<HTML>
A perennial issue in yeshivot (which I have faced as talmid and teacher)
is one of those meta-issues which informs the way we understand Gemarot
and Rishonim: why is there generally fairly strong aversion to
interpreting literally what appear to be disagreements over objective
facts in the Talmud?
For example, the mahloket over tata'ah gavar vs. ila'ah gavar (e.g., when
a hot food and a cold food are placed together, one on top of the other,
one "wins" out, as either the hot food heats up the cold food or the cold
food cools the hot food, with ramifications for kashrut issues; the
mahloket is whether the winner is always the food on top or the food
below) is interpreted by many as a dispute over halakhic sevara rather
than a dispute over what actually happens with real hot and cold foods.
Or, for another example, ein petihat ha-kevar be-lo dam vs. yesh petihat
ha-kevar be-lo dam: whether there is always a flow of menstrual blood
(i.e., blood whose source is the decay of the endometrium rather than some
sort of physical trauma) when the cervix opens to a particular degree.
There are many other examples. I've done some looking into why many prefer
to interpret these mahlokot as disagreements over halakhic sevara rather
than over "metziut" (objective physical facts), but I'm interested in
hearing what others here have to say. Please include anything you've seen
or thought of, even if it seems obvious.
A secondary question: considering whatever pressures there may be to
avoid a mahloket in metziut, would you (or someone whose thinking you're
familiar with) insist on this in every case of mahloket, or is there room
to sometimes conclude that in a particular mahloket, metziut is at issue.
Thanks,
Eitan Mayer
Chaver, Beren Kollel Elyon, RIETS</HTML>
