<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Michael Makovi <<a href="mailto:mikewinddale@gmail.com">mikewinddale@gmail.com</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>
<br>
Now, I wonder, to what extent did Chazal realize when they were being<br>
anachronistic? Is that they didn't care about historical accuracy, but<br>
nevertheless knew when they were being anachronistic, or did they<br>
genuinely lack a real historical sense b'klal? Now, since ancient<br>
people in general were less historically critical than we are<br>
nowadays, my question boils down to : given Chazal had less critical<br>
historical sense than we do, to what qualitative sense was this the<br>
case, between 0 and 100 percent of ours.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Mikha'el Makovi</div></div></blockquote></div><br>When I was a young boy and the old Jews learned Gmara in Yiddish they had a little ssmile when they read Hazal's like this. IMHO they wer clsoe to the history of HOW TO LEARN HAZAL! that is be ready to keep one's tongue planted in one's check [at least at times]<br>
<br>I think Westerners [including Americans and yes English and Germans] take Hazal-isms much too literally. let's face it - Westerners simply don't get that Middle Eastern mindset. {That's why I like Tosafos so much, they were very Westernized and I can relate to them much better.] <br>
<br>Perhasp the Talmud should have had emoticons! :-> <br><br><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>