<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Eli Turkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eliturkel@gmail.com">eliturkel@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> <a href="mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com">kennethgmiller@juno.com</a> wrote:<br>
>> We often hear varied stories about this tzadik, or that gadol, and<br>
>> frankly, they are sometimes difficult to believe. I have often heard<br>
>> this as a common reaction to such incredulity: "If you think all these<br>
>> stores are true, then you're a fool. But if you think they're all<br>
>> false, you're an apikores. The message of these stories is that they<br>
>> *could* be true."<br>
<br>
I thought the original was from the Maggid who said that one who<br>
believes all the stories of miracles from the Baal Shem Tov is a fool<br>
OTOH one who believes he couldn't have done the miracles is an apikorus<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Eli Turkel<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>I've heard this stated in many forms<br>But Actually the Rambam and his son R. Avraham say pretty much teh same re: Aggedita<br><br>If you take Aggadah literally you are a fool - and actaully make TORAH look foolish<br>
But if you are cyncial re: Aggadah, you are also a fool - and maybe a letz.<br><br>The point is that Agaddah is out to tech truths but not LIERAL truths<br>If you see the stories as literal you wil miss the point.<br>If you take the story as literal and think it is STUPID it is perhaps even worse.<br>
<br>I think the Netziv explained it thusly. In a 1,000 years the statement:<br>"The 2-headed eagle has spread his wings over thousands of miles.." will face the same mis-understanding.<br><br>But as we still know NOW, the 2-headed eagle wa the herald of the Tsar so it made perfect sense as a metaphor in the time of the Netziv.. <br>
<br>I once showed [or had to show] some RWO relatives that if you take Midrash X literally, then Rashi in Humash will come out to be an apikoros!<br><br>Did the Rambam and R. Avraham get this from an even earlier source? I do not know. Perhaps R. Sa'adyah or others have said the same.<br>
<br><br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>