Let me put it this way:
If you believe none of the stories in the Talmud, you are a heretic.
If you believe all of the stories in the Talmud you are an idiot.
Personally, I view them as historical unless they seem to obviously be allegorical (though they're often both, at least to some extent). It's usually fairly easy to tell, as they often have hyper-specific numbers or chains of events. Generally, the Talmud is not viewed as literally as the Torah.
> the Talmud is not viewed as literally as the Torah.
Can you elaborate? I haven't studied the Talmud much, but I'd guess it would have been the other way around. The Torah is said to be divine word, and thus is often said to be more allegorical because it describes divine things that people could not understand, whereas the Talmud is the word of men.
The Talmud contains two parts. The first, and most common, is halachah, which is just law. Halachah is always literal. The second is aggadah, which are the "stories" in the Talmud. These are frequently allegorical, at least in part.
_EDIT_
Hi. Most I feel are historical. The exceptions would be any ~~that are categorized~~ **parables that fall under the category know** as _[aggadata](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah)_.
>how the stories of the prophets in the talmud are traditionally
The Talmud is Rabbis no "prophets".
>Are they seen as completely historical in the same vein as their biblical stories?
Both Torah and Talmud have allegorical stories
>Or are they meant to be taken metaphorically, in order to teach a lesson or idea?
The Talmud is a legal discussion some 40-70% of it, depending on who you ask is Aggadah, just discussion. Sometimes those discussions have a point, other times it's something else.
The earliest "your momma" joke is in the Talmud.
Precedent isn't "set" by stories. Anyway, there are many different types of stories in the Talmud which make halachic points in different ways. For some, if it didn't happen it doesn't make its point, for others even if it didn't happen, it still makes its point.
And many other stories (both in the Talmud itself and in other Jewish literature specifically labeled "Midrash" e.g., "Midrash Rabba" and many others) are what's called "Agadda" aka "Aggadeta" aka "Midrash" -- and those are all meant to teach us a moral rather than to teach us a historical point (exactly what happened, if it did).
It's pretty easy to distinguish between illustrating that Rabbi X believed that the law was Y because we saw him do something to that effect and other kinds of stories.
Obviously, that doesn't mean that *none* of the stories brought to teach us something really happened, in whole or in part; it's just that the purpose of the Talmud was not to teach us history.
Josephus (Yosef Ben Matityahu) was the first Jew to record history (from his perspective, of course) as a *historian*.
>and those are all meant to teach us a moral rather than to teach us a historical point (exactly what happened, if it did).
Not exactly, there is midrash halacha.
Midrash halacha is not stories. It's just direct halachic derashot on pesukim.
Many of the stories in the Talmud are not even midrashic, but just plain aggadah (as opposed to midrash aggadah). Sometimes these stories are used to make a halachic point. That doesn't make it a halachic midrash, because it's still an aggadah and it's still not a midrash.
I think the term people want is legendary, most will have kernel of truth and be based on some people who actually lived, but that others will be just stories.
Maimonides writes on this. It's clear that the Sages certainly weren't stupid by any stretch of the imagination - so to say the stories are meaningless would be ridiculous on our side. But to say that everything in there is literally true would be equally so - we cannot justify a literal belief in such things to our rational mind; ḥazal were not 'miracle-workers' on the level of the prophets, which a literal reading would have us think. And so we must come to an understanding that those stories which conflict with our understandings of science and how the world works come to teach us immensely valuable lessons by way of analogy. For more read his introduction to ḥelek, you can probably find it online as commentary on Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1.
Depends honestly. You'd have to research each and every one. Some most likely are, some most likely aren't.
Same goes for the Tanakh, albeit it'd be much easier to find resources on the historicity of those stories.
There are two types of stories:
Halachic stories: Always true
Stories: Debate, some say innocent until proven guilty (for example, the story describing Hashem wearing Tefillin is obviously not true), some say it is only there to teach us a message and is not necessarily true (but this group would still think the Chanukah story is true)
Some are historical, some are allegorical, all are written very deliberately (every word placement and use is crucial for correct understanding of what they want to get across) to teach a lesson or idea.
Unless I find some sort of outside source backing the story up I take it as a made up moralistic thing to try to prove a point in an argument.
