I agree that Rashi needn't explain every midrash. My issue is more that, after himself interpreting as an allegory, he presents Chazal as saying something different, and mamash.
Meanwhile, regarding most aggadot, at least not the anthropomorphic ones, I personally incline towards thinking it credible that Chazal, and Rashi following them, intended them literally. The same or similar midrashic principles that reveal underlying truth in midrash halacha are often applied to produce midrash aggadah, and if Chazal believe in more direct divine intervention in the form of miracles, why couldn't they think it a coded reference to literally true events; like that Yocheved literally turned invisible to escape Pharaoh, or that Moshe had sent away his wife Tziporah, rather than taking a Cushite woman. I admit I waver, especially where I can see / construct a particularly apt and deep homiletical message. But even true events, and even true events which are peshat, can have deep meanings.
Thanks. I agree with the way you are saying it in general. It's definitely plausible Chazal meant many of those things literally, albeit possibly with an additional deeper meaning.
About this specific case, I also agree that Rashi is probably taking Chazal literally, that Sennacherib actually shaved his beard to disguise himself, and burnt his hair. In fact, there's nothing difficult per se about taking this aggadah literally (at least the "main" part, about the shaving the hair. Not sure about the angels and the date pit). It's not particularly unbelievable. If there's any difficulty, it's the fact that the peshuto shel mikra in this case *is* the allegory, definitely not referring to Sennacherib shaving!
Rashi doesn't typically delve into the deeper meaning of aggados. Does that mean he "holds" there is *no* deeper meaning? Or just that didn't have a position/didn't know/didn't delve into it? Same thing with anthropomorphisms for G-d or for nations.
I agree that Rashi needn't explain every midrash. My issue is more that, after himself interpreting as an allegory, he presents Chazal as saying something different, and mamash.
Meanwhile, regarding most aggadot, at least not the anthropomorphic ones, I personally incline towards thinking it credible that Chazal, and Rashi following them, intended them literally. The same or similar midrashic principles that reveal underlying truth in midrash halacha are often applied to produce midrash aggadah, and if Chazal believe in more direct divine intervention in the form of miracles, why couldn't they think it a coded reference to literally true events; like that Yocheved literally turned invisible to escape Pharaoh, or that Moshe had sent away his wife Tziporah, rather than taking a Cushite woman. I admit I waver, especially where I can see / construct a particularly apt and deep homiletical message. But even true events, and even true events which are peshat, can have deep meanings.
Thanks. I agree with the way you are saying it in general. It's definitely plausible Chazal meant many of those things literally, albeit possibly with an additional deeper meaning.
About this specific case, I also agree that Rashi is probably taking Chazal literally, that Sennacherib actually shaved his beard to disguise himself, and burnt his hair. In fact, there's nothing difficult per se about taking this aggadah literally (at least the "main" part, about the shaving the hair. Not sure about the angels and the date pit). It's not particularly unbelievable. If there's any difficulty, it's the fact that the peshuto shel mikra in this case *is* the allegory, definitely not referring to Sennacherib shaving!
Rashi doesn't typically delve into the deeper meaning of aggados. Does that mean he "holds" there is *no* deeper meaning? Or just that didn't have a position/didn't know/didn't delve into it? Same thing with anthropomorphisms for G-d or for nations.