<<In contrast in the case of abortion the Tzitz Eliezar was saying - after<br>clearly examining the written sources - it was clear that abortion in<br>certain circumstances was not murder and that one can not alter the
<br>sources to fit one's preconceived understanding. Rav Moshe Feinstein<br>felt that it was intuitively obvious [from his daas Torah] that abortion<br>is murder and therefore he had every right to alter the text of Tosfos
<br>because obviously evidence to the contrary had to be the result of<br>corrupted texts.>><br><br>while not being on RMF level it sounds very dangerous to alter texts without<br>some manuscript as a basis. Another famous case is when R. Yehuda hachasid
<br>seems to imply that some parts of the Torah were written after Moshe rabbenu.<br>RMF also assumes it must be a corrupted text as it goes against daas torah.<br><br>The problem is that experts have confirmed the authenticity of the text. Daas torah
<br>is based on what has passed through Jewish history. Since Rambam "won" this fight<br>Daas Torah would indicate that no other opinion could exist. Similarly Daas Torah<br>would reject that any major opinion held of anthromorphist descriptions of G-d.
<br><br>The problem with Daas Torah is that it does not account for opinions that were held<br>by many in the past but that have been rejected in the course of the ages. Hence,<br>to use Daas torah to change old texts I find a very dangerous road.
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Eli Turkel