Explanation – “If the first are sons of angels – we are sons of men, etc.”

Why do you think this rule is not certain and absolute? After all, the students of the sages that I know, and that many know and admit to being T”h for everything, claim that their rabbis surpassed them in the degrees of holiness and wisdom. And they claim about those who preceded them, etc., etc., etc. No one really thinks that he has been honored to reach the level of the Gra or close to it, and it does not even occur to us that there is anyone who was close to it in recent generations.
In addition, the sages even mentioned this, and if so, how would you disagree with their words on this subject? (I am not talking about scientific information that the sages relied on the reality of their days).

This statement of Chazal has no halakhic implications, but rather a feeling one. We have not found anywhere that the law is determined according to wisdom or age, except in issues of decrees, where a judge does not have the power to overturn the decrees of his friend, even if he is greater in wisdom, and perhaps in the Sanhedrin Gemara that it is forbidden to dispute an old man or a judge and one starts with the young man. But there is certainly no halakhic ruling here.

All of them grew up and were educated on the ethos of the descent of generations. Our eyes, seeing, find it difficult to see someone who grew up and studied with us as significantly greater than us in Torah. This is a natural tendency and I am not at all sure that it has roots in reality. Beyond that, we can resolve the issues that the Rishonim and the great Aharonim left behind in the Tzvi in several ways, since our analytical ability is better than theirs. This is probably the meaning of the legend about Moses, our Lord, who sat down at the end of twenty rows in the court of the Rabbi and did not understand what they were saying.
That is regarding the ability to analyze. And as for knowledge, I wonder if there is any of the great Aharonim who surpasses in his encyclopedic knowledge Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for example. It should be remembered that the Rabbi and the Maimonides had far fewer sources to rely on than the Reka, and yes, Rabbi Ovadia.
I wrote in two carts that perhaps the Torah intuition of the first was greater since they were closer to the source. But in talent - knowledge + analytical skill - the answer is the rise of generations.

Hello again, thanks for the answer.
A. This ethos of the decline of generations did start somewhere. And we need to understand why – if the reality is the opposite. That is the first thing. The second thing, it is hard to believe, at least when it comes to talmidei tocham, that overall they
were raised on some ethos and accordingly distorted reality. Take Rabbi Lichtenstein for example – How many rabbis do you know in the national religious community like him? And he was less than Reid Soloveitchik from his point of view. None of the
greatest talmidei tocham of the Lithuanian community, and these are real talmidei tocham, sees himself at the academic level of the Ħaża, Hrogočev, and others. The ger did not see himself as a ger, and not because he was humble, but because he really
It seems that this is not the same level. Of course, from time to time there are flashes of scholars who surpass everyone and we could compare them to those from previous generations, but this is not a general phenomenon at all.
B. Encyclopedic knowledge is indeed not wisdom… it is a memory power of reading and remembering books. Do you see any talent or greatness in this? Many have already recommended this trait with the well-known saying “a donkey carrying books”.
We are talking about logic, analytical ability, word-for-word imagery, etc. Therefore, I do not see it as an “generational advance” that Rabbi Ovadia knew more books than the Rambam… The Rambam knew the Talmudic text inside out and knew how to interpret and explain it and to rule from it directly without using reference books and commentaries, but based on his logic and straightforward understanding and analytical ability. The Talmud had to be so well known to him so that contradictions would not be created in his interpretations, rulings and understandings. In my opinion, this is undoubtedly a much higher ability than simply memorizing books. Therefore, it is not in vain that we read that many recommended that the Shul (or perhaps the B’I, I don’t remember exactly) was composed in the Rohk, etc. It is about admiration for the ability of an author to encompass so much and analyze so straightforwardly. I find it hard to believe that there are such people today.
C. From a halachic perspective, we also see that the “descending generations” is not just a slogan. This is a principle that the reason why one court does not disagree with the previous one is for this reason. That means that this is a phenomenon. That again,
I do not see that it is hidden from reality as you present it, and correct me if I am wrong.
Thank you.

I have already corrected you, and written to you that I think you are wrong, and I have also explained. If you do not accept – then no.
Incidentally, Rabbi Ovadia, contrary to the usual and empty Lithuanian mockery, was very, very far from being a book-bearing donkey. His path was not a Lithuanian-Yeshivah analysis. So what?

