Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 074

Saturday, February 5 2005

• RE: R. Mordechai Eliyahu on the reason for the tsunami
• Re: WADR to the Rambam?
• Re: A of the U
• Re: It recently became kefira
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Gedolim who attended college
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: A of the U
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• gedolim - college
• Doctor Hirsch?
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy

RDS writes:
>The next logical step would be to continue on through the rest of the chumash,
c>halila. No way Chava's creation can be taken literally. Not a chance that the
>snake story is literal. Surely there's scientific evidence to disprove the
>Mabul. Once you're about it why don't you scientifically disprove the 10
>plagues and finally Matan Torah?

>Where are we supposed to draw the line?

As I said in a previous post, it seems to me that it is pretty easy to
draw a line between ma'aseh breishis and the rest of the Torah, because
the Torah she baal peh does, in the mishna in chaggiga.

>It sure seems simpler to take the chumash literally, and midrashim and
> meforshim that maintain otherwise metaphorically.

Do you read ma'aseh merkava literally? For that matter do you read ayin
tachat ayin literally? TSBP tells us that ayin tachat ayin means mamon.
That is not immediately obvious without TSBP. Now once you have TSBP
telling you that ayin tachat ayin means mamon, you can get some nice
explanations which show how this can really be read into the pshat.
That seems very similar to what people like Dr Shroeder try and do, ie
explain how really, if you understand the reality as he understands it,
you can actually understand the psukim to be saying this (a day doesn't
mean 24 hours etc)

It seems to me that the correct place to draw the line is where TSBP
tells us to draw the line. Sometimes it tells us this explicitly and
overtly over many pages (like with ayin tachat ayin) and sometimes it
tells it to use more criptically, as with the mishna in chaggiga (where
it doesn't tell us what is the correct way to read it, only that it is
so high level that we need to be careful - which seems to make it clear
that a simple read is not the complete one).

> - Danny, the guy from the 5765.5 year old planet.

Are you sure about the planet bit? A planet is something that circles
a sun, and that is not so poshut from the plain meaning of the psukim
either (and not just in Breishis).

RDS further writes:
>> That's the "power" of Da'as Torah. It's the nearest thing we have to
>> prophesy.

And RAY then writes:
>And if he is wrong, I guess he would be a Novi sheker?

No, he is just wrong.

Take a look at the top of Brochos 31b. The gemora there is discussing
Chana's response to Eli haKohen (who was the gadol hador at the time -
see (Tosphos there "moreh halacha")) after he had accused her of being
drunk. "and Chana responded and said "Lo adoni"" Ula said and some say
R' Yosi b'R' Chanina "she said to him "lo adon bedavar zeh v'lo ruach
hakodesh shoreh alayich she ata chashudni b'davar zeh"[you are not
a lord in this matter and ruach hakodesh does not rest upon you that
you suspect me in this matter]"and there are those who say that this
is what she said to him "lo adon ata lav ika shechina v'ruach kodesh
gabach shedantani l'chaf chova v'lo dantani l'chaf zechut milo yadata
d'isha kashet ruach anochi v'yayin v'shecher lo shatiti" [you are not
a lord and the divine presence and ruach hakodesh are not with you that
you judged me harshly and do not judge me for merit do you not know that
I am a woman of bitter spirit and I have not drunk wine or liquor].

So, basically Eli was wrong. And whichever language you use or understand
it is clear that the power of da'as torah had abandoned him. But (at
least following the first language) that did not make him not the gadol
hador in the general case, or a navi sheker. And even with the second,
what might seem harsher, language, he would seem to have been restored
to the status of "adon" on making amends once the wrongness was pointed
out to him.

Shabbat Shalom
Chana

RMB Posted on: Feb 3, 2005:, 9:57 AM
> [I didn't think that echoing Rabbeinu Yona's sentiment about the Rambam
> necessarily warranted a macha'ah. For that matter, much later sources
> such as the Gra and RSRH are among those who advise people away from
> the Rambam's hashkafah. Had I thought that pointing out that the Rambam
> was a contraversial source for these things was itself contraversial,
> I would have sent the post back for editing. -mi]

As someone once said, "It's a chutzpa for so-and-so to criticize the
Rambam (or was it another Torah great?) and it's a chutzpa for me to
criticize so-and-so!"

