<HTML>It would be instructive to take a look at the illuminating comment of
Rashi Ketubot 57a. Rashi notes that regarding a factual argument one side
is inevitably in objective error. However if the argument is conceptual
then and only then can we apply the principle of "eilu v'eilu" thus
granting validity to both opinions. Rashi concludes that when both
approaches present themselves the conceptual one should be preferred. This
preference according to Rashi is dictated by the gemara itself in ketubot.
Obviously one should counter: if the factual approach is really
the correct one than our preference of analytic pilpul is in error.
So why should the conceptual approach be adopted across the board?
However the answer to this question is equally obvious. "Eilu v'eilu"
grants validity to honest attempts to interpret Torah. If the source
material lends itself to the conceptual analysis then it is correct
by definition! On the other hand, regarding factual explanation, not
only is one side of the debate deemed to be considered "mistaken", but
if the factual explanation is off target one can debate whether "eilu
v'eilu" is applicable at all.
Therefore, if the two possibilities present themselves, according to Rashi
the gemara itself demands the conceptual approach. Thereby we continue the
legitimate halachic debate weighing carefully both sides and finding a
framework to grant validity to all opinions "l'hagdil torah u'l'hasdira".
Rav Yair Kahn</HTML>
