Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 180

Thursday, March 4 1999

• Re: science and history
• Refined Question
• Re: The Mentally Challenged
• RE: The future of Chasidishe Livush
• RE: BUD IN THE TORAH
• Hilchos aveilus
• Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Girsoh II
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Hypothetical Halocho
• Re: Megila Repetitions, Zochore too
• history vs. science
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources
• Re: Chazal vs. Secular Sources

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> Recent postings on historical methodology and the reliability of conflicting
> opinions prompt a few philosophical observations.
>

I certainly respect your right to share with us your philosophy, and that
is indeed, the purpose of this august assemblage. Nevertheless, they are
not binding because you (or anyone else, myself - obviously - included)
simply espouse them. You - and everyone who been on this list for some
time - know, of cousre, that I believe you are gravely mistaken - perhaps
worse - in your positions in the post, so therefore I will not belabor the
points. 

But, I cannot help but be fascinted, to be honest, by a simple question:
Why should you - with the mindset you eloquently articulate - choose to
accept Chazal at all? Seeing how prone they were to error - from your
perspective - what is to say that there is any validity to Rabbinic
stricture and decree in Halacha? Except for those rare statements that are
definitive Halacha l'Moshe Me'Sinai - the rest - say, for example, the
halachos of muktzeh, according to most opinions, or yom tov sheni when the
calendar is no longer doubtful - are "sheer" invention by very much error
prone individuals (you know that I do not hold Chazal infallible - but I
believe that it is only in the hard sciences that we can ever come to such
a conclusion - but I understand your perspective is very different)?
 
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I would like to refine/redefine the question I posed to R' David Glasner
earlier:

From yourr perspective, I would assume, you would see no reason to accept
the authority of Chazal on something, say, like that Galus Mitzrayim
lasted 210 years and not 400 or 430 years. So, what about their authority
on something like "ayin tachas ayin", a topic we have discussed here
before - is their assertion that it is monetary definitive or not? Or, for
another topic we have discussed, Hilchos Treifos, where we can keep many
more animals alive then they could - why should we not overturn these
halachos?

And - the converse - from your perspective, legislative authority that was
exercised by Chazal who were not semuchim - such as Afke'inhu Rabbanan
l'Kiddushin - is there any reason we should not exercise such powers
nowadays?


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

  -What is the status of mentally challenged/retarded people's NESHAMA? 
: They can't have BECHIRA in the clasically understood sense of the term,
: and they don't seem to fit the TANYA's  NEFESH ELOKIS/NEFESH HA-BEHAMIS

: description either.  Are they performing mitzvos and aveiros? It would
: seem that they are not. If they are not, then is there SCHAR VE-ONESH,
: OLAM HABOH, TE-CHIYAS HAMEISIM, etc?  There is an old saw floating
around
: that the Chofetz Chaim/ Chazon Ish/ Gadol of your choice, would stand
up
: when an MR person would walk into the room. When asked why, the Gadol
: replied that he was in the presence of the SHECHINA / MALACH.  Even if
: this is true, MALACHIM don't go to OLAM HABOH, or come back at TECHIYAS
: HAMEISIM. 

SAD
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

: -  When Moshiach comes will Shtreimals and Spodiks be allowed in the
Bais
: Hamikdash?  They are made from pelts of non-kosher, Tameh animals and
: they are unprocessed (somewhat).  For a bit of humourous historical
: revisionism take a look at some of the Chasideshe Mishnayos, coloring
: books etc. which many of our schools are showing our children.  Jews in
: Mitzrayim and in the Midbar, walked around in heavy fur hats, long
heavy
: black coats and pants and lived in a world void of women. Why didn't
: Yakov put his head on his warm ,soft Shtrimal instead of that hard rock
: anyway?!  R" Kivalevitz in Chicago once showed me something on this (
the
: shtrimal in the B"H part) but I don't remember what it was.

SAD
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

This week's Parsha,Perek 30 Pasuk 23 The Living Torah (Aryeh Kaplan) "
Some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp
plant".

