Halacha from Aggadeta

These past few days, starting from Bava Batra 73 until today, 75, have been full of Aggadeta, that is, fantastic narrative involving Amoraim. There’s a general rationalist assumption, e.g. by Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna in the 10th perek of Sanhedrin, that such aggadeta is not historical, and contain encoded messages.

That does not (necessarily) mean that he holds (and we hold) that all non-halachic interpretations were not intended literally, and rendering “Aggadeta” as non-halachic material is not helpful in making this clear.

So, e.g. Chazal who apply hermeneutical methods to interpret halacha, e.g. kelal ufrat, to halacha presumably believed that they were discovering true Authorial intent. Just because they do the same to verses about Avraham or Hagar, which is narrative, doesn’t mean that they didn’t mean it. Similarly, if we read a perfectly normal story about one Amora visiting another and an event happens, it doesn’t mean that this is (necessarily) the type of Aggadeta that Rambam said was meant allegorically. Read what he writes inside — he speaks of aggada that defies reason.

I am convinced that the fish stories, and desert stories, are indeed allegorical. Not because I want to reject them because I contest the science (e.g. about cosmology, the firmament, something maintained by ancient scientists — see Talmudology) and want a frum way of rejecting it, or that I reject the possibility of miracles. Rather, there are aspects of these stories that clearly cry out that they are metaphorical. For instance, reference to the treasure chest belonging to Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa’s wife, in which techeilet would be placed for tzadikim in the future, seems like an allusion to the famous story of the golden table leg found in Taanit 25a:

אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: עַד אֵימַת נֵיזִיל וְנִצְטַעַר כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי נַעֲבֵיד? בְּעִי רַחֲמֵי דְּנִיתְּבוּ לָךְ מִידֵּי. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי, יָצְתָה כְּמִין פִּיסַּת יָד וִיהַבוּ לֵיהּ חַד כַּרְעָא דְּפָתוּרָא דְּדַהֲבָא. חָזְיָא בְּחֶלְמָא, עֲתִידִי צַדִּיקֵי דְּאָכְלִי אַפָּתוּרָא דְּדַהֲבָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ תְּלָת כַּרְעֵי, וְאִיהוּ — אַפָּתוּרָא דִּתְרֵי כַּרְעֵי.

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Ḥanina’s wife said to him: Until when will we continue to suffer this poverty? He said to her: What can we do? She responded: Pray for mercy that something will be given to you from Heaven. He prayed for mercy and something like the palm of a hand emerged and gave him one leg of a golden table. That night, his wife saw in a dream that in the future, i.e., in the World-to-Come, the righteous will eat at a golden table that has three legs, but she will be eating on a table that has two legs.

אֲמַר לַהּ: נִיחָא לָךְ דְּמֵיכָל אָכְלִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אַפָּתוּרָא דְּמַשְׁלַם וַאֲנַן אַפָּתוּרָא דִּמְחַסַּר. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: וּמַאי נַעֲבֵיד? בְּעִי רַחֲמֵי דְּנִשְׁקְלִינְהוּ מִינָּךְ. בָּעֵי רַחֲמֵי וְשַׁקְלוּהוּ. תָּנָא: גָּדוֹל הָיָה נֵס אַחֲרוֹן יוֹתֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. דִּגְמִירִי, דְּמֵיהָב יָהֲבִי מִישְׁקָל לָא שָׁקְלִי.

When she told her husband this story, he said to her: Are you content that everyone will eat at a complete table and we will eat at a defective table? She said to him: But what can we do? Pray for mercy, that the leg of the golden table should be taken from you. He prayed for mercy, and it was taken from him. A tanna taught in a baraita: The last miracle was greater than the first, as it is learned as a tradition that Heaven gives but does not take back.

I think it is allegorical because I think I can recognize the genre of these stories.