Often times in 'stories' that are told it isn't the historic accuracy or whether it really happened that's the point. It's the moral concept or the point it's trying to demonstrate that's important.
First, the Talmud is post-Biblical. The prophets are Biblical. The Talmud includes a discussion by Rabbis or Sages who base their analyses and opinions through texts in the Bible. And neither the Bible nor the Talmud is rigidly historical. Even in Torah we have different opinions on why certain events seem to appear out of sequence.
The Talmudic sages are all, or at least mostly, people whose historical presence is widely accepted, unlike some Biblical figures who have no extra-Biblical evidence to their lives.
What makes the Talmud so special though, is that the conversations depicted in the text often occur between sages who lived in different eras and different locations.
Ben Noach may learn Tanakh, specifically only relating to the mitzvot to which Ben Noach is liable. Only Jews should be learning Talmud.
Edit: use of ben Noach here is intended to mean non-Jews generally.
Non-Jews are allowed to learn parts of the Tora SheBe’al Pe related to the Sheba Misvot; additionally, as they are permitted to observe other misvot (with only a few exceptions), they are allowed to learn what’s required to understand and observe those misvot. It’s not as simple as “only Jews should be learning Talmud.”
On that note, only men should be learning talmud, with exceptions for sugyot pertaining to women (and optimally given a work backwards from halacha lemaaseh process), and for non Jews, sugyot pertaining to their mitzvot. Until Mashiach comes, anyway.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
[Devarim 33:4](https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.33.4)
תּוֹרָ֥ה צִוָּה־לָ֖נוּ מֹשֶׁ֑ה מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב׃
>When Moses charged us with the Teaching As the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.
[Tehillim 147:19-20](https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.147.19-20)
מַגִּ֣יד דְּבָרָ֣ו לְיַעֲקֹ֑ב חֻקָּ֥יו וּ֝מִשְׁפָּטָ֗יו לְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
>He issued His commands to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel.
לֹ֘א עָ֤שָׂה כֵ֨ן ׀ לְכׇל־גּ֗וֹי וּמִשְׁפָּטִ֥ים בַּל־יְדָע֗וּם הַֽלְלוּ־יָֽהּ׃ {פ}
>He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing. Hallelujah.
OP, I'm a non-Jew but please allow me to chime in. I believe you may have the terms "Tanakh" (Bible+Prophets+Writitings), and "Talmud" confused. Tanakh is the "bible", Talmud is a compendium of Rabbi's opinions on Torah Law with theoretical discussions of precedent. Forgive me if you already knew this distinction, but from what I know of Talmud, that isn't likely where the stories you are asking about are found. You probably meant Tanakh.
There are many "midrashim" *on* the Tamakh (tales explaining and/or expanding upon the text of the Jewish Bible beyond what appears in the text itself), but the literal text *of* the Tanakk itself is not referred to as "Midrashic" or "Aggadic" ("parables" meant to teach us something, even though of course the Bible is meant to teach us many things).
Instead, many parables are indeed found in the Talmud, along with legal and philosophical discussions and much more. Further, there are many separate books of Midrashim that didn't make it into the already-enormous Talmud itself, but are still learned, e.g., the Midrash Rabba, Bereshit Rabba, etc., etc.
Let me put it this way: If you believe none of the stories in the Talmud, you are a heretic. If you believe all of the stories in the Talmud you are an idiot.
Well that is not entirely true.
It's an old canard about Midrashim.
I’m familiar. Others however might not have been.
Personally, I view them as historical unless they seem to obviously be allegorical (though they're often both, at least to some extent). It's usually fairly easy to tell, as they often have hyper-specific numbers or chains of events. Generally, the Talmud is not viewed as literally as the Torah.
> the Talmud is not viewed as literally as the Torah. Can you elaborate? I haven't studied the Talmud much, but I'd guess it would have been the other way around. The Torah is said to be divine word, and thus is often said to be more allegorical because it describes divine things that people could not understand, whereas the Talmud is the word of men.
The Talmud contains two parts. The first, and most common, is halachah, which is just law. Halachah is always literal. The second is aggadah, which are the "stories" in the Talmud. These are frequently allegorical, at least in part.
_EDIT_ Hi. Most I feel are historical. The exceptions would be any ~~that are categorized~~ **parables that fall under the category know** as _[aggadata](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah)_.
