There is a Torah portion called "Kedoshim", which begins with the words "You shall be holy, for I the L-rd am holy." (Leviticus 20:26) Surprisingly, the Torah never defines "holy". Had such a statement appeared in Plato, a long dialogue would ensue attempting to define the concept of holiness. In the Torah, we are instead given a list of commandments, dealing with every aspect of life. It is as if the Torah were saying "live this lifestyle, and you will come to know what holiness means". As we look through the pages of the Talmud, we find different rabbis with totally different views on almost everything. Which is more essential, prayer or study? Will the Redemption occur in as miraculous way, or by "natural" means? Was the Torah revealed in its entirety at Sinai, or gradually through the forty years of wandering? Just about everything is up for discussion. Few things are given definitive answers. As recently as the sixteenth century, when the Mikraot Gedolot, a compendium of rabbinic commentaries on the Torah was published, many ideologies and theologies are represented, all within the framework of Judaism. True, RAMBAM had written several works that attempted to "pin down" Jewish beliefs, but these were not widely accepted until after the Sabbatean debacle of 1666. Especially after the rise of Reform, the traditional community "circled the wagons", declaring only a certain segment of Jewish ideas as valid, culminating in the simplistic approach of Rabbi ArtScroll. To be sure, all traditionally Orthodox scholars (although the name "Orthodox" did not come in until the early nineteenth century) agreed on the truth of the Torah, and the obligation to observe the mitzvot, there was plenty of room for questions and divergent opinions. Going back to the story we began with, about the Baal Shem Tov averting disaster, there is a fascinating statement in the Talmud "Wherever Israel goes, the Divine Presence goes with them. Where is the Divine Presence in Babylon? Two views. One says 'In the synagogues and houses of Torah study', the other view says 'in the house of Rav (Rabbi Abba Arika, who brought advanced Torah study to Babylon in the third century)'. In an adjacent passage, the Talmud states "How foolish are people who stand up before a Torah Scroll, but not before a Torah scholar!". That passage seems almost heretical. Are we placing a human being over the Torah? Rather, the Talmud can be understood to be saying "greater the Torah written on a human soul, than the Torah written on animal skins". We have here not a debate of substance, but one of emphasis. The first view sees access to G-d to be found primarily in prayer and study. The other view sees the greatest manifestation of G-d as being the lives and personalities of those who have internalized Him and His Torah. Needless to say, we are not talking about cultic figures who prey on the masses. We are talking about those whose lives are a living Torah. Just as we analyze and re-analyze every letter in the Torah, so those individuals need to be carefully observed and interpreted. The rabbi who said "I no longer know the prayer, the meditation, or how to make the fire, or even the place of the fire, but I can tell the story", was essentially voicing this view. I believe that Judaism is a delicate balance between these approaches. In a more open era, these two approaches almost universally accepted and respected. Today, sadly, we choose to let these sublime ideas divide us. There are many understandings of holiness. There are many ways to avert disaster. The Torah provides us with a holy lifestyle. It is for us to seek its meaning. Let's keep telling the story.