Dear Sasson,



Aggadic statements — stories or incidents which lead to no Halachic conclusions — are irrelevant to the religious person.

Therefore the yeshiva world skips over aggadic statements cited in the Talmud with the claim that they are incomprehensible and irrelevant. See what we wrote on the portion of Vayeshev about how the geonim and rabbis treat aggadic statements.

The problem religious people have with strange aggadic statements is one of outlook. The religious treat the Sages of the Talmud as scholars and geniuses, of whom we can expect words of taste and sense. When they read the Talmud, though, they find tales straight out of A Thousand and One Nights like the story you cited and which we shall complete: “Rabbi Yishmael the son of Satriel testified…Once the egg of a bar yuchni [a certain large bird] fell. It drowned sixty towns and shattered 300 cedars” (Bechorot 57b). There is no doubt that Rabbi Yishmael’s words amaze and confound a reasonable person.

If we focus your question, it would be formulated so: How do religious people deal with reading strange and ridiculous stories written by his teachers, whom he admires as knowing the mind of the Lord?

This question is answered by the Maharal of Prague: ” I have already spoken of this issue [aggadic statements] which were not said in literal physical terms, for it is not appropriate that such sages speak of the physical…the Sages of Israel spoke of these things to recognize and know what is found in their own essence, and they did not look at all on the physical, only the essence. The sages of the nations, on the other hand, were interested in the physical and did not understand the spirit” (Chiddushei Aggadot part 4, Bechorot pp. 129-131).

This is a simple solution. R’ Yishmael’s words are spiritual and do not deal with the material. When R’ Yishmael testifies “Once [a bird’s egg] fell” it means that he is hinting at something spiritual. What is that spiritual matter?

Thus does the Maharal explain it: “This bird, called the bar yuchni, broke 300 cedars and rises above the height of the cedars and drowns 60 cities, for the bird relates to the heavens…thus he overpowers the cedars which are of the earth, and drowns 60 cities. It is specifically this bird, the bar yuchni, and none other, for this bird is particularly large and therefore is connected more strongly with the heavens, to the extent that it overpowers those which are of the earth.”

That is, R’ Yishmael’s strange testimony is meant to teach the readers and listeners matters of the mind and spirit — that the heavens overpower the earth.

Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Hello,



You are correct in your note that the word “testified” shows that he saw it. But this, too, is strange, for if he truly saw it there would have been no need for his testimony; an event so wondrous would have been well-known. If no one had heard of such an event, they would not have accepted his testimony.

Therefore it seems logical to me that this story by the Babylonian sages was made up. The Babylonian sages and the writers of the Talmud lived in a different place and time. R’ Yishmael the son of Satriel gave his testimony before Rabbi Judah, author of the Mishnah, in the land of Israel. The custom of telling tales in the name of rabbis from earlier periods was common in the culture of the Talmudic sages. Proof of this is from a story brought in the Talmud: “Rabbi Eliezer had a student who rendered Halachic decisions in front of his teacher. Rabbi Eliezer told his wife, ‘I doubt if he will live out the year.’ In the end, he died that same year. She asked him, ‘Are you a prophet?’ He told her ‘I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but this I was taught: Any who renders Halachic decisions in front of his rabbi deserves death,’ Rabbah the son of Bar Hana quoted Rabbi Yochanan: That student was named Judah the son of Giora and he was three parsa away from his rabbi…[Why did Rabbah the son of Bar Hana mention the name and location of that student?] So that one should not say it is a parable” (Eruvin 63a).

According to the Sages of the Talmud, even if a story is told in one of the breitot it might be merely a parable. For other examples of this custom, see the essay Scriptures and Talmud: What is Reality and What is Parable?



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

A. In any case, here you have a source that Chazal attributed aspects of parable to the bereita. If so, of course we too have to take into account this possibility when we look at the words of the Amoraim themselves, of course not always and there is disagreement about it.

B. Here the Gemara does not bring support of the story’s veracity and instead supports the side which claims the tale to be a deep metaphor.

C. Perhaps you will permit me to quote here some clarifications of stories like this one as they are brought by the commentators. After you see the marvelous depth and the allegorical match between the story and its lesson, after you see that their method of clarifying the matter is consistent and straight, though deep — there is no question about the possible interpretation.



Thank you,



David

Dear David,



Religious people see their faith as the absolute truth, and therefore they will wiggle around and invest great intellectual effort in distorting and falsifying what is written, all in an attempt to make it match their world view.

Daat Emet is dedicated to checking whether the Jewish religion meets the tests of rational critique, and uses the tools of academy methodology. It may be said that there is no room for productive discussion between a person who uses religion to light his path and who subjugates reason to his religion and a person who uses reason to light his path and who subjugates religion to his desire and will.

David, carefully read the essay Dealing with the Contradictions Between Torah and Reason and tell us–and yourself–whether you accept the rational reason which contradicts your faith?



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Of course I have no doubt about the veracity of the Torah and I do not have to repeat the reasons for my beliefs in every letter. Therefore I only deal with the claim stemming from the knowledge that what you say is not correct and thus I try in every way proper to understand and reply to where you have made a mistake in the detail you raised.

When we look at the pyramids we wonder how they raised large boulders to such heights. We use our tremendous intellectual ability to find the solution, because we see the pyramids with our own eyes, proven foundations of faith. (And your main answer about them would be “It is not relevant or rational” or something like that.) So let us use our minds and answer A,B,C. Under these conditions maybe we really don’t have any chance of conducting a fruitful discussion on the matter.



Thank you,



David