Zvi Lampel

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

> I assume he is following the view expounded by the Chasam Sofer. I am
> trying to find out more information. I also heard this explanation of
> delegimization in the name of a second gadol. However, nobody has cited
> the Chasam Sofer as the source. It seems a given that major rules in
> these matters.

I don't follow the analogy.  The Hasam Sofer is talking about a case where 
there is almost consensus, not only about the truth of the assertion, but 
also that it is an iqqar.  Even if we accept this gadol's contention that 
the age of the universe is almost universally accepted, since when has there 
almost been consensus that thinking the universe is less than 6000 years old 
is an iqqar meiqqarei hatorah? I don't know of any rishon who mentions it as 
such.

David Riceman 

At 09:34 AM 02/04/2005, [R' Yosef Blau <y.blau@att.net>] wrote:
>Over the years I had the merit to know a number of gedolei yisrael,
>learn from them and even work with them. Their greatness was reflected
>in differing ways, both with respect to learning (yedios, chidush,
>pesak, machshava) and leadership. They neither claimed infallibility
>nor assumed that greatness in one area of Torah implied that they were
>authorities in every aspect. The notion that we now have "gedolim" who
>can transfer an approach that was not kefira, when expressed in earlier
>times, into kefira through signing a cherem is beyond my comprehension.
>It is not necessary for the many significant talmidei chachamim who have
>not signed to make public statements to demonstrate that this is not
>reflective of a true consensus. The entire process (though it appears
>that there was no real process) reduces kavod hatorah.

>The tragic report of the death of infants, possibly caused by doing meziza
>p'feh, when current medical understanding of hygiene would require using
>a tube should remind us that ignorance of modern medicine is dangerous.
>Meziza is described in the Talmud as a procedure to prevent a sakana
>to the infant. Opposition on principle to any accomodation to a modern
>scientific sensibility is one perspective within Orthodoxy to declare
>it the only acceptable approach is damaging in many ways.

I simply could not agree more with Rabbi Yosef Blau's comments! I would
like to add the following.

Rabbi Dr. Bernard Drachman was born in 1861 and died in 1944. His life
took a most unusual course for those times. He did not come from a Shomer
Shabbos home. In 1882 he went to Germany to study for the rabbinate. The
financial backing for his studies came from Reform sources. However,
Rabbi Drachman returned to the US an Orthodox rabbi and spent the rest
of his life actively working for Orthodoxy.

In 1883 R. Drachman visited Frankfurt a Main. RSRH was still alive,
but apparently R. Drachman did not meet him. In any event he wrote about
his impressions of the community that RSRH has established in Frankfurt.
The selection below is from page 124 of Rabbi Dr. Drachman's autobiography
"The Unfailing Light" that was published in 1948 by the Rabbinical
Council of America.

The Judaism which Rabbi Hirsch taught, and for which he gained thousands
of adherents, in Frankfort and out, while unswervingly loyal to the
Law and the traditions of Israel's past, was yet something different,
something new. It was the religion of the ghetto without the mannerisms or
the world-estrangement of the ghetto. It was indeed a wondrously perfect
synthesis of the ancient and the modern, of the Oriental-Sinaitic-Talmudic
precepts of faith and the life and the speech, the culture, and the
demeanor of the modern time and the Occidental world. It was fittingly
designated by under- standing observers as Neo-Orthodoxy.

I am beginning to wonder if there are those within Orthodoxy who are
determined to have us return to the ghetto.

Yitzchok Levine

At 06:44 PM 2/3/2005 -0500, [RZL] wrote:
>chana@KolSassoon.org.uk posted on: Feb 1, 2005:
>> 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.

>I thought the point was that Hashem declares this navi to be a test,
>because he gives him the appearance of being sent by Hashem (or by an
>Avodah Zarra) by virtue of being able to perform miracles. This is a
>stronger test than that Hashem allows reshaim to do rishus.

I agree with this.

>(For the record, however, I am staying with the shitta that the fossils
>are remnants of creatures who did roam the earth less than 6000 years
>ago, eventually to become extinct, and that the dating methods are to
>be challenged.)

I started this thread not because I was enamored with the pre-history
approach, but because it appeared to me that many were dismissing it
rather perfunctorily and I didn't see the justification for that. I
believe that there have been Rabbis of stature who ascribed to this
position (IIRC, someone in this group said the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l
held this) who would be well aware of the issue of the appearance of
Hashem deceiving us, so it shouldn't be so simple to dismiss. The one
point I have liked about this approach is that it is a simple answer
that can allow people to accept that there are possible answers to the
apparent contradiction between science and Torah, and provides a means
for some people to then continue on without the issue holding them back
spiritually. In that manner I have used it for kiruv purposes.

