Okay. But in other matters, if the Sanhedrin made a mistake, it brings an offering to atone for it, right? Even though it has the authority and everyone has to obey it. So how can it change reality?

Who said it changes reality?

Like in the case written in the Mishnah, where the Sadducees sent false witnesses. It comes out that regarding the new month that they ruled on, there is no correspondence between it and reality. So you still have to listen to them, but that doesn’t mean they are factually right.

They claim they saw the new moon, which in practice isn’t true. The Sanhedrin accepts their testimony and rules that the moon was seen in its renewal as they described. So there you have an example of a ruling that supposedly changed reality. Or more accurately: it rules that Rosh Chodesh falls today on the basis of a mistake. Isn’t that changing reality? It obviously has the authority to do that! But still.

They rule that reality is such-and-such, when in fact reality is not like that.

Why do you need to repeat it three times? It’s obvious that here the Jewish law does not match the factual truth. So what? And what does that have to do with reason? And what “rational formulation” of Jewish law are you talking about? I have a feeling you’re writing before you think.

Avi, I think you’re mixing up two stories. In any case, on the basic point you’re just getting tangled up. There is astronomical reality, and there is Jewish law. Jewish law says that establishing the month is valid even if it was based on an astronomical mistake. What does that have to do with changing reality?

Meaning that Jewish law is not based on reality. I didn’t mean that it literally changes something in reality, as in this case—maybe in other cases, especially cases involving witnesses. That’s all I said. And as mentioned above, it does not correspond to the factual truth, so anyone who calls Jewish law “truth” in that context is simply mistaken. As for the second issue: Jewish law has its own logic. I didn’t mean it has no logic at all—maybe sometimes—but rather that it is a different logic from ours. It doesn’t help to argue with it using our logic when I don’t even know what that decisor meant. If it’s someone alive, that’s different. The fact that the words are the same words doesn’t mean anything. Maybe someone who understands halakhic rulings can do that. I can’t; it’s like I wouldn’t argue with a doctor.

Where did you go and where did you come from? There’s no connection between the argument and your sweeping conclusions. I suggest you get back to earth.

Y.V., I didn’t say that astronomical reality and Jewish law are the same thing—how did you understand that from what I said?
And what I said would also imply that in this specific case you have to listen to Jewish law / the Sanhedrin, even if it is not factually correct—either because of the Sanhedrin’s authority, or because from a halakhic standpoint it already has legal force as a ruling. What does any of that have to do with corresponding to reality?

*I meant not based on factual reality, not on the witnesses, who are also part of reality.
Okay, I’ll take to heart the point about landing back on earth.
Both responses were also, and mainly, directed at Y.V.—regarding what he asked, I think he took my words out of context because he didn’t understand what I meant.