0

The info for the aggadeta tag is:

Non-legal passages in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings that use descriptive allegories and stories to convey fundamental truths about reality, as well as theological and moral lessons.

However, this statement about the deep significance of the aggadot seems more more reflective of the likes of Maharal than his predecessors (I am not unaware of Rambam's introduction to Helek). It certainly does not do a good job of reflecting the view that the aggadot were sometimes just used to wake up sleepy students, and the like.

(For a by no-means comprehensive survey of classical views on aggada/aggadeta/haggada/midrash/drash (terms used interchagably by Rishonim, see Belief in midrashim)

I am therefore seeking an edit that avoids taking a stand on the issue (leaving that instead to the website itself.

14
  • 1
    We already have a agada-stories-legends tag. Why does this one even exist?
    – Double AA Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:34
  • Re "aggada/aggadeta/haggada/midrash/drash (terms used interchagably by Rishonim": I'm surprised. Did they not use the term "midrash halacha" to refer to things like Sifra? Or do they call things like Sifra "agada"?
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:35
  • @msh210 They used the term Midrash broadly, much as we do today, such that it could be used to refer to anything from fantastic stories in the Talmud, to Tannaic halakhic compilations.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:37
  • 1
    So... then midrash and agada were not used interchangeably?
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:38
  • @DoubleAA Agreed. That is a separate issue to be sorted out. It should be noted that that tag has no guidance and is not at all clear if it is intended to include any old wives tales, stories in the Talmud, or something else.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:38
  • @msh210 In most contexts they are used interchangeably. Such as, for example, in referencing "Non-legal passages in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings that use descriptive allegories ".
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:40
  • @mevaqesh Just please don't spend too long worrying about a tag-wiki on a tag which might disappear in an hour by being merged into something else.
    – Double AA Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:42
  • Why on Earth would any healthy sane individual commentlessly downvote a question for noting that misleading information is presented?
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:51
  • @DoubleAA, well, that one has no description, so we may wish to adopt whatever's decided here for whichever tag lasts.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:55
  • 2
    @DoubleAA IMO, agada-stories-legends should be renamed stories-legends. It would then refer to all kinds of stories (as it currently does) without confusingly sounding like it's associated with a kind of Talmud passage, while aggadeta would refer (as it currently does) to non-legal passages in the Talmud. Of course, these two tags would be overlapping, but not completely.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 17:57
  • I'm not sure what "leaving that instead to the website itself" is getting at. We know that prior authorities have taken stands on this question. Maybe posts on Mi Yodeya will take their own stands; maybe they won't. I agree that the tag synonym, representing the Mi Yodeya website/community as a body, oughtn't.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:08
  • 2
    I really think we need to resolve what scope each of the tags will have at the same time as (or before) resolving the present question.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:11
  • @IsaacMoses I meant that if someone wants to write a post arguing for one or the other, that is fine, but it should be done in its own post, not inserted into tag info. I think we agree.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:34
  • 1
    @mevaqesh I believe that we agree regarding substance; I'm suggesting that that passage is confusing and should be removed or replaced.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:36
2

I propose:

Non-legal passages in the Talmud and similar rabbinic works

3
  • I think that non legislating is beter than non legal
    – kouty
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:49
  • @kouty note that "non-legal" is not the same as "illegal," in case that's your concern.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:03
  • 1
    @IsaacMoses somewhat may be a legal topic with an aggadic purpose. legislating is more pointing the scope. BTW illegal is included in legal spectrum.
    – kouty
    Aug 8 '16 at 20:15
-1

suggestion

Non legislating passages of Talmudic works

0
-3

Suggestion:

Non-legal passages in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings that often contain fantastic stories.

10
  • 2
    They often contain fantastic stories, but they often don't. And often non-agad'ta contains fantastic stories (e.g. Exodus 10:23). So "that often contain fantastic stories" is at best a description, not a definition, of agad'ta — and a poor one at that IMO. −1.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:38
  • @msh210 And often non-agad'ta contains fantastic stories (e.g. Exodus 10:23) That is a totaly bogus claim. Aggadot are certainly characterized by the existence of fantastic stories, and indeed although I oversimplified earlier, the term is used disproportionately (from my experience) for such passages. The fact that one may find fantastic stories in a variety of places, from the Bible to the Harry Potter series, has no bearing.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:49
  • 1
    (re your comment) So you're really disagreeing with my "but they often don't". Just one example off the top my head (from the maseches I know best, not that that's saying much): In Bavli M'gila what verse each amora began his talk on Ester with is perfectly believable, not fantastic.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 16:51
  • @msh210 So you're really disagreeing with my but they often don't Nope. I have no idea why you would suggest that. Incidentally, your argument is circular in that it presupposes the definition that you are arguing. Not that that is particularly relevant.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 17:02
  • Downvoters?????
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:35
  • 2
    (re your "Downvoters?????" comment) Votes on suggestions on Meta generally indicate agreement/disagreement rather than whether the suggestion is clear or the like.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:41
  • @msh210 I would think that could be accomplished simply by upvoting a more appropriate answer.
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:43
  • 1
    @msh210 (the dramatic string of ?? was just to reach 15 chars)
    – mevaqesh
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:44
  • 2
    Nonetheless, I think that's what people do (viz, downvote suggestions they don't agree with). And some downvotes may come from users who don't agree with any of the answers.
    – msh210 Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 18:45
  • 1
    @msh210 oddly, the relevant FAQ section maps votes to agreement/disagreement specifically on feature-request posts. However, the behavior on our Meta, at least, clearly extends that mapping to all posts that propose something.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Aug 8 '16 at 20:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .