[Avodah] Inconceivable!

[Daniel Israel]

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Daniel Israel <dmi1 at hushmail.com>
>> I understand R' Yonason's response as meaning, not only is it possible 
>> in theory, but I can prove it can happen, because it did happen.
> 
> Therefore, the other man d'amar may be wrong, and we can try to figure out
> if the history really is R' Yonason's version, or the other version, or 
> what.   The historian has a different task and a different outlook from
> the posek.
> 
> But it seems a bit anachronistic to say, 1500 years after the fact, 
> "I was speaking entirely in the other man d'amar."

Assuming we are reading sides at face value (because there are more 
complex readings, as some posters have proposed), it is an interesting 
question as to whether we have to hold like R' Yonason, because he had 
eidus.  I think this is largely comes down to whether the Rabbanan would 
have to be modeh once R' Yonason makes his statement.  Arguably the 
answer would be yes, although that might depend on what exactly he was 
testifying to.  (I.e., how did he know the kever was that of a ben sorer 
u'moreh.)

But all that aside, I think you may have lost track of the origin of the 
discussion.  I was commenting on a comparison between the first man 
d'amar's statement that this case is impossible and the case of kohen 
gadol encountering a meis mitzvah.  I made the claim that they are 
different: the latter is not impossible in the sense that the amora 
meant about the former when he said, "lo hayah, v'lo asid lahiyos."  So 
yes, I was specifically speaking in the (possibly) historically 
disproved man d'amar.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu