<HTML>
I would like to thank Rabbi Jachter for his comments. His point regarding our
own knowledge is the type of clarification I was calling for. A clear
understanding of the discrepancies between Chazal's knowledge and what is
current knowledge is needed. If the answer is "we don't trust our own
knowledge so much" so be it. But the answer should not be "let's spin the
machlokes so it doesn't refer to facts, in order that we not lose our respect
for Chazal." That only hides from the need to place their knowledge in a
context and at the same time lacks the element of the search for truth that
learning should have. To say that "Positing a stratum of sevara beneath the
ostensibly factual explanations is necessary to prevent cognitive
dissonance.(Walfish)" hides from an important issue that should be dealt with
in such a way as Rabbi Jachter briefly has.
On Rabbi Jachter's second point, again, I agree, but he might have
misunderstood me. I said clearly that no one ought to claim to have the only
truth for what Chazal meant. However, the goal must always be to find that
truth. To acknowledge outright, as I understood Avie Walfish to be doing,
that our goal in explaining a machlokes is to satisfy our own intellectual
appetite, because machlokes about facts is boring, is wrong. The attempt must
always be to discern the truth, knowing full well we may never succeed or be
sure we have. There is nothing arrogant in saying "I am trying to find the
truth." There is a selfish disregard for truth in injecting meaning into a
machlokes that you admit might not have been Chazal's intention, for the sole
purpose of making things interesting. To quote Avie Walfish again: "Factual
explanations are both intellectually and spiritually less satisfying and less
challenging than analytical sevarot." To put it bluntly - So what? As Rabbi
Jachter said "We cannot honestly claim to know what an author meant. Our
abilities are limited to interpreting texts." I agree, and the
interpretations should be with an eye towards understanding what they meant,
not what keeps our attention.
Jeffrey Aftel</HTML>