As for more in depth analysis of different approaches, I applaud those
who have spent such great efforts to explore and to share with Avodah.

mendel

Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Health Services Research
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
e-mail: mendel@case.edu

I wrote <<< But the molad of Tishre twelve months later fell at precisely
8:00:00 on a Friday morning. Others can believe what they want, but this
is too much of a coincidence for me. >>>

What I meant was this: Our calendar begins not at the beginning of
Creation, but at the creation of Adam HaRishon. So, it would follow that
we don't merely mean that Adam was created on 1 Tishrei, but that the
calendar even begins at the same time of day that Adam was created. Thus,
since the Molad Tishre was not merely on Friday (the same day of the
week as Adam was created) but at precisely 8 AM (the same time of day
as he was created), this is an incredible point of accuracy.

R' Micha Berger asked <<< Precisely 8am on what clock? ... It seems
significant, but what's the significance? >>>

Which clock? The same clock as used by R' Yochanan bar Chanina on
Sanhedrin 38b.

Unfortunately, I should have looked up that Gemara before posting,
as I now see my error:

"R' Yochanan bar Chanina said: 12 hours are in the day. In the first
hour, his dust was gathered; The second hour, he was made into a golem;
The third hour, his limbs were tightened; The fourth hour, a neshamah
was thrown into him..."

I don't know whether "the fourth hour" means "the beginning of the fourth
hour (9 am)" or "the end of the fourth hour (10 am)", but it certainly
doesn't mean 8:00.

[Maxwell Smart voice] Missed it by THAT much! [/MSv]

Akiva Miller

At 06:39 PM 2/3/2005, you wrote:
>VAT4956 is one of many such artifacts. "very, very few" is true compared
>to say artifacts we have of the US Civil War, but there are over 10,000
>cuneiform tablets which were found in the ruins of Babylon and relate
>to the period between about 650 to 312. In addition there are many
>inscriptions on Persian antiquities, Persian Royal Palaces etc. which
>help establish the number and order of Persian Kings.

It does not help you to find tablets that do not reach from Alexander
the Great back to 586, at the very least.

[BTW: "All authorities on Achaemenid history agree that
both of these cuneiform tablets contain scribal errors."
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm].

>In particular one has the following

>1. Astronomical Diaries (this is just a selection):
>See:Neo Babylonian Astronomical Diaries are discussed and translated
>in: A. Sachs & H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
>Babylonia, Vol. 1,5
>and T.G. Pinches & J.N. Strassmaier, "Late Babylonian Astronomical and
>Related Texts" (Providence, 1955).)

>BM 36910+36998+37036 records by date and regnal year lunar eclipses from
>Darius I to Artaxerxes II .

>"VAT 5047", clearly dated to the 11th year of Artaxerxes I preserves
>information about two lunar positions relative to planets and the
>positions of Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn. This information suffices
>to identify the date of the text as 454 B.C.

Again, too late.

>The so-called Saros Canon lists every year from Artaxerxes II onwards,
>recording every lunar eclipse in the period.

The Saros Canon starts in 400 BCE. Too late (see 
http://www.asor.org/pubs/jcs/52/boiy.pdf).

>BM 32234, is dated to the 5th month of Xerxes' 21st year. The astronomical
>information preserved on this tablet fixes it to the year 465 BC.

Still too late.

Are we getting the idea yet?

Once more, only VAT4956 (perhaps there are a very few others, but I haven't 
found them) really goes back far enough to be meaningful.

>2. One also has numerous inscriptions, found in Persian palaces in
>Hamadan, Susa and Persepolis which establish the existence of a Persian
>Regnal order consisting of
>Cyrus, Cambyses ,Bardiya, Darius [I], Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Artaxerxes [I] , 
>Darius [II] , Artaxerxes [II] ,Artaxerxes [III],
>,Arses, Darius [III].
>For example one has the following second inscription found on the western
>staircase, which was added on to of the "Palace of Darius" in Persepolis

>(SEE http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/inscriptions.text)

The link does not exist. I assume you got it from whatever other secondary
source you are using as your source of information.

In any event, since the list of Persian kings with their repetitious
names can be pegged anywhere (note all those pesky brackets in your
citations!), you really must find references to Nevuchatnetzer for proof.

