<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr>
<td style="font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" valign="top">
<p>What I think is more accurate to say is that the Psak of Chazal should be looked at as binding, not that they were infallible. <br></p></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br> <font size="4">It's just like Umpires. They are not infallible but their ruling are oficial.<br>
<br>Consider Hazal as:<br></font><ol><li><font size="4">Reliable</font></li><li><font size="4">Authoritative<br></font></li><li><font size="4">Informative</font></li><li><font size="4">Sincere<br></font></li></ol></div></div>
<font size="4">I have made similar points over the years about minhaggim or the Psakim in SA. They are reliable but not infallible [especially in the absence of contravening evidence]. It's a useful distinction imho.<br>
<br>One of my LW colleagues accuses some RW Ortho's as treating their Rabbanim as infallible. I often dispute him and say that they consider them as reliable, NOT as infallbile. There is a difference. <br clear="all">
</font><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>