Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 068

Tuesday, February 1 2005

• use of torture
• Re: use of torture
• Re: use of torture
• Age of fetus/use of torture
• Re: Re: use of torture
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: The purpose of creation according to Chovos haLvavos
• A of the U: The Transcript of RAK's Original Speech
• Re: A of the U
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy

[I'm bouncing an Areivim thread here, since RET subsequently posted the
similar question to Avodah. Recall when reading this that the post was
written for a less formal forum, and perhaps things would have phrased
differently if written for Avodah. -mi]

In a recent daf yomi Shmuel calculated the age of an aborted fetus and
then calculated that the parents had relations while the mother was a
MNidah. To prove his case he bound the father/husband until he confessed.

I find this gemara rather disturbing. First I doubt that even modern
medicine can determine the age of the fetus within one day. The gemara
gives signs one grows on various days but I would guess that in practice
there is some variation.

More disturbing is tying the man to get a confession. I was just reading
about the inquistion in Spain and the use of torture to gain every
confession in the world. Throughout the ages torture has been used to
extract false confessions. The fact that Shmuel bound the man until he
confessed doesn't sound like a very strong proof.

Eli Turkel

[Third email of a bounced Areivim thread. Recall when reading this
that the post was written for a less formal forum, and perhaps things
would have phrased differently if written for Avodah. -mi]

In  Areivim Digest V14 #141dated 1/12/2005 Eli Turkel <turkel@cem.tau.ac.il>
writes:
> In a recent daf  yomi Shmuel calculated the age of an aborted fetus
> and then calculated that  the parents had relations while the mother
> was a Nidah. To prove his case  he bound the father/husband until
> he confessed.

> I find this gemara  rather disturbing. First I doubt that even modern
> medicine can determine  the age of the fetus within one day....

You are bothered by the seeming torture of the man, but as a Republican,
I am not too disturbed by that. I think that "binding" a man sounds like
nothing too severe--well within the Geneva Conventions--though I do wonder
why the man's confession was needed. Was there a punishment attendant
on his confession? Is there no guarantee against self-incrimination in
halacha? Can a person give testimony against himself? Are confessions
accepted in beis din? I am not too clear on these points--there you
have MY confession.

Anyway, a different aspect of the Gemara you have cited disturbs me more:
the science does not seem to be accurate. Ovulation does not take place
during menstruation. It is almost impossible to become pregnant while
a nidah (barring some spotting, which does sometimes happen at the time
of ovulation).

Altogether, the story sounds strange. You say that modern medicine
cannot determine the age of a fetus to within a day, but I think that
very likely modern medicine CAN closely determine the age of a fetus,
especially in the early weeks. And the age of the fetus could tell
you when the couple had relations. BUT--how could it possibly tell you
where in the woman's cycle she was when they had relations?! As I said,
whatever the age of the fetus, the overwhelming probability was that
it was conceived within a day or so of ovulation, a week or so after
menstruation.

Unless Shmuel had the mikva lady's record of when the woman went to the
mikva and could determine from the age of the fetus that conception must
have taken place before the woman went to the mikva? Or somehow knew
that the woman had spotted during ovulation? But how could he possibly
know that?

Just to reiterate, if he did NOT have the mikva records, the age of
the fetus would indicate nothing about whether the couple had relations
before the wife went to the mikva. And the very fact that the woman got
pregnant would indicate that she was probably a week past menstruation
when they had relations, and was in fact eligible to go to the mikva.
Whether she actually did so or not, again, could be ascertained only by
checking the mikva records, but not by looking at the age of the fetus.

 -Toby  Katz
============

[Second email of a bounced Areivim thread. Recall when reading this
that the post was written for a less formal forum, and perhaps things
would have phrased differently if written for Avodah. -mi]

Eli Turkel <turkel@cem.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> I find this gemara rather disturbing. First I doubt that even modern
> medicine can determine the age of the fetus within one day.
> The gemara gives signs one grows on various days but I would guess
> that in practice there is some variation.

