Introduction to the Aggadot

We find it is my view J. N. T.

In the Babylonian Talmud, he is referring to a figure in scripture Micah (Sanhedrin 101b); they further said he is Cush, and other wicked men (ibid. 105a). It is similar in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 8 of Nazir: he is Cush and other wicked men. In the Midrash on Parashat Lech Lecha the Torah portion "Go forth", they said he is Amraphel, he is Nimrod. Furthermore, they said (Berakhot 29a) he is Jannai, he is Yohanan. All this is based upon the primary rule they established to guide and instruct in the ways of conducting oneself toward the wicked and the righteous, and by what authority do they have the permission to interpret for praise or for condemnation in every possible way? In every place where the praise of another righteous person was obscured in the Holy Scriptures, they held it a duty to seek a supporting text and a hint to increase the weight of his rewards from the story of another righteous person. By linking what is said here to that, we find the righteous adorned with every virtue and proper quality. Regarding the wicked, they interpreted for condemnation in every way they could, teaching the obscure from the explicit concerning another wicked person in a different place, to show that an evil man causes harm to all. They relied upon a slight allusion for their interpretation, as we see in the drawing regarding Beor, because both were wicked men who performed two wicked deeds. All of this is not merely a subtle hint in the way of scripture; rather, I am interpreting, and see Mishnat Avot the Mishnaic tractate of the Fathers, chapter 5, for a more extensive explanation.

However, concerning the truth of this matter, I will show you a clear and correct proof from the explicit Talmud (Bava Batra 91a), where they said there, "Abzan is Boaz." The Talmud objects, "What is the reason?" and Rashi’s grandson, the Rashbam Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (of blessed memory), explains: "What profit is in the matter, and what commandment are we to learn from here?" See there. At first glance, it is difficult: why is this case different from all other places in the Talmud, where in no other place did they ask, "What is the intention?" But according to what we have explained, the matter is very correct. In Bava Batra, there is a tremendous benefit in placing various righteous men under one name so that what is said of this one applies to that one. If so, it is a tremendous benefit in the ways of praising the deeds of the righteous. But here, we have not found in Scripture any of the good deeds of Abzan, and what benefit is there in placing him upon Boaz? The Talmud answers that here we have another measure in this statement: even though he had many sons, he fulfilled the commandment, "In the morning sow thy seed" (Ecclesiastes 11:6), and he married Ruth in his old age. See Rashbam there. Similarly, they said there: Elimelech, Salmon, and Peloni Almoni so-and-so/anonymous person and the father of Cush are the sons of Nahshon. And just as they objected in the Talmud there, "What does it teach us?"—this does not touch upon the primary rule we proposed above to expand on the praise of the righteous. The Talmud answers that here we have a moral lesson to learn: the cleanliness of the land of Israel is so great that even the merit of the ancestors does not protect one who leaves it for abroad. In any case, you see that this interpretation is made with a specific intention, to stir their hearts—whether through ways of praising the righteous, or through the condemnation of the wicked, or other matters of morality or proper conduct. These are the measures of their interpretations.

Also, it is customary in the ways of interpretation for them to interpret the names of people, just as "the name causes" (Berakhot 7b). They said of Rabbi Meir that he would be precise regarding a name (Yoma 83b), "Rabbi Meir of blessed memory was precise..." and our Sages (Sotah 9b): "Had she not been named Delilah, she would have been worthy of being called Delilah, for she depleted Hebrew: "dilah" his strength, she depleted his might," etc. In particular, they had a tradition of Aggadah rabbinic narrative/lore in this, for our Sages described (Sotah 34b): "This matter is a tradition in our hands from our ancestors; the spies were named after their deeds, and we have only succeeded in naming the deeds of the Holy One, blessed be He. Michael, who made himself thus..." etc. And to interpret the names of people in the ways of interpretation, they had a special reception: "The book of Chronicles was not given except to be interpreted." See the beginning of Midrash Ruth and Midrash Rabbi Shimon likely referring to a collection such as Midrash Rabbah on Ecclesiastes. Even though all Holy Scriptures were given to be interpreted, and even the scroll of Esther was given to be interpreted as the Torah says (and the Jerusalem Talmud, first chapter of Megillah), nevertheless, it is a fixed law in every place: "No verse departs from its literal meaning," and both are true. The Rambam Maimonides (in his objections to the Book of Commandments, Root 2) says: "They did not say 'a verse has no meaning other than its literal sense,' but rather 'a verse does not depart from its literal meaning.'" He indicates that both are true—the literal and the conceptual—and the verse can hold both. See (Yevamot 24b): "Even though in the entire Torah a verse does not depart from its literal meaning, here it comes through a formal analogy and removes it from the literal meaning entirely." And that which we say (Shabbat 63a) that Rabbi Kahana learned the entire Talmud and did not know that "a verse does not depart from its literal meaning," the intention there was not meant for Holy Scripture in matters of allegory and poetry, such as they said, "Pharaoh played with the infants in the morning..." But in the commandments of the Torah, it is obvious that this matter is a great root in the Torah to understand the deep reasoning of the commandments—like "And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart," the commandment of phylacteries "And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand"—meaning to create remembrance in the heart and in the head. Heaven forbid that all the acts of the commandments be annulled, for then what would become of the Torah? See the responsa of the Rashba Rabbi Solomon ben Adret, section 416, how he castigated those who removed the beams of the Torah from their literal meaning and interpreted "our father Abraham and Sarah" as "matter and form." See there. And it is important to count here that all this, that a verse does not depart from its literal meaning, is said specifically in types of literalism that have relevance to the conduct of man in the matters of the commandments according to the Torah. But in matters of piety and other things in the Holy Scriptures, in these, only the interpretation is essential, and to every measure a play on the Sages' hermeneutical rules, it is taught that even in these, a verse does not depart from its literal meaning.

