Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There is a discrepancy between rabbinic and secular sources regarding when the first Temple was destroyed -- a difference of some 165 years or so, which are called the "Missing Years."

My question is not about how to account for those years or even which one is correct. Rather, I am wondering: If someone believes in the secular dating to be accurate and the information in Seder Olam to be inaccurate, does this constitute heresy or a failure of emunas chachomim, or is this an opinion with which a person is entitled to disagree?

share|improve this question
2  
Which of the 13 do you think it violates? –  Double AA Jun 21 '12 at 17:07
    
According to Yalkut Yosef, Meikar Hadin it is permissible to use the secular dating system. –  Hacham Gabriel Jun 21 '12 at 17:14
2  
I suppose the question would be: does the traditional chronology constitute Torah MiSinai in some way? –  Aaron Jun 21 '12 at 17:14
4  
@DoubleAA - Someone who denies anything in the Written or Oral Torah is classified as a heretic, as stated in Rambam, Hil. Teshuva 3:17. The question here is seemingly whether the dating given by Seder Olam constitutes an integral, universally-agreed-upon part of Torah She'b'al Peh, or ... ? –  Dave Jun 21 '12 at 17:14
    
@Dave It's 3:7 in standard editions BTW, and it seems to be limited to matters of halacha especially as it relates to Ta and not Nach. –  Double AA Jul 1 '12 at 18:04

2 Answers 2

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The discrepancy has been raised repeatedly over the centuries, by scholars Jew and non-Jew, Orthodox or not, alike.

Rabbi Shimon Schwab penned an essay on it whereby he very much raised the possibility that the non-Seder-Olam chronology may be correct, though later referring to it as a "thought experiment."

In his taped lectures on the history of the Universe, Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer at one point says something to the effect of, "while I hate to say this, it may be that we cannot always trust Chazal with regards to timelines."

The alternate chronology does not violate any of Rambam's Thirteen Principles. Here's more on what exactly "emunas chachamim" means, though note that the phrase does not appear in the Babylonian Talmud.

Personally I find an approach that casts Chazal in a negative light to be ... well not prohibited or heretical per se, but just plain distasteful. I'm okay living with "it could be Chazal are right on this and the secular sources are wrong ... it could be both are right and we've misunderstood the discrepancy ... and it could be that Chazal had valid reasons for listing a different chronology."

share|improve this answer
2  
+1 for the last paragraph. –  msh210 Jun 21 '12 at 18:03
1  
re "An approach...": how much an approach casts Chazal in a negative or positive light is more based on presentation than content. If you have to speak super respectfully to your parents whether they are right or wrong or being nice or being mean, how much more so must we always speak in a respectful manner about Chazal! –  Double AA Jun 21 '12 at 19:28

In the book "Jewish History in Conflict", Mitchel First compiled and categorized many of the Jewish responses to the discrepancy between the Seder Olam and secular dating. It would seem that at least some maintain that disregarding the Jewish dates conflicts with belief in the Torah:

ה' יצילנו מדעת החיצונים כילדי נכרים יספיקו המוסיפים הרבה במנין מלכי פרס ומאריכים שנותיהם מאד ולא ימצאו ידיהם ורגליהם בבית המדרש כי בהכרח יצטרכו להכחיש גם המקראות - May G-d save us from the view of those outsiders, who "please themselves in the children of strangers" (Isaiah 2:6), who add many to the number of Persian kings and increase their years greatly. They do not know their way in Jewish learning because they will necessarily be forced to contradict the biblical verses as well... (Rabbi Yaakov Emden, commentary on Seder Olam pg. 88)

(The author notes that R' Emden does not specify which verses he is referring to which contradict the secular dating, but writes that he probably was referring to Daniel 11:2).

share|improve this answer
    
"at least some": Does he mention at least some who maintain the other way? –  Double AA Feb 4 '13 at 1:40
    
@DoubleAA The book is really comprehensive, he brings from pretty much all the different views on the subject. –  Michoel Feb 4 '13 at 1:48
    
So if the OP sought views on the issue, why would you only present one side? –  Double AA Feb 4 '13 at 1:48
    
@DoubleAA There is already an answer which presents the other side. Is there something wrong with presenting one perspective? –  Michoel Feb 4 '13 at 2:09
    
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I only asked why you didn't include the information you had in front of you. Since I assume his treatment is more thorough and well sourced than Shalom's, I submit that my question has not been answered. –  Double AA Feb 4 '13 at 2:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.