Shmuel Akiva Drebin
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>Separate but related queries: What is source not to learn hilch. 
>availus except when needed or on Tish'a B-av (three weeks)? I  recall a 
>pertinent Chasam Sofer, but do not recall which way he goes.  How can
learning something cause a bad fate to ch"v befall one?
	I attend a shiur by Rabbi Yisroel Reisman which covers different areas
of Yoreh Deah.  We are currently learning Hilchos aveilus, and this topic
obviously was discussed before we started.  The conclusion as I recall it
was as you say,  nothing bad will happen to someone who chooses to learn
certain halachos.  Rabbi Reisman also mentioned something (whose source I
don't now recall) to the effect that if anything it was a segula not to
need those halachos.  There is a similar segula which was more common in
previous years of having your own tachrichim prepared,  not to need them
until 120.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Is it necesary to see Chazal in conflict with science with reagrd to the facts, 
etc.?

Chazal may simply have had a different POV with regard to something that might 
not mesh with conventional science. However, on spiritual levels, they do make 
sense.  IOW Chazal are not necesarily "wrong", just not coming from the kind of 
hands-on material approach we use today in a technologically oriented society.

EG, whether the earth or the Sun is the centre of the solar system is really a 
matter of perspective.

Re: the 420.  Even if we could prove beyond a doubt that Bayis Sheini lasted 
about 600 years, it does not imply that 420 was a miscalculation.  The 420 MIGHT
refer to a specific subset of the Bayis Sheini era.   A 48 minute basketabll 
game can take 2 elpased hours!  We know what WE mean by it being only 48 
minutes.  1500 years from now, they might not know, and would erroneously assume
we're either ignorant or liars!

We have the 400/210 discrepancy re: golus Mitzrayim.  We know that Hashem 
started the proverbial clock earlier. (Chisheiv as haKetiz, keitz gematrayo for 
the 190 years that were removed).
Q:  How can Chazal contradict open pesukkim?
A:  By showing that hashem's perspective of the Golus is not the literal sojourn
in Mitzrayim.

I am not taking sides aboutthe 420 being literal.  I kust am pointing out that 
Chazal may not have meant it to be taken that way.

Rich Wolpoe

  

On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Chazal may simply have had a different POV with regard to something that
> might not mesh with conventional science. However, on spiritual levels,
> they do make sense.  IOW Chazal are not necesarily "wrong", just not
> coming from the kind of hands-on material approach we use today in a
> technologically oriented society. 
> 

So where do you draw the line:


When Chazal say that RCBD caused vinegar to burn as oil, was it literal?
When they say that he caused a serpent that bit him to die, was it
literal?
When they say that Eliyahu HaNavi revealed himself to many of their
number, was it literal?
When they say Rabbeinu HaKadosh came Friday nights after his petira to
make Kiddush, was it literal?

And, if they are not literal in anything other than the strictest Aggada -
even in dating, which in RH 3a-b is discussed as pure fact, without any of
the Aggadistic trappings - how do you know that in Halacha they were
always literal?

I am certainly not a literalist in Aggada - such as the RBBC gemoros in BB
- but I distinguish between accounts related as factual and those that are
not.

> Re: the 420.  Even if we could prove beyond a doubt that Bayis Sheini
> lasted about 600 years, it does not imply that 420 was a miscalculation. 
> The 420 MIGHT refer to a specific subset of the Bayis Sheini era.  A 48
> minute basketabll game can take 2 elpased hours!  We know what WE mean
> by it being only 48 minutes.  1500 years from now, they might not know,
> and would erroneously assume we're either ignorant or liars! 
> 

The 420 has very important calendrical ramifications - it is not elastic.
You are really aggadicizing an issue that is halachic to the core. When it
comes to determining molados, shemittos, etc. you cannot escape the issue
of every year - every month - counting.

There is a significant difference, of course, between your proposal and
that of R' David Glasner. RDG is proposing that Chazal were very much
fallible and error prone - there accuracy rate he left somewhat vague, but
it seems that he postulates a very high rate of error in any area other
than halacha. You propose not to see it as error, but as non-literalness.
But I am not sure if the net result is not similar.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 3/4/99 9:54:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 There is a significant difference, of course, between your proposal and
 that of R' David Glasner. RDG is proposing that Chazal were very much
 fallible and error prone - there accuracy rate he left somewhat vague, but
 it seems that he postulates a very high rate of error in any area other
 than halacha. You propose not to see it as error, but as non-literalness.
 But I am not sure if the net result is not similar.
 