[This] is specifically in the general body of the writing, but in the ways of interpretation, they had a special and accepted rule: it was not given except to be interpreted, and interpretation is the essence here. See (Megillah 13b), "Rabbi Levi opened [his discourse] with [verses] in Chronicles; he said, 'All your words are one, and we know [them].'" And you can further know the words of the interpretations in Chronicles from what our Sages said (Pesachim 62b): "Between one interpretation and another, four hundred camels of interpretations are required." See the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin, chapter Chelek the chapter "A part", Rabbi Levi said: "If a person comes to me with [the book of] Chronicles, in Babylon I go and bring it from there." And we have done so; all our masters gather to him to be able to extract from it. And the intention is not only about interpretations in Chronicles that he is obligated to bring from there, because the interpretations were given to be written in the days of Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish (Gittin 60a), and not about the scroll of Chronicles that was common among the Holy Scriptures even among the people of the land of Israel, but rather the majority of interpretations on Chronicles were brought up by the people of Babylon. And Resh Lakish replied to bring them from there to the land of Israel. He said that now that they have returned to the written word in the words of the Aggadah rabbinic narratives, it is impossible to bring them from there because of the weight of the burden from the multitude of interpretations on every thorn and on piles upon piles. Before that, before the writing was permitted publicly, the interpretations on Chronicles were only in a "hidden scroll" and were not so numerous in quantity. Because of this rule that was accepted among them, the Sages did not cease to interpret in Chronicles all the names of people and the reason that they were called by these names (see Megillah 13b, 14a; Sanhedrin 21b; Temurah 15b; Bava Batra 91a; Sotah 12a). Similarly, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot, chapter Ha-Arel the Uncircumcised, and in the scattered Midrashim, you will find various interpretations on the names of the people mentioned there. Everything is written according to the primary rule accepted among them: Chronicles was not given except to be interpreted.

Also, they had a special and accepted rule among them regarding the Song of Songs: that one should not interpret anything there for condemnation, only for praise in a supreme sense. For they said in the fourth chapter of Tractate Yadayim Hands that they counted and concluded that all the Songs are holy, and the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies, and the entire matter there is hinted at concerning the Holy One, blessed be He, etc. If so, one should not interpret anything there to the discredit of Israel, God forbid. Through the Midrash on the Song of Songs, Piska chapter/division: "He brought me into the banquet hall" (Song of Songs 2:4) - Rabbi Meir says: "In the congregation of Israel, the Evil Inclination was given power over me." Rabbi Judah said to him: "Do we interpret the Song of Songs for condemnation? No, only for the praise of Israel, as it is stated, 'The Song of Songs,' it is all for praise." And similarly there in the Mishnah the core text of the Talmud: "While the king was in his enclosure, my nard gave forth its scent" (Song of Songs 1:12). Rabbi Meir wanted to interpret "my nard gave forth its scent" regarding the incident of the Golden Calf, and Rabbi Judah replied to him: "We do not interpret the Song of Songs for condemnation." All this was shining before him—all the interpretations in the Talmud where it was possible for them to add to the Song of Songs in praise and to stir the people of Israel; they did not move from there until they found a way of hint and support to achieve their intentions in this matter. Furthermore, they had a tradition from the Men of the Great Assembly to interpret all the places in the Holy Scriptures where it says "And it was" Hebrew: "va-yehi", as it is nothing but trouble (Megillah 10b). And in the Midrashim, you will find many more. All those mentioned there were not said by the Men of the Great Assembly except in the language of allegory, and

