<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' ><tr><td valign='top' style='font: inherit;'><P>--- On <B>Fri, 7/25/08, Eli Turkel <I><eliturkel@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><PRE>For some reason I can't cut and paste your post but I have to disagree
that believing that chazal were fallible is tantamount to heresy.>>
It is clear that individual Tannaim and Amoraim can err. The Gemara itself
uses phrases like "he must have been sleeping when he said this"
or other phrases indicating that the idea is mistaken.</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>--------------------------------------------</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I think using the word 'infallible' WRT Chazal is a mistake. I use it all the time but that is not what I mean. I regret using it in my original post and will try not to do so anymore. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Obviously Chazal were fallible or else there could never have been Machlokes. Saying they were infallible would mean they cannot possibly have been wrong. That would make them gods - which in and of itself is hersey.</P>
<P> </P>
<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. For several reasons: </P>
<P> </P>
<P>a) because of their high level of integrity,<FONT color=#000099> </FONT><FONT color=#000000>their character, their, and their conduct.</FONT></P>
<P> </P>
<P>b) because of their being closer (in the chain of Mesoarh) to Sinai ( i.e. - less of the 'telephone game' type error of transmission) and </P>
<P> </P>
<P>c) their greater understanding of the 'mesorah of methodology' than our own unerstanding of it... menaing their better understanding of when and how to use the Shlosh Esreh Midos SheHaTorah Nidreshes Bahen.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>HM<BR><BR>Want Emes and Emunah in your life? <BR><BR>Try this: <A href="http://haemtza.blogspot.com/">http://haemtza.blogspot.com/</A></P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P></td></tr></table><br>