<HTML>
There are a number of points in Avie Walfish's response to the question of
machlokes over facts that bear looking at. Looking at Avie's second point,
that "[Since facts as presented by chazal do not necessarily coincide with
current knowledge] positing a stratum of sevara beneath the ostensibly
factual explanations is necessary to prevent cognitive dissonance." Avie
is presenting a real problem that needs to be addressed by anyone learning
Gemara. We need to understand what chazal's knowledge of the world was,
and what, if any, were its limitations, while maintaining the esteem and
reverence that we have for them. With that accomplished we don't need to
avoid cognitive dissonance by artificially injecting meaning into a
machlokes that at first glance causes intellectual discomfort. And if we
can't develop a satisfying perspective on chazal's knowledge, adding a
deeper layer of meaning doesn't help. We would be left with a chazal who
developed and argued sophisticated abstractions based on incorrect facts,
or being forced to say "they didn't really mean that."
His second point: "Factual explanations are both intellectually and
spiritually less satisfying and less challenging than analytical sevarot."
I find equally problematic. When explaining a Gemara, we should either
believe "this is what they meant" or not. To say that we explain a Gemara
a certain way to satisfy our own intellectual appetite removes the
striving for truth that should be the hallmark of all Torah learning.
My discomfort with these two points is very similar. Our investigations
into understanding Gemara must have an absolute focus on finding the
truth. This does not mean that anyone needs to be able to say (or should
say) with absolute certainty they have the "truth" of a Gemara. But any
serious attempt at explaining a machlokes should have only that goal in
mind. To attempt to implant a deeper layer of meaning which we would admit
wasn't chazal's intention, just to make our learning more meaningful or to
maintain our kavod for chazal is not the purpose of learning, and indeed
is contrary to it.
I suppose I fundamentally disagree with Avie's closing statement :"In
conclusion, I would note that our discussion of this issue ought to be
divided into two dimensions: the historical question, of what chazal
really thought, and the hermeneutical question, of how we ought to
understand their writings and their message." The hermeneutical question
cannot be separated from the historical answer.
Jeffrey Aftel</HTML>
