[Avodah] History Scenarios and (Emunas) Chachamim??

[Micha Berger]

With the email outage and then Pesach, there were a number of old Avodah
posts I wanted to reply to that I haven't yet addressed. One of them was
from RHBenton on 30-Mar:
> When conflicting medrashic/Talmudic statements describe the same event,
> (with or without direct immediate halachic implications -- like which fruit
> Adam ate in Gan Eden, or was their ever a ir hanidachas/ben sorer u’more)
> how/why should we believe the chachamim on other issues?
>
> It has been mentioned (Joseph Pearlman/Kolel Iyun Hadaf Yerushalayim in the
> name of the Chazon Ish) that if the original sefer Torah that Moshe
> received was found it would be discarded if it differed from the versions we
> currently have today.  Assume for the moment that this is true, what
> theoretically would be the implications for the Bais Shlish vis a vis the
> Menorah and/or the lettering on the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol?

There is a Brisker thing about halakhah only coming from halakhah, and
therefore determining historical facts can't change the usual process.
RHSchachter discusses this in Nefesh haRav. See 
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n073.shtml#12> for my summary.
He discusses 5 cases raised by RYBS:
1- the mesoretic text -- RHB's question
2- whether orez is rice
3- the Beis haLevi on Radziner techeiles
4- relying on someone who heard R' Yehudah haNavi to determine the
   meaning of words rather than a professional linguist.

RHS doesn't mention it, but (kayadua), RHS himself questions the
traditional identification of shibboles shu'al as oats (at least
lechumerah), and wears murex techeiles.

We also have the conscious decision by Anshei Keneses haGdolah to change
the mizbeiach in order to change how nisuch hayayin was done. Leshitasam,
people wouldn't have been yotzei nisuch hayayin in bayis rishon!
Halakhah changes.

Although curved vs straight arms on the menorah wouldn't be a halachic
issue anyway. Both are kesheirim -- even a non-gold 7 metal speers was
kosher enough for Chashmonaim who didn't want to rely on tum'ah huterah
betzibbur! The machloqes was which were actually used.

Perhaps the tzitz as well, I don't know.

The Chazon Ish holds that halakhah was set during the 2 millenia of
Torah. Changes in scientific understanding since the year 4,000 simply
don't have the same import because we lack the authority. (This was
discussed in vol4, in issues around the early 300s. RHS says that toledos
hachamah isn't derekh bishul based on thie CI, and the invention and
normalization of the dud shemesh doesn't change halakhah as defined in
the era for qevi'as halakhah.

This CI comes up on Avodah repeatedly in another context, because it
explains why amoraim wouldn't disagree with the consensus of tannaim in
a manner that doesn't apply to subsequent eras. See RDE's discussion at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n100.shtml#03> (although I bet
he lifted it from his notes for Daat Torah).

RAEngel replied the next day (Tue 31-Mar):
> The Gemoro in Bava Basra quotes a story of a Tanna who was shown the
> ancient meisei midbar in the desert. When he returned, he was rebuked
> by his colleagues for not ascertaining whether their tzitzis had three
> or four strings. Seemingly, these Tannaim had no qualms about paskening
> halocho lema'aseh from historical artifacts.

Or they were angry about the loss of the talmud Torah on a purely
lehalakhah velo lemaaseh level.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?