> More disturbing is tying the man to get a confession. I was just
> reading about the inquistion in Spain and the use of torture to
> gain every confession in the world. Throughout the ages torture
> has been used to extract false confessions. The fact that Shmuel
> bound the man until he confessed doesn't sound like a very strong
> proof.

This is from today's daf. I had the same reaction you did. Aftre all,
let's look at the ethics of it. A man was beaten up for no apparent
reason. Nothing was gained except to prove how great Shmuel's knowledge
was.

Shmuel was trying to prove his expertice and the denial on the part of
the husband was to cover up the fact that he was Boel a Niddah. So he
had to use extraordinary means to get at the truth. The point here was to
show that Shmuel's knowledge of human biology was accurate. Perhaps the
Gemmarah embellished the story. It is highly unlikely that an Amorah
would torture anyone ever, let alone only to prove how smart he was.

The story has to be an exageration.

HM

[Fifth email of a bounced Areivim thread. Recall when reading this
that the post was written for a less formal forum, and perhaps things
would have phrased differently if written for Avodah. -mi]

RET writes
>  In a recent daf yomi Shmuel calculated the age of an aborted fetus
>  and then calculated that the parents had relations while the mother
>  was a MNidah. To prove his case he bound the father/husband until
>  he confessed.
>  I find this gemara rather disturbing. First I doubt that even modern
>  medicine can determine the age of the fetus within one day.
>  The gemara gives signs one grows on various days but I would guess
>  that in practice there is some variation.

I'm not sure whether modern medicine can or cannot determine the age
of the fetus to within one day, but it might be that the significance
of the particular case was that the fetus was 41 days old, rather than
40, given that 40 days is, in halachic terms, a significant watershed
(regarded, at least by some, as the time in which the neshma comes in).
Could this not be understood on a spiritual level, namely that Shmuel
was on a level to detect the presence or absence of a neshama?

>  More disturbing is tying the man to get a confession. I was just
>  reading about the inquistion in Spain and the use of torture to
>  gain every confession in the world. Throughout the ages torture
>  has been used to extract false confessions. The fact that Shmuel
>  bound the man until he confessed doesn't sound like a very strong
>  proof.

You are assuming however (as some of the other posters have) that this
whole thing occurred because Shmuel wanted to bring proof to his amazing
ability.

But is that really the case?

Shmuel did not need this particular confession (despite what other posters
seem to have assumed) and in fact the opposite, he generally poskened
that one should act as though it was a safek as to whether there was
indeed fetus or not (for the purpose of declaring whether a woman has
any yamei tahara or not), and it was on this statement in the gemora (ie
that Shmuel generally poskened as though it was a safek) that the gemora
asks a question - could it really be Shmuel who poskened that we should
always treat the situation as though it was a safek, since Shmuel was
the one able to determine in exactly such a case that there was indeed
a fetus, and not only that that it was 41 and not 40 days old - ah what
was the case in which he was able to work out that the fetus was 41 and
not 40 days old, well they brought him a miscarriage of exactly the type
described (presumably to posken whether or not the woman was entitled to
any yamei tohar) and he said yes there is a fetus and it is 41 days old,
and then thought regarding when she went to tevila and found out she went
to mikvah only 40 days ago and worked out her husband had been boel nidah
and he "tied" the husband and he confessed. So the gemora answers, Shmuel
is different since his strength (Torah knowledge presumably) is great.

It seems rather to be the case that what happened is that Shmuel
was brought what would seem to be a regular shayla - this woman had
miscarried and needed to know what the din was with her miscarriage,
and Shmuel smelt a rat.

Now there are several odd things to note here.

Shmuel clearly understood that his ability was unusual, and hence that
the halacha should not follow his ability, so strictly speaking, would
he not generally have poskened to be machmir - on a lo plug basis?
Why did any of this come out?

Secondly, he investigated when she went to mivkah. How did he necessarily
do that?