...
>    The great king Artaxerxes, the king of kings, the king of countries,
>    the king of this earth, says: I am the son of king Artaxerxes [II
>    Mnemon]. Artaxerxes was the son of king Darius [II Nothus]. Darius
>    was the son of king Artaxerxes [I]. Artaxerxes was the son king
>    Xerxes. Xerxes was the son of king Darius [the Great]. Darius was
>    the son of a man named Hystaspes. Hystaspes was a son of a man named
>    Arsames, the Achaemenid.
Etc.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but you certainly have not proven it! ;-)

YGB

Posted by: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL, on: Feb 3, 2005, 2:17 PM
> Rav DR. (!) Shimshon Refael Hirsch. Then there's Rav Yaakov Ettlinger
> (the Aruch Laner) who got a PhD 180 years ago from a German university. I
> only wonder when they'll start burning his sefarim. And apropos: since
> the Ramban and the RAN were both physicians (and they didn't exactly
> learn medicine in a yeshiva)...

R. Etlinger did not get a degree, as I recall, and neither did R,
Hirsh. They bascally audited courses. I believe that this is in Artscroll
biography of R. Hirsch.

M. Levin

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:42:16PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger asked <<< Precisely 8am on what clock? ... It seems
: significant, but what's the significance? >>>

: Which clock? The same clock as used by R' Yochanan bar Chanina on
: Sanhedrin 38b.

I note that you already concluded this convergance was moot. But it's
still interesting that it's an even number of hours; a 1:1080 if it
were chance.

I would not assume RYbC was giving historical information. But even if he
were, would he be using the same clock as our Jerusalem Standard Time?
The notion of standardizing an hour to 1080 chalaqim is much later than
matan Torah. In fact, RYbC may be telling you he's speaking of sha'os
zemaniyos when he starts "there are 12 hours in a day". It wasn't at
the fall equinox, so the 12 hours must be solar, not standard.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

RDE wrote:
> Consequently the opposing position became a minority opinion that was
> discarded. In subsequent generations it was not permitted to revive the
> dispute and rely on the rejected minority opinion. That is because these
> matters are not dependent upon logic but only on the Mesorah. Since
> the previous generation had decided by majority vote which view was
> the correct Mesorah, no subsequent generation has the right to dispute
> this majority.

How does this apply to those today who try to do things l'chol hadeos --
e.g. those that put on Rabbenu Tam tefilin in addition to rashi's. Hasn't
the normative halacha determined that the correct mesora (by majority
opinion) is Rashi tefilin, and that, the subsequent wearing of Rabbenu
Tam tefilin is to follow an incorrect rejected or discarded opinion
which should not be relied upon.

David I. Cohen

In Avodah V14 #70, Lisa Liel replied to Reuven Manber via Zev's keyboard:
> There are *enormous* craters
> on Mars, for example, which are large enough that the impact would have
> introduced uncertainty into any retrocalculations of that planet's
> position. It doesn't have to be knocked out of its orbit for a small
> change to make a big difference over time.
and
>> 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?
> Yes.

Let's leave retrocalculations alone for the moment.  My question is 
simple: is there incontrovertible evidence that the period of time from 
the first year of the reign of Cyrus the Great to the time of Alexander 
the Great was more like two centuries than a few dozen years?  If there 
is, how do you reconcile it with the SRO chronology, which apparently 
assigns 30-some-odd years between Coresh's decree permitting the return 
and Alexander's meeting with Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddiq?

I would like to hear Lisa's hypothesis when it's ready -- for now,
I would like to know if she still holds by what she wrote in note#1 of
<http://starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html>. Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

RKGM wrote:
> Molad Tohu is nothing more than a convenient mathematical starting point
> for calculating the other molados. But the molad of Tishre twelve months
> later fell at precisely 8:00:00 on a Friday morning. Others can believe
> what they want, but this is too much of a coincidence for me.

As many might have heard this past November, the molad is at a set hour
every 87 years and 3 or 4 months (according to the clocks currently
used). Twice that number would get you 174 years. If someone could play
around and change 168 to 175, the molad of the first Nissan (possibly,
depending if it was 3 or 4 months) would be a set hour. Maybe nivra
ha'olam b'Nissan? :)

Shabbat Shalom,
Russell

The intro to the english translation to Sforno al hatorah says he attended
college in Italy. I don't know what his source is.
                                                 MikeW

According to pg. 43 of R. Eliyahu Meir Klugman's biography of R. SR
Hirsch, R. Hirsch did indeed attend university, at Bonn, but did not
take a degree there, and did not hold a doctorate (though his grandson,
the late R. Josef Breuer, z"l, did have a doctorate).

