Q&A: The Strength of the Reliability of Tradition Versus Reliable Testimony
The Strength of the Reliability of Tradition Versus Reliable Testimony
Question
In today’s Daf Yomi, Shabbat 63a:
"Abaye said to him: But was the frontplate woven? Was it not taught in a baraita: The frontplate was like a plate of gold, two fingerbreadths wide, extending from ear to ear, and written on it in two lines: yod heh above, and 'Holy to' lamed below. And Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei said: I saw it in the city of Rome, and it was written 'Holy to the Lord' on one line."
It is explained here that even though Rabbi Eliezer’s testimony was brought, they did not accept his statement against what tradition indicated, and they preferred to rely on tradition.
And it seems they held that, after the fact, the frontplate he saw was valid after the fact, and it is possible that on one occasion they made one like that only after the fact.
Seemingly, we see here the relationship between facts and tradition: if a fact can be explained after the fact, there is stronger room for the accepted tradition.
It appears that the force of tradition is strong even in this case, and all the more so where there is no evidence one way or the other, but the tradition is not understood.
Does the Rabbi disagree with this conclusion of mine?
And if so, what is the explanation of the Talmud above?
Answer
It is impossible to lay down absolute rules here. It depends on how reliable they considered the tradition to be, and how difficult the matter is from the standpoint of reasoning or Scripture. Each case must be judged on its own merits. It is like the question whether to prefer a forced reading of the wording or a forced logical interpretation. It is not a fully well-defined question (how forced the wording is versus how forced the logic is).
Discussion on Answer
Tam — why are you assuming that in the final conclusion they disagree? Maybe Abaye also agrees with Rabbi Eliezer, since he brings his testimony, and according to everyone the ruling follows Rabbi Eliezer.
In short, the assumptions in your question are really not necessary either.
Why doesn’t the case mentioned above constitute proof that tradition is stronger even than reliable testimony?