There is a pretty straightforward answer though. This woman seems to
have been a frum woman - after all, she came to Shmuel with her shayla.
Doesn't strike one as being the type to have relations while still
in nida.

And the most logical way to find out when the woman went to mikvah is
to ask *her*. And he didn't tie *her* up, despite her being involved in
having relations while still a nida.

So what does that suggest? It seems to suggest, IMHO, that she was not
a willing party to the relations.

Are you still so unhappy that Shmuel tied the fellow up and made it clear
to him that there were those around him who would know what was going on
(even if he thought he could get away with such things and keep his wife
silent)! Even if he had to use extra judicial punishments? (Oh and by the
way, Jastrow translates this as "put in the stocks, in prison" which is
today not regarded as a form of torture even under the Geneva convention).

And is it so surprising if I am right that even if in the general case
even the great men of that generation could not tell such things, that
in this case Shmuel was given a special siyata d'shmaya?

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

[Fourth email of a bounced Areivim thread. Recall when reading this
that the post was written for a less formal forum, and perhaps things
would have phrased differently if written for Avodah. -mi]

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Eli Turkel <turkel@cem.tau.ac.il> writes:
> In a recent daf  yomi Shmuel calculated the age of an aborted fetus
> and then calculated that  the parents had relations while the mother
> was a Nidah. To prove his case  he bound the father/husband until
> he confessed.

> I find this gemara  rather disturbing.  

> You  are bothered by the seeming torture of the man, but as a Republican, I 
> am  not too disturbed by that.  I think that "binding" a man sounds like  
> nothing too severe--well within the Geneva Conventions--though I do
> wonder why  the 
> man's confession was needed.  Was there a punishment attendant on his  
> confession? 

It is the task of our rabbinic leaders, especially the leaders of a
generation, to seek to elicit Teshuva from individuals they ...KNOW... to
have sinned. Being Boel a Niddah is a serious Aveira which is an Issur
Kares. Shmuel being a quintessntial prototype of a Rachmon wanted this
fellow to do Teshuva and avoid this severe punishment. He knew for an
absolute certainty that this individual was guilty of the fact based on
his superior knowledge of human biology. So he coerced this gentlemean's
Vidui knowing that it was in the best interests of his soul and that it
is ultimately what the Avaryan really wanted.

> Is there no guarantee against self-incrimination in halacha? 

Self incrimination is a plus in Halacha, if one is actually guilty of
the crime. One must admit he has sinned before one can do teshuva.

> Can a person give testimony against himself?  

Of course. Where did you get the idea that he coudn't.

> Are  confessions accepted in beis din?

Why would you think they wouldn't be?

> Anyway, a  different aspect of the Gemara you have cited disturbs me more:  
> the  science does not seem to be accurate.  

This is one of the reasons that women shouldn't learn Gemmarah. Are you
challanging the wisdom of our sages?! Nashim, Daatam Kallos. :)

...
> Altogether,  the story sounds strange.  You say that modern
> medicine cannot 
> determine  the age of a fetus to within a day, but I think that
> very likely 
> modern medicine  CAN closely determine the age of a fetus,
> especially in the 
> early  weeks. 

The case in the Gemmarah was contingent on the precise variation of
one day. RET wonders (as I do) if even modern science has that kind of
precision. But perhaps Shmuel did. Modern medicine does not have all the
answers. OTOH, it is possible that there was some medical fact Shmuel
knew that was somehow lost to the ages, and has yet to be re-discovered

> And the age of the fetus could tell you when the couple had  
> relations.  BUT--how could it possibly tell you where in the
> woman's cycle  she was 
> when they had relations?!  As I said, whatever the age of the 
> fetus, the 
> overwhelming probability was that it was conceived within a day or
> so  of 
> ovulation, a week or so after menstruation.  