this 135 150 160 14 90 5 H' came to us from the Diaspora, and they conclude there that every place where "And it was" is said, it is nothing but trouble, and every place where "And it shall be" Hebrew: "ve-hayah" is said, it is nothing but joy. And if indeed it is a great rule from the measures accepted by which the Aggadah is interpreted, nevertheless, it is necessary to include this in an introduction to the history of the Jewish nation. As we have learned in this, a great wise man, he who observes with an open eye the status of the Children of Israel from then on, will find that the political status is not on the best side. The Patriarchs were strangers in the land of Canaan, and afterwards their descendants were enslaved in Egypt, working with mortar and bricks. After they were redeemed, they went in the desert for forty years without a possession and found no rest for the soles of their feet. Immediately after the death of Joshua bin Nun, their tribes arose, and they conquered them and put them under tribute and labor. In particular, the Philistines did not cease to fight with Israel, and in most cases, their hand was strong until one time the Ark of God was captured. In the days of Saul and David, hearts were divided; some followed David and some followed Saul. After the death of Saul, Haman historical error in text: likely referring to Ish-bosheth wanted to hold them in the hand of his sons. And even after the time that the kingdom was established in the hand of David, he had various persecutions from Absalom his son and from Sheba the son of Bichri. In the days of Solomon, who truly had peace from all his sides and from the people of his country as well, he burdened his yoke upon the Children of Israel until the ten tribes despised his son Rehoboam. The kingdom was divided between Judah and Ephraim—that is, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. After this, Assyria arose and exiled the ten tribes. Furthermore, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, came and destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, and led the elders and the multitudes of the people of Judah, and they went into exile. Even though there was a small command afterwards through Cyrus, and enemies arose and interrupted the work of the Temple, even after they attained the permission to found the house of our God, they were submissive under Persia and Media. And the Greeks, whose terror was cruel and harsh in the cycle of the Medes and Persians, were enemies of Israel. They transgressed the law and broke the covenant. And even after this, at the time that the Hasmoneans arose and fought the war of the Lord of Hosts and struck the enemies with the edge of the sword, and we wept for eighty-four years in a time of evil, and new sects were born among the Jews—that is, the Sadducees and the Boethusians—who disagreed with the Pharisees and with the Oral Torah. The war between the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus grew stronger over the kingdom, and they called the Romans to help them. Pompey came to enjoy conquer it, and through the government of the Romans, the freedom of the Jews disappeared. They wept, as they were not of the children of Israel but of the Edomites, and they were hated by the people of Israel. There was also great extortion under the Romans, and by the power of Agrippas and others, as if to name the cities after the kings for their honor, until Vespasian and Titus came and destroyed the Temple, and they did not leave a root or branch for Israel. And so many years after, the spirit of rebellion was awakened in Israel. Ben Koziba arose, and they destroyed and rebelled against the Romans and struck them with a great slaughter in the war of Bethar. Trajan and Hadrian came and destroyed them and wiped out the place of their residence, and at that time, the Children of Israel were exiled, exile after exile. And we are still sunk in this state, and our eyes are watching and hoping that the Lord will return with us and restore the crown to its former glory.

And he who contemplates this

Needs and is obligated to believe that all the enormous evils that have passed over our heads throughout the long time were only in order to improve our end. This is a great principle in the Torah to believe: that only because of our sins are we sunk in exile, and when we return to our ways, the Lord will return to restore us in that same situation. The testimonies written in the Scriptures on the principles of the conduct of our Sages are very numerous. See the responsa of Besamim Rosh an 18th-century collection of responsa, section 251, at length, to show with proofs that it is a principle in the Torah to believe that all the sorrows that have passed over us were only in the category of medicine in order to return us to the days of the Messiah, that we will live adorned with every virtue and proper quality with constant success, in the perfection of body and soul. And this state in which we stand in these days—these are only the days of trial and examination. Our Sages included this matter in the foundation they laid here: "Every place where 'And it was' is said, it is nothing but trouble." And the praise is that the days that have passed over us were all days of evil in their severity, and yet we still exist and stand and hold with all strength to the Torah of Moses and the teachings of Ravina Babylonian Amora and Rav Ashi Babylonian Amora, and "no weapon formed against us shall prosper." Our Sages mentioned this reason in the way of interpretation to conduct the sorrows that have passed over us with greater force and greater might. As they said, Pharaoh slaughtered twenty infants of Israel in the morning and twenty infants in the evening to bathe in their blood... Midrash and also brought in Rashi in the book of Esther, in the name of the Book of Aggadah. And just as they spoke with extreme exaggeration of the great slaughter and the cruelty that Nebuchadnezzar did when he conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. And likewise concerning the misdeeds of the Greeks and Romans when they besieged Jerusalem (see Gittin, chapter Ha-Nizakin the Damages, and the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Ta'anit and the Midrash on Lamentations).

