage,” but could it have been otherwise? Perhaps even in cases where rational analysis does not decide, the Hebrew Bible could decide and even lead to action?
 
Thank you