The Gemmarah is full of such inconsistencies. There are many ways to
interpret a gemmarah that seems to contradict the facts as we know them
today. My own view is that Chazal did not know everything there is to
know. Their knowledge of science was based on the best information of
that era. They were fallable in matters of science. But their Psak
Halacha which we are required to follow is still based on that knowledege.

Our Mesorah tells us to follow that Psak even if it is based on inaccurate
or even false information. That is why Kinim are allowed to be killed on
Shabbos even though we know that they produce sexually. Chazal thought
they didn''t and Halacha is based on that. The Pachad Yitzchak (...not
R. Hutner but an earlier Achron by the same title) has a famous Teshuva
to the contrary which says that now that we know that Kinim do reproduce
sexually they would be Assur to kill on Shabbos. I will never forget
what my Rebbe, RAS, said in Shiur. He said that if the Pachad Yitzchak
were alive today he would be put in Cherem for contradicting the Psak
of Chazal.

> Unless Shmuel had the mikva lady's record of when the woman  went
> to the mikva 

That is not as absurd as it sounds. There is a rather famous Gemmarah
that R. Yochanan, who was very handsome (although he was quite fat,
but I guess concepts of beauty were different then) used to sit by the
Mikva exit so the women who came out of the Mikva would see his face
and have children that looked like him.

HM

In V14#66, Micha responded to my responding to RYGB:
>>> If there was a 165 year gap, then the molados cheshbon would need be
>>> compensated accordingly.

>> For the sake of argument, what if the gap was a multiple of 19, e.g.
>> 171?

> If I didn't know you better....IOW, molad tohu may have been calculated
> after the begining of bayis sheini, based on the SOR and the then-current
> molad. In which case, all Mr Landau has shown was that the person who did
> the math to project backward to before ma'aseh bereishis did so correctly.

Micha knows me better. I wrote what I wrote because I wrote it taking
RYGB's argument as a given and working with the mathematical formulae
which are based on factor 19 while recognizing that said argument
definitely is not a "given." I thank him for explaining why, as I wrote
earlier in a more-serious vein, there is no connection between molados
and BCE chronology unless we have some mesorah from CHaZaL on the Molad
Tishrai for a particular event (e.g. the first Purim, or Alexander the
Great meeting Rabbi Shimon) during the time period in question.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

"Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
> One of the most damaging
> and outrageous statements made by a talmid chakham was several years ago
> when a busload of children were killed in Israel and the reason given was
> that their parents' mezuzot were not kosher.

First of all I *highly* doubt that this was reported accurately. I'm
100% sure that what he said, very clearly, was not that the lack of
mezuzot caused the accident, but that had they had kosher mezuzot they
might have been saved. And what makes you think that he was wrong? If
he had suggested that the reason they were killed is that they were not
wearing seat belts, would you condemn him like this? If they had died
of a disease, and he had said that had they been immunised they might
have survived, would you condemn him like this?

But what is the difference? It is a firmly established Jewish belief
that the mitzvah of mezuzah provides physical protection, and that the
Shomer Daltot Yisrael protects us not just when we are in the house but
also Tzetecha Uvo'echa. Illustrating an example where a lack of this
protection may have led to severe consequences can only impress upon
people the importance of being protected.

Of course it's possible that this would have happened even with 100%
kosher mezuzot, just as people do die in car crashes even with seat
belts and air bags and every possible precaution, and people do die
of diseases even when they have all the usual immunisations. But when
someone dies without the benefit of these precautions, it is reasonable
to draw a connection, and to use it as an opportunity to warn others.

> Did this rabbi consider the
> pain, anguish and agmas nefesh he needlessly caused the family members
> and friends!

Needlessly? How do *you* understand the Rambam who says that failing
to draw the lessons from what happens to us is cruel and wicked? The
parents need to know that there was something they could have done,
that might have helped, so that they will do it now, and that others
will do it now, before something else happens ch"v.