And in all the darkness that our Sages placed in the ways of interpretation, every place where it is said "And it shall be" Hebrew: "ve-hayah", it is nothing but joy. This means it is also a duty upon the interpretation—everything that he can interpret to praise the good hoped for us, he is obligated to publish it and to spread it in order to comfort our sad mouths, to broaden their hearts, and to strengthen them that their pure faith was not in vain, and that the future time will reward them twofold. And the sorrows and troubles that have passed over them—they are not, heaven forbid, without a purpose. In every place where he comes to interpret with extreme exaggeration the good that the Lord will sprout for us in the future redemption, they interpreted: "A woman will give birth every day," and "The Land of Israel will bring forth cakes and wool garments." And they spoke much of the greatness of the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple in the future (Bava Batra 75a and 75b). And many more astonishing matters about the future redemption, and everything is written because of the primary rule in the ways of interpretation: "Every place where 'And it shall be' is said, it is nothing but joy." And the future days will be only good for the House of Israel, in general and in particular. Also, you need to know that even in the Aggadah, they had other known rules which were established as a foundation: from the conduct of the world and from the providence of the Holy One, blessed be He. Some they learned from the Scriptures, and some were received by them as tradition. And through these foundations which were for them a basis for speech, there is no doubt that they discussed in other places—in every place that opportunity arose to give birth to new matters and to extract the precious from the vile, the obscure from the explicit. For instance, they had a great rule to learn from the verse that the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the years of the righteous from day to day (Kiddushin 38a; Rosh Hashanah 11a). And in a place of doubt, they placed this matter as a foundation to prove from it that if the Patriarchs were born in the month of Nisan, they died in the month of Nisan because the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the years of the righteous (ibid.). Thus, they had a tradition: "The old man is not a bad thing," and they proved it in the language of the Talmud (Berakhot 29a). And because of this, they did not leave out Shmuel ha-Katan Samuel the Small, even though he composed the blessing on the heretics. See there. Similarly, they said (Sotah 8b): "The learned say the Evil Inclination does not rule except in what our eyes see." And after this Aggadic tradition, they also derived the matter of the law concerning a woman hidden naked, and we do not suspect her of improper thoughts.

And furthermore, they had other rules from the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, with the lower world, such as: "The Master of Mercy does not strike the souls first," "The Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish a nation unless He first punishes its prince" (Makkot 12a), and see Rashi there. "The Holy One, blessed be He, does not punish a nation until its measure is filled" (Sotah 9a). "The Holy One, blessed be He, does not do anything unless He consults with His heavenly entourage" (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 'In the Beginning'). By tradition: "They start from the small" (Ta'anit 15b). And these and the like—many more foundations of the Aggadah they learned from the Scripture, the primary principle, and from there they came to be learned in other places. And from the rules accepted in the Aggadah, one should add what our Sages said (Ta'anit 25a): "The learned say from heaven they give, but they do not take back." Furthermore, they said: "The learned say that a name is not destroyed" (Bava Batra 8b). Similarly, they said (Sanhedrin 29b): "The learned say that nothing impure comes down from heaven." And according to this, you will correctly understand the words of the Talmud (Shabbat 11a), where they said there: "A person should never discriminate between sons," for because of the weight of two selaim coins of fine wool that Jacob added to Joseph, it was the cause of the coat of many colors, and Israel was enslaved in Egypt. The Tosafists medieval commentators objected: "Is it not also a tradition that one should not discriminate between sons?" Therefore, according to the great rule that it is our duty [to understand that] one brings merit through the meritorious and guilt through the guilty, if so, from this we are interpreting that to add... Jacob.