 YGB
  >>
Dear R' YGB,
Is your counterproposal that Chazal were infallible in all areas of  the human
experience? Does this infallibility only extend through the tannaim, amoraim
etc.?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Is your counterproposal that Chazal were infallible in all areas of the
> human experience? Does this infallibility only extend through the
> tannaim, amoraim etc.? 
>

Not infallible - I believe I made that clear. Rather, that they should be
assumed right until proven beyond doubt wrong. That means, that in areas
such as the 420 years, they cannot be assumed wrong unless definitive
evidence beyond doubt exists to the contrary. It does not. It does in
other areas, for example, against the opinion in Chazal - that seems to be
the definite stance of the Yerushalmi, although the Bavli is not
necessarily the same - that the sun at night goes behind a dome. 

It is my belief that Chazal were not given divine knowledge of all
physical phenomena (but were granted special gifts in Chochmas HaTorah, BB
12), but were sticklers for verifying as much as they possibly could, and
were abreast of all possible knowledge until their time. Thus, as above,
it is preposterous to assume, from my perspective, that Herodotus et al
were right and Chazal wrong. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

yesterday i wrote: <For those who wish to follow R'Chaim's suggestion the
article by R. Breuer he refers to is entitled "Miqro'os She'ain Lohem
Hechrea" (or something like
that, title taken from the talmudic inyon) and appeared originally in
Migodim - can't remember the specific volume.  an even better reference is
an article on the same subject by Jordan penkower which appeared in hardback
- -Vol 4 of Iyyunei Something/ (miqroh?) Uforoshonus>

I was tossing that off from memory and, re-checking when i got home, can now
offer this slightly more exact reference.  First, the R. Breuer article
appeared in Migodim-10 (tashan?) and was actually more cutely titled
"Miqro'os SheYeish Lohem Hechrea".  The Penkower article appeared in Vol 4
of Iyyunei Miqroh U'foroshonos, a series published by Bar Ilan U press. Also
penkower's article overlaps with breuer's in that they both treat the
doubled readings (though penkower's is far more extensive), but R. Breuer
also addresses the classic ain lohem hechrea cases - penkower doesn't.  Also
penkower's article was entitled: Zeicher - Bi'chomeish oa Sheish Niqudos?


Mechy Frankel		michael.frankel@dtra.mil

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> It is my belief that Chazal were not given divine knowledge of all
> physical phenomena (but were granted special gifts in Chochmas HaTorah, BB
> 12), but were sticklers for verifying as much as they possibly could, and
> were abreast of all possible knowledge until their time. Thus, as above,
> it is preposterous to assume, from my perspective, that Herodotus et al
> were right and Chazal wrong.

We have been presented with a number of presentations of personal positions
regarding Chazal and History. I'd prefer if we avoid gridlock and  move beyond
our personal opinions and hear more formulations by recognized gedolim.
Besides the analysis of Rav Yitzchok HaLevy that the Rishonim basically were
not interested in history and therefore their historical statements are not in
the same league as their halachic states - there is an interesting statement
of Rav Tzadok (Ohr Zaruah LTzadik 24b) - [which is in high agreement with what
Rabbi Bechhoffer has said] . He deals with the issue of the accuracy of
Josephus where he disagrees with Chazal. Josephus not only was an observant
Jew but he lived in the times of Chazal and he recorded his observation as
history.

"This is the cause of the many disparities in the narrative of the Churban
between that which appears in the gemora and medrashism of Chazal in
comparison to when is found in the writings of Yosef HaCohen ben Gurion. For
example Chazal called Titus a rasha and they extend themselves to described
his wickedness - in contrast Josephus describes him as a Tzadik and upright
....but this is the distinction we have mentioned. Josephus was a writer not a
prophet or bal ruach hakodesh. He wrote what he wrote according to what he
knew and observed and heard according to his comprension and understanding -
and therefore he couldn't have known the absolute Truth. Chazal - who were all
baalei ruach hakoesh. They were aware of unspoken matters as well as
unpublicized events. They were not biased but related Truth they way it was.
That is the reason for these disparities. An obviously there will be
disparities when you compare the descriptions provided by Chazal in contrast
to what is found in the histories of the nations of the world."

