Discussion of something is impossible.

See also column 481.

“Wheats that came down thick” will come to life in the wake of cultured meat. And perhaps in the future we will eat such wheats.

Q,
Thanks for the answer.
However, I didn't really understand how these examples answer my question. Apparently – it is the one that gives!
Here, on Gamla and Hatin, Rashi explains that it is a real thing (although a little far away – a camel that walks fast, and a green one that took Hatin with it). And so on in the other examples, the commentators struggle to explain why these are real examples. For example, according to the Toss, the wheat was an act of miracles. And here, from the fact that the commentators take the trouble to present these situations as a real thing (although far away and not present), they inevitably understood that the Talmudic issues must deal with real belonging. After all, if we are talking about a theoretical discussion, in the sense of ‘requiring and receiving a reward,’ why should we cite Rashi or Tos? It is precisely from these examples that we can see that the Talmudic discussions are concerned with a realistic level (albeit distant and improbable).
About a remote city and a rebellious son, it is explicitly stated in the Gemara that they will not exist and will not exist. But I ask about the other discussions (and alas, on the contrary, since it is said in this way about these, this is an exception, and the rule is that everything belongs to the realistic level, and we do not have judgments for the sake of judging them in this way).
And so, I will return again, do we explicitly find a concern with something that will never exist (and not just improbable)?
P.S.
Of course, you do not have to agree with Rashi or Tos’ simplification in explaining these cases. But even so, there is no definitive proof of these issues. And certainly according to Rashi, Tusak, and other commentators, it would seem that they took a different approach, and as mentioned.

I didn't understand you. Are you asking about the other discussions? I gave you two examples. How many more do you want? If I give two more, you will ask whether all the others are like that? I really don't understand the intent of the question.
The fact that Rishonim explain that this is a rare reality says nothing about the Gemara but about their own opinion. In my opinion, this is a reality that did not exist and cannot exist. And if you want proof, there is proof from Ben Sorer and Ir Nidchat. That's all.
In addition, I referred you to my column, and in it there is a reference to a book about the Platonisms of the Talmud.

It seems that I really did not explain myself properly.

I will try to explain myself through the following division: (a) The Talmud deals with the ideas themselves, with the ideas, and in general the question of whether it is possible in our world is not important at all. According to this, the issue of a camel blooming in the air is simple. (b) The Talmud deals only with practical questions, anything that will not be realized in our world is not important and is not discussed. (c) The Talmud deals with all issues that are related to realization. Theoretically, it is possible that they may never be realized in our world, but in principle the discussion could have been realized.

And here, I wanted to argue that since the first ones explain the camel blooming as a distant reality, they do not agree with the first option. On the other hand, the issue of Ben Sorer indicates that the practical realization is not important. Although, it can be argued, – let's say Rashi ” That finally, a rebellious son and a rejected city are a reality that in principle can be, and only if there is a revelation of the word that it never was and never will be.

Hence, I do not see in these Talmudic issues evidence for the first option (but only a rejection of the second option). And I wonder if I have missed examples that point to the first way.

Indeed, all this when I agree with the words of the first. You can certainly argue as the first option. That is, I have no basis for this.

—
Thanks for the references, I will read and study them.

You ask why the Talmud does not deal with the law of a round triangle or a married single man? What kind of question is this? If the matter is defined, then in principle it can be realized, at least hypothetically. If it is not defined, then there is no such thing. So what exactly are you asking about? I refer you again to the column in which I dealt with the NEP, and you will see my detailed response to the matter there.

No. I ask – Is there an example of a discussion that deals with reality that cannot be applied in our world. For example, a camel blooming in the air (this is not logically unavoidable), and at the same time the Rishonim will not give an interpretation of the case so that it fits reality (a camel walking quickly).

Well, thanks for the answers. I will read what you wrote in the references.

And I have just one last question for you: Why do you think Rashi, Thos, and other Rishonim give a narrow interpretation to the camel blooming and the wheat that fell in thickets, so that it fits our reality, and did not settle for saying ‘This is an abstract principled discussion. And the case does not apply to the reality before us“?

Again, thank you very much!

First, it is not certain that this is really their interpretation. For example, Rashi, regarding the Hittin that descended in thickets, who writes that the ship rose in the air, may only mean to explain that the Hittin in question grew on the ground and did not descend from the air, in order to define which Hittin is being referred to. But not that such a case is actually possible.
It is possible that they understood from the language of the Gemara that it appears that in practice it is talking about an event that is anchored in reality, but not necessarily that the discussion must revolve around a realistic event.
See also my article on validity, which deals with this.

Thank you very much!

It is not obvious that you took the time and engaged in the questions – Thank you!