Indeed, isn't this exactly what Hashem Himself did, when 'acharei
mot shnei venei Aharon', he told Aharon how to conduct himself when he
enters the Kodesh Hakodashim, so that the same thing won't happen to him?
Rashi explicitly compares this to a doctor warning a patient not to eat
cold food or sleep in a damp place, so that he won't die as Ploni did!
This is *exactly* like the case you cited. We have a bereaved parent,
who has just lost his children, and he is now told that their deaths
were 100% preventable if only they had followed some simple precautions.
And the reason he is being told them now is explicitly "she'im lo yaaseh
ken, yamut", because Hashem is afraid that if Aharon does not follow these
instructions he too will die. Now how is this different than your case?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:

> In my opinion, it is absurdly ethnocentric to assume that 250,000+
> non-Jews were killed and millions more injured or displaced simply in
> order to forewarn the Jews about the disengagement.

"Even a ship going from Gaul to Spain is only blessed because of Israel".

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In message , Mendel Singer <mendel@case.edu> writes
>At 08:48 PM 1/27/2005 +0000, RnCL wrote:
>>We know that there can be a navi sheker from the Torah (something that
>>I think has to be regarded as a chiddush ie something we would not work
>>out logically were it not for the Torah telling us this).

>>What seems to be being inferred by various posters here is that because
>>we can have a navi sheker, therefore we can have a sheker HKBH.

>No, I wouldn't say sheker HKBH. I would say that just as Hashem can do
>miracles for a navi sheker for the purpose of testing, so to He could
>create a prehistory (bones in the ground) for the purpose of testing. It
>isn't sheker - it's more a question if Hashem is placing a stumbling block
>by doing something where people would be likely to err.

But think about what sheker means? Hashem is the Boreh. He created the
world in a certain way. If He in fact created the world in one way but
made it appear as though he created the world in another way, why is that
not a form of sheker? I am not talking about a situation where it is
just misleading - ie where we are jumping to the wrong conclusions because
of not seeing the full picture (that argument I can fully understand).
But, according to you, this is a case of Hashem deliberately creating
something for the sole purpose to deceive.

That is why, it seems to me, what you are proposing is analogous to the
navi sheker (who is surely correctly named). In the case of the navi
sheker, Hashem may allow the miracles, but it is the navi sheker who
has the intention to deceive and lead us away from Torah. That case is
analogous to (actually an example of) a person doing evil. And again,
in the more general case, Hashem allows a person to do evil, but it is
not Hashem who has the intention of doing evil, it is the person who
has that intention who is and does evil.

> In the case of
>miracles for a navi sheker, there was an overriding reason. perhaps it
>isn't testing us, but rather to create bechira. Still, there would be a
>likelihood of people being led astray by how things appear on the surface.

And likewise there is a likelihood that by allowing people to do evil,
people will conclude that there is no Hashem (or alternatively that
Hashem is evil), because how come there is evil in the world? But it
is a great leap (IMHO) and not a correct Torah one to therefore conclude
that Hashem does evil.

>A tangential point would be the issue of emes, and what is emes. When
>Yaakov used "deception" to secure the brochas, was this sheker? Reb Tzadok
>HaKohen (IIRC, Divrei Sofrim 28-29?) explains he was acting on the real
>emes, Hashem's Emes, which is that Yaakov was the real bechor. This is
>in the context of explaining the Izhbitzer's concept of birur, which
>literally means the clarification of a middah, but is used in the sense
>of perfection of a middah. This was an example of birur in the middah
>of emes. Birur is achieved when the person can act in a situation in
>a way that on the surface would seem to be the opposite of the middah,
>but in that case is actually the proper application. The behavior Yaakov
>displayed in this episode would usually be thought of as sheker, but
>was really the application of true emes, Hashem's emes.

Yes - but there has to be true underlying emes. In Ya'akov's case, it
was because there was. But that is because, under this understanding,
Ya'akov was the real bechor.

