[Avodah] Ben sorer u'moreh

[Avi Goldstein via Avodah]

Zev Sero wrote:

Can you cite another example of a tanna or amora making up a story out of
whole cloth, claiming to have seen something merely to make the point that
it could happen in principle?

For starters, there is the series of Rabbah bar bar Chanah stories in
Hamocher es Hasefinah that are clearly not literal, yet are told to
illustrate a point. And lest one argue that the stories are literal, one
of them has RBBC taken to the place where the earth and the sky meet!
While this story does demonstrate that RBBC thought the earth to be flat,
there is no place where the earth and sky meet, and so the story by
definition must not be literal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140928/ad149d00/attachment.htm>

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

Post by Avi Goldstein via Avodah
Can you cite another example of a tanna or amora making up a story out of
whole cloth, claiming to have seen something merely to make the point that
it could happen in principle?
For starters, there is the series of Rabbah bar bar Chanah stories in
Hamocher es Hasefinah that are clearly not literal, yet are told to
illustrate a point. And lest one argue that the stories are literal,
one of them has RBBC taken to the place where the earth and the sky
meet! While this story does demonstrate that RBBC thought the earth
to be flat, there is no place where the earth and sky meet, and so
the story by definition must not be literal.

False comparison. You can't reason from agadeta to halacha. RBBC was not
making any kind of point. His tall tales fall clearly in the Bavli tradition
of Arabian-Nights-style storytelling, just as R Nachman Breslaver's stories
fall in the tradition of European of fairy tales. Neither RBBC nor RN were
making points; they were using a conventional literary style to convey deep
secrets that could not be discussed openly. (For one interpretation of the
RBBC stories, see the Maharal's _Be'er Hagulah_, somewhere around the 6th
Be'er.)

(One may speculate that the stories of Sinbad the Sailor derive from RBBC,
but I think it equally likely that it was the other way around, that Sinbad
stories were already being told, and RBBC used that medium to convey his
messages, expecting his audience to be familiar with it, just as R Nachman
expected his audience to be familiar with the fairy tale genre.)

None of this can be compared to R Yonasan's statements which he inserted
into a halachic discussion with the clear intention of winning the argument
by means of incontrovertible proof. R Shimon offers only logic; R Yonasan
trumps it with what he claims to be a fact. If it was not a fact, then it
would be dishonest to introduce it in such a fashion, and utterly disingenuous
to claim that "well, it's not really true, but I'm so sure of my position that
it's as *if* it were true." That is enough to get someone kicked out of
academia today, let alone the Beis Medrash in those days, and I think it's
unacceptable to accuse him of it.

[David Riceman via Avodah]

RAM asked how to distinguish history from allegory. I suspect that this
is one of those cases, beloved by RMB, for which there is no definitive
algorithm. The Rambam (hakdamah to Perek Helek) says that this is
essential for understanding aggadot Hazal, as does R. Avraham ben
HaRambam in his essay on Aggadot printed in the introduction to Ein
Ya'akov. R. Moshe Cordovero in Or Ne'erav says that this is an
essential prerequisite for the study of Kabbalah, which why they didn't
allow people in Tzfat to study Kabbalah until they turned 18 (!), by
which time they can be expected to be qualified to do that.

RZS makes the question more complicated by asking for an example where
it is not obvious that the story isn't meant literally. I can recall
two such cases; unfortunately my memory is a bit sketchy so I hope
someone who is CD enabled can help me out with the details.

See ShHShR 1:15:3 where RYbRY asks if it's literal. I recall a variant
where he says "Rebbi, hayitachen?", which is even more explicit, but I
couldn't find it.

Also see the Hakdamah to Perek Helek where the Rambam analyzes the
shakla v'tarya around Shabbat 30b (In Kafih's translation it's on p.
139, column 2, the text around note 91).

Both of these are cases where (a) the source says it's meant as an
allegory but (b) one of the students who was present didn't realize it.
If that's not adequate for RZS perhaps he can tell us what would meet
his requirements.

David Riceman

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

Post by David Riceman via Avodah
RZS makes the question more complicated by asking for an example
where it is not obvious that the story isn't meant literally. I can
recall two such cases; unfortunately my memory is a bit sketchy so I
hope someone who is CD enabled can help me out with the details.
See ShHShR 1:15:3 where RYbRY asks if it's literal. I recall a
variant where he says "Rebbi, hayitachen?", which is even more
explicit, but I couldn't find it.
Also see the Hakdamah to Perek Helek where the Rambam analyzes the
shakla v'tarya around Shabbat 30b (In Kafih's translation it's on p.
139, column 2, the text around note 91).
Both of these are cases where (a) the source says it's meant as an
allegory but (b) one of the students who was present didn't realize
it. If that's not adequate for RZS perhaps he can tell us what would
meet his requirements.

1. We are not talking about agedeta here. Agadeta (obvious agadeta) works by
different rules. In our case we are talking about a statement of fact given
*as irrefutable proof* to win an argument. It's exactly the same as R Akiva's
attempted proof in the last mishnah of Yevamos. In that case he doesn't win
the argument, because the Chachamim give the rest of the story. But nobody
suggests that the story didn't really happen, let alone that R Akiva made it
up because he was so certain he was right. If it were to emerge that he did
invent the story, he would have been discredited forever.

2. As you say, in the case in ShShR the source says he didn't mean it literally,
so we don't have to speculate.

3. In the case in Shabbos, the Rambam proves that it's not meant literally.
If we didn't have that proof, then perhaps we should have taken it literally.
Indeed, I'm pretty sure there are those who do take it literally, and say
the Rambam's proof-text is talking about an earlier stage in the geulah, or
for different people (like the man, which worked differently for different
people).