Q&A: Aggadot by Their Types
Aggadot by Their Types
Question
As we near the end of the Daf Yomi cycle on the chapter Helek, I couldn’t help rethinking the whole concept of the aggadot of the Sages. (I still haven’t read the “remedy for forgetting” at the end of a tractate, so I still remember a little.)
In the Talmud, and especially in the chapter Helek, there are all kinds of strange and unusual aggadot.
I think the approach the Rabbi presents is the correct one. Still, I think there is a need to clarify a few corners that I’m unsure about.
There are basically several types:
Aggadot that do not claim to be historical and that contain a moral lesson — obviously this did not really happen, but was only meant to teach some point.
Aggadot that do claim to be historical and that contain a moral lesson — is there any point in believing that they really happened? I’m talking about things that are physically and historically possible, except that the Sages had no way of knowing them, or the likelihood is low and they probably made them up. (For example, all the stories about Sodom in the chapter Helek involving Eliezer — it seems quite likely that the Sages were simply looking to pile onto Sodom various schemes they themselves knew about and attached them to Eliezer, who was the closest historical figure.)
Aggadot that do claim to be historical and contain no moral lesson — is there any point in believing them? After all, here there is no moral lesson anymore. (One could say that things were just boring in the study hall and they wanted to break the atmosphere a bit with stories.)
Aggadot that do not claim to be historical and contain no moral lesson at all — why were such aggadot brought in? Is there any point in studying them? (For example, the graphic 21+ descriptions of Zimri son of Salu inside the tent — obviously no one was there with him to report all this, and obviously it is physically impossible and all of it is just made up. But then it is not clear why this was written in the Talmud at all. On a personal level, I was shocked to read it, and I didn’t understand why it is even in the Talmud and wasn’t censored over the years. In my opinion, it is completely unnecessary.)
I would be happy if the Rabbi would address this and perhaps add a few more points in his holy way.
Thank you very much
Answer
As a rule, I see no reason to accept aggadah as a historical description. So why were they included? I have no idea.
Discussion on Answer
Only in a very general way. The reason is that their claims do not sound factually correct to me either. On the contrary, they seem pretty up in the air. There are many disputes and blatant agenda-driven biases even among them. Speculative considerations that keep changing every other day with each new idea. It really does not sound convincing to me. I’m not an expert in the field, and if it interests you, it would be worth speaking to experts, but that is my impression, and precisely because of that I am not an expert in the field. It does not seem interesting or useful to me.
There is a general discussion of this at the end of the second book in my trilogy.
Thank you. Has the Rabbi addressed biblical criticism in the past? It seems that their factual claims are correct, but the interpretation is mistaken.