>>509361112
Explaining nuance isn't "pilpul," Anon. "Pilpul" is when you deliberately make bad-faith interpretations of facts in order to come to a pre-ordained conclusion. What I said was merely facts; if you don't like them that's not my concern. I experienced pilpul in a bible study group I was in on one occasion, so I'll use it as an example.
>Studying Old Testament
>Get to Leviticus
>"He who lays with a man as he would lay with a woman is an abomination, and he will be put to death."
>Gay Jewish guy in the group gets asked what he thinks of this verse.
>He says that he interprets it as "I'm not attracted to women, so I can't lay with them as I would with a man. Therefore, gay sex isn't a sin."
>His "interpretation" was that not being true to yourself was punishable by death in Isrealite society
That's pilpul: he disregarded history, context and even logic in order to construct a logical support for the worldview he already held. When one learns something, they must adjust themselves to fit the framework of those facts. Pilpul is when you adjust the framework to fit you. Hopefully you don't get the two mixed up in the future. The creature in this image is using pilpul, for instance.