Question

In several contexts you have pointed out the problems with yeshiva-style conceptual distinctions, and their dichotomies. But I still didn’t fully understand: what does one do next? Should we abandon these conceptual distinctions? Should we present each practical ramification in a way that could be interpreted according to both sides of the distinction? Should we try to formulate the distinctions in a sharper and more complex way, so that they really are two different sides?
In short, what do you do now when you encounter a conceptual distinction while learning a Talmudic passage?