How is it that the Talmud can make historical mistakes?

Question

A Rav told me that when it comes to science and nature, the Talmud can say incorrect things (i.e. about animals, cosmology) because they were going by the Greeks and Romans. (Where he gets permission to say what details in the Talmud we can reject and what we must believe, I do not know.) But he said that the Talmud is considered to be the true and reliable Oral Law when it comes to Halacha and history. So my question is, is the Rav right, and how should we take statements in the Talmud that appear to make incorrect statements about history?

Now, I know for some things, you can argue about what they say. For example, although historians and archeologists dispute a lot of stories the Talmud has on the Churban and actions of Roman Emperors, you can say perhaps the historians made mistakes. And where it discusses Adam and Noah and things like that, you can say they are speaking in terms of whatever allegory it is that Genesis means in the level of Sod.

But there are still things that just cannot be explained away. For example, history of the Persian Period discussed in the Talmud is so different from indisputable evidence that there were more kings of Persia, that the period lasted over 100 years longer than the Talmud and Seder Olam Rabba says (even resulting in our 5776 calendar of being about 165 years too short), that there is no way to say that Achashveirosh was the father of Darius, etc. I also know that not all Rishonim are as faithful to Seder Olam Rabba and what the Talmud says about historical events, so this is nothing new.

But in light of what I was told, how do I answer this question? Must we, can we, further shrink the range of topics in which we can and should trust our Chachamim?

Answer 1

I will only address your question about the history, not other scientific inconsistencies in the Talmud.

1. [Strangely] The Jewish nation didn't have a tradition of writing things down. Think about it - tracing history requires a systematic, dedicated and centralized recording of events. But G-d didn't command us to do that, so we didn't.

2. [Strangely] We didn't have a tradition of counting years. The current system of Anno_Mundi is, unfortunately, not a tradition, it was reestablished by [probably] Rambam based on previous Rabbinical sources (like Seder Olam), but the Jews never recited a year's number on Rosh Hashana, for example.
   .
   The Tanakh itself never attributes an event to an "absolute" year Anno Mundi, but only "since event X", be it the Exodus or coronation of a king.

3. We learn it from the way the Torah reflects the history - very hmmm inconsistently. If the Torah is our example - the Talmud is not far from it.

4. Historical facts are never a נפקא מינא to anything Halachic. So if one says it happened in 50AD and the other says in 350AD this does not change anything in the Halachah, which is the main business of the Sages. Therefore, it is never a true מחלוקת, only a "some say".

But seriously now, I think the main reason for that phenomena is a bit deeper: Judaism tends to deal with ideas rather than implementations. Let me explain:

The roots of history events are rooted in "Kabbalic" concepts - what a nation represents (Egypt, Rome etc), what a person represents (a King or a general or a wise man), what a place represents and what the time represents in general terms. Interactions between those ideas teach us about the big heavenly plan. However, the details of their implementations (why it happened exactly there in that time by those people) are only known to G-d, and therefore are not of our [direct] concern.

For example, we know [from the beginning of the Creation - תהו ובהו וחושך] that the Second Temple will be destroyed by descendants of Eysov, i.e. Edom, approx. in the year 4000 Anno Mundi. But the details of what year exactly, who exactly will be the emperor and how exactly it will be executed are not of our interest.

Answer 2

Generally speaking, there are two main approaches. Some say that saying that Chazal were wrong (in anything) can be close to epikorsut, while others say that they could have been wrong regarding anything that relates to sciences, history, etc., since their knowledge of these subjects was like any learned person's knowledge (the Rambam is a noted supporter of the latter approach).

This is a very wide subject, so I'll refer you to a very interesting article, full of sources, about this whole subject of Chazal vs known facts (especially section 4). And another one.

Answer 3

What may seem like a mistake in our flesh dies can really be true just on a higher and deeper level, like the famous argument about the galaxies where we see how on only a spiritual level they were right.

When it comes to Jewish law, it is not decided on spiritual, deeper, and more meaningful ideas, rather on fact.

No, they never made mistakes, and over time we see more and more how even what scientists software mistakes are really true like the question whether the Sun goes around the Earth.