[Avodah] Lying to protect the simple of faith

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:16:00AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> :> IOW, denying "Higher Criticism" doesn't mean denying "Lower Criticism"
> :> or R' Meir's statement that we lost the true list of chaseiros and
> :> yeseiros.
> 
> : Does the Rambam accept R Meir's statement lehalacha? ...
> 
> R' Meir's statement is one of historical fact, not halakhah.

It's R Meir's opinion on the fact, and its halachic consequences.
Does the Rambam agree with him?  According to the Rambam, if we find
a mistake in chaterot viyterot do we take out a new sefer?   And even
if he agrees it was true in R Meir's time, does he agree that it's
still true today?


> The halachic question is: Given that we can't know for sure what existed
> (or perhaps even if we could), which text is the one we must use?
> 
> As the CI writes, even if we found Ezra haSofeir's seifer Torah, we
> would still be halachically bound to use the text the halachic process
> mandates us to. Weave in the standard tanur shel achnai reference here.

I very much doubt the Rambam would agree with that, though.
Tanur shel achnai is a pure halachic question; the facts are known,
and the only question is what to do about them.  But this is a
question of fact.  AIUI the Rambam would say known facts override any
mistatements that have been mistakenly transmitted over the generations,
and their halachic consequences.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas