semiopen

Thanks for the lessons in grammar. I was responding to this in the OP.

You seem to be saying that the Midrashim were meant as metaphors. This is not correct.

My post was pointing out that many rabbis considered questioning the literal truth of Midrash heretical. Even today there is not unanimity about Midrashim being metaphorical.

wordy

I know too little but I remember vaguely that there is at least three different ways
to use the word or the modern western usage is a kind of new usage while the old
Jewish usage they had three different words and then western scholars only used
one of these three so it is bound to be misunderstanding of how to use the word.

What was the other two about. AFAIK one is that if the text can not be literally applied
then one can do a reinterpretation that is about how one behave today.

Say the jewish text is about how to tie up the Camel and what happens if it gets stolen
while you are in synagog.

the modern "midrash" then is about leaving the key and the door unlocked to your Car
going into the Synagog and somebody jump into your car and that is the midrash
for not tying up your Camel with the special knot that says. if you touch this knot
then we will have the right by Jewish law to kill you for theft of our Camel.
Not sure if my retelling is 100% correct I heard it maybe 1975 or something on radio

Zwaarddijk

Yes, but your example does not illustrate this, and thus I don't see what role it has there - there is nothing about the example you give that by itself gives away whether its author believed that or used it metaphorically. That's the problem I have with your post.

Also, no I don't seem to be saying that midrashim were meant as metaphors. What should give this away to you is:
"a text whose meaning someone wants to claim is only a metaphor". This, by itself, makes no claim as to whether midrashes are metaphorical or not, it only identifies a habit of conflating texts with midrashes because of the assumption that they are, (and that by conflating them thus, one can get away with claiming allegory without properly substantiating that claim).

semiopen

The concept of reinterpreting scripture based on a criterion of ridiculousness of a literal interpretation was first advanced by Maimonides so far as I understand it.

An example is God walking in the garden of Eden.

Rambam is a 12th century guy.

This soft pedals the extent of the opposition to him. It also mentions Spain, like it is just some random place but it was actually the center of Jewry at the time. This is the place that the Zohar was written.

Wordy, I'm not clear on your camel example, but this might be an example of Halakha. These are religious laws and are theoretically not subject to interpretation. For example, one cannot eat pork and be in compliance with the law.

Midrash and Aggadah are stories. Believing the literal truth of these stories is not a commandment

Obviously the quote has some contradictions and is vague about the timeline for this view to develop. Note that it refers to Maimonides literal interpretation concept as if that was clear from day 1 which is not accurate.

wordy

I should not be active here due to me know too little but let me leave you
with a very good example and I don't know what term to use for it but it is good.

John 4:4 I don't dare to give longer quote I got infraction for making long quotes but if you read that story.
to me the whole story is most likely what we talk about.
There is no evidence for this anonymous woman to ever have existed
and the most likely interpretation is that she is teh symbol for those Samaritans
that was open for the message that a Messiah could come sooner or later.

Take the verse where he talks about the five men and the one she has now.
that is the gods that the Samaritans ahd way back in time and the god they ahve now.

Has nothing to do with her being promiscuous or something. It is an allegory
if one read II Kings 17: 24 something for background and read on So they had 5 such gods and these verses name all of them some where both men and female gods in same person. So the woman in that John 4 is an allegory and not a real live woman.

Zwaarddijk

I am pretty sure you will find Saadia Ga'on advancing a metaphorical interpretation of that at least two centuries earlier.

semiopen

Zwaard, I made a post on this awhile back (in the infamous Exodus thread).

http://www.daatemet.org.il/questions...MESSAGEID=3083

and quoted the following.

Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics: Jewish Authority, Dissent, and Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Times

Gives an example of Samuel_ben_Solomon_of_Falaise who in an anti-Mainmonidean document emphasizes the importance of a literal interpretation of aggadah.

Granted this whole thing is debatable, but my reply was inspired by your use of Midrashic as a synonym for metaphorical. I only read thiis part of the book shorty before posting in the Exodus thread and have to admit I never knew that this debate was so intense, so I'm not in any way crticising your statement, merely pointing out that it is inexact.

PS- Saadia is mentioned in the link above. The two guys didn't say the same thing... I even quoted the paragraph in the Exodus post.

Iskander

Plain, simple meaning is preferred to ‘literal’


Pshat:
This means the simple meaning of the text. It is exemplified by Rashi the medieval commentator. This level seeks only to elucidate the plain meaning of the text.

For example
Genesis 28:12
12. And he dreamed, and behold! a ladder set up on the ground and its top reached to heaven; and behold, angels of God were ascending and descending upon it.


Pshat:
Rashi quotes the Midrash Rabbah 68, which says that the plain meaning of the text is that Jacob saw that the feet of the ladder stood in beer sheva where he was lying. This is the meaning of the words. “The head of the ladder” refers to the area above the Temple mount.


Taken from:
PRESENTER NAME: Rabbi Stephen Robbins
SESSION NAME: Multilevels of Torah—PARDES MODEL OF TEACHING: Pshat, Remez, Drash and Sod
PAGE NUMBER 1 of 8

Duvduv

The whole Samaritan incident in John 4 makes no sense at all.

First of all, the fact that she would say that her people "worshipped" at Gerizim (in the past) is anachronistic because all indications (including traditions held by contemporary Samaritans) are that the Samaritans worshipped at Gerizim in the first century.

Secondly, this same Jesus figure who announced that the father of the Jews is the devil told her that salvation was from the Jews, which would be rejected by any Samaritan. Finally, the idea that a Samaritan would accept a fulfillment of a rabbinic Jewish messiah figure instead of their own Taheb displays the Roman author's confusion about the Samaritans.

Of course the Jesus figure then goes ahead and announces that the future will transcend both Jerusalem and Gerizim, which the Samaritan woman accepts.

wordy

My point was only that if one read that text taken as a kind of allegory
then it makes sense from the story tellers view point. While if one read it
literally as if it actually did happen then the five men she is supposed
to have had take a totally other meaning than the five gods the text is about
in II Kings 17: xx So the allegoric reading at least is accurate about
the Gods with name and all but most likely as you point out the author new
too little about Samaritans. My point was to show that maybe one kind of Midrash
is to read texts the way I gave example on there.

Edit
what Toto write below is better expressed than I managed to do above