I don’t know that we can understand the meaning of all of these stories. I mean, we can try, and we can read the Vilna Gaon, read The Juggler and the King that presents the Gaon’s thoughts, read Ben Yehoyada, read Maharsha. But I don’t think that they are presenting a transmitted tradition as to the meaning. They are each theorizing, based on sevara, based on their built-up intuition from studying lots of rabbinic sources, and based on their own religious / social / cultural context. That is why they differ with one another. Is it ethics, kabbalah, future reward for Torah scholars? I don’t know that the true meaning is knowable, if we don’t have the full context that Rabba bar bar Chana had when he formulated it.

If theses stories are allegorical, can we deduce halacha from them? I think it’s not contradictory to do so. After all, the aggadeta could still use technical terms, or Aramaic / Hebrew terms, in their proper sense. And as background to the stories, they aren’t going to have improper halacha!

So, there are a few areas where we see halacha derived from these stories.

1. The top Tosafot on 74a. The dead of the wilderness are described in the story as וְגָנוּ אַפַּרְקִיד. Tosafot write:

וגנו אפרקיד. מכאן אר"ת דאפרקיד פניו למעלה ולא כמו שפירש ר"ח בנדה (דף יד. ושם ד"ה אפרקיד) ובברכות (דף יג:) פניו למטה דאם כן לא היה יכול טייעא לרכוב תותי ברכיה:

Thus, Rabbeinu Tam extracts from here that אפרקיד means that they were buried face up. After all, the story continues that the Arab trader passed underneath one of these giant Jews of the wilderness while riding on a camel, spear up, and the spear didn’t touch the knee of the bent-over leg. The way the knee bends, the person must have been lying on his back. Compare to Niddah 14a:

ריב"ל לייט אמאן דגני אפרקיד איני והאמר רב יוסף פרקדן לא יקרא קרית שמע קרית שמע הוא דלא יקרא הא מגנא שפיר דמי

The Gemara further discusses actions that are apt to lead to a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would curse one who sleeps lying on his back [aparkeid], as this might lead to a seminal emission. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say: One who is lying on his back may not recite Shema? From this it may be inferred that it is only Shema that one may not recite in this position, but to sleep lying in that position is permitted.

So Rabbeinu Chananel understood this as sleeping face down, as the pressure on the groin could lead to seminal emission. But as noted, Rabbeinu Tam points to the Rabba bar bar Chana story to explain the meaning of aparkeid.

2. Another example from the same story. There’s an upsetting Artscroll footnote about it, IIRC. Rabba bar bar Chana took a corner of one of their tzitzit garment, to use as archaeological evidence for the halacha - how many strings on each corner, like Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai. But they were deceased! It must be, said the Vilna Gaon, that one buries Jewish people with kosher tzitzit. (The same Gra who provides allegorical interpretations.)
   
   And, one of the Vilna Gaon’s students was insisting they bury the Vilna Gaon with his kosher tzitzit. But he because ill and left the room, others removed or invalidated them. And this was taken as a sign from heaven that they should not act in accordance with the Vilna Gaon. :(
   

3. A while back, a controversy (re-)emerged about anasakis worms found in the flesh of fish. See here for the particular parshablog post where I discuss it and here for the whole series about anasakis worms.
   
   At play is a specific unclear gemara about kukyanei worms, which are found in the belly of the _____ creature, vs. in the flesh. Rashi understands ____ to mean animal, like a cow. Rif and Rabbeinu Tam understand this to mean a fish. At play is the following halachic conclusion of the gemara:
   
   והלכתא קוקיאני אסירי מ"ט מינם ניים ועיילי ליה באוסייה
   
   Kukyanei worms — (even if found in lungs and livers, per Rashi; found in the belly of the fish, per Rif) —are forbidden, because while the ___ sleeps, and enter its nostrils. The idea seems to be that it didn’t spontaneously generate, but came from the outside.
   