According to poskim:
1) One can read the Megillo without a Minyan
2) The brocho Ahcarona does require a Minyan

Question:  Given an audience of 5 men and 5 women, would they be mitztaref for a
Minyan legabei the last brocho?

Rich wolpoe

In v2n176, Michael Frankel <FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil> writes:
:                                                                        (BTW
: where are the avodah archives so i could check stuff like that?)

I added a line at the end of the digest to help address this question. As I
want to keep the trailer short, though, I'm not sure how helpful it is.

To get a back issue from MajorDomo (the list manager software) mail
majordomo@aishdas.org the following request (unindented) for each issue
desired:
	get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY

Note that the digest number must be in two digits, and the volume number in
three -- use leading zeros when necessary.

Alternatively, you can browse the web archive at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
The archive has a table of contents in reverse historical order and
is indexed alphabetically by subject line. (Which is why I nag people to use
meaningful subject lines!)

: And since we're passing by shabbos zochore I guess I'll throw in the fact that
: there is really no doubt as to what the correct girsoh for zeicher amoleiq is,
: i.e. zeicher,  and the widespread custom to repeat it with the incorrect
: zecher,  seems to have taken hold only with the widespread acceptance of the
: mishnoh beruroh in  20th century ashqenazi communities. 

According to Rabbi Jack Love (as printed in last week's Toras Aish), zeicher
means "a reminder" or "a memorial", whereas "zecher" is "a memory". At least,
that's R' Chaim Vilozhiner's version of the shitas haGra; RCV notes that others
recalled the Gra's position in the reverse. Either way, he addresses the
preservation of minhag to repeat the pasuk in light of the idea that one
version is overwhelmingly more likely to be the correct one.

The meaning in Parashas Zachor is clearly "memorial". "Destroy all memory of
Amaleik, don't forget" reminds me of the old childhood chestnut "I bet you
you'll be thinking of pink elephants in 15 seconds." Actively trying to
forget something is an effective way to remember it.

Also, "destroy all reminder of Amaleik" would exclude a ben Noach who no longer
acts like an Amaleiki, which would justify the Rambam's implication that
a ger toshav is not included in the chiyuv. Whereas an Amaleiki ger toshav
/would/ be a "zecher", a legacy, of Amaleik.

Rabbi Love's p'sak is to say "zeicher" and then "zecher" if repeating the whole
pasuk, but if one has the minhag to only repeat the phrase (as per R' Moshe),
then one shouldn't "correct" the pasuk from the right word to the wrong one,
so "zeicher" should come second.

The question is also relevent to Ashrei. The Rav (R YB Soloveitchik zt"l) was
noheig to say the entire "zayin" pasuk twice.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Mar-99: Chamishi, Sisa
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 301:202-208
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 44b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Horeb 705-708

David Glasner writes:

>First, I don't think that there is any philosophical basis for distinguishing
>between the methods of history and the methods of science, or for that
>matter, the methods of literary analysis and the methods of science.
>[snip]The
>only distinguishing feature of scientific disciplines is that in those
disciplines
>the most compelling evidence for or against an argument is whether that
>argument is consistent with empirical (preferably observable) facts. [snip]
But even
>in the hardest of sciences it is always possible to dispute facts and to
argue
>that the facts are not what they seem, have been mismeasured, or
>misinterpreted.

On more than one occasion, I have defended a post of Mr. Glasner's, but
I find the above-cited statements nothing short of fantastic.  I am not
a scientist, and list members of the caliber of R. Mechy Frankel need no
help from me in defining and defending their vocational disciplines.
But the casual equation of historical and literary studies to the hard
sciences seems to me indefensible.