Be well,
Dovid Rier

David A. Rier, Ph.D.
Graduate Program in Medical Sociology
Dep't. of Sociology and Anthropology
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL

In message , hlampel@thejnet.com writes
>chana@KolSassoon.org.uk posted on: Feb 1, 2005:
>> 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.

>I thought the point was that Hashem declares this navi to be a test,
>because he gives him the appearance of being sent by Hashem (or by an
>Avodah Zarra) by virtue of being able to perform miracles. This is a
>stronger test than that Hashem allows reshaim to do rishus.

Is the navi sheker a good person or a bad person for doing what he does?

Evil is by definition a test for all of us, leading us all to ask the
question How could Hashem allow this evil to happen? and having the
potential to challenge all of our faiths.

The fact that the navi sheker may provide an even more difficult test
because he gives the appearance of being sent by Hashem does not change
the basic structure, which is of a person doing and proclaiming evil.

But unless you say that the navi sheker is indeed a *good* person for
doing what he does, then you have the same basic structure as with
standard evil, involving the free actions of an evil (sheker - he is
defined as sheker) person.

When you transpose this to a case where only Hashem acts - in order to
get the same kind of test you have to say that it is Hashem who does the
same act - which is defined in the Torah as an evil and sheker act (ie
you are calling Hashem sheker in the same way as the navi in this case is
correctly called sheker). It is that implication that I am objecting to.

Shavuah tov
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

Lisa says
>  This assumes that everything has been running like clockwork for thousands
>  of years. And we know that's not the case. There are *enormous* craters
>  on Mars, for example, which are large enough that the impact would have
>  ntroduced uncertainty into any retrocalculations of that planet's
>  position. It doesn't have to be knocked out of its orbit for a small
>  change to make a big difference over time.

So what you are saying is that these collisions changed the period of
Mars and all this occurred about 2300-2400 years ago. Is that correct?
This would mean that data on Mar's period attributed to astronomer's who
lived in the Babylonian period must be wrong - since the sidereal period
would have changed between then and now. Is that what you are contending?

BTW - A straightforward calculation can determine the Total Kinetic Energy
needed to substantially effect the period of Mars. How did this release of
Energy occur without anyone noticing it on Earth? How did the period (and
by necessity apparent magnitude of Mars) change without anyone noting it?

I think this explanation for the falsity of astronomical retrocalculations
is many many orders of magnitude less probable than simply saying all
the diaries are forged, which IMHO is pretty improbable to begin with.

> False dichotomy. It is Tevah itself which virtually ensures that
> astronomical retrocalculations going that far back in time are unlikely
> to be accurate.

So astronomy and by extension Newtonian Physics ceases to be accurate
about 2300 years ago?

What is your basis for that assumption, other than the fact that making
it helps bolster the SOR chronolgy.?

>  The same thing should be true when it comes to astronomy. We can't even
>  solve the three-body problem, and there are a lot more than three bodies
>  flying around in space.

Do you understand what you have just said? NASA has been solving the
"N-body problem" for decades.

What that claim about the 3-body problem means is that you can't solve
it in terms of elementary functions. That is true for the motion of a
pendulum as well. You need elliptic integrals to solve it exactly.However
accurate grandfather clocks have been around for a while.

In point of fact you CAN solve the N-body problem to any desired degree
of accuracy, provided you have enough computing resources.

The recent success of the Saturn Titan lander is very dramatic proof
of that.

>  And note: until a paradigm gets busted, those working within it will use
>  arguments of intimidation like the above to try and cow people into a
>  kind of intellectual paralysis. Not ouf of any conscious intent, but
>  merely because it's scary to leave a paradigm, and it's scary to have
>  other people leave it as well.

So the established paradigm is that there were 10 Kings of Persia reigning
over a period of over 200 years and the new paradigm is that there were 3
(SOR chronology), reigning for 52 years.

The proof of the SOR chronology is that Chazal purportedly said it and
meant what they said literally and that such knowledge was a religious
Kabbala from Anshei Knesset Hagodol and the proof of the Conventional
Chronology is the thousands of documents which I mentioned above. However
a rational thinker , not afraid of tenure constraints and ridicule from
his colleagues should immediately see the truth of the Occam's razor
defying SOR chronology.

