<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 9, 2008 11:06 PM, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>I mean it's simply not a source or proof of something. Quoting Apocrypha<br>tells me nothing about Torah I don't insert through my assessment of<br>the text using Torah I already know. Of interest to historians, but off<br>
topic for talmud Torah.<br><br>Gut Voch!<br>-Micha<br></blockquote></div><br>Totally tangential:<br>During debates about how the mizbeaych was placed in the Mikdash or how high was teh mizbeyahc etc. the various Tanna'im cite P'sukkim proving their cases.<br>
<br>Question: wouldn't the reality f the Midkdahs itself be the single best raya for how it looked? Would anyone think that a disputed drashsa would trump the reality of the Miazbeyahc prior to year 70? <br><br>Why didn't Tannaim - who lived just 70-100 years after teh Hurban simply cite Masorah from eyewithness? Was their no insitutional memory of how the Mikdash looked within 100 Years?<br>
Or were those memories inherently inferior to a drasha - even a disputed one?<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>