By implication, Mr. Glasner is suggesting there is no qualitative
difference between the answers to the following questions:

1. Explain what causes a lighted match to burn.

2. Explain what caused the Civil War.

3. Explain what caused Hamlet to mistreat Ophelia.

Among the many important distinctions between the scientific method and
the art of the historian is that the former can test his hypotheses by
experimentation.  To my knowledge, barring the discovery of a new
artifact, there is simply no way to objectively test or confirm a
historical theory.

Of course, historical disciplines vary, as do scientific specialties.
Take archaeology.  An archaeologist can demonstrate conclusively that
the synagogue predated the hurban ha-Bayyit, that many different kinds
of tefillin were worn at the end of Bayyit Sheni and that Jewish homes
in the Talmudic period hung mezuzot vertically and, sometimes, at an
angle.  But when it comes to structures that are not physical,
historians of the classical period must fall back on literary analysis
of documentary sources.  Thus, in trying to describe the Sanhedrin,
historians cannot agree when or whether it existed, what its powers were
or even how many there were.  Moreover, when one moves to back to
earlier periods, like the iron age,  the archaeological record is even
thinner.  Consequently, archaeologists often proffer speculative
theories, with entirely new interpretations emerging twice or three
times in a generation, overturning their predecessors, usually based not
on new evidence but new social or anthropological theories and
ideologies.  Thus, it is simply impossible for an archaeologist to make
a conclusive judgement regarding the historicity of, say, yetziat
Mitzrayim or kibush Yehoshua.  (Not that this keeps them from trying.)

This is not to say that we do not benefit from many archaeological
discoveries.  In the 20th century, for example, Uggaritic studies have
vastly enriched our understanding of Biblical Hebrew.  The Dead Sea
Scrolls have shed much new light in the study of targumim.  But
historians still argue about who the members of the Qumran sect were and
what was their relationship to the Jews and early Christians.

Certainly when we move to more recent periods, historians have far more
to teach us.  But here too there are limits to what we can know.  The
famous example -- from non-Jewish history -- is Shakespeare's will which
leaves his second-best bed to his wife.  Yet, no one knows what happened
to his best bed, whatever that was.

I think that recognizing the limits of historiography is the first step
in developing an enlightened appreciation of its output.  It has nothing
to do with obscurantism, religious or otherwise.

>The evidence cannot be rejected based on some a priori distinction between
>scientific and historical methodology, but only by a careful weighing of the
>evidence pro and con.  The same applies to a literary analysis of the
>authorship of the Zohar and other sacred books.

I have never proposed rejecting any evidence a priori.  But I think that
"weighing evidence" and evaluating methodology are often intertwined.
To take Scholem's analysis of the Zohar, for example, there is a
difference between his noting the use of a Medieval phrase and his
broader statement that the writing style of the Zohar resembles that of
R. Moshe de Leon.  Without questioning his evidence, a substantial
portion of Yitzhak Baer's conclusions has been, shall we say,
reevaluated.  Graetz and others have been rightfully criticized for
their anti-Orthodox and especially anti-Hasidic and Kabbalistic bias.
Scholem is considered to have exaggerated the influence of Sabbateanism
on modern Jewish history.  This is not about averting one's eyes from
evidence, but critically examining a historian's ouevre.

On the literary front, I think that Hazal already taught us to be
sensitive to nuances of language in pesukim.  Even midrash aggadah often
reminds us to notice what is absent from the text.  So too Ramban has
taught  us to contemplate the psychology of the Avot, and Abarbanel has
demonstrated the importance of close reading of the text.  Thus,
literary analysis has always been a part of parshanut ha-mikra, although
not necessarily in a sytematic fashion.

In the Gemara, both Rashi and Tosafot (individually as well as together)
testiify to the reality of multi-layered interpretations of the Talmudic
text.  And, for halakhic reasons, the Gemara devotes much time to
determining the authorship of various statements.

Authorship matters in later halakhic works, too.  For example, what
appears in the Vilna Shas as Rashi's perush to Moed Katan isn't Rashi.
The printed mar'eh mekomot in the hagahot of the Rema were not written
by the Rema himself.  I cannot understand how or why someone would
disregard this important information.