   I think that cows makes more sense there. But Tosafot point us to Bava Batra 73b, that fish have nostrils in which worms can enter. To quote our gemara:

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: זִימְנָא חֲדָא הֲוָה קָא אָזְלִינַן בִּסְפִינְתָּא, וַחֲזֵינַן הָהוּא כַּוְורָא דְּיָתְבָא לֵיהּ אָכְלָה טִינָא בְּאוּסְיֵיהּ, וְאַדְחוּהוּ מַיָּא וְשַׁדְיוּהוּ לְגוּדָּא, וַחֲרוּב מִינֵּיהּ שִׁתִּין מָחוֹזֵי. וַאֲכוּל מִינֵּיהּ שִׁתִּין מָחוֹזֵי, וּמְלַחוּ מִינֵּיהּ שִׁתִּין מָחוֹזֵי, וּמַלִּאוּ מֵחַד גִּלְגְּלָא דְעֵינֵיהּ תְּלָת מְאָה גַּרְבֵי מִשְׁחָא. וְכִי הֲדַרַן לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, חֲזֵינַן דַּהֲוָה קָא מְנַסְּרִי מִגַּרְמֵיהּ מְטַלְּלָתָא, וְיָתְבִי לְמִבְנִינְהוּ הָנָךְ מָחוֹזֵי.

§ And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in a ship and we saw a certain fish in whose nostril [be’usyeih] a mud eater [akhla tina], i.e., a type of insect, had sat and killed him. And the waters thrust the fish and threw it upon the shore. And sixty districts were destroyed by the fish, and sixty districts ate from it, and another sixty districts salted its meat to preserve it. And they filled from one of its eyeballs three hundred flasks of oil. And when we returned there after the twelve months of the year had passed, we saw that they were cutting beams from its bones, and they had set out to build those districts that had been destroyed.

So parasites can enter a fish’s nostrils and kill it. Again, Tosafot use Aggadeta to determine reality, and from there, halacha.

I heavily favor Rashi in this (and would therefore maintain that anasakis worms in fish flesh are entirely permitted). Part of the problem is that, yes, fish have nostrils. But unlike the case in mammals, those nostrils are solely for the purpose of smelling, not breathing. They don’t connect to any lungs, nor to the digestive system.

4. Update: As Rabbi Todd Berman pointed out, I skipped Rosh to Gittin 4:46, who proves from the treasure chest of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa’s wife that women can prepare tzitzit. Thus:
   

סוכת גנב"ך כשירה ואמרי' בפרק המוכר את הספינה (בבא בתרא דף עד:) דנפקא בת קלא ואמר להו מאי עבידתייהו בהדי קרטליתא דדביתהו דרבי חנינא בן דוסא היא דעתידהלמשדי בה תכילתא לצדיקי לעלמא דאתי

This is based on the story on 74b:

בַּר אָמוֹרַאי לְאֵתוּיַהּ, וּרְגַשׁ וּבָעֵי לִשְׁמְטֵיהּ לְאַטְמֵיהּ, וּשְׁדָא זִיקָא דְחַלָּא וּנְחֵת. נְפַק בַּת קָלָא אֲמַר לַן: ״מַאי אִית לְכוּ בַּהֲדֵי קַרְטְלִיתָא דִּדְבֵיתְהוּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא, דַּעֲתִידָה דְּשָׁדְיָא תְּכֵלְתָּא בָּהּ לְצַדִּיקֵי לְעָלְמָא דְאָתֵי!״

i.e., a diver [bar amoraei] went into the water to bring up this chest, and the fish became angry and sought to sever his thigh, but the diver threw upon it a flask of vinegar and they descended and swam away. A Divine Voice emerged and said to us: What right do you have to touch the crate of the wife of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, as she is destined to insert sky-blue wool in it to be used in the ritual fringes of the righteous in the World-to-Come?

So count the Rosh among them. I’m not personally so convinced by the proof. Rav Steinsaltz does render it like that, but Artscroll renders דַּעֲתִידָה דְּשָׁדְיָא תְּכֵלְתָּא בָּהּ to mean that “for in it (her == the chest) techeilet will be kept”. Either way, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa’s wife fashioned the tzitzit. But that doesn’t matter, so much as that the Rosh does think so.