<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Daniel Israel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmi1@hushmail.com">dmi1@hushmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br></div>
I wonder what the context was. I assume "accept" here can't mean "accept as true." Obviously the state of the art in medicine can be wrong in a way that the consensus of Chazal can't be. (I could refine that statement to deal with your example of the mistaken Sanhedrin, but I assume my basic point is clear.) I assume the point is that we have some obligation to go by the best available information.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Daniel M. Israel<br>
<a href="mailto:dmi1@cornell.edu" target="_blank">dmi1@cornell.edu</a></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>If Tanu Achnai was a physical reality that R. Elizer was correct within the confines of the Divine Creation, then the rest of Hazal who argued with him can be seen as wrong as scientisists.<br>
<br>Or to put this in plain English: assuming that R. Eliezer had the objective truth than the Hazal who disagreed were wrong by THAT standard.<br clear="all"><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>