Talk:Aggadah

classical/rabbinic

This article did not present the classical rabbinic view of the aggadah. Rather, it presented a view which said that all aggadah are secret, hidden teachings. It basically said that every single statement in all of rabbinic literature that isn't a law, actually was a parable containing hidden, deep, secret knowledge. That may be taught by someone, but it isn't the sole classical rabbinic view, and it isn't even the Orthodox view. RK 02:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fair comment in general. Two points though:

1) Agreed that it is not true that "every single statement in all of rabbinic literature that isn't a law, actually was a parable containing hidden, deep, secret knowledge". Nevertheless, both Rambam and Ramchal (and not just "someone, somewhere") hold that, in general, the aggada do communicate deeper teachings. Still, I concede that the view as represented previously in this article was somewhat overstated...

2) I think that today, the passage that you quote from Rambam in his introduction to Perek Chelek, describes the (small if not tiny) minority of Orthodox Jews and is thus unrepresentative; please see all references quoted.

1. Feldman (based on the Ramchal and Rambam in the sources) is largely representative of the "Yeshivish" view today;
2. Feldman's view is definitely the view held by Modern Orthodoxy;
3. SOME Haredi and Chassidic communities may take references to fantastic creatures somewhat literally, but even there, they are definitely aware of Rambam's view as quoted - and his view as expressed in the commentary on the Mishna (and similar views as expressed by Ramchal and others) - and thus temper their literal interpretation with the Rambam's rationalism...

Thus, I intend to rewrite with partial reversion to the earlier version, but still incorporating all comments made in your revisions.

Fintor | talk | 07:32 UTC

That's all fine by me. I have no problems with any of your plans! I wanted to add Maimonides' view - but not exclusively so. By all means I would truly appreciate your adding of the views of Yeshvish rabbis and scholars. I also have been trying to add information aggadah compilations, which can be seen as a complement to the aggadah commentary section. I remember briefly reading part of an English work, "The Mishna Says", which as I remember was an Orthodox version of "The Legends of the Jews". At the time I read it it was presented to me as "The midrash", but only later did I learn that it was an original synthesis of earlier rabbinic aggadot. RK 13:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

As for the issue of literally interpreting tales of fantastic creatures, a literal belief in this led directly to the story of the Golem. I don't have references on this off-hand, but it might be worth discussing. (Everything about the Golem is worth discussing.) RK

David Stern is a professor in the Dept. of Oriental Studies at the Univ. of Pennsylvania, and is the author of Parables in Midrash, and is co-editor of Rabbinic Fantasies: Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature.

Aggadah is 2000 years old. To quote Stern in the introduction, he must have been Buber or Scholem, not an author of the sickeningly titled "Rabbinic Fantasies". JFW | T@lk 17:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand (and to some degree agree with) your discomfort at Stern's title. From what I gather Stern loves Jewish literature and aggadah, but he isn't religious, and so speaks in ways that offends religious Jews. (The title is bad, from my point of view, because it sounds more like a Woody Allen film on rabbis, sex and bacon.) I only briefly thumbed through his book, but it isn't too bad. In any case, maybe we should offer a quote from Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz's book on the Talmud? He's a fairly traditional Hasidic Orthodox Jew, loosely affiliated with non-messianic Chabad, yet he also allows for the use of historical comparisons and study in his explication of the Talmud. RK 18:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Most of that was tongue-in-cheek. I'm too open-minded to be religiously offended by a book title.

However, I think we don't need the Stern quote to give a definition of Aggadata, nor Steinsaltz for that matter. It's also worthwhile quoting M.C. Luzzatto's Maamar al ha-Aggadoth (discourse on the Aggadah). While I cannot claim having studied this text, it's supposed to be a good introduction. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Several of the (admittedly) unattributed quotes - which RK removed - were in fact from the Maamar (see link in article). This is also the source of the (removed) categorisation of TSHB"P as comprising Chelek Hamitzvot and Chelek HaSoddot. The Maamar does not, however, as such, define the aggadah. In fact, I searched long and hard for a non-negative definition...