Incidentally, it is not true that this is the reason why a later rabbi does not disagree with the earlier one, and in particular that it is only true for rabbinic laws (in the Torah there is no requirement that it be greater). See Ks”m R”b Mahal’ Memir. On the contrary, from there is evidence against you, because when the later is greater than the earlier one, he can indeed disagree with it, even in rabbinic laws. That is, the later can be greater or smaller than the earlier, otherwise it is an empty halakhah (because "a later one that is greater than the earlier one" is an oxymoron).

Peace and blessings, I am of course open to suggestions and I ask you in order to understand your words and then consider whether things are clear or rushed. Therefore, I allow myself to ask and scrutinize your words.
A. Regarding the beginning of my words, I did hear the explanation you offered, but I found it difficult. From examples from various scholars who hold that those who preceded them were greater than them. Although this is not only their perspective, but also from the perspective of the observer from the side – I believe that you also admit that the Rogozuber and the Hazu”a and the Ger”ch Ozer and so on were greater than the Ger”ch Kanievsky, Rabbi Ovadia and Rabbi Schach and so on. In addition, it is difficult to believe that just because of a certain ethos, scholars who grew up in this ethos adopted it and were absorbed in it… Can you strengthen and prove your words?

B. God forbid I did not mean Rabbi Ovadia. Rather, I meant that this quality of memory and knowledge is an important thing, although not the thing that would make a person considered a great scholar or in general. Although, since we are talking about it, it is important to emphasize that the Lithuanian analysis quite expresses a high thinking ability and in-depth analysis. It is possible to read material in a simplistic manner and rule on laws in this manner, but of course this does not show any greatness. Therefore, the Lithuanian world disdains Rabbi Ovadia on this subject.

C. From the words of the Gemara and further meaning that such a situation is not possible, since in their view the latter would be greater than the former, and this is not possible due to the descent of generations. This is what is meant in the Gemara in the Megillah where the Gemara makes it clear (to the best of my memory) that in their view the last court should be greater than the first in wisdom and in number. And apparently who said otherwise? Rather, it means from the Gemara's perception that this is something that does not exist due to the descent of generations. This means that although in theory this is possible and this is the requirement to dispute the ancient Beit Din (which would be the latter's greater), in practice this does not happen.

Thank you very much.

We are repeating ourselves. I explained what I had to explain.
A. I do not admit what you put in my mouth.
B. I said that Rabbi Ovadia was not only knowledgeable, and the fact that he did not think in a Lithuanian-Yeshivah way does not mean that he was any less good.
C. Where did you see this in the Gemara? If you mean the Gemara Megillah 2:1, there it is mentioned that there were prophets in it. This halacha is cited in the Rambam and in the Poskim, and there is no reason to assume that it is merely a theoretical halacha. On the contrary, it is proven against you from there.
I think we have exhausted our arguments.

Hello again,
A. If you do not admit that the great ones I mentioned are greater than the recent generations (I am not talking about knowledge of course, but about understanding, analysis and deepening), then I really do not tend to say the same as you at all. And my opinion is different.
B. The question is what Lithuanian-Yeshivah thinking tells us. Ostensibly, it is a form of thinking and analysis that quite expresses high intellectual abilities, yet it is a collection of rulings from different rabbis in a casual manner and without analyzing the sources themselves and seeing whether each one actually meant what his fellow rabbis said to the extent that they can be included in a “group of rabbis.”
C. Regarding the gemara in the Megillah, I did indeed mean this gemara. The Gemara there says that all the times mentioned in the Mishnah, the people of the Knesset, established the Dai, not the Tima, and it is said that they established only the 14th and 16th, and the sages came and overturned this ruling of the people of the Knesset. This is not possible, since no sage can nullify the words of his friend, even if he is greater than him, etc. And the Ritva explained, and it is also implied from the words, that the intention is, "It is clear that no court greater than the people of the Great Knesset arose." The fact that there were prophets there does not mean that it is impossible to be wiser than them, as Maimonides writes in his introduction to the Mishnah that the prophet has no precedence over the wise in interpreting the Torah. So it seems that this Gemara does not speak in a normal way, because in such a way a Beit Din of our time cannot be greater because of this phenomenon of the decline of generations. And in general, even if we wanted to say as you say – we have no way of estimating which Beit Din is greater and therefore this Halacha is never more than theoretical.
Thank you very much.