“But you do this in the name of not wanting to take the Midrashim literally.”
I dotn know what that means. I am just exploring what appears to me to be black and white yet people seem to struggle with it for whatever reason..Look at this thread. how much back and forth there is over an issue at the crux of wish there isnt much (any?) debate.
I am making a simple straight forward assertion (again to avoid confusion: ““Es taryag mitzvos shomarti” and the Gemara that says that the Avos kept “kol Hatorah kulo” does not they literately kept every mitzvah.””
What throws me off Even those who agree still throw in qualifiers, like “probably” or try to to redefine kiyum hamitzvos.
Look at Tefilin it is the perfect example. do you beleive the Ribono Shel Olam Litereally wears tefillin? I assuem you do not. Is that becasue “you do this in the name of not wanting to take the Midrashim literally.” ?
You claim that
“Your response to that was again to toss around literal or non-literal.”
Yes, because that is my point.
” Which means that the attitude towards such a Sugya, rather than to see what the Maharal or other Sefarim explain, is to say it’s not literal. But that doesn’t teach you what it is.”
That is not what it means. In fact, the opposite! IF something isnt literal that means it needs explanation to explain the metaphor. If it IS literal case closd. The Ribono shel olam takes tefilin puts it on his head every morning. R”L . it is precisely because it isnt literal that it needs explanation.
Imagine you speak English but arent a native speaker. If I say “I have a butterflies in my stomach” Thats pretty easy, You might wonder how those butterflies got there, but the words are straightforward. IT is only when you think for a second and say wait a minute, that cant be literal butterflies would die in the high acidity of the stomach, I wonder what he really means, it is precisely becasue it is non-literal that it needs further explanation.
I ma not sure why you view something as being “non-literal” as dismissive.