Fintor 07:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) talk

(A)I don't mind using any of those quotes within the article. However, it would be better to use entire sentences rather than the phrases so that the average reader can better understand the context. (B) I have never seen a comprehensive and simple definition of the aggadah, other than "Everything that is not about halakha." Come to think of it, perhaps there is a good reason for this. Why should everything outside of halakha neatly fit into one category? Be that as it may, I have seen positive descriptions of aggadah that list the themes, such as what R. Adin Steinsaltz wrote, or what Prof. Stern wrote. (C) I am adding some new material to this article based on Fintor's comments above. RK

No psak

It should be noted very clearly in the article there is no psak for Jewish thought or historical data. See also, Perush HaMishnayos on Shavuos, at the end of Makkot. 203.214.133.79 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

technically you are right, but I don't see why it 'must be made clear. There are many ideas that are almost universally accepted (that there are 613 mitvot, for example) and we needn't mention that someone who says otherwise is still orthodox. In a certain sense you can say that mussur is not binding like halakha, but still it is important and universally accepted. Jon513 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no psak for historical data true enough; but a person must believe something within the margins established by the Aggadah. One Ammora might say Jimbo was willfully evil, one might say he was misguided. If those are the two options and a person on his own crowns Jimbo a righteous hero, then he is outside the bounds of Judaism. On thought there certainly is a psak. If one believes the Messiah is a woman descended from Levi or G-d has a nose, then he is certainly outside the bounds of Jewish thought and there are halachic consequences regarding his ability to testify etc. 88.155.94.77 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirected from "Jewish mythology"

Wikipedia has articles about Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Hindu mythology, and even about Christian mythology. So the jews do not have their own mythology? The absurd things in which the non-atheist jews believe are not mythology, but the supreme truth that was given to them and only them by Yahwöh itself? Come on! Risvm teneatis, amici? Most sincerely, KSM-2501ZX. IP address:= 200.143.28.19 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, many people do not want to give to the jewish mythology its true name. So far, the average wikipediacs are not exceptions to the rule.

Signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Aggadah is the "true name" for Jewish mythology. Also, you made an invadvertant error by creating a false dichotomy between truth and mytholoogy. Mythology can be 100% true. It's the manner of transmission that renders something mythology, not the accuracy of the information. Galileo before the Inquisiton is true. It is also a part of modern scientic mythology. George Washington praying at valley forge is American mythology. It is also fairly certain George Washington prayed at some point during the winter at Valley Forge. 79.179.163.66 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment. I was once asked (in a certain Manner) if I thought that it would be o.k. if in God's History Book and Word(s)if text was hidden within text of the Hebrew writings, I stated that I saw there to be no problem and that it could possibly be coded within "stanzas," etc. . . I believe you folks. Don't know that some of you aren't wicked and meat eating sinners like me, though. I have terribly let Noah down, I should NOT be eating meat. I think that it all started with a turkey at Thanksgiving, although I did have two chickens killed when I was about 3 years of age. It was terrible. It is the Hebrew People that say that there is NO RIGHT WAY TO KILL, isn't it? I agree, not even by government. I once, while in an Above Place spoke with a fella who claimed to be a Hebrew Father and he couild not understand why you were practicing witchcraft. He sent his son down to the Quamram place (a place that I have also been as a young Child at the insistance of my Mother) to try to straighten you folks out. When His Son went into Jerusalem, you folks put a rope around His neck and hung Him from a tree at the West (?) gate. Get back to me some how, I still know that Father of the Hebrew People. He is not Zeus, Abba, Me, Thor, Atlas, Ra, Horus, Osiris, Isis, Athena, Noah, nor a whole slew of others that I may not yet have had the gumption to investigate. He is a very gentle fella (similar to Abba who once told me that His people had Forsaken Him, Forgotten Him): and I OWE HIM A DARK HAIRED SON. It maybe that everyone's Son can not be a Jesus. Gnostics (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Aggadah" v. "Haggadah"

I know basically nothing of this subject, but I noticed that both Aggadic and Haggadic redirect to this article (Aggadah), but Haggadah is not listed as an alternative spelling in this article's intro. At the same time, Haggadah redirects to Haggadah of Pesach, which does not link to this article. So we have two separate articles for two separate things which nevertheless seem to be different transliterations of the same Hebrew word? Shouldn't there be a hatnote on each article, at least? --Quuxplusone (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this.

I added "not to be confused" hatnotes to both articles.

As for the redirects - they indeed seem to confusing and inconsistent, but i'm not a real expert on the proper usage of these terms neither in English nor in Hebrew. Intuitively i can say that Aggadic -> Aggadah is correct. However, a scan of articles that link to "Haggadic" shows that they indeed use the "Aggadah" sense, but i don't understand why the use the "H" spelling. I'll try to find an expert. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aggadah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419223729/http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/ to http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aggadah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217201131/http://66.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAGGADA.htm to http://66.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAGGADA.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406231652/http://webpages.charter.net/chavurathbneinoach/ein_yaakov.html to http://webpages.charter.net/chavurathbneinoach/ein_yaakov.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406231652/http://webpages.charter.net/chavurathbneinoach/ein_yaakov.html to http://webpages.charter.net/chavurathbneinoach/ein_yaakov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)