[Avodah] infallibility of chazal

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Daniel Israel <dmi1 at hushmail.com> wrote:

>
> I wonder what the context was.  I assume "accept" here can't mean "accept
> as true."  Obviously the state of the art in medicine can be wrong in a way
> that the consensus of Chazal can't be.  (I could refine that statement to
> deal with your example of the mistaken Sanhedrin, but I assume my basic
> point is clear.)  I assume the point is that we have some obligation to go
> by the best available information.
>
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
> dmi1 at cornell.edu
>
>
If Tanu Achnai was a physical reality that R. Elizer was correct within the
confines of the Divine Creation, then the rest of Hazal who argued with him
can be seen as wrong as scientisists.

Or to put this in plain English: assuming that R. Eliezer had the objective
truth than the Hazal who disagreed  were wrong by THAT standard.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080807/2858ba44/attachment-0002.htm>