Hi

Hi Anonymous, relax. In all seriousness, Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer was written by Rabbi Eliezer, as is explained by its very name, “Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer.” The scholars’ claim is only that in one of the many mutations of evolution, some ink got spilled on some paper and out of that fifty magnificent chapters were created. And don’t try to mock the empirical intelligence of their claim, lest you be considered a reactionary or a creationist. By the way, this is actually very interesting if it was written by Rabbi Eliezer, who was one of the greatest tannaim, and the world was stricken when he was excommunicated; see Bava Metzia 59. Therefore your question is a fine one, and the answer is lacking.

In the edition published by Eliezer Treitel, you can see the scholars’ arguments:
Eliezer Treitel, Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer: Text, Redaction, and Synoptic Sample of the Manuscript, Hebrew University: Department of Talmud and Jewish Law, and Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi Press: Jerusalem 2013, 445 pages + XV pages.
And perhaps it really is worthwhile not to offend Rabbi Eliezer, as can be learned from the fact that the world was stricken, except that this has nothing to do with the question of whether he is right or not. Even Rabbi Eliezer the Great was a human being, and as such he too could be mistaken in understanding reality (as is written in the introduction attributed to Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid, that in aggadic literature each person said what he thought, and we accept only what reason accepts; see there).
.

Regarding what someone-or-other replied anonymously to Jew’s argument,
A. The connection is not understood. Jew argued that it is very interesting whether these are the words of the great tanna Rabbi Eliezer and should be related to accordingly, or not. So what does that have to do with discussing whether, God forbid, he was mistaken?
B. The more important point is the assumption that that someone-or-other has adopted as a way of life: that tannaim can make mistakes and we will accept whatever seems right to us. And here I ask and beg you, please, just imagine: you want to stand firm and healthy and discuss the words of the Sages who said, for example, “Let your house be a meeting place for the Sages,” or “A person should always enter in good light and leave in good light,” and the like—does reason accept it or not? Let me ask you one small question: when do you think is the proper time to judge this? After you’ve skimmed superficially through this holy website and every other site on the internet? Or perhaps after you’ve gone back and forth with your friends analyzing a hostage deal and its price? Or maybe after you’ve studied for about two hours straight, relatively speaking, and now you thoroughly know one page of Talmud.
If you have eyes of intellect and honesty, thank God, then you will not be ashamed that “never,” but “never,” do you have the tools—not knowledge, not reasoning, and not fear of Heaven—to judge whether reason accepts these words of the Sages or others. And when we understand this clearly, and stand at a distance to contemplate a bit the eyelash of the Sages out of immeasurable respect, then our words will have some honor and weight.

A. I also think it’s a fascinating question whether Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer was written by Rabbi Eliezer the Great or not. I only meant to address the reason Jew gave for why this is an interesting question. His reason is that we are dealing with one of the greatest tannaim, to the point that the world was stricken when he was excommunicated—that is, the question is interesting because of the greatness of the person who authored it. Since this is such a great person, his words carry greater significance (I’m not talking about halakhic significance but intellectual significance). To that I said that even a great person can make mistakes—that is, significance is determined by the content and not by who says it; the fact that someone said something does not make it true. In other words, the question of who wrote it is not interesting because that would make the content more true. That is how I understood his words, and that is what I was addressing.
B. How do you know anything about my opinion? Maybe I have deep lines of reasoning that “never,” but “never,” will you have the tools to judge whether reason accepts them or not? Granted, that’s a cynical response, but there is a real claim here. On what basis did you decide that one cannot judge their view according to my own reasoning? I completely accept the statement that one must respect the Sages and try to understand them seriously and not just wave them away. At the same time, they are human beings who said things according to their understanding (we are not talking about prophets), and as such they can make mistakes, just as every human being can make mistakes (even the wisest person in the world). Therefore there is no reason for me to accept things just because someone said them. Just as I would not accept other people’s statements if they do not make sense, so too here; there are many wise people, but a person has no choice except to rely on his own judgment (just as you want to do when you decide, in your own judgment, that one must listen to the Sages). The difference here is that because these are wise people whom I respect (by virtue of the fact that the Jewish people held them in esteem), I will invest effort in understanding and listening to what exactly they meant and in what way their words are true. That is, indeed, things are examined with respect, and when one does not understand, one remains with the matter requiring further analysis, מתוך recognition that we do not always grasp the full depth of things. Even so, I see no reason to accept something that does not make sense; after all, we are dealing with human beings. In short, one needs a great deal of humility, but it is humility toward wise and great human beings.