“So, when one Tanna disproves the statements of another Tanna, is not the latter Tanna wrong (eilu v’eilu aside)?”
1. There is no reason to put eilu v’eilu aside. 2. Correct, the latter Tanna is not wrong. What the latter Tanna said still stands in a certain manner that Tanna intended it, even if it isn’t paskened for the situation discussed. It’s a deep concept, and I probably am not the one who can explain it well.
“see the dispute regarding where the sun goes at night.”
I must have seen at least a couple of threads around here that more than sufficiently answered that question. I even thought I saw you participate in that conversation.
“But Kasha disagrees with the infallibility of Chazal.”
Do you read before you post? Where have I utilized that term? I already responded to this point to Wolf.