RSRH –
Let me repeat my point:
The proof is in the fact that anyone ever argued over a halacha. How is it possible to argue when there are no premises? Obviously there is a shared premise, when arguing, that we both accept that reason will carry the day, and that reason will yield one answer. Otherwise everyone should always just agree to disagree, which I think is ludicrous.
This is my primary basis for my understanding of this issue.
Besides, the Ra’avad believed the Rambam was wrong and the Rambam believed the Ra’avad was wrong. And so on. So I don’t really see how you expect me to believe that each one was really right. They certainly couldn’t both be right when they each said “this person doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” “Eilu v’eilu” is not a statement about something pratical. It is a comment on Hashem’s perspective, which is not relevant in practical halacha.
Moving along; “extenuating circumstances” is not a contradiction. That is part of what goes into p’sak. It is not an extra-halachic or meta-halachic consideration as some would like to believe, but a halachic consideration. Halacha says to take into account extenuating circumstances. ????? ???? ????. Therefore as long as an opinion is held by someone who is a ?? ???? it is worthy of following in extenuating circumstances. This isn’t permission to break halacha. It is part and parcel of the Halachic Process. And by the way, you absolutely could not follow R’ Eliezer’s opinion even in extenuating circumstances, because ???? ?? ????? ???, and therefore his opinion is now officially outside of the halacha. What is not so regarding an obscure opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, which we only generally ignore because of our fear that the minority is in the wrong.
There is one “true halacha” in Shamayim, perhaps. Maybe God has a single way that He KNOWS the halacha should be. Here on earth, there is no single true psak.
In my opinion it is exactly the opposite. I elaborated on this in my previous post.