Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet
From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: The Talmud
Message-ID: <600@sfmag.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 19:59:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfmag.600
Posted: Wed Jun  5 19:59:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 02:19:07 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ
Lines: 41

> Two questions: how do we know which decisions are divinely inspired
> (and thus protected)?  How do we know that there IS such a thing as
> divine inspiration?  You (and these scholars) say that the Torah
> commands us to accept their interpretations.  But that is their
> interpretation!  If that first interpretation is mistaken...moreover,
> it is certainly imaginable that over the course of a few thousand
> years, the power of interpretation, even if granted by the Torah to a
> certain class of individuals, may have accidently shifted to the
> incorrect class.

Your questions are important and critical and I'm sure  you  have
more.  However,  I  don't feel I can do justice to this extensive
and complicated subject in the limited space of  a  net  article,
with my limited time. It would take a book.

There are some  excellent  books  which  address  your  questions
thoroughly.   Two that come to mind are "Anvil of Sinai" and "The
Oral Tradition".  You can probably find one of these  in  a  good
Jewish bookstore. If you can't, I am willing to have them sent to
you by such a store.

Also, I recently posted an ad on the net for  a  weekend  seminar
which promises to address this issue. It's being held this coming
weekend in the Catskills.

Finally, if  you  like,  I  am  willing  to  spend  a  few  hours
discussing  the issue over the phone. Drop me mail and we can set
up a time.

The above offers go for anyone who  is  sincerely  interested  in
exploring these issues.

> I argue not for its own sake, but to illuminate, mostly for my own
> benefit, but perhaps incidentally for others.  Even an argument which
> ends inconclusively (i.e. without either side capitulating) generates
> light as well as heat.

Sorry. I  felt  the  tone  of  the  questions  was  unnecessarily
antagonistic.  I apologize for the misjudgement.

                                        Yitzchok Samet