quote:

we have to look at the time and place when and where it was said and separate the temporal polemics and rhetoric from the eternal wisdom of the message. And it is my feeling that every single phrase has to be analyzed in the historic and local context; otherwise we are following the words of men (Sages, for sure, but not Prophets) without even thinking why we are doing so.

True. Yet the way we sort the Shabbetat Tzvis from the Hillels is by trying what they say against Torah, Tanakh and Talmud, correct? So even if we cannot arrange a debate to determine whether one Sage is greater than the other, also over the generations, we can test the later one's teachings against the earlier one, and determine if what he says is in accordance with Torah.

I really do think that the time factor has a say in this, which was my initial argument. Yes, we have to weigh in different factors when we read, but the Truth of what is said carries more weight the closer in time we get to the actual Transmission. I do think we should give greater credit to those that were THERE and saw with their own eyes, than to those who simply re-told what the eyewitnesses said they saw.

D

"What do you do with these Gemaras? There are clear sources which state there is a decline in generations. I have more Gemaras if you want."

"Eiruvin 53a. R. Johanan further stated:..."

"Shabbath 112b: R. Zera said in Raba b. Zimuna's name: If the earlier scholars were sons of angels, we are sons of men; and if the earlier scholars were sons of men, we are like asses,.."


I understand this view. What I don't understand, however, is the lack of other Orthodox views, including statements from as early as the Tosefta, to as late as Orthodox rabbis today. Many rabbinic Jews read them in a different light.

The saying quoted above comes from Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 112b. Note that other versions of this saying exist in Talmud Yerusahlmi Demai 1:3, 21d; Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 5:1, 48c-d.


Yet this proverb refers only to self-sacrifice in the observance of mitzvot. In legal matters, our sages had the opposite approach, as expressed by Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrcanus in the Mishnah:

"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy eldars of Israel ascended" (Exodus 24:9) And why were the names of the eldars not listed? To teach that every three [judges] who have served as court of law are equal in authority to the court of Moses. Talmud Bavli, Rosh HaShanah 2:9

Doesn't that quote reverse the meaning of the original two?

The Tosefta adds to this: "The court of Yerubal was as great in the eyes of God as the court of Moses. The court of Yiftah was as great in the eyes of God as the court of Samuel. To teach you that whoever is appointed a leader over the community - even the most worthless - must be considered like the mightiest of the mighty." [Tosefta Rosh HaShanah 1:18, cf. Bavli Rosh HaShanah 25b.]

Contrary to the popular beliefs, halakha has never required that a Bet Din be a Sanhedrin, or wiser than the original Bet Din, in order to change Jewish law. Orthodox Rabbi Mendell Lewittes writes that "even in Talmudic times it was realized that the dictum 'One Bet Din cannot annul the decree of another Bet Din unless it is greater in both wisdom and numbers' was so restrictive that it had to be rescinded.

For example "Actually, the Sages themselves found the key to unlock the gates of burdensome restriction. Thus Rabbi Gamaliel and his Bet Din cancelled the pre-Sabbatical year restriction imposed by Bet Shammai and bet Hillel. When some Amoraim questioned this cancellation...the answer, given after a moment's hesitation, was that those who made the gezerah originally did so on the condition that if a later authority sees fit to cancel it, they may do so. (Moed Katan 3b)." [Lewittes, p.96]

In theory, the earlier generations are so much greater than us that we are powerless to act. But in practice halakha has always held otherwise. This is an Orthodox view, but not the only Orthodox view.


Rob

Quote “"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy eldars of Israel ascended" (Exodus 24:9) And why were the names of the eldars not listed? To teach that every three [judges] who have served as court of law are equal in authority to the court of Moses. Talmud Bavli, Rosh HaShanah 2:9

Doesn't that quote reverse the meaning of the original two?

The Tosefta adds to this: "The court of Yerubal was as great in the eyes of God as the court of Moses. The court of Yiftah was as great in the eyes of God as the court of Samuel. To teach you that whoever is appointed a leader over the community - even the most worthless - must be considered like the mightiest of the mighty." [Tosefta Rosh HaShanah 1:18, cf. Bavli Rosh HaShanah 25b.]”


I think this is not the context of these statements. It’s meaning is that someone should be able to say that we can ignore our generation’s rabbis since they don’t compare to the earlier ones. So the Torah says that the generation must listen to them no matter how lesss they are from the previous generation. This does not mean that they have the right to argue with the earlier generation that they are less than. But when they say things that the earlier generation didn’t deal with or it’s not clear from their words what they hold, then their words are authoritative. This is the thrust of the Gemarah in Rosh Hashana their that R’ Gamliel’s judgement is binding, but he wasn’t arguing there on someone that was earlier than him.

Quote “Orthodox Rabbi Mendell Lewittes writes that "even in Talmudic times it was realized that the dictum 'One Bet Din cannot annul the decree of another Bet Din unless it is greater in both wisdom and numbers' was so restrictive that it had to be rescinded.

For example "Actually, the Sages themselves found the key to unlock the gates of burdensome restriction. Thus Rabbi Gamaliel and his Bet Din cancelled the pre-Sabbatical year restriction imposed by Bet Shammai and bet Hillel. When some Amoraim questioned this cancellation...the answer, given after a moment's hesitation, was that those who made the gezerah originally did so on the condition that if a later authority sees fit to cancel it, they may do so. (Moed Katan 3b)." [Lewittes, p.96] “

This, too, is no proof. We find no place where that law is rescinded. The case in MK is when the Gezarah was that on condition that the following generation felt their constituents can handle it. The earlier generation didn’t know how following generations might be able to handle it, and they didn’t want to impose this Gezararah on future generations if they can’t handle it. We find this on very few Gezaros. So they were not arguing on the earlier generations but doing their bidding.

Quote “In theory, the earlier generations are so much greater than us that we are powerless to act. But in practice halakha has always held otherwise.”


Actually, we always find that they don’t argue on the earlier generations. Amoraim are disprooved if there is a Braisah against them. Rishonim are disproved by a Gemarah against them. Achronim are disprooved if a Rishon against them. None of them answered “Well I’m aRabbi too so I can argue with a Gemarah etc.”

Further more, we see the concept in Sanhedrin 6a about Toah Bd’var Mishna. If someone Paskins not like an earlier authority (that they don’t have a right to argue with.) the P’sak of the latter is annulled as if it never was given. These prove that you can’t argue with those of earlier generations that were greater than you (at least if you’re out of their league.)