Did Rambam's Attitude To Aggadah Evolve? - A review of Professor Loberbaum Article (Part 1).

I just finished reading a very intriguing article by Professor Yair Loberbaum (YL) in Tarbiz volume 78 #1 October-December 2008. It deals with Rambam’s attitude towards Aggadah and tries to show how his thinking evolved over time. I will try to highlight in upcoming posts YL proofs and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

In the introduction to the Moreh, Rambam writes,

“In our commentary on the Mishna we stated our intention to explain difficult problems in the Book on Prophecy and in the Book of Harmony (Commentary according to Pines). In the latter we intended to examine all the passages in the Midrash which, if taken literally, appear to be inconsistent with truth and common sense, and must therefore be taken figuratively.”

Rambam was planning two separate treatises, one dealing with the books of the Prophets and a separate one dealing with the rabbinical exegesis. In fact, in his introduction to Perek Chelek as part of his discussion of the seventh Ikar, he writes:

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת סנהדרין פרק י
ולכן אניחנו למקומו או בספר ביאורי הדרשות שהבטחתי בו, או בספר הנבואה שהתחלתי לחברו, או בספר שאחבר בפירוש אלו היסודות

After telling us that it would take a lot to explain prophecy and how Moshe’s prophecy differs, Rambam writes,

“And I will leave it to write about it in its proper place, either in the treatise on the derashot (exegesis) which I promised, or the book on the prophets which I have already begun to write, or in a treatise that I will compose about these fundaments (dogma).”

So, in his youth (he was in his twenties when he wrote the Pirush Hamishna), Rambam had plans to write three books; one on Aggadah, one on the books of the prophets and one on the fundamental issues of Judaism. What happened to those plans?

Continuing the introduction to MN Rambam explains that as he started the project of explaining the Midrashim he faced a dilemma. He could not fully explain the real meaning of those Midrashim because that would thwart the original intent of keeping them secret. As further consideration he writes,

“We have further noticed that when an ignoramus among the multitude of Rabbanites reads these Midrashim, he will find no difficulty; inasmuch a rash fool, possessing no knowledge of the properties of things, will not reject statements which involve impossibilities. When, however, a person who is both religious and well educated reads them, he cannot escape the following dilemma: he takes them literally and thereby questions the abilities of the author and the soundness of his mind. He is doing thereby nothing which is opposed to the principles of our faith. Or he will acquiesce in assuming that the passages in question have some secret meaning, and he will continue to hold the author in high estimation whether he understood the allegory or not.”

YL points out Rambam’s surprising statement that by questioning the abilities of the author and the soundness of his mind, the religiously intelligent “is doing thereby nothing which is opposed to the principles of our faith”. He further contrasts it to Rambam’s statement on the same issue in his introduction to Chelek, twenty-five years earlier about these same people.

, והם כת ארורה שהתפרצו כלפי אנשים רמי המעלה שכבר נודעה חכמתם אצל החכמים.

"And they are an accursed group that has weighed in against people of high caliber whose wisdom is well known to the scholars." (For the whole quote in Hebrew, see the footnote).

An accursed group is quite different from “it not being opposed to the principles of our faith”. Comparing Rambam’s attitude towards the other two groups, the one that accepts the Midrashim as is, even when they violate logic and those who are advanced and understand them as allegories YL demonstrates a subtle change too. In the Pirush Hamishna the first group, those who insist and accept the Midrashim as literal are seen as insulting rather than respecting the rabbis by making them look foolish. He is quite vociferous saying that this group (which was quite widespread in his time and so it is the common Yeshivish stand nowadays) “destroys the beauty of the religion and darkens its splendor”. In MN however his tone is much milder; “inasmuch a rash fool, possessing no knowledge of the properties of things, will not reject statements which involve impossibilities”. It is a personal deficiency rather than an insult to the Rabbis. As to the third group, those who realize that the Midrashim are allegories for deep matters, in his Pirush Hamishna he offers them help while in MN he is satisfied with them knowing that there is an interpretation that might elude them.

Professor Loberbaum uses this analysis as the opening statement for his argument that Rambam’s opinion about Midrashim and Aggadah evolved. This in itself is not proof positive yet. First, we have to take into account the intended audience of the two works of Rambam. Pirush Hamishna was intended for the general public and MN to the sophisticated reader. YL dismisses this possibility though I do not find his argument conclusive. Second, Rambam tended to be much more polemical in his youth. However if it were for this alone, YL’s argument would not be very convincing. In upcoming posts, I will review some of his other proofs, some quite insightful and surprising.


Footnote:

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת סנהדרין פרק י
והכת השניה גם הם רבים והם אותם שראו דברי חכמים או שמעוהו והבינוהו כפשטו, וחשבו שאין כונת חכמים בכך אלא משמעות פשטי הדברים, ולכן זלזלו בו וגנוהו וחשבו למוזר מה שאינו מוזר, וילעיגו על דברי חכמים לעתים קרובות, וחושבים שהם יותר נבונים מהם ויותר זכי רעיון, ושהם עליהם השלום פתיים חסרי דעת סכלים בכל המציאות, ואינם משיגים שום דבר כלל, ורוב מי שנפל במחשבה זו אותם הטוענים שהם רופאים, וההוזים במשפטי המזלות, לפי שהם לפי דמיונם פקחים חכמים פילוסופים וכמה רחוקים הם מן האנושות אצל הפילוסופים האמתיים. והם יותר סכלים מן הכת הראשונה ויותר פתים, והם כת ארורה שהתפרצו כלפי אנשים רמי המעלה שכבר נודעה חכמתם אצל החכמים. ואלו הכשירו את עצמם במדעים עד שידעו איך כותבים את הדברים בענינים האלהיים וכיוצא בהם מן המדעים להמון ולחכמים, ויסגלו לעצמם את החלק המעשי של הפילוסופיא, כי אז היו מבינים אם החכמים חכמים או לאו, והיו מובנים להם עניני דבריהם.