On the other hand if Ya'akov had been deceiving Yitzchak because it was
a test for Yizchak to see how he responds to deceit, and nothing more,
how can you say that there is underlying emes? The whole point of such a
test is that one is supposed to identify the sheker as sheker and reject
it. If there is underlying emes then one is not wrong in not rejecting
it (as Yitzchak was not wrong in giving the brochas to Ya'akov). So,
according to this mashal, if there was any real emes to the prehistoric
records, then it would be correct for us to accept them. Only if not,
can we justifiably reject them. But surely that means that, according to
you, Hashem is presenting sheker in precisely the way the navi sheker
is presenting sheker? Why does that not make Hashem sheker, just as it
would have made Ya'akov sheker?

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 06:12:23PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
: No, I wouldn't say sheker HKBH. I would say that just as Hashem can do
: miracles for a navi sheker for the purpose of testing, so to He could
: create a prehistory (bones in the ground) for the purpose of testing...

What about the two fundamental distinctions that I already drew?

1- Hashem doesn't "do miracles for a navi sheqer", he empowers the person,
who -- through his own bechirah -- chooses to abuse that power.

2- The navi sheqer existed in order to provide a "zeh le'umas zeh"
balancing the navi. Where's the balance WRT the fossil record? The
mesorah? The navi sheqer also opposed the mesorah, but when the true
nevi'im ceased, so did the navi sheqer. It's not "le'umas" physical
evidence.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha wrote:
>"It is the nature of good to have someone to whom to be good."
>                                                - Derekh Hashem 1:2:1
>According to the Ramchal, we exist so that Hashem has someone 
>to be good to.

It is worth noting that in Da'as Tevunos, Ramchal says the same but
prefaces it with "mah she-nuchal le-hasig." R. Chaim Friedlander, in his
notes (iyunim no. 2), makes a big deal about this introductory phrase. We
can't really ever understand why God created the world.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Phone: (718) 951-1254  Fax: (718) 228-5150
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Can be found and downloaded for free or purchased as a booklet at:
<http://books.lulu.com/content/86052>

YGB

>> Let me note that my last post merely came to prove that according to
>> most opinions the world is older than 5765 years. I am not necessarily
>> advocating the position that it is billions of years old. However, those
>> who do advocate such a position need not find in Chazal or the Rishonim
>> a source that says that the world is billions of years old. Those who
>> maintain that position are of the opinion that the Beriah itself, as
>> chosamo shel HKB"H emes, makes that point.

>By this RYGB is apparently referring to the theory of evolution. These

No, I do not accept the theory of evolution, nor do I see any indication
in the Beriah that it has occurred. The rest of RSRC's post is therefore
batel mei'eilav.

YGB 

At 10:56 AM 1/31/2005, [RMP] wrote:
>Micha knows me better. I wrote what I wrote because I wrote it taking
>RYGB's argument as a given and working with the mathematical formulae
>which are based on factor 19 while recognizing that said argument
>definitely is not a "given." I thank him for explaining why, as I wrote
>earlier in a more-serious vein, there is no connection between molados
>and BCE chronology unless we have some mesorah from CHaZaL on the Molad
>Tishrai for a particular event (e.g. the first Purim, or Alexander the
>Great meeting Rabbi Shimon) during the time period in question.

Please do not take my silence as a concession!!!

It is to be assumed that together with the sod ha'ibbur the period of the
average molad was given to Moshe at the time of Yetzias Mitzrayim. It
is relatively easy to compute with and without the 165y and see which
one works.

Only I am not going to do it!

YGB

An astronomical event which serves to validate a historical date is a
CONTEMPARANEOUS document which has within it both a relative date (i.e
such and such a year of such and such a king) and a description of an
astronomical observation which can serve to provide an absolute date
for the document.