Is that what you are claiming or have I misunderstood it.

>  We might add that they aren't compatible with the text of the books of
>  Kings, Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah...

None of the documents I quoted pertain to the pre-Destruction
period so I am at a loss to see how they contradict Chronicles and
Kings. Ezra/Nehemiah simply mention only 4 kings without saying anything
which would lead one to conclude that those were the only ones. Perhaps
they were the only ones which those Neviim interacted with. The Torah
doesn't mention Darius (Daryavah). Does that mean the Torah contradicts
Ezra/Nehemiah.

In fact I don't believe any of the Nach you quoted can help one decide
one way or another which is the correct absolute dating.

I should note that SOR does contradict the Poshut Pshat in Nehemiah/Ezra
when it claims that Cyrus,Daruis and Artaxerxes were one king.
In addition the majority of printed editions and manuscript editions
of the SOR actually write that the Persian reign was 210 or 250 years.
It is in fact an interpretation of scholars, rabbinic and otherwise,
which deem those manuscripts to be in error.

>>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?

> Yes.

If you have a hypothesis would you be so kind as to state it.

Thank You

At 01:02 PM 2/4/05, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
> In Avodah V14 #70, Lisa Liel replied to Reuven Manber via Zev's
> keyboard:
>> There are *enormous* craters on Mars, for example, which are large
>> enough that the impact would have introduced uncertainty into any
>> retrocalculations of that planet's position. It doesn't have to be knocked
>> out of its orbit for a small change to make a big difference over time.
> and
>>> 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?

>> Yes.

> Let's leave retrocalculations alone for the moment. My question is
> simple: is there incontrovertible evidence that the period of time
> from the first year of the reign of Cyrus the Great to the time of
> Alexander the Great was more like two centuries than a few dozen years?

<shrug> Define "incontrovertable".  I don't think there is
incontrovertable evidence for the Persian period having been two
centuries.  Reuven apparently does.  Mitchell First *surely* does.  So
do others.  I'm not sure how they deal with the fact that this breaks
the chain of Torah transmission between Baruch and Ezra, but I'm sure
they manage somehow.

>  If there is, how do you reconcile it with the SRO chronology, which
>  apparently assigns 30-some-odd years between Coresh's decree
>  permitting the return and Alexander's meeting with Rabbi Shimon
>  HaTzaddiq?

You can't. You have to assume that Seder Olam is not historical.
Look... there are different ways of dealing with apparent conflicts
between Jewish tradition and external sources of information (science,
history, etc). One is to say that Jewish tradition is obviously right,
and any external sources must be biased or otherwise mistaken. One is to
say that these external sources are obviously right, and Jewish tradition
must be mistaken. I think that both of these approaches are flawed.
The first is the Artscroll derekh, basically, and it consists of holding
our ears and shouting "Neener, neener, neener" to block out what other
people say. The second is the current, western idea that religion is
quaint, but should never be confused with anything real.

<http://starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html>
This is the approach I prefer. I don't agree with everything in this
review piece, and even less of the original work, but I think it's
definitely the way to go. Other than the two extremes I mentioned,
there's a view that accepts the secular framework of Persian history
and tries to wedge Jewish tradition into it, and forget the damage
done to that tradition by so doing. And there's the Heifetz Revision,
which does more or less the opposite. But I don't think it does damage
to the historical records. On the contrary; I think it adds dimension
to both sources.

>  I would like to hear Lisa's hypothesis when it's ready -- for now,
>  I would like to know if she still holds by what she wrote in note#1
>  of <http://starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html>. Thanks.

Of course I do. I'll be honest: I'm not 100% convinced. But I can
think of very few things that I am 100% convinced of, and I don't think
most people need 100% conviction to act on anything. I will tell you
this. Purim is coming up. When you read the Megillah in the correct
historical context, with all the external historical documents placed in
context of our (Jewish) chronology, the story mamash comes to life in
a way that you wouldn't believe. It stops being just Haman growling,
"You must pay the rent", Esther crying, "But I can't pay the rent",
and Mordechai proclaiming, "*I'll* pay the rent". It becomes a story
with real motivations that make sense even in a modern context.

Shabbat Shalom,
Lisa

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


[ 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         ]