Q&A: Understanding the Rabbi Gaon’s statement
Understanding the Rabbi Gaon’s statement
Question
With God’s help,
Hello,
I wanted to ask: the Rabbi often says, “You can answer with difficulty, but you don’t raise an objection with difficulty.”
I didn’t understand why this is true. What is the difference between answering and objecting?
Answer
The question is on whom the burden of proof lies. If you are objecting to an established assumption, the burden of proof is on you. Therefore, when you object in a forced or strained way, there is no real objection here, because you have not actually established an objection.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand the question. A strained objection doesn’t need an answer. A good objection can be answered in a strained way (if there’s no choice).
The whole reason an objection has to be good is because the burden of proof rests on it. But once the objection is strong, the thing being challenged loses its presumption that it is indeed correct. So what remains is that even a weaker objection could already refute it.
And since when the answer is strained, it still looks as though the objection remains (even if it has been blunted). And if so, then the force of the objection that remains after the strained answer can still refute the matter.
We’ve arrived in the realm of word games. You’re now splitting hairs about the laws of a case where something was challenged by a strong objection and then another weak objection came? This has no end. I don’t see any point in these discussions. The basic reasoning is simple, and everything else is a pointless discussion.
No, my claim is that when there is a strong objection and a strained answer is given to it, then the objection has not fallen away completely, and we still view it as an objection. But on the other hand, the burden of proof has already fallen away.
And my claim is this:
An objection usually attacks an established position. Even if the objection is strong, the established position can be defended with a strained answer. Of course, the strained nature of the answer as against the force of the objection is not unlimited, but that is still the logic. If another objection now comes along, we have to reassess. Maybe at that point the burden of proof is indeed weakened or completely canceled, and so on.
Put differently, my claim is that there is no obligation to accept a strained answer, but it is possible to do so (depending on how strongly I believe in the established position). But clearly one should not accept a strained objection. That’s all.
If so, then why is it possible to answer in a strained way? Doesn’t the objection already remove the burden of proof?