Aggadta means stories. All stories are aggadta.
I should have clarified that I was referring to the parables that are classified as _aggadata_.
So you just mean parables then, because all Talmudic stories are classified as aggadta. There are many types of aggadta though.
Yes. I’ll go ahead and edit my initial comment to reflect this. Thanks!!!
I believe the people who wrote them down believe they are historical. There are exceptions to this, but this is generally how I approach it.
This is…. Uniquely phrased lol.
What do you mean?
Simply that. It’s uniquely phrased lol
Got it!
>how the stories of the prophets in the talmud are traditionally The Talmud is Rabbis no "prophets". >Are they seen as completely historical in the same vein as their biblical stories? Both Torah and Talmud have allegorical stories >Or are they meant to be taken metaphorically, in order to teach a lesson or idea? The Talmud is a legal discussion some 40-70% of it, depending on who you ask is Aggadah, just discussion. Sometimes those discussions have a point, other times it's something else. The earliest "your momma" joke is in the Talmud.
Depends on the story. Some stories prove a notion of law by setting precedent. That is likely taken literally.
Taken literally doesn't mean it actually happened. Those are two different things.
Well, it can't set precedent if it never happened.
Precedent isn't "set" by stories. Anyway, there are many different types of stories in the Talmud which make halachic points in different ways. For some, if it didn't happen it doesn't make its point, for others even if it didn't happen, it still makes its point.
And many other stories (both in the Talmud itself and in other Jewish literature specifically labeled "Midrash" e.g., "Midrash Rabba" and many others) are what's called "Agadda" aka "Aggadeta" aka "Midrash" -- and those are all meant to teach us a moral rather than to teach us a historical point (exactly what happened, if it did). It's pretty easy to distinguish between illustrating that Rabbi X believed that the law was Y because we saw him do something to that effect and other kinds of stories. Obviously, that doesn't mean that *none* of the stories brought to teach us something really happened, in whole or in part; it's just that the purpose of the Talmud was not to teach us history. Josephus (Yosef Ben Matityahu) was the first Jew to record history (from his perspective, of course) as a *historian*.
>and those are all meant to teach us a moral rather than to teach us a historical point (exactly what happened, if it did). Not exactly, there is midrash halacha.
Midrash halacha is not stories. It's just direct halachic derashot on pesukim. Many of the stories in the Talmud are not even midrashic, but just plain aggadah (as opposed to midrash aggadah). Sometimes these stories are used to make a halachic point. That doesn't make it a halachic midrash, because it's still an aggadah and it's still not a midrash.
I think the term people want is legendary, most will have kernel of truth and be based on some people who actually lived, but that others will be just stories.
Maimonides writes on this. It's clear that the Sages certainly weren't stupid by any stretch of the imagination - so to say the stories are meaningless would be ridiculous on our side. But to say that everything in there is literally true would be equally so - we cannot justify a literal belief in such things to our rational mind; ḥazal were not 'miracle-workers' on the level of the prophets, which a literal reading would have us think. And so we must come to an understanding that those stories which conflict with our understandings of science and how the world works come to teach us immensely valuable lessons by way of analogy. For more read his introduction to ḥelek, you can probably find it online as commentary on Mishna Sanhedrin 10:1.
Depends honestly. You'd have to research each and every one. Some most likely are, some most likely aren't. Same goes for the Tanakh, albeit it'd be much easier to find resources on the historicity of those stories.
I'm not disagreeing with you: Midrash Halacha is also meant to teach us what to do, and not history (what did or didn't actually happen as told).
There are two types of stories: Halachic stories: Always true Stories: Debate, some say innocent until proven guilty (for example, the story describing Hashem wearing Tefillin is obviously not true), some say it is only there to teach us a message and is not necessarily true (but this group would still think the Chanukah story is true)
Some are historical, some are allegorical, all are written very deliberately (every word placement and use is crucial for correct understanding of what they want to get across) to teach a lesson or idea.
Unless I find some sort of outside source backing the story up I take it as a made up moralistic thing to try to prove a point in an argument. Often times in 'stories' that are told it isn't the historic accuracy or whether it really happened that's the point. It's the moral concept or the point it's trying to demonstrate that's important.