For example if one were to find a document which states that in
the 100th year of the Seleucid Era (The Jewish Minyan Hashtarot) on
such and such a day in such and such a month an observer in Jerusalem
observed the position of the five visible planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn and they were in such and such positions relative
to the fixed stars (or the constellations) then one could use readily
available software calculate the exact date when that particular planetary
configuration took place. (Due to the non-commensurability of the synoptic
and sidereal orbital times of the five planets a given configuration at
a given date repeats with a period in excess of hundreds of thousands
of years)

So in our example if one were to find that the described configuration
was uniquely dateable to the year 211 BCE that would give us the exact
relationship between Seleucid years and absolute chronolgy. Thus in
all future documents we would know that Seleucid dates all refer to a
starting date of 311 BCE. This is one of the basic methodologies secular
historians use to establish absolute chronolgical dates.

If one contests such a dating one must assume that either the document
in question is
1) Not contemparaneous and/or
2) not reliable in terms of either its relative date or astronomical
observation

or that
3)current astronomical calculations can't extend backwards in time.
(Hishtaneh Ha'Tevah)

If one has a large number of such documents and one doesn't believe in
reason 3 one is pretty much forced to assume that at some point some
group for some end produced a large number of such faked documents and
that these documents were so successfully faked that essentially all
modern historians have accepted their authenticity.
Although that is certainly a possibility it presupposes that all modern
historians are either gullible fools or have for some reason been co-opted
in a mass conspiracy to present a faked view of history.

Historians and Archeologists have found about 50 astronomical diaries
which, based on the method of astronomical retrocalculation described
above, they date to the period between 626 BCE and 330 BCE. These
diaries serve to establish the astronomical dating of the kings of the
Neo-Babylonian period and the Persian Period as well as establish a dating
for Alexander's capture of Babylon.None of those dates are compatible
with SOR. They are however compatible with the various King's list of
Berossus and Claudius Ptolemy, with Menetho's List of Egyptian Kings,
with Eratosthenes's dating of Greek History based on Olympiads, with the
surviving descriptions of ancient historians such as Arrian, Diodorus,
Plutarch, Curtius,Trogus, Polybius, Justin, Josephus etc. etc.

The astronomical diaries are also compatible with various earlier
retrocalculations based not on planetary positions but on the somewhat
less reliable method of correlating historical eclipse observations with
retrocalculated eclipses. This methodology, already used in Ptolemy's
Almagest (which is cited by Rambam as a reliable source for astronomical
data) also comes up with absolute dates which are NOT compatible with SOR,
but are compatible with Conventional Chronology

Thus if one believes in the SOR chronolgy one must believe in either a
gullible fool/massive conspiracy hypothesis or in the inapplicability
of the method of retrocalculation or both.

Does anyone have any other hypothesis explaining how the conventional
chronology came to differ from the SOR chronology and why all reputable
modern historians believe it?

BTW - It is somewhat disingenuous to say that secular historian disagree
on dating. Although this is certainly true- the disagreements tend to get
smaller and smaller as one moves from 2500 BC to 650 BCE. Thus errors
in dating Hammurabi 's reign within the period 2500 BCE- 1500 BCE and
consequent disagreements amount to many hundreds of years, while when
we get to the period 650 BCE - 75 CE, such disagreements are generally
about one or two years, i.e. Do we date Cyrus's conquest to 539 or 538
BCE or Nebuchadnezzer's conquest to 586 or 587 BCE? Does the Seleucid
year start in the Spring or Dall. etc .etc. None of the reputable secular
historians I am aware of contest the accuracy of dates derived from the
Neo Babylonian astronomical diaries.

SOURCES - A good sources for explaining the basis of secular chronology
is Ezra Bickerman's Chronology of the Ancient World, which points out
not only the areas of agreement but the areas of uncertainty as well.

A good sources for Neo-Babylonian Chronology is:
R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 1956

Neo Babylonian Astronomical Diaries are discussed and translated in:
A. Sachs & H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia, Vol. 1,5

Further discussion can be found in:
F. Rochberg-Halton, "Babylonian Astronomical Diaries," Journal of the 
American Oriental Society 111.2, 1991, pp. 323-332  

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


[ 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         ]