4

I understand that a later ruling can't contradict an earlier one, but does that mean that Chazal are infallible, the way Catholics believe the Pope is infallible? And if so, where's the line? Who was the last infallible member of Chazal before the curtain came down?

This question is not a dupe of this one, for the following reasons:

  1. It is more historically specific (chazal as opposed to "gedolei yisroel")

  2. It is more doctrinally specific

4

There are various approaches to understand statements from Chazal where they contrast with well-established facts, e.g., in medicine or science. See this compilation of sources on these topics, aligned against the categories above.

  1. Scientific assertions found in the Talmud may be incorrect, even if they are uncontested in the Talmud

  2. Not every scientific belief of every Talmudic sage was necessarily correct

  3. Chazal relied on the scientific knowledge, research and scientists of their times

  4. Chazal were not all-knowing in matters of science

So for instance when the Gemara in Chulin 126b speaks of a mouse which is half-dirt, half-mouse, do we have to believe that such a mouse exists? Not necessarily according to the Rationalist approach, following e.g., R Samson Raphael Hirsch, who writes that if someone brings an imaginary case to a Rav, he will be able to say how the halacha applies to this case even if the situation never existed. See here and here for more.

2

According to Rabbi Avraham Kook src: "G-d limits revelations, even from the most brilliant and holiest prophets, according to the ability of that generation to absorb the information. For every idea and concept, there is significance to the hour of its disclosure"

hence, even if chazal are not correct, they are doing their best based on the knowledge of the times and this is what God wants and has accounted for when He determined the system of halacha that we are told to follow.

  • the question is whether they are correct; not whether "they are doing their best". – mevaqesh Jul 31 '16 at 9:34
  • 1
    @mevaqesh Ray's answer effectively permits HaZa"L to err in certain situations while broadening the OP's perspective such that such an error would not devalue HaZa"L in the OP's eyes. I think this answers the question albeit somewhat indirectly. – Lee Feb 6 '17 at 14:34
0

Chazal are human, no human is perfect but the torah commands in devarim that what they say left is left even if its right .

  • 1
    Are you saying Chazal are never wrong or just that we follow them even when they are? – Double AA Apr 5 '16 at 17:26
0

I think it is important to distinguish between two different things:

  1. Were they infallible as human beings? Did they never sin or make a mistake? The answer is no. They also sinned.
  2. Is everything written in the Mishna and Gemorra correct? Yes. If something appears "incorrect" to us, the problem lies with us or times have changed. This is because the Mishna and Gemorra are the Torah shebe'al peh (Oral Law) given at Sinai. However, there are parts of the gemorra that are allegories to be understood on a deeper level, not the literal one.
-3

there may be times that it appears that the Chazal may have been incorrect on certain things but we must assume that the way thing are now that don't fit with what Chazal are because things have changed have changed and there for what they have stated may no longer apply to today's times or that we don't know how to properly apply the method that Chazal prescribe for instance the gemarra in mesechtas gittin in the seventh perek has many different cures to different ailments most of them if we would try them will not work that does not mean that it didn't work in those times what it means is that ether we don't know how to properly apply them or that things have changed and there for they no longer work (there are a few treatments that are in that gemara that i have heard from a Rebbi of mine that they do work) if someone is to try any of those treatments they must have a reliable source on how to do it before one tries them because if one were to try it and it doesn't work he may come to doubt the words of Chazal all over when in reality what they have said applies today. that said that does not mean that they were perfect and infallible to the contrary there are only four people that Chazal say never sinned and they are Binyomin, Amram, Yishai and Kalaiv but we do know that even though they may have sinned they immediately repented as soon as they be came aware that they have sinned. however the pope on the other hand is held to be infallible to the point where he cannot sin and that is the difference between Chazal had the possibility to sin and lihavdil the pope ym"s

  • 2
    I suggest that, when writing English, you use punctuation. If you intend for anyone to read what you write, that is. – msh210 Apr 4 '16 at 18:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .