Q&A: Dispute About Reality in the Talmud
Dispute About Reality in the Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham.
The question itself is familiar: why are there disputes about reality in the Talmud? Why not simply go and check?
I saw that you answered this here on the site in these words:
“Among the Sages there was no mentality of empirical testing. They lived with a rationalist outlook (like Aristotle), that if something is logical then it is true. Even the presumptions they cite were not tested in any orderly survey.”
It seems to imply that checking reality is a waste of time. If something is logical, then that is how it is in reality. But it is still difficult: you can see that the logic here is itself disputed, since each side is convinced differently about the same question. So perhaps there is in fact reason to check in order to decide. True, each one is convinced that he is right, and presumably that reality accords with his view, but still—if you see that someone no less wise than you thinks otherwise, and it is known that there is a way to decide, why not do so? All the more so when afterward an unnecessary halakhic dispute becomes entrenched, one that could have been avoided by a simple check. Even if you are convinced that you are right, prove to the other side that he is wrong, and thereby benefit him and those who follow in his path.
Thank you, and with great appreciation.
Answer
Don’t mix up explanations that I give with my own opinion. I completely agree that the best thing is to check, when possible. See below. I only remarked that in the past people were not all that aware of this.
Beyond that, most of the arguments you might think of are not about reality but about how to evaluate it. In such cases, it is impossible to check. If you want, bring an example here of a dispute about reality that we should simply have checked and settled, and that would be that. I think and estimate that you will hardly find such a case.
Thank you very much for the reply.
First, I did not mean that this was your opinion, but rather that this was how you explained the Sages. Now I understand your answer as well.
Second, after a bit of searching on Google, I became aware that the examples really are few, and there are pretty good explanations for each of them. The question was bothering me, but it seems it was for nothing.