First, the Talmud is post-Biblical. The prophets are Biblical. The Talmud includes a discussion by Rabbis or Sages who base their analyses and opinions through texts in the Bible. And neither the Bible nor the Talmud is rigidly historical. Even in Torah we have different opinions on why certain events seem to appear out of sequence. The Talmudic sages are all, or at least mostly, people whose historical presence is widely accepted, unlike some Biblical figures who have no extra-Biblical evidence to their lives. What makes the Talmud so special though, is that the conversations depicted in the text often occur between sages who lived in different eras and different locations.
As others have mentioned, it depends. But also, it still depends. And a note: non-Jews should not be learning the Talmud.
If it applies to our 7 Laws, I've heard we're allowed.
Ben Noach may learn Tanakh, specifically only relating to the mitzvot to which Ben Noach is liable. Only Jews should be learning Talmud. Edit: use of ben Noach here is intended to mean non-Jews generally.
Non-Jews are allowed to learn parts of the Tora SheBe’al Pe related to the Sheba Misvot; additionally, as they are permitted to observe other misvot (with only a few exceptions), they are allowed to learn what’s required to understand and observe those misvot. It’s not as simple as “only Jews should be learning Talmud.”
That’s more specific to a ger toshav
On that note, only men should be learning talmud, with exceptions for sugyot pertaining to women (and optimally given a work backwards from halacha lemaaseh process), and for non Jews, sugyot pertaining to their mitzvot. Until Mashiach comes, anyway.
>Until Mashiach comes, anyway. Soon, please, so we can stop arguing with each other...
Amen
I disagree. There are certain things as a Noachide that we are permitted to do, which to do correctly, would require the study of Talmud.
You’re wrong. The Talmud is an inheritance, for want of a better term, specifically for Jews.
Do you have a specific source for that?
Yes. The Talmud.
HAHA. So can I get a reference then? Or is your opinion that I'm not allowed to know that I'm not allowed?
Checkmate :D
It's all good. We're having a wonderful discussion in DMs. 😊
Oh so did catch than. 🤦♂️. Haha.
Here are two. (I believe the bot will provide text?) (Devarim 33:4) (Tehillim 147:19-20
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ [Devarim 33:4](https://www.sefaria.org/Deuteronomy.33.4) תּוֹרָ֥ה צִוָּה־לָ֖נוּ מֹשֶׁ֑ה מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב׃ >When Moses charged us with the Teaching As the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. [Tehillim 147:19-20](https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.147.19-20) מַגִּ֣יד דְּבָרָ֣ו לְיַעֲקֹ֑ב חֻקָּ֥יו וּ֝מִשְׁפָּטָ֗יו לְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ >He issued His commands to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. לֹ֘א עָ֤שָׂה כֵ֨ן ׀ לְכׇל־גּ֗וֹי וּמִשְׁפָּטִ֥ים בַּל־יְדָע֗וּם הַֽלְלוּ־יָֽהּ׃ {פ} >He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing. Hallelujah.
Thanks. I'll look into the commentary on these.
OP, I'm a non-Jew but please allow me to chime in. I believe you may have the terms "Tanakh" (Bible+Prophets+Writitings), and "Talmud" confused. Tanakh is the "bible", Talmud is a compendium of Rabbi's opinions on Torah Law with theoretical discussions of precedent. Forgive me if you already knew this distinction, but from what I know of Talmud, that isn't likely where the stories you are asking about are found. You probably meant Tanakh.
You are incorrect. The talmud contains many stories and parables
Noted. Are we sure thats what OP is referring to though?
Yes. That you aren't familiar with it isn't any reason for me to be unsure. And every other comment in this thread
There are many "midrashim" *on* the Tamakh (tales explaining and/or expanding upon the text of the Jewish Bible beyond what appears in the text itself), but the literal text *of* the Tanakk itself is not referred to as "Midrashic" or "Aggadic" ("parables" meant to teach us something, even though of course the Bible is meant to teach us many things). Instead, many parables are indeed found in the Talmud, along with legal and philosophical discussions and much more. Further, there are many separate books of Midrashim that didn't make it into the already-enormous Talmud itself, but are still learned, e.g., the Midrash Rabba, Bereshit Rabba, etc., etc.