Yet, it is of course far easier to prove that someone did not write a
work than it is to identify the real author.  Controversy regarding the
authorship of such important works as Sefer ha-Hinnukh and Derashot
ha-Ran illustrate this, as well as the continued anonymity of the
authors of the Orhot Hayyim, Kol Bo and Orhot Tzaddikim.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 3/4/99 1:46:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< 
 > It is my belief that Chazal were not given divine knowledge of all
 > physical phenomena (but were granted special gifts in Chochmas HaTorah, BB
 > 12), but were sticklers for verifying as much as they possibly could, and
 > were abreast of all possible knowledge until their time. Thus, as above,
 > it is preposterous to assume, from my perspective, that Herodotus et al.
were right and Chazal wrong.
 
 We have been presented with a number of presentations of personal positions
 regarding Chazal and History. I'd prefer if we avoid gridlock and  move
beyond
 our personal opinions and hear more formulations by recognized gedolim.
 Besides the analysis of Rav Yitzchok HaLevy that the Rishonim basically were
 not interested in history and therefore their historical statements are not
in
 the same league as their halachic states - there is an interesting statement
 of Rav Tzadok (Ohr Zaruah LTzadik 24b) - [which is in high agreement with
what
 Rabbi Bechhoffer has said] . He deals with the issue of the accuracy of
 Josephus where he disagrees with Chazal. Josephus not only was an observant
 Jew but he lived in the times of Chazal and he recorded his observation as
 history.
 
 "This is the cause of the many disparities in the narrative of the Churban
 between that which appears in the gemora and medrashism of Chazal in
 comparison to when is found in the writings of Yosef HaCohen ben Gurion. For
 example Chazal called Titus a rasha and they extend themselves to described
 his wickedness - in contrast Josephus describes him as a Tzadik and upright
 ...but this is the distinction we have mentioned. Josephus was a writer not a
 prophet or bal ruach hakodesh. He wrote what he wrote according to what he
 knew and observed and heard according to his comprension and understanding -
 and therefore he couldn't have known the absolute Truth. Chazal - who were
all
 baalei ruach hakoesh. They were aware of unspoken matters as well as
 unpublicized events. They were not biased but related Truth they way it was.
 That is the reason for these disparities. An obviously there will be
 disparities when you compare the descriptions provided by Chazal in contrast
 to what is found in the histories of the nations of the world."
  >>

Just to clarify, is your position that chazal(as yet undefined as to how far
down the time line or what "level" of individual) are assumed to always be
literally, as ordinary humans would perceive it, correct; but if it can be
"proven"(as yet undefined for certain, if not all, disciplines) that they were
not literally correct, then we redefine the statement as not literal or based
on "the truth the way it was" but not necessarily as ordinary humans would
perceive it?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Just to clarify, is your position that chazal(as yet undefined as to how
> far down the time line or what "level" of individual) are assumed to
> always be literally, as ordinary humans would perceive it, correct; but
> if it can be "proven"(as yet undefined for certain, if not all,
> disciplines) that they were not literally correct, then we redefine the
> statement as not literal or based on "the truth the way it was" but not
> necessarily as ordinary humans would perceive it? 
> 

I am happy to clarify, but you will note that we have been gently rebuked
by RDE for discussing "our" opinions, so I am not sure why you still want
to know what "I" hold :-). 

(BTW - RDE - I think this goes back to our disagreement as to sources.
While I am a great "chosid" of R' Tzadok's, seeing how late he is, it is
up to me to accept or reject his opinion, especially since he represents a
specific approach (in most areas), and not one necessarily accepted by
other streams of Jewish thought - as we recently learned in our discussion
of Chassidus. Thus, in formulating opinions, we may reference Acharonim,
but ultimately, the opinions are our own. Indeed, this is part of what
allows me - of Yekkishe/Litvak/Chabad origin - to opt for other
approaches. V'yesh l'ha'arich!)

No, your understanding of my position is not accurate. I thought I was
clear - it is evident that Chazal were mistaken in that they thought the
sun went behind a dome at night. There is no need to say - although one is
entitled to say as much if one pleases, it's a free country - that the
statement was not literal or based on some alternate scale of
reality/truth. Were Chazal infallible there would be